How do we curtail gun violence?

[Nosmo King]

Who's paying for a security force better than the Secret Service? Schools are forced to drop educational programs due to draconian budget cuts. Where's the cash for Rambo?

The cash is coming from cutting the things that don't belong in schools..... Gym, art, music, interscholastic sports, clubs, etc.... and returning schools to what they should be about.... BASIC SKILLS and nothing more.

I'm not talking about "a security force better than the Secret Service". I'm simply talking about ensuring the safety of the students and faculty who are not allowed any opportunity to defend themselves.

No! Stop right there! gym, art, music, sports, clubs don't belong in schools? What do you know of education? Apparently nothing.

Do not hijack education at the point of a gun.

 

[Anathema]

No! Stop right there! gym, art, music, sports, clubs don't belong in schools? What do you know of education? Apparently nothing.

Do not hijack education at the point of a gun.

What do I know about education? Not much. Just what I learned from my own education, and the experiences of my mother, father, 2 aunts, an uncle, one grandparent, and my youngest brother who are or were all involved in the field of education on both the public and parochial sides from early elementary up to teaching Biology on the college level.

What I know is that education is supposed to be an OPPORTUNITY for people to learn the BASIC skills necessary to function in our society. As an opportunity, not everyone chooses to take advantage of it, and that should be their choice. However, those who do choose to do it should be safe in that environment and the only way to do that is to provide proper security for those facilities and to keep out those who don't want to be there for the education.

 

[Nosmo King]

No! Stop right there! gym, art, music, sports, clubs don't belong in schools? What do you know of education? Apparently nothing.

Do not hijack education at the point of a gun.

What do I know about education? Not much. Just what I learned from my own education, and the experiences of my mother, father, 2 aunts, an uncle, one grandparent, and my youngest brother who are or were all involved in the field of education on both the public and parochial sides from early elementary up to teaching Biology on the college level.

What I know is that education is supposed to be an OPPORTUNITY for people to learn the BASIC skills necessary to function in our society. As an opportunity, not everyone chooses to take advantage of it, and that should be their choice. However, those who do choose to do it should be safe in that environment and the only way to do that is to provide proper security for those facilities and to keep out those who don't want to be there for the education.

But you said that art, music, sports and clubs do not belong in schools while armed guards do. you are blunting the educational opportunities for students just to pay for security. That is no bargain.

School is not merely a training center for efficient employees. It should be a palace where all life's opportunities are presented like an intellectual smorgasbord. Stripping away extra curricular activities to pay for the introduction of the gun culture would be the worst thing to happen to the educational experience since nuns found wooden rulers.

 

[KGB]

And in cases where previously law abiding citizens take a semi automatic to a school, I guess the resulting carnage is the price we must pay to do nothing to stop that act. I wonder why that previously law abiding citizen thought that a semi automatic was a wise choice to begin with?

And it serves as a convenient rationalization to claim that law abiding citizens are not the problem until indeed they are. Adam Lanza serves as a case in point, as does John Hinckley.

So, your suggestion is to blame the instrument of their evil as opposed to the evil that possessed them. Typical lib attitude....no one is ever accountable for their actions.

If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine. We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand? Because they are not 100% effective? Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

actually, a gun is a rather benign object. I have yet in all my years of being around firearms to ever see one come out of its storage container, load itself, go up to person & pull its own trigger. When that day happens, I will gladly join you in calling for their abolition. Until then, I will recognize the simple fact that any firearm requires two essential components to function: a guidance system & an operating system. I'll give you a big hint: both components are organic in nature & come from dominant bi-pedal species on the planet.

the fact is, like most gun grabbers, you wish to assign communal blame for the crimes of individuals. I, as a responsible gun owner, categorically refuse to accept that blame. I categorically refuse to give up my rights in the vein attempt of establishing a feel-good situation that does nothing to address the root cause. I believe it was said once on these boards that even with perfect gun control, a good family, & a close relationship to God did not stop Cain from killing Abel. So, maybe, just maybe, it isn't the instrument we should be looking at....

 

[shart_attack]

So, your suggestion is to blame the instrument of their evil as opposed to the evil that possessed them. Typical lib attitude....no one is ever accountable for their actions.

If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine. We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand? Because they are not 100% effective? Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

actually, a gun is a rather benign object. I have yet in all my years of being around firearms to ever see one come out of its storage container, load itself, go up to person & pull its own trigger. When that day happens, I will gladly join you in calling for their abolition. Until then, I will recognize the simple fact that any firearm requires two essential components to function: a guidance system & an operating system. I'll give you a big hint: both components are organic in nature & come from dominant bi-pedal species on the planet.

the fact is, like most gun grabbers, you wish to assign communal blame for the crimes of individuals. I, as a responsible gun owner, categorically refuse to accept that blame. I categorically refuse to give up my rights in the vein attempt of establishing a feel-good situation that does nothing to address the root cause. I believe it was said once on these boards that even with perfect gun control, a good family, & a close relationship to God did not stop Cain from killing Abel. So, maybe, just maybe, it isn't the instrument we should be looking at....

Good to see the KGB here.

I like your style.

(Btw, what do you think of gay pride parades in the States? What's the official word from the top Rezident?)

 

[KGB]

If indeed guns are sweet benign objects no more harmful than a moving van packed with ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel or a paper weight or a manhole cover, fine. We can then agree that it is the user that poses the problem.

In that case, when universal back ground checks are suggested, why are they dismissed out of hand? Because they are not 100% effective? Neither are speed limits, but certainly limiting speed saves lives.

Every suggestion to curb gun violence is rejected by gun lovers because 1) they are not the panacea to the problem or 2) they are regarded as an infringement of rights.

Unless some gun lover can offer a solution, we must them assume that death by gun shot, gun violence on our streets and mass shootings in our schools is just the price of "freedom" for a gun lover.

actually, a gun is a rather benign object. I have yet in all my years of being around firearms to ever see one come out of its storage container, load itself, go up to person & pull its own trigger. When that day happens, I will gladly join you in calling for their abolition. Until then, I will recognize the simple fact that any firearm requires two essential components to function: a guidance system & an operating system. I'll give you a big hint: both components are organic in nature & come from dominant bi-pedal species on the planet.

the fact is, like most gun grabbers, you wish to assign communal blame for the crimes of individuals. I, as a responsible gun owner, categorically refuse to accept that blame. I categorically refuse to give up my rights in the vein attempt of establishing a feel-good situation that does nothing to address the root cause. I believe it was said once on these boards that even with perfect gun control, a good family, & a close relationship to God did not stop Cain from killing Abel. So, maybe, just maybe, it isn't the instrument we should be looking at....

Good to see the KGB here.

I like your style.

(Btw, what do you think of gay pride parades in the States? What's the official word from the top Rezident?)

Вы - это действительно товарищ

 

[shart_attack]

actually, a gun is a rather benign object. I have yet in all my years of being around firearms to ever see one come out of its storage container, load itself, go up to person & pull its own trigger. When that day happens, I will gladly join you in calling for their abolition. Until then, I will recognize the simple fact that any firearm requires two essential components to function: a guidance system & an operating system. I'll give you a big hint: both components are organic in nature & come from dominant bi-pedal species on the planet.

the fact is, like most gun grabbers, you wish to assign communal blame for the crimes of individuals. I, as a responsible gun owner, categorically refuse to accept that blame. I categorically refuse to give up my rights in the vein attempt of establishing a feel-good situation that does nothing to address the root cause. I believe it was said once on these boards that even with perfect gun control, a good family, & a close relationship to God did not stop Cain from killing Abel. So, maybe, just maybe, it isn't the instrument we should be looking at....

Good to see the KGB here.

I like your style.

(Btw, what do you think of gay pride parades in the States? What's the official word from the top Rezident?)

Вы - это действительно товарищ

Ты уверен, что делают некоторые прекрасные женщины там, брат.

Я не думаю, что мы будем делать еще много из них здесь, в Штатах гораздо дольше в "Гей США".

Да благословит вас Бог, солдат.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.​

The United States has a murder rate on par with Thailand.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of those murders, of the ones for which the FBI received weapons data, 67.5% involve the use of firearms in 2010.
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data
The vast majority of homicides with a firearm were committed using a handgun, not an assault weapon. Most of these guns used in these homicides are obtained on the black market. The black market is fueled by the unregulated secondary market.

What are your thoughts on gun violence in America?
What are the proposals to curtail this secondary market and make a dent in the 99% of gun violence in our country?

Simple answer. We need more good guys with guns to kill the bad guys with guns. Law of attrition

-Geaux

An attempt at morbid humor I presume.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Not even beginning to address the problem. Mental health is just the cure d'jour. This is not a mental health issue. Cultural certainly. This country was built by people who used guns to live and that has been passed down. Our ancestors were pioneers, not serfs. But the primary problem is economical. Too many people with too few options. Until you solve that, you are going nowhere.

Cultural, Psychological... Is there a difference between these descriptions of the problem, really? If there is, forgive me for thinking the difference a bit semantic.

Let's look at a success story: Washington DC
First the numbers:
Crime rate in Washington, District of Columbia (DC): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics
Murders down from 239 to 88
So what changed?

I think people and their situations account for much of the homicide rate. Yes, that seems obvious, but it needs to be stated plainly that a mix of a harsh impoverishment with easy access to guns on the black market is from whence the gun violence flows. This is a two prong problem.

It is said that victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. There are a number of policy decisions to which this reduction is attributed. Improving the ability of the DC police to respond to violent crime, community outreach, gentrification, new jobs... some even credit improvements to the schools.
I think all of the above. All of the above indicate an improvement in opportunity, a shift in culture(psychology?) and a more component city government.

But no one is crediting gun control. That does not mean gun control is evil. That simply means that gun control alone does not solve a problem this massive. The problem has two prongs.

The murder rate in DC is still high, and is likely to remain high so long as the second prong of the problem exists, which is easy access to illegal guns. We cannot ignore that problem. The illegal guns need to be removed from the street.

I would agree it was all of the above. What it wasn't was gun control. I am not saying gun control is evil, I am saying it in ineffective and takes the focus away from the actual problem. It is a bandaid, and not even applied to the wound. It is an easy sound bite for politicians so they don't have to deal with the real issue.

I agree that poverty is the larger problem that needs to be addressed. Desperation and a gun don't mix well.
On "Gun Control" I would ask the question "What is gun control"? Is a three day waiting period not "Gun Control"? Maybe the question should be "How much Gun Control is reasonable?"
There's a very funny anecdote I'd like to share. It's from Chris Rock:

You don’t need no gun control. We need some bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. If a bullet cost $5,000, there’ll be no more innocent bystanders. Every time somebody gets shot it’ll be like, “Man, he must have done something. Shit, they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass.”​

Is there any truth to the idea of imposing a vice tax on guns? Would imposing a vice tax on guns and/or ammunition make illegal guns prohibitively expensive? Would the thought of lost revenue make the government more likely to enforce the laws we already have?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.​

The United States has a murder rate on par with Thailand.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of those murders, of the ones for which the FBI received weapons data, 67.5% involve the use of firearms in 2010.
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data
The vast majority of homicides with a firearm were committed using a handgun, not an assault weapon. Most of these guns used in these homicides are obtained on the black market. The black market is fueled by the unregulated secondary market.

What are your thoughts on gun violence in America?
What are the proposals to curtail this secondary market and make a dent in the 99% of gun violence in our country?

I think you identified the real problem right there. The hyping of assault weapons.

There's a quote from Jim Carroll on this point:

Know this: there's different types of users of junk. You got your rich, dilettante square ass who dabbles now and then, but always has enough money to run off to the Riviera if he feels he's fuckin' around to the danger point. Street junkies hate these pricks. But they're always suckers and their money makes 'em tolerable. Then you got your upper-middle class Westchester preppies. Same as the others basically, but what they're good for is opening their mommy and daddy's eyes to the social virus, and puttin' pressure on the government to do somethin' about it. Then there's us street kids. Start fuckin' around very young...13 or so. Think we all got it under control...won't get strung out. This rarely works. I'm living proof. But in the end, you've just gotta see the junk as another 9-5 gig, the hours are just a bit more inclined to shadows.​

That's why people are upset about assault rifles.

That being said, why are assault rifles not kept in a town armory? If privately kept and maintained assault rifles are necessary for a well regulated militia, which they may be, then should not some pass/fail training be a pre-requisite? Such as in the military? Or the police force? Or some service in some sort of official civic defense?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.​

The United States has a murder rate on par with Thailand.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of those murders, of the ones for which the FBI received weapons data, 67.5% involve the use of firearms in 2010.
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data
The vast majority of homicides with a firearm were committed using a handgun, not an assault weapon. Most of these guns used in these homicides are obtained on the black market. The black market is fueled by the unregulated secondary market.

What are your thoughts on gun violence in America?
What are the proposals to curtail this secondary market and make a dent in the 99% of gun violence in our country?

I think you identified the real problem right there. The hyping of assault weapons.

There's a quote from Jim Carroll on this point:

Know this: there's different types of users of junk. You got your rich, dilettante square ass who dabbles now and then, but always has enough money to run off to the Riviera if he feels he's fuckin' around to the danger point. Street junkies hate these pricks. But they're always suckers and their money makes 'em tolerable. Then you got your upper-middle class Westchester preppies. Same as the others basically, but what they're good for is opening their mommy and daddy's eyes to the social virus, and puttin' pressure on the government to do somethin' about it. Then there's us street kids. Start fuckin' around very young...13 or so. Think we all got it under control...won't get strung out. This rarely works. I'm living proof. But in the end, you've just gotta see the junk as another 9-5 gig, the hours are just a bit more inclined to shadows.​

That's why people are upset about assault rifles.

That being said, why are assault rifles not kept in a town armory? If privately kept and maintained assault rifles are necessary for a well regulated militia, which they may be, then should not some pass/fail training be a pre-requisite? Such as in the military? Or the police force? Or some service in some sort of official civic defense?

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right irregardless of membership in a militia. Further by US law all males age 17 to 45 are members of the Unorganized US Militia. The purpose of a militia is so that private citizens can respond to a government call for troops and bring with them their own weapons. That means in order to be effective semi automatic rifles with 30 round magazines are a must.

And the 2nd specifically states the right shall not be infringed so no sin tax, no raising the cost of bullets to ignorant levels and no special added tax.

 

[sameech]

There has been a lot of talk about mass shooting incidents.
What I see in that talk are many people stricken by shock and grief and who have the means to make their voice heard. Very little is said about homicides among our poor.

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deadly mass shootings have resulted in considerable coverage by the media. These shootings have represented 1% of all deaths by gun between 1980 and 2008.​

The United States has a murder rate on par with Thailand.
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of those murders, of the ones for which the FBI received weapons data, 67.5% involve the use of firearms in 2010.
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data
The vast majority of homicides with a firearm were committed using a handgun, not an assault weapon. Most of these guns used in these homicides are obtained on the black market. The black market is fueled by the unregulated secondary market.

What are your thoughts on gun violence in America?
What are the proposals to curtail this secondary market and make a dent in the 99% of gun violence in our country?

I think you identified the real problem right there. The hyping of assault weapons.

There's a quote from Jim Carroll on this point:

Know this: there's different types of users of junk. You got your rich, dilettante square ass who dabbles now and then, but always has enough money to run off to the Riviera if he feels he's fuckin' around to the danger point. Street junkies hate these pricks. But they're always suckers and their money makes 'em tolerable. Then you got your upper-middle class Westchester preppies. Same as the others basically, but what they're good for is opening their mommy and daddy's eyes to the social virus, and puttin' pressure on the government to do somethin' about it. Then there's us street kids. Start fuckin' around very young...13 or so. Think we all got it under control...won't get strung out. This rarely works. I'm living proof. But in the end, you've just gotta see the junk as another 9-5 gig, the hours are just a bit more inclined to shadows.​

That's why people are upset about assault rifles.

That being said, why are assault rifles not kept in a town armory? If privately kept and maintained assault rifles are necessary for a well regulated militia, which they may be, then should not some pass/fail training be a pre-requisite? Such as in the military? Or the police force? Or some service in some sort of official civic defense?

"Assault Rifle" is an ambiguous phrase. It opens the door for people to post a photo of two rifles, 1 legal and 1 illegal and demand you identify which is which and other such nonsense.

From my perspective, today's police and the military are the militia as intended by the Constitution when you look at the function of militias then and LE/military now.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

I think you identified the real problem right there. The hyping of assault weapons.

There's a quote from Jim Carroll on this point:

Know this: there's different types of users of junk. You got your rich, dilettante square ass who dabbles now and then, but always has enough money to run off to the Riviera if he feels he's fuckin' around to the danger point. Street junkies hate these pricks. But they're always suckers and their money makes 'em tolerable. Then you got your upper-middle class Westchester preppies. Same as the others basically, but what they're good for is opening their mommy and daddy's eyes to the social virus, and puttin' pressure on the government to do somethin' about it. Then there's us street kids. Start fuckin' around very young...13 or so. Think we all got it under control...won't get strung out. This rarely works. I'm living proof. But in the end, you've just gotta see the junk as another 9-5 gig, the hours are just a bit more inclined to shadows.​

That's why people are upset about assault rifles.

That being said, why are assault rifles not kept in a town armory? If privately kept and maintained assault rifles are necessary for a well regulated militia, which they may be, then should not some pass/fail training be a pre-requisite? Such as in the military? Or the police force? Or some service in some sort of official civic defense?

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right irregardless of membership in a militia. Further by US law all males age 17 to 45 are members of the Unorganized US Militia. The purpose of a militia is so that private citizens can respond to a government call for troops and bring with them their own weapons. That means in order to be effective semi automatic rifles with 30 round magazines are a must.

And the 2nd specifically states the right shall not be infringed so no sin tax, no raising the cost of bullets to ignorant levels and no special added tax.

Gunny,
I'm sorry, you are wrong about taxation.

26 USC § 4181
That statute inflicting a tax on guns has not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.

26 USC ch. 53
These statutes, collectively known as the National Firearms Act of 1934, which among other things inflict a tax on guns, have also not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)


The SCOTUS has held that private persons have an individual right to types of weapons as may be used by a militia, those being common household weapons. However, SCOTUS has provided dicta that would find bans on weapons like the M-16 to be constitutional.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There's a quote from Jim Carroll on this point:

Know this: there's different types of users of junk. You got your rich, dilettante square ass who dabbles now and then, but always has enough money to run off to the Riviera if he feels he's fuckin' around to the danger point. Street junkies hate these pricks. But they're always suckers and their money makes 'em tolerable. Then you got your upper-middle class Westchester preppies. Same as the others basically, but what they're good for is opening their mommy and daddy's eyes to the social virus, and puttin' pressure on the government to do somethin' about it. Then there's us street kids. Start fuckin' around very young...13 or so. Think we all got it under control...won't get strung out. This rarely works. I'm living proof. But in the end, you've just gotta see the junk as another 9-5 gig, the hours are just a bit more inclined to shadows.​

That's why people are upset about assault rifles.

That being said, why are assault rifles not kept in a town armory? If privately kept and maintained assault rifles are necessary for a well regulated militia, which they may be, then should not some pass/fail training be a pre-requisite? Such as in the military? Or the police force? Or some service in some sort of official civic defense?

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right irregardless of membership in a militia. Further by US law all males age 17 to 45 are members of the Unorganized US Militia. The purpose of a militia is so that private citizens can respond to a government call for troops and bring with them their own weapons. That means in order to be effective semi automatic rifles with 30 round magazines are a must.

And the 2nd specifically states the right shall not be infringed so no sin tax, no raising the cost of bullets to ignorant levels and no special added tax.

Gunny,
I'm sorry, you are wrong about taxation.

26 USC § 4181
That statute inflicting a tax on guns has not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.

26 USC ch. 53
These statutes, collectively known as the National Firearms Act of 1934, which among other things inflict a tax in guns, have also not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)


The SCOTUS has held that private persons have an individual right to types of weapons as may be used by a militia, those being common household weapons. However, SCOTUS has provided dicta that would find bans on weapons like the M-16 to be constitutional.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

Fully automatic weapons are banned if produced after 1986. Any done before then is legal with a license in all but 16 States. An AR-15 is NOT an M-16. It is a semi automatic with no burst function and no automatic fire option. The Supreme Court has NOT ever agreed to a ban on semi automatics, that is a bald faced lie.

Once again the Court HAS ruled that a weapon of use, in use or common use of the military is what is protected by the 2nd. And they have never rescinded that decision. BUT they have further stipulated that the 2nd IS an individual right not dependent on membership in a militia. And they have forced cities that ban firearms to rescind those bans, or haven't you heard of Chicago and Washington DC?

 

[Ernie S.]

I think that while there is certainly gun violence here, that it is blown way out of proportion. The chances you will be involved in such violence, unless your lifestyle is such that you increase your odds, is very small. You are in far greater danger on the roadways.

There are no proposals to curtail the issue that will have any impact upon it. If one is ever proposed, one that actually will have an affect beyond allowing some politician some face time on TV, then I may have a different perspective. Until then, I would much prefer to be free than to have illusionary safety.

And the majority of gun deaths are suicides.

Suicide is not homicide. The murder rate is somewhere between 4 and 5 in 100,000 depending on the source. The majority of murders are committed with a gun.

The majority of rapes are committed with a penis. Are you advocating outlawing them too?
A gun is a tool. A hand gun is a tool. You can pound a nail or kill a person with either one. A gun is simply a more efficient tool for killing.

What needs to be done is to work on the reasons why people kill.
#1 drugs
Frankly, the older I get, the more convinced I am that all so called "recreational drugs" should be made legal. In the case of meth, crack and heroin, free for confirmed addicts. I figure it will eliminate the criminal and territorial aspects and allow substantial profit at a reduced margin.
The side benefit is that Darwin will cull the gene pool.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

And the majority of gun deaths are suicides.

Suicide is not homicide. The murder rate is somewhere between 4 and 5 in 100,000 depending on the source. The majority of murders are committed with a gun.

The majority of rapes are committed with a penis. Are you advocating outlawing them too?

Clean discussion, Ernie.
Please leave flame, straw men, red herrings and perverse projections at the door.
Let's try to keep it a bit classier in the clean discussion section. Is that asking so much?

 

[Ernie S.]

With a comprehensive mental health program in conjunction with a fundamental change in American society and culture where violence is no longer perceived as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

Unfortunately it’s easier to identify the appropriate solutions than to implement them.

Not even beginning to address the problem. Mental health is just the cure d'jour. This is not a mental health issue. Cultural certainly. This country was built by people who used guns to live and that has been passed down. Our ancestors were pioneers, not serfs. But the primary problem is economical. Too many people with too few options. Until you solve that, you are going nowhere.

You are one of the few people who has realized this. If we're going to get serious about stopping mass violence, we must regulate the murder industry much more tightly. The Wrongpublican goal of a completely deregulated economy just isn't working, and hasn't worked, and will never work. We need more federal laws regulating the murder industry if we are to rein in these killer-barons and stop them from running amok.

I'm thinking there are enough laws regulating murder right now. Hell! One should suffice. "Thou shalt not kill." works for me.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right irregardless of membership in a militia. Further by US law all males age 17 to 45 are members of the Unorganized US Militia. The purpose of a militia is so that private citizens can respond to a government call for troops and bring with them their own weapons. That means in order to be effective semi automatic rifles with 30 round magazines are a must.

And the 2nd specifically states the right shall not be infringed so no sin tax, no raising the cost of bullets to ignorant levels and no special added tax.

Gunny,
I'm sorry, you are wrong about taxation.

26 USC § 4181
That statute inflicting a tax on guns has not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.

26 USC ch. 53
These statutes, collectively known as the National Firearms Act of 1934, which among other things inflict a tax in guns, have also not suffered a successful constitutional challenge.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)


The SCOTUS has held that private persons have an individual right to types of weapons as may be used by a militia, those being common household weapons. However, SCOTUS has provided dicta that would find bans on weapons like the M-16 to be constitutional.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

Fully automatic weapons are banned if produced after 1986. Any done before then is legal with a license in all but 16 States. An AR-15 is NOT an M-16. It is a semi automatic with no burst function and no automatic fire option. The Supreme Court has NOT ever agreed to a ban on semi automatics, that is a bald faced lie.

Once again the Court HAS ruled that a weapon of use, in use or common use of the military is what is protected by the 2nd. And they have never rescinded that decision. BUT they have further stipulated that the 2nd IS an individual right not dependent on membership in a militia. And they have forced cities that ban firearms to rescind those bans, or haven't you heard of Chicago and Washington DC?

Gunny,
I cited the Chi-Town case above.
The court ruled against bans on handguns in McDonald.

 

[PratchettFan]

Cultural, Psychological... Is there a difference between these descriptions of the problem, really? If there is, forgive me for thinking the difference a bit semantic.

Let's look at a success story: Washington DC
First the numbers:
Crime rate in Washington, District of Columbia (DC): murders, rapes, robberies, assaults, burglaries, thefts, auto thefts, arson, law enforcement employees, police officers statistics
Murders down from 239 to 88
So what changed?

I think people and their situations account for much of the homicide rate. Yes, that seems obvious, but it needs to be stated plainly that a mix of a harsh impoverishment with easy access to guns on the black market is from whence the gun violence flows. This is a two prong problem.

It is said that victory has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. There are a number of policy decisions to which this reduction is attributed. Improving the ability of the DC police to respond to violent crime, community outreach, gentrification, new jobs... some even credit improvements to the schools.
I think all of the above. All of the above indicate an improvement in opportunity, a shift in culture(psychology?) and a more component city government.

But no one is crediting gun control. That does not mean gun control is evil. That simply means that gun control alone does not solve a problem this massive. The problem has two prongs.

The murder rate in DC is still high, and is likely to remain high so long as the second prong of the problem exists, which is easy access to illegal guns. We cannot ignore that problem. The illegal guns need to be removed from the street.

I would agree it was all of the above. What it wasn't was gun control. I am not saying gun control is evil, I am saying it in ineffective and takes the focus away from the actual problem. It is a bandaid, and not even applied to the wound. It is an easy sound bite for politicians so they don't have to deal with the real issue.

I agree that poverty is the larger problem that needs to be addressed. Desperation and a gun don't mix well.
On "Gun Control" I would ask the question "What is gun control"? Is a three day waiting period not "Gun Control"? Maybe the question should be "How much Gun Control is reasonable?"
There's a very funny anecdote I'd like to share. It's from Chris Rock:

You don’t need no gun control. We need some bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5,000. If a bullet cost $5,000, there’ll be no more innocent bystanders. Every time somebody gets shot it’ll be like, “Man, he must have done something. Shit, they put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass.”​

Is there any truth to the idea of imposing a vice tax on guns? Would imposing a vice tax on guns and/or ammunition make illegal guns prohibitively expensive? Would the thought of lost revenue make the government more likely to enforce the laws we already have?

A financial approach to guns will only impact legal users and, once again, is directed at the wrong problem. Chris Rock, though entertaining, is wrong.

 

[midcan5]

These are the people enabled by the far right talking and media machine in America. The NRA too.

Indiana dad of Las Vegas shooter: 'I begged her not to marry him' - chicagotribune.com

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...has-become-a-killing-field-2.html#post6498531

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-doesn-t-make-sense-to-me-5.html#post7038526

Guns are the crack of the partisan hacks. Courage is an imaginary passion for them and thus the gun huggers cling to the source of their only strength, an empty bravado. They are like a child with its blankee who cries when separated. Drugs, even when they are hard metal talismans of courage are not something the frightened can part with. They have come to represent freedom for the unfree, teetered as they are to the gun lobby and the NRA, and a gross misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment. They need their fix and their fix is an object of imaginary security, an object that gives meaning to a senselessness that only programmed Americans can believe is real. Oh and I laugh that the NRA removed the word 'militia' from their retard headquarter's slogan misuse of the second.


"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."