Voluntary relinquishment is another specious argument. Criminals just don't participate in them... so yes you are reducing the number of guns out there but not the guns most likely to be used and crimes and pretty much an insignificant number to begin with. So, rather than fixating on the guns themselves*, maybe look at who really has them first. A 2014 poll found that 22 percent of Americans personally own a firearm, down from a high of 31 percent in 1985. In reality a smaller, mostly rural minority owns the large majority of guns, and the number of owners has been declining since the 70s anyways too. Like I said previously, we need to look at better enforcing the existing laws. Here's something that is really troubling to me: Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City ranked last in terms of federal gun law enforcement in 2012. Yes, Chicago- where over 500 people were killed in 2012 and 82 shot over the 4th of July weekend alone last year- ranked dead last in federal gun prosecutions. That is fucked up. How can you ignore that? Overall, firearm-related prosecution rates have been falling since 2004. Many with firearms charges are repeat offenders too, so you have a minority of criminals who are contributing a larger share of offenses that need to be handled. *If you do want to talk about guns themselves, handguns are where the efforts should be focused since they are by far the most apt to be used in crimes. Although it isn't a perfect system (and should be improved) I think it could be reasonable to extend the NICS (federal background check) to all handgun sales, but that means focusing on handguns and not shotguns and rifles too. You can look at Canada's failed Long Gun registry as an example of why.
Of course criminals don't participate in buybacks. But this has nothing to do with my argument which is that most of the weapons used in these shootings are legally obtained then used without the owner's permission. The point of 'relinquishment' - which I'm not advocating by the way - is that if the weapon isn't there for someone to steal, it's just not there. So it would be the legal owner relinquishing, not the 'criminal.' And while we're at it, the whole 'criminal' argument is ridiculous - in terms of both 'they don't register anyway' and 'they won't follow the laws.' Really? No kidding. A criminal, by definition, has failed to follow some law. No one in their right mind thinks a bunch of criminals are going to hand over their weapons. Did they got prosecuted in state court? States also have laws against these things. So please read that article again. There's a bit about how states are keeping these prosecutions because they have sentences equal or greater to the federal sentences. So it's not like these criminals aren't being prosecuted at all. They're being prosecuted at the state level, so this argument is facetious. And again, focusing on one type of gun hasn't worked, and will not work. On that we can agree - IF your goal is to reduce gun related deaths. I stated this earlier, divining between weapons is a red herring. If you want less gun related deaths, you need less guns. Period. I'm not advocating for that outcome, but the arguments that are proffered are not viable - criminal, no prosecutions, etc. There is a magic pill, but some folks don't want to take it and the other folks negotiate bullshit things in order to ignore it.
You just said "My initial thought is voluntary relinquishment" in your last post, which is why I brought it up. So if that isn't what you're advocating to reduce the number of guns, what is? You're leading on to my point- if places like Chicago are indeed leaving the prosecution to the states and still see such ridiculous levels of bloodshed- why aren't we doing something about it? I dunno, maybe it is unrelated to how offenders are prosecuted but I think the current scenario warrants taking another look at it. Rifles and shotguns collectively amount to a small minority of firearm related crimes, which obviously leaves the rest to handguns. Plus the joke of an Assault Weapons ban we used to have and Canada's Long Gun registry are examples to me of how focusing on rifles and shotguns in particular is ineffective. Another way to look at it is how handguns are for the most part solely made to be weapons compared to others like rifles and shotguns designed for hunting and target shooting. I understand that less guns overall means less chances for gun violence but rather than wasting effort with a blanket approach first focusing on the firearms that are vastly more likely to be used in crimes seems like a more direct and realistic route to actually reducing gun related deaths to me rather than a red herring. We can put more emphasis on firearms safety and education too. Not only can we reduce the number of accidental (and completely preventable) events, but we can reduce the number of guns lost and stolen too- if people don't know how to properly secure their firearms, they should be shown how. It isn't like this is some nebulous idea anyways- education programs that have shown to be effective have been in place for a long time could be ramped up immediately.
There definitely needs to be more education on firearms in general. One of my good friends grew up in the city without being around guns. After seeing him around a few guns, I've had to tell him that I don't feel comfortable being around him when he has a gun. I've explained what he does that makes me feel uncomfortable and for the most part he has understood my points and made the effort to be more aware of his surroundings.
My brother in law is a former police officer. He carries a weapon, and frankly I'm ok with that, even in my home. However, since he is a zealous gun advocate, his wife (my wife's sister) also has one. I don't allow her to bring it into my home. Very very few people are truly trained to keep their head in a dangerous situation with a weapon. Education is great and all, but ultimately, most people don't really - and never will - have the type of training that a cop or military person will have. As such, I'm not fond of anyone outside those groups having a weapon in my home. If I'm in your home? It's your place, your rules.
This. Exactly this. This is what the NRA should be pushing. I was brought up that firearms are a tools for a very specific purpose. Too many out there now think of them as toys. Additionally, like religion and your cock, nobody else wants or needs to see or hear about it on a daily basis. I'd like to see a mandatory & certified training course enacted and require documented completion before a person could purchase a firearm. No restrictions on what you want to buy, but before you can get it; you have to prove you're trained and responsible. I'm also the guy that wants to see mandatory drivers training before allowing a person to even test for a drivers license.
This is what I've always thought would be the best way to simplify gun laws. It would be like a driver's license: it's a single, universal permit that requires a certain amount of training. Maybe you'd have to renew it every 5-10 years. If you want to carry a pistol, you need a pistol endorsement. If you have a federal tax stamp to own a suppressor, that could also be displayed on the card. If you get a felony assault charge or something similar, your card is suspended. I still think it would work better as a state permit, but reciprocity can get complicated, as those of us who have concealed carry permits know. Kubla made a good point with the mental health background check issue. I have mild PTSD from being overseas, which is documented. I also had a period in my life recently where a lot of bad things happened to me in a short amount of time. Because of this I have terrible anxiety attacks, which are usually followed by depression. I take meds for this, which is also documented. That being said, I own a bunch of guns, which includes a few pistols and a two or three of what could be considered "assault weapons", depending on which unqualified individual is classifying them. I'm a responsible gun owner. I was taught at a young age to respect them and to handle them in a safe manner. I use them for hunting and recreational target shooting. When they're not being used, they're locked up in a safe. I'm not a violent person. I would never consider hurting someone with any kind of weapon unless they were obviously trying to do the same thing to me. Having to use one of my guns in that manner would be an awful experience and I hope it's something I never have to do. One thing that bothers me though, is the idea that my right to own a firearm could someday be revoked because of my past mental health issues, even though they have never affected my competence as a gun owner. If I had to give up hunting and shooting, it wouldn't be the worst thing that happened, I have plenty of other hobbies. The problem is, I live out in the country where you wait 30 minutes for someone to show up after calling 911. Every once in a while you hear about break-ins around here, sometimes when the homeowners are sleeping. Last fall my neighbor, who lives a half mile away from me, woke up to someone in his house at 2 AM. Luckily the guy ran away when he heard him get out of bed. If a meth head kicks my door in someday with the intention of bashing my head in and stealing all the copper from my house, I want to have a means of protection. I sure as hell don't want to count on hiding in my closet until the sheriff's deputy shows up.
Absolutely 100%. When I was in school, gun safety was a required course in about 7th grade. No if's, and's, or but's. No opting out allowed. Period. And then they sent us off to 'nam. No, actually by the time I was in high school just about every vehicle in the student parking lot had several rifles and ammunition in it during hunting season. We'd get up early and go hunting before school, go to school, and then go hunt after school. We never had a single incident involving firearms. Not one. And we were loaded for bear (Literally.) I'm not saying I think that would be a real good idea now, but it worked fine for us that were brought up handling and respecting guns.
My dad grew up on a farm and went to a single-room school house. Real Little House on the Prairie type shit. He has stories of being 8 years old and taking his new .22 rifle to school for show-and-tell... with the teacher basically rolling her eyes and saying, "yes, it's nice... now go put it in your locker and sit back down." It was a tool on the farm, part of every day life, and was familiar and respected.
My dad was given a compound-style hunting bow as an 11th birthday gift. The Greatest Generation had an amusing way of raising the kids: entirely not giving a fuck. Both of my grandfathers were trained killers with actual bodycounts to their name, I guess expecting more would be idiotic.
And today ebay, Amazon, and Sears joined them. So how did folks respond on Amazon? There have also been new calls for Mississippi to change their state flag, and for pretty much anything to do with the Confederacy be destroyed or have it's name changed. Or hidden under a bush. Literally. In Tennessee somewhere, on private property visible from the highway is a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Folks are petitioning the state to plant and maintain bushes to hide it from view. No one in their right mind thinks Forrest is anything but a huge asshole, but c'mon now. This is overreaction personified. Instead of trying to rewrite history, use it as teaching tool so it doesn't happen again. I'm all for removing the Confederate flag from government buildings because it doesn't belong there. Same goes for the bust of Forrest in the TN statehouse. It's way past time to put that thing in a closet or a museum as a teaching tool. But to rename, hide, or destroy everything like the whole era never happened? That's a horrible idea. It did happen. And if it's forgotten, it'll happen again.
And while everyone is piling on the hate-flag-de-jour, the Virginia Governor is now phasing out the Confederate flag from the state license plate. Between the corporations not wanting to piss off any potential basement dwellers with a thousand twitter followers and the politicians who are seeking to gain favour in their districts, this shit is getting out of control. Until next week when it'll be something else. Is this shit really that transparent or am I just an old drunk cynic?
I'll admit it. I REALLY thought about buying up some confederate flag stuff once the walmart news hit (you knew the other places weren't far behind after that) just to re-sell it. In my neck of the woods I could take a box of it to a gun show, auction it off, and make enough to buy a few of those "really dangerous assault rifles" in cash. But it would mean making money off a tragedy, even if it was an overreaction to a tragedy, and that just doesn't sit well with me. The black market for this stuff is gonna be insane. And anyone with a sewing machine, loose morals, and a little ingenuity is gonna make some serious bank.
Remember about a week ago I posted a link in the WDT that this year 835 or so children had been shot or shot at in Memphis? Yeah, that's not a problem. One unstable human being that shot 9 innocent people posted a picture of himself with a Confederate flag! Clearly we need to address the Confederacy and spend all sorts of money to erase it. That's the problem.
I think one of the big takeaways from all of this is that politics no longer solves problems, it works PR and social media in order to get (re)elected.
I feel pretty neutral about the flag. As mentioned above, I generally view it as a sign of ignorant redneckery and, to a lesser extent, a symbol of hate. Maybe if I lived in a rural area or the Deep South I would have more experiences with people who display it in a hateful way. The good ole boys here wear Texas flags. I rarely see a Confederate. A few weeks ago a friend of a friend posted a selfie on Instagram...wearing a Conderate flag bikini. It definitely raised an eyebrow as I didn't think this girl was "that" kind of person. (And honestly, I wondered, "Who posts shit like this on social media in 2015? That's the kind of stuff that employers can potentially see.") I digress. My point is that I view the proposed banning and refusal to sell the flag as an empty knee-jerk reaction/political move. This happens every time there's a tragedy. Some politician or CEO says or does something to make a political statement. Without actually proposing any programs or education to potentially make a significant difference in lives or race relations. The flag isn't hatefulness or racism. It's a symptom of those things. Hate and ignorance will still exist with or without a flag. Banning it/refusing to sell it just makes it cooler to the population that buys it.
Well now that the confederate flag has gone the way of the dodo, I wonder what all the highschool kids around here are gonna hang on their jacked up, non-functional trucks to display their IQ levels.
Very, very true. What scares me is the shooter's goal was to start a race war and all this knee jerk reaction may just do that. If I were him I'd be wringing my hands with delight watching what's happening. Right or wrong, southerners are very proud of being southern. Not so much the slavery aspect, but the whole "Fuck you! You can't tell us what to do" aspect. It's all about God, country, mama, daddy, biscuits & gravy, and being born in the south. I've lived all over the country and nowhere else have I seen people fly the state flag in their yard other then Mississippi. Never. In Mississippi it's quite common to have the state flag proudly displayed at a private residence. About a dozen years ago Mississippi had a vote to change the state flag and it was voted down by a 2-1 margin. This whole situation is turning way uglier than it already is by people overreacting.