Same way we register that many cars. And examine and license their owners, too.
You got any *constructive *ideas? You even recognize mass murder as a problem?
No one wants guns in the hands of crazy people.
And to prevent this, what do you propose?
Absolutely.
There’s murder and terrorism everywhere, including nations with very strict gun control.
Gun control doesnt stop those things, or even slow them down.
Except Trump… and his enablers in congress.
Yes. Constitutional carry.
When a shooter has to consider the realistic chance that there will be someone to oppose them, they will rethink their plans- and if they armor up, they are much more likely to be spotted and stopped first.
Ah yes! There is no way to prevent mass shootings other than repealing the first amendment. How do you like that libruls? Try to take away the amendment we care about, and we’ll just take away that amendment that you and your fake news media seem to care ao much about!
And, why does the librul media care more about protecting lying rape “victims” than it does about the real victims here: gun owners?
Now you have to define crazy. What criteria will you use to deprive someone of their rights?
This here is for you
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879994
The right to carry a flintlock musket as long as you’re wearing the tricorn hat and knee breeches of your militia unit?
What criteria do you use when deciding when to deprive someone else of their life?
:dubious:
You can’t engage in a discussion?
More specifically, the root of the problem is the lack of nation-wide federal legislation that reflects the true dangers of firearms. Again, every advanced democracy on earth has such legislation, and every advanced democracy on earth has very much lower rates of gun violence. The gun lobby would seem to want us to believe that this is some kind of strange coincidence.
It’s completely incomprehensible why anyone would reach or even consider such a bizarre conclusion. If the common element is that all these deaths are the result of guns, yet gun policy is not allowed to be a major part of the solution, it can only be because the unstated assumption is that gun control must be rejected out of hand. The further unstated assumption is that instead of controlling access to guns – the common factor here – a myriad of other solutions must be enacted instead, most of them ridiculous or impossible, such as magically identifying anyone who is, or might be, emotionally disturbed or even just vulnerable to being emotional, or angry, or depressed, or intoxicated.
This describes a policy where the most dangerous guns are only available to people who genuinely need them, while everyone else still has access to the normal class of unrestricted guns. And this is a problem, why? To most of us, at least to anyone outside the US gun culture, this just sounds like sensible gun policy, one which balances public safety with an individual’s ability to own most normal types of guns, even if it’s just for fun. How on earth could this possibly be described as a “gun ban”? Furthermore, it’s hard to see how anyone other the most ardent gun zealot would consider this an unacceptable balance.
The very same used by doctors and judges after those doctors and judges declare someone as having a mental issue.
In America, having the right to free expression causes many deaths- bigots and haters are allowed free rein to spread their hate and racism. The media is free to glorify the mass killers (which is the primary cause of mass killing in the USA). But, allowing people to die from the right to free expression and free press is a acceptable price to pay for our rights. Or would you curtail the 1st Ad also?
Criminals get off all the time as the police are hampered by the 5th and other amendments. The police must read suspect their right, give them a lawyer, they police cant beat confessions out of them, etc. This causes more deaths.But, allowing people to die from the Bill or Rights is a acceptable price to pay for our rights. Or would you curtail the rest of the Bill of Rights also?
But what’s most important is that gun control simply has never worked in the uSA. Gun owners dont think that more of what never worked will 'this time" now magically work. So, we *dont think *that other people being killed is caused by our right.
Sure. If we’d just stop hearing about them, they wouldn’t be real and we wouldn’t have to find excuses for them.
Or they just shoot people from a hotel window instead of ground level.
Militia is a reason, not a requirement; and weapons have advanced since the military style flintlock musket.
If my life (or others’ in certain circumstances) is under immediate threat by that someone. Why, what are your criteria?
Why don’t you tell us what you would find acceptable. If you can’t or won’t, then is it fair to assume that you think there isn’t any acceptable criteria, therefore we can’t prevent crazy people from having guns, and we just have to accept that we need to allow crazy people to be armed? Because I keep hearing from right wingers that it is a mental illness issue, but I have not heard a single suggestion from them on how that could be fixed.