@goldcam.

Do you agree that a person has the right to defend themselves and that firearms are the most effective way to achieve that?

As always, it is about the culture.

Panther wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:


I feel like I am back in school again, I would have responded even if you didn't ask. Additionally you are not the teacher and I am not the student, it seems that was what this conversation was directing towards. 

I will state this before delving into your question...this is a video which points out some valid and proven facts but limits the expanse it views and thus puts forward solutions. It denies everything and offers nothing (solutions)....once again it is very easy to deny but to utilise and thus insight into solutions is much harder.

I have no substantial solution and never have stated I do but will put forward various policies and implementation that may be effective.

I am only going to answer the question of "what would you suggest to eliminate gun crime" because quite simply it would be counter productive to answer the "same time respect the gun rights of law abiding American Citizens to keep & bear arms" because I don't agree with that notion.

1) The first thing that needs to change is the culture within the United States, the culture that centres firearms in lifestyle at the same level Australia centres BBQ's and cricket in their lifestyle. Now a culture change can occur over a longer period or a shorter period (a more amicable approach given the current circumstances) each having their own strategies to match the time periodicity. The solution to this is not simple.

Education. Education. Education. Education is what drives change, is what evokes new insights. Movements like the March for Lives and various other gun control advocates have the ability with enough support can attempt to insight the hideous gun culture that the US is experiencing. Political support is also needed for such events, which at present is occurring but not at a high enough rate.

2) Along with the cultural change, comes a legislative change. Now I must add, this bias video of yours simply places gun control in this idealistic world. Simply it highlights that if it cannot be 100% effective why change it. It is all about cohesiveness between states and thus the ability for the federal government to stamp their foot down instead of avoiding the conversation. Mental Health legislation has failed to address the issue (over 1 billion dollars worth in 9 years), education has failed to stop these kids.....its time that the firearm problem is addressed. When has the firearm issue ever been addressed to a large extent.

Legislation.....
Banning anything must be followed through with a extensive and cohesive framework. The framework would consist of the banning, to begin with, of all semi-automatic weapons and attachments that enhance its capabilities. To follow through with such frameworks would be extensive fines for possession of such weapons, criminal convictions for such possessions and a national register that lists all those committing such offences. A buy back scheme could be implemented into such legislative frameworks. Then their could be a gradual implementation of legislation extending to handguns and other forms.

This will be successful if the federal and state governments support it, as well as police and agencies of the like. Support is needed.

I am not a politician, meaning the true decisions and policies will derive from law makers not me or you. The weight and depth of my perception is not anywhere near their level.

I pose this question.....how many firearm deaths in the United States is acceptable??
How many people need to die until a solution to aid or eradicate the problem is reached (its been going on for decades and decades)??

Auggie wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 8:44pm:

Don't tell me they have nuffin' to do wiv each other.

goldkam wrote on Apr 20^th, 2018 at 8:26pm:

 

Auggie wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 1:00pm:




Source:      

The United States Constitution

       Quote:

When there is deep confusion between the powers of government and the rights of the ordinary people - those latter have no wish to be caught short, and perhaps become part of The Handyman's Tale.

Thus they may seek to arm themselves, even with no evil or imminent intent, just on the off-chance that things will finally break down.  Consider the plight of the inner city dwellers in the event of any major catastrophe - to even get to the countryside they will have to run the gauntlet of the 'outer suburbs' which often are havens for armed miscreants and are cess-pools of criminal intent.

What would you have them do?  Surrender all their valuables as a 'toll' to get past the evil-doers?