Jump to content

Gun Control 5


Stubby

Recommended Posts

There is a very loud and vocal response from people who want to ban guns entirely

Honestly, I've never seen anyone even make that argument. It's not as if guns are banned in Sweden or Finland or anything like that.

The way I'd do it would be:

A) Certification: To own a gun you need to have a certificate (maybe several depending on the type of gun) it has to be reviewed periodically. It should include mandatory safety training, etc. Without a certification possessing a (functional) gun is a crime. (with at least a stiff fine attached) obviously it would include checks for prior criminal records, mental capacity, and such.

B) Registration: Every gun sold needs to be tagged and attached to the register of the gun-owner. If it's sold this transaction needs to be noted and reported. This way the relevant authorities know who owns what kind of guns. Part of the certifiication process (or re-certification process) is that you need to account for all guns registered to you. If you can no longer account for any of the guns, that's a crime. (though you get a grace period to report them as lost/stolen/whatever) possessing an unregistered firearm is a crime.

C) Security: Regulations about proper gun lockers, etc. goes here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that one of the motivations for these douche-bags is the notoriety that this generates. So forbid the press to report on these events.

don't know about you, but i would considered reducing freedom of press a lot worse than reducing the variety and firepower of weaponry i, as a civilian, could legally own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. The fact that you see gun control as indicative of a loss of personal liberty doesn't mean it translates that way for others. To most of the rest of the developed world, it is a concession along the lines of not being allowed to own a tank or build a bomb in your basement. It ranks much lower on the degree of 'egregious interference' in other people's choices than, say, banning gay marriage.

So, no...this is not about America being uniquely free...it is about America being unique in where and how it decides to exercise freedom.

The rest of the world has a more lax attitude toward sex, but does seem to have a much more gov't meddling area such as making health care decisions or promoting food choices. As to weightier matters, I think that the rest of the world is more willing to have restrictions on free speech and assembly. Banning political parties, even extreme ones, would never occur in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of the world has a more lax attitude toward sex, but does seem to have a much more gov't meddling area such as making health care decisions or promoting food choices. As to weightier matters, I think that the rest of the world is more willing to have restrictions on free speech and assembly. Banning political parties, even extreme ones, would never occur in the U.S.

I guess the Communist Control Act of 1954 must have been passed in in a parallel universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the more people involved the greater the chance of accidents or mishaps.

That's true, but I would suggest actually reading the Cato Institute article, because it includes a statistical analysis of the liklihood of accidents occuring. Otherwise, you're just arguing preconceptions rather than facts. Even the Atlantic article addressed this -- the myth that the law-abiding present some great risk with their weapons. It's simply not true when you look at the numbers.

But you can't do that. What you can choose is to have a loaded gun at the school every day, a loaded gun that might fall into the hands of one or the kids, or one of the teachers might snap and use it. Or it might get lost, or whatever.

There are a lot of schools in the U.S. that have an armed security guard/cop present in them. Generally, they're high schools. How many reports have their been of such an individual either 1) going nuts and killing students, or 2) treating the weapon unsafely in a school and a child getting killed?

The hypothetical fears you point out just aren't supported by statistical reality. And in contrast, there are documented incidents (I related some above) where a private citizen's use of a weapon prevented a greater massacre from occuring. It doesn't make international news, though, probably because 1) the number of dead was so much smaller, and 2) the idea that a gun in private hands actually saved lives is a concept with which a great deal of the media is uncomfortable. Doesn't fit their agenda, so it didn't happen.

The truth is that people who don't know much about guns tend to greatly overestimate the prevelance of accidents. Yes, accidents do occur and they are tragic. Some cops will make a safety error and someone will die. BUT, by that logic, we should then deprive all cops of guns because someone might get injured in an accident, and most folks familiar with the prevelance of armed criminals in the U.S. wouldn't support that.

So if you're going to say law-abiding citizens should not have guns because of the risk of accident, you have to weigh that statistical likelihood against the huge numbers of crimes that are prevented by innocent armed citizens. But folks don't want to read those articles and the endless recitations of incidents where that happens because it contradicts their worldview.

Anecdotal arguments on gun control, standing alone, generally blow chunks because you can find anecdotes on both sides. You can find a 3 year old killed in a firearms accident, but then an 82 year old woman saving her life with a gun, or another mother protecting her two young children from an assault, or the armed cops who didn't treat their weapon unsafely arriving at that elementary school and inducing that killer to kill himself.

Anyway, I made the point I came to make so I'm done. In light of what just happened, I felt morally bound to offer an opposing view that I think is more likely to preserve the lives of innocents, particularly children. And so I'm going to push for having a screened/trained/licensed armed person in the schools in my kid's district. The way I figure it, the difference between the number of kids murdered by these people and the risk of a possible accident makes it a no-brainer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why mental healthcare should be at the center of the debate as well.

But the fact remains that it's impossible to tell with absolutely certainty if someone will at some point in their lives commit a crime until they, well, commit one.

I'm skeptical that Lanza had an identifiable mental illness that would readily explain his actions. Very few people with mental health problems become violent, and they are far, far more likely to kill themselves than anyone else. The rare paranoid schizophrenic who becomes violent pales next to the vast number of people with psychotic disorders who just decide to jump of a bridge one day.

It's an impulsive act and - I would think - lacking in a clear reason.

In any case, you cannot control all people all of the time.

But you can definitely control their access to guns, especially those who are (or were) putatively law-abiding. As Lanza was...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is that people who don't know much about guns tend to greatly overestimate the prevelance of accidents

And people in general tend to greatly overestimate the prevalence of intentional murder.

Anecdotal arguments on gun control, standing alone, generally blow chunks because you can find anecdotes on both sides. You can find a 3 year old killed in a firearms accident, but then an 82 year old woman saving her life with a gun, or another mother protecting her two young children from an assault, or the armed cops who didn't treat their weapon unsafely arriving at that elementary school and inducing that killer to kill himself.

Which is precisely why we're going by the grim statistics: The outrageous US murder-rate, completely out of whack with the rest of the western world.

Now, there is the argument that this is correlated rather than caused by the bizzarre US gun fetishishm, but in any case that needs to be broken down: A gun is a tool, or more likely, a toy. It's something that should be allowed to be enjoyed safely and responsibly. (while I don't own a gun myself, most of the older men in my social circle do, but the difference is that these are registered and controlled firearms, stored dissassembled) but just like other dangerous toys it needs to be controlled.

EDIT: In other words, a gun is a tool, it's not your fucking penis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest actually reading the Cato Institute article, because it includes a statistical analysis of the liklihood of accidents occuring. Otherwise, you're just arguing preconceptions rather than facts. Even the Atlantic article addressed this -- the myth that the law-abiding present some great risk with their weapons. It's simply not true when you look at the numbers.

There are a lot of schools in the U.S. that have an armed security guard/cop present in them. Generally, they're high schools. How many reports have their been of such an individual either 1) going nuts and killing students, or 2) treating the weapon unsafely in a school and a child getting killed?

The truth is that people who don't know much about guns tend to greatly overestimate the prevelance of accidents. Yes, accidents do occur and they are tragic. Some cops will make a safety error and someone will die. BUT, by that logic, we should then deprive all cops of guns because the risk of accident exceeds the benefit, and most folks familiar with the prevelance of armed criminals in the U.S. wouldn't support that.

And if you're going to say law-abiding citizens should have guns because of the risk of accident, you have to weigh that against the huge numbers of crimes that are prevented by innocent armed citizens. But folks don't want to read those articles and the endless recitations of incidents where that happens because it contradicts their worldview.

Anecdotal arguments on gun control, standing alone, generally blow chunks because you can find anecdotes on both sides. You can find a 3 year old killed in a firearms accident, but then an 82 year old woman saving her life with a gun, or another mother protecting her two young children from an assault, or the armed cops who didn't treat their weapon unsafely arriving at that elementary school and inducing that killer to kill himself.

For right now, until we can change the culture of guns and reduce the number to something less than 50 million (however long that takes), the best way to protect elementary schools is to have somebody trained to use a gun in the school.

Not that it'll make a big difference. It's a closing the barn door after the horse escaped type deal. Incidents like these are rare and baring a copy-cat, I don't expect another elementary school shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am amazed at how this debate goes on, when there are so many more people are killed by things other than guns. But no one cares about those.

That said, if anyone breaks into my home, they will be met by cannonade and cutlass and all manner of remorseless pieces of metal.

Sorry...really wanted to work that quote in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical that Lanza had an identifiable mental illness that would readily explain his actions. Very few people with mental health problems become violent, and they are far, far more likely to kill themselves than anyone else. The rare paranoid schizophrenic who becomes violent pales next to the vast number of people with psychotic disorders who just decide to jump of a bridge one day.

It's an impulsive act and - I would think - lacking in a clear reason.

In any case, you cannot control all people all of the time.

But you can definitely control their access to guns, especially those who are (or were) putatively law-abiding. As Lanza was...

Yes is what I was saying in earlier posts.

The issue isn't as simple as ""BAN ALL GUNS" or "BETTER HEALTHCARE" will solve the problem."

It's a combination of lots of different factors but just as it is evident that access to guns must be restricted in some way, it is also evident that we need much better outreach for people with mental illnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this might be it. Always fascinated by the differences in non-U.S. vs. U.S. attitudes toward govt. For instance, do you feel it is okay for the govt to ban large sodas ala NYC to curb obesity?

Not me.

I don't believe the government has any right to protect its citizens from themselves.

It does have the duty to protect its citizens from EACH OTHER, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true. As I mentioned in another thread, the interior of my home is arranged to give me an advantage. Your second sentence brings an amusing sequence to mind.

Me: Are you going to harm me?

Intruder: No.

Me: Ok, then, wait a moment while I put my gun away.

I needed a good chuckle.

You aren't seeing it are you? If you are in the same room as an intruder there is a risk he will shoot or stab you. So, your best option is to ensure you are not in the same room as an intruder. Any action in which you seek the intruder is detrimental to your safety, the only sensible course of action is to call the police, loudly. The sensible burglar will then leave.

Now, the main reason a person will be entering your house is burglary. If this is the case, they will attempt to pass unnoticed, and can gain no advantage from harming you. Unless you have a gun. If you have a gun you can kill or immobilise them, menaing it is in their interest to hurt or kill you. Basic game theory shows that bringing a gun to a confrontation with a burglar increases your risk of suffering death or injury.

On a society wide level, the absence of legal guns surpresses the demand for criminal guns. For the rational criminal, carrying a gun is a liability that multiplies jail time, UNLESS he suspects he will face armed people during his crime. That's why most British crims avoid even touching guns.

Now, perhaps the intruder is in fact a rapist or a psycho killer, in this vanishingly rare situation it is actually in your interest to have a gun. But the probabilities of this are so low that your owning a gun has already statistically killed you many times before this is likely to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts on how this happened (related directly to the tragedy as opposed to more general society issues).

1. Mentally unstable young man-assumption until further evidence comes to light but I feel pretty safe in making this assumption.

2. Inadequate mental health support for young man-further evidence is required as to why mental health system failed him-ie mother not engaging system on child's behalf, ineffective treatment, inadequate resources.

3. Mother with guns-apparently a surviivalist-meaning fears of societal collapse contributed to her creating the situation where she had guns and her son had access to them. We do not yet know the interaction between mother and son vis a vis her guns so dangerous to speculate, although the evidence that boy shot mother would indicate that the guns were not adequately secured

4. Gun controls are in effect including strict laws in CT that apparently prevented Lanza from obtaining his own guns

5. Lanza used hand guns and assault style rifle, apparently primarily rifle to cause multiple wounds to child

6. Tragedy occured at a school where guns are prohibited and had enacted some common security measures. Doorsto school apparently were glass

7. Despite heroic efforts by staff, lanza was still able to access school rooms to kill

8. Noone was wounded by gunfire they were all killed.

9. Guns were obained legally

10. School apparently did not have a full time security officer in place.

The above can be categorized by access to guns and bullets, nature of weapons, mental health system and security for at risk groups.

Our responsibility as a society is to address all of these things. The only sane response is to address each of the problems, holistically. Certainly the issue gets far more complicated when theissue of guns and violence expands to other gun violence because the nature of the act is significantly different.

I have my ideas which include a vastly expanded health care system, including mental health, outlawing guns-necessarily a gradual process and adding security to sensitive populations. My belief is that little or nothing will be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...