Gun Control

[NM11046]

I'm still not seeing any proposed gun law, short of prohibition, that would reduce suicide rates. I agree that suicide is often transient, but on that note, most people don't go in, buy a gun, and then shoot themselves the same day.

 

Point being, and speaking of personal experiences of friends who committed suicide, the guns used are often legally purchased and owned by the person well prior to the suicide.

 

So, if suicide risk is really what gun laws are intended to reduce, then prohibition is the course. Because, as of yet, I haven't seen a tailored set of law proposed to keep guns out of the hands of suicide risks but still in the hands of other citizens.

 

Psych evals are the only method I've seen proposed, but that would just open a whole other can of worms around doctor liability and privacy. In my opinion, those suggestions are really just measures proposed at soft prohibition. I. e., we'll make it so arduous to obtain a gun, that people just won't do it... Same tactic social conservatives use to fight abortion.

I dont' disagree with you CM - all the gun suicides I know have been with a legally purchased gun, most however have been purchased by someone else and used however and I don't know how we could monitor or secure that from happening.

 

I am not opposed to prohibition, but I understand that there are sportsman who will freak at this ... what are your thoughts on limiting the types of guns made available, or limiting the number of guns a person can own? If every 4 years just like your drivers license you have to "renew" your ownership? I seriously don't understand why anyone other than a policeman needs anything other than a rifle or shotgun. Admittedly I have very little experience with guns of late, but help me understand why a hunter needs a hand gun? Or a high powered multi round gun?

 

I guess I don't understand why "soft" prohibition isn't an option. Like others here have more eloquently expressed earlier, I just struggle with the idea that we shouldn't do anything, because we anticipate that it won't work. Nothing will be 100%, but then you tweak and make adjustments. We've got to try.

[zoogs]

 

So, if suicide risk is really what gun laws are intended to reduce, then prohibition is the course. Because, as of yet, I haven't seen a tailored set of law proposed to keep guns out of the hands of suicide risks but still in the hands of other citizens.

The argument (at least from me) is certainly not targeted information-gathering.

Simply, less guns -- less gun ownership -- less gun violence. Whether that's the family argument that results in the murder of both daughters, or the little kid who accidentally shoots his little kid sibling dead (to cite two very recent examples), or any of the other common forms of gun violence.

None of these things will ever be eliminated full stop. But their incidence rate -- so long as we accept as axiom that it is unacceptably high -- can probably be curbed. It won't be easy, and it won't be quick, but it also is hardly impossible.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

 

 

Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

 

 

Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities.

 

Thank you. Think what you may, but if your family was victim, your friend was killed in an accident - whatever, you'd think this to be the case.

[NM11046]

 

 

 

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

 

 

Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities.

 

Thank you. Think what you may, but if your family was victim, your friend was killed in an accident - whatever, you'd think this to be the case.

 

And if that melodramatic tunnel vision statement isn't correct, what exactly is the number? Is it 100 people? 1000?

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

 

 

Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities.

 

Thank you. Think what you may, but if your family was victim, your friend was killed in an accident - whatever, you'd think this to be the case.

 

 

I did have a family member killed by a gun accident.

And I personally was involved in a couple of near-misses with friends that could have easily gone the other way.

And, no, I don't think that to be the case as you say I would.

 

"If it only saves one life" is quite often a melodramatic and too simplistic reason/excuse

[zoogs]

I understand the emotional appeal but I agree with what RDR is saying. On the one hand, of course we should be doing something to manage the gun situation here; people are dying and the lack of political traction is an effective shrug at the idea that this is even a problem.

 

But of course, the ends don't justify the means, either. If we can save one life, do we torture captured combatants? (Obviously yes if you live in the fantasy media world of 24). Do we profile Muslims in this country? Deport Mexicans? Monitor all internet use far more aggressively?

 

Those things could save lives, arguably. At the cost of our world of equal protection and equal liberties.

 

But becoming a world where guns are subject to similar safety/license restrictions as chocolate easter eggs or motor vehicles? What cost is that, truly?

[NM11046]

What is wrong with us?

 

Alligator attacks have resulted in 19 deaths in the US since 2000

 

Lane Graves dies in June 2016 and the world flips out, blames that parents, blames Disney, Disney changes signage, Disney puts up fences and Disney prepares for a law suit.

 

Gun deaths (does not include suicides) in the US ~6000 from January-June 2016

 

Majority of US citizens demand change. Some citizens bear down and claim it's what our founding fathers would have wanted - that when they wrote the constitution they were taking into account the high capacity weapons and mass murders that would one day be the norm. Gun manufacturers and gun related companies sink more money into the NRA and other lobbyist groups. NRA reminds their whores in public office to ignore their responsibility to represent their constituents. Zero movement is made, or even really attempted to take care of this national epidemic. And tomorrow is a new day.

 

It makes me sick.

[Red Dead Redemption]

I understand the emotional appeal but I agree with what RDR is saying. On the one hand, of course we should be doing something to manage the gun situation here; people are dying and the lack of political traction is an effective shrug at the idea that this is even a problem.

 

But of course, the ends don't justify the means, either. If we can save one life, do we torture captured combatants? (Obviously yes if you live in the fantasy media world of 24). Do we profile Muslims in this country? Deport Mexicans? Monitor all internet use far more aggressively?

 

Those things could save lives, arguably. At the cost of our world of equal protection and equal liberties.

 

But becoming a world where guns are subject to similar safety/license restrictions as chocolate easter eggs or motor vehicles? What cost is that, truly?

 

Yes, this is exactly some of what I was thinking of when I took umbrage to the "if we save only one life, then it's worth it" blanket phrase.

I'm not necessarily against more restrictions/requirements, I just tire of the same tired reasonings that aren't very realistic.

We shouldn't do something just to do something.

[NM11046]

At least somebody is doing something ... one of the states with the least amount of gun deaths, tightest legislation and they still felt it was time to do more.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0626/Hawaii-steps-into-gun-control-fray-joining-state-by-state-approach

[HuskerShark]

What i know is that allowing the government to have more power is not the answer.

 

While i understand using other countries as an example, there are tons of other variables that don't correlate to us. America is and always has been very different from every other country, and that's a good thing.

[cm husker]

NM, I thought your earlier post raised some good points. I'll answer it when I'm back at a computer.

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

[Landlord]

Soft prohibition makes sense to me, in a relatively similar form as the UK.

 

You don't make guns illegal, but you create an application process that puts the onus on the consumer to demonstrate a legitimate need for the weapon. You can get a game/sport permit, with certain kinds of guns allowed, and you can also get a self-defense/protection permit, if you live in an area with high crime, if you have a job that would make you a target or make enemies, etc.

 

Of course this will never happen, but I don't see why, in a hypothetical vacuum, it doesn't make good logistical sense. Of course it's not perfect, of course it won't stop gun violence, of course plenty of people won't like it, but none of those really matter. For example, if you're an elementary school teacher and you live in a housing development in Lincoln and you're not a hunter, sorry, you don't really need a gun for anything. You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

[Landlord]

America is and always has been very different from every other country, and that's a good thing.

 

 

Very often that has not, at all, been a good thing. It's disingenuous to put such a senseless blanket statement on something like that.

[Saunders]

You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

Like, that's not even remotely true.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded.