Miss Wendighost
Satan's Little Princess
- 709
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- The Abyss
- Seen Dec 21, 2020
Well, some lady just blamed *ahem* mature content for shootings. I don't understand how watching an adult film makes one a murderous maniac. People are crazy.
They way I see it is that if you restrict legal gun ownership or even disallow it then people have no way of defending themselves against those who illegally obtain guns, which I feel will increase the casualty rate even more. If we disallow gun ownership we will see a huge surge guns on the black market which isn't really tackling the problem of stopping people from having weapons. That brings me to my next point; where there is a will there is a way and that is especially applicable to murderous intent. Take away the guns people will use knives. Take those away and people will get creative maybe even in ways we don't want to encourage. As for a solution, I don't really know because I haven't really studied this field but I have a feeling it lies in increased security and precautions.
I like your link. Especially this part:https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/08/12/inside-the-black-market-for-guns/#1a40c8ae181e
Actually, guns on the black market are more expensive than legally owned guns already. Now factor in supply and demand. Pretty much every black market gun probably begins its life as a legal firearm at some point. Thug McThugperson down the street doesn't have their own private firearm manufacturing gig. If you limit the number of legal firearms you're not only already lessening the number of weapons already available, you're also making them harder to obtain for black market sale which increases their value even further. Further more, if the black market is pretty much the only way you're going to get your hands on the kind of weapon you want, you'll be paying even more still because the person selling can charge whatever they want. Where else will you go? The sheer cost of purchasing an illegal weapon can be enough to prevent someone from committing a crime - or at the least can dramatically lessen the scale.
Keeping in mind that this is ignoring that the majority of shootings and suicides are committed using weapons bought legally (I'm pretty sure there's a link earlier in the thread explaining this one, unless that was the previous GC thread). As for knives or more experimental weaponry, knives are a hell of a lot easier to survive and to stop if you yourself are unarmed. Experimental weapons like explosives are much more conspicuous and are much more likely to fail.
Better gun control definitely won't remove all guns ever, but it definitely will help.
Nevertheless, there is a moral to the story. The basic lesson I drew from meeting the ATF agents is they're never going to get all the bad guys' guns—even in London where handguns are completely banned the bad guys often have handguns. Instead, what cops need to do is go after the bad guys. As they do, they need to respect the good peoples' right to own and carry guns. When they do this the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners become part of the solution to making the streets safer.
As he walked me out of the ATF's Manhattan office Agent Mulham said, "I don't care if a guy like you has a million guns. What I'm after are the bad guys and their guns."
I like your link. Especially this part:
Keeping in mind that this is ignoring that the majority of shootings and suicides are committed using weapons bought legally (I'm pretty sure there's a link earlier in the thread explaining this one, unless that was the previous GC thread).
. . . knives are a hell of a lot easier to survive and to stop if you yourself are unarmed. Experimental weapons like explosives are much more conspicuous and are much more likely to fail.
This debate is focusing too much on the Guns, and not enough on why people believe that using violence in the first place is necessary. Pretty much, this debate is focusing on the symptoms and not the cause. If you nip the problem in the bud, then you will resolve the issue.
"Advance Peace interrupts gun violence in American urban neighborhoods by providing transformational opportunities to young men involved in lethal firearm offenses and placing them in a high-touch, personalized fellowship—the Peacemaker Fellowship™.
By working with and supporting a targeted group of individuals at the core of gun hostilities, Advance Peace bridges the gap between anti-violence programming and a hard-to-reach population at the center of violence in urban areas, thus breaking the cycle of gun hostilities and altering the trajectory of these men's lives.
Advance Peace works with both public and community-based stakeholders to establish responsive community-driven strategies that achieve high-impact outcomes for those caught in the cycle of urban gun violence."
https://www.advancepeace.org/about/the-solution/
A solution that can reduce gun violence without having to take away guns.
This group doesn't nip the problem in the bud, they intervene after the violence starts, provide what amounts to bribes for good behavior and then promises to not talk to the police if they uncover evidence that their fellows are the perpetrators of gun violence. Didn't at least one of these groups get busted because their felon was running gangs while in the program?
I bet one of the responsibilities is "stay out of trouble." The stipend is explicitly aimed at those suspected of gun violence and is meant to stop the cycle of violence. At its base, it's payment to stop shooting with conditions added.WHAT THE ADVANCE PEACE PEACEMAKER FELLOWSHIP IS NOT
• Payment to stop shooting. The Stipend is awarded for performance of responsibilities articulated above, period.
never said there was such a card.• A "get-out-of-jail-free" card. If law enforcement brings a case against any of the Fellows, there is no protection against arrest or prosecution. The AP program is designed to fill the gap where prosecution does not occur. While the suspected "firearm offender" is not in custody, AP will continue to work with him or her.
so AP will protect offenders if they come across evidence regarding past crimes. And I'm supposed to believe that they won't protect future offenders?• An investigative arm for law enforcement. AP cannot retain its credibility with the Fellows if AP relays incriminating information to police. However, if AP learns that violence may occur at any given time or place, it will alert law enforcement.
Be a good citizen and get paid.Free money for violent individuals. As indicated above, Fellows who do not perform, do not earn.
I bet one of the responsibilities is "stay out of trouble." The stipend is explicitly aimed at those suspected of gun violence and is meant to stop the cycle of violence. At its base, it's payment to stop shooting with conditions added.
never said there was such a card.
so AP will protect offenders if they come across evidence regarding past crimes. And I'm supposed to believe that they won't protect future offenders?
Be a good citizen and get paid.
What are the fellowship criteria?
I'm quoting it from the link I posted below. The fact you are asking what the criteria of the Fellowship shows that you don't know enough to talk about it.
Here, watch this video from the Daily Show about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLiyFumseqQ
The link you provided doesn't list any of the fellowship program criteria.
Are you sure you know enough about the program to discuss it?
The program has positives and negatives to it. If it works, it does seem like it could prevent repeat offenders from continuing gun violence. However, it doesn't stop the gun violence from starting and there are indicators that the group will not help law enforcement if they find a participant has committed violence.