A very bad night in Dallas

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

***What about when they broke into people houses and unlawfully confiscated (I think) guns, and because some of them were antique hand me downs, are no longer returnable? That was okay want it, in your book?

That's also not banning guns.

Brilliant observation.

Uncanny.

Stunning.

Did you happen to miss this part of his post that I replied to?

Or were you just looking for yet another excuse to try to belittle some one?

Quote

I'd like to debate any point you would like. One at a time. Pick one, post it here,

That is exactly what I did.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[gowlerk 1,914]

Quote

That was okay, isnt it, in your book?

Maybe, maybe not. Not much info there to go on. What's your point?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[gowlerk 1,914]

The invitation to debate was not extended to you. It was meant for Coreeece. Debating you would be far too frustrating and pointless.

The post you just made is a pretty good example. I can't even tell what point you are making. But I know you are setting a silly little trap of some sort.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Coreeece 2]

gowlerk

It would then be possible to regulate sales of new weapons. Leaving the hundreds of million still out there. It would be nearly suicidal to require they be turned in, and I would never advocate for that. But how and when they are stored and used and resold could be regulated. Along with voluntary programs to turn them in. It would take decades to reduce the stock

It might even take centuries, especially if new guns are still being manufactured and sold - which leads me to my next question - what do you mean by "regulate sales of new weapons?"

gowlerk

Once that happens, those who have guns will be much more careful with them. They will become more valuable and difficult to replace. It will slowly become harder and harder for criminals to get them. When the rival gang no longer is fully armed, the local gang will not need to be either. Soon the police will no longer be so fearful of being shot.

Fear of those violent people in the inner cities is often cited by you and others. I'll say it again, those are criminals and most of them are stupid. In a society where guns are not available nearly everywhere, these will be the first, not the last people to disarm. Some may get there hands on weapons, but they won't have the resources to hold onto them for long.

I don't know man - I hear what you're saying, but I think you're making a lot of assumptions based on a fairly ambiguous plan - and I just don't think I'd be willing to go down a road based on assumptions when I know there are already proven methods that will significantly reduce ALL violent crime within less than a generation.

Now if we can still reduce guns in a minimally invasive manner, I guess that would be great too, but it's not necessary for the plan to work.

gowlerk

There are a host of road blocks in the way of this plan. Not the least of which is there is still a majority that would not vote for it.

Vote for what? You still haven't defined what regulations would be in place - and if "regulating the sales of new weapons" means anything other than "banning the sales of new weapons," then that kind of runs contrary to your idea of reducing guns efficiently enough to make a difference. You already said it would take decades just to get rid of the guns we already have, let alone the guns that don't exist yet.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful - I've said it before that I think you're one of the more valuable posters in this forum, but is it perhaps possible that you're looking at this issue from a more emotional perspective than a realistic one?

gowlerk

just saying that because you can not solve the problem overnight, you can not do anything about it is, well, madness.

Well, I'm certainly not saying that. Even wolfriverjoe replied to you with a very thoughtful and honest response and you kind of just dismissed it and continued to talk past him - That's what prompted me to butt back into this conversation.

gowlerk

Finally your point about the death rates going down since they peaked in about 1981. I'm sure you know, correlation is not causation. All crime in general has been in decline since then.

Right, and that's what's important - limiting all crime, not just gun crime - that's the basis of a plan that I would support.

gowlerk

Some say it is related to an aging population. I don't know the complex causes behind it

Sorry man, I have to run. This post is long enough anyway, but I wanted to talk a bit more about those causes since many of the recommendations that will actually fix this problem are based on them - brb. . .

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Coreeece 2]

Ok, I'm back - Where were we?

Ah yes, what's behind the decline in crime . . .

gowlerk

All crime in general has been in decline since then. Some say it is related to an aging population. I don't know the complex causes behind it

There are a handful of good ideas that I posted in another thread - like a good economy - however, the link between crime and economic activity seems to be a bit ambiguous. For example, there was a significant decrease in crime in the 90s along side a thriving economy, but crime continued to decrease even during the last recession.

The most compelling causes seem to be related to generational environmental and social factors such as less exposure to lead, more cops, less drugs and alcohol, and interestingly enough, abortion.

I came across a great article today that I think nails it - it's a pretty quick, but concise read:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2015/05/28/whats-behind-the-decline-in-crime/#2d1c8d3e7733

From Article:

Neil Howe

"Though many theories have been considered, one explanation that is often missing from the debate is generational change: Crime rates started to fall precisely when Millennials entered the prime age bracket for criminal activity."

"Over this same period, the rate of violent crime victimizations for 12- to 24-year-olds—the age bracket most likely to commit crime—fell 78%."

"Interestingly, the public remains largely unaware of this trend. In every annual Gallup poll since 2003, a majority of American adults have said that crime is rising. And in a 2013 poll, 56% of Americans said that the number of gun crimes is higher than it was two decades ago—even though gun violence peaked in 1993."

I think the article really makes a good case for how much change one generation can really make. The results we have seen in the last 20 years are more profound than anything you guys have proposed - we have the 90s as proof of what actually works.

It's no wonder that the CDC's biggest recommendation is as follows:

The CDC

"National and state prevention programs directed at reducing firearm violence should focus on youths, particularly in central cities, to reduce the burden of firearm-related mortality in the United States. Initiatives designed to reduce violent deaths in urban areas can draw upon a growing evidence base for effectively addressing behaviors that underlie violence involving youths."

"A concerted effort has been under way during the past few decades to build the evidence base for youth violence prevention, and a number of effective strategies are now available for preventing behaviors that underlie firearm violence involving youths. These strategies include programs that:

1) enhance youth skills and motivation to behave nonviolently and resolve conflicts peacefully,

2) promote positive relationships between youth and adults (e.g., parenting and mentoring programs), and

3) influence the social, environmental, and economic characteristics of schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods in ways that can reduce the likelihood of youth violence (e.g., encouraging social connectedness and facilitating economic opportunities)

4)In addition, new approaches are being tried and tested, such as CeaseFire, which seeks to prevent street violence, particularly shootings, through outreach, conflict mediation, and the changing of community norms that support violence."

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[gowlerk 1,914]

Suddenly I'm very busy, the DZ is open today and tomorrow and I leave Sunday AM for PA with a load of frozen fries. It will be hard to fully engage for awhile, but I'll be thinking of you.

I'll be thinking of what restrictions I would try if I were in charge. I agree, it's a sticky problem.

I can't see the educational plan solving the problem of impulsive violence. I'm intrigued that you believe the younger generation is less prone to criminal behavior. I also think that there is generational progress being made in nearly all areas. I believe today's kids are well above the ones I grew up with. But I thought I was the only old fogey who believes in that. Most people just complain about "kids these days".

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[skycop 0]

Quote

Rather better than dancing a jig at the memorial, like his predecessor did.

Nice substantive reply,
I would expect nothing less from such an intelligent guy.
The current POTUS can't ever pass up an opportunity to lecture those not as enlightened as he is.
The looks and posture of the cops behind him said it all.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kallend 1,625]

skycop

Quote

Rather better than dancing a jig at the memorial, like his predecessor did.

Nice substantive reply,
I would expect nothing less from such an intelligent guy.
The current POTUS can't ever pass up an opportunity to lecture those not as enlightened as he is.
The looks and posture of the cops behind him said it all.

So it's OK to criticize Obama because you disagree with him, but not Bush whose body language was totally inappropriate for the occasion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skycop 0]

Quote

but not Bush whose body language was totally inappropriate for the occasion.

I know you guys HATE GWB, but really, this? Inappropriate body language?
That is such an incredible reach, it's actually funny and sad at the same time.

His remarks were uplifting to a bunch of people who had just suffered an incredible loss, I guess I was too busy listening to the substance of the comments.

The BODY LANGUAGE of the officers sitting behind the POTUS spoke the loudest during his lect.........I mean speech.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kallend 1,625]

skycop

Quote

but not Bush whose body language was totally inappropriate for the occasion.

I know you guys HATE GWB, but really, this? Inappropriate body language?
That is such an incredible reach, it's actually funny and sad at the same time.

www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/07/13/87022542/

Certainly not the way I was brought up to behave at a solemn occasion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[headoverheels 291]

kallend

***

Quote

but not Bush whose body language was totally inappropriate for the occasion.

I know you guys HATE GWB, but really, this? Inappropriate body language?
That is such an incredible reach, it's actually funny and sad at the same time.

www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/07/13/87022542/

Certainly not the way I was brought up to behave at a solemn occasion.

Old guys gotta pee.

[gowlerk 1,914]

Quote

Vote for what? You still haven't defined what regulations would be in place - and if "regulating the sales of new weapons" means anything other than "banning the sales of new weapons," then that kind of runs contrary to your idea of reducing guns efficiently enough to make a difference. You already said it would take decades just to get rid of the guns we already have, let alone the guns that don't exist yet.

I've taken a week or more to think this over, and the only answers I can come up with are weak tea. Clearly despite the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms in America is subject to limitations already. The line of what is constitutional and what is not has not been determined. Like other issues, the SC takes into account prevailing public feelings and even the predominance of state laws in controversial decisions.

You were asking what regulations I would put in place if it were up to me? I guess I would start with what I know, which basically is a series of hoops to jump through and prohibitions against certain products. Along with strong rules about storage and securement of weapons. In other words, something along the lines of the methods used to discourage women from accessing abortions, like waiting periods. (Couldn't resist)

Education would be mandatory, but I believe it often already is in many places. Both open and concealed carry would be for the most part illegal. You would need a hard to get permit and a strong reason for either.

None of this is possible in the current climate. But it could conceivably become possible in the future. America's love of guns is a complicated thing. They are a symbol, and a tool, and a statement of who a person is all at the same time. At least half the population would be against these rules, and half of the other half don't care. But enough murder and mayhem, along with demographic change, will eventually result in a backlash against the NRA and gun makers propaganda.

Quote

Well, I'm certainly not saying that. Even wolfriverjoe replied to you with a very thoughtful and honest response and you kind of just dismissed it and continued to talk past him - That's what prompted me to butt back into this conversation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I went back and reviewed the thread and the only interaction I can find between him and I is a short discussion on the legalities of automatic weapons. I did learn something from his comment, but it was only about legal history.

Quote

Ok, I'm back - Where were we?

Ah yes, what's behind the decline in crime . . .

This is a really good topic for another thread. I have no strong feeling about this. Just an interest. I did try the link to the Forbes article, but no luck, it's gone.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Coreeece 2]

gowlerk

Quote

Vote for what? You still haven't defined what regulations would be in place - and if "regulating the sales of new weapons" means anything other than "banning the sales of new weapons," then that kind of runs contrary to your idea of reducing guns efficiently enough to make a difference. You already said it would take decades just to get rid of the guns we already have, let alone the guns that don't exist yet.

I've taken a week or more to think this over, and the only answers I can come up with are weak tea.

Yes, that's why many gun control advocates turn to emotional pleas of rhetorical truthiness. They have no other argument but to blame people they don't like - like law abiding white gun-toting christian conservative boogeymen - and they ignore any reasonable solutions that don't fit that narrative, which is why you still have yet to address the causes/solutions I've already listed.

gowlerk

You were asking what regulations I would put in place if it were up to me?

No. You arbitrarily placed an amount on how many people would vote against something. I'm just asking you to clearly define what that something would be.

gowlerk

I guess I would start with what I know, which basically is a series of hoops to jump through and prohibitions against certain products. Along with strong rules about storage and securement of weapons. In other words, something along the lines of the methods used to discourage women from accessing abortions, like waiting periods. (Couldn't resist)

You said that the only fix was to reduce guns.

How would you propose to do that?

How many guns would need to be taken away to make a difference?

Would you ban the future manufacturing and/or purchase of new guns?

gowlerk

Both open and concealed carry would be for the most part illegal. You would need a hard to get permit and a strong reason for either.

At least half the population would be against these rules, and half of the other half don't care.

Ya, because it's a stupid fucking idea - open/concealed carry isn't the problem, is it?

gowlerk

Quote

Well, I'm certainly not saying that. Even wolfriverjoe replied to you with a very thoughtful and honest response and you kind of just dismissed it and continued to talk past him - That's what prompted me to butt back into this conversation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

In post #140, Wolfriverjoe said "I'd support ideas that will actually reduce violence, not simply take rights away. It's just that I have yet to see a measure proposed that will do anything. Most of what is proposed is in the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safe" category"

Your response was that we're all the same - that we just make up rationalizations and are unwilling to to make concrete decisions to reduce guns - "blah blah blah," right?

All the while, you have proposed nothing that would actually reduce the amount of guns, and only insisted on taking away gun rights while ignoring serious long term solutions that have already been proven to work and have been set in place while you continue to bitch about how fucked up the United States is.

Until you realize that, your "answers" will always be "weak tea."

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour