What should really be done about gun violence in the US?

tomrkba said:

Absolutely not. The constitutions do not say "except for people we do not like."

These mass murders occur because the criminal actor does not fear immediate violence in retaliation for their crime. We must return to personal responsibility rather than deferral to the state. The government will not willingly allow this to happen as they are the primary source for the creation of new criminals through new laws "justified" by these murders.

Click to expand...

Have you not noticed many of these shooters commit suicide before they can be taken alive? Isn't that immediate enough for you?

HexHead said:

Have you not noticed many of these shooters commit suicide before they can be taken alive? Isn't that immediate enough for you?

Click to expand...

I suspect he didn't phrase what he was thinking well enough.

They seem to go out of their way to select targets where law abiding citizens will be disarmed, because the likely-lack of an immediate response allows them a better chance to up their body count, place higher on the media's Top Scorer list, and thus become more famous.

They don't want to wound two kill zero and get blasted by an armed citizen

What should really be done about gun violence in the US?

Click to expand...

Because no other violence matters?

I don't get questions like this. People like to pretend that if we just .......... problem ............. will go away. It's a lie. It's possible we can make some improvements, but nothing comes without a cost, nothing.

The whole "do something" crowd very seldom, if ever considers the consequences of their actions. That's why world wide violence of one form or another is or has been or will be a problem.

"They don't want to wound two kill zero and get blasted by an armed citizen"
Although, suicide by cop seems to be at least as common (i.e. still relatively uncommon) as these 'blaze of glory' types.

"So if the homicide victim was stabbed to death, clubbed to death, or beaten to death you don't care about them?"
That's a bit of a Battle of the Straw Men there, but yes, for the sake of addressing that component of violence committed with firearms, those taken by other means are irrelevant (now, whether we should tackle the gun-violence subset before the vehicular manslaughter subset, or whether measures taken against all violence would be more efficient; those are very valid, but separate, questions).

My beef with the mental health angle being expanded (and let's be honest; pretty much all proposals that target the mental health angle are intended to cast wider the net of individuals that would be denied firearms --same as all other gun regulations) is there is precious little that would stop its further expansion. At least with criminal laws, we have this Constitution thing which can eventually provide a barrier or correction to excessive behavior. But where mental health is concerned, the suspects are by nature assumed to be less than completely human, and thus do not enjoy the same standing or expectation of human rights as their fully-intact peers. Because we have no 'fixed' document (which the Constitution is supposed to be, and mostly is) with which to define which Americans should/can be trusted with freedom, there is nothing to fall back upon if the medical standards inevitably become over-broad or politically motivated.

If there were a 'medical' branch of government codified into our system and dutifully shackled with checks and balances like the other three, I would be more trusting of it. But since it is not so constrained, I see the medical community's close association with Judicial organs in providing authority (and direction ) on matters so sensitive as our human dignity to be very worrisome. Especially when the judiciary/medical community's goals align; keeping ever-more-potentially-dangerous citizens from harming themselves/others. Neither will dare say where they draw the 'sufficiently safe' line, so it will creep forward. Both assure us enforcement will be somehow self-limiting; that we will surely run out of prison/ward space long before the systems can become oppressive. And both will cry eternally that they do not sufficient resources to do even greater good.

Now, where's that C.S. Lewis quote about benevolent-ish dictators...

TCB

Now, where's that C.S. Lewis quote about benevolent-ish dictators

Click to expand...

This the one?

In a country of 315 million people you are always going to encounter nut cases and people who just snap. Like that guy in Texas who plowed over people with his car 2 months ago (same thing happened in ********** last year) it's only a national debate when criminals use guns. Nobody cares if they use a car.

Cooldill said:

So many of the options are just ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Even those that don't seem ridiculous on the surface are, in reality, only mildly helpful at best.

A bunch of people agreeing on a topic which they're all uneducated about doesn't get anything done. In the poll, the option about "swifter and harsher punishments" has second place, with third place trailing far behind. The fact of the matter is the threat of swift, harsh punishments does not deter crime. Even the death penalty has been proven to not deter crime in even the slightest way.

So that's proof enough that the majority of THR members are not criminologists. If the majority aren't psychologists or psychiatrists either, then it's perfectly reasonable to believe the "mental health emphasis" option, which is leading the poll, is also nothing more than wishful thinking by people who, frankly, are too uneducated (not necessarily in general; but in regards to mental illness) to know better.

This thread is a waste of time. And more importantly, even a clear and overwhelming agreement on any specific solution(s) proves nothing other than the fact that some people are more convincing than others.

Bobson said:

Even those that don't seem ridiculous on the surface are, in reality, only mildly helpful at best.

A bunch of people agreeing on a topic which they're all uneducated about doesn't get anything done. In the poll, the option about "swifter and harsher punishments" has second place, with third place trailing far behind. The fact of the matter is the threat of swift, harsh punishments does not deter crime. Even the death penalty has been proven to not deter crime in even the slightest way.

So that's proof enough that the majority of THR members are not criminologists. If the majority aren't psychologists or psychiatrists either, then it's perfectly reasonable to believe the "mental health emphasis" option, which is leading the poll, is also nothing more than wishful thinking by people who, frankly, are too uneducated to know better.

This thread is a waste of time.

Click to expand...

It does when the offender stays locked up, and thus does not commit more crimes against members of the public.

Crap, I should stop taking my medications (blood pressure, triglycerides) then

Click to expand...

I also take prescription drugs and drive. I'm not worried about it because they don't impair me. Some legal prescription drugs might however. I'm not up on which ones those may be but I know you need to be careful.

Absolutely correct, Warp. Life imprisonment is the ONLY thing that reduces crime. Especially considering the fact that approx. 90% of crime is committed by approx. 10% of the population. Still, this isn't a deterrent.

It's also important to note that many states have recidivism rates above 50%, proving that over half of released inmates shouldn't have been set free - possibly ever. That's a discomforting concept if you take the time to think about it.

Bobson said:

Absolutely correct, Warp. Life imprisonment is the ONLY thing that reduces crime. Especially considering the fact that approx. 90% of crime is committed by approx. 10% of the population. Still, this isn't a deterrent.

It's also important to note that many states have recidivism rates above 50%, proving that over half of released inmates shouldn't have been set free - possibly ever. That's a discomforting concept if you take the time to think about it.

Click to expand...

The OP doesn't ask for a deterrent, it just asks...what should be done.

Well, I say keeping violent offenders, especially the serious ones or repeat offenders, locked up is something that should be done

I think I would be remiss if I did not point out that the US has the worlds highest prison population. We're also a very populous country so it would be expected that we'd be near the top but we also have the highest incarnation rate.

We're a liberal (small l) democracy (que no actually constitutional republic correction) and we have a higher prison population than China, they have four times our population and are totalitarian police state. I think we're locking enough people up for long enough.

If these shooters were truly mentally unstable or ill they would not seek to hide their actions nor would they think them wrong. I believe a lot of times the "insanity" defense is used it is because the perp was caught. The Colorado Theater shooter spent way too much time in planning and preparing the booby traps in his apartment to not be aware of his actions. If he had succeeded in blowing the building as he had planned nobody would be talking about the gun deaths at the Aurora theater. Anyone who wants to take the lives of other humans is not thinking rationally but I do not for a minute believe that they are not aware of what they are doing, which to me defines sanity.

"Even the death penalty has been proven to not deter crime in even the slightest way."
I would love to hear theories on what would deter crime, then. Anything? What is a deterrent, but a consequence? What consequence is higher than life imprisonment/execution (they're the same as far as someone outside the prison like myself is concerned, though one is far more expensive and repugnant than the other)?

If no punishment can deter crime in the slightest way, perhaps we can finally all agree that laws don't constrain anyone. All they do is provide a route to remedy certain unacceptable actions, said remedy being chosen so as to minimize the risk of the offender to repeat them (the remedy almost universally being a punishment, I'm inclined to believe the justice system's obvious belief that punishment deters bad behavior). Said remedy secondarily being chosen so as to make whole, or to at least compensate in some measure, the victims of the unacceptable behavior.

So, if no law can constrain bad behavior, nor any punishment make it less tempting, I can only conclude the remaining route to keeping order is to put into place a structure that removes as many opportunities to deviate from acceptable legal behaviors as possible. That, my friends, is what oppression is.

TCB

Of course penalties for crimes are a deterrence. Maybe not a perfect deterrence, but nothing is. A little kid may not behave badly for fear of getting a spanking. That's a deterrence. The fear of punishment for the commission of a certain act is certainly a deterrence for many. Without laws and punishment for crimes, we would certainly have a lawless society, with much more crime. Even then, with such anarchy, people would still weigh the consequences do their actions simply based on the ability of those that they may have wronged to do them harm in return.

the remaining route to keeping order is to put into place a structure that removes as many opportunities to deviate from acceptable legal behaviors as possible. That, my friends, is what oppression is.

Click to expand...

Exactly. That's the only remaining alternative.

The choice is oppression, or accepting the fact that not everyone will be deterred by the potential consequences for their actions. I'll take that over oppression.

I voted “Much harsher and swifter punishment for the convicted.” Although I actually think “US Senate hearings on gun-related violence” would be the least detrimental to our Constitutional rights since Senate hearings rarely result in anything greater than the release of hot air.

To be totally honest, I find all of the options objectionable. The only practical one is the issue of mental health, but I object to that also because the shrinks can change the definition of what’s a mental health problem at will, without any oversight or legal process.

The two things I see here that are clearly RUBBISH is the claim that none of the choices will help, and those getting hung up on using the phrase "gun-related violence" or "gun-violence" in place of "violence that took place facilitated by the use of firearms.

Click to expand...

Your comment is beyond being merely obtuse. It's out and out rude.

Click to expand...

Just curious....who ever stated your opinion was ANY more valid than any other here? You dismiss some concepts are rubbish, but, by and large, that's the overall sentiment towards many of the options you have listed. The idea that YOUR ideas are garbage deserve to be given equal consideration. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make their opinion trash. That is are rather pathetic way of approaching life if you ask me.... There's room to disagree without saying an idea other than your own is utter garbage. If you ask for opinions, you'll get them. Its rude to solicit something from someone, then outright dismiss their efforts because they are not to your liking. You don't have to like what is said, but your outright dismissal of the opinions you personally asked for is a rather odd stance to take, IMO. If you simply feel your opinions are the only that are valid, why even ask for our input, unless you simply like to argue, and aren't the least bit concerned about seeing how the members here feel? Some feel any of your proposed solutions are "out and out rude" and won't do a darned thing to actually address violence, gun related or otherwise. That opinion is certainly just as valid as any you hold.

Kynoch said:

The two things I see here that are clearly RUBBISH is the claim that none of the choices will help,

Click to expand...

I agree, that would be "RUBBISH". It isn't true that none would help - every one of those choices would be actively harmful. They are all poorly considered and counterproductive.

Is this entire poll a joke or just some of it?

Well, it is from the same OP who brought us the fundamentally flawed poll on prohibited persons, and who claimed that those who disagreed with him had "reductionist views by those who simply cannot dig into the issue".

The problem is some did dig into the issue, and found that in this case the likes of the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) and Cook & Ludwig (http://www.dukechronicle.com/articl...inds-brady-act-ineffective-reducing-homicides) don't agree with the OP. I guess they're just reductionist rubes too.

The art of Impathy

Found here.

http://thearmedbear.blogspot.com/

All opinions matter.

That's what we do here, discuss ideas and opinions that are relevant to this forum. Hard on issues, soft on people.

We're a liberal (small l) democracy (que no actually constitutional republic correction) and we have a higher prison population than China, they have four times our population and are totalitarian police state. I think we're locking enough people up for long enough.

Click to expand...

The Chinese are not going to tell you what their actual prison population is, neither is N. Korea. They are more likely to call their prisoners state workers which would be accurate in a way. I think they execute more offenders than we do so their "prison population" percentage is probably lower than ours. Their philosophy is that you return to the system what you consume even in prison.

I agree, we incarcerate too many people. The biggest expense of most local gov't is the justice system which would be jails, police and courts. The expense is greater than building and maintaining our infrastructure just to give you an example of the cost. I read a few years ago that it costs our state about 100K a year to house a prisoner. That's about 3X what the average wage earner makes. Something is wrong there.

The Chinese are not going to tell you what their actual prison population is, neither is N. Korea.

Click to expand...

This is probably very true. I doubt very seriously we get an accurate number from those and other countries like them.

I read a few years ago that it costs our state about 100K a year to house a prisoner.

Click to expand...

I doubt it is quiet that high, but its still way too high. That's the problem in the U.S. Jail is so nice they come back twice. Instead of hot meals, cable tv, weight benches, basketball goals and libraries, we should lock violent criminals up in a tiny cell barely big enough for them to lay down, feed them stale bread and tepid water, then make them break rocks with a big hammer from daylight till dark, 7 days a week.

Would that act as a deterrent? Maybe, maybe not, but it would make me feel better. lol

happygeek said:

Well, it is from the same OP who brought us the fundamentally flawed poll on prohibited persons, and who claimed that those who disagreed with him had "reductionist views by those who simply cannot dig into the issue".

The problem is some did dig into the issue, and found that in this case the likes of the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm) and Cook & Ludwig (http://www.dukechronicle.com/article...cing-homicides) don't agree with the OP. I guess they're just reductionist rubes too.

Click to expand...

Yep. The very same. Good food for thought,geek.

I don't know if this has already been addressed in the four pages of replies.

My idea, for starters, is not listed as a poll choice.

My idea calls for a reversal of the nearly-three-decades old trend of societal culture, encouraged by so-called "pop culture" and also by the government, to train people to reject self-responsibility and believe that people are "owed" more than they have.
Having trained the people to be dependent is a large part of this problem. Dependent on everything from pills to the government. No one wants to "man up" and push past their individual obstacles; they have been conditioned that those obstacles should not even exist, and that, if they do, it's someone else's fault they do, and it's someone else's responsibility to remove them and "make life easier."

Parenting and teaching, which used to be a normal part of child development, is now too-often regarded as an adversity, too much so to be accepted and addressed. What used to be called a "bad attitude" and was easily corrected by a well-executed parent-child relationship that included discipline, is now labeled as "oppositional-defiance syndrome" and is often treated clinically (or even pharmaceutically!) Children are no longer growing up bonded with humanity, and are no longer being taught to feel in their hearts the true sanctity of life, and the true reverence for death. Neither holds as much importance in their lives, particularly when they simply "get more lives" in their virtual worlds when they lose a round.

Absent parents, an encouragement of the breakdown of the family unit, and the de-valuation of life and honor, are, in my opinion, the results of a long-running effort by certain groups to break down the strength of the "American resolve" and make the people more likely to fall into the "sheep" mindset. This gives those groups the opportunity to wield incredible power, and that is what they want.

The battle to reduce so-called "gun violence" must be political. It requires placing in government those who believe they should not be in power and instead believe the people should be. Only then can the government begin to shrink, deferring responsibility to the states, and ultimately to the people. When these people, over generations perhaps, begin to realize they have no other entities upon which to "push their problems" can they begin to take responsibility for taking on them themselves.