I agree. I started to sway to the music as I read it.
Seriously, you have 1/10 of a second to decide if that thing is going to kill you or someone in the store. Oops too late, you’re dead.
Sadly 99.99% of bullets are fired at targets and end their life unfulfilled.
Those are all fair points that make for a more honest debate. I can dig it that an unarmed person could still pose a threat. I can dig it that “black” and “threat” are not objectively linked- a good cop should not refrain from self-defense against someone because of their race (or lack thereof hur hur). And one of the reasons why is how fast a situation can turn dangerous.
Still, it sure does seem like the cops shoot more people than they have to, black or not. And black people seem to get shot at a higher rate overall. But I’m not trying to make a racial point here, that is just an especially charged aspect of the gun violence phenomenon. Ideally, nobody would get shot.
And, you linked to a Fox piece. Those guys employ manipulative, partisan journalism, and that clip is no exception. Though it is called “Fox News”, that show is formally classified as entertainment, not news. Still, if you accept their implicit definition of “Liberal” judging by what they are always being fair-and-balanced against, it is a partisan view but not a fantastical one. You couldn’t peg it at the same level of malarkey as Grassley and McConnell, though they did manufacture hypothetical scenes of justified gun violence, at a time when scads of folks are upset about real examples of unjustified shootings.
All that said, I can dig it 
Your reply to my post, Try2B Comprehensive, is thorough, and worthy of a longer reply from me than I can get to right this second. That said, I’m going to try and briefly lay out some of my answers to the questions you’ve posed.
As to mental health, I do not advocate for increasing screenings. Instead I want for anyone who feels suicidal, depressed, or suffers from the delusions that bringing violence to other people is somehow warranted, to know that there is help available. That it is less expensive than going to jail, that asking for help does not mean a permanent stigma or mark upon your character that will get in the way of a healthy relationship or a fulfilling career. I’d like for it to be cheaper and easier for people to get the psychological and psychiatric help they need, that’s all.
I’ll urge those of you who are depressed and, perhaps, suicidal at times, that it is a spectacularly bad idea for you to have weapons in the house. At least, until your condition improves. And it can improve for you!
You might be surprised. Heller’s got holes in it you could drive a truck through. It was only a 5-4 decision, incidentally. 4-4 now, if they were to revisit it.
As to crimes, white collar crime is not violent crime. Violent crime is what I thought we were trying to address. We can look at white collar crime, but let’s do that later, and outside of the gun violence discussion. I find your hypothesis, about white collar crime driving criminals to commit violent crime, to be unproven.
I disagree with you on not decriminalizing certain drugs. My view is that the violence in the trade of those drugs is due to their: (1) illegality, and consequent denial of ordinary dispute resolution and property allocation processes we have for other commercial disputes; and (2) their black market nature driving their price to the extent that users are required to commit crimes to obtain their drug. Not because methamphetamine, to pick on a particularly nasty drug epidemic, in and of itself, makes users violent.
Drug addiction should be a public health problem (and it will be a very large one). Not a criminal justice problem.
Historic rates of criminality, United States, with a perhaps too-heavy dose of Stephen Pinker, may be found here. When you’re looking at those graphs that correspond to the U.S., keep in mind that the current U.S. murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate, according to the FBI for 2014, is 4.5 per 100,000. Pretty low on a lot of those graphs, isn’t it?
Now, those graphs are looking at homicide rates vs murder/nonneg manslaughter rates, and the two aren’t equivalent. But still, it looks like we live in a comparatively non-violent time, these last five to ten years or so.
The first step is understanding. A minority of Americans have strong opinions on gun ownership, which are at variance with most Americans and all other advanced countries. This minority has strong feelings on the subject, stronger than those of their fellow countrymen. Our democratic system rewards that minority.
As it should, IMHO.
Other advanced countries don’t have the problems with gun violence that the US does. An obvious step would be to emulate them. Which we would if it wasn’t for the politics described above. Our political system is working: a minority is comfortable with our levels of gun violence and they care more about the issue than the remainder.
As someone who would prefer normal levels of gun control, I advocate a private sector solution for the US. I think gun control measures should be designed by gun enthusiasts. The first step would be set up a science and technology friendly gun enthusiast organization, rather than one populated by crackpots, gulls and technophobes. Until that happens, those making up the membership of gun lunatic organizations should be identified, called out and mocked. After all, they believe that drug-addled screaming toddlers, unrepentant serial killers and hardened mobsters make perfectly responsible firearm owners. We know this because they oppose closing the gunshow loophole. I know: weird. The NRA is a prime example of this sort mustache-twirling perspective, but they are not the only gunnut organization. I support the NRA up to a point, because the information it conveys about its membership is helpful in more general contexts.
I think ‘We’ ought to be more compassionate generally. Fix the VA, yes, I’ve been in there and heard all kinds of stories.
But some civilian crazy people can be treated in ways such that they never shoot themselves or anyone else. Criminal economies could be disrupted by the breakout of genuine opportunities and investment. And nobody deserves to get shot to death shopping at the mall- people who were fine when they walked in the door with their honest-earned money.
It isn’t just soldiers killing themselves that we should be concerned about, it is anyone shooting themselves or others. And the issue doesn’t ground in the government, hell, the issue goes back at least to Cain bludgeoning Abel with a rock.
The issue of human aggressiveness does. Trying to make it more difficult to have fatal consequences is, however, a matter of social and legal regulation, in some form.
I could say that a percentage of guns are sold to people looking to someday “fulfill” their dreams (and fill their target).
And a high percentage of those used a 2 ton car to drive to the scene of the crime.
It would be ever so lovely if people didn’t try to kill each other. Their weapon of choice isn’t the problem.
It would leave you hollow, pointless!
I suggest the OP may want to read this post.
When I first read the above post, I wondered if maybe it was April 1. But it’s not.
I just find it kind of strange to see two of these kinds of posts - both on the same day.
Then the one thing that you must be sure of is that you go about your business and live your own life… and that you make the Other person drive a long distance to the scene of their crime.