We are 143rd out of 230 countries. That is not really in the middle, we are below the middle. Also, that is horrific for what is supposed to be the greatest country in the world. I’m not ok with being 143rd. Why are you?
500000 smokers die every year, so i also guess that anti-smoking programs dont work.
You are also entitled to healthcare, but not entitled to afford it.
Most people would like to see background checks and registration. The vast majority would like to see less gun violence. If the pro-gun crowd keeps yelling that that can’t happen without 2A being changed, then it will be the pro-gun crowd that convinces the public that it needs to be changed.
Hard slog, but the public isn’t as patient with the gun violence as you want them to be. People are voting now that had to take part in active shooter drills. How sympathetic do you think that they are going to be about your toys?
It would make sense for gun advocates to actually propose some actual solutions, and work towards it, rather than just laugh every time there is a mass shooting about how the evil libruls are gonna try to take their guns again.
Are we in some sort of contest to see how high we can get our yearly death rate?
I get a great deal of enjoyment out of correcting the misinformation and false claims posted by the gun banners. I think it fits rather comfortably under the umbrella of “fighting ignorance”.
Smoking has a lag time. I quit a few years back, but it’s still not unlikely that in 20-30 years, I’ll be counted as a smoking related statistic.
Does the fact that, if everyone quit smoking tomorrow, people would still be dying of smoking related illness for decades mean that anti-smoking programs do not work? Since you will not see the effect instantaneously, since there is already quite a bit of damage baked in already, there is no point, right?
I disagree that making the US like Australia or Canada is a ‘middle ground’. Any ‘middle ground’ has to be in terms of THIS country, and OUR citizens.
It’s impossible in any terms, because the US isn’t Australia or Canada, and our citizens aren’t Australian or Canadian. It would be like saying that a middle ground for Canada is for them to be like the US. It doesn’t even make any sort of sense. Canadians will never be like Americans and Canada will never be like America. It’s never going to happen and it’s nonsensical to even talk in those terms.
No, ‘middle ground’ in terms of what I was replying too is that we don’t give 1st graders guns, nor do we take ever gun from every person including the military. Both are ridiculous exaggerations that remove any sort of middle ground. The middle ground is we can and do restrict gun ownership as well as what guns the general public even can have. THAT is middle ground in relation to what I was responding too.
WRT the gun debate I think ‘middle ground’ means we do things like background checks and wait lists on the one hand, perhaps with registration and maybe even require a license, but on the other hand we just concede that IF we are going to allow regular citizens to keep and bear arms that some folks are going to die. Full stop. Just like we decided that IF we are going to let folks legally access alcohol or smoke or eat cheese burgers, large fries and trough sized diet cokes that folks are going to die. And that we aren’t going to try and get around the 2nd Amendment with slimy dog tactics. If we are going to remove that right for citizens or put in restrictions that violate that right that we do first use the process to get rid of the right to clear the way for that…and also ensure that this is what the majority of citizens actually want.
So, I agree…not going to happen any time soon. Especially wrt the endless debates on this subject on this board.
I already addressed this point in an earlier post.
What do those numbers tell you about the public and their sympathy about our “toys”?
But absolutely nothing about preventing shooting deaths.
“He was shot by a man with an automatic weapon!”
“Haha, you stupid liberal, let me give you a stupid lecture on the difference between semi-auto and full auto so I can laugh at you while you are distracted from finding solutions to the problem.”
May be a bit less useful than you think.
But I’m glad that at least someone is finding a way to get a great deal of enjoyment out of the pain and misery of others.
How is this nonsensical? The US isn’t Canada, but when someone says “we should be like Canada when it comes to health care” then people generally understand what that means; it’s a coherent (if brief and not terribly specific) argument.
That jives with making the US like Canada or Australia on guns – they restrict and regulate gun ownership as well as what guns the general public can have.
You make a lot of assumptions here. You think I’m a gun owner. I’m not. You also think that I’m somehow opposed to the people changing the 2nd (there is no 2A and 2B…there is one Amendment). I’m not. You also seem to think I haven’t ever proposed solutions. You’d be wrong again.
No, what I hate is slimy little weasels who try and get around the 2nd and ban or restrict by fiat. THAT is what I don’t want to see. If you do in fact have the support for getting rid of the 2nd, or modifying it, then more power too you…bring it on. If the public is indeed sick of the massive violence of 12,000 deaths a year from murder by gun, then that’s fine by me…as long as you actually use the process that is there to remove the Amendment and clear the way. If you have the votes for that, then…well, what the fuck are you waiting for, chief? Bring it!
To add to this, it could be better, our mental health statistics are not good in this regard.
THIS idea is one that would and should get support from both conservatives and liberals both…
BUT, is this what you guys choose to rail about? Oh hell no, Ban dem guns!
Because you aren’t going to get gun control or bans like you do in Canada or Australia because our political system is different and our citizens are different. A solution to the gun issue has to be an American solution because it has to work within our political and social structure. That’s why it’s nonsense.
So, within OUR system you would first need to figure out how to get the support to either get rid of or change the 2nd, or you have to work within the framework of not violating the right…which means it’s not going to be like Canada or Australia. Also, since you won’t be god or king of the US, you will have to work with the political parties as they actually are in the US…which means you won’t be able to do it like either Canada or Australia did. Hell, even if somehow there were suddenly no Republicans, you STILL wouldn’t be able to do it, since not all Dems are in lockstep on this one…and even Dems don’t think like or act like or have the political system of Australia or Canada.
Especially if the reaction is “Okay, you don’t need *either *of those for self-defense or hunting, so let’s deal with the semis the way we previously dealt with the full autos”. Sound good to you?
There are regular and hotly worded objections to referring to gun fetishism as a form of psychopathy, but when the evidence is repeatedly and proudly presented, what else can one say?
They tell me that your attempts at cherry picking is not going to help your case in the real world. Go back just one year, and it’s 48 to 49, not exactly a solid majority in your favor. Looks pretty erratic, probably based more on what current public perception of what an “assault rifle” is, rather than whether or not they want those in their Wal-Mart’s.
And as long as you have shown that cite, did you not look at the second graph, which shows a strong majority favoring stricter gun laws? What do those poll numbers tell you about the public and their sympathy about your toys?
In the long term, who knows? With sufficient political will, we could pass laws and amendments similar to those two countries. We don’t have that now, but maybe we could in the future. That’s all I’m saying. You’re being silly with all the “that’s not American” stuff.
Sorry, general “you’s” there, but directed at you, because you were the one I was responding to about changing 2A. (2A=Second Amendment. I don’t know what 2B would mean).
Yes, public perception will be changing on this.
I support doing what needs to be done. Personally, I see 2A as restricting the federal govt, and explicitly telling the states to regulate their militias as they saw fit, and I would be fine going back to that originalist idea.
But, if that is not possible, if the incorporation of the amendments into the states means that 2A restricts states and municipalities from enacting and enforcing gun restrictions, then I am for doing what we can to modify it.
If there are things that we can do to reduce gun violence without infringing 2A, then great, whether they are directly related to guns or in semi-unrelated fields like poverty or mental health.
In the mean time, pro gun advocates will continue to do our work in convincing the public that they cannot be responsible with their guns.
Ok, but when you want to ban a certain type of weapon, it does kinda help to know the difference, yes? I mean, if you are gonna send a man to prison for five years for owning the wrong type of gun, you can’t call them “boom boom sticks”.
We are trying to fight ignorance here, not spread it.
So you’d be willing to help write the bill? What would you want it to say?