ETA:
22 Likes
12 Likes
Claim: cars kill more children than firearms in America, but no-one is asking us to ban cars.
First of all (h/t @FGD135)
But even before that line was crossed, cars were not purpose-designed to kill or wound living creatures. Also…
And going to the issue of controls and regulation…
12 Likes
Hat-tip?
4 Likes
Correct. Maybe add that to the glossary?
5 Likes
Indeed
6 Likes
Neither does America. For two hundred years, nobody cared about 2A. It was a joke in con law, like the one about quartering soliders in your home. Then in the 1960s the Black Panthers found it and declared themselves a well-regulated militia so they could keep cops honest by standing around holding guns. A whole bunch of gun control was immediately enacted. Then nobody cared about 2A for another 70 years, until the Heller decision in 2008.
SCOTUS decided in 2008 that 2A meant “an individual right to carry”. It was a bullshit decision and a very recent one. Stop acting like carrying guns is some ancient immutable right.
Also demonstrably false. Sacramento (a very conservative part of CA) did a gun buy back recently that sold out in 45 minutes. There were lines around the block.
Furthmore, the US had an assault weapons ban. Everyone forgot this shockingly quickly. Clinton banned them and mass shootings dropped by three times. Those 300% came back when the ban was repealed.
This line of argument just demonstrates your ignorance of Canada and Australia. If you think gun culture in those places is less fervent than in the US, allow me to introduce you to my dad, or any number of other Canadian and Australian ranchers. They don’t like the gun laws we have and voted against them, but they got used to them and now understand they make everyone safer. They are reminded of that regularly by the news from the US. My dad still owns lots of guns and is the safety officer at his local rifle and skeet ranges. He takes me pistol shooting when I visit. He can do all this because he has a whole bunch of licenses and tests that he had to take. He still gets to have his guns, but everyone is safe.
Stop acting like gun control is some mysterious unsolvable problem in the US. “It can’t work here” is patently and demonstrably false. Because of attitudes like yours, the US regularly buries classrooms full of kids, and nobody else does.
25 Likes
About the statistics on the ban working…
4 Likes
This is why the focus has to be on banning semi-automatic weapons in general. Unfortunately, in the U.S. that will have to be done on a platform-by-platform basis, starting with the AR-15 and moving on to whichever semi-auto platform replaces it in popularity. Rinse and repeat until enough people see the common factors in all these platforms that account for high body counts in mass shootings: semi-automatic actions and allowance for high-capacity magazines (which should also be banned).
13 Likes
Beau is great and I like him a lot, but his claims there are all unsourced and other respected people studying this issue disagree with him on the effects of the Clinton ban.
5 Likes
… Please re-read my original quote:
We need to fix both the symptoms and the cause . because fixing only the symptoms (easy firearm ownership, easy availability of them, etc.) won’t make the cause go away.
We need to fix the underlying problems with US society. A ban on firearms would be a step in that direction, but I suspect that said ban would be problematic to implement at best, or make things so much worse. That’s something for smarter people than me to figure out.
I never said that the causes I mentioned were being used by the people committing the violence, but I can see how it might have been read that way, and I thank you for the clarification in that regard.
2 Likes
What are those, and how are they any different than in other countries where the only real difference is the availability of guns? Please, please don’t say mental health care or bullying…
11 Likes
6 Likes
Repubs scream in horror as a solution they never thought of is tried.
12 Likes
/me waves from Australia where gun restrictions worked.
19 Likes
And good on ya, mate. [replies in fluent strine]
8 Likes
Thank you. I will take a look!
1 Like
Thank you for your reply.
I disagree with your characterization of my argument, but maybe I should learn my lesson and never try to seek information from either side of this debate. I don’t believe it is “unrealistic” to regulate firearms. When I work with groups and we are trying to move forward to solve problems, I don’t appreciate when someone shoots down an idea with a “NO, that can’t be done.” I much prefer an approach where people discuss the obstacles/hurdles that need to be overcome. We see where there are areas everyone (or most everyone) agrees where we can make quicker progress and then consider the areas that will take longer and how to get there. I also think it is valuable to consider the opponents arguments/concerns and figure out if there are areas of agreement there.
So first, I appreciate immensely your further clarification of the Swiss model. Perhaps it really is that hard for bad actors to get their hands on ammunition from outside the country, nefarious sources, etc.
I am a little surprised that they find hunting “elitist”. Maybe it is so in a country where it is so hard to participate in. I grew up in the US thinking skiing and golf were only for the wealthy (so perhaps elitist), as it takes so much money to participate (my family certainly couldn’t participate). I have friends who actually rely on the food they grow themselves and what they can hunt and, yes, even road kill they can get from the state police after accidents.
In any case, thank you for your thoughtful, civil replies. I will have to look into some of those other country’s approaches.
Have a great day.
David
1 Like
It’s a very wealthy country with the kind of social safety net that means none of its citizens are put into the position of having to rely on hunted meat, roadkill, or subsistence farming if they don’t want to. Unlike in the U.S., hunting there is mainly a leisure sport and social/networking activity for affluent people.
It seems you didn’t take a look after all, if you’re still implying that both sides are equally bad.
11 Likes
