Full automatic weapons triggered the National Firearm Act of 1934.
If a law prevents some of what it is intended to prevent, but not all of that thing, should the law not exist at all?
I meant since then…
Edit: was that an effective solution or feel-good nonsense?
I didn’t think context was required.
Well, Ok, we have laws against murder. They dont prevent all murders.
We have laws against using guns illegally. They dont prevent all illegal gun usage.
We have gun control laws- but they dont do anything at all.
There was a big shooting spree in Dayton yesterday. Been in the news a bunch. You may have heard something about it.
Maybe you missed this from Barack Obama, that asahi was referencing:
Any comment?
Also, you:
What earthly uses? I’m seriously curious about these. I don’t know what you are referring to. As for the 2%, do you care about the fact the people died? I’m sure you do. So what is your point?
“Some of the strongest gun control.”
So I suppose the state with the strongest gun control would have more shooting deaths.
I’m not sure why that would be the case. Anyway, the point others were trying to make, I think, and I have elsewhere, is that gun controls that are effective in reducing gun deaths can be rendered less effective when neighboring states have weak laws. If indeed California’s laws are reducing deaths, why not implement them country-wide? That is, if one is interested in reducing those deaths in the first place.
> Americans are morally and intellectually inferior in many respects to most (all?) of the first world western democratic societies/nations
That’s probably the answer. Americans are morally and intellectually inferior to the rest of the developed world, which explains why they want a gun deaths epidemic but don’t want universal healthcare.
Sadly, those opposing gun control aren’t interested in reducing those deaths. They’d rather have guns.
Why do more mass shootings happen in the US, per capita, than most other countries? I don’t know, but here’s a theory. There are a number of reasons why someone might do this. Racial animosity, sociopathy, and others. Maybe it’s because due the large number of people in the country, and the many varied situations we live in, we simply have more opportunities, if that’s the right word, for people to fill each category. For instance, in Japan, there are far few ethnic groups, and 99.4% of the country is Japanese. Thus being motivated by racial hatred is not very likely. This is not a perfect example, because of course Japan has dramatically fewer guns than America. But I hope you get the idea. This idea could be extended to other reasons. Does anyone know of a study addressing this idea? Short of banning most guns, is this something we will just have to learn to live with in America?
Some perhaps, but I’m not ready to generalize. For instance, first a definition of gun control must be determined. If gun control means background checks only, as an example, then I am not especially for it for reducing gun deaths, because I don’t think it will have much effect, not because I am not interested in reducing gun deaths. I assure you that I am. That does not mean I’m against the idea altogether. If you have to register a gun, it can be traced back to you if you commit a crime, for instance. This is good. Didn’t prevent a death, but maybe will help find the killer.
I include pro-gun lobbyists, the NRA, etc. in the category of “opponents of gun control”.
Studies show that it’s not ethnic diversity that counts - it’s ethnic dominance. Think about, for example, Africa or South America. Singapore is quite diverse ethnically but has a very low crime rate. Canada is diverse - more diverse than the US, according to some studies - but has a lower crime rate than its southern neighbor.
Countries with tougher gun laws have fewer gun deaths. This isn’t a difficult concept.
Vehicle registrations, insurance requirements, licensing, database of ownership that can be used to solve crimes - nobody opposes these measures for cars.
Why would anyone oppose them for guns?
Start a gun buyback program. Won’t take all the guns off the street right away, but over time it will.
Introduce an annual gun registration fee for each gun you own. Hefty fines if you don’t pay, and guns may be repossessed if you don’t pay the fees. Even heftier fines - sufficient to put the store out of business - for gun shops / trade shows selling guns without proper registration. Gun owners requires to buy gun owner insurance to own a gun. Big federal and state sales tax on any gun sale - let’s start at 40% of the retail price. Must disclose having a gun in the house for home insurance purposes. Offer insurance discounts for home owners selling their guns and installing a home security system that - last time I checked - had never accidentally killed anyone. Mandatory reeducation courses every 3-5 years.
The US has not banned cigarettes, yet the percentage of smokers in the US has been steadily falling, from almost 50% in the 1950s, to the 30s in the late 1980s, and now in the mid-teens and still dropping.
It’s harder to smoke. It’s more expensive to smoke. Want to smoke? Great, you’re still going to help foot the bill society has to pay.
The US won’t solve the gun problem in my lifetime - but maybe in my kid’s lifetimes…
Yes, but until I search I hadnt heard about Antifa.
You have no idea. Their are major racial groups in Japan. If you introduced common gun ownership to Japan you would create a war zone the likes of which you have never seen.
Indeed, that was my reply. BA’s post gave stats out of context which gave a incorrect conclusion. Actually, overall, the states with the lowest homicides rates also have very little gun control. CA actually has a homicide rate exactly in the middle, not low at all.
AR15s are very good for varmint hunting, like coyotes. They are also fun target rifles for tin can shooting and the like. Many like them for home defense.
So, you’d want to make a bunch of guns illegal , which could not possibly make a significant reduction in violent crime? Just because they look scary?
2%? Well, that many people die from baseball bats, backyard pools, and bathtub accidents. Should we ban baseball, pools and bathtubs? Tens of thousands more than that die from alcohol or smoking.
Except that banning those guns wont reduce deaths.
I, for one, would be interested in hearing about proposed solutions that did not involve variations on the theme “let’s take away everyone’s guns”.