Senate Gun Control

I agree. It’s sorta weird that my family is so against guns and I think that you should be able to have guns within reason. Say backaround checks and no semi automatic guns.

 

Doesn't this outright confirm the US system of government is broken and probably cannot be repaired?

I mean, it's not an epidemic but it also almost is, the gun violence (it's not an actual disease). We all mostly accept this, save for a few people in this thread who have other people's opinions on how guns are fine which they'll share with us as if they're original.

The underlying cause is a cultural disposition towards extreme individual exceptionalism, that undermines any real sense of community (so at its cause, gun violence and the stance on healthcare and welfare are siblings). There is also the aspect PG talks about; even if the state wanted to (and there's no clear indication it does), it could not legislate in a meaningful way on guns.

So a fundamental human right (no, Hef/J-Rod; I mean the right to life. Owning guns isn't a fundamental human right) is consistently abused, at risk, or deprived through persistent and apparently unavoidable mass shootings. The state cannot take actions to prevent this; however, based on the actions of other states, it is something within the state's control. Therefore is the state not failing?

Time to bring that revolutionary self-hype to the forefront Muricans!

 

It's a good thing I love you, that's all.

 

I would argue the wholesale abuse of the firearm, whose dominant purpose is to kill, argues more for taking them away than anything else, no?

 

Probably time to make a thread about America and traveling.

 

Don't you ******* dare.

 

i think so, absolutely. but people, yourself included, are rightly being realists about the prospects of that happening. tracy is also right to point out that there needs to be a cultural shift before such a drastic measure could have any hope of being executed on a voluntary basis, without massive violence. changes to policy need to be incremental and the hope is that the change in the culture will follow. i think the main thing is to not completely give in to despair in the face of so much senseless death and a government so unwilling to address the root of the problem. frieda's solutions might only act as band-aids and more people will continue to die, but they are steps in the right direction and that imo is where the focus needs to be right now. if the attitude is all or nothing then nothing will be done.

 

Are there yearly mental health checks for people who drive cars tho ? .

.

 

Look in practical terms, we get described as a nation with "banned guns" but the reality is not that. I owned firearms in the past. They were mostly single shot Walther KK Match rifles, the kind Olympic shooters use in competition. It was .22, single shot bolt action, and you usually had a jacket and strap and shot prone so it wasn't going to facilitate mass shootings in any way. But ownership required me to assume certain obligations, such as maintaining a compliant storage facility and demonstrating compliance to the NSW police. My father still has a bolt action .22 rifle in a Class A safe.

But we never had a gun culture to begin with. So restricting access and making it more of a privilege to own one (by increasing the barriers to ownership and requiring genuine need to be established - the biproduct of which is exponentially higher responsible ownership) was viable. The problems with piecemeal restrictions in the US are obvious - firstly, you're more likely to water them down in favour of more, not less, permissive outcomes; and two, it doesn't address the root culture. An absolute, unwavering ban would be more effective on the grounds that it's easier to add in incremental permissions from a zero tolerance standpoint than to work back to an ideal state from the current. Drastic action and all that.

 

Agreed in spirit. But charge insurance for owning firearms, and you may as well go the extra mile and take them.

 

Hypothetically, what's the worst that could happen if there was bipartisan support for fairly strong gun control in the U.S.? Would armed militias actually attempt to overthrow the government? Maybe you'd get some sort of domestic terrorist campaigns?

 

["left wing for America" answer] You'll get the Handmaid's Tale. [/"left wing for America" answer]

No but seriously, people who have trouble spelling basic words would probably fail for the most basic of tactical manoeuvres and be wiped out in a gloriously violent second. "From my cold, dead hands..." If you say so, Bobby Ray.

 

Seems likely that Paddock thought that was going to happen and well, you see the result.

 

This is the best page:

https://www.facebook.com/AusShootingAlert/

 

I totally agree with Leona on the propoesed baby steps. We at least need to do something besides say, "Bad guys will get big guns no matter what rules we have, so **** it, no rules at all!" It's an attitude that Republicans in particular don't seem to apply to any other violent crime, curiosly.

The thing is, when people ask if we got bipartisan support what would happen... Well in reality, there already *is* bipartisan support. So it's more like, "what if we reformed lobbying and got the NRA out of congress's pockets so they might actually vote the way the people they represent want."

 

The problem with the mental health checks tho is - it's so hard to define , sure if someone's been committed for something severe , but there's so many types of mental health problem , what if a teenager had some depression etc. And of course then there's the discrimination issue , people with mental health issues will say they're being discriminated against .
it's a bit of a minefield .

I've always wondered - has anyone ever tried suing the gun makers ? You know how some people have sued manufacturers when their product was mis-used , I'm trying to think of examples but my head's not woke up yet .

.

 

I'm actually pretty fine with discriminating against certain mental illnesses when it comes to gun ownership, just as I'm fine discriminating against alcohol under a certain age, military service under a certain age, and child labor in general.

There are lots of forms of discrimination which are quite sound.

Gun manufacturers have special protections against lawsuits for misuse of a gun. They can be sued for defective products, but not for shootings. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

I'm not very high on suing gun manufacturers for shootings, and I find this to be a particularly bad example.

Just severely restrict and regulate the gun industry. Lawsuits not required.

 

Perhaps certain mentally ill people should be prevented from having firearms, but absolutely not because mentally ill people are more likely to commit homicides or mass shootings (they are not). That is a distraction by the gun lobby and their supporters. Suicide is the much bigger problem regarding the mentally ill and guns.