Is there REALLY ANY WAY to end gun violence

[GalaxyHunter]

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

without banning all guns?

Yes, we could reduce the amount of gun deaths by regulating them more, But would we ever get rid of gun deaths?

Is there a suitable number of gun deaths that will not cause people to get upset?


I feel that until there are no more guns we will always have gun deaths and that there is NO WAY to completely end this.


EDIT: Another question: With the talk about comparing the US to the rest of the world about gun violence. Do those here in the US feel more of a right to gun than other countries because of our background and how our country was founded?

Do you think we can be like the rest of the world in relation to gun even though we have a different upbringing about them?

[JaneyVee]

1. Being in line with UKs gun homicide rate would make me much more satisfied.

[shenmue]

2. I think we could

But it would take a drastic change in the laws, which I don't think a lot of people are wiling to do.

We could do it like they do in Japan. Frankly, I wish we would. I just don't know if that would fly here, with all the NRA clones in Congress.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Even w/o the NRA, Japan-style near-total bans wouldn't fly.

Leaving aside the monumental practical barriers to imposing such bans here (hundreds of millions of firearms already in circulation, porous borders that are orders of magnitude more difficult to interdict than an island nation deals with, etc.), there is simply no political will to enact anything remotely that severe. In a society that is at least superficially democratic, the large majority being indifferent or actively opposed to an idea tends to doom it.

[randome]

3. Maybe not. Which means the ultimate 'solution' is jobs, infrastructure and health care.

That would go a long way toward curbing gun deaths, I think. Long term, though.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[GalaxyHunter]

23. I agree!!

[onehandle]

4. One less death is one less death.

For instance, if Zimmerman had been ID'd as an unstable nut, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Plenty of evidence that he should have been denied a gun.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. +1

[The Straight Story]

6. Get to the root causes, which lays within the person, and focus on that instead of tools

only 1% (a little less) of gun owners use their guns in crimes, so 99% are not doing bad things with them.

Focus on the 1% and their issues and not on the 99%.

People use guns for sports (we have an olympic shooting team and junior shooting teams), hunting, fishing protection (not allowed to post protection stories in GD, so if you save someone's life with a gun it needs to go elsewhere. Unless that someone is the US government or police), collecting, and so on.

MOST don't do anything bad with their guns, but folks like hype and to focus on the few and not the many (kind of how the rw does with muslims, same tactic we decry on the one hand and rush to embrace on the other).

[DanTex]

13. And most drunk drivers make it home alive without hurting anyone.

Unfortunately, the small percentage that get into accidents cause so much damage that the total toll on society due to drunk driving is large.

Looking at the fraction of people who actually end up killing people is a very poor methodology. We certainly don't look at, say, sarin gas that way, because even one person's misuse that can cause thousands of deaths. What you need to look at is the total amount of harm that comes to society, which in the case of guns is enormous, much bigger even than drunk driving.

And really, there isn't any solution that doesn't address the guns. It's a question of costs and benefits. Is unfettered access to guns really such a valuable thing that it's worth losing 30,000 lives a year?

[The Straight Story]

16. And yet - there are already laws to deal with them right? We don't ban cars or alcohol

Or decide you can't drink certain types of alcohol or only drive 4 cylinder cars, etc.

[DanTex]

17. Looks like you missed the entire point.

And by the way, driving drunk is in fact illegal.

[hack89]

19. But drunk driving accidents are a small part of the toll alcohol takes on society

Domestic violence, child abuse, rape, violent assaults, suicides, chronic disease - the list goes on.

Add it all up and try to tell me guns cause more harm to society than alcohol. And then consider that many gun deaths, especially suicides, are alcohol related.

A simple costs and benefits analysis tells me that cultural glamorization of alcohol and unfettered access to it is not worth the harm it does.

From a personal perspective as the father of a teenage son, I know what the real threat to him is. And it is not guns. Alcohol and car accidents is what kill teenagers where I live.

[GalaxyHunter]

24. I agree about alcohol.

[DanTex]

7. If the US were in line with the rest of the civilized world, things would be drastically different.

It's not an all or nothing thing. The tighter the gun laws, the lower levels of gun violence we can expect, and at some point there is a tradeoff. The thing is, that point is very far from where we are now.

Every other wealthy nation has this problem much more under control than us -- rates of gun violence around 10% or less of what we have here in the US. UK, Canada, Australia, etc., take your pick. It's not an intractible problem, and it doesn't require banning all guns, it just requires much more sensible laws than we have here.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. exactly. We are behind most other Western countries in just about every area you can think of and

this is just another example of that.

[bobGandolf]

8. Start by getting rid of the NRA! n/t

[wild bird]

14. And how is this done?

They're a private organization with 4.5 million members, that's a sizable voting block.
If you get rid of them, then the nuttier GOA to fill the vacuum.

I loathe the NRA, they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the gun companies, but they are a powerful lobby group.

[bobGandolf]

31. I know!

Just wishful thinking....

[LittleBlue]

9. Banning guns would be as effective as banning alcohol was

About as effective as banning narcotics today. A ban would create a black market dominated by ruthless groups, similar to drug cartels.

Put simply, there is absolutely no way to do it. Unlike Britain, we have a culture that sees guns as a constitutional right. It's too ingrained a part of our culture to make a ban effective.

Americans do not associate gun violence with guns, but rather with the shooters.

[NickB79]

10. Gun violence has been cut almost 50% in the past 25 years

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

Since 1993, the United States has seen a drop in the rate of homicides and other violence involving guns, according to two new studies released Tuesday. Using government data, analysts saw a steep drop for violence in the 1990s, they saw more modest drops in crime rates since 2000.

"Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal , "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

This occurred when the number of guns in circulation rose dramatically, especially the number of assault-style rifles and handguns. We're back to 1960's-level gun violence, which is a very good thing.

So yes, there are obviously ways to drastically reduce gun violence without gun bans, because we already have.

[Decoy of Fenris]

11. Yes. Sort of.

Remove the incentive for gun violence. Social inequality, unbalanced wealth distribution and a general feeling of hopelessness tend to lead people towards a method for regaining or retaining control within their personal spheres. Urban gangs as well as rural dwellers both find firearms as a potential means to maintain and exert power and control in a world where said control has been yanked from them. Feelings of helplessness, hopelessness or general malaise contribute to both active gun violence in addition to suicides by firearm. Addressing these concerns through positive action removes the stimuli that press individuals towards gun violence (and violence as a whole in general).

Would you ever get rid of gun deaths? No. Even if the above paragraph came to fruition, there will always be genuine accidents. If, today, a nationwide ban on every gun ever made took effect, I would put compliance at a minimum, resulting in anywhere from two to five generations to pass until every gun currently owned either broke down or was surrendered. This is excluding illegal activity in the form of firearm trafficking or any attempt by any politician to remove the ban.

Is there a suitable number of deaths? For most, even one death is too many, but to be blunt, nothing can be done about it. Accidents happen, murders happen; they're a fact of existence. For humanists, the death of individuals is effectively a non-issue. For gun owners, that same death is a sad reflection on their way of life. For gun controllers, the death is a tragedy. In all three cases, nothing effective will be accomplished, no matter how "upset" we are.


Even if we had "no more guns", there would still be gun deaths. Even in Australia/UK/Japan/total ban areas, there are still gun deaths. More likely as not, you may very well completely eliminate gun deaths, and that'd be good, but those inclined to kill would find other weapons capable of killing just as reliably, if not moreso.

[hack89]

15. Start with mental health coverage and suicide prevention programs

that addresses two thirds of gun deaths.

[gopiscrap]

18. Yes outlaw all guns and when you find one melt it down

[wild bird]

22. And how would you outlaw all guns?

Passing that kind of legislation is virtually impossible and would guarantee GOP control of all 3 branches of government for decades to come.

That would work out about as well as prohibition dod/

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. yes. if we can reduce gun deaths by 90%, that would be significant.

[GalaxyHunter]

25. so you would be fine with the other %10 dying from guns?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

26. I wouldn't be fine with it, but since we're not going to ban guns

I would be fine with measures of registering, training, punishment for negligence, etc. etc. to get the deaths down precipitously from where they are today.

Just like I don't wish anyone to die from automobile accidents, but thankfully regulation of safety standards, reasonable enforcement of speed and driving rules, etc. have brought down the number of traffic deaths per mile driven substantially.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

[1awake]

27. I can think of a way without banning guns even though I am pro 2nd...

Stop going after the guns all together and start going after the ammo. Ban it, or even better... tax the hell out of it causing the prices to go through the roof. It won't solve some of the problem but it will put a bottle neck in the flow for many. Just an idea.

I only through this out there to legitimately participate in the op's discussion.

[Turbineguy]

28. More people wishing to live in a proper civilized society.

And willing to work at it.

[sarisataka]

29. Answers

Is there REALLY ANY WAY to end gun violence without banning all guns?
No, and even banning would not make the total zero

Yes, we could reduce the amount of gun deaths by regulating them more, But would we ever get rid of gun deaths?
No more than prohibition stopped drinking

Is there a suitable number of gun deaths that will not cause people to get upset?
No, nor should there be. Death should never be trivial


EDIT: Another question: With the talk about comparing the US to the rest of the world about gun violence. Do those here in the US feel more of a right to gun than other countries because of our background and how our country was founded?
As guns have been an accepted facet of our society to one degree or another since the founding, I believe this is correct. The principles of freedom and choice stem from the revolution.
It is a cultural memory that armed citizens stood up to the premier military power of the time and forced them to concede. Though society has changed to the point of unrecognizable since that time, private gun ownership is seen by many as a symbol that connects back to that time. As a symbol, it is irrelevant whether the People could repeat the revolution it is a reminder that at one time they did. The symbolism applies to those who own guns and those who do not. The point is anyone, not otherwise restricted, could go out and buy a gun.
Naturally there is a large plurality that may reject this notion but they are basing it more on the reality of a popular uprising. They point out, rightfully, that a modern military has distinct advantages over a People's army yet miss the even more important question. It doesn't matter if the People could win, it is can they up-rise or even would they? Those two points come far before the notion of 'winning'. At present, can the People of the U.S. revolt- theoretically yes. Would they do so, even in the face of more draconian government than we see now- To borrow a quote, 'the mob is fickle'

Do you think we can be like the rest of the world in relation to gun even though we have a different upbringing about them?
At present, I believe no. The symbolism is too ingrained to simply drop it and U.S. society is still unique among the world's nations. What works there does not automatically work here. What can change, and I believe work, is a change in the attitude of our relation to guns.
I see the campaign against drunk driving as the model. We have cars and alcohol more than ever, but most of society no longer tacitly accepts drinking and driving. The campaign realizes not everyone will follow DUI laws and we will never have zero deaths, but the effort is always to try to get closer to that goal. They do not seek to ostracize drivers, drinkers or even those who do both. Instead they educate that the two should be kept separate. I do not see why the same campaign could not be focused on guns and conflict resolution...

[SecularMotion]

30. There is no way to END gun violence.

No country has achieved that. Even if guns were limited to police and military, a small number will leak into civilian hands.

We can REDUCE gun violence through more background checks - closing the gunshow loophole and regulating private sales, better enforcement of existing regulations and increasing penalties for irresponsible gun owners.

The Supreme Court has ruled that while the 2nd Amendment grants the right to private ownership by individuals, it also allows for regulations to that ownership.

[Taverner]

32. Teach empathy and ethics

Then teach responsibility