Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: 5 other ideas to replace gun control 21

In light of the recent tragedies, gun control is in the news again. Classic gun control is about controlling either weapon or ammo. But here are 5 potential laws that could prevent gun violence by controlling people rather than guns:
1. Metal detectors in every public building, set high enough to prevent false positives but low enough to catch an AR-15, tied into the fire alarm system. Evacuate if it goes off, depriving the shooter his victims.
2. Tie mental health records into police records, and create a no-sell database that can be accessed by smartphone using bar code reading of official ID and merely returns a sell or don't sell return. Make it mandatory for all gun sellers and gun shows, including private sales.
3. Divorce is a danger sign that somebody's life is becoming unstable. 8 murder suicides in Oregon since 2008 were linked to divorce. Filing for divorce should trigger a temporary gun confiscation for both spouses, and should be grounds for a search warrant. Likewise, while often less violent, widowers are in danger of suicide and should be watched closer.
4. Better depression support. As our society becomes more secular, we are losing the emotional support that religion provides. There should be support for those who fall into despair, and there is not. The fact that most incidents lately end with the suicide of the shooter is an indication of the real problem.
5. RFID tags on all weapons and any other valuable property. If stolen, these tags should be the type that can be read at a distance. They should be waterproof, very hard to remove, and be handed out for free by law enforcement; scanners should be able to be purchased by the public as well as used by law enforcement.

There is some cost to this. As there is for everything. But the benefits of these 5 laws is important. And solves other problems than the original, so should be done anyway.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

5 other ideas to replace gun control

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, like in Soviet Union and DDR.

    Then? Declare various forms of non-conformity and social dissent "mental illness" that the state has a duty to treat.

    Slippery are all slopes. You see, when power wish to have its way, it will - despite the sanity constraints you try and put into the game rules.

    • They already do that anyway. I know, I have High Functioning Autism, which just means I dissent from the insanity that is the status quo.

  • No amount of hardware, legislation, or nanny state intrusion is going to replace rational causal analysis.
    • rational causal analysis.

      You can't replace something you never had.
      • Can you rationally explain your judgement on the matter?
        • It's the same thing as your slavishness to Hayek: The Human Beast has little use for rationality. Not because they haven't been taught, but because they mostly don't care and never will.

          Yet, despite decades, if not millenia of this empirical evidence, you and your ilk still think systems based on this fallacy should not only work, but be fucking optimal.

          Never forget: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results each time. How's it all working out for you?
          • We'll see. We've only been working on this Progressive Utopia Pyramid this last century. Historically, you need ~400 years and some plagues to bail out of this loop.
    • Rational causal analysis suggests that rationality does not exist for the majority of the human race.

      That's why we invented religion to control the seven deadly sins- something Hayek seems to have followed Nietzsche on rather than Christ (embracing the deadly sins rather than combating them). Civilization requires control of emotions, not embracing them.

      • Civilization, to look recent history, seems to be the domination of the many by the few.
        • Recent? I thought that was *always* the definition. Except for the perfectiblists, of course, but they were not rational and their system just replaced one set of elites with another in practice.

          • Well, American Exceptionalism was *supposed* to offer at least a chance at evading domination.
            • It was based on the philosophy of the freemasons, and thus was doomed from the start.

              We live in a universe dominated by God; why challenge that?

              • Well, we were out to have Caesar render unto We The People.
                It's certainly doomed in the sense of Al Gore being daft []:

                From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.

                But there are less stridently Progressive positions from which limited government could be workable. I hope.

                • It is doomed because it denies the legitimate authority of the Church. Just as one cannot be ethical and be living in sin, one cannot be without the dominion of legitimate authority from God and still be civilized.

                  • It may be that our definitions are too divergent to harmonize here. I don't fully equate morality and ethics. Slaughtering the unborn is immoral, but it goes on, because the SCOTUS says it's ethical.
                    There is a tautology at work here, if you define civilization as bounded by the Church. You can do that, but you're surprising an awful lot of anthropologists there.
                    • SCOTUS says it is LEGAL. Scotus has no power to define what is ETHICAL. Only the moral are ethical.

                      Real anthropologists recognize the Church as the builder and keeper of Western Civilization. Those outside of the Church are nothing but Barbarians, about as ethical as Attila the Hun. And sometimes less.

                      American Exceptionalism is a heresy for a reason.

                    • So, yes: I'm arguing that ETHICAL == LEGAL, and for the reason stated. I need a mechanism whereby I can function alongside those who do all manner of things I find immoral, as they no doubt see my ham & cheese sammich.

                      American Exceptionalism is a heresy for a reason.

                      I'd define American Exceptionalism, using Christian-ese, as merely saying that "Caesar renders unto us." For better or worse, our votes are our own little slice of Caesar. Politics is a secular endeavor, at least until politicians attempt

                    • They did that long ago when they removed the political power of the Church. I'm not at all sure I need to function alongside the unethical and immoral. In fact, I'd rather not.

                      I find being forced to do so to be as intolerable as a shooter with an AR-15 in a kindergarten classroom.

                    • I find that a dodgy equivalence, sir.

You know, Callahan's is a peaceable bar, but if you ask that dog what his favorite formatter is, and he says "roff! roff!", well, I'll just have to...