Bats and hammers aren't designed to kill. Guns are explicitly designed to kill. That's why we're more concerned about them -- there's a public responsibility to treat them differently.
There are a few specific things that can be done.
First: reinstate the Obama-era checks for mental illness during gun purchases. This is by far one of the most bone-headed pieces of deregulation on Trump's part. It doesn't hurt healthy gun buyers and might just save lives.
Next, institute stringent, federal level restrictions on things like extended magazines. One of the US' perpetual problems is that people can simply go to states with very loose gun rules (like Nevada) and buy the gear they want. This won't stop mass murders or people shipping weapons from outside of the US, but it could at least lessen the blow.
There is the possibility of recognizing that semi-auto rifles aren't really needed for hunting or self-defense and thus limiting access to them, but I know that's a can of worms and wouldn't have helped in the most recent instance.
There are also some indirect but potentially vital changes to social infrastructure that would help. Offer much easier access to mental health care (and in the case of this latest shooting, better support for veterans). That might require heavy subsidies or even socializing it, but that's okay... the best health care in the world typically comes from socialized programs as it is. Focus on creating more educational and economic opportunities so that people don't feel helpless when they lose their jobs (some shootings are from people who've recently been fired, remember).
For that matter, reduce the expectations imposed on people. Right now we have a culture that encourages overtime at work, stigmatizes mental health and shames you if you're not in a relationship (the health of that relationship be damned). You have people who are regularly strung out and told they're failures if they're less than perfect. This would require better labor laws along with some cultural shifts, so it wouldn't be easy but it might be necessary.
The one thing I don't want to do is to assume that this is the "new normal" and throw our hands up. Virtually no other developed country has to deal with this kind of violence. That, to me, suggests the problem is something we can fix, rather than endemic to modern society or an intractable problem with American culture.
As an addition....I've yet to hear of or read anywhere about a person killing anyone with a bat/hammer from 100 yds. away. And that's always left out of the 2A crusaders' arguments......they bring up all sorts of items/devices that are used to kill, but simply leave out the part where guns are unique in their killing range.
Slightly revised
NEW rules 6.4
*To be determined
- Ban all guns except registered pistols and real* hunting rifles.
- No large clips/magazines for pistols or rifles.*
- You must have a title for each gun you own.
- Buy back programs for them, after 2 years it would be a felony to own an unregistered gun without a title.
- No gun show selling
- Private sales illegal without transfer of gun title.
- No silencers
- No gun modifications "adapters" that increase amount of ammo or fire rate.
- No open carry on our streets at all period.
- No concealed carry unless you have a damn good reason.
- No immediate gun purchases.
- Complete background check.
- 10 day waiting list.
- Before you purchase a gun for the first time you first have to take a firearm safety class.
Rah rah gun reform mumble mumble false sense of security mumble mumbleWhat's the answer? I won't accept "gun control" as that's a catch phrase. Specifically, how do we stop crazy people from killing others with guns? The only way I see is to outlaw firearms, and I just don't think that's possible. Forget the second amendment side of it, I'm talking about the unbelievably huge number of arms floating around. How would we ever get rid of them, how would we stop them from flooding across the border, and how would we prevent them from being manufactured in small machine shops?
I honestly believe that this is going to be our new normal. Every now and then someone is going to crack and murder a bunch of random people then blow his own head off. It's going to be the same as the thirty thousand people killed in car accidents every year, we all shake our heads and bemoan the senseless loss of life, then accept it as the price of mobility.
I don't like it any more than you do, and I'm pretty sure that when the second amendment was written no one even considered the possibility of citizens randomly murdering each other in large scale engagements. But I don't see an answer. How do we stuff this particular genie back in the bottle?
Rah rah gun reform mumble mumble false sense of security mumble mumble
Bats and hammers aren't designed to kill. Guns are explicitly designed to kill. That's why we're more concerned about them -- there's a public responsibility to treat them differently.
I absolutely agree with everything you said, but I fear we're just nibbling at the edges of the problem.
And again, the left doesn't want to do anything about that, but when it comes to the 2A you look for every opportunity to try and restrict it.
Why do you feel that you want all of these restrictions on a law abiding citizen? Can you explain each * as to why they are there?
That is a stupid emotion-driven argument. Let's talk about what kills more people, not what you feel about the tool. If guns are meant simply to kill people, then they're doing a piss poor job of it when compared to may other things. Are you saying that the 99.99999% of us that do not use our guns to kill people are using them wrongly?
Ah, and here is the 'if you can't fix every problem facing society why try at all?' response. You sure don't seem to agree with that with any other issue. Why do you support immigration reform? There is no way we are going to stop all illegal immigration.
This entire argument is one giant fallacy. It doesn't work because your premise is absurd. Your premise comes down to, death is unavoidable, why do we do anything?
No, it's exclusively logical. You don't regulate baseball bats and hammers because they're general-purpose tools with relatively limited danger if someone abuses them. When's the last time someone killed 58 people at at a concert with a hammer, or 17 people at a school with a baseball bat? Do you think there are roving gang members wielding only hammers?
It is rather hilarious to watch you convince yourself that "things designed to kill people should be treated differently than things that are not" is somehow an emotion-driven argument. Anything to avoid accepting the uncomfortable truth.
I'd add safe storage requirements and if an owner doesn't report a stolen/missing gun and it's used in a crime they can be held liable. And if a gun is stolen because it wasn't secured, there should be a fine. You know, mandate responsible gun ownership.
What puts more bodies in the ground? Bats / hammers, or rifles? Yes, guns grab the headlines, but the simple reality is they kill less than other things. Great, a baseball bat is designed to play a game and a hammer is designed to drive a nail in constructions, they are still more lethal than rifles on average. Why do you discount all of those killed by blunt objects? You guys simply don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting the 2A.
And again, if guns are designed to kill people, are the 99.999999% of us that don't do that using our guns wrongly? Simple question.
Well, first, you're outright lying. In the US last year, over 10,000 people were murdered with firearms, 467 with blunt instruments. And I'm pretty sure there wasn't a rash of fatal accidents involving bats and hammers. Will you apologize for lying, sir?
And to restate what we keep telling you over and over again, we're absolutely interested in saving lives. It's just that, unlike you, we're capable of caring about more than one thing at a time.
The argument is that the left attacks the 2A and holds it to much different and unrealistic standard than they hold anything else to
I was talking about rifles specifically. All guns kill, as you say, somewhere in the ~11000 innocent victims a year. Rifles are a tiny minority of that (~300-400 homicides a year).
Which is exactly what I just said. Fix it all or fix nothing. That is what your argument means. Otherwise it would be fine to treat things differently because the topic at hand is not how to fix those other things.
I'm not talking about hammers and bats. I'm talking about guns. Maybe after we fix guns we can look into how to limit the number of murders done with blunt objects, but that is not what we are currently talking about.
When we talk about stopping immigration we don't say it is pointless to do that until we fix technological innovation, because we lose more jobs to that than to immigration. Why is that?
Ah, but there were 3,096 deaths by 'unstated' firearms in 2017. Do you have stats showing that rifles were less used, or are you just taking a gamble that there were fewer than 467 rifle deaths last year?
Besides, don't weasel out of this -- the fact is that guns, all guns, need to be treated differently than most potential murder weapons because they are explicitly intended to kill.
You are creating an argument I am not making and attacking that self-created argument as if you are proving something. I am not saying because we cannot completely solve it we should not do nothing. I AM saying that you guys attack the 2A unrealistically and want to harm all of our rights for what often results in no gain (Assault weapons ban immediately comes to mind). You are so laser focused on limiting the 2A that you lose all perspective. You want to know why the NRA is so reactive and overbloated today? It is because of people like you and the unfair, unrealistic, and unproductive limits you want to impose on those of us that exercise our 2A rights. Want to do something reasonable that can help stop people from getting hurt by guns? I'm all for that. But, want to unfairly restrict 2A rights for all of us and achieve nothing? No.
Yes this exactly! None of us on either side want innocents to die. But taking away ones rights because of feelings isn’t the way to do it.
Slow obviously has a new sock puppet account. Agreeing with yourself does not reinforce your argument, by the way. Just makes you look even MORE foolish, which is saying a lot.
Slow obviously has a new sock puppet account. Agreeing with yourself does not reinforce your argument, by the way. Just makes you look even MORE foolish, which is saying a lot.
For someone who "joined" yesterday, the bolded doesn't seem odd at all...You all are fucking retarded if you think I’m a sock puppet/separate account for anyone.
Which if you are paying attention makes YOU look more foolish, which isn’t saying a lot more than what we already think about you.
You all are fucking retarded if you think I’m a sock puppet/separate account for anyone.
Which if you are paying attention makes YOU look more foolish, which isn’t saying a lot more than what we already think about you.