Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up

[Gameface]

Right. But EVERY one of those, having LESS guns available would mean LESS people shot. Period. End of story.

We can discuss how effective any means of getting the guns out of people's hands would be, and whether we should or not, or whether we legally CAN or not, but...

Gun rights advocates have won. All the way up to the Supreme Court. You're not going to be taking any guns away. That's the very least realistic alternative in any of this. If that's what you're gunning for (puns always intended) I'm afraid you're gonna find you're shooting blanks, from a jammed gun, at an invisible target.

 

[fishonjazz]

Gun rights advocates have won. All the way up to the Supreme Court. You're not going to be taking any guns away. That's the very least realistic alternative in any of this. If that's what you're gunning for (puns always intended) I'm afraid you're gonna find you're shooting blanks, from a jammed gun, at an invisible target.

Unfortunately this is true

 

[Gameface]

So by the definition you provided that navy base is not a gun free zone.

Actually people might be very surprised. On a Navy base the only people allowed to be armed are the military police (called Masters-At-Arms, in the Navy, or MAs for short). I had a friend who lived on the ship and he and I would go shooting regularly. He had to declare that he had a gun at the gate, then wait, then hand the gun over to the MAs, who would then escort him to the ship, where they would inform the Officer of the Deck that he had a gun, who would then get the shipboard MAs to take possession of the gun and escort him to the ships armory where a gunners mate would check the gun into the armory. Reverse the process to get the gun off base so we could go to the range.

 

[Stoked]

OK, well since nobody offered any additional alternatives in evaluating the "sources" of gun violence, let's start a discussion of these various factors that lead to gun violence:
* gangs/drugs
* anger/jealousy
* accidental
* irrational reasons/mental health issues

(understanding that there can be some overlap between categories)

Now, I have a two questions to start:

1 - Are homicide statistics given by the number of deaths, by the number of incidents or what? Are injuries that are not fatal accounted for? I think it makes a bit of a difference and I'd be curious to know how many shootings involve just ONE victim, compared to those with two or more. Does anybody have a source where these things are broken down?

2 - Does anyone know of a link to a source where the number of shootings is broken down by "cause" similar to those I've listed above? And again, is it by number of incidents or number of fatalities and/or injuries?

Lots more questions of course, but I'd like to see if we can get some information towards those two questions and go from there.

I'll reply to the bolded one. To start it off at least.

Gangs: Part of this comes from several different areas itself. Uninvolved parents, limited economic opportunity/status, lack of a good education... work on those things and the gangs will find that their potential recruits start drying up. Give many of these kids a viable alternative to gangs.

Drugs: One can start by bringing marijuana into the light, legalize it already. The war on drugs has been a disaster. Secure the border and strangle to flow from outside the country and then work not on the sellers/addicts but on the producers here at home. You will never fully stop drugs. One can also create better anti drug programs as well.

 

[Stoked]

Actually people might be very surprised. On a Navy base the only people allowed to be armed are the military police (called Masters-At-Arms, in the Navy, or MAs for short). I had a friend who lived on the ship and he and I would go shooting regularly. He had to declare that he had a gun at the gate, then wait, then hand the gun over to the MAs, who would then escort him to the ship, where they would inform the Officer of the Deck that he had a gun, who would then get the shipboard MAs to take possession of the gun and escort him to the ships armory where a gunners mate would check the gun into the armory. Reverse the process to get the gun off base so we could go to the range.

I think Fish touched on exactly this when he was talking about the armed guards (MPs) on bases. Having a constantly armed police force on site prevents it from being a gun free zone.

But you are absolutely correct in that the vast majority of military member son bases are not armed.

On a side note, a couple states have changed that policy with their National Guard units. They have passed laws making on duty guard members armed. Not sure the full extent of that though.

 

[Nate505]

It really is a joke that the moderators continually allow DutchPOS to post overt racist, baseless remarks and general hate speech. So long as he isn't slandering white conservatives, Stoked is okay with it.

You got me. I'm a massive fan of Dutch's.

 

[moevillini]

You got me. I'm a massive fan of Dutch's.

And by massive, are you referring to your own body girth? Or have I misinterpreted?

 

[Harambe]

Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear.

Fuzzy wuzzy had no balls
So fuzzy wuzzy was probably DutchJazzer

 

[Gameface]

Although many stated that mandatory firearm education is a no brainer in a society with so many guns and the right to own them enshrined in the Constitution, there is no mandatory firearm education in schools. And I do believe there would be very significant objections to such mandatory education. Kids are getting expelled for making finger guns.

But in my opinion that is a very important first step.

The second step is to enhance the screening involved in a gun sale. I think having firearm education of some sort, and being able to demonstrate the safe handling and use of the firearm being purchased makes a lot of sense. I would have objected this previously, but since the pro-gun crowd is insisting that what we have is a mental health problem, not a gun problem, I'll take them at their word and suggest that all gun purchases should include mental health screening. Not just looking for a history of mental health issues, that for the most part isn't there to be found, but actually sitting down with a therapist and discussing some basic things about why you are purchasing a firearm and what your outlook on life is like. Sure, I get how troublesome this is. If we want to shift back to gun violence being a gun problem then maybe we could drop that, but if gun violence is a mental health problem then the two need to be dealt with hand-in-hand.

 

[fishonjazz]

Although many stated that mandatory firearm education is a no brainer in a society with so many guns and the right to own them enshrined in the Constitution, there is no mandatory firearm education in schools. And I do believe there would be very significant objections to such mandatory education. Kids are getting expelled for making finger guns.

But in my opinion that is a very important first step.

The second step is to enhance the screening involved in a gun sale. I think having firearm education of some sort, and being able to demonstrate the safe handling and use of the firearm being purchased makes a lot of sense. I would have objected this previously, but since the pro-gun crowd is insisting that what we have is a mental health problem, not a gun problem, I'll take them at their word and suggest that all gun purchases should include mental health screening. Not just looking for a history of mental health issues, that for the most part isn't there to be found, but actually sitting down with a therapist and discussing some basic things about why you are purchasing a firearm and what your outlook on life is like. Sure, I get how troublesome this is. If we want to shift back to gun violence being a gun problem then maybe we could drop that, but if gun violence is a mental health problem then the two need to be dealt with hand-in-hand.

Good post

 

[gandalfe]

The difference is that at a movie theater or a school or something there is not supposed to be guns there...... Except in an EMERGENCY when the cops get called in.

At the navy base there are always supposed to be guns there at all times. Its standard operating procedure. So the shooter knows and expects guns to be there and yet still carries out the attack anyway.

There is huge difference there that you are probably to stubborn to recognize.

I think I'm done discussing things with you for a while

I've reached that point with him, myself. That's why he's on the ignore list.

 

[Gameface]

Really, I think there are several different sides to the issue of gun homicide - to the point that it's almost like they are different issues

One aspect - inner city violence, much of it related to the drug trade and gang affiliation; armed robbery probably falls into this category as well. Some of the problems related to poverty and unemployment factor into this type of violence.

Second aspect - the mass shooters such as the Columbine killings, James Holmes, Sandy Hook/Newton CT., the Charleston, SC church killings, etc etc; mental illness probably plays a role here. This typically involves shooting at random people who are not known to the killer

Third aspect - anger and jealousy - I think today's shooting in Roanoke fall into this category, though the shooter may have had some mental illness issues as well, but there are plenty of other homicides that are just simply someone going into a rage and shooting someone they perceive to be a rival or threat. Often times this is someone they know.

I think I had a fourth in mind, but I don't remember what it was.
(edit: I think the fourth one was accidental shootings, but that's an aspect with solutions that would be less directly related to the others)

At any rate, the factors frequently mentioned here as "root causes" , such as poverty, unemployment, unstable families etc. etc. etc. really play a role only in the first aspect. So what might be a way to start looking at solutions for one aspect of the problem (that is, for those who perceive it as a problem) is not going to do anything to resolve the issue of gun violence in those aspects where poverty and unemployment do not have a role - such as a jealous husband who kills his wife; or the angry young man who hates blacks.

I like that you've broken this down like this. I think it is pretty accurate. Maybe also we should break down the reasons/justifications for various types of firearm ownership.

Self-Defense: Many see their gun as a tool for self defense. Especially those who have concealed carry permits. In what they view (incorrectly) as an increasingly violent and dangerous world, owning a gun gives them a sense of safety and even the perception of power over those dangers.

Anti-tyranny: Probably fewer people would admit to this being their motivation, it remains as one justification that is tied to the 2nd Amendment and is repeated often enough.

Hunting: This form of gun ownership is probably the least controversial and most widely accepted as legitimate. It also allows for limitations on the types of firearms used.

TEOTWAWKI: Doomsday preppers. Well, they're out there and they like their guns, all sorts. Zombie killers, riot stoppers, fort defenders and all that. It's certainly possible that society could fall apart, and these folks feel like they'll be the ones surviving while all those libtard ******* are being devoured or whatnot.

Recreation: Owning guns for the sole purpose of target shooting.

Killing Humans: Some believe that the only purpose of a gun is to kill yet I'd suppose this is the by far the smallest reason a person buys a gun. This is definitely the kind of gun purchase we should aim to stop.

Collectors: Many people appreciate the firearm aesthetic and want to own examples of various types of firearms.