Without quibbling over numbers, if you are making the argument:
Repealing the 2nd would save X,000 lives; but for a population this size, that is not a large number, and does not warrant infringing everyone’s right to be armed.
Then that’s an honest ideology. I don’t agree, but I respect it, and I respect that it’s the view of the majority of Americans.
This, on the other hand, is deflective nonsense. You can’t eliminate crazy individuals from society, that’s the whole point. That being so, the only robust protection is to restrict access to weapons that allow people to kill quickly and easily. The idea that it’s just as easy to kill people with knives, cars, containers of gasoline, whatever - is just preposterous. If that’s the case, why do virtually all the mass killers in the U.S. choose guns, with all these other potential weapons available?
You like guns, I get it. That’s fine, so do the majority of Americans. At least acknowledge what guns are, what they are for, and be honest about the negative consequences of the fact that they are freely available.
I’ve seen a fair amount of bipartisanship support for charging the parents of school shooters with manslaughter for allowing their minor children to get ahold of their guns, too.
And I am not sure if repealing the 2nd would make that much of a dent. Next you’d have to have every state in the union pass laws to go door to door confiscating every gun. Does anything think that would happen, even if you did get the votes to repeal?
Then, unless you’re going to piss on the Constitution even more, you’d have to pay for those guns- that’s 150 Billion. Nice tax increase for everyone.
Where does that horseshit statistic come from? I don’t believe it for a minute. How can they possibly trace any non-smoker’s death to secondhand smoke, as opposed to the many other environmental contaminants and/or unhealthy foods that cause lung or heart problems?
I know it’s tangential to this debate, I just have to call bullshit.
Of course, after the hijackings on 9/11, processes were instituted by which all airline passengers are screened before boarding. The result is that there have been zero hijackings since 9/11.
Of course, after Oklahoma City, sales of fertilizer have been tracked and regulated. The result is that there have been zero people killed by fertilizer bombs in the U.S. since Oklahoma City.
But 10,000 people are murdered each year in this country with firearms, and we continue to actively do nothing.
I doubt it was a typo.
In this case we actively do nothing because there are many people pressing for action and political leaders and the NRA choose, over and over, “Inaction!”
AKA “Thoughts and prayers”
AKA “It’s too soon to talk about this”
I really think the influence of the NRA is being overstated…or, maybe more accurately, it’s influential, but it’s influential because of how many voters actually agree with its positions. I think it fits a narrative of “sinister cabal manipulating the public”, so the blame gets laid on it, but I think the reason why there isn’t more gun control in this country is that a lot of Americans just don’t want it.
As I’ve said over and over again, it’s political poison for Democrats to push gun control at this time. Look at Conor Lamb, look at Joe Manchin, look at the (sadly unsuccessful) Jim Webb, that is the playbook the Dems need to take a page from, at least in middle America. If they don’t, and they push for any kind of gun bans, they’ll get smacked down in the election, including the presidential election.
Gun control proposals should not include the word “ban”. If they keep this up, they’re welcome to enjoy seven more years of Donald Trump and then eight years of Mike Pence. It is eminently possible. The “gun vote” is a real thing.
I mean, some to clutch to them like the blankie Mommy took away when they were three, but yeah, that’s kind of the point of guns. That’s like saying, “What is food for? Not for eating!”
If so, they are really bad at it, since like one gun in a 100000 does that. No, most are used for target shooting, others for hunting, some are never used- they are just collected, and certainly some are bought for self defense with the hope they will never be used.
What proportion of fire extinguishers are used to put out fires? Does that mean their true purpose is to function as paperweights?
If the essential purpose of guns is target shooting, then would gun owners agree to their guns being stored only in a secure locker at a target range?
If you want to include hunting in the general case and state their purpose to be “to kill humans or non-human animals”, then fine. Would you accept gun laws that only permitted the sale of guns suitable for hunting animals?
You believe in the right to own guns, fine. So do most Americans. But have the courage of your convictions, not this weak sauce. Guns are primarily for killing. It’s pretty pathetic if you can’t be honest about that.
Why do you think that none of the developed countries other than Canada and the US are multicultural? The US is actually pretty middle of the pack in terms of having multiple cultures. For many countries, there is currently a rise of multiculturalism (greater diversity in immigration); for others, it’s as traditional as the color of the sky.
And people do compare the US to Canada. But usually when comparing it to “every other developed country”.
But you’re refuting your own point.
You’re saying the US isn’t a monoculture like Japan, that has low rates of gun violence.
Then you say it’s a multiculture, like Canada, that has low rates of gun violence.
So…looks like the mono- multi- culture thing is a red herring, no?
I think gun proponents should just accept the reality that a country with unregulated gun ownership is going to have vastly more gun violence, spree killings and homicides, and just see that as “the price of freedom”.
It’s frankly pathetic to scratch around for reasons why we can’t compare the US to any countries with remotely comparable GDP, and instead must compare it to dirt-poor countries and/or war zones and contend that it’s “average”.
We’ve “torn up the Constitution” 28 times already, including by ratifying the 2nd itself. Even the main body provides the method for chucking the entire thing and starting over. It isn’t holy writ; it’s a social contract subject to regular revision and agreed-upon updates to keep it current with the development of society.
Pretending the 2nd is a religious commandment instead of a contractual amendment is an avoidance tactic at best, and more to the point revelatory of the underlying mentality that has to be overcome.