(08-05-2019 01:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote: (08-04-2019 06:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (08-04-2019 05:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: (08-04-2019 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: (08-04-2019 05:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote: OO... is this your original question to which you referred?
One obvious difference is the proliferation of rifles in 2019 that are easily available while being incredibly efficient at killing lots of people in an extremely short time span as compared to those rifles that were readily available to the public in 1919.
I agree with you that the internet has led a greater number of people being radicalized into extreme positions and that the 24-hour news cycle has fed into this.
Now to answer your question.
I don't know. But I do know some countries have lots of guns without lots of problems. Switzerland
But I think "more of the same" is not going to solve the problem. Most of these people passed a check when they legally bought their guns, and a stricter check will not change much, if anything.
I like the "red flag" Idea. I would enact a loophole to HIPAA that would allow medical doctors and mental health workers to put people on a no buy list if they are concerned. But nothing short of a complete eradication of private ownership will make a dent. People who want to do this kind of thing don't care about the laws, and they will find a way around them, just like the drug dealers in Baltimore. I think Columbine struck a chord in the minds of some off balance people, and now mass shootings are on the menu of available actions.
But if we outlaw gun ownership, they will become as rare as a bottle of whiskey in 1928, and just as hard to get and use.
I don't think you can say this. Look at the number of mass shootings in 2019 in the US versus every other country on the globe. We are an incredible outlier. Very few of these other countries have enacted a complete eradication of private ownership. Why is the frequency of mass shootings in these other countries so damn small compared to the US? What is it about us?
*edit* Tanq... do you have thoughts about why the US is such an outlier?
I'm still waiting for an answer to *my* question(s) on the 2nd Amendment. You still havent bothered with an answer, have you? You asked for background, which was supplied. Now, why dont *you* answer those questions instead of the steady stream of fairly rhetorical questions abounding from your side.
I would much rather that further gun control legislation be accomplished without amending the Constitution. This has been done in the past without changing the Constitution.
So what happens if further gun control would run afoul of it? The question stands as asked --- do you go forward and push that envelope knowing that a valid challenge exists, or do you move to amend?
What do you cite as an example of 'what was done in the past without chang[e]'? The assault weapon ban of '94? Then do tell what that banned and how that would change the current spate? And yes, I am going to press you here; when one proposes a ban of any sort, one should have a firm grasp on what they are seeking to ban and why. Especially when it involves an enumerated fundamental right.
It doesnt help to throw out a suggestion like a 'military weapons' ban, for a limited group of people or for the population as a whole, without having a firm grasp of *what* is being asked to be banned.
I mean if you are looking at legislation like that as a panacea (which you do since you bring it up in those terms), then can you state explicitly what the ban would cover, and how that ban would effect the spate?
---------------------------------------------
And let's take the cover off the issue you (and most liberals) want to do and let's just be blunt about it for once --- in light of the mass killings you all want to go out and 'ban' things; no offense that is the first kneecap jerk that happens. Happened in response to San Diego Mickey D's shooting in '84 and has continued unabated to the present.
So you all have gotten smarter since Heller -- which kind of destroyed the magical progressive cream pie that had been baking for 30 years that the 2nd Amendment wasnt really an Amendment and should be effectively short circuited as a fundamental individual right. But since that 'living Constitution' thrust got clobbered, seemingly the left (from this perspective) has resorted to making up monikers to cover a 'style' (that really doesnt exist) for a bogeyman in hope that a ban can still go forward.
No offense, but there are progressives who are explicitly open about the efforts to limit or remove the 2nd Amendment by, well, the amendment process. Truth be told, I have nothing but respect for them for that. I dont have very much respect for: a) making up terms to create a non-existent bogeyman in order to further a farcical distinction to get a ban; b) intentionally or mistakenly trying to effect a bypass of the Constitution by those means.
Look I understand, for some people all firearms are pointy smoke sticks that go boom and are evidence of pure conservative evil. I get that. What bothers me is the villification of a class of weaponry (which truth be told has been available in a primitive form for 70-80 years; and in a modern form for 60) into something that sounds bad but is functionally indistinguishable from any other semiautomatic ever produced in order to sidestep around a rather prominent provision of the bedrock of our legal system.
*If* a ban were proposed that *can* make that distinguishing point between 'assault weapons' (nee the change to 'military style weapons' since the former term has been shown to be a farce and the concept in need of a new name) and normal semi-automatics, and has some efficacy to the issue -- I am all ears. In fact if you can show those points I might even go beyond all ears and jump into that bandwagon.
Not jumping on this to castigate those leftists who want a ban of some sort. I am just saying this so that you have the opportunity to move away from a rather cynical effort of language and allow you to be honest and straight forward about an issue; and at the same time allows you show that you have a grasp on the subject matters that it impacts, as opposed to the rhetorical flourishes that are employed on a typical and sad basis.
/
Mass shootings/gun control
![[Image: Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png)
