After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Protection
For gangs, clubs, and nations
Causing grief in human relations
It's a turf war on a global scale
I'd rather hear both sides of the tale
See, it's not about races
Just places
Faces
Where your blood comes from
Is where your space is
I've seen the bright get duller
I'm not going to spend my life being a color
Don't tell me you agree with me
When I saw you kicking dirt in my eye
But, if you're thinkin' about my baby
It don't matter if you're black or white
I said if you're thinkin' of being my baby
It don't matter if you're black or white

 

NotMyRealName, you're denying that you said race was an issue? Now you're claiming that Obama said it, not you? To be honest I'm having a hard time with this. You seem to be avoiding being called out on your racism. I think it's rather apparent to anyone who is following this thread. The only thing that you're really accomplishing is to show that you won't share your sources. Please provide links.

I have already stated that 50% of homicides are intraracial African American on African American homicides. I don't think that it equates with what you are implying. What exactly are you implying?

I think the rhetorical element of your statement is that there is something wrong with African Americans. You haven't bothered to elaborate. Balbus has done a lot of your work for you. The facts are very simple: urban vs. rural residence, social class, age, and gender all play a significant role in who commits crime. Yes, street crime is committed by poor individuals. Did you know that white collar crime is committed predominantly by white individuals? You might be surprised to learn that white collar crime kills way more people each year than homicide. Perhaps it is a discussion for another thread, but here is a quote to illustrate.

From Social Problems: Continuity and Change

 

...

 

These statistics were in place before the Obama administration. I was merely pointing out that Obama agreed with them. The fact that it said it was blacks doesn't mean its about racism, it means its a race that the facts reflected. But nobody was allowed to say so, as we were called racist if we did so. Now we had a Black president, whom I voted for, who agreed to what most knew already. Finally maybe we could make progress addressing how those facts came to be. And he also agreed that it was about poor and un-educated conditions contributing to the problems. He was the one who said what others have tried to say for quite some time. Obama stated that blacks had unique reasons why they were a factor. No parents, no jobs....etc. FINALLY we can make progress we hoped. Nothing about that was racist when he said it. As it relates to this topic, I voted for him because I believed and hoped he'd bring about change. I stopped voting for him when that proved to be wrong.

 

Not

The point is you seem to see the problem as racial in terms 'black people' but as you admit 'All of the black people in my life try to stay way from the same things I as a white man does' but they would still come under the heading of black in what you see as a 'black' problem.

Wouldn't it better not to see things in terms of race?

But OK i can see you don't want to discuss let alone address what been brought up in relation to you views on black people - I'm sure you have your reasons.

Also Obama wasn't my president and I'm not a Liberal

Anyway again - You say you are in favour of gun control can you please clearly state and explain what you mean by that?

 

Two points about "chipping away". The Second Amendment does not confer an absolute right to own weapons without reasonable regulations; and the amendment was not interpreted to confer an individual right to bear arms until the 2008 The courts have recognized that even our precious First Amendment rights to speech, religion, press, and assembly are not absolute; as Justice Holmes wrote in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), no one has the right falsely to cry fire in a crowded theater. Same for guns. Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis In deciding what the Constitution means, judges have used various reference points, depending on their conservative or liberal disposition: the meaning of the words, the intent of the framers, and the spirit of the times. But it would be hard to argue that the Framers meant for people to have heavy artillery. They couldn't anticipate rapid fire weaponry, so they could not have an intent about that and what they would have intended if they could is a matter of speculation. And the words that they provided start off with a little preamble that the courts used to consider controlling: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." We didn't have a standing army at the time, and rallying to the defense of the country was regarded as a civic duty. Then came District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a 5-4 decision, in which the late ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion upholding the individual's right but making clear that the Amendment did not confer an unlimited right. "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". Syllabus of the Court, pp. 54–56. So instead of "chipping away", the expansive interpretations by the NRA and the gun freaks seem to be pushing into new frontiers that the Framers wouldn't have dreamed of.

 

I would hope that we can do away with the ability to provide easy access to so many guns. I have NO problem with restricting which guns a citizen can own. We already can't own a fully automatic weapon without special licensing. I have no problem with that. Make that so for different levels of guns. A hunting rifle of say a certain caliber and capacity is a lower license level than a hunting rifle of higher caliber and capacity. The higher the gun level the more they should cost to purchase and license. Guns have been steadily rising in prices, and the sale of guns hasn't slowed down one bit.

On our company's property we have a problem with wild hogs. They have killed 2 of our security dogs and tear up all the drainage and certain kinds of plants there. We allow hunters to come there to hunt them. I have gone out on some hunts with them. Trust me to take down a wild hog that often weigh upwards of 200 lbs and can run at about 30 MPH takes more than few rounds and it is a very high power caliber needed. The hogs generally are in packs. At full gallop they are not only hard to shoot, they become aggressive towards you. I think given the choice of a license vs a loss of weapon, they'd choose the license option.

Enhance the requirement to obtain a license to carry a gun. In some states, no training is required. You simply fill out a form, pay your fee and you get a license to carry a weapon. That needs to stop.

Raise the age limit of gun ownership. A person who has served on active duty military could be exempted, but the rest no.

If evidence of drug or alcohol use becomes a recorded problem, or a mental instability flag gets reported, it should not only be a red flag to purchase , it should be at the least a temporary loss of privilege to posses a weapon, until such time as that condition has resolved. Issue a restraining order on the spot and make them turn in or sell their weapons.

Make the gun buyers pay a school fortification fee or tax. Use that tax as a way to fortify schools using the very same people that are buying guns.

Don't allow the private sale of guns to anyone that you haven't run a background check on. Make a national database a required to be documented before a private sale can take place.

Take away the illegally owned guns. Place the illegal gun owners in prison.

Make a crime committed using a gun, hard time in prison. No 3 strikes your out, one strike and you won't get out for a minimum of X years.

Make the attorneys who gets these slime balls off be part of a process whereby they are forced to pay a tax of some sort if they choose to represent them. Penalize them for helping get them off. If an attorney doesn't wish to represent them, too bad.

These are all wishful thinking by a responsible gun owner to hope to happen, but you asked what measures I'd be willing to take. This is a pretty good start.

I'm sure it will be flamed as discriminatory towards some groups of people. Guess what, gun controls will discriminate some groups of people. That is the problem we face when we attempt to regulate anything.

 

Face it. No progress will be made in controlling gun violence while Republicans are running our government.

 

I'm failing to see the deception on tge NRA's part.

 

I can hope that someone that aligns themselves with the NRA might negotiate some useful progress, as it is less likely to happen if you hold an opposing position to them. Wishful thinking I know but I doubt it will go better with a Democratic government.

 

I will respect the findings of my supreme courts. They are the final say in my legal rights vs not. It's their job to judge laws that govern where we are now vs years ago. There has been a lot of rulings that they have handed down that brought about great changes to our society. That is their job. Even if I may not agree with all of those decisions it is still how our country is expected to conduct ourselves.

When someone sends me a proper notice that I need to turn in my gun, I shall. In the meantime I don't really care what day to day arguments various groups have about how they feel. It really doesn't seem to matter what the opposing views are, it always ends up if one side doesn't agree to the others, then they call each other names and spew hate and that ends the discussions.

I have been legally licensed to carry for over 20 years. I have been properly and repeatedly trained by our own government on how to responsibly conduct myself as it pertains to firearms in many real world situations. I hope to never have to shoot anyone. That's about all I need to care about for 99% of my life as it relates to gun ownership. I have diffused 3 situations by drawing my weapon and one involved the other brandishing a weapon against me first. None of them occurred during my employment with that government. I don't need to study social issues, identify what groups do what. In the moment they are the bad guy and I intend to remedy that if at all possible. Its seems pretty easy to know what should be right or wrong no matter who is doing it to whom. That governs me more than statistics.

 

There's no doubt about that. They're all shills for the terrorist NRA who cares more about hawking its products than it does about safety. Its all $ales$ to them.

 

if any of you actually believe it’ll be harder do diagnose crazy people and mentally ill folks correctly, than it is to disarm the populace, Can I have some of whatever it is you’re smoking?

 

Both is hard. Besides, improving diagnozing mentally ill people is of course a good start, but never the whole solution.
This guy who's now known as the batman killer is a good example though of how improving it and acting on the conclusion (by rendering him unfit for a gun purchase) could prevent a massacre.

 

Who has suggested disarming the populace?

Mental health treatment is a good start and I think a single payer healthcare system could go a long ways towards helping to fix our mental health system. I hope to see you on board with single payer since you're so passionate about mental health treatment

But mental health treatment is not a quick and easy fix .As you've pointed out medication can sometimes cause adverse reactions and non medicated treatment can be a lengthy process and does not always do a lot for serious mental illness.

And of course we also have to consider that not all mass murders / homicides are carried out by people with any sort of diagnosable mental illness.

So wouldn't it make sense to strengthen gun laws in an effort to limit the chance of guns falling into the wrong hands?

I'll ask again, why would a responsible, mentally stable, non violent gun owner fear stricter gun laws ?

 

I think the lobbyists have way more power than we want to know.

If we continue with the narrative that guns are not the problem and that mental health is, the gun industry gets to keep going strong, and Big Pharma gets even richer. I mean, seriously. Who benefits from this? There's your answer. If the gun industries combine with Big Pharma, basically the entire government has been bought and sold. Yeah, maybe it's a little far fetched and conspiracy-theoryesque, but there you have it.

Nothing is going to change because the only people who want things to change are those with no power. We need a unicorn of a government that puts integrity ahead of reelection and bribes. Wake me when that day comes.

 

Your country is supposed to be a democracy. Maybe if more people voted a change initiated by the 'people with no power' could really set through. As I understand hardly 50% votes. So they partly render themselves powerless.
Another thought: If they're really fed up with both parties they could make an unbelievable change in, probably, 8 years. I know, this won't happen. But if the majority would want it, it could.

 

That's because as long as we have our Big Macs and Netflix, no one really cares.

 

I'm not sure. If I can focus on both the average american can too

 

In what way does tackling mental health somehow preclude the need for gun control?

I mean wouldn’t a decent and compassionate society want to treat its mentally ill anyway not just because of the few that have used guns against others.

The argument that seems to be coming from the right (and it seems to be always the right) is that they would only be willing to fund mental health treatment if it was aimed in the main or solely to tackle the issue of such people getting hold of guns.

The vast numbers of people with mental health problems are not going to become killers and if anything are more likely to hurt themselves than others, but the right seem to be suggesting that such people don’t matter, they don’t need help.

That stance to me seems in itself to be madness.

*

Also as many here have pointed out the problem with easy access to guns in the US is not just limited to what are termed ‘mass shootings’ but also involves the day to day incidences of crime and domestic disputes that make up an even larger number of deaths not to mention the high level of gun related suicides.

Many of these have more to do with socio-economic factors than mental health (although that can still be a part) and could most likely be better dealt with from policy and infrastructure changes – welfare, social services, drug regulation, universal healthcare, education and training etc.

*

But as said none of these the things preclude the need for prudent gun control.