What should really be done about gun violence in the US?
- Thread starter Kynoch
- Start date
- Status
yzguy87
Member
"Legalize the constitution"
I had to chuckle when I read this. It's ironic how the law is disregarded.
I had to chuckle when I read this. It's ironic how the law is disregarded.
Curator
Member
Stop publicizing the name and "manifestos" of mass killers. Some part of these crazed killers wants to become notorious. Deny them the fame they seek and identify them only as pathetic insane monsters. Even John Wilkes Booth wanted to become the "most famous man in America" by killing Lincoln, even if he didn't survive.
The most recent psycho-killer is getting major attention in the media. The surviving "Boston Bomber" gets daily marriage proposals in jail and a movement to declare him a "political prisoner" who was framed by the government (because he is a Muslim) This kind of adulation is an incentive for equally crazy narcissists to do something even worse.
The most recent psycho-killer is getting major attention in the media. The surviving "Boston Bomber" gets daily marriage proposals in jail and a movement to declare him a "political prisoner" who was framed by the government (because he is a Muslim) This kind of adulation is an incentive for equally crazy narcissists to do something even worse.
AlexanderA
Member
The rate of criminal violence has actually been going down the last few years (probably because of demographic factors). What has been going up, however, is media attention every time a violent incident takes place. This is not by accident. The goal is to create a perception of a crisis. It's all part of a cultural campaign against guns by the "elites."
Every time something bad happens, there's an immediate knee-jerk reaction to legislate -- as if legislation can solve all problems. It can't. Guns, like a host of other things that people want to do (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, etc.), can't be legislated away.
Therefore, I would go with "none of the above" in the survey. Oh, wait... there is no such option.
Every time something bad happens, there's an immediate knee-jerk reaction to legislate -- as if legislation can solve all problems. It can't. Guns, like a host of other things that people want to do (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, etc.), can't be legislated away.
Therefore, I would go with "none of the above" in the survey. Oh, wait... there is no such option.
Joe Demko
Member
There is no answer that is so simple that you could have it as a choice in a poll. There are a lot of things that could be done. Some of them would even work. The problem is that in a nation that is in a perpetual state of war and that has an increasingly imperial government, we quite likely will never have any real national debate on the topic. There will be "solutions" imposed from above that will serve mainly to enrich and strengthen the military-industrial-narco-prison complex.
Captain33036
Member
Simple, make prison, prison. Not a frat for criminals.
First thing, solitary confinement for all inmates.
It is harder time and so shorter sentences could be possible. That would alleviate over crowding.
It could help limit the indoctrination of younger criminals into hardened, professional criminals.
They can spend the time sitting in their cells reading self help books, and thinking about how they don't want to come back.
Whatever small job they would do inside prison, they can do and get paid for upon release. That gives them income and something positive to do.
First thing, solitary confinement for all inmates.
It is harder time and so shorter sentences could be possible. That would alleviate over crowding.
It could help limit the indoctrination of younger criminals into hardened, professional criminals.
They can spend the time sitting in their cells reading self help books, and thinking about how they don't want to come back.
Whatever small job they would do inside prison, they can do and get paid for upon release. That gives them income and something positive to do.
I agree. You won't ever stop ALL crime, but the attitude you described above certainly doesn't help.
This. At the beginning of 2013, this was exactly the type of response of got from one of my state senators, who had been a prosecuting attorney for a good while.
Different types of crimes are committed by different types of people. When a repeat offender commits a crime with a gun, that's hardly newsworthy, but when some disturbed self centered individual does it, it's huge news. Two different scenarios. For the repeat offender, longer prison sentences would certainly reduce this type of crime, because they would be incarcerated. Sure, it costs money, but what doesn't? To not want to pay for prisons or whatever to keep these types of violent offenders away from society, but instead wanting to restrict the rights of the law abiding, because it's easier to do, and cheaper, is just plain ridiculous.
In the case of a disturbed individual committing violent 'spree' crimes, that requires a different solution. It seems to me that the solution is a combination of 'mental health' care, responsible parenting, and societal values. That's obviously a more difficult set of solutions to come up, but if that solution comes at the cost of sacrificing some kids rights from the age of 7 or whatever, or permanently labeling some person for having a bad day once, or making some bureaucrat in charge of looking at everyone's health records and deciding, then I'm not for that.
I think Jefferson got that right. There is no 'zero defect' world. In order to attempt to achieve that, you would have no liberty. The real societal solution has to come from us, and how we raise our families, and look out for one another if we see a problem with an individual, not shunt it off to our government.
We as individuals make up our society, not our government. Our government simply creates a (hopefully) protective shell within which we as individuals can exist in our society.
And you would still have crime. It's insulting to think that one can do away with crime, at the expense of someone's liberty. There have been individuals is the past, and even today that think they can do that if "we only did this, or only did that". That always, invariably, comes at the cost of your rights. Please stop swinging at the "good idea piñata" while infringing on people's rights.
Last edited:
Joe Demko
Member
Prison is pretty far from a "frat for criminals."
I would require an IQ test before anyone was allowed to have or raise children. If you can't meet a minimum level then you have no business raising a child or NOT raising a child (which is one of the main reasons we have these monsters today). The next thing I would do is clean up the pharmaceutical and medical "industries". They have become far too rich and powerful and have a huge influence on our Govt. while they turn LOTS of people into "zombies". I also like Kennesaw Ga.'s requirement that "everybody" has a gun. Their violent crime rate has dropped to almost zero. The crazies all left town because it was too dangerous for them to operate there. Of course none of this will happen because too many people would rather get rich than be responsible citizens.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Fix the joke we call our mental health system. Most if not all of these shooters were known to the system and nothing was done.
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
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.
Only if the laws have nothing to do with controlling citizens. That will not be the case--ObamaCare is the only example required should you need one.
The Bushmaster
Member
I agree...How about "None of the above"?
krupparms
Member
I agree with tom +1
I'd have to disagree. Keeping a guy in prison who killed his grandma with a hammer would have prevented the murder of two firefighters (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/us/new-york-firefighters-shooting/), that's not reactive.
Given the recidivism rate (http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm) for violent criminals I'd have to disagree with calling it reactive as well.
I'm going to have to go with other posters and say none of the above.
BTW, what's with this "gun violence" term? Are you using it the same way the Brady Campaign/CSGV/VPC/MAIG/etc use it; counting suicides, justified homicides in self defense, and even criminals shot by police as "gun violence"? (http://washingtonexaminer.com/bloom...thon-bombing-suspect-a-victim/article/2532142)
Last edited:
Jlr2267
Member
1. Decriminalize drug possession
2. Harsh sentences for violent crime (with no possibility of early release)
3. Only taxpayers can vote
2. Harsh sentences for violent crime (with no possibility of early release)
3. Only taxpayers can vote
How about:
Understand that living in a free society carries inherent risk. Whenever you give people freedom, and the ability to act on their thoughts, whims and desires, some percentage of the population will make poor decisions as to course of action, and some of those poor decisions will impact other people. This is unfortunate, but the draconian tyranny required to prevent it is worse.
How about:
Objectively, there has rarely been a safer time on this planet, and this country is the safest it's been in several decades. Despite the 24/7 news/scare cycle, you and your family are likely the safest you've been in your lifetime.
How about:
Violent crime stats are misleading, since averages don't reflect distribution of crime. There are clusters of really high violence - mostly inner city young men in the illicit pharmaceutical production/distribution/sales business - and there's a legitimate conversation to be had about those specific crime clusters. But if you're not in that demographic, your odds of being a victim of violent crime drop off a cliff, to the levels of Europe.
How about:
Despite the publicity, your/your family's odds of being involved in a mass killing are an exceedingly low. Basically lotto ticket low. They're statistical outliers magnified to existential threat. They're not increasing in frequency, they're not getting more violent. The only thing they're getting is more publicity. So just like people who are afraid to fly because of the well publicized but exceedingly low risk of a plane crash, it's an irrational fear. And good policy isn't based on irrational fears.
Understand that living in a free society carries inherent risk. Whenever you give people freedom, and the ability to act on their thoughts, whims and desires, some percentage of the population will make poor decisions as to course of action, and some of those poor decisions will impact other people. This is unfortunate, but the draconian tyranny required to prevent it is worse.
How about:
Objectively, there has rarely been a safer time on this planet, and this country is the safest it's been in several decades. Despite the 24/7 news/scare cycle, you and your family are likely the safest you've been in your lifetime.
How about:
Violent crime stats are misleading, since averages don't reflect distribution of crime. There are clusters of really high violence - mostly inner city young men in the illicit pharmaceutical production/distribution/sales business - and there's a legitimate conversation to be had about those specific crime clusters. But if you're not in that demographic, your odds of being a victim of violent crime drop off a cliff, to the levels of Europe.
How about:
Despite the publicity, your/your family's odds of being involved in a mass killing are an exceedingly low. Basically lotto ticket low. They're statistical outliers magnified to existential threat. They're not increasing in frequency, they're not getting more violent. The only thing they're getting is more publicity. So just like people who are afraid to fly because of the well publicized but exceedingly low risk of a plane crash, it's an irrational fear. And good policy isn't based on irrational fears.
Advanced boot camp perhaps
I'm another one for none of the above in the poll. If there were no guns in the world violent crime would still take place with a knife, club, car, bomb, whatever else someone could dream of.
Blaming the (GUN) is why we can't stop it! A gun is just a tool like a hammer or a knife. It doesn't think, act or make you do things you don't want to. Until we cross that line of understanding nothing will change. The OP just hasn't realized that yet or the title would read...
Blaming the (GUN) is why we can't stop it! A gun is just a tool like a hammer or a knife. It doesn't think, act or make you do things you don't want to. Until we cross that line of understanding nothing will change. The OP just hasn't realized that yet or the title would read...
Constrictor
Member
there was not one single option in the poll I could click. All were window dressing.
First there is no such thing as gun violence, guns are tools that aren't capable of
doing anything but lay where we last laid them.
The problem is violence period. The breakdown of family and values by the left,
the left refusing to enforce the laws they create, near zero prosecutions of
criminals caught trying to buy guns, the DOJ actually handing out the guns used
in some murders. When one things like the op and limits options to infringing on
the law abiding, we are not serious about the violence problem.
First there is no such thing as gun violence, guns are tools that aren't capable of
doing anything but lay where we last laid them.
The problem is violence period. The breakdown of family and values by the left,
the left refusing to enforce the laws they create, near zero prosecutions of
criminals caught trying to buy guns, the DOJ actually handing out the guns used
in some murders. When one things like the op and limits options to infringing on
the law abiding, we are not serious about the violence problem.
dmancornell
Member
End the drug war.
fastbolt
Member
Another "none of the above" non-vote.
Trying to frame this question within the limited context of only one method used by people to express violence and perform violent acts - firearms - means ignoring the same violence expressed using knives, bludgeons, bodily weapons (hands/feet) and motor vehicles (road rage).
If you only try to frame the question within a narrow perspective, such as the methods used, you may fail to consider the actual causes.
Yes, the mental health issue is going to receive increasing attention, as well it should. The young man involved in the SB crimes used 3 different methods to kill & injure people. The spokesperson for the family has stated, according to the press, "... disclosed their son was under the care of therapists." http://www.mercurynews.com/immigrat...l-stabbing-victims-santa-barbara-rampage-grew
I've no doubt people are going to be asking what the therapists knew, when they knew it, what was being done with that knowledge, and what (if anything) ought to have been done with that knowledge within the law that may not have been done.
There aren't any simple answers to societal and culture questions, but that won't stop people from blaming everything from guns to video games. (I listened to at least one expert describing how some of the violent acts attributed to the young man in SB were seemingly mirroring what was done in a video game.)
Trying to frame this question within the limited context of only one method used by people to express violence and perform violent acts - firearms - means ignoring the same violence expressed using knives, bludgeons, bodily weapons (hands/feet) and motor vehicles (road rage).
If you only try to frame the question within a narrow perspective, such as the methods used, you may fail to consider the actual causes.
Yes, the mental health issue is going to receive increasing attention, as well it should. The young man involved in the SB crimes used 3 different methods to kill & injure people. The spokesperson for the family has stated, according to the press, "... disclosed their son was under the care of therapists." http://www.mercurynews.com/immigrat...l-stabbing-victims-santa-barbara-rampage-grew
I've no doubt people are going to be asking what the therapists knew, when they knew it, what was being done with that knowledge, and what (if anything) ought to have been done with that knowledge within the law that may not have been done.
There aren't any simple answers to societal and culture questions, but that won't stop people from blaming everything from guns to video games. (I listened to at least one expert describing how some of the violent acts attributed to the young man in SB were seemingly mirroring what was done in a video game.)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked