Spineless, heartless politicians owned and funded by the NRA, and the gun and ammo dealers, distributers and manufacturers. .....
What most liberals fail to grasp is that we have 400 million guns in circulation in the US today. They are going no where. So there is no scenario that eliminates guns from society. So the thinking must be more complex that how the liberals approach the issue. The thinking must start from a position of acknowledging that there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation and then determining the best path forward from that point. The best path forward is protecting students in the same way that we protect celebrities, banks, and airports -- with trained, armed security. It's very simple. The other solution is to finally address the lack of family structure in urban communities -- where the vast majority of "gun violence" takes place -- far outstripping school shootings probably by 100 to 1. Urban children don't have enough fathers at home and many don't understand personal responsibility or accountability. Crime and educational underperformance are the predictable results.
I agree about how suburban liberal types view gun bans especially for semi-automatic rifles ("assault rifles"). All this accomplishes is the side that hates migrants and trans people have all the rifles and the side that are targets of hate groups and right wing police states are defenseless. You volunteering to be a father of a poor urban child? You can say "black". That doesn't make you racist. The rhetoric about "urban" fathers does though. This is what we call useless banter. This is a useless talking point because you know there isn't any actionable solution besides public service announcements about being good fathers. The reality is that the fundamental disconnect for you is that you inverse causality. You see lack of fathers as a cause and I see it as an effect.
Let's put billions more guns on the streets. Lower the age limits. Cut out the red tape. Lock and load Bubba. Raise em right Bubba Arm up the youngins.
Lol and now we've moved on to the defeatist stage of the argument... "but there's too many guns already floating around" This **** is so routine you could set your watch to it.
I'm bringing solutions to the table. Yes, I'd consider adoption -- wow, talk about a child hitting the lottery in life by getting adopted by The_Conquistador!
We absolutely need to make access to firearms more difficult. We need to make fed background checks of all sales even private sales mandatory. This is something I'm absolutely down for. But what are we going to do with the millions of semi-automatic rifles in circulation? No way we are going to confiscate them. I think it's within reason to believe that there is a good chance that type of drastic enforcement that doesn't grandfather in these desired banned weapons would result in insurrections and massive violence through our country. Then we are also facing the fact that the side that would be disproportionately armed with the more competent arsenal because they are grandfathered in is the right wing and many of the hate groups within them. And given how law enforcement is mostly a right wing culture, that can leave minority neighborhoods, LGBTQ enclaves etc defenseless.
Poverty from things like redlining and our police state system especially in Southern regions where many of the law enforcement roots come from slave patrols where their mission from the start was to protect the white population from the black freed slaves population. Do you think the lack of Black fathers is some genetic predisposition of the African American or something?
...and guess which country threw citizens who wouldn't get Covid vaccines into imprisonment camps? Yup, Australia. For all of the hatred we see towards government and police from liberals... can you imagine how your rights would be handled if only the government and police had guns? If that's not understandable to you, I strongly suggest studying history.
It's a pretty complex question and problem that I don't really have an answer to (freaking yikes that you jumped straight to eugenics, btw). All I know is that single parent households, especially fatherless ones, do result in significant negative outcomes for children. Most notably incarceration rates. I think it's fairly easy to draw a line from the fatherless epidemic to crime, etc; but not so easy to draw a line from <insert cause here> to the fatherless epidemic. If poverty and systemic racism was the cause, one would expect the problem would have 1) originated much earlier than the mid-20th century and 2) be getting better over time and not worse (whatever issues we may have we are all undoubtedly better off from an economics and civil rights standpoint now vs then). In both cases we don't really see that. The problem began to manifest in the 60s and peaked/plateaued in the 90s. The conservative argument is that the problem didn't start until social welfare really ramped up. I think that's a bit of the tail wagging the dog. Yes, social welfare makes having children while single easier, but I think these programs began as a response to the phenomenon, and not the other way around. Women joining the workforce en masse also correlates very well with the phenomenon. Of course that cracks open the uncomfortable question of whether women's empowerment has resulted in some unintended negative consequences. It stands to reason that if women are suddenly able to survive on their own, more of them will opt to do so. Before the 1970s, that basically wasn't even an option... which is where you see the fatherless family numbers really start to take off. All I know is, the government, through whatever means necessary, should be encouraging two-parent households. I'm talking right down to offering free marital counseling and daycare. Make it easier for people to stay together and build families.
So much for back the blue I guess? I like to imagine a scenario where we have very strict gun laws, but we also have a lot of state and local militias. It's a check on federal power. No more 'but muh tyranny' arguments.
also, people like tradertexxx dont trust teachers with regards to the books they use, but they want them to have guns in the classroom. tradertexxx isnt as active here as he used to be, but look how much fun he is having in this thread. he really enjoys the fact that the shooter was trans. he is also a shameless liar, as evidenced by his multiple previous posts saying that CNN and MSNBC refused to say the shooter was trans. i posted multiple examples of them doing that and he continued to run with his lie.
I think that if you confiscate them, you might see violence, but I doubt it. I also doubt that it's feasible to confiscate them over a short period of time. A buyback program and the criminalization of illegal ownership will eventually drive it down over time without much risk of violence.
Women aren't surviving on their own. They still struggle the same as they did many decades ago. Women joining the work force isn't a women empowerment thing. It's a "we need two income generators in a household" thing. Look at median household income adjusted for inflation over time in a 50 year time span and then see the median amount of individuals per household providing an income source over time. The later almost doubles while the former is almost stagnant. And eugenics is exactly the issue here. This is basic deductive reasoning. If you believe fatherless homes in black communities is a cause of conditions then an effect of poverty and the police state in black communities that deductively means you believe it's an inherent trait of the black community.
Assuming you throw out legal and popular consequences, a real gun ban would not work for the first 5-10 years, but we've been talking about this **** since Columbine and would've had plenty of time to "solve it" by then. So that argument assumes it's a "one and done" measure when real laws take effort and modification to work. It's also a perfect delay tactic that lingers over time and repetition. I wpuld argue that it's for this reason that compromise or watered down bills don't work, and you have to come down strong at the top. At this point, it's a race against time with 3D printable weapons. That's a worldwide issue though, so a gun ban would still be preferable as it becomes a knowlege and access barrier. Maybe not your children, but your children's children would not feel the need to learn active shooter scenarios for churches and schools.
