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

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

  • A much stronger focus and commitment ($$$) in dealing with mental health.

    Votes: 116 39.2%
  • Much harsher and swifter punishment for the convicted.

    Votes: 114 38.5%
  • Increased licensing for carrying of concealed weapons by the law-abiding.

    Votes: 23 7.8%
  • Limits on violence in TV, motion picture and computer gaming.

    Votes: 14 4.7%
  • Holding parents responsible for the actions of their minor children.

    Votes: 14 4.7%
  • Additional gun control laws.

    Votes: 5 1.7%
  • US Senate hearings on gun-related violence.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • An IRS investigation into the NRA.

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • President Obama naming a "Gun Control Czar."

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Increased federal support and funding for anti-gun organizations.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Higher federal taxes on firearms and/or ammo.

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • Increased use of inflammatory terms like "assault weapons."

    Votes: 2 0.7%
  • Update the label "gun control" with "gun safety."

    Votes: 4 1.4%

  • Total voters
    296
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
The hard truth is that life is full of risks, many of which cannot be minimized beyond a certain point. A small percentage of airline flights crash, but that doesn't mean that we stop flying, or that we ban airlines. Likewise, there's a tiny incidence of mass shooting incidents. Should we (try to) ban guns because of that? No, because that's not rational in terms of cost vs. benefit.

The anti-gunners seem to think that they can create an air-tight system, in which there are no risks connected with guns. (Essentially, because there are no guns.) This is completely foolish utopian thinking. We have already passed the point of diminishing returns when it comes to gun regulations.
 
why didn't you have the option to enforce the existing laws we have? biden has said we don't have the time or money to do so. that's the best place to start.
 
As a mental health professional, I'm highly skeptical of the leading answer in this poll. No, none of the others are better; however, I don't think throwing money at increasing mental health services will accomplish much, if anything.
You're right. First of all, how do you identify those who need help but don't ask for it?

Secondly, when you find someone who someone thinks needs help, what do you do with them? Do you automatically deprive them of their rights? Do you lock them up?

If we look at the problem logically, this kind of violence is rare -- in a nation of over three hundred million, a few incidents a year is hardly a crisis. It SEEMS like an epidemic because the media MAKE it look that way.

The best way to deal with the problem is to be prepared to defend yourself.
 
The best way to deal with the problem is to be prepared to defend yourself

And I once had a mental health professional tell me that the desire to own a gun for self defense is possibly narcissistic because such an irrational need for self-defense suggests an exaggerated sense of self worth. :rolleyes:
__________________
 
Most spree killers end up dead the day of their spree. I picked concentrating on mental health but I don't think any of the choices are great. Who decides what is too crazy to own a gun? If you have a good reason to think a person is too crazy we already have laws to deal with that. I don't know how you predict who the killers will be. I think the media should stop publicizing the killers to be honest. I think they want to be famous even for a few minutes and even if it means death to themselves and others. Take the fame away and I'd bet a lot of the killings would go away. Yeah report them but don't make it a national crusade every time one happens. That reminds me of the way the crazy Muslims make heroes of suicide bombers. Stop making them out to be anything but cruds.
 
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.

Pure bunkum. While one or two were added for laughs (ex. "gun czar") some (ex. "mental health") are exceedingly important. Perhaps not THE most important, but extremely important nevertheless.

Postings like yours make one roll their eyes and wonder just how stultified they make the pro-2A camp appears. In sum, comments like you're do harm to gun rights.
 
I don't think mental health is the problem.

Sure, it is a huge factor in these headline grabbing mass shootings, but they are but a small percentage of actual gun crime in the U.S.

Most crime occurs in inner cities, due to worthless parents, poverty, and lack of quality education. The environment there just encourages a continuing circle of the same that is hard to escape when it's all you've ever known. These are the issues that need tackled, but most people you see crying on t.v. after a recent shooting only give a damn when middle class folks like themselves are gunned down.

And for what it's worth, I believe the recent call by gun owners for more focus to be put on mental health issues will only hurt us in the long run. It could one day easily be abused to take the right to keep and bare arms from normal, non violent individuals after some doctor or government official checks a box saying they have some terrible mental illness.

I think it's more of a desire by gun owners to get the heat off of firearms and onto another issue, which won't work anyways and, as said, may hurt us later.

*I don't make light of mental health problems, but they aren't the major issue when it comes to violence.
 
Last edited:
Pure bunkum. While one or two were added for laughs (ex. "gun czar") some (ex. "mental health") are exceedingly important. Perhaps not THE most important, but extremely important nevertheless.

no-more-error-reference-source-not-found-x.png


An opinion without any sort of facts to back it up is just that, an opinion.

Postings like yours make one roll their eyes and wonder just how stultified they make the pro-2A camp appears. In sum, comments like you're do harm to gun rights.

Right ... because your opinion is more valid than any other random opinion :rolleyes:
 
Guns are not the problem....

To me, guns & gun ownership by lawful, stable citizens are not the problem.
The main problem(s) are flaws/issues with the medical community & mental health resources.
The recent SoCal/Santa Barbra event is a good example. The young man purchased the semi-auto pistols legally. :uhoh:
He also reportedly had a field interview/contact with local LE & the officers stated he was "polite & showed no signs of irrational behavior".
IMO, from the posted videos & web content, the subject seemed like a spoiled, narsastic jerk. :mad:
His rants & delusions showed that he serious problems.
The bigger problem is the enforcement & medical assessment of unstable behavior.
Police officers do need better training but I don't see them turning into Dr Phil McGraw or Dr Drew Pensky. :rolleyes:
EDPs(emotional disturbed persons) create a major problem for LE & local level governments. They can't throw everyone in jail or involuntary commit every subject.
I, for one, wouldn't want my freedom or civil rights to be dependent on the whims or acts of a patrol officer or sheriff's deputy. :mad:
More $ does need to spent on mental health & prevention so professionals(not cops or social workers) can ID & treat EDPs.
Rusty
 
More public awareness on the dangers of SSRI antidepressant medications. That's something almost all of these mass shootings have in common and the big difference between now and a few decades ago being the popularity of these drugs.
 
Kynoch said:
In sum, comments like you're do harm to gun rights.

Sure, sure, and your approach, of posting a "survey" which lists a range of mostly actively counterproductive options (with a few donothings sprinkled through) and then telling people who dismiss them all and propose positive alternatives that their posts are "RUBBISH" is helping gun rights. Riight.

No, when you propose only bad actions you are not the friend of gun rights, and when your bad proposals are dismissed, the dismissors are not harming gun rights.

Let's deal with this in depth.

A much stronger focus and commitment ($$$) in dealing with mental health.

While there are serious issues with how mental health is treated in the US, the problems are not of focus, commitment, or money. Further, any attempt to improve mental health care that is framed in a "gun violence" context is likely to be bad both from a health care and gun rights perspective. Example: there are laws being proposed today that, while putatively to reduce violence by the mentally ill, will in fact have the primary effect of reducing treatment of mental illness. Not by reducing funding, but by driving people away from treatment by stripping the civil rights of patients (e.g. confiscating firearms).

Much harsher and swifter punishment for the convicted.

This has almost zero impact on gun violence. Over 80% of crimes are one-time events that will never be repeated even if left unpunished. Punishment has little or no demonstrated impact on recidivism (beating people harder doen't change their minds, go figure). The only reduction in crime would come from incapacitation (removing people from situations where they can commit crimes) ... BUT ... the social costs of imprisoning large percentages of the population include violence. Which means when you incapacitate dad because he fired a warning shot at a mugger (a textbook example of gun violence crime) by swiftly and harshly imprisoning him until he is too old to physically hold a gun, you make it more likely that dad's children will be pushed downward socioeconomicly and be more likely to be involved in violence.

Increased licensing for carrying of concealed weapons by the law-abiding.

Creating licenses for the people who are not committing crime will not reduce crime. What is needed is to eliminate licensing of carrying of concealed weapons. Not eliminate the carry, but the license.

Limits on violence in TV, motion picture and computer gaming.

Have been repeatedly been shown to do nothing, or even produce harmful results. It is consistent with current scientific research to say that the overall reduction in violence in the US over the past 30+ years is in part a result of simulated violence in computer gaming providing an alternative (harmless) means of releasing violent feelings.

Saying something is so bad you can't even talk about it or show it usually increases allure.

Holding parents responsible for the actions of their minor children.

1) They already have criminal liability.
2) "Gun Violence" from minor children falls into two categories: 1) one-time events which are usually ignorance being miscategorized as violence (e.g. a kid who has no firearms training pointing a gun at a friend's head and pulling the trigger) ,or 2) the results of a lack of parenting, in which case holding uninvolved people responsible will have no impact and may be contrary to justice (do you really think it is just to send the divorced mom who lost custody of her child in the divorce to jail because her daughter, never having held a gun before, fires it and kills her best friend? that's your proposal.)

This will not reduce gun violence.

Additional gun control laws.

Have been demonstrated by repeated studies to have either zero, or a harmful, effect on violence. Violence went up after GCA '68, it went up after the Brady bill. It went up after the AWB. It has gone down since the AWB sunsetted.

US Senate hearings on gun-related violence.

Will do absolutely nothing.

An IRS investigation into the NRA.

Would arguably be an example of gun violence since IRS "investigators" today have guns. It would not reduce gun violence.

President Obama naming a "Gun Control Czar."

Yeah, look how well the drug control czar idea has worked out. Prohibition is a failure. It is a failure whether the prohibited item is a tasty beverage or an accurate handgun. Adding a "czar" is just an admission that a policy isn't working and you don't know how to admit you were wrong.

Increased federal support and funding for anti-gun organizations.

Again, see the War on Drugs. The only result is to increase the black market value and protect the profits of criminals.

Higher federal taxes on firearms and/or ammo.

Modest changes will have zero impact. Extreme changes will create a black market (see cigarettes, where jurisdictions that raised cigarette taxes now have to deal with smugglers bringing in untaxed cigarettes) and cause a net increase in violence.

Increased use of inflammatory terms like "assault weapons."

Will have no, or very possibly a harmful, effect. Marketing terms like " Assault Weapon" can lead to fixation by people with preexisting mental health issues.


Update the label "gun control" with "gun safety."

Is only an attempt to rebrand after "gun control" has been shown to be a failure.

So...those were the options you gave. Every one of them was awful. Many people have pointed out they were awful. Some (like me) have even pointed out real-world and practical things that could be done instead that world not be awful. Yet you are going to try to claim that your survey contained reasonable options and anyone who dismisses them all is, doing "harm to gun rights"?

Nope. Your acting as though a bunch of bad choices are actually reasonable is doing harm, pointing out how bad they are is trying to limit the harm you're doing.
 
Last edited:
And I once had a mental health professional tell me that the desire to own a gun for self defense is possibly narcissistic because such an irrational need for self-defense suggests an exaggerated sense of self worth
Did you ask him if he has smoke detectors in his house? Does he wear a seat belt in the car? Does he have flotation devices in his boat?
 
I vote nothing. Nothing needs to be done.

The spree killers that take up so much of the news hole cannot be reliably stopped by any of the common proposals, almost all of which involve infringements upon the freedom of very large numbers of people in a probably vain attempt to catch an infinitisimally small number of people.
 
I think the way young boys are raised in today's world plays a major role in this discussion. 50 years ago boys were raised to be men. They were taught hard work, respect, self reliance, accountability and that actions have consequences. Boys were given responsibilities at an early age and we're expected to handle them like a man would. This included proper use of firearms. It seems now that boys are coddled, are increasingly told typical boy behavior is wrong and are allowed to live in the fantasy of video games. Once these boys reach manhood, they are completely lost and void of any sense of purpose and reality.

The best approach to solving this problem is to look to how our grandparent and great grandparents raised their children and strive to emulate it.

This problem is a cultural one (and no, not the gun culture). And until we recognize that and do something about it things like this will continue to happen.

My two cents.
 
Putting "mental health" restrictions on gun ownership could lead one day to the nightmare scenario, which is that the mental health professionals could decide that the mere desire to own a gun is evidence of mental illness. So, if you want a gun, you can't have one because you're mentally unstable. That's the mother of all Catch-22's!

The demonization of guns by the "news" media and the antigun activists is clearly leading us in this direction. Yet, at the same time, movies and television glorify guns and violence. Some of the Hollywood glitterati fall into both of these camps! That, my friends, is true schizophrenia.
 
And I once had a mental health professional tell me that the desire to own a gun for self defense is possibly narcissistic because such an irrational need for self-defense suggests an exaggerated sense of self worth

Did you ask him if he has smoke detectors in his house? Does he wear a seat belt in the car? Does he have flotation devices in his boat?

If I had, he probably would have said that since those are all required by law, not doing those things might indicate of an anti-social personality or something similar. :uhoh:

He suffered from severe cognitive disconnect (my "diagnosis") but (IMO) that is not uncommon in what is at best a "fuzzy science". No one really knows how the brain works because no one knows why the brain works. And it raises the question, what qualifies one human brain to analyze another human brain and not the reverse? Perhaps believing oneself to be so qualified is itself somewhat narcissistic. :scrutiny:
 
Kynoch said:
What should really be done about gun violence in the US?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What should really be done about baseball bat violence in the US?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What should really be done about open hand violence in the US?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What should really be done about Tire Iron violence in the US?

See where I'm going with this?
 
Putting "mental health" restrictions on gun ownership could lead one day to the nightmare scenario, which is that the mental health professionals could decide that the mere desire to own a gun is evidence of mental illness. So, if you want a gun, you can't have one because you're mentally unstable. That's the mother of all Catch-22's!

Funny you should mention Catch-22; wasn't that novel exactly about an oppressive mental health apparatus? That you either undertake the insane, suicidal missions dreamed up by your commanders, or face court marshal/confinement/execution under "battle fatigue" or treason charges if you resist out of rational self-interest?

Catch 22 said:
Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to.
You can be trusted with a gun if you don't think you need one, but if you think you need one you're too paranoid to be trusted

Catch 22 said:
"The enemy," retorted Yossarian with weighted precision, "is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on, and that includes Colonel Cathcart. And don't you forget that, because the longer you remember it, the longer you might live."
The enemy is anyone who want to take our rights away without our consent or appropriately-constrained due process. "Due process" is not good enough itself; the horrors of Kafka's The Trial were "due process" taken to the extreme, but they were not grounded or bound by real law, and were therefore unjust.

TCB
 
I think the way young boys are raised in today's world plays a major role in this discussion.
I'm sure it is mostly manifested in their ignorance of anything firearm-safety related, at least as far as the subject matter of this forum is concerned. Even boys like me, brought up in a starkly anti environment at school and home-life ambivalent on the issue, go out and buy a gun as soon as they are able because they're cool and were fun in Scouts that one time; we just have no clue what we're doing when we walk out of the store with it, is all.

I personally think the self-censorship being taught is far more insidious than outright demonization of guns/gun owners, since the latter can at least be refuted. How the heck do you engage a little kid who's been convinced guns are racist? Yes, this is a real thing, now :rolleyes:. Not sure if this fits the subject of the forum, so...whatever.

'Nuther good one:
Catch 22 said:
You know, that might be the answer - to act boastfully about something we ought to be ashamed of. That's a trick that never seems to fail.
Now who's boasting about having all the answers after these things, again?

TCB
 
According to FBI statistics, the mentally ill are 10X more likely to be VICTIMS of violence then to perpetrate violence. Since when do we deprive people of their rights because of what someone thinks they "might" do? The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. The second best predictor is what a person SAYS they will do. The mentally ill are not the problem albeit someone who commits a violent crime could be deemed mentally ill. The world is a dangerous place. Arm yourself and be more proactive! That is all. Carry on...
 
You're spot on. Dictators have used "mental health" as an excuse to lock up their political opponents and dissidents for a century or more. We don't need to start that in this country.
 
I honestly do wonder if, bear with me for a moment, we did not lock up crazies based on suspicions, just how much the violence stemming from their illness would pick up. The dangerously mentally ill are a small fraction of the populace, and even smaller subset which actually ends up harming others.

Don't mistake me, I'm not advocating we withdraw treatment; I just wonder if removing the coercive nature of mental health care in cases where the patient has even a modicum of human rationality wouldn't encourage more to seek help when they feel the need. Let's not forget Newtown was a direct response from a troubled man who realized he was about to be locked away against his will for a long time.

Put it this way; if you were offered a free psych evaluation, would you take them up on it? You'd be a fool, because you could only stand to lose by such a proposition.

TCB
 
People using guns to commit crimes are criminals. According to the civilian disarmament folks the best way to prevent criminal violence is to ban law-abiding citizens from possessing guns. Makes sense, but only if you are insane. Because they are insane, these folks cannot answer "No" to Q 11(f) on Form 4473 and therefore cannot legally have a firearm transferred to them.
No wonder they want to take our guns away!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top