because in this hypothetical guns are illegal and therefore owning a gun is an arrestable offence...
if gun regulations arent the answer then what is?
-
Welcome to PurpleFlock! Sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.
The Well-Mannered Politics Thread
- Thread starter usmccharles
- Start date
- Status
because in this hypothetical guns are illegal and therefore owning a gun is an arrestable offence...
if gun regulations arent the answer then what is?
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
Except those car laws don't apply to someone BREAKING THE LAW!
All that does is make it more cumbersome for people looking to own legally, which is the entire reason in the first place. If you cant erase the second amendment they sure will phase it out as best they can
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
And, in this hypothetical, you manage to somehow confiscate all guns and keep them from being produced or sold on a black market...
But no, I'm sure these criminals will voluntarily turn those guns in, and in the future people would see that law and think "ah geez, well I was GOING to mug someone tonight or rob a house, but I would need a gun for that and they're illegal..."
you forget that so often crime ISNT pre-meditated - guns make crime easier - take away guns and some crime stops - some suicides stop - some homicides stop - some shootings stop
you have to be more committed to commit a crime
you also have to commit a crime in order to commit another crime which makes it more difficult to commit the crime
these mass shooters and these criminals who you want to defend yourselves from are going to be criminals before they perpetrate the crime you are worried about
also not sure how a gun stops a motivated person from wanting to rob you - the moment you go for your own gun they will shoot you...
and if not a gun ban/gun regulation then what? how does this situation get fixed?
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
Good guys with guns
The one thing California does right is protecting their schools with armed police
outside of gated communities - nowhere else in the world requires armed police in schools - does that not sound crazy to you?
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
That speaks to a mental health problem, which is a different discussion
i mean there's no direct correlation between mental health issues and perpetrating gun violence...
only 3-5% of crime in the USA is attributable to serious mental illness - in fact people with serious mental illnesses are more likely to be victims of violent crime by a factor of 12
i detest this vilification of mental health problems as being the reason for gun violence - id say almost everyone in the western world will either know at least one person suffering from a mental illness or will be suffering mental health problems themselves...
you're right though - mental health is a different discussion to gun crime and gun deaths... yet for some reason mental illness is always the GOP go to rhetoric whenever a mass shooting happens...
52520Andrew
Pro Bowler
Hate to say it but don't see much being done about this, when the next one happens this same conversation will be taking place. I mean if nothing was done after 20 first graders were shot or when 58 people died in Vegas, hard for me to believe anything is actually going to be done about this.
this is my problem with the whole thing - how can nothing change after every single time this happens?
Rusfan
Hall of Famer
Because the discussion starts at repealing/phasing out the one right that protects all the others.
Oldfaithful
Hall of Famer
Disclaimer: I have no issues with you as people. You're all good people. If you all told me you were in Denver and wanted to grab a dinner with me I would do it. I do not let other people's politics affect my opinions on people unless they come out and say stupid racist, anti-semitic, homophobic shit, and on the flipside people who say"we need to murder all white people" "Republicans honestly needs to kill themselves". Fuck those guys. Those people aren't politically bad, they're just shitheads in general. Just because I disagree with you guys on most aspects of the issue here does not mean I think you're a bad person. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. That's the great thing about the United States and why I like free speech.
While I am in favor of keeping the second amendment.. This is an issue where I believe both sides are acting completely irrationally for completely different reasons. Let me explain.
You must know the full extent of my opinion. In an ideal world I believe that no guns would be phenomenal. If we operated under the assumption that all people can be changed, we could make all weapons illegal and live in a cookie cutter psuedo-utopia. The problem is in a country with 350 million people you're bound to have a few nutjobs. You're bound to have a few terrible people who just want the world to burn.
I'm a moderate republican but the majority of the republican there is fiscally speaking. But to a degree. Though the tax cuts are more tea party esq if anything and my family is actually losing money because my old man is an auditor. Socially I'm more inclined to be on the left. Pro gay marraige, pro choice(though if I knocked up a girl and was irresponsible I would take care of the kid myself. I'd raise the kid as a single parent if I had to. It was my fault). I'm anti racist, sexist, generally think Trump is an appalling human being and it's hilariously sad that he's President right now. Where I tend to be more in the middle is gun control. I'm a supporter of the second amendment.
What the second amendment states is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is where I understand and support the amendment. It's essentially a check on the government by ordinary citizens. While it seems like the United States is completely unstable politically notice how the citizens have never had to overthrow the damn government. Second amendment is a big reason why if you ask me. The government does respect the people but it also fears them to a degree. Something that is good. I don't want a government that's too powerful. Now one that's non-existent and relaxed is just as bad. This is where my issues with both parties lie.
The problem I have with it though is that the world has changed and it needs a degree of tweaking. I'm a believer that regulations are necessary to the issue, but banning it entirely is just an impossibility. Let me explain the problems I have with both parties on this issue.
Republicans: I do believe that for the most part that the republican party is moreso archaic (especially certain members of Congress like Ted Cruz) when it comes to social policy, but I actually understand why they don't want to ban guns. The republicans don't want the government to become too big. Something I agree with. A government that's too big eventually becomes impossible to control and becomes either oppressive or tyrannical. The second amendment more or less serves as a check by the federal government by the population. Something I don't believe should be taken away.
However I have just as many problems as them. The second amendment did not factor in the fact that technology was to change significantly. While other people do treat the constitution as a timeless living document, it was also open to tweaking. The republicans don't want any change because their stubborn as all hell and archaic socially. Some people will point to interest groups such as the NRA as being a primary catalyst but there are SO MANY interest groups that hold democrats over too. In fact the NRA has given some semblance of campaign contributions to 11% of democrats as well. They're powerful, very amongsts interest groups, but they're not the main reason the republicans are held over. Truth is, most politicians are fucking idiots. There are only four members in Congress overall that I actually don't hate(and I will not reveal that to any of you). Two democrats and two republicans. In the case of the republicans the issue is more obvious than not: their social views are a tad outdated. There's a problem and they want to do nothing. In fact they want to strip regulations. Which is a dumb idea.
While I do agree that the federal government is becoming too powerful for it's own good(especially the executive branch recently which I am not a fan of regardless of who is in office) and the state government should control more things than the federal, I do believe that a national precedent set by the federal government would do wonders for gun control. Certain regulations could go a long way. I.e making gun safety courses and training mandatory in all 50 states. Setting up a federal registry would be smart as well. More extensive background checks and allowing the FBI to do it's job when monitoring potential candidates would go a long way. Psychiatric screenings as part of the safety courses would go a long way as well. The problem with having gun laws that are too lax is that it becomes too easy to purchase one. In Nevada you can purchase an assault rifle. It takes forever to get it but it can still be done within a month. If you want to buy an assault rifle I say you have to go through some extensive training and even more courses. Kind of like how you need a special license to drive a mack truck. Difficult to get, but not too restrictive if you really want to get it.
That said in California it is WAY too hard to get a gun if you want to do so legally. Parts of California, especially in Los Angeles and San Jose are very dangerous. Criminals there do have guns and I would be hard pressed to have a way to defend myself against criminals who aren't going to follow the law anyway. Being too conservative leads to more gun deaths because idiots can get a hold of them too easily. Being too liberal makes it hard for the law abiding citizens who just want to defend their families(something I understand, my uncle in Anaheim was subject to a home invasion a few years ago where he couldn't be armed because he couldn't buy a gun).
So let me get this out of the way: @Ludy51 @K-Dog. You can't deny that in certain states it is way too easy to get a gun. The idea that doing ANYTHING regulation wise is going to infringe upon your freedoms is not realistic in the slightest. The government controls certain aspects of your life whether you want them too or not. Taxation is not theft it's necessary. I am 19. I just paid my damn taxes because I do have a job. Am I mad that the California government takes a lot from me? Yes, but California has nice roads and a decent police force in every major city except for San Jose. I'm fine with that. Adding certain rules is NOT going to infringe upon your freedoms. The most reasonable of the democrats actually agree with this statement. Hell, Reagan hated assault rifles and the republicans worshiped the man. Regulations are not only necessary, but they're going to happen. The American population is going to become impatient. While I agree that they're shouldn't be too MANY regulations, no change in policy at all = no progress. No bueno. Things cannot be the same, it's not 1791 anymore. Gun ownership is widespread, and technological advances have made things different. It's about damn time that the federal government take control of some of this problem. Now.. I do agree with you that too much regulation is a bad thing.
That leads me to my problems with the democrats on this issue.
Democrats:
Okay.. @The Raven has one of the most realistic solutions that a democrat I have encountered has actually proposed. Guns for cash exchanges would actually have a positive effect and they'd be entirely voluntary. That said the solution does have significant problems and should be PART of a greater solution rather than the main catalyst for change. I highly doubt that in dangerous cities that criminal overlords would give up their guns. There'd still be gang violence and whatnot but the number would probably go down. That said. I have 0 issues with this idea. I do think that needs to be part of a bigger plan and voluntary. And while the change would be small, it'd be a step in the right direction.
But herein lies my main issue with the democrats in general. Not just for gun control. While using statistics from other countries may seem good.. It's not completely applicable to the United States. A lot of the proposals are impossibilities that look REALLY good on paper but are just not feasible.
"Let's abolish the second amendment"-several people from Boulder and San Francisco that I know. Have fun with that. It takes FOREVER to make political change. Oftentimes that's for the best. While it may seem I hate the two party system that's not the case. Conflicting viewpoints are necessary. (The most prosperous overall states in this country are the states where there is still civil debate among the left and the right and they take time to pass good legislation that is effective. States that are too liberal(California) are approaching fucktons of debt and are going to screw themselves if they don't adapt. States that are too conservative(Arkansas) tend to be poor and cannot afford nicer things. Debate is a good thing. It allows people to see parts of their argument that could be inherently flawed). That said, solutions like this are just not feasible. There are an estimated 310 million guns in this country(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-child-and-then-some/?utm_term=.112164b94442). Good luck getting rid of them all. Now I do like the gun exchange solution from @The Raven. I don't think it'd make a significant dent, but it would help the amount of gun deaths go down. Undoubtedly a step in the right direction.
@rossihunter2. There are 350 million people in the United States. Almost five times bigger than the population of the United Kingdom. Sure, only about 30% of the population are registered gun owners, but that's the thing. REGISTERED. The United States is huge. Let's hypothetically ban guns for your sake. Your law abiding citizen listens. Hell, I would and I support the second amendment. I don't want to go Jail. A criminal doesn't listen at all. Arms dealers become a big thing given that there SO MANY guns already present in the country. It's close to impossible to acquire 350 million firearms. The black market doesn't attract your law abiding citizen typically. Drug dealers who have beef with one another would dedicate their resources to gun ownership and beef would still happen. Robbers would probably use some of their earnings to acquire firearms to make their jobs easier. Gang violence still happens. Muggings still occur. Not much changes at this point in the country's history. The time to ban guns was when the Constitution was being written. Your solution may have worked in the United Kingdom, but it would just fail here. In fact, crime would go up. Illegal firearms acquisitions would eventually lead to people getting caught and incarcerated, and there would likely still be gun deaths due to the black market. This actually makes the situation WORSE. No thank you. Phenomenal idea on paper. Fantastic. I'd support it 100% of the way if it were feasible. But it's not in the United States. Countries like China implemented firearms bans earlier in their country's history. The time for this solution has passed. It's a downright impossibility at this point in time and it would take at least a decade for this to even be put into place, let alone to accomplish confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens.
@SepticeyePoe. Criminals do not follow the law. They do not care. Most of them are desperate. They'll do whatever it takes to get the things they can. If you made guns illegal, they'd find a way to acquire them. It is inherent in the definition of the word criminal. They will still find a way especially given that there are so many guns in this damn country. This is where the situation becomes needlessly complicated. Look at how well the government ban on drugs did. I can still go find heroine. In fact, I have a dealer on Speed dial because I used to have a drug problem. And a gun is so much more effective than martial arts and cheaper in the long run. I would know. I've spent thousands of dollars over the past ten or so years while learning MMA, getting a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, etc. I'll be the first person to tell you this. If a person puts a gun to my head and tells me to give him his money I'm listening. Life is not an action movie. Point blank? I'm not risking dying over the $100 I usually carry in my wallet.
Leads me to another problem. Too much regulation isn't going to do shit in the long run. Regulate guns too heavily(not an outright ban but like California does it) and the black market is only going to get bigger. And the government CANNOT regulate a black market as large as this one is. It can barely regulate our economy as it is. Sure, mass shootings may go down a little, but overall crime levels are not going to go down. There will still be a way to shoot up a school.
Yes, in an ideal world we don't need guns. The world is not an ideal place. You have nut jobs, you have assholes, there are addictions, there are several problems in the world. Criminals will still be criminals. But the notion that nothing can be done is a falsehood. There are possible and reasonable solutions that would significantly help the problem go down.
I think the main issue I have with the democrats is that the majority of their solutions they propose don't factor in the context that the United States is a fundamentally different country than the UK or China or others. As a result several solutions that are proposed are good on paper but execution is either impossible or insanely difficult. While the republicans refuse to change(and are more responsible for the problem in my opinion), most of the solutions offered by the democrats are either totally unrealistic within the context to the United States' situation. Vastly different than what the U.K's or Australia's was at the time.
But the gun control issue is merely a microcosm of American Politics in general at the moment. The system itself is not the issue. I am a thorough believer that the two party system isn't the problem. The participants in Congress. That's a different animal. The extreme members of both parties are taking over within both parties in Congress. This bodes poorly. The republican party within itself is currently divided. There are people like John McCain who tend to be more towards the middle, and people like him are ostracized by people like Ted Cruz, who are so far gone right that I cannot support them. Democrats are divided too, people like Corey Booker(whom I have problems with but I am more fond of him than others) are more reasonable and realistic than a Bernie Sanders. Difference is Democrats do vote as one party. They're more organized at the moment. The infighting at the moment is the worst it's ever been. Neither side wants to listen to each other, and both sides demonize each other to the point where they just don't want to want to talk to each other. The founding fathers were brilliant when setting up our government. They understood that solely going towards one opinion all the time is a recipe for disaster.
The correct solution to almost every problem is not an easy one. Debate is necessary. Neither party wants to talk to each other right now. Not the fault of any president that the country is divided right now. Not the fault of any one political party either. The sad but honest truth about this country(and I wish I could change it too) is that progress takes time. Gun control in this country is not as simple as most of you think. Regulations do need to be added but too many regulations only makes the problem worse. I like certain solutions from members of both parties and I don't think implementing any of these would alienate other party members.
My solution would not solve the problem immediately, but this problem cannot be solved immediately given all of the variables.
1. The Federal government needs to set a precedent for firearms laws. This should not be a state issue in the slightest. Some states are too strict, others are too lenient. I don't want them doing this for everything, but there needs to be nationwide precedent.
2. Within this nationwide precedent the federal government should establish the following.
There. That's probably a little too in the middle, but it's better than doing nothing like the republicans want to do. It's far more realistic than banning guns entirely like the far left democrats want to do. Will this solve the problem entirely? No. Nothing will. But it does go a long way and the regulations put in place do NOT impede on your right to own a gun.
For the democrats the gun death rate would go down a good margin. Mass shootings would likely still happen as criminals would likely find a way to use the black market which has firearms anyway(I mean in most of these mass shootings that take place the firearm was purchased illegally anyway) but the number would go down as the gun show loophole is closed and this would limit a minor's restriction to guns HEAVILY. But the real impact here is the domestic disputes. These would go down SIGNIFICANTLY due to mandatory education and teaching. The accidents would likely be cut in half at worst. That number goes down and the numbers look good. You'll get a few statistical outliers in the short run, but in the long run this goes a longer way than you could possibly anticipate. Again, country of over 300 million, you're not going to be able to stop every mass shooting or crime, but this will put a dent in it in the short run and slowly reduce gun violence in the long run.
For the republicans if you think this honestly infringes upon your personal freedoms then you have become too sensitive. This forces people who want to own a gun to be responsible gun owners. While the ability to own a gun is well.. A right. The ability to purchase a gun should be treated as a PRIVILEGE. You're legally required to take drivers education if you want to buy a car or a plane. It does not impede on your freedoms at all. It is necessary because in the hands of an uneducated or bad person a car becomes a battering ram at best, or a bomb at worst that can level a building depending on the make of the car. Most prospective responsible gun owners are law abiding citizens with overall good track records. THIS WILL NOT AFFECT YOU. Your freedoms are not impeded at all. I know @K-Dog on a somewhat personal level. He's a reasonable human being with a good track record. He'd pass education with flying colors and would receive a firearms license anyway. Getting a gun license SHOULDN'T be easy. It's a weapon, only responsible people should be able to own one. But it shouldn't be impossible either.
Sorry for the long ass post. But I do tend to agree with @rossihunter2, @The Raven, @52520Andrew on one thing. There's a problem. It needs to be solved. The solution is not going to be easy or immediate. If a solution for a difficult problem appears to be too easy chances are you're not accounting for something. Republicans are the main issue though.
I do sadly think that nothing is going to happen. Unfortunate as it may be. One party is too stubborn, the other is too petty. Both hate each other. No progress will be made
While I am in favor of keeping the second amendment.. This is an issue where I believe both sides are acting completely irrationally for completely different reasons. Let me explain.
You must know the full extent of my opinion. In an ideal world I believe that no guns would be phenomenal. If we operated under the assumption that all people can be changed, we could make all weapons illegal and live in a cookie cutter psuedo-utopia. The problem is in a country with 350 million people you're bound to have a few nutjobs. You're bound to have a few terrible people who just want the world to burn.
I'm a moderate republican but the majority of the republican there is fiscally speaking. But to a degree. Though the tax cuts are more tea party esq if anything and my family is actually losing money because my old man is an auditor. Socially I'm more inclined to be on the left. Pro gay marraige, pro choice(though if I knocked up a girl and was irresponsible I would take care of the kid myself. I'd raise the kid as a single parent if I had to. It was my fault). I'm anti racist, sexist, generally think Trump is an appalling human being and it's hilariously sad that he's President right now. Where I tend to be more in the middle is gun control. I'm a supporter of the second amendment.
What the second amendment states is, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is where I understand and support the amendment. It's essentially a check on the government by ordinary citizens. While it seems like the United States is completely unstable politically notice how the citizens have never had to overthrow the damn government. Second amendment is a big reason why if you ask me. The government does respect the people but it also fears them to a degree. Something that is good. I don't want a government that's too powerful. Now one that's non-existent and relaxed is just as bad. This is where my issues with both parties lie.
The problem I have with it though is that the world has changed and it needs a degree of tweaking. I'm a believer that regulations are necessary to the issue, but banning it entirely is just an impossibility. Let me explain the problems I have with both parties on this issue.
Republicans: I do believe that for the most part that the republican party is moreso archaic (especially certain members of Congress like Ted Cruz) when it comes to social policy, but I actually understand why they don't want to ban guns. The republicans don't want the government to become too big. Something I agree with. A government that's too big eventually becomes impossible to control and becomes either oppressive or tyrannical. The second amendment more or less serves as a check by the federal government by the population. Something I don't believe should be taken away.
However I have just as many problems as them. The second amendment did not factor in the fact that technology was to change significantly. While other people do treat the constitution as a timeless living document, it was also open to tweaking. The republicans don't want any change because their stubborn as all hell and archaic socially. Some people will point to interest groups such as the NRA as being a primary catalyst but there are SO MANY interest groups that hold democrats over too. In fact the NRA has given some semblance of campaign contributions to 11% of democrats as well. They're powerful, very amongsts interest groups, but they're not the main reason the republicans are held over. Truth is, most politicians are fucking idiots. There are only four members in Congress overall that I actually don't hate(and I will not reveal that to any of you). Two democrats and two republicans. In the case of the republicans the issue is more obvious than not: their social views are a tad outdated. There's a problem and they want to do nothing. In fact they want to strip regulations. Which is a dumb idea.
While I do agree that the federal government is becoming too powerful for it's own good(especially the executive branch recently which I am not a fan of regardless of who is in office) and the state government should control more things than the federal, I do believe that a national precedent set by the federal government would do wonders for gun control. Certain regulations could go a long way. I.e making gun safety courses and training mandatory in all 50 states. Setting up a federal registry would be smart as well. More extensive background checks and allowing the FBI to do it's job when monitoring potential candidates would go a long way. Psychiatric screenings as part of the safety courses would go a long way as well. The problem with having gun laws that are too lax is that it becomes too easy to purchase one. In Nevada you can purchase an assault rifle. It takes forever to get it but it can still be done within a month. If you want to buy an assault rifle I say you have to go through some extensive training and even more courses. Kind of like how you need a special license to drive a mack truck. Difficult to get, but not too restrictive if you really want to get it.
That said in California it is WAY too hard to get a gun if you want to do so legally. Parts of California, especially in Los Angeles and San Jose are very dangerous. Criminals there do have guns and I would be hard pressed to have a way to defend myself against criminals who aren't going to follow the law anyway. Being too conservative leads to more gun deaths because idiots can get a hold of them too easily. Being too liberal makes it hard for the law abiding citizens who just want to defend their families(something I understand, my uncle in Anaheim was subject to a home invasion a few years ago where he couldn't be armed because he couldn't buy a gun).
So let me get this out of the way: @Ludy51 @K-Dog. You can't deny that in certain states it is way too easy to get a gun. The idea that doing ANYTHING regulation wise is going to infringe upon your freedoms is not realistic in the slightest. The government controls certain aspects of your life whether you want them too or not. Taxation is not theft it's necessary. I am 19. I just paid my damn taxes because I do have a job. Am I mad that the California government takes a lot from me? Yes, but California has nice roads and a decent police force in every major city except for San Jose. I'm fine with that. Adding certain rules is NOT going to infringe upon your freedoms. The most reasonable of the democrats actually agree with this statement. Hell, Reagan hated assault rifles and the republicans worshiped the man. Regulations are not only necessary, but they're going to happen. The American population is going to become impatient. While I agree that they're shouldn't be too MANY regulations, no change in policy at all = no progress. No bueno. Things cannot be the same, it's not 1791 anymore. Gun ownership is widespread, and technological advances have made things different. It's about damn time that the federal government take control of some of this problem. Now.. I do agree with you that too much regulation is a bad thing.
That leads me to my problems with the democrats on this issue.
Democrats:
Okay.. @The Raven has one of the most realistic solutions that a democrat I have encountered has actually proposed. Guns for cash exchanges would actually have a positive effect and they'd be entirely voluntary. That said the solution does have significant problems and should be PART of a greater solution rather than the main catalyst for change. I highly doubt that in dangerous cities that criminal overlords would give up their guns. There'd still be gang violence and whatnot but the number would probably go down. That said. I have 0 issues with this idea. I do think that needs to be part of a bigger plan and voluntary. And while the change would be small, it'd be a step in the right direction.
But herein lies my main issue with the democrats in general. Not just for gun control. While using statistics from other countries may seem good.. It's not completely applicable to the United States. A lot of the proposals are impossibilities that look REALLY good on paper but are just not feasible.
"Let's abolish the second amendment"-several people from Boulder and San Francisco that I know. Have fun with that. It takes FOREVER to make political change. Oftentimes that's for the best. While it may seem I hate the two party system that's not the case. Conflicting viewpoints are necessary. (The most prosperous overall states in this country are the states where there is still civil debate among the left and the right and they take time to pass good legislation that is effective. States that are too liberal(California) are approaching fucktons of debt and are going to screw themselves if they don't adapt. States that are too conservative(Arkansas) tend to be poor and cannot afford nicer things. Debate is a good thing. It allows people to see parts of their argument that could be inherently flawed). That said, solutions like this are just not feasible. There are an estimated 310 million guns in this country(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-child-and-then-some/?utm_term=.112164b94442). Good luck getting rid of them all. Now I do like the gun exchange solution from @The Raven. I don't think it'd make a significant dent, but it would help the amount of gun deaths go down. Undoubtedly a step in the right direction.
@rossihunter2. There are 350 million people in the United States. Almost five times bigger than the population of the United Kingdom. Sure, only about 30% of the population are registered gun owners, but that's the thing. REGISTERED. The United States is huge. Let's hypothetically ban guns for your sake. Your law abiding citizen listens. Hell, I would and I support the second amendment. I don't want to go Jail. A criminal doesn't listen at all. Arms dealers become a big thing given that there SO MANY guns already present in the country. It's close to impossible to acquire 350 million firearms. The black market doesn't attract your law abiding citizen typically. Drug dealers who have beef with one another would dedicate their resources to gun ownership and beef would still happen. Robbers would probably use some of their earnings to acquire firearms to make their jobs easier. Gang violence still happens. Muggings still occur. Not much changes at this point in the country's history. The time to ban guns was when the Constitution was being written. Your solution may have worked in the United Kingdom, but it would just fail here. In fact, crime would go up. Illegal firearms acquisitions would eventually lead to people getting caught and incarcerated, and there would likely still be gun deaths due to the black market. This actually makes the situation WORSE. No thank you. Phenomenal idea on paper. Fantastic. I'd support it 100% of the way if it were feasible. But it's not in the United States. Countries like China implemented firearms bans earlier in their country's history. The time for this solution has passed. It's a downright impossibility at this point in time and it would take at least a decade for this to even be put into place, let alone to accomplish confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens.
@SepticeyePoe. Criminals do not follow the law. They do not care. Most of them are desperate. They'll do whatever it takes to get the things they can. If you made guns illegal, they'd find a way to acquire them. It is inherent in the definition of the word criminal. They will still find a way especially given that there are so many guns in this damn country. This is where the situation becomes needlessly complicated. Look at how well the government ban on drugs did. I can still go find heroine. In fact, I have a dealer on Speed dial because I used to have a drug problem. And a gun is so much more effective than martial arts and cheaper in the long run. I would know. I've spent thousands of dollars over the past ten or so years while learning MMA, getting a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, etc. I'll be the first person to tell you this. If a person puts a gun to my head and tells me to give him his money I'm listening. Life is not an action movie. Point blank? I'm not risking dying over the $100 I usually carry in my wallet.
Leads me to another problem. Too much regulation isn't going to do shit in the long run. Regulate guns too heavily(not an outright ban but like California does it) and the black market is only going to get bigger. And the government CANNOT regulate a black market as large as this one is. It can barely regulate our economy as it is. Sure, mass shootings may go down a little, but overall crime levels are not going to go down. There will still be a way to shoot up a school.
Yes, in an ideal world we don't need guns. The world is not an ideal place. You have nut jobs, you have assholes, there are addictions, there are several problems in the world. Criminals will still be criminals. But the notion that nothing can be done is a falsehood. There are possible and reasonable solutions that would significantly help the problem go down.
I think the main issue I have with the democrats is that the majority of their solutions they propose don't factor in the context that the United States is a fundamentally different country than the UK or China or others. As a result several solutions that are proposed are good on paper but execution is either impossible or insanely difficult. While the republicans refuse to change(and are more responsible for the problem in my opinion), most of the solutions offered by the democrats are either totally unrealistic within the context to the United States' situation. Vastly different than what the U.K's or Australia's was at the time.
But the gun control issue is merely a microcosm of American Politics in general at the moment. The system itself is not the issue. I am a thorough believer that the two party system isn't the problem. The participants in Congress. That's a different animal. The extreme members of both parties are taking over within both parties in Congress. This bodes poorly. The republican party within itself is currently divided. There are people like John McCain who tend to be more towards the middle, and people like him are ostracized by people like Ted Cruz, who are so far gone right that I cannot support them. Democrats are divided too, people like Corey Booker(whom I have problems with but I am more fond of him than others) are more reasonable and realistic than a Bernie Sanders. Difference is Democrats do vote as one party. They're more organized at the moment. The infighting at the moment is the worst it's ever been. Neither side wants to listen to each other, and both sides demonize each other to the point where they just don't want to want to talk to each other. The founding fathers were brilliant when setting up our government. They understood that solely going towards one opinion all the time is a recipe for disaster.
The correct solution to almost every problem is not an easy one. Debate is necessary. Neither party wants to talk to each other right now. Not the fault of any president that the country is divided right now. Not the fault of any one political party either. The sad but honest truth about this country(and I wish I could change it too) is that progress takes time. Gun control in this country is not as simple as most of you think. Regulations do need to be added but too many regulations only makes the problem worse. I like certain solutions from members of both parties and I don't think implementing any of these would alienate other party members.
My solution would not solve the problem immediately, but this problem cannot be solved immediately given all of the variables.
1. The Federal government needs to set a precedent for firearms laws. This should not be a state issue in the slightest. Some states are too strict, others are too lenient. I don't want them doing this for everything, but there needs to be nationwide precedent.
2. Within this nationwide precedent the federal government should establish the following.
- Gun safety courses should be MANDATORY. The majority of actual gun deaths in this country are domestic disputes between family members and a good portion of those are ACCIDENTS. This alone reduces those significantly. If you want to own a firearm, make actual training to certain level of proficiency necessary. The NRA is actually in favor of this idea and I get it. If there are going to be legal gun owners, which is going to be reality by the way, at least make sure they're responsible.
- Make gun EDUCATION courses mandatory as well. Not just shooting. Proper care of your firearm, proper disassembly, make prospective gun owners take a fucking class on existing gun laws that ARE good and effective in this country. Proper storage of your firearm to prevent irresponsible gun owners from accessing it. Altogether though, guns are not nearly as complicated as cars. This process at most should take a month. This not only creates jobs(which conservatives love to point out when they talk about this idea to me) but it is not going to impede people from owning a firearm. This makes it harder to acquire a gun, but not impossible in the slightest.
- Only after completing safety and education courses should a person be allowed to be CONSIDERED to take a test for a firearms license. This test will ensure that you have proficiency with the weapon to prevent careless errors if you ever have to use it for self defense. It will ensure that a prospective gun owner knows how to properly store it. After they pass, they are given a license that permits the purchase of a firearm.
- With regards to concealed carry that should be its own permit that is accessible to ALL CITIZENS if they want it. Again, background checks and screenings are needed.
- Prospective gun owners during this process should obviously undergo extensive background checks and possibly psychiatric screenings. Yes mental illness does play a role in mass shootings even if it is overplayed by the conservatives. While these are not NEARLY as effective as most conservatives claim they would be, they do still hold effectiveness.
- If a person wants to consider purchasing a semi-automatic weapon they have to take further courses and will be subject to more background checks. Think of this like getting a different license in order to drive a mack truck.
- Fully automatic weapons, RPGs, etc should continue to be completely illegal throughout the majority of the country. Why are these kinds of weapons needed? Fully automatic machine guns are needlessly expensive anyway and mostly the elite could afford them if they were fully legal.
- Most cities implement @The Raven's idea. A lot of citizens will probably participate in this as not only could they use the money but it would work. It would only be slightly effective but it would be a step in the right direction. This problem is not going to fix itself overnight. It might not even be truly solved in 10 years.
- The FBI (which already monitors us btw so while it is doing so) should be allowed to act on potential threats. The kid yesterday was not only reported on by other students but had social media laced with evidence that he was going to participate in this behavior. Irresponsibility of the parents aside, he shouldn't have been allowed to purchase a gun. This sparks an entire debate entirely that I am not going to address. I don't have the time nor the patience for this one at the moment.
- Gun show loophole needs to be closed. It's how columbine happened. You should still have to register.
- Nationwide gun registry at best. State wise at worst.
- Firearms themselves are totally useless without ammo. Ammo should be more regulated than it is.
There. That's probably a little too in the middle, but it's better than doing nothing like the republicans want to do. It's far more realistic than banning guns entirely like the far left democrats want to do. Will this solve the problem entirely? No. Nothing will. But it does go a long way and the regulations put in place do NOT impede on your right to own a gun.
For the democrats the gun death rate would go down a good margin. Mass shootings would likely still happen as criminals would likely find a way to use the black market which has firearms anyway(I mean in most of these mass shootings that take place the firearm was purchased illegally anyway) but the number would go down as the gun show loophole is closed and this would limit a minor's restriction to guns HEAVILY. But the real impact here is the domestic disputes. These would go down SIGNIFICANTLY due to mandatory education and teaching. The accidents would likely be cut in half at worst. That number goes down and the numbers look good. You'll get a few statistical outliers in the short run, but in the long run this goes a longer way than you could possibly anticipate. Again, country of over 300 million, you're not going to be able to stop every mass shooting or crime, but this will put a dent in it in the short run and slowly reduce gun violence in the long run.
For the republicans if you think this honestly infringes upon your personal freedoms then you have become too sensitive. This forces people who want to own a gun to be responsible gun owners. While the ability to own a gun is well.. A right. The ability to purchase a gun should be treated as a PRIVILEGE. You're legally required to take drivers education if you want to buy a car or a plane. It does not impede on your freedoms at all. It is necessary because in the hands of an uneducated or bad person a car becomes a battering ram at best, or a bomb at worst that can level a building depending on the make of the car. Most prospective responsible gun owners are law abiding citizens with overall good track records. THIS WILL NOT AFFECT YOU. Your freedoms are not impeded at all. I know @K-Dog on a somewhat personal level. He's a reasonable human being with a good track record. He'd pass education with flying colors and would receive a firearms license anyway. Getting a gun license SHOULDN'T be easy. It's a weapon, only responsible people should be able to own one. But it shouldn't be impossible either.
Sorry for the long ass post. But I do tend to agree with @rossihunter2, @The Raven, @52520Andrew on one thing. There's a problem. It needs to be solved. The solution is not going to be easy or immediate. If a solution for a difficult problem appears to be too easy chances are you're not accounting for something. Republicans are the main issue though.
I do sadly think that nothing is going to happen. Unfortunate as it may be. One party is too stubborn, the other is too petty. Both hate each other. No progress will be made
Last edited:
K-Dog
MVP
Oldfaithful
Hall of Famer
I'm a political science major(well it's one of my majors). We talked about this today in a class and coming up with a solution was part of the homework. This just was available and now I'm polishing(more like doing a complete overhaul) of the vernacular to make it academically appropriate. I'm going out to dinner with friends in an hour. I'll be done with this in ten minutes. I work quickly.
So thank you all for the push I needed.
I'm studying abroad. Not on vacation. I do have school out here.
52520Andrew
Pro Bowler
Nice post @Lost_In_Translation, if there is one thing I would add, suicides account for over half of all gun related deaths in the United States. Gun related suicide attempts are much more likely to be fatal(almost always) than other methods and account for about half of all suicide deaths. A course about the dangers of depression(a fairly common link with a lot of these mass shootings it seems as well) would be one I would certainly add.
In terms of the mass shootings I’d say also toxic masculinity and the repression of emotion and the dichotomous media impressions of femininity - I’d say they contribute quite significantly to a fairly large number of these shootings
But you’re point about suicides is a very important one
We used to have a problem where gas ovens could run the gas without being on but once they were stopped in production suicides decreased because an easy and painless method was taken away
cobrajet
Hall of Famer
Come on now take self defense? I am going to have worry about fighting off a well fit 21 year old armed with a knife trying to rob me when I turn 75 years old? My best defense is being a legally armed citizen or risk being brutally hacked up, because in American Inner Cities, young robbers have no regard for human life and don’t like leaving witnesses. I will gladly give up my guns when the government can guarantee me and my family’s complete safety. Until then, I am not giving up my best way to defend myself and my family. There are some sick people out there!
SepticeyePoe
Hall of Famer
@Lost_In_Translation
Thank you for your perspective. I appreciate it.
I read most of it, and I think I understood what you're saying.
It just depresses me when I hear of all these school shootings. Something has to change. I don't know what, but something has to.
Thank you for your perspective. I appreciate it.
I read most of it, and I think I understood what you're saying.
It just depresses me when I hear of all these school shootings. Something has to change. I don't know what, but something has to.
- Status