This isn't my argument but I absolutely agree that Hunter Biden should be charged with violating firearms laws. That doesn't change whether firearm's should be regulated more and goes to another problem that current laws aren't even enforced heavily enough. There could be deescalation tactics, we don't know what the training that the civilian had perhaps better training. You're "good outcome" is inherently subjective and still ignores that bystanders were shot. Again you're acknowledging that there were different standards and some of the worst mass shootings weren't included in the study. Even the writers of the study are admitting it's not a direct comparison and the value of the study as an argument that the US doesn't have bad fire arm violence compared particularly to other industrialized nations is questionable based on the limitations of the study.
Well we tried banning alcohol already and that led to more crime. On this point I fully agree we cannot have a prohibition on firearms. I think the Constitution affirmed by Heller is clear that there is a right to personal firearm ownership. I also think that any serious attempt to mass confiscate firearms will lead to a civil war and that any buyback program will be marginal at best in reducing the number of firearms. None of that means we can't regulate firearms based on type and function, that we can't do more background checks, track firearms better, nor have stricter red flag laws.
Start with a license for EVERY gun, if you have to pay $10 to renew your license every year and you have 200 guns....all 200 need a license...well.... DD
I agree and no politician is advocating banning guns. What 2A proponents tend to fail to mention are the words "well regulated". Regulated implies rules.
um, well . . . sort of https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty. more at the link
Sometime, I imagine a blank sheet to measure what's reasonable. Imagine a democratic society that starts from a blank sheet. Society invented a drink that can kill a toddler quickly, harm the body with regular use and alter an adult's ability to think and control bodily function. Society invented a tool that can dissolve a human being with a press of a button. What do you think society would do? What is reasonable and what is not reasonable to do? I like to think that we will progress toward that point.
Jefferson seems to affirm the right to "be at all times armed": the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press. https://founders.archives.gov/?q= A...Recipient:"Cartwright, John"&s=1111311111&r=1
You really think the founding fathers would have written the 2A in the exact same way if they could have comprehended the advanced firearms available to the general public?
I don't think they would have written the 1st Amendment in the exact same way if they could have comprehended social media and the internet available to the general public
We don't agree that they would have written amendments differently had they known what the situation would be 200+ years later?
I think that's a terrible line of reasoning, it calls for impossibly speculative musings on what none of us can possibly know.
Definitely a culture problem Lifetime of being pumped junk food, adderall, anxiety medications, and social media has probably destroyed these kids. Obviously it’s not just the guns cause the suicide rates have gone up right along the mass shooting rates. I a conservative so I’m not one for gun control but I would start at making the legal age to own a AR-15 should be 21 or I’ll even go 25. Kids are to messed up in the head from high school to be able to buy one the day they turn 18
I just think it has to do a lot more with pumping kids from birth with processed food, adderall, god know what other medications, social media and divorced rates through the roof. I’m down for stricter gun laws but just not getting radical about it and just taking away guns. My dad should be allowed to have his ARs. Only thing he’ll ever use them for is maybe the gun range couple times a year at most and the slight chance of ever having to defend his home. I also believe kids shouldn’t be allowed to have social media until they are 16 and can create a account with a verified legal license. I’m perfectly fine on meeting in the middle with gun control but we gotta fix the culture in which these kids are growing up in now
Lots of people are dying as a consequence of protecting people like your dads right to shoot his AR at the range for funsies every so often and his slight chance of “needing” it for home defense.
