The only gun control solution

[zukiphile]

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.

You can't resolve the human condition.

You can take guesses about the identity of potential criminals, and for much of our history we did that. POs engaged in profiling. Many places had vagrancy laws. In some places, POs provided "wood shampoos" to people who did look as if they belonged.

Students of use of force by the state generally regard those acts as police misconduct. While you can't resolve the human condition by guessing who will engage in illicit violence, you can very easily constrict the sphere of freedom in which people legitimately act.

To the degree that we want to discourage illicit use of force and encourage or protect legitimates uses of force, we already have more than enough laws. While it may be your intent to offer a reductio ad absurdum to highlight the absurdity of more moderate forms of your proposals, I am not sure that advocates of those moderated measures would see the absurdity of the principles involved.

 

[stinkeypete]

Regarding opposition to violence, I agree in principle. However,
The number of mass shootings, rampage killing sprees with firearms with high capacity magazines, has increased dramatically in the past years. Something in these evil people tells them to use a firearm.

Likewise, something tells other sorts of evil people to use a bomb. We don’t have a lot of bombings in this country, although I have personal experience with one about 50 years ago. Bombs are illegal.

Machine guns are highly regulated by the NFA because of street shootouts by prohibition era gangsters. The body count in those days was shy many of the individual shootings we have now. There have not been any crimes committed by fully automatic weapons in this country for... ages. Apparently regulating machine guns was effective.

As for “old west” justice, all is fine with that if you accept the number of innocent people killed and lynched by mobs. Mob rule and vigilantism are not justice or order, it’s chaos.

The original intent of the second amendment was to have an armed populace to discourage or defend against invasion by the British. One can argue that the Southern States demanded the second amendment for their local militias to hold down any slave rebellions, a valid point, historically.

Well, any well regulated militia now needs air power, artillery, surface to air missiles, automatic weapons, etc. etc. We generally accept those items to be highly regulated.

For me, the big mistake of the Brady Bill was attacking cosmetic features of firearms that made no difference. Regulating high capacity removable magazines does impact the mass lethality of firearms. That’s why people buy them.

Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Lots of bullets kill lots of people. There are many problems right now. It’s too bad we can’t try to find reasonable compromises.

If I was king, I would regulate high capacity magazines but trade you an eased regulation for suppressors on single action firearms and bolt action rifles. Good thing I’m not king, huh?

 

[Pistoler0]

Regarding opposition to violence, I agree in principle. However,
The number of mass shootings, rampage killing sprees with firearms with high capacity magazines, has increased dramatically in the past years. Something in these evil people tells them to use a firearm.

Likewise, something tells other sorts of evil people to use a bomb. We don’t have a lot of bombings in this country, although I have personal experience with one about 50 years ago. Bombs are illegal.

Machine guns are highly regulated by the NFA because of street shootouts by prohibition era gangsters. The body count in those days was shy many of the individual shootings we have now. There have not been any crimes committed by fully automatic weapons in this country for... ages. Apparently regulating machine guns was effective.

As for “old west” justice, all is fine with that if you accept the number of innocent people killed and lynched by mobs. Mob rule and vigilantism are not justice or order, it’s chaos.

The original intent of the second amendment was to have an armed populace to discourage or defend against invasion by the British. One can argue that the Southern States demanded the second amendment for their local militias to hold down any slave rebellions, a valid point, historically.

Well, any well regulated militia now needs air power, artillery, surface to air missiles, automatic weapons, etc. etc. We generally accept those items to be highly regulated.

For me, the big mistake of the Brady Bill was attacking cosmetic features of firearms that made no difference. Regulating high capacity removable magazines does impact the mass lethality of firearms. That’s why people buy them.

Guns don’t kill people, bullets do. Lots of bullets kill lots of people. There are many problems right now. It’s too bad we can’t try to find reasonable compromises.

If I was king, I would regulate high capacity magazines but trade you an eased regulation for suppressors on single action firearms and bolt action rifles. Good thing I’m not king, huh?

But king stinkeypete,

I submit to you that is not only high capacity magazines, but all weapons that are lethal and that that's why people buy them.

May I humbly remind you that the biggest mass murder in US history was executed with box opening tools in 9/11.

And bolt action rifles, Your Majesty! Of the mass murders committed with firearms, one of the deadliest was committed with a bolt action rifle, the D.C. sniper shootings (2002) where 17 were killed and 10 injured. Likewise with the 1966 University of Texas Tower shootings . Ban high capacity mags, even semi-auto firearms, and your subjects will resort back to these other highly lethal firearms. Why not ban bolt action hunting rifles too? They are highly accurate and long reaching, availing an assailant of the advantage of distance!

I think that your majesty's pen should not limit itself to high capacity magazines, but include any conceivable device that could be used by your serfs to raise mayhem in thy kingdom. Learn from your cousin of the House of Windsor, Elizabeth II Queen by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, who controls and limits the access of her vassals to even air powered bb guns! Such wisdom, why give them any chances?!

 

[zukiphile]

Machine guns are highly regulated by the NFA because of street shootouts by prohibition era gangsters. The body count in those days was shy many of the individual shootings we have now. There have not been any crimes committed by fully automatic weapons in this country for... ages. Apparently regulating machine guns was effective.

Effective at what?

I'd grant you that making one specific sort of weapon economically unattainable for most people will decrease the use of that specific weapon.

That doesn't suggest a decline in violence or murder as a result. We saw well more than a half million firearms deaths from 1861 to 1865. The absence of automatic weapons during that period suggests that such weapons can't be necessary for high death rates, so even fully removing them doesn't remove a necessary precondition to the problem of violent death.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

You can't resolve the human condition.

Indeed, this could not be more true.

The thing is, most people function normally and the little bits inside that tell us that killing other people is bad do what they are supposed to do and, for the great majority of people, any social construct within reason allows those bits to remain functional and people, 99.9999% of people, do not and will not kill other people (Sajous-Turner, et-al, 2019). (When I speak of killing people, I am speaking of innocent people, in the normal, every day understanding of innocence. The definition of innocence on a deeper level is another topic entirely).

The problem, is that other 0.0001%. Truth is, many of them would not be inclined to act out either, possibly out of fear but often out of moral compunction which tells them it is wrong even if they don't care. Having morals makes people do (or not do) things that they *really* want (or don't want) to do. For instance... a great many of us, men in particular, would... deep down inside... like to be "more promiscuous" than we are.... but our morals say no, we should not do that, and so we don't.
The more "minor" we consider the moral issue at hand, or the more empathy we feel for those effected, the less likely we are to allow a differential between desire and belief to affect our behavior. So if we think cheating on our significant others is only *a little* wrong, we are more likely to override that moral voice than if we think it is REALLY wrong (Decety & Cowell, 2015).

We are fools to think that any other form of moral behavior is not similar. Whether it be theft or murder or anything else.

Now we have several generations of teaching that we are meaningless, random, purposeless chance in a universe that exists by meaningless, random, purposeless chance. We are taught that morality is subjective, and what is true for you is not for me. We are taught that human life, from pre-birth to old age and any that suffer in between, or are a burden to society (by whose morals?), are expendable. We are taught that if we want it, it is OK, if it feels good we should do it.

Again, the majority... the great majority... of us have little bits inside that still function correctly in spite of this onslaught. We know... deep down inside... we *know* that killing people is wrong. Universally wrong, not just wrong for you or wrong for me, but *wrong*, always and at all times and in all places. Because of this, the great majority of us will not kill other people at any time, for any reason.... but, oh, that other 0.0001%. They *don't* know it, they are taught *not* to believe it, the moral compunction is erased and their little bits inside don't stop them.

And then something happens to one of those people, something that *doesn't* feel good and their solution is to make other people not feel good and they have no moral compunction or empathy stopping them. Their life is meaningless and so is yours, they believe, and so they will hurt you and anyone else... because it isn't wrong, and maybe it will make them feel good. Either way, they probably expect to die or kill themselves anyway, and it doesn't matter, because it's all meaningless.

Taking away guns will not stop these people and may, in fact, make it worse. In places where you can buy full-auto AKs on every street corner, they typically don't use guns.... they use bombs. Sure, they have "real" bombs, but we can't outlaw every possible source of chemical components. If they can't get guns, the killing will not stop. The killing has never stopped before guns and it will not stop after. It will just be all the more indiscriminate.

The problem is not guns. The problem is us.

References
Jean Decety & Jason M. Cowell (2015) Empathy, Justice, and Moral Behavior, AJOB Neuroscience, 6:3, 3-14, DOI: 10.1080/21507740.2015.1047055

Sajous-Turner, A., Anderson, N. E., Widdows, M., Nyalakanti, P., Harenski, K., Harenski, C., . . . Kiehl, K. A. (2019). Aberrant brain gray matter in murderers. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 14(5), 2050-2061. doi:10.1007/s11682-019-00155-y

 

[Pistoler0]

The thing is, most people function normally and the little bits inside that tell us that killing other people is bad do what they are supposed to do and, for the great majority of people, any social construct within reason allows those bits to remain functional and people, 99.9999% of people, do not and will not kill other people (Sajous-Turner, et-al, 2019).

The problem, is that other 0.0001%.

But even those who are not part of the deranged 0.000001%, tend to fudge and justify their behavior to fit their morals.

China with Uyghurs, Nazis with jews, people in every country regarding foreigners, invaders, illegals.... just justify your behavior by thinking that "they are not like us", or "they would do it to us" or "they deserve it" somehow.....

and then override your morals and you are good to go! Because your morals don't apply to "them".

 

[stinkeypete]

Try to get a box cutter on an airline these days.

The question is, why airlines? I have a vivid and twisted imagination. I can think of countless creative and destructive ways someone could do horrific violent acts. But they don’t, in this country people use high capacity magazines and semi auto firearms. Most people are not both creative, evil, and science based all at the same times.

Yet it’s airlines and running in to some place and shooting it up before killing yourself.

Moaning that nothing can be done is no longer effective.

I don’t want your gun, I want your magazine. Keep the gun, pop a 10 round magazine in, it’s a start.

Because... okay, bump stocks. Then someone goes and proves that someone will use them to mow innocent people down. Okay, phony “arm braces.” Yeah, guess what some knuckle head uses his for.

Much of the country lives in an urban setting. They think meat comes from a package and eggs from a carton. But that’s the new reality.

 

[Pistoler0]

Try to get a box cutter on an airline these days.

The question is, why airlines? I have a vivid and twisted imagination. I can think of countless creative and destructive ways someone could do horrific violent acts. But they don’t, in this country people use high capacity magazines and semi auto firearms. Most people are not both creative, evil, and science based all at the same times.

Moaning that nothing can be done is no longer effective.

Yes but I think they use that because that's what they have. And if they didn't have that, they'd use something else: bolt actions, whatever.

And if they didn't have bolt actions, they'd use shotguns. Do you think mayhem at the supermarket would not be possible with a mossberg pump action? or with a Marlin lever action?

and with no shotguns or any other firearm? then they break into your house and massacre your whole family with machetes.

I don't think that "nothing can be done". But I think that the banning of a class of firearms or accessory would have a very small, if any, effect on total violent crime/homicides.

 

[stinkeypete]

Who would win, Bruce Lee or Gandalf?
Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

 

[Pistoler0]

Who would win, Bruce Lee or Gandalf?
Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

Yes, I know, I follow your argument.

But if with the AR they kill 17 and with the lever action they kill 10, why not ban the lever action too?

And then maybe with the mossberg they can kill 5, so why not ban it too.

Do do you ban something that can kill 30 people, 17, 10, 5.... where is the magic number? Where do you draw the line? What is an acceptable level of risk?

 

[Pistoler0]

Who would win, Bruce Lee or Gandalf?
Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

And stinkeypete, the banning of deadly things does not have to be limited to firearms (2A arguments aside).

I mean, who needs a motorcycle that can go faster than say 140 mph, or a car? That is dangerous, illegal, and can definitely kill you and other people. Why not ban those?

Who needs to have an attack dog? I think dogs probably kill more people every year than firearms, if I am not mistaken. There's no need for aggressive breeds such as pitbulls, rotweillers, doberman.... lets ban those too, I bet you will save more lives than with the firearms ban.

And alcohol? Wine and beer are ok, but what is the purpose of absinthe liquor other than to get drunk dangerously fast?

Where is the limit? Which well intended life saving ban is not reasonable?

 

[44 AMP]

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs?

No. There isn't one, outside of science fiction and fantasy. And thinking that the is, or ought to be, is fantasy, of a particularly delusional bent.

Who would kill more innocents in a crowded theater, a guy with an AR or a guy with a Marlin lever action?

Come on, if the answer is the Marlin then you have no problem abandoning the ar as an inferior platform.

The Aurora CO killer had no problem abandoning his AR as an inferior platform. It jammed after firing only a few rounds and he did most of the killing with a shotgun.

But if with the AR they kill 17 and with the lever action they kill 10, why not ban the lever action too?

This is entirely the wrong way to look at it, and assumes that the correct response to murder is to ban the tool used (the anti gunner's point) and all that's left is to decide what the acceptable body count will be.

One is too many, but banning lawful ownership and use of things we have a natural and constitutionally protected right to own due to the misuse of same by criminal individuals is simply the wrong answer.

 

[101combatvet]

I offered this suggestion on a physician discussion forum, but surprisingly, the thread expired from absolute non-participation. So I'll turn to gun owners to see what opinions might develop.

As I see it, there are only two possibilities that will result in a reduction in deaths caused by guns.

1) Total confiscation and the abolition of ownership of any gun.

2) The use of the death penalty in cases of any type of criminal use of a gun.
This includes brandishing a gun in the course of a crime, so injury or death of another human being is not the ultimate criterion.

Suggestion #1: It is not likely that the total removal of guns of any kind from our society is immediately, and not even remotely, possible. It would take YEARS to change the Constitution of the United States, and the piecemeal appearance of multiple laws, as we have seen, will not provide a sufficient resolution.

That leaves us with suggestion #2. Neither would it be an immediate solution, but a piecemeal application would ultimately leave us with a marked reduction in repeated offenders, and eventually, a significant reduction over time.

It has been stated that the prior application of the death penalty did not provide for any reduction in associated crime. But I have never seen any information that discussed, let alone proved, the mere presence of possible death changed an offender's mind. How can we measure crime that never happened?

What we will know is the offender will never repeat the offense.

Details obviously will have to be developed. How do we deal with brandishing a weapon in self-defense? The first consideration is self-defense is not a criminal act. But difficulty is presented in a case of a routinely beaten wife who brandishes, then kills her husband before he repeats another beating.

But these legal complexities are not absent in our current system now, and a thorough analysis of the consequences of the death penalty application would be a necessary developmental consideration.

So-does anyone want to opine?

This might be one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read here.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

It's not possible. The problem is, the gun grabbing politicians are leading the masses to believe that if we can just get rid of ugly, scary looking GUNZ! everything will be sunshine and unicorns, and there won't be any more violent crime. We know that's not true, but people are swallowing that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

You can't predict who is going to commit a crime, or when. But having the police do their jobs would be a start. The shooter at the Parkland High School massacre had been "known to the police" for multiple prior incidents, but they let him skate because he had a Hispanic last name and they didn't want to add him to the statistics. There was another, fairly recent incident in which the shooter was "known to the FBI" and yet he was allowed to buy a gun, and he eventually went off the deep end. And now we have the shooter at the Indianapolis FedEx -- I'm pretty sure the reports said he was known to somebody.

So either some agencies need to tighten up their procedures, or some rules need to be tweaked. But more background checks aren't the answer. Look at the Las Vegas Harvest Festival shooter. He was squeaky clean.

And then you have cases like the Sutherland Springs, Texas, shooter. He was supposed to be a prohibited person, but the Air Force didn't bother to report his conviction to NICS. The best background system in the world is only as good as the data you put into it. What good are background checks if the agencies tasked with supplying the data ... don't?

 

[101combatvet]

If politicians wanted to stop shooters, they wouldn't be implementing idiotic laws, and they would be prosecuting those laws already in the books. Most mass shootings [74%] happened in gun free zones. Those that created gun free zones should be held accountable as an accessory to murder. Start holding politicians accountable!

 

[44 AMP]

A point to consider, we have had set, legal standards for things since the founding of the nation (and before) and one of the good things about the concept of liberty is the fact that until you cross the legal line, you have done no wrong and are the same as every other law abiding citizen in the country.

Sure, 20/20 hindsight shows several times when people who went on to commit evil were "known" to the authorities, but had not done enough to cross the set lines, which is different from having crossed the legal line and the system failing to be aware of it.

It's not yet the law that one can deny constitutional rights to someone who is creepy, or scary, or weird, or just ...too different.

and I don't think it should be.

Time after time after time after time, we're seeing murder and mass murder done by people who had passed every check, and gave no outward indicators of evil intent gong on killing sprees. This is along with individuals who had been indentified as troubled, but not troubled enough to have action taken.

It's almost enough to consider demonic possession as a possibilty.

Whatever the actual cause, there's seldom anything concrete enough to take action to prevent these modern day kamikazes, out to deal death then kill themselves.

Of course we all want to prevent it, but until mind reading becomes valid in court, we can't even find the airfields these kamikazes are taking off from, let alone bomb them to prevent them taking off.

SO, what's left? What did the navy do in WWII? Fighter patrols and AA guns on ships. Not 100% effective but it was something and did stop many.

SO, what's to be done about the "fighter patrols" being defunded or even ordered not to engage, and our AA guns are being banned (if they can get the votes)...

Doing things like that means you can't stop the ones you can identify, and we can't identify them as enemy until they take off...

No, its not a good analogy, but what else fits even that closely??

Not the media reporting or the current administration's agenda, so far, that's for sure.

 

[Mainah]

Since the person IS the real problem, does anyone have a suggestion how to identify a potential criminal before a violent act occurs?

We've tried that, not many people realize how popular the concept of eugenics was in the United States just 100 years ago. IMO it's scarier than gun control.

 

[101combatvet]

We've tried that, not many people realize how popular the concept of eugenics was in the United States just 100 years ago. IMO it's scarier than gun control.

About 29% of the US population has some kind of mental illness from mild to severe. Just look at some of the garbage that comes out of our elected official's mouths for proof. Seriously, some of these people are insane.

 

[s3779m]

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"...

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.

I agree with what you are saying for the most part. A couple of exceptions, gang wars. For the most part, they are left alone to continue shooting each other up now. If caught, prison seems to just be a temporary stoppage to be continued after a short pause. This is also an area when people talk of gun control, this group never seems to be a part of the discussion, as in how do we get the illegal guns out of the gangs. Another exception is the person who is committing suicide by police, or the mass shooter who plans on killing himself before capture. I would enjoy seeing the politician who speaks out standing up for the rights of the law abiding citizens, the rights to protect themselves and others. We can get there, starts at the ballot box. One think for sure, robbery and personal assaults would go way down. A law abiding citizen would be more likely to be free to walk where they wanted.

 

[cdoc42]

" I would enjoy seeing the politician who speaks out standing up for the rights of the law abiding citizens, the rights to protect themselves and others. We can get there, starts at the ballot box. One think for sure, robbery and personal assaults would go way down. A law abiding citizen would be more likely to be free to walk where they wanted."

That certainly strikes a cord of agreement with me, s3779m. The major media have completely flipped the concept of who is the victim vs the perpetrator.