Do gun aficionados have any ideas to reduce firearm carnage in the U.S.?

Yep, all those guns prevented Japanese/Americans from being rounded up and imprisoned in interment camps didn't it.

 

Except that's not true.

 

Great post. And i dont see why everyone there cant join you in supporting points 1(at least partially, and especially the part about records being sealed), 2, and 3. Your 4th point is a non-starter in anti-gun States (as it would be here), but maybe could work in pro-gun States.

What do you think the barriers are preventing these solutions from happening?

 

classify me as anti-gun, but because for fifty years i have studied ww2 history, i have also learned about guns of all kinds, i mainly reffer to the tired "slippery slope argument" allowing for zero flexiblity

 

The picture I posted is a center fire rifle...lol.

You call me a liar, claim that anti-gunners want to only ban one of of rifle, THEN, prove that don't have the first damn clue what will be banned.

 

They don't fire any faster than any other semi-automatic. Next, you'll want to ban pump shotguns because they "facilitate mass murder".

 

That's one of the best jobs of ignoring the point of a post I've ever seen...lol

Is that an admission that you aren't really interested in compromise, or that you don't know the meaning of the word?

 

I usually see the same from the pro-gun crowd, and found your posts in this thread extremely reasonable, until you outright ignored Kal's suggestions, which sound like exactly what you asked for in the OP.

 

The law as noted by the Warren court, which subsequently has not been changed.
The Supreme Court in the 1958 case of Trop v Dulles, expressly endorsed the view that what are prohibited "cruel and unusual punishments" should change over time, being those punishments which offend society's "evolving sense of decency."

Which the superficiality of your rush to cite something overlooked, and is the point I am making here. So, the rub is this. In an "evolving sense of decency" the standard could radically change. You have no argument that it wouldn't or couldn't. Nor do you have a citation suggesting that the warren decision here has been reconciled with your notion. It truly is a wast of time to continue discussing this with you when you have no intention of being intellectually honest about the discussion.

 

NO, i am telling you, i am not real fired up about getting rid of guns, i am not ignorant of gun terminology, i think it may take decades to round up existing guns, if they were outlawed today, and i acknowledge they way the NRA since 1977 has established gun ownership as an absolute, all in the name of gun manufacturers
which is typical of RW flimflamery

 

Evolving sense of decency is code for less things will be allowed over time, not that things the founders barred were allowed without amendment. You'll need a constitutional amendment.

However, "denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment," describing it as "a form of punishment more primitive than torture" as it inflicts the "total destruction of the individual's status in organized society." Further, the Court declared that the Eighth Amendment's meaning of cruel and unusual must change over time and "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society".

^ That is not a case that supports you torturing someone to death then displaying their corpse to encourage the rest.

Additional legal wrinkle to sort: Intentional infliction of emotional distress is caused by intentionally exposing someone to the corpse of a loved one for shock value. Leaving aside the torture, you'd be inflicting this tort (and a crime under 18 usc if a public official does it) on innocent relatives of the criminal.

 

Gun ownership is absolute. That's why there's no such thing compromise when it comes to gun control.

 

What do gun owners get in this compromise?

 

Is this you, making my point for me? It's hard to know... But it is instructive that democrats thought that internment camps absent all due process was the answer.

 

Japanese Americans didn't own guns because they came from a culture where private ownership of arms had been forbidden for centuries.

 

If one dismisses all comparative statistics due to disparate factors, claiming that other nations are "nothing like the US," does one also cavalierly dismiss state comparisons as well because states also have differences? Is no comparative analysis ever possible?

A comparison of states with more and less permissive gun policies:

The five states with the lowest gun death rates, in deaths per 100,000, are:

1. Massachusetts (3.4)
2. New York (3.9)
3. New Jersey (4.1)
4. Hawaii (4.4)
5. Rhode Island (4.6).

Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of gun death:

1. Alaska (23)
2. Alabama (21.4)
3. Louisiana (21.2)
4. Mississippi (19. )
5. Oklahoma (19.6)
6. Montana (19)
7. Missouri (18. )
8. New Mexico (18.2)
9. Arkansas (17.7)
10. South Carolina (17.7)

 

So, you have no response? The critical standard is one that can evolve. As noted, by me. If things can evolve, the idea that there is no condition in the future that wouldn't change is unsupported, by you. So, instead of comment on that, you, I assume, thought shock value to engage a feeling was more effective? Hardly. Until you unentangle the law from it's ability to chameleon, you have done nothing of value.

 

Glad you asked. Do you really want to talk?

Let's find out.

I can't claim to be a gun aficionado - and it's not on gun aficionados to fix this problem - but sure, I have an idea: Let's talk about this:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder — most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure — that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable.
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), 1965

Let's talk, shall we?

Fix that and you reduce firearm carnage in the U.S..

And therein lies the problem, Leatherstocking - a lot of people, most particularly politicians, don't want to talk about this. They're happy to talk around this and talk about the symptoms of this, but they're never willing to talk about this, and it's not hard to figure out why they don't want to talk about this.

So, baby steps.

Let's talk about this.

Let's put on our big boy and girl pants, touch the scary third rail, and talk.

So what ideas do the fanboys and girls of Big Government and the Welfare State have about addressing and fixing this? After all, you helped create and perpetuate this.

Own it.

Talk about it.

Any time you're ready. Let's talk....

 

Nope, this is me making the point that the 2nd didn't prevent govt tyranny.

 

Hmm... who cares about "per 100000"? look at total number of murders. The utter dishonesty. Chicago, all by itself, had ~700 murders in 2022. Alaska total had 42. Total. That's like the 3 day weekend score for Chicago. So roughly 15X more folks were murdered in Chicago, by itself, than in all of Alaska. The disproportionality of the comparison is dishonest to begin with. And certainly, it creates a delusion that somehow liberal cities are "safe" when clearly they are not.

 

The latter states also have larger minority populations. Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi have the largest black populations in the country.

Note: Texas isn't in the top 10. Neither are Georgia and Ohio, which all have permitless carry.

 

why is it that on both this board and in American politics, it is almost only left-wingers who claim restricting the rights of lawful gun owners is a solution to violent crime?

 

Well, I suppose all you really had to do was cite Ruby Ridge, or Waco and the Branch Dividians... Democrats will us the power of government to crush all the oppose them. What do you think the inflation of the IRS is actually about?

I suggest reading the founders of this nation and their commentary on what a disarmed citizenry produces. They knew the danger, and yet, your citation further exemplifies this notion that a disarmed population of American citizens, who were of Japanese lineage, were subjugated absent all due process. The tyranny belongs to democrats, and it hasn't changed or abated since the last time they had the power to do this, and as evidenced by their collective response to COVID, things haven't changed at all...

 

Because crime is a punishment those democrats insist is necessary to ensure compliance with their tyranny. Simple answers.

 

I always believed it was because liberals tried to pretend they were doing something about crime without actually cracking down on criminals. and when they found their facade harassed people who didn't agree with them-all the better. But your point has merit