If the NRA went away somehow (and the government isn't empowered to ban it), some other gun rights organization would fill its shoes almost immediately.
In what way would this justify unconstitutional action on the part of the government? It doesn't t even matter - GCAs want more gun control regardless of the efficacy or constitutionality of any proposals and gun rights proponents oppose any new gun control efforts regardless of any economic benefits.
Did it have the desired results in the nation of Israel? Were fewer students killed in terrorist attacks when word got out that teachers were armed for the purpose of safeguarding their students from harm? Are there statistics available to show either a decrease in such statistics, or otherwise no change in the number of school massacres being carried out?
Incorrect. People who have obtained appropriate gun training should definitely have guns. No question. Otherwise the U.S. Constitution and also World Democracy are unsound. People who have NOT obtained gun training should definitely NOT have guns. Unfortunately there is no litmus test to determine which is which. Therefore all people and all peoples should be legally allowed access to guns.
Crime does not rest, sleep, take days off, holidays, nor vacations. No place is immune from crime. Security is the only solution to crime. There must be security. There obviously must be more security. The security must be armed. The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
I love the argument that your constitution demands that externality costs should be ignored. Powerful stuff!
The main issue that is unresolved regarding crime, which of course includes gun crime, is inadequate security. Schools must have better security. Schools must become hardened like airports have become hardened. The various Islamist related terrorist groups originally targeted airports and aircraft as their vehicle for administering murder and terrorism. Airports were then hardened. It is now rare that airport and aircraft crimes are committed with guns. I cannot remember the last time. Bombs and knives have been instead used in recent times. Hardening the airports has made the difference. Terrorists now choose softer targets, like nightclubs, churches, and outdoor events across the world. The hardening of schools must be undertaken next for the same successful result. Single-entry systems with iron gates, iron turnstiles, armed security officers, and fences with barbed wire are required, the same as at refineries, in order to secure the safety of the lives of our kids. Failure to do so represents neglect on the part of the kids. That's why the kids are mad.
Execution of criminals who use guns in their crimes, or else chopping of their hand that held the gun, is a small start. But it would reduce the number of gun crimes that each criminal could commit to 2 only. A good start.
You can lock the school down and have trained teachers guard certain areas of the school and help communicate the shooter's location to police to limit the shooter's movement while police(SWAT or whoever is assigned) actively hunt them down. The teachers can train for this with the police in the Summer and schedule monthly range time with the officers to keep familiar and current on firearms use.
Educators do not need to be trained in how to engage an active shooter. They merely need to be able to respond should their assigned classroom come under attack from unauthorized entry by the shooter.
I'd like to thank everyone for their responses. I'm glad my thread garnered this much attention. I have attempted to address everyone's posts and form some kind of coherent narrative to this discussion. I apologies if I left out a statement you deemed important or if I failed to mention you, please let me know if I missed anything important to the conversation. This post is structured in the following way: I have read through everyone's posts and categorized them in three sections. The first section is a response to any misunderstandings, comments, or statements which don't fit in the next two sections. The second sections aims to list all the "Claims" made by members during their discussion. It is my hope that members will add context to these claims and perhaps justify or rebuke them with facts and sources. The last section aims to list all the solutions offered by members in the discussion. Please respond to which ever speaks to you and explain why you believe the suggested measure would be effective or not. NOTE: If you do not wish to read this entire post, use [ CTRL+F ] to search for your name. I have attempted to write each member's name to the topics in which they appeared to be involved with. Comments and Misunderstandings Rucker61 “It doesn't matter what any other country has done, unless that country has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” I’d argue that, despite not having a constitutional right to bear arms, other countries still have gun violence and deal with those issues in their own ways. It is up to us to decide whether their methods can be applied within our framework. Kazenatsu “What if we tried to tackle the overall general homicide rate with the same vigor accorded to trying to prevent gun homicides?” I agree, however, homicide is a result of a very broad set of variables from which guns are included. If we attempted to tackle homicide as a complete unit, I think our efforts might be in vain. In this way, we extrapolate guns as one of many homicide issues and tackle it to reduce the general rate. By systematically breaking down the general homicide rate into its components and tackling each separately, I think we can reach a consensus. Kazenatsu, Diablo, Xenamnes “No solution.” I would like to invite you to a separate thread I will open. I'd like to understand why you believe there is no solution. rover77 “Perhaps we could stop wasting time and energy on the endless stream of gun control laws which accomplish nothing but political pandering and moneymaking for activists and lobbyists.We must acknowledge the carnage in the hood and deal with it .Federal task forces with FBI,US Marshals,IRS,DEA and ATF with a designated judge and federal prosecutors along with a mobile crime lab for rapid evidence processing to focus on gangs,drugs and guns.that could impact 50% of our homicides.” I’d like to know more about this if you’d mine to explain or offer sources. 6Gunner “I am well aware such a proposal has pretty much zero chance of ever being enacted; but such would improve our culture and our national character IMHO.” I don’t care about what is perceived to be impossible. Don’t restrain your ideas because they seem implausible, I’d like to hear them. Xenamnes, yiostheoy “And as the member Satonam has specified that no proposals for restricting access to firearms are to be presented in this discussion…” My apologies, I was not clear in my statement. The boundary conditions I set were not meant to exclude restriction of firearms, merely that firearms could not be definitively removed. I think many of us agree that children, convicted felons, and mentally disabled individuals should not have access to firearms. Restriction is allowed. Exclusion is not. yiostheoy “You left out ‘crime is here to stay.’" I agree, believing that crime can be definitively eradicated is naïve. I left it as inherent to the discussion. The goal of this discussion is to reduce crime (specifically gun violence). Claims The following is an assortment of claims various members have stated during the discussion. If possible, I'd like to see sources, charts, links, or names mentioned from which I can search and confirm this for myself. I'd like to invite others to agree or disagree with these claims and state why. Reiver “…the 'more guns=more crime' hypothesis is not rejected.” Modernpaladin “High unemployment and high population density correlate with higher gun violence.” "Canada has similar gun laws yet have 1/10th gun crime." "Canada has 1/10th the population density and lower unemployment than the US." “Concealed Weapon Permit issuance also correlates with lower violent (and 'gun') crime.” “Most common reason behind gang shootings is control over the black market drug trade.” “…drug use in-and-of itself is not linked to increase violent crime, but rather the acquisition of said drugs is…” Xenamnes, perdidochas “…prohibited persons rarely get charged with possessing a firearm, much less harshly penalized for it.” “…crimes committed with firearms are not punished with anything more than probation and community service.” “thus providing them with no incentive to not do it again.” How often do gun offenders repeat a crime? Suggested Solutions These are the solutions members offer in the discussion. Do you agree? Disagree? Please explain. Maccabee, TOG 6, vman12, yiostheoy “Harsher punishment on crimes committed with firearms.” "Do not release criminals who cannot be trusted with guns." "Remove those who commit murder without remorse. They may never return." "Execution." Do murderers who kill without moral boundaries have a place in society? Should they be rehabilitated? Should they be killed? Should they be exiled? Personally, I don't think we should exile our felons. I think that would be irresponsible of us as a country; like a neighbor abandoning their feral pitbull on the street to feed on children playing on the sidewalk. (Forgive the image) Ideally, if possible, I favor rehabilitation. With that said, if a person declares upon trial -without bating an eye- that they kill for fun, pleasure, or as a tribute to their god, then I believe they're worthy of a death sentence. As a wise man once said, "The only ones who should kill, are those who are prepared to be killed." Texan “Train and arm teachers to work undercover with police during active shooter situations.” Is this the most effective method? Will teachers be supplied with guns or will they have to purchase it themselves? Will they get a discount for purchasing firearms? If schools must supply teachers with firearms, wouldn't this artificially inflate the already towering costs of education? Is it fair to expect teachers to buy firearms when, some argue, they aren't paid enough as it is? Personally, I don't think arming teachers is the answer. I think "school shooting drills" might help teachers and students alike detect signs of gun bearing individuals and prepare them for the types of scenarios they may face so that they can act accordingly. TOG 6 “Shoot back” – In other words, do you mean “Arm the citizens.”? 6Gunner “Every student of high school age should be required to undergo training in basic militia structure and tactics, including basic firearms safety and martial riflery.” “I believe the National Guard should be dissolved, replaced with a true Citizens' Militia that every citizen should be required to serve in for, say, a two-year enlistment; after which those who wish to continue can then apply for entrance into the regular Armed Forces if they wish to make a career out of it. In the meantime, all those who have completed their two years of service have now earned their right to vote, and can own and carry firearms for personal security and defense.” I know I said education is an invalid argument in this thread, but I’ll let this one pass. So students will graduate from high school with an appreciation of firearms and their proper use. What kind of activities must these students participate in during their two-year enlistment? Is it mandatory? When do these activities take place? During the summer? Do they have to take time off from school? Do you think this would decrease the number of attempted gun crimes or increase the number of gun-bearing vigilantes? Reiver “…treat gun ownership within the context of 'negative externality' analysis. A license fee to internalise the externality...” I’ve never heard these terms. Do you have a source? Or would you care to explain what you mean? “Externality analysis here refers, by definition, to a market failure where price reflects marginal private cost (and not marginal social cost). The difference between the two reflects the additional crime generated by gun prevalence.” Says Reiver. “Making someone pay to exercise a right does nothing but price freedom out of the hands of the most vulnerable members of society.” – Rebuttal from 6Gunner “Those cited and supported by yourself operate on the premise that no member of the united states public can be trusted to own a firearm” – Rebuttal from Xenamnes “The additional crime is essentially a split between private cost and social cost. The fee internalises the externality, ensuring that the true price from guns is observed.” – Reiver says “Given we are talking about increased crime, modelling of the externality involves standard cost benefit analysis techniques.” – Reiver says I’ve tried to follow the conversation as closely as I can, so forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted. I admit that there is a lot I don’t understand about the premise. I think Reiver is suggesting that the price of owning a gun be raised to account for the “true cost” of ownership, in which “true cost” may entail property damage, fatalities, lost labor, etc. all expressed as monetary terms. Am I correct? If so, I know that cost benefit analysis is used in many industries and businesses, perhaps even legislature; however, is it ethical or even appropriate to use this technique for this case? I read about the “Ford Pinto Case” in which many innocent civilians died in Pinto fires because their cost benefit analysis indicated that they shouldn’t fix their vehicle. In that analysis, they included a figure to represent the value of a human life. If cost benefit analysis is a viable method in this case, then my next question is, doesn’t your proposition to increase the price for ownership of guns to represent the “true cost” violate the rights of lawful gun owners? My impression, which I believe other members have mentioned, is that such a policy is forcing lawful gun owners to pay for the actions of those who commit crime. Furthermore, wouldn’t raising the price of gun ownership aggravate the disparities between the rich and the poor? Is it not the purpose of gun ownership to serve as an equalizer among classes? If the poor can’t access guns, how will they protect themselves from those whom obtain guns illegally and how do we ensure that upper class citizens don’t abuse their privilege by, whether it’s intentional or not, oppressing minorities? “Then what is being stated by yourself, is that the market price of legal firearms were to be increased significantly, there would be fewer firearm-related crimes as a result?” – Xenamnes asks. If I’m not mistaken, I don’t think he’s arguing that crime would cease if the price of guns were raised to account for the externality he describes; rather, he’s saying that the casualties caused by gun violence can be balanced if the repercussions are monetized. If this is indeed what Reiver is trying to say, then I’m afraid it’s irrelevant to the discussion. The objective of this discussion is to save lives, not reimburse the government for the cost of lost lives and labor. Reiver, please confirm if my assessment is correct. Modernpaladin “Reduce unemployment.” “Promote CCW permit application.” “Expand State-to-State Reciprocity.” What does this refer to? “Legitimize a competing source for drugs.” I would like to hear everyone's opinions on the above suggestions. Bowerbird “Ban the NRA” What does the NRA promote? By your response, I presume that arming teachers is one of their suggestions. What else? Yiostheoy Says we should harden our establishments just as we hardened airports. “Single-entry systems with iron gates, iron turnstiles, armed security officers, and fences with barbed wire are required, the same as at refineries, in order to secure the safety of the lives of our kids.”
There isn't a country out there that has implemented gun control that would violate our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
That's been tried before and failed. Which is why the new tactic is the first officer on scene engages with the threat.
Canada has permit-to-purchase system. Some states have a similar system. PTP states have lower gun death rates, lower suicide rates, and fewer problems with guns being diverted to the criminal market. https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...tions/FactSheet_PermittoPurchaseLicensing.pdf What happened after Missouri repealed its PTP handgun law? Its murder rate went up and more crime guns recovered by the police in other states could be traced back to Missouri.
Once again, all predicated on the notion that legal firearm owners are the ones committing the majority of murders and firearm-related offenses, rather than prohibited individuals who cannot legally possess a firearm under any circumstances, yet do so regardless. Nothing that has been presented, however, has proven definitively that the increased murder and crime rates were in direct correlation to the repeal in question. At best it is merely supposition, trying to suggest the two are somehow connected with one another, but without providing anything that would demonstrate actual proof. Law enforcement is not releasing any details about how many offenses are committed by individuals without criminal records, compared to individuals with criminal records.
If you want to reduce violent crime, you have to institute a zero tolerance policy on those who initiate violence. Reserve jail cells for those who have demonstrated a violent threat to peaceable society, and keep them there until they no longer exhibit violent tendencies.
No, it isn't. Rights and freedom are the ONLY valid conversation. Imposing fees to exercise rights flies in the face of the values of a free society. Thank you for proving my point regarding your authoritarian beliefs.
