Violence Strategies

[Nathan]

This might be pie in the sky, but I think we have gotten to the point that even if somebody more pro gun than I were in sol-control of policy, pro gunners and controllers would argue about their intentions. The best thing we can do now is quid pro quo policy making.

First, and I'm sorry, but the controllers must go first, I think suppressors and sbr's need removed from the registry and changed to an uncontrolled sale, except for the actual gun transfer of the sbr rifle. This will have 0 impact on gun violence and pretty good impact on pro-gun buy in.

Second, we need some kind of government funded homicide reporting standardization. If Chicago or Baltimore have the highest homicide rates in the world, we all need to know and it needs to be reported annually.

Possibly, presented at an annual 50 state homicide/suicide conference. Where each governor appoints 2 people to be on a national task force which takes what is learned from this data and turns it into real legislative proposals instead of feel good crap legislation. The purpose is transparency. Also, it would clearly show the rushed through crap control laws for what they are.

Third, the controllers have to work on harnessing the power of the computer and get the felonies and people ordered to the mental hospital into NICS. We need 100% confidence that the data is there.

Forth, we need an ATF website where I can put my state id #, serial no of the firearm, location of sale and the buyer can put in their info before the trade. It should tell us both if the gun is stolen and if the buyer has passed a NICS check. It should be voluntary. Frankly, I think you would get 80% usage to prevent trading cash for a stolen gun. It also could share limited info with both parties as a record of sale. Third, it must delete info the same as NICS does.

There is more, but is this the pathway to meaningful compromise on both sides?

Obviously we need to quickly move into some of the community policing where police and or community leaders are out engaging the highest risk groups and moving their output from homicide to constructive problem solving. It is really a public education issue. There is a point at which all young minds think that conflict is solved through screaming, fighting and killing those who disagree. Part of mind formation that occurs in the teenage years is the teaching of ignoring, compliance, heathy conflict resolution, building walls in our minds to block escalation.

Is this possible? At least from the pro-gun side?

 

[speedrrracer]

So you're asking would I trade access to SBRs and suppressors in exchange for government funded homicide reporting standardization, some conferences nobody cares about, and a website I don't have to use?

The answer is yes.

Would the antis do it? I'm betting no, they would not.

Oh, and the term "gun violence", imo, is dangerous. When you say "gun violence" it's implicit you are blaming the gun for the violence. That lets the real culprit off the hook, and prevents you from ever finding the real culprit, because you have duped yourself into believing you know the answer, when you don't.

Therefore, you'll waste money and time without ever addressing the underlying cause(s).

If you want to get "real" about it, you have to do the hard yards. You'd have to fund dozens of research projects across dozens of disciplines for decades. Essentially you're asking, "Why do people do bad things?" and that's right up there in terms of being one of the most difficult questions you can ask.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You have identified a set of goals, but the title of your post/thread mentions "strategies."

What are you proposing as a strategy to begin achieving your proposed goals?

For example:

Third, the controllers have to work on harnessing the power of the computer and get the felonies and people ordered to the mental hospital into NICS. We need 100% confidence that the data is there.

The reality is that the controllers aren't interested in preventing convicted felons or crazy people from buying guns. They are interested in eliminating guns from "civilian" ownership. Having 100% accurate data doesn't advance their agenda, so how do you propose to coerce them into (a) making the data accurate, and then (b) actually doing something with it?

How many people have been actually arrested and prosecuted for lying on Form 4473s over the past ten years? There's a ready-made treasure trove of automatic, slam-dunk convictions -- but the administration has stated that they're too busy to pursue such cases.

 

[Tom Servo]

Is this possible? At least from the pro-gun side?

Yeah, it's possible. No, I won't ever support it.

Negotiation of any sort must be built on a foundation of trust and respect. We cannot trust the anti-gunners. Their end goal is total confiscation of civilian firearms. Background checks, categorical bans, and watchlists are incremental steps towards that.

To that end, they will lie to us. They lie to the public all the time. I'm not talking about misstatements or context issues; I'm talking about deliberate falsehoods.

Then there's the respect issue. Ask them what they think of people like me. You'll be told that I'm a bigot. It will be implied that I'm of subnormal intelligence and that I'm a borderline sociopath who has no sympathy for the victims of gun violence. I'm nothing more than a paid stoolie for the "gun lobby."

Why would I want to sit down at the table with them?

I guarantee that any negotiation will end up with us losing and them gaining. We've made our "compromises." We know what happens.

Folks really need to get over this idea that we can have aboveboard dealings with them, and they need to stop looking for ways to snatch the rug out from under us.

 

[Nathan]

Aguila,
If I could change the title to violence strategies, I would. I think I can't. I'll try.

I really didn't go into the NICS piece enough. Accuracy and completeness is step one. Step 2 is reporting the number of denys, following up and determining false or accurate. Accurate ones should lead to arrest and conviction. False should lead to some kind of free pass, approval #, etc. It should be a system requirement to reduce false denials annually.


Tom,

Totally agree with you. The extremists on their side lie and have no respect for the laws of the country they live in. The extremists on that side have been the legislative force. That is why there is nothing HRC could do to earn my trust. They need a new face. I suspect that face is a gun owner with some kind of foundation in logical and data based decision making.

My point in this discussion is how do we get to a point where gun violence prevention is not about guns....and how do we get our constitutionally protected freedoms back.

Then gun control in place right now is a complete failure and is creating "mass shooting zones". The controllers love this as it swings the centerists their way.

I wouldn't likely buy a suppressor even if legal. I might build an sbr. My point is these laws have had no impact on violence. I think legalizing machine guns ought to be on this short list. National CCW too. CCW expansion into all buildings too. Allow private businesses to ban guns, but without force of law. If cedar point wants to search me for my gun, great. I'll spend my $250 elsewhere!

The real question is what can you support to prevent violence that would show an understanding of both sides of the arguement?

 

[Nathan]

I guarantee that any negotiation will end up with us losing and them gaining. We've made our "compromises." We know what happens.

I find that quote funny as we have won a ton of gun rights battles over the last 10 years or so on a national level.

CO, NY, CT and CA maybe not so much, but I know I have to choose where to live and I can tell you that I do everything I can not to even visit those places or do business with them. Trouble is guns are still made in ny and ct!

 

[FITASC]

My point in this discussion is how do we get to a point where gun violence prevention is not about guns....and how do we get our constitutionally protected freedoms back.

You don't - as mentioned, it has never been about violence, just totalitarian control over the unarmed masses. And, after Brexit, and feeling that attitude starting to spread, the globalist elites are now rushing to get whatever controls/confiscations they can before the next election.

I really didn't go into the NICS piece enough. Accuracy and completeness is step one. Step 2 is reporting the number of denys, following up and determining false or accurate. Accurate ones should lead to arrest and conviction. False should lead to some kind of free pass, approval #, etc. It should be a system requirement to reduce false denials annually.

I'd prefer not to have the NICS at all, but then, IMO, a little anarchy now and again is a good thing...........

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Aguila,
If I could change the title to violence strategies, I would. I think I can't. I'll try.

I really didn't go into the NICS piece enough. Accuracy and completeness is step one. Step 2 is reporting the number of denys, following up and determining false or accurate. Accurate ones should lead to arrest and conviction. False should lead to some kind of free pass, approval #, etc. It should be a system requirement to reduce false denials annually.

You are still outlining a goal, not a strategy for achieving that goal.

I find that quote funny as we have won a ton of gun rights battles over the last 10 years or so on a national level.

But our strategy for these incremental win-backs of rights the anti-gunners had already taken away from us was not through negotiation with the gun grabbers, they were won through thorough, diligent, and expensive litigation. The anti-gunners fought every one of those wins through the courts as hard as they could. They continue to do so -- look at NY and CT, and what has happened to concealed carry in CA.

 

[speedrrracer]

Negotiation of any sort must be built on a foundation of trust and respect.

Yes, but it doesn't have to be trust & respect directly between the two parties.

As an example, contracts are made every day in this nation between "hostile" parties, and those contracts are generally obeyed, because both parties trust that if they breach their contracts, they'll be in deep water legally, and they have respect for the force of law which will grind them into itsy-bitsy pieces (if their lawyers are good enough).

So we could write up a piece of legislation between the pro-2A side and the antis, stating we get X and they get Y, and if both sides' lawyers say, "Yeah, the legislation is GTG" then we're off.

Of course the antis can change the language at the last minute, they can lie and the media will broadcast those lies, but if they need our votes in order to make the legislation pass, any such antics are pointless, so if both sides are sufficiently pleased with the legislation then "trust" and "respect" don't really need to exist in the sense you're conveying.

 

[Tom Servo]

The real question is what can you support to prevent violence that would show an understanding of both sides of the arguement?

I understand both sides of the argument very well, and we won't make any progress as long as one side insists on focusing exclusively on the instruments rather than the causes.

Gun control has not worked. Full stop. So, what has worked? Getting on the ground with community leaders to reduce violence before it starts. Busting people who own or use guns illegally and making them do time.

Sure, those initiatives take time and effort. Sure, they don't make for convenient photo-ops or soundbites, but they have been shown to work. We can pursue those strategies, or we can get snared into more restrictions so a few politicians can engage in virtue signaling.

I'd prefer not to have the NICS at all, but then, IMO, a little anarchy now and again is a good thing.

Well, then I guess we had anarchy from 1781 to 1998.

The NICS system has not been shown to have any measurable effect on crime. None. Zip. Given the time and expense put into the whole endeavor, it can only be considered an utter failure. It should be abolished. At the very least, I will not condone its expansion in any way.

 

[kilimanjaro]

You are presuming that subhuman, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, ticking time bomb rednecks like us are going to be considered as equals by the other side, and that they will thusly act in good faith. A fatal flaw of logic to your proposal.

 

[62coltnavy]

NICS was a complete success. It created a bureaucracy where none exited before. I believe it was Heinlein who said that bureaucracies are self-perpetuating, and by that measure, NICS was a complete success. Moreover, should the "need: arise, NICS is just one step removed from universal gun registration, all it needs is removal of the 4473 "delete" option.

 

[44 AMP]

There is more, but is this the pathway to meaningful compromise on both sides?

No, sorry, its not the path to meaningful compromise.

NEITHER side really wants compromise. They want it ALL, and we just want to be left alone.

And, while it would bother me less, personally, if you throw your baby to the wolves than mine, I don't see the point of throwing ANY of our babies to the wolves, in the hope that they eat us last.

Its a wish list, your wish list, and I would not support the things you propose for the benefits you promise.

I think suppressors and sbr's need removed from the registry and changed to an uncontrolled sale, except for the actual gun transfer of the sbr rifle.

So a silencer should be an uncontrolled sale, but the SBR should not be??

Why just those items? Because you have an interest in them, personally? Because they aren't as "bad" as machineguns? Something else?

What kind of offer could you make that would put both the political and bureaucratic types (with a vested interest in at least the status quo) AND the general public that has been indoctrinated for the past 80+ YEARS by the entertainment industry and the "news" media that these items are "bad" things, and "good" people don't have, or want to have them, what could you offer to get them to change their minds???

I doubt you could do it, even at "gunpoint", so to speak.

And what will you offer US, to allow you the authority to bargain with what is ours, because what is mine is not yours to give away, unless I consent.

we need some kind of government funded homicide reporting standardization. If Chicago or Baltimore have the highest homicide rates in the world, we all need to know and it needs to be reported annually.

You mean besides the FBI crime reports? What good do you think it will do, and why FEDERAL, when murder (other than on Fed property or fed people) is a LOCAL matter. Why do you think this should be something we will be willing to compromise some gun rights to get? Another BS database??

work on harnessing the power of the computer and get the felonies and people ordered to the mental hospital into NICS. We need 100% confidence that the data is there.

A laudable goal, but again, WHY do you think, and propose this is something we need to compromise gun rights to get?? It's not. Proper execution of existing laws and programs would give us this, as much as humanly possible.

NO reporting system will be 100% accurate, accept that fact, and move on. We could have a system we have confidence in, work on the existing system could improve it a lot. Simple demand of actual value for tax dollars spent and compliance with existing law shouldn't require us to compromise anything!

Forth, we need an ATF website

No, I don't think that's the right way to go with that.

It should be voluntary. Frankly, I think you would get 80% usage to prevent trading cash for a stolen gun. It also could share limited info with both parties as a record of sale. Third, it must delete info the same as NICS does.

First, of course it should be voluntary, but recognize that because it is, the very people you are trying to stop simply won't use it. And we still have (I believe) an ongoing legal fight between govt. agencies "needing" to keep the data, and the law mandating it be deleted.

A simpler "stolen firearms database" would work to keep the honest from unknowingly buying a stolen gun, but there are real world issues with getting things like ser#s reported. It could not be all inclusive, or 100% accurate.

how do we get to a point where gun violence prevention is not about guns....

WE can't, because THEY WON"T.

What it really comes down to is they demand we "get these weapons off our streets", because they won't keep the people who illegally use these weapons off "our streets".

Why do people do violence to others? Might it not be because they desire to do so, more than they fear the consequences??

Debate causes all you want, why they feel that way, but recognize that they do feel that way. For a lot of people, our prison system is more of an inconvenience than a punishment. And then, of course, there are those who simply don't care what happens. The only thing that reliably stops them is a properly placed bullet.

 

[Koda94]

This might be pie in the sky, but I think we have gotten to the point that even if somebody more pro gun than I were in sol-control of policy, pro gunners and controllers would argue about their intentions. The best thing we can do now is quid pro quo policy making.

there is no compromising with someone who wants to take away something you have. Each time you compromise you remove a piece of what you have you wont get something else back in return.

unregulated suppressors... for what, what are you willing to give up in trade for an item that doesn’t really affect gun rights? Unregulate SBR's... what to you think they will give you in return? See what I mean?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"Compromise" generally involves each side giving up something to arrive at a mutually-acceptable result. There is no compromise involved with the gun grabbers. Remember what LawDog blogged back in 2010 ( http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html ):

Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

 

[ATN082268]

There is more, but is this the pathway to meaningful compromise on both sides?

For starters, the 2nd Amendment is a right. I realize no right is absolute but the burden of proof to abridge that right should fall on those trying to do so. If a particular abridgement might be effective, for example, in stopping mass murders, then we can look at it. I am 100% against just piling on more restrictions on the law abiding that are ineffective against criminals. The emphasis needs to be in punishing those who use guns in crimes like armed robbery, murder, etc.

 

[FITASC]

This is the only area I can think of where those opposed to something blame the tool and not the person. Drunk driver kill folks? No one blames the car or even the booze - they blame the person. Someone on/off their med smother their kids? They don't blame the pillow - they blame the person. Yet when someone kills folks with a gun, it becomes the gun's fault.

THAT is where your strategy needs to focus - getting the blame correctly placed on the person, not the item used.

 

[kilimanjaro]

That 'blame the gun' concept is the result of 50 years of media-driven conditioning. It was also tried with the SUV some years back, with less success.

Remind people that they have been conditioned to think the way they are thinking, and some of them will actually take time to reflect on that idea at some point.

 

[44 AMP]

That 'blame the gun' concept is the result of 50 years of media-driven conditioning.

If you look at it the right way, our conditioning has probably been going on as long as we have, and it's been very incorporated into our society since the middle ages. Because it benefits the ruling elite.

The idea that things could be "evil", and caused harm. And that things that caused harm were evil, and should be surrendered to the Crown, or the local lord.

This extended to the wagon that rolled over the serf or the mill where the worker was killed. Harm=bad, evil = seizure by the nobles, to "protect" everyone.

Worked so well for the nobles you can find it in old law. And not so old law...

The media didn't invent the concept, but they have proven they can be exceptionally GOOD at it.

 

[Nathan]

Well, this group's point is made..