CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[Manonthestreet]

Everytime I ask this of libs in other threads it goes away....so again what solutions do they propose that are achievable and not pie in the sky wishes.....anything here....or just useless defense of their current propaganda

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course I don't know because nobody does. Ask any 100 Republicans what they want and you'll likely get 100 different answers. It is irrelevent what Republicans want which is why I deliberately left partisanship out of it. This is purely an ideological issue.

Now then, can you answer what compromises you personally would be willing to make to achieve a more peaceful, more safe America where school children are not at risk? What compromises do you think your ideological group would be willing to make? You have already answered the poll that you wouldn't accept the compromise offered in the OP. Why or why not?

I won’t take your guns away.

That isn't really the point here because that wasn't an option offered.

They think it’s our goal. I’m telling you or them it’s not. They need to realize this if there is to be any compromise. If one side is stubborn because they think giving an inch will cost them a foot

Yes, both sides view each other with disdain. But just as I responded to Task, if we don't get past the point of accusing each other and find a common goal and each side be willing to give up something to get it, we will never find a win-win solution.

I think sometimes we have to ask ourselves whether it really is a solution that we want or are does our desire to expose and punish or thwart the other for the 'evil' people we perceive them to be override any other motive?

Yet a conservative started this thread in bad faith whose premise was predicated on lies about ‘liberals’:

The lie that ‘liberals’ don’t value personal responsibility

The lie that ‘liberals’ don’t value the morality expressed in religious doctrine

The lie that ‘liberals’ don’t value positive role models

Given this and countless other examples of conservatives’ propensity for lying, the disdain ‘liberals’ have for conservatives is both appropriate and warranted.

The first and most important step in finding any solution that divides us is for conservatives to stop lying, if that’s even possible.

The only lie here is that you assume I was characterizing liberals or anybody else in any way at all. And you cannot show that such is the purpose of this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

AR-15s are used for both hunting and self protection......as are all the other semi auto rifles and pistols.....

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Do you realize that felons and criminals...under the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision do not need to register illegal guns because it would violate their Right against self incrimination...so if actual criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.....how do you expect to require legal gun owners to register their legal guns...

Gun registration was used in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California to eventually confiscate guns......and in Germany, the disarmed were murdered in gas chambers.........

Criminals do not get their guns from gun shows, they use straw buyers or steal the guns....straw buyers can pass current federal background checks which means they can pass any background check at a gun show or for a private sale.....on the other side, forcing background checks on private property increases the time and cost to people who have committed no crime. We can already arrest felons who buy guns illegally, so we don't need to increase background check laws......

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?

The problem isn't a lack of gun laws.....the problem is democrat politicians constantly releasing violent gun criminals out of jail...to shoot more people, and the government failing to deal with actually dangerous people they know about.....

Felons can't buy, own or carry guns....we can already arrest them. We don't need more laws to do this...we can do it already...

The only thing we should do...increase jail sentences for gun criminals....this is how Japan stopped the Yakuza from using guns in their latest gang war........we need to put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime, rape, robbery and murder.....this has the added benefits of no increase in pointless paperwork, no added cost to law abiding gun owners, and no legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners....we actually focus on people who use guns to commit crimes...not people who own guns for self defense..

I hope this helps....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Why didn't Rosa Parks compromise and sit in the middle of the bus when the democrats wouldn't let her sit at the front of the bus.....why didn't the kids sitting at the lunch counters simply compromise with the democrats and eat standing up.....? Why did blacks not compromise when the democrats imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests....they could have compromised by getting the democrat Poll Tax simply lowered and the number of tests on the Literacy Tests reduced....

This is what happens when you compromise on a God given Right.....

Rosa Parks is irrelevant to the question posed in the OP. I am not interested in what anybody has compromised on or has not compromised on in the distant or more recent past.

The question is what would you and others be willing to compromise on in order to achieve safer schools, a safer society for everybody?

 

[2aguy]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Why didn't Rosa Parks compromise and sit in the middle of the bus when the democrats wouldn't let her sit at the front of the bus.....why didn't the kids sitting at the lunch counters simply compromise with the democrats and eat standing up.....? Why did blacks not compromise when the democrats imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests....they could have compromised by getting the democrat Poll Tax simply lowered and the number of tests on the Literacy Tests reduced....

This is what happens when you compromise on a God given Right.....

Rosa Parks is irrelevant to the question posed in the OP. I am not interested in what anybody has compromised on or has not compromised on in the distant or more recent past.

The question is what would you and others be willing to compromise on in order to achieve safer schools, a safer society for everybody?

Here is the only compromise that actually works.....everything else is Security Theater.....

Increase the prison sentence for actual crimes committed with guns to 30 years , and life if the weapon is fired.

Increase the prison sentence for a felon caught in possession of an illegal gun to 30 years, life if they fire the gun for any reason.....

That works. It doesn't target law abiding gun owners. It doesn't increase the paperwork or fees on owning a gun

It works in Japan, it would work here.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Why didn't Rosa Parks compromise and sit in the middle of the bus when the democrats wouldn't let her sit at the front of the bus.....why didn't the kids sitting at the lunch counters simply compromise with the democrats and eat standing up.....? Why did blacks not compromise when the democrats imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests....they could have compromised by getting the democrat Poll Tax simply lowered and the number of tests on the Literacy Tests reduced....

This is what happens when you compromise on a God given Right.....

Rosa Parks is irrelevant to the question posed in the OP. I am not interested in what anybody has compromised on or has not compromised on in the distant or more recent past.

The question is what would you and others be willing to compromise on in order to achieve safer schools, a safer society for everybody?

Here is the only compromise that actually works.....everything else is Security Theater.....

Increase the prison sentence for actual crimes committed with guns to 30 years , and life if the weapon is fired.

Increase the prison sentence for a felon caught in possession of an illegal gun to 30 years, life if they fire the gun for any reason.....

That works. It doesn't target law abiding gun owners. It doesn't increase the paperwork or fees on owning a gun

It works in Japan, it would work here.

I don't think so. Most of these mass shooters commit suicide immediately after their bad acts before law enforcement gets to them. No amount of restrictions or consequences added to the law would likely deter them. And most are not seriously on anybody's radar before they commit their horrendous carnage. It isn't like there is a headline warning people that so-and-so intends to shoot up a school today.

So somebody like me looks to changing the culture to solve the problem utilizing some or all of the concepts listed in the OP and no doubt there are others that could be added to that list.

You mentioned what works in Japan. The only legal guns in Japan are shotguns and air rifles and the laws are so restrictive there that only a tiny percentage of their population have those. Even though Japan is now a peaceful nation with a strong democratic form of government, they have no concept of unalienable rights and we would consider some of their laws draconian. For instance there is no right to an attorney there if you are being interrogated, no right to bail, you can be detailed for more than 20 days just because the police want to detain you, etc.

But there is far less societal violence in Japan than here because of some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world which keeps their solid culture, common language, and way of life intact and unruffled for the most part. Changes come in tiny increments in Japan. Traditional marriage is extremely important there and personal responsibility and work ethic are strongly emphasized. Only 6% of Japanese children are raised in single parent homes compared to more than 50% of American children, Such children rarely grow up to be rudderless, uncentered, violent people.

I strongly advocate changing the American culture to remedy our problem. And though I am a fierce 2nd Amendment defender, I am willing to concede some minor points on guns, even those you recommend, to get cooperation to achieve that.

I seem to be pretty much a lone reed bending in the wind though. So far I am the only vote up there willing to compromise.

So far nobody, and I mean nobody else is willing to even have a discussion on any compromise of any sort of this topic. They keep arguing for their own side and attacking me/the OP and/or the other side. And that tells me that when people are so eager to argue their own point of view and not consider anybody else's point of view, we will never have a national discussion that allows us to actually solve the problem.

 

[2aguy]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Why didn't Rosa Parks compromise and sit in the middle of the bus when the democrats wouldn't let her sit at the front of the bus.....why didn't the kids sitting at the lunch counters simply compromise with the democrats and eat standing up.....? Why did blacks not compromise when the democrats imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests....they could have compromised by getting the democrat Poll Tax simply lowered and the number of tests on the Literacy Tests reduced....

This is what happens when you compromise on a God given Right.....

Rosa Parks is irrelevant to the question posed in the OP. I am not interested in what anybody has compromised on or has not compromised on in the distant or more recent past.

The question is what would you and others be willing to compromise on in order to achieve safer schools, a safer society for everybody?

Here is the only compromise that actually works.....everything else is Security Theater.....

Increase the prison sentence for actual crimes committed with guns to 30 years , and life if the weapon is fired.

Increase the prison sentence for a felon caught in possession of an illegal gun to 30 years, life if they fire the gun for any reason.....

That works. It doesn't target law abiding gun owners. It doesn't increase the paperwork or fees on owning a gun

It works in Japan, it would work here.

I don't think so. Most of these mass shooters commit suicide immediately after their bad acts before law enforcement gets to them. No amount of restrictions or consequences added to the law would likely deter them. And most are not seriously on anybody's radar before they commit their horrendous carnage. It isn't like there is a headline warning people that so-and-so intends to shoot up a school today.

So somebody like me looks to changing the culture to solve the problem utilizing some or all of the concepts listed in the OP and no doubt there are others that could be added to that list.

You mentioned what works in Japan. The only legal guns in Japan are shotguns and air rifles and the laws are so restrictive there that only a tiny percentage of their population have those. Even though Japan is now a peaceful nation with a strong democratic form of government, they have no concept of unalienable rights and we would consider some of their laws draconian. For instance there is no right to an attorney there if you are being interrogated, no right to bail, you can be detailed for more than 20 days just because the police want to detain you, etc.

But there is far less societal violence in Japan than here because of some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world which keeps their solid culture, common language, and way of life intact and unruffled for the most part. Changes come in tiny increments in Japan. Traditional marriage is extremely important there and personal responsibility and work ethic are strongly emphasized. Only 6% of Japanese children are raised in single parent homes compared to more than 50% of American children, Such children rarely grow up to be rudderless, uncentered, violent people.

I strongly advocate changing the American culture to remedy our problem. And though I am a fierce 2nd Amendment defender, I am willing to concede some minor points on guns, even those you recommend, to get cooperation to achieve that.

I seem to be pretty much a lone reed bending in the wind though.

I don't think so. Most of these mass shooters commit suicide immediately after their bad acts before law enforcement gets to them. No amount of restrictions or consequences added to the law would likely deter them. And most are not seriously on anybody's radar before they commit their horrendous carnage. It isn't like there is a headline warning people that so-and-so intends to shoot up a school today.

Mass shooters are different from regular criminals, the 30 year sentences are to stop the far more numerous gun crimes of actual criminals...since mass shooters have murdered 795 people....over 35 years, vs. the 10,000 or so criminals murdered by other criminals every year, a different approach is needed for mass shooters...and that is arming school staff, or using security guards....since we know mass shooters pick gun free zones.

You mentioned what works in Japan. The only legal guns in Japan are shotguns and air rifles and the laws are so restrictive there that only a tiny percentage of their population have those. Even though Japan is now a peaceful nation with a strong democratic form of government, they have no concept of unalienable rights and we would consider some of their laws draconian. For instance there is no right to an attorney there if you are being interrogated, no right to bail, you can be detailed for more than 20 days just because the police want to detain you, etc.

This is the part of gun control in Japan that works on actual criminals...the Yakuza.....their gun control laws did not stop the Yakuza from using guns and grenades in their infrequent gang wars........the last one began in 2006 and lasted 7 years and they used guns and grenades...

this is how Japan actually stopped their criminals from using guns.......

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

 

[Vastator]

There is no compromise. The Second Amendment and my God-given constitutional right to arm myself is not up for debate. Far more people have died while protecting the rights and freedoms we so graciously have, than those murdered by criminals.

Infinitely far more people have died in this world because their countries were not blessed with the same rights we have.

Well said.

 

[sartre play]

What do republicans want?

The OP is not about political parties or partisanship. Please take that discussion to a thread more appropriate for it.

I want to discuss how both sides of the gun debate can get most of what they want by compromising. Could we please focus on that?

I’m asking a question
. If you don’t know please say so.

Of course I don't know because nobody does. Ask any 100 Republicans what they want and you'll likely get 100 different answers. It is irrelevent what Republicans want which is why I deliberately left partisanship out of it. This is purely an ideological issue.

Now then, can you answer what compromises you personally would be willing to make to achieve a more peaceful, more safe America where school children are not at risk? What compromises do you think your ideological group would be willing to make? You have already answered the poll that you wouldn't accept the compromise offered in the OP. Why or why not?

I won’t take your guns away.

No one wants to take anyone's guns away.

Quote) except for the" no one" statement agree that most are not looking to take all guns away.

 

[sartre play]

The root problem is not the guns, we have always had a share of the population that wont hear anything that wont support a fixed political posture. but that was never most of us, I don't post much of late, because discussion is not what most are interested in. The OP talks about family values, talking about things with out insulting or swearing seems a good family value to me. hate for people who don't share your views seems a poor family value. how did we get so hateful? is hate a family value.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Why didn't Rosa Parks compromise and sit in the middle of the bus when the democrats wouldn't let her sit at the front of the bus.....why didn't the kids sitting at the lunch counters simply compromise with the democrats and eat standing up.....? Why did blacks not compromise when the democrats imposed Poll Taxes and Literacy tests....they could have compromised by getting the democrat Poll Tax simply lowered and the number of tests on the Literacy Tests reduced....

This is what happens when you compromise on a God given Right.....

Rosa Parks is irrelevant to the question posed in the OP. I am not interested in what anybody has compromised on or has not compromised on in the distant or more recent past.

The question is what would you and others be willing to compromise on in order to achieve safer schools, a safer society for everybody?

Here is the only compromise that actually works.....everything else is Security Theater.....

Increase the prison sentence for actual crimes committed with guns to 30 years , and life if the weapon is fired.

Increase the prison sentence for a felon caught in possession of an illegal gun to 30 years, life if they fire the gun for any reason.....

That works. It doesn't target law abiding gun owners. It doesn't increase the paperwork or fees on owning a gun

It works in Japan, it would work here.

I don't think so. Most of these mass shooters commit suicide immediately after their bad acts before law enforcement gets to them. No amount of restrictions or consequences added to the law would likely deter them. And most are not seriously on anybody's radar before they commit their horrendous carnage. It isn't like there is a headline warning people that so-and-so intends to shoot up a school today.

So somebody like me looks to changing the culture to solve the problem utilizing some or all of the concepts listed in the OP and no doubt there are others that could be added to that list.

You mentioned what works in Japan. The only legal guns in Japan are shotguns and air rifles and the laws are so restrictive there that only a tiny percentage of their population have those. Even though Japan is now a peaceful nation with a strong democratic form of government, they have no concept of unalienable rights and we would consider some of their laws draconian. For instance there is no right to an attorney there if you are being interrogated, no right to bail, you can be detailed for more than 20 days just because the police want to detain you, etc.

But there is far less societal violence in Japan than here because of some of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world which keeps their solid culture, common language, and way of life intact and unruffled for the most part. Changes come in tiny increments in Japan. Traditional marriage is extremely important there and personal responsibility and work ethic are strongly emphasized. Only 6% of Japanese children are raised in single parent homes compared to more than 50% of American children, Such children rarely grow up to be rudderless, uncentered, violent people.

I strongly advocate changing the American culture to remedy our problem. And though I am a fierce 2nd Amendment defender, I am willing to concede some minor points on guns, even those you recommend, to get cooperation to achieve that.

I seem to be pretty much a lone reed bending in the wind though.

I don't think so. Most of these mass shooters commit suicide immediately after their bad acts before law enforcement gets to them. No amount of restrictions or consequences added to the law would likely deter them. And most are not seriously on anybody's radar before they commit their horrendous carnage. It isn't like there is a headline warning people that so-and-so intends to shoot up a school today.

Mass shooters are different from regular criminals, the 30 year sentences are to stop the far more numerous gun crimes of actual criminals...since mass shooters have murdered 795 people....over 35 years, vs. the 10,000 or so criminals murdered by other criminals every year, a different approach is needed for mass shooters...and that is arming school staff, or using security guards....since we know mass shooters pick gun free zones.

You mentioned what works in Japan. The only legal guns in Japan are shotguns and air rifles and the laws are so restrictive there that only a tiny percentage of their population have those. Even though Japan is now a peaceful nation with a strong democratic form of government, they have no concept of unalienable rights and we would consider some of their laws draconian. For instance there is no right to an attorney there if you are being interrogated, no right to bail, you can be detailed for more than 20 days just because the police want to detain you, etc.

This is the part of gun control in Japan that works on actual criminals...the Yakuza.....their gun control laws did not stop the Yakuza from using guns and grenades in their infrequent gang wars........the last one began in 2006 and lasted 7 years and they used guns and grenades...

this is how Japan actually stopped their criminals from using guns.......

http://www.atimes.com/article/japans-gun-control-laws-strict-yakuza-turn-toy-pistols/



Ryo Fujiwara, long-time writer on yakuza affairs and author of the book, The Three Yamaguchi-Gumi, says that the punishment for using a gun in a gang war or in a crime is now so heavy that most yakuza avoid their use at all – unless it is for an assassination.

“In a hit, whoever fires the gun, or is made to take responsibility for firing the gun, has to pretty much be willing to go to jail for the rest of their life. That’s a big decision. The repercussions are big, too. No one wants to claim responsibility for such acts – the gang office might actually get shut-down.”

The gang typically also has to support the family of the hit-man while he is in prison, which is also a financial burden for the organization.

Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Laws make it a crime to illegally possess a gun, with a punishment of jail time of up to 10 years.

Illegal possession more than one gun, the penalty goes up to 15 years in prison. If you own a gun and matching ammunition, that’s another charge and a heavier penalty. The most severe penalty is for the act of discharging a gun in a train, on a bus, or most public spaces, which can result in a life sentence.

---

A low-ranking member of the Kobe-Yamaguchi-gumi put it this way: “All of the smart guys got rid of their guns a long-time ago. The penalties are way too high. You get life in prison if you just fire a gun. That’s not fun.”

But you see, you are missing the point I made here. You are passionately arguing points about pros and cons of the guns and policy. I am not arguing pros and cons of the guns and policy because I am pretty clear on all that and I think it is pretty irrelevant when it comes to these terrible crimes.

I see it as a cultural problem, not a gun problem. There are guns in roughly 30% of American homes. There are guns in roughly all of Swiss homes. But gun crime is serious in America and almost non existent in Switzerland. So obviously the correlation of gun crime with the number of people with access to firearms cannot be made. But Switzerland has strong immigration policy and therefore has a strongly cohesive and supportive culture. Roughly 80% of Swiss children live with their mom and dad together and the extended family is much closer and more supportive in Switzerland. In America, fewer than 50% of children live with their mom and dad together and extended families are much more likely to be separated by distance and/or indifference.

Isn't it time to look at our culture in addition to the guns?

 

[Foxfyre]

The root problem is not the guns, we have always had a share of the population that wont hear anything that wont support a fixed political posture. but that was never most of us, I don't post much of late, because discussion is not what most are interested in. The OP talks about family values, talking about things with out insulting or swearing seems a good family value to me. hate for people who don't share your views seems a poor family value. how did we get so hateful? is hate a family value.

No doubt the traditional American family and culture has been under assault for many decades now. While many, primarily those on the left, would argue with that or else would insist it is a good thing because of the negatives they point to that they insist are the only important things.

So I for one see gun crime as a serious problem in the USA.
And I see deterioration of the unique American culture as THE MOST SERIOUS problem in the USA.

So, while I think the things I could agree to compromise on in gun control won't do anything to correct the gun control problem, but many think those things would help. . .

. . .I can compromise on those things in return for compromise on those things that I think would restore a culture which was far safer for school children and everybody.

Again I seem to be the lone voice even willing to discuss that, much less consider it.

 

[Vastator]

No compromise.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here's my problem with compromising on this issue: what the Left wants is a ban. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants every possible excuse to confiscate somebody's guns. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants every possible way to restrict gun ownership. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing. The Left wants to put gun dealers and manufacturers out of business. What do conservatives get for compromising on that? Nothing.

Compromises are based on the premise that both sides get something and give up something. I'm not seeing the Left giving up a damn thing. They want it all and they don't want to give up anything in return. Tell you the truth, I don't have or want an AR-15 or the like; I own a couple of handguns that never leave the house except for going to the range, and I live in Texas so it ain't like I'm too worried about myself here. It ain't personal, it's a question of gradually giving up my rights and freedoms, basically for nothing. If AR-15s were banned would it make a difference? No, anyone who thinks that is foolish.

Most, if not all, in the left would strongly object to being characterized that way though. But almost everybody on the left would like to see manufacture and sale of weapons like the AR-15 restricted and stronger background checks for those purchasing weapons.

Just as the right strongly objects to being characterized that they are trying to force their values on everybody, while most of those on the right believe that those values would restore the peace and protect children far more than any amount of gun control will do.

The problem is that each side damns the other but no effort is ever made to find a win-win solution for the problem.

So I would like to get away from partisanship and critical views of the left and right and deal with the realities we are dealing with.

Would you say agree to a restriction on the manufacture and sale of AR-15 and similar weapons and stronger background check laws if those in the more gun-control would agree to promote two parent families as the best circumstance for raising children? Would allow God-friendly schools again where Christmas could be acknowledged and celebrated and those children who wanted to express their religious faith could do so freely and openly? (Those who did not would not be required to.) Would agree that society must emphasize lawfulness, personal responsibility, and accountability for ALL demographics? Would agree to promoting positive values in video games, television, movies?

My personal opinion is similar to yours in that I don't think restricting certain weapons will have any effect whatsoever to reduce or eliminate mass murders/violence. But, I acknowledge that many believe it would make a difference. So, if I agree with those who believe it would make a difference, and I would get something in return that I believe will make a difference, I would be willing to compromise on that issue.

Would you? (Please consider that the rhetorical 'you' so anybody can answer.)

No. WE don't give up our rights (even a SMIDGEN) to pacify someone's misunderstandings and fear. They are much too important.

Well at least you and a couple of others are honest about it and are willing to take a stand. Most commenting on this thread just want to point at the 'sins' of me, the OP, of others and won't commit one way or the other. Thus they reject any and all solutions but just want to complain that there is a problem and it is anybody else's fault but their own.

But I hope all will at least think about it. We can hold firm to our conviction that we won't give up any minor part of something we support or even consider doing that in return for something else we believe is important. . .

. . .or. . .

We can do some soul searching and decide whether we would be willing to give up at least something in A in order to get B that we think is essential to American society.

 

[sealybobo]

The root problem is not the guns, we have always had a share of the population that wont hear anything that wont support a fixed political posture. but that was never most of us, I don't post much of late, because discussion is not what most are interested in. The OP talks about family values, talking about things with out insulting or swearing seems a good family value to me. hate for people who don't share your views seems a poor family value. how did we get so hateful? is hate a family value.

Citizens don't need assault rifles. Bring back the assault rifle ban.

GOP lawmaker calls for assault rifle ban

"It guarantees the right of citizens to defend themselves. I accept, however, that it does not guarantee that every civilian can bear any and all arms."

lawmakers would have to decide how to define what constitutes an assault weapon before agreeing to a ban.

He said a ban should not result in the confiscation of firearms from those who already own them.

"But we should all be able to agree that the civilian version of the very deadly weapon that the Army issued to me should certainly qualify," he wrote in the Times.

 

[hunarcy]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

AR-15s are used for both hunting and self protection......as are all the other semi auto rifles and pistols.....

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Do you realize that felons and criminals...under the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision do not need to register illegal guns because it would violate their Right against self incrimination...so if actual criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.....how do you expect to require legal gun owners to register their legal guns...

Gun registration was used in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California to eventually confiscate guns......and in Germany, the disarmed were murdered in gas chambers.........

Criminals do not get their guns from gun shows, they use straw buyers or steal the guns....straw buyers can pass current federal background checks which means they can pass any background check at a gun show or for a private sale.....on the other side, forcing background checks on private property increases the time and cost to people who have committed no crime. We can already arrest felons who buy guns illegally, so we don't need to increase background check laws......

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?

The problem isn't a lack of gun laws.....the problem is democrat politicians constantly releasing violent gun criminals out of jail...to shoot more people, and the government failing to deal with actually dangerous people they know about.....

Felons can't buy, own or carry guns....we can already arrest them. We don't need more laws to do this...we can do it already...

The only thing we should do...increase jail sentences for gun criminals....this is how Japan stopped the Yakuza from using guns in their latest gang war........we need to put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime, rape, robbery and murder.....this has the added benefits of no increase in pointless paperwork, no added cost to law abiding gun owners, and no legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners....we actually focus on people who use guns to commit crimes...not people who own guns for self defense..

I hope this helps....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

 

[sealybobo]

No compromise.

Mast similarly called for a ban on bump stocks, and said that background checks should also be stricter.

 

[Foxfyre]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

 

[sealybobo]

Point of clarification: I am advocating a COMPROMISE here, and not any form of acquiescence on either side. Unless both sides come to the table with some concrete and enforceable agreements, there would be no deal.

Somebody said the 2nd Amendment group has compromised and compromised. But they haven't. They have never gotten anything in return for the liberties they gave up or had forcibly taken from them. That isn't compromise. That is giving away something or being robbed. That is not acceptable. Both sides have to get something that they want out of the deal or no deal.

Give us a few examples from both sides. It'll help me understand what you are looking for.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

AR-15s are used for both hunting and self protection......as are all the other semi auto rifles and pistols.....

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Do you realize that felons and criminals...under the Haynes v. United States Supreme Court decision do not need to register illegal guns because it would violate their Right against self incrimination...so if actual criminals don't have to register their illegal guns.....how do you expect to require legal gun owners to register their legal guns...

Gun registration was used in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York and California to eventually confiscate guns......and in Germany, the disarmed were murdered in gas chambers.........

Criminals do not get their guns from gun shows, they use straw buyers or steal the guns....straw buyers can pass current federal background checks which means they can pass any background check at a gun show or for a private sale.....on the other side, forcing background checks on private property increases the time and cost to people who have committed no crime. We can already arrest felons who buy guns illegally, so we don't need to increase background check laws......

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?

The problem isn't a lack of gun laws.....the problem is democrat politicians constantly releasing violent gun criminals out of jail...to shoot more people, and the government failing to deal with actually dangerous people they know about.....

Felons can't buy, own or carry guns....we can already arrest them. We don't need more laws to do this...we can do it already...

The only thing we should do...increase jail sentences for gun criminals....this is how Japan stopped the Yakuza from using guns in their latest gang war........we need to put a 30 year sentence on actual gun crime, rape, robbery and murder.....this has the added benefits of no increase in pointless paperwork, no added cost to law abiding gun owners, and no legal jeopardy for law abiding gun owners....we actually focus on people who use guns to commit crimes...not people who own guns for self defense..

I hope this helps....

I come from a long line of hunters and not a single one of them has ever gone hunting with an AR-15. I am quite certain that an AR-15 isn't necessary to hunt any kind of game anybody is hunting.

So while I appreciate the information on guns--I own guns, am a damn good shot, and a card carrying member of the NRA and a strong 2nd Amendment advocate--the premise of the thread is what you or any others would be willing to compromise on in order to achieve a mutual effort to make schools and our society in general more safe.

It's not "what's necessary" to exercise to hunt. The second amendment is not about huniing. NO compromise should be made.

Nor is the OP about what is necessary for hunting. My post was in response to somebody who insisted AR-15s are used for hunting. Any reasonable person would agree that AR-15s are not NECESSARY for hunting.

Thus, if I could get all or most of those cultural things on the list in the OP, I could agree to ban manufacture and sale of AR-15s with a pretty clear conscience. Do I think that banning AR-15s would solve the problem in any way? Not at all. But understanding that some here think they would, that is one of some concessions I would be willing to make in order to get what I believe would be a solution to the problem.

You see I believe our culture is creating and cultivating criminal minds and intent and sociopathic tendencies. I want us to stop doing that. The pro gun control crowd almost certainly disagrees with me on that, but would they consent to all or most of the cultural fixes in order to get at least some of the gun control they want?