A "pragmatic" approach to gun violence?

ScienceChic wrote:

Rick wrote: I did read it and I didn't see anything that, in my opinion, would lessen gun violence by people who likely to shoot another person. Could you highlight some of the ideas you think would be successful and we could talk about those? He does a lot of rambling and makes many broad brush statements based more on feeling than fact.

Here's the part that I thought hammered home his concept (emphasis below mine).

Instead, drunk driving laws were intended to do two things, 1) give us legal recourse as a society, 2) make us responsible for our antisocial behavior – which in turn leads over time to a change in culture.

And that change significantly, measurably, reduced drinking and driving and provably saved lives and made American roads a safer place for all of us.

But, and this is important so pay attention, here’s what those laws didn’t do: they didn’t keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from 1) drinking, or 2) driving (note the operative word here is or).

And that’s the answer.

We need gun laws that give society legal recourse by making each gun owner/user personally accountable for their own actions.

Those laws should be designed to change our gun culture over time in order to make gun violence less likely. And, of course, those laws should not keep those of us who take responsibility for our own actions from exercising our Second Amendment rights.

There are no accidents. Every time someone dies because of a supposed accident involving a gun, someone is responsible and they are tried for that crime. Every time someone crashes their car and/or harms another while driving drunk, it's a crime - they chose to be irresponsible. Just like there are varying degrees of murder charges based upon malicious intent or "accident", letting a child get hold of your loaded weapon and killing themselves or a friend should get you arrested and tried for murder. Period. How many of those cases do you see now? When you start to see more of those, you'll see a change in behavior by society as a whole.

It's not necessarily adding more laws either, it's enforcing what very likely is already on the books. Hold people accountable - that's what makes for a civilized society.

I agree with holding people accountable whether they pulled the trigger or not. If they are the owner of a gun and left it out in the open where some kid grabs it and kills himself or someone else, then the owner of the gun should be charged, period. But that is not the bulk of our gun problem, is it? Isn't the problem the bad or crazy people who don't care about the laws or how society sees them?

These articles are meaningless if they don't include viable solutions... show me one and lets discuss it.

Within knowledgeable/trained gun people, the term accidental discharge is not used. It is called what it is, negligent discharge. Guns don't go off, untrained or irresponsible people cause them to fire carelessly.
All the laws are already present, but not enforced because DA's choose cases they believe they can win to show they are tough on crime when running for the next political position sought, not because it is their job and the right thing to do. So until people are held responsible in all aspects of life, nothing changes.
And at risk of reiterating things already discussed, make it violence, not just gun violence.

Rick wrote: I agree with holding people accountable whether they pulled the trigger or not. If they are the owner of a gun and left it out in the open where some kid grabs it and kills himself or someone else, then the owner of the gun should be charged, period. But that is not the bulk of our gun problem, is it? Isn't the problem the bad or crazy people who don't care about the laws or how society sees them?

These articles are meaningless if they don't include viable solutions... show me one and lets discuss it.

Rick, I believe that's the point Jim Wright was trying to make in his essay - that gun owners need to be held accountable, and he laid it out in some pretty good detail as to what those consequences should be...in degrees of magnitude and based upon common sense rules of gun safety as put forward by the NRA.

As far as the bulk of our gun problem is concerned, I'm not so sure I agree with your assessment it's the bad or crazy people who don't care about the laws or how society sees them. To me, that's a pretty broad brush stroke. I'm assuming, I hope correctly, by crazies you are referring to the perps who commit mass murders. If I'm wrong on that, my apologies. Reality is most people with mental illness are more often stigmatized than not. According to one expert :

People with serious mental illness are 3 to 4 times more likely to be violent than those who aren't. But the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and never will be.

There's more in that interview, but that quote pretty much says it all for me.

Criminals and gun violence? That is a subject that'll be open for debate as long as there are criminals among us. The stats, however, tell us that gun violence includes a much broader spectrum of scenarios.

If one looks at the gun violence archive website, for example, a clearer picture begins to emerge. Take that a step further and look at FBI statistics of the same, and the picture gets still clearer.

I'm not coming up with this stuff to just blow smoke up anyone's skirts. To me, this is more viable data than anything I've yet to see from those pushing an extremist pro-gun agenda.

I'm not anti-gun as some have put forward, but I do believe with the right to gun ownership also comes a responsibility to actually BE responsible in that regard.

The numbers are simply staggering. If pro-gun extremists are so vested in their right to keep and bear arms, at what point do those numbers begin to have meaning to them? That's the point I'm trying to make, and I believe Jim Wright has offered up some sage advice on a possibility that won't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and just falls in line with gun safety rules that are already being promoted by those having a vested interest in gun ownership. The only difference is those rules get codified into law so there are consequences for violating them.

Hoping my ramblings make a modicum of sense here.

Jim Wright also uses selective information in his arguments. The NRA rule #3, "ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use" is regarding recreational shooting. How do I know this? Read the full paragraph provided by the NRA and note the following, "(unless it is a personal protection firearm that may need to be accessed quickly for defensive purposes)" and is found on page 4 of the NRA Guide to the Basics of Pistol Shooting. Handguns are always regarded as defensive firearms under the law. Rifles and shotguns are normally classed as sporting or hunting arms, and not allowed to be loaded in chamber and magazine inserted unless engaging in the above. At home or on private property even long guns may be kept loaded, but not transported that way.
Regarding his self professed "gun expert" status, the military qualification for expert status requires greater than approximately 87% hits, not under time pressure. At Front Sight, the largest firearms training school located near Pahrump, Nevada, distinguished graduate requires 90% or greater hits under time pressure. Then malfunction drills must be performed under time pressure as well and only remove points if not completed properly and within the allotted time. I have achieved distinguished graduate several times and shot at that level, only to fail myself back to graduate status due to malfunction drills. I do not call myself a gun expert, no need to get the ego stroked as he seems to need. If someone wants to truly be considered expert, try the Combat Master test and see how good you really are.
The late Col. Jeff Cooper is normally credited with the following 4 rules.

RULE 1
ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
The only exception to this occurs when one has a weapon in his hands and he has personally unloaded it for checking. As soon as he puts it down, Rule 1 applies again.


RULE 2
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
You may not wish to destroy it, but you must be clear in your mind that you are quite ready to if you let that muzzle cover the target. To allow a firearm to point at another human being is a deadly threat, and should always be treated as such.


RULE 3
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
This we call the Golden Rule because its violation is responsible for about 80 percent of the firearms disasters we read about.


RULE 4
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET
You never shoot at anything until you have positively identified it. You never fire at a shadow, or a sound, or a suspected presence. You shoot only when you know absolutely what you are shooting at and what is beyond it.

I would adopt these as the rules for gun safety as most shooting ranges have.

This then begs the question are you offering these as an alternative or are you posting them in opposition?

Fact is, I don't believe Jim Wright anywhere in his essay offered his suggestions/recommendations from an absolutely "must be accepted" premise.

The next question that would logically follow is along the lines of whether your willingness to have these rules adopted for gun safety would then also extend to having them somehow codified into law as Jim Wright suggests for his (with appropriate modifications, of course)?

Paragraph 1, Jim Wright only presents partial information, was it selective?
Paragraph 2, Jim Wright's self proclaimed expert status is questionable to anyone that is truly a student of firearms and training.
Paragraph 3, I can't state it any more clearly than I just did.

HEARTLESS wrote: Paragraph 1, Jim Wright only presents partial information, was it selective?
Paragraph 2, Jim Wright's self proclaimed expert status is questionable to anyone that is truly a student of firearms and training.
Paragraph 3, I can't state it any more clearly than I just did.

Well, then, I guess I'll take your "rules for gun safety" with a grain of salt.

ZHawke wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Paragraph 1, Jim Wright only presents partial information, was it selective?
Paragraph 2, Jim Wright's self proclaimed expert status is questionable to anyone that is truly a student of firearms and training.
Paragraph 3, I can't state it any more clearly than I just did.

Well, then, I guess I'll take your "rules for gun safety" with a grain of salt.

Not a surprise. Is it that you only read RULE 1 as meaning all guns should always be loaded? For defensive purposes, that is the correct condition. However if you read more on what Jeff Cooper and most training schools teach, it is only to treat all guns as always loaded, since much time is spend on dry practice (unloaded guns).

Not a surprise either that you assume things about others that aren't necessarily accurate.

Reality is if you had any kind of a modicum of an open mind on this issue, you'd be able to see that these rules you advocate for could, in fact, be added to the "list" for consideration. I'd accept that. But, no.....instead, you choose to once again go on the attack. How to win friends and influence people? Arguably not so much.

ZHawke wrote: Not a surprise either that you assume things about others that aren't necessarily accurate.

Reality is if you had any kind of a modicum of an open mind on this issue, you'd be able to see that these rules you advocate for could, in fact, be added to the "list" for consideration. I'd accept that. But, no.....instead, you choose to once again go on the attack. How to win friends and influence people? Arguably not so much.

A question is now an attack to you after using "with a grain of salt".
Meaning

To take a statement with 'a grain of salt' or 'a pinch of salt' means to accept it but to maintain a degree of skepticism about its truth.

So you question my truth, and I ask a simple question and it is an attack. Grow some nads or call Bruce Jenner's doctor, a pair may be available.