Gun Violence

striker42 said:
I do think the left is grabbing a hold of these shootings(a)to press gun control they want in spite of (b) the fact that it would be ineffective in stopping these shootings. (c) Pressing ineffective solutions is bad. (d) However, correctly identifying mental health as a huge contributing factor in these mass shootings and (e) doing nothing to fix mental healthcare is equally bad.
Click to expand...

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
 
57Brave said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
striker42 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
50PoundHead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Chipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thethe said:
HAHAHAHAHAHA - The man who said he would control peoples thoughts if permitted.

Must suck to go through life being this dumb.
Click to expand...

you, like your dear leader, just gaslight and lie about everything
 
goldfly said:
If the bs line of mental health was true

Why did trump overturn the Obama rule of blocking sales to mentally unfit people?
Click to expand...

I've seen some nonsensical criticism of Trump in the past few days, while this has been largely left out. This is an absolutely valid criticism that he should be taking major heat for.
 
Chipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
50PoundHead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Most summers I go up to Maine and am always amazed at what is available for sale in the parking lots of the strip malls. I mean I could conquer half the world with stuff I could pick up there.
 
Chipper said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you don't have a great feel for the "absolute fixation on owning any and every type of gun imaginable" terminology you used.

There are shooters and people that probably do, but I don't feel like that number is huge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
Jaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

This.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top