Let's deconstruct this paragraph.
a) yes.
b) the world disagrees with you. Please see charts a graph explaining . Not hard to find. Compare Japan,Denmark,Canada etc etc etc
c) refer to above
d) and how do we do that? This has been the NRA mantra for years and years and years, They rely on short attention spans.
the run up to ACA- we could have --- MFA will
e) agreed
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
b) Gun control is a broad term. If you have expansive policies heavily limiting gun ownership (e.g. UK or Japan), those tend to be effective at preventing gun violence. Less restrictive policies (e.g. background checks, attempts to ban certain types of weapons) are much less effective at preventing gun violence.
The gun control measures generally proposed by the left tend to be focused on background checks and assault weapons bans. You have people on the left advocating more extreme measures but those would take a constitutional amendment to be valid. That's not happening.
So the gun control I was referencing are the moderate policies that would pass constitutional muster but would do very little to stop these mass shootings.
50PoundHead (08-08-2019)
Pretty much my thoughts on the matter. People spout "background checks" and "mental health" when these incidents crop up and while I think stressing greater access to mental health services is a great idea, the perpetrators of these horrific deeds are the same people who are not likely to seek out help (generalization on my part). "Red Flag" laws may be more helpful, but that sidles up to the concept of involuntary commitment and, in some instances, allows local governments to selectively target certain owners of firearms and the benefit of that leeway is in the eye of the beholder. I don't know if lawmakers have the backbone to go down that road.
Jaw (08-08-2019)
As a non-American living very close to the US and living a pretty much Americanized life, I just can't understand American's absolute fixation on owning any and every type of gun imaginable. Why does someone, unless an active military member on duty, need a weapon capable of shooting hundreds of rounds (conveniently, rounds designed to inflict maximum damage to human beings) a minute? What can one legally do with these weapons?
It just blows my mind that people are allowed to own these weapons at all, much less without extensive background checks and mandatory training.
Before you start spouting on about the constitution guarantees your right to own them, the constitution was written a very long time ago. Things have changed a great deal since then. Maybe it's time to update the constitution to reflect modern times.
Runnin (08-08-2019)
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Heard the same argument over tobacco.
And that was,an ag issue,as,well.
If the right to sue Colt was restored
If the bs line of mental health was true
Why did trump overturn the Obama rule of blocking sales to mentally unfit people?
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Last edited by goldfly; 08-08-2019 at 11:47 AM.
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Private citizens were allowed to own cannon at the time the Second Amendment was written. Those thinking that the authors of the Bill of Rights can't have imagined the destructive force of a little semi automatic rifle should research the destruction a 24 or 32 pound cannon could do with a single shot when loaded with grapeshot or canister.
Having said that, I agree with you that the Second Amendment should be updated. We are a less respectful and respectable society than we were 250 years ago, and undeserving of the faith that those men placed in us.
The problem is that the people interested in stricter gun policies are more interested in subverting the Constitution than they are in improving it.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
Tapate50 (08-08-2019)
As an American, that has always puzzled me. Growing up in the 1950s, we had two guns in the house: a .410 over/under and a .22. They were used to control varmints and nothing else. In that era, I can't think of anyone I knew who owned a handgun other than a German Luger or some such thing that was a WWII souvenir. First time I ever personally saw a handgun other than a souvenir was from one of my college dormmates who was a security guard (and they were allowed to carry without license in the 1970s). But now, folks seem to think they need one and I don't really know why.
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Jaw (08-08-2019)