Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
When you figure out how to get these kids to show up to the schools we already have, you let us know.
Birth rates are in decline. We have way too many schools as is. Every urban center in America has empty school buildings.
I probably wouldn't want to go to school either if my chance of getting shot up was about a coin flip. Which brings us nicely full circle back to our original discussion.
On a less facetioous note: "build more schools" is a turn of phrase meaning "invest more in education", and stop supporting the party that has basically been anti-intellectualism and anti-education for the last 40 years to ensure they continue to have grass roots support, because no educated person will support their platform. It doesn't mean you litereally need more school buildings.
I probably wouldn't want to go to school either if my chance of getting shot up was about a coin flip. Which brings us nicely full circle back to our original discussion.
On a less facetioous note: "build more schools" is a turn of phrase meaning "invest more in education", and stop supporting the party that has basically been anti-intellectualism and anti-education for the last 40 years to ensure they continue to have grass roots support, b
Ye more sociology PhD will fix society
The schools that serve the population who end up inhabiting our prisons have copious amounts of security and metal detectors. Being shot in class isn't as much of a concern as just having your ass beat the old fashioned way.
Very little learning takes place in these schools because no value is placed on the education they're intended to provide. That's a family problem, not a gun one.
More shootings occur on school grounds but outside the building itself in the poor urban districts than rich ones, but those shootings are generally done by non-students who should already be in prison.
So, no, that isn't a gun control problem.
Edit for your edit:
We don't have a school funding problem. We have a culture problem.
In theory if everyone is in prison there will be no gun violence in public.
But I also believe that if there are no guns, there would also be no gun violence.
But why restrict guns when instead we can restrict human freedom.
No I already explained my answer elsewhere and I think you have read and commented on that.
A widely more ample use of the death penalty is the answer (in the 5-10k per year in stable years, at the beginning you might need a lot more once to fix the lack of previous death penalty use).
Coupled with complete legalization of all drugs.
Most criminals are recidives and already known to the law for their violent, illegal behavior. As soon as possible those people have to be permanently removed from society.
True, but very few people ever try to actually make that recommendation as a path for society to take.
People in power, anyway.
A full ban and confiscation of all firearms would be a huge step in the right direction to ending gun violence, and it would also hopefully eliminate some of the uneasiness that goes with punishing criminals who have them and shouldn't. If guns are outlawed entirely, then make the punishment for having one severe and it should be trivial to throw that book at anyone caught with one.
But vague calls for "more gun control please" isn't even in the same universe as a full ban, so using that as some sort of stepping stone is dumb and nonsensical. People who obey gun laws aren't the problem, so adding more just irritates law-abiding citizens and does nothing to solve your actual issue.
We don't need more gun control laws to stop the violence in America. We need to use the ones we already have to lock violent criminals up for good.
OK but also we do actually need more gun control laws in addition to adequate enforcement. It's all a moot point, since you'll oppose either of those things.
I'll oppose what?
Here's the only list of proposals or actions I could find, and it came straight from the White House website:
- 1. Increase the number of background checks by ensuring that all background checks required by law are conducted before firearm purchases, moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.
- 2. Improve public awareness and increase appropriate use of extreme risk protection (“red flag”😉 orders and safe storage of firearms.
- 3. Address the loss or theft of firearms during shipping.
- 4. Provide the public and policymakers with more information regarding federally licensed firearms dealers who are violating the law.
- 5. Use the Department of Defense’s acquisition of firearms to further firearm and public safety practices.
- 6. Help catch shooters by accelerating federal law enforcement’s reporting of ballistics data.
- 7. Accelerate and intensify implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).
- 8. Improve federal support for gun violence survivors, victims and survivors’ families, first responders to gun violence, and communities affected by gun violence.
- 9. Advance congressional efforts to prevent the proliferation of firearms undetectable by metal detectors.
Seems like #3 and 4 should already be at the top of someone's list of daily tasks, so that's a real leak in their enforcement game if it isn't.
The rest of this is not addressing the issue.
Btw taxes aside, the feds dont have the legal power of regulating guns, commerce clause shenanigans following badly decided leftist interpretation of the commerce clause which expanded it to allow anything will hopefully be soon canceled by scotus
Social scientists have been trying to pinpoint the causal mechanisms for decades, the topic is understandably controversial, most people these days tend to agree the war on drug is one of the several concurring causes so at least we could start by ending it.
Fact is, it's something fairly recent so the causes must be found in events that happened after the sixties
How oddly specific. You must mean the hippy movement, right? Or maybe legalised abortion? Vietnam? No, none of those things? Ok, I'm lost, what could you possibly mean?
I mentioned the war on drug as something enough people on "both sides" agree increased crime rates. Horrible mismanagement of Vietnam veterans might have played a part why not. Crack cocaine arrival on market didn't help either.
According to some people (this is more controversial) the massive increase in out of wedlock births increased crime as there are some theories about the lack of a father figure being detrimental for young male boys and their relationship with rules.
Some people pointed to the removal of lead from gasoline and paint to explain decreased crime rates but as long as the rates stay as high as they are right now for some subdemographics that might have most have been a very partial explanation.
I just listed some of the peer reviewed published possible causes of higher crime rates in some subdemographics there are plenty more possibilities
I don't see how we can possibly advance this discussion if you continue to insist on using the vague term "subdemographics."
Demographics = human populations; sub = lower, beneath. Right?
Banning people for calling other people racist is peak racism imo
Not calling out racism, is racism edit getting in trouble for calling out racism is racist
