Printable View
I think it is unlikely we can get DUI deaths down to zero. A few will always abuse the freedom given to the many. But the solution to DUI isn't to limit container size to airline bottles. That doesn't mean you can't look for better ways to limit the deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
No one here is saying we don't have a problem or advocating doing nothing. We have a very serious problem and our elected leadership needs to publicly identify it and then implement swift and wide ranging actions to correct it. One of the road blocks to doing that is public perception. The general public does not identify specific problems, they live on sound bites. This month's sound bite is brought to you by Bushmaster... It doesn't matter that an overwhelming percentage of gun crime in this country is committed not with any specific class of weapon, but with a specific method of procurement; illegal guns. Mass shootings, as opposed to your run-of-the-mill homicide, are made even more horrific by the media over-coverage and fill the public ears with countless more sound bites. Mass shootings are carried out by people who have serious mental issues, but in the whirlwind of coverage anyone who owns a AK-47 is perceived as being capable of such an act.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Politicians will go after assault rifles because they are perceived as being the root of the problem. They are the low hanging fruit. A big wave of public outcry, a bold stroke of a pen and the problem goes away. What really happens is the problem gets buried rather than solved. Chicago will still have its 500 homicides a year. Crazy people will still occasionally appear in malls and kill others. Hardly anything would change because the real problem wasn't addressed.
Going after illegal guns is not a popular political move because it is a) expensive, and b) difficult. There is no quick bump in the poll numbers to be had. It means hiring and training more police and more ATF agents when budgets are already tight. Being proactive also brings up several constitutional issues. What, for example, is cause for reasonable search and seizure? On the mass shooter side, do we take away someone's right to own a gun because we THINK they might be capable of doing harm? There aren't many easy answers which is why politicians and media alike don't go there, but in every logical problem solving / trouble shooting technique you start by fixing what you KNOW is broken. We know illegal guns account for almost all the shootings in the US. If we get that under control and find we still have a problem we can keep going, but until we address illegal guns we're just spitting in the ocean to appease public sentiment while sweeping the real problem under the rug.
Your comparison of the problem of mass murderers to DUI gives me hope. Just as society has moved from considering drunk driving as a routine part of life (I'm old enough to remember comedians making jokes about it) to most people finding it to be an unacceptable behavior with corresponding changes in how it's treated legally, hopefully one day we'll move from an attitude of "guns don't kill people so there's really nothing we can or should do to try and stop this problem" to one where even responsible gun owners will be interested in finding a solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
But I fear we may never move past the point where most people only hear what they want to hear. Sigh...Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Wrell, not exactly. First, gun owners are interested in finding a solution now and it's really kind of silly to say otherwise. What we don't want is stupid rules that infringe on a right without any appreciable benefit. Not everyone thinks the solution to obesity is to make it illegal to buy a Big Gulp. Second, the cultural change you are looking for may be quite dissimilar to the shift on DUI. The response to DUI was to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable and enforcing strict penalties. I would say the response to gun crimes needs to be split as well, but in addition to penalty enforcement society may need to be more permissive or attentive to the conditions that lead to the bad acts and not just ostracize those that are at risk of committing the crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I totally agree (love the big gulp/obsesity analogy too). Gun owners ARE very interested in finding solutions to these kinds of problems - be it crime or mass shootings or accidental shootings, etc... Just as drivers want to find solutions for deaths and accidents caused by drunk or distracted drivers, and others want to find solutions to obsesity or drug abuse or alcoholism. This is what I see in these kinds of threads - sort of brain storming to identify the problems and causes, and to find solutions. The differemce is that many people who support the right to own firearms, don't view ownership of them as the cause of these sorts of problems anymore then car ownership is the cause of drunk or distracted driving or a Big Gulp is the cause of being overweight. So rather then ban something, we are trying to look for other causes, and other solutions. to change things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
Tongiht I heard this statistic on NPR:
In the 1960's 1 of 2 households had a gun in the house
Now 1 of 3 households have a gun in the house
I am guessing that the population shift to urban/suburban changed this? or ?
So if we move 99.9% of the population (force march them?) to suburbia then they won't feel the need for a gun andthe libsprogressives will get their wish plus I will like it, win win. No laws that ban guns necessary, the end. Just a theory.:laff:
I think it's because I've been buying them all, in my one-man quest for gun-control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iris lily
The 2nd amendment is out of date.
I think it has rarely been more important than it is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by freein05
http://www.warriortalk.com/attachmen...6&d=1357319990