Control dilemmas (new & improved)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Last edited Sat Jul 11, 2015, 04:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Certain ideas from some of the pro-control folks have some merit. I think many of us on the RKBA side are misunderstood and considered as opposing any and all ideas that might help and just wanting all control laws abolished.

Are there things that can be done that may help prevent violence? Please name something relent to violence abatement in the way of legislation, enforcement and/or a social campaign. If you see something that's counterproductive here in this thread please add something that in your opinion might work rather than ONLY arguing against what you see as wrong or unworkable.

IMHO, many pro-control believe that:
-1 No one, gun owners, manufacturers, sellers, advertisers... anyone who profits from them, is doing enough to prevent murders, shootings and suicides. (Ignore the rhetoric of what should actually be done.)

-2 Gun design was intended first as a weapon. Unilateral and aggressive weapon use has injury or death as its objective.

-3 In general, design refinements to guns make them more effective as weapons. Weapons which demand less effort, less skill or provide a more ergonomic design making killing easier and faster. They see these as unacceptable goals and effects.

For these reasons (and likely others) some pro-control folks see that all of those groups mentioned in #1, above, must take a much greater role in (and responsibility for) firearm misuse including criminal activity. I believe our current firearm restrictions have this as a goal as well. In many areas, the sale of new firearm mandates the concurrent sale of a trigger lock. We have the NICS.

IMO these reasons form the basis for the idea of demanding owner carry insurance as well as thinking the supply chain should not be protected from lawsuits arising from criminal activity. I infer that 'if those involved were doing enough in the opinion of some pro-control folks, these events wouldn't be happening as frequently.

I can't say enough about how bad I feel for those who've lost loved ones to violence. When the actual perpetrators are never caught or have taken their own lives, the void left for who to blame may be like a vacuum that pulls in anyone or any organization that's close. The NRA, which was founded to promote marksmanship and safety, has more recently adopted the role of protecting the rights to own and commerce in firearms. They become a target because most people can easily see that serving two masters can be difficult without compromising one for the benefit of the other.

In the search for who to blame gun rights orgs are easy targets, pun intended.


Thanks

[Duckhunter935]

1. I agree

Anything that some of say is just dismissed out of hand. I am for UBC and getting better data in the NICS. I think any crime committed with a firearm should be enhanced like hate crimes are now.

[the band leader]

2. If you want to decrease violent crime and generally improve America

Last edited Mon Jul 6, 2015, 12:19 AM - Edit history (2)

Build more prisons, hire more prison guards, impose tougher lengthier sentences for gang members and serious drug traffickers and improve our abilities to intercept drugs before they make it into the country. For that matter, take the war on drugs to the drugs countries of origins. Substance abuse has killed far more Americans than terrorism ever has and has cost us more money. If we can wage a global war on terror, we can wage a global war on drugs. Creating new gun control laws isn't going to fix anything.

[beardown]

9. We already built more prisons.

We are the leading jailer in the world.
Our prison pop has gone from something like half a million to two and a half million since the war on drugs.
Over the last century, there have been two huge spikes in the murder rate. One came during prohibition and the second came with the war on some drugs.

I want folks that are doing violent crimes in jail, not folks that are buying non Big Pharma drugs.

I agree we could improve things by sending the right folks to prison. I just disagree with who an expanded drug war would wind up sending to prison.

[AnnieO]

3. "Create stricter laws"

What gets me is when the pro-control folks call for stricter laws. I always reply that the current laws need to be enforced. I will hear pro-control folks especially call for this after a child has been killed as an innocent bystander caught in gang crossfire. Thing is, at least in Chicago/Cook County, I've read that gun charges are often plea bargained away. That's how you get someone who has shot someone out again in a year or two.

I can't remember if I've ever heard the pro-control folks call for prosecutors to not allow gun charges to be plea bargained away.

[oneshooter]

4. And you won't hear it.

They are about control, not guns.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. It's time to go state by state

The FBI and ATF don't have the resources to take on sorting out the issues of every town and county out there. States were intended to handle these issues. Ignoring that won't make anyone any allies.

[pablo_marmol]

5. Democrats need to stop being their own worst enemy.

I was recently challenged to come up with some ideas to deal with gun violence by a person who refused to do so him/herself. Here's my reply:

The tragic fact about the relationship between the Democratic Party and gun violence is that we have lied so egregiously, so long, and so unrepentantly that it will take AT LEAST a generation TO BEGIN to be in a position to regain trust on this issue. So first and foremost, we have to stop the bleeding by discontinuing our lying. The only two issues relating to “gun control” on the party platform relate to “assault weapons” and “gun show loopholes”. Both of these issues are built on direct lies and misleading “facts”. This ruins our credibility GENERALLY, and poisons the well for any productive dialog. It is a most egregious LIE that gun owners are primarily responsible for the gridlock in dialog w/regard to gun restriction.

There are a number of things the Democratic Party could do right away to improve the current situation, but I don’t see them happening in the near term:

1) Remove “assault weapon” and “gun show loophole” lies from party platform.

2) Substitute universal background checks, and improved law enforcement data sharing in their place.

3) Swear off forever - FORMALLY - any intent at firearm banning/confiscation. This would be tricky, since “assault weapons” angst has everything to do with the lie that weapons that look like military weapons necessarily function like them. Of course most gun owners wouldn’t trust the statement given our historic dishonesty, but it would be a good opening symbolic gesture. Democrats in general would need to stop conflating “assault weapons” and assault rifles -- since this is the functional equivalent of supporting bans.

It is well beyond tragic to me that we have reduced our political capital as we have, since it hobbles our ability to get at the real cause of gun violence – poverty, hopelessness, lack of economic parity etc. The more congressional senate seats that we piss away with dishonest "gun control", the fewer that are left to fight the real villains…….like the Koch bros and their ilk. I’ll leave with this bullseye of a statement by LIBERAL criminologist James Wright - which best reflects my attitudes:

And there is a sense in which violence is a public health problem. So let me illustrate the limitations of this line of reasoning with a public-health analogy. After research disclosed that mosquitos were the vector for transmission of yellow fever, the disease was not controlled by sending men in white coats to the swamps to remove the mouth parts from all the insects they could find. The only sensible, efficient way to stop the biting was to attack the environment where the mosquitos bred.

Guns are the mouth parts of the violence epidemic. The contemporary urban environment breeds violence no less than swamps breed mosquitos. Attempting to control the problem of violence by trying to disarm the perpetrators is as hopeless as trying to contain yellow fever through mandible control.

[Shamash]

7. +1 to that

[pablo_marmol]

6. Side note: Funny thing about most Controllers.......

They are nearly to a man/woman oblivious to the fact that 2/3 of all gun violence is criminal-on-criminal, while they advocate for ending the "War on Drugs" ---- so without even knowing it, they are advocating for a fantastic gun-violence reducing program. (And it doesn't involve restricting guns!)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. kick n/t

[Travis_0004]

11. Should GM be sued if a car going 100 mph kills somebody.

If I get drunk and kill somebody, can we sue GM and Budweiser.

I believe in blaming the indivual. GM should not be sued if I use a car improperly, budweiser should not be sued if I use beer imroperly, louisville slugger should not be sued if I kill somebody with a bat, and glock should not be sued if somebody is killed with a gun.