Politics and Mass Shootings

[David Garner]

It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

"Do something" is the single biggest demagoguery in our political discourse at present.

Because it pretends that all problems have a solution, or that attempts at/proposed solutions have no negative consequences.

So no, it is not always in our best interest to "do something".  Because the something may not make things better, and could make things worse for "one" person.  See how the "one" person standard can work against you?

It also ignores that the cultural sickness that causes such behavior is promoted by the same that would favor banning certain types of guns (mostly the effective ones), but only for civilians, because police still need "weapons of war" or something.

[Chris Schelp]

Seems to me that one thing that makes the current gun control wrangle so intractable is a misunderstanding of just what the goal is. The stated goal is that we, and especially our children, be safe from gun violence. What comes out in the rhetoric more often is the goal that we feel safer. Especially after a school shooting, children are paraded before cameras complaining that they want to feel safe. Is this wise? Further traumatizing already traumatized children by subjecting them to that media circus and using them as props for a political agenda. Do we really think that children know best about what will make them safe? At a time when they should be helped, their grief and fear is being exploited by those claiming to care for them.


A further indication that the discussion is not as much about promoting safety as it is about making people feel better is that actual facts and statistics matter little. Claims are made that have minimal basis in fact but 1) make people feel even more unsafe than they perhaps realistically need to be, and 2) then offer a panacea to make them feel better.


We need to be concerned about the level of violence in America. But guns are not like enriched uranium that when you reach a certain density, they will spontaneously undergo a violent reaction. It is not the number of guns in a community that is the problem, such that if you take the guns away from responsible people who could be expected to obey laws restricting gun ownership and give up their guns, one lowers the community gun density below the threshold at which gun no longer promote violence. The problem is the number of criminals with guns, and unstable people who turn violent and express their violence with guns. Those are problems that just taking guns away from ordinary people will not solve. But under the theory that SOMETHING Must Be Done, Taking guns away from people is SOMETHING, therefore, we must take guns away from people.

Which leads directly back to my question posed on the thread a little while back that was closed down (correctly, I believe, because the conversation was once again leading toward shouting instead of discussion), which hopefully I can pose again here and may lead to better discussion: why do we feel the need to "do something," especially something very disruptive that will quite likely have far-reaching ramifications? Would not an honest appraisal of our fallen human nature lead to the conclusion that we should not trust our own intellect to be able to see, let alone fix, all possible problems, and to propose smaller changes that might in time lead toward a stated end, while hopefully minimizing unforeseen collateral problems?

There is the need to "do something" whenever there are death-causing events. We've been "doing something" to combat cancer for decades. We've discovered more and more ways to keep cancer from killing people. People "did something" when AIDS was killing everyone infected with it. We found ways to stop the virus from killing people. Over my nearly 60 years of driving, I've seen many improvements in automobile safety to try and reduce the number of fatalities from auto accidents. Seat belts, shoulder belts, padded dashes, airbags in front, and now on the sides, adaptive cruise control, beeping when drowsy drivers get out of their lanes, automatic breaking when there is something in front or in back, etc.


It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

And all -- ALL -- of those things to make driving safer are examples of the "small" changes that Mr. Schelp suggested rather the "very disruptive" change like banning automobiles entirely, or even whole classes of automobiles.  So, what would be some possible "small" changes you would suggest for this matter?

Just a note so that it's clear, directly from the horse's mouth: Pr. Bohler has correctly stated my position.

[Charles Austin]

And here is one aspect of this discussion that I believe must be noted.
Those concerned about strict gun control are perceived to be the dreaded "liberals," or "progressives."
Folks here would rather not take actions that might save the lives of some children if it meant agreeing with some of those dreaded liberals.

[Chris Schelp]

And here is one aspect of this discussion that I believe must be noted.
Those concerned about strict gun control are perceived to be the dreaded "liberals," or "progressives."
Folks here would rather not take actions that might save the lives of some children if it meant agreeing with some of those dreaded liberals.

I can only speak for myself, but: this is entirely incorrect. The problem is not who is supporting the actions, it is the word "might" in your sentence. The actions also "might" cost more lives than they save. Neither of these outcomes is, with current knowledge, more likely than the other.

[Tom Eckstein]

And here is one aspect of this discussion that I believe must be noted.
Those concerned about strict gun control are perceived to be the dreaded "liberals," or "progressives."
Folks here would rather not take actions that might save the lives of some children if it meant agreeing with some of those dreaded liberals.

And some other folks here would rather NOT take actions that would save millions of children's lives in the womb if it meant agreeing with some of those dreaded pro-life conservatives.

In any case, back to the issue of gun control.  Simply put, the problem is NOT the kind of guns available to the general law abiding public but with criminals who can and will use ANY "weapon" (any gun; any knife; any car; etc) to hurt people when they have the opportunity and desire.  So, we must do our best to make sure that ONLY law-abiding citizens obtain guns and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  If we keep ALL or MOST guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, the criminals will still find illegal means to obtain these guns because, well, that's what criminals do - they break the law!

[Robert Johnson]

#1 alone may reduce the number of legal guns available for mass murders, but it will not address the reasons people commit mass murder.  Nor will #1 reduce the amount of illegal guns available to for mass murders.

You can ban all the guns you want. It will be trivially easy to import more handguns; just disguise them as a normal kilo of cocaine.

[Brian Stoffregen]

And all -- ALL -- of those things to make driving safer are examples of the "small" changes that Mr. Schelp suggested rather the "very disruptive" change like banning automobiles entirely, or even whole classes of automobiles.  So, what would be some possible "small" changes you would suggest for this matter?

Required background checks and waiting period for all gun sales.

A licensing program like for driving cars, where gun purchasers have to show that they have the knowledge and skills to properly use a firearm. (I know that many gun owners have gone through hunter's safety training before purchasing, but I don't believe it's a requirement.)

Perhaps even a step-type program, e.g., regular driver's/gun license for ordinary guns for hunting and sport, something like motorcycle endorsement, or CDL for those who want a more powerful weapon. Our military have to pass a gun course before they are authorized to carry a firearm. (All Marines, regardless of position, e.g., an office secretary, are required to pass gun training. I don't think that's true in the other branches.)

Perhaps, like I know the LEOs in our town are required to do, periodically they are tested on their gun skills.

Perhaps, there can be stiff fines (and gun confiscation?) for being in possession of a (loaded) firearm while impaired, i.e., like a DUI. (I've talked with hunters who are quite afraid of a drunk in the woods with a loaded gun.)


I've heard of putting a code on the bullets so that those that had murdered someone could be traced.

[Brian Stoffregen]

It is in our best interest to "do something" to try and reduce unnatural deaths.

"Do something" is the single biggest demagoguery in our political discourse at present.

Because it pretends that all problems have a solution, or that attempts at/proposed solutions have no negative consequences.

So no, it is not always in our best interest to "do something".  Because the something may not make things better, and could make things worse for "one" person.  See how the "one" person standard can work against you?

Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details when a speaker talked about how seamen would continue to shoot their rifles at planes who had bombed their ship, even though they knew that the bullets had little to no effect on the planes, and even if they shot one down, it wouldn't change their circumstances of standing on a sinking ship. There is something in us that will fight back even when we know it is hopeless.

[James S. Rustad]

Required background checks and waiting period for all gun sales.

Do you know what is required to purchase a handgun from a licensed firearms dealer (whether at their store or at a gun show)?  Please describe this process.

Please describe the penalties for someone (licensed or not) who sells a firearm to someone who cannot legally possess one.

A licensing program like for driving cars, where gun purchasers have to show that they have the knowledge and skills to properly use a firearm. (I know that many gun owners have gone through hunter's safety training before purchasing, but I don't believe it's a requirement.)

Ooh!  Ooh!  I always love it when this one comes up.  Do you know that I can buy a car without having a driver's license?  Do you know that I can legally drive a car without having a driver's license?  Are you sure this is the model you want to use for gun licensing?

Perhaps even a step-type program, e.g., regular driver's/gun license for ordinary guns for hunting and sport, something like motorcycle endorsement, or CDL for those who want a more powerful weapon. Our military have to pass a gun course before they are authorized to carry a firearm. (All Marines, regardless of position, e.g., an office secretary, are required to pass gun training. I don't think that's true in the other branches.)

Again, I can own and drive any car I want without having a driver's license.  Are you sure that's the model you want to use for guns?

Perhaps, like I know the LEOs in our town are required to do, periodically they are tested on their gun skills.

You may be interested in this Police1 article about typical gun training for police officers.  It's not anywhere near as good as you might expect.

Perhaps, there can be stiff fines (and gun confiscation?) for being in possession of a (loaded) firearm while impaired, i.e., like a DUI. (I've talked with hunters who are quite afraid of a drunk in the woods with a loaded gun.)

You mean like this Michigan law?

I've heard of putting a code on the bullets so that those that had murdered someone could be traced.

It's called "microstamping".  It just doesn't work.

Or are you referring to the identification taggants added to explosives?  Unfortunately, these have problems as well, including altering the properties of the explosive.  As a gun owner, I'm glad they figured that out before requiring taggants to be added to gun powder.

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

This was an interesting article:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/firearm-owners-solve-gun-violence-america/story?id=80172154

[Tom Eckstein]

And all -- ALL -- of those things to make driving safer are examples of the "small" changes that Mr. Schelp suggested rather the "very disruptive" change like banning automobiles entirely, or even whole classes of automobiles.  So, what would be some possible "small" changes you would suggest for this matter?

Required background checks and waiting period for all gun sales.

A licensing program like for driving cars, where gun purchasers have to show that they have the knowledge and skills to properly use a firearm. (I know that many gun owners have gone through hunter's safety training before purchasing, but I don't believe it's a requirement.)

Perhaps even a step-type program, e.g., regular driver's/gun license for ordinary guns for hunting and sport, something like motorcycle endorsement, or CDL for those who want a more powerful weapon. Our military have to pass a gun course before they are authorized to carry a firearm. (All Marines, regardless of position, e.g., an office secretary, are required to pass gun training. I don't think that's true in the other branches.)

Perhaps, like I know the LEOs in our town are required to do, periodically they are tested on their gun skills.

Perhaps, there can be stiff fines (and gun confiscation?) for being in possession of a (loaded) firearm while impaired, i.e., like a DUI. (I've talked with hunters who are quite afraid of a drunk in the woods with a loaded gun.)


I've heard of putting a code on the bullets so that those that had murdered someone could be traced.

Brian, I think some of your suggestions are quite reasonable for keeping guns OUT OF the hands of criminals and INTO the hands of law-abiding citizens.  I don't own a gun myself, but I support the right of others to own guns - especially for their own protection!  But I also think it's reasonable to regulate how guns are sold so they can GET INTO the hands of the right people and kept OUT OF the hands of the wrong people.

[Charles Austin]

Yes, cowardly anonymous one, again.
But let me tell you what I think is going to happen, and I do not believe folks in this forum can even begin to understand me.
   The women of this nation are on the march and we old white males better get out of the way. The Mama Bears of this country do not want their cubs shot in schools and are pissed off. It took two women in Northern Ireland to cool that ideological conflict and they got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. You don't want to stand in the way of Mama Bears protecting their cubs. I don't know how limitations on guns will come, but I believe - and I pray - that the women of our land will put down the idiotic rhetoric that splatters through discussions about gun violence. Go, Mama Bears! Protect your cubs! We old guys sure can't do it. We're too in love with our guns which we treat like a substitute penis and want to wave around as we pretend to "protect" our property and family.
   Nor do you want to stand in the way of African American women tired of seeing their men put down, tired of the put-downs they get because of their color or their economic condition. The Tennessee debacle was a sign of how sick this nation is with regard to racism and there will be consequences if old white Republicans do not wake up.
   Furthermore, the women of this nation - and this is already supported by responsible polls - are damned sick and tired of having male-dominated political units control their health care issues. We may have whole states where women's health issues cause massive migration or where - until the men can be thrown out of office - women have to travel to another state for health care. Abortion is not the only issue. They hear the rumblings about birth control. Watch out.
   We in the churches are hardly worth noting. The Roman Catholic church has squandered whatever moral authority it had. Evangelicals sold their souls for Trumpism and political power and way back in time Jerry Falwell learned how stupid that was. Liberals have been sidetracked in silliness about pronouns and we have "affirmative actioned" ultra-liberals into office or made celebrities of those who had some good ideas and ran to the nutty side of the street.
   The day of the conservative/moderate aging white male is over, I think. And that will not be a bad thing.

[peter_speckhard]

Yes, cowardly anonymous one, again.
But let me tell you what I think is going to happen, and I do not believe folks in this forum can even begin to understand me.
   The women of this nation are on the march and we old white males better get out of the way. The Mama Bears of this country do not want their cubs shot in schools and are pissed off. It took two women in Northern Ireland to cool that ideological conflict and they got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. You don't want to stand in the way of Mama Bears protecting their cubs. I don't know how limitations on guns will come, but I believe - and I pray - that the women of our land will put down the idiotic rhetoric that splatters through discussions about gun violence. Go, Mama Bears! Protect your cubs! We old guys sure can't do it. We're too in love with our guns which we treat like a substitute penis and want to wave around as we pretend to "protect" our property and family.
   Nor do you want to stand in the way of African American women tired of seeing their men put down, tired of the put-downs they get because of their color or their economic condition. The Tennessee debacle was a sign of how sick this nation is with regard to racism and there will be consequences if old white Republicans do not wake up.
   Furthermore, the women of this nation - and this is already supported by responsible polls - are damned sick and tired of having male-dominated political units control their health care issues. We may have whole states where women's health issues cause massive migration or where - until the men can be thrown out of office - women have to travel to another state for health care. Abortion is not the only issue. They hear the rumblings about birth control. Watch out.
   We in the churches are hardly worth noting. The Roman Catholic church has squandered whatever moral authority it had. Evangelicals sold their souls for Trumpism and political power and way back in time Jerry Falwell learned how stupid that was. Liberals have been sidetracked in silliness about pronouns and we have "affirmative actioned" ultra-liberals into office or made celebrities of those who had some good ideas and ran to the nutty side of the street.
   The day of the conservative/moderate aging white male is over, I think. And that will not be a bad thing.

It sounds like political progressivism is your religion, and its doctrines are identity politics, as though political opinions are a function of intersectionality boxes. The Mama Bears you're talking about generally aren't mamas because the "women's health issues" you are so passionate about is what killed their cubs. The Mama Bears who are actually mamas with multiple cubs and whose have people who are "their men" who are actually their husbands tend to be far more conservative than other women.   

[D. Engebretson]

Guns as phallic symbol...the race card....abortion as moral imperative....Roman Catholic sexuality scandals....

I guess when we get to this point a reasonable debate on "politics and mass shootings" is pretty much over....

[James S. Rustad]

Yes, cowardly anonymous one, again.
But let me tell you what I think is going to happen, and I do not believe folks in this forum can even begin to understand me.
   The women of this nation are on the march and we old white males better get out of the way. The Mama Bears of this country do not want their cubs shot in schools and are pissed off. It took two women in Northern Ireland to cool that ideological conflict and they got a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. You don't want to stand in the way of Mama Bears protecting their cubs. I don't know how limitations on guns will come, but I believe - and I pray - that the women of our land will put down the idiotic rhetoric that splatters through discussions about gun violence. Go, Mama Bears! Protect your cubs! We old guys sure can't do it. We're too in love with our guns which we treat like a substitute penis and want to wave around as we pretend to "protect" our property and family.
   Nor do you want to stand in the way of African American women tired of seeing their men put down, tired of the put-downs they get because of their color or their economic condition. The Tennessee debacle was a sign of how sick this nation is with regard to racism and there will be consequences if old white Republicans do not wake up.
   Furthermore, the women of this nation - and this is already supported by responsible polls - are damned sick and tired of having male-dominated political units control their health care issues. We may have whole states where women's health issues cause massive migration or where - until the men can be thrown out of office - women have to travel to another state for health care. Abortion is not the only issue. They hear the rumblings about birth control. Watch out.
   We in the churches are hardly worth noting. The Roman Catholic church has squandered whatever moral authority it had. Evangelicals sold their souls for Trumpism and political power and way back in time Jerry Falwell learned how stupid that was. Liberals have been sidetracked in silliness about pronouns and we have "affirmative actioned" ultra-liberals into office or made celebrities of those who had some good ideas and ran to the nutty side of the street.
   The day of the conservative/moderate aging white male is over, I think. And that will not be a bad thing.

My wife is a Mama Bear who owns firearms.
My sister is a Mama Bear who owns firearms.
My sister-in-law is a Mama Bear who owns firearms.
My niece is a Mama Bear who owns firearms.
Mama Bears have varying opinions on firearms, just like you and I.  I don't believe that your side has the overwhelming support among Mama Bears that you think exists.