Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Peace Plan for a Safer America

3 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Peace Plan for a Safer America Empty Peace Plan for a Safer America 8/21/2019, 12:01 pm



Good, smart plan by the Parkland survivors.

Kudos to the first Democratic presidential candidate who adopts it in toto.

1. CHANGE THE STANDARDS OF GUN OWNERSHIP: Advocate and pass legislation to raise the national standard for gun ownership: a national licensing and registry system that promotes responsible gun ownership; a ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other weapons of war; policies to disarm gun owners who pose a risk to themselves or others; and a national gun buy-back program to reduce the estimated 265-393 million firearms in circulation by at least 30%.

2. HALVE THE RATE OF GUN DEATHS IN 10 YEARS: Mobilize an urgent and comprehensive federal response: declare a national emergency around gun violence and announce an audacious goal to reduce gun injuries and deaths by 50% in 10 years, thereby saving up to 200,000 American lives.

3. ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE GUN LOBBY AND INDUSTRY: Hold the gun lobby and industry accountable for decades of illegal behavior and misguided policies intended to shield only themselves; reexamine the District of Columbia v. Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment; initiate both FEC and IRS investigations into the NRA, and fully repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

4. NAME A DIRECTOR OF GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION: Appoint a National Director of Gun Violence Prevention (GVP) who reports directly to the President, with the mandate to operationalize our federal goals and empower existing federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – agencies that have all been structurally weakened by the gun lobby. The National Director of GVP would begin by overseeing a down payment of $250 million in annual funding for research by the CDC and other federal agencies on gun violence prevention.

5. GENERATE COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS: Fully fund targeted interventions addressing the intersectional dimensions of gun violence, including community-based urban violence reduction programs, suicide prevention programs, domestic violence prevention programs, mental and behavioral health service programs, and programs to address police violence in our communities.

6. EMPOWER THE NEXT GENERATION: Automatically register eligible voters and mail voter registration cards to all Americans when they turn 18. Create the “Safety Corps,” a Peace Corps for gun violence prevention. The younger generations are disproportionately affected by gun violence. They should have a say in how their country solves this epidemic.


I'm a gun owner and I could get behind most of that.

The only parts I don't is because I don't think it'd actually work. The "ban on assault weapons" sounds good, but you have to understand a few things about "assault weapons" first. Most of what are considered "assault weapons" are just semi-automatic rifles that look more scary than a standard hunting rifle. So that needs to be looked at realistically, to see exactly what we'd be banning. An AR-15 is fun. It's also an impractical sonofabitch for civilian use. You ain't gonna want to hunt with that if you're any kind of shot, because they tear things up too badly. They're fun, but I wouldn't mind seeing them gone... if that would fix the problem. I'm not so sure it would, though.

Want to ban all high-capacity magazines? I'd be for that... except you really can't, because those are easy to 3D print off the internet. It's the easiest part of the weapon to get around. I don't think a ban would stop it.

Want to ban all semi-automatics? That'd be a little extreme. I wouldn't necessarily be against it -- I think any good hunter or home-defender should be able to get along with a bolt-action or lever-action just fine. But there are so many semi-autos out there I'm not sure you'd ever effectively get rid of 'em all. And, again, 3D printing is going to make that hard to enforce, too. People can print guns now. Most pistols are semi-auto, so those would still manage a fast-as-you-can-pull-the-trigger rate of fire. O' course, a pistol's range isn't as good, and it's a good deal harder to hit something with a pistol -- I can shoot quarters out of the air or knock down targets at a hundred yards with a rifle but usually takes me a couple shots to hit a Coke can at any significant yardage with a pistol. A lot of that is because I've practiced a lot with rifles and not as much with handguns, but, still, it's a factor... but, enough of one? I don't know. A lot of these mass shootings are done at close range, so...

Ban the caliber? An AR-15 has a vicious bullet, because it's high velocity and expands and tumbles and shreds and creates rat-hole wounds, with a lot of hydroshock compression damage. But, the next step up from a .223 is a .308 or a Garand, and you do not want that, because those bullets don't stop. They'll go through a person and keep on going to take out three or four more. So, bad as a .223 is, I'm not sure you want to popularize the heavier.

Ban all that? Even if I'd go along with that, which I'd hate to because for the most part I like guns, I don't really think we can at this point. We're just too damned oversaturated, and the 3D printing thing is only going to make that worse. The toothpaste's out of the tube there, so I'm afraid we're dealing with a situation that we're going to be limited in our available response to it.

A lot of that is explained in this video. It's kinda long, but it's one of the most realistic discussions of the problem I've seen. I don't fully agree with his conclusion, but, there's enough in here that has to be considered to make it worth a watch when considering what can actually be done.

One thing I'm for is gun licensing. We have to go to driver's ed to drive a car, and we have to take a test to prove we're capable of handling the responsibility. I'm fine with having to do that to own a firearm. And having it open to renewal. People who just buy guns and never train with them are dangerous. I know a lot of gun-nuts worry that it'll create a "registry" or whatever, but... so fucking what? If you're going to be responsible with your weapon, then who cares if "the gubment" knows you're licensed? A license doesn't even necessarily mean you own a gun, any more than a driver's license means you own a car. And if the government wants your shit they're gonna take your shit. They've got drones and tanks... and they know, anyway. Every time you put ammo on a credit card, guess what? Yeah. So fears of a "registry" are mostly fears of conspiracy-minded, irresponsible people who probably aren't intelligent enough to be trusted with much.

Anyway, there's some good ideas in that plan, and some others not as good, but worthy of discussion, if they can be made practical.



I like it because it comes at the problem from a national health crisis angle with an emphasis on political mobilization.

I'll just take your word regarding hardware limitations, but I reject the whole "if one specific measure is the not the mythical panacea, then there's no reason to implement it" argument.


Sal wrote:I like it because it comes at the problem from a national health crisis angle with an emphasis on political mobilization.

I'll just take your word regarding hardware limitations, but I reject the whole "if one specific measure is the not the mythical panacea, then there's no reason to implement it" argument.

Yep, the approach is fine.

And I'm not saying it's got to be one measure or none... it's just worth considering what will actually work and what won't. If a measure is likely to actually do some good, and it's got verifiable, empirical logic behind it working, then I'd be open to considering it.

Like I said, I don't agree with everything in the video, but what he says there should be considered. If there's a work-around, cool. But a lot of what he's saying is true. There's really only so much we can do at this point. It's like a disease we've let progress too far... we're not likely to cure it now, only hold the symptoms in check as much as possible.



I can't remember the exact source of this, but someone has noticed that the attention span of the American public re mass shootings and the outrage that follows is about 2 1/2 to 3 weeks. Seems about right to me.

Now, just (what do you know?) 3 weeks after the shooting in El Paso the news is off of that and on to DJT claiming to be the second coming. Good grief. Thank goodness for the students from Parkland who have remained focused on the gun problem. We need people like this to keep the ball rolling.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum