Reply to What does it take to get a little gun control

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What does it take to get a little gun control "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]One mass shooting is too many.

[b]Stop talking, start doing. [/b] That means you, Republicans.  You are on the wrong side of this and you need to find your moral compass.[/quote]

Do what exactly?[/quote]

Solutions have been proposed, like Australia's.  Get cracking.[/quote]

You must have missed this post a few pages back. It’s time to move on from the Australia narrative.

[quote=Anonymous]A person has posted this information in several topics on DCUM.

[b]After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australia (a country with a comparatively strong 'gun culture', at least by world standards) said "F**k this."

1) They made it illegal to import, buy, sell, trade or transfer semi-automatic weapons (the mass shooters' favorite!)[/b]

The latest ATF information I could find reported that 12,521,614 firearms were manufactured in the U.S. in 2021. That nullifies an import ban(never mind the 400,000,000+ guns already in civilian hands).

Semiautomatic firearms are by far the most popular type owned by Americans. Making it “illegal” to buy, sell, trade or transfer them wouldn’t survive a legal challenge. A 5-4 liberal SCOTUS would strike any such legislation down on constitutional grounds.

[b]2) Btw, ammosexuals, they did NOT seize anyone's semi-automatic weapons. If you have them, and want them, fine, keep them -- just don't sell them or convey them to someone else, or you've committed a crime.[/b]

If we’re conceding that Americans get to keep 400,000,000+ guns, how many mass shootings are we realistically hoping to prevent? The very public mass shootings you see weeks of 24 hour news coverage about make up a small portion of overall mass killings. An analysis of data by the AP, USA Today and Northwestern University looked at intentional killings where 4 or more people(excluding the assailant) died in a 24 hour period. Non-public mass shooting by a family member or acquaintance far outnumber public mass shootings every year since 2006. So, now what?

Let’s not forget that a Harvard study in 2017 estimated that 380,000 firearms are stolen each year. There are millions more guns in civilian hands now, which makes it even easier to steal guns.

Making it illegal to sell or transfer guns wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Again, we need to work within the rights protected by the Constitution.

[b]3) Simultaneously, they instituted a nationwide, no-questions-asked VOLUNTARY gun buyback program. If you have a firearm (any firearm, of any kind, operational or not) and would like to turn it in, the govt paid people $1,000 per gun (this was 25+ yrs ago).[/b]

The current value of $1,000 in 1996 is $2,058.94. I’d gladly go find and exchange decrepit, old, non-functioning guns for $2,000 each to fund a Porsche. What this voluntary process wouldn’t do is make any significant dent in number of civilian owned guns. I keep hearing that America has a “gun culture.” Why would anyone believe people would voluntarily turn in their guns?

You’dneed to confiscate them, and we all know THAT will never happen.[/quote][/quote]

Then come up with a different solution.  The status quo clearly id not working.  Doing nothing is not working.  Deflections and distraction is not working.  One mass shooting is too many mass shootings.  You are failing America and are getting people killed.  The blood is on your hands.[/quote]

"We already have enough laws" is not the answer, it's clearly not working.  And, "we can't, because of 2A" is also not working or an appropriate answer.  And neither is "prayers."

Do better.  Stop making excuses.[/quote]

Radio silence from the "yabut 2A" folks.  If you aren't helping solve this problem then you are part of the problem.  If you aren't offering up real solutions instead of empty deflections and false platitudes then at least get out of the way so that others can fix it.[/quote]

DP.  Incorrect.  Just because you aren't helping to solve the problem doesn't mean you are part of the problem.  One origin of this saying is a quote from Eldridge Cleaver as part of the Black Power Movement of the 1960s.  You can also turn this phrase on its head and apply it to mental health for those who use guns to engage in mass shootings.[/quote]

Wrong.  Continuing to voting for leaders who block reform while mass shootings continue is not neutral, it's indeed complicity.

Yes, we have a gun problem. Yes, we have a mental health crisis. But using one to deflect from the other is a tactic, not a solution.

If you reject models like Australia's or others, then name a better one.

If you claim the Constitution ties our hands, then propose what can be done within it.

The bloodshed continues while you deflect with stalling tactics and hypotheticals. The time for vague outrage and passive excuses is over. Either show us your plan, or step aside and stop voting for people who aren't going to help solve it.[/quote]

You have this little thing called a vote. So does everyone else. That's how we do things in this country. The people have voted for the leaders we have, and for the policies they support. Likewise, we have courts to rule on whether certain laws and regulations are constitutional, and again, your elected leaders select those judges.

There is no solution that Republicans and Democrats can get behind. Certainly not what the UK and Australia have in place. The UK is going even further than banning guns - it is banning speech because that speech hurts someone's feelings. Our founders declared independence for this and other reasons.

I find it disturbing that you would abandon the core principles of the US for an illusion of safety (Google knife attacks in the UK and Australia). Benjamin Franklin put it best "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/quote]

Again, wrong answer.  Let’s be clear: invoking Franklin while sidestepping the actual carnage unfolding in American communities is not a principled defense of liberty, it’s a rhetorical dodge. Your "illusion of safety" argument collapses under the weight of real data: the U.S. has over 45,000 gun-related deaths annually, and more than 600 mass shootings per year. That’s not theoretical. That’s funerals, trauma, and shattered lives.

Yes, we vote. And yes, courts interpret laws. But when the system produces gridlock while children are shot in classrooms, it’s not enough to shrug and say "that’s democracy." Democracy demands accountability. If elected leaders block reforms that could reduce harm whether through universal background checks, red flag laws, or limits on high-capacity magazines, then voters have every right to call that complicity - and your own complicity.

And no, rejecting Australia’s model doesn’t absolve anyone. If you believe it’s unworkable here, then propose something better. But don’t pretend that "doing nothing" is a neutral stance. It’s not, it's a choice, actively invoked at the ballot box. And it has destructive consequences.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was designed to be interpreted and adapted to protect the public good. If you believe in liberty, then defend the liberty of children to attend school without fear. Defend the liberty of families to gather without worrying about crossfire. Defend the liberty of Americans to live without the constant threat of mass violence.

If you’re not offering solutions, then step aside.[/quote]

I don’t know a single Congressional leader, Republican or Democrat, offering solutions.  Why do we keep voting for these horrible people?[/quote]

I need to correct you.  You don't know a single REPUBLICAN Congressional leader offering solutions.  Many Democrats have, it's Republicans who keep blocking it.

For example -

2023: Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act (S.3407) Sponsored by: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)	
A comprehensive package to strengthen federal firearms laws, fund violence prevention programs, and expand background checks. Included bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines2.

2023: Assault Weapons Ban of 2023 (S.25) Sponsored by: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)	
Reintroduced ban on the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Co-sponsored by over 30 Senate Democrats.

2023: Background Check Expansion Act (S.494)  Sponsored by: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Requires background checks for all gun sales, including private and online transactions. Co-sponsored by Sens. Blumenthal, Booker, and others.

2024: Safe Storage Act  Sponsored by: Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI)	
Mandates secure firearm storage in homes with minors. Offers federal grants for gun safes and public education campaigns.

2024: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act  Sponsored by: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)	
Criminalizes gun trafficking and straw purchases. Enhances penalties and coordination between federal and local law enforcement.

2024: Firearm Suicide Prevention Act  Sponsored by: Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD)
Funds research and public health campaigns targeting firearm-related suicides. Promotes voluntary temporary firearm relinquishment during mental health crises.

2025: Assault Weapons Ban of 2025  Sponsored by: Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)	
Updated version of the 2023 bill, with refined definitions and expanded enforcement mechanisms. Includes a national gun buyback program.

2025: High-Capacity Magazine Ban  Sponsored by: Multiple Democratic sponsors 
Proposed in response to mass shootings involving excessive round counts. Would ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

2025: Gun Violence Research Funding Act  Sponsored by: Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)	
Allocates sustained funding to CDC and NIH for gun violence research. Aims to treat gun violence as a public health crisis.

Speaking of which, we can also speak to "we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem" which is also conspicuously absent any proposals from Republicans.

2024: United States Senate Commission on Mental Health Act (S.4312)	Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)	
Proposed a national commission to advise Congress and the President on mental health policy and access. Died in committee but shaped later discussions.

2024: Mental Health Parity Compliance Act	Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)	
Strengthens enforcement of parity laws requiring insurers to treat mental health coverage on par with physical health. Targets loopholes and noncompliance.

2025: Mental Health Matters Act (H.R.10564)	Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)	
Expands school-based mental health services, builds workforce pipelines, and improves access to behavioral health benefits. Includes Head Start interventions and counseling grants.

2025: Youth Mental Health Research and Innovation Act	Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY)	
Funds NIH research into youth mental health trends, digital harms, and suicide prevention. Encourages tech accountability and evidence-based interventions.

2025: Behavioral Health Workforce Expansion Act	Sen. Tina Smith (D-MN)	
Provides scholarships and loan forgiveness for mental health professionals serving in underserved areas. Addresses provider shortages and burnout.

So you can't #bothsides this.  The horrible, do-nothing politicians are all on the R side.  True that Dems haven't accomplished enough but Republicans are not even proposing anything, are not even trying - and in fact are actively trying to stop anyone else from fixing anything.[/quote]

Republicans are pro-gun violence.  Republicans are pro-murder.  Republicans are pro-mass shootings.  Republicans are pro-crime.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics