FFFC 10/2

[Laverne]

All that i wish to say is that legislation in general tends to be a "feel good" measure that amounts to diddly. Take traffic laws for instance, In January nh instated a driver hands free law for cell phones and i still see people with phones pressed to their heads, people speed, people run lights, tailgait, refuse to to yield to pedestrians. There is a law against open containters, i dont advocate dwi, but open container laws only cause more litter they dont stop malicious or bad behavior.
The solution lies in open conversations where we dont assume we can never find common ground. We hold the answer to these problems in our arms everyday.
I heart ya'll and respect ya'lls opinion.
Dontk know why i went all southern just now.
Btw i tend to ignore statistics as i believe its bullshit math. Statistics can be bent to prove the desired point. I prefer geometry abd trigonometry, no bullshit just truth.

[lizblue]

Laverne you implied that books and art are as dangerous as guns. I get your point but anyone who is going to focus on the artful craftsmanship of a gun and not the actual fact that guns are used in massacres on a regular basis in this country (and NOT in countries that have tight gun control ) is not, in my opinion, someone I can probably find common ground with.

There is a problem and our children are dying as a result. Our brown children are dying even faster. I'm not interested in the "if people wanted to find a way to hurt you they will" argument. People are dying in disproportionate numbers because of guns. I know gun enthusiasts who acknowledge this fact. I find common ground with them.

I do believe in statistics. And of course one should dig deeper to see what's behind them, but to reject them wholly, out of hand, seems like conveniently sticking ones head in the sand.

[Laverne]

Oct 6, 2015 6:02:47 GMT -5 lizblue said:

Laverne you implied that books and art are as dangerous as guns. I get your point but anyone who is going to focus on the artful craftsmanship of a gun and not the actual fact that guns are used in massacres on a regular basis in this country (and NOT in countries that have tight gun control ) is not, in my opinion, someone I can probably find common ground with.

There is a problem and our children are dying as a result. Our brown children are dying even faster. I'm not interested in the "if people wanted to find a way to hurt you they will" argument. People are dying in disproportionate numbers because of guns. I know gun enthusiasts who acknowledge this fact. I find common ground with them.

I do believe in statistics. And of course one should dig deeper to see what's behind them, but to reject them wholly, out of hand, seems like conveniently sticking ones head in the sand.

yes i agree look deeper because the numbers can be twisted. But how far down the rabbit hole of sound bytes do you really go? I prefer books with long bibliographies to internet drek. Have you read 1984?

[amberlie]

It is absolutely true that people will always break the law. But I guarantee restricting who can buy guns will put a stop to someone hurting another person. The point of stricter control wouldn't be to ensure that no one is ever shot again... it's ridiculous to think that can be accomplished. But my thinking is that if it can save even just ONE life, isn't it worth it?

ETA I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't only change things if we can find a 100% effective solution. I'm pretty sure every law ever has been broken at some point. But if most or even some follow it (which they would) and it saved a life, then I don't see why we wouldn't do it.

[telos]

The "criminals will break the law anyway" argument also ignores the upstream and supply-chain effects of legislation. Many businesses sell guns. Those businesses don't have criminal objectives; they actually want to follow the law. Trust me, although not in the area of gun control, I've counseled many large businesses who pay lots of money for lawyers to answer the question, "what's the law in this area? what's legal?" to avoid fines/penalties/suit. Businesses, in general, want to follow the law.

So, if "gun control regulations" are at least mostly effective on the supply-chain, transfer, and upstream level, then they should be at least mostly effective in restricting access to guns.

So many people are ready to admit or explain that there are "mental health issues" associated with mass shootings and massacres. Mental health issues affect impulse control. The effects of impulse control are closely tied to access and the "upstream" laws.

It doesn't take an in-depth statistical analysis to understand how regulatory measures, mental health, impulse, access, and tragedy can be related. When it's harder to do something, less people will do that thing.

[Laverne]

I agree more needs to be done to help people recognize and get help for mental health issues, regardless of gun violence. Lets focus on that rather than putting the cart before the horse- limiting the number or style of guns available on the market just isnt an effacious solution. IEDs are not regulated, as they are a diy item, but they are still a result of a mixed up individual not being recognized in time to get help. The question is what can we do as individuals to make a difference. For instance how do i a.recognize and b. throw out a lifeline to someone who is in need of help?
This is why i say the answer is in our hands, not in the legislature. I lost a dear friend to a bullet, but i did not blame the tool that was used to murder my friend, it was done my a man.

[ampaints]

John Oliver had a great segment on mental health. He said it better than I could.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=NGY6DqB1HX8

[lizblue]

Again, people are not dying in enormously high numbers from IEDs or fertilizer. Guns are way too available and easy to obtain in this country. The number of gun deaths here compared to all other first world countries is shameful.

I'm sorry about your friend Laverne.

[kaeguri]

I'm in favor of completely banning guns and bringing back swords.