Guns. Well said Mr President, if only your countrymen had the same courage to consider changing course.
- There is so much more the Government could be doing rather than imposing an outright ban on guns. Impose hefty taxes on gun owners, impose hefty taxes on the sale of guns and ammunition, making them pay monthly license fees and then use that money for more mental health services and serious law enforcement on combatting illegal drugs.
The reason those non American shooting incidents come so readily to mind are because they are so rare . I would bet that most Americans cannot now name all of the places where mass shootings have occurred in America . No country in Europe has anywhere near the same amount of gun ownership and we get on just fine without them .
How about this for a deal: swop the right to private gun ownership (hunters excepted) with the right of universal health-care free at the point of delivery?
(I know I am idealistic...but what do you expect from a UK ex JW!)
More seriously, two of my offspring have just returned from California after a few weeks visiting their uncle. Whilst there a close friend of his was murdered by gunshot. Having myself spent time in California when a JW, I was surprised at the frequency of stories people told of gun crimes, they or their relatives had experienced.
However passionate Americans are about their national freedoms, surely the right to hold firearms is a stubborn blind spot in your democracy. More a liability than a liberty.
For those that want reform on guns in America, what exactly do you propose? I would really like to read some solutions from those that oppose gun ownership in America.
Do you want a total ban on all guns? Keep in mind most gun violence/murders are done by hand guns.
If you want a total ban, How will you collect over 250 million legally owned guns? How will you collect the millions of illegal guns?
What is your propose penalty for violating your new gun laws?
The fact is there could be a mass murder every day in America, and very little REAL change will happen in our gun laws. Limiting how many rounds in a clip or so forth in one state doesn't resolve anything. You just go to the neighboring state to make your purchase.
After the Sandy School massacre, the very next day, I sold in three days 63 "assault" rifles at Walmart. That is right, you can buy your beer and head right over to the sporting goods and buy an assault rifle and go home within about an hour, (depending on jurisdiction, some counties you must wait 3 days) . It just requires valid ID, ATF 4473 form, and a background check.
We average about 9 guns a week prior to the mass shooting. The reason for the spike in sales is the fear those type of guns would be banned. A colt we sold for $1495 would then be sold at a gun show in Florida for $3,000 with no background check or ATF 4473 being filled out. Same with the bushmaster, Sig Saur, and others were being sold for 3 times their value from January to about April of that year. Guess what? No real gun reformed happened. You can still in Florida buy your beer and guns at same time in Walmart or go to a gun show and buy private sale with no background check.
Gun Shows: You are allowed to show up to a gun show with your gun unloaded. You can walk around with a sign stating you wish to sell your gun. You are required to make sure you sell your gun to someone that can legally own it, but the reality is that doesn't happen without a background check. The dealers at the gun shows do background checks, but not the private sellers that walk around. That is a fact. I've been to many in Tampa, Lakeland, Ft Myers, Bradenton, Palmetto, Orlando, and northern Florida.
I'm not a gun nut. I owned quite a few myself, but made the personal decision to sell most of them when I had a baby. I do believe in private gun ownership, but would be willing to change my position under certain circumstances. I just don't see any real change happening and rarely do I see any opposer on this forum stating exactly what they think the solution is.
- Its funny you mention california and gun violence. California is one of the most restrictive states in the USA with regard to gun ownership laws and near the top gun of violence. Same for chicago. Same for washington DC. Could it be that super restrictive gun laws dont actually work? Could it be that criminals dont actually obey laws....?
Don't the tragic news reports show that the problem is not simply gun ownership but that the socially disaffected or mentally unstable have ready access to arms.
As Jhine indicated that in Europe, apart from sport, the majority have little interest in firearms because the macho gun-culture is not there.
Isn't the real issue the mass availability of weaponry permitting the reckless to massacre the innocent?
How can it be stopped? Possibly by reducing the glamour and need for gun ownership by having in place welfare provisions which stop the vulnerable individuals feeling the need for revenge on society?
I don't know the answer.
TD - Would you disagree that in a general sense, other rights were originally predicated on virtually the same fear? --Including but not limited to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to peaceable assembly, right to privacy, right to due process, protection from illegal search and seizure, etc., etc., etc.?
In the general sense, I would not disagree with your assertions. Within the context of 18th century early America, a fragile new democratic government and both internal and external threats to the country's existence, the USA likely required a constitutional amendment as such. Much existential fear existed during that era.
Having said that, the government we are discussing was intended to be a government "by the people, for the people". Of course, that sounds a bit naive in modern context, however it is not naive on the basis of the government somehow being tyrannical. Many other issues that are quite complex, but mostly related to the plutocracy in the country have largely corrupted our government, (think Citizen's United). That plutocracy to this very day is quite adept at creating straw men, such as "look at the big bad federal government and how they want to take away all of your rights". Those assertions do not hold up under scrutiny.
The fact that most of the western, and a good part of the eastern world is largely democratic today, without the same level of constitutional protection of gun rights, (granted this is only a correlation), strongly provides at least anecdotal evidence that such an amendment is likely not necessary in modern society.
One really needs to believe that America is somehow exceptional to believe otherwise.
Didn't read through every page, so here goes:
Why is it always about guns? What about the medications/drugs he was on?
Much existential fear existed during that era.
England ruled the Americas with an iron fist. "Taxation without representation", etc, etc. They wanted the colonies to cough up all of their guns... in a fucking country (North America) comprised almost entirely of wilderness. The British required the colonists to house their soldiers in people's homes, effectively displacing the families. They ate their respective larders and did not replace in any way whatsoever, saying it was their 'duty' to put up and feed the British men they involuntarily were housing.
It wasn't all quaint between the colonists and their rulers, and all "oh pardon us, but we'd rather have this place as our own country, thanks anyway". The colonies were a resource and a cash cow, with little regard as to what it actually took to survive. Let alone housing scads of extra people in your home, who broke your shit, ate all your stores, and walked away whilst effectively flipping you the bird as to how you and yours were to survive the dreadful winters here. It's not like walmart and mega-sized grocery/hardware stores existed back then.
(in regard to cops shooting a family dog)
"It's high time an insurgency did spring up in the U.S."
Funny how violence from cops, drone bombs constantly dropping in places like Yemen, executions without trials (drones again), and all manner of shit is A-okay if the government and police are the ones doing it.
But some kid whose mind is twirling from being overly medicated/drugged, and looping on thoughts that only make sense when completely removed from human empathy? Yeah, guns. That's the answer. The only answer. Always.
Half Banana - Isn't the real issue the mass availability of weaponry permitting the reckless to massacre the innocent?
If you understand probability theory, (many people do not), then the answer is yes.