Here's your options:

Post #411,605 by pwhysall 7/8/16 10:10:38 AM 7/8/16 10:10:38 AM Reply	Here's your options: 1. More guns 2. Fewer guns 3. More regulation 4. Less regulation Your task is this: using the items above, reduce the number of gun deaths in America. Include suicides and accidents in your working.
Post #411,606 by boxley 7/8/16 10:12:21 AM 7/8/16 10:12:21 AM Reply	5.. none of the above will work as well as the other options always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #411,607 by pwhysall 7/8/16 10:23:25 AM 7/8/16 10:23:25 AM Reply	So do nothing? I guess since Sandy Hook didn't move the needle then nothing will, but you're basically A-OK with the current rate of gun death in the US? Is that where you're at? If I'm misreading you, perhaps be a bit more explicit.
Post #411,609 by mmoffitt 7/8/16 12:06:12 PM 7/8/16 12:06:12 PM Reply	I can't speak for Box on this subject, only for me. I do not think there is a solution to this in America. The firearms aren't really the cause of the senseless deaths. I have firsthand knowledge of how devastating suicide is to those still alive. I lost my younger brother to a self-inflicted gun shot when I was 28 and he 25. Nothing gets you through that. To this day my eyes well up when I see a photo of him, though it's been half my life ago. Did the gun kill him? Well, he died of a gunshot wound, so if there were no guns around would still be alive? Not a chance. The gun was his tool of death. Mental illness killed him after a seven month struggle. Racism, wealth inequality, mental illness and injustice are behind many of these gun deaths. Of course those aren't the only reasons, but I'd wager those four comprise the majority of reasons. But, it's much easier to say, "We should ban firearms" than it is to address the reasons the firearms are used.
Post #411,612 by drook 7/8/16 12:24:53 PM 7/8/16 12:24:53 PM Reply	Take 9 minutes and watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RolEI5n4Jxs Note in particular the section from 4:10 - 5:11 and tell me how he's wrong. tl;dw When people say, "This is not about guns, this is about terrorism." No! It's about terrorism, *and* it's about guns ... Just because there's a problem with terrorism doesn't mean there isn't also a problem with access to guns. -- Drew
Post #411,616 by pwhysall 7/8/16 1:24:05 PM 7/8/16 1:24:05 PM Reply	I'm sorry for your loss. A lot of people who attempt to take their own life are sending a cry for help. But if you use a gun, then you're more likely to succeed in the attempt whether you really mean it or not. Would they eventually succeed if a gun wasn't available? Maybe. But there might at least be time in which to intervene, if such an effective method was less readily available. And you should note that at no point have I ever proposed banning guns. My perfect gun world: 1. You can have a gun - it will be semi automatic with a clip of no more than 10 rounds, be it shotgun, long gun or pistol 2. You have to have a background check 3. Certain categories of mental and physical illness will preclude you from having a gun 4. You will have to refresh the background check periodically 5. You will have to undertake and pass a basic course in gun safety and maintenance (with additional requirements if you want to make your own ammo, mainly centred around making rounds that won't blow your face off) 6. There will be a national gun register, and maintaining this will be part of the deal when you buy or sell a gun 7. Criminal record? No gun for you 8. You will have a gun case and you will keep your guns and ammunition in it. If you want a gun for home defence, well, that's unfortunate. The police will just shoot you when you answer the door with gun in hand anyway 6. That's it. Go shoot stuff. Don't point it at anything you shouldn't.
Post #411,619 by mmoffitt 7/8/16 4:16:22 PM 7/8/16 4:16:22 PM Reply	Thank you for the sympathy. I don't really disagree with your list much, except number 7. All crimes? Including non-violent crimes? So, I shoplifted a six-pack in college, I lost my right to own a firearm? Change that to "Convicted of a violent crime" and I'm on board. In my previous post I wasn't specifically talking about what you were advocating, I was attempting to reply to your question about whether the other option was doing nothing. It's not and pretty clearly enforcement of gun control legislation is unacceptedly weak. But gun control is only a part of the problem. We're a nation founded in violence. We committed genocide to get our land. We held people in chains to do our work and many of them were beaten regularly and viciously - if not hanged for offenses like looking at the Master's daughter a little too long. When we finally decided chaining people up wasn't a good idea, that didn't stop the violence. Violence is part and parcel of America. Physical violence, economic violence, what have you. Particularly violence against people of color. It has been that way since the nation's founding. It's NOT an Old Southern problem either. Minnesota, New York, Indiana? Those aren't Southern states. I don't see how you "fix this whole thing" without "fixing racism, mental health care, income distribution and injustice" and I don't think that's going to happen any time soon here. We're still over 60% non-Hispanic White with roughly 16% Hispanic, 12% African-American and 5% Asian with Global Multinational Corporations in charge of their stooges in our government. How are you going to create a just society with those constraints? The answer is you're not going to. And that will feed violence. And that will feed senseless deaths, no matter what kind of weaponry is available.
Post #411,709 by Ashton 7/12/16 5:40:51 PM 7/12/16 5:40:51 PM Reply	With you re ... A) the genocides ... B) lynchings ..perhaps the essence of Muricans' worst proclivities? when combined with the underlying Violence seen everywhere from a bedroom to a boardroom, aka the bullying. Conflate these to our National xenophobia, the smug sanctimony inculcated by the Puritans ... and the hypocrisy which accompanies all of the above + Moar. I deem those anti-qualities quite enough reason to be wary of ... {{very-many Muricans..}} whether or not also silver-tongued orators. Especially anyone with the insouciance to claim, Hey! I'm Honest! (Having a Bircher-Grandma kinda prepped moi to: look more-Closely at ... oh. just anyone claiming to be 'an Adult', rather early-on.)
Post #411,623 by boxley 7/8/16 7:17:13 PM 7/8/16 7:17:13 PM Reply	lets assume that all of your points were in place here which of these notions, or a combination of these notions would have stopped the shooting in dallas? always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #411,625 by drook 7/8/16 8:53:16 PM 7/9/16 2:38:12 AM Reply	You're right, need to add one to the list Kill an unarmed person under color of law: murder 1. Maybe after a few years of that we wouldn't keep having these protests about police killing people. [edit] Freakin' auto-correct. -- Drew Edited by drook July 9, 2016, 02:38:12 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #411,626 by boxley 7/8/16 11:49:45 PM 7/8/16 11:49:45 PM Reply	excuse me sir, what is your name? BAM! :-) no worries, a good idea always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #411,628 by Another Scott 7/9/16 12:52:50 AM 7/9/16 12:52:50 AM Reply	Well said. I too am sorry for Mike's pain for the loss of his brother, especially in such a horrible way. One can argue about perfect gun laws, but I don't want to address that here. Every case is different, but guns take away the chance to get help because they rarely fail. I've posted Christen McGinnes's story before, I think. Cheers, Scott.
Post #411,610 by boxley 7/8/16 12:16:39 PM 7/8/16 12:16:39 PM Reply	does france have strict gun control ? How about Mexico? One could order every gun to be confiscated in america and it will not make a dent in mass shootings. http://www.thecoli.com/threads/mass-shooting-at-bar-in-mexico-15-dead.437202/ very long jail sentences for firearm possession in Mexico, doesnt seem to make a difference there. It is not the guns, its the people who shoot them. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #411,615 by pwhysall 7/8/16 1:12:24 PM 7/8/16 1:12:24 PM Reply	That's not the same thing and you know it. The Paris attacks were organised by a group of people who had to go well outside the bounds of the law to obtain their weapons. Mexico is a country where heavily-armed drug gangs are at open war with the state. If you think that compares in any way with people going postal with guns that are legal to buy without background checks or (if purchased at a gun show) a cooling-off period, then there's little point in continuing this line of debate. There are 300+ mass shootings in America every year. There really aren't 300+ mass shootings in France. But all this is so much bloviation. I asked a simple question that you've deftly evaded: are you A-OK with the current rate of gun death - howsoever caused - in America?
Post #411,620 by boxley 7/8/16 6:47:58 PM 7/8/16 6:47:58 PM Reply	yes I am ok, one little change in the law I would tweak tho When you buy a gun (we do have background checks you know, even at gun shows) if your drivers license has the same address as your mom's, you should be denied. That will make a big dent in these things. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #411,618 by rcareaga 7/8/16 1:44:16 PM 7/8/16 1:44:16 PM Reply	Yeah, look at our ineffectual restrictions on grenade launchers There are incredible legal and bureaucratic obstacles placed in the way of the law-abiding citizen who just wants a couple of grenade launchers for home defense, and yet hardly a week goes by without a middle school or a shopping mall being leveled by RPGs. We might just as well have no restrictions at all on these weapons, amirite, box? cordite-ially,
Post #411,621 by boxley 7/8/16 7:04:11 PM 7/8/16 7:04:11 PM Reply	correct, thats why the bad guys use preassure cooker bombs to do that. Note it doesnt stop them always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #411,624 by rcareaga 7/8/16 8:38:46 PM 7/8/16 8:38:46 PM Reply	You're not even trying.
Post #411,608 by Another Scott 7/8/16 10:46:32 AM 7/8/16 10:46:32 AM Reply	And yet taking Tommy Guns, etc., off the streets made the US safer in the '30s. How about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act Cheers, Scott.
Post #411,611 by boxley 7/8/16 12:20:04 PM 7/8/16 12:20:04 PM Reply	repealing prohibition made it safer, not the gun act sheesh always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #411,627 by Another Scott 7/9/16 12:43:40 AM 7/9/16 12:43:40 AM Reply	Maybe it's both? Maybe doing something is better than doing nothing? Last I looked, as a general proposition, countries with functional governments that have stronger laws against personal ownership of guns have lower rates of gun violence. Public Mass Shooters and Firearms: A Cross-National Study of 171 Countries.: Lankford A. Abstract OBJECTIVE: Model the global distribution of public mass shooters around the world. METHOD: Negative binomial regression is used to test the effects of homicide rates, suicide rates, firearm ownership rates, and several control variables on public mass shooters per country from 1966 to 2012. RESULTS: The global distribution of public mass shooters appears partially attributable to cross-national differences in firearms availability but not associated with cross-national homicide or suicide rates. CONCLUSION: The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators. CNN: Between 1966 and 2012, there were 90 mass shootings in the United States. Mass shootings are defined for the study as having four or more victims and don't include gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members. These shootings include the one in Orlando -- now the worst mass shooting in U.S. history -- and others in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, both in 2012. The 90 U.S. mass shootings are nearly a third of the 292 such attacks globally for that period. While the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, it had 31% of all public mass shootings. "People have been a little surprised by these statistics," said Adam Lankford, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama, who did the analysis. Lankford presented his work at the American Sociological Association's annual conference last year and says it's the first research of its kind to do a global comparison. If things were as hopeless as you imply, then the relatively brief period of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994 - 2004) wouldn't have made any difference. People argue about the extent of the difference, but it did make a positive difference, even with the loopholes and other issues. Lots of facts and figures are here if you want to argue about them. Cheers, Scott.
Post #411,630 by drook 7/9/16 2:40:11 AM 7/9/16 2:40:11 AM Reply	Who was surprised? -- Drew
Post #418,549 by CRConrad 6/14/17 12:48:06 PM 6/14/17 12:48:06 PM Reply	At a guess: Only Americans.

Welcome to IWETHEY!