Jump to content

Gun control, which side wins?


dimreepr

Recommended Posts

Regulations to control who can buy gun is not enough to limit mass shootings.

There is also needed buyback of weapons available on 2nd hand market.

And "do something" with existing weapon making companies. They demand steady (or growing) income year by year for their products.

Buyback of their stocks, and then change of their profile, to production of something useful to people?

 

That reminds me strategy used by U.S.Army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

American soldiers offered cash for weapons given away by Iraq army after surrendering to everybody who wanted it (to destabilize country, which they actually managed to do anyway).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

Australian's gun buyback program in 1996 took 660,959 firearms out of private hands.

Yes, and estimates suggest there are at least 256 MILLION firearms in the US, or over 400x as many as Australia. That suggests it won't be quite as simple, and that's BEFORE we even mention how it's considered a constitutional right / from my cold dead hands and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, and estimates suggest there are at least 256 MILLION firearms in the US, or over 400x as many as Australia. That suggests it won't be quite as simple, and that's BEFORE we even mention how it's considered a constitutional right / from my cold dead hands and all that.

The problem only seems intractable, big money/power is often the source of its own downfall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_matchgirls_strike_of_1888

Quote

The strike was caused by the poor working conditions in the match factory, including fourteen-hour work days, poor pay, excessive fines and the severe health complications of working with white phosphorus, such as phossy jaw,[1] but was sparked by the dismissal of one of the workers on or about 2 July 1888.[2]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the criterion for potential policy changes is empirical proof any specific change will eliminate all future mass shootings than we will never have policy change. Traffic laws do not prevent all traffic accidents any more than rape laws prevent all rape.  The bar is set ridiculously high when arguments are launched implying specific policy changes aren't perfect; nothing is perfect. If it is better, if it can safe a life, than it is worth trying in my opinion. 

Edited by Ten oz
Removed doubled sentence
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The bar is set ridiculously high when arguments are launched implying specific policy changes aren't perfect

 

That's why the NRA spends so much money, they realise the slippery slope isn't always a bad thing, even if it leads to an ever-diminishing balance sheet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Yes, and estimates suggest there are at least 256 MILLION firearms in the US,

..and there will be more, if nothing will be done, because weapon manufacturers have to earn money, year by year..

1) what are the biggest gun making companies?

2) are they listed on stock markets (which one) ? are they private (which one)? are they owned by government (which one)?

3) who are their shareholders? (and in what percentage)

4) if shareholders are e.g. retirement funds, or investment funds, then which one.. ?

5) should not retired-to-be and retired people know in which companies their retirement funds are investing their money.. ?

6) should not they disallow their retirement funds to invest in company in which they don't believe is doing something good for people.. ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Sensei said:

6) should not they disallow their retirement funds to invest in company in which they don't believe is doing something good for people.. ?

At least one investment company (Black Rock) has said they will offer investors this choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

At least one investment company (Black Rock) has said they will offer investors this choice. 

"The devil is in the details"... What you said shall be read "we will make special sub-fund ("product") for investors, in which we won't invest in weapon manufacturers" (just catchy phrase for advertisement!).. At the same time it means "we are investing people's money in weapon manufacturers in THE ALL OUR OTHER SUB-FUNDS!"...

What I meant in previous post, is that the all retirement funds/investment funds should say "we do not invest any money in weapon manufacturers! We did it in the past, we regret it, but we sold them, because our investors/retired people don't want to support them!"..

 

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

If the criterion for potential policy changes is empirical proof any specific change will eliminate all future mass shootings than we will never have policy change. Traffic laws do not prevent all traffic accidents any more than rape laws prevent all rape.  The bar is set ridiculously high when arguments are launched implying specific policy changes aren't perfect; nothing is perfect. If it is better, if it can safe a life, than it is worth trying in my opinion. 

That should not be the argument. Rather, one should apply means to reduce overall gun-related incidences rather than focusing on specific measures addressing i.e. mass or gun shootings (which both are relatively low incidence in relation to overall gun deaths). Because the latter leads to rather silly suggestions such as "hardening" schools (and presumably other areas such as cinemas and concerts) by adding more guns to the mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Sensei said:

What I meant in previous post, is that the all retirement funds/investment funds should say "we do not invest any money in weapon manufacturers! We did it in the past, we regret it, but we sold them, because our investors/retired people don't want to support them!"..

Why would they do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That should not be the argument. Rather, one should apply means to reduce overall gun-related incidences rather than focusing on specific measures addressing i.e. mass or gun shootings (which both are relatively low incidence in relation to overall gun deaths). Because the latter leads to rather silly suggestions such as "hardening" schools (and presumably other areas such as cinemas and concerts) by adding more guns to the mix.

Number one type of firearm related death is suicide. The number one type of firearm used in all firearm related deaths are handgun. Look at where the energy currently: stores choosing not to sell assault weapons, the President openly calling for a ban on bump stocks, student activism capturing the nations attention, and polls showing the majority of the nation supporting an assault weapon ban. After decades of inaction there is finally a chance for action because of the national mood following recent mass shootings. How does saying we should focus on broader issues that don't have even a tenth of the national agreement or momentum help anything?

Yes, less people die per year in mass shootings than suicides. Yes, assault weapons kill less people per year than handguns. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good shall we allow the moment to pass on assault weapons and bump stocks. Shift debate away from those "relatively low incidence" matters and focus on suicides? I don't believe there is any broad agreement about taking action of any kind on handguns. I also don't think there is any broad agreement about how to address firearm suicides. Currently the narrow spot light focused on assault weapons because of mass shootings in actually having an impact. Widening that light would be counter productive at this time. We are all starving. Lets eat some of the low hanging fruit on the few trees we have before trying to plant an entire orchard.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Strange said:

Why would they do that?

Aren't we in one of many threads "how to solve problems with guns", "how to get rid of mass shootings, suicides, accidental shootings, murders made by gun" etc. etc. .. ?

If fund management is making sub-fund, addressed to people who are against guns, it's just marketing trick to attract investors. They will still continue supporting weapon manufacturers by their money. Just in different sub-funds.

If majority of US fund managements will give up on supporting weapon manufacturers entirely, they will cause collapse of these companies, or force them to change their profile, to production of something useful for people instead.

Fund managements with large stakes of shares can introduce their managers to board of directors, or even replace CEO. Basically, it's their company. Or rather investor's company who gave fund their money. Fund managements reluctantly reveal their investors exact target of investment (or they're not interested too much, just percent they will earn on it). They should be interested whether their money are landing in weapon manufacturers pockets, if they are against weapons...

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine what would happen if the all (or majority) from Forbes 100 the richest list would declare that they don't invest or make any deals with funds which posses shares of weapon manufacturers in their pockets. Funds would have to start selling their shares ASAP to not lose the best clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Number one type of firearm related death is suicide. The number one type of firearm used in all firearm related deaths are handgun. Look at where the energy currently: stores choosing not to sell assault weapons, the President openly calling for a ban on bump stocks, student activism capturing the nations attention, and polls showing the majority of the nation supporting an assault weapon ban. After decades of inaction there is finally a chance for action because of the national mood following recent mass shootings. How does saying we should focus on broader issues that don't have even a tenth of the national agreement or momentum help anything?

Yes, less people die per year in mass shootings than suicides. Yes, assault weapons kill less people per year than handguns. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good shall we allow the moment to pass on assault weapons and bump stocks. Shift debate away from those "relatively low incidence" matters and focus on suicides? I don't believe there is any broad agreement about taking action of any kind on handguns. I also don't think there is any broad agreement about how to address firearm suicides. Currently the narrow spot light focused on assault weapons because of mass shootings in actually having an impact. Widening that light would be counter productive at this time. We are all starving. Lets eat some of the low hanging fruit on the few trees we have before trying to plant an entire orchard.  

I couldn't agree more. In fact, in a recently closed thread someone expressed nearly identical sentiments. Unfortunately this approach was repeatedly criticized for being the same, tired suggestion that was used for decades while the situation had only worsened, and what was needed instead was an approach that started with everything on the table rather than starting with the few things we can more readily get people to agree to.

I wish you luck with your suggestion. It is difficult know what to do when opinions seem to change from day to day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I couldn't agree more. In fact, in a recently closed thread someone expressed nearly identical sentiments. Unfortunately this approach was repeatedly criticized for being the same, tired suggestion that was used for decades while the situation had only worsened, and what was needed instead was an approach that started with everything on the table rather than starting with the few things we can more readily get people to agree to.

I wish you luck with your suggestion. It is difficult know what to do when opinions seem to change from day to day.

That is an inaccurate summary in my opinion. The discussion your reference went on for pages. Truncating it down for the chance to take a petty swipe is childish. It is a dead debate in a closed thread. If you would like to continue that discussion start a thread about whether or not actively costuming gun industry products is counter productive to achieving gun control. Otherwise you are just asking for an off topic argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

That is an inaccurate summary in my opinion. The discussion your reference went on for pages. Truncating it down for the chance to take a petty swipe is childish. It is a dead debate in a closed thread. If you would like to continue that discussion start a thread about whether or not actively costuming gun industry products is counter productive to achieving gun control. Otherwise you are just asking for an off topic argument. 

I was kind of hoping you would acknowledge that your current position is similar to the one I expressed previously but in hindsight I should have passed on the opportunity to mention it.

It is not a dead debate though, as you and CharonY are on this very page debating much the same thing you and I debated previously.

I don't know how agreeing with your position in this thread is off topic though. As I said, I like what you stated and have believed all along that it was a good route to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/03/2018 at 3:00 PM, iNow said:

Yes, and estimates suggest there are at least 256 MILLION firearms in the US, or over 400x as many as Australia. That suggests it won't be quite as simple, and that's BEFORE we even mention how it's considered a constitutional right / from my cold dead hands and all that.

May I suggest that you are making the problem appear bigger than it is by perhaps not realising that those 256 million weapons are only with about a quarter of the population, give or take 5%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

May I suggest that you are making the problem appear bigger than it is by perhaps not realising that those 256 million weapons are only with about a quarter of the population, give or take 5%.

Not my intent, and it's a good clarification you've made.

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

Imagine what would happen if the all (or majority) from Forbes 100 the richest list would declare that they don't invest or make any deals with funds which posses shares of weapon manufacturers in their pockets. Funds would have to start selling their shares ASAP to not lose the best clients.

In some ways, divesting could be the wrong move. Their opinions likely hold more sway when they remain shareholders.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/business/dealbook/investors-gunmakers.html

Quote

Here's a counterintuitive idea: Use those stakes in the gun industry to encourage reforms. <...> A reasonable [argument could be made] that, between customer blowback and the potential for regulatory pressure, it is in the financial interests of everyone in the gun manufacturing and retail chain to reform themselves voluntarily. And if companies don't take such steps, BlackRock - and everyone else who owns shares in these companies - could vote to oust their board of directors. 

Some good points throughout the article. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I don't know, Stringy...
Does that make the problem appear bigger than it actually is ?
Or does it make it appear smaller ?
( why does any one need so many guns ??? )

Would you assume a pistol, two rifles, and a decent shotgun a lot?

That'd mean around 64 million Americans would own a gun if the guns were split evenly to 4.

That'd be 1/5 Americans.

Just curious.

 

 

However, the true story lies with the fact of gun collectors/sportsman/avid hunters/and gun sellers.

Collectively, they own most of the guns.

Edited by Raider5678
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CharonY featured and unfeatured this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.