Whatever the founders intended, the Supreme Court has upheld the idea that a lot more regulation of guns, including banning certain types of weapons (like the one used in this case), is perfectly constitutional. Even Scalia agreed on that one.
A great indicator for future gun violence is a domestic violence accusation. Very, very common with mass shooters. Taking away the guns of abusers would be an excellent way to massively reduce the murder rate. Of course, if you did that, most police officers would have to do their jobs without being able to carry a gun, because a majority of cops will admit to domestic violence. So a definite win/win.
That’s an unfair characterization. The side that’s heavily funded by the firearms industry is saying we need to fix the problem by having MOAR GUNS EVERYWHERE WHY DOESN’T EVERY KINDERGARTEN TEACHER HAVE A GUN ON THEIR PERSON AT ALL TIMES??
Thing is, they kinda are. You can buy a block of aluminum and machine it out w/ out a lot of trouble. It’s called an 80% lower. ATF says it’s not a gun, since it’s a hunk of aluminum on it’s way to being a gun.
I think the answer to the second amendment is to allow people to have as many guns as they want. They have to pay for insurance for each gun they own.
If they want ammo they have to buy it a serial numbered bullet at a time with paperwork saying what you plan to do with each bullet and make that legally binding. If the bullet hits a person the shooter is automatically responsible for paying for any and all medical treatment as a result regardless of any results of legal proceedings. It is criminal to have bullets without serial numbers.
I don’t think this will stop gun violence, but it would be a way to slow it down without setting off the whole “government is coming to take away my guns” shtick.
Where are we? In my town newspaper, 17 kids killed in a Florida high school is considered a page 7 story. Not a headline, not above the fold, not even on page 1. Page 7. That is how commonplace this has become. How do you fix it when it is now that everyday, “oh well, just another school shooting.” I despair for this country.
I think that’s really a surprisingly fair statement, especially when you’ve specifically referenced the way the NRA uses people at both extremes. I’ll probably quote you.
I think it has less to do with spite, and more to do with fears that things will be illegal and unobtainable in the near future. This isn’t completely based on fantasy, as the UK and Australia went from passing “sensible gun laws” to requiring people to turn most everything in. The AWB of 1994 also was the cause for the AR15 to be desirable. Within 10 short years the GENERAL attitude of the average gun owner went from, “Why do you need THAT?” to “Why don’t you have 3 of these?” There were probably other reasons for the cultural shift, but the ban with out a doubt started and affected the trend.
Taboo causes desire. Restrictions can also cause huge price spikes and people “stock up” as investments.
Yet regulating the sale, distribution and use of high explosives didn’t seem to lead people to hoard or fetishize dynamite, let alone lead to the formation of powerful lobbying groups dedicated to preserving the rights of ordinary Americans to blow shit up.
"the UK and Australia went from passing “sensible gun laws” to requiring people to turn most everything in. "
I look at this the other way.
What some refer to as ‘sensible gun laws’ don’t work, so to actually solve the problem the UK and Australia had to go farther. They did not have to go to a total ban on all guns, but they had to go way beyond the ‘assault weapon ban’ the US once had.
They moved on to tannerite, black powder, and things like cannoning, and fire work making. As a hobby, it’s a lot harder to do and find a place to do it.
At any rate the whole “taboo causes desire” statement should hardly be controversial. It is true for many examples. It is one of the reasons underage drinking in the US tends to be binge based.
I think it’s more controversial than you are making it out to be. It’s one of those things that we all know to be true except I can’t think of a good reason to think it’s actually true.
Make booze or music or prostitution and you create a black market, secret underground clubs, secret meetups for people who are into the forbidden thing.
There’s no big black market for chewing gum in Singapore though, because, sure, people like gum, but they like it enough to risk the fine (a small number of people smuggle small quantities in for personal use, but there’s not organized crime putting people on street corners to peddle the stuff).
Banning abortion means secret abortion clinics in every city. Banning voluntary removal of your kidneys wouldn’t create a large amount of clinics to do that.
“Sensible gun laws” are all the ones the NRA likes. I.e., the completely ineffective ones. Any other rules are therefore, by the definition we’ve just defined, NOT sensible. Therefore those gun laws that do actually work are - by definition - “not sensible”. Black is white. Day is night. Say, just how far down does this rabbit hole go?
Why was their murder rates so much lower than the US BEFORE the laws were passed?
Why is the US experience a similar decline in homicides despite no sweeping new laws?
A lot easier to control black markets when you are surrounded by ocean.
Clearly you are willing to give up this freedom you aren’t using. But when I suggest giving something up you are using, are you going to let it go just in the interest of public safety as well? Government back doors to encryption and public surveillance are to keep the public safe. The UK has a lot of public surveillance and how has that worked out for them? Is Immortan Joe running things?
