NFR How to prevent firearm based murder/s

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by dfl, Dec 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dfl Active Member

    Posts: 310
    Sequim WA
    Ratings: +130 / 0
    There are now 12 pages of commentary initiated by the CT shootings. Some of the commentary is compassionate, quite a bit is considered and thoughtful and in a few the white trash gene kicked in.
    Would any of you who have thought this through please post what you think would be a potentially politically acceptable combination of policies and laws that would prevent repeated massacres like we have in this country. Really, given our culture and history, if you could introduce a comprehensive set of bill in congress, what would they encompass; how would they be enforced; and how would they be paid for?
  2. PT Physhicist

    Posts: 3,569
    Edmonds, WA
    Ratings: +728 / 2
    What's a white trash gene?
  3. fifafu Guest

    Posts: 0
    Ratings: +1 / 0
    Which guns should the government allow us to own? Are they gonna take away my 10/22?
  4. Bob Triggs Your Preferred Olympic Peninsula Fly Fishing Guide

    Posts: 4,020
    Olympic Peninsula
    Ratings: +686 / 0
    The Sullivan Law, in New York State, was considered the toughest gun control law in America for over 100 years. It required licensing to carry a concealed handgun, or even to own one, and registration of the guns themselves. New York City had additional stricter requirements. Over the decades the New York City pistol carry permit became almost impossible to obtain, without many limitations, or the applicant having some serious political connections. Yet the New York City murder rate was 3000-4000 per year. Despite increased limitations on guns and gun owners, and added mandatory penalties for violators, no gun control laws were helping to impact the firearms crime rates there. In more recent years a newer law- Stop And Frisk- was enacted. This allowed police officers to stop people whom they deem to be "suspicious", long enough to check them out, frisk them etc. So if they don't like the way you look, walking down the sidewalk, they can stop you. There was a time when this was done by the teams of felony warrant officers working in the city boroughs. And it did help to intercept some people who were wanted or fleeing justice, and they confiscated unlicensed firearms. But there were inconsistencies, mistakes were made, and people sued.

    With this newer law, Stop And Frisk, people are not being profiled by a particular class, race or ethnicity, but by commonly observed behaviors that any prudent and reasonable person would characterize as suspicious. And they have seen a 90% reduction in the murder rate in New York City. 90%! And all they do is send teams of officers out to look for suspicious people, people who look like they are armed etc, and they stop them, ask them a few questions and check them for a weapon. And they are intercepting felons, wanted persons, and illegally carried firearms and other weapons. Some see this as terribly invasive, a loss of privacy. And I can understand this. One concern is that this is a step away from coming into our homes to search any time they want to, with no real probable cause etc. A breech of unwarranted search and seizures. But after over a century of ever restrictive and unrealistically punitive gun control laws, and so many years of incredibly high murder rates, this is a glaring statistic.

    One of the less obvious failures of gun control laws is that courts, prosecutors and defense lawyers all take advantage of various loopholes and plea bargain contracts to avoid the charges and penalties of firearms related crimes, or the firearms related aspects of the crimes. This is done to save costs, reduce prison demands, and to gain intelligence on other criminals or events, to close cases or assist investigations of higher crimes. And there are plenty of political machinations in this mix too. Many criminals know that this is a good possibility. And let's face it, if someone is going to use a gun to hold up a convenience store, or rape a girl, or murder someone, they are not likely to be very concerned about illegal use of a firearm charges.

    There needs to be a serious commitment to social change in our society. We need to shift toward early childhood care and intervention, especially as to mental health wellness and illness. We need to take much better care of our own. Not just stuff troubled kids with drugs and send them to a brief program, but real mentorship and nurturing concern. Enough of these incidents have occurred that there is a general range of characteristics that are recognized in these attackers. We need to pay more attention to young people in need and in trouble. And how is it that thousands of young inner city juveniles are killing each other in America, every year, and we are not hearing this cry for change? If nice middle class white kids were shooting each other in the clean streets of suburbia on a regular basis you can bet there would be a huge effort launched to save the children. But somehow these minority kids are allowed to destroy each other and no serious effort is being made to intervene. And when the money crunch hits who gets the cuts of funds and services first? The poor, the mentally ill, the needy.

    Our problems rest in the terrible disparities and indifference that our society has ensconced it's self in, in the mad dash for money and materialism. We need to take on the task of finding our own humanity and compassion. We need to slow down and begin to take better care of our own.

    Gun Control laws do not work. They are a band aid on a problem that lies in our social fabric. Law abiding citizens are restricted and hampered by these laws, and criminals ignore them. And decent people should be free to defend themselves.
  5. Rick Todd Active Member

    Posts: 1,861
    Ferndale/Winthrop
    Ratings: +237 / 0
    One of the most thought out and intelligent responses to gun violence I've seen-nice work Bob-especially at 1 in the morning! Rick
    Andrew Lawrence likes this.
  6. Lugan Joe Streamer

    Posts: 2,395
    Beautiful View, WA
    Ratings: +774 / 2
    Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote, and I think we need to address issues in society ranging from mental health to morality to strengthening families to eliminate root causes.

    But it's not true that gun control laws do not work. They have worked in other countries like Australia, Japan and the UK in recent decades.

    in Australia, banning and buying back assault weapons has so far totally stopped massacres: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

    The UK also relatively recently made gun ownership harder to achieve, with a focus on an intensive licensing requirement, and that too has worked to reduce gun deaths and nearly eliminate big massacres: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974

    Japan has almost totally banned firearms. This extreme of a law is not something I or most in the US would advocate, but it does illustrate effectiveness of such a law: http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

    In our own country, there is some evidence that states with stricter laws have fewer gun deaths: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

    The question is whether such laws could work in the US overall. Maybe we are significantly crazier than the aforementioned nations, and/or have so many more guns in circulation (especially high-capacity assault weapons) that a ban won't work. I for one will be looking at this issue in coming months and years with an open mind and eager desire to implement the best solutions without regard for dogma or ideology.

    We do have a 2nd amendment that gives us the right to bear arms, but the full text of that amendment also states that this right must be well-regulated and organized ("a well-regulated militia"): "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So if you are a strict Constitutional advocate, you must also support a reasonable and effective effort to regulate guns while maintaining our right to bear them.
  7. Paul Huffman Lagging economic indicator

    Posts: 1,430
    Yakima, WA.
    Ratings: +142 / 0
    Wrangler?
    Jason Rolfe and Dan Nelson like this.
  8. Pat Lat Mad Flyentist

    Posts: 1,103
    Des Moines
    Ratings: +821 / 0
    Bob, I agree with your post, and I do think that we are already past the point that gun control laws won't solve the problem, but the fact that people are allowed to own assault rifles, key word being assault, is ridiculous.The only reason some weapons were created is to do damage to another human being, there is a line there albeit a squiggly, blurry line that does not need to be crossed. The only use for most guns is to stroke someones ego and it is not worth letting manufacturers mass produce certain models and make them publicly available just so they can end up in the wrong hands. Gun control laws won't work unless the control starts at the source. Once a gun is in the hands of the consumer the government has essentially lost control.
  9. Steve Saville Active Member

    Posts: 2,516
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +343 / 1
    I was shocked and saddenhed by the incident. I was a school teacher, still am, for 26 years and I could not bear to see something like that in the schools I worked in. That being said, Americans have the Constitutional Right to own and bear firearms. It's been upheld by the present Supreme Court. The right was written in so no tyrannical government could ever oppress the citizens of this country. We have to face facts that we will all be allowed to keep firearms, no matter what happens.

    The real tragedy is the direction society in general is moving. How many of you enjoy a good old violent movie or video game? And how many of you allow your kids to play and watch? It makes them immune to violence. Our mental health institutes and professionals are overwhelmed by what's going on today and are searching for answers and we have a "mind your own business" attitude when it comes to our own families. We aren't prepared to recognize symptoms nor are we prepared to take actrions to avoid such problems. Until we change that, we will have tragedies like this over and over again. Taking guns away is not the answer. Passing tougher laws is not the answer. Better awareness and a williness to get involved when we see something not quite right is where we have to start. I've seen too many parents over the past 25+ years who are too busy making a living or doing their own things to pay close attention to what happens in their own homes.
    Munro, wadin' boot and Phil Fravel like this.
  10. NCL Active Member

    Posts: 345
    Northern California
    Ratings: +26 / 2
    I would agree with much of what Mr Triggs has stated in the above reply. Another gun law will not prevent these types of actions. The reason I say this is if you reduce to the most basic it is illegal to murder someone yet it occurs throught out this country everyday for numerous reasons. Safety and morality cannot be legislated. For those that would say "yes" but additional gun control could/would prevent these disturbed people from getting a gun, I would point to the drug laws and say there are a number of illegal drugs in this country and yet they are readily available on the street, my point being if you want something you can find it.

    There was a quote that went viral purportely said by Morgan Freeman, that is now being revealed as a hoax, but what is said in that quote is very true, the media turns these disturbed individuals into names with a legacy. The blame doesn't solely lie with the media, we as a society want to know all vivid the details of these incidents. Maybe we as a society would be better served to ignore these incidents and let the professionals deal with the details.

    While I am on my soap box it seems that the very moral fabric of our society is deteriorating with the moral bourdries being expanded with each new decade. As a minor example when I grew up I was taught to not swear, especially in mixed company. Now you can not hardly listen to the radio, see a movie without being bombardied with the "F" word and other forbidden words. It seems now there can not be a meaningful dialogue unless it is peppered with swear words. My point being that we as a society need to say certain things are inherently wrong and they should not be tolerated. We need to teach our children that there is a "right" and a "wrong" and there is consequences for "wrong".

    If you want to looks for others causes look at the graphic details that are being portrayed in movies and games and yet there is no consequence in these games or movies for the purpetrators.

    Another under laying cause may be attributed to the "bullying" that goes on in schools and which is not addressed. One main theme seems to be these indivduals are "fringe" personalities that are disdained by others in their same age group.

    Lastly, we as a society need to decide we want protection from these types of indivduals through stronger mental health programs. As with any decision there are ramifications in terms of allocations of limited resourses. I read a book a number of years ago on the Zodiac killer. In that book the author had a footnote that he had visited a leading psychologist with the question on why there were so many sadio/ sexual killers in the 1970 and 1980's when prior to those decades it was a very rare occurence. The response was some what interesting in that the rise in this type of serial killings was attributed to having more of these individuals out in society. It was further stated that when Ronald Reagan was governor of California there was a reduction to the funding of mental institutions and many of the high functioning individuals were released into society, these were indivduals that had been commited by family or self, thus they were contained and not able to harm anyone, with there release their fantasies were no longer controlled, thus the increase in these types of incidents.
  11. Rob Allen Active Member

    Posts: 978
    Vancouver WA
    Ratings: +393 / 0
    People have been murdering since the very beginning. The way to stop the trend. People have to stop wanting! If there is no want there is no reason to murder.. That ain't happening any time soon everyone wants something. Some people give themselves over to that want and become willing to do anything to get what they want. You can regulate guns all you want it will not change the core of the problem. People are the problem. The only real solution is to get people to not act like people and there is only one way to do that.
  12. ribka Active Member

    Posts: 1,424
    E WA
    Ratings: +165 / 0
    The mouth breather op thought he had to bring degrading racial epitaphs into the discussion.

    Of course it is a cultural issue. Broken families, no funding for mental health, increased drug usage, 24 hr cycle of violence in media, etc etc.
  13. wadin' boot Donny, you're out of your element...

    Posts: 2,035
    Wallingford, WA
    Ratings: +1,603 / 0
    Bob, nice discussion. But again, like Lugan pointed out there are countries with gun controls were firearm related deaths are way below ours. Take a look at this page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

    What are we ranked at, #13 highest gun fatalities, or reverse it, we're like 65th lowest firearm fatality. And those are just fatalities- when you combine 1st world trauma surgery and rapid triage, firearm deaths in this country have dramatically lowered, without our health care system we would probably be up there with Mexicol, which we are not far behind....Look through the list though, it is nothing to be proud or complacent about, if you look for a country where graft is not rife and the rule of law is by and large obeyed, the first country on the list is the USA (9 deaths per 100,000), the second is Switzerland (3.5 deaths per 100,000). Those are significant differences. At least in my mind it does suggest we have our heads collectively up our national ass here.

    Sure folks can argue there is a decline in societal fabric. That notion that societal fabric is eroding suggests that all those 65 other countries safer than ours have as NCL above says a "very moral fabric of... society." Take Holland- prostitution is legal there, so is marijuana, boobs and liberal mores are everywhere. Drug use is certainly more tolerated than it is in the USA. Their firearm death rate is 0.45/100,000. Firearm deaths in the USA are more than 20 times higher than a place that has the moral fabric equivalent of flimsy lace panties covered in coke and the ejaculate of multiple paying partners!

    We export American entertainment culture, music, flims, movies, video games, porn and dress. Our entertainments saturate world markets, yet we still die from firearm related fatalities at way higher rates than the countries we export those ideas too. They buy and consume our entertainments but don't have the death rate we do from firearm violence. How is it that as a country the USA produces more Nobel Laureates than almost all other countries combined, and yet we have these kinds of firearm stats? Is it because we tolerate and encourage intellectual risk right there with physical risk? Is it because there's an epigenetic phenomena where those who seek opportunity and wealth, who are willing to tolerate risk, left their countries of unthinking authority-loving citizens behind? Beats me. Again, take Australia, a country populated by neanderthals and thugs exported from Britain in the 1800's, their politics and environment, rule of law, democracy, opportunities and abundant resources are similar to what we have here. Even with the genes of thugs their firearm related deaths are 1.5/100000. (I feel totally comfortable describing Australians as such, I am a dual citizen of Australia and the US and really have a genetically inherited and environmentally encouraged dislike for authority figures)

    You do hear the cry for change re inner city kids but the damn liberal media doesn't cover it....Seriously though, the population you describe is marginalized re services and political sway. That and news- unfortunately- only becomes news when there is a change in pattern. Editors are numb to that story. Critical investigative reporting is rare these days. Having said that there are plenty of us who do care about inner city violence and crime. Given the way demographics are going, that marginalization of Black and Latin and Women voters isn't going to last.(The women are the ones that the guys with guns will need to watch, they're the ones that are the maddest and most likely to legislate change.) I do find it interesting though that the mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg remains, despite frisk laws etc, one of the most vocal advocates for gun control. that and Mayors of Chicago and New York have long advocated for stringent gun control laws. At least in Chicago's case 2010, those laws were deemed unconstitutional. Seattle and Washington State have similarly been unable to enact local legislation re gun control.
  14. Dan Page Active Member

    Posts: 443
    Yelm, Wa., USA.
    Ratings: +33 / 0
    ribka likes this.
  15. ak_powder_monkey Proud to Be Alaskan

    Posts: 3,209
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Ratings: +112 / 0
    here's my thought as someone who owns and uses guns regularly:

    -require a damn license to own a firearm, you need one to drive.... seriously
    -Require guns to be registered to their owner (just like cars) and if your gun is used in a crime, you will go to jail, circumstances dictate for how long, but you go to jail.

    To prevent (or lessen the number of victims) mass shootings in schools (and other places)there are some concrete steps we can take:
    -Train interested faculty to dispatch a shooter, have police presence in schools. Make sure there are armed adults in school who are highly trained in defending the innocent
    -ban the sale of high capacity magazines. Make them illegal to posses without strict liscencing (kinda like automatic weapons) this won't stop shootings entirely, but someone who has to reload every ten shots is gonna kill a hell of a lot less people than someone who can rattle off 50 shots in 10 seconds.
  16. Roper Idiot Savant

    Posts: 4,313
    Glenraven Ranch
    Ratings: +791 / 1
    Well, aren't you the all knowing judge of people. In my opinion your name calling makes you no better...welcome to the trailer park.
  17. Pat Lat Mad Flyentist

    Posts: 1,103
    Des Moines
    Ratings: +821 / 0
  18. Be Jofus G Banned or Parked

    Posts: 2,051
    Washington
    Ratings: +53 / 0
    Interesting observation. My Daughter was punched and bit by a little boy in her class. I asked my son, who is 2 years older if he saw what happened. He said yes, I saw it. I asked him what he did after he saw it. He said, "I told the teacher what happened, we get in trouble if we fight back".

    That's the problem. There used to be a right of passage for every boy where eventually they had to stand up to a bully to either protect themselvs or their loved ones. This taught young men (and women in some cases) that if you are a bully, eventually someone is going to smash your goddamn face in. It taught kids who were picked on that you can stand up for yourself. These result in two qualities I see that are lacking in this latest generation, and probably the last 2 generations if you're on the west coast. Humility and Confidence.

    I still blame the vaginzation of americans that I'm convinced is caused by both nurture and nature. Nurture being the shitheads that are teaching our kids skills that are only usefull if you live in a rated g fantasy land, and nature being all of the estrogen and hormones being pumped into our bodies through pollution.
    Alex MacDonald, shawn k, NCL and 2 others like this.
  19. speyfisher Active Member

    Posts: 1,064
    State of Jefferson U.S.A.
    Ratings: +139 / 3
    Re: Autrailia comment ref to http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf
    I, for one don't believe anything coming from such a liberal institution as Harvard.
    As for your claim that Austrailia, Japan & the UK's restrictive gun laws have nearly eliminated mass murders, I submit they still occur now & then in these countries. They are just carried out by means other than the gun.

    Japan has almost totally banned firearms. Yes, and gun ownership in the state of Hawaii is very difficult, if not impossible. HOWEVER, there are shooting ranges in Hawaii where one can shoot full auto weapons (owned by the range). Guess who their largest clientele is? The Japanese!

    Re: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Contrary to the liberal spin, in the terms of the founders "militia" referred not to the national guard, but to the whole of the people, and "well regulated" did not mean regulated by either state or federal authority,, but well armed. Stop and think about that. Being necessary to the security of a free state. Secure from what? An overpowering government, such as they had just fought being the founders greatest fear, the intent was to insure against the future possibility of a tyrannical government gaining absolute control of the people in the future. So how could that work if, well regulated meant controlled by either the state or the federal government?

    Now, just to be clear, I have been a life member of the NRA since sometime back in the 80's. Prior to that, I had been reluctant to buy into the notion that there was a concentrated effort to ban all private ownership of firearms in the US. While I will be the first to admit that a 30 round magazine is totally unnecessary for hunting, that is not what the second amendment is about.

    Reasonable and effective effort to regulate guns while maintaining our right to bear them? That is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
    Klickrolf likes this.
  20. Steve Saville Active Member

    Posts: 2,516
    Tacoma, WA
    Ratings: +343 / 1
    It's pretty easy to tell everyone what should or should not be done in schools. It's also easy to call every incident bullying. The lines are narrow but to have to investigate such incidents in schools is actually rather difficult because you rarely get the same story from all involved and when you do and you call and notify the parents, you come under a ration of crap like you would not believe. I have never shied away from talking to a parent about bullying of ratial slurs and such but you wouldn't believe the names I've been called or the accusations that have been made as a result. Unfortunately, parents have a different view of their children than their teachers do. I've pretty much seen it all and the bottom line is that we all need to set good examples for kids so that they grow up with tolerance and empathy, that they grow up productive, and they become the type citizens we expect will lead this country in the future. But...the responsibility lies with all of us.
    Craig Pablo, jwg, NCL and 2 others like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.