What can be done to stop gun violence

  • Thread starter Thread starter JoeShlabotnik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is not a black and white issue.
No one suggests than guns be banned.
The suggestion is that assault-type weapons be banned.
 
Dr = doctor. Or dork, depending on who you ask.

The fact that we do not automatically accept statements you make when you say things like “Other countries, like ours (democracies), don’t have nearly the gun violence we have. Why? Much fewer guns out there.” does not mean we don’t care.

But no one is going to engage in building solutions if they can’t first agree on certain facts.
 
vz71 said:
What exactly is an assault-type weapon?
Click to expand...
Non-automatic: You pull the trigger you get one bullet and have to cock the rifle/chamber before you fire again. A good example is the Lever actions hunting rifles or pump shotguns.
Semi-automatic: Burst fire, several bullets or the ability to fire by squeezing the trigger rapidly. AR-15s in this case.
Full automatic: Fire continuously till you run out of ammo. You Hollywood style Tommy guns for instance.

Assault Weapons are semi and fully automatic.
 
vern_humphrey said:
40.png
JoeShlabotnik:
An AR 15 is not necessary.
Click to expand...
It’s not about necessity – it’s about exercising a constitutional right in the way you choose. Would you accept that “voting is not a necessity?” Or “newspapers are not a necessity?”

Varmint hunters do a service to ranchers and farmers, and harm no one. Why should they be penalized?
Click to expand...
But when I vote I don’t demand a blue pen instead of a pencil, or a paper ballot instead of computer, and then claim that my rights are being infringed if all possible methids of voting aren’t available to me.
 
I prefer to word it like this:

A madman with a knife or a 6 piece isn’t going to be able to mow down a room full of people.

Will there still be causalities? Yes but it limits the damage. Same as a seat belt and air bag. Same as every other step mankind has ever taken to avoid harm.

If you must have your guns so bad at lest petition your NRA reps to stop putting a hold on proper registration and ownership of guns.

Will bad guys still get guns? Yes but so will you but like most crimes its passion in the heat of the moment and nothing stops a hot head like having time to consider their options.
 
There are problems with most of the proposals which are brought forth to add to existing “gun laws”

For example: universal background checks. while on the face of it, it presumes to find those who are not allowed by law to purchase a gun, no one has yet to say how this is going to be enforced.

It is not difficult to enforce at gun shows; everyone there has to go through either a dealer to effect the transfer of a purchase, or have the ability to do the check on site. So that catches some people on both sides - sellers and buyers.

However, Oregon liberals have passed a law and feel they have really done something. Except if I have a gun and someone - a neighbor or acquaintance - approaches me either about a purchase or a sale of a gun either one of us has; exactly how is the State ever going to know such occurred?

They won’t. Oh, there are penalties, and it is possible that one purchase/sale here or there could be a setup - one side or the other wanting to “catch” someone. But if I have either a gun or want one, and a family member is the other party; does anyone in the real world think there is going to be a background check? If so, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for sale…

Red flag laws, depending on how they are written, may or may not be able to reduce the potential for someone picking up a weapon and randomly shooting a bunch of people. Written more widley, they are an invitation to abuse, both by someone making a charge that “X” person is a threat, to the confiscation of legitimately owned weapons and the non-likelihood that any would be returned should a hearing determine there were no grounds.

There has been at least one intensive study involving random shooters indicating that many, if not most were copycat shooters. The likelihood of the press downplaying a random shooting event is not even measurable, it is so small; yet those who are already untethered to reality can’t seem to get enough information to fuel their fantasies.

And then there are the shootings - gang generated - which receive little press and so the real carnage goes on, largely in cities across the US with some of the most restrictive laws on the books.

It i going to be difficult to achieve meaningful and effective additions to gun laws, in no small part to the tremendous amount of misinformation and outright lies made about weapons and the tremendous emotional rhetoric flying about.

I am all for finding ways to untrack individuals who intend to go out and randomly shoot innocent people. But there is a significant number of people in the US who want all guns taken away, never mind either the Constitution or logic.
 
LilyM said:
But when I vote I don’t demand a blue pen instead of a pencil, or a paper ballot instead of computer, and then claim that my rights are being infringed if all possible methids of voting aren’t available to me.
Click to expand...
But what if you want to vote for a Democrat, and they only give you a ballot that has Republican candidates.

Now back to the original question: Varmint hunters do a service to ranchers and farmers, and harm no one. Why should they be penalized?
 
Nihilo said:
In trying to establish the one correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, a valid appeal to authority is not possible. Therefor wrt authority, nobody’s view has anymore weight than anybody else’s.
Click to expand...
Then the whole notion of “correct” interpretation is meaningless. But I should have guessed from your user name that the philosophy of nihilism is your thing.
 
Last edited:
Still wouldn’t effect me and I really don’t care. The point was more rapid expulsion of bullets = bad.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
40.png
Nihilo:
In trying to establish the one correct interpretation of the Second Amendment, a valid appeal to authority is not possible. Therefor wrt authority, nobody’s view has anymore weight than anybody else’s.
Click to expand...
Then the whole notion of “correct” interpretation is meaningless. But I should have guessed from your user name that the philosophy of nihilism is your thing.
Click to expand...
This is your entire response to my entire post to you? Crikey.

You presume incorrectly. I am and never was any nihilist, though you’re not the first one to conclude incorrectly over the decades now, that I’ve identified by this username online.

Nihilo just means “nothing” to me, as in, I’m nobody special and never will be and never can be. In the most non-pathetic way you can interpret that. But in no case am I a nihilist, or ever was. Nihilism is tantamount to extreme skepticism to me, philosophically, which even without my own effort, is imo roundly defeated by Descartes at minimum, although I don’t know who’s updated Descartes by this time in history, to account for the now technological reality of AI, which arguably could employ Descartes’s defeat of extreme skepticism, to establish itself as real, even though it is and cannot ever not be software.

iow a “bot.”
 
Last edited:
Cruciferi said:
Maybe what America needs is Gun Education more than anything…
Click to expand...
'Wouldn’t hurt, could only help, and was the case decades ago in this country.

But before that, I might recommend education in legal theory. What is a law? What exactly is that? Because we’re talking about laws, and potential laws, and what is a law? There is very little evidence of consensus on this issue.
Anrakyr said:
…The point was more rapid expulsion of bullets = bad.
Click to expand...
No way. In certain situations that is only exceptionally and unambiguously and indisputably incorrect. Most rapid expulsion of bullets is in those cases Holy.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for clarifying your screen name. And now, how is one supposed to determine what the “correct” interpretation of the second amendment is if everyone’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Thank you for clarifying your screen name. And now, how is one supposed to determine what the “correct” interpretation of the second amendment is if everyone’s opinion is just as valid as anyone else’s?
Click to expand...
Lobbying for one or another preferred interpretation of the Second Amendment is proof that we need to gather our political will to amend the Bill of Rights to tell our judges exactly what we the people actually believe wrt the right to bear arms.
 
Well, that’s a nice non-answer. But going with it anyway, you speak of “we” as if there is only one “we”. I think if your friends lobby for an interpretation of the 2nd amendment it will be quite different than if my friends lobby for an interpretation.
 
Your logic and common sense is falling on deaf ears. Half of the US now officially fears not only inanimate objects, but FREEDOM.

Fear = phobia. Talk about the need for mental health!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top