raises his monocle to AClockworkMelon. Jolly good old bean. You’ve got them frothing now wat wat. My intestines quiver in anticipation of your next act!
Of course there are. There are irresponsible ANYTHING owners.
I have said numerous times that basic licensing, safety testing, and registration of firearms would not (if appropriately accessible, at or better than the level that car licensing/registration is now) IMHO impinge on the 2nd Amendment.
Serious question for peaceful, law abiding citizens: Do you admit that there are irresponsible people who commit murder, and if so, is it a concern of yours? How do you propose that issue is addressed?
What’s your point? I’m trying to get the opinions of reasonable gun owners/supporters on a tricky situation. Do you sense some other motive?
I’m pretty sure we throw up our hands, wait until the murders occur, and then cry big salty crocodile tears at the unforeseeable and unavoidable tragedy of it all.
You know, just like we do with gun violence/accidents.
Not trying to be trite, but trying to show that if a person wants to be bad they will regardless of the law. We already have laws against murder (for example) and it doesn’t stop murder from happening.
I note in advance that you asked for compromise - not a ban. But other than removing the guns what would that compromise entail?
As well as Stanley Cup-winning NHL coaches.
On the plus side, I bet the neighborhood is a lot quieter these days.
Yeah, but this kid is a white American. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.
And how is that working out so far?
Not perfectly. but if you want perfection, i.e. absolute safety from gun violence, you’ll have to get rid of all the guns.
Freedom and safety cannot be simultaneously optimized.
Tossing in the absolutes to stall the conversation, are we? I didn’t ask for “perfection”. Is there any way to make the situation better?
Well that is the conversation I’m trying to have. I don’t have the answers, and not being a gun owner I wouldn’t pretend to know where a compromise might work.
A noble cause indeed but it’s not a new idea. As Czarcasm noted above it’s been tried but it’s not working as well as some might want - me included. The reason is that criminals by definition break the law. I’ll be the first to admit that there would probably be less death in the world if guns did not exist. But the same could be said about automobiles, cigarettes, alcohol and many other dangerous things that society recognizes that people have a right to.
In the end, it is bad people that are the problem - not guns.
Wait, this is the pit. We can’t have people supporting the second amendment who acknowledge gun ownership doesn’t actually reduce the amount of crime, but who nevertheless calculate the tradeoffs and figure it’s worth it.
Such people can be talked to…reasoned with. That’s entirely inappropriate.
And on that note, why not allow people to buy all the firecrackers they want? Irresponsible people are the problem, not the fireworks.
Is it OK if I want bad people to have a really hard time getting weapons that can kill me with the twitch of a finger? They can be bad with a knife, or a club or something.
I’ll concede that if guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.
But that’s a long, slippery slope away from some form of rules well-regulating the ownership of firearms.
Good point. The last time I went hunting with fireworks I had venison for days.
Because limiting fireworks, just like limiting gun ownership, reduces injuries and fatalities, but because for fireworks the price of restricting ownership is perceived as much smaller.
And that’s coming from a devil’s advocate - I’d be in favor of changing the second amendment.
Because hunting for necessities is such a large part of the American life, pretty much the same as when the 2nd Amendment was first written.