America's Gun Culture - What can we do?

[Ziggy Targdust]

That's an awfully long statement for someone who starts out saying he no longer has anything to say

[Khal-a-bunga]

Well, there are a lot of things that could be done on both a micro and a macro level to help, I think. In terms of the weapons themselves...

I agree with the idea that there should be a license required to own a gun; one that doesn't necessarily entail registering the weapon. Criminal history, and mental health would both be significant factors in determining whether or not one could legally own a firearm. A national registry may not do much to curb gun violence, but if it helps in even a few situations then it will be worth it.

Ban assault rifles, and limit clip sizes for all other firearms. That goes both for the citizenry at large, and for our domestic law enforcement officials (though not for active-duty members of the military who are deployed under official circumstances). There's no good reason for anyone to have a clip with thirty rounds, as far as I'm concerned, though I'd be willing to entertain reasons to the contrary of that idea. A maximum clip size of five rounds should be sufficient for any scenario.

In terms of our societal issues, there's a lot that needs to be done, not just for the purpose of reducing violent crime, but for the betterment of society in general.

A much stronger focus on providing children with a good education should be the primary focus (and getting away from the idea that institutions of learning should become more prison-like, as Sturn proposed, would be included here). Teachers should be among the most well-compensated and respected individuals in society, and the one-size-fits-all idea of education should be abandoned altogether. Creativity and imagination are things that should be given just as much credence as the more empirical requirements needed for math and science. New methods of dealing with mental and emotional health need to be implemented, that don't automatically involve medication. The media also needs to become more transparent, and more affluent. Hiding the true results of violence and corruption aren't doing anyone any good.

A lot of this gets into systemic issues inherent in this country, but these are problems that can't be ignored or relegated to political posturing. It's honestly disheartening to see how wide-spread the problems we face have become, and how little is being done to curb them. I think the best first step we could take is to get money out of politics. Fun campaigns through taxes, prohibit any additional financing, and let politicians be decided based on their ideas, values, and goals instead of rhetoric, partisanship, and donors.

[TerraPrime]

A lot of this gets into systemic issues inherent in this country, but these are problems that can't be ignored or relegated to political posturing. It's honestly disheartening to see how wide-spread the problems we face have become, and how little is being done to curb them.

I'm not sure that we have a problem, far as mass shootings goes.

Count up the numbers of DUI-related deaths, and it far exceeds the mass shooting deaths; yet, we don't classify the use of motor vehicles as a social problem.

Handguns and firearms getting into the hands of those who would probably be best off not to have them, for the sake of the safety of those around them, is a feature of the system, not a bug. It's *supposed* to happen this way.

[Weeping Sore]

I'm not sure that we have a problem, far as mass shootings goes.

Count up the numbers of DUI-related deaths, and it far exceeds the mass shooting deaths; yet, we don't classify the use of motor vehicles as a social problem.

If the solution to DUI-related deaths is universal adoption of Google self-driving cars, then perhaps we need self-shooting guns as well.

[TerraPrime]

If the solution to DUI-related deaths is universal adoption of Google self-driving cars, then perhaps we need self-shooting guns as well.

"Guns don't kill people! People ki.... wait a minute..."

[Ziggy Targdust]

We could send the google cars to computer jail for driving while under the influence of a virus

[Altherion]

See this is something I've never understood. When it comes to the 2nd amendment, some people view The Constitution as some kind of unshakable, supreme, and absolute Force, as if it's Gravity itself, some kind of abstract concept that Man cannot interfere with.

The Constitution has been amended and modified several times about many things, why should the 2nd amendment be immune to change?

I am not saying that the Constitution is immutable, but the consensus for changing the Second Amendment simply isn't there. It may very well arise at some point in the future, but we're very far from that right now.

When more than half the country is dissatisfied with an issue such as this, isn't it the Government's job to at least address it?

Address it how? Yes, more than half want change... but in opposite directions. From your article, 16% want less strict laws, 31% want stricter laws and 40% are satisfied with the status quo. There's isn't even 1/3 of the population for any specific change, never mind the 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states necessary for an amendment.

[Galactus]

It can facilitate violence depending on the nature of its use. However, the mere ownership, possession, and use of a firearm does not facilitate violence--which was more my point. We can speculate as to what the motives are behind shootings. You cannot, however, establish cause--that is, the gun is what motivated the act of violence. If you feel that you can establish this, I would love to see some research and/or logical rationalizations.

As for what is more "likely," if I stab you in the heart or shoot in the arm, which wound is more likely to cause you to succumb?

Guns don't motivate acts of violence (there might be a very small number of cases where guns itself form the motivation for a crime, but they're fairly irrelevant to the larger issue) they do however, make acts of violence substantially easier, which increases their frequency.

Use of firearms do specifically facilitate violence: As in, they make violence easier, more convenient, safer (for the assailant) and so forth. Just the way cars facilitate easy travel between cities, or the internet facilitates communication.

And I repeat: If guns are not more effective at killing people than knives, why do people use guns?

When one argues that stringent gun cuntrols will reduce violence, one is arguing a cause and effect. Controls being the cause and reduced violence being the effect. So far, this link has not been established consistently when taking into account the national policies of countries--and its effect on crime--around the world.

Comparative studies in sociology is always a tricky business: The confounding variables tends to be fairly complex. And no, I doubt gun laws "reduce violence" in general. (Violence is fair to large and nebulous a concept) what they can do is reduce certain types of violence, and transfer categories of violence from one to another (eg. from murder to battery)

[Galactus]

How is the attempt to dissociate firearms from violence frivolous? Are you suggesting that violence is inseparable from firearms?

Guns are weapons, so yes, violence is inseparable from weapons. (and guns don't even have the dual-use purpose of say, a hammer or an axe)

[Ziggy Targdust]

A lot of the purchasing of guns discussion is nullified by the fact that technology now exists for people to make a very violent gun in their own garage. People have always had the ability, I remember an uncle who made his own rifles when I was a kid. But now it's a lot easier for people to make their own, much easier than it was even 10 years ago.

10 years from now, who knows how easy and cheap it will be

[TerraPrime]

I'd argue that target shooting and skeet shooting exemplify the divestment of violence from firearms.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Well, there are a lot of things that could be done on both a micro and a macro level to help, I think. In terms of the weapons themselves...

I agree with the idea that there should be a license required to own a gun; one that doesn't necessarily entail registering the weapon. Criminal history, and mental health would both be significant factors in determining whether or not one could legally own a firearm. A national registry may not do much to curb gun violence, but if it helps in even a few situations then it will be worth it.

Ban assault rifles, and limit clip sizes for all other firearms. That goes both for the citizenry at large, and for our domestic law enforcement officials (though not for active-duty members of the military who are deployed under official circumstances). There's no good reason for anyone to have a clip with thirty rounds, as far as I'm concerned, though I'd be willing to entertain reasons to the contrary of that idea. A maximum clip size of five rounds should be sufficient for any scenario.

In terms of our societal issues, there's a lot that needs to be done, not just for the purpose of reducing violent crime, but for the betterment of society in general.

A much stronger focus on providing children with a good education should be the primary focus (and getting away from the idea that institutions of learning should become more prison-like, as Sturn proposed, would be included here). Teachers should be among the most well-compensated and respected individuals in society, and the one-size-fits-all idea of education should be abandoned altogether. Creativity and imagination are things that should be given just as much credence as the more empirical requirements needed for math and science. New methods of dealing with mental and emotional health need to be implemented, that don't automatically involve medication. The media also needs to become more transparent, and more affluent. Hiding the true results of violence and corruption aren't doing anyone any good.

A lot of this gets into systemic issues inherent in this country, but these are problems that can't be ignored or relegated to political posturing. It's honestly disheartening to see how wide-spread the problems we face have become, and how little is being done to curb them. I think the best first step we could take is to get money out of politics. Fun campaigns through taxes, prohibit any additional financing, and let politicians be decided based on their ideas, values, and goals instead of rhetoric, partisanship, and donors.

You win the coveted Midgetsbane award for being the 1000th person to make this post nearly verbatim.

[Ziggy Targdust]

I'm curious as to what people mean by mental health should prohibit one from gun ownership. Is that any type of mental treatment history whatsoever? Anybody who has ever been to a psychiatrist? Any mental illness?????

I have aspergers, that's enough to not give me the same rights as anyone else?

To my limited knowledge, only a small subset of ppl with mental illness ever commit violence.

[TerraPrime]

I don't see how one can even begin to use mental health status as a criterion for granting gun ownership without offering free, professional, in-depth psychoanalysis first, given the variety of mental health issues and how each issue can present differently for each person.

[Athias]

...they do however, make acts of violence substantially easier, which increases their frequency.

Prove it.

Use of firearms do specifically facilitate violence: As in, they make violence easier, more convenient, safer (for the assailant) and so forth. Just the way cars facilitate easy travel between cities, or the internet facilitates communication.

No, the mere use of a firearm does not specifically facilitate violence. A firearm's mere use facilitates the discharge of projectile objects. How it is used depends on the one who posseses it. The facilitation of violence is not inherent to its bare use. Your insistence at pigeonholing the use of firearms to violence is either stubborn or uniformed as there are other ways one can use a gun--target practice, trap and skeet shooting, plinking, etc. I've taken part in all of the aforementioned, and I can assure you that no one was killed.

Comparative studies in sociology is always a tricky business: The confounding variables tends to be fairly complex. And no, I doubt gun laws "reduce violence" in general. (Violence is fair to large and nebulous a concept) what they can do is reduce certain types of violence, and transfer categories of violence from one to another (eg. from murder to battery)

Prove it.

[Khal-a-bunga]

You win the coveted Midgetsbane award for being the 1000th person to make this post nearly verbatim.

Then I guess I'm in the good company of at least 1,000 people with common sense.

I'm not sure that we have a problem, far as mass shootings goes.

Count up the numbers of DUI-related deaths, and it far exceeds the mass shooting deaths; yet, we don't classify the use of motor vehicles as a social problem.

Handguns and firearms getting into the hands of those who would probably be best off not to have them, for the sake of the safety of those around them, is a feature of the system, not a bug. It's *supposed* to happen this way.

Mass shootings, no (sort of). But violent crime, in general, is essentially what I was speaking to. And I disagree to your last point. It isn't often that you hear about someone defending themselves with a firearm, though I have no doubt that it happens from time to time.

[all swedes are racist]

Prove it.

No, the mere use of a firearm does not specifically facilitate violence. A firearm's mere use facilitates the discharge of projectile objects. How it is used depends on the one who posseses it. The facilitation of violence is not inherent to its bare use. Your insistence at pigeonholing the use of firearms to violence is either stubborn or uniformed as there are other ways one can use a gun--target practice, trap and skeet shooting, plinking, etc. I've taken part in all of the aforementioned, and I can assure you that no one was killed.

Prove it.

Eh, you're splitting hairs here.

And also seem to be confusing facilitate with necessitate.

[Athias]

Eh, you're splitting hairs here.

And also seem to be confusing facilitate with necessitate.

Yes, I am, indeed, splitting hairs because each "strand" informs a different notion. If one is going to put forward that violence and firearm use is inseparable, then it's fair to say that a throrough rationalization and/or proof is to be expected. If i can poke holes by "splitting hairs," then the premise being argued is unsound.

I am aware how both "facilitate" and "necessitate" are defined. I'm fine with the former.

[Galactus]

Prove it.

Err... It's the reason people use guns? That guns make killing easier is... Pretty self-evident. If swords were better we'd see a whole lot more killings with swords. Even the primitive muzzle-loading musket made killing a whole lot easier. Trying to argue that guns does not make violence easier is... Bizarre, to say the least. It kind of undermines the entire point of y'know... weapons.

No, the mere use of a firearm does not specifically facilitate violence. A firearm's mere use facilitates the discharge of projectile objects. How it is used depends on the one who posseses it. The facilitation of violence is not inherent to its bare use. Your insistence at pigeonholing the use of firearms to violence is either stubborn or uniformed as there are other ways one can use a gun--target practice, trap and skeet shooting, plinking, etc. I've taken part in all of the aforementioned, and I can assure you that no one was killed.

A gun facilitates violence: That is, it makes violence easier. It does not neccessarily *lead* to violence, but it makes violence easier when violence happens. That's what guns are for. Again, cars facilitate transport. Doesen't mean they can't be used for other things. This is a very odd semantic tangent.

[Athias]

Err... It's the reason people use guns? That guns make killing easier is... Pretty self-evident. If swords were better we'd see a whole lot more killings with swords. Even the primitive muzzle-loading musket made killing a whole lot easier. Trying to argue that guns does not make violence easier is... Bizarre, to say the least. It kind of undermines the entire point of y'know... weapons.

No, it is not self-evident. You argue that "[Guns] do however, make acts of violence substantially easier, which increases their frequency." You are arguing cause and effect--establish causation. You cannot abandon your burden of proof by presuming some axiomatic nature to your argument.

A gun facilitates violence: That is, it makes violence easier. It does not neccessarily *lead* to violence, but it makes violence easier when violence happens. That's what guns are for. Again, cars facilitate transport. Doesen't mean they can't be used for other things. This is a very odd semantic tangent.

Yes, a gun can faciliate violence depending on how it's used. I've stated that before. It isn't semantics, it's logic. There is a difference between declaring in what capacity an item can be used, and what it does. A pillow can facilitate a violent act, but the mere use of pillow does not. What "guns are for," again, is to be determined by the possessor. I, as well as my brothers, possess firearms. While they have used their guns in violence, I have not. This notion of facilitated violence ascribed to the mere use of guns is not an argument you can substantiate.