The agnostic perspective on Guns in America

[AgnosticBoy]

It seems that mass shootings are becoming more and more common in the United States. Given our politically polarizing environment, a lot of responses tend to involve banning guns vs. more guns and/or less restrictions. A case in point, Florida just passed a bill that allows people to possess guns without a permit. Another example is Washington State passing a ban on sales of assault weapons. Some may say that these aren't examples of an all out ban or an all out free for all on gun possession, but these bills put us one step closer to these extremes, and I'm sure the extremists on each side will try to push further (similar to how the abortion issue is being handled by different states).

Seeing that I'm looking for an agnostic perspective, I am hoping to find more open-mindedness or more alternatives to these two responses. Or at least, show how we can resolve our mass shooting problem using these solutions or any other, assuming that one or the other is the best solution.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I was listening to one Texas congressman that was for expanded background checks. Basically, since a lot of mass shooters post online about their thinking and what they plan on doing, then including social media screening on gun purchasers should be required. And I would think that this would be a repeated and routine screening and not just a one time screening.

The only problem is that this might run into conflict with the First Amendment. Imagine keeping someone from buying a gun because they expressed some view on social media. If it's not an obvious violation of the law, then you're going to have problems. Another issue is if this would violate privacy. I thought about this but then I realized that employers tend to monitor the social media accounts of their employees so that wouldn't be out of the ordinary. The only issue with doing this to gun owners is having enough personnel to monitor millions of gun owners.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Imagine keeping someone from buying a gun because they expressed some view on social media. If it's not an obvious violation of the law,

On the face of it, both gun rights and free speech have been failures. And I’m sorry, but that does seem to be the case.

For example, gun rights advocates will sometimes say, “An armed society is a polite society.” This is actually a quote from science fiction writer Robert Heinlein. And . . . basically just a bunch of wishful thinking not borne out by the facts.

And with free speech, there’s suppose to be a feedback dynamic in which good speech beats out bad speech. I don’t see it. In fact, people seem to like believing wild conspiracy theories.

—————

As far as centrist policy,

maybe a bill to decrease mass shootings needs to limit both gun rights and free speech in approximately equal proportions. And that way, it will receive opposition, as well as support, from both liberals and conservatives. Both sides will have a tough pull to swallow.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

On the face of it, both gun rights and free speech have been failures. And I’m sorry, but that does seem to be the case.

For example, gun rights advocates will sometimes say, “An armed society is a polite society.” This is actually a quote from science fiction writer Robert Heinlein. And . . . basically just a bunch of wishful thinking not borne out by the facts.

And with free speech, there’s suppose to be a feedback dynamic in which good speech beats out bad speech. I don’t see it. In fact, people seem to like believing wild conspiracy theories.

—————

As far as centrist policy,

maybe a bill to decrease mass shootings needs to limit both gun rights and free speech in approximately equal proportions. And that way, it will receive opposition, as well as support, from both liberals and conservatives. Both sides will have a tough pull to swallow.

Im thinking technology can also solve this problem. Say for instance if most of the gun crimes are committed by criminals, that is, those who weren't supposed to have guns in the first place, then we can put a fingerprint system on them. Since the gun lobby has so much money and people are willing to pay for guns, then I don't see money being an obstacle.

Sadly I don't think there's a way of getting around your point about free speech so my idea about monitoring social media posts wouldn't be accepted.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Sadly I don't think there's a way of getting around your point about free speech so my idea about monitoring social media posts wouldn't be accepted.

I say we as citizens take a deep breath, and then make a compromise. If someone is saying a bunch of hateful stuff online, they shouldn’t be owning a gun, and certainly not an assault weapon.

This could be part of red flag laws.

Now, sometimes the person may have done something actually illegal, such as make a threat. Which I think tech sites typically ignore or issue a suspension for repeated [where the real offense is defiance toward a moderator!]

But I’m saying even when the person hasn’t done something technically illegal, as part of our evolving compromises toward both guns and speech, when the person has engaged in “excessive” hate speech [yes, it’s vague, yes, we’re compromising], we confiscate that person’s guns, perhaps with 80% compensation.

And if the person appeals and so on and so forth, perhaps as a later date, that same person can again buy guns.

^^^ and this is all “pie in the sky”

I mean, adding what I’m talking about to red flag laws.

PS Whereas group therapy can be helpful, I generally don’t believe in individual therapy. Yep, that’s one of my quirks.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Raise-the-age gun bill misses crucial deadline, as Uvalde parents protest outside the Texas House

Days after another mass shooting in Texas, the measure to raise the minimum age from 18 to 21 to purchase semi-automatic rifles appears to have failed.

www.texastribune.org

May 9, 2023:

“ . . a House committee unexpectedly advanced the legislation in an 8-5 vote that included two Republicans supporting it. . ”

******************

This might be another smart compromise.

But even though it got out of committee, no, it’s not going to become law this session of the Texas legislature.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes, I definitely think Red Flag laws can be strengthened and I'd definitely add on some of the things that you mentioned regarding social media posts.

It seems that you and I agree on a number of things that I wanted to list:
1. Raise the age for owning guns to 21 years-old
2. Social media monitoring/audit for hateful language should be a required as part of background checks on prospective gun owners (I'd add even current gun owners).

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

1. Raise the age for owning guns to 21 years-old [at least for assault rifles]
2. Social media monitoring/audit for hateful language should be a required as part of background checks on prospective gun owners (I'd add even current gun owners).

Yes.

And please notice the first compromises on gun rights and the second on free speech.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Here's my wish list:
1. Periodic background checks (as opposed to one-time checks).
2. Periodic psychological evals (since mental illness has been linked to several mass shootings)
3. Assault rifles allowed but limited to 15 round magazines (half of the capacity of regular assault rifles and its the same amount of rounds as standard handguns).
4. Periodic required education on gun laws and gun safety

The reason I think these measures would work is because they are comparable with was law enforcement have to go through. And keep in mind that law enforcement has a high percentage of gun ownership, as required by their job, yet we don't see them having a mass shooting problem. If it's legal for law enforcement to undergo psychological evals and stringent background checks, then why isn't it so for civilians?

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

Here's my wish list:

and maybe . . .

5) change the law so that 18 to 20 year-olds are no longer allowed to buy assault weapons ? ?