Is there any legal or political solution to gun violence in America?

All people are very violent. Only an armed people can protect themselves from violent criminals and keep the peace.

Armed professional police are virtually ineffective except when they are used as credible witnesses after the fact. They can be very useful in that role.

 

My views are not that dystopian. Things weren't that great in the 1870s and 1880s in the Wild West when everybody was packing.

 

Irrational gun control laws were a problem in the Wild West -- especially where there was a dependence on professional law enforcement and the public was not allowed to carry firearms. Some things never change.

 

Okay, I guess we will meet at the OK Corral.

This sort of reminds of the days when private banks issued all the paper money. It didn't work.

A conservative who is against the police is an odd bird for sure.

 

"Lilberals" believe in illiberal prohibition.

Not sure what conservatives believe, other than remaining liberal on freedom when it comes to firearms.

 

My thoughts on professional policing are in transition. IMO, an armed public does not need many armed police.
But I have changed my mind about disarming police.
Like the public, they need to be armed for self defense, and LEO's enforcing warrants should always be armed and armored.

 

Having a law and enforcing a law are two different things. If you think back a few years we had a "war on drugs" where cops would bust people for weed, coke, crack, etc. There were laws that made successive drug convictions result in increasing penalties, up to life in prison. Did any of that stuff stop drugs or drug use? Nope. Will such laws stop gun criminals? Nope. All that such laws do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to go through their day doing lawful stuff. If you're going to create laws based on the presumption that EVERYONE is a criminal then you're already on the path to totalitarianism and THAT is about as far from conservative principles as one can get, which is why most conservatives oppose such laws.

 

doesn't work in Mexico and even the cartels haven't been able to collect all the guns.

 

https://torontosun.com/news/world/no-charges-in-deadly-chicago-shootout-due-to-mutual-combat

 

Heaven help you if you are an innocent bystander who gets hit while they are shooting. I guess it's okay because it was "mutual combat."

Are the police and the DAs insane?

 

not my plan. this is the logical result of globalized capitalism.

 

Sure: People need to start reporting their kin who are batshit ****ing insane and having them committed for asylum's for the criminally insane.
Ex: One of the recent mass shooters was known to torture animals, steal things, attack classmates, stalk people and shoot them with a BB gun etc.
He should've been in the funny farm, or in prison. His family were the only ones who could've narced on him. They SHOULD have narced.
Until you convince people to do that, you'll never solve this issue.

People also need to take precautions to defend themselves and their charges IE a citizen should be armed in their own defense and in defense of others.

You do both of those things, and you hit the issue from both ends.

 

How dare people have the ability to chose how to trade their own labor and products? There oughta be a law against it. Let's start with you. Give me all your stuff and I'll make sure it gets used properly.

 

We could have crazed Leftists exercise some self-restraint with the deadly rhetoric. Not cutting the balls off a minor male is not 'trans-genocide'. When you start claiming that disagreeing with you is 'committing genocide' against you, you are inviting crazing people to kill in what is in their twisted minds, 'self-defense'.

Prof Suspended After Declaring It's "More Admirable" To Shoot Down Than Shout Down Conservative Speakers


“it is more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, transphobic speaker than to shout them down...”

Suspended WITH pay.

'Steven Shaviro, who writes in the areas of film, music videos, and science fiction literature' made the threats.

University President responded:

'“This morning, I was made aware of a social media post by a Wayne State University professor in our Department of English. We have on many occasions defended the right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but we feel this post far exceeds the bounds of reasonable or protected speech. It is, at best, morally reprehensible and, at worst, criminal.”'

DOUBLE STANDARDS AREN'T STANDARDS

'Many conservative or libertarian professors find themselves suspended or under investigation for controversial tweets or jokes. Conversely, it is comparably rare to see such action against those on the left who use inflammatory language including professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.'

'University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Yet, those extreme statements from the left are rarely subject to cancel campaigns or university actions.'

 

come and take it. as an adult human i would never take your stuff unless i needed it for my family's survival. but speaking of taking other people's stuff, have you ever read how so many of our capitalist fortunes were made?

 

You can't legislate human nature....

 

We had 28 mass shootings in this country from 1900 through 1970. After 1970 we’re probably over 200.


https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990


The mass shooting pre-1970, most of those 28 shootings were familicides or felony related. The shooting knew his victims. Post-1970, most have occurred in public places against innocent and unknown bystanders. The shooter didn’t know his victims. It has become killing for killing sakes.


Since pre-1970 was an era of little to no gun control laws, the main one being you had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun, post 1970, we now have tons of gun control laws. Shouldn’t we be going the other way, mass shooting decreasing? I have a novel approach. I suggest we do some research. That we delve deep within our society to see what went wrong with it. That we attempt to find the reasons and causes for this massive increase in mass shootings. Not just throw a few more band aids at it. I think the main reason we don’t delve deep into our society to find out where we took a wrong turn is we’re way too afraid of what we might find. It’s far too easy to blame guns instead of finding out what went wrong, the reasons and causes. If we did that, perhaps we took fix or do something about the causes.


The one thing I know for sure, we can’t identify and hopefully fix what we refuse to look for.

 

100% this

Throw the proverbial book at people that commit any crime while in possession of a firearm and have training for basic gun safety + background checks before you can purchase one.

I wonder if a clean bill was introduced in congress it could even get through the house?

 

"The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everyone has decided not to see." - Ayn Rand

 

How many guns do you think it will take before gun violence doesn’t put the US in third world territory?

2 guns for every American? 3?

 

Myself and many other gun owners that I know would be perfectly fine with gun ownership requiring an extended background check and proficiency training. Having said that, you have a Constitutional right to firearms. You do not have a Constitutional right to drive. Driving is a privilege, and can be taken away from you at any time for any number of reasons.

Any time that you have to provide a license, pay the government a fee, or risk having something taken away from you, it is no longer a right. It has become a privilege...

 

If the constitutional right to bare a firearm is absolute then requiring background checks is unconstitutional.

Is voting a right? Do you have to register? Can a citizen be denied that right for any reason?

I think @JohnHamilton’s proposal is the perfect blend of common sense and appeal to both sides issues with current affairs. A rare combo.

 

Introspection is hard and, more often than not, emotionally painful. It's much easier to just pass more laws and complain about Republicans. Besides, when we do that we get better polling numbers for Democrats and, as I keep saying, we can't have a democracy without Democrats, their name is right there in the term!

 

They are rights so long as you are a legal, upstanding citizen. Both your right to possess a firearm and vote can be revoked if you are a felon, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

 

Here's a solution but I don't think anyone is going to like it: Reopen the mental hospitals again and let one fly over the cuckoo's nest for old time's sake

According to the EU, they involuntarily commit per 100,000 people:
Austria, 175, Finland, 218, Germany, 175, Sweden, 114, UK, 93.

The US? Something like 17 per 100,000.

Instead we've decided because Nurse Ratched was scary, we're going to flood our streets with mentally disturbed people. Many of them very dangerous.