Yeah. I vote for people trying to fix these issues. I try to encourage responsibility with weapons. If I were queen of America I’d discuss with experts what the least restrictive means to prohibit these shootings are and work with them to solve it. But nobody is actually in charge here, we all are and none of us are. There is an incredible gun culture here to a degree that I really don’t think anyone but the Australians can relate to. They had a leader make the unpopular decision to get rid of the guns. Our leaders legally can’t. We can’t have a revolution to ban guns because we don’t have the support or the guns on our side. To change the law 2/3 of our states and our legislature have to agree to repeal one of our most culturally significant and politically relevant parts of our constitution. Meanwhile our lifetime appointed Supreme Court is striking down gun control laws
Gun control wouldn’t help. Banning marijuana and cocaine didn’t stop it and way more people like guns than those. It would also only serve the rich and disarming the working class would just lead to them losing rights hard fought for
I agree but it’s also the closest thing to whatever has helped. When I set aside American exceptionalism and ask what has worked it seems that funding social services, opposing right wing radicalization, and banning guns are what worked in other countries. I would much rather start with the first two and I’m conflicted on the last because I’m aware of the importance of arming the oppressed, but it is hard to deny the effectiveness that other countries seem to have found in banning guns. There’s just so many mass shootings, it’s exhausting and it’s been happening since I was a kid and I’d just really like to get to the point where someone shooting up a school is a shocking act of evil instead of a routine one.
But it’s not a worthy trade off. Without guns the working class would have no way to combat the bourgeois. Not to mention that criminals would still have access to them. I’m not willing to hand over all of the working classs’ political power just for a little temporary safety
It did in the UK. Not only did we ban guns, we also made carrying them a criminal offence. Nobody, not even crims, now casually carries guns around, because they know if they get stopped and searched, and the gun is found, they’re heading straight to the clink. So the only people that carry guns are (a) the few that have a genuine reason to, like airport security, and (b) crims carrying with intent, and the latter can get chucked into the clink directly with the gun carrying being direct proof of that intent.
But you go on believing gun control doesn’t solve these problems if you want. The evidence from everyone else that has tried it is that (a) it works and (b) we’re not going to throw our gun control out on the grounds of it being useless, because it isn’t. Of course it doesn’t solve the problem 110% and there are OCCASIONAL, SURPRISING news reports about a shooting, not the routine business it is in the USA.
And your comment about combatting the bourgeois is just ridiculous. they’ll just come after you with a bigger gun and more security than you can shake a stick at. Sure you might pop something off at one of them but the rest’ll blow your arse away in no time.
This argument is hardly worth having anyway. Once America decided guns were more important than kids’ lives the gun lobby won. When you’ve decided kids are more important than guns we can talk further.
The ruling class can only be combated with weapons. Peace isn’t an option. Your claim about them blowing you away anyway is laughable. Have you never opened a history book? We tried to ban marijuana and guess what? It still is quite common. And guns are thousands of times more popular and supported than marijuana ever will be. Guns existing help kids lives. They allow a brighter future where they won’t be forced to work 14 hours a day. I’m more concerned with that than the tiny minuscule amount of people killed in mass shootings.
Not only that, but it’s the bill of rights, if you can take away the second amendment what’s to stop authoritarians from taking the first as well? Or modifying it to preclude certain religions from the establishment clause?
I see what you’re saying, but the 18th amendment would like a word. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to be a living document that adjusts as time goes on. Preferably to make this a better country for everyone.
When was the last time Congress passed a new law, much less an amendment? They’re bought and sold by corporations to ensure that nothing, but the bare minimum to keep the government limping along, will ever get done
So from what I can tell there’s a system which allows for change but there is insufficient will from many areas as to why change hasn’t happened. So let’s compare Australia’s mass shooting with the American population. From what I read there was 18 million people in Australia in 1996 at the time of the mass shooting that killed 35 people which lead to gun reform. If you were to take the same proportion against the US population it would be the same as a shooter legally buying guns and then killing around 580 people. Do you think change would occur if this happened? Very disturbing if that’s the limit of peoples tolerance of such crimes.
Yeah. I vote for people trying to fix these issues. I try to encourage responsibility with weapons. If I were queen of America I’d discuss with experts what the least restrictive means to prohibit these shootings are and work with them to solve it. But nobody is actually in charge here, we all are and none of us are. There is an incredible gun culture here to a degree that I really don’t think anyone but the Australians can relate to. They had a leader make the unpopular decision to get rid of the guns. Our leaders legally can’t. We can’t have a revolution to ban guns because we don’t have the support or the guns on our side. To change the law 2/3 of our states and our legislature have to agree to repeal one of our most culturally significant and politically relevant parts of our constitution. Meanwhile our lifetime appointed Supreme Court is striking down gun control laws
Gun control wouldn’t help. Banning marijuana and cocaine didn’t stop it and way more people like guns than those. It would also only serve the rich and disarming the working class would just lead to them losing rights hard fought for
I agree but it’s also the closest thing to whatever has helped. When I set aside American exceptionalism and ask what has worked it seems that funding social services, opposing right wing radicalization, and banning guns are what worked in other countries. I would much rather start with the first two and I’m conflicted on the last because I’m aware of the importance of arming the oppressed, but it is hard to deny the effectiveness that other countries seem to have found in banning guns. There’s just so many mass shootings, it’s exhausting and it’s been happening since I was a kid and I’d just really like to get to the point where someone shooting up a school is a shocking act of evil instead of a routine one.
But it’s not a worthy trade off. Without guns the working class would have no way to combat the bourgeois. Not to mention that criminals would still have access to them. I’m not willing to hand over all of the working classs’ political power just for a little temporary safety
I understand how people can come to that conclusion and I was there for a long time and am currently questioning my position, unsure where I’ll land.
It did in the UK. Not only did we ban guns, we also made carrying them a criminal offence. Nobody, not even crims, now casually carries guns around, because they know if they get stopped and searched, and the gun is found, they’re heading straight to the clink. So the only people that carry guns are (a) the few that have a genuine reason to, like airport security, and (b) crims carrying with intent, and the latter can get chucked into the clink directly with the gun carrying being direct proof of that intent.
But you go on believing gun control doesn’t solve these problems if you want. The evidence from everyone else that has tried it is that (a) it works and (b) we’re not going to throw our gun control out on the grounds of it being useless, because it isn’t. Of course it doesn’t solve the problem 110% and there are OCCASIONAL, SURPRISING news reports about a shooting, not the routine business it is in the USA.
And your comment about combatting the bourgeois is just ridiculous. they’ll just come after you with a bigger gun and more security than you can shake a stick at. Sure you might pop something off at one of them but the rest’ll blow your arse away in no time.
This argument is hardly worth having anyway. Once America decided guns were more important than kids’ lives the gun lobby won. When you’ve decided kids are more important than guns we can talk further.
The ruling class can only be combated with weapons. Peace isn’t an option. Your claim about them blowing you away anyway is laughable. Have you never opened a history book? We tried to ban marijuana and guess what? It still is quite common. And guns are thousands of times more popular and supported than marijuana ever will be. Guns existing help kids lives. They allow a brighter future where they won’t be forced to work 14 hours a day. I’m more concerned with that than the tiny minuscule amount of people killed in mass shootings.
Going to need some sources on that one, bud.
Not only that, but it’s the bill of rights, if you can take away the second amendment what’s to stop authoritarians from taking the first as well? Or modifying it to preclude certain religions from the establishment clause?
I see what you’re saying, but the 18th amendment would like a word. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to be a living document that adjusts as time goes on. Preferably to make this a better country for everyone.
When was the last time Congress passed a new law, much less an amendment? They’re bought and sold by corporations to ensure that nothing, but the bare minimum to keep the government limping along, will ever get done
So from what I can tell there’s a system which allows for change but there is insufficient will from many areas as to why change hasn’t happened. So let’s compare Australia’s mass shooting with the American population. From what I read there was 18 million people in Australia in 1996 at the time of the mass shooting that killed 35 people which lead to gun reform. If you were to take the same proportion against the US population it would be the same as a shooter legally buying guns and then killing around 580 people. Do you think change would occur if this happened? Very disturbing if that’s the limit of peoples tolerance of such crimes.