Regarding general violence, there's much to indicate the actions needed to resolve the high-profile-yet-miniscule-count mass shootings would overlap with general violence and homicide. From there, extend to adding the necessary social safety nets to protect an individual from being exposed to and pressured into such dire extremes.
You know... actually improve lives rather than clutch pearls that those poor souls used firearms in their violence.
You seem to be making quite the set of assumptions.
Those of us in favor of firearm ownership do actively want change - but you might be surprised to hear we want changes which actually address underlying issues rather than nonsense about magazine capacities and scary black rifle.
Hold up. Canada's failure to manage its borders is our issue? This, even aside from how you apparently only care that crime was committed with those darn American handguns rather than that crime was committed. Aren't you supposed to be the country doing better?
Also, what's this about right to kill black people? Is this more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.
Arguably addressing root issues would have profound effect... though I tend to agree it won't happen without civil war, given the current state of partisan politics and waves vaguely at this post
It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.
Rather, the very nature of arbitrary restrictions - for absolutely no gain - is quite enough to upset people.
So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.
You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?
Given these measures are well-understood as entirely ineffective yet pushed for, it is similarly well-understood there will be further restrictions as nothing will change with the identified problem - how could it, given the measures aren't in any way an addressing of those issues? Thus, we're left with a road to bans via incrementalism.
I would imagine after Roe v. Wade's pivot, you'd understand how relying on but SCOTUS isn't sound strategy - one must, instead, reject politicians pushing for such arbitrary, unhelpful measures rather than enabling the incompetence and erosion.
From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.
It would be fair to say politicians are proposing changes; they're unfortunately proposing the wrong ones - neither party is currently willing to consider anything outside their respective side of the wedge issue.
Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.
I'm not sure how referencing something directly relevant to the subject and the quibbling about its intent. Perhaps you could walk us through that reasoning.
edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.
Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”
You... do understand picking two references out of the entire document is actually cherry picking, right? Are you seriously so blatantly trolling?
But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.
And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.
You do understand these two ideas are incompatible, right? Even aside from how that quite clearly highlights the intent was not just "defense of the state". Had you bothered to read to the following page, you'd have seen that - but I suppose that's not really in line with your cherry-picking, is it?
I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.
Irony.
It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.
Rather, it was not interpreted as such; its intent has always been quite clear.
It's simple, once put in a position to have to do more than rely on previous precedent, referring to the actual history of the amendment required course correction.
Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.
Do you have any support for this position, or is it more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
Easy access to guns makes this possible, it’s much harder to mass kill people with a knife
Ah, I see - there are zero differences between the United States and the Aussieland beyond the set of legislative differences regarding firearms and the prevalence of ownership of those firearms.
It's weird that you double-down on only caring these things happen by firearms, apparently encouraging such by knife.
I see, you’re on of those internet “experts” without the education or background experience to support it. Thanks, I guess I wasted my own time with you.
And yet, one you hold as without education or background experience appears to be more qualified to discuss this subject - let alone engage in constructive discourse - than you. That's got to chap.
It's ironic you say these things, unable to actually make any pointed criticisms of points raised and unable to defend your own bland, unsupported assertions. It's delicious you seek to deflect and commit the fallacy of attacking a presumed lack of education.
But hey - at least you've got that hypothetical appeal to authority to fall back on. Cling tightly to that as you continue to shitpost from an imagined ivory tower.
You don’t need to be an expert at sexually abusing children to make child abuse laws and you don’t need to know the calibre and capacity of 100 guns to see that the current laws are dogshit and can’t keep guns out of the hands of even the reddest of flags.
Speaking of red flags, have you gone through your own comment history and tallied up the number of times you've talked about sexually abusing children?
I always love when people highlight an outlier as some sort of justification for sweeping change while also refusing to consider any sweeping change that isn't the one they want.
I don’t need to, because nobody is using them for mass shootings.
Ah, I see - you don't care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That's really fucked up.
Fortunately since 3D printed guns don’t line the pockets of Republicans, lobbyists, sleazy PR companies and the people who simp for them, there should be no issue at all actually addressing the problem.
I'm not sure if you're aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.
If that problem ever actually exists of course. Isn’t it just fascinating that despite the entire world having access to 3D printers, they still don’t have gun violence that’s even remotely comparable to America? All of these comments saying
I'd be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.
It once more seems you only care that suffering involved a firearm rather than actually caring about people and their suffering.
![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Interestingly enough, one of us - and not you - actually cares about addressing the underlying issues.
My solutions are myriad. Violence is a complex problem.
Scoped to mass shootings, it's already fairly well laid-out here.
Regarding general violence, there's much to indicate the actions needed to resolve the high-profile-yet-miniscule-count mass shootings would overlap with general violence and homicide. From there, extend to adding the necessary social safety nets to protect an individual from being exposed to and pressured into such dire extremes.
You know... actually improve lives rather than clutch pearls that those poor souls used firearms in their violence.