Contentious Debate: Is it possible to reduce gun violence?

[texshelters]

Please no flaming. Also, we know there is a second amendment. I am not asking to rid the world of guns, so there is not need to bring that up as an argument. I want to know what you think.

Should we throw up our hands and ignore gun violence in America?

Is there a way to regulate guns that make the United States safer?

I say: regulate guns the way we regulate cars. Every first time buyer has to pass an examination to get a gun.

There would be a yearly gun check (like a smog check for cars) and a small registration fee. The money could be used to run the system.

At the time of the gun check there could be a psychological evaluation for those with a history of violence and a background check for violent crimes.


Will guns in universities and schools make us safer?

Is there a way to keep guns away from campuses so we don't need to be armed?

Here's where I don't want guns:

1. Universities and schools. Those places should be for education. Use the gun registration fee to hire trained security if there is a fear of campus gun violence.

2. Hockey games or games where parents are watching kids. I don't want to see parent or referees shot.

3. Oklahoma/Texas football games, or Michigan/Ohio State for that matter. Can you imagine the carnage?

4. Airplanes. All the fear of flying could drive people insane.

5. Subways and buses.

6. I am sure I am missing some here.

Where do you want guns?

What is wrong with having guns in our homes and for hunting? Is that not enough?

Are we safer bringing our guns everywhere we go?

Tex Shelters

[selador]

1. plenty of answers. your recommendations are orwellian and anti civil rights

"Should we throw up our hands and ignore gun violence in America?"

no. nor have we.


"Is there a way to regulate guns that make the United States safer?"

wow. talk about a loaded question. first of all, the question must be - at what cost. we could make the country MUCH safer just by reducing civil rights - such as miranda warning, exclusionary rule, various rules of evidence, search and seizure. etc. but we don't. rightly so. because the cost is too high.

2nd of all, i'm not sure any gun regulation would make the country safer, even at the GREAT cost of reducing our civil liberties that would ential. we have way too many gun reg's, and the areas that have really strict gun regs generally have way more crime anyway -see: DC, Chicago, etc. generally. not always

"I say: regulate guns the way we regulate cars. Every first time buyer has to pass an examination to get a gun."

i say. read the constitution. you don't need an exam to exercise free speech, open a newspaper or blog, etc. 1st amendment matters. so does 2nd.

"There would be a yearly gun check (like a smog check for cars) and a small registration fee. The money could be used to run the system. "

again, cars are not a civil right, nor a constitutionally protected right via amendment. owning and carrying guns IS.

apparently, you feel free to eliminate and reduce civil rights all in the name of protecting ourselves.

"At the time of the gun check there could be a psychological evaluation for those with a history of violence and a background check for violent crimes. "

ah. govt MANDATED psych evaluations. how orwellian of you. that sounds supergoodtruthexcellent. yup. i want my govt. to test citizens psychologically as a requirement for exercising their civil rights. maybe we should do the same with political candidates, reporters, lawyers, judges.

that is about as disgustingly orwellian an idea as i can imagine. govt. MANDATED psych tests before you can exercise a civil right.

fwiw, i have taken numerous mandatory psych tests. because i have worked in law enforcement. being a LEO is not a civil right. so, i have no problem with that.

and yes... i passed :)

"Will guns in universities and schools make us safer? "

i have no idea. they are perfectly legal in my state (WA) and i see ZERO evidence they make the schools LESS safe.

"Is there a way to keep guns away from campuses so we don't need to be armed?"

false question. the issue is not "need". we don't NEED free speech on campus either, freedom of expression, right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. but we respect the civil rights of all. students are not the #$(#$ of the world, to paraphrase john lennon

H"ere's where I don't want guns:

1. Universities and schools. Those places should be for education. Use the gun registration fee to hire trained security if there is a fear of campus gun violence. "

security, just like cops can't be everywhere all the time. and i say this as a cop. my state has legal guns on college campuses and i have YET to see ANY evidence it creates a problem.

furthermore, it respect civil rights of students, etc.

you don't.

"2. Hockey games or games where parents are watching kids. I don't want to see parent or referees shot. "

which assumes that allowing them makes parents or ref's more likely to be shot (not in evidence) and banning them would make us safer.

"3. Oklahoma/Texas football games, or Michigan/Ohio State for that matter. Can you imagine the carnage?"

plenty already carry at these games fwiw

". Airplanes. All the fear of flying could drive people insane.

5. Subways and buses.

6. I am sure I am missing some here. "

yes. like respect for the constitution.

"Where do you want guns?"

i don't WANT them anywhere. i respect the rights of citizens to carry them. it's not about FEELINGS.

"What is wrong with having guns in our homes and for hunting? Is that not enough? "

no. not if you believe in the right of self defense via firearms.

"Are we safer bringing our guns everywhere we go?"

i know *i* am safer.

ymmv

[texshelters]

2. So regulating cars is Orwellian

You exaggerate my "fascist" tendencies here. I actually thought the ideas I promoted were well considered.

Your logic is faulty: DC has high rates of gun violence not because laws were passed; guns laws were passed because of high rates of gun violence. Check you causality; it's faulty.

The Hockey game reference was to violence at just such games, and if guns had been there, they may have been used. Remember the news of the sports fans fathers fighting in the stands?

Some of this was a joke, like the football games. I don't see why you need a gun there if the games are safe.

I know we have a constitution. I have one more question for you:

Why is having a gun more of a right then others being safe from gun violence?

What HUGE right would be taken away if we didn't allow guns on subways?

Capitalize your "I's"

Peace,
Tex Shelters.

[selador]

7. no

try some reading comprehension. i didn't say that. i said requiring govt. mandated Psych tests was.

first of all driving a car is not a civil right. owning a gun IS.

second of all, govt. required PSYCH tests ARE orwellian.

a competency test in firing ability is not orwellian, as an analogy.

a PSYCHOLOGICAL test mandated by the govt. is as orwellian as can be

"Your logic is faulty: DC has high rates of gun violence not because laws were passed; guns laws were passed because of high rates of gun violence. Check you causality; it's faulty."

i didn't STATE casaulty. you did. i merely said that stricter gun laws haven't been shown to REDUCE crime. i did NOT say they caused crime. try some logic 101

"The Hockey game reference was to violence at just such games, and if guns had been there, they may have been used. Remember the news of the sports fans fathers fighting in the stands?"

you assume guns WEREN'T there. again, faulty logic. just because guns weren't USED does not mean they weren't there ANYWAY.

i've carried a gun for 20+ years and have never fired it (off duty). you would never know i was carrying it.

you can't assume in the above case nobody was carrying a gun. you assume it because the guns are necessarily only brought to your attention when displayed or fired.

fwiw, most citizens of NYC can go their entire lives and NEVER see a cop with his gun drawn. does this imply that cops never draw their guns?

again, incredibly specious logic.

as for what HUGE right? it's referenced in the 2nd amendment.

"Why is having a gun more of a right then others being safe from gun violence?"

because 1) having a gun is a right referenced in the 2nd amendment. 2) you are assuming that taking guns from citizens who legally posses them would make people safe from gun violence, which is not in evidence.

every point you make either ignores the constitution, or assumes facts not in evidence, or never proved at all.

[spin]

9. Let's look at what one of the founding fathers said...

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html

[selador]

10. bravo

it just never fails to amaze me that some people who are otherwise (relatively) consistent on civil rights, rule of law, respect for privacy, etc. lose all perspective when it comes to evil guns. civil rights, rule of law, freedom from unreasonable intrusion into privacy

i mean- GOVERNMENT MANDATED PSYCHOLIGICAL TESTS as a prerequisite to own a gun?

that's simply astounding.

the same people who get apoplectic about other invasions of privacy think it's perfectly acceptable for govt to psycholigically test citizens before they can exercise a basic right.

heck, govt. can't mandate psych testing of accused CRIMINALS (unless they intend to base their defense on psychological issues) but it's ok to mandate same testing on prospective gun owners.

[dkf]

3. How are you going to figure out if guns are in any of these places?

Sure you can pass a law saying all this stuff, but unless you are going to put gun detectors everywhere, how can you enforce it?

[LWolf]

4. The best way to reduce gun violence,

that I can think of, is to drastically reduce the human population on earth, and set up a system of social and economic justice that reduces competition for resources.

Also, regular psyche checks for those handling weapons that can kill quickly and from a distance.

[selador]

11. jeez

"that I can think of, is to drastically reduce the human population on earth,"

seen no evidence that would help at all.

" and set up a system of social and economic justice that reduces competition for resources."

lots of competition for resources in bangladesh. not seeing much gun crime (rolls eyes)

fwiw, a system of competition for resources is what MAKES resources cheaper for ALL. that's how capitalism and invention works.

in stone age societies, it takes FAR more manhours to just survive. competition for resources is the engine that creates innovation that increases crop yields, efficieny of transport, storage, etc. all of which HELP

"Also, regular psyche checks for those handling weapons that can kill quickly and from a distance"

riiiight. lord forbid we should respect privacy and civil rights for people who own weapons. nope, let's do the orwell thing and make sure their psychology is "right" with the federal govt. nope, no problem there at all.

[LWolf]

16. Glad you enjoyed it, lol.

Actually, the best solutions for many problems on the planet often involve drastic population reduction and reduction of the competition for resources.

If you didn't "get" it, I think gun violence is a symptom, not a disease, and I think you reduce symptoms by going after the disease at its source.

Now, if we could just all agree on the "source," we'd have a place to start.

[selador]

17. not imo

"Actually, the best solutions for many problems on the planet often involve drastic population reduction and reduction of the competition for resources."

i am aware there is a school of thought that believes that. however, i find their arguments to be noncompelling to put it mildly.

"If you didn't "get" it, I think gun violence is a symptom, not a disease, and I think you reduce symptoms by going after the disease at its source."

i agree with THAT, although i think the ISSUE is primarily Violence, not gun violence.

in the USA, the means is very frequently guns because they are so available


"Now, if we could just all agree on the "source," we'd have a place to start"

it's not a one step answer. there are a LOT of reasons. and frankly, i think people on all sides of the political spectrum have made some good arguments about how to reduce it

regardles, we have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced violence (gun, and violence overall) in recent years. so, it is working

[LWolf]

24. I agree that the real issue is violence;

guns just make it easier and more deadly.

I also agree that there are many parts to a complete solution.

:thumbsup:

[Dr Fate]

5. Are you talking about Iraq or the USA?

;)

[terrell9584]

6. No

Gun control is a non-sequitor when it comes to crime. They are an agent which it can be caused but they themselves don't cause it. All it does is disarm otherwise law abiding citizens while those who do intend to harm and kill don't follow said laws and continue using "illegal guns"

The way to deal with crime is to treat it's causes. Lack of oppurtunity, poverty, etc. Morton Grove, Illinois has a complete ban on guns from what I understand. It is a fairly safe place from what I understand. Median household income in Morton Grove was around $60,000 a year, which while not buying you a mansion does not have you living in poverty and if that is the median, then that means that the town is skewed towards higher income brackets, and by default, that means less social ills and less street crime.

Chicago has the same strict gun control and right now you have parts of the city that are a veritable war zone. The difference, these areas in Chicago that are war zones are poor, have organized gang activity and show all of the signs of societal breakdown. The illegality of guns did nothing, the criminals in the impoverished areas still use them, they still fight their battles and innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire.

Kennesaw, Georgia requires every household to own a gun. It's not that they enforce it, but they are well known for it. They did it as a response to the law that Morton Grove passed. Kennesaw, Georgia is also known for a low crime rate. The median household income in Kennesaw.....also $60,000, and I suspect that that money goes farther in metro Atlanta than it does in metro Chicago, in other words, another suburb with a population that is skewed towards higher brackets. Naturally, lower crime.

Then we take this to Atlanta, where the southwestern area is known for poverty and crime. Atlanta has no mandatory gun law, but Georgia has relatively little gun control and it has a legislature that will intervene to block attempts by municipalities. In the southern part of Atlanta proper, you have high crime, gang activity and everything else, and all the other social ills. The difference in crime between it and Kennesaw is all a matter of community construction.

You'll never get rid of street crime, but the way to do it is by treating the root causes of it and social background. Gun control is just a feel good measure to say that you are doing something when you are not really doing anything at all.

You treat crime by reducing poverty, it's the only way. By far, the worst crime rates the country ever posted were in the 1930's, and in the 1930s..........


As for random acts, such as the lone nut going crazy, or a gun accidentally going off. You really can't prevent these, and the truth is, statistically, they are really really random, to the point that it is not worth changing the nature of the law for. But then again, until we have a definitive Supreme Court decision on the subject, it is a decision that is ultimately in the hands of each state legislature, and in localities who are granted the power by their state legislatures to regulate it.

[spin]

8. Great post...

We all need to work to eliminate the root causes of violence.

If we reduce violence we reduce the demand for firearms. Bad for gun manufacturers, but good for society.

If we reduce violence, I can spend more time practicing target shooting and less practicing defensive shooting. Target shooting = 25 yards at a 4" bullseye. Defensive shooing = rapid fire at a silhouette target at 21 feet or less.

Other people can spend the money they would use to purchase firearms on enormous LCD TVs, fast gaming computers, iphones etc. Sounds good to me

[chixydix]

12. I don't understand your point about "regulating cars". You don't have to pass any tests

or even identify yourself to buy a car.
:wtf:

[dysfunctional press]

13. increase economic opportunities, and give people hope and incentive for the future.

is pretty much the only way.

gun regulation has nothing to do with curbing the root cause of gun violence.

[Xithras]

14. As a gun owner, I've never taken issue with your first proposal.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to bear arms for the common defense, which I translate to support private arms ownership, but it does include the term "well regulated". Regulated, as it was defined back then, meant controlled, directed, and in order. It is, therefore, entirely within the bounds of the second amendment to REQUIRE licensing and regular skill and aptitude tests of gun owners. That includes mental health checks.

I do NOT agree with prohibitions on the firearms themselves. I think that, to own a gun, you should be able to prove your sanity, prove your skill, and prove your knowledge of how to handle them safely, and you should have to renew that proof every couple of years. Once that proof is established, however, there should be minimal regulations on the types of firearms owned and how or where they are carried. Your license should state the types of firearms you're trained and certified in, but the actual number or models of the guns you own don't need to be stored or checked by the government. If we can do a reasonable job of federally certifying that everyone with a gun license is stable and sane, worries about the how's and where's really become redundant.

Eliminating gun violence shouldn't be about restricting guns, but about getting them out of the hands of people who cannot possess them responsibly...like Oklahoma/Texas fans. I have no problems with guns on campuses or on buses IF we can ensure that anyone carrying a firearm can be trusted with it.

[Junkdrawer]

15. My wife's an OU alum....when I said OK wanted to legalized guns on campus...

her first thought was "That should make the Oklahoma/Texas football game exciting"

[BigBluenoser]

18. Can I ask a question?

Howdy, long time lurker but a registered DU Noob, Alien in the US (just moved to SA Texas because I got all silly and married an American - I'm from Canada).

From what the media tells me... in Canada we tend to see guns hit our cities in two ways...

1. Theft from private households (redneck criminals --> middle men --> city criminals) - shot guns, rifles, limited amount of handguns.
2. US black market imports - handguns & heavier weapons

In Canada it is easy to get a hold of illegal weaponry (anything but long guns for most people up here is illegal - and all my former drug dealer friends had handguns) if you want it because there are a whole bunch of guns south of the country waiting to be purchased via the black market.

Where do the guns criminals use come from in the USA? Are there really enough supplied by break and enters of homes & gun shops (and US military) to supply both the large US criminal population and the smaller Canadian one? Are gun MFR's selling guns in bulk and just not looking to see where they end up? Do gun & pawn shops just sell them without taking ID? Are US soldiers/depots "losing" guns in vast amounts? In other words, how much crime is done with guns that were once "legally owned" versus crime done with those that never were. LOL. FYI, I expect a reply in the form "Go read this <link>", not for someone to feed me the answers. Just not sure where to start on this that does not entail wading through mountains of idelogical BS.

[Junkdrawer]

19. Don't forget strawman purchases. n/t

[BigBluenoser]

20. Gotcha. Friends in need are friends indeed I guess... or I just needed the money

[Junkdrawer]

21. Try to limit the guns/month and wait for the howls....

Never understood that. If you're buying 5 or 6 per month, there's a good chance you're feeding a crowd.

[SteveM]

23. What is the purpose of limiting gun purchases?

Has this measure proven effective in reducing crime? This old proposal seems aimed at collectors and gun aficionados, perhaps because of their lifestyle which many gun-controllers find repugnant.

In any case, passing laws like this needs a better rationale than "a good chance."

[chixydix]

22. There are very few guns that were never legally owned...they would have to be

illegally removed right from the factory.
;-)

[Zynx]

25. I think making something like hunter safety for all gun ownership would do a lot.

You would also have to do better than 70% on the written test which is all you need in Wisconsin to pass hunter ed. Damn.

[beevul]

26. Of course its possible.

"Should we throw up our hands and ignore gun violence in America?"

Of course not.



"Is there a way to regulate guns that make the United States safer?"

I'm quite sure there is, however governmental power to regulate firearms has its own set of limitations, see amendment 2 of the bill of rights.



"I say: regulate guns the way we regulate cars."

The problem, is that you don't realise what your saying. What your saying is tantamount to saying that anyone may own a car without any governmental oversight whatsoever. The way cars are regulated only applies to usage on public property. One need not be lisenced or have a car registered if its owner never uses it on, and it never is used on public property. Theres are no background checks for buying a car. Not only that, but people lisenced by the government may possess and drive thier cars throughout the nation, in full public view.

I KNOW those things are not what you have in mind.

"Will guns in universities and schools make us safer?"

Wrong question. Unless it can be shown that it makes the environment less safe, theres simply no RATIONAL justification to disallow it.

"Is there a way to keep guns away from campuses so we don't need to be armed?"


Courthouses seem to have the down fairly well.



"Where do you want guns?"


Well, I sure like to have them here at home, they come in handy for keeping our littlest girls from becoming coyote snacks:








Not all of "The Children™" are human you know.


"What is wrong with having guns in our homes and for hunting? Is that not enough? Are we safer bringing our guns everywhere we go?"



Once again, wrong question to be asking. The question should be "are we LESS safe allowing people to carry concealed".

And unless it can be shown that concealed carry does indeed mean things are less safe, why forbid it?