Jump to content

America's Gun Culture - What can we do?


Recommended Posts

With the recent mass murder, the gun control debate has taken center stage once again. Liberals are, per usual, calling for tighter regulations and conservatives are, per usual, advocating armed guards in our schools and tighter background checks.

The problem is, none of those things stop an Elliot Rodgers. Or Adam Lanza. Or Seung-Hui Cho. What can we actually do? Call me naive, but I actually thought the Sandy Hook murders would be enough to cause real change and it hasn't happened. Are we stuck with our current way of life as far as guns are concerned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the recent mass murder, the gun control debate has taken center stage once again. Liberals are, per usual, calling for tighter regulations and conservatives are, per usual, advocating armed guards in our schools and tighter background checks.

The problem is, none of those things stop an Elliot Rodgers. Or Adam Lanza. Or Seung-Hui Cho. What can we actually do? Call me naive, but I actually thought the Sandy Hook murders would be enough to cause real change and it hasn't happened. Are we stuck with our current way of life as far as guns are concerned?

A good start would be to honestly discuss the reasons behind adolescent/young men becoming mass murderers? Does it have anything to do with the prevailing wider culture? The gigantic increase in prescribing of SSRIs and amphetamines and their affects on developing brains. Or are we going to purely confine discussion to guns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tighter gun control laws would be like taking aspirin when you are HIV+.

There has to be a profound rethinking of the attitude towards entitlement and "god given rights" and the almost religious-like reverence to the Consitution.
Admitting that the Constitution is a flawed and dated document written by very flawed men at a time where things were vastly different would be a first step.
Teaching the real history of the USA in schools and not some white-washed version would be a second. Addressing the fact that this country was founded on violence, grew thanks to violence and is still growing on an imperialistic attitude of violence.
Third: addressing the fact that the 2nd amendment might have made sense in 1791 but is almost farcical if you factor in the means the Government has at its disposal now. What are you gonna do? Shoot down that drone?

It's not a change that can happen overnight. It's not something that can be cured by making guns harder to acquire. It's an entire culture that needs to change. And it's not just about guns, but about Violence and sense of entitlement. America is founded on the idea that the World owes it everything and too many americans adhere to this idea on a personal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the recent mass murder, the gun control debate has taken center stage once again. Liberals are, per usual, calling for tighter regulations and conservatives are, per usual, advocating armed guards in our schools and tighter background checks.

The problem is, none of those things stop an Elliot Rodgers. Or Adam Lanza. Or Seung-Hui Cho. What can we actually do? Call me naive, but I actually thought the Sandy Hook murders would be enough to cause real change and it hasn't happened. Are we stuck with our current way of life as far as guns are concerned?

Within a few sentences you declare tighter gun regulation and tighter background checks non-solutions and then say you naively expected real change after Sandy Hook. What exactly were you expecting, a rousing nation wide singing of kumbaya to clear up our 'culture'? Thanks, I'll go for gun control first.

And, no, 'conservatives' haven't called for tighter background checks- 'liberals' have, and have been resoundingly opposed by one of America's two major political parties (hint: the conservative one).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teaching the real history of the USA in schools and not some white-washed version would be a second. Addressing the fact that this country was founded on violence, grew thanks to violence and is still growing on an imperialistic attitude of violence.

Would you elaborate on that a little bit more? I'm curious as to how that will go about helping.

Edit: Don't mean to sound rude, I'm just have trouble connecting the dots there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't (or didn't intend to) call tighter regulations and background checks non-solutions. I'm asking why we haven't moved in that direction after something like Sandy Hook. When proposed bills were shot down last year by congress, it wasn't for the sake of opposing tighter background checks. It was because the proposal allegedly wanted to go about those background checks in a way that violates the second amendment.

I have more to say later when I'm not sleepy but that goes into Roose Seal's point about the constitution being dated and needing to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you elaborate on that a little bit more? I'm curious as to how that will go about helping.

Edit: Don't mean to sound rude, I'm just have trouble connecting the dots there.

Because I think acknowledging that the history of the US is violent (not that other countries isn't, but the US's is particularly so) and talking about it is better and more constructive than turning a blind eye to it and pretending it's not a big deal.

Teaching violent history in a matter-of-fact way, as just "stuff that happened" normalizes the violence and creates a "well you gotta do what you gotta do" attitude towards it. It makes the violence feel justified. It always paints violence as a means to an end.

Discussing the real history, pointing out that the violence was rarely justified, often nonsensical and talking about it will maybe help younger minds understand the nature of violence better instead of letting them grow in an environment where violence seems perfectly normal?

A problem is solved by acknowledging its reality and working towards resolving it, not by a jedi "there is no problem" wave of the hand.

I don't know, I'm just spit-balling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't (or didn't intend to) call tighter regulations and background checks non-solutions. I'm asking why we haven't moved in that direction after something like Sandy Hook. When proposed bills were shot down last year by congress, it wasn't for the sake of opposing tighter background checks. It was because the proposal allegedly wanted to go about those background checks in a way that violates the second amendment.

It wasn't for the sake of opposing tighter background checks? Where are you getting this? Republicans weren't saying, "aw shucks I'd like to support this but the 2nd amendment doesn't allow background checks" (which would be obvious bullshit anyway), they claimed background checks wouldn't work and would be an unconscionable, even despotic, attack on gun owners.

If you want to know why nothing changed after Sandy Hook, or other recent mass shooting, it's because one major political party nearly categorically opposes any tighter gun regulation or background checks. They will not pass any legislation that the NRA opposes- which is anything that tightens regulation one whit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "gun culture"? Are you describing a trend where the ownership of a firearm is extended to and maintained by private citizens or are you refererring to a trend of violence for which you believe the possession of a gun is key? Or do you wish to conflate the two premises? They are not the same, and in my opinion, the two would inform their own "cultures."


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't for the sake of opposing tighter background checks? Where are you getting this? Republicans weren't saying, "aw shucks I'd like to support this but the 2nd amendment doesn't allow background checks" (which would be obvious bullshit anyway), they claimed background checks wouldn't work and would be an unconscionable, even despotic, attack on gun owners.

If you want to know why nothing changed after Sandy Hook, or other recent mass shooting, it's because one major political party nearly categorically opposes any tighter gun regulation or background checks. They will not pass any legislation that the NRA opposes- which is anything that tightens regulation one whit.

I got it right out of Bob Corker's mouth.

Of his vote, Corker said, Like most Americans, I want to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and dangerous mentally ill people. Today I supported the Grassley amendment to enhance mental health reporting requirements, which I believe is the central issue, and to improve the background check system in a way that is not an impediment to Second Amendment rights.

Corker added, Unfortunately, the Toomey-Manchin amendment overly burdens a law abiding citizens ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights and creates uncertainty about what is and is not a criminal offense when it comes to gun ownership.

I don't agree with his reasoning but he, and and others, are saying that second amendment rights are violated with the proposal and that's why it was struck down in congress. That does nothing to disprove what you say is the reason, but I don't look to disprove you. I'm just lending credibility to what I said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "gun culture"? Are you describing a trend where the ownership of a firearm is extended to and maintained by private citizens or are you refererring to a trend of violence for which you believe the possession of a gun is key? Or do you wish to conflate the two premises? They are not the same, and in my opinion, the two would inform their own "cultures."

For the purposes of this thread, I'm more focused on the former. I want to know what y'all feel about guns being so readily accessible, why they're so readily accessible and if there's anything that can be done to combat that, if y'all even feel anything needs to be done at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the purposes of this thread, I'm more focused on the former. I want to know what y'all feel about guns being so readily accessible, why they're so readily accessible and if there's anything that can be done to combat that, if y'all even feel anything needs to be done at all.

As far as gun ownership is concerned, I don't think anything should be done. The accessibility to a firearm, like with all goods, should be determined by a free and willful exchange. Those who put forward that fewer guns--or at the very least, a diminished access to them--leads to fewer acts of violence have not met their burden of proof. That is, stringent gun controls curb acts of violence. The mere possession, ownership, and use of a firearm does not constitute a violent trend, and therefore, any speculative causal links are just that--speculative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got it right out of Bob Corker's mouth.

I don't agree with his reasoning but he, and and others, are saying that second amendment rights are violated with the proposal and that's why it was struck down in congress. That does nothing to disprove what you say is the reason, but I don't look to disprove you. I'm just lending credibility to what I said.

Right, he says the proposal would overly burden 'law abiding' gun owners. He appeals to the Second Amendment here- but not as an obstacle to something he'd otherwise like but as something that ought to be protected. And Corker, for what little it's worth, is one of the more reasonable Republicans. The hysterics of Lamar Alexander from that same article are closer to par:

“I voted against the so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban because it clearly infringes on Second Amendment rights, and I voted against the Toomey-Manchin amendment because it could easily evolve into a national gun registry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Sturn', on 16 Dec 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:snapback.png

1. Federal grants to schools to harden them. Metal detectors, staff training, hardened lockable classroom doors, non-glass entry points, security staff. There are lots of government programs that are being funded that are a hell of a lot less important then our children. Divert that money now.

2. You need to apply for a license to possess or purchase a gun. The license would only state you can have a gun. It wouldn't force you to register anything. Getting the license requires a background check (mental and criminal, things that already keep us from having guns) and training (not at a range, a classroom setting similar to concealed carry classes). The license must be renewed from time to time. Arrests and referrals from mental health professionals can get the licensed revoked.

3. Unlicensed possession of a firearm is made a Felony with mandated sentencing guidelines.

Just a start, not a solution. But, it's realistic. I didn't mention banning of firearms, for example, since it won't happen. The 3 above actually have a chance of becoming reality (they already are in some places) that could save lives in the near future, not decades from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't think Obama opposers could be THIS petty

Pat Toomey:

In the end it didnt pass because were so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a national gun registry is something I've always personally been opposed to until now. The only issue I can think of is the idea that a registry would infringe upon our supposed natural right to have a gun. I don't even agree with the natural right to have a gun. This country assumes that bearing arms and defending yourself are one in the same and I vehemently disagree.

I don't have the sense of patriotism it takes to oppose the registry. And I don't see any practical reason it shouldn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too late to do anything about this. Incase you haven't noticed after that last few highly publicized shootings nothing changed. A bunch of loud noises sure, but other then that nothing.

I think the timing is bad, maybe when we have less problems some headway will be made on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a national gun registry is something I've always personally been opposed to until now. The only issue I can think of is the idea that a registry would infringe upon our supposed natural right to have a gun. I don't even agree with the natural right to have a gun. This country assumes that bearing arms and defending yourself are one in the same and I vehemently disagree.

I don't have the sense of patriotism it takes to oppose the registry. And I don't see any practical reason it shouldn't exist.

Except that a national registry won't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of a national gun registry is something I've always personally been opposed to until now. The only issue I can think of is the idea that a registry would infringe upon our supposed natural right to have a gun. I don't even agree with the natural right to have a gun. This country assumes that bearing arms and defending yourself are one in the same and I vehemently disagree.

I don't have the sense of patriotism it takes to oppose the registry. And I don't see any practical reason it shouldn't exist.

While true there is no "natural" right to own a gun--not a gun specifically--there are property rights stemmed from a moral and ethical analysis of individual effort and cooperation. It doesn't matter whether guns are "necessary" to any given end; its use and value is determined by the one who owns it. A national registry seeks to lay claim or exercise an unjust priority to information it believes would mitigate any strong-arming prospects of curtailing a person's property right. And it's like I said earlier, the burdern of proof has not been met. I don't see the pragmatism. It's only practical as far as it concerns serving this paranoid notion that possessing a gun facilitates violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...