(no message)
I know a lot of gun owners, none of them are capable of such.
can be 'screened' for mental illnesses that would cause them to commit such crimes...the only way to dramatically reduce the likelihood of gun homicides and mass murders is to dramatically reduce the number of guns available so that such people can't easily obtain them.
Most importantly, the general populace does NOT NEED guns...they are for "Pleasure"...i.e. Hunting (you can get meat at Safeway), but allowing hunting rifles with today's controls is not high on the list of concerns...Target Shooting...use a gun range's AR-15, etc. if you want to shoot such weapons...not unlike going to a bowling alley for fun.
As for the other claims of "Need"...e.g. Home Protection...evidence shows that there are far more accidental and domestic dispute gun deaths each year than thwarted home invasions with a gun...not to mention suicides from firearms.
Finally, as regards defense against "Tyranny"...we have a well established process for resolving disputes about government policy...i.e. the Voting Booth. Anyone who thinks they could prevail against a professional military with all of its weapons is literally insane.
Fortunately, we have recent examples of other countries effectively reducing the number of guns in the population...Australia, New Zealand and Canada have instituted "Buy Back" programs as well as bans on military firearms, including ammunition...and they've worked, without a mass uprising of the populace...we need to do this.
(no message)
Link: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
I don't know, but if you're saying that having more psychopaths is a result of having more guns, I'm calling bullshit. But we do have more psychopaths with guns. The question is can you keep psychopaths from obtaining guns, which should be the goal.
Nutrition is a contributer. Too much screentime and 24/7 access to porn is a problem.
We're also starting to seen data that suggests that marijuana use in adolescence is contributing to bouts of psychosis.
Evidence is for losers.
If Japan had access to porn and pharmaceuticals, they'd have the same problems!
So you don't see any problems with handing out pharmaceuticals to children en masse?
Also I admittedly fucked up and didn't read Conor's link. I just read his subject line. Pharmacology absolutely contributes to psychopathy. I don't know that it directly relates to gun violence, but you'd be arguing in bad faith to say it's not possible.
(no message)
If you can confiscate 50% of illegally possessed guns, then you get to confiscate 100% of legally possessed guns. For a law to make sense it has to be enforceable at a reasonable level to make a difference towards your specified goal.
Have a psychopath add assault rifle with shit ton of ammo and turn him loose at a gathering. You get Mass murder.
Or, have psychopath no assault rifle and turn him loose at a gathering- you get a psychopath at a gathering.
It’s the guns!
The rest of your post is gobbledygook. Means nothing.
Get rid of the assault weapons. Military weapons have no need in American life at home.
"Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."
Stuff can be done, but ultimately enforcement is an issue, the part of your calculus that is missing. If you can't prevent criminals from obtaining guns now, what good will additional laws do?
Link: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
purchase an assault rifle without laws or strict regulations to slow the process or halt it altogether. Not everyone can get into the black market of weapons
because they're not connected or have no affiliation with gun bazaars. An 18 year old goes into a gun shop and purchases an assault
rifle with ammo and is killing almost 2 dozen school kids in no time at all. So let's do nothing.
But yes, at this time the rails are almost greased if you want to buy these military styled weapons. These needless weapons morons like to get hiding behind
a foggy view of what the 2nd amendment really says (Thanks Anthony Scalia, may he rot in hell)
But your choice - your choice is to do nothing - well other than to argue it's a useless challenge Americans shouldn't undertake.
(no message)
(no message)
But just to answer your question of stupidity. They are illegal. Guns are not.
Doesn't making something illegal stop people from using it?
(no message)
Also, I don't know what Snapper is.
(no message)
I guess I assumed that Molotov cocktails might be included given that your post was directly above a thread with news that Molotov Cocktails were being used.
(no message)
Don't deflect. Your assertion seems to be that making guns illegal will keep guns from being used. That's not working for Molotov Cocktails. Why not?
(no message)
I'm going to interpret this bullshit as you admitting to the fact that making something illegal doesn't solve the problem. And you admit that because you lived through the war on drugs.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Do you support confiscation of guns? If so, would you support starting in high crime areas?
I'm sure I'll get a straight answer from you.
They just think that a few massacres of innocents and children every once in a while is a small price to pay for the precious second amendment.
You and I will probably never agree on the importance of an armed civilian population as a deterrent to tyranny. I'd argue that you want to save today's children while sacrificing generations of children in the future.
You and I will probably never agree on on what a person should be allowed to do to protect himself and his family. You want to save children. So do I. We have differing ideas on how to do that.
Given that stalemate, I question how it is that you would go about removing the 300+ million guns that are currently in circulation. What practical solution do you have and how long will it take to implement? And while we are waiting for that miracle solution to be implemented, what things should we be doing in the meantime to reduce the impact of these horrible guns?
I do not support gun confiscation or bans. There are no panaceas, but we can do things that, over time, will reduce the carnage.
1) ban the legal manufacture of assault weapons. Don't get bogged down in definition; use common sense. Over time, if people can't get their guns replaced or repaired, violence will drop. Or if they can't get ammo...which leads to #2.
2) guns don't kill people - bullets do. So attack ammunition. Tax the hell out of bullets; ban calibers and sizes most used in mass shootings; ban high-capacity magazines. Sure, some people will get around these things...but it will bring down the rate of violence.
3) encourage responsible gun ownership by increasing penalties. If your gun is used in a crime, for instance, it's your ass. Lots of times this would just involve enforcing the laws already on the books. We all should be for this.
And by the way, private gun ownership does not prevent tyranny. That's just nonsense. Lots of very healthy democracies are not bolstered by private firearms - in fact, all of them, besides us.
I get your point. The goal is to take it piece by piece until the guns are gone. We know this, which is why pro-gun advocates draw a hard line, and our ability to establish rational gun control laws are impeded.
Again, we aren't going to agree on guns as a DETERRENT to tryanny. You are clearly focused on the near term. I think more broadly. If I know you, you aren't interested in spending the day arguing philosophy, history, and theoretical situations, so I'll agree with this nation's fore fathers and let you side with Mao on this issue. You won't have an argument that interests me and I won't have one that you haven't heard.
We will never stop our children from dying because the right - surprise! - thinks of this in terms of a conspiracy to get rid of all guns, so they will not compromise on anything.
Meanwhile, the massacres will continue.
And someday you'll be able to explain how Japan, the UK, Canada etc etc manage to fight off tyranny without private guns - or point to one (one!) time when private guns prevented tyrants from taking over. Anywhere. Once.
I have evidence; you have gut feelings. And conspiracies.
And on it goes.
For years and years we heard that the problem was with fullterm abortions and as soon as the GOP got their opportunity they started talking about Federal bans.
YOU may not want to ban guns entirely, but are you telling me that you've not seen interviews of people that have admitted that the goal is to slowly remove all guns from circulation.
You also understand that you're asking to prove a negative. A deterrent is a preventative measure. A camera can be a deterrent. You are asking me to prove that a camera doesn't prevent a crime from occuring despite not knowing how many potential criminals have seen that camera and chosen to move on.
Again, it's also short-sighted of you to assume that just because something is working now, that things won't change. Japan is fine now. Canada is fine now. I guess maybe you don't care what kind of changes can occur in a century?
Sure, it's never happened - and plenty of places have no guns and no tyranny.
But you have your imagination.
There is no point in having these discussions.
You dragged me into it.
You're arguing in absolutes about a topic that can only be honestly debated using theoretical probability. It's ridiculous.
...innocents. (mostly suburban)
They fail to delve into the much more serious problem, in every inner city, of drug gangs heading up the illegal gun trade and the targeting of youths to join gangs or perish.
Drug gangs don't abide by gun legislation and NEVER will.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
...ownership.
Now after background checks, 3 references and a waiting period of at least 6 months to obtain a pistol permit, (in place since '68) she now wants us to conceal said pistols in your personal vehicle. (e.g. a lockbox.). if you are driving "armed".
The Sullivan Act of 1968 was THE strictest gun legislation in America.
Over 1600 people were shot in NYC in 2020. Hell, Rochester had 281 shootings in 2022 and yet she is focused on restricting legal gun ownership and has no concrete plan to stop inner city violence...neither does our mayor.
afraid of from might entering your home with his assault rifle and rat a tat tat you until he finds the holy grail he came looking for?
No one wants to regulate guns they way you and your group keep telling us. It's just time we regulated assault type weapons - you will never ever
need an assault rifle or any military weapon. Your rights are not being trampled and never were.
Your stats are only there as a fright factor not a logical one.
As for marauders, gangbangers et al, my place is electrified. One false step and...
You should stop by sometime and check it out.
Again, your argument is a bogus one when it comes to gun regulation. Your fear of your neighbors isn't
a reason why the sale of assault weapons shouldn't be well and heavily regulated.
...12ga shotguns, some of which are semi-automatic. Perfectly legal EVERYWHERE and yet it's great for close encounters with villains.
The thing is if I load up 5 (five) "00" shot shells, it sprays 9 (nine), .33 inch (about the same diameter as 9mm) pellets, with just one squeeze. I don't know of ANY assault rifle that can fire 9 bullets with one squeeze of the trigger.
You Marxists gonna' come after shotguns next?
Kathy Hochul has already introduced NY legislation that requires registration on ALL newly purchased semi-auto shotguns.
This is called gun law creep.
“Law creep” is your fear but the facts are, assault style weapons in the hands of just anyone without regulation is at the forefront of mass killings in schools, places of worship and places where many can gather. This is actual not fiction.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
If you don't believe in personal accountability, you can't address the cultural problems that exist in the inner city. It's the system or the object. Not the person and his values.
Meanwhile, the excuses they make enable the violence to continue.
(no message)
(no message)
After all, the killings help the climate, right? But the gun slows the Left's ability to undermine the Republic.
We could really hamstring Antifa if we would ban Molotov cocktails.
(no message)
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack
Rural areas will continue to protect themselves legally from the Democrats aka antifa and BLM. Many people own legal semi auto rifles and are peaceful citizens. Many people own cars and don't run into a parade. It's the individual. Knowing the left as we all do, it won't stop with semi auto weapons. It didn't stop with civil unions. It didn't stop with rape or incest. It won't stop with banning a certain type of gun.