In addition to everyone else who has the right.
But I was trying to answer your false ‘if: then’ question from your post 312.
Someone mentioned it upthread, but we have had guns in this country since the first colonists settled in Jamestown. We have had automatic weapons for over 100 years and semi-automatic weapons just like the ones used in mass shootings, for an equivalent period of time.
Yet is has only been in the last 20 years where these mass shooting have become an issue.
So, if we had the guns before, and didn’t have mass shootings, but today we still have guns but now we have mass shootings, doesn’t it stand to reason that a variable other than guns is the real issue? Isn’t this Problem Solving 101? We look at what has changed as the possible source of the problem; the variable and not the constant.
Suppose you have had a hot tub at your house for the last 5 years. Next month your electric bill skyrockets. Your spouse claims that you need to get rid of the hot tub and blames it for causing the high electric bill. Wouldn’t you conclusively know that the hot tub was not what was causing the high electric bills?
Likewise, gun ownership is not causing these mass shootings. It is whatever has changed in the last couple of decades.
It is merely a restatement of this:
Was that racist too?
I’m glad you got the concept, but the idea is that firearms are an equalizer for everyone.
Who isn’t a violent criminal.
Right again, HD. And it must not be tolerated.
That’s why advocating for no guns for anyone, regardless of size, gender or race, is the only just solution. I’ve no doubt you will agree.
No, it’s not. iiandyiii’s (unserious, I hope) proposal singled out a particular race (and gender - “white men”) for discrimination. sps49sd’s post did not mention any particular race.
Solution to what? I could get on board with something along the lines of “guns for anyone, regardless of size, gender or race” (with perhaps some exceptions around non-protected-class characteristics), but not its opposite.
What about elementary school children? Surely you’d advocate for arming them. After all, they are the smallest and weakest among us.
Parents, be sure to add “Glock and Ammo” to the school supplies list for Johnny and little Suzy.
Maybe they can do Minecraft or Disney’s Frozen themed guns for the kiddos. You know, for safety.
40,000 people are getting killed in car accidents every year, so I guess car safety regulations and laws don’t work.
So (just to continue with your own ridiculous line) this means no guns for police, federal agents, secret service and the military, right? I mean ‘no guns for anyone’ (which is a catchy slogan) means what it says, correct? No guns for anyone, regardless of size, gender, race, religion or whether or not they liked Justice League.
Not sure what the point of this whole part of the discussion actually is, or what it’s supposed to prove (except how silly it’s become), but what the hell. There IS no middle ground (told by a child holding a sign saying ‘middle ground’ that bends with a cool reflection while talking to Neo)…
Why, jet-lag, of course.
Oh-no. How disappointing. For a second there, I thought you’d come around. Such a shame. Really.
The middle ground (and actually the goal of most gun control activists, in my understanding) is to make the US like Australia or Canada when it comes to guns.
That’s pretty much impossible, practically speaking, in the near or medium term – too many guns, not nearly enough political will, IMO. Maybe it’s possible in the long term. But it’s not a ridiculous goal – those countries are generally fine and decent places to live, with a comparable quality of life to the US. And tons fewer shootings (and murders in general) per capita.
Is that more or less than there were before car safety regulations and laws were enacted? Adjusted for total number of cars on the road of course.
So, not a thing about anyone else. Similar to climate change, I suppose, so long as you have an umbrella to keep the sun off your own neck, you don’t care that the world bakes.
I haven’t seen you do any such thing.
Man, you’re really upset about Bone’s post, aren’t you, still going on about my parody of it?
What’s not taken seriously is when we try to have a discussion about preventing injury and death, and you come in just to laugh at us and our inability to do anything to protect our fellow citizens from your toys.
At a certain point, parody or not, one does start to question exactly what your motives are. Does seem that you get a great deal of enjoyment out of frustrating people who are trying to save lives. No matter how generous, I cannot think of a benign motive for such acts.
No, what would stop “mewling” (do you think that you are being productive or contributory using that sort of insulting language?) is if people would stop shooting each other. Did you have any ideas on that that you would actually like to put forward and support? Or are you just here to feel superior to those who are trying to do something about it?
Actually, that’s Mexico’s excuse. Our guns are coming into their country and killing their people. Similar in other SA countries.
No, I don’t know if you 've noticed this, but a difference between a state border and a country border is that we are actually allowed to stop people and search their things coming into a country.
Would you be cool with California searching cares coming in from Nevada to confiscate illegal guns?
Maybe we could try it, and see.
Yes, yes, we all know your hatred of the First Amendment. You don’t have to make every gun debate thread about your wish to abolish 1A, though.
Absolutely nothing in there to prevent criminals, robbers, all assailants from using firearms in commission of their crimes?
There are many things that our country should or should not stand for.
Allowing our citizens to be slaughtered is one of those things that I don’t think that we should stand for, your mileage obviously varies.
Of course not, it’s not like they were anybody they knew. Why should they care?
Hmmm… I’ll give this some consideration. But lets start with civilians first. Unless you’d like to try it the other way around and see how that goes.
Cherrypicked.
Here are all the nations:
Note that the USA falls right in the middle.
In General, other than Canada, The America’s have higher rates than western Europe.
I’m good with however you want to do it…with the proviso that you get the support from the citizens to first either modify or vacate completely the 2nd Amendment. You were planning to do that first, right? I’m sure you were. If so, then however you want to do it. Sort of like the Chick-Fil-A ads, No Mor Gunz! can be your motto for all…
It’s not really cherypicking to compare the US to other wealthy countries. The US’s murder rate is much, much higher than countries with comparable per-capita wealth and other economic indicators.
Sure, and I am in favor of better mental health screening, especially as most of those deaths are due to suicide. Let do it!
But sociologists and psychologists agree that it is very hard to always spot someone who is suicidal