Page 2 of 91 FirstFirst 12341252 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 907

Thread: A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

  1. #11
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,333
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    You already know I do not think your generic gun deaths overall are of any significance to the debate. The majority are gang and or drug related.

    Everyone would like to see gun deaths ended, or at least drastically reduced. I suppose there are those who would not agree, but they would be rare. The question is what are we willing and able to do about this. The differences in basic convictions is so drastically divided that no real solution can be reached unless the anti gun approach is let go, and practical, possible, solutions are considered.

    The main disagreement here is the divide between those I call "gun grabbers" and pro Second Amendment folks. Pretty straight forward.

    There is a meme going around saying that if we remove a few major democratically controlled cities the comparison with other nations would drop drastically. Do you have any data on this?
    I do not - but it's a good question. I am not sure why "democractically controlled" makes any difference. Because of the current breakdown in our political structure, rural areas are pretty solidly Republican, Urban areas are pretty solidly Democrat, and the "great war" is on for the suburbs. Look at pretty much any election results map and you can see this breakdown. Vermont for example, is a deeply blue state. But if you look at voting broken down by state legislature districts, most of the state is red. The blue is concentrated in the main population centers, so it dominates the state. I have to imagine that gun violence is also concentrated in population centers (though I cannot claim to know that for sure). Put those two things together, and you get "Democratically controlled" - but it is not clear to me that this correlation has a causal element to it.

    It may, however, be the basis for the meme. I can look for data, but I'd be interested in knowing why you think this matters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    I cannot even imagine a neutral body that would be acceptable to both sides. Better to take the evaluations of the two sides and let the opposite side respond formally with information.
    Perhaps the best way to ensure impartiality is to identify a small set of study groups, maybe 3 proposed by each side, and fund all of them equally from both sides?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    Reasonable is the issue here.

    How bad are the current background checks in reality? I bought a gun, survived a background check. I also do not believe that background checks should be required between legal gun owners.
    Studies show that 22% of guns are legally acquired without a background check. I don't think the background checks we have are "bad." I think they are too slow (creating the nead for wait times most gun owners don't want), and I think they need to be extended to be done universally - for all gun acquisitions. I had not thought about your point about legal gun owners - but it makes sense: if two people have already passed a background check, there is no reason they should be required to pass another one to exchange firearms. If the person acquiring the firearm has not had a check, I believe it should be required.

    That raises a question in my mind. Do background checks expire? If someone has purchased a firearm, are they required to renew their background check periodically?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    I am 100% opposed to a national database of gun ownership. The government is notoriously biased and inefficient.
    Then perhaps what the government should do is fund an independent agency (perhaps the NRA?) to maintain that database?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    We also do not know that reducing the number of guns in the US will reduce mass shootings. That does not stop gun grabbers from advocating that just because.
    I'm going to challenge this - hopefully respectfully. Yes - there are "gun grabbers" on the "pro gun-control" side of the discussion. That does not make everyone advocating for solutions to the gun violence in our country a "gun grabber." Some of us respect the right to own and use firearms, for sport, for hunting, for target practice, or as a tool (i.e., on a ranch). It is difficult to make any headway on finding a solution when every discussion or observation is countered with "don't take my gun!" I repeat, I do not advocate for a reduction in firearms. I do not have data to suggest that is the solution. I DO advocate for getting that data, and if it turns out that the data unequivicollay shows that a reduction in gun ownership will reduce the violence, then I WOULD advocate for that type of gun control, if it can be done while simultaneously preserving the right to bear arms (i.e., reducing the total number, or perhaps the type, of firearms that can be acquired). But I do NOT advocate for any of that without data that shows us it would make a difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    If the limitations are equivalent to the sort of limitations of free speech, the gun grabbers would not be happy. Limiting free speech does not take anything away from anyone except the right to make threats or "cry fire in a crowded theater. Gun control aims at physically preventing certain people from owning guns based upon statistics. I believe that any convicted violent criminal should permanently loose the right to gun ownership. I believe that any one who makes public threats of gun violence should not be allowed to own guns. General "mental health" limitations are another matter. Most so called mental health issues do not significantly increase the danger of violence - and I do not have a whole lot of trust in the field of psychology in general in this respect.
    We seem to be in agreement on criminal convictions. I had not considered "public threats" but it makes sense. That leaves us with "mental health." Are you eliminating "mental health" entirely as a basis for limiting access? So someone clinically diagnosed to be bipolar or schizophrenic? Someone with diagnosed cognitive impairments (i.e., adults with reasoning levels of children). Would you place an age restriction on gun ownership?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    Is this respectful enough?
    Absolutely - and especially given the passion I believe you have for this subject.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  2. #12
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,333
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    I and others have suggested extremely harsh prison sentences for anyone who even possesses a gun during any crime. I have not seen a single response to this. We need to come down hard on criminals and go very easy on law abiding citizens. Are there any other suggestion solutions from pro-2nd/anti gun control folks out there?
    I do believe that the penalty for any crime should be "enhanced" if it is conducted using a gun. Mandatory incarceration. Extended prison term (50% more? 100% more?). No option for probation. Etc. However, I just saw Adrift's response and realize, as I write this, that we lack the data to tell us if any of this would actually make a difference. It seems common sense, but we need to study it to know more.

    I made another proposal I'd be curious to know how it would be received: I wonder if people would not be a lot more careful with their firearms if the on-record owner of the gun faced the same penalty (or at least SOME penalty) as the person using it to commit a crime? Thoughts? (and yes, I know we lack the data for this as well).
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 02-23-2018 at 03:42 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  3. #13
    Oops....... mossrose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    slave & child of Christ
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    17,229
    Amen (Given)
    12665
    Amen (Received)
    7420
    Quote Originally Posted by Zymologist View Post
    Maybe because of higher expectations? A police officer has the training, would be expected to exercise restraint where a layperson wouldn't, etc.
    That makes sense to me, except for the outrage from the masses that accompanies every instance. Where is the balance between what should accompany "we expect the officer to exercise restraint so let's allow the investigative procedure to take place" and rioting in the streets because a cop shot somebody?


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

  4. #14
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    40,216
    Amen (Given)
    8807
    Amen (Received)
    20420
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    There's also the obvious fundamental disagreement that gun control advocates believe that guns are the primary issue with gun violence,
    I think that's a fair statement.

    while gun rights advocates believe that guns are the solution to gun violence.
    I'm not so sure that's a fair statement. I know it's not true of me. I think there are a number of solutions, but infringement of the 2nd amendment (as gun rights people perceive it) is problematic.

    That's something that's unlikely to ever be resolved.
    Unfortunately, yeah.

    As I've mentioned in another thread, I think it's inevitable that far more severe gun legislation will eventually be enacted in order to curb gun violence, and that it's only a matter of time and lives, but I don't think it'll happen during this administration. I think the most likely legislation that will move the debate forward is the implementation of a national gun registry, and finally closing the gun show loophole. But, again, I don't think we're likely to see this until after this administration has run its course.
    And, ironically, the more perception there is that guns will be outlawed or controlled - the more guns are bought and sold. The very discussion of controlling guns drives sales.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  5. Amen Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  6. #15
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    40,216
    Amen (Given)
    8807
    Amen (Received)
    20420
    Quote Originally Posted by mossrose View Post
    That makes sense to me, except for the outrage from the masses that accompanies every instance. Where is the balance between what should accompany "we expect the officer to exercise restraint so let's allow the investigative procedure to take place" and rioting in the streets because a cop shot somebody?
    I think that all gets lost in the racial issues that usually accompany police involved shootings.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  7. Amen Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  8. #16
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,333
    Amen (Given)
    22
    Amen (Received)
    748
    OK - I need to get some work done - and I have to get my teeth fixed. I'll be off for most of the rest of the day. Play nice, please!

    (we really need a better "please" emoji for us heathens! )
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

    -Martin Luther King

  9. #17
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    40,216
    Amen (Given)
    8807
    Amen (Received)
    20420
    Quote Originally Posted by Jedidiah View Post
    I and others have suggested extremely harsh prison sentences for anyone who even possesses a gun during any crime. I have not seen a single response to this. We need to come down hard on criminals and go very easy on law abiding citizens. Are there any other suggestion solutions from pro-2nd/anti gun control folks out there?
    Severely punish those who abuse their right to own firearms. Not those of us who are responsible owners.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  10. Amen Mountain Man, Jedidiah amen'd this post.
  11. #18
    Oops....... mossrose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    slave & child of Christ
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    17,229
    Amen (Given)
    12665
    Amen (Received)
    7420
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    I think that all gets lost in the racial issues that usually accompany police involved shootings.
    Which takes it back to my original question. Why is the cop always blamed and not the gun, but in school situations, it's not the shooter, it's the gun.

    Racial issues may have a lot to do with it in a police situation, but I don't believe it's the entire issue.


    Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

  12. #19
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    40,216
    Amen (Given)
    8807
    Amen (Received)
    20420
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    I do believe that the penalty for any crime should be "enhanced" if it is conducted using a gun.
    In many jurisdictions, that's what the "aggravated" is in a robbery or theft. The addition of a gun 'upgrades' the offense, for example, from 'robbery' to 'aggravated robbery'. (Other factors are involved in 'aggravated', such as the difference between a burglary and an aggravated burglary - the latter being, for example, the burglary of an occupied building or home)

    Mandatory incarceration. Extended prison term (50% more? 100% more?).
    I'm really rethinking this "automatic going to jail" thing - because I know what goes on "in jail". Somebody who makes a really stupid decision ends up in a place where they learn how to make even bigger stupid decisions.

    No option for probation. Etc. However, I just saw Adrift's response and realize, as I write this, that we lack the data to tell us if any of this would actually make a difference. It seems common sense, but we need to study it to know more.

    I made another proposal I'd be curious to know how it would be received: I wonder if people would not be a lot more careful with their firearms if the on-record owner of the gun faced the same penalty (or at least SOME penalty) as the person using it to commit a crime? Thoughts? (and yes, I know we lack the data for this as well).
    I think, just like the owner of a vehicle that is used in a vehicular homicide - it needs to be shown that the owner was negligent in securing that vehicle. Same with a gun owner. Rather than being automatically culpable, there needs to be some evidence that he was negligent in securing or controlling the use of his firearms.

    I'd even be 'for' the process to be more strict on the gun owner than the car owner, but we are still a nation of "presumption of innocence".

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  13. #20
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    40,216
    Amen (Given)
    8807
    Amen (Received)
    20420
    Quote Originally Posted by mossrose View Post
    Which takes it back to my original question. Why is the cop always blamed and not the gun, but in school situations, it's not the shooter, it's the gun.

    Racial issues may have a lot to do with it in a police situation, but I don't believe it's the entire issue.
    The craze, in the last decade or so, involving police shootings has been the "systematic racial" element. Those are the only ones that really get media attention.

    But, I agree, in the school shooter situation, we really need to be looking at why they do this, and how to identify potential shooters.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •