Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

[aberrant85]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

 

[Gipper]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

No, because it's a societal issue.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not until the border is secure and gun deaths/injuries exceed those caused by vehicles. Perhaps they can start securing all sources of accidental drowning too.

 

[trfjr]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

who have been the biggest mass murders always? Government.
So why is it that you want them to be the only ones armed?

 

[Gaius46]

No. Local violence is a local police matter.

And if I were king the Dept of Homeland Security would be done away with.

 

[americanwoman]

Not until the border is secure and gun deaths/injuries exceed those caused by vehicles. Perhaps they can start securing all sources of accidental drowning too.

Ban pools!


But seriously I think gangs should be much more a homeland security issue than it is. They are an organization that terrorizes communities with gun violence. The gangs themselves, not the guns, are the issue and cause the threat of violence.

 

[Fisher]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

Should prohibiting blacks and poor people from having guns be prioritized? They are disproportionately violent with guns and the victims of firearm violence.

 

[aberrant85]

Not until the border is secure and gun deaths/injuries exceed those caused by vehicles. Perhaps they can start securing all sources of accidental drowning too.

False comparison. I'm talking about identifying and preventing people that want to murder other people. If it's ideological we call it terrorism, but if it isn't then it falls into this pool of crime in the US that is less sensationalized.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ban pools!


But seriously I think gangs should be much more a homeland security issue than it is. They are an organization that terrorizes communities with gun violence. The gangs themselves, not the guns, are the issue and cause the threat of violence.

But aren't we told that gangs are caused by poverty and racism?

 

[WCH]

Are you suggesting putting ATF&E under the DHS umbrella?

 

[Gipper]

Ban pools!


But seriously I think gangs should be much more a homeland security issue than it is. They are an organization that terrorizes communities with gun violence. The gangs themselves, not the guns, are the issue and cause the threat of violence.

Actually the cops are the problem. We need someone that's a healthy mix of a Schwartzenegger movie character and RoboCop, give him a street-sweeper, show him to the slums and turn a blind eye.

Dexter is a good guy. Ends justify the means.

 

[WCH]

False comparison. I'm talking about identifying and preventing people that want to murder other people. If it's ideological we call it terrorism, but if it isn't then it falls into this pool of crime in the US that is less sensationalized.

Isn't that what the FBI does?

 

[aberrant85]

No. Local violence is a local police matter.

And if I were king the Dept of Homeland Security would be done away with.

I would vote for you for King, but Homeland Security does work with local law enforcement now anyway.

 

[ttwtt78640]

False comparison. I'm talking about identifying and preventing people that want to murder other people. If it's ideological we call it terrorism, but if it isn't then it falls into this pool of crime in the US that is less sensationalized.

True. You just answered your own question. DHS is not a federally created local police department (yet).

 

[aberrant85]

Isn't that what the FBI does?

FBI resources have been mis-proportionally devoted to preventing terrorism since 9/11. That's why they no longer hunt for ghosts and aliens

 

[Ikari]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

Nope, we should just not really worry about this terrorist thing quite as much.

 

[Gipper]

Hell, I'd like to just abolish the DHS altogether, but that's neither here nor there.

 

[WCH]

FBI resources have been mis-proportionally devoted to preventing terrorism since 9/11. That's why they no longer hunt for ghosts and aliens

I was wondering what happened to Mulder and Sculley??

 

[Kal'Stang]

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

It is not illegal in the US to commit suicide. And even if you somehow prevented a person that wants to kill themselves from getting a gun they will just end up killing themselves some other way.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

Well, if we're comparing amount of people killed due to massacres then why are you using the Boston Marathon? Because it was small? How about the Oklahoma Bombing in which 168 people were killed, 680 people were injured, a 16 block blast radius that destroyed or damaged 324 buildings, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings,[3][4] causing at least an estimated $652 million worth of damage.

Wiki ~ Oklahoma City Bombing

See, I can play the numbers game to. But none of that really matters. Blaming an object for the actions of a person is idiotic and disingenuous.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Threats of violence =/= gun violence. There are more deaths attributed to blunt objects and knives and various other non-projectile objects than guns. Not that it matters since threats of violence are done by people not guns or any other object.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

Yep, and yet the 2nd Amendment was still written even though the founders knew that was a possibility. But again, you are still blaming an object for the actions of a person.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Are you saying that you think we should war against peoples rights? Because that is what gun ownership is...a Right.

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

9/11 was no ideological threat. It was a reality. But even there, the crime happened due to people....not objects.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?

Never. People committing violent crimes however....I could get behind that.

 

[Baralis]

This is one issue that has always stuck in my craw. Terrorist kill a few thousand Americans over a couple of decades and it changes everything for our country. We greatly expand federal powers, add entire departments, wage war in several countries half way around the world, further erode personal liberties, and spend trillions doing so. Why had we not dedicated as much time and resources curbing the plight at home which is far more of a risk to your average American? On the war on terror we are willing to spend a couple billion on a new warplane but ask for more money so that we can rehabilitate prisoners, which has been shown to be effective, or for more boots on the ground to enforce laws and they will tell you that it is just to expensive. We seem to be willing to go to great lengths to combat issues in far away places but turn a blind eye to those right in our back yard. Perhaps its just a little to close to home for people and perhaps they feel if they ignore it long enough it will simply go away? :shrug:


As to the OPs question. No HLS is not how I would deal with it.

 

[aberrant85]

But again, you are still blaming an object for the actions of a person.

Yes, yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I remember that line.

 

[aberrant85]

This is one issue that has always stuck in my craw. Terrorist kill a few thousand Americans over a couple of decades and it changes everything for our country. We greatly expand federal powers, add entire departments, wage war in several countries half way around the world, further erode personal liberties, and spend trillions doing so. Why had we not dedicated as much time and resources curbing the plight at home which is far more of a risk to your average American? On the war on terror we are willing to spend a couple billion on a new warplane but ask for more money so that we can rehabilitate prisoners, which has been shown to be effective, or for more boots on the ground to enforce laws and they will tell you that it is just to expensive. We seem to be willing to go to great lengths to combat issues in far away places but turn a blind eye to those right in our back yard. Perhaps its just a little to close to home for people and perhaps they feel if they ignore it long enough it will simply go away? :shrug:


As to the OPs question. No HLS is not how I would deal with it.

Exactly. Getting bogged down in intransigence on jurisdiction and the 2nd amendment is not an answer in how to stop the loss of life. If we were serious about addressing that problem we would frame it more as a basic human right to not have to fear gun violence where you live and work.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Yes, yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. I remember that line.

Then why continue blaming an object? Why not make harsher penalties on those that commit violent acts? Why not push for better education since the more educated a person is the less likely they will commit a crime? Why not push for things that will actually reduce over all crime instead of blaming an object which millions of law abiding people use....a number which far exceeds the amount of people that commit violent crime with guns.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Exactly. Getting bogged down in intransigence on jurisdiction and the 2nd amendment is not an answer in how to stop the loss of life. If we were serious about addressing that problem we would frame it more as a basic human right to not have to fear gun violence where you live and work.

This would never happen. It is an impossibility since the government would still be allowed to own and use guns. Are you going to remove guns from our military just to uphold the supposed "right to not have to fear gun violence where you live and work"??

(assuming of course you were able to actually get all the guns away from all civilians)

 

[aberrant85]

Then why continue blaming an object? Why not make harsher penalties on those that commit violent acts? Why not push for better education since the more educated a person is the less likely they will commit a crime? Why not push for things that will actually reduce over all crime instead of blaming an object which millions of law abiding people use....a number which far exceeds the amount of people that commit violent crime with guns.

Those are...all actually very good ideas. It's debatable if harsher penalties are a deterrence, but you are right about the rest. If you noticed, I haven't once vilified guns in this thread, but gun violence, which you seem to agree requires a response.

I name you Assistant Director if this baby ever gets off the ground.