CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[Coyote]

It is not the guns as much as it the principle of allowing the government control over one of our constitutional rights, which is the entire reason for the right to begin with. Lol. The Bill of Rights is the rights of the people, and not the rights of government to outgun, overpower or use their authority to take any one of our rights away from us.

I know a lot of people think it's about the principle, but with respect, I myself think it's about the guns. That this is a very, very serious security situation in America today and all over the developed world, and insecurity was the main reason Trump was elected -- his sudden meteoric rise when he said we should ban Muslims coming in. I remember that moment: sudden hope.

Europe and Britain went with disarming the people, and as a result the citizens are now wholly at the mercy of well-armed criminals and terrorists, and as we can clearly see from terrible newscasts, the police cannot protect them.

A lot of us don't want to go that way.

Of course, the right to defend ourselves with the most technologically advanced weaponry is very important. The libs will soon have us all only able to own muskets to defend ourselves against criminals with state of the art handguns. Lol.

But it doesn’t seem to work that way. The preferred weapon of choice is the easily gotten, plentiful and easily carried handgun not an assault rifle. I don’t see banning all guns as an option or even most nor would I support it.

 

[ding]

The compromise wouldn't make any sense.

Why not? The right gives up a few things in the gun control debate that don't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't change anything even though the left thinks it would. . .and. . .

Whether or not they would embrace those changes personally, the left agrees to support or at least not interfere with some cultural changes that I believe would make an enormous difference and restore us to a much more non-violent society.

How could that not be a good thing?

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

But why? Why is it non negotiable?

Show me how it wouldn't make a difference. Show me how it is irrelevant to the problem of school shootings and mass violence in society in general.

For example, a little while I ago I posted a statistic that 26 of the 27 of the men who have committed the most deadly mass violence were from fatherless homes. I think we have to consider that as something important.

Would it be worth giving up your right to legally have a bump stock if we could return to the time when most kids grew up with a mom and dad in the home?

Would you be willing to not be able to legally buy an AR-15 if we could get back to the time that nobody even thought about school kids being at risk from crazed murderers?

I'm not suggesting at all that we are putting a target on CC, handguns, rifles, shotguns or even other weapons similar to the AR-15.

I am suggesting giving the gun control lobby some concessions we can live with in return for their not blocking those things that could make school children safer and achieve a much less violent society.

I have already explained it to you. There is nothing more to add. Nothing more is needed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why not? The right gives up a few things in the gun control debate that don't amount to a hill of beans and wouldn't change anything even though the left thinks it would. . .and. . .

Whether or not they would embrace those changes personally, the left agrees to support or at least not interfere with some cultural changes that I believe would make an enormous difference and restore us to a much more non-violent society.

How could that not be a good thing?

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

But why? Why is it non negotiable?

Show me how it wouldn't make a difference. Show me how it is irrelevant to the problem of school shootings and mass violence in society in general.

For example, a little while I ago I posted a statistic that 26 of the 27 of the men who have committed the most deadly mass violence were from fatherless homes. I think we have to consider that as something important.

Would it be worth giving up your right to legally have a bump stock if we could return to the time when most kids grew up with a mom and dad in the home?

Would you be willing to not be able to legally buy an AR-15 if we could get back to the time that nobody even thought about school kids being at risk from crazed murderers?

I'm not suggesting at all that we are putting a target on CC, handguns, rifles, shotguns or even other weapons similar to the AR-15.

I am suggesting giving the gun control lobby some concessions we can live with in return for their not blocking those things that could make school children safer and achieve a much less violent society.

I have already explained it to you. There is nothing more to add. Nothing more is needed.

No, you didn't.

I will have to admit that while I greatly admire and respect at least most of those on this thread on the pro-2nd amendment side, I am a bit dismayed that they won't even discuss those things that would actually make the schools and society in general much more safe. They seem as unwilling to even consider those things as are those on the left.

 

[ding]

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

But why? Why is it non negotiable?

Show me how it wouldn't make a difference. Show me how it is irrelevant to the problem of school shootings and mass violence in society in general.

For example, a little while I ago I posted a statistic that 26 of the 27 of the men who have committed the most deadly mass violence were from fatherless homes. I think we have to consider that as something important.

Would it be worth giving up your right to legally have a bump stock if we could return to the time when most kids grew up with a mom and dad in the home?

Would you be willing to not be able to legally buy an AR-15 if we could get back to the time that nobody even thought about school kids being at risk from crazed murderers?

I'm not suggesting at all that we are putting a target on CC, handguns, rifles, shotguns or even other weapons similar to the AR-15.

I am suggesting giving the gun control lobby some concessions we can live with in return for their not blocking those things that could make school children safer and achieve a much less violent society.

I have already explained it to you. There is nothing more to add. Nothing more is needed.

No, you didn't.

I will have to admit that while I greatly admire and respect at least most of those on this thread on the pro-2nd amendment side, I am a bit dismayed that they won't even discuss those things that would actually make the schools and society in general much more safe. They seem as unwilling to even consider those things as are those on the left.

Yes, I did. I'm sorry if you missed it.

Yes, I am unwilling to discuss anything as long as there is something which is non-negotiable on the table.

The logical conclusion of the considerable over reaction to these kind of shootings is such that as long as they occur gun rights will continue to be eroded. Why? Because people react emotionally and because there will always be some nut out there who will decide he needs to shoot something up. And that will always be true unless every single gun is banned and confiscated. Which is why it is the logical conclusion to such an emotional over reaction.

 

[Votto]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You are looking at this all wrong.

On one side you have gun activists who want to have as much access to fire arms of any kind at any price, and you have gun haters that want to restrict gun access in any way at any price. Then you have those confused individuals in between that usually pick one of the two sides.

At the end of the day, neither side really gives a damn about things like school shootings. The effort to save or ban guns supersedes the children.

Now if people actually cared about schools getting shot up every month, then they would simply secure the schools like all other government buildings like your local court house or IRS building.

It's really not that complicated.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You are looking at this all wrong.

On one side you have gun activists who want to have as much access to fire arms of any kind at any price, and you have gun haters that want to restrict gun access in any way at any price. Then you have those confused individuals in between that usually pick one of the two sides.

At the end of the day, neither side really gives a damn about things like school shootings. The effort to save or ban guns supersedes the children.

Now if people actually cared about schools getting shot up every month, then they would simply secure the schools like all other government buildings like your local court house or IRS building.

It's really not that complicated.

Maybe I am going about this all wrong though we now have three votes up there on the compromise option which is encouraging. And appreciated. And it includes people who are more right than left and more left than right. Which is also encouraging.

I fully realize how dug in both sides of the gun debate are.

My goal is to change the debate from strictly the guns, which are not the problem, to what I believe is our dysfunctional culture that is promoting violence and changing that so that extreme security is not necessary in most places.

And I hope you're wrong about them not caring about school children. I can appreciate though that when the price is too high to have maximum security, we are willing to take more risks. For instance we have the technology to make cars pretty much 100% safe for the passengers in them but are unwilling to pay the tremendous cost involved to have that.

So I still argue for the solution that will make school kids and everybody else safer, won't require anybody to give up much of anything that is important to them, would benefit pretty much everybody, and wouldn't cost us a dime. In fact it would save us billions.

And that is to change the culture.

 

[ding]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You are looking at this all wrong.

On one side you have gun activists who want to have as much access to fire arms of any kind at any price, and you have gun haters that want to restrict gun access in any way at any price. Then you have those confused individuals in between that usually pick one of the two sides.

At the end of the day, neither side really gives a damn about things like school shootings. The effort to save or ban guns supersedes the children.

Now if people actually cared about schools getting shot up every month, then they would simply secure the schools like all other government buildings like your local court house or IRS building.

It's really not that complicated.

Maybe I am going about this all wrong though we now have three votes up there on the compromise option which is encouraging. And appreciated. And it includes people who are more right than left and more left than right. Which is also encouraging.

I fully realize how dug in both sides of the gun debate are.

My goal is to change the debate from strictly the guns, which are not the problem, to what I believe is our dysfunctional culture that is promoting violence and changing that so that extreme security is not necessary in most places.

And I hope you're wrong about them not caring about school children. I can appreciate though that when the price is too high to have maximum security, we are willing to take more risks. For instance we have the technology to make cars pretty much 100% safe for the passengers in them but are unwilling to pay the tremendous cost involved to have that.

So I still argue for the solution that will make school kids and everybody else safer, won't require anybody to give up much of anything that is important to them, would benefit pretty much everybody, and wouldn't cost us a dime. In fact it would save us billions.

And that is to change the culture.

You would have an easier time banning and confiscating all guns than you will changing the culture. The genie has been let out of the bottle and the only thing that will put it back in is suffering.

 

[Votto]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You are looking at this all wrong.

On one side you have gun activists who want to have as much access to fire arms of any kind at any price, and you have gun haters that want to restrict gun access in any way at any price. Then you have those confused individuals in between that usually pick one of the two sides.

At the end of the day, neither side really gives a damn about things like school shootings. The effort to save or ban guns supersedes the children.

Now if people actually cared about schools getting shot up every month, then they would simply secure the schools like all other government buildings like your local court house or IRS building.

It's really not that complicated.

Maybe I am going about this all wrong though we now have three votes up there on the compromise option which is encouraging. And appreciated. And it includes people who are more right than left and more left than right. Which is also encouraging.

I fully realize how dug in both sides of the gun debate are.

My goal is to change the debate from strictly the guns, which are not the problem, to what I believe is our dysfunctional culture that is promoting violence and changing that so that extreme security is not necessary in most places.

And I hope you're wrong about them not caring about school children. I can appreciate though that when the price is too high to have maximum security, we are willing to take more risks. For instance we have the technology to make cars pretty much 100% safe for the passengers in them but are unwilling to pay the tremendous cost involved to have that.

So I still argue for the solution that will make school kids and everybody else safer, won't require anybody to give up much of anything that is important to them, would benefit pretty much everybody, and wouldn't cost us a dime. In fact it would save us billions.

And that is to change the culture.

Well it is much worse than the picture I presented. As you have said, you have violence glorified in the media in movies and in video games, but there is also the media who gives 24/7 attention to the shooter as his name and face is plastered on the TV for the whole world to see. And people tune in and just watch and watch.

As the shooter said, he was there to break the old school shooting record. The media does not give a damn that they have blood on their hands for feeding these school shootings, for you see, they are one of the entities who are dug in on the side of banning guns and they make a great deal of money covering these tragedies as well. In fact, they probably have wet dreams about more shootings in schools.

In regards to not being able to afford proper security in our schools, that is a bunch of bull. Those in government don't seem to have any trouble affording protecting court houses and IRS building and other such government buildings around the country, yet there never is a shooting there, is there.

So no, I adamantly reject the notion that the government can't afford it. If they were in those schools or their children were in those schools instead of the nice private schools they send their children, then they would find a way to secure those buildings.

I'm so adamant about this that I hope parents of future school shootings begin to sue the state for incompetence in protecting schools that get shot up every month. I hope the courts become full of law suit after law suit against the state until their sorry asses actually do something about it. Unfortunately, I hate to inform you that I think so ill of the powers that be that I believe that these law makers would rather have the school shootings so that it can be used for fuel in the goal of banning or restricting gun use around the country.

 

[2aguy]

In the wake of yet another tragic school shooting, it is reasonable to have a national discussion on what to do about it. And since the discussion so far is a) more gun control vs b) more guns/protection for the kids, and there seems to be little middle ground, the solution seems to be an unattainable goal for most of American society.

So the challenge is:

Would liberals be willing to consider the truth in the following and consider working toward social policy to achieve it?

--kids need a responsible mom and a dad in the home. Very very few criminals or violent people of any sort come from such homes.

--kids benefit from a religious faith that teaches love, respect for life and authority, caring from others. Good churches and synagogues aren't producing many criminals.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.

--kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

--kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

Maybe correlation isn't causation when it comes to kids being violent, but I sure think we need to look at what we really are teaching and how that contributes to the social problems we have.
​

And if the liberals were willing to acknowledge the advantage in all or most of that, would the conservatives/libertarians be willing to consider:

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

Reasonable gun registration even at gun shows, so that effective background checks can be run and guns can be denied or confiscated from those who are clearly incompetent to have them or who are a danger to themselves or society?

Maybe the problem is the people who do bad things with the guns and not the gun themselves, and certainly bad people who do terrible things don't care what laws they break to do them, but can we admit that at least some reasonable restrictions are worthwhile to consider? Could we compromise on some things in order to achieve agreement and cooperation from most everybody to actually fix the problem?
​

So that's it. This is the CDZ so keep it reasonably civil if the topic interests you. And the poll is designed so that you can change your choices if you are inspired to change your point of view during the discussion.

Discuss.

​

​

Here.....another good look at the issue...

Assault Weapons Ban Is No Answer to Mass Shootings | National Review

This is the worst kind of gun control. Any measure that preserves the ability of criminals to access guns while restricting the access of law-abiding Americans is a measure that fundamentally impairs the very purpose of the Second Amendment.


For the law-abiding, the existing stock of tens (hundreds?) of millions of weapons and magazines would instantly become more expensive. Yet with the slightest premeditation, a criminal could easily circumvent the ban. It’s a simple matter, in fact, to make your own high-capacity magazine.

Moreover, it’s sheer speculation that a ban on so-called assault weapons would reduce mass shootings, reduce gun suicides, or reduce overall gun violence. Rifles are rarely used in “normal” gun crimes (blunt objects and fists kill more people), and you don’t need an AR-15 to kill yourself (rifle suicides are rare). And as ample, grim experience shows, you don’t need an AR-15 to commit a horrific mass killing. America’s worst school shooting — the Virginia Tech massacre — was committed with handguns, and the list of deadly handgun shootings is long and sad.

Mass shooters are among the most committed criminals in the entire United States. They often fantasize about their attacks for years and plan them for months. They can find an AR-15. Yet an AR-15 isn’t an indispensable weapon for a spree killer. They have options.

At best, then, the argument is that making an AR-15 slightly more difficult to obtain won’t make spree killings less common, but it might make spree killings less lethal. Again, that’s more speculation, assuming that the most committed killers 1) can’t get their hands one of the tens of millions of legal weapons still on the streets; and 2) that a man with a semi-automatic pistol isn’t just as deadly as a man with a rifle. Neither assumption is warranted.

In fact, experience with the previous federal assault-weapons ban demonstrates that any benefit gained by decrease in crimes committed with one type of weapon is often offset by increases in crimes committed with other weapons, leaving no net benefit. Here’s the key language from a comprehensive study of the impact of the federal assault-weapons ban:

We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AW [assault weapons] and LCMs [large-capacity magazines].

 

[Desperado]

Because it would be illogical to establish a precedent to allow the very organization the 2nd Amendment is trying to protect us from to be the ones regulating what we can use against them if the need ever should arise. It would be a deterrent without teeth which is to say it would be no deterrent at all.

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

But why? Why is it non negotiable?

Show me how it wouldn't make a difference. Show me how it is irrelevant to the problem of school shootings and mass violence in society in general.

For example, a little while I ago I posted a statistic that 26 of the 27 of the men who have committed the most deadly mass violence were from fatherless homes. I think we have to consider that as something important.

Would it be worth giving up your right to legally have a bump stock if we could return to the time when most kids grew up with a mom and dad in the home?

Would you be willing to not be able to legally buy an AR-15 if we could get back to the time that nobody even thought about school kids being at risk from crazed murderers?

I'm not suggesting at all that we are putting a target on CC, handguns, rifles, shotguns or even other weapons similar to the AR-15.

I am suggesting giving the gun control lobby some concessions we can live with in return for their not blocking those things that could make school children safer and achieve a much less violent society.

I have already explained it to you. There is nothing more to add. Nothing more is needed.

No, you didn't.

I will have to admit that while I greatly admire and respect at least most of those on this thread on the pro-2nd amendment side, I am a bit dismayed that they won't even discuss those things that would actually make the schools and society in general much more safe. They seem as unwilling to even consider those things as are those on the left.

Because the left is untrust worthy. Remember they said they wanted to ban just the AR? The bill just introduced to congress lists 205 weapons they want banned now.
This proves they absolutely cannot be trusted.

 

[2aguy]

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

But why? Why is it non negotiable?

Show me how it wouldn't make a difference. Show me how it is irrelevant to the problem of school shootings and mass violence in society in general.

For example, a little while I ago I posted a statistic that 26 of the 27 of the men who have committed the most deadly mass violence were from fatherless homes. I think we have to consider that as something important.

Would it be worth giving up your right to legally have a bump stock if we could return to the time when most kids grew up with a mom and dad in the home?

Would you be willing to not be able to legally buy an AR-15 if we could get back to the time that nobody even thought about school kids being at risk from crazed murderers?

I'm not suggesting at all that we are putting a target on CC, handguns, rifles, shotguns or even other weapons similar to the AR-15.

I am suggesting giving the gun control lobby some concessions we can live with in return for their not blocking those things that could make school children safer and achieve a much less violent society.

I have already explained it to you. There is nothing more to add. Nothing more is needed.

No, you didn't.

I will have to admit that while I greatly admire and respect at least most of those on this thread on the pro-2nd amendment side, I am a bit dismayed that they won't even discuss those things that would actually make the schools and society in general much more safe. They seem as unwilling to even consider those things as are those on the left.

Because the left is untrust worthy. Remember they said they wanted to ban just the AR? The bill just introduced to congress lists 205 weapons they want banned now.
This proves they absolutely cannot be trusted.

Including semi auto pistols and shotguns.....

 

[ding]

Nobody said anything about regulation. The OP is about having a national discussion/conversation about what will actually fix the problem.

More 'gun control' vs 'defend the 2nd Amendment at all costs' arguments haven't fixed it.

I am trying to refocus the national debate, that's all.

And so far only one other person posting on the topic in this thread has understood what the OP is actually about.

That's what I am doing. I am telling you that what you wrote is non-negotiable. This is me debating why it is non-negotiable.

Reasonable restrictions on civilian guns that are not likely to ever be used for hunting or self protection or recreational target shooting but that are designed to effect maximum damage?

But why? Why is it non negotiable?

Show me how it wouldn't make a difference. Show me how it is irrelevant to the problem of school shootings and mass violence in society in general.

For example, a little while I ago I posted a statistic that 26 of the 27 of the men who have committed the most deadly mass violence were from fatherless homes. I think we have to consider that as something important.

Would it be worth giving up your right to legally have a bump stock if we could return to the time when most kids grew up with a mom and dad in the home?

Would you be willing to not be able to legally buy an AR-15 if we could get back to the time that nobody even thought about school kids being at risk from crazed murderers?

I'm not suggesting at all that we are putting a target on CC, handguns, rifles, shotguns or even other weapons similar to the AR-15.

I am suggesting giving the gun control lobby some concessions we can live with in return for their not blocking those things that could make school children safer and achieve a much less violent society.

I have already explained it to you. There is nothing more to add. Nothing more is needed.

No, you didn't.

I will have to admit that while I greatly admire and respect at least most of those on this thread on the pro-2nd amendment side, I am a bit dismayed that they won't even discuss those things that would actually make the schools and society in general much more safe. They seem as unwilling to even consider those things as are those on the left.

Because the left is untrust worthy. Remember they said they wanted to ban just the AR? The bill just introduced to congress lists 205 weapons they want banned now.
This proves they absolutely cannot be trusted.

Agreed. It is a political football that they use to play upon their emotions to rule up their base to incite them for political gain.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You are looking at this all wrong.

On one side you have gun activists who want to have as much access to fire arms of any kind at any price, and you have gun haters that want to restrict gun access in any way at any price. Then you have those confused individuals in between that usually pick one of the two sides.

At the end of the day, neither side really gives a damn about things like school shootings. The effort to save or ban guns supersedes the children.

Now if people actually cared about schools getting shot up every month, then they would simply secure the schools like all other government buildings like your local court house or IRS building.

It's really not that complicated.

Maybe I am going about this all wrong though we now have three votes up there on the compromise option which is encouraging. And appreciated. And it includes people who are more right than left and more left than right. Which is also encouraging.

I fully realize how dug in both sides of the gun debate are.

My goal is to change the debate from strictly the guns, which are not the problem, to what I believe is our dysfunctional culture that is promoting violence and changing that so that extreme security is not necessary in most places.

And I hope you're wrong about them not caring about school children. I can appreciate though that when the price is too high to have maximum security, we are willing to take more risks. For instance we have the technology to make cars pretty much 100% safe for the passengers in them but are unwilling to pay the tremendous cost involved to have that.

So I still argue for the solution that will make school kids and everybody else safer, won't require anybody to give up much of anything that is important to them, would benefit pretty much everybody, and wouldn't cost us a dime. In fact it would save us billions.

And that is to change the culture.

Well it is much worse than the picture I presented. As you have said, you have violence glorified in the media in movies and in video games, but there is also the media who gives 24/7 attention to the shooter as his name and face is plastered on the TV for the whole world to see. And people tune in and just watch and watch.

As the shooter said, he was there to break the old school shooting record. The media does not give a damn that they have blood on their hands for feeding these school shootings, for you see, they are one of the entities who are dug in on the side of banning guns and they make a great deal of money covering these tragedies as well. In fact, they probably have wet dreams about more shootings in schools.

In regards to not being able to afford proper security in our schools, that is a bunch of bull. Those in government don't seem to have any trouble affording protecting court houses and IRS building and other such government buildings around the country, yet there never is a shooting there, is there.

So no, I adamantly reject the notion that the government can't afford it. If they were in those schools or their children were in those schools instead of the nice private schools they send their children, then they would find a way to secure those buildings.

I'm so adamant about this that I hope parents of future school shootings begin to sue the state for incompetence in protecting schools that get shot up every month. I hope the courts become full of law suit after law suit against the state until their sorry asses actually do something about it. Unfortunately, I hate to inform you that I think so ill of the powers that be that I believe that these law makers would rather have the school shootings so that it can be used for fuel in the goal of banning or restricting gun use around the country.

You could be right that we have reached the point that the American culture has corrupted itself beyond repair and the only answer to school shootings is to make the schools into impenetrable fortresses. The only answer to mass shootings is to make all places where people gather into secure fortresses. But we lose so much when we are forced to live like that. And we know that banning the most dangerous guns has not made a difference.

I would like to think the American people overall are better than that.

I think within one generation, with some focus on those things that create a homogeonous and peaceful society, we could turn it around.

Again just citing one point again related to a point in the OP: 26 of 27 shooters in the most deadly mass killings were from fatherless homes. Does that mean boys from fatherless homes are going to be mass murderers? Of course not. At least one person posting in this thread is a single mom who raised a fine, responsible son and that is not at all unusual. I know of others. But evenso, that is a horrendous statistic and I think attention should be paid.

Patrick Fagan wrote in 1995:

• Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.
• High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.
• State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
• The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.
• The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
• The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

On the other hand:

• Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.
• Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.
• Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married.
• The mother's strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child's best buffer against a life of crime.
• The father's authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime. . . . The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

I think until both sides--pro 2nd Amendment and pro gun control--are willing to look at the cultural issues involved in the problem, there will be no solution no matter what gun laws we do or do not pass.

 

[oldsoul]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

 

[ChrisL]

[ The question is, what would you be willing to compromise on in order to get a solution to the problem?

Nothing, of course! There is no problem from the conservative point of view. I don't see why you suppose there is a problem for us? Just one for you, you want to grab everyone's guns but we won't let you.

NRA spox: 'Many in legacy media love mass shootings'

She's right because this shit will win us elections. And as long as the violence stays at GOP baseball games and country music concerts and white schools, what the hell right?

Foxfyre

The above is a great example of why you can't "compromise" or even rationalize with a liberal gun nut.

 

[ChrisL]

We need to change it so semi's can't be turned into fully automatic weapons.

Can you name one, just one, semi-auto gun that can LEGALLY be turned into a full-auto under current law? I seriously doubt it, but maybe you can.

New laws like this will do NOTHING to stop future mass shootings. So, let's look at things that may, such as the mental health aspect of it. For example, if the authorities had the ability to put this guy in a locked mental health facility for evaluation by professionals (and I'm not sure whether they did or did not), would it have led to the prevention of this shooting? I certainly hope that the mental health professionals would have been able to ascertain that this guy was, indeed, a threat and kept him in a secure facility, thus preventing him from shooting up a school.

What other ideas can we come up with that have a realistic chance of actually stopping this from happening again? Better security at schools? Let's talk about that. Armed teachers and faculty, I'm willing to talk about it. More gun legislation? As long as it is based in reality, and has a FACTUAL chance at stopping these shootings, sure, let's have a discussion. But redundant laws that do little, if anything, more than show, "we did something", not interested.

They don't care about saving lives. That is the point that everyone seems to be missing. They are only concerned with their politics and their agenda to take rights and freedoms from American citizens so that we are stuck in a nanny state whether we want to be or not.

Can't compromise freedoms. It makes no sense at all and certainly doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.

 

[ChrisL]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

How have they trampled your 2nd amendment rights? I'm not aware that we've done anything in the last 50 years.

What is the big picture? How would you try to prevent future shootings? You would do nothing? Well then why even try to compromise with you? What are you offering?

What did we do that we said would result in things getting better because we did those things and then instead things got worse?

You seem to be talking in generalizations because I don't think you have any specific examples to give us.

What are the true problems? Why does America have more rampages than every other country combined? You think the people in the greatest and freest country in the world would be the happiest.

Should we bring back cop killer ammo? The ammo that goes through armor?

Should a boyfriend you have a restraining order be able to buy a gun?

What did we do that we said would result in things getting better because we did those things and then instead things got worse?

That's easy.....you created gun free zones for law abiding gun owners on school grounds.....and you had more school shootings...not less.....

Exactly. None of their "great ideas" have worked. They've practically invited these loons to be loons, IMO.

 

[ChrisL]

It IS a highly charged topic which is why I did NOT want this to be just another angry gun control thread.

I wish everybody would re-read the the OP and back up a little bit.

My hope is to stop the senseless violence that is all too prevalent in American culture and the only way I see to stop it is not with more gun control but with changing the culture.

Too many on the right think more guns in more places are the answer. It isn't. Yes, hardening vulnerable sites will help and save lives but it won't fix the problem.

Too many on the left think fewer guns or less dangerous guns are the answer. It isn't. Those intent on doing violence are going to find a way to do it regardless of what laws we pass.

So this thread was intended to start a conversation of what each side could agree to in order to achieve fewer violent people and a far more safe America for school children and everybody else.

And that has much less to do with guns than it does with changing the culture.

Unless everybody coming to the table for that conversation has something to gain from it, however, they won't come to the table. And nothing constructive can happen. That is what the compromise in the OP was all about.

And I am discouraged that anybody other than me is interested in having the conservation at all.

I think it is pretty clear (at least from my point of view) why there is no compromising with liberal demands. You cannot trust them. They are extremely dishonest, they fail to see or even to acknowledge the big picture and the unintended consequences, and things have gotten worse and worse since we have allowed them to trample on our 2nd A rights. NOTHING has gotten better as they have promised MANY times, but things have instead gotten worse. They will NEVER stop saying, just one more inch, just one more inch. They don't even realize or want to realize what the true problems are or where they come from. They just want to keep imposing themselves on the citizens and our rights.

How have they trampled your 2nd amendment rights? I'm not aware that we've done anything in the last 50 years.

What is the big picture? How would you try to prevent future shootings? You would do nothing? Well then why even try to compromise with you? What are you offering?

What did we do that we said would result in things getting better because we did those things and then instead things got worse?

You seem to be talking in generalizations because I don't think you have any specific examples to give us.

What are the true problems? Why does America have more rampages than every other country combined? You think the people in the greatest and freest country in the world would be the happiest.

Should we bring back cop killer ammo? The ammo that goes through armor?

Should a boyfriend you have a restraining order be able to buy a gun?

A person can get a gun easily through the black market. You are more interested in impeding MY RIGHT to protect myself from him with a gun.

 

[ChrisL]

But I sure wish I wasn't the lone vote up there willing to compromise to solve the problem.

Don't, then. I can't tell for sure what side you are on, but I suspect the left side.

I think you should decide what side you are on and then be loyal to that side.

This is not a war for fence-sitters.

She is not. She is a conservative. She is just trying to be "fair minded," but she should know better by now to try that around here. Lol.

Thanks Chris, my soul sister in so many ways.

If Circe would just read the thread he never would have made that kind of mistake.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't think the progressive liberals want anything less than no guns at all. Ultimately they don't want compromise, they want total capitulation; same thing with taxes, they always want more. Ask a progressive liberal how much is enough, how much is fair when it comes to taxing the rich and they won't tell you. Raise taxes to a max of 40%, they want 45. Give them 45, they want 50, and on it goes. Same with gun control, they don't want restrictions, they want bans. First on AR-15s, then on any semi-auto weapon, then on all of them. With them it's all take and no give, except maybe in the short term.

Right now the hue and cry is to ban AR-15s and the like. Fine, except for one small problem, which is that won't stop school shootings. You can buy 2 or 3 9mm handguns that fires 15 bullets each for the cost of one AR-15 and do as much death and damage. What then, ban 'em all, right? It just doesn't fix the problem.

No it doesn't. I know that and you know that. But there is no incentive for those who want to ban them to even have the conversation about what will for the most part solve the problem if the 2nd Amendment group won't concede anything or compromise in any way.

You are looking at this all wrong.

On one side you have gun activists who want to have as much access to fire arms of any kind at any price, and you have gun haters that want to restrict gun access in any way at any price. Then you have those confused individuals in between that usually pick one of the two sides.

At the end of the day, neither side really gives a damn about things like school shootings. The effort to save or ban guns supersedes the children.

Now if people actually cared about schools getting shot up every month, then they would simply secure the schools like all other government buildings like your local court house or IRS building.

It's really not that complicated.

Maybe I am going about this all wrong though we now have three votes up there on the compromise option which is encouraging. And appreciated. And it includes people who are more right than left and more left than right. Which is also encouraging.

I fully realize how dug in both sides of the gun debate are.

My goal is to change the debate from strictly the guns, which are not the problem, to what I believe is our dysfunctional culture that is promoting violence and changing that so that extreme security is not necessary in most places.

And I hope you're wrong about them not caring about school children. I can appreciate though that when the price is too high to have maximum security, we are willing to take more risks. For instance we have the technology to make cars pretty much 100% safe for the passengers in them but are unwilling to pay the tremendous cost involved to have that.

So I still argue for the solution that will make school kids and everybody else safer, won't require anybody to give up much of anything that is important to them, would benefit pretty much everybody, and wouldn't cost us a dime. In fact it would save us billions.

And that is to change the culture.

Well it is much worse than the picture I presented. As you have said, you have violence glorified in the media in movies and in video games, but there is also the media who gives 24/7 attention to the shooter as his name and face is plastered on the TV for the whole world to see. And people tune in and just watch and watch.

As the shooter said, he was there to break the old school shooting record. The media does not give a damn that they have blood on their hands for feeding these school shootings, for you see, they are one of the entities who are dug in on the side of banning guns and they make a great deal of money covering these tragedies as well. In fact, they probably have wet dreams about more shootings in schools.

In regards to not being able to afford proper security in our schools, that is a bunch of bull. Those in government don't seem to have any trouble affording protecting court houses and IRS building and other such government buildings around the country, yet there never is a shooting there, is there.

So no, I adamantly reject the notion that the government can't afford it. If they were in those schools or their children were in those schools instead of the nice private schools they send their children, then they would find a way to secure those buildings.

I'm so adamant about this that I hope parents of future school shootings begin to sue the state for incompetence in protecting schools that get shot up every month. I hope the courts become full of law suit after law suit against the state until their sorry asses actually do something about it. Unfortunately, I hate to inform you that I think so ill of the powers that be that I believe that these law makers would rather have the school shootings so that it can be used for fuel in the goal of banning or restricting gun use around the country.

You could be right that we have reached the point that the American culture has corrupted itself beyond repair and the only answer to school shootings is to make the schools into impenetrable fortresses. The only answer to mass shootings is to make all places where people gather into secure fortresses. But we lose so much when we are forced to live like that. And we know that banning the most dangerous guns has not made a difference.

I would like to think the American people overall are better than that.

I think within one generation, with some focus on those things that create a homogeonous and peaceful society, we could turn it around.

Again just citing one point again related to a point in the OP: 26 of 27 shooters in the most deadly mass killings were from fatherless homes. Does that mean boys from fatherless homes are going to be mass murderers? Of course not. At least one person posting in this thread is a single mom who raised a fine, responsible son and that is not at all unusual. I know of others. But evenso, that is a horrendous statistic and I think attention should be paid.

Patrick Fagan wrote in 1995:

• Over the past thirty years, the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.
• High-crime neighborhoods are characterized by high concentrations of families abandoned by fathers.
• State-by-state analysis by Heritage scholars indicates that a 10 percent increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes leads typically to a 17 percent increase in juvenile crime.
• The rate of violent teenage crime corresponds with the number of families abandoned by fathers.
• The type of aggression and hostility demonstrated by a future criminal often is foreshadowed in unusual aggressiveness as early as age five or six.
• The future criminal tends to be an individual rejected by other children as early as the first grade who goes on to form his own group of friends, often the future delinquent gang.

On the other hand:

• Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods.
• Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. By contrast only 10 percent of children from unsafe, unstable homes in these neighborhoods avoid crime.
• Criminals capable of sustaining marriage gradually move away from a life of crime after they get married.
• The mother's strong affectionate attachment to her child is the child's best buffer against a life of crime.
• The father's authority and involvement in raising his children are also a great buffer against a life of crime. . . . The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

I think until both sides--pro 2nd Amendment and pro gun control--are willing to look at the cultural issues involved in the problem, there will be no solution no matter what gun laws we do or do not pass.

I love you Foxy, but it would be a mistake to trust liberals. You must know how they are by now.