The only gun control solution

[Prof Young]

Studies show that being tough on crime (Start with Project Exile, 1997, Richmond VA) reduces crime. Take repeat criminals and those who use guns to commit crimes, give them longer prison sentences and crime rates decrease.

I get mystified that very few, if any, of the top politicians promote this idea.

Life is good
Prof Young

[Buzzcook]

There's no good evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder. The murder rate tends to be higher in states with a death penalty rather than those without.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-a...penalty-states

The percent of the population that owns guns is getting smaller and smaller. It has for the last fifty years or so wielded an out sized amount of political power which they have chosen to use in an absolutist manner.
Once the difference in demographics reaches a critical mass, confiscation becomes a certainty.
Probably before the end of the century there will be enough votes to repeal the 2nd amendment.

[cdoc42]

Buzzcook. We are not talking about the murder rate caused by all conceivable weapons.

The left wants to reduce the violence and death rate caused by GUNS. Even if guns are totally removed from society, those inclined to murder someone will do it with another weapon.

My suggestion is, if you want to stop or reduce the rate of violence or death from guns, apply the death penalty to anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime. As a minimum, those who do so will not be repeat offenders. We are more likely to see a reduction in gun deaths and an increase in the use of knives or other weapons, but that will be another issue for our noble legislature to discuss while leaving us gun owners alone.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

My suggestion is, if you want to stop or reduce the rate of violence or death from guns,...

Emphasis added.

Are you suggesting that the bolded is a worthy goal?

[44 AMP]

There's no good evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.

Point #1) of course not, there's no good evidence proving a negative. No one can count the number of crimes that were NOT committed.

Point #2) There is NO evidence at all of an executed person ever committing another murder...

MIGHT not deter someone else, but ABSOLUTELY deters the one who is put to death. Permanently. I think that's a worthwhile thing.

Generally speaking, no one commits a crime with the expectation of being caught. In general, the people who commit crimes do not expect to be caught and punished.

Place not absolute faith in statistics. For some things they simply do not exist, and people telling you otherwise are selling something.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

Buzzcook. We are not talking about the murder rate caused by all conceivable weapons.

The left wants to reduce the violence and death rate caused by GUNS.

I disagree. The left is selling gun control by using rhetoric designed to convey the impression that [nearly] all violence is "gun violence" and that, therefore, if we can just get rid of guns we won't have any more violence.

They know it's not true. We know it's not true. But that's the snake oil they're selling, and a large portion of the naive populace is buying it.

By labeling it "gun violence" they are subtly associating "violence" with "guns." When someone stabs someone, the media doesn't report it as another case of "knife violence." They don't even report it as "violence" -- they just report it (if they bother to report it at all) as a stabbing. Same thing if someone uses a vehicle to run over someone else. It's not reported as "vehicle violence" -- the reports just say that so-and-so ran over [his/her] [wife/husband/gf/bf/arch enemy] -- "violence" isn't even mentioned. I respectfully submit that being killed by a knife or by being run over by an automobile is a pretty violent way to die. The fact that such incidents are not reported as acts of "violence," while EVERY shooting is a case of "gun violence," should tell us something.

[Buzzcook]

We are not talking about the murder rate caused by all conceivable weapons.

cdoc42: The OP mentions the death penalty as a form of gun control, not a means of genocide. The only way that would work is if the death penalty was a deterrent.
The link I provided indicates that this position is at least flawed.

I've been an opponent of the death penalty for many years. Its only purpose is to provide some atavistic satisfaction part of the population and to pander to the fears of another.

Pretty sure the OP was tongue in cheek, still deserved a serious reply though.

[mehavey]

Just to put some perspective here....
That such a solution could even receive serious consideration terrifies me.

[cdoc42]

You all might be interested in the discussion about this topic on a physician web site. There was NO post agreeing with, nor refuting the 2 basic suggestions - total confiscation of all guns or application of the death penalty. Posters offered comments that were peripheral to the discussion, including Biden's suggestion that the Second Amendment is not absolute. The following reflects some of the comments, including my responses labeled as "ME.":

“….. there ARE limits on the second amendment. Some weapons and ammunition have been judged to infringe on the rights of others.”
ME: “ALL weapons have the potential to infringe on the rights of others when used by another citizen. But it is not the weapon doing the infringing. It is the USER of that weapon.”
“Yes but you have missed the point... despite the fact that "It is the USER of that weapon" some weapons are banned. Are you suggested that they should not be?”

“I hope you (and others) can see why we do not bother arguing the specifics of gun safety legislation with the gun nuts that hold that view. We are not "gun prohibitionists". We are not "hoplophobes". Or any other term you make up to define us. We are the majority who want to increase public safety with better gun laws.”

ME: “ As I see it, the “gun nuts” are not against better gun safety. We don't want to be shot at the shopping mall, either. The “better gun safety” advocates are not against law-abiding gun ownership. Both groups therefore meet on common ground, but neither spends enough time dissecting the reasoning behind each other’s objections to the problem.

The difficulty is finding a solution for “safety” that does not grossly interfere with the rights of the legitimate gunowners, and one that substantially affects those who use guns criminally, endangering all of us.
Behind all of this is a hidden agenda by the extreme left who pursue control of our lives by the government. They initiate the discussion by offering legislative ideas that clearly do not meet the needs but grossly affect all law-abiding citizens. When advocates like the NRA use their legislative influential power to challenge these efforts, very few realistic “safety” pursurers investigate the details that are felt to be a negative consequence to non-criminals.

For example, when Shelia Jackson presented her bill, it required any gun owner who even lends a personal gun to another person to report the event to a federal authority, including the time frame of expected use. My immediate reaction was this interfered unnecessarily with my routine of taking my daughter target shooting when she used my .38 Special revolver. Worse, she added a $800 a year mandated insurance policy to be obtained by every gun owner. How does that reduce gun violence by criminals?

In the past, one of the legislators called for a number to be impressed onto every bullet and cartridge case so that purchase could be traced in the event of a criminal act of use. It took me no longer than 10 seconds to think of a scenario where a potential bank robber would go to a legitimate shooting range and simply pick up all the empty brass, then go to a bank, rob it, fire his revolver for effect, and drop several empty cases on the floor, none of which had the same numbers. Now the police trace all of these to legitimate owners who were nowhere near the bank.

Clearly we need a defined goal with any proposed legislation, not just doing “something” because it’s better than nothing. And we need to seriously dissect these issues rather than throwing stones at each other.”

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

As I see it, there are only two possibilities that will result in a reduction in deaths caused by guns.

1) Total confiscation and the abolition of ownership of any gun.

2) The use of the death penalty in cases of any type of criminal use of a gun.
This includes brandishing a gun in the course of a crime, so injury or death of another human being is not the ultimate criterion.

That's the problem with this line of thinking, nothing can ever be eliminated to zero. Anything in human society requires the careful weighing of costs and benefits. People with an agenda only focus on one or the other depending on what suits them.

Bans are the solution of the unimaginative, the lazy, or the dishonest:

Ban guns to prevent violence.
Ban pit-bulls or "dangerous breeds" to prevent dog attacks.
Ban the keeping of exotic species to prevent damage to the environment.
Ban alcohol to prevent alcoholism.
Ban violent video games...
Ban this or that drug....
Ban big servings of sugary sodas.....

I've heard back in the day of people wanting to ban heavy metal music, indeed some countries still ban it today.

Singapore bans chewing gum.

[cdoc42]

"That's the problem with this line of thinking, nothing can ever be eliminated to zero."

That's why I stated, "As I see it, there are only two possibilities that will result in a reduction in deaths caused by guns. (emphasis added)

I did not say, "elimination."

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

"That's the problem with this line of thinking, nothing can ever be eliminated to zero."

That's why I stated, "As I see it, there are only two possibilities that will result in a reduction in deaths caused by guns. (emphasis added)

I did not say, "elimination."

You didn't, but that's what the antis think.

In any case, whether or not a ban results in the reduction of deaths caused by guns (as banning motorcycles would result in the reduction of deaths caused by motorcycles), it is important to think about other consequences from a ban: such as, would other kinds of criminal violent death increase in the absence of firearms?

Firearms are a complex and multi-dimensional issue and most people just focus on one aspect of them.

But in the USA the 2A guarantees the RTKBA. It is a RIGHT, regardless of the cost v benefit calculus.

[44 AMP]

you would probably find more public support if you replaced the death penalty for a gun crime with life in prison without parole or any kind of early release.

The point is to get those people out of society, permanently is preferable, and to me, execution is the better answer, being both irreversible and relatively cheap compared to the cost of maintaining life imprisonment.

However many feel the death penalty is unjust, immoral, or serves no useful purpose, so I would accept a life sentence as an alternative to the death penalty to get their support. Provided it was a life sentence and not what we often do today, with 7-13 or 20 years and good behavior allowing the possibility of parole.

I will admit to a certain lack of compassion for people who kill others just because they can and they want to. Perhaps that's a character flaw, but its the way I am.

[cdoc42]

PistolerO, with all due respect, neither of my original suggestions included BANNING guns.
From my entry regarding physician opinions above, the one respondent opined the goal of the left is "We are the majority who want to increase public safety with better gun laws.”
That is probably the majority of moderates and I'm sure those of us who are gun enthusiasts would not disagree with that. It's the RADICALS who control the debate who cloud the issue.

44AMP, I share your character flaw, which suggests it is not a genetic "flaw" at all, but an opinion based on fact which is ignored by the majority of true carriers of some genetic code that allows social transgressions which create threats to survival among the remaining members of society.

To put chronic killers in prison at personal cost to protect the masses from their threats to our survival is synonymous to suggest wasp allergic individuals should keep active nests alive in their homes in environmentally protected cages.

[stinkeypete]

1. Perfection takes infinity too long
2. The next best plan is too expensive
3. The third best plan isn't perfect or good, but it's better than nothing.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

From my entry regarding physician opinions above, the one respondent opined the goal of the left is "We are the majority who want to increase public safety with better gun laws.”

My response to that would be, "How about starting by enforcing the 20,000 gun laws we already have?"

When Joe Biden was Vice President, someone asked him why, out of all the NICS checks that were denied during the previous year (indicative of prohibited people trying to buy guns, and therefore -- by implication -- having lied when they filled out the 4473), only a ridiculously small number were prosecuted. His answer was something like, "We don't have time for that."

[cdoc42]

Aguila, I agree. In fact, my response to his post specifically asked why those who lie on 4473 don't get prosecuted. I didn't mention Biden's name because I knew he knew who I was subtly referring to.

Speaking to your post on NICS checks, it should be noted these were DENIED, for various reasons. Hunter Biden LIED and it was NOT denied, so the check missed that opportunity, either purposely or erroneously. What about the negligent act of trashing his gun as well?

I think we can all agree that neither of my suggestions is going to see the light of day. But the significance is they truly are the only paths to reducing gun violence. Laws do nothing more than present a potential deterrent or punish to various degrees, but not permanently, after the fact.

[ghbucky]

But the significance is they truly are the only paths to reducing gun violence

You did it again. You tank your arguments every time you use that phrase.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

I think we can all agree that neither of my suggestions is going to see the light of day. But the significance is they truly are the only paths to reducing gun violence.

I agree with ghbucky. Every time I see you use the term "gun violence" I want to scream at the monitor and tear my hair (whatever remains) out by the roots.

When you use the term "gun violence," you are allowing the other side to control the narrative by controlling the language and defining the limits of the playing field. The problem is not "gun" violence -- the problem is violence. Regardless of how sincere you are in trying to argue on that front, in the end you lose because you are participating in perpetuating the lie that "gun" violence is the problem. We cannot even begin to address the issue of "violence" when the discussion is fixated on "guns."

[ghbucky]

Speaking to your post on NICS checks, it should be noted these were DENIED, for various reasons. Hunter Biden LIED and it was NOT denied, so the check missed that opportunity, either purposely or erroneously.

Has he been very publicly charged with the federal offense of lying on his NICS? No, of course not.

Now, how is any new law going to accomplish anything in this kind of culture when the current laws are simply ignored?

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

PistolerO, with all due respect, neither of my original suggestions included BANNING guns.

My apologies, I must have misinterpreted your OP when you state the option

<< 1) Total confiscation and the abolition of ownership of any gun>>

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

I think we can all agree that neither of my suggestions is going to see the light of day. But the significance is they truly are the only paths to reducing gun violence.

No, I honestly don't see why your suggestions are the "ONLY paths to reducing gun violence".

It isn't even certain that they would have an effect specially option 2).

Granted option 1) if successfuly carried out would have an effect on "gun violence". I don't think there was any "gun violence" during the middle ages, so I'll give you that.

But option 2) is not certain either.

[cdoc42]

I think we're getting off the track. The left is not bringing up the issue of "violence" in general. Biden is talking about the Second Amendment not being absolute. Past and recent proposed Federal legislation focuses specifically on guns. My post is an effort to address a rebuttal to those efforts, not to speak to all issues of violence.

[cdoc42]

Aguila and ghbucky, I think we're getting off the track. The left is not bringing up the issue of "violence" in general. Biden is talking about the Second Amendment not being absolute. Past and recent proposed Federal legislation focuses specifically on guns. My post is an effort to address a rebuttal to those efforts, not to speak to all issues of violence.

PistolerO, you are correct, Confiscation is banning. I was not thinking of that correlation. I apologize.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

I think we're getting off the track. The left is not bringing up the issue of "violence" in general.

That's correct.

Because they are fixated on "gun" violence. That's the point we are trying to make -- we need to redirect the discussion away from "gun violence" toward "violence." We're not getting off the track at all -- that IS the track. The rebuttal to mentions of "gun violence" is to point out that trying to regulate "gun violence" is putting the emphasis and the blame on the tool rather than on the actor. Otherwise, we should be having discussions about "knife violence," "car violence," "baseball bat violence," and "boot violence." All those things are used to kill people, but there's no outcry to ban knives, to ban automobiles, or to ban boots. So why are guns being singled out?

There's your rebuttal.