Sorry to keep repeating myself, but they solved THEIR problem. Not ours. If you want to find a country that solved it’s gun violence issues that held in private possession just short of 400 million firearms where less than .25% annually were ever used in homicides, justified or otherwise, and everything that makes the US unique, I’m all ears.
Or you can continue similar to how an earlier poster did, proudly telling us how the UK solved their school shooting problem by banning all handguns and not experiencing a school shooting since the laws were enacted.
Of course there had never been a school shooting before the ban, but who’s counting?
So, the UK has their first mass school shooting… does something to stop them from happening… and has no more.
The US has their first mass school shooting… does nothing… has another… does nothing… has another… does nothing… has another… does nothing… has another… does nothing… has another… does nothing… has another… does nothing… has another… does nothing… has another… we can’t fix our school shooting problem because we’re totally different than the UK, they only had one and we had dozens of them!
But you’re right, I can’t find another country that’s so outrageously dysfunctional over guns as we are, so I can’t find another country in exactly our situation who fixed the problem… so it’s unfixable!
Agreed, by why is it that all the propositions revolve around the taking away of guns then? Not politically possible so why is it even a platform item? Start small, work up. Fix the mental health issues, Start fixing the hyperbolic press. Start fixing the poverty stricken areas (which is largely where the Lion’s share of gun violence originates)
You are agreeing it won’t happen, there have been a multitude of things in this thread alone expressed to curb the violence, but it has fallen on deaf ears?
I hate to jump on one candidate in particular but here she goes again showing the complete lack of knowledge coming from folks who want to ban and confiscate otherwise legal items:
Here’s the reality of the situation, most AR’s and I mean by a wide margin like 99% are produced domestically and not imported. I am finding it hard to even find an imported AR anywhere BTW. This candidate really needs to get her handlers up to speed. Assault weapons were banned from import in 1989 due to the “sporting purposes” definition and said ban was upheld again in 1998. Perhaps she wants to double secret ban the imports that don’t exist? I’m not sure. This is what makes this so difficult when one side wears their ignorance of the current situation as a badge of honor and goes on to suggest policy.
So far she wants to take away dealer licenses that don’t exist. Now she wants to ban imports that don’t exist. I hope she doesn’t go after the 3 megawatt rail guns next… I bring this up only to highlight how hard it is to find compromise when one side is perfectly content to stay ignorant of the reality of current legislation.
It’s a platform item because meaningful gun control (not necessarily “taking away” guns) is the essential and most important part of the solution and very likely the only part that is actually feasible (my cite here is that dreaded resource, the real experience of all other countries, not armchair theorizing). It seems to me that “not politically possible” is just code for “I don’t like that option so I’m not going to think about it”.
Many of the major advances of recent years – health care reform, gay marriage, cannabis legalization at the state level – would equally have been regarded as “not politically possible” a few decades ago. For a while it seemed that Medicare itself was not politically possible, because conservatives were telling everyone it would be “the end of American as we know it”, the end of freedom, and the inevitable rise of socialist oppression (check out “Operation Coffee Cup” and Reagan’s involvement in it). Politics changes, people become more informed, public opinion changes with time. You’re not going to achieve much if your first step is to give up. The first step is to start to drive those changes.
Why aren’t all the gun loving Republicans proposing non-gun fixes to this problem? Where are their proposals to provide mental health support and reduce poverty?
I’ll give you a guarantee, if a Republican proposes something that will make a significant dent in the number of these deaths, I’ll support it and shut the fuck up if it works.
How about you take a look at Canada’s attempt to simply get all of their privately owned guns registered, not banned. See how that worked out for them.
I’m not a Republican, but my first move would be to end the war on drugs. Considering that a significant subset of gun violence is gang related, taking the profit of being in a gang is a good start and doesn’t run afoul of the Constitution.
Second, apply a Project Exile type program at the Federal level. Mandatory minimums for firearm crimes may not stop the violence upfront, but if the offender lands in jail, he’s not causing any problems.
How about you look at Canada’s overall gun control regime and its success in controlling gun violence instead of posting incorrect information. The “gun registry” that was proposed, debated, opposed by gun groups, and eventually abandoned was a long gun registry, affecting only ordinary rifles and shotguns, with some exceptions that were restricted. Everything else – all handguns, all semi-automatics, everything else – is either restricted or prohibited and has always required registration if it’s allowed at all. In addition to that, every firearm owner must be licensed for the type of firearm he owns, including ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns.
This seems like a good example of how incredibly badly informed Americans are about gun laws in other countries.
But don’t you dare mistake an Assault Weapon for an Assault Rifle. And you best know it’s made right here in 'Merica! There is something patriotic about being killed by an American using American made guns and ammo.
There is a huge difference both in case law and history between the two. I tried to explain it earlier and I all I got was shit from you and others. Your willful and purposeful ignorance to the facts speaks volumes. See my post about Kamala Harris as a perfect example of the clueless suggesting policy change based upon nothing but BS.
You appear to be living in a fantasy world where you just pick and choose and distort your own facts, to the extent that I’m doubting you have any interest in a good-faith discussion.
Your statement was about “Canada’s attempt to simply get all of their privately owned guns registered”. This is manifestly false and completely misleading. Everything except hunting rifles and shotguns has always been registered. The registries are working fine, thanks very much for asking. There was debate about whether it should be extended to hunting rifles and shotguns, and ultimately it was not. That’s all. I can’t even imagine what you think that proves. And I doubt you even looked at my link. Canada has comprehensive and restrictive gun laws and even getting an ordinary hunting rifle requires a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) with a background check, references, and a guarantor, among other things. Handguns are restricted to the point that almost no one has them outside of police and the likes of Brink’s guards, not even ordinary security guards. A suitably vetted individual could, in fact, manage to possess handguns. I once worked with a gun nut who had several, but for any normal individual the trouble is not even remotely worth it, nor is it seen in a non-gun culture as conferring any real benefit.
Your comment about gun registration in Canada was wrong and hugely misleading. Live up to it.
Oh, and LOL to “I especially liked how sodering [sic] guns and the like were registered”. Why do you spout bullshit like this? It does nothing to advance a productive discussion.
The productive discussion bit went out the window a while ago in case you haven’t noticed. There are about 5-6 people involved in a circle jerk with no intentions of having an open mind. Typical for a GC thread that has reached this far.
I’m open to facts, I just don’t see any from your side. You just posted a statement about gun laws in Canada that is so absurdly wrong that it’s totally laughable. And your response to my correction was a one-liner about soldering guns, which didn’t even make the remotest amount of sense. But here’s a real fact: the US has the most appalling rate of gun violence in the civilized world, and I haven’t seen a single thing from the gun side that is a credible or viable solution to it that has been proven to work in any other country. Whereas the thing that has been proven to work in ALL other comparable countries is being rejected out of hand by the gun side. That’s what I see from my perspective.
[Tango & Cash]
You wanna cut my throat, go ahead. You wanna cut my fuckin’ head off and use it for a fuckin’ basketball? You can bowl with the motherfucker for all I care! Just don’t let HIM do it! I don’t wanna get killed by this limey, immigrant JERKOFF! I wanna get killed by an AMERICAN jerkoff!
[/Tango & Cash]
You got shit because it sounds callous and trite to split hairs about the type, model, make, caliber and origin of manufacture of guns used to kill children. That is the entire point of this thread, not law and history of fire arms. It makes no fucking difference to a dead kid or his parents whether it was an “assault weapon” or “assault style rifle” that was used in the murder of their loved one(s). Do you get that? Tell me you understand at least that much.
That may be so as an appeal to emotion, but from a public policy standpoint it’s pretty worthless. It’s like, being attacked by 19 Saudis that trained in Afghanistan and deciding to bomb Iraq.
Unfortunately, this is an area of debate where details matter. Regardless of the human toll when sick individuals decide to commit mass murder. It isn’t mere pedantry (contra the whole magazine vs clip brouhaha) to point out that many firearms are technically identical to those that lawmakers misguidedly decide to ban. Nor is it pedantry to point out that functionally equivalent firearms such as were used in the massacre du jour, have been around since at least the end of WW2, and yet the school shooting as we all think of it, is largely a modern phenomenon. Moreover, that the Canadian long gun registry was a failure—with noncompliance rates in the estimated 75-90 percent range—I don’t think is questioned by most outside observers.
It is an area where, despite the policy of this discussion board being to fight ignorance, in many debates here, ignorance as to the nature of violence in modern society, jurisprudence concerning the violent, and yes, details concerning firearm construction and controlling legislation: all seem to be treasured by many here.
No. It’s an appeal to reason. As demonstrated by myriad examples of societies that don’t idolize RKBA rights but instead choose to protect all its citizens from those who would abuse those rights given abundant opportunity to do so.