StevieP
NES Member
Whenever there's a (usually mass, involving children) shooting, the demanding moms, teenagers marching for their lives, and others from the liberal left immediately call for more gun control. UBC's! Mag bans! "Assault weapons" bans. Waiting periods. Ban the ammo! and on and on...
It seems to me we should be more prepared to argue against these calls to emotion. Of course, none of whatever they're suggesting ever could or would prevent a crime, but they demand government take action anyway.
It also seems to me that there are different types of "gun violence," which each may require different responses. None of which include bans or anything else they suggest. What *are* some good suggested responses for each category (assuming *any* response is truly needed)?
1) Suicides. Suicide makes up 66% of all gun "violence." These people plan it long in advance. delays won't help. they only need one shot, so mag limits don't apply. usually w/ a handgun, so AWB doesn't apply. Get these people some help!
2) "Inner city" violence. You know what I mean. Mostly young, mostly POC with no morals and no impulse control, shoot each other. Include armed robberies. Gang & drug shootings. Most of these perpetrators have been arrested multiple times previously. Shooting someone isn't their first felony. Fewer cops, and more social workers doesn't seem to be the answer here. Having intact families would help. How do we mandate that??
3) "Mass" shootings including schools. These are the mental defectives who plan things out weeks or months in advance. They have manifestos. They're not criminals until they commit their crimes. But they're almost all psychotic, on SSRIs, and feel society owes them something for perceived disrespect. How do you prevent that with a law?? Hardening schools will help. But there are plenty of other places (Vegas?) other than schools where nutcases go off the deep end. The shooters rarely have any relationship with the victims. The victims just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when the shooter goes off.
4) Crimes of passion. Family shootings. murder-suicides. I include workplace violence in this category, as the assailants and victims usually know each other. Something built up to it. Someone pushed someone over the edge. Even if there are multiple victims, I don't include them with other "mass shootings" as the parties know each other.
5) Actual "accidental" shootings where kids get ahold of guns they shouldn't have access to, and misery results. Common sense should prevail. Sadly having good sense isn't as common as we might like.
6) Other "categories" we should consider?
I'm coming from the "Disarming good people makes nobody safer" camp. I can't see how ANY "gun control" law could prevent any of the above. But when someone demands it, what do we suggest otherwise? How do we keep these well-meaning but ill-advised people from having the same knee-jerk reaction EVERY TIME? We ought to be all working together toward real solutions, without wasting our time and playing perpetual defense with our rights. Rights are not subject to the popular vote.
Thoughts?
It seems to me we should be more prepared to argue against these calls to emotion. Of course, none of whatever they're suggesting ever could or would prevent a crime, but they demand government take action anyway.
It also seems to me that there are different types of "gun violence," which each may require different responses. None of which include bans or anything else they suggest. What *are* some good suggested responses for each category (assuming *any* response is truly needed)?
1) Suicides. Suicide makes up 66% of all gun "violence." These people plan it long in advance. delays won't help. they only need one shot, so mag limits don't apply. usually w/ a handgun, so AWB doesn't apply. Get these people some help!
2) "Inner city" violence. You know what I mean. Mostly young, mostly POC with no morals and no impulse control, shoot each other. Include armed robberies. Gang & drug shootings. Most of these perpetrators have been arrested multiple times previously. Shooting someone isn't their first felony. Fewer cops, and more social workers doesn't seem to be the answer here. Having intact families would help. How do we mandate that??
3) "Mass" shootings including schools. These are the mental defectives who plan things out weeks or months in advance. They have manifestos. They're not criminals until they commit their crimes. But they're almost all psychotic, on SSRIs, and feel society owes them something for perceived disrespect. How do you prevent that with a law?? Hardening schools will help. But there are plenty of other places (Vegas?) other than schools where nutcases go off the deep end. The shooters rarely have any relationship with the victims. The victims just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time when the shooter goes off.
4) Crimes of passion. Family shootings. murder-suicides. I include workplace violence in this category, as the assailants and victims usually know each other. Something built up to it. Someone pushed someone over the edge. Even if there are multiple victims, I don't include them with other "mass shootings" as the parties know each other.
5) Actual "accidental" shootings where kids get ahold of guns they shouldn't have access to, and misery results. Common sense should prevail. Sadly having good sense isn't as common as we might like.
6) Other "categories" we should consider?
I'm coming from the "Disarming good people makes nobody safer" camp. I can't see how ANY "gun control" law could prevent any of the above. But when someone demands it, what do we suggest otherwise? How do we keep these well-meaning but ill-advised people from having the same knee-jerk reaction EVERY TIME? We ought to be all working together toward real solutions, without wasting our time and playing perpetual defense with our rights. Rights are not subject to the popular vote.
Thoughts?
Last edited:
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
