The only gun control solution

[ghbucky]

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?

Precisely the point I try to make.

[imp]

I suppose if we executed every person that eats junk food, we could significantly decrease obesity and heart disease. Think of how many lives could be saved that way.

I appreciate a good debate, but trying to use logic to win an emotional battle is just as effective as using a fishing net to catch rain water.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by imp

I appreciate a good debate, but trying to use logic to win an emotional battle is just as effective as using a fishing net to catch rain water.

We will never change the minds of the hard-core gun grabbers; we know that. The people we need to have good rebuttals for are the millions of people who don't know anything about guns and who aren't really anti-gun, they just want to see a reduction in violence.

We need to be prepared when those people ask why we are opposed to gun control. "Because I like guns" is not a good answer. We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools.

[imp]

I agree. I think we already make a good case for those capable of being persuaded, and we should continue to do so.

That said, in the age of social media and hashtag activism, emotion rules. Exploring wild theoretical ideas in an effort to appease the angst of the ignorant is a waste of time.

[44 AMP]

There is another solution, besides executing "gun criminals" or total banning of firearms, but it is also unacceptable to the public in general.

That "solution" would be a simple complete "hands off" by the legal system of the people who SHOOT BACK!

It would be messy, it would be, for a time, bloody, and yes many innocent people would suffer (but aren't they suffering today??)

But consider this, that over time, if it were allowed (let alone encouraged) bad guys would learn that if they went out shooting people for fun or profit, someone would shoot them. Not try and arrest them, just shoot them dead. Maybe shoot them in the back, or from cover, or...?? Maybe multiple someones would shoot them....

And THEN call the police to "police up the body"...

It would be bad, nd the streets would run with blood...for a time
AFTER that, I think we'd see a lot less of gun violence or any other kind.

Can't do it today, but it did work in the past, and there's even evidence it would work today, if we, as a people, were willing to pay the cost.

Consider that the majority of the killers are not willing or interested in doing their killing where people are armed and could shoot back. (death seeking jihadiists are a different matter)

After Florida passed its "shall issue" carry permit laws, there was an interesting change in the crime rate. Crimes against Florida residents decreased, crimes against tourists went up. Seems the bad guys were watching people's license plates and could be sure that out of state plates meant the people were unlikely to be armed, while Florida plates meant they couldn't be sure...

These people, overwhelmingly target people they believe cannot defend themselves. If we change that, we change everything.

[cdoc42]

Aguila said: "We need to be prepared when those people ask why we are opposed to gun control. "Because I like guns" is not a good answer. We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools."

OK. Let's come full circle. I started this post with a two-pronged suggestion regarding gun control because that was the focus of those who oppose guns. I was eventually criticized for focusing on guns as an argument against "violence," yet your post above says NOTHING about anything but guns when that issue of control is raised.

Which direction should we go?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

OK. Let's come full circle. I started this post with a two-pronged suggestion regarding gun control because that was the focus of those who oppose guns. I was eventually criticized for focusing on guns as an argument against "violence," yet your post above says NOTHING about anything but guns when that issue of control is raised.

Sure it does, but remember that the snippet you quoted is a small part of this rather lengthy thread, in which I posted multiple times that the problem is not guns, but "violence." To look just at the snippet you quoted immediately above, I wrote:

We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools.

You really can't see that I'm talking about the people who commit the acts, rather than about the tools they use?

[ghbucky]

Which direction should we go?

The direction we were going was working without changing anything! (I say past tense, because the recent policies in big cities has probably completely reversed this trend)

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s.../violent-crime

In 2019, an estimated 1,203,808 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 0.5 percent from the 2018 estimate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2019 estimated violent crime total was 0.4 percent above the 2015 level but 3.8 percent below the 2010 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
There were an estimated 366.7 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2019, a rate that dropped 1.0 percent when compared with the 2018 estimated violent crime rate and fell 9.3 percent from the 2010 estimate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)

How about instead of passing NEW laws, we start enforcing our current laws? How many laws do you need to say that violent crime is illegal?

[cdoc42]

Aguila said: "You really can't see that I'm talking about the people who commit the acts, rather than about the tools they use?"

Yes, I certainly understand the position taken. My #2 suggestion specifically dealt with the people, and not the tool, who commit the singular cause of violence that is constantly debated..

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs? That is the dilemma providing an escape from the resolution.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs?

I do!

Something like this:
The minority report (2002)
Or.... a system of surveillance and "social credit" like they have in China nowadays:
China's social credit system



By the way, I don't think your option #2) would work for this:

Today's FedEx shooting in Indianapolis
or
https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/04/s...-shooting.html
or
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-murder-s...ders/10490396/

In previous posts I said that regardless of what option 1) does in relation to "gun violence", I do not think it would reduce violence in general which is what Aguila, 44AMP and others have been saying is the real issue.

So maybe we have to accept that in a free society, some will abuse and misuse their freedoms and it is up to US to protect ourselves from such folk...
unless we want to live in a "big brother" kind of directed society. We don't want to live in the HIVE, do we?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs? That is the dilemma providing an escape from the resolution.

You can't resolve the human condition.

You can take guesses about the identity of potential criminals, and for much of our history we did that. POs engaged in profiling. Many places had vagrancy laws. In some places, POs provided "wood shampoos" to people who did look as if they belonged.

Students of use of force by the state generally regard those acts as police misconduct. While you can't resolve the human condition by guessing who will engage in illicit violence, you can very easily constrict the sphere of freedom in which people legitimately act.

To the degree that we want to discourage illicit use of force and encourage or protect legitimates uses of force, we already have more than enough laws. While it may be your intent to offer a reductio ad absurdum to highlight the absurdity of more moderate forms of your proposals, I am not sure that advocates of those moderated measures would see the absurdity of the principles involved.

[stinkeypete]

Regarding opposition to violence, I agree in principle. However,
The number of mass shootings, rampage killing sprees with firearms with high capacity magazines, has increased dramatically in the past years. Something in these evil people tells them to use a firearm.

Likewise, something tells other sorts of evil people to use a bomb. We don’t have a lot of bombings in this country, although I have personal experience with one about 50 years ago. Bombs are illegal.

Machine guns are highly regulated by the NFA because of street shootouts by prohibition era gangsters. The body count in those days was shy many of the individual shootings we have now. There have not been any crimes committed by fully automatic weapons in this country for... ages. Apparently regulating machine guns was effective.

As for “old west” justice, all is fine with that if you accept the number of innocent people killed and lynched by mobs. Mob rule and vigilantism are not justice or order, it’s chaos.

The original intent of the second amendment was to have an armed populace to discourage or defend against invasion by the British. One can argue that the Southern States demanded the second amendment for their local militias to hold down any slave rebellions, a valid point, historically.

Well, any well regulated militia now needs air power, artillery, surface to air missiles, automatic weapons, etc. etc. We generally accept those items to be highly regulated.

For me, the big mistake of the Brady Bill was attacking cosmetic features of firearms that made no difference. Regulating high capacity removable magazines does impact the mass lethality of firearms. That’s why people buy them.

Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Lots of bullets kill lots of people. There are many problems right now. It’s too bad we can’t try to find reasonable compromises.

If I was king, I would regulate high capacity magazines but trade you an eased regulation for suppressors on single action firearms and bolt action rifles. Good thing I’m not king, huh?

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

Regarding opposition to violence, I agree in principle. However,
The number of mass shootings, rampage killing sprees with firearms with high capacity magazines, has increased dramatically in the past years. Something in these evil people tells them to use a firearm.

Likewise, something tells other sorts of evil people to use a bomb. We don’t have a lot of bombings in this country, although I have personal experience with one about 50 years ago. Bombs are illegal.

Machine guns are highly regulated by the NFA because of street shootouts by prohibition era gangsters. The body count in those days was shy many of the individual shootings we have now. There have not been any crimes committed by fully automatic weapons in this country for... ages. Apparently regulating machine guns was effective.

As for “old west” justice, all is fine with that if you accept the number of innocent people killed and lynched by mobs. Mob rule and vigilantism are not justice or order, it’s chaos.

The original intent of the second amendment was to have an armed populace to discourage or defend against invasion by the British. One can argue that the Southern States demanded the second amendment for their local militias to hold down any slave rebellions, a valid point, historically.

Well, any well regulated militia now needs air power, artillery, surface to air missiles, automatic weapons, etc. etc. We generally accept those items to be highly regulated.

For me, the big mistake of the Brady Bill was attacking cosmetic features of firearms that made no difference. Regulating high capacity removable magazines does impact the mass lethality of firearms. That’s why people buy them.

Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Lots of bullets kill lots of people. There are many problems right now. It’s too bad we can’t try to find reasonable compromises.

If I was king, I would regulate high capacity magazines but trade you an eased regulation for suppressors on single action firearms and bolt action rifles. Good thing I’m not king, huh?

But king stinkeypete,

I submit to you that is not only high capacity magazines, but all weapons that are lethal and that that's why people buy them.

May I humbly remind you that the biggest mass murder in US history was executed with box opening tools in 9/11.

And bolt action rifles, Your Majesty! Of the mass murders committed with firearms, one of the deadliest was committed with a bolt action rifle, the D.C. sniper shootings (2002) where 17 were killed and 10 injured. Likewise with the 1966 University of Texas Tower shootings . Ban high capacity mags, even semi-auto firearms, and your subjects will resort back to these other highly lethal firearms. Why not ban bolt action hunting rifles too? They are highly accurate and long reaching, availing an assailant of the advantage of distance!

I think that your majesty's pen should not limit itself to high capacity magazines, but include any conceivable device that could be used by your serfs to raise mayhem in thy kingdom. Learn from your cousin of the House of Windsor, Elizabeth II Queen by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, who controls and limits the access of her vassals to even air powered bb guns! Such wisdom, why give them any chances?!

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by stinkypete

Machine guns are highly regulated by the NFA because of street shootouts by prohibition era gangsters. The body count in those days was shy many of the individual shootings we have now. There have not been any crimes committed by fully automatic weapons in this country for... ages. Apparently regulating machine guns was effective.

Effective at what?

I'd grant you that making one specific sort of weapon economically unattainable for most people will decrease the use of that specific weapon.

That doesn't suggest a decline in violence or murder as a result. We saw well more than a half million firearms deaths from 1861 to 1865. The absence of automatic weapons during that period suggests that such weapons can't be necessary for high death rates, so even fully removing them doesn't remove a necessary precondition to the problem of violent death.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

You can't resolve the human condition.

Indeed, this could not be more true.

The thing is, most people function normally and the little bits inside that tell us that killing other people is bad do what they are supposed to do and, for the great majority of people, any social construct within reason allows those bits to remain functional and people, 99.9999% of people, do not and will not kill other people (Sajous-Turner, et-al, 2019). (When I speak of killing people, I am speaking of innocent people, in the normal, every day understanding of innocence. The definition of innocence on a deeper level is another topic entirely).

The problem, is that other 0.0001%. Truth is, many of them would not be inclined to act out either, possibly out of fear but often out of moral compunction which tells them it is wrong even if they don't care. Having morals makes people do (or not do) things that they *really* want (or don't want) to do. For instance... a great many of us, men in particular, would... deep down inside... like to be "more promiscuous" than we are.... but our morals say no, we should not do that, and so we don't.
The more "minor" we consider the moral issue at hand, or the more empathy we feel for those effected, the less likely we are to allow a differential between desire and belief to affect our behavior. So if we think cheating on our significant others is only *a little* wrong, we are more likely to override that moral voice than if we think it is REALLY wrong (Decety & Cowell, 2015).

We are fools to think that any other form of moral behavior is not similar. Whether it be theft or murder or anything else.

Now we have several generations of teaching that we are meaningless, random, purposeless chance in a universe that exists by meaningless, random, purposeless chance. We are taught that morality is subjective, and what is true for you is not for me. We are taught that human life, from pre-birth to old age and any that suffer in between, or are a burden to society (by whose morals?), are expendable. We are taught that if we want it, it is OK, if it feels good we should do it.

Again, the majority... the great majority... of us have little bits inside that still function correctly in spite of this onslaught. We know... deep down inside... we *know* that killing people is wrong. Universally wrong, not just wrong for you or wrong for me, but *wrong*, always and at all times and in all places. Because of this, the great majority of us will not kill other people at any time, for any reason.... but, oh, that other 0.0001%. They *don't* know it, they are taught *not* to believe it, the moral compunction is erased and their little bits inside don't stop them.

And then something happens to one of those people, something that *doesn't* feel good and their solution is to make other people not feel good and they have no moral compunction or empathy stopping them. Their life is meaningless and so is yours, they believe, and so they will hurt you and anyone else... because it isn't wrong, and maybe it will make them feel good. Either way, they probably expect to die or kill themselves anyway, and it doesn't matter, because it's all meaningless.

Taking away guns will not stop these people and may, in fact, make it worse. In places where you can buy full-auto AKs on every street corner, they typically don't use guns.... they use bombs. Sure, they have "real" bombs, but we can't outlaw every possible source of chemical components. If they can't get guns, the killing will not stop. The killing has never stopped before guns and it will not stop after. It will just be all the more indiscriminate.

The problem is not guns. The problem is us.

References
Jean Decety & Jason M. Cowell (2015) Empathy, Justice, and Moral Behavior, AJOB Neuroscience, 6:3, 3-14, DOI: 10.1080/21507740.2015.1047055

Sajous-Turner, A., Anderson, N. E., Widdows, M., Nyalakanti, P., Harenski, K., Harenski, C., . . . Kiehl, K. A. (2019). Aberrant brain gray matter in murderers. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 14(5), 2050-2061. doi:10.1007/s11682-019-00155-y

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

The thing is, most people function normally and the little bits inside that tell us that killing other people is bad do what they are supposed to do and, for the great majority of people, any social construct within reason allows those bits to remain functional and people, 99.9999% of people, do not and will not kill other people (Sajous-Turner, et-al, 2019).

The problem, is that other 0.0001%.

But even those who are not part of the deranged 0.000001%, tend to fudge and justify their behavior to fit their morals.

China with Uyghurs, Nazis with jews, people in every country regarding foreigners, invaders, illegals.... just justify your behavior by thinking that "they are not like us", or "they would do it to us" or "they deserve it" somehow.....

and then override your morals and you are good to go! Because your morals don't apply to "them".

[stinkeypete]

Try to get a box cutter on an airline these days.

The question is, why airlines? I have a vivid and twisted imagination. I can think of countless creative and destructive ways someone could do horrific violent acts. But they don’t, in this country people use high capacity magazines and semi auto firearms. Most people are not both creative, evil, and science based all at the same times.

Yet it’s airlines and running in to some place and shooting it up before killing yourself.

Moaning that nothing can be done is no longer effective.

I don’t want your gun, I want your magazine. Keep the gun, pop a 10 round magazine in, it’s a start.

Because... okay, bump stocks. Then someone goes and proves that someone will use them to mow innocent people down. Okay, phony “arm braces.” Yeah, guess what some knuckle head uses his for.

Much of the country lives in an urban setting. They think meat comes from a package and eggs from a carton. But that’s the new reality.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

Try to get a box cutter on an airline these days.

The question is, why airlines? I have a vivid and twisted imagination. I can think of countless creative and destructive ways someone could do horrific violent acts. But they don’t, in this country people use high capacity magazines and semi auto firearms. Most people are not both creative, evil, and science based all at the same times.

Moaning that nothing can be done is no longer effective.

Yes but I think they use that because that's what they have. And if they didn't have that, they'd use something else: bolt actions, whatever.

And if they didn't have bolt actions, they'd use shotguns. Do you think mayhem at the supermarket would not be possible with a mossberg pump action? or with a Marlin lever action?

and with no shotguns or any other firearm? then they break into your house and massacre your whole family with machetes.

I don't think that "nothing can be done". But I think that the banning of a class of firearms or accessory would have a very small, if any, effect on total violent crime/homicides.

[stinkeypete]

Who would win, Bruce Lee or Gandalf?
Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

Who would win, Bruce Lee or Gandalf?
Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

Yes, I know, I follow your argument.

But if with the AR they kill 17 and with the lever action they kill 10, why not ban the lever action too?

And then maybe with the mossberg they can kill 5, so why not ban it too.

Do do you ban something that can kill 30 people, 17, 10, 5.... where is the magic number? Where do you draw the line? What is an acceptable level of risk?

[Pistoler0]

Originally Posted by stinkeypete

Who would win, Bruce Lee or Gandalf?
Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

And stinkeypete, the banning of deadly things does not have to be limited to firearms (2A arguments aside).

I mean, who needs a motorcycle that can go faster than say 140 mph, or a car? That is dangerous, illegal, and can definitely kill you and other people. Why not ban those?

Who needs to have an attack dog? I think dogs probably kill more people every year than firearms, if I am not mistaken. There's no need for aggressive breeds such as pitbulls, rotweillers, doberman.... lets ban those too, I bet you will save more lives than with the firearms ban.

And alcohol? Wine and beer are ok, but what is the purpose of absinthe liquor other than to get drunk dangerously fast?

Where is the limit? Which well intended life saving ban is not reasonable?

[44 AMP]

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs?

No. There isn't one, outside of science fiction and fantasy. And thinking that the is, or ought to be, is fantasy, of a particularly delusional bent.

Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

The Aurora CO killer had no problem abandoning his AR as an inferior platform. It jammed after firing only a few rounds and he did most of the killing with a shotgun.

But if with the AR they kill 17 and with the lever action they kill 10, why not ban the lever action too?

This is entirely the wrong way to look at it, and assumes that the correct response to murder is to ban the tool used (the anti gunner's point) and all that's left is to decide what the acceptable body count will be.

One is too many, but banning lawful ownership and use of things we have a natural and constitutionally protected right to own due to the misuse of same by criminal individuals is simply the wrong answer.

[101combatvet]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

I offered this suggestion on a physician discussion forum, but surprisingly, the thread expired from absolute non-participation. So I'll turn to gun owners to see what opinions might develop.

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.

Suggestion #1: It is not likely that the total removal of guns of any kind from our society is immediately, and not even remotely, possible. It would take YEARS to change the Constitution of the United States, and the piecemeal appearance of multiple laws, as we have seen, will not provide a sufficient resolution.

That leaves us with suggestion #2. Neither would it be an immediate solution, but a piecemeal application would ultimately leave us with a marked reduction in repeated offenders, and eventually, a significant reduction over time.

It has been stated that the prior application of the death penalty did not provide for any reduction in associated crime. But I have never seen any information that discussed, let alone proved, the mere presence of possible death changed an offender's mind. How can we measure crime that never happened?

What we will know is the offender will never repeat the offense.

Details obviously will have to be developed. How do we deal with brandishing a weapon in self-defense? The first consideration is self-defense is not a criminal act. But difficulty is presented in a case of a routinely beaten wife who brandishes, then kills her husband before he repeats another beating.

But these legal complexities are not absent in our current system now, and a thorough analysis of the consequences of the death penalty application would be a necessary developmental consideration.

So-does anyone want to opine?

This might be one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read here.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cdoc42

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs? That is the dilemma providing an escape from the resolution.

It's not possible. The problem is, the gun grabbing politicians are leading the masses to believe that if we can just get rid of ugly, scary looking GUNZ! everything will be sunshine and unicorns, and there won't be any more violent crime. We know that's not true, but people are swallowing that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

You can't predict who is going to commit a crime, or when. But having the police do their jobs would be a start. The shooter at the Parkland High School massacre had been "known to the police" for multiple prior incidents, but they let him skate because he had a Hispanic last name and they didn't want to add him to the statistics. There was another, fairly recent incident in which the shooter was "known to the FBI" and yet he was allowed to buy a gun, and he eventually went off the deep end. And now we have the shooter at the Indianapolis FedEx -- I'm pretty sure the reports said he was known to somebody.

So either some agencies need to tighten up their procedures, or some rules need to be tweaked. But more background checks aren't the answer. Look at the Las Vegas Harvest Festival shooter. He was squeaky clean.

And then you have cases like the Sutherland Springs, Texas, shooter. He was supposed to be a prohibited person, but the Air Force didn't bother to report his conviction to NICS. The best background system in the world is only as good as the data you put into it. What good are background checks if the agencies tasked with supplying the data ... don't?

[101combatvet]

If politicians wanted to stop shooters, they wouldn't be implementing idiotic laws, and they would be prosecuting those laws already in the books. Most mass shootings [74%] happened in gun free zones. Those that created gun free zones should be held accountable as an accessory to murder. Start holding politicians accountable!