I gave up on that effort. They simply don’t care.
No, I don’t think I am. I do concede with enough time and political will you COULD make the US just like Canada or Australia, I suppose, even down to the citizens stances on things. Maybe. But in any sort of realistic time frame, you can’t because of the reasons I gave…the key ones being our political system isn’t like Canada or Australia, and our citizens don’t have the same attitudes or outlook. There are also a hell of a lot more of us. There are probably more gun owners in the US than there are Canadians AND Australians combined, so that alone is going to be a factor.
I do agree that things can be shifted. I’ve said before I think they already are, and that the shift is going to be towards less gun ownership in the US over time. I see that as a trend that’s already happening, and I fully expect that trend to continue. I also think attitudes can and will shift with that. Basically, I think that less and less people will WANT to keep or own a gun, or even care about it or care about a protected right. If/when that happens, it’s possible…maybe even probable…that there will be sufficient support to modify or remove the 2nd and clear the way for more stringent gun control laws or even bans of things like semi-automatic weapons. But you can’t get those things the way they did it in Canada or Australia…the process to get there will be completely different, and the final solution will not be exactly like their laws either. That’s all I’m saying.
I’m not talking about process, I’m talking about laws and culture. In the long run, most gun control advocates want the US to look like Canada or Australia in terms of gun laws and gun culture. That’s not achievable in the short term, but maybe it is in the long term, even if the process would be quite different.
Ok, yeah, it’s possible. I see attitudes already shifting. I don’t think we’ll ever be exactly like them in attitudes, but…functionally, I could see the US attitudes towards individual gun ownership and the concept of a protected right shifting sufficiently to allow for systems similar to Canada…maybe even Australia. But we are probably talking decades if not longer for that. And it’s a moving target of course…Canada in a few decades is probably going to be pretty different than it is today. Just like American today isn’t what it was in the 50’s, or 60’s.
So…I concede, it’s possible. Especially if you are not talking about process, which is what I was talking about. To me, how we get there is what’s important, and we definitely won’t get there like they did. But if we are talking about functionally similar, then…yeah, it’s possible. Not sure it’s probable, but possible? Sure.
Attitudinal shifts can be slow, then quick. First cracks appear in the dam, then it suddenly bursts. We saw that in gay marriage, for instance.
Don’t you think that the increase in mass murders is already having an effect on cracking the dam?
This is why we can’t have serious discussions on the subject of gun control. Because people walk into WalMart to do some school supply shopping and willfully jump in front of legally purchased ammo rounds being fired by a US citizen who recently exercised his 2nd amendment rights. If people expect to live longer lives, they need to develop healthier shopping habits.
You might be shocked but…yeah, I agree with you. They can be fairly slow, then suddenly it’s like a dam bursting. Hell, I saw it as a kid with civil rights.
I DO think that increased scrutiny of mass murders by gun and the increasing spotlight by the press on it is going to have an effect. But the numbers, while shocking when you look at them without context, just aren’t that many. Like I said, as a society we put up with a hell of a lot more deaths by a lot of things just because we wants them. The gun deaths are fairly far down the list of things that society allows that can and will kill a large non-zero number of folks.
Myself, I think it’s the attitudes towards gun ownership that are the key. It’s why I like the tobacco analogy. If you tried to impose the restrictions we currently have on tobacco back in, say, the 70’s, you’d have had a huge public push back and fight. People would have freaked. Yet, today, they don’t…we all just go along with it. It seems normal…until you go to Europe or some Asian countries, and see that many of them still allow smoking in restaurants and bars and, well, everywhere. The point, though, is that public attitudes shifted. And I think they are shifting wrt guns and gun ownership. People don’t seem to care as much today as they did in the past…except when their backs are up and they think you are trying to snatch their guns and violate their rights. But don’t do that and I think most people really will lose interest, gradually…until suddenly the dam breaks.
I think that gun violence on the 24 hour news will be a factor. Crazy white folks shooting up minorities or just randomly is definitely going to have a negative public effect. No doubt. Hell, a lot of my family who ARE gun advocates are pissed at what happened in El Paso. But I don’t think it’s the only or even the major part of what is or will cause the shift in public attitudes towards gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms.
Sure, but the intended utility of those things (cars, for example) that can and do end up killing lots of people isn’t to kill people. In fact, they mostly improve the quality of lives of majority of people. And those such as tobacco, alcohol and cheeseburgers, when used as designed can provide pleasure to the individual, and tend to kill only when said individual abuses them. i.e. I can’t kill you by giving you cancer or heart attack due to my misuse of them. (Exceptions for pedantic caveats noted in cases of second hand smoke and drunk driving.)
Someone said we already have a lot of education
then you responded by saying that none of them actually do anything
Then I said if that’s true then you wouldn’t mind getting rid of the laws on the books
and your response is which regulations am I referring to? WTF?!?!
‘making them unavailable’ is banning guns.
If we made abortions unavailable to the common person, we would call that banning abortion.
Second hand smoke which kills over 40,000 people in the US each year and the 11,000 who die from drunk driving? Yeah, definitely pedantic.
This is, as always, a judgement call where you are arbitrarily making a value judgement on the relative value of each. If I were opposed to drinking, say, then I could say similar things about that. Or if I was opposed to smoking, the same. A gun owner could say they also derive pleasure from shooting, and also get utility from the perception of protection and control the weapon gives them. And guns ALSO ‘tend to kill only when said individual abuses them’, since, you know, guns don’t kill unless the idiot pulling the trigger points it at someone and shoots.
That’s the thing. Relative deaths are pretty similar (well, ok, they aren’t…a hell of a lot more people, even today, die from tobacco than the other two, even if we are only talking 2nd hand smoke). They aren’t necessary to society. We choose to allow them anyway because citizens want them…and, well, one is a protected right. But still, society chooses to allow them, despite the fact that folks WILL die due to that decision. As for cars, raising the speed limit isn’t necessary. You are quite correct that the utility is there, but we don’t HAVE to allow folks to drive faster than, oh, say 35 MPH. But we do because folks want it. They don’t NEED it, however. And that decision alone costs 10’s of thousands of lives that, collectively, we are all responsible for because we decided that the cost in lives is worth the utility.
If you are on the receiving end of a bullet, do you honestly care what type of weapon was used in its delivery? You might, idk. I imagine the families who’ve lost loved ones are far less interested in that sort of quibbling.
They don’t have to be; they just have to represent a problem that can be and should be fixed. That’s how we advance as a civilization, form more perfect unions, establish justice, etc. BTW, you won’t get anywhere with the argument that it isn’t really a big deal how many people are getting killed by guns these days, since they and their wielders put *everyone *in fear. You’ll get even less far by, as some of the gun psychos like to put it, by saying those who fear the combination of guns and assholes really just fear inanimate objects, and that’s irrational. They even invented a word for it.
Yes, the problem is the *combination *of guns and assholes/idiots/psychos. The gun side thinks we can and should fix the asshole/idiot/psycho problem exclusively. Good luck with that.
Or needs them, as with cars, and in every case we do what we can to limit the deaths and injuries, via design and via licensing/registration/regulation. *Every *other case, that is, except for the one where the device’s *purpose *is to cause deaths and injuries. So that’s not gonna get you anywhere either.
That started in the 60’s with the Surgeon General’s report (the same office that is legally barred from studying gun violence), and no, there wasn’t a pushback from the smokers, just attempts to quit.
And we wonder what the hell is wrong with those people for continuing to kill themselves and the people around them that way - the same way they wonder it about us and guns.
They always think that whenever there’s a suggestion that there’s a problem. It’s a fear-based reflex reaction - fear is the main reason for owning guns in the first place, with fantasies of killing and silliness about militias sometimes present as well - and fear cannot be reasoned with. There’s no way to approach the problem without that result.
If actual killing isn’t the biggest part of what is changing public attitudes, what else is?
He says about the country that came to the rescue of the rest of the western world when Hitler was on the march.
Or the country that has a better human rights, woman’s rights and gay rights records than pretty much any latin american country, many asian ones and more than it’s share of european ones.
It’s a good rifle for some competitive shooting events, especially for smaller shooters. It fires a relatively low power round and reduces recoil even further with it’s buffer system. It’s comfortable to shoot a lot in practice and easy to control. The round also has a pretty flat trajectory.
My niece started competitive shooting in high school. She’s off at college now but continues to participate in the annual Camp Perry competition. It gave her quite a bit of confidence in male dominated environments. She regularly beat “the boys.” I give her AR-15 an assist in her choice to purse a STEM degree. The higher recoil from most rifles firing the more powerful rounds that used to be the norm in infantry rifles, and are still typical for deer hunting, may well have ended her participation early. I know she doesn’t like firing the rifle her father has in .308 Winchester. It’s simply past the point where she can handle the recoil comfortably with her smaller frame.
Not at all. I listed the countries that are most similar to the United States.
Just because we stand on the shoulders of giants, doesn’t mean we get to ride their coat tails and steal credit for their accomplishments. (I’ll look the other way on 350 years of slavery, segregation and various human rights abuses if you will.)
Rural verse urban is a big part of it, IMHO. Basically, most people live in urban or suburban areas now. You don’t need to hunt, and you don’t have the time or the space to just go out and shoot. Plus there are other things to do, today. Shooting was a big thing when I was a kid because, frankly, we hunted for meat for the table (rabbit mostly) and because it was one of the things we could do (lots of space in the desert, and there wasn’t much else to do). But things have changed and attitudes are changing. People don’t feel like they NEED a gun as much anymore. It’s not a necessary tool as it was in the past. Even the protection angle is fading, though this is one place where there is still a lot of perception of need. But, frankly, the country is less violent than it was in the past, and police are better and more responsive than they were in the past. A lot of folks at this point have never had a gun at all or have never been in a family that had or has one. As that trend picks up speed it’s cumulative, IMHO…less people have experience with guns, less people think they want or need one.
The caveat to this is my earlier Mythbusters reference…try and take that candy from that baby and the baby will fight you. Leave it alone and, IMHO, the baby will eventually lose interest in the candy and toss it aside for something else.
When you are actively suggesting policy changes, I expect those involved to know their ass from a hole in the ground rather than working off pure emotion, disdain, and hatred.
Call me strange if you’d like.
In your opinion. Which means- cherrypicked.