The mechanics of gun control preventing the Orlando massacre

[Mr Person]

The next thing that needs to be addressed is our Justice System. It DESPERATELY needs reformed. It needs to be changed from one of punishment, to one of reform and rehabilitation. It is a well known fact that when we send people to prison, when/if they get out they often come out worse psychologically than when they went in. That needs to change, which can be done via making our justice system into one of reform and rehabilitation. Instead of letting prisoners sit around all day teach them useful skills that they can apply to life outside of prison. Also while they are in prison get them psychological help. Make it mandatory to both see a shrink and go to classes that teach them useful skills.

Well, there are a lot of prison programs. There aren't enough, true.

But again, this still confirms rather than disposes of in the post you seem to be disagreeing with: the question is preventing mass shootings or more specifically the Orlando massacre. Again, improving those aspects of the prison system (along with others you don't mention) are laudable goals I completely agree with. I just don't see how they are supposed to stop mass shootings.

They'll certainly help reduce recidivism, which in turn would logically reduce crime in general. Because a certain percentage of crime is gun crime, then presumably the proposal would have an effect on gun crime in general.

But Orlando? From what we now know, the motive seems to be that a semi-closeted gay man was jilted by a gay lover, and retaliated in the unhinged way an increasing number of people with gripes do: shoot a bunch of innocent people whom the shooter vaguely associates with his grievance. The OP poses the question of what gun control and later posts expanded that to what legislation would stop Orlando. What could possibly stop it given what we know?

Now in order for this reform/rehabilitation to actually work it needs the required TIME to make it work for each individual. And since there is no set time for such things we need to get rid of or at least adjust our sentencing guidelines. Instead of a judge declaring some arbitrary number of months/years that a person has to spend in prison let the psychologists and teachers decide when that person gets out of prison. But they can only be released once they are provably reformed/rehabilitated. If that means that a person stays in prison for just 1 year then so be it, if it means that person stays in prison for the rest of their lives then so be it. They HAVE to have the signature of both the shrink and the teachers to be able to get out. There will of course be exceptions where some mandatory sentencing needs to be fulfilled. Such as 1st and 2nd degree murder and rape and child rape. But those sentences should only be used against the worst type of offenders.

Well, this proposal is dead in the water due to the bolded. The legislature sets the sentencing range. The judge decides the sentence.

I don't have time to dig up the cases to make the argument, but I am 100% certain that it would be completely unconstitutional at this time to set up some kind of sentencing scheme where a defendant could go to trial, get convicted, and face a sentence of zero to life on any offense, to be determined after conviction by members of the executive branch - the "psychologists and teachers" you mention.

What you could do is leave everything the same, but allow these psychologists and teachers to determine that an inmate should receive early release; we already do that with "good time credits" inmates earn by participating in the programs you mention one quote back.

But...again... once more you say something I agree with, but you say it after apparent disagreement with post #6, and what you say still fails to explain how any of these things are supposed to stop Orlando, which was the subject in post#1, which I responded to in #6.

 

[Mr Person]

I've had a few ideas that might help, but certainly not stop, the flow of guns to criminals; but those involve things like gun registries, ammo registries, improving serial numbers (so they can't be obliterated), and complete bans on resale of guns other than back to a licensed firearm dealer. But I've pretty much never heard a gun enthusiast agree (some gun _owners_ have agreed, but mere owners aren't the ones that need convincing about reasonable gun control).

None of that would stop mass shootings.

In fact, I don't think we can pass *anything* consistent with the 2nd Amd. that will stop or even reasonably cut down on mass shootings. Ditto for the rest of gun violence in this country. There are just so many guns out there.

We'd need to repeal the 2nd, confiscate the myriad guns out there, pass a new much more limited 2nd, and start all over. Not happening. That's less likely than building a wall, forcing Mexico to pay for it, deporting all the illegals, and actually keeping them all out. HAH!

Basically, either Americans are extremely violent evil people as compared to the rest of the world, or having the most guns per capita means you have the most gun violence per capita (not including broken states like El Salvador).

The guns aren't going anywhere. So, as tragic and frustrating as it is, we're going to have to get used to the idea that if you live in America, you're far more likely to be gunned down than in any other "civilized" nation.

Just to point out.. we are among the safest nations on earth. Despite having the highest gun ownership in the world.

those are the facts.

Umm....

We have the highest rate of gun homicide per capita and more broadly gun violence per capita out of the developed world. To get a higher rate, you'd have to go to a broken nation like El Salvador. (Incidentally, we also have the highest rate of incarceration in the developed world)

THOSE are the facts.



You're far more likely to get gunned down randomly here than in any other developed nation. Now maybe you can dig up some stats saying I'm more likely to get randomly stabbed in some European country, but I'll take my chances against a knife before I'll take them against a gun, thank you very much.


What things are including in your definition of "safety" and why are they relevant given the post you were responding to?

 

[GoldenEagleCdr]

To the proponents of gun control: I am ignorant of the methods (notice I didn't say machinations) using gun control that would've successfully prevented the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Educate me.

You are correct in that it is quite possible that shootings could happen, with or without gun control. But why do we let people on the terror watch list purchase guns? It is completely sensible to ban the sale of firearms to those who are on the terror watch list. Shootings may still happen if we do employ gun control, but letting people who are considered dangerous to our country own firearms is not a very well though out idea. I understand that many are afraid that President Barack Obama is going to take away their guns, but he isn't. So please, if you do not understand the gun control laws in place (which is sadly very common due to partisanship) you will learn that Barack Obama is not coming for your guns, but preventing mass shootings. All things considered, shootings with terrorist motivations such as this one could be stopped, but there is no holy grail of gun control that will stop all mass shootings. Finally, it is worth mentioning that though a certain presidential candidate has criticized places such as Paris' strict gun control laws, saying the shooting would have been much less harmful had the victims had guns. This is true, but these two statistics should end the terrorist attack gun control debate. You are more likely to shoot yourself, a friend, or a family member than a criminal or terrorist. The United States has five times as many gun deaths as France.

 

[GoldenEagleCdr]

You do have a point Ontologuy, but there is a reason why we do not directly adhere to the the constitution, and sometimes make amendments. For example, the constitution was amended to free slaves in the north during the civil war. There was also an amendment to allow women the right to vote. Our founding fathers were some of the most intelligent, progressive people of their day, believing in democracy and the constitution, but they were sexists and racists by today's standards. I do agree with the second amendment, but I do not think that a heavily armed citizen militia capable of engaging in combat with the police and military is necessary anymore. The constitution was written, edited, and signed during a time when if people in America did not fight, the entire constitution would be pointless. But at this point, the only reason we would need more than a basic handgun would be if it was part of our job. Therefore, I believe that a citizen militia force is not only dangerous, but also completely pointless. All we need is a handgun at most.

 

[Kal'Stang]

.....

Nothing would have or did stop the Orlando shooter. That's in the past. Nothing we can do about it now. However my solutions most certainly would have reduced the chance of him going off like he did if they had been in effect decades ago. Education alone would have sharply reduced the chance, if not of him, then of others. One reason is that the more educated a person is the less likely they are to be bigoted/racist. Another reason is that by teaching everyone about the signs of mentally disturbed people its quite possible that someone like the Orlando shooter would have been identified as being mentally disturbed and he could have received help much sooner, like in middle school/high school sooner.

As for what you said regarding my solutions...yeah, never claimed that my suggestions were going to be easy. It will no doubt be difficult to not just get but implement. Tons of logistics would need to be gone over. But it would be worth it in the long run.

Don't get me wrong, NOTHING will ever fully stop people going crazy and cutting loose like the Orlando shooter did. But we can drastically reduce the chances of it without once violating anyone's Rights. And why shouldn't we try those solutions before going after peoples Rights? Wouldn't that be far more preferable and far more morally acceptable? IF none of my solutions actually worked then I'd be far more willing to listen to the gun banners. As it stands however gun banners simply will not even try to look at anything BUT gun control and in the end, confiscation.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are correct in that it is quite possible that shootings could happen, with or without gun control. But why do we let people on the terror watch list purchase guns? It is completely sensible to ban the sale of firearms to those who are on the terror watch list. Shootings may still happen if we do employ gun control, but letting people who are considered dangerous to our country own firearms is not a very well though out idea. I understand that many are afraid that President Barack Obama is going to take away their guns, but he isn't. So please, if you do not understand the gun control laws in place (which is sadly very common due to partisanship) you will learn that Barack Obama is not coming for your guns, but preventing mass shootings. All things considered, shootings with terrorist motivations such as this one could be stopped, but there is no holy grail of gun control that will stop all mass shootings. Finally, it is worth mentioning that though a certain presidential candidate has criticized places such as Paris' strict gun control laws, saying the shooting would have been much less harmful had the victims had guns. This is true, but these two statistics should end the terrorist attack gun control debate. You are more likely to shoot yourself, a friend, or a family member than a criminal or terrorist. The United States has five times as many gun deaths as France.

the terror watch list is not based on EVEN PROBABLE CAUSE. we have had posters on this board saying the NRA is a terrorist organization. SO if such hysterics had their way no NRA member could buy a gun. OBAMA has not come for our guns because he doesn't have the votes. So stop lying that Obama has no intent do so so. Obama is on record jizzing his pants over Australian and British gun bans-both of which involved massive confiscations of guns that had been legally purchased and owned

 

[Casper]

I don't disagree with a law that says those drinking alcohol cannot carry firearms. I think that is a sensible state law. I doubt the establishment that was victimized had many, if any patrons who were non-drinkers. SO maybe the only solution is more armed security. Not telling those drinking alcohol they ought to carry while drinking

I believe I said something about this before TD, Stop bringing common sense into the discussion, these are emotion based "discussions" and common sense and the Facts are strictly forbidden in the discussion. There, got that out in the open, do not make me report you on this...:wink2:

 

[cabse5]

I believe I said something about this before TD, Stop bringing common sense into the discussion, these are emotion based "discussions" and common sense and the Facts are strictly forbidden in the discussion. There, got that out in the open, do not make me report you on this...:wink2:

Wait..are you accusing TurtleDude of being rational when it comes to the gun debate? He's, IMO, another political ideologue when it comes to guns. Please explain your stance on TD.. Where are the guys who believe in Realpolitik?

 

[Casper]

Wait..are you accusing TurtleDude of being rational when it comes to the gun debate? He's, IMO, another political ideologue when it comes to guns. Please explain your stance on TD.. Where are the guys who believe in Realpolitik?

I find TD to be very rational and highly qualified to discuss the 2nd A. He has opened my eyes to some things concerning the issue that I had not realized when I first started here. He was always rational and calm when we discussed the issue, because for one I was not suggesting banning all guns and I was not being the south end of a north bound mule and hence was treated respectfully. Not complicated, show respect and receive it in return, works on all topics just not with all posters.

 

[natsb]

To the proponents of gun control: I am ignorant of the methods (notice I didn't say machinations) using gun control that would've successfully prevented the massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Educate me.

Hey, I've got an idea... Instead of focusing on what kind of weapon was used, we should just make murder illegal.