June 26, 2016, 10:58 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
|
Violence Strategies
This might be pie in the sky, but I think we have gotten to the point that even if somebody more pro gun than I were in sol-control of policy, pro gunners and controllers would argue about their intentions. The best thing we can do now is quid pro quo policy making.
First, and I'm sorry, but the controllers must go first, I think suppressors and sbr's need removed from the registry and changed to an uncontrolled sale, except for the actual gun transfer of the sbr rifle. This will have 0 impact on gun violence and pretty good impact on pro-gun buy in. Second, we need some kind of government funded homicide reporting standardization. If Chicago or Baltimore have the highest homicide rates in the world, we all need to know and it needs to be reported annually. Possibly, presented at an annual 50 state homicide/suicide conference. Where each governor appoints 2 people to be on a national task force which takes what is learned from this data and turns it into real legislative proposals instead of feel good crap legislation. The purpose is transparency. Also, it would clearly show the rushed through crap control laws for what they are. Third, the controllers have to work on harnessing the power of the computer and get the felonies and people ordered to the mental hospital into NICS. We need 100% confidence that the data is there. Forth, we need an ATF website where I can put my state id #, serial no of the firearm, location of sale and the buyer can put in their info before the trade. It should tell us both if the gun is stolen and if the buyer has passed a NICS check. It should be voluntary. Frankly, I think you would get 80% usage to prevent trading cash for a stolen gun. It also could share limited info with both parties as a record of sale. Third, it must delete info the same as NICS does. There is more, but is this the pathway to meaningful compromise on both sides? Obviously we need to quickly move into some of the community policing where police and or community leaders are out engaging the highest risk groups and moving their output from homicide to constructive problem solving. It is really a public education issue. There is a point at which all young minds think that conflict is solved through screaming, fighting and killing those who disagree. Part of mind formation that occurs in the teenage years is the teaching of ignoring, compliance, heathy conflict resolution, building walls in our minds to block escalation. Is this possible? At least from the pro-gun side? Last edited by Nathan; June 26, 2016 at 01:30 PM. |
June 26, 2016, 11:33 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
So you're asking would I trade access to SBRs and suppressors in exchange for government funded homicide reporting standardization, some conferences nobody cares about, and a website I don't have to use?
The answer is yes. Would the antis do it? I'm betting no, they would not. Oh, and the term "gun violence", imo, is dangerous. When you say "gun violence" it's implicit you are blaming the gun for the violence. That lets the real culprit off the hook, and prevents you from ever finding the real culprit, because you have duped yourself into believing you know the answer, when you don't. Therefore, you'll waste money and time without ever addressing the underlying cause(s). If you want to get "real" about it, you have to do the hard yards. You'd have to fund dozens of research projects across dozens of disciplines for decades. Essentially you're asking, "Why do people do bad things?" and that's right up there in terms of being one of the most difficult questions you can ask. Last edited by speedrrracer; June 26, 2016 at 11:41 AM. |
June 26, 2016, 11:42 AM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
You have identified a set of goals, but the title of your post/thread mentions "strategies."
What are you proposing as a strategy to begin achieving your proposed goals? For example: Quote:
How many people have been actually arrested and prosecuted for lying on Form 4473s over the past ten years? There's a ready-made treasure trove of automatic, slam-dunk convictions -- but the administration has stated that they're too busy to pursue such cases. |
|
June 26, 2016, 12:33 PM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Negotiation of any sort must be built on a foundation of trust and respect. We cannot trust the anti-gunners. Their end goal is total confiscation of civilian firearms. Background checks, categorical bans, and watchlists are incremental steps towards that. To that end, they will lie to us. They lie to the public all the time. I'm not talking about misstatements or context issues; I'm talking about deliberate falsehoods. Then there's the respect issue. Ask them what they think of people like me. You'll be told that I'm a bigot. It will be implied that I'm of subnormal intelligence and that I'm a borderline sociopath who has no sympathy for the victims of gun violence. I'm nothing more than a paid stoolie for the "gun lobby." Why would I want to sit down at the table with them? I guarantee that any negotiation will end up with us losing and them gaining. We've made our "compromises." We know what happens. Folks really need to get over this idea that we can have aboveboard dealings with them, and they need to stop looking for ways to snatch the rug out from under us.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 26, 2016, 01:30 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
|
Aguila,
If I could change the title to violence strategies, I would. I think I can't. I'll try. I really didn't go into the NICS piece enough. Accuracy and completeness is step one. Step 2 is reporting the number of denys, following up and determining false or accurate. Accurate ones should lead to arrest and conviction. False should lead to some kind of free pass, approval #, etc. It should be a system requirement to reduce false denials annually. Tom, Totally agree with you. The extremists on their side lie and have no respect for the laws of the country they live in. The extremists on that side have been the legislative force. That is why there is nothing HRC could do to earn my trust. They need a new face. I suspect that face is a gun owner with some kind of foundation in logical and data based decision making. My point in this discussion is how do we get to a point where gun violence prevention is not about guns....and how do we get our constitutionally protected freedoms back. Then gun control in place right now is a complete failure and is creating "mass shooting zones". The controllers love this as it swings the centerists their way. I wouldn't likely buy a suppressor even if legal. I might build an sbr. My point is these laws have had no impact on violence. I think legalizing machine guns ought to be on this short list. National CCW too. CCW expansion into all buildings too. Allow private businesses to ban guns, but without force of law. If cedar point wants to search me for my gun, great. I'll spend my $250 elsewhere! The real question is what can you support to prevent violence that would show an understanding of both sides of the arguement? |
June 26, 2016, 01:35 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
|
Quote:
CO, NY, CT and CA maybe not so much, but I know I have to choose where to live and I can tell you that I do everything I can not to even visit those places or do business with them. Trouble is guns are still made in ny and ct! |
|
June 26, 2016, 02:10 PM | #7 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
||
June 26, 2016, 02:46 PM | #8 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Aguila Blanca; June 26, 2016 at 10:41 PM. Reason: typo, plus context |
||
June 26, 2016, 03:47 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
As an example, contracts are made every day in this nation between "hostile" parties, and those contracts are generally obeyed, because both parties trust that if they breach their contracts, they'll be in deep water legally, and they have respect for the force of law which will grind them into itsy-bitsy pieces (if their lawyers are good enough). So we could write up a piece of legislation between the pro-2A side and the antis, stating we get X and they get Y, and if both sides' lawyers say, "Yeah, the legislation is GTG" then we're off. Of course the antis can change the language at the last minute, they can lie and the media will broadcast those lies, but if they need our votes in order to make the legislation pass, any such antics are pointless, so if both sides are sufficiently pleased with the legislation then "trust" and "respect" don't really need to exist in the sense you're conveying. |
|
June 26, 2016, 03:51 PM | #10 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Gun control has not worked. Full stop. So, what has worked? Getting on the ground with community leaders to reduce violence before it starts. Busting people who own or use guns illegally and making them do time. Sure, those initiatives take time and effort. Sure, they don't make for convenient photo-ops or soundbites, but they have been shown to work. We can pursue those strategies, or we can get snared into more restrictions so a few politicians can engage in virtue signaling. Quote:
The NICS system has not been shown to have any measurable effect on crime. None. Zip. Given the time and expense put into the whole endeavor, it can only be considered an utter failure. It should be abolished. At the very least, I will not condone its expansion in any way.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
June 26, 2016, 07:01 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
You are presuming that subhuman, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, ticking time bomb rednecks like us are going to be considered as equals by the other side, and that they will thusly act in good faith. A fatal flaw of logic to your proposal.
|
June 26, 2016, 09:10 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
NICS was a complete success. It created a bureaucracy where none exited before. I believe it was Heinlein who said that bureaucracies are self-perpetuating, and by that measure, NICS was a complete success. Moreover, should the "need: arise, NICS is just one step removed from universal gun registration, all it needs is removal of the 4473 "delete" option.
|
June 27, 2016, 12:34 AM | #13 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
NEITHER side really wants compromise. They want it ALL, and we just want to be left alone. And, while it would bother me less, personally, if you throw your baby to the wolves than mine, I don't see the point of throwing ANY of our babies to the wolves, in the hope that they eat us last. Its a wish list, your wish list, and I would not support the things you propose for the benefits you promise. Quote:
Why just those items? Because you have an interest in them, personally? Because they aren't as "bad" as machineguns? Something else? What kind of offer could you make that would put both the political and bureaucratic types (with a vested interest in at least the status quo) AND the general public that has been indoctrinated for the past 80+ YEARS by the entertainment industry and the "news" media that these items are "bad" things, and "good" people don't have, or want to have them, what could you offer to get them to change their minds??? I doubt you could do it, even at "gunpoint", so to speak. And what will you offer US, to allow you the authority to bargain with what is ours, because what is mine is not yours to give away, unless I consent. Quote:
Quote:
NO reporting system will be 100% accurate, accept that fact, and move on. We could have a system we have confidence in, work on the existing system could improve it a lot. Simple demand of actual value for tax dollars spent and compliance with existing law shouldn't require us to compromise anything! Quote:
Quote:
A simpler "stolen firearms database" would work to keep the honest from unknowingly buying a stolen gun, but there are real world issues with getting things like ser#s reported. It could not be all inclusive, or 100% accurate. Quote:
What it really comes down to is they demand we "get these weapons off our streets", because they won't keep the people who illegally use these weapons off "our streets". Why do people do violence to others? Might it not be because they desire to do so, more than they fear the consequences?? Debate causes all you want, why they feel that way, but recognize that they do feel that way. For a lot of people, our prison system is more of an inconvenience than a punishment. And then, of course, there are those who simply don't care what happens. The only thing that reliably stops them is a properly placed bullet.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||||||
June 28, 2016, 12:21 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,287
|
Quote:
unregulated suppressors... for what, what are you willing to give up in trade for an item that doesn’t really affect gun rights? Unregulate SBR's... what to you think they will give you in return? See what I mean?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
|
June 28, 2016, 06:44 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
"Compromise" generally involves each side giving up something to arrive at a mutually-acceptable result. There is no compromise involved with the gun grabbers. Remember what LawDog blogged back in 2010 ( http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2...-ill-play.html ):
Quote:
|
|
June 28, 2016, 07:48 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
June 28, 2016, 09:29 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
This is the only area I can think of where those opposed to something blame the tool and not the person. Drunk driver kill folks? No one blames the car or even the booze - they blame the person. Someone on/off their med smother their kids? They don't blame the pillow - they blame the person. Yet when someone kills folks with a gun, it becomes the gun's fault.
THAT is where your strategy needs to focus - getting the blame correctly placed on the person, not the item used.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
June 28, 2016, 10:45 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
|
That 'blame the gun' concept is the result of 50 years of media-driven conditioning. It was also tried with the SUV some years back, with less success.
Remind people that they have been conditioned to think the way they are thinking, and some of them will actually take time to reflect on that idea at some point. |
June 29, 2016, 02:03 AM | #19 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
The idea that things could be "evil", and caused harm. And that things that caused harm were evil, and should be surrendered to the Crown, or the local lord. This extended to the wagon that rolled over the serf or the mill where the worker was killed. Harm=bad, evil = seizure by the nobles, to "protect" everyone. Worked so well for the nobles you can find it in old law. And not so old law... The media didn't invent the concept, but they have proven they can be exceptionally GOOD at it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
June 29, 2016, 06:56 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
|
Well, this group's point is made..
|
June 29, 2016, 03:33 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Quote:
|
|
June 29, 2016, 06:54 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2011
Posts: 1,427
|
It seems that every once in a while reporters at CNBC get things right.. or at least on the right track: Linked Article Gun Control Isn't the Answer
Your thoughts? Last edited by SHR970; June 29, 2016 at 09:38 PM. |
June 29, 2016, 09:01 PM | #23 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
^^^ I wondered how that could have come from CNBC -- until I got into and realized: "It's all Bush's fault" (The Republicans cut the funding.)
|
July 1, 2016, 06:59 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,432
|
Quote:
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa |
|
July 1, 2016, 10:49 PM | #25 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
Of course, the NFA 1934 wasn't a gun control law, it was a TAX law. Or so they claimed. Once upon a time, it was. But it hasn't been that way for a LONG time. Since about 68 I think. If you think you can get any degree of public support (outside of the FA enthusiasts) for even re-opening the registry (repeal of the Hughes amendment) let alone abolishing the registry, you are living in a dream world. Free and easy access to machineguns for the general public? While it might be what US citizens had before 1934, in 2016, you'll be a laughing stock for even suggesting it as anything other than a joke.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|