What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks…And in the spirit of grown up conversation, what would you suggest? 

 

I don't think there is a panacea, nor do I think you can prevent all gun violence. But generally, I would start by treating firearms like we do cars. We used to have far more automobile deaths in this country, but with stricter controls on how people can be licensed to drive and regulations around vehicle safety, we have dramatically reduced the number of people being killed by cars.

 

Red flag laws are a good place to start, too. If someone presents a threat to the community, there should be a process from temporarily removing their firearms.

 

We also should repeal PLCAA, which prevents gun manufacturers from being sued. If you remember the Ford Pinto, it had a design flaw that resulted in a higher risk of fire in a rear-end collision. Through lawsuits and public advocacy, the issue was identified and Ford issued a recall. Since gun manufacturers are immune to lawsuits due to PLCAA, they are less inclined to have a focus on safety in their designs. Colt was in the process of creating the iColt handgun in the 1990's, which was a smart gun that could only be fired by its owner. This plan was scrapped and the gun was never rolled out. Manufacturers would have an incentive to explore safer approaches to firearms if they could be liable for excessively lethal weapons.

 

I think we should also have safe gun storage laws to prevent kids or other people from getting an otherwise legally obtained gun. Gun safes with the ammunition stored separately would be a good approach, especially in houses where minors live.

 

I am skeptical of outright bans of guns, like the AR-15. "Assault Weapon" is a political term that is often defined around a gun's cosmetic features than its lethality. If there is a case to be made to ban certain types of firearms because they are so high power as to not have a real justifiable civilian use, I'm open to hearing it. But I don't think we should ban guns because they look scary or are popular.

 

Something we need to do but I have no idea how to do is to change the culture around guns. It was not that long ago that guns, especially rifles, were more considered tools than anything else. Going to a range to safely use your firearm, having a gun in a rural area to protect from certain wildlife, etc. I took some NRA classes way back when and the number one thing was safety and respect for the deadly weapon in your hands. Today, it's all about 2A and tyranny and the ads for guns invoke images of violence and being manly. I think that changes the way some people look at guns and it's not good.

[billsfan1959]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'd have to disagree here. Living here in Chicago, around 60% of the guns used for crimes here were obtained outside of the state. Illinois and Chicago can put in whatever stringent gun laws they want but people can drive a couple miles out of the city to Gary, Indiana, load up on guns and bring them into Chicago. Despite this, Indiana is not acting to reduce the gun trafficking nor enacting stricter controls on gun sales.

 

If we don't take a comprehensive approach across the country, we will continue to have problems with people obtaining guns in less restrictive states and bringing them into more restrictive states to circumvent the laws.

 

The overwhelming majority of guns used in gun crimes in the Chicago area aren't purchased or owned legally by the individuals using them. How will restricting the legal sale of guns in the surrounding areas solve that particular problem?

[billsfan1959]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I don't think there is a panacea, nor do I think you can prevent all gun violence. But generally, I would start by treating firearms like we do cars. We used to have far more automobile deaths in this country, but with stricter controls on how people can be licensed to drive and regulations around vehicle safety, we have dramatically reduced the number of people being killed by cars.

 

Red flag laws are a good place to start, too. If someone presents a threat to the community, there should be a process from temporarily removing their firearms.

 

We also should repeal PLCAA, which prevents gun manufacturers from being sued. If you remember the Ford Pinto, it had a design flaw that resulted in a higher risk of fire in a rear-end collision. Through lawsuits and public advocacy, the issue was identified and Ford issued a recall. Since gun manufacturers are immune to lawsuits due to PLCAA, they are less inclined to have a focus on safety in their designs. Colt was in the process of creating the iColt handgun in the 1990's, which was a smart gun that could only be fired by its owner. This plan was scrapped and the gun was never rolled out. Manufacturers would have an incentive to explore safer approaches to firearms if they could be liable for excessively lethal weapons.

 

I think we should also have safe gun storage laws to prevent kids or other people from getting an otherwise legally obtained gun. Gun safes with the ammunition stored separately would be a good approach, especially in houses where minors live.

 

I am skeptical of outright bans of guns, like the AR-15. "Assault Weapon" is a political term that is often defined around a gun's cosmetic features than its lethality. If there is a case to be made to ban certain types of firearms because they are so high power as to not have a real justifiable civilian use, I'm open to hearing it. But I don't think we should ban guns because they look scary or are popular.

 

Something we need to do but I have no idea how to do is to change the culture around guns. It was not that long ago that guns, especially rifles, were more considered tools than anything else. Going to a range to safely use your firearm, having a gun in a rural area to protect from certain wildlife, etc. I took some NRA classes way back when and the number one thing was safety and respect for the deadly weapon in your hands. Today, it's all about 2A and tyranny and the ads for guns invoke images of violence and being manly. I think that changes the way some people look at guns and it's not good.

 

Good post. We also need to devise strategies for dealing with the possession and use of illegal firearms. Much like the possession of legal firearms, we are dealing with that gray area of indivdual rights vs public safety. 

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:

 

The overwhelming majority of guns used in gun crimes in the Chicago area aren't purchased or owned legally by the individuals using them. How will restricting the legal sale of guns in the surrounding areas solve that particular problem?

 

Stronger controls around straw purchases. Our background check and gun tracing programs leave a lot to be desired and have loopholes that facilitate interstate gun trafficking.

 

If we had a system where we had close to a 100% success rate in taking a gun used in a crime in Chicago and tracing it all the way back to the specific individual who purchased it and where they purchased it, that would allow us to prosecute the straw purchaser and potentially the store (if it did not comply with regulations). These actions would reduce the availability of guns to criminals through straw purchasers.

 

 

[billsfan1959]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

Stronger controls around straw purchases. Our background check and gun tracing programs leave a lot to be desired and have loopholes that facilitate interstate gun trafficking.

 

If we had a system where we had close to a 100% success rate in taking a gun used in a crime in Chicago and tracing it all the way back to the specific individual who purchased it and where they purchased it, that would allow us to prosecute the straw purchaser and potentially the store (if it did not comply with regulations). These actions would reduce the availability of guns to criminals through straw purchasers.

 

We already have systems in place to register and trace serial numbers of firearms. I'm all in favor of providing the resources neccessary to ensure 100% accountability. However, most guns illegally owned are not purchased through straw purchasers. They are stolen or acquired via other criminal means. We need to find ways to deal with actual criminals possessing and using guns. That means targeting the areas with the highest gun violence and the highest possession / use of illegal firearms - which tend to be areas of lower socioeconomic conditions and high minority populations. The majority of residents in these areas are decent people who are literally terrorized and placed at risk of being a victim of violence on a daily basis. Yet, we stand by as a society as they are victimized every single day by gun violence.

[Tiberius]

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Another outstanding response from the guy who blames angry men but then refuses to even guess as to what they’re angry about. Nice job Tibs. 

[ALF]

Would be interesting to study why mentally unstable females do not resort to mass killing like males . Why do normal males commit a lot more murders also.

 

Are men more violent than women?

 The U.S. Department of Justice sponsored a National Crime Victimization Study in 2007. This evaluation found that 75.6 percent of all offenders were male and only 20.1 percent were female.

 

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/emotions/men-more-violent.htm

 

Male prisoners, who made up 93% of the total prison population at year-end 2018, declined by almost 23,500 (down 1.7%) from year-end 2017. Females, who made up 7.6% of the total prison population, decreased by almost 530 (down 0.5%).

Edited June 3, 2022 by ALF

[Tiberius]

25 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Another outstanding response from the guy who blames angry men but then refuses to even guess as to what they’re angry about. Nice job Tibs. 

What are men angry about? 

[BillStime]

14 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

Can't wait for President DeSantis to issue an Executive Order stating the First Amendment isn't absolute and the Founders had no idea that Twitter accounts like @TeaPainUSA would do such harm to society, and have them banned permanently.  

 

We're going after all "news" outlets.

 

We're going full News Grab.  Gone.  Only DeSantis approved media we declare safe to consume.  

 

Like Tucker and ball tanning.  

 

Awe - wake up - your dream is over.

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

What are men angry about? 

Dude….this isn’t complicated. YOU said the problem is angry men with access to guns. Does it really have to be this hard? 

On 6/2/2022 at 6:36 AM, Tiberius said:

Angry man and easy access to guns. No wonder we have so many mass shootings 

Let me remind you. Now…what are men angry about? 

[ArdmoreRyno]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

Anyone who quotes, shares or references “Vox” should be banned immediately. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

Anyone who quotes, shares or references “Vox” should be banned immediately. 

You love that 2nd Amendment, but that 1st Amendment, you are not so sure about, huh? 

[Tiberius]

Yes! 

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yes! 

 

 

Factually incorrect in at least two ways- if a gun backfired due to mistake by the maker you can sue. And the companies that made the Covid vaccines have a much more broad immunity than fun companies could ever dream of having. 

[Tiberius]

13 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Factually incorrect in at least two ways- if a gun backfired due to mistake by the maker you can sue. And the companies that made the Covid vaccines have a much more broad immunity than fun companies could ever dream of having. 

But if their product is used to massacre people, can they be sued over how unsafe it is? 

[Orlando Buffalo]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But if their product is used to massacre people, can they be sued over how unsafe it is? 

Can automakers be sued if someone uses the vehicle to mow down people? I think it should be the same.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-56269095.amp

[Tiberius]

 

8 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Can automakers be sued if someone uses the vehicle to mow down people? I think it should be the same.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-56269095.amp

Autos serve a different purpose, they are for transportation. Guns are for killing. 

 

I just hope congress pushes that through, you guys will just say, "can you sue hammer makers?" 

 

Get this done! 

[Orlando Buffalo]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Autos serve a different purpose, they are for transportation. Guns are for killing. 

 

I just hope congress pushes that through, you guys will just say, "can you sue hammer makers?" 

 

Get this done! 

So can you sue knife makers? There only purpose is to cut and people are using it outside the preferred usage?

[ArdmoreRyno]

18 hours ago, Tiberius said:

You love that 2nd Amendment, but that 1st Amendment, you are not so sure about, huh? 

Im all for the 1A... but Vox is as good as a source for information as the National Enquirer. Would be like me quoting the NRA about guns facts. 
 

You’d call BS.