Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

[MalTalm]

I never argued for a ban. I argued for finding ways to lower the gun related death rate. Murders, suicides, accidents.

Require gun safety training and testing before you can buy a gun. You can't test until at least a week until after you started the gun safety training while the training itself takes some amount of effort but can reasonably be accomplished in a week.

This is before buying a first gun, the license lasts indefinitely after that, but does have reasons it could be revoked. Selling one of your guns to someone who doesn't have a license is one of the reasons. The goal is to both reduce accidentally deaths and give people buying them to harm others or themselves, like the guy yesterday, some time to change their mind.

Improve the safety of the gun itself. Children shouldn't be able to find them and accidentally kill themselves or another child. Key their firing ability to their owner (and their owners spouse only if the spouse is also licensed).

Ban the sale of semi-autoatic weapons that can be converted to automatic weapons as well as the sale of large clips.

Sure, you can't predict every individual case, but you can know that things like this can lower the overall related gun death rate.

It really would be nice of the people who are against banning guns, something i haven't suggested doing, would also work on ideas to lower the ridiculously high gun death rate in the country. Look at cases like yesterday and think, what could be done differently.

But what is the point in reducing the gun-related death rate if it doesn't reduce the TOTAL death rate? Dying by gun wound or dying by stabbing still leads to the same result.

Republicans want to fight violence with stricter prison sentences, which empirically doesn't work.
Liberals want to fight violence with gun laws, which again, empirically doesn't work.

You want to solve violence? Turn a vast majority of the lower class into engineers. How many engineers are involved in these shootings?

 

[RonG]

Woo hoo, the United States is safer than Honduras. You set he bar for success really high there. How about we compare what is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world to the other developed nations?

KI am not singling you out just using you as my starting point.

Its funny to me that people are so dismissive of this stating we are more developed. One would argue other than the upper-middle class and upper class (which is some obscure percentage of our population) that there isn't a whole lot of difference between our lower classes and those countries listed. This goes not only monetarily comparison but other social aspects as well.

One of the major differences between us and Japan for example is just how much they value family and honor. The percentage of single parents is probably single digits. The same could be said with the Chinese to an extreme because they are "Communists". The fact is we are new money, we don't have 1000 years of social system that teaches these values where each child almost always has a father and mother. Where we care about our neighbors because we have lived next to each other for generations.

We are the melting pot of the best of countries and the worst of countries. The people who came here were the winners and losers, no real in between. If you want to solve violence in the States it starts at home. It starts with parents being parents and being responsible for their lives and their children's. You can't legislate morals but that is what we need. We need families, we need love and friendship and accountability. We need to bring back some of those old fashion values that those other countries have that people want to compare us to.

I don't care what god you worship, but I do care how you treat your family and your neighbors. How many young men grow up with out fathers only to repeat and bail on a young pregnant mother. How many lives do we lose to violence because they don't see another way because no one was there to teach them?

So when I say people kill people not guns this is what I mean. People take lives because they don't value life. So rarely do we see someone put community before self, the needs of another before the wants of your own.

We can blame mental illness, we can blame guns, we can blame an out dated constitution we can blame politics. Nothing will change until people can look in the mirror and blame that person and take personal accountability to make a difference everyday. This isn't something you can legislate and police, if it were it would be easy to fix. What makes this problem of violence so hard to solve is the unwillingness to take the harder path.

I know I am not wrong on this, I just don't know how to make people care. It may be to late, that is the sick part of this. It might take a complete crumble of the system and millions of deaths to get real changes. It might take a pandemic, people are just that hard headed and selfish at this point.

I just ask that you stop making dumb snide remarks, have a discussion with out those. Honor the people this thread was started over by doing that one small thing. If you don't have anything to add that isn't snarky then don't post it. I bet that we can't even do that at this point, we are that far gone.

 

[Kbiz]

All guns being made illegal would totally solve the problem! Obviously making things illegal works ten-fold. Disregarding the increasing heroin epidemic, meth lab discoveries, and OSU player's love of E, obviously making things illegal prevents people from doing illegal things.

Honestly, USA's culture is different. We are a competitive bunch when compared to the rest of the civilized world. We work hard professionally, academically, and athletically. We typically tout our hoorah hubris. You don't see the French chanting, "France! France! France!" at world events.

It's a double-edged sword. The hunger for success (which can be interpreted in hundreds of ways) breeds stress...Stress creates problems (mentally, physically, psychologically)

Couple that with the dawn of the social media era where you are literally giving run-of-the mill citizens a platform to compare themselves to others only exacerbates the problem. "Todd has 8,000 more virtual friends than i do...I FUCKING HATE TODD!"

All these issues make for quite a mixed bag of U.S. citizens.

 

[AZ_]

KI am not singling you out just using you as my starting point.

Its funny to me that people are so dismissive of this stating we are more developed. One would argue other than the upper-middle class and upper class (which is some obscure percentage of our population) that there isn't a whole lot of difference between our lower classes and those countries listed. This goes not only monetarily comparison but other social aspects as well.

One of the major differences between us and Japan for example is just how much they value family and honor. The percentage of single parents is probably single digits. The same could be said with the Chinese to an extreme because they are "Communists". The fact is we are new money, we don't have 1000 years of social system that teaches these values where each child almost always has a father and mother. Where we care about our neighbors because we have lived next to each other for generations.

We are the melting pot of the best of countries and the worst of countries. The people who came here were the winners and losers, no real in between. If you want to solve violence in the States it starts at home. It starts with parents being parents and being responsible for their lives and their children's. You can't legislate morals but that is what we need. We need families, we need love and friendship and accountability. We need to bring back some of those old fashion values that those other countries have that people want to compare us to.

I don't care what god you worship, but I do care how you treat your family and your neighbors. How many young men grow up with out fathers only to repeat and bail on a young pregnant mother. How many lives do we lose to violence because they don't see another way because no one was there to teach them?

So when I say people kill people not guns this is what I mean. People take lives because they don't value life. So rarely do we see someone put community before self, the needs of another before the wants of your own.

We can blame mental illness, we can blame guns, we can blame an out dated constitution we can blame politics. Nothing will change until people can look in the mirror and blame that person and take personal accountability to make a difference everyday. This isn't something you can legislate and police, if it were it would be easy to fix. What makes this problem of violence so hard to solve is the unwillingness to take the harder path.

I know I am not wrong on this, I just don't know how to make people care. It may be to late, that is the sick part of this. It might take a complete crumble of the system and millions of deaths to get real changes. It might take a pandemic, people are just that hard headed and selfish at this point.

I just ask that you stop making dumb snide remarks, have a discussion with out those. Honor the people this thread was started over by doing that one small thing. If you don't have anything to add that isn't snarky then don't post it. I bet that we can't even do that at this point, we are that far gone.

 

[Soda]

There's always the possibility that the few countries that aren't also have gun lobbyists pouring millions into brainwashing their citizens through fear.

To be fair, there are lobbyists on the other side of the aisle pouring millions into fighting this.

Wish we could just not have a political tug-of-war getting in the way of what the whole Country actually needs. It's a bigger issue than guns, IMO.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

KI am not singling you out just using you as my starting point.

Its funny to me that people are so dismissive of this stating we are more developed. One would argue other than the upper-middle class and upper class (which is some obscure percentage of our population) that there isn't a whole lot of difference between our lower classes and those countries listed. This goes not only monetarily comparison but other social aspects as well.

One of the major differences between us and Japan for example is just how much they value family and honor. The percentage of single parents is probably single digits. The same could be said with the Chinese to an extreme because they are "Communists". The fact is we are new money, we don't have 1000 years of social system that teaches these values where each child almost always has a father and mother. Where we care about our neighbors because we have lived next to each other for generations.

We are the melting pot of the best of countries and the worst of countries. The people who came here were the winners and losers, no real in between. If you want to solve violence in the States it starts at home. It starts with parents being parents and being responsible for their lives and their children's. You can't legislate morals but that is what we need. We need families, we need love and friendship and accountability. We need to bring back some of those old fashion values that those other countries have that people want to compare us to.

I don't care what god you worship, but I do care how you treat your family and your neighbors. How many young men grow up with out fathers only to repeat and bail on a young pregnant mother. How many lives do we lose to violence because they don't see another way because no one was there to teach them?

So when I say people kill people not guns this is what I mean. People take lives because they don't value life. So rarely do we see someone put community before self, the needs of another before the wants of your own.

Just to back this up, if the primary driver of homicides was guns, you'd expect to see homicide rates relatively constant across socio-economic/cultural groups with equivalent rates of gun ownership. But it's not.

Nothing will change until people can look in the mirror and blame that person and take personal accountability to make a difference everyday. This isn't something you can legislate and police, if it were it would be easy to fix. What makes this problem of violence so hard to solve is the unwillingness to take the harder path.

I know I am not wrong on this, I just don't know how to make people care. It may be to late, that is the sick part of this. It might take a complete crumble of the system and millions of deaths to get real changes. It might take a pandemic, people are just that hard headed and selfish at this point.

Well, the problem is that you're kind of preaching to the choir. There are plenty of people out there who agree with you, myself included. The problem is that we're not the ones engaging in the kinds of behavior that needs to change. So, the tough question -- and one to which I think nobody has yet found the answer -- is how do we get the people who need to care to look in the mirror?

Changing someone else's culture is an incredibly difficult thing to do.

 

[NasstyNate]

This is a fantastic article which traces the history of 2nd Amendment rights. I urge people on all sides to take the time to read it.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This is a fantastic article which traces the history of 2nd Amendment rights. I urge people on all sides to take the time to read it.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/23/battleground-america

Content aside, why do so many New Yorker articles employ that rambling, stream of consciousness approach to writing? Irrelevant vignettes (breast cancer?) with timelines jumping all over the place, shifting perspectives with no transitions....ugh. Is that supposed to be sophisticated or something? Makes me feel like Elaine Benes....

On the substance, I'll just say that the author was incredibly selective in citing to the supposed historical record. When you quote Ben Franklin's sister, but not Jefferson, Mason, or Webster, you're not exactly presenting an honest argument regarding the common understanding of the right at the time of independence.

 

[NasstyNate]

Content aside, why do so many New Yorker articles employ that rambling, stream of consciousness approach to writing? Irrelevant vignettes (breast cancer?) with timelines jumping all over the place, shifting perspectives with no transitions....ugh. Is that supposed to be sophisticated or something? Makes me feel like Elaine Benes....

Well I happen to enjoy publications that respect the intelligence of their readers. Weaving story lines often reinforce that seemingly disparate ideas have more in common than what appears, and that relationships do not always follow temporal restrictions. It's not very hard to follow.

On the substance, I'll just say that the author was incredibly selective in citing to the supposed historical record. When you quote Ben Franklin's sister, but not Jefferson, Mason, or Webster, you're not exactly presenting an honest argument.

It's an article, not a comprehensive work. Something tells me your only definition of honest is an argument with which you agree.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well I happen to enjoy publications that respect the intelligence of their readers. Weaving story lines often reinforce that seemingly disparate ideas have more in common than what appears, and that relationships do not always follow temporal restrictions. It's not very hard to follow.

IMHO, it's a bowl of mushy musings rather than a coherent argument. Then again, perhaps that's an unfair criticism because the author made no claim to be presenting a coherent argument in the first place. There's no clearly stated proposition or theme advanced, or even a conclusion stated at the end. There's really little to actually disagree or agree with.

It's an article, not a comprehensive work. Something tells me your only definition of honest is an argument with which you agree.

Well, again, I might have been unfair because she made no claim to be presenting an argument at all. In fact, she didn't even state what she believed the historical record showed. She just (deliberately) presented very selective quotes that would lead people to a false conclusion.

 

[Hydroponic3385]

All guns being made illegal would totally solve the problem! Obviously making things illegal works ten-fold. Disregarding the increasing heroin epidemic, meth lab discoveries, and OSU player's love of E, obviously making things illegal prevents people from doing illegal things.

Who in here is advocating the idea of making all guns illegal? I've admittedly only glossed over this thread, but everyone on the "left" side of the debate is advocating for increased gun regulation in some states (as states vary widely in this regard). In fact, the only mention I've seen of making guns illegal is when people on the "left" say things like, "I'm not saying make all guns illegal..."

 

[NasstyNate]

IMHO, it's a bowl of mushy musings rather than a coherent argument. If you want to make a case for a policy change on a serious issue then state your position clearly. Identify your premises, the arguments and coumter-argents, and address them in an ordered fashion. Reach a specific conclusion/recommendation. As that article was written, it's really impossible to critique the substantive argument (if there even was one) because he never states clearly what he actually means.

Have you considered that this was not a position paper, nor a legal argument?

I was really interested in the 20th Century history, specifically how we can trace the current understanding of the 2nd Amendment to what could be described as a liberal genesis surrounding black activists in the 1960s. Any comment on that?

I see you re-wrote your comment. What false conclusion did she lead people to believe?

 

[MalTalm]

Who in here is advocating the idea of making all guns illegal? I've admittedly only glossed over this thread, but everyone on the "left" side of the debate is advocating for increased gun regulation in some states (as states vary widely in this regard). In fact, the only mention I've seen of making guns illegal is when people on the "left" say things like, "I'm not saying make all guns illegal..."

And yet, if any regulation does not move the amount of violent crime even one tick, what's the purpose in spending the tax dollars? If the homicide rate doesn't change, why spend the money, time, effort, etc. to combat an issue which doesn't benefit society?

I ask earnestly, I try to keep an open mind politically and again I could be swayed on this argument if the facts supported regulation. I'd much rather see this country funnel more money into education, mental health for children and young adults, and helping to encourage an increase in pay for low wage jobs to increase the quality of life for the lower class, all of which definitively lower crime rates, reduce violence, and reduce the likelihood of mass murders.

We get caught in this country of "easy" thinking. We try to create wide-ranging policy adjustments on surface issues which are systemic of deeper societal issues, and ignore those issues at hand. We do this in domestic and foreign policy, and every decade or so we fight over why things haven't improved. In the 90's, wide-ranging police and prison reform was supposed to fix crime, and instead we are now dealing with the unintended consequences of locking people up for 25-50 years for having weed in their pocket. Clinton admitted his mistake on that, but now we pivot to gun control, as if that's actually the real issue at hand.

The kid who's dad is in prison for beating him and his mom within an inch of his life is going to be a problem for society in the coming years. The mild undiagnosed sociopath who is ignored or taunted by his peers is going to be a problem for this society in the coming years. The kid from a poor family who took out $70k in student loans to get a communications degree and can't find a job 5 years after graduating college is going to be a problem for society in the coming years. Whether any of the above can walk into a store and buy a Smith and Wesson will not deter them from potentially causing a great deal of physical and mental harm on other Americans in their future. Not even a bit. Look at the research. (And I can't stress this enough, not the research which is termed "gun-related crime" or "gun-related homicide" as those numbers predictably drop. What's much more telling, and should be upsetting, is the total crime or homicide rate doesn't also fall off, which means the vehicle of the crime or murder changes, but isn't impeded by the lack of gun availability)

 

[NasstyNate]

And yet, if any regulation does not move the amount of violent crime even one tick, what's the purpose in spending the tax dollars? If the homicide rate doesn't change, why spend the money, time, effort, etc. to combat an issue which doesn't benefit society?

I ask earnestly, I try to keep an open mind politically and again I could be swayed on this argument if the facts supported regulation.

I don't follow the gun debate, so I am asking this from sincere ignorance. Can you point me in the direction of research that supports these claims? From my limited understanding, there hasn't been any meaningful regulation of guns in decades. And in fact, the trend has been just the opposite, where regulations have been systematically lessened by both state governments and courts. If you are talking about local regulations such as cities, I am very suspect of anyone claiming that they can control for and isolate a guns variable especially because they are so intertwined with socioeconomic and racial factors. Thanks in advance.

 

[Kbiz]

Who in here is advocating the idea of making all guns illegal? I've admittedly only glossed over this thread, but everyone on the "left" side of the debate is advocating for increased gun regulation in some states (as states vary widely in this regard). In fact, the only mention I've seen of making guns illegal is when people on the "left" say things like, "I'm not saying make all guns illegal..."

My point is being lost. Even mandated regulation isn't necessarily a solution. All I am saying is that if someone wants to get their hand on a gun, whether to cause harm or just for protection, there will still be ways to do it, assuming that person is dedicated, regardless of intensified efforts to limit gun ownership.