Gun Control and Mass Shootings
Thanks for the detailed response. I haven't had a chance to get to this yet, and it's looking like it might not be today, but just so you know I don't intend to ignore it.
Sandman, the problem with confiscating guns in domestic disputes is that there are so many total bull**** cases that result in unjustified seizure. You can read countless accounts online of guys who have been dispossessed of their guns because their wife was yelling at them, neighbors called the police, and the cop shows up and says one of you is going to jail tonight, and it's invariably the man. Then if the woman is spiteful (not a rare happenstance in a domestic dispute), she brings abuse charges. Then the man is facing years in jail even if the charges are completely faked, and he gets railroaded into accepting a plea deal, which results in his loss of gun rights. It's ****ed up and happens all the time. And you don't even need to be convicted of anything in a lot of places for cops to show up and take your guns if an angry ex says you threatened her. These are the "red flag laws" you mention. There are thousands of psycho women out there who drum up total bull**** out of jealousy (think of the dozens of fake rapes and hate crimes that actually make the news; multiply by a thousand) and cops come and confiscate the guy's property. No due process, no court appearance, no presumption of innocence. These red flag laws get passed by well-intentioned voters, and the judges don't want to be on the hook for turning down a warrant should something happen, so justice goes out the window.
I'm wary of your general sentiment on the mental health stuff, too. I've heard from a lot of people who don't want to get help from psychologists because if they say that they're having suicidal thoughts or anything along those lines, there go your guns, and god knows if you'll ever be able to legally own them again.
I'm wary of your general sentiment on the mental health stuff, too. I've heard from a lot of people who don't want to get help from psychologists because if they say that they're having suicidal thoughts or anything along those lines, there go your guns, and god knows if you'll ever be able to legally own them again.
https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...1_20180823.pdf
Here is Lankford's original report:
https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content...s-Firearms.pdf
If you've got some actual data instead of news articles, I'd be interested in seeing that.
It does seem like the Lankford study that a lot of the oft quoted numbers are from is pretty awful and the US having ~30% of the world's mass shootings is not even close to accurate. I think what it would be fair to say though is that the US is the only (developed) country in the world that consistently has mass shootings year in, year out.
To be honest though, while mass shootings are what everyone hears about in the media they account for a tiny proportion of total gun deaths. The reality is that gun regulations aren't going to make much of an impact on the total deaths due to mass shootings, simply because the numbers aren't large relative to other gun deaths to begin with. What would be improved by stricter regulations is the total number of gun related deaths, most obviously suicides but also homicides.
Homicides and suicides involving guns are two areas where the US really is way out ahead of the rest of the developed world in terms of aggregate totals and per capita numbers. Due to the focus on mass shootings most of the talk about gun control tends to be about "assault weapons" and the like but the reality is that regulations on handguns would be much more useful in terms of reducing the number of deaths. The only real argument for civilians to own handguns is self-defence but it has been shown time and time again that having a gun in a house adds far more danger of injury/death than any protection it provides.
Personally I think the ideal outcome would be to eventually ban the sale of handguns without a specific license that could be requested by people for whom it would obviously be beneficial (e.g. self-defence vs animals for a park ranger). I realise that in practice that is probably never going to happen though and as far as more realistic options go a lot of Sandman's suggestions seem reasonable. One thing I would add though is that loopholes regarding background checks for guns sold at gun shows/private sales needs to be eliminated. Ideally guns should always be registered and a private sale of a gun should be similar to a private sale of a car, in that an authority needs to be notified of the new owner and as part of that process that authority could then perform the required background check.
To be honest though, while mass shootings are what everyone hears about in the media they account for a tiny proportion of total gun deaths. The reality is that gun regulations aren't going to make much of an impact on the total deaths due to mass shootings, simply because the numbers aren't large relative to other gun deaths to begin with. What would be improved by stricter regulations is the total number of gun related deaths, most obviously suicides but also homicides.
Homicides and suicides involving guns are two areas where the US really is way out ahead of the rest of the developed world in terms of aggregate totals and per capita numbers. Due to the focus on mass shootings most of the talk about gun control tends to be about "assault weapons" and the like but the reality is that regulations on handguns would be much more useful in terms of reducing the number of deaths. The only real argument for civilians to own handguns is self-defence but it has been shown time and time again that having a gun in a house adds far more danger of injury/death than any protection it provides.
Personally I think the ideal outcome would be to eventually ban the sale of handguns without a specific license that could be requested by people for whom it would obviously be beneficial (e.g. self-defence vs animals for a park ranger). I realise that in practice that is probably never going to happen though and as far as more realistic options go a lot of Sandman's suggestions seem reasonable. One thing I would add though is that loopholes regarding background checks for guns sold at gun shows/private sales needs to be eliminated. Ideally guns should always be registered and a private sale of a gun should be similar to a private sale of a car, in that an authority needs to be notified of the new owner and as part of that process that authority could then perform the required background check.
About the second article, I wasn't 100 % sure of it's credibility to be honest. But what I found interesting is that, the article reinforces the idea that mass shootings and violence in general are directly connected to gun culture.
We could dig up endless reports but it will lead to nothing.
You obviously belong to the camp of dismissive and denial.
This is not an insult, it's simply fact. I guess you feel threatened, your culture, your idea of what this country should be, whatever. It's seems it's a struggle of some twisted survival.
Like Willd pointed out, we live in the only industrial nation that accepts this level of violence as normal.
This sort of reminds me of the Ohio representative that was an outspoken critic of gays. Then his son came out of the closet and all of a sudden he had a complete 180. Changed his mind. Gay people are great. They're people too.
You see, nobody ever died in a mass shooting that you know so where's the problem!!
Well, I got to get back to watching the wsop. I'm not at work anymore!
We could dig up endless reports but it will lead to nothing.
You obviously belong to the camp of dismissive and denial.
This is not an insult, it's simply fact. I guess you feel threatened, your culture, your idea of what this country should be, whatever. It's seems it's a struggle of some twisted survival.
Like Willd pointed out, we live in the only industrial nation that accepts this level of violence as normal.
This sort of reminds me of the Ohio representative that was an outspoken critic of gays. Then his son came out of the closet and all of a sudden he had a complete 180. Changed his mind. Gay people are great. They're people too.
You see, nobody ever died in a mass shooting that you know so where's the problem!!
Well, I got to get back to watching the wsop. I'm not at work anymore!
It does seem like the Lankford study that a lot of the oft quoted numbers are from is pretty awful and the US having ~30% of the world's mass shootings is not even close to accurate. I think what it would be fair to say though is that the US is the only (developed) country in the world that consistently has mass shootings year in, year out.
But what is that? Who decides what metric is used to define a developed country? Is Russia developed? Is Costa Rica? Is Colombia? If it's by GDP (which I think is a horrible metric, but ok) then Russia, Mexico, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Argentina, and South Africa are in the top 30, ahead of countries like Denmark, Ireland, and Finland. There's a large misconception from people who have never lived in other places in the world that try to define the rest of the world and it's just ignorant really. Most countries fall between "amazing" to "average" with a few outliers at either end in terms of standard of living, GDP, happiness, health and medical availability, and people just have a poor understanding of how those countries are actually doing on a global scale. A lot of the times, the "developed" countries that are chosen to use on a gun control graph have no other deciding factor other than they make the US look bad in comparison even though they have very little to do with the US by almost every metric including population, demographics, system of government, history and culture.
To be honest though, while mass shootings are what everyone hears about in the media they account for a tiny proportion of total gun deaths. The reality is that gun regulations aren't going to make much of an impact on the total deaths due to mass shootings, simply because the numbers aren't large relative to other gun deaths to begin with. What would be improved by stricter regulations is the total number of gun related deaths, most obviously suicides but also homicides.
Homicides and suicides involving guns are two areas where the US really is way out ahead of the rest of the developed world in terms of aggregate totals and per capita numbers. Due to the focus on mass shootings most of the talk about gun control tends to be about "assault weapons" and the like but the reality is that regulations on handguns would be much more useful in terms of reducing the number of deaths. The only real argument for civilians to own handguns is self-defence but it has been shown time and time again that having a gun in a house adds far more danger of injury/death than any protection it provides.
Personally I think the ideal outcome would be to eventually ban the sale of handguns without a specific license that could be requested by people for whom it would obviously be beneficial (e.g. self-defence vs animals for a park ranger). I realise that in practice that is probably never going to happen though and as far as more realistic options go a lot of Sandman's suggestions seem reasonable. One thing I would add though is that loopholes regarding background checks for guns sold at gun shows/private sales needs to be eliminated. Ideally guns should always be registered and a private sale of a gun should be similar to a private sale of a car, in that an authority needs to be notified of the new owner and as part of that process that authority could then perform the required background check.
https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
That being said there are 13 states the currently require a background check by a FFL for a private sale, and if it became a national thing, I really wouldn't care.
About the second article, I wasn't 100 % sure of it's credibility to be honest. But what I found interesting is that, the article reinforces the idea that mass shootings and violence in general are directly connected to gun culture.
We could dig up endless reports but it will lead to nothing.
You obviously belong to the camp of dismissive and denial.
This is not an insult, it's simply fact. I guess you feel threatened, your culture, your idea of what this country should be, whatever. It's seems it's a struggle of some twisted survival.
Like Willd pointed out, we live in the only industrial nation that accepts this level of violence as normal.
This sort of reminds me of the Ohio representative that was an outspoken critic of gays. Then his son came out of the closet and all of a sudden he had a complete 180. Changed his mind. Gay people are great. They're people too.
You see, nobody ever died in a mass shooting that you know so where's the problem!!
Well, I got to get back to watching the wsop. I'm not at work anymore!
We could dig up endless reports but it will lead to nothing.
You obviously belong to the camp of dismissive and denial.
This is not an insult, it's simply fact. I guess you feel threatened, your culture, your idea of what this country should be, whatever. It's seems it's a struggle of some twisted survival.
Like Willd pointed out, we live in the only industrial nation that accepts this level of violence as normal.
This sort of reminds me of the Ohio representative that was an outspoken critic of gays. Then his son came out of the closet and all of a sudden he had a complete 180. Changed his mind. Gay people are great. They're people too.
You see, nobody ever died in a mass shooting that you know so where's the problem!!
Well, I got to get back to watching the wsop. I'm not at work anymore!
As far as being in denial, I'm actually here having a conversation, listening to different view points and addressing points that people that disagree have. I don't use emotion as an argument, I try to use unbiased sources as much as possible. Making the statement that my points are invalid because you don't want to take the time to do the research to address them or that you want to just throw me in the blanket category of "DONT TAKE MUH GUNS" people, it seems like the person that's more in denial is YOU.
An article that's based on bad sources isn't an article I put faith in whatever message it's trying to deliver. You made a blanket statement, I asked you to provide some data behind it and you scoffed at me, acting like what you were saying is just common knowledge and it is in fact completely wrong. And FWIW, even though I knew it to be false, I didn't say "you're wrong bucko", I actually gave you a chance to post some data or some sources on the off chance that maybe there was some info out there that I hadn't already seen, that I could research more in depth. We can't "dig up endless reports" because there is literally one report claiming what you said and it's the one I linked to you from the news article and as actual scientific research goes, it's bogus.
As far as being in denial, I'm actually here having a conversation, listening to different view points and addressing points that people that disagree have. I don't use emotion as an argument, I try to use unbiased sources as much as possible. Making the statement that my points are invalid because you don't want to take the time to do the research to address them or that you want to just throw me in the blanket category of "DONT TAKE MUH GUNS" people, it seems like the person that's more in denial is YOU.
As far as being in denial, I'm actually here having a conversation, listening to different view points and addressing points that people that disagree have. I don't use emotion as an argument, I try to use unbiased sources as much as possible. Making the statement that my points are invalid because you don't want to take the time to do the research to address them or that you want to just throw me in the blanket category of "DONT TAKE MUH GUNS" people, it seems like the person that's more in denial is YOU.
You also are obviously open minded.
thanks for taking the time.
I have many times stated that I believe that the 2nd Amendment should be upheld. But at the same time I've also argued that regulations on gun control are constitutional. It seems that many people's fear is that any form of gun control will lead to the eventual taking away of their 2nd amendment rights completely. Although I can sympathize with their concerns, I just don't see that happening.
I firmly believe that the level of gun violence overall in this country is intolerable and something should be done.
I will leave it at that for now. Not because I'm being dismissive. To the contrary. We can all look up endless reports of various biased groups.
Throwing endless studies out there would simply mean I'm sticking to my guns, pardon the pun, and am totally unwilling to bend from my fixed views.
So, let's meet somewhere in the middle. But not now. It's late
Goodnight
Knowing now that you're a military man, maybe I rushed to judge.
You also are obviously open minded.
thanks for taking the time.
I have many times stated that I believe that the 2nd Amendment should be upheld. But at the same time I've also argued that regulations on gun control are constitutional. It seems that many people's fear is that any form of gun control will lead to the eventual taking away of their 2nd amendment rights completely. Although I can sympathize with their concerns, I just don't see that happening.
I firmly believe that the level of gun violence overall in this country is intolerable and something should be done.
I will leave it at that for now. Not because I'm being dismissive. To the contrary. We can all look up endless reports of various biased groups.
Throwing endless studies out there would simply mean I'm sticking to my guns, pardon the pun, and am totally unwilling to bend from my fixed views.
So, let's meet somewhere in the middle. But not now. It's late
Goodnight
You also are obviously open minded.
thanks for taking the time.
I have many times stated that I believe that the 2nd Amendment should be upheld. But at the same time I've also argued that regulations on gun control are constitutional. It seems that many people's fear is that any form of gun control will lead to the eventual taking away of their 2nd amendment rights completely. Although I can sympathize with their concerns, I just don't see that happening.
I firmly believe that the level of gun violence overall in this country is intolerable and something should be done.
I will leave it at that for now. Not because I'm being dismissive. To the contrary. We can all look up endless reports of various biased groups.
Throwing endless studies out there would simply mean I'm sticking to my guns, pardon the pun, and am totally unwilling to bend from my fixed views.
So, let's meet somewhere in the middle. But not now. It's late
Goodnight
FWIW I agree with you on the fact that you can have regulations regarding the 2nd amendment, especially since we already do. There's tons of regulations regarding firearms already. And I also see the slippery slope argument that hardcore gun advocates are afraid of happening, and I also think it's unlikely. My issue is a lot of people want more legislation based on nothing more than emotion, they want to legislate away a problem that they know nothing about and don't care to look into real solutions. I want the laws we have to do what they are designed for, and not add new ones that will cost time and money and will be just as ineffective as the ones we already have. Also I try not to get into the stats too much, because it's so hard to see what the data actually tells us, I would rather have common sense discussions on "does this work, yes or no and why" rather that trot stats out back and forth that may or may not be manipulated or biased (sometimes they are necessary though, lol).
Goodnight
My issue is a lot of people want more legislation based on nothing more than emotion, they want to legislate away a problem that they know nothing about and don't care to look into real solutions. I want the laws we have to do what they are designed for, and not add new ones that will cost time and money and will be just as ineffective as the ones we already have.
This thread is about mass shootings, not gun violence in general, but this is an issue that I think needs to be looked at. Proper firearms training.
Some of the mass shooters used their parents guns. Like the Sandy hook shooting and the Parkland shootings.
We also hear in the news far too often about firearms just being left unsecured and getting in the hands of children so end up tragically causing injury or fatality to themselves.
I lived several years in Germany and knew a few friends who owned guns.
I know this is not Germany and we don't want it to be, But here is how they go about the process of purchasing a firearms in that country.
I didn't purchase a gun myself so I hope I'm not mistaken in some of the process.
First you have to join a gun club to get your license
Second, the gun you purchase has to stay on the gun club premises.
You are required to train for a year, only then can you take your firearm with you.
Once your training is done, you get your license and then only can you take your gun home with you.
At home, you are required by law to have a safety box.
The gun must be securely stored and locked in the safety box when not in use.
I know these measures would be too extreme for Americans but some sort of compromise towards these measures I think would be helpful.
We could at least avoid some of these tragic accidents that far too often happen in this country.
https://www.thelocal.de/20160616/fiv...n-control-laws
This is an informative article I think.
I especially like the idea of needing a separate license for each firearm one wishes to purchase. I didn't know that was the case.
I'm reminded,on this matter, of the YouTube video I saw on Bilzerian.
How he had multiple firearms lying about in his apartment and just how ridiculous that is.
Ps. An aside. I was in Germany when the Wennenden shooting happened.
What the linked article doesn't mention is that the teenager took his fathers unsecured gun. His father after was questioned by authorities but I don't remember if he was held liable or the matter was dropped.
This is an informative article I think.
I especially like the idea of needing a separate license for each firearm one wishes to purchase. I didn't know that was the case.
I'm reminded,on this matter, of the YouTube video I saw on Bilzerian.
How he had multiple firearms lying about in his apartment and just how ridiculous that is.
Ps. An aside. I was in Germany when the Wennenden shooting happened.
What the linked article doesn't mention is that the teenager took his fathers unsecured gun. His father after was questioned by authorities but I don't remember if he was held liable or the matter was dropped.
Fair enough, I appreciate that
FWIW I agree with you on the fact that you can have regulations regarding the 2nd amendment, especially since we already do. There's tons of regulations regarding firearms already. And I also see the slippery slope argument that hardcore gun advocates are afraid of happening, and I also think it's unlikely. My issue is a lot of people want more legislation based on nothing more than emotion, they want to legislate away a problem that they know nothing about and don't care to look into real solutions. I want the laws we have to do what they are designed for, and not add new ones that will cost time and money and will be just as ineffective as the ones we already have. Also I try not to get into the stats too much, because it's so hard to see what the data actually tells us, I would rather have common sense discussions on "does this work, yes or no and why" rather that trot stats out back and forth that may or may not be manipulated or biased (sometimes they are necessary though, lol).
Goodnight
FWIW I agree with you on the fact that you can have regulations regarding the 2nd amendment, especially since we already do. There's tons of regulations regarding firearms already. And I also see the slippery slope argument that hardcore gun advocates are afraid of happening, and I also think it's unlikely. My issue is a lot of people want more legislation based on nothing more than emotion, they want to legislate away a problem that they know nothing about and don't care to look into real solutions. I want the laws we have to do what they are designed for, and not add new ones that will cost time and money and will be just as ineffective as the ones we already have. Also I try not to get into the stats too much, because it's so hard to see what the data actually tells us, I would rather have common sense discussions on "does this work, yes or no and why" rather that trot stats out back and forth that may or may not be manipulated or biased (sometimes they are necessary though, lol).
Goodnight
Wasn't on purpose.
You know American gun laws better than me. If you feel we can make meaningful progress by just improving and property upholding existing gun laws, than I'm all for it.
I think there's a few areas that can certainly be improved upon.
First is mental health. If there is a push country wide to better identify and treat people with mental health issues, less firearm related crime will occur as a by product....
On the legal side of that issue, background checks when purchasing a firearm go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
The 2 ways you will be denied from purchasing a firearm due to mental health are:
1. You have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for a period longer than 72 hours.
2. You have been deemed by a court or government body that due to your mental health, you are a danger to yourself or others or you are unable to manage your own affairs.
The problem with that is that it is not federal law that states are required to make these mental health records part of background check system, it's just a voluntary submission process and many times they fail to voluntarily report the records.
As such I think making this a federal regulation would help with having people with documented mental health issues from "slipping through the cracks" and managing to purchase a gun.
First is mental health. If there is a push country wide to better identify and treat people with mental health issues, less firearm related crime will occur as a by product....
On the legal side of that issue, background checks when purchasing a firearm go through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
The 2 ways you will be denied from purchasing a firearm due to mental health are:
1. You have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for a period longer than 72 hours.
2. You have been deemed by a court or government body that due to your mental health, you are a danger to yourself or others or you are unable to manage your own affairs.
The problem with that is that it is not federal law that states are required to make these mental health records part of background check system, it's just a voluntary submission process and many times they fail to voluntarily report the records.
As such I think making this a federal regulation would help with having people with documented mental health issues from "slipping through the cracks" and managing to purchase a gun.
There are also some states that have or are thinking about "red flag laws" which typically allow the police or family members to petition a court for a temporary gun restraining order. You are required to attend a hearing in which you can respond to the evidence, and a judge can issue a final order that typically lasts up to a year and can be renewed. The restraining orders usually allow the police to seize people’s guns and restrict them from buying new ones. I think this is a decent option as well, but could possibly lead to a slippery slope type of deal, so making it clear and nationwide with solid legislation could be an option.
I'm also in favor of increasing the penalties for people that choose to break the current laws on the books. In some states, illegally carrying a firearm is only a misdemeanor, giving you a few days in jail if you're caught. I think that breaking the law in regards to firearms should be a much more serious offense than it already is and not just when it's involved with drugs or other crimes.
I'm also in favor of closing the "boyfriend gap". Federal law prevents anyone with domestic violence misdemeanors from having a gun (any felony convictions automatically means you can't own or purchase a gun), but that law doesn’t include all domestic violence perpetrators, for example, boyfriends. More specifically, the law doesn’t keep guns from abusers who are not married, do not live with their partner or do not share a child with them. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or no weapon, and abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm. So literally anyone who has ever been convicted of anything that classifies as domestic abuse should instantly forfeit all rights to own a firearm.
That's the term everyone uses, "developed country". But what is that? Who decides what metric is used to define a developed country? Is Russia developed? Is Costa Rica? Is Colombia? If it's by GDP (which I think is a horrible metric, but ok) then Russia, Mexico, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Argentina, and South Africa are in the top 30, ahead of countries like Denmark, Ireland, and Finland.
But, I would love to see some of your proposals become actual, and if they had a positive effect on some of these issues that would likely be enough for me.
Well well named, if being agreeable means the death of the conversation,
Well done bocko. It's all your fault!
Well done bocko. It's all your fault!
i prosecuted solely domestic violence cases for a year, maybe 75 or so cases a week. in a year the amount of "fake" cases he is talking about i could count on my hands.
also as evidence by the florida case where the women got arrested for turning in the guns of the offender, cops rarely ever "come confiscate the guns". its the duty of the offender to turn them in with very little follow up.
I would like to address the attached article to the German gun link, that some of you may have read, briefly.
Not an academic but having lived in Germany for some years, because of my ex, if some of you are wondering, I can voice an opinion to some of the topics touched upon with confidence I believe.
So, the professor mentions he thinks "America is a sick society" .
That was a very strong statement that even took me aback.
But, unfortunately many Euopeans, not only Germans, do see America in this light. I don't think Americans realise what a bad image our gun violence gives us. It's especially troubling when you hear so many arguments from Americans downplaying the problem.
But, I would like to emphasize that at the same time, Europeans, and especially Germans, admire and look up to America.
Germans in particular seem to feel connected to America knowing that many Americans have German descent.
Ok, on the subject of spanking your kids. And that subsequently leading to violence. I was not aware of those statistics, but I don't think anyone can deny that enough studies have shown that a troubled childhood leads to a more likely troubled adulthood as well.
As far as the professor trying to portray German society and parenting as somehow so much superior to America, I will say this.
In Europe, Germans are notorious for being non children friendly.
What exactly do I mean? Maybe they don't spank their kids, but they don't treat them with much affection either. You'll rarely catch a German hugging or cuddling their kids. They discourage their children from being overactive and too playful. There is nothing more important to a German than his "Ruhe" . His peace and quiet. It's not unusual for neighbors to shout and disparage overactive children. "Ruhe" (roo'e), quiet, is one of the favorite words in the German vocabulary.
To give a more concrete example, if you want to host a party at your home or apartment past 10pm, you have to get permission from your neighbors.
This is maybe why Germans were known for decades as a people who show little emotion.
So be honest professor, Germany isn't perfect either.
Not an academic but having lived in Germany for some years, because of my ex, if some of you are wondering, I can voice an opinion to some of the topics touched upon with confidence I believe.
So, the professor mentions he thinks "America is a sick society" .
That was a very strong statement that even took me aback.
But, unfortunately many Euopeans, not only Germans, do see America in this light. I don't think Americans realise what a bad image our gun violence gives us. It's especially troubling when you hear so many arguments from Americans downplaying the problem.
But, I would like to emphasize that at the same time, Europeans, and especially Germans, admire and look up to America.
Germans in particular seem to feel connected to America knowing that many Americans have German descent.
Ok, on the subject of spanking your kids. And that subsequently leading to violence. I was not aware of those statistics, but I don't think anyone can deny that enough studies have shown that a troubled childhood leads to a more likely troubled adulthood as well.
As far as the professor trying to portray German society and parenting as somehow so much superior to America, I will say this.
In Europe, Germans are notorious for being non children friendly.
What exactly do I mean? Maybe they don't spank their kids, but they don't treat them with much affection either. You'll rarely catch a German hugging or cuddling their kids. They discourage their children from being overactive and too playful. There is nothing more important to a German than his "Ruhe" . His peace and quiet. It's not unusual for neighbors to shout and disparage overactive children. "Ruhe" (roo'e), quiet, is one of the favorite words in the German vocabulary.
To give a more concrete example, if you want to host a party at your home or apartment past 10pm, you have to get permission from your neighbors.
This is maybe why Germans were known for decades as a people who show little emotion.
So be honest professor, Germany isn't perfect either.
I'm wary of your general sentiment on the mental health stuff, too. I've heard from a lot of people who don't want to get help from psychologists because if they say that they're having suicidal thoughts or anything along those lines, there go your guns, and god knows if you'll ever be able to legally own them again.
Wow, I missed that. So somigosaden is concerned that a poor suicidal sap won't be able to get his guns back. That's a good one.
The question that has always perplexed me is, when certain segments of this country argue that the good guys need guns to protect themselves against the bad guys. Who are the bad guys, people of color?
Suicidal people are the good guys, as long as they're white?
The Las Vegas shooter, by all definitions, until that act, would have fallen into the good guy category, right?
He was white. No criminal record. Had money. Am I right?
So, someone please finally make it Crystal clear to me who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
Confused poker wannabe.
The question that has always perplexed me is, when certain segments of this country argue that the good guys need guns to protect themselves against the bad guys. Who are the bad guys, people of color?
Suicidal people are the good guys, as long as they're white?
The Las Vegas shooter, by all definitions, until that act, would have fallen into the good guy category, right?
He was white. No criminal record. Had money. Am I right?
So, someone please finally make it Crystal clear to me who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
Confused poker wannabe.
Ok. I got a little emotional and subsequently a little irrational.
Of course people have the constitutional right to have a gun to protect themselves.
But, just like in many instances, convicted fellons have their gun rights taken away from them, is it unconstitutional if a person is deemed mentally unstable, and possibly dangerous to themselves and others, to also take their gun rights away?
Of course people have the constitutional right to have a gun to protect themselves.
But, just like in many instances, convicted fellons have their gun rights taken away from them, is it unconstitutional if a person is deemed mentally unstable, and possibly dangerous to themselves and others, to also take their gun rights away?
why would you be opposed to it also applying to non married individuals/people who don't live/share a kid together?
New Jersey has the strongest law in the entire country in regards to this, which requires police officers to remove firearms after any protective order is issued, most other states require a protective order to be issued that SPECIFICALLY states the offender must surrender their firearms. In any case, there is no state that your guns can be seized without a minimum of a protection order issued by a judge that I'm aware of.
As far as mental health goes, again what are you in favor of? Do you prefer that people who have mental health problems be allowed to buy guns? If not, spell out the policy that you would approve of. I believe that if you're having suicidal thoughts strong enough that you would need to seek professional help, then you shouldn't be allowed to buy or have guns during that time of your life. The fact that people will not get help so they can keep guns will happen no matter what policy you have, so why not make the laws have as thorough coverage as possible? Mostly what I was advocating for in my previous post is having the laws that were already on the books be more effective at doing what they are designed to do. And there's nothing that says provisions can't be made where you are temporally banned from owning or purchasing gun if you've had mental health problems in the past, but then you get better and you get documents from certified mental health professionals and then your privileges are reinstated. The reality is if you've ever had a history of mental health and you buy a firearm you are already breaking the law because you're asked that question every time you purchase. I'd just like there to be more tools in place to catch the liars.
What makes this a difficult problem is that there are edge cases, and cops and judges and politicians with their own incentives and agendas.
I realize I haven't answered everything you brought up, but I just don't have forever to spend on this.
The question that has always perplexed me is, when certain segments of this country argue that the good guys need guns to protect themselves against the bad guys. Who are the bad guys, people of color?
Suicidal people are the good guys, as long as they're white?
The Las Vegas shooter, by all definitions, until that act, would have fallen into the good guy category, right?
He was white. No criminal record. Had money. Am I right?
So, someone please finally make it Crystal clear to me who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
Confused poker wannabe.
Suicidal people are the good guys, as long as they're white?
The Las Vegas shooter, by all definitions, until that act, would have fallen into the good guy category, right?
He was white. No criminal record. Had money. Am I right?
So, someone please finally make it Crystal clear to me who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
Confused poker wannabe.
Yes, how dare I consider the rights of people with mental health issues.
I think you've got it. Everyone who disagrees with you about gun laws is a racist and misogynist. Just like with all the other issues. I wish this forum had more people like you contributing to this discussion.
I think you've got it. Everyone who disagrees with you about gun laws is a racist and misogynist. Just like with all the other issues. I wish this forum had more people like you contributing to this discussion.
I'm admittedly not the most informed on this subject.
My bold blanket statements I admit sometimes go too far.
Are people racist? Of course. Everyone is to some extent.
Or more accurately, most people are biased towards their own kind.
Bill Belichick didn't hide the fact that he liked that Rob Ninkovic was also a fellow Croatian descendent. That doesn't make Belichick a racist.
Maybe I was away from the country too long.
Maybe it doesn't help that I've otherwise only lived in Massachusetts all my life.
I think I've contributed all I have to contribute to this subject I guess.
It takes a big man to admit he's wrong
Some interesting arguments in this article: How to dramatically reduce gun violence in American cities.
It's a review of a book: Bleeding Out: The Devastating Consequences of Urban Violence--and a Bold New Plan for Peace in the Streets
It's a review of a book: Bleeding Out: The Devastating Consequences of Urban Violence--and a Bold New Plan for Peace in the Streets
Gun violence in the US is often talked about as if it’s a single problem. But it’s really at least four different ones: suicides, urban gun violence, domestic violence, and mass shootings. Suicides are the majority of the nearly 40,000 gun deaths in the US in 2017. But urban violence is the second biggest category, making up a majority of the 14,000 gun homicides that same year.
“Since October 2001, 410 people have died in domestic terrorist attacks and 520 have died in mass shootings,” Abt writes. “During that same period, at least one hundred thousand lost their lives to urban violence.”
“Since October 2001, 410 people have died in domestic terrorist attacks and 520 have died in mass shootings,” Abt writes. “During that same period, at least one hundred thousand lost their lives to urban violence.”
Bleeding Out makes a compelling case that there is a path forward, calling for a more focused, balanced, and fair strategy that leverages not just the police but also social service and public health agencies, as well as activists and community leaders, to directly confront the few people in communities culpable for the majority of urban violence. It’s an attempt at making policing more effective, while addressing the justifiable skepticism, particularly on the left and in the Black Lives Matter movement, about whether a criminal justice system riddled with racial disparities and mired by high-profile killings by police officers can handle the task.
In 2012, after years of struggling with gun violence, Oakland, California, adopted what is now known as the Oakland Ceasefire — detailed in a recent rigorous analysis published by the Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group that aims to reduce gun violence.
First, officials analyzed crime trends to see who was most at risk to commit gun violence. They found just 400 people — 0.1 percent of the city’s population — were at the highest risk at any given time, and responsible for the majority of the city’s homicides.
Officials and community leaders then coordinated interventions for these people, hosting call-ins in which they brought in the people at highest risk for gun violence for a meeting with police, social services, faith leaders, and other community activists. After the call-in, local officials followed up with individual interventions as needed.
The idea was to convey a clear, direct message, something like: “We know who you are. We want the best for you, but we can’t and don’t approve of what you’re doing. We will crack down quickly and harshly if you continue down a path of violence. But if you agree to stop, we’ll give you an array of services — jobs, education, health care, and so on — to help you build a better, violence-free life.”
The approach had focus, balance, and fairness. It focused on the 400 individuals at the greatest risk of violence. It made the threat of law enforcement clear but balanced it with community help. The entire process was made as transparent and clear as possible, with leaders throughout the community involved.
The result: While homicides increased overall in Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, and other major cities, Oakland’s homicide rate plummeted by almost 50 percent from 2012 to 2017. The homicide solve rate went from 29 percent in 2011, the year before Oakland Ceasefire began, to more than 70 percent in 2017 — perhaps a sign of increased community trust in the police, according to Giffords.
This strategy, called “focused deterrence,” has also been credited with the “Boston miracle,” a 79 percent drop in violent crime in the city in the 1990s. It’s at the center of Abt’s book.
First, officials analyzed crime trends to see who was most at risk to commit gun violence. They found just 400 people — 0.1 percent of the city’s population — were at the highest risk at any given time, and responsible for the majority of the city’s homicides.
Officials and community leaders then coordinated interventions for these people, hosting call-ins in which they brought in the people at highest risk for gun violence for a meeting with police, social services, faith leaders, and other community activists. After the call-in, local officials followed up with individual interventions as needed.
The idea was to convey a clear, direct message, something like: “We know who you are. We want the best for you, but we can’t and don’t approve of what you’re doing. We will crack down quickly and harshly if you continue down a path of violence. But if you agree to stop, we’ll give you an array of services — jobs, education, health care, and so on — to help you build a better, violence-free life.”
The approach had focus, balance, and fairness. It focused on the 400 individuals at the greatest risk of violence. It made the threat of law enforcement clear but balanced it with community help. The entire process was made as transparent and clear as possible, with leaders throughout the community involved.
The result: While homicides increased overall in Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, and other major cities, Oakland’s homicide rate plummeted by almost 50 percent from 2012 to 2017. The homicide solve rate went from 29 percent in 2011, the year before Oakland Ceasefire began, to more than 70 percent in 2017 — perhaps a sign of increased community trust in the police, according to Giffords.
This strategy, called “focused deterrence,” has also been credited with the “Boston miracle,” a 79 percent drop in violent crime in the city in the 1990s. It’s at the center of Abt’s book.
A large body of research supports the approach: In 2016, Abt and sociologist Christopher Winship reviewed the evidence for strategies to combat community violence, including more than 1,400 individual studies in all. Of the 30 strategies he studied, “focused deterrence had the strongest and most consistent anti-violence effects,” Abt writes.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE