America and mass shootings.
The Blind Eternities forum
Posted on Feb. 14, 2018, 9:03 p.m. by Suns_Champion
Hello all. I Want to talk about a problem here in the U.S.
For those who don't know, there was a mass shooting at a highschool in Florida today. 17 people were killed.
There have been nearly 30 mass shooting here this year, and it's only February. I don't know what it was about this one in particular, but it struck a chord with me and I've had enough.
Something needs to change.
We know the problem. We've heard the arguments. We need to change things. By the way, if you're here to debate, please first check out this article. That will get some groundwork out of the way on why mass shootings are bad. It may change your mind about some things as it did mine.
Anyway. We are in desperate need of some common sense, practical changes here in America. I'm going to let the article I linked to do most of the arguing here(please check it out).
- Every gun in American must be registered and must have a title.
- Every gun owner must have a licence.
- Every gun buyer must pass a universal background check.
- Long waiting periods to receive your gun after purchase.
- Limiting the amount of ammunition one can buy at any one time and within say, a month.
- We must ban the sale, production, and purchase of simi-automatic weapons.
- We must do much better in out fight against mental illness and especially poverty.
You'll notice most of these are in place for buying and owning moter vehicles in the US. Not unreasonable to ask for these for guns too. Now for the more out-there and creative solutions.
- Michroprinting the serial number of the gun on to bullets fired.
- "Smart" weapons that only fire for the owner.
- Employ some of our 50,000 homeless veterans as extra security for schools and malls.
None of there are catch-all solutions, there is no permanent solution to anything. But these measures go a long way in protecting us and our children at schools and malls and other public places who are being shot almost daily.
If you'd like to discuss, please keep it civil. And understand that people are dying, and we need to act.
I like what you've said, Champ. It hurts us all to see this; and we may never comprehend the pain that their loved ones are feeling. To continue this course is insane
I do not think it should be legal for NRA lobbyists to literally write laws and pay politicians to push them through.
If they weren't invested ($$) in it maybe their moral compass would flicker in the right direction
February 14, 2018 11:08 p.m.
OneItsStarted says... #5
Sadly, I doubt gun legislation will ever be passed in the US. Between the NRA, politician support, knee jerk reactionists, and just general loss of political influence among US citizens, gun legislation has been forced into a standstill for decades and will in all likely hood continue to do so as it becomes gradually normalized.
February 15, 2018 12:40 a.m.
"I'd be interested to see if anyone has an opposing view to this and why." - Cipher001
To start, I do not have an opposing view and firmly agree our gun policy is foolhardy. But, since you asked, I'll happily play devil's advocate and provide counter-arguments to Suns_Champion's points, to facilitate discussion. I am purposefully avoiding the "Second Amendment" argument, as it feels like a bit of a cop-out. Constitutional law is a nebulous, confusing, fluid concept, highly subject to interpretation. Relying on one interpretation of a two-centuries-old document, without having any facts is simply lazy.
To help save some time, I'll offer some counterpoints to my own arguments.
"Every gun in American must be registered and must have a title."
"Every gun owner must have a licence."
"Every gun buyer must pass a universal background check."
"Long waiting periods to receive your gun after purchase."
There are over 300 million civilian-owned firearms in circulation--far and away the most firearms per capita of any country. Currently, these firearms are not adequately accounted for--secondary markets are prevalent, and tracing can be difficult. This is further complicated by issues with gifts and inheritance, as firearms are frequently transferred within family units.
Registration does little to curtail illegally owned firearms. In 8 out of 10 gun crimes are committed with an illegally owned firearm. . Over thirty percent of firearms used in crime had been stolen. Complete registration would be a complicated, expensive, and personnel-intensive operation--an investment that would inevitably fail to accurately account for the weapons most commonly used in criminal activity.
Licence and background requirements do little to curtail illegal activity--there are plenty of back channel methods for obtaining firearms. This problem is not going to go away anytime soon--enforcement at all levels of government has, thus far, failed to prohibit such transactions. Ultimately, licence and background requirements only serve to inconvenience legal firearm owners--those who have nefarious intentions will find a way to purchase a firearm regardless of the requirements. Waiting periods are tied up with background checks, and have the same issue of failing to prevent illegal purchases.
Counterpoint: Registration might be a lost cause on previously purchased firearms, but that does not mean that there should not be more stringent registration moving forward. Licence and background checks might have their issues, but they at least slow down the ability of "casual" criminals (i.e. not gang members or career criminals, who would be more likely to have black market contacts) from obtaining a firearm. Longer waiting periods allow for a more in-depth background check, as well as give potential mass shooters time to cool off and change their mind.
"Limiting the amount of ammunition one can buy at any one time and within say, a month."
Again, this would do little to curtail illegal purchases, the kind we are most concerned with. Deciding the amount of ammunition purchased during a month can be difficult. An individual who frequently visits the range will expend far more ammunition than is necessary for a mass shooting--a limit that would be fair for legal firearm owners would not prove a substantial burden to a potential mass shooter. There is no method for tracking ammunition use, so an individual can always circumvent the limits by having a third-party make purchases, or saving up their ammunition over several months. Finally, handloading, while a tad tedious, is a perfectly viable option, allowing potential mass shooters to manufacture their own ammunition, ignoring any such purchase limits.
Counterpoint: Slowing down ammunition purchases will at least serve as an inconvenience to criminals. To allow legal users free reign with their weaponry, there could be a caveat that ammunition purchased and expended at a shooting range (perhaps proven using expended shell casings) would not count toward your ammunition limit.
"We must ban the sale, production, and purchase of simi-automatic weapons."
This would effectively ban all modern handguns, which would be slightly problematic. Further, as discussed above, many such weapons are already in circulation. This would lead to a situation where the "bad guys" have firearms which are vastly superior to what legal citizens can obtain.
Counterpoint: I actually disagree with this position. I do not see an issue with semi-automatic weapons per se, and think there are better restrictions we can put in place. Obviously ensure fully automatic weapons are kept off the streets, and ensure there are severe punishments for those who modify semi-automatic weapons to fire fully automatically. Other restrictions, such as those listed above, would help with this matter. Other limitations, such as magazine limits, would help, as this would reduce the overall rate of fire.
"We must do much better in out fight against mental illness and especially poverty."
Agreed. While this is closely related to gun violence, it is a bit of a tangent, so I will not play devil's advocate here.
"Michroprinting the serial number of the gun on to bullets fired."
Again, this has little effect on the 300 million firearms in existence. This technology is also expensive, and currently proprietary. In effect, any such regulation would be a direct order for all firearm companies to purchase technology from on certain company. This could be further complicated if the imprinting company is unable to meet the increased demand. Many firearms are also produced overseas, making it more difficult to implement such a condition. Such technology might also be subject to tampering, such as filing the stamp off the imprinting device.
Counterpoint: I take issue with this point as well, particularly given the proprietary nature of the technology. I would, however, like to see a requirement that licensed firearm owners have to register the ballistics on their weapons every couple of years. Users would take their firearm to their local police, who test and register the ballistic signature for the weapon. This would have to be repeated every so often, as wear and tear can change ballistic signatures. However, I can see this being expensive, impractical, and ultimately ineffective--ballistics is not exactly my area of expertise.
"Smart" weapons that only fire for the owner."
As has been a theme with this post, this would do little to curtail the 300 million firearms already in the market. Smart weapons are one of those technologies that sounds impressive, but the concept starts to fall apart on further examination. Electronic devices are prone to failure, particularly in adverse conditions (such as, for example, a long, wet hunting trip). Reliability is important, particularly when a firearm must be used in self defence.
Such technology is highly subject to manipulation, and can fairly easily be jailbroken. Further, this technology is expensive and still in its infancy.
Counterpoint: Again, I disagree. I do not think smart gun requirements are a solution at this time. It is possible that, as the technology develops, it will be a better option, but I am not sure we are quite there.
"Employ some of our 50,000 homeless veterans as extra security for schools and malls."
The problem with homeless veterans is heartbreaking, but is far, far more complex than "they need employment." Most notably, mental health issues, such as PTSD, are prevalent among this community, and contribute greatly to their status. Employing them in a security position will not solve the underlying psychological issues, and would likely create more problems than would be solved.
February 15, 2018 1:51 a.m. Edited.
RoarMaster says... #7
The largest problem is the number of guns, especially illegal ones, already in circulation.
Some ideas on ways to reduce these numbers over time:
1) Inheritance Tax. Inherited guns have a steep tax which keeps honest people honest, and slowly reduces the number of guns in households. Problems: Many unregistered weapons would not be brought forward upon inheritance.
2) Gun Buyback. Offer good money for the returning of firearms. With a limited "no questions" policy that if it wasnt used in a crime, there is no problem. If it was used in a crime, it is evidence towards that case but does not directly implicate you. Thats the short form, you can look up the details of various similar programs that have occurred various places if you would like more details.Problem: It would be unlikely to reduce organised crime weapon count.
3) Stricter enforcement of gun carry laws. This one is important, mainly because it is ignored so often. It does no good to have all the greatest laws in the world if they are not being enforced. And the lackadaisical approach of the police towards guns only helps propagate the lassie faire attitude. If you are caught with an unlicensed gun, you should face stiff consequences, not a 'Warning' or a slap on the wrist.Problems: Too may dumb fucks in jail because they couldnt leave their guns at home.
4) Emplace Concealed Carry Laws. There is no reason to hide a gun on yourself, and making mandatory visibility a requirement should help by cutting down on people regularly carrying illegal/unlicensed guns. This also touches on pistols, which are designed today to do one thing, kill people. They are also not something you should bring out to the bar with you, or really anywhere aside from possibly the deep woods. "But they are for self defence!", except guns are VERY rarely used in self defence. Lets look at 2012 statistics: 8,300 criminal homicides with guns, 20,000 gun suicides, 550 accidental shootings, and all of 259 accounts of gun death in self defence. Literally twice as many people are killed by accident with guns than are saved by them.
5) New guns, new bullets. Just upgrade to lazers already.
Aside:The Second AmendmentIts antiquated and outdated. The reasons it was put into effet are simply no longer applicable. Both in a societal and government ways. It is no longer the 'Wild West' where we have to shoot no-gooders who are trying to steal your horses and rape your wife every other day. We live in a more 'civilized' era and have reliable(another bag of worms) police enforcement and quick access to authorities and help.And from the 'protects against the tyranny of the government' standpoint, no, it will not protect you. Back when the 2nd ammendemnt was made, dudes with 1 shot 30 second reload guns could(and did) overthrow governments. However in todays age of tanks, drones, heat seeking rockets, armed drones, and bunker busting missiles, your semi/fully automatic rifle isnt going to do diddly-squat. The only weapons that would be effective against todays military are banned from civilian use(surprise).
February 15, 2018 5:38 a.m.
Regarding your points on the Second Amendment, you missed a couple issues, facts, as you laid them out do not exactly line up with reality:
(1) There are parts of America which are like the stereotypical Wild West. There are some cities where the inner cities are incredibly poor regions where gun violence (usually gang related) is far too common.
(2) There are many parts of America where police enforcement is not reliable and swift. Rural America, for example, has the twofold problem of large size and small, oft-underfunded police forces. Response times in some areas can be as long as an hour, even for serious crimes.
(3) Your statement regarding firearms no longer serving to protect citizens from an oppressive government ignores over 70 years of historical precedent. From the French Resistance, to Vietnam, to ISIS, time and again we have learned insurgency, even a relatively under-armed one, can thrive even against the might of a powerful military machine.
(4) The Second Amendment protects state and local governments just as much as it protects civilians--arguably more so, since the language refers directly to militias. In the absence of the Second, the federal government could possibly disarm state and local police forces. (I have my doubts this would ever happen, and there's a possible argument that firearms are necessary for police enforcement, which is protected by the Tenth Amendment).
The fundamental reasons behind the Second still exist. What makes the strict interpretation of the Amendment outdated is not its justifications, but rather the complexity of modern firearm technology. Ultimately, I agree we need to interpret the Second in light of modern reality, and that far too many take the frankly absurd position that all regulation is a violation of the Second. As I stated in my previous post, using the Second as the entirety of one's defence against certain policies is a bit laughable. The Constitution is subject to interpretation, and reading between the lines has been a staple of Con Law since John Marshall made up judicial review.
But let's be careful not to conflate the issues with falsehoods. It's easy to justify the continued existence of the Second--trying to say otherwise is a losing argument, only empowering those who desire a strict interpretation. Let's instead focus on how to read the Second in light of modern technology.
February 15, 2018 9:35 a.m.
The problems isn't the gun its the person with the gun people will use bombs cars knives and whatever else they can get there hands on to cause harm. That being said I think making people take a Psychological exam in order to buy a guy that'd go a long way.
February 15, 2018 12:31 p.m.
That article is crap in the fist paragragh it trys to say that guns make people kill themselves
February 15, 2018 12:34 p.m.
"there is no permanent solution to anything"
Oh, but there is.
I live in a country which used to have mass shootings, but have had none since 1997.
Yup, twenty years.
The answer is so simple, and is staring you right in the face, but your leaders do not have the courage to act on it.
February 15, 2018 12:58 p.m.
I believe another aspect to the 2nd amendment was not just for self-defense, but to be able to overthrow one's government should the need arise. Now, a citizen militia would not stand much of a chance against a modern day military, but if the need does arise, I would feel better with something available to me than nothing. That adds another wrench into the equation: how does one keep that aspect, prevent tragedies such as these shootings, and be favorable to the differing areas within the USA? I think Argy is being a bit vague here. A bit hostile too, honestly. Remember, there's no need for flames. That just tears down rational discussion and invites the trolls, so try to stay away from statements that are intended to be provocative, especially if they don't add any real constructive value to the discussion.
There might be no great solution at all. A country isn't just defined by its legal system, but its culture. I see people mentioned earlier that there are criminal neighborhoods -- I highly doubt that gangs and the like would willingly lay down their arms in the interest of obeying the law.
February 15, 2018 2 p.m.
Dredge4life says... #14
shadow63 The difference between a gun and a knife or a car is that a gun can kill a large amount of people very quickly, and is designed with the sole intent to inflict harm upon others or animals. A car causes a lot of damage as well, but it has a purpose beyond just being a killing machine. It is also difficult to conceal, and hard to use in small spaces. Obviously car violence is just as awful as gun violence, but a car is overall less dangerous because you can see it coming and it is bulkier. Its primary purpose is also for transportation, and it was not built to kill. Yes, people can commit murder with anything, but part of the problem is that people have ready access to tools that were literally made to kill.
February 15, 2018 3:41 p.m.
OneItsStarted says... #15
Cipher001 There are plenty of solutions to the many mass shootings in the US. Almost every other country does not have this problem. All it would take would be to adopt similar or even revised versions of legislation from other countries to lessen this issue. Unfortunately, every solution has its problems and so they are shot down and ignored even though the benefits far outweigh the negatives.
February 15, 2018 4 p.m.
Dredge4life says... #16
The issue is going to be shaking the mindset that something is being taken from the people. As long as people see guns as a right that they will lose, we cant gain any ground.
February 15, 2018 4:02 p.m.
The article linked to in the OP makes some assumptions.
The people who used guns to kill themselves may not have killed themselves if that method was not available to them.
In the US States where guns were not available more people may have committed suicide if they were.
There is no mention of the fact that gun-related suicide often occurs as part of a murder suicide. Less family members may die if guns aren't so readily available.
Using Australia as a non-theoretic model, the total number of suicides dropped by 23% after gun control occurred.
Guns are the preferred method of suicide among males.
February 15, 2018 4:12 p.m.
Dredge4life the worst mas shooting was the one in Los Vegas recently and 50 lost their lives in that tragedy
But in Bestile Day massacre 86 people lost their lives and that act of terror was caused by a large work truck
And according to the cdc your 3 times more likely to die in car crash then you are to be killed by a fire arm
February 15, 2018 4:44 p.m.
Argy its alot easier to take guns from 20 million people then it is to take it from 330 million people
February 15, 2018 4:47 p.m.
Suns_Champion says... #20
Thank you all for the discussion.
Cipher001 to your first comment, I agree. I like the second Amendment and believe it should stay, but tougher restrictions and licensing are necessary I feel.
greyninja I agree. That just shows how deep and complicated any one issue is. Lobbyist and buying politicians is another face of the issue, as is the fight against poverty, a huge factor in violent crimes. All the issues are intertwined somehow. Make actually solving problems dificult, but if we can compartmentalize and take things step by step, piece by piece....
OneItsStarted don't give up hope. American is heading in the right direction, it's just going slowly. The right people and politicians are out there, they just need support.
cdkime I appreciate you taking up the mantle of Devil's Advocate, though perhaps that may not be needed haha :)
Although there are a ton of guns in America, they are not owned by nearly as many people, I.E. there are fewer gun owners than guns. That at least makes the task easier. Most of these yes, do make it harder to buy a gun legally, and I guess I should have stated that there would be a significant crack down on illegal gun selling, as well as shoring up the laws that have the massive loop holes allowing the legal sale of firearms. The "gun show" deals if you will. the whole regristation, licencing and title-ing of guns will indeed be as you say, a "complicated, expensive, and personnel-intensive operation", but if it saves 1 life, 2 lives, 10 lives, 100 lives... than that's worth it for me.
I think another point I forgot to mention is that all these suggestions, similar to how cars work, would allow Police to ask for registration and licensing for people's guns, and similar penalties could ensue if they don't have the proper papers, similar to driving with out a licence or insurance. Banning concealed-carry helps police identify gun owners, and police should have the right to ask for their licence. Don't have it, and that's another illegally owned gun of the street.
As the theme of your reply seemed to be valid, I guess I should have been more clear about the cracking down on the illegal side of things and registering guns already in circulation, as those steps would come first. Thank you for your thoughts.
RoarMaster I agree with your points, just wanted to mention the Gun Buyback, which I forgot to include in my original post. I think that is a good idea personally, adding incentives to get access guns off the streets. You could also take the guns you want to keep at that time to get them registered. And also I heartely agree with with you on the carry concealed laws and handguns, which probably should be banned altogether.
Want to restate here than I do not advocate for the establishment of the 2nd amendment. The reasons for it being here are sound, we just need to radically change some things.
shadow63 saying that's its "just the person" and not the guns is ignoring the issue. I'm concerned about mass shootings, assault weapons, and handguns designed only to kill humans. Knives make for poor tools of mass slaughter, and cars, unlike guns, serve as the primary mode of transportation in our society. They serve an important role. And also, unlike guns, cars require a license to drive, a title of ownership, and are all registered with the state to insure that not just anybody can get behind the wheel. I want to make sure that not just anybody can get behind a gun sight. Make sense? Yes I agree with physiological evaluations.
I believe you misread the article. No where does the author claim that guns make people kill themselves.
Argy yes, very aware of what Australia and many, many other countries have done. Perhaps not the right choice or course of action for America at this time. But it's good to have those role models across the world showing us that it can work.
Cipher001 I don't think Argy was being hostile. Always give people the benefit of the doubt, it is the internet, after all. :)
Dredge4life well put, and agreed!
Argy agree with you here too. Many studies show that when you take away the #1 way people commit suicide, the overall suicide rate goes down. Did a small research paper on that very topic with that very thesis :D
shadow63 again, that is a deflection of the issue. Saying "that one attack that killed 86 people was with a truck" and "you're more likely to die in a car crash" doesn't change the fact that way, way too many people are dying in mass shootings. A logical, compassionate person would want to find ways to make ALL things safer, guns AND cars.
And no one said this would be easy. It'll be hella hard. But if we can save the life of one child playing in the streets, one student getting through college, or one family eating in their home, than to me, it's worth it.
February 15, 2018 6:37 p.m.
Suns_ champion it was implied HEAVILY that guns equate to suicides. There's no such thing as assault weapons. And yes knives aren't the best choice but you get into a crowd of people your injuring or killing at least a dozen which is more then some of these " mass shootings " (Any shooting with more then one victim). Anybody can get in the drivers seat all it takes is a set of keys or knowledge of hot wireing. You need an fbi criminal background check to get a gun even at gun shows. Removing guns from the hands of law adbiding citizens will only leave them in the hands of criminals. There are several cases of citizens killing mass shooters with their legal firearms.
Sorry if I rambled this debate is fun.
I don't want stickier gun control I want smarter gun control.
February 15, 2018 7:02 p.m.
SeekerofSecrets says... #22
As a law abiding gun owner, I respectfully disagree with most of you stated solutions. I do think that we can find common ground on the causes of mass shootings though.
Mental illness lies at the center of almost every mass shooting. Simply taking guns away (or limiting access) from citizens is the equivalent of treating the symptoms of a disease without actually curing the disease.
If someone so chooses to take there own life and or the life of others they do no have to have access to a fire arm to do so. Homemade pipe bombs, acid, or even cars can be just as affective, if not more so, in causing large scale casualties.
In my opinion the solution is to take mental illness more serious, most of the shooters had a recorded history of mental illness. I also recognize that this is not a catch all solution but i believe it is a step in the correct direction.
That's just my opinion, I am not opposed to stricter gun/carry laws as long as the goal of them is not to inhibit law abiding citizens or to decrease the number of guns in circulation.
I also recognize my own bias as someone that has grown up in rural America around guns.
February 15, 2018 7:10 p.m.
Homura_Akemi says... #23
People too often take the Second Amendment out of context. The only reason people should have guns ACCORDING TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT is to fight in a United States militia, which is not what anyone besides the military is using them for. No, self defense is not included in that. People should read the whole amendment.
I would agree that the NRA's hold on the government is disgusting.
I've visited Scotland and thought it was interesting that there have been NO mass shootings in recent years because guns are banned. This kind of thing just wouldn't happen if American leaders had the temerity to ban all guns, even with the problems that would create.
February 15, 2018 7:24 p.m.
Suns_Champion says... #24
shadow63 I believe you are referring to the part in the article about getting past distraction from liberals? I don't believe it is implying that, as the author states that not having guns doesn't prevent suicide by other means. Again, just because people can kill with cars doesn't mean we shouldn't worry about guns. And I think you underestimate the ease of which a criminal can get a gun without needing a background check. Many states do not have these laws!
MrJohny thank you for your thoughts. Appreciate your tone and your recognition of your own bias. We all have bias of course. :)
I agree that mental illness is a huge factor in mass shootings. Many steps need to be taken to improve our understanding and research on the subject. And the same thing goes for stuff like Poverty, religious zealotry, bigotry and hatred, and the many other factors that go into a shooting.
But one must take something for the symptoms while you figure out the cure for the disease, yes? One can't just ignore the symptoms.
I still believe that taking guns out of the equation somewhat simplifies things and improves things. Cars again require more work to kill and it's harder to get into densely populated areas. Pipe bombs require a lot of work to make, discouraging many from going through with their plans. Not sure about the acid or chemicals like that but those have to be somewhat harder to obtain. But buying something like an AR-15? Relatively easy. I simply want to make it much, much harder.
Again thank you all for the, so far, pleasant discussion.
February 15, 2018 7:29 p.m. Edited.
SeekerofSecrets says... #25
Homura_Akemi "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You are mostly incorrect with your interpretation, the point of the second amendment is to provide a "check and balance" for the national government. The national guard could be considered "militia" b/c it is funded/regulated by state government. I also think it is important to note thay Nazi Germany's first action was to un-arm it's citizens
Suns_Champion in a perfect world I would agree that confiscating all firearms would be an appropriate solution but I think its also important to note that if this was the case there would never be a need for action to be taken.
In a society that the very idea of independence and revolt has been woven into who we are, i do not see a scenario in which you could simply take firearms out of the hands of citizens without major backlash.
I do agree with people going through some form of screening process to buy pistols/assault rifles/ect. I also think that judges should facilitate that screening as they are the only branch of government that is supposed to keep opinions separate from there own decisions.
As a side note i disagree with the argument that "we should not have access to products that we don't need" (referring to assault riffles), b/c target practice with my AR/15 us just as fun as a game of magic;)
February 15, 2018 8:04 p.m.
Supreme Court precedence is as much a part of Constitutional jurisprudence as the pure textual language. You cannot simply choose to ignore precedent; it holds the full force of the Constitution itself. The Supreme Court has made it very clear the Second includes a right to bear-arms in self defense. Let's examine their decision some:
Here is the pure text of the Second:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The prefatory clause (the clause before the comma) provides a justification for the operative clause, but does not modify the operative clause. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 573 (2008). As such, the statement regarding the militia does not Constitutionally limit the purpose of the Second. Ultimately, "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Id. at 570.
This reading of the Second is not just an interpretation of how the Second should be read--it is the only interpretation, and, for all intents and purposes, is to be read into the Second Amendment itself.
I am mostly on your side in this debate. But it is important that those who advocate for more stringent controls do not base their arguments on overly-common misstatements of what the Constitution says.
February 15, 2018 8:23 p.m. Edited.
Stricter gun laws seem likely to reduce this threat but there are other methods that also work. These methods work in the case of illegally obtained firearms also. Many of these methods can provide earlier warning and detailed information. Some of them also protect against non-gun violence.
"Such measures were: forcing students to enter school through one entrance and leave through one exit, no backpacks, no coats, and there was hall security on each floor that roamed the halls to prevent students from entering and exiting with leisure. Also cameras were installed in the parking lot as a form of intimidation for students trying to sneak in and out of school, and also to catch those that successfully exit and enter school at the prohibited times. Another form of intimidation was the large repercussions that come with violating rules, such as expulsion or long-term suspension. The preventive measures taken to keep guns out of school were effective. Months after the riot these preventive measures were stopped, leaving ample opportunity for guns and violence"
These types of measures better answer overall school safety issues, not that gun control wouldn't likely reduce the frequency of incidents. It wouldn't stop them, though, or weigh in on any other school safety issues.
In the inner city schools where I have worked and these types of measures were in place, at worst we found ourselves vigilantly listening hard for the sound of metal dropping in a locker.
In contrast, at the smaller town school where there were no cameras, we had free flowing hoodies and backpacks - and plenty of both gun and bomb threats - that didn't get taken seriously as evidenced by threatening kids not being disciplined and law enforcement not supporting truancy reports because of school administration flippancy and assumed exceptionality. Even the safety officer who came to talk was shaking his head at us. I walked a fellow teacher to her car because of shooting threats.
Kids at that school could get a gun registered to parents with or without stricter laws. Kids at the 2 inner city schools would have a really hard time getting either legal or illegal guns in. If they did, people would know quick, be prepared, and take it seriously. Of couse, if the inner city schools slacked in these measures the threat would come right back.
February 15, 2018 8:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #28
To start, any publication that claims to be the last you'll ever need to read on a particular topic is immediately suspect. That said, the article does make good points on both sides, which is refreshing. Sadly so, actually; I wish more people were honest in this debate.
Let's start with context:
No individual exists within a vacuum. No idea exists within a vacuum. No system exists within a vacuum. Society is the larger overall context for each of these things. You cannot successfully address an issue with an individual, a device (in this case, a gun), or even a law without considering more holistically the context within which that thing exists and operates. The most effective approaches are invariably multi-pronged and address many facets of the issue rather than attacking only one such facet. The web analogy is of great utility here: society is much like a web. If you tug at one fiber, your action causes a reaction in every other conjoined fiber, even extending out to second-, third-, and fourth-degree connections. In a web as vast and multidimensional as a human society (and especially a modern one), consequence is a powerful phenomenon, as is interconnectedness.
The solution to the gun question, then, is best understood as a societal solution, not simply a legal one. You can pass laws that regulate firearms directly, but you also need to create and expand social mechanisms that help identify and support those troubled individuals who commit crime. Not all of them are insane. Not all of them are diseased. Not all of them are even detectable. But they all have, generally, some problem with themselves or with others that motivates them to commit crime. Better mental health infrastructure, to include better counseling for problems like depression, is part of the solution. I think also that we need to decrease dependency on drub-based treatments and instead look at holistic treatments that reintegrate the individual with society and its other support mechanisms. For example, studies continually prove that exercise leads to better mental health as well as better physical health. The same goes for exposure to the outdoors and sun on mental health and community/environmental bonds.
Reform is part of a comprehensive solution, but it must be managed carefully. It can't be the wholesale ban of guns and passage of ridiculous, asinine requirements that serve only to make life more complicated for the law-abiding gun owner. And it can't be the complete indifference to the needs of a modern society. But when you get a topic as galvanizing as gun ownership and gun violence (I pair those two because they represent the two sides of the issue: a desire to preserve the right that entitles us to own guns and a desire to control guns to reduce their prevalence in violence against others), people tend to swing to one extreme or the other. Humans are inherently emotional and biased creatures. We're not good at pure logic. Those factors make this debate all the more difficult.
Any reform passed needs to be carefully designed and controlled. Getting the reforms passed is a compromise on the part of the pro-gun crowd; keeping them reasonable must be a compromise on the part of the anti-gun crowd. Although the slippery slope argument is traditionally invoked by the former as a reason to resist change, there's wisdom in the suggestion that legislation designed to curtail our rights and freedoms must be designed well, with good need and purpose, and tightly managed to ensure its application is effective, but not expansive.
Now, what could reform look like? I agree with the following: guards at all schools, universal background checks (UBCs), and microstamping.
It's an exercise in trust to leave several hundred to several thousand children in the hands of a comparatively small number of adults. It's an exercise in faith to leave both at the mercy of anyone else. School guards are necessary due diligence. Although we may sometimes like to believe that people are good at heart, at least some are not, and those are the ones that present issue. Before we begin the discussion about guns themselves, we should at least be protecting schools from the wider category of potential threats posed by malicious actors, to include abduction, abuse, shootings, and bombings. Some schools already have "resource officers" or other embedded police officers who liaise with students, faculty, and staff as part of the organizational culture. I think this is a particularly effective measure for a number of reasons: it provides a professionally trained guardian competent in both defense and law, it helps engender better relationships between the police and the community, it helps deter and address juvenile crime, and it draws from an existing social resource. I think cdkime's response to the veteran initiative is appropriate; that suggestion poses several challenges with uniformity of training and the potential for damaging combat experiences to negatively impact the initiative. That's not to say that it couldn't work; it would take more effort.
UBCs help prevent the sale of firearms to criminals, and they don't impose any entirely new or arduous requirements. Background checks are already required for anyone purchasing a firearm from an FFL, they are only a "new" requirement insofar as they haven't been applied to all sales through any venue. To improve success, however, we have to think at least a step further than the requirement itself: how is this implemented? At a gun show, for example, is each vendor required to complete their own UBCs? Could a service vendor facilitate this process on behalf of the seller and buyer? The easier and more convenient you make it for people to follow rules, the more likely those rules are to be followed. Thinking far enough in advance to consider infrastructure to support your requirements is fundamental to the success of policy initiatives at all levels.
Microstamping is also a good idea. It increases accountability and assists in investigation of firearm-related crimes without posing any burden on the individual. Microstamping doesn't require or depend on any behavior change on the part of the gun owner. It exists as a requirementdare I suggest a partnershipbetween regulators and manufacturers. And it doesn't threaten bottom lines. This is a great example of a sensible measure. Despite these positives, there are some challenges. First, it doesn't retroactively apply to older firearms without manufacturer recall (a dubious suggestion at best to those already suspicious of gun control) or offer of retrofit parts. Second, in firearms with great parts commonality and availability, it would be a relatively simple matter to swap out the serialized parts for ones not matching either the registration (assuming a national registry of serialized firearms) or the rest of the serialized parts.
On some other measures:
A national firearm registry would support increased accountability as discussed above, but comes with some fears of the slippery slope. I don't mind the government knowing which car I drive; I don't mind the government knowing which guns I own, to some extent. Much of the resistance comes from fear that a registry is the first step in successfully implementing a banthe ban itself is the source of fear.
Gun buybacks are only a realistic measure if the guns would otherwise be banned (the ban and buyback can apply to guns broadly or to a specific class, such as semi-automatic rifles). As a measure to allow people to dispose of guns they don't want, they're unnecessary. People can already sell guns back to stores in most cases.
A few direct responses:
@greyninja & OneItsStarted: I wouldn't attribute the lack of action entirely to the NRA. There is some value in the NRA in that it's a vocal opposition to the insanity of anti-gun extremists (e.g., Kevin De Leon of California, who doesn't even understand the principles of a gun's operation). Whether the anti-gunners or the NRA is worse depends on where on the debate's spectrum you position yourself, but suffice it to say that the extremists exist on each end. More than anything, I view the NRA as a braking mechanism to slow the velocity of unreasonable gun reform so that reasonable reform can be discussed by the rest of us in the interim. But public opinion clearly indicates that some changes need to occur, and I don't think the NRA, out of political and financial limitations, can truly stop that.
@RoarMaster: Requiring that guns be visibly (open) carried is inadvisable. The advantage of concealed carrying is that it's concealed: it doesn't signal to others that you are armed. If you open carry, or are otherwise forced to identify that you have a gun on your person, a criminal can easily ambush you and either take the gun from you or commit their crime with greater aggression (or, more likely, both). Worse, this would only be a detriment to law-abiding citizens; if someone conceals a firearm on their person for the express purpose of using it in a crime, they're obviously going to start by disregarding the law that they broadcast that weapon to the public.
Generally speaking, it's unwise to propose that the solution to an individual violating the law is to impose a new law requiring the individual to take a specific action. Passing a law that people visibly carry any firearms they have on their person in the hopes of cutting down on those illegally carrying firearms doesn't make sense.
@RoarMaster: The Second Amendment is far from outdated. From a perspective of personal need, the police are neither omnipresent nor omnipotent. They cannot typically respond in the moment that your life is being threatened. It's in no way a prerequisite that you be surrounded by lawless chaos in order to need a gun. Criminals are exceptions to social norms and expectations. They're lawbreakers. Pretending as though they aren't, or can't be, a significant threat even in "civilized" society is a grave mistake. Guns are a means by which law-abiding citizens can defend themselves as a last resort.
And recognize also that society is not monolithic. While some parts of the country may not experience much crime, others are absolutely devastated by it. I currently reside in Wilmington, Delaware. People get shot regularly less than eight blocks from my stoop. Drug and alcohol problems are rampant. So is truancy. All of these problems are related to gangs. And all of them are collective: they're societal, cultural issues that are neither easy nor quick to solve. But in these circumstances, I don't view it as a stretch to think that a firearm may offer a little security to supplement that offered by our police, thankful for them as I may be. (My ownership of a firearm, it should be noted, is not to the exclusion of measures to get guns out of the hands of criminals.)
From the anti-tyrrany perspective, guns are still effective. It's a mischaracterization of the principle to conclude that the weaponry available to the average person is not sufficient to oppose the weaponry available to the government. It's true that rifles don't beat tanks, but an armed citizenry means that an oppressive domestic government cannot casually succeed. In the event of a militaristic, oppressive government emerges, private gun ownership empowers the people to fight for themselves in the absence of a government that will fight for themand fight to establish one that will (the very principle of our Revolution and the founding philosophy of our nation). An armed citizenry is a deterrent first and an active defense second.
Additionally, the threat of an armed populace makes wars of conquest or occupation against the continental United States an impossible proposition for our enemies. It requires that they wage a conventional military campaign to defeat our government only to be engulfed simultaneously and immediately by armed resistance and insurgency once they set foot on our soil. There's a quote often misattributed to Yamamoto during World War II: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Although Yamamoto may not have uttered those words, they ring true.
There's some doubt as to whether either situation would ever arise in present day, but I'd rather have the security and not need it than need it and not have it. Which, it may not shock you to know, is exactly the justification for gun ownership as a defense.
@RoarMaster & Dredge4life: It's a mistake to argue that guns only exist to kill, and doing so will not win you any points with the moderates who need to drive reform forward. Competitive shooting is a perfectly legitimate reason to own a semi-automatic handgun or rifle. Hunting, whether for sport or survival, is also a legitimate reason (it does involve killing, but I understand the "guns kill" argument to focus primarily on the killing of humans). It's best to find a different approach to describing the dangers they pose.
(An aside: The "cars" rebuttal has lost some political currency in the wake of Nice, New York, and Melbourne.)
@Argy: It's dubious to suggest that gun control would result in a dramatic change in suicide rates. Although there's likely some correlation between availability of firearms and commitment to suicides (whether or not they're murder-suicides), it's nonlinear at best and unclear in any event. I don't find it to be a particularly compelling case for banning guns.
@Dredge4life: The Second Amendment explicitly defines the right to bear arms. It's not something granted by the Constitution or Bill of Rights; rather, it's something that the Second Amendment (1) recognizes the people inherently have and (2) secures against infringement. And while some may disagree that there's a fundamental right to own a gun, remember that an overarching principle of the United States's philosophy on freedom is that you can do anything that is not forbidden, not that you can do anything that is permitted. The difference is that between a free society and an oppressed one. Prohibitions need to be justified; you cannot deprive the people of any right or freedom without justification, and the law should restrict as little as possible in fulfilling that justification.
@Homura_Akemi: Literalism is not a good method for Constitutional interpretation for the same reasons I outlined above when describing context. Context is absolutely vital to understanding why the Second Amendment was written and what it intends to protectfreedom and security. Further, as others have said, context includes jurisprudence, which means that the Supreme Court and other cases supporting the right of private citizens to own guns and the right to use them in self defense are legitimate interpretations of the Second Amendment.
Additionally, arguing that banning all guns would solve this problem completely ignores the massive imbalances this creates when criminals keep their illegal guns. It's not a proposition that can be taken seriouslyat least, not without substantial qualifications.
February 16, 2018 7:32 a.m.
Suns_Champion all 50 states require a back ground check to buy a gun.
And nobody is going to talk about how the police where warned about this guy before he did the shooting and they choose to do nothing about it?
February 16, 2018 10:10 a.m.
I am European - an outsider with careful observations in and I want to weigh in what I see. America has a gun problem. America needs to get better at handling their toys or they have to be taken away.
Now, it is a big problem when such shootings happen. The article that resonates the most on this topic is from The Onion, of all places, with the title: "There is no way to avoid this", says the only country in the world where this keeps happening". They run the exact same article every time there is a mass shooting, just changing the names and places and for me is the best window into this debate.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It seems crazy to me that we have to take our shoes off every time at the airport just because of one attempted shoe bombing, but apperantly multiple school shootings per year are not really a good enough reason.
Another sentence oft heard is "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". But, as a famous comedian said, you gotta admit, the gun helps.
I think that the empirical evidence from countries like Australia should be enough to at least try the "less guns is good" approach. If it doesnt work, go back. But never trying to remedy the situation in a definitive way seems reckless to me.
February 16, 2018 10:29 a.m.
Here are some up to date stats about the reality of how guns increase the likelihood that you will both make a suicide attempt, and die from that attempt.
February 16, 2018 4:19 p.m.
SeekerofSecrets says... #33
Argy i wont disagree in the efficiency of the use of a fire arm in attempted suicide, and suicide of course is an extremely sad reality.
But accepted suicide rate is 13.26 per 100,000 individuals. Are you seriously calling for a blanket law to affects the entire population over the mental instability of 0.001329% of your population?
Thats absolutely absurd, as a country we should invest into other methods of preventing suicide. Like better monitoring of mental health and educating people on how to deal with there emotions in desperate situations.
Simply removing their "means to an end" does not fix the core issue of mental health issues.
February 16, 2018 4:42 p.m.
OneItsStarted says... #34
MrJohny The problem with solving mental health issues is that they are so hard to identify and treat and are incredibly sparse. Mass shootings have never once lead to any mental health initiatives. Even if programs were set towards becoming legislation, the two issues are hard to relate in the public eye and such attempts would not gain public support. Thus such suggestions are unhelpful or at best fruitless.
February 17, 2018 12:24 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
I don't think it's unhelpful to propose solutions to the root cause of the problem. The approach could be better, agreed, but the cause is wholly valid.
A large part of the challenge is that the media politicizes these incidents to focus on the guns, which are only one aspect of a larger, cultural challenge. Thus, no attention is ever given to social support mechanisms that can help prevent individuals from going down paths like these. Think about how many shootings—and how many other kinds of crime—we could reduce if we cared about ensuring children had access to better counseling, social programs, and early warning mechanisms just through their schools alone. Why can't we get it? Because we focus entirely on the last stages of the decline and don't look at the problem holistically.
For example, studies on the capital punishment system show that getting to young offenders in their pre-crime state and even in the first few steps within the justice system is vastly more effective than trying to address the problem in its final stages (TED Talk: Lessons from Death Row Inmates). Yet much of the debate about capital punishment is focused on whether or not capital punishment should exist rather than on how we should be preventing situations from escalating to the point where capital punishment would even be applicable.
We, as a society, have an impulse to look at the products of systems and make judgments without considering the complexity of the system as a whole. It's a very easy thing to see a social problem, such as gun crime, in its immediate environment and say "well, if guns weren't available, gun crime wouldn't have been committed." It's much harder to back up and say "well, if criminals never became criminals, crime wouldn't have been committed." That problem is a lot harder to conceptualize, you're right. But it's the more important one. If you rip out the root, you kill every branch that would have grown. But that's a much more proactive effort than pruning just the branches that block your view.
Ultimately, the people in a society need to care about one another.
February 17, 2018 10:36 a.m.
SeekerofSecrets says... #36
OneItsStarted i disagree, there are normally warning signs leading up to breakdowns (not in all cases of course, the Vegas shooting comes to mind). Like in c the Florida shooting, the cops and the FBI where tipped off, they just didn't take the threat seriously. There are recognizable patterns associated with mental instability, as a society we just have to do a better job at recognizing them.
I do agree with your second point though but possibly different reasons. Every time there is a shooting the media runs the story constantly, almost glorifying the incident. Then the liberal media calls for stricter gun laws and then the republicans jump on the second amendment ban wagon and then by the end of it everyone is to wound up to have a legitimate conversation. These headlines sell and the media prey on our emotions for profit. I dont have a solution to this problem but i think as a nation we need to see this.
On a side note, as a civilization i do think we have a problem. These sudden increase in mass shootings in not related modern firearms, these types of guns have been on the market for 20+ years. I do not know what has caused the increase in shootings but I do not think that there there is a correlation with guns.
February 17, 2018 9:09 p.m.
Just to correct something in the initial post, there has not been 30 mass shootings, at least not in America. Where you saw that figure was most likely lying or exaggerating, because Bernie Sanders said that there has been 18 school shooting this year but in saying so he was extremely disingenuous, Source Here. Blowing problems out of proportions hurts the validity of the issue, and makes onlookers say "Well he was wrong/lied here so the problem is not nearly as bad as it looks."
Not here to argue, did not read much, just wanted to correct, have a good day!
February 18, 2018 8:24 p.m.
Meant to say with the Bernie Sanders part that there is false information/disingeniously represented information being passed around
Cipher001 says... #2
It really is too much. I don't think any of those points are too controversial to put in motion, myself. You can still have 2nd amendment rights (which should absolutely always be a thing, even if guns aren't your thing in particular) while also having reasonable limitations to them. If you have to have a license to get behind the wheel of a very fast two-ton hunk of metal, it stands to reason that for a similar reason a license might be of use for a lethal weapon. Unfit individuals should not be allowed access to items that could cause great harm.
Now, I can see some valid points with people being uneasy about limiting an amendment right, but this isn't the right to vote or free speech. You can get over a mean word, but a bullet is a little harder to ignore. I'd be interested to see if anyone has an opposing view to this and why. Not as in a "Because how could you believe..." sort of thing but in a calm debate sort of way. Does anyone object to stricter limitations to gun ownership? Would it affect all gun owners or just new ones? Should it affect gun owners prior to new legislation? How would it be implemented? I admit that I really don't know enough about legality and politics to answer those intelligently.
February 14, 2018 10:54 p.m.