Shooting in Las Vegas

[MacMadame]

I do think gun regulation is required, but the same old circle of argument isn't working and people need to approach this differently. And be as smart about it as the gun/ammo industry has been.

So what do you suggest we do specifically?

 

[rfisher]

So what do you suggest we do specifically?

I have no idea. I think this should be handled by a good marketing strategist. Relying on politicians with funding agendas, who in turn rely on staff to read, research and tell them how to vote, is flat out the wrong way to accomplish something of this scope. It has to be a non-partisan effort and it has to be sold to those staff doing the research for their Congressperson.

 

[MacMadame]

Well that's helpful.

Mom for Gun Sense could be gun control's MADD. However, one of the reasons why I think MADD was effective is that its leadership was a bit extreme. Moms for Gun Sense don't seem to have that passion and fury.

One of the ways MADD was effective was by personalizing DUI. They brought forth victims and put a human face on the problem. They also had people touring the country who had committed these crimes and they talked about how their lives were ruined from drinking and driving. I think people do that with gun violence too but the response is always FREEDOM! So that has to change as well.

 

[rfisher]

Well that's helpful.

Mom for Gun Sense could be gun control's MADD. However, one of the reasons why I think MADD was effective is that its leadership was a bit extreme. Moms for Gun Sense don't seem to have that passion and fury.

One of the ways MADD was effective was by personalizing DUI. They brought forth victims and put a human face on the problem. They also had people touring the country who had committed these crimes and they talked about how their lives were ruined from drinking and driving. I think people do that with gun violence too but the response is always FREEDOM! So that has to change as well.

Which is why I think the conversation has to turn away from gun control to reduction of gun violence. Control arguments automatically triggers the freedom response. MADD didn't campaign against alcohol. They campaigned against drunk drivers who caused death. Rather than campaign against gun ownership, the conversation should focus on the violence. And ask the question "how can we reduce gun violence?" This doesn't evoke the 2nd Amendment response. This is what I mean by marketing. I think we've been going about this all wrong.

 

[Vash01]

Just found an Arizona connection with the victims. The father of an ASU (Arizona State University) student was killed Sunday night while shielding his wife from the bullets.
The couple Jack and Laurie Beaton came from Bakersfield California to celebrate their 23rd wedding anniversary in Vegas.

The attack has not shifted the views on guns among Arizona politicians. All republicans are For guns. Only two democrats have said there need to be legislative steps to address such incidents. It is not surprising, since Arizona is a highly conservative state.

 

[missing]

42% of Americans smoked in 1965; 17% in 2014.

The tobacco lobby was at minimum as powerful as the NRA, and most likely a lot more so, since so many states depended on tobacco for their revenues.

There were a lot of approaches for lowering cigarette consumption. Offhand, I can think of lawsuits, raising the tax on cigarettes, increasing the awareness of the danger of second hand smoke, educating children from a very young age on the danger of smoking (and thus having the children put pressure on their parents to quit), decreasing substantially the number of people smoking on television and increasing awareness of the number of people smoking in movies, creating a variety of ways to help people quit including nicotine substitutes, advertising, and making it harder, even in a tobacco producing state, for a person to smoke in a public venue.

There are a lot of different approaches for changing laws, behaviors and attitudes. Some will work, others will fail, and still others will work so slowly you might not realize they have made a difference. But the gun problem in America is not immutable, anymore than cigarette smoking was 50 years ago.

 

[Angelskates]

The issue with gun ownership is not the same as tabacco because it’s a “rights” issue. The discussion barely starts with guns merely because of that. And that is why the NRA has power and money and that it why IMO it will never change.

 

[missing]

The issue with gun ownership is not the same as tabacco because it’s a “rights” issue. The discussion barely starts with guns merely because of that. And that is why the NRA has power and money and that it why IMO it will never change.

Smokers believed they had the right to smoke wherever they wanted.

Rights are a fluid thing. People used to have the right to carry guns on airplanes, just as they used to have the right to smoke on airplanes. Nowadays I can't go to a Yankee game or a New York City museum or the World Figure Skating Championship in Boston without having my pocketbook searched. I've lost the right to privacy.

18 used to be the legal age for purchasing alcohol. It became 21, and 18-20 year olds lost the right to buy beer (while gaining the right to vote, which was 21 when I was growing up).

Putting a high tax on cigarettes didn't affect the right to smoke. It just made it too expensive for many people, which was the logic behind it. There's no threat to the Second Amendment if municipalities start putting extremely high taxes on ammunition, then using the monies raised for suicide prevention programs. There's no threat to the Second Amendment if well organized protests are held in front of gun shows. There's no threat to the Second Amendment if sporting goods stores are pressured by their stockholders to stop selling firearms (just as CVS stopped selling cigarettes).

Change is a constant in life, a fact that cheers me up more often than not.

 

[MacMadame]

The issue with gun ownership is not the same as tabacco because it’s a “rights” issue. The discussion barely starts with guns merely because of that. And that is why the NRA has power and money and that it why IMO it will never change.

I think the NRA has money and power because it's smart and it decided to go after those things.

Some of the things MADD did will not work for guns -- for example, you aren't going to limit them in movies -- but here are some things I can think of that I think will change the conversation:

1) Target the NRA. Not guns or laws. But point out how they've bought Congress and how they put out propaganda to make people afraid. Make it shameful to be a member instead of something a lot of people who own guns just automatically join without much thought. That cuts out a big source of their money and also takes away their power. A lot of gun owners think they have gone off the rails already so this is just being more active about marginalizing them.

2) Make the victims and the bloodshed real. Have people who shot their sibling as a kid because they found a gun go around and speak to schools. Have victims who lived but whose lives changed forever go around and talk to people about that. I have mixed feelings about showing the bloodshed on the news but maybe do something like they used to do in drivers ed where they show people who've been run over to teens before they get their licenses where they show the actual real damage from being shot.

3) Lobby for gun safety. Make gun safety classes plentiful, easy to attend, and cheap. Make it expected that people attend them before they get their first gun. Make it a right of passage like getting your learners permit. Make everything about gun safety cheap and easy to get and expected. Like gun safes and trigger locks.

Also, make it expected that you don't sell a gun without a trigger lock. I mean you wouldn't sell one without ammo or an iPhone without a charging cord. Why are trigger locks and add-on?

4) Make guns and ammo expensive. That way the gun industry still makes money but on quality and not quanity.

5) Change the culture (via books, movies, tv shows, video games) so that gun safety is cool and expected. When you show Pa taking his son out to bag his first deer, have a throwaway line about how now that he's passed his gun safety test, he's ready. Maybe have them talk a bit about gun safety as part of their father-son (or mother-daughter or whatever) bonding. "Remember, never put your finger in the trigger unless you are prepared to shoot".

I would also really love it if movies weren't so stupid about guns. Like the good guy with a pistol being able to shoot the bad guy with his machine gun as they both are running and the good guy fires one shot and hits while the bad guy fires 100 and misses. But I think that's probably asking a bit much.

6) Change guns. We have mirrors with blind spot warnings and cars that brake for you. Why not have guns that have an indicator that tells you if they are loaded or not without having to open them up? Make it more obvious if the safety is off too. Heck, we could make guns that wouldn't fire on people, if we wanted to (for those who only want them for hunting animals or target shooting). Or that you had to turn them on for that. Or guns that only fire for their owners.

 

[Angelskates]

None of this will work in the US because it’s not just a right, it’s a constitutional right. Tabacco wasn’t. If people are stupid enough to vote for Trump, they’re not going to ever go after the NRA. The NRA funded their beloved Trump. Can you imagine the outcry if guns were sold with the graphic warning that’s cigarettes are? You might think there’s no threat if those things happened, but have you tried to speak to a NRA/Trump/“guns don’t kill people” supporter? It would never happen. People still think it’s a “people” problem not a gun problem. Of course they’re not willing not get universal health care which would help people, either...

 

[Vash01]

None of this will work in the US because it’s not just a right, it’s a constitutional right. Tabacco wasn’t. If people are stupid enough to vote for Trump, they’re not going to ever go after the NRA. The NRA funded their beloved Trump. Can you imagine the outcry if guns were sold with the graphic warning that’s cigarettes are? You might think there’s no threat if those things happened, but have you tried to speak to a NRA/Trump/“guns don’t kill people” supporter? It would never happen. People still think it’s a “people” problem not a gun problem. Of course they’re not willing not get universal health care which would help people, either...

We are doomed.

 

[manhn]

Well, we keep being told that the majority of Americans support gun control measures. If that is truly the case, then it's those minds that need to be changed, where gun control is a top of mind voting issue.

 

[Vash01]

Well, we keep being told that the majority of Americans support gun control measures. If that is truly the case, then it's those minds that need to be changed, where gun control is a top of mind voting issue.

The problem is not with the people. It's with the politicians. They refuse to do anything about it.

 

[manhn]

But people vote in those politicians.

 

[Vash01]

But people vote in those politicians.

Gun control is not the only issue they vote on. Many times it is just party loyalty. They will vote for their candidate even if he/she is totally against gun control because they may be in agreement with other issues, like abortion, racism, the economy, and sometimes just for liking the personality of a certain candidate.

 

[MacMadame]

None of this will work in the US because it’s not just a right, it’s a constitutional right.

It's a right that the SCOTUS has said has limits. Not to mention, absolutely nothing I posted as suggestions involved taking away people's right to own guns. Nothing.

It's easy to shoot down everyone else's ideas and explain how everyone in the US is doing it wrong when you don't even live here.

 

[snoopy]

the sheriff's presser was interesting. He said that he suspects there was an accomplis - not on the day - but someone who helped get him started. He didn't think one person could amass all the firepower and know how on his own in that timeframe. Also a journalist asked if the authorities were looking into "October 2016" (I'm not sure I got that date right, maybe he said October 2015) as a trigger. (I think that is when the timeline shows he stated gathering all the guns.). The sheriff said yes, they noticed that too and are looking into life events that might have set him off at that time.

 

[Angelskates]

It's easy to shoot down everyone else's ideas and explain how everyone in the US is doing it wrong when you don't even live here.

Actually it's easy when you see mass shooting after mass shooting in the US, discussion, the same as all previous discussions then...nothing...and another mass shooting and the cycle continues. Only this time, it's even worse because Trump is in power.

And to you the things you posted may not be infringing on rights, but have you run them past a Trump supporter/NRA member/pro-gun people? I doubt they'd even engage in discussion. I think all of those ideas are great (and common sense) but I don't think they'd ever get discussed in reality where it counts.

 

[Angelskates]

Gun control is not the only issue they vote on. Many times it is just party loyalty. They will vote for their candidate even if he/she is totally against gun control because they may be in agreement with other issues, like abortion, racism, the economy, and sometimes just for liking the personality of a certain candidate.

So then it is as mahn says, people. If someone is voting based on a politician's personality instead of their stance on gun control (or anything else), that's a people problem. People prioritise different things, it's their priorities that are out of whack.

 

[WildRose]

If every American who supports gun control refused to vote for candidates who receive funding from the NRA that would send a message politicians couldn’t ignore. If the majority of Americans truly want to do something to stop this epidemic of gun violence they need to stop praying and start doing something about it.

 

[AxelAnnie]

Gun control is not the only issue they vote on. Many times it is just party loyalty. They will vote for their candidate even if he/she is totally against gun control because they may be in agreement with other issues, like abortion, racism, the economy, and sometimes just for liking the personality of a certain candidate.

And, sometimes there is no one to vote for. It becomes a lesser of two evils situation. It doesn't say a lot for our country that the best we could put forward was Hillary & Trump.

 

[Buzz]

A lot of people from the U.S. try to smuggle their guns into Canada while travelling on vacation. How could they not know this is a bad idea?!
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ringing-handguns-with-alarming-frequency.html

 

[smurfy]

A lot of people from the U.S. try to smuggle their guns into Canada while travelling on vacation. How could they not know this is a bad idea?!
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ringing-handguns-with-alarming-frequency.html

Don't fail to under estimate the stupidity of some Americans. They elected Trump. (I am an American!)
I know a few narrow minded people that just don't know what goes on outside the US and can't process that things may be different.

 

[Vash01]

So then it is as mahn says, people. If someone is voting based on a politician's personality instead of their stance on gun control (or anything else), that's a people problem. People prioritise different things, it's their priorities that are out of whack.

I dont think you fully understood my post. To reiterate, gun control is not the only issue people base their votes in. There are many factors involved, which I mentioned in my post. Personality is again just one factor and for some people. This is a complex problem. It does not have the easy straight line solution you and Mahn are assuming.

 

[Angelskates]

I dont think you fully understood my post. To reiterate, gun control is not the only issue people base their votes in. There are many factors involved, which I mentioned in my post. Personality is again just one factor and for some people. This is a complex problem. It does not have the easy straight line solution you and Mahn are assuming.

We are not suggesting it is an easy fix at all. You said it was a politician problem, not a people problem. I disagree.

 

[Vash01]

If every American who supports gun control refused to vote for candidates who receive funding from the NRA that would send a message politicians couldn’t ignore. If the majority of Americans truly want to do something to stop this epidemic of gun violence they need to stop praying and start doing something about it.

This is a hypothetical situation. 'Every American' does not think the same way, or vote the same way, otherwise we would have a 500-0 election results. Gun control is not the only issue that is important to every American. Different things are important to people at different times. There are many factors and a lot of variation. Ignorance is also one of the factors. Certainly for some of us, this massacre of our citizens needs to stop. Others view it differently, Deo ending on their needs and experiences. This is not an easy problem to solve. The country is heterogeneous and big. It will take a long time to make any kind of change.

 

[PRlady]

The problem is not with the people. It's with the politicians. They refuse to do anything about it.

When gun rights people list their priorities in polling, gun freedom is their number one issue; when gun safety people list theirs, it's usually fifth or sixth. This has been true for more than 30 years, and politicians know this.

Single-issue voters have a lot of power.

 

[allezfred]

If I was killed in one of these gun attacks, I would want photos of my dead bloodied body released to the press. The more graphic the better.

 

[oleada]

If I was killed in one of these gun attacks, I would want photos of my dead bloodied body released to the press. The more graphic the better.

Me too. Please politicize my death.

 

[snoopy]

I posted this already but one of the surgeons from sandy hook said we missed the teachable moment by not showing the pictures of all the dead 8 year olds. Her words were "they weren't just dead, they were dead dead".