A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Jedidiah]

Are you advocating that we legalize drugs then? I have to admit that I find it absolutely fascinating to see people who typically are of a conservative bent, who years ago would adamantly not have been for the legalization of drugs, suddenly sort of soften on the issue when parallels are made to the nation's gun problem.

Also, our prisons are filled to overflowing with drug users. We have more people in prison than any other nation on earth. That doesn't seem particularly healthy for a society. While I agree that no solution will be 100% on this issue till Christ's return, other industrialized nations don't seem to have nearly the issues we have on this front.

Interesting topic I would be interested in exploring in another thread.

[Cow Poke]

I cannot support anything without data. My gut tells me "fewer guns - less gun violence."

Fewer guns in the hands of criminals - less gun deaths.

My gut tells me "lower capacity magazines, less harm done."

Think about that - in these situations, there is no "return fire", so a few seconds to swap magazines more often (that's all it takes) isn't a critical issue.

My gut tells me "eliminate all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, less harm done."

Automatic weapons are already highly regulated.

but my gut has been wrong on more than one occasion. We need the studies - but we cannot get them in the current climate - so I am left...somewhat rudderless.

Seems we can fund anything we really want - it's just a matter of who funds it.

[Cow Poke]

Are you advocating that we legalize drugs then? I have to admit that I find it absolutely fascinating to see people who typically are of a conservative bent, who years ago would adamantly not have been for the legalization of drugs, suddenly sort of soften on the issue when parallels are made to the nation's gun problem.

Also, our prisons are filled to overflowing with drug users. We have more people in prison than any other nation on earth. That doesn't seem particularly healthy for a society. While I agree that no solution will be 100% on this issue till Christ's return, other industrialized nations don't seem to have nearly the issues we have on this front.

Yeah, another thread.

[Jedidiah]

As I understand it, most of the gun problems in the USA are due to suicide. I think both conservatives and liberals want to deal with root issues. I haven't seen any evidence that those who go after guns are not also interested in treating root issues.

You have not read the news have you?

[Jedidiah]

Yeah, but I'm of that odd lot that thinks we need to focus more on the consumer than on the supplier. Not saying we shouldn't still try to stop shipments of drugs, but as long as there is a market... just like guns.

I support harsh sentences for all levels of suppliers and a wrist slap for users.

[Adrift]

You have not read the news have you?

I typically get my news from whatever is on the TV at the gym (CNN and Fox), and NPR in the morning. Why, is there something in the news now that says that people that desire gun control are not at all interested in root causes of gun violence? If so, I've missed it.

[Teallaura]

I think mostly because it doesn't sound like a reasonable response. Sentencing a first time offender to life, or threatening them with capital punishment for brandishing a weapon in which no one was harmed and no lives were taken would probably seem to the majority of US citizens as an unjust punishment. As well, there's lots of debate on whether or not there is any actual correlation between the length of a sentence and the deterrence of crime. Plenty of experts think there is not.

Mandatory minimums were and are often overly broad - that's resulted in these laws being overturned in court and repealed by legislatures. Most states, as I recall, do have stricter penalties for those who employ weapons in committing a crime.

The actual answer to Jed's question is simple - it's completely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. 'Extremely harsh' based on the presence of a weapon is going to be impossible to keep away from the 'cruel and unusual' line.

[Jedidiah]

You are demonstrating reasonable control....

My two rifles do not fit in the safe and I can do nothing about it unless the government wants to buy me a safe.

[Teallaura]

so if you got burglarized and someone else used your gun to commit a crime, you should go to jail? Does that sound fair to you?

If you left it unsecured, yes. Rights come with responsibilities.

[Teallaura]

My two rifles do not fit in the safe and I can do nothing about it unless the government wants to buy me a safe.

1) Buy an adequate safe.
2) Take the weapons apart to store them.
Rights come with responsibilities - and since gun ownership is a limited right, you DO bear the responsibility to not allow your weapon to be stolen or sold to someone who is not legally able to own it.

This total lack of responsibility is why you have people that don't want ANYONE to have guns.

[RumTumTugger]

I don't consider it a punishment, anymore than I consider having to wear a seat belt a punishment.

so if that child took a crayon and wrote graffiti on teh wall you would take all crayons from all the children in that class? that is in essense what you are advocating.

[Mountain Man]

Think about that - in these situations, there is no "return fire", so a few seconds to swap magazines more often (that's all it takes) isn't a critical issue.

With enough practice, you can learn to swap magazines before the previous one has hit the ground.

[Teallaura]

From what I know of the available data - they simply bring them in from locations where they are not banned - or they obtain them illegally.

Okay boys, stop this until you finish Government 101 - first question - how many jurisdictions are in the United States?Why that matters is that guns obtained legally in South Carolina are used to commit crimes in New York where they could not have been legally obtained.

The ACTUAL issue is federal gun control.

[Teallaura]

With enough practice, you can learn to swap magazines before the previous one has hit the ground.

In a crowded arena, why do I care how long it takes? Unless it's going to be long enough for bystanders to recover and disarm the guy, it really doesn't matter - and in that instance capacity really DOES matter. Even a crappy shot with a fully automatic weapon can hit more than a few people. I could hit someone at 60 yards or so with a BB gun (my nephew - wasn't hurt - think it scared me more than him) as a kid - I can darn sure hit people at point blank with an M-16.

That I couldn't operate it as effectively as a soldier or SWAT unit guy really doesn't make the people with bullets in them feel any better.

The disconnected idea that guns aren't force multipliers if you aren't an expert in their use is just DUMB.

[Teallaura]

so if that child took a crayon and wrote graffiti on teh wall you would take all crayons from all the children in that class? that is in essense what you are advocating.

No, it is not.