Guns...

[theduvalprogressive]

I am for gun control but I don't believe gun control should come in the form of laws against citizens. I believe that prohibitive laws only encourage and create more illegal activity. We can put people in jail for committing acts of gun violence, but it doesn't reduce recidivism, and it doesn't acts of crime committed using guns. In my view the only way to combat gun violence is for people to adopt personal aversion to the idea of wanting a gun. Fat chance that will happen in America 'eh.

The only other solution to combat gun violence is to regulate glorification of gun violence. Guns are a huge part of our pop-culture. Guns have been glorified since the founding of the country as almost walking hand and hand or an important part of the idea of individualism. Cowboys had guns, frontiersmen had guns, warriors had guns, in short, they were all "the perfect individual" as they had the "power" to fight back or control their surroundings - or so it is believed. But how does one encourage Hollywood, Madison Avenue, or the gaming industry to take part in helping with something like this when it is against their financial interest?

There is a seductiveness to power in this country. We are in awe of the images of the kingpin who, at his side, sits his trusted companion. We see the attractive woman blowing imaginary smoke off the barrel of a snub nose 38 in evening wear. These are powerful images for some despite the counter images of a Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook, or the evening news. It leaves many Americans with no better justification than, "It's them, not me; take theirs, but leave mine alone!"

The reason for owning a gun is fear. The justification for owning a gun is wanting to be in control should something happen. The fact that most gun violence happens using "privately owned weapons" procured, one way or another, is a paradox that is easily overlooked by those fearful that they may have to give up something to promote safety in society.

Consequentially, we are met with resistance with every effort to control the means of private gun production by the NRA who sell fear to gun owners instead of responsible gun ownership. We have laws on the books that allow gun owners to carry weapons in public for "personal protection". We fill jails with people who have committed gun violence and we have the First Amendment shoved in our faces when we attempt to regulate glorification of violence in movies, TV shows, and video games. So if laws and regulations don't work, and aren't wanted, how, America, do we, as a society, address the problems private gun ownership poses to our society?

This is an important discussion that needs to take place on a national level free from partisanship. It is a subject that should be earnestly discussed with as little finger pointing as possible and in the interest of a solution that is attainable; how do we, as a society, insure personal liberty whilst insuring personal responsibility, and what compromises are acceptable in getting to that point? Any thoughts?

[ChriswUfGator]

There is no right answer.

[funwithteeth]

Absolutely fine with having the First Amendment shoved in my face.

[funwithteeth]

Also, how can you possibly regulate glorification? You mean to suggest putting to law something that's a matter of opinion? Hasn't the futility of this been proven in the myriad attempts at regulating obscenity?

[carpnter]

The fact that most gun violence happens using "privately owned weapons" procured, one way or another, is a paradox that is easily overlooked by those fearful that they may have to give up something to promote safety in society.

As opposed to guns owned by the government?

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

This is an important discussion that needs to take place on a national level free from partisanship. It is a subject that should be earnestly discussed with as little finger pointing as possible and in the interest of a solution that is attainable; how do we, as a society, insure personal liberty whilst insuring personal responsibility, and what compromises are acceptable in getting to that point? Any thoughts?

Why don't we just sum up everything right here?

1.  how do we, as a society, insure personal liberty whilst insuring personal responsibility  WE don't.  This is an individual responsibility that will never be achieved unless WE as a whole start acting more responsible in the first place.  Our own liberties are dictated to us by the allowance that the general public warrants.  Some of may need more; some less.  Welcome to the machine.    You are either in the minority or the majority of each and every decision made by our government, and only you can choose which decisions you will abide by.  Some enforceable, some not, but if you choose, then you're making a conscious decision and that decision alone (or just the fact that you question the rule in the first place) probably means that you're already in the minority.

2.  what compromises are acceptable in getting to that point?  Again, there is not really any compromise when you're dealing with a majority decision.  The compromise was made when you weren't able to sway the rest of the population in your favor.  Based on our chosen system of government, WE don't have to compromise, as WE are the ones who make the rules. 

Compromise is for negotiations and settlements.  WE are doing neither.  WE are being dictated to and then WE are supposed to abide.

Any more questions?

[JayBird]

As much as I hate when CNN or local channel breaks in with a "school/mall/workplace/(insert crowded location here) shooting, I don't believe gun control is the answer. It has been the right of Americans since the birth of this nation to defend ourselves against our government after seeing what a monarchy that didn't allow weapons to be held by non-govt persons did to their liberties. I do not own a gun, nor do I wish to, but that doesn't give me or anyone else the right to say that others may not choose to defend themselves. Drunk driving kills more people than guns, and I like to drink, so what if after we take guns off the street they decide to go for prohibition again?!! There is some famous poem that I cannot recall now, but it talks about how the Germans took away people and a man remained silent, and when they came for him there was no one left to stand up for him. Same principal applies here in my opinion.

I actually noticed that there is another common link besides guns. None of these shootings, or most gun crimes in general, are done by people working 9-5 and raising a family and watching football on Sundays or going bowling on Wednesdays. Every single time the people that knew the shooter are not surprised, they make claims of knowing they just weren't right or that they'd been stressed lately. If you want to make the world safer, don't waste time on the political sideshow of gun control, focus on revamping the mental health system. I know it is a scary subject, everyone likes to shake their head and then forget about the crazy person. We don't like to face the "ugliness" that mental health puts in front of us. I don't believe this means bringing back the age of the asylum, but in every account that I've read there were several signs that could've prevented the final outcome, just nothing in place to link it all together.

Gun control is much like the drug war to me, it is another unbeatable endeavor. The stricter you make gun laws, the more you strengthen underground black markets, which grow stronger through increased violence.

Just my $.02 

[BridgeTroll]

The reason for owning a gun is fear. The justification for owning a gun is wanting to be in control should something happen.

Complete bunk.  No one I know owns a gun out of fear.  Most own guns because it is part of their heritage.  I own them as I am a hunter.  I kill animals and eat them... as my family has done for generations.  I am proficient with a weapon and am comfortable with them.  I practice often.  I will oppose most efforts to curb or curtail ownership for law abiding citizens for one reason.

I do not believe... even for a moment... that those who endorse various gun control measures will stop once once they have achieved some partial victory.  I believe they want all guns eventually banned or controlled exclusively by the government.

[theduvalprogressive]

How do you substantiate that the government is after your guns?

[civil42806]

Also, how can you possibly regulate glorification? You mean to suggest putting to law something that's a matter of opinion? Hasn't the futility of this been proven in the myriad attempts at regulating obscenity?
[/quot

Also, how can you possibly regulate glorification? You mean to suggest putting to law something that's a matter of opinion? Hasn't the futility of this been proven in the myriad attempts at regulating obscenity?

Seems like hes up to giving it a try.    Guess we cant get rid of the 2nd so might as well try the 1st it might be easier

[BridgeTroll]

How do you substantiate that the government is after your guns?

I dont have too... there are plenty of people willing to give up my right to own one.  Well meaning people... such as yourself... are willing to hinder MY right to own them.  If you do not want to own one... dont.

[JayBird]

[coredumped]

Also, how can you possibly regulate glorification?

This is easy - censorship! We can stop TV/Movies from using guns to sensationalize them. It really would be in the best interest of our dear leader.

[coredumped]

ah.  because not having school kids blown away on a regular basis wouldnt please anyone else.

just um..'Dear Leader'.

ok......

Which of the people in this video do you think had legal guns? The criminals, or the average man?

http://www.youtube.com/v/q9ZEbyDee8A?

You do realize that in almost all the "mass shootings" the guns were illegal. Yeah, gun control really works...

[funwithteeth]

So is theduvalprogressive going to answer my questions? I realize he was inviting alternatives to his initial proposal with this:

So if laws and regulations don't work, and aren't wanted, how, America, do we, as a society, address the problems private gun ownership poses to our society?

but that came immediately after this:

we have the First Amendment shoved in our faces when we attempt to regulate glorification of violence in movies, TV shows, and video games

the wording—"shoved in our faces"—suggests that he, theduvalprogressive, finds the First Amendment to be something unwanted, a nuisance. Does he really want the government to regulate film, tv, and video games? And for filmmakers, tv producers, and video-game companies to pay for the right to depict gun violence? And that this fine is based on something entirely arbitrary, i.e. what is or isn't glorification? And doesn't this system just reward people—producers, studios, etc.—who have the money to spend and punish those who do not?

Furthermore, does this mean that every work of art that is produced in this country has to go before this review board prior to being released for public consumption? I assume we must include books. Because even though this happened a century ago, I'm disinclined to trust the taste of a government-appointed official.

And what if filmmaker/producer/writer/etc. cannot afford to pay the fine? What if they secretly distribute their work without government approval? Do they get sent to jail? Is this something that should happen in a progressive society?