Gun Control Solutions

[aggie97]

I haven't read any of the other posts but I would suggest that every owner of a registered fire arm should complete a psychological exam or some type of continuing education (CE) every X year(s) to verify mental stability or what have you. You fail to complete your CE, your firearm becomes eligible to be confiscated. After more time passes and your obligations have not yet been met, your property will be seized. I'm pretty sure that'll weed out the deadbeats and point out the crazies. I can't see nothing wrong with this idea, unless something similar already exists. Chl folks have to maintain a license right? Just make everyone who owns a firearm have to do something similar.

I might consider that if you also propose a license and qualification requirement to get pregnant. If you are throwing out redicuosly smart ideas....might as well do it right.

[ELVIS]

twas' merely a suggestion. You guys can rally outside city hall shooting off your assault rifles everytime the Cowboys lose

i cant afford that much ammo!

god bless.

[futant]

The left will tell you not to look at this with a bunch of facts/figures/numbers.

E X A C T L Y

facts mean nothing when your agenda is to blame guns for the root of all evil.
FEAR is the only thing that matters to them. Logic and reasoning be damned, lets just blame guns!

When you think through the liberal mental condition that thinks guns are to blame, what you basically find is a COWARD. Someone too weak to admit that another human being with just plain evil intentions killed another perfectly innocent human. That is the root of this problem - coward incompetence

[ceyko]

Before advocating gun control measures that make people feel good, consider how effective they will be. Human nature doesn't abide laws very well. Human nature abides real consequences. You'd pay those sales taxes if you thought you wouldn't get away with it. Now you know how criminals operate with firearms.

Good post overall. They figure, someone will figure it out. Guess what, no matter how you cut gun control - it's not going to be effective. Going house to house to confiscate guns at best would break the country's budget (that is already broken).

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Good post overall. They figure, someone will figure it out. Guess what, no matter how you cut gun control - it's not going to be effective. Going house to house to confiscate guns at best would break the country's budget (that is already broken).

Thanks.

Here's something else to consider, and I'm primarily directing it to A+:

Firearms are fascinating because:

It appeals to our primitive brains. It's force application at a distance, and force is a concept we are inherently aware of. We are part of a system where all interaction with nature and each other is predicated on power balance. Firearms change how that balance works.



Here's another perspective on firearm ownership. Firearms owners are naturally inclined to want to use their weapons as they were intended - to protect themselves from violent or material threats and hunting. Target practice, plinking, and all that is fun but it's incidental.

In the absence of a highly organized and civilized society, we become savage critters or we die. In American society, where our legal system imposes real consequences, the majority conforms. However, outlying elements remain savage - these elements are readily violent. They remain predators. Essentially, wild game hunters embrace this savage side but their prey more accurately correlates with our place in the food chain, not fellow man (arguably food chain as well, depending on who you ask).

Thing is, gun control advocates and gun ownership proponents essentially fear the same thing! Armed, violent criminals. How we want to handle a real problem comes down to ideology and philosophical differences - but everyone is on the same page about the need to be vigilant against violent crime.

Where we reach an impasse is the idea that we can limit human predation by limiting access to firearms. We can, perhaps, limit lethality and that's what gun control advocates cite as their objective. But we are in a society that values life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness equally. Human predation deprives people of quality of life, not just life itself.

This only concerns one case of violent crime - thugs targeting normal, generally law-abiding citizens just going about their business. This is essentially the perspective of people who want to be able to protect themselves, and for which we have legislation in recognition that concealed handguns carried in public places has a legitimate place in society.


There are other forms of human predation. Our civilized societies function because of cooperative, mutually assured security. We hunt each other in packs because we're more dangerous that way. This breaks down into "civilized" packs such as nation-states or competing geo-political factions and their various force apparati, and outlying elements such as gangs.

Regarding gang violence: this is the meat and potatoes of who we don't want having firearms! These organized predators are thought to be behind "an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions and up to 90 percent in several others", according to http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...eat-assessment

We entrust our civil security to organized force apparati - local and state police, FBI, and so on - so that we do not individually have to compete against violent gang activity. Yet, this is a false security. Law enforcement comes after a crime is committed and they attempt to impose consequences in an attempt to deter other crimes. Laws are not consequences, they allow the imposition of consequences. Law enforcement does not have a duty to protect an individual, they have a duty to operate in the capacity of a nation-state force apparatus - the summary effect intended to protect the interests of all people. Who then protects the individual?

A better question is: who protects the individual when the nation-state force apparati is turned against the people whose interests it is supposed to protect?

When the American colonists declared independence, they were rejecting an established nation-state and imposing their own. In order to do this, they had to establish their own force apparatus to compete with superior British force. Calling up militia and building a navy. The idea behind the second amendment is to permit a group of individuals to establish a viable competing force apparatus when they must do so to liberate themselves from an oppressive nation-state. Embracing violence is the ultimate failsafe, and it comes at the risk of life when loss of life is a viable alternative to a diminished quality of life.


The nature of the gun-control conversation should be more about due diligence and not creating false hope in legislative protection or prevention. Polls suggest the majority of people agree that some regulation is good, but it must be meaningful and not adverse to our natural rights. We should talk about how to mitigate human predation by individuals, gangs, and governments. We can't do all three.

It comes down to power - how much force can be applied to a situation. Anything you do that is not in the interests of the people around you will be met with force. Firearms are a force equalizer. When people talk about gun control, they're uncomfortable with someone else having more power than they do. They talk about preservation of life, but speak nothing about preservation of quality of life. Gun banishment is an illusory power transfer. The idea is to limit the amount of force a criminal has, but it really just limits the amount of force an individual has. The individual chooses what to do within their power.

And what of people who feel powerless? This is the essence behind domestic violence and mass murders. They feel powerless so they usurp someone else's in desperation. Violence is always about power balance, real or perceived.

[Wicked98Snake]

Very nice bernie!

[Danny46]

Holy crap Bernie, did you write that?

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Copyright berniem 2012, all rights reserved.

EDIT: except the pictures. I totally and shamelessly lifted those.

[BlackSnake]

This is how I put it all together in my head:

In 2010:

11,048 homicides were committed with firearms as a whole.
BUT:
32,788 people died in traffic accidents.
10,228 of those fatalities were caused by drunk driving.
Only eleven school shooting deaths occurred in 2010.

Those numbers (overall shooting murder vs. drunk driving murder) are almost identical.

We see commercial after commercial after billboard after radio ad slamming drunk drivers. While some of us feel that MADD (as an example) is a bit overzealous, they are actually going after the real problem. The drunk behind the wheel. You don't see hardly ANY ads laying into Coors or Jack Daniel's or Grey Goose for selling "evil alcohol". Why? They all have tons of "drink responsibly" tags and voice-overs, for starters. Even still, we as a society have become able to step over the boundary that lets us blame the drinker and not the company producing the drink. We don't have prohibition again.

So how do we bridge that gap with firearms producers and the nut jobs that kill kids? I'm about positive that more 5-10 year old kids died this year at the hands of a drunk driver as opposed to the Sandy Hook killer.

A+ post!

[BERNIE MOSFET]

A+ post!

No, that's a DON SVO post.

[Forever_frost]

I haven't read any of the other posts but I would suggest that every owner of a registered fire arm should complete a psychological exam or some type of continuing education (CE) every X year(s) to verify mental stability or what have you. You fail to complete your CE, your firearm becomes eligible to be confiscated. After more time passes and your obligations have not yet been met, your property will be seized. I'm pretty sure that'll weed out the deadbeats and point out the crazies. I can't see nothing wrong with this idea, unless something similar already exists. Chl folks have to maintain a license right? Just make everyone who owns a firearm have to do something similar.

You mean other than violating my rights, seizing private property and being unconstitutional? What other right are you for requiring a psych eval for?

[BlackSnake]

No, that's a DON SVO post.

Lmao. Good call

[Forever_frost]

when a couple rotten apples keeps ruining the bunch, its easier to just get rid of the damn tree.......wait...yeah. i think. Im not trying to get rid of yalls damn guns. I dont care really but i know a couple of bad guys who own a few and a crazy, on psych meds, lady who owns guns and buys one every chance she gets and i feel like they should own a firearm. Personally, i want an RPG, or does that not count as a Bear arm?

The founders said if the government has it, we should as well. The government in their day had cannon, musket and rifle and so did the people.

[LS1Goat]

ABC Nightline ran a segment on Eagle Gun Range tonight. They are focusing on inner city gun violence as the foundation of their argument. It's quite entertaining.

[Vertnut]

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery". Thomas Jefferson