what if we stop arguing so hard and start looking for a common solution?

[etrain16]

It's a shame we need to feel like we have to add that disclaimer because you hit the nail on the head and it is 100% completely related to your first sentence.

A guy who I cannot name because it is against the rules said the most important command is to love each other. One of his followers went on later to define what that meant, and what it meant was not a feeling, but rather an purposeful and intentional action on the part of the individual. The definition is as follows:

1. Love is patient
2. Love is kind
3. It does not envy
4. It does not boast
5. It is not proud
6. It does not dishonor others
7. It is not self-seeking
8. It is not easily angered
9. It keeps no record of wrongs
10. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth
11. It always protects, always trusts
12. It always hopes
13. It always perseveres

Now imagine treating everyone with that sort of "Excellence"...there would be no need for gun laws, but as DSAPT9 said, we operate with free will and no one can control the will or the heart of another. So there is the problem...and the big question no one can or will answer is what is to be done?

That is about the best spoken post I have seen here in some time! specially the part about the persons we cannot name! Oppression 101

Too bad too. He was a person of 'color', a second class citizen, picked on by a lot of people, attacked by the government, oppressed, yet somehow managed to teach and demonstrate peace, compassion, love and respect. I guess those ideas just make too many folks uncomfortable.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Yea, A real stand up dude that guy! Wish we had more like him!

 

[bolus]

There is a way to fix the problem but you will not like it as it is quite radical.

BAN ALL HUMANS AND REMOVE THEM FROM THE EARTH!

I was going to say sterilize every human (though I would settle for sterilization of my wife's family, ugg, the movie Idiocracy is playing out with my inlaws)

Next option would be to completely block the dopmaine reward pathway in the brain.

The other option is to breed bullet proof honey badgers and make them crave human flesh.

 

[308]

Honey Badgers we can deal with. Delusional humans are the problem IMNSHO

 

[Ura-Ki]

bolus has it right with the Honey Badgers, but make them hate Pork products as much as our enemy! That way, we can focus on the other problems while the Badgers are keeping the baddies out of 'Merica!

 

[Motomom34]

I did - I was asking for ideas not issues - i believe we know what those are.

It's a start.

I like your opening post because you asked a question that I also have been pondering. But I noticed you want ideas not issues. I believe that you need to define the issues so you can gather ideas and look for a solution. You need to look at each issue from every aspect and then you can start advancing on an agreeable solution. Compromise will have to happen. I did notice that you seemed to want solutions pretty quick after posting, I maybe wrong but it looked like you were getting frustrated with the responses. I thought each person made great points. Like all debates, I tend to listen then throw out the stuff I do not like and focus on the things that I think would work.

If you think of the Orlando shooting you have to define what the issue was first. The absolute facts and go from there. Same with Sandy Hook. Different shooters but the end was the same and that was dead innocence. To get a solution is going to take something, what I do not know because I like you do not have the answer but I would like these mass shootings to stop. Wishful thinking most likely but one can always hope.

 

[lucifermonkey]

There is no solution.

We live in a society of fear, propagated by the media, high speed internet, facebook and twitter. We don't have thought police who can catch criminals before they act. We don't have psychics who can predict the future. If we did, these events would not happen.

Until we do, I will not be a victim.

 

[Pops1911]

Pardon an old man's simplistic view of these issues. Our society is attempting to solve "heart" issues by producing better "head" answers. What is called for is better people not more legalities. Danged sorry but I don't know how to accomplish that task. Pops

 

[ob1]

"The funny thing is in the end we both want the same thing - for crazy people to stop killing innocent people."

No, as I see it, we don't want the same things, and obviously many share the same belief. This goes far beyond the question of stopping shootings.

This is no less than a clash between two diametrically opposed world views. one that embraces the notion of individual responsibility and the concept of minimal governmental intrusion in the life and rights of the individual (as codified in Magna Carta and the US Constitution).

The polar opposite camp uses this issue as merely a stepping stone to further it's pseudo-utopian goals of maximum control of the individual. It is the multi-headed hydra, showing it's reasonable face while hiding the vicious side in the background, ready to strike when you blink. This is plain to see in it's current intrusions into health care, limits on freedom of speech (political correctness), and forcing it's venomous propaganda in to the mass media and educational systems. It is the absolute enemy of the enumerated values of the Constitution.

To question why these opposing sides can't negotiate a brokered agreement on the issue here, is like asking the mouse to sit still for the cat.

 

[mrblond]

There will never be a way both sides can come up with a solution that will stop violence. That simple reason is the people don't trust the government and the government doesnt trust the people.

 

[Lilhigbee]

I like your opening post because you asked a question that I also have been pondering. But I noticed you want ideas not issues. I believe that you need to define the issues so you can gather ideas and look for a solution. You need to look at each issue from every aspect and then you can start advancing on an agreeable solution. Compromise will have to happen. I did notice that you seemed to want solutions pretty quick after posting, I maybe wrong but it looked like you were getting frustrated with the responses. I thought each person made great points. Like all debates, I tend to listen then throw out the stuff I do not like and focus on the things that I think would work.

If you think of the Orlando shooting you have to define what the issue was first. The absolute facts and go from there. Same with Sandy Hook. Different shooters but the end was the same and that was dead innocence. To get a solution is going to take something, what I do not know because I like you do not have the answer but I would like these mass shootings to stop. Wishful thinking most likely but one can always hope.

I disagree completely with you about compromise. Not only will it not HAVE to happen, it cannot happen. Compromise is the result of two or more parties who have legitimate claims coming to an agreement with each side giving up something. The anti's have nothing to give up and no legitimate claim to my rights- they are inalienable!! An example; I sue you for a million dollars. We agree that it will cost you thousands of dollars to fight the lawsuit and "compromise" that you will pay me half of what your defense would cost, say two thousand dollars. I immediately sue you again for a million dollars. Nothing has changed, so again we "compromise" and I get two thousand dollars. I do this enough times and I have your million dolllars and no legitimate claim to any of it. This is the "compromise" the anti's offer us. It is NO compromise, it is the fabled "death by a thousand cuts." Anything that we give up is purely a victory for them, they lose nothing.

 

[David Bowman]

I have no common ground with those who would deny me rights given by God. What good is freedom if you aren't free to choose the wrong thing?

And when dealing with those whose philosophy is "see it my way or else," then I will always choose "or else." And what else could their "or else" be accept the proverbial deal with the devil? So my choice is give up one kind of gun or you will take all my guns?

I will take "or else."

Here are some Common Solutions that work:

1. Not prosecuting doctors and therapists for violation of the HIPPA law for telling Law Enforcement about crazy people planning crazy things.
2. Profiling
3. Holding the person and not the gun responsible for evil.
4. Not calling people "racists" and "bigots" because they report something that raises an alarm to them when they see someone who matches "the profile" doing something shady.

We could just actually call this "list of things that leftists are against." Or as I like to think of it...

Common Sense.....

And remember....

 

[PaulB47]

Some here are advancing the notion that there can be no compromise. I have to question that (like I question everything).

I'll be a devil's advocate for a second. People who hate guns, why do they have to live with them? It's not our business if they can figure out a way to attempt that; it only becomes our business if they attempt to disarm us. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Here is an article that explains that:
What Is to Be Done With the Statists? | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty (http://strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists)

I am talking about ordinary people here, not the ruling class which is inherently parasitic.

There is a compromise that works, and that is separation, along with minding one's own business.

Look at Chicago for a minute. That is what a city with gun prohibition looks like. People who hate guns or who think they should be controlled should move there, and people who like guns should move out. People should experience what they advocate for. There is no better way to learn.

Yes, they are going to say that the illegal guns that show up in Chicago, come from the gun-loving cities. But that is their lookout, to be dealt with in their town. It only becomes illegitimate if they seek to impose on us.

 

[OutlawHoss]

Some here are advancing the notion that there can be no compromise. I have to question that (like I question everything).

I'll be a devil's advocate for a second. People who hate guns, why do they have to live with them? It's not our business if they can figure out a way to attempt that; it only becomes our business if they attempt to disarm us. The two are not necessarily the same thing.

Here is an article that explains that:
What Is to Be Done With the Statists? | Strike-The-Root: A Journal Of Liberty (http://strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists)

I am talking about ordinary people here, not the ruling class which is inherently parasitic.

There is a compromise that works, and that is separation, along with minding one's own business.

Look at Chicago for a minute. That is what a city with gun prohibition looks like. People who hate guns or who think they should be controlled should move there, and people who like guns should move out. People should experience what they advocate for. There is no better way to learn.

Yes, they are going to say that the illegal guns that show up in Chicago, come from the gun-loving cities. But that is their lookout, to be dealt with in their town. It only becomes illegitimate if they seek to impose on us.

Isn't that already the case? I mean no one is forcing people to be gun owners, but anti-gunners want to take away guns. Where is the compromise there?

It's like this: you go out to pizza with a friend, and agree to split the cost and the pizza. You get up, go the the bathroom, and when you come back, your friend has eaten their half, but then wants to apply the same agreement anew, to split the already halved pizza. That sounds ridiculous, but that is what is going on here.

There are some 20,000 gun statutes nationally (that's a conservative stat I believe) that make just about any injury to another illegal as well as outlaw the possession of guns by felons, mentally incompetent, domestic violence convicts, yet somehow we're missing 'common sense gun laws'?!?!?!?

It is an incredible folly that the hyper focus on certain types of violence, like people shooting up a school or night club, becomes about guns. It's human violence, which knows no limitations, that is the issue, not some inanimate object. Talk about a straw argument!

If people want to advance this issue genuinely, then there are a lot of people who need to get real and talk about terrorism, about education and poverty, about political corruption and the disenfranchisement of 'the people' from the mechanizations of government. Guns just aren't the issue, people are, and always will be.

Anyone who maintains differently is got some serious delusions and is drunk on the koolaid, and are part of the problem. And that's a lot of people.

 

[Ura-Ki]

SO, I'm going to take the low road here and ask; what sort of gun control can be accepted? None you say? Let me ask it this way, HOW do you prevent a possable bad guy from purchasing a gun? isnt the system designed to prevent this? Universal BGC's would do this how? How can you make sure the wrong person dosn't loose the right to own a gun? I think we all know there is no way to reach a comp because we gun owners, Hell, all citizens in this case, would likely get screwed some how! They want a comprimise? How about this, get rid of the BATF, DHS, TSA, BLM, and other Non Congressional signed agencies, restore our full 2nd rights, and then we can talk about how to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys!

 

[Motomom34]

More fuel for the discussion, but you and every other gun owner in this country have compromised. Look at every piece of our inalienable rights we have had limited. One side wants all guns gone and another feels there should be no limits. Gun owners seem to keep losing. And you cannot use your God given rights as a platform because most of the gun grabbers do not believe in God.

 

[Ura-Ki]

It isn't about a compromise, it's about restoring OUR rights! There can only be ONE compromise, and thats for us to get our rights back, and take away big Gub'ment rights! We currently have 77 agencies with the power of armed inforcment! We have agencies that are not bound by the laws of our constitution or congress, they were created in spite of, instead of for the people! Who do these agencies answer to? What we have as an over reach of power that we have been forced to accept! The losses of our rights has taken pace mostly at the State level, and as such we are fragmented and unable to challenge these losses with out a major upheaval at the STATE level! Another wrong is the Fed over stepping the State on inserting laws with out vote! From Regan all the way up, and in some cases it goes as far back as Teddy 1! If we don't act now, more will be lost, and it's at the State levels that the hammer will fall hardest!

 

[boogerhook]

I think you may be missing my point. I suspect you do not want crazy people or non crazy killing innocents. I dont know you but I highly doubt you meant that. Keep in mind I never said ban guns. Keep in mind I said is there a solution - I was asking yours. This whole strong left strong right - will get us no where. It seems we fall back on the same argument. We really need to perfect ours. its weak. I do agree with you - everyone is crazy to some degree, but who cares, I only talking about the kind of crazy that will act out on their beliefs or the voices in their head.

I think we need to understand that other group among us, the crazy group, and understand how to identify them and the what next scenario.

I will end with this,

Looking at the evidence, Harvard's polymath professor Steven Pinker has ventured to speculate that we are probably living "in the most peaceful time of our species' existence."

Why does it not feel that way? Why do we think we live in scary times? Part of the problem is that as violence has been ebbing, information has been exploding. The last 20 years have produced an information revolution that brings us news and, most crucially, images from around the world all the time.
The immediacy of the images and the intensity of the 24-hour news cycle combine to produce constant hype. Every weather disturbance is the "storm of the decade." Every bomb that explodes is BREAKING NEWS. Because the information revolution is so new, we—reporters, writers, readers, viewers—are all just now figuring out how to put everything in context.

We didn't watch daily footage of the two million people who died in Indochina in the 1970s, or the million who perished in the sands of the Iran-Iraq war ten years later. We saw little of the civil war in the Congo in the 1990s, where millions died. But today any bomb that goes off, any rocket that is fired, any death that results, is documented by someone, somewhere and ricochets instantly across the world. Add to this terrorist attacks, which are random and brutal. "That could have been me," you think. Actually, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are tiny—for an American, smaller than drowning in your bathtub. But it doesn't feel like that.​

Psychologists call it the "fallacy of misleading vividness". And yes, you got a point there.

 

[ThePhonMan]

I can see only one logical solution for "keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and terrorists"..... Cut off their hands.

Problem solved and we can all go back about our business.

 

[Inquisitor]

Part of the reason we can't come up with a common solution is that the Democrats and the "Gun Safety[?]" groups are not looking for one and maybe don't want one!

Analysis of 2014 FBI crime data shows that only 26.4% of violent crimes are reported to have been committed with a firearm. Why do the Democrats and "Gun Safety[?]" groups ignore 73.6% of violent crimes? We are constantly hearing about "Gun Violence", "Gun Deaths" and "Mass Shootings". All of these are lies, half-truths and misleading statements. They are all psychological tricks that are designed to make the average person believe that guns are the actual cause. If you do not believe that premise, have you ever heard of "Poison Violence", "Rope Violence" or "Bridge Violence"? Of course not; these are all inanimate objects and can not cause violence. Gun Deaths is the most dishonest and misleading of all of these, there are far, far too many things that can result in death to even begin to list them here. In addition, there are many, many different circumstances in those deaths such as: natural, intentional, accidental, negligent, and self-inflicted. Nevertheless, all deaths where a gun was involved are grouped together, such as violent crime, suicide, accidents, and self-defense as if there is a single cause and therefore a single solution; which is a lie. In addition, this category ignores all violent crime where a firearm was not used.

All of these lies, half-truths and misleading statements have an even more dangerous effect, which is, they distract from even trying to identify the real causes of violence, and as a result, real solutions can never be identified. The basic causes of violence are lack of morals and/or certain mental illnesses; suicides are the result of depression and/or despair; accidents result from carelessness and/or lack of knowledge. Work on these rather than the diversion of "Gun Safety" (formerly Gun Control). The only organizations that are truly addressing "Gun Safety" are the military, law enforcement, and the NRA; with only the NRA addressing training for the public! The Democrats and "Gun Safety[?]" groups only want all firearms to be restricted and eventually banned, except for law enforcement and government agents; but why?