Gun Violence and how to address it

MadYaker

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Yeah, the more I think about it really I think the best thing you can do if you want gun control is settle in for a long (and I'm talking decades at the quickest) campaign of mind changing and trying to win the cultural battle. Took the gays about 60 years to go from illegality to being able to marry, maybe guns are the same way. Now of course the obvious problem is you have a very large and vibrant counter-movement and there's a more visceral and entrenched love of guns in the US than there was a love of gay-bashing.

Also the bar for constitutional change is set very high (too high imo) its just never going to happen. It was all well and good in the 1700s when the population of the US was around 4 - 5 million but in the modern era granting a population right to bear arms is insanity.

skooterblue2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Amnesty followed by Zero tolerance. Make gun owners personally liable for the insurance on owning a gun.

A longer term solution is akin to smoking.
Make it illegal to openly advertise the sale of guns.
Make joining gun clubs obligatory for gun ownership.
Limit the capacity of magazines. (number of bullets)
Place restrictions on the amount of ammo that can be purchased at any one time (like medicines).
Raise the legal ownership age to 21, like alcohol.
Place mandatory NCT type checks on guns and owners. Gun need to be tested every two years, to check for illegal modifications (all modifications become illegal) and all owners need to undergo a test every two years.

Of course there is a way around pretty much any system, but most people simply get fed up having to jump through so many hoops simply to get something that is of questionable value.

It isn't that hard. All of the above ideas are achievable since they have been in other areas. The only real difficulty is the willingness to change. Unfortunately the US has been without a strong enough leader to ever grasp the nettle and put the needs of the nation above their own political legacy. Obama has a massive opportunity to do it, but wavered and let the opportunity slip.

Criminal dont avail of amnesty only decent citizens guilt tripped into doing so do.
If you can only own a gun at 21 how are you going to regulate the army and the police? when you can join the army at 17 and the police at 18-20? Then you have militias?
Why should people with legally held fire arms change? You are just removing the protections that protect them from criminal elements. I wouldnt like to waiting on the police in the states if there were armed criminals in my home to protect my family. The people who are telling you that guns are evil are the same people who are all guarded to the teeth by armed secret service agents and the like.

Irish Praetorian

MadYaker wrote: »

Also the bar for constitutional change is set very high (too high imo) its just never going to happen. It was all well and good in the 1700s when the population of the US was around 4 - 5 million but in the modern era granting a population right to bear arms is insanity.

Well precisely, which is why you would need even more than the level of support gay-marriage received if you wanted to manage an amendment. Frankly I think issues other than gun control could act as a catalyst to change that situation but really it's not a good idea for so much of the population to be so constrained by their political institutions for so long. Too often in the US it seems like an idea has quite a bit of popular support, but founders on either Constitutional grounds or through the arcane structure of the electoral system. Things like the disconnect between the electoral college and the popular vote can't keep going on without producing serious discontent within the system.

skooterblue2

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Things like the disconnect between the electoral college and the popular vote can't keep going on without producing serious discontent within the system.

Whats wrong with the electoral college? Its the same as proportional representation in this country and nobody is complaining about that. You have a better chance of implementing successful gun control in West Virginia than getting citizens to give up their rights to the electoral college.

Irish Praetorian

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Whats wrong with the electoral college? Its the same as proportional representation in this country and nobody is complaining about that. You have a better chance of implementing successful gun control in West Virginia than getting citizens to give up their rights to the electoral college.

What's wrong with it? Well simply put instead of electing a leader based upon the votes of either the majority of the population or the single most popular individual out of a list, you end up apportioning votes based on a series of local races which (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska) then disregard the votes of the losers and subsequently select a leader based on the electoral votes which are in and of themselves often unevenly assigned. One of the problems with the system means theoretically you could win the presidency despite about three quarters of the population voting against you. My chief complaint though is that it engenders political apathy in 'solid states' by leaving opposition voters no incentive to take part or even campaign for their candidates whilst at the same time it leaves a serious deficit in the representative credentials of the country when the elected president is objectively less popular a candidate than their supposedly defeated rival. So apart from driving down participation, encouraging political apathy, creating 'safe' and 'in play' areas and haemorrhaging the legitimacy of the office of presidency, I'm fine with it.

skooterblue2

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

What's wrong with it? Well simply put instead of electing a leader based upon the votes of either the majority of the population or the single most popular individual out of a list, you end up apportioning votes based on a series of local races which (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska) then disregard the votes of the losers and subsequently select a leader based on the electoral votes which are in and of themselves often unevenly assigned. One of the problems with the system means theoretically you could win the presidency despite about three quarters of the population voting against you. My chief complaint though is that it engenders political apathy in 'solid states' by leaving opposition voters no incentive to take part or even campaign for their candidates whilst at the same time it leaves a serious deficit in the representative credentials of the country when the elected president is objectively less popular a candidate than their supposedly defeated rival. So apart from driving down participation, encouraging political apathy, creating 'safe' and 'in play' areas and haemorrhaging the legitimacy of the office of presidency, I'm fine with it.

If it was down to the majority of the population there would be nothing for rural voters or voters outside of the 6 major cities. So Donnie was a smarter general and worked the electoral college? I have never heard a complain about proportional representation or the electoral college before this. Is there any chance that polls got it wrong on election day, by any chance? Be gracious and accept defeat. Trump is doing fine in the polls and the Republican party. Just be grateful you arent under HRC and her colostomy bag.

BonnieSituation

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If it was down to the majority of the population there would be nothing for rural voters or voters outside of the 6 major cities. So Donnie was a smarter general and worked the electoral college? I have never heard a complain about proportional representation or the electoral college before this. Is there any chance that polls got it wrong on election day, by any chance? Be gracious and accept defeat. Trump is doing fine in the polls and the Republican party. Just be grateful you arent under HRC and her colostomy bag.

The EC is not PV.

Obviously you never heard about the famous 2000 election where the debate about the EC came up when Al Gore won the most votes but lost because of the EC. (Ignoring the messing of the USSC for wrapping up the Florida recounts)

---

I then read the end of your post and realised you're not likely to be a, how would you put it, an informed poster. Good day.

skooterblue2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Obviously you never heard about the famous 2000 election where the debate about the EC came up when Al Gore won the most votes but lost because of the EC. (Ignoring the messing of the USSC for wrapping up the Florida recounts)
.

That is just old school Skull and Bones stuff. Either way the same agenda would have been fulfilled. The same way this was to be Jeb Bush's "Turn". Jeb knew he wasnt going to get a look in so that is when HRC was called in. Dont you just love it when the NWO dont get their turn. As I recall Al Gore didnt call for a recount?

Irish Praetorian

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If it was down to the majority of the population there would be nothing for rural voters or voters outside of the 6 major cities. So Donnie was a smarter general and worked the electoral college? I have never heard a complain about proportional representation or the electoral college before this. Is there any chance that polls got it wrong on election day, by any chance? Be gracious and accept defeat. Trump is doing fine in the polls and the Republican party. Just be grateful you arent under HRC and her colostomy bag.

The population of the 6 biggest US cities comes to about 16 million people - now assuming every one of them turns out to vote (including those under-aged and not eligible to vote) then you've got maybe 10% of the total voter turnout? Not exactly a way to lock in victory. Now as to the rural voters, I'm not sure if you actually read my post but if you did you will observe that the value of the popular vote is that it actually means the red votes in California and the blue votes in Texas start to count towards the final result, rather than being dropped at the collegial stage. I don't think you can do much better than having an Iowan farmer's vote count exactly the same a San Francisco barista's which is what a popular vote system would do.

Now as for the rest of your post, if you're looking for people to wind up maybe you want to try After Hours, we try to keep a better standard here and we've already dragged this thread off-topic, so lets navigate back to the gun question.

Lyan

The right to bear arms will always be a justifable counter-balance to government power. It's a freedom dictators are always quick to remove.

skooterblue2

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

The population of the 6 biggest US cities comes to about 16 million people - now assuming every one of them turns out to vote (including those under-aged and not eligible to vote) then you've got maybe 10% of the total voter turnout? Not exactly a way to lock in victory. Now as to the rural voters, I'm not sure if you actually read my post but if you did you will observe that the value of the popular vote is that it actually means the red votes in California and the blue votes in Texas start to count towards the final result, rather than being dropped at the collegial stage. I don't think you can do much better than having an Iowan farmer's vote count exactly the same a San Francisco barista's which is what a popular vote system would do.

Now as for the rest of your post, if you're looking for people to wind up maybe you want to try After Hours, we try to keep a better standard here and we've already dragged this thread off-topic, so lets navigate back to the gun question.

Well it is a democrat/left wing pursuit to have gun control? Now what I understand gun control as you want to ban all guns except those held by the army and law enforcement? When was the last time there was "gun control"?
Hitler, had it when he collected guns from Jews and Freemasons, Stalin did it before the purges, and Mao did it too. G'wan the boys!

Xertz

I don't think you can solve the gun violence issue in the US. It's something that's deeply embedded in American culture at this stage and the sheer number of guns available to all sorts of unhinged individuals is off the scale.

That being said, I think what would help is to undo some of the political fear-mongering. There's this image of a world that's full of countless criminal and terrorists being painted and it really feeds nothing but a tabloid media that wants to sell scary stories and a political systems that is thriving on fear. The US has really got a major problem with people being afraid of absolutely everything and arming themselves to the teeth as a result of that. It's really not the terrifying place some people seem to imagine they live in. For the most part it's a pretty easy going, friendly kind of society. It just urgently needs to rediscover some of its own positives.

Dealing with some of the really serious inequalities driving poverty and access to ways out of poverty is also key.

They also need to tackle the narrative that keeps repeating - someone who's angry with the world goes out and murders a group of random people by firing a weapon at innocent strangers or school colleagues in an act of rage. It's hugely important that's tackled. I even think the endless media attention that goes onto the 'shooter' is part of glorifying that kind of mentality and it needs to be dialled way down.

Unfortunately, I think though you will just always have a significantly higher number of deaths due to shooting in the US because of the sheer volume of guns, all they can really do is work towards improving the other factors, as I really don't think there's any political will in the US to restrict gun ownership. No matter how stupid and how dangerous it gets, they seem to have a dogmatic, cultural block that will now even think about moving on that issue, so I suspect that situation simply will never change, certainly not within any of our lifetimes anyway.

BonnieSituation

Lyan wrote: »

The right to bear arms will always be a justifable counter-balance to government power. It's a freedom dictators are always quick to remove.

If that's the case, why don't we have such a "counter-balance" in our constitution?

Why don't other countries?

It's frankly a bananas argument.

BonnieSituation

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well it is a democrat/left wing pursuit to have gun control? Now what I understand gun control as you want to ban all guns except those held by the army and law enforcement? When was the last time there was "gun control"?
Hitler, had it when he collected guns from Jews and Freemasons, Stalin did it before the purges, and Mao did it too. G'wan the boys!

We have it? Almost all Western democracies have it. EXCEPT the US.

The US has banned Kinder Eggs though and keeps the imperial system, so you know, they're paragons of sense and should be followed without any thought wrt the guns issue!

BonnieSituation

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is just old school Skull and Bones stuff. Either way the same agenda would have been fulfilled. The same way this was to be Jeb Bush's "Turn". Jeb knew he wasnt going to get a look in so that is when HRC was called in. Dont you just love it when the NWO dont get their turn. As I recall Al Gore didnt call for a recount?

I've tried reading this over and over and I just don't get it. Sorry. You're clearly so adroit at making this argument that a mere pleb such as myself can't penetrate it. Apologies.

Boredstiff666

This is Ireland.

skooterblue2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

We have it? Almost all Western democracies have it. EXCEPT the US.

The US has banned Kinder Eggs though and keeps the imperial system, so you know, they're paragons of sense and should be followed without any thought wrt the guns issue!

I have no comment to make on kinder eggs. There is a reason they keep the imperial system, it would cost too much to change systems.

There should be no problem with a law abiding citizen having a fire arm, its the criminals you have to worry about. The western European governments have been restricting legally held fire arms for years. The current one in this country is making it harder for decent citizens to acquire a firearms license.

skooterblue2

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I've tried reading this over and over and I just don't get it. Sorry. You're clearly so adroit at making this argument that a mere pleb such as myself can't penetrate it. Apologies.

Well, there is society in Yale called Skull and Bones and they were running both candidates. Either way Iraq and Afghanistan got invaded and a whole heap civil liberties were revoked by Dick Cheney.

Xertz

The US does have gun control at a state and local level and it's fairly strict in some states and localities, where it's supported.
However, there's no significant federal standard for it and there's a gun culture that's fairly unshakable in quite a lot of the US, so I really don't think you're going to ever see it change that dramatically.

The places that support gun control, tend to be quite urban and are probably representative of at least half of the population of the US and are amongst the places any of us are most likely to visit i.e. most of the big cities and economic hubs of the US tend to have quite strong gun control. However, translating that to federal law is next to impossible as the federal systems are not really based on population, but are weighted by state-by-state representation in the senate and the Electoral College also distorts representation to favour low population rural areas, so basically it's extremely unlikely to change other than in a very minor way here and there.

Tackling the cultural love affair with guns and the growing paranoid fear of absolutely everything is probably more important than pursuing it in the legislative system as any changes will either be tiny or will be undone at a later date because of how US systems work and are weighted.

If the US could even get back to a notion of 'sensible gun ownership' it would be a huge step forward. At the moment it's really off in a very dangerous place.

viewing it though an Irish lens or any other western democracy's lens is quite difficult as US gun culture is pretty unique and tends to link to a lot of historical notions of US identity and real and imagined notions about the pioneering days of old.

Realistically, if the US could get back to a semi-sensible position that somehow brought all of that on board, that's where you get a reduction of deaths. However, I think it's going to be one hell of a challenge to ever achieve that and it can only be achieved by getting the 'red states' to buy in, perhaps with some kind of addressing it in terms of personal responsibility or social responsibility for building a safer America. It won't ever be achieved by top down compulsion as it just sets off all the conspiracy theorists and fears of big state etc. etc.

Lyan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If that's the case, why don't we have such a "counter-balance" in our constitution?

Why don't other countries?

It's frankly a bananas argument.

Ireland and other countries are not as liberal.

Boredstiff666

Nothing wrong with owning guns. When used for sporting they are no different than a set of darts.

When used for killing people illegally they are no different than a knife or other.

As regards then supposed to be more dangerous than other items used illegally to kill people well if people intent on killing others illegally then they will use other means...........cars and trucks for example. Far more efficient than a gun.

BonnieSituation

Lyan wrote: »

Ireland and other countries are not as liberal.

Ah good luck. The absolute state of this post.

Lyan

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Ah good luck. The absolute state of this post.

That's some fairly low effort ad hominem.

Xertz

Lyan wrote: »

Ireland and other countries are not as liberal.

It depends on the topic. Ireland's pretty liberal across a range of issues as are other countries. The one point you could make is that a % of Americans do not really buy into feeling they can trust the state itself in a way that a lot of Europeans and Australians etc seem to feel much more comfortable with. Why that is, well that's a whole other debate. You could make a lot of arguments about how the US was founded, cultural notions, civil war history still being somewhat fresh in the cultural memory and so on. You could even argue that there's a rather dysfunctional federal democracy which some Americans don't trust at all. Some of it's paranoid conspiracy theories, but that's not where all of the distrust comes from either.

It's a lot more complex than just "they're more liberal." Across quite a range of issues the US is a lot more conservative e.g. consumption of alcohol and a wide range of social issues (Ireland is not shining light on these either) have been a lot slower to open up in some parts of the US than in a lot of European countries.

It is definitely cultural though and I think it's hard just do a side by side comparison. European democracies and American democracy are both very liberal and open systems. They just have quite different cultural biases which are largely informed by their histories and how they go to where they are today.

I really think that the only way it will be addressed is to appeal to the pro-gun people to start taking a lot more responsibility as gun owners because the culture is not going to just shift dramatically, despite the death toll.

I'm not for one moment saying that I agree with the situation as it is at present in the US, but I don't think it's going to change from the top down. It has to be from the bottom up and that will take leadership from people who are part of that culture. It won't be achieved by 'city folks' demanding change, no matter how desirable that might be. It would basically take a change of attitude in leadership in pro-gun parts of the US and in the right of the GOP which largely is where they're politically represented.

skooterblue2

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

As regards then supposed to be more dangerous than other items used illegally to kill people well if people intent on killing others illegally then they will use other means...........cars and trucks for example. Far more efficient than a gun.

Then you get fellas with degrees in chemistry and toxicology. But they arent a patch on Wall Street bankers and fund & Asset managers.

Boredstiff666

Xertz wrote: »

It depends on the topic. Ireland's pretty liberal across a range of issues as are other countries. The one point you could make is that a % of Americans do not really buy into feeling they can trust the state itself in a way that a lot of Europeans and Australians etc seem to feel much more comfortable with. Why that is, well that's a whole other debate. You could make a lot of arguments about how the US was founded, cultural notions, civil war history still being somewhat fresh in the cultural memory and so on. You could even argue that there's a rather dysfunctional federal democracy which some Americans don't trust at all. Some of it's paranoid conspiracy theories, but that's not where all of the distrust comes from either.

It's a lot more complex than just "they're more liberal." Across quite a range of issues the US is a lot more conservative e.g. consumption of alcohol and a wide range of social issues (Ireland is not shining light on these either) have been a lot slower to open up in some parts of the US than in a lot of European countries.

It is definitely cultural though and I think it's hard just do a side by side comparison. European democracies and American democracy are both very liberal and open systems. They just have quite different cultural biases which are largely informed by their histories and how they go to where they are today.

I really think that the only way it will be addressed is to appeal to the pro-gun people to start taking a lot more responsibility as gun owners because the culture is not going to just shift dramatically, despite the death toll.

Complete bollox.

There are many countries where its legal to have guns of all kinds and they do not have the same shooting probs America does. So restricting the 'tool' they use to kill people will not make any difference as they will find other ways.

Americans or some of them just like to kill others. Guns or whatever......they will just do it regardless.

Boredstiff666

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Then you get fellas with degrees in chemistry and toxicology. But they arent a patch on Wall Street bankers and fund & Asset managers.

You lost me there.

skooterblue2

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

You lost me there.

Those lads can be far more lethal than a guy with a gun do you want all them regulated?

Xertz

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Complete bollox.

There are many countries where its legal to have guns of all kinds and they do not have the same shooting probs America does. So restricting the 'tool' they use to kill people will not make any difference as they will find other ways.

Americans or some of them just like to kill others. Guns or whatever......they will just do it regardless.

Perhaps read my posts before just jumping on that line. I was talking about how the US has a serious cultural issue with guns and how it can only be addressed by actually appealing to gun owners and changing the cultural issues that lead to those shootings.

Thought this was a serious political discussion forum?!?

no.8

Boredstiff666 wrote:

As regards then supposed to be more dangerous than other items used illegally to kill people well if people intent on killing others illegally then they will use other means...........cars and trucks for example. Far more efficient than a gun.

Thats a load of rubbish. All other items mention have a primary function which does not prescribe to killing/ maiming human beings. What are high calibre guns designed to do?