Gun Control vs School Shootings in Terms of Child Deaths

[JimLes]

For sure. But I don't see any way to get rid of the issue of the United States being awash in guns. It's too late.

I'm not necessarily proposing some sort of a violent seizure of all guns, but at the very least, further proliferation of guns can be limited.

I often think about this gun issue the way we've seen the tobacco over the past 60 years or so. It's a public health issue. People are dying unnecessarily and we ought to decrease the excess deaths. This doesn't have to involved draconian measures.

42% of adults in the USA were smokers in 1965. 14% were smokers in 2019. I don't think we need to talk about the benefits of this, just like I figure I don't think we need to talk about the benefits of fewer firearms deaths. It's all pretty self-evident.

The reduction in smoking rates did not come through a ban on tobacco or sudden, extreme measures. It came through consistent, reasonable actions over more than half a century. The details aren't all that important here. What matters is the premise we set out with.

Any harm reduction is better than no harm reduction. 14% rate is an unqualified success, but any decrease from the 42% is a good thing. Guns are no different. The country may be flooded with guns, but the rate with which new guns are introduced into society every year can be reduced. This won't necessarily happen overnight, but at the very least, this premise ought to be accepted.

Now, we know where the greatest resistance always comes from, and it's the same as the greatest resistance to smoking reduction: the people manufacturing this stuff. These are huge industries and any reduction would mean job losses, as well, but they happened with Big Tobacco, as well. As a society, we seem to have agreed that it was worth it.

Again, the specifics are irrelevant. There are a number of things that could be done without running afoul of even the most extreme interpretations of the 2nd amendment. All that is needed is an acceptance of the premise that more guns does not equal a better society.

Going back to the Columbine shooting, one of the things about it that is fascinating is that it involved two shooters. That is so exceedingly rare when it comes to school shootings. There hasn't been a case like that in the US since and the only other one happened a year before in Arkansas where a 13-year old and an 11-year old(!) shot up their middle school. They got the guns by simply stealing them from one of their grandfathers. 4 rifles, including a .44 caliber one, and 7 handguns.

How can one possibly justify owning 11 guns? What purpose does that serve?

 

[LogGrad98]

Couple of quick questions before I vote.

Are they American kids?

Are we talking about poor black and Latino kids or privileged white ones?

Your choice. Yes, all of the above.

 

[gandalfe]

I'm not necessarily proposing some sort of a violent seizure of all guns, but at the very least, further proliferation of guns can be limited.

I often think about this gun issue the way we've seen the tobacco over the past 60 years or so. It's a public health issue. People are dying unnecessarily and we ought to decrease the excess deaths. This doesn't have to involved draconian measures.

42% of adults in the USA were smokers in 1965. 14% were smokers in 2019. I don't think we need to talk about the benefits of this, just like I figure I don't think we need to talk about the benefits of fewer firearms deaths. It's all pretty self-evident.

The reduction in smoking rates did not come through a ban on tobacco or sudden, extreme measures. It came through consistent, reasonable actions over more than half a century. The details aren't all that important here. What matters is the premise we set out with.

Any harm reduction is better than no harm reduction. 14% rate is an unqualified success, but any decrease from the 42% is a good thing. Guns are no different. The country may be flooded with guns, but the rate with which new guns are introduced into society every year can be reduced. This won't necessarily happen overnight, but at the very least, this premise ought to be accepted.

Now, we know where the greatest resistance always comes from, and it's the same as the greatest resistance to smoking reduction: the people manufacturing this stuff. These are huge industries and any reduction would mean job losses, as well, but they happened with Big Tobacco, as well. As a society, we seem to have agreed that it was worth it.

Again, the specifics are irrelevant. There are a number of things that could be done without running afoul of even the most extreme interpretations of the 2nd amendment. All that is needed is an acceptance of the premise that more guns does not equal a better society.

Going back to the Columbine shooting, one of the things about it that is fascinating is that it involved two shooters. That is so exceedingly rare when it comes to school shootings. There hasn't been a case like that in the US since and the only other one happened a year before in Arkansas where a 13-year old and an 11-year old(!) shot up their middle school. They got the guns by simply stealing them from one of their grandfathers. 4 rifles, including a .44 caliber one, and 7 handguns.

How can one possibly justify owning 11 guns? What purpose does that serve?

Yes, it will take time. Reasonable steps:

Require safety mechanisms on all firearms, more than just a safety lock. I hesitate to mandate fingerprint sensors, because I have to unlock my phone and I know how far from perfect the tech is - altho it's pretty GD good. (Also, I already have to keep my cigarette and book charged up, I'm running out of USB-C cables. Also, you introduce an operating system, you introduce hacking.) But more complicated locking mechanisms, maybe a 2 or 3 step unlock, or a combination lock.

Make firearms dealers and manufacturers legally responsible. If someone bought a gun from you and uses it in a crime, you can be sued and/or charged criminally, unless you followed federally mandated background and registration. If you make a gun and someone uses it in a crime, also liable, unless you implement reasonable safety measures and only sell it to appropriately licensed dealers.

Targeted gun buybacks, of certain weapons (I'd like to suggest anything more complex/powerful than a six-shooter, unless it has significant historical value.) and in certain areas (don't bother in rural areas, but in NYC/LA, absolutely).

Restrict ammo purchases significantly.

 

[LogGrad98]

Ya Kearns. (Still here now) Which is a bad area for SLC but not very bad area in comparison to any other major metropolis in America. I'm certain that kids growing up in rough areas of other major cities (new York, Houston, LA, Miami, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, Denver, etc) have seen/been involved in more.

And ya, I did run with the wrong crowd but notice that one of those took place in my own home, one took place in my front yard, and two were hunting accidents.

Fact is that simply having guns around you is dangerous. Even if you live in affluent/safe places.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

I worked with a guy from Chicago for a couple of years. He was white, and his family was pretty affluent. Still, being in Chicago, he witnessed 2 drive-by shootings and had a cousin or nephew (can't remember which) killed in a quasi-home invasion. He said his dad kept a loaded handgun ON his nightstand. They knew to leave it alone but they also knew they had full approval to use it if needed. He had some crazy stories from his high school days, mainly because he was in one of the few schools that crossed over the red-line divisions, so they had kids who lived in million dollar homes and kids who lived in abject poverty. You can guess which race they each were at that time. He said a kid brought a gun to his high school during a football game to settle a score, ended up firing it under the bleachers narrowly missing people in the bleachers above. Fired 6 or 8 shots or something. They evacuated everything, kid got arrested.

I agree the issues seems impossibly engrained. But for every impossible problem there is a possible solution, or taking a problem-solving approach from work, first eliminate, second mitigate, third warn. So maybe we cannot entirely eliminate, but we can partially. Then we can work on mitigating then warning. But too many people just throw their hands up and say "welp, can't do nothing about". That is frankly unacceptable.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

That's a cop out, though. Mental health issues and availability of guns are not related. It's not like Canada or the UK have amazing mental health support systems or no wealth gap.

You gotta think that the fact that the US is absolutely awash in guns is a significant factor in much, much higher gun homicide rates.

I never said it was 100% of the issue. Gun culture in American cant be reversed.

#FreePalestine

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes, it will take time. Reasonable steps:

Require safety mechanisms on all firearms, more than just a safety lock. I hesitate to mandate fingerprint sensors, because I have to unlock my phone and I know how far from perfect the tech is - altho it's pretty GD good. (Also, I already have to keep my cigarette and book charged up, I'm running out of USB-C cables. Also, you introduce an operating system, you introduce hacking.) But more complicated locking mechanisms, maybe a 2 or 3 step unlock, or a combination lock.

Make firearms dealers and manufacturers legally responsible. If someone bought a gun from you and uses it in a crime, you can be sued and/or charged criminally, unless you followed federally mandated background and registration. If you make a gun and someone uses it in a crime, also liable, unless you implement reasonable safety measures and only sell it to appropriately licensed dealers.

Targeted gun buybacks, of certain weapons (I'd like to suggest anything more complex/powerful than a six-shooter, unless it has significant historical value.) and in certain areas (don't bother in rural areas, but in NYC/LA, absolutely).

Restrict ammo purchases significantly.

I also like the idea that gun manufacturers could be required to provide a hard case with an effective gun lock with every purchase. I also like the idea of taxing gun sales at a ridiculously high rate, so like a 50% tax on all gun sales. Want to buy that $500 gun, it will cost you $750. Hell have it be a sliding scale depending on type of gun, type of action, capacity, etc. so a single shot .22 rifle would be a 20% tax and an AR-15 with all the trimmings would be 100% tax rate, 9mm handgun 50%, something like that. Tax the hell out of ammo too. You can still buy the gun, but it is going to cost you. Could also require gun manufacturers to pay into a fund that supports victims of gun violence or something. idk there are a lot of ways to skin this cat.

Just don't let @Rubashov anywhere near the cat.

 

[PJF]

Opinion: Democrats Are the Reason Why School Shootings Are ‘a Fact of Life’

redstate.com

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm not necessarily proposing some sort of a violent seizure of all guns, but at the very least, further proliferation of guns can be limited.

I often think about this gun issue the way we've seen the tobacco over the past 60 years or so. It's a public health issue. People are dying unnecessarily and we ought to decrease the excess deaths. This doesn't have to involved draconian measures.

42% of adults in the USA were smokers in 1965. 14% were smokers in 2019. I don't think we need to talk about the benefits of this, just like I figure I don't think we need to talk about the benefits of fewer firearms deaths. It's all pretty self-evident.

The reduction in smoking rates did not come through a ban on tobacco or sudden, extreme measures. It came through consistent, reasonable actions over more than half a century. The details aren't all that important here. What matters is the premise we set out with.

Any harm reduction is better than no harm reduction. 14% rate is an unqualified success, but any decrease from the 42% is a good thing. Guns are no different. The country may be flooded with guns, but the rate with which new guns are introduced into society every year can be reduced. This won't necessarily happen overnight, but at the very least, this premise ought to be accepted.

Now, we know where the greatest resistance always comes from, and it's the same as the greatest resistance to smoking reduction: the people manufacturing this stuff. These are huge industries and any reduction would mean job losses, as well, but they happened with Big Tobacco, as well. As a society, we seem to have agreed that it was worth it.

Again, the specifics are irrelevant. There are a number of things that could be done without running afoul of even the most extreme interpretations of the 2nd amendment. All that is needed is an acceptance of the premise that more guns does not equal a better society.

Going back to the Columbine shooting, one of the things about it that is fascinating is that it involved two shooters. That is so exceedingly rare when it comes to school shootings. There hasn't been a case like that in the US since and the only other one happened a year before in Arkansas where a 13-year old and an 11-year old(!) shot up their middle school. They got the guns by simply stealing them from one of their grandfathers. 4 rifles, including a .44 caliber one, and 7 handguns.

How can one possibly justify owning 11 guns? What purpose does that serve?

Good post but guns and ciggs are just different.
I think the issue is guns are in the Constitution. Cigarettes aren't. I think it really might just be that simple.

I agree with your post completely. But there are just too many people who will fight any and ever measure that can be seen as any kind of an infringement on their rights. Even if it is to their own benefit. They will cut off their nose to spite their face. (I think that saying applies here)

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Good post but guns and ciggs are just different.
I think the issue is guns are in the Constitution. Cigarettes aren't. I think it really might just be that simple.

It's an absurd comparison.

 

[Rubashov]

I also like the idea that gun manufacturers could be required to provide a hard case with an effective gun lock with every purchase. I also like the idea of taxing gun sales at a ridiculously high rate, so like a 50% tax on all gun sales. Want to buy that $500 gun, it will cost you $750. Hell have it be a sliding scale depending on type of gun, type of action, capacity, etc. so a single shot .22 rifle would be a 20% tax and an AR-15 with all the trimmings would be 100% tax rate, 9mm handgun 50%, something like that. Tax the hell out of ammo too. You can still buy the gun, but it is going to cost you. Could also require gun manufacturers to pay into a fund that supports victims of gun violence or something. idk there are a lot of ways to skin this cat.

Just don't let @Rubashov anywhere near the cat.

Meow you dirty bitch!!

 

[FalseFlagg K]

I also like the idea that gun manufacturers could be required to provide a hard case with an effective gun lock with every purchase. I also like the idea of taxing gun sales at a ridiculously high rate, so like a 50% tax on all gun sales. Want to buy that $500 gun, it will cost you $750. Hell have it be a sliding scale depending on type of gun, type of action, capacity, etc. so a single shot .22 rifle would be a 20% tax and an AR-15 with all the trimmings would be 100% tax rate, 9mm handgun 50%, something like that. Tax the hell out of ammo too. You can still buy the gun, but it is going to cost you. Could also require gun manufacturers to pay into a fund that supports victims of gun violence or something. idk there are a lot of ways to skin this cat.

Just don't let @Rubashov anywhere near the cat.

had a walk through Chinatown in Melbourne last weekend, some pretty suspicious carcasses hanging up in some restaurants there. I've got some Portugese in my background which given their economy these days is halfway toward becoming Haiti .. i reckon eating some ***** is fair game ..

 

[LogGrad98]

Hey I found what they are all protecting themselves against. Damn good thing that guy had a gun, who knows what would have happened.


View: https://youtube.com/shorts/bTk3jR-w8Ls?si=-6RPxhowEUhspjEC