What does it take to get a little gun control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Millions of people own guns without issue. The problem is certain persons have a propensity to commit gun violence. Rather than harassing law-abiding Americans by calling for gun "control," we need only lock up criminals and psychos.

Elections have consequences. I used to have a robust constitutional right to privacy around my own reproductive choices in this country. We had elections and now my children don't enjoy this right anymore.

The voters are allowed to go to the polls and choose what they want. They may want to change some of the gun regulations and that is allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:97.4% of mass shooting are committed by straight white males.

based on what? Mass shootings, defined as 4 or more people injured by a shooter skew to other demographics.
What definitnion are you using.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

Military cosplayers do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are too money people making money in the gun industry for that to happen. “Deeply violent or disturbed people should be prevented from buying firearms” is a common sense statement and not a politically charged one. Gun manufacturers lose money on regulation, so here we are. This is a big part of the problem in America, everyone is after their money before anything else. Our government is owned buy corporate and financial interests on both sides of the aisle, even if it is against public safety. Until we beat that, there will be no changes around here.

+100 This is the answer right here.

We need ranked choice voting and publicly financed campaign to even begin to repair the damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millions of people own guns without issue. The problem is certain persons have a propensity to commit gun violence. Rather than harassing law-abiding Americans by calling for gun "control," we need only lock up criminals and psychos.

Elections have consequences. I used to have a robust constitutional right to privacy around my own reproductive choices in this country. We had elections and now my children don't enjoy this right anymore.

The voters are allowed to go to the polls and choose what they want. They may want to change some of the gun regulations and that is allowed.

+1. There's a successful recent model of how to accomplish desired changes. It involves political power and money and court appointments and time. And we had better get to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

They use the M16 and M4, both assault rifles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Millions of people own guns without issue. The problem is certain persons have a propensity to commit gun violence. Rather than harassing law-abiding Americans by calling for gun "control," we need only lock up criminals and psychos.

So comprehensive psych assessments before every gun purchase and for existing gun owners? Agreed, that's a good first step.

No, you know the crazies when you see them. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ban assault weapons. No one and I mean no one needs an AR15 outside the military. That would be a start and we were able to do it before.

the military doesn't use ar15s.

They use the M16 and M4, both assault rifles.

Those weapons are automatic, unlike an AR-15. In any event, the Second Amendment isn't based on necessity. If anything, it allows law-abiding Americans to have far stronger weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

Gun violence is leading cause of death for minors, not car accidents.

Look at the “minors” age range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

Gun violence is leading cause of death for minors, not car accidents.

Look at the “minors” age range.

We already have plenty of gun laws. We don't use them in the areas where those minors are killing each other. We don't need new rules, we just need to enforce the ones we have against the bad guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a purely rational point of view gun control advocates are of course correct- nationwide bans on assault rifles would reduce the incidence of mass shootings.

Most mass shootings do not involve a rifle.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11800013/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

That’s a false equivalency though. Driving has multiple prosocial purposes. Guns have one purpose: killing.

Mass shootings aren’t an accidental byproduct of some other activity, they are the activity.

I wouldn't call driving a prosocial activity though. Not on an individual or social level. The car has led to the destruction of the American landscape, the isolation of people from their communities and a crushing financial burden. The car kills people, cities and nations. Guns only kill people.

I'm an urbanist who's into dense, mixed-use development and public transit - but I recognize that I'm in the minority and we live in a car-centric society. We accept 40,000 automobile deaths because that represents a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of billions of car trips each year that do not result in crashes. The ratio of gun deaths to non-lethal gun uses is orders of magnitude higher, so bringing cars into a discussion about guns is nothing but noise.

Now calculate the number of deaths per 100,000 cars and 100,000 guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

Same ignorance, different day. Cars require licenses, registration, insurance, and safety standards to be legally operated on public roads

Driving is a privilege, not a right. More Americans drive illegally than carry illegal guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We sacrifice 40,000 people to the automobile a year, and driving isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. So probably some multiple of that.

Gun violence is leading cause of death for minors, not car accidents.

Look at the “minors” age range.

We already have plenty of gun laws. We don't use them in the areas where those minors are killing each other. We don't need new rules, we just need to enforce the ones we have against the bad guys.

You're still going to have some guns to to stroke and fondle. Certain ones won't be permitted. Relax. The Earth will continue to spin.