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.