CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[2aguy]

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.......

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to 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?

I argue about culture all the time...it is the determining factor, there is no issue with guns and gun types....the problem is a culture that promotes single teenage mother raising young males without fathers.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

See.....you assume that we haven't already done the soul searching, weighed the information, the facts, the truth and the reality and based on those things come to our conclusions.....

We have, and that is why we understand that our position is the correct one all the way around and giving up the AR-15, for example, achieves nothing the other side claims it will achieve, and is simply the next step to the next step in banning guns.....

 

[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.

​

​

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?

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.

And this is where you go wrong......you admit it does nothing, yet you fail to understand that giving them the AR-15 will not stop them from demanding the next gun...after the next mass shooting.....and if you allow them to have the AR-15 based on their argument that no one "needs" a weapon of war, then you are also conceding for future debates that any rifle that is a semi auto weapon should be banned as well...since the AR-15 is no different from any other semi auto rifle. You give them the argument that we will have banned the AR-15 because of how it shoots......then they can say all the other rifles shoot the same way...so those too must go.....having already conceded their point by giving them the AR-15......

History, facts, the truth and reality belong to the supporters of the 2nd Amendment.......giving them something simply because they cry, and demand it is no different than giving into the temper tantrum of a child....

 

[hunarcy]

I agree to the cultural reform.

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while anti-gunners are still giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

 

[2aguy]

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

Exactly, the discussion always starts from the last item surrendered to the anti gunners.......and now we start the negotiations for the next item.....

We are still waiting for concealed carry reciprocity and for them to leave our magazines and AR-15s alone....

 

[Foxfyre]

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.......

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to 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?

I argue about culture all the time...it is the determining factor, there is no issue with guns and gun types....the problem is a culture that promotes single teenage mother raising young males without fathers.....

I agree that's a really important part of it. But still, you wouldn't concede any thing at all re some more gun control such as maybe saying okay, we'll give up AR-15s and bump stocks if everybody will agree to fix the single parent problem plus some other essential fixes? Admittedly that would require going back to the old archaic attitudes about family and children, but under that archaic system we didn't worry about people shooting up schools even though a lot of kids brought their guns to school. Culture is really REALLY important.

 

[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.

See.....you assume that we haven't already done the soul searching, weighed the information, the facts, the truth and the reality and based on those things come to our conclusions.....

We have, and that is why we understand that our position is the correct one all the way around and giving up the AR-15, for example, achieves nothing the other side claims it will achieve, and is simply the next step to the next step in banning guns.....

Not if what we give up is to get something better. I am not in any way, shape, or form suggesting the 2nd Amendment people give an inch unless they can gain something really important.

 

[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?

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.

And this is where you go wrong......you admit it does nothing, yet you fail to understand that giving them the AR-15 will not stop them from demanding the next gun...after the next mass shooting.....and if you allow them to have the AR-15 based on their argument that no one "needs" a weapon of war, then you are also conceding for future debates that any rifle that is a semi auto weapon should be banned as well...since the AR-15 is no different from any other semi auto rifle. You give them the argument that we will have banned the AR-15 because of how it shoots......then they can say all the other rifles shoot the same way...so those too must go.....having already conceded their point by giving them the AR-15......

History, facts, the truth and reality belong to the supporters of the 2nd Amendment.......giving them something simply because they cry, and demand it is no different than giving into the temper tantrum of a child....

Again I'm not giving up anything without getting something a whole lot better in return. In my opinion, if we could ever get the gun control lobby to agree to those cultural changes listed in the OP, or something similar to them, within a generation we wouldn't be worried much about horrendous acts of violence and that reformed generation would know as we do that guns are not the problem.

At the very least I wish the NRA and other 2nd Amendment groups would include the need for the cultural changes in the information they put out.

 

[hunarcy]

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.......

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to 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?

I argue about culture all the time...it is the determining factor, there is no issue with guns and gun types....the problem is a culture that promotes single teenage mother raising young males without fathers.....

I agree that's a really important part of it. But still, you wouldn't concede any thing at all re some more gun control such as maybe saying okay, we'll give up AR-15s and bump stocks if everybody will agree to fix the single parent problem plus some other essential fixes? Admittedly that would require going back to the old archaic attitudes about family and children, but under that archaic system we didn't worry about people shooting up schools even though a lot of kids brought their guns to school. Culture is really REALLY important.

I don't know about him, but I'd say no. Now, "bump stocks" should be banned

 

[Foxfyre]

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while anti-gunners are still giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

No. I am not suggesting any one side solution. I am suggesting a win-win situation for both side. The 2nd Amendment people should not give a single inch without getting something really valuable in return for it. But we also should not be so obstinate to refuse to even have a conversation about what should happen that no solution is possible anywhere.

 

[hunarcy]

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while anti-gunners are still giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

No. I am not suggesting any one side solution. I am suggesting a win-win situation for both side. The 2nd Amendment people should not give a single inch without getting something really valuable in return for it. But we also should not be so obstinate to refuse to even have a conversation about what should happen that no solution is possible anywhere.

I'm NOT giving a single inch, at least until we go back to my full rights. THEN, I will be willing to talk.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.......

Japan’s gun control laws so strict the Yakuza turn to 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?

I argue about culture all the time...it is the determining factor, there is no issue with guns and gun types....the problem is a culture that promotes single teenage mother raising young males without fathers.....

I agree that's a really important part of it. But still, you wouldn't concede any thing at all re some more gun control such as maybe saying okay, we'll give up AR-15s and bump stocks if everybody will agree to fix the single parent problem plus some other essential fixes? Admittedly that would require going back to the old archaic attitudes about family and children, but under that archaic system we didn't worry about people shooting up schools even though a lot of kids brought their guns to school. Culture is really REALLY important.

I don't know about him, but I'd say no. Now, "bump stocks" should be banned

I don't have a personal conviction one way or the other re bump stocks--I figure those that really want them will get them whether they are legal or not--but they sure could be a good bargaining chip to use to get concessions and cooperation that actually will help from the other side.

My problem with President Trump's plan to eliminate bump stocks is that he isn't getting anything in return for doing that. It's the right thing to do probably, but it is such a valuable bargaining chip that could be used.

 

[2aguy]

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while anti-gunners are still giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

No. I am not suggesting any one side solution. I am suggesting a win-win situation for both side. The 2nd Amendment people should not give a single inch without getting something really valuable in return for it. But we also should not be so obstinate to refuse to even have a conversation about what should happen that no solution is possible anywhere.

We have those conversations here all the time.....we explain our points.....then, they will suggest a new law, or a new item that should be banned....we explain why the new law and the item being banned achieve nothing.....then they start talking about penises........it gets kind of old.....

 

[Foxfyre]

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

But, the conversation you propose is one sided from its inception. The anti-gunners have extorted 55 years worth of concessions while anti-gunners are still giving NOTHING, and you want me to begin the discussion there. So, you want to start the conversation where things are now, and will expect me to give up even more while accepting even more erosion of my rights to make more concessions that won't improve anything. So no, nothing reasonable about it at all.

No. I am not suggesting any one side solution. I am suggesting a win-win situation for both side. The 2nd Amendment people should not give a single inch without getting something really valuable in return for it. But we also should not be so obstinate to refuse to even have a conversation about what should happen that no solution is possible anywhere.

We have those conversations here all the time.....we explain our points.....then, they will suggest a new law, or a new item that should be banned....we explain why the new law and the item being banned achieve nothing.....then they start talking about penises........it gets kind of old.....

Sure it gets old when it is all one sided which it has been.

I am suggesting a way to get the problem solved that will give you a whole bunch more of value than what little you would choose to give up to get it.

It is like having a $100 bill. It's wonderful to have. Nobody has any right to take it from you.

But if somebody offers you something of great value that you would rather have than the $100, you willingly hand it over. You've given up nothing of importance and have gained something of great value.

That's what I am shooting for here.

I am sick and tired of people like (the rhetorical, not literal) you telling me that if I support any form of gun control, I want to take away your guns. I don't.

And I am sick and tired of people like the figurative others who tell me that if I propose specific cultural changes that I am forcing my values down their throats. I am not.

When both sides hold on tight to their particular ideology and refuses to even talk about what compromise can get everybody on the same path and fix a problem, both sides are the reason that the problem persists.

 

[sealybobo]

I agree to the cultural reform.

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

It’s becoming more and more clear you’re why we never get anywhere. You haven’t made it past step one in how many pages? You’re clearly a gun nut just looking to confuse obstruct delay distract misdirect us into status quo

 

[2aguy]

Great. Then are you ready to change your vote?

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

It’s becoming more and more clear you’re why we never get anywhere. You haven’t made it past step one in how many pages? You’re clearly a gun nut just looking to confuse obstruct delay distract misdirect us into status quo

Hey....Foxfyre....want to try compromising with this guy?

 

[sealybobo]

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

It’s becoming more and more clear you’re why we never get anywhere. You haven’t made it past step one in how many pages? You’re clearly a gun nut just looking to confuse obstruct delay distract misdirect us into status quo

Hey....Foxfyre....want to try compromising with this guy?

She doesn’t know what she wants.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

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.

And this is where you go wrong......you admit it does nothing, yet you fail to understand that giving them the AR-15 will not stop them from demanding the next gun...after the next mass shooting.....and if you allow them to have the AR-15 based on their argument that no one "needs" a weapon of war, then you are also conceding for future debates that any rifle that is a semi auto weapon should be banned as well...since the AR-15 is no different from any other semi auto rifle. You give them the argument that we will have banned the AR-15 because of how it shoots......then they can say all the other rifles shoot the same way...so those too must go.....having already conceded their point by giving them the AR-15......

History, facts, the truth and reality belong to the supporters of the 2nd Amendment.......giving them something simply because they cry, and demand it is no different than giving into the temper tantrum of a child....

We have too high powered weapons with too many rounds capacity.

You won’t cry when these guns are no longer made available to the public. Keep your glock, shotgun and revolvers. Ten round max

 

[task0778]

Couple of other points to make, besides what I said in my earlier post (#64). I see the solutions to the problem of school shootings as more of a local and state issue than a federal one. Yes, I know these shootings have occurred in several states, so it is a national problem but that doesn't mean we have to have a federal answer. To some extent, maybe we need to tighten up the background checks, which I thought are already pretty tight. Democrats bitch about gun shows and online sales, but those situations are already covered by laws already on the books, guns purchased either way have to go through a licensed gun dealer who is required to do a background check. If the Dems want to tighten that up, tell me how and we'll talk.

But the rest of the solutions to school shootings is more of a state and local thing, starting with arming teachers and other school employees who volunteer to carry a weapon on school grounds. Doesn't have to be a gun, it can be pepper spray or a stun gun or some other non-lethal thing, whatever. And having more armed guards around and more surveillance cameras and systems to spot identified potential trouble-makers would be part of the answer. Would-be shooters have to know that there will be people shooting back; that might not deter everybody if they're really that nuts but chances are many won't go through with it knowing they'll be running the risk of getting shot themselves. And give GVROs a chance, that could help a lot to take guns out of the hands of somebody who appears to be a danger to himself and others.

I won't compromise away the right to buy and own an AR-15 until we've tried everything else we can think of. By some estimates we already have 5-15 million AR-15s out there now, and nobody knows who owns them. And who knows how many other guns are out there that could be used instead of an AR-15? So how are we going to confiscate all those guns, assuming the law to do so would be ruled constitutional in the first place, which I doubt. It's one thing to ban the manufacture and sale of AR-15s, but it's another to confiscate the existing ones, not to mention the rest of them.

And finally we can't be soft on anybody that is caught trying to smuggle a gun, bomb, knife, or any other weapon into a school. 5 years minimum IMHO, no suspended sentences or probation. It's gotta be clear, there are people who will be armed in that school and they will shoot you, and your picture will be plastered all over the country from the cameras mounted int he schools so you ain't getting away with anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

I would hope that no one would compromise until all rights were restored and the real issue of mental health was addressed.

I would hope that no one would compromise without getting something important to them in return. But again, if we can't even have the discussion of what we would be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to gun crime, then there will be no solution.

Before we talk about what to give up, let's go back to the situation as it was in 1960 and THEN begin compromising. Expecting us to compromise after 55+ years of giving up rights isn't reasonable.

Yes it is reasonable if you want a solution to the problem. You know and I know that more gun control won't solve the problem. But when you are dealing with people who are convinced that it will, what we know doesn't count for much.

The conversation includes what each side is willing to do in order to solve a problem they both want solved and there will certainly be some give and take. But a conversation is not agreement or acquiescence to anything. It requires nothing but the time and effort to participate in it. But to refuse to have the conversation makes it really certain that the problem most likely won't get solved.

It’s becoming more and more clear you’re why we never get anywhere. You haven’t made it past step one in how many pages? You’re clearly a gun nut just looking to confuse obstruct delay distract misdirect us into status quo

Hey....Foxfyre....want to try compromising with this guy?

No. It's pretty obvious when you can't trust somebody to be honest about much of anything.