A proven method for reducing gun violence

[hso]

Prevention of the root causes of violence is always better than trying to address proximal causes. The root causes of violence aren't guns so trying to focus on guns is the easy and simpleminded approach and guaranteed to have less positive impact in reducing violent crime.

The problem with looking for and preventing the root cause of violence, and crime in general, is that too many people aren't satisfied by taking a measured long term approach. We embrace punishment instead of education/treatment because it is quick and easy and somehow satisfying. It lets us fool ourselves into believing that we've done something constructive, but the studies and statistics don't show this quick and easy approach to be really constructive.

Prevention of the root causes of violence have always been the solution, but we don't want to apply it.

 

[JustinJ]

There really is no way to have this discussion without going into non-gun related political issues so i'll just come out and say it. The biggest indicator of future criminality is a poor childhood which is generally the case for unwanted children. About 20 years after Roe v Wade a trend of increasing crime suddenly reversed itself. There are other examples around the world in which the inverse held true. Governments that tried to force population growth caused crime waves and other social issues to follow about 18 years after measures were taken that removed family planning options. Ensuring contraception is widely available is another important step.

 

[Texan Scott]

Fear and anger are poor reasons to do anything... they're also poor reasons to do nothing. I have fallen prey to both on this issue, and so I've decided to step back, rethink, and return with a better answer.
I believe that any government program has the potential for abuse. Giving the government more power or authority always carries that risk. That's no reason not to try, but it is good reason to approach any fundamental shift in policy with prudent caution.
I am also concerned that we fully understand our own motives. Saving money down the road is good. Trying to prevent crime is good. Understand, however, that what is just and what is cost effective are not always the same thing. Tyranny is often the cheapest way to prevent crime- and quell dissent. Well-meaning social programs are sometimes ridiculously expensive and sadly ineffective. Good and cheap are hard to come by. Moving forward with any program requires a well thought out strategy for achieving clearly defined, measurable, observable results. We can't allow ourselves to roll over people and waste money in a well-intended attempt to 'do something'. Know what you're doing. Ensure that it is just.
My real concern perhaps stems from a fundamental disagreement with many more 'progressive' thinkers: I do not believe in the essential goodness of humanity. I was raised with the notion of original sin and moral depravity, the fallenness of mankind. I have turned my back on many of the religious beliefs I was taught as a child, but nothing I have ever seen has persuaded me to lose my belief in the reality of evil: not a man in red tights whispering in our ears, but a real belief that humans are aggressive and selfish by nature, and often willing to do harm to get what they want. I have a better than fair liberal arts education; I understand modern concepts of psychology. I understand that some monsters are made, not just born that way- but they are born that way. I believe that all humans beings have a capacity for evil... I've seen enough of that. I don't know that all human beings have a capacity for good.
Yes, the world needs more love, compassion, and understanding... but sometimes, harsh measures to put down rogues and monsters are not only necessary, but inevitable. We can believe in doing as much good as possible, and proceed on that basis... but we can't save them all.

 

[Skribs]

This goes hand in hand with what I've been saying. The problem isn't that both sides are in a tug-of-war, it's that one side (pro-gun) is looking at our rights to bear arms and to defend ourselves, but the anti-gun side just fears guns and wants to take rights away from the 98% that don't abuse them.

My sig line says it all. If you want to stop "gun violence", that's fine - do it by stopping violence, not guns. I arm myself to prepare to stop someone from using violence against me. I am interested in stopping violence as much as any anti. If we would work together on ways to prevent violence instead of fighting the tug-of-war, a lot more work could get done.

 

[spotch]

Prevention of the root causes of violence is always better than trying to address proximal causes. The root causes of violence aren't guns so trying to focus on guns is the easy and simpleminded approach and guaranteed to have less positive impact in reducing violent crime.

The problem with looking for and preventing the root cause of violence, and crime in general, is that too many people aren't satisfied by taking a measured long term approach. We embrace punishment instead of education/treatment because it is quick and easy and somehow satisfying. It lets us fool ourselves into believing that we've done something constructive, but the studies and statistics don't show this quick and easy approach to be really constructive.

Prevention of the root causes of violence have always been the solution, but we don't want to apply it.

I think you're saying what I was trying to say, but more clearly.


Justin:
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf
(no comment b/c I'm not sure how far afield to take things lol)

 

[il_10]

Well, this isn't "proof" (it's just an op-ed by a professor of criminal justice), but it does discuss this from a different point of view than I've read recently. -

Quote:
...Immediately prior to the great crime decline that began in the 1990s, the vast majority of criminologists predicted a crime increase. Most experts were convinced that crime would not drop until other social maladies were cured, such as poverty and racism. Most academics scoffed at the idea that tougher penalties (such as three-strikes-and-you're-out laws) and stricter enforcement (such as zero-tolerance policies) would reduce crime.

While no one factor explains the dramatic crime decrease, it turns out that the very things scholars believed caused crime (poverty, racism, inadequate education) seem generally unrelated to crime rates, and the very things most scholars ridiculed (tougher sentencing, more effective policing) seem to be among the things that actually work to reduce crime....
And this author also agrees with your basic premise -

Quote:
When we find things that actually work, whether these solutions are liberal or conservative, we should put aside our ideological beliefs and embrace those programs.
Here's the whole article -

Strict enforcement and long prison terms

Like a lot of modern problems, this one isn't simple. But I'm pleased to read that there is any evidence that supports strict enforcement and harsh sentences are part of the solution. I was afraid the concept had gone the way of the buggy whip...
__________________

Probably not a can of worms that should be opened up at THR, but I'm going with Justinj on this one. Roe V. Wade had, from the few studies and reports I've seen addressing the subject, the most directly correlated impact on the reversing crime wave in the early 90's. This isn't necessarily causation, of course, but it is considered by many to be the most applicable. Despite Mayor Giuliani's assertion of the effectiveness of the crackdown and implementation of the broken window theory in New York, the decline in crime was metered about the same all across the nation in places with varying degrees of crime policy.

So what happened? The average child had an overall better quality of life in those formative years. Note that I'm not intending to argue for or against, and that doesn't need to happen in this thread or any other at THR, but I'm rather citing it's impact on crime 19-20 years later. Could the same end result be achievable via other means? Most probably.

So, how does that apply to other fields? Guns, for example, since this is a gun forum, after all...
It suggests that education and quality of childhood has an effect on crime in the future, which supports the OP's thesis. In guns, that means the best way to avoid gun problems is not to address the guns themselves, but the people who handle them. Teach the kids to handle and respect them responsibly, and in adult life they have the habits and mindset necessary to do the same without fear. I think we all know that rather instinctively, or we wouldn't be here, but close-held beliefs are the ones that deserve fleshing out the most.

However, I cannot claim to be supportive of such a policy for the reasons that Texan Scott provided. Would I like to see state-run programs doing similar work? Absolutely. But as long as it comes from the Feds, in as little as a generation or two it will be capitalized on by some ambitious politician and we'll end up sacrificing liberties to it. And we in the shooting community know just how dire of a situation sacrificing even a fraction of a liberty can become.

 

[Whats-his-name]

There have been some very good points made here in response to the quote given by Spotch, and I must point out that Texan Scott (tinfoil hat and all ), Hso and others have hit the nail on the head in many respects.

As I've got some time to kill, I'll give a view from another country - England (and this goes for the rest of the UK - Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland).

Here we've had social systems in place since the end of WWII. We have a health system which is free to all but ultimately paid for through a fixed wage deduction called National Insurance Contributions by those who work. Those same contributions also go to the boost that particular individual's pension. In addition, we have a welfare system where each person who lives in the UK is entitled to unemployment benefit and housing benefit (where relevant) to pay for basic living costs (e.g., food) and rent respectively (there are also other benefits). This, on the whole prevents too many people ending up on the streets. However, if you do end up on the streets you are not entitled to anything, basically because one doesn't have a fixed address and the situation for these people is the same as others all over the world! However, violent crime is just as high in the UK as in countries without a health/welfare system.

The cost of living in the UK is exceptionally high and there are a great number of poor (in the millions). Nonetheless, they don't resort to violent crime. Indeed, it has been shown that being poor or coming from a deprived background in the UK doesn't mean one is more likely to commit any crime, indeed it can be quite the opposite. We have found that crime is equally committed by the rich. One has to look at the details and individuals involved but this is a book in itself and I'll stop here on that issue.

Secondly, giving shorter sentences for criminals in general hasn't decreased crime here at all. Indeed, it's encouraged it. Many criminals now feel it is 'economically viable' to commit the crime and get caught as they now see that they can gain from it at the expense of just a few weeks in jail or some community service. Sentencing in the UK is pretty poor with regard to serious crime. If you're found in possession of a firearm [say your Grandad's Lee Enfield] it's a minimum sentence of 5 years. If you kill a family with all 3 children with your car after getting drunk, you get told off and a suspended sentence. Oddly enough, more people get drunk or drugged up and drive more than ever nowadays! Shorter sentences for violent crime has merely resulted in more rapes, murders etc. once the rapist, murderer etc. has been released!

Violent crime has increased in the UK for a number of reasons.

• 1. Over-population. There are just too many people living here. England is the third most densely populated country behind the Netherlands and Bangladesh. This has resulted in people living 'on top of one another'. It is now impossible to go anywhere without seeing another human being. This, above all, results in long-term stress and can lead to mental illness.
  
  
• 2. A huge increase in immigrants over the last decade or so, despite us being an island, and one of the problems of being part of the EU (open borders). While many are honest and hard-working there are a great number of criminals, particularly from eastern Europe. Violent murders have increased and those committing them have been to be found to be committed by people of ethnic origin (i.e., not Brits). These murders have also been particularly gruesome - beheadings, dismemberment, etc. Something very alien and disgusting to us natives. Such crimes used to be very rare and only committed by the mentally insane. Perhaps not applicable to the US.
  
  
• 3. An increase in the mentally ill. In the mid-1980's an infamous MP named Virginia Bottomley shut down all public mental hospitals here. The result was that many inmates were released onto the streets and supposedly looked after at home. Murders increased immediately after this and was proven to be attributed to former inmates (not that the government would admit to it). This so-called 'Care in the Community' has been shown to be a failure as it could not be enforced properly due to the lack of planning, money, and skilled nursing. Point 1 above adds to the mentally ill.
  
  
• 4. Frustration. Don't under-estimate this. I shan't go into details on what can cause this but we live in a somewhat repressed country here in the UK, despite it being a democracy (governments here rarely deliver what they promise and often force policies onto the populace we never wanted or even knew about). Points 1 and 2 also have an effect. Some people just 'flip-out' and go on the rampage and take it out on people who are completely innocent.
  
  
• 5. Prejudice. Comes in all forms and I exclude the usual ones.
  
  
• 6. Sadism. Some people get a sexual (or otherwise) kick out of seeing someone suffer.
  
  
• 7. Out-and-out greed and pure selfishness.

Points 1-4 can be combated to varying degrees (maybe not over-population but I think Mother Nature will deal with that soon), point 5 can be dealt by listening to those with prejudices; points 6 and 7 - just bump them off as soon as possible!.

The UK has the strictest gun control on Earth. Nonetheless, we still have violent crime.

With regard to society and gun culture. European countries have grown up with the gun primarily as a hunting tool, with self-defence and sport secondary. In the US, the gun was used a lot more, not only for hunting but also as much for self-defence because, as a new and rapidly growing country, it had growing pains. These 'rights' (or rather necessities) are burned into US society and culture. This has carried over into the 21st century making it easy to obtain firearms.

However, the ease of obtaining firearms may not be the issue. Switzerland has a semi-automatic military rifle in nearly every household. We don't see the mass murders there or other such gun-related crime. What we do see is a large number of suicides using a gun. However, this does not mean that suicides have increased as a result of the gun, it's just easier (and anyone who has a self-hatred tends to mutilate themselves and as such a bullet is much more desirable than sleeping pills).

I think we have to look at how society has evolved to figure out what's going on.

I can't comment on American society as I don't live there. The only sense we get of the US is a strongly divided country with kindness, morality, decency, and intelligence on one side and arrogance, ignorance, rudeness, aggressiveness, religious fanaticism, and stupidity on the other. These divisions, on the whole, seem to be starker than in other countries. Could it be that it's simply the latter tendencies (at least in combination) are the cause of such violent crime in the US?

Or perhaps there are other issues to face. Violent crime is committed mainly by the mentally unstable (either through drugs, stress, or other reason). How does American society contribute to the increase in mental instability? And if it does, what are the reasons and how to we combat those? Eventually, you have to keep digging deeper until you find the ultimate reason(s). Sadly too many can't be bothered to dig that deep and end up trying to cure a symptom rather than the disease that's causing it.

With regard to gun violence, we, at least in the UK (and you can read that as the rest of Europe as well), get the impression that vetting of potential gun owners in the US is extremely poor. If so, and if vetting procedures were tightened up (as it is over here, usually!) and the mentally unstable can be identified at the time of their application for a firearms license/certificate then maybe this will reduce the problem a little.

Ultimately I think one has to look at society as a whole to determine the reasons why there is such violent crime of any sort. Indeed, I think someone would do well by comparing US society with other societies around the world. It won't be easy and there won't be one single answer. Ultimately I suspect the causes will never be solved because the fundamental problem is too deep-rooted or will take generations to solve.

Sorry, really long post this one and not as erudite as other posts here.

 

[JellyJar]

First, are you talking about preventing Good gun violence, bad gun violence, or both.

One of the problems with the Gun Banners is that they equate all gun violence as bad! That is just plain wrong.

Any act of violence necessary to protect the innocent from the bad guys is good.

Lets not prevent good gun violence while trying to stop bad gun violence!

 

[spotch]

I was doing some searching and it looks like England's actually had a gradual decrease in violent crime over the past decade or so?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/violent_crime_falling_says_new.html

?

 

[Texan Scott]

Whats-his-name,
I lived in the east midlands for three years in the service... lovely place, out in the countryside. Most crime was property crime, and most violent crime was domestic or alcohol related. Now I live in a small town in rural Texas. All of the above can be said of my home here, too.... cities are their own beast in every country in the world.
Our media DOES portray American society much as you described it... in part because it's true, but in greater part because our media is largely controlled by people interested in portraying it that way (as much for commercial reasons as political- controversy sells soap and toothpaste).
Our Constitution was written by men who feared the devil out of strong government. As a result, they formed a federal democracy which originally functioned more like the EU does today... they were thirteen States, (not states as in provinces, but States) with a common currency and an arbitrating body primarily intended to standardize weights, measures, and tariffs (our Constitution is dry but interesting reading) and common recognition of agreements like estate and commerce law. All other powers not expressly given to this tiny little federal body (how far we've come!) were forbidden to it. One power EXPRESSLY forbidden to it was the power to regulate an individual State's popular ownership of firearms. States feared that a federal government with the authority to disarm their citizens would use military or police power to strip away other rights and subjegate it to 'foreigners' (people from other states). Today, virtually ALL federal power over firearms stems from the 'Commerce Clause' of our Constitution, on the rather tenuous argument that if a firearm crosses (or COULD cross) a state boundary, its traffic can be regulated under federal COMMERCE law.
As a result, we now have 50 states and more than 50 different standards of gun control (as many states allow each city to have its own addtional standards). I live in Texas, which is (you may have heard) one of the most 'free' in this regard. To obtain a gun from a licensed dealer and legally carry it on my person, I still have to pass background checks at the county, state, and federal level, pass state-mandated training in firearms use, safety, and applicable law, leave my pictures and fingerprints on file with with law enforcement (like a common criminal), and abide by any law or legally posted private requirement to not carry my gun into certain places. Other states are more restrictive. Obviously, anyone who can, and voluntarily does, pass and abide by these standards is not the sort of citizen the police ought to be worried about.
Her Majesty's Uncle Edward (before he made 'Keep Calm and Carry On' a household catch-phrase) was known for having plaintively argued that "Something must be done!". Here, today, many people are understandably afraid of and offended by horrible things they see and hear about... and they want somebody to immediately do something to make them feel better. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in a previous posting, doing something for the sake of feeling better doesn't solve the problem, which runs far too deep and is far too complex to solve quickly enough to please the people who need to feel safe now.

 

[spotch]

First, are you talking about preventing Good gun violence, bad gun violence, or both.

One of the problems with the Gun Banners is that they equate all gun violence as bad! That is just plain wrong.

Any act of violence necessary to protect the innocent from the bad guys is good.

Lets not prevent good gun violence while trying to stop bad gun violence!

I see what you're saying, but I think it's also worth nothing that *any* violence is less than ideal. If you shoot your way out of a violent encounter and manage to survive it unscathed, that's still "bad" compared to a scenario where the violent encounter never took place in the first place. I'd certainly rather use violence to protect myself than be a victim of violence, and one is way better than the other, but ideally I'd rather not be forced into a life or death situation where I *HAVE* to use violence to protect myself. Know what I mean?

 

[Texan Scott]

Whats-his-name,
Perhaps I should touch on what I said about the original concept of U.S. federal government being small and limited... in many ways, our country has 'evolved' (if I may use the word without implying that the change has always been positive?) into something our Founders did not intend. Without getting to far astray on political topics (there's an argument for and against everything), it should be pointed out by way of example:
Originally, the President was to be Commander in Chief of the armed forces ONLY when Congress called federal armed forces into service. It was intended that presidential control of the military should require a congressional declaration of war... the military was not meant to be the president's car; he was supposed to have to ask for the keys. That limitation on executive authority (as a societal safeguard) has been whittled away to virtual non-existence.
Gun control, as I said earlier, was an authority our Founders never meant for the federal bureaucracy to have; I don't think it occurred to them in their wildest dreams that the feds would one day insist that law designed to ensure fair trade would one day become a specious pretext for deciding who can and can't have what sort of firearm.
The federal government was not intended to have the authority to make education policy, or regulate alcohol sales, or legal drinking age, or any number of other things... States had the authority to decide those things for their own citizens in their own little part of the world... but if that state wants money (taxed from its own citizens) to pay for repairs to raods the feds built on state land, they'll do as they're told, or lose that block grant. Under the current president, the governor of Texas has already once refused to comply, and told the feds to keep their (insert adjective of choice) money... and it hurt.
Our Social Security program was originally promised to be a temporary burden, and our Social Security Numbers were NEVER to be used to track us for any other purpose, by law. Divulging that number is still 'voluntary', but if we don't 'volunteer' to be tracked by it, we can't receive government assistance, or our tax refund, or a bank account...
We were originally told that federal income tax (on top of) State taxes would only be demanded of the top 1% of the nation (the rich should pay their 'fair share', after all)... until it was 3%... and eventually, anyone not living in absolute poverty.
Our government is legally barred from maintaining a comprehensive database of citizens who own firearms ... we're afraid they'll eventually try to seize them (silly, right?) but a lot of people don't know that the feds can demand to see the inventory of household goods we maintain confidentially on file with our private insurance agent... and he can be arrested just for telling us that they looked.
All of this to explain to you, What's-his-name, exactly WHY so many of us fear and distrust our government, and suffer instant knee-jerk negative reactions when someone suggests giving up just a little bit more privacy... or liberty... or money... to the government. Why we keep insisting that we won't give another inch no matter HOW 'reasonable' it seems, or how nicely they ask ... 'for your own safety... think of the children'. If we seem to have a bit of a 'complex' about it, well... there's a reason.
Power corrupts... and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Texan Scott]

(sorry, Spotch... I've gone and hijacked your thread about alternative programs again)

 

[blarby]

Sadly, any new firearms legislation will not have any effect on the existing illegal firearms possessed with evil intent in America.

Gangbangers, potential murderers, sociopaths, and other undesirables will not simply relinquish their arms at the signing of a new law. Those who wish to do evil in possession of any weapon will simply find another means of acquiring it, or another weapon.

In this latest tragedy, its very obvious that should he the attacker chose to have done so, he could have carried an explosive device into the theater capable of just as much destruction as he wrought with small arms. The only reason he did not is that he himself wanted to inflict each wound, end each life....and he had some sort of theory that he could escape that situation with his own life. Very sad, but very true.

This is not a standard legal weapons owner. This is a violent sociopath.

In truth, if you wanted to make a law that would prevent this tragedy, as well as another one in nearby Columbine....all you would need to do is outlaw social deviant and castigated 14-30 year old males who were failures in academic environments.

Hows that for some targeted legislation ? Not real fun is it..............but its true.

Its not the victims' fault.

Its not the weapons fault.

Its not the theaters fault.

Its not your fault.

Its not societies fault.

Its not my fault.

The fault rests solely in the lap of that "tie-died orange haired" freak.....no one else.

Society has a habit of producing violent aberrations in even the most peaceful and harmless of environments.

We are, by nature, a predatory and violent species. One that is frequently shortsighted and self serving at the most basic primitive level. When we feel that.... that ability to sustain ourselves in this society no longer exists, that primal creature takes over- no longer salved by the constraints of a polite society to which we no longer have the ability nor desire to connect with.

This too, is sad, but true.

No amount of litigation or restriction will prevent such aberrations, nor quash their ability to inflict their wounds of self perceived vitriolic justice on the society that has wronged them.

Its almost as if its a genetic glitch.

KILL KILL KILL

We have a motto, humanity.

Death is its banner- and it always has been......always will be.

The ability to take life , and the lives of others, into our hands as a responsibility or debt as individuals is both a very constructive and powerful force at the core of humanity.

It has both a light, and dark, side.

Even the mightiest of human spirits can be reduced to our primitive selves by failure, and use the abilities within and without us to lash out .......

But in the end, those failures are our own. Not that of our brothers.

They may be effect, and direct cause. Action however, rests solely in the hands of the individual.

That is something that no law, no test, no background check, nor assay will ever be able to detect- the will of the individual.

 

[spotch]

(sorry, Spotch... I've gone and hijacked your thread about alternative programs again)

LOL! It's all good

 

[spotch]

You've lost already by allowing the debate to be framed that way. Why is "gun violence" any different than any other kind of violence? (at least it's an improvement over "gun crime", which could be as trivial as an infraction for improper storage, or in NJ possession of hollow-point pistol ammo anyplace except in your home or at a shooting range)

I think the reality is that the debate is already being framed as "gun violence" being a totally unique issue. The beauty of solutions like this is that they FORCE gun violence back into the "all violence" category, and work to reduce ALL violent crimes. The more stuff that reduces all violence is focused on, the easier it will be to have at the forefront of everyone's minds the reality that you CANT separate gun violence from other types of violence. They're all linked, and we need solutions that reduce ALL violence because simply looking at what bad people do with guns isn't the core problem, it's a symptom.

By responding to calls for gun restrictions to solve gun violence with "no, we need MORE guns!" we're simply continuing to frame the debate as a gun violence problem and actually making their arguments stronger. Yet another reason we need to look for violence reduction that doesn't just involve gun laws.

 

[9mmforMe]

What should we do?

What do you gentlemen think would be a possible direction that our society could take to lessen firearm related muders in this country?

We are all aware of the copious laws that exist which control firearms. We are also aware that there are other developed countries which do not have the problem with people using guns violently as we do, and not just the "mass" killings but the ones that happen daily.

I'm hoping that we can discuss this in a civil manner, respecting each other's views and hopefully advance some ideas that very well may work.

This post may not be considered proper for this forum, given the rules of content, but I would argue that as resposible gun owners we cannot avoid this topic nor diminish the importance a conversation such as this would have regarding how we, responsible gun owners, are viewed by the uneducated re: our hobby/lifestyle.

 

[Texan Scott]

There is nothing we can do to ELIMINATE gun violence. The British HAVE, however, found a way to drastically reduce it... their draconian gun control policies keep guns out of the hands of all but the most hardened criminals (clearly the sort of person you'd want to have them), and force common street thugs to commit all their violent crimes with knives.
Bad for knife crime stats, but for controlling gun crime, it works well (except, of course, it doesn't really).

 

[Whats-his-name]

I was doing some searching and it looks like England's actually had a gradual decrease in violent crime over the past decade or so?

Yes, reported violent crime did decline in those years. I think, from memory, violent crime has gone up in the last year or two. It should be made clear that the figures have been 'massaged'. At the time, the police along with other public bodies were forced to keep to targets, i.e., no more than so many arrests or you won't get proper funding for next year. This, of course, was all for political means (for a democracy, the then Labour government was one of the the most repressive in history!). Those bodies subjected to such 'means testing' naturally reduced the figures to below the target required to ensure funding for the next financial year. We in this country never believe ANY government statistic. The current government is no better and has yet to repeal many of the previous government's policies.

It is also well known here that unreported crime is on the increase. This is due to a mistrust of the police (there have been recent examples of the police acting 'dirty') and that some of the time, very little action or the opposite action (the victim is arrested) is taken when it is reported. This tends to put people off.

 

[Whats-his-name]

Thanks Texan...

I knew state laws were different but interesting to see that vetting is as strict or stricter than in the UK!!

However, over here it hasn't stopped the vetters from being inept (one thinks of the Dunblane massacre). Ah well.

I also entirely agree with and understand the rest of what you said.

 

[9mmforMe]

I agree, we will not ELIMINATE gun related violence unless all guns were elimated from the planet.

Do you think that violence as portrayed through various media has created the propensity for a glorification of violence and thus lends to the problem?

Or

Perhaps we don't give as much concern to our mental health system that would be able to identify potential pathology sooner and head off some of the deaths?

 

[Zundfolge]

What do you gentlemen think would be a possible direction that our society could take to lessen firearm related muders in this country?

Violent crime rates (including firearm related murders) have been falling for decades.

As with all things, get the government out of the way and the people take better care of themselves.

Remove regulations that make it harder for people to buy/carry/use guns and we'll be fine ... no, we'll be better.

No, you don't need to put road blocks in front of the law abiding to "keep guns off the streets" or "out of criminals hands". It doesn't work.


An armed society is a polite society.

 

[CookeMonster]

Inventing death rays or allowing concealed carry bombs. What I'm sarcastically saying is that guns are the popular personal weapon of the last 200 years. The answer to stopping sword violence was the introduction of the firearm. Swords were the answer to club and rock violence. Human beings can't help but war with each other. We can hope, but as long as people have hate for each other the weapon of opportunity and choice will always be to blame by those who have no will to wield one. Those like most of us here who will wield one when given no other option but to suffer at the hands of another will always argue for the weapons and the ones who won't will always argue against.

 

[SwampWolf]

What do you gentlemen think would be a possible direction that our society could take to lessen firearm related muders in this country?

I don't mean this to sound flip, but the answer is pretty clear to me: Parents need to start raising their kids right. Right, as in having a sense of morality; to know the difference between right and wrong and choosing to do the right thing. Right, in terms of taking responsibility for your own actions and not blaming others for your bad behavior when you do something wrong. Right, as in having a certain sanctity for human life and having respect for your neighbor and giving a little of yourself in the aid of others.

Most of us were raised by parents who gave us a moral compass; attended schools that reinforced moral standards without equivocalness and worshiped in churches that held us to a degree of moral rectitude. Rearing children in a society devoid of values is a recipe for the kind of wanton, heartless acts of violence and murder that have been visited on America over these past few decades.

I'm afraid America is in quite a fix: Until we fix the children, which can only happen by fixing their parents, which will only happen after we fix our society, we can expect the carnage to continue, irrespective of any new, restrictive gun laws. This is no time for putting a bandage on a malignancy. It is long past time for a call to action; a call for Americans to demand more from our families and less from our government. God help us if we fail to heed the mandate that is so clear to me: Parents need to start raising their kids right.

 

[rayatphonix]

+1 for Swampwolf. I think what many are coming to understand is that morals do make a difference. When we stop teaching how to behave in a moral fashion, society suffers. We can thank many of our politicians, lawyers and educators for promoting this mindset.