That’s what I was going to say as well.
1 Like
So back to the 400 million guns. How do we convince the 100+ million owners to surrender them?
1 Like
So in our current situation police militarization is necessary?
But only if your suicidal, abusive, in a gang, or not following proper safety instructions/recommendations.
1 Like
It is a tired argument that gun laws rarely disarm criminals, but there is some truth to it. guns are not all that hard to manufacture or smuggle. And there is also the point that there are plenty of places where everyone has lots of guns, but rarely any violence, gun or otherwise. Guns certainly make any place where people do not respect the law or each other more dangerous, but hyper focusing on the gun as the primary problem is probably not really going to make those places any safer.
1 Like
You could start by making the social changes that would mean that people would no longer need to fear home invasion robbery, gang violence, or terrorism. Of course, once you have done that, you have pretty much eliminated the problem without having to attempt to do door to door searches for guns in places where there is no gun violence anyway. I am writing this from my wife’s hometown in West Texas, USA. Everyone here has lots of guns, and quite a few are carrying pistols, but primarily for the rattle snakes. But there is no gun violence here at all. You might want to disarm all these people, but they are not causing anyone any problems. So why do you want to disarm them?
5 Likes
You KNOW that no one in your house is suicidal? 2/3rds of gun deaths in the US are suicides. Often, the only way anyone knows that someone in their house is suicidal, is when when they actually make an attempt to take their own life. With most forms of suicides, such as a pill overdose, there is a chance to save the victim if discovered early enough. But when a gun is involved, their first attempt is often the last thing they ever do.
15 Likes
Finally, a sensible solution that anybody can implement. If they’re Tony Stark.
Or if they can cobble together a pair of servos. Some even wrote aiming software, often based on OpenCV.
Well, there’s some prototypes already out in the wild at least…
1 Like
From time to time… we all get sad…
(also statistically more likely)
Do gun owners typical subscribe to ‘padlock monthly’ and ‘now not to escalate a robbery into murder when somebody’s drunk and knocking on the wrong door or just trying to steal your TV?’
5 Likes
i can definitely see that a “one size fits all” gun regulation may not work, and may not be needed. right now, we have a “one size fits none” no regulation, which isn’t working. something needs to change.
one problem i see come up again and again is the concept of “good” vs “bad”.
first, it partly mistakes the problem. guns don’t care about about good or bad. epidemiologically speaking: where there are more people with guns, there seem to be more deaths.
second, people are only criminals after they have broken the law. if we had pre-crime, and sorted out all the “bad people” ahead of time we’d be safer. but, you can’t. some of those idiots with a gun, or a bad people with a gun were previously responsible gun owners.
guns raise the stakes of violence. they are not neutral tools.
10 Likes
This has been a good debate, alas I have to go to work tomorrow and will not be back before the debate closes. I wan’t to thank everyone for being civil, its great that we can all discuss our opinions on what is a very serious topic without being dicks.
As a gun owner with a permit to carry concealed I feel that it is my right to have and carry weapons. Those who feel differently I appreciate you, and feel you make some valid points that I will have to explore.
Once again Thanks for the fine debate, Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night…
7 Likes
2 Likes
In general practice, I tend to agree, but I do think there’s a certain point where armed protest becomes a worthwhile option. Specifically, when the police brutally assault peaceful protesters and the general population remains complacent. After Kent State, the entire country demanded change. If that happened today, it would barely rate 45 seconds before the traffic report.
When the police can shoot people with impunity, and nobody holds them accountable even when they’re on video, it’s time to bear arms.
Right now, the riot cop facing down a crowd of Occupy or BLM protesters knows that if he shoots one, or fires a round of tear gas into them, he’s going to sleep in his own bed that night, and his victim will end up charged with assault. If he gets the distinct impression that doing so will result in an absolute bloodbath where he himself has a good chance of going home in a box, then maybe, just maybe he’s going to put a little more thought into whether he really wants to pull that trigger.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Personally, I’d really, really rather settle things peacefully- But there’s a certain point where you have to say “enough”, and actually be willing to do whatever is necessary. I’m not entirely sure we’re there yet, but I get the impression it’s getting closer.
1 Like
Exactly. Focus on the social safety net, education, and empowering people to have control over their own lives, a voice in their government, and meaningful ways to improve their quality of life.
People who feel stable and in control of their lives aren’t going to feel the need to carry a gun with them everywhere they go. Happy, healthy people with fulfilling lives generally don’t go on shooting sprees.
Our gun “problem” is really just a symptom of larger problems. Once you’ve eliminated the angry, frustrated, desperate people with nothing left to lose, the gun violence will largely just fade away.
3 Likes
I think that tells you about the kind of change we got out of the events of Kent State… and of course, it took the shooting of white students to provoke any kind of reaction at all.
While I tend to agree with the severity of the problem, what precisely is being armed going to fix when the police have military grade weapons. It will be Ruby Ridge and Waco over and again.
2 Likes
You’re sticking words in Brainspore’s mouth; saying arming everyone will militarize the police more because they’ll be convinced everyone’s a potential shooter is not at all implying approval of militarized police forces, quite the opposite in fact.
2 Likes
Because right now, there is zero risk to the police. They are well enough armed and armored that protesters don’t pose a physical risk. They’re insulated enough that there’s no risk of prosecution, or even of losing their job. The media is complacent enough that there’s no risk of public fallout.
But if there’s a real chance that they could be shot and killed, that changes. If there’s a chance one of their fellow officers, or an innocent bystander- especially a VIP- could be killed in the crossfire, that changes things. An event like Waco or Ruby Ridge even more so- That creates fallout for YEARS. In a situation like that, the media is transfixed, the public is demanding answers, and every official up the food chain is looking to save face by making an example of someone.
Our officer now has a vested interest in finding a peaceful solution, where he didn’t before. Knowing what kind of consequences are likely, he’s going to be more reluctant to fire that first shot- And also more likely to try to talk the other guy out of doing it as well.
As previously stated- In a civilized society, the mere appearance of impropriety should be incentive enough to not abuse one’s power. The further we slip from civilized, however, the more drastic the consequences need to be before they’re taken seriously. Personally, I would much prefer to become more civilized instead, but the world, regrettably, still doesn’t accept me as emperor… despite my letters to the editor.
2 Likes
I think the issue is the imagination of the people who think the “good guy with a gun” is the problem. You can find a handful of questionable cases where it has been an issue. You can find even more when it has actually stopped or prevented a crime (though there is no hard numbers really on that, I see a lot more stories of crimes stopped by a citizen vs citizens screwing up trying to stop a crime.)
But what we do have hard numbers on is gun deaths and the stereotype portrayed in the comic isn’t the one killing other people with guns. So it is a red herring, more or less. Just like gay marriage is supposed to open the door to marrying your dog or some silliness.
3 Likes
