Should We Reconsider Our Gun Policy?

[Pacerlive]

How is that loop hole going to be closed? If I have a handgun I want to sell to someone else without a massive register and tracking program would be no way to know. Not to mention such a program would have to be originated out of Congress not through executive order meaning it would never be passed. To further add on the fact that there are 100's of thousands or more of guns that have fallen off the radar. Will those guns be registered if they did incorporate such a register and tracking program? Or would they stay off the radar leaving only law abiding citizens to deal with the oppression that is the federal government? You an say close loopholes but I just don't see how closing said loopholes changes anything at this given point in our history.

The problem with policies is that they take time to see any affect which is why I laugh at bans that only span 10 years or less. To see a dramatic affect you have to have policies in place for a lot longer to make any conclusion of what works and what doesn't. There will always be a black market for guns but the cost and abundance still can be influenced. It still boils down to supply and demand. THe cost can deter much like anything else.

Personally I am in favor of clip size reductions that stay in place for a long time. I know as soon as this gets proposed you will have every gun enthusiast buying up what they can. That alone will drive up the cost and my last concern are the gun enthusiast.

[hoosiercubsfan]

The problem with policies is that they take time to see any affect which is why I laugh at bans that only span 10 years or less. To see a dramatic affect you have to have policies in place for a lot longer to make any conclusion of what works and what doesn't. There will always be a black market for guns but the cost and abundance still can be influenced. It still boils down to supply and demand. THe cost can deter much like anything else.

Personally I am in favor of clip size reductions that stay in place for a long time. I know as soon as this gets proposed you will have every gun enthusiast buying up what they can. That alone will drive up the cost and my last concern are the gun enthusiast.

Not only does it take time but it also has to hold up in court. The only way Obama could circumvent Congress would be to work on strengthening an existing law. If there is no current law no executive order can make a new law no matter how much he wishes (or any other president for that matter). In order to have long term solutions that is something you will have to pass through Congress. That is where the rubber meets the road as you will then run into the NRA. They aren't called the worlds largest lobbying group for nothing.

There are millions of guns and clips out there right now as we speak. And I would dare say 100's of thousands of "high" capacity clips. So it would take an extraordinarily long time for the supplies to run out on the black market. Now that doesn't mean the price won't go up but with so much in the supply the demand could be meet without driving the cost up astronomically.

I am no in favor of any clip reduction. Not that I have to have a 50 round drum. Just that I don't think it would make a damn bit of difference. Takes about 3 seconds to change a clip and continue shooting. Not to mention the acts of mass murder are exceedingly rare when talking about gun violence. In order to solve gun violence your going to have to go through a door to door search of every single house and destroy every single gun. Otherwise if someone wants to shoot another person or themselves they are going to have access to a gun in one form or another.

That is why I think looking at guns is the wrong path that we should take. Instead should work on fixing our mental health system. Teaching the youth of our nation the value of a human life. That real life isn't like Halo where you get to reset after you die. That your actions with a gun have a life long consequence for yourself and those you affect with your action. That would go a whole lot farther than trying to ban certain types of firearms.

[Pacerlive]

Lol we can't even teach our youth math and science and you want to teach them the value of human life? Criminals will always be in our society but the weapons they have access to can be restricted. You can have a massive regestration for handguns, limit permits, mag size, rounds in clips, fines and jail time, pysch test, manufacturing of future clips to handle fewer rounds. Trigger smart technology to prevent stolen guns from being fired. The black market will always be there but you can limit how easy and expensive it is to get a quality gun.

It may take 20 years but my daughter may see the better days which is cool with me.

[Pacerlive]

Just a question. How many automatic weapons are used in crimes now? Has it increased or decreased?

[MagicHero3]

Lol we can't even teach our youth math and science and you want to teach them the value of human life? Criminals will always be in our society but the weapons they have access to can be restricted. You can have a massive regestration for handguns, limit permits, mag size, rounds in clips, fines and jail time, pysch test, manufacturing of future clips to handle fewer rounds. Trigger smart technology to prevent stolen guns from being fired. The black market will always be there but you can limit how easy and expensive it is to get a quality gun.

It may take 20 years but my daughter may see the better days which is cool with me.

ummm maybe you had issues learning math and science... but i dont see how its a ridiculous idea. Human rights is 10x more important to learn as a child than math, science, history... If you dont think human rights are important, then you have got your priorities in life completely skewed and are part of the reason kids dont think its bad to harm others. you laugh at it then dont come up with a substantial reason about why it wouldnt work... u go on to talk about ur own opinion on guns.

[MagicHero3]

Sadly this is in my area. 2 of the teachers were in my city, Ocoee, and I went to Ocoee middle school.

I have no idea what this has to do with guns though. No one thinks teachers are role models! Where the hell do you get that from. I think schools should not be a gun free zone because that is where crazy people go to get the least amount of resistance.

Do you honestly believe a teacher doesn't shoot up a school because he/she is not allowed to bring it there?!?

Prior posts suggesting we arm the teachers. with guns. so there, ive completed your tree of logic there, this has to do with guns. i never said a teacher would shoot up a school, but I could see one being irresponsible with the gun and a kid getting their hands on it and accidents happening. Schools should be gun free unless its a cop.

I understand the whole budget issue, but thats not one that we cant tackle. I dont think money should ever be an excuse for not protecting our children. gather some professional economists and figure out a way. Its way more important than 50% of the subsidies the gov't funds.

[Pacerlive]

ummm maybe you had issues learning math and science due to your learning disabilities... but i dont see how its a ridiculous idea. Human rights is 10x more important to learn as a child than math, science, history... If you dont think human rights are important, then you have got your priorities in life completely skewed and are part of the reason kids dont think its bad to harm others. you laugh at it then dont come up with a substantial reason about why it wouldnt work... u go on to talk about ur own opinion on guns.

So who is going to teach them? Their broken home? Most of the deaths caused by guns aren't the result of mass slayings by nut jobs. Its social and class pressures that put people on a path to a high risk behaviour. I am sure if you remove those pressures that enable a person to disregard life including their own that gun deaths would go down.

The question is these people often come from broken homes and are dealing with life choices that are complicated to say the least. I went to school with people that tried to kill another person for multiple reasons.

Most of the criminals don't even stay in school to be taught anything and thats the point. How are you going to change a culture when many more factors are out of your hands to control?

ummm maybe you had issues learning math and science...

I am going to overlook this insult but just realize I practice science for a living and I have taken upperlevel calculus meant for engineers.

[xnick5757]

Obama/Biden giving their speech right now

[MagicHero3]

So who is going to teach them? Their broken home? Most of the deaths caused by guns aren't the result of mass slayings by nut jobs. Its social and class pressures that put people on a path to a high risk behaviour. I am sure if you remove those pressures that enable a person to disregard life including their own that gun deaths would go down.

The question is these people often come from broken homes and are dealing with life choices that are complicated to say the least. I went to school with people that tried to kill another person for multiple reasons.

Most of the criminals don't even stay in school to be taught anything and thats the point. How are you going to change a culture when many more factors are out of your hands to control?



I am going to overlook this insult but just realize I practice science for a living and I have taken upperlevel calculus meant for engineers.

hey, your the one whos saying they "cant even teach us math or science, how will they teach human rights"... they seemed to have taught you well, so why was that comment necessary?

And I said, they would have a class on it at schools and they would teach them there, not anything about a "broken home". Human rights would include CIVIL rights and that would cover your "social and class pressures which push people toward high risk behavior". It could teach them that you shouldnt judge people by their color or parent's salary, but by their character, etc...

If you teach them at a young enough age, its POSSIBLE they wont end up "dropping out"...
Obviously, like everything else in life, there will be exceptions and failures... but it will also do more good than bad. honestly, the class wouldnt be specific to "nut jobs", but to any troubled kid who takes out his frustration by harming others. It could maybe teach them different ways to circumvent their emotions.
Its a step in the right direction, and in no way will it have 100% success rate, bc nothing does. You have to open your mind to solutions or nothing will ever progess. Its called "adapting" and if you practice science for a living you cannot argue that.

[Pacerlive]

hey, your the one whos saying they "cant even teach us math or science, how will they teach human rights"... they seemed to have taught you well, so why was that comment necessary?

And I said, they would have a class on it at schools and they would teach them there, not anything about a "broken home". Human rights would include CIVIL rights and that would cover your "social and class pressures which push people toward high risk behavior". It could teach them that you shouldnt judge people by their color or parent's salary, but by their character, etc...

If you teach them at a young enough age, its POSSIBLE they wont end up "dropping out"...
Obviously, like everything else in life, there will be exceptions and failures... but it will also do more good than bad. honestly, the class wouldnt be specific to "nut jobs", but to any troubled kid who takes out his frustration by harming others. It could maybe teach them different ways to circumvent their emotions.
Its a step in the right direction, and in no way will it have 100% success rate, bc nothing does. You have to open your mind to solutions or nothing will ever progess. Its called "adapting" and if you practice science for a living you cannot argue that.

I am not closed minded on education as a part of the solution but I do want to point out the elephant in the room. YOu can teach a kid anything but unless they see it put into practice it will hold very little value and again most of the criminals caught up in gun crimes are brought up in domestic violent homes, broken homes or no homes at all. They don't have a frame of reference essentially which is the whole piont.

The other point I was making was that teachers are limited on their impact and in these poverty high crime areas and the teachers are often times worse than those that live in the Burbs. So basically you are going to take the least effective teachers in America and ask them to help fix one of the biggest problems in our society.

Something is better than nothing but I am a realist here. I don't think the impact will be that great.

[MagicHero3]

I am not closed minded on education as a part of the solution but I do want to point out the elephant in the room. YOu can teach a kid anything but unless they see it put into practice it will hold very little value and again most of the criminals caught up in gun crimes are brought up in domestic violent homes, broken homes or no homes at all. They don't have a frame of reference essentially which is the whole piont.

The other point I was making was that teachers are limited on their impact and in these poverty high crime areas and the teachers are often times worse than those that live in the Burbs. So basically you are going to take the least effective teachers in America and ask them to help fix one of the biggest problems in our society. Something is better than nothing but I am a realist here. I don't think the impact will be that great.

I agree, this idea wouldnt work for some broken homes if the situation extreme enough.
You said... "YOu can teach a kid anything but unless they see it put into practice it will hold very little value".. So your argument would support this assumption- "why try to teach ANYTHING in school? They wont learn anyway"
Children may not learn things just from lectures and in-class activities or historical examples... but if they are aware of the ideas and come across a situation where they can apply those ideas or at least recognize them on their own, then isnt that the definition of learning? What do you mean they dont have a frame of reference? R U thinking of toddlers in this statement or only high school kids?

If not the teachers, then who? its obvious that we have an issue with crime, bullying, and homicide...all human rights issues... if the kids growing up in a broken home, who's their next influence? their teachers. Im not just talking about high school, im talking about Kindergarten/elementry school. Just bc you dont have faith in the teachers in poor areas doesnt mean they wouldnt have an impact.
Say that its a teacher who isnt as good, they would still be teaching the same material. Children absorb so much at that early age, you would think that human/civil rights should be a mandatory thing to learn, not just their ABCs.
Yes, I agree, the poorer schools wouldnt have as much success with this idea... but thats not the only target. What about the other children in the "burbs"? I think your dismissing this idea too quickly.
A realist- a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it. your not dealing with it, you are dismissing it. You cant claim to be a "realist" and then shut down an idea thats never been applied before, bc you dont know for sure that it wouldnt work.
A realist knows there are exceptions to every rule, like your "rule" that all teachers who teach in poor areas are worse than teachers in the suburbs. But even if it works for say 50% of them, thats a huge chunk of children who are learning the importance of the kinds of things that people like MLK Jr would preach to his peers- human/civil rights.

[Pacerlive]

I agree, this idea wouldnt work for some broken homes if the situation extreme enough.
You said... "YOu can teach a kid anything but unless they see it put into practice it will hold very little value".. So your argument would support this assumption- "why try to teach ANYTHING in school? They wont learn anyway"
Children may not learn things just from lectures and in-class activities or historical examples... but if they are aware of the ideas and come across a situation where they can apply those ideas or at least recognize them on their own, then isnt that the definition of learning? What do you mean they dont have a frame of reference? R U thinking of toddlers in this statement or only high school kids?

If not the teachers, then who? its obvious that we have an issue with crime, bullying, and homicide...all human rights issues... if the kids growing up in a broken home, who's their next influence? their teachers. Im not just talking about high school, im talking about Kindergarten/elementry school. Just bc you dont have faith in the teachers in poor areas doesnt mean they wouldnt have an impact.
Say that its a teacher who isnt as good, they would still be teaching the same material. Children absorb so much at that early age, you would think that human/civil rights should be a mandatory thing to learn, not just their ABCs.
Yes, I agree, the poorer schools wouldnt have as much success with this idea... but thats not the only target. What about the other children in the "burbs"? I think your dismissing this idea too quickly.
A realist- a person who accepts the world as it literally is and deals with it. your not dealing with it, you are dismissing it. You cant claim to be a "realist" and then shut down an idea thats never been applied before, bc you dont know for sure that it wouldnt work.
A realist knows there are exceptions to every rule, like your "rule" that all teachers who teach in poor areas are worse than teachers in the suburbs. But even if it works for say 50% of them, thats a huge chunk of children who are learning the importance of the kinds of things that people like MLK Jr would preach to his peers- human/civil rights.

LOL "toddlers"? When do you think kids go to school. I am just going to assume you don't have kids and move on. It has nothing to do with faith in teachers or what you consider my rules. I don't think its a bad idea at all but I know there is enough statistical evidence that inner city schools are not just bad but terrible when compared to well funded low crime areas. There isn't a magic bullet here and I don't think you grasp the legaslative or culture your trying to change.

Can it change? Sure but the approach of most gun right advocates have nothing to do with guns and I think thats a big part of the problem. You ever wonder why there isn't a lot of studies on gun violence done by the gov't. ITs beacuse they (NRA elected officials) have attached bills and restriction on what can be studied and how it can be interpreted.

In many ways places like the CDC are handcuffed on what they can TELL YOU or say how big the problem really is. We can't even come up with meaningful studies on the problem since people in Washington and elsewhere don't want to hear it.

So getting back to what I was orginally talking about with hoosiercubfan is that he is opposed to mag sizes and other restrictions but we should somehow teach our youth the value of a human life.

That to me isn't a bad idea but I don't think that will fix it even marginally since as a society we push low income families (often broken) into crappy school districts that are not well funded and have the teachers to prove it. THese kids aren't valued on so many levels in their life but we should expect them to value other peoples life since its the right thing to do. They are shown more wrong things to do in their young life than right which is the problem. Now arming them when they get older and combining their high risk life style for violence and wholla we have a career criminal.

ITs a much bigger problem than just guns or teaching them right behaviour or the value of human life when they are the ones that go neglected. Point is their life isn't valued so what makes you think that a teacher for 1 hour or less will undue what they learn 24/7 from a society that pushes them to the curb.

[MagicHero3]

LOL "toddlers"? When do you think kids go to school. I am just going to assume you don't have kids and move on. It has nothing to do with faith in teachers or what you consider my rules. I don't think its a bad idea at all but I know there is enough statistical evidence that inner city schools are not just bad but terrible when compared to well funded low crime areas. There isn't a magic bullet here and I don't think you grasp the legaslative or culture your trying to change.

Can it change? Sure but the approach of most gun right advocates have nothing to do with guns and I think thats a big part of the problem. You ever wonder why there isn't a lot of studies on gun violence done by the gov't. ITs beacuse they (NRA elected officials) have attached bills and restriction on what can be studied and how it can be interpreted.

In many ways places like the CDC are handcuffed on what they can TELL YOU or say how big the problem really is. We can't even come up with meaningful studies on the problem since people in Washington and elsewhere don't want to hear it.

So getting back to what I was orginally talking about with hoosiercubfan is that he is opposed to mag sizes and other restrictions but we should somehow teach our youth the value of a human life.

That to me isn't a bad idea but I don't think that will fix it even marginally since as a society we push low income families (often broken) into crappy school districts that are not well funded and have the teachers to prove it. THese kids aren't valued on so many levels in their life but we should expect them to value other peoples life since its the right thing to do. They are shown more wrong things to do in their young life than right which is the problem. Now arming them when they get older and combining their high risk life style for violence and wholla we have a career criminal.

ITs a much bigger problem than just guns or teaching them right behaviour or the value of human life when they are the ones that go neglected. Point is their life isn't valued so what makes you think that a teacher for 1 hour or less will undue what they learn 24/7 from a society that pushes them to the curb.

So in your opinion, do you think bad parenting has alot to do with it? I think thats the #1 factor in my opinion. Not necessarily "bad" parenting, but some parents dont even "parent" their child (forgive my redundancy). I honestly didnt realize u were responding to his post, I had a post earlier with 3 ideas...
1) Include Human Rights as a class in school from Kindergarten-College
2) Put more police in public places (schools, malls, etc)
3) Work some kind of program in to show parents (before their childs born) the effects of neglecting your child or treating them badly.

This probably wont be so effective bc you cant change who a person is (the to-be parents), but maybe if they learn that if they neglect their child emotionally, that kid could grow up broken and become one of the criminals we refer to.

I also understand that you can shoot down the cops in public places idea bc of budgets... but lets be honest... if we are able to figure out a way to fund it, and cut spending in irrelevent areas... it should be attempted as it is highly effective

[Pacerlive]

I also understand that you can shoot down the cops in public places idea bc of budgets... but lets be honest... if we are able to figure out a way to fund it, and cut spending in irrelevent areas... it should be attempted as it is highly effective

I believe you would fund it if you could but I don't think people in Washington really care since they bet on it never happening to them or their kids. Hey if you live in a rich area then the likelihood of your kid getting raped, kidnapped or robbed is pretty low. There is a class of people in power and there is a class of people who get kicked to the curb and thats the real problem. The people in power haven't seen enough murders and gun violence to really have meaningful policies. They don't see it since they spend most of their life not dealing with it on a first name basis.

[MagicHero3]

I believe you would fund it if you could but I don't think people in Washington really care since they bet on it never happening to them or their kids. Hey if you live in a rich area then the likelihood of your kid getting raped, kidnapped or robbed is pretty low. There is a class of people in power and there is a class of people who get kicked to the curb and thats the real problem. The people in power haven't seen enough murders and gun violence to really have meaningful policies. They don't see it since they spend most of their life not dealing with it on a first name basis.

Most definitely. If they never saw it, it never existed to them. People in power are so blinded or just corrupted that they dont understand the gravity of the issues they are ignoring.