A different take on the guns and schools debate

[John_Hannah]

Exactly HOW? Exactly how does anyone "close" a border that is 2,000 miles long? What else is a border that is 2,000 miles long, but mostly open?

Even if, in the unlikely event that we could ever afford to build a wall for 2,000 miles, the border would be open for the most part. How about drones?

"Closed" and "open" make for dramatic sounding politics but not much else.

Major unemployment and a bad economy would certainly help keep people out. It seems that neither party is in favor though.

Peace, JOHN

[DCharlton]

Exactly HOW? Exactly how does anyone "close" a border that is 2,000 miles long? What else is a border that is 2,000 miles long, but mostly open?

Even if, in the unlikely event that we could ever afford to build a wall for 2,000 miles, the border would be open for the most part. How about drones?

"Closed" and "open" make for dramatic sounding politics but not much else.

Major unemployment and a bad economy would certainly help keep people out. It seems that neither party is in favor though.

Peace, JOHN

I've already explained what I mean by that phrase.  Work to stop trafficking, guns and drugs.  A party that wants to get rid of guns, but is simultaneously against law enforcement, isn't serious about stopping gun violence.

[MaddogLutheran]

Exactly HOW? Exactly how does anyone "close" a border that is 2,000 miles long? What else is a border that is 2,000 miles long, but mostly open?

Even if, in the unlikely event that we could ever afford to build a wall for 2,000 miles, the border would be open for the most part. How about drones?

Asked and answered already.

Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue.  The border patrol already does this right now to some degree.  It fails when large groups of migrants cross en masse.  Which they are incentivized to do when catch & release (into the United States) is official policy.  Instead of just returning them immediately over the border.

International refugee law says migrants fleeing persecution should request asylum in the first available country, which for Central Americans is certainly not the United States.  Just like European migrants try to get to Britain, they are incentivized to do so by the best economic prospect, not any particular personal fear for their safety in intermediate countries.

Just like there is an ideological camp opposed to any additional immigration, there is another equally committed to letting in anyone who can make it across the border.  Neither side should be setting our immigration policies.  Of course the latter accuses the former (and anyone objecting to illegal immigration) of being a fascist racist.  So almost nothing is being done about the current illegal crossings in large numbers.  This stalemate incentivizes it.  Which is sad, because there is a political deal to be had, if only the border were secured first--the anti-immigrant is more fringe and could be ignored if the border situation was ever resolved.  But that goes against the other ideologues' goal, which is currently being achieved, albeit illegally.  But they don't care, because mass deportation is even more impossible than you make out securing to the border to be.

[Dan Fienen]

I don't know about guns being smuggled across the border, but if legal guns in the US are  blackmarmade illegal, or exceedingly difficult to obtain,that would set up a black market situation that smugglers would be happy to fill.

[John_Hannah]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

[Jim Butler]

It is at theviolenceproject.org; and another site offramp.org, the latter site providing some academic studies on leading people away from violent tendencies and training people how to recognize potentially violent tendencies in others.

How many times has a mass shooter been on the radar of law enforcement, yet no one has done anything? (See, for example, the Parkland school shooter and the Club Q shooter.)  Recognizing violent tendencies won't do any good if law enforcement won't follow up on it.

   There is data on more than 100 mass shootings in this country, including data on the weaponry, the shooters, the conditions, the motivations, locations and responses.

A while back you said there were nearly 200 mass shootings *this year.*

The VP says that there have been nearly 200 mass shootings over the past *50 years*.

So which number is correct?

The data, I must note, does not seem to support some of the strong gun controls I favor; but it does seem to point to things that could help.

I'm pretty sure that's what most people on this board have been arguing: the data do not support the gun controls you favor.

So who has been more informed by actual date: the people who have been arguing your approaches don't work or you?

[DCharlton]

The "illegals" often work for less than a proper wage, so the people who employ them benefit.
I'd like to see data on guns coming across our "open" borders. I think we have plenty of guns already here, manufactured by US companies in the United States.

Oh, I see that you're not serious about saving lives and preventing gun deaths, not to mention deaths from fentanyl.  You just want to stick it to the Right.  Any reasonably informed person knows that the is a trade in illegal guns.  To lower gun deaths would require us to address bother legal and illegal guns, but you don't care about that. 

A party that wants to defund police while ignoring trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings on the border in the name of being "pro-immigrant" isn't serious about saving lives.  It is driven by a lust for political power. 

[Charles Austin]

Let's hear some statistics about guns crossing our southern border. I suspect the guns that are doing the damage are made right here in this country. prove me wrong.

[MaddogLutheran]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

Are you asking this because you know?  Or because you don't know?

Why do you think anyone here might know this?  Yet earlier you suggested because the numbers were so vast, securing such a border was impossible.  You comment as if you know the answer, that it isn't.  Which is why I'll ask again, what do you know that leads you to that conclusion?

This is a great country with almost limitless potential for innovation.  We built the first atomic bomb.  We put a man on the moon.  We developed a COVID vaccine in an incredibly short length of time.  Securing a 2,000 mile border through overlapping defenses doesn't seem beyond our capabilities.  We only lack the political will, for reasons I have already mentioned.  That's entirely my point:  we haven't seriously tried to date.  Because anyone who advocates for that is branded an uncaring racist.  Yet no one has the political integrity to repeal all such immigration restrictions.  Which makes me think some of those people understand what a disaster unrestricted immigration is.  By not attempting to repeal them, they get their desired outcome (the status quo) without any associated responsibility for those negatives.

[Charles Austin]

By the way, has anybody actually looked at the site I mentioned at the beginning of this thread of discussion?

[DCharlton]

Let's hear some statistics about guns crossing our southern border. I suspect the guns that are doing the damage are made right here in this country. prove me wrong.

The guns flow both ways.  Probably more are exported , but illegal guns are also imported.  Why would you want to do nothing to stop gun trafficking.?  Oh yes, for the same reason you don't want to do anything about fentanyl.  It's not about solving problems.  It's about sticking it to the Right.

A policy of banning the manufacture and sale of guns, combined with increased law enforcement both within the US and on the border might significantly decrease gun deaths, both in the US and in Mexico.  It might also decrease human trafficking , sex trafficking, and fentanyl deaths.   Unfortunately, the Right is opposed to more gun control, while Charles and his friends on the left want to defund the police and have open borders.  But who wants to sacrifice ideological purity?

[John_Hannah]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

Are you asking this because you know?  Or because you don't know?

Why do you think anyone here might know this?  Yet earlier you suggested because the numbers were so vast, securing such a border was impossible.  You comment as if you know the answer, that it isn't.  Which is why I'll ask again, what do you know that leads you to that conclusion?

This is a great country with almost limitless potential for innovation.  We built the first atomic bomb.  We put a man on the moon.  We developed a COVID vaccine in an incredibly short length of time.  Securing a 2,000 mile border through overlapping defenses doesn't seem beyond our capabilities.  We only lack the political will, for reasons I have already mentioned.  That's entirely my point:  we haven't seriously tried to date.  Because anyone who advocates for that is branded an uncaring racist.  Yet no one has the political integrity to repeal all such immigration restrictions.  Which makes me think some of those people understand what a disaster unrestricted immigration is.  By not attempting to repeal them, they get their desired outcome (the status quo) without any associated responsibility for those negatives.

No. I do not know. I know that the geographic area is generally arid without any natural barriers, although parts are mountainous. I don't how much that is but suspect that it much less than half of the 2,000 miles. Most, if not all, of the Rio Grande is shallow.

It is probably not possible to totally restrict illegal entry. There is huge incentive for reasons most of which we approve. We are free and we are wealthy. As long we don't evolve to a brutal dictatorship and as long as we don't kill our economy, they will come. (I noticed that they kept coming even when the economy weakened considerably during the pandemic.)

Unfortunately (and I mean that I consider it UNFORTUNATE), there will always be ample opportunity to accuse whoever is in charge at the time of being lax on illegal immigrants. The geography is against us.

What exactly can we do that we are not?

Peace, JOHN

[Jim Butler]

By the way, has anybody actually looked at the site I mentioned at the beginning of this thread of discussion?

I did.* That's why I noted that you had said, over a month ago, that there had been "nearly" 200 mass shootings this year. (As a side not, yesterday, the POTUS press secretary said 100 for this year.)

I checked the violence project and it said nearly 200 (the number they give is 188, but their count for this year [5] is behind).

So, who is right? You're "nearly 200"? The PressSec 100? Or the Violence Project.

*I referred to the VP in my post. Given the context, I assumed that everyone would know I was referring to the Violence Project. Perhaps you thought I was referring to the  Vice President. But I did spend time on the website. I thought it was quite interesting.

[Brian Stoffregen]

"Migrants don't cross just anywhere on the 2,000 mile border, because some of it is inhospitable to foot traffic.  You build walls in the high traffic areas.  Use drones to monitor/intercept in areas where barriers are impractical but crossings continue." 

Just how many miles are passable? Then how many drones?

I believe that there are motion detectors along many parts of the border.

The wall has produced creative ways of getting over under or through it. The Border Patrol still has to monitor the areas where there is a wall.

Here are stories about tunnels that have been located in our area.
https://abc11.com/border-tunnel-found-yuma-arizona-in-san-luis-ro-colorado-mexico/6360163/#:~:text=PHOENIX%20%2D%2D%20An%20incomplete%20tunnel,short%20of%20reaching%20the%20surface.

[Dan Fienen]

There are serious problems with the current gun control debate.


Objectives: What is our objective in reforming gun laws? Is it to make people feel safer? Is so, we don't really need to study what will actually make a difference in gun deaths, just find out what will give people the feeling of safety. Is it to punish people who want to have and use things that we don't like? Then draconian laws against gun ownership are the ticket. People with nasty gun fetishes deserve to suffer for them. Is it to gain political power by exploiting an emotional topic? You know the drill, demagoguery has always been a political vice of choice and appeals to all political stripes.


Is our objective to increase public safety while impinging as little as possible on people's rights? Then that is a serious challenge. It is easy to promote a cause and find effective solutions if one is willing to ignore the cost, in money, in effort, in people's rights. In the abortion debate, it is easy to promote women's unlimited right to abortion if one is willing to ignore the cost to the unborn. It is also easy to seek protection for every unborn child if one is willing to ignore the costs to the prospective mothers. What is difficult is to balance the costs and the needs. So it is with gun laws.


It is also easy to discount the cost when someone else must pay that price. We have at least one poster on this forum who dislikes guns, sees little or no reason why people should have them, and is eager to allow gun enthusiasts to pay the price in their rights and freedoms, and their pocketbooks to fund the solutions he prefers. He doesn't want guns, so he has no problem in have others have theirs taken away. Sacrifice for safety is necessary, they can pay.


What do we really want?


Jargon: "Assault rifles" is a commonly used term. How many people actually know what it is? Is there a common understanding of what constitutes an assault rifle? Or does it simply mean "a scary looking long gun that I don't like and don't want anyone to have"?


Closely related -
Real Life Information: A lot of people pontificate about guns and gun safety without really understanding their nature or the real life data.


Guns do not go rogue, take over their owners and go on a killing spree. People use guns to do that. It is, however, easier to understand the danger that a gun can pose than to quantify the danger that a person my pose until he, or very occasionally she, commits violence. Good, effective gun control legislation that actually reduces the danger of guns to society while being respectful of the rights of people who themselves pose little danger to themselves or their neighbors is hard.