How do we reduce gun violence?

As a "raging leftie" I really appreciate the discussion on this forum. I'm not anti gun, I would say many liberals are not anti gun, we're just at a loss about what to do about mass shootings now that they happen more than daily.

If gun control isn't the answer, what is? Does the "pro gun" community have any ideas or possible solutions other than no gun control? I'd love to hear other ideas from this community!

 

Criminal on criminal gun violence is responsible for most of the "daily" as you put it, mass shootings. If you believe FBI statistics, inner city drug and gang wars are responsible for up to 70% of the homicides in areas.
71% of violent offenders are repeat offenders. Usually they plea bargain to lesser offenses and they are back to business as usual. All these felons are carrying guns that they cannot legally carry.
The anti gun folks have trouble distinguishing the difference between lawful gun owners, and criminals that possess guns. Criminals that cannot legally possess a gun but carry guns anyhow, are not gun enthusiasts or gun owners.
We need to crack down on gun crime and keep violent offenders behind bars. By addressing this one issue, we will be tackling the biggest demographic that make up the violent gun crime statistics.

 

Define what you mean by mass shooting

 

"Safer Guns Safer Bullets"

[video=youtube;GircMluiO94]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GircMluiO94[/video]

 

Having a gun evens the odds of you not become a victim that's for sure . In today's drug filled society we are seeing more and more home invasions and robberies , and have a fire arm will deter most numb skulls .

 

Many from the Right believe that smart gun laws are the same as total confiscation. I'm a leftist gun owner who wants smarter laws and, most importantly, for them to be enforced properly.

 

why don't you actually post a proposed SMART GUN LAW

smart being one that

1) actually has a better than even chance of substantially reducing violent crime

2) without violating the blanket restriction on the federal government infringing on our right to be armed

BTW why is it that every major gun banning movement in this country is left wing and why every major gun banning politician is

liberals are not all gun banners but gun banners are invariably leftists

 

Violent crime WAS steadily declining over the last 20 years. Even I was surprised to read that 2014 had the lowest rates of gun violence since records began, in the 60's.
But then, The Kenyan and his crue got to work on the racial divide, and the numbers went up.
Armed Citizens are a very big answer to a lot of this. Not long after that wacko kid, D. Roof did his deed, a Pastor in the same part of the country stopped a would be mass shooter in his church. Had the victims been armed in the SB shooting, I doubt that the cops would have had to kill those bad guys, and the toll would have been lower.
ELIMINATE these ridiculous gun free zones! That whole line of reasoning has been covered, and I agree 100%.

 

Planned parenthood, columbine, aurora theater, Colorado Springs rifle open carry nut job, the Oregon college, the black church. Seriously, there have been so many I can't remember where they all were or what little nick name they were given. If you watch the news it's obvious what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about gang violence in south Chicago. That kind of violence is obviously a huge problem, but I'm talking about the non-gang related often times white male shooter. Gang violence is complicated by what other posters said. Criminal on criminal violence etc

 

If we use your description of Mass shootings, they are not happening daily. The 350 mass shootings in 2015 that the left claim are really criminal on criminal violence.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't want America to look like other countries where there is a military presence on every corner. Where citizens have to be armed to survive. That doesn't sound like America, it sounds like frickin Saudi Arabia! I'm sorry, I think "more guns" is insane. If your right to bear arms is so important to you, my right to live in a peaceful democracy that doesn't have to operate and function on fear is just as important to me. Let's look at the Planned Parenthood attack. Are you saying those citizens should have been carrying because they could have defended themselves better? I don't know if you're a woman or not, but during a pelvic exam you don't even have underwear on. Your feet are hoisted up in the air... And those people should have been armed and ready? That's insane and not what freedom looks like. I should be able to get a pap smear without wondering if some psycho is going to barge in and shoot me. I just attended the premier of Star Wars and found myself thinking about what I would do if a nut job came in and started shooting. That isn't what freedom looks like.

The right says no to gun control and the left says no to more guns. Therefore I think the solution lays somewhere in between.

 

The number of homicides have been declining since 1993.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en....13.13.1235.NpzGStC0jWQ#imgrc=WR0CXlOCdDx9_M:

 

I think the problem lies with our society as a whole. I grew up in the 1950's when the only gun law on the books that I remember was you had to have a federal permit to own a machine gun. Yet there was just one mass shooting during that entire decade. I grew up around guns and had my own .410 at the age of twelve. I could go into town and buy shells for it at the Western Auto with no questions asked. I do not think things like gun safes and trigger locks had been invented yet. But I repeat, there was only one mass shooting during that entire decade.

Society was different then, the nuclear family reigned. Mom was usually at home to teach right and wrong, install morals and help with school work. To have a child out of wedlock would get you branded and looked down on. Single parent families were a result of the dad dying during WWII or Korea or of sickness or an accident. There was an entirely different set of morals. Some can argue if they were right or wrong, but they were different.

I think the problem lies with our society today, not with gun laws. Sometime 20, 30 years ago it was decided the mentally ill had rights and they were let loose out of the hospitals and clinics to roam the streets. Almost all mass shooters I read about today had mental problems. Most of those shooters wouldn't have been loose to cause the havoc they caused back then. I am sure others can think of many, many differences. Some good, some bad.

The economic times were also different, the middle class was expanding, not contracting. People were different too, back then there was none of today's social programs and welfare. One learned to be self-reliant, to take responsibility for oneself, family, community. Neighbors helped out neighbors when things got tough. Today if someone does something wrong, makes a wrong decision, it is not his fault, it is always someone else's or something else. Instead of helping others with your time, energy, money and what have you, today we sent them down to the nearest government agency or office.

Times change, I say look at society, dig deep and you might find the reasons for all the gun violence

 

The answer is, better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

 

Mass shootings? Nothing meaningful can be done, realistically, because they are generally done by "lone-wolf" individuals who snap and go ballistic. For us to have prevented almost any of the high-profile mass shootings, we would have had to identify the shooter before he committed any crime, and strip him of his liberty based only on the suspicion that he might be planning to commit a crime at some time in the future.

One of the core principals that this country was founded upon is the concept that every man is free, and is innocent until proven guilty. If we are to adhere to that principal, then we can not strip an individual of his liberty until AFTER he commits some crime, and receives his due process of law. Occasionally, that crime will be very, very violent.

So, the question becomes this: Since we can't prevent mass shootings, how do we mitigate them? Well, there are a number of strategies being discussed that include everything from repealing the 2A and confiscating all the guns, to doing nothing. The overall thrust seems to be to, somehow, through legislation, make it more difficult for these lone-wolf shooters to be able to gain access to a gun. In my opinion, that is just folly, because there is no way to prevent anindividual in this country from gaining access to a gun, unless you physically restrain or incarcerate them. Laws do not deter the lawless.

The gun genie is out of the bottle, as it were. There are between 300 and 500 million firearms ALREADY at large in this country. Someone who is twisted enough to want to shoot up a school, is not going to be deterred by a failed background check. He's going to do whatever it takes, for as long as it takes, to perpetrate his violence. Whether he buys his guns from Cabela's, or steals them from his grandfather, it does not matter.

But, from a purely numbers point of view, 'mass shootings' are insignificant to the overall violence problem. They, as outrageous and sensational as they are, represent a tiny fraction of firearm related violence in this country. They are, understandably, sensationalized in the media (one reason shooters do it is for the notoriety and fame), and they are at the forefront of people's minds, but they represent a statistically insignificant percentage of murders.

The #1 most effective thing to do to reduce violence (all violence; murder, rape, assault, armed robbery, etc...) would be to require our criminal justice system to keep people who initiate this violence segregated for as long as it takes to rehabilitate them before releasing them back onto the peaceable public.

Backing legislation that makes it more difficult for you and I to buy and own firearms will do nothing of significance to make it more difficult for the bad guys. From a violence perspective, doing so will make it EASIER and SAFER for the bad guys to perpetrate their violence.

However, allowing individual sellers to perform NICS background checks on prospective buyers would tighten that market up for the bad guys. I, as a responsible gun owner, would voluntarily use such a system provided it was instant, free, and anonymous. I do not want to sell my gun to a bad guy, but I currently have no way to tell if he's a bad guy or not.

 

To get to your preference, it will take door to door confiscations, police on every corner and after a huge bloody civil war. Or, you can address violence instead of gun control.

 

I wish there was any other Government on earth, in history, that I could point at and say: "here's what we should do".
No matter which country you pick, at what point in history, they all have and have had their problems with violent crime.
There is no such thing as the option of "doing nothing". America is already past the point that the ancient Greeks warned about: A Nation with too many laws is destined to fail. We already have too many laws, and the highest prison population per capita of any Country. New laws that would help to mitigate the problems are not acceptable to liberals. Nationwide Constitutional carry, as per the Constitution would help a whole lot.
Our OP likes to keep mentioning her desire to live in a peaceable world, that is free of threats. In a world comprised of human beings, this is demonstrated as impossible.
One of my more appealing options is Eugenics. I believe than at some point in the future, governments will realize that there is no other way to prevent overwhelming levels of crime, unemployment, welfare, mental illness and social decline in general. This would be done by monitoring students throughout the educational years, and presented to Citizens as the most critical decision they need to make in life: whether or not to procreate.
Early on, we look to see if either parent has a history of abuse of any kind, be it drugs, sexual deviation, lack of physical control regarding violence, and things like that. While the kid goes through their formative years, we work on these things. If the kid reaches puberty/the age of sexual activity, and doesn't appear fit to produce decent Citizen offspring, they voluntarily opt out.
How's that for an option that doesn't involve militarization?

 

Then you've obviously forgotten about the VT shooter, the Washington Naval Yard shooter and our most recent episode involving Muslims. No Whites in those. If so then the danger of the so called White shooters has to somewhere south of the risk dying a commercial airplane. However if you look at shooting involving more than 3 people they're quite common in the minority inner city communities. Sometimes Chicago can register more than one in a day. But then again the homicide rate among inner city males is off the scales. You're cherry picking and attempting to create a problem, especially among Whites that just doesn't exist.

 

First, are you more worried about being involved in a "mass shooting" or more worried about being a victim of a violent crime?

Your chances of being a victim depend most on: who you are, who are you around, and where you live.

The answer to your question in keeping gun violence down is to:

punish the felons who use them, and put the nutty dangerous people with a history of violence in mental hospitals and prisons.

 

Gun violence in U.S is at an all time low rate of 3.55 per 100,000.
20 years ago we were at 8.1 per 100,000.
What has your attention as well as everyone else's is mass shootings.
I would point out mass shootings have doubled in the years 2009 through today verses 2000 through 2008, why is that?
Is it Coincidence?
Has divide and conquer come to roost as Americans have become more polarized?
Dunno, good question.
What we do know is history and history tells us as our economy worsens, violence rates go up as did in great depression era.
I read a lot nowadays from progressives that more guns equates to more gun violence and that's a lie or myth or urban legend if I'm nice about it.
You do know the definition of legend, right?

Lies, myth and innuendo.....

Florida was the first state to pass conceal carry, opponents of conceal carry said "the streets of Florida would run red in blood"! That Florida would be wild with gun violence if conceal carry passed, "like Dodge City" before Wyatt Earp.
Well they were wrong, Florida crime dropped after the passage of conceal carry as crime has dropped in every state that's passed conceal carry.
Conceal carry is legal in every state today with exception of Washington DC and guess what?
DC's gun crime rate is high.

Ninety percent (90%) plus of all mass shootings occur in gun free zones.
Only people ignoring gun free zone restrictions are the cowards that prey on the disarmed.
One in twenty Americans are conceal carry permit holders.....

 

Easy Peasy, quit inviting in tons of immigrants from the middle east who cannot be properly vetted. If Barry keeps allowing immigrants from countries where the military presence if obvious and necessary then you should expect we will eventually, out of necessity have to have the same look. Make the vetting process work or protect them in place, it really is that simple.

Another easy peasy solution, quit molly coddling criminals, make them responsible for their actions and leave the law abiding citizen alone.....things will get better all by themselves if you do that.

What is frickin Saudi Arabia like as compared to the US? I mean since you don't want us to go there and all? Meanwhile here in the USA gun ownership has been growing rapidly and our crime rate has been dropping, what can you extrapolate from that?

You already live in a "peaceful democracy" that doesn't operate and function on fear....if you feel that way, that is your issue, I live around and operate in an environment free of your delusions, millions of Americans do, so just because you have an irrational, unfounded fear of law abiding citizens with guns doesn't mean your belief should trump mine.

My answer is an unqualified YES!

Yes as well as the nurses, doctors, receptionists....and on and on. When we shed the fear and visual hysterics of guns, it will be nothing to lay the old 1911 on the desk next to the exam bed within quick reach, the receptionist would pull her glock, the lab tech would pull his S&W and the bad guy or gal would die. It's pretty simple.

Freedom looks like the ability to defend oneself from those intent on hurting us.....not whimpering and begging for ones life because we don't have the ability to equal the odds. That's reality.

Yes you should but the truth is, because of the evil nature of some people, you can't and no amount of naivety and wishing will change that.

I did as well but my thought process was, if some evil bad person came in with a gun, what tactics would be available for me to defend my freedom and that of people like you. You can thank me later for keeping you safe....eh?

LOL Not just the right....that is a silly political mistake.

Yup....more citizens carrying guns is the perfect solution

 

Severe penalties for those who commit crimes with guns.
This will deter some crimes,, prevent some crimes, and not affect the rights of the law abiding in any way.

- - - Updated - - -

"Smart gun laws"?
Define this term.
I have my icon all set up for your response.

 

30 years ago, I was in the Philippines. A trike driver took me close to where I wanted to go, then diverted into an alley. He stopped, pulled out his knife, and demanded my money. I beat him up.
A friend and I were in Japan, back in the same era. A small group of self proclaimed communists attempted to attack us. We beat them up.
That was 30 years ago. I've been to a lot of places where people thought they were going to pick on me. When I had the option of beating them up, that worked.
Now, I'm pretty worn out. Traveling the world taught me that there is no place where one can expect to be left in peace, whether you're a strapping young pipefitter, or a cynical old coot, or a pretty girl on her way to the gyno.
This is the world. One thing we haven't mentioned on this thread is that every year, there are something in the range of 2 million non-violent incidents where a gun was used to preclude violence. Yup. That pretty girl was on her way to the cafeteria, or her gyno, or the gym. Some nasty person attempted to rape her. She showed her gun, and a willingness to use it. The nasty person found someone else to do. That's the world we live in. Change the world, and you'll have less violence.

 

...better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia.

 

There are varying definitions of what constitutes a mass shooting. For example, the FBI only defines an incident as a mass shooting if four or more people are killed.

What criteria do you cite when you refer to mass shootings?