The only gun control solution

cdoc42 said:
From my entry regarding physician opinions above, the one respondent opined the goal of the left is "We are the majority who want to increase public safety with better gun laws.”
Click to expand...
My response to that would be, "How about starting by enforcing the 20,000 gun laws we already have?"

When Joe Biden was Vice President, someone asked him why, out of all the NICS checks that were denied during the previous year (indicative of prohibited people trying to buy guns, and therefore -- by implication -- having lied when they filled out the 4473), only a ridiculously small number were prosecuted. His answer was something like, "We don't have time for that."
 
Aguila, I agree. In fact, my response to his post specifically asked why those who lie on 4473 don't get prosecuted. I didn't mention Biden's name because I knew he knew who I was subtly referring to.

Speaking to your post on NICS checks, it should be noted these were DENIED, for various reasons. Hunter Biden LIED and it was NOT denied, so the check missed that opportunity, either purposely or erroneously. What about the negligent act of trashing his gun as well?

I think we can all agree that neither of my suggestions is going to see the light of day. But the significance is they truly are the only paths to reducing gun violence. Laws do nothing more than present a potential deterrent or punish to various degrees, but not permanently, after the fact.
 
cdoc42 said:
I think we can all agree that neither of my suggestions is going to see the light of day. But the significance is they truly are the only paths to reducing gun violence.
Click to expand...
I agree with ghbucky. Every time I see you use the term "gun violence" I want to scream at the monitor and tear my hair (whatever remains) out by the roots.

When you use the term "gun violence," you are allowing the other side to control the narrative by controlling the language and defining the limits of the playing field. The problem is not "gun" violence -- the problem is violence. Regardless of how sincere you are in trying to argue on that front, in the end you lose because you are participating in perpetuating the lie that "gun" violence is the problem. We cannot even begin to address the issue of "violence" when the discussion is fixated on "guns."
 
Speaking to your post on NICS checks, it should be noted these were DENIED, for various reasons. Hunter Biden LIED and it was NOT denied, so the check missed that opportunity, either purposely or erroneously.
Click to expand...

Has he been very publicly charged with the federal offense of lying on his NICS? No, of course not.

Now, how is any new law going to accomplish anything in this kind of culture when the current laws are simply ignored?
 
cdoc42 said:
I think we can all agree that neither of my suggestions is going to see the light of day. But the significance is they truly are the only paths to reducing gun violence.
Click to expand...
No, I honestly don't see why your suggestions are the "ONLY paths to reducing gun violence".

It isn't even certain that they would have an effect specially option 2).

Granted option 1) if successfuly carried out would have an effect on "gun violence". I don't think there was any "gun violence" during the middle ages, so I'll give you that.

But option 2) is not certain either.
 
Last edited:
I think we're getting off the track. The left is not bringing up the issue of "violence" in general. Biden is talking about the Second Amendment not being absolute. Past and recent proposed Federal legislation focuses specifically on guns. My post is an effort to address a rebuttal to those efforts, not to speak to all issues of violence.
 
Last edited:
Aguila and ghbucky, I think we're getting off the track. The left is not bringing up the issue of "violence" in general. Biden is talking about the Second Amendment not being absolute. Past and recent proposed Federal legislation focuses specifically on guns. My post is an effort to address a rebuttal to those efforts, not to speak to all issues of violence.

PistolerO, you are correct, Confiscation is banning. I was not thinking of that correlation. I apologize.
 
cdoc42 said:
I think we're getting off the track. The left is not bringing up the issue of "violence" in general.
Click to expand...
That's correct.

Because they are fixated on "gun" violence. That's the point we are trying to make -- we need to redirect the discussion away from "gun violence" toward "violence." We're not getting off the track at all -- that IS the track. The rebuttal to mentions of "gun violence" is to point out that trying to regulate "gun violence" is putting the emphasis and the blame on the tool rather than on the actor. Otherwise, we should be having discussions about "knife violence," "car violence," "baseball bat violence," and "boot violence." All those things are used to kill people, but there's no outcry to ban knives, to ban automobiles, or to ban boots. So why are guns being singled out?

There's your rebuttal.
 
Because they are fixated on "gun" violence. That's the point we are trying to make -- we need to redirect the discussion away from "gun violence" toward "violence." We're not getting off the track at all -- that IS the track. The rebuttal to mentions of "gun violence" is to point out that trying to regulate "gun violence" is putting the emphasis and the blame on the tool rather than on the actor. Otherwise, we should be having discussions about "knife violence," "car violence," "baseball bat violence," and "boot violence." All those things are used to kill people, but there's no outcry to ban knives, to ban automobiles, or to ban boots. So why are guns being singled out?
Click to expand...

Precisely the point I try to make.
 
I suppose if we executed every person that eats junk food, we could significantly decrease obesity and heart disease. Think of how many lives could be saved that way.

I appreciate a good debate, but trying to use logic to win an emotional battle is just as effective as using a fishing net to catch rain water.
 
imp said:
I appreciate a good debate, but trying to use logic to win an emotional battle is just as effective as using a fishing net to catch rain water.
Click to expand...
We will never change the minds of the hard-core gun grabbers; we know that. The people we need to have good rebuttals for are the millions of people who don't know anything about guns and who aren't really anti-gun, they just want to see a reduction in violence.

We need to be prepared when those people ask why we are opposed to gun control. "Because I like guns" is not a good answer. We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools.
 
I agree. I think we already make a good case for those capable of being persuaded, and we should continue to do so.

That said, in the age of social media and hashtag activism, emotion rules. Exploring wild theoretical ideas in an effort to appease the angst of the ignorant is a waste of time.
 
There is another solution, besides executing "gun criminals" or total banning of firearms, but it is also unacceptable to the public in general.

That "solution" would be a simple complete "hands off" by the legal system of the people who SHOOT BACK!

It would be messy, it would be, for a time, bloody, and yes many innocent people would suffer (but aren't they suffering today??)

But consider this, that over time, if it were allowed (let alone encouraged) bad guys would learn that if they went out shooting people for fun or profit, someone would shoot them. Not try and arrest them, just shoot them dead. Maybe shoot them in the back, or from cover, or...?? Maybe multiple someones would shoot them....

And THEN call the police to "police up the body"...:rolleyes:

It would be bad, nd the streets would run with blood...for a time
AFTER that, I think we'd see a lot less of gun violence or any other kind.

Can't do it today, but it did work in the past, and there's even evidence it would work today, if we, as a people, were willing to pay the cost.

Consider that the majority of the killers are not willing or interested in doing their killing where people are armed and could shoot back. (death seeking jihadiists are a different matter)

After Florida passed its "shall issue" carry permit laws, there was an interesting change in the crime rate. Crimes against Florida residents decreased, crimes against tourists went up. Seems the bad guys were watching people's license plates and could be sure that out of state plates meant the people were unlikely to be armed, while Florida plates meant they couldn't be sure...

These people, overwhelmingly target people they believe cannot defend themselves. If we change that, we change everything.
 
Aguila said: "We need to be prepared when those people ask why we are opposed to gun control. "Because I like guns" is not a good answer. We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools."

OK. Let's come full circle. I started this post with a two-pronged suggestion regarding gun control because that was the focus of those who oppose guns. I was eventually criticized for focusing on guns as an argument against "violence," yet your post above says NOTHING about anything but guns when that issue of control is raised.

Which direction should we go?
 
cdoc42 said:
OK. Let's come full circle. I started this post with a two-pronged suggestion regarding gun control because that was the focus of those who oppose guns. I was eventually criticized for focusing on guns as an argument against "violence," yet your post above says NOTHING about anything but guns when that issue of control is raised.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, but remember that the snippet you quoted is a small part of this rather lengthy thread, in which I posted multiple times that the problem is not guns, but "violence." To look just at the snippet you quoted immediately above, I wrote:

We need to be prepared to explain why the gun grabbers' proposals won't (and can't) make any significant difference. And part of that argument is pointing out that guns don't just up and kill people all by themselves. Evil people use guns to commit evil acts. If they don't have access to guns (which they will, irrespective of background checks and gun bans), they'll just use other tools.
Click to expand...
You really can't see that I'm talking about the people who commit the acts, rather than about the tools they use?
 
Which direction should we go?
Click to expand...

The direction we were going was working without changing anything! (I say past tense, because the recent policies in big cities has probably completely reversed this trend)

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/violent-crime

In 2019, an estimated 1,203,808 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 0.5 percent from the 2018 estimate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2019 estimated violent crime total was 0.4 percent above the 2015 level but 3.8 percent below the 2010 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
There were an estimated 366.7 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2019, a rate that dropped 1.0 percent when compared with the 2018 estimated violent crime rate and fell 9.3 percent from the 2010 estimate. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
Click to expand...

How about instead of passing NEW laws, we start enforcing our current laws? How many laws do you need to say that violent crime is illegal?
 
Last edited:
Aguila said: "You really can't see that I'm talking about the people who commit the acts, rather than about the tools they use?"

Yes, I certainly understand the position taken. My #2 suggestion specifically dealt with the people, and not the tool, who commit the singular cause of violence that is constantly debated..

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs? That is the dilemma providing an escape from the resolution.
 
cdoc42 said:
Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs?
Click to expand...
I do!

Something like this:
The minority report (2002)
Or.... a system of surveillance and "social credit" like they have in China nowadays:
China's social credit system



By the way, I don't think your option #2) would work for this:

Today's FedEx shooting in Indianapolis
or
https://www.mlive.com/news/2021/04/second-child-3-dies-after-michigan-fathers-murder-suicide-shooting.html
or
https://abc7ny.com/brooklyn-murder-suicide-brownsville-shootings-murders/10490396/

In previous posts I said that regardless of what option 1) does in relation to "gun violence", I do not think it would reduce violence in general which is what Aguila, 44AMP and others have been saying is the real issue.

So maybe we have to accept that in a free society, some will abuse and misuse their freedoms and it is up to US to protect ourselves from such folk...
unless we want to live in a "big brother" kind of directed society. We don't want to live in the HIVE, do we?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top