Empty those pockets

Foghorn

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

frazzdaddy

alaskanassasin said:

frazzdaddy said:

alaskanassasin said:

Tax the crap out of bullets

Most of the people that have stockpiled ammo handload.

  I am in no position to argue that...

Me either, I know folks in this area (and you do too) that short of WW3 will never run out of ammo

theyolksonyou

JohnInCarolina said:

theyolksonyou said:

JohnInCarolina said:

theyolksonyou said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Battleborn said:

Comparing the U.S. with anywhere (U.K., Australia, etc.) is fallacious. Those countries weren't founded with the idea that citizenry should be able to protect itself from a tyrannical government. 

Wasn’t Australia founded by... convicts?

Didn’t they have a mass shooting, like today?

Their overall rate is around 1 per 100k.  

You didn’t answer my question, professor. 

Did you have professors at GaTech who just handed you the answers to the questions you were asking?  Because I have to tell you, those are not the good professors.

Being a proponent of higher learning, I’m going to leave it to you to research my professors and their methodology.  

JohnInCarolina

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

frazzdaddy

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

I agree. I would also say that we need to stop arguing about it and just start talking about it.

JohnInCarolina

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

I agree. I would also say that we need to stop arguing about it and just start talking about it.

Isn’t that what we’re doing now - talking about it?

frazzdaddy

I would also say that as a ccw holder I would gladly be willing to re certify every year including a medical just like pilots.

JohnInCarolina

frazzdaddy said:

I would also say that as a ccw holder I would gladly be willing to re certify every year including a medical just like pilots.

I would suggest that, at minimum, it ought to be as difficult to acquire a gun as it is to obtain - and maintain - a driver’s license.

Botch

fishlessman said:

Things were different in the 80's.  anyways, is it still ok to carry an ax

Heh.  The mormon church-state here just took away the liquor licenses from all the ax-throwing clubs, and the karaoke clubs.  I can kinda/sorta/maybe see the logic in the first, and fully applaud the second.  
One club installed a couple pool tables and were again in compliance, and kept their license...

lkapigian

I'm on the Right, Respect and appreciate the Left. Am Christan" would never own a gun but don't care if you do...If we all had the same Flipping Opinions we would be a Stepford Wife Nation, I have a lot to learn from everyone, a lot of our nation's issue is the " my way or the highway" mentality ....Wrap your Brisket or Not , it's all good to me

TEXASBGE2018

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

I would also say that as a ccw holder I would gladly be willing to re certify every year including a medical just like pilots.

I would suggest that, at minimum, it ought to be as difficult to acquire a gun as it is to obtain - and maintain - a driver’s license.

It is really pretty pathetic how easy it is to get a permit in Texas now. At least when I got mine we were in a class for 8 hours in addition to taking the accuracy assessment. Now all you have to do is go to a class for a 4hours and  hit paper.

Botch

GrateEggspectations said:

...I don’t get why discussions touching upon the irrefutably low rates of gun violence in the U.K. (a result of effective gun policies) keep resulting in a focus on a meager (and seemingly un noteworthy, relative to the U.S.) number of knife deaths... 

Particularly when the annual # of knife deaths in GB is less than three days of opioid deaths in the US.  At least someone made a lot of money.  

Foghorn

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

Battleborn

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

I agree. I would also say that we need to stop arguing about it and just start talking about it.

Isn’t that what we’re doing now - talking about it?

As it should be, collectivity coming together to find reasonable solutions. However, as evident by this and the other thread, it turns into a blame game. 
This isn't a right v. left arguement or problem. It is an America problem. Until he can get passed a blame game nothing will change. 

JohnInCarolina

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

frazzdaddy

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

I agree. I would also say that we need to stop arguing about it and just start talking about it.

Isn’t that what we’re doing now - talking about it?

so how do we get everyone "talking" about it?

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

JohnInCarolina

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

I agree. I would also say that we need to stop arguing about it and just start talking about it.

Isn’t that what we’re doing now - talking about it?

so how do we get everyone "talking" about it?

I don’t know but one obstacle I see is how siloed people are.  Lots of folks living in bubbles.   It’s not conducive to understanding different points of view.

frazzdaddy

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

I agree. I would also say that we need to stop arguing about it and just start talking about it.

Isn’t that what we’re doing now - talking about it?

so how do we get everyone "talking" about it?

I don’t know but one obstacle I see is how siloed people are.  Lots of folks living in bubbles.   It’s not conducive to understanding different points of view.

The polarization of America will be quite the study for academics in the future. Can we back away from this and move forward?

Botch

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

Tax the crap out of bullets

Isn’t that Chris Rock’s idea?  Like make bullets $1000 each?   I have to admit that it has some merit.

Not really.  Most mass shooters expect/do die in the final act.  If I applied to every credit card application I got in the last fricking week, got the cards over the next six weeks, I could buy a buttload of ammo, and use it, before the bills came.
Mom will be pissed, however.  

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

I agree. I would also say that we need to stop arguing about it and just start talking about it.

Isn’t that what we’re doing now - talking about it?

so how do we get everyone "talking" about it?

I don’t know but one obstacle I see is how siloed people are.  Lots of folks living in bubbles.   It’s not conducive to understanding different points of view.

Siloed is correct.  Everyone.  That’s the problem.  All monologue and no dialogue.

JohnInCarolina

Botch said:

JohnInCarolina said:

alaskanassasin said:

Tax the crap out of bullets

Isn’t that Chris Rock’s idea?  Like make bullets $1000 each?   I have to admit that it has some merit.

Not really.  Most mass shooters expect/do die in the final act.  If I applied to every credit card application I got in the last fricking week, got the cards over the next six weeks, I could buy a buttload of ammo, and use it, before the bills came.
Mom will be pissed, however.  

It was a joke.  

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

bgebrent

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

frazzdaddy

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

do we get your 5 as well?

bgebrent

frazzdaddy said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

do we get your 5 as well?

I don’t have plenty of things like John.  I’ve already stated more spending on mental health, indigent included and education about warning signs and speaking up if there’s a concern.  You?

alaskanassasin

require a background check on private sales. I know most will not comply but it is a step.

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

bgebrent said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Foghorn said:

frazzdaddy said:

I asked this question before. What do we do? Through all of this "debate" I've heard one suggestion. No wonder they can't agree on anything or get anything done in Washington. We have created a massive problem. There is no way to recover all of the guns. Stroll over to Google and do a search for gun sales since WW2. Very few of those guns have worn out or been destroyed. No way if guns are outlawed you get a fraction back. There needs to be another way. @Battleborn makes great points

@f@frazzdaddy, you ask a good question.

In my opinion, there is no single answer.  It's complex and will take a multifaceted systematic approach to chip away at the issues from multiple directions.

How about treating it like injuries from motor vehicle crashes and looking at it like a public health problem... and engaging gun owners in coming up with some steps that will likely (not guaranteed) make some progress... and then studying the effects to see if they work... and continuing then learning more and repeating the cycle.  We've cut US motor vehicle deaths from 26 per 100,000 per year in 1969 to about 11 per 100,000 per year now by making safer cars, safer roads, increasing DUI enforcement, seatbelt use, etc.

You know - like the links below.  All members of the team are gun owners.  Many of them are NRA members.  In surveys, the majority of gun owners - including the majority of those who state they are NRA members - agree with all the recommendations.  

Just a thought.

https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2018/fast111418

https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32155-0/fulltext

I don’t think there’s a “solution” here.  In my view that’s the wrong way to think about it, because it rules out many steps that could be taken (like you suggest) that would significantly *reduce* gun deaths.  

I will say that if we make any progress on this issue it’s going to have to come at the local level.  I just don’t see anything happening at the federal level anytime soon.  

If I'm reading you correctly (I may not be) I'm going to respond by saying that the majority of US citizens (at least right now) will not support a "solution" as you put it.  

We could have strict, enforced (hopefully) gun laws like most civilized countries and I'm pretty sure (not 100% sure because I don't have a crystal ball) that we would - in a few years - see a dramatic reduction in gun violence.  Guns used for crimes have a half-life of 6 months because they get thrown away to get rid of evidence.  In theory 98+% of those guns would be gone within 3 years.  In reality, it would take longer (but would probably still happen) because 1) as long a some makes guns, people (good and bad) will find a way to get them and 2) when guns get hard to acquire, the 1/2 life of criminal guns will get longer because they won't be considered disposable.

But that's not the point.  The point is that given our nation's history and our constitution we are no more likely to strictly limit guns than we are to strictly limit cars.  Freedom is very important to Americans.  Freedom to drive where we want and freedom to own a gun if we want.  That's why engaging gun owners/advocates to incrementally reduce gun violence is the best option available.  It's the only feasible "solution" to this complex problem with multiple issues - laws... enforcement of said laws... mental health issues/treatment and how that relates to access to guns... types of guns and ammo... gun safety training... technologic considerations... etc, etc, etc

If we can have the same "success" (I realize that is a relative term) as we have in motor vehicles - 58% reduction over 50 years - I'll take that over 50 years of nonproductive divisive bickering while the mortality rate continues to rise. 

All I meant is that I don’t think it’s useful to fixate in identifying steps that would completely eliminate mass shootings, for example.  There’s plenty of things that can be done that probably won’t reduce those but are still worthwhile, in my view.  

But I agree with your other points.  

“But are still worthwhile”-please expound on this. Worthwhile to what end?

To reducing the aggregate number of gun deaths.

The plenty of things that can be done are?  Only need 5.

Perhaps you missed where I generally don’t hand out answers to questions.  I wouldn’t be a very good professor if I did, would I?  

But a good start here would be to simply eliminate funding restrictions on gun violence research.  As @Foghorn pointed out, over many years we managed to significantly reduce motor vehicle deaths.  Part of what got us to good things to do in that space, things that worked, was studying the problem, running experiments, etc.  Why not do the same with gun deaths?  At the moment, we spend a very small fraction of the funds to study this problem that we continue to spend studying motor vehicle deaths, even though the rates are comparable.  Eliminate the restrictions, and you’ll get many more than 5, some of which might even work.

bgebrent

alaskanassasin said:

require a background check on private sales. I know most will not comply but it is a step.

I get this but it can be a double edged sword.  And you  understand that the only people who will be compliant are law abiding people like you and me.  Therein lies the rub. I want to give “sell” a gun to my son.  He’s a mentally stable adult college grad with a stable job and life.  Does background checking him change the story.  Probably not.  We’re all interested in improving the current situation.  It’s gonna be tough.

JohnInCarolina

bgebrent said:

alaskanassasin said:

require a background check on private sales. I know most will not comply but it is a step.

I get this but it can be a double edged sword.  

What is the “double-edged sword” on background checks for private sales?