Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

Stargazer43
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,681

21 Jul 2018, 7:58 am

I see people arguing left and right over gun control, with one side saying it's completely ineffective, and the other side saying it's the only way to reduce gun violence. My thought is: why not come together, run a "trial" to figure out what works and what doesn't, and give everyone what they want in the end?

My thought is this: pass a bill that enacts fairly strict gun control laws, with the stipulation that the laws will only remain in place IF the rate of homicides and mass shootings declines by "X" percent over a 3-5 year period. If those rates do not decline by the target value, then not only will those gun control laws be reversed, but a significant portion of pre-existing gun control laws could be removed also. The opposite strategy could get to the same place as well: remove the majority of gun control regulations, and if the homicide/mass shooting rates do not go down, then enact very strict gun control laws after a 3-5 year period.

If you truly believe that your stance is right and the other side's is wrong, then this is strategy has a 100% success rate: either your plan gets put in place first, is proven successful, and stays in place, or the opposite plan is put in place, is proven to fail, and your ideas are put in place permanently in the end. It seems like a win-win for everyone to me, and would actually have some science and data to back up the final regulations. Trials like this could work for tons of other areas, but this one just came to my mind first. The hardest part would be figuring out and agreeing upon a test duration and metrics for success, but no one said governing a country was easy: you've gotta earn your keep somehow!

What are your thoughts?



Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,288

21 Jul 2018, 8:47 am

Why would you need to "reinvent the wheel"? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, has for a long time, and is one of the most homicidal cities in the U.S.

I think a real solution for reducing gun violence would be very simple using the judicial and penal systems already in place:

If a person uses a gun to commit a violent crime against someone else.....automatic life in prison with no chance of parole. Why would that be wrong?


_________________
"There is no love of living without despair of life." - Albert Camus

"Ain't nothing but a stranger in this world
I'm nothing but a stranger in this world" -Van Morrison

AQ-43 (32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism).
EQ-14 out of 80
Rdos: Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 173 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 39 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Arganger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2018
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,697
Location: Colorado

21 Jul 2018, 8:54 am

I actually think that is brilliant.

With one problem however, For many it isn't a matter of gun control being ineffective, but also freedoms being more important than public safety.

Though I hold the opinion of freedom being more important, I would agree to it under the condition that other weapons, swords, knifes, bow & arrow, etc are not effected.


_________________
Diagnosed autistic level 2, ODD, anxiety, dyspraxic, essential tremors, depression (Doubted), CAPD, hyper mobility syndrome
Suspected; PTSD (Treated, as my counselor did notice), possible PCOS, PMDD, Learning disabilities (Sure of it, unknown what they are), possibly something wrong with immune system (Sick about as much as I'm not) Possible EDS- hyper mobility type (Will be getting tested, suggested by doctor) dysautonomia


Arganger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Apr 2018
Age: 18
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,697
Location: Colorado

21 Jul 2018, 9:01 am

Magna wrote:
Why would you need to "reinvent the wheel"? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, has for a long time, and is one of the most homicidal cities in the U.S.

I think a real solution for reducing gun violence would be very simple using the judicial and penal systems already in place:

If a person uses a gun to commit a violent crime against someone else.....automatic life in prison with no chance of parole. Why would that be wrong?


For many reasons; america's prison system is already to harsh, it assumes that the crime is worse purely on the basis of the weapon, the goal of a prison should be eventual rehabilitation, and this persons idea would address gun control in a single swoop.


_________________
Diagnosed autistic level 2, ODD, anxiety, dyspraxic, essential tremors, depression (Doubted), CAPD, hyper mobility syndrome
Suspected; PTSD (Treated, as my counselor did notice), possible PCOS, PMDD, Learning disabilities (Sure of it, unknown what they are), possibly something wrong with immune system (Sick about as much as I'm not) Possible EDS- hyper mobility type (Will be getting tested, suggested by doctor) dysautonomia


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,288

21 Jul 2018, 9:16 am

I would be for the seizure of weapons from law abiding citizens (criminals will still use them against law abiding citizens) but only if first alcohol was outlawed. It's a fact that more people are killed each year by drunk drivers and other alcohol related deaths than by firearms.

Alcohol and guns are equivalent in that with both the vast majority of law abiding citizens don't hurt people using them. The biggest difference is that alcohol is responsible for far more deaths each year than guns.

It makes NO sense to outlaw guns before outlawing alcohol, no? I'm serious and I wonder if anyone will answer or will ignore that question.


_________________
"There is no love of living without despair of life." - Albert Camus

"Ain't nothing but a stranger in this world
I'm nothing but a stranger in this world" -Van Morrison

AQ-43 (32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism).
EQ-14 out of 80
Rdos: Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 173 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 39 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,288

21 Jul 2018, 9:51 am

Chicago.


_________________
"There is no love of living without despair of life." - Albert Camus

"Ain't nothing but a stranger in this world
I'm nothing but a stranger in this world" -Van Morrison

AQ-43 (32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism).
EQ-14 out of 80
Rdos: Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 173 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 39 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


Stargazer43
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,681

21 Jul 2018, 10:02 am

Magna wrote:
Why would you need to "reinvent the wheel"? Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, has for a long time, and is one of the most homicidal cities in the U.S.

I think a real solution for reducing gun violence would be very simple using the judicial and penal systems already in place:

If a person uses a gun to commit a violent crime against someone else.....automatic life in prison with no chance of parole. Why would that be wrong?


http://www.politifact.com/illinois/stat ... ull-holes/



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,648
Location: Stendec

21 Jul 2018, 11:37 am

Why not a "Gun Control Trial Period"?

It'll never happen.

Blame the "Gun Nuts", who share most, if not all, of the following traits:

1. They are fanatical about guns and gun rights.
2. They see guns as their security blanket, objects of worship, and the solution to every problem.
3. They want to abolish gun laws.
4. They imagine themselves as being under attack when there is no actual threat.
5. They allow themselves to be easily manipulated by cynical political groups like the NRA.
6. They hoard guns and ammo.
7. They cheer when there are increases in gun and ammo sales.
8. They cheer when there are increases applications for gun carry permits, concealed or otherwise.
9. They want to take pictures of their infants holding guns.
10. They let their 7 year old kids play with automatic weapons at gunshows.
11. They are incapable of thinking rationally about the balance society needs to maintain between rights and crime given that guns are deadly weapons.
12. If there's an gun incident, they will reflexively side with the poor innocent gun owner regardless of whether or not they are aware of the facts.
13. They endorse any political candidates who allow themselves to be photographed holding guns.
14. They seem to believe that the Second Amendment says, "The right to keep and bear artillery shall not be abridged..."


_________________
You don't have to be popular to be a good person, but...
You almost always have to be a good person to be popular!


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,665
Location: US

21 Jul 2018, 1:07 pm

They didn’t this in 1994-2004 and found gun control had no effect at all on crime, mass shootings,mor murders, and so it was not renewed. Most politicians will tell you the gun control they’re pushing won’t do anything. So ask yourself why are they pushing it if it won’t help? If a politician was pushing a ban on blacks in cities to reduce crime but admitted that such a ban wouldn’t reduce crime at all,need logically realize they’re just racist. Gun control politicians have an agenda that’s to control us not to protect us. It’s not limited just to guns, they want to control what we drink, eat, wear, products we use, movies or games we watch or play, books we read, etc. they aren’t Kings and Queens this isn’t the 12th century and we aren’t peasants.

Would you be ok banning abortions, gay marriages etc to appease bigots and see if their claims work out? Let’s ban gays for 3 years and see if marriage rates go up like bigots claim, um NO! Gun ownership is a civil right as much as gay marriage is. You’re suggesting removing our rights and taking people’s property and then you expect they’re just give it all back after when it fails? Have they removed gun control ? No they just push for more when the last one fails. Background checks wasn’t the fix all solution they claimed and has no effect, oh well let’s ban simi auto guns, oh no people use shotguns and revolvers to kill, let’s ban those, oh no people use single shot guns to kill, guess we got to ban thos, all guns are banned but people are still killed by guns what then? Well up wants to ban knives, and when that doesn’t work? Are we eventually just going cut everyone’s hands off?
Evil exist, it will always exist, you can only combat it you can’t take away items and think that’ll stop evil. Guns are banned in France yet they got full auto aks, they used a truck, they got bombs.

Luckily in this nation we have rights and can defend ourselves from evil yet your side wants to make us into peasants again. The people who fought for Riggs, liberty and freedom from such ideas would be sick.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,665
Location: US

21 Jul 2018, 1:18 pm

Magna wrote:
I would be for the seizure of weapons from law abiding citizens (criminals will still use them against law abiding citizens) but only if first alcohol was outlawed. It's a fact that more people are killed each year by drunk drivers and other alcohol related deaths than by firearms.

Alcohol and guns are equivalent in that with both the vast majority of law abiding citizens don't hurt people using them. The biggest difference is that alcohol is responsible for far more deaths each year than guns.

It makes NO sense to outlaw guns before outlawing alcohol, no? I'm serious and I wonder if anyone will answer or will ignore that question.


Cars kill more people too, but you won’t see bans on sports cars and cars that go over 45 mph. People value their speeding and getting places faster over lives(is how gun control people would phrase it) people get into wrecks and kill others just to be home few seconds sooner. Everyone goes 20 mph or more over the speed limit on highways.
But we don’t address cars like they want to address guns, and cars aren’t a right.
In the 80s they did govern car speed and no car could go faster then 88 mph but it was gone people didn’t like it anymore then ban on alcohol or the ban on weed. When they threaten to ban ar15 and simi auto guns, non gun owning regular people ran out and bought them, simple cause they didn’t want to be told what they can and can’t own. Most probably collect dust in a closet, few of those people started shooting and getting into guns. When they ban fast food, soda or other food, people drive out of the ban area and buy it. They’ll be trucks sitting on the border selling it. People don’t want to be told want they can’t do they aren’t peasants the government wants them to be.

For your questions most anti gun liberals drink alcohol, drive fast cars, speed with them, do weed, etc. so they won’t suppoirt banning those as it directly effects them, they don’t own guns so they like sure bann them who cares. Just like the rich don’t use welfare so are like yeah remove it who cares. It’s the i don’t use it so who cares mentally, that’s how we got the horrible patriot act. People care now that they being actively spied on, but back them it was, I’m not a terrorist or Muslim so who cares if they spy on them



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,665
Location: US

21 Jul 2018, 1:40 pm

Fnord wrote:
Why not a "Gun Control Trial Period"?

It'll never happen.

Blame the "Gun Nuts", who share most, if not all, of the following traits:thise could be applied to abortion, weed, etc

1. They are fanatical about guns and gun rights. gays are fanatical about their rights too as are blacks, strange people like their rights hmm
2. They see guns as their security blanket, objects of worship, and the solution to every problem.security yes, how do you plan to stop a group of home invaders?, worship nope, solution to every problem nope (man this bottle won’t open, I know “gunshot” )yeah very few people are that stupid as you’d like To make us out to be.
3. They want to abolish gun laws.the bad stupid ones yes, remove the NFA LAWS
4. They imagine themselves as being under attack when there is no actual threat.you don’t live in la or Chicago then, Attacks can happen anywhere, unless you live in a armed security guarded housing you’re not safe, I assume you have a police force? Why if it’s so safe do you need a group of heavily armed people to respond to violence?
5. They allow themselves to be easily manipulated by cynical political groups like the NRA.your side is manipulated by riche elites who want to decide everything for us peasants and think they better then us cause they rich.
6. They hoard guns and ammo.hoard? Go shooting, and realize how much ammo is used each time, sorry just like anyone else we like to save money buying in bulk, and when panic buying happens it means you can still go shooting even though not a single store has any ammo to sell
7. They cheer when there are increases in gun and ammo sales.cheer? Most people don’t care, we do point out that gun control leads to higher sales as more gun owners which is the opposite effect gun control people want
8. They cheer when there are increases applications for gun carry permits, concealed or otherwise.cheer? Again never seen parties for it. It’s good thing yess
, more people choosing to defend themselves is good, more gun owners is good. More concealed carry people has no bad effect, we’d actually rather be like the few stats that don’t have permits and applications.

9. They want to take pictures of their infants holding guns.who?
10. They let their 7 year old kids play with automatic weapons at gunshows.gun shows don’t have ammo and the guns are either tigger locked or have their firing pins removed. There’s a business in Nevada where one can go shoot automatic weapons, and once a year there’s a event where people let others shoot their automatics. People also let their 7 olds drink alcohol, smoke weed, and many other things. I wouldn’t let my kids shoot such a gun til they were 10-13, but then again I can’t afford to shoot automatics most people can’t.
11. They are incapable of thinking rationally about the balance society needs to maintain between rights and crime given that guns are deadly weapons.its your side who is incapable of thinking rational, your side uses emotions and how they feel vs facts and reality, they want to “feel” safe doesn’t matter if it’ll do anything besides strip people of their civil rights.
12. If there's an gun incident, they will reflexively side with the poor innocent gun owner regardless of whether or not they are aware of the facts.oh wait I think you mean how the antis jump on any event and spew out lies and make up whole ne guns that dont exist “ the shooter used a ar15shotgun, he had a high capacity magazine feed revolver(FYI neither exist.) every shooting they say the guy used a ar15 even when it comes out he didn’t. They claim the parkland guy used high capacity mags and limiting mags to 10 rounds wouldn’t stopped him, only problem is he used 10 round mags.
13. They endorse any political candidates who allow themselves to be photographed holding guns.and the left endorses anyone taking a picture with gays, blacks, illegal immigrants :roll:
14. They seem to believe that the Second Amendment says, "The right to keep and bear artillery shall not be abridged..."
didnt realize artillery was an arm, how does someone hold and shoulder it? What it does say is shall not be infringed which means no limitations or restrictions zero, none , uno, null,



Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,288

21 Jul 2018, 2:52 pm

sly279 wrote:
For your questions most anti gun liberals drink alcohol, drive fast cars, speed with them, do weed, etc. so they won’t suppoirt banning those as it directly effects them, they don’t own guns so they like sure bann them who cares. Just like the rich don’t use welfare so are like yeah remove it who cares. It’s the i don’t use it so who cares mentally


I think you may be on to something here.....

I've brought up in conversations the banning of all alcohol before banning firearms since alcohol kills and harms far more innocent people than guns and no one yet has given me a logical reason as to why guns should be banned first. Strange silence or a total sidestep is what I'm met with.

Also, when you think of alcohol related incidences of violence that aren't tracked statistically like drunk driver deaths are (as being attributed to alcohol), crimes that a person committed that they probably would not have committed if sober, then the numbers would most likely be staggering.

For those that would favor a ban on guns, how would you ban them?

"The government would seize them. Or pass laws in which the penalty for keeping guns would be so severe, no one in their right mind would hide their guns."

Hmmmm.....I thought penalties for gun crimes are already too severe for people who actually use them to commit violence?


_________________
"There is no love of living without despair of life." - Albert Camus

"Ain't nothing but a stranger in this world
I'm nothing but a stranger in this world" -Van Morrison

AQ-43 (32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism).
EQ-14 out of 80
Rdos: Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 173 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 39 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 62,570
Location: Queens, NYC

21 Jul 2018, 4:57 pm

We tried that once.

It made Al Capone rich.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,665
Location: US

21 Jul 2018, 5:30 pm

Magna wrote:
sly279 wrote:
For your questions most anti gun liberals drink alcohol, drive fast cars, speed with them, do weed, etc. so they won’t suppoirt banning those as it directly effects them, they don’t own guns so they like sure bann them who cares. Just like the rich don’t use welfare so are like yeah remove it who cares. It’s the i don’t use it so who cares mentally


I think you may be on to something here.....

I've brought up in conversations the banning of all alcohol before banning firearms since alcohol kills and harms far more innocent people than guns and no one yet has given me a logical reason as to why guns should be banned first. Strange silence or a total sidestep is what I'm met with.

Also, when you think of alcohol related incidences of violence that aren't tracked statistically like drunk driver deaths are (as being attributed to alcohol), crimes that a person committed that they probably would not have committed if sober, then the numbers would most likely be staggering.

For those that would favor a ban on guns, how would you ban them?

"The government would seize them. Or pass laws in which the penalty for keeping guns would be so severe, no one in their right mind would hide their guns."

Hmmmm.....I thought penalties for gun crimes are already too severe for people who actually use them to commit violence?


They plan to ban them like how I said
One type at a Time until all we have is single shot guns then they’ll ban that too.
All to lessen the bloody conflict they know will happen when 1/3 of the country says enough is enough.

It’s about people control nothing else



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,665
Location: US

21 Jul 2018, 5:32 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
We tried that once.

It made Al Capone rich.


I’m in a gun ban situation some criminal group will profit hugely. Probably the same ones smuggling and selling drugs now. They already do guns but demand will skyrocket as non criminals seek to buy guns from them too