@CamDawg ""The government" is not a Them. It's us. We decide. You, me, and a couple hundred million Americans. . "
Have you looked outside recently? I think this is firmly out the window.
To concede this is to admit that America is done, or at least beyond fixing--a concession I am not willing to make. It's an optimistic view, perhaps irrationally so, but I posit that boundless optimism is a quintessential American value.*
Who says it's supposed to do something for everyone?
"promote the general Welfare" is in the preamble of the constitution. Arguments about the hows and the whys are appropriate, but I think the general principle is not really up for debate.
* Well, OK, that and obesity.
I don't disagree with your 'Promote the General Welfare' statement. That's why I'm all for a flat tax. I'm convinced it will never happen due to the lawyer lobby. There's just too much money involved in our convoluted tax code...
It sounds better but there are problems with a flat tax. Rich people don't earn a salary like us poor working schlubs.
They get dividends and interest and stuff. How do you flat tax that?
Flat tax on income outside of wages. Maybe 10-15%.
And how exactly do you propose to measure that?! It's hard enough to keep track of your own income if you aren't doing one fixed salary job! Pretty much impossible if someone takes steps to conceal it - it's as simple as using a company car for example.
The Texas shooter, of course, was discharged from the military a few years ago for beating his wife and child. The connection to domestic abuse is there almost every time. Is it too much to ask we don't let wife and child beaters buy an AR-15?? Because domestic assault is a theme in nearly all of these shootings.
The Texas shooter, of course, was discharged from the military a few years ago for beating his wife and child. The connection to domestic abuse is there almost every time. Is it too much to ask we don't let wife and child beaters buy an AR-15?? Because domestic assault is a theme in nearly all of these shootings.
@bob_veng Just mentioned this--in Texas anyone convicted of domestic violence is forbidden at the State level from legally purchasing guns. Either this guy was not tried/convicted by the State (if he did it while in the military the case would have gone through their justice system) or he had purchased the weapon before committing those offenses.
As far as "why"...well, according to one San Antonio source the shooter's former in-laws sometimes attended that church so apparently this was his way of exacting revenge on them. Besides, most churches are gun-free zones and nothing gives a shooter a thrill like walking into a gun-free zone where they have a room full of helpless victims.
re: Saudi Arabia...that is merely textbook political housecleaning--you charge all your opponents with "corruption", a very nebulous charge that is sometimes as difficult to prove as it is defend against, which puts them into the position of having to prove their innocence in the court of public opinion.
@deltago I don't get it. What are Trump and Abe doing? I must have missed something.
... As far as "why"...well, according to one San Antonio source the shooter's former in-laws sometimes attended that church so apparently this was his way of exacting revenge on them. Besides, most churches are gun-free zones and nothing gives a shooter a thrill like walking into a gun-free zone where they have a room full of helpless victims. ...
i have to agree with this even though i'm anti guns-as-such and for gun control. but i just don't think that gun control is enough at this point. gun-free zones are stupid.
One of the biggest problems I found in my research on gun control was the fact that many local depts. just DO NOT report all offenses o the FBI/state databases. So you have people with charged with various things that are just not in the system to check. Roof I know had that, sounds like this guy as well. So the laws now are not even being enforced correctly.
@jjstraka34 "it's also REALLY easy to kill people with an automatic rifle. " Sure it is. Its easy to kill someone with a car too. How about Clorox? From what I hear, this and the Vegas shooting are the worst mass shootings in the history of our country. If the problem is solely guns, this should have happened as soon as assault weapons were available in the country, but they aren't anything new. The reason its happening now is BECAUSE of people's attitudes towards what their guns are for (Its gone beyond private defense and into "fix my problems" territory) and people's attitude's towards their fellow persons (Trump's intentional efforts to demonize the "other"). The tools mean NOTHING without the will.
@smeagolheart " Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right. "
No he wasn't. There is the little caveat of murder being expressly forbidden. Might as well call Arby's a vegetarian chain.
On the one hand, "terrorism" is usually motivated by politics and/or religion--the terror plot is trying to send a message/promote an agenda, take down a government, strike back against some enemy (whether real or imagined), or is committed in response to some other violent act (for example, Oklahoma City as a result of Ruby Ridge). In that regard, this shooting incident was not terrorism because the shooter's motives were personal--he was really going after former relatives. Similarly, the Las Vegas shooter--whom we now know had been on a mostly-losing streak for the past two years, significantly diminishing his finances--was not motivated by politics or religion, just mental instability and alienation. The NYC truck driver *was* politically motivated, so that satisfies the technical definition.
On the other hand, if you had been at the Las Vegas concert or in that church then you would have been terrified. In that regard, these shootings can be classified as "terrorism"...but then *all* crimes have the potential to inflict terror--if you get up in the middle of the night for some water and there is a person standing in your living room your initial reaction is definitely going to be fear/terror.
Anyway...this shooter was not a Christian--his social media profile was full of proud proclamations of being an atheist and how he thought religious people were stupid.
The Texas shooter, of course, was discharged from the military a few years ago for beating his wife and child. The connection to domestic abuse is there almost every time. Is it too much to ask we don't let wife and child beaters buy an AR-15?? Because domestic assault is a theme in nearly all of these shootings.
@bob_veng Just mentioned this--in Texas anyone convicted of domestic violence is forbidden at the State level from legally purchasing guns. Either this guy was not tried/convicted by the State (if he did it while in the military the case would have gone through their justice system) or he had purchased the weapon before committing those offenses.
As far as "why"...well, according to one San Antonio source the shooter's former in-laws sometimes attended that church so apparently this was his way of exacting revenge on them. Besides, most churches are gun-free zones and nothing gives a shooter a thrill like walking into a gun-free zone where they have a room full of helpless victims.
re: Saudi Arabia...that is merely textbook political housecleaning--you charge all your opponents with "corruption", a very nebulous charge that is sometimes as difficult to prove as it is defend against, which puts them into the position of having to prove their innocence in the court of public opinion.
@deltago I don't get it. What are Trump and Abe doing? I must have missed something.
Or he got someone else to buy the guns for him, or he used a false ID. If there are guns easily available legally then they are by default easy to obtain illegally. It's not the illegality that stops this kind of thing happening in the UK, it's the unavailability.
The photo shows a bewigged moron attempting to feed goldfish.
Or he got someone else to buy the guns for him, or he used a false ID. If there are guns easily available legally then they are by default easy to obtain illegally. It's not the illegality that stops this kind of thing happening in the UK, it's the unavailability.
The photo shows a bewigged moron attempting to feed goldfish.
Most gun retailers know that some people who enter their stores are straw buyers but the problem is they cannot always tell which ones they are. Less reputable dealers might also run a background checks using someone else's information or a generic. Texas has a problem that most other States don't have, though--I bet I could take $1,000 in cash to Mexico today, buy a gun that I might not be able to purchase legally in the United States, then smuggle it across the border (or for another $500 pay someone else to smuggle it across). Of course, for that amount I bet I could buy one here in Dallas without the hassle of needing to drive all the way to Piedas Negras, Neuvo Laredo, Reynosa, or Matamoros.
So...feeding goldfish--I presume they are koi since he was in Japan--is meme-worthy? Why? Because he dumped the box of food all at once? I know people like to nit-pick politicians whom they dislike but that is really stretching criticism pretty thinly.
I defy anyone to name one societal benefit to an average citizen owning an AR-15. People will say "what about knives, cars and clorox bleach??" Here's the difference. #1, knives are used to cut food and cook, cars are how we travel, and bleach is used to clean. Automatic weapons serve ONE purpose when used, which is to kill other humans. #2, you can't stab 50 people to death in rapid succession. You aren't likely to get away with poisoning the fruit punch at church with enough bleach to kill 50 people. Guns kill and kill quick and easily.
Now some will also say "well owning them is a hobby". We all have hobbies too, like playing computer games. But my digital copies of Planescape: Torment and Fallout aren't going to cause anyone to die. Ever AR-15 on the market is a time bomb waiting to go off.
From what I hear, this and the Vegas shooting are the worst mass shootings in the history of our country.
Well no, Orlando and Virgina Tech were worse. Sandy Hook had more deaths, but less total people shot. And also was mostly children. So by most measures this was the fifth worst.
Of course we all know Sandy Hook was a false flag operation by the Obama administration to take our guns so it doesn't count. /eyeroll
If the problem is solely guns, this should have happened as soon as assault weapons were available in the country, but they aren't anything new. The reason its happening now is BECAUSE of people's attitudes towards what their guns are for (Its gone beyond private defense and into "fix my problems" territory) and people's attitude's towards their fellow persons (Trump's intentional efforts to demonize the "other"). The tools mean NOTHING without the will.
Except that mass shootings go back more than 80 years.
One constant I've found looking back and reading about all of them is that the perpetrator is never in a stable frame of mind. ALWAYS.
Generally they're either mentally disturbed and possibly literally psychophysically ill (i.e. brain tumor); or emotionally traumatized by a recent crisis in their life such as divorce or job firing.
I'm still pissed at the lack of coverage. First, I have relatives that live in Plano. And it's a clear example of a domestic abuser flipping from just beating their partner to murdering them and everyone around them.
Every other Western country has figured this out. Statistics overwhelmingly bear out that nothing remotely like this happens with such frequency in any other industrialised nation.
As long as something is legal, there doesn't have to be a social benefit to justify it. There is no social benefit for my katana, but I have one. Given that the laws here have recently changed, I can now legally carry my katana openly in public.
The other Western nations are irrelevant--they have their laws, we have ours. Until the Second Amendment is repealed--not likely to happen in the next century--guns are legal. Deal with it.
In years past, we used to call the act of committing a mass shooting "going postal" because for a while U. S. Postal Service workers were the ones doing the shootings. I don't think people younger than 30 even know what that phrase means these days.
I defy anyone to name one societal benefit to an average citizen owning an AR-15. People will say "what about knives, cars and clorox bleach??" Here's the difference. #1, knives are used to cut food and cook, cars are how we travel, and bleach is used to clean. Automatic weapons serve ONE purpose when used, which is to kill other humans. #2, you can't stab 50 people to death in rapid succession. You aren't likely to get away with poisoning the fruit punch at church with enough bleach to kill 50 people. Guns kill and kill quick and easily.
Now some will also say "well owning them is a hobby". We all have hobbies too, like playing computer games. But my digital copies of Planescape: Torment and Fallout aren't going to cause anyone to die. Ever AR-15 on the market is a time bomb waiting to go off.
it's fun to shoot i guess, dunno. for a vast majority of people its' exactly like playing planescape: torment, a product that they use recreationally to have fun. to tell them that they don't have a "societal benefit" means nothing to them, and you, or, anyone else will never start a dialogue with them, in a similar way how you don't want to talk with an idiot who'll say that planescape torment is satanic and a danger to public morale and children. sure objectively, there's a difference in arguments, but people aren't objective, and politics isn't guided by objectivity
You aren't likely to get away with poisoning the fruit punch at church with enough bleach to kill 50 people.
The chemist in me feels the need to point out that pouring bleach into a bowl of fruit punch is going to release chlorine gas, because most drinks, especially fruit drinks, are acidic, and bleach breaks down in the presence of acid to release chlorine gas. You'd KNOW if there was bleach in a drink from the smell, chlorine is a powerful irritant.
The chemist in me feels the need to point out that pouring bleach into a bowl of fruit punch is going to release chlorine gas, because most drinks, especially fruit drinks, are acidic, and bleach breaks down in the presence of acid to release chlorine gas. You'd KNOW if there was bleach in a drink from the smell, chlorine is a powerful irritant.
The chemist in *me* agrees--if your goal is "poison the punch at the wedding" then bleach is the last chemical you should be using. If that were my goal, I would probably sneak into the chemistry stockroom at a nearby community college and pick a handful of better options...but, no, I am not going to name them. Ammonia would be more damaging to the esophagus and stomach lining but, again, you would be able to smell it in the punch before drinking it...unless the punch is heavily spiked with strong distilled spirits and/or lots of fruit.
So...feeding goldfish--I presume they are koi since he was in Japan--is meme-worthy? Why? Because he dumped the box of food all at once? I know people like to nit-pick politicians whom they dislike but that is really stretching criticism pretty thinly.
First off, anyone over the age of 5 probably wouldn't do this. He even looks like a toddler dumping the food into the water.
Secondly, the story goes that they were feeding the fish properly (a small spoonful at a time) in an attempt to get them to surface. The Koi were being... coy and not surfacing to eat the food already presented to them. Trump, in frustration, then dumped the entire contents into the pond and walked away.
Something to pomder; for someone who is suppose to be a master negotiator, he was just schooled by a pond full of fish.
All puns intended.
And figuring media were critical towards Obama for ordering Dijon mustard once. Acting like a toddler should be criticized especially when the leader is abroad.
~~
@Quickblade If the incident happened in a private place like a home, there will be less coverage of the incident since it can quickly be labeled as a domestic.
Once it happens in a public space (where anyone can be) it will carry more interest as who and why they were targeted is unknown, as well as who might have fallen victim to the attack.
Drumpf said mental health was the problem. "We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries. But this isn't a guns situation."
But "it's too soon to talk about it".
Anyone want to start placing bets about the time to the next mass shooting? Because as Trevor Noah said, it's never going to be the time to talk about it when they happen EVERY DAY.
Abbott, the governor. “We ask for God's comfort, for God's guidance and for God's healing for all those who are suffering,"
And I say that nothing is going to happen when all you do is tell an imaginary friend in the sky to do something.
But nothing is going to happen. Time and time again.
BECAUSE ALL YOU'RE DOING IS ASKING AN IMAGINARY FRIEND TO DO SOMETHING.
You know what DOES do something?
Laws, and legal action. Actual social activity and social organization. Making pissed-off demands to your local congress critter. Neighborhood watches and socializing, actively engaging your fellow man. Counseling. Actually realizing that "MAYBE there ARE too many F'ing guns".
But all that takes work, and money, and human capital, and effort.
that's right, unavailability. the solution looks something similar to this:
and it's not gonna happen
There where never large quantities of guns in circulation to start off with.
Even if the USA banned guns today, it would be generations before the numbers already in circulation started to diminish.
They pulled that off in Australia and not so surprisingly the mass shootings have stopped over there. But what does it mean, everybody, what does it mean?
I posted a few pages ago about how the NRA and their Republican gun lobby partners have crippled any opportunity for a national database on guns. Like they can't accept anything electronic, they've got to waste tax dollars to convert it to paper. It should not be shocking that this system is not working at all.
you have a gun at home? you're a militia reservist which also would have to mean that you're not an idiot or a guy with questionable prospects. so to be a part of the gun-eligible demographic you'd have to be able to pass some rigorous psychological testing.
and yeah, okay you can get a permit for a pistol. and for a hunting rifle. no other rifles however, no stupid ar 15, no stupid sks, no stupid ak 47, no stupid bump stocks, you get the latest and best from your country
So...feeding goldfish--I presume they are koi since he was in Japan--is meme-worthy? Why? Because he dumped the box of food all at once? I know people like to nit-pick politicians whom they dislike but that is really stretching criticism pretty thinly.
First off, anyone over the age of 5 probably wouldn't do this. He even looks like a toddler dumping the food into the water.
Secondly, the story goes that they were feeding the fish properly (a small spoonful at a time) in an attempt to get them to surface. The Koi were being... coy and not surfacing to eat the food already presented to them. Trump, in frustration, then dumped the entire contents into the pond and walked away.
Something to pomder; for someone who is suppose to be a master negotiator, he was just schooled by a pond full of fish.
All puns intended.
It's kind of sad that this is essentially the media spin on this event....
There are a lot of headlines like this one, and for those many folks who only read headlines, they would have no idea that buried halfway in the story is the fact that Trump only did so following the PM doing so with the contents of his own box.
You literally can not trust the media to report accurately about fish feeding.
Frankly, I don't know what to say about these mass shootings. I would genuinely be sympathetic to gun control if I genuinely believed it would solve the issue but these mass shooters keep using illegal firearms and usually target gun free zones so it seems to invalidate the argument. I am not ideological on the subject of saving lives. You can prevent terrorism because it's an ideology and there is usually a trail of breadcrumbs to follow where you can find, target, and prevent the sort of thing. But those without clear motives are the genuinely dangerous ones since you seemingly can't predict them.
First off, anyone over the age of 5 probably wouldn't do this. He even looks like a toddler dumping the food into the water.
Then I presume that Shinzo Abe also looked like a toddler since he dumped his box of food into the water first. It is always funny when the media tries to find something embarrassing without giving people the whole story.
I have enough space in the back yard for a koi pond. One the one hand it would probably be a very relaxing thing to have--get up early, have coffee next to the pond, watch the fish, etc. On the other hand the fish always need to be fed, when the weather turns cold I would have to use small heaters in the water so they don't get too cold, the pond would need to be cleaned, the water would need to stay aerated or in motion, neighborhood cats might drop by to see if they can catch a snack (although koi are bigger than many people think they aren't so big that a decent-sized cat couldn't catch one for dinner), etc.
*************
@Quickblade Unfortunately, Congress is forbidden from enacting laws which prevent citizens from owning guns. States do not have this restriction, of course, but if State A enacts strict gun control laws and its neighbor State B does not then State A might as well not have enacted the laws.
Remember when marriage equality finally became the law of the land everywhere? How did that happen? Oh, yes--the general argument was via the Full Faith clause--if a marriage license is State A is legal then State B had to honor it. Similarly, if I have a concealed carry permit in Texas then every other State must honor that license, else Full Faith is not being fulfilled. Probably tricky to argue in court, but it is only a matter of time before someone tries that argument.
Why do people care only about mass shootings, anyway? No one gives a **** about the one or two people who get shot in Chicago every single day. I guess their lives are unimportant or don't make for a flashy headline.
Frankly, I don't know what to say about these mass shootings. I would genuinely be sympathetic to gun control if I genuinely believed it would solve the issue but these mass shooters keep using illegal firearms and usually target gun free zones so it seems to invalidate the argument. I am not ideological on the subject of saving lives. You can prevent terrorism because it's an ideology and there is usually a trail of breadcrumbs to follow where you can find, target, and prevent the sort of thing. But those without clear motives are the genuinely dangerous ones since you seemingly can't predict them.
There are two common arguments against gun control: guns being illegal will not stop criminals from getting it and there are too many guns around already in the US. Those are usually raised with undertones that the typical leftist gun control advocate is just too stupid to see that. But in fact those arguments are not really convincing.
1) Criminals gettings guns anyway:
It is true that criminals will be willing to risk getting a gun even if they are illegal. But the majority of illegal weapons were legal weapons at some points, that got stolen, imported into another federal state without permission (see Chicago) or are gotten from straw purchases. Today's legal gun is the criminal's illegal gun of tomorrow.
Also relevant, people often discuss this like the typical criminal/terrorist is some kind of genius. It is certainly true that even with gun control a sufficiently ruthless, clever and savvy criminal will be able to get a hand on a gun. But of them can not be described in that way, especially if you look at the typical school shooter.
I am in a country which has gun control, and there have been school shootings regardless. And there will be again. But for every school shooting there were multiple attempts where the perpetrator did not manage to get a weapon or where he was caught attempting to illegaly buy one. And even if they get one, it is usually a simple hand gun.
Don't underestimate the stupidity of people - this includes criminals. A considerable proportion will not manage to buy an illegal weapon or be caught doing so.
What is true that any effective control needs be on the federal level. Gun free zones are pretty useless, if you can buy a fancy rifle next door.
2) There being already too many guns around:
If certain weapons become illegal, some (not the majority) will return them. Others will be seized over time if they are being carried around or otherwise detected. Will it take years? Yes. Is this a reason not to start? Certainly not. If we are not willing to take a 10-20 year perspective on things, we might as well start defunding all elementary schools. It won't be a quick fix, but it will be a beginning.
Also, I find it ironic that the same arguments made by many right wing types could as well be applied to abortion. Woman who want to get one were also always able to get one, if they had the right contacts (if they had very good contacts, it could even be safe) or enough money. So why bother making it illegal?
Before you claim I am a hypocrite, because I am against outlawing abortion but pro gun control, please remember that I am not against outlawing abortion because I think women could get one anyway. I think it would made it much harder for them and consider that to be a bad thing.
Comments
This needs to be memed, like yesterday.
As far as "why"...well, according to one San Antonio source the shooter's former in-laws sometimes attended that church so apparently this was his way of exacting revenge on them. Besides, most churches are gun-free zones and nothing gives a shooter a thrill like walking into a gun-free zone where they have a room full of helpless victims.
re: Saudi Arabia...that is merely textbook political housecleaning--you charge all your opponents with "corruption", a very nebulous charge that is sometimes as difficult to prove as it is defend against, which puts them into the position of having to prove their innocence in the court of public opinion.
@deltago I don't get it. What are Trump and Abe doing? I must have missed something.
So the laws now are not even being enforced correctly.
@smeagolheart " Wait a sec, this was a white Christian he couldn't possibly be a terrorist right. "
No he wasn't. There is the little caveat of murder being expressly forbidden. Might as well call Arby's a vegetarian chain.
On the other hand, if you had been at the Las Vegas concert or in that church then you would have been terrified. In that regard, these shootings can be classified as "terrorism"...but then *all* crimes have the potential to inflict terror--if you get up in the middle of the night for some water and there is a person standing in your living room your initial reaction is definitely going to be fear/terror.
Anyway...this shooter was not a Christian--his social media profile was full of proud proclamations of being an atheist and how he thought religious people were stupid.
The photo shows a bewigged moron attempting to feed goldfish.
and it's not gonna happen
Anwyay, Democracy Now asks a valid question: why was there no widespread media coverage over the Plano shooting back in September where some guy crashed his ex-wife's football party and killed everyone there? (That shooter was subsequently killed by police.)
*************
So...feeding goldfish--I presume they are koi since he was in Japan--is meme-worthy? Why? Because he dumped the box of food all at once? I know people like to nit-pick politicians whom they dislike but that is really stretching criticism pretty thinly.
Now some will also say "well owning them is a hobby". We all have hobbies too, like playing computer games. But my digital copies of Planescape: Torment and Fallout aren't going to cause anyone to die. Ever AR-15 on the market is a time bomb waiting to go off.
Of course we all know Sandy Hook was a false flag operation by the Obama administration to take our guns so it doesn't count. /eyeroll Except that mass shootings go back more than 80 years.
One constant I've found looking back and reading about all of them is that the perpetrator is never in a stable frame of mind. ALWAYS.
Generally they're either mentally disturbed and possibly literally psychophysically ill (i.e. brain tumor); or emotionally traumatized by a recent crisis in their life such as divorce or job firing. I'm still pissed at the lack of coverage. First, I have relatives that live in Plano. And it's a clear example of a domestic abuser flipping from just beating their partner to murdering them and everyone around them.
The other Western nations are irrelevant--they have their laws, we have ours. Until the Second Amendment is repealed--not likely to happen in the next century--guns are legal. Deal with it.
In years past, we used to call the act of committing a mass shooting "going postal" because for a while U. S. Postal Service workers were the ones doing the shootings. I don't think people younger than 30 even know what that phrase means these days.
I think you could do more with ammonia though, if you wanted to invest the time/energy.
Secondly, the story goes that they were feeding the fish properly (a small spoonful at a time) in an attempt to get them to surface. The Koi were being... coy and not surfacing to eat the food already presented to them. Trump, in frustration, then dumped the entire contents into the pond and walked away.
Something to pomder; for someone who is suppose to be a master negotiator, he was just schooled by a pond full of fish.
All puns intended.
And figuring media were critical towards Obama for ordering Dijon mustard once. Acting like a toddler should be criticized especially when the leader is abroad.
~~
@Quickblade If the incident happened in a private place like a home, there will be less coverage of the incident since it can quickly be labeled as a domestic.
Once it happens in a public space (where anyone can be) it will carry more interest as who and why they were targeted is unknown, as well as who might have fallen victim to the attack.
Drumpf said mental health was the problem. "We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries. But this isn't a guns situation."
But "it's too soon to talk about it".
Anyone want to start placing bets about the time to the next mass shooting? Because as Trevor Noah said, it's never going to be the time to talk about it when they happen EVERY DAY.
Abbott, the governor. “We ask for God's comfort, for God's guidance and for God's healing for all those who are suffering,"
And I say that nothing is going to happen when all you do is tell an imaginary friend in the sky to do something.
But nothing is going to happen. Time and time again.
BECAUSE ALL YOU'RE DOING IS ASKING AN IMAGINARY FRIEND TO DO SOMETHING.
You know what DOES do something?
Laws, and legal action.
Actual social activity and social organization. Making pissed-off demands to your local congress critter.
Neighborhood watches and socializing, actively engaging your fellow man.
Counseling.
Actually realizing that "MAYBE there ARE too many F'ing guns".
But all that takes work, and money, and human capital, and effort.
Much easier to just pray it goes away.
Even if the USA banned guns today, it would be generations before the numbers already in circulation started to diminish.
I posted a few pages ago about how the NRA and their Republican gun lobby partners have crippled any opportunity for a national database on guns. Like they can't accept anything electronic, they've got to waste tax dollars to convert it to paper. It should not be shocking that this system is not working at all.
It's in here about is at the 7:00 mark.
JORDAN KLEPPER SOLVES GUNS
http://www.cc.com/episodes/cfhd5u/stand-up-specials-jordan-klepper-solves-guns-season-1-ep-101
behold the US constitution in action, and your full-auto heaven, and learn the meaning of that most mysterious of words - "militia":
you have a gun at home? you're a militia reservist which also would have to mean that you're not an idiot or a guy with questionable prospects. so to be a part of the gun-eligible demographic you'd have to be able to pass some rigorous psychological testing.
and yeah, okay you can get a permit for a pistol. and for a hunting rifle. no other rifles however, no stupid ar 15, no stupid sks, no stupid ak 47, no stupid bump stocks, you get the latest and best from your country
There are a lot of headlines like this one, and for those many folks who only read headlines, they would have no idea that buried halfway in the story is the fact that Trump only did so following the PM doing so with the contents of his own box.
You literally can not trust the media to report accurately about fish feeding.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.html
I have enough space in the back yard for a koi pond. One the one hand it would probably be a very relaxing thing to have--get up early, have coffee next to the pond, watch the fish, etc. On the other hand the fish always need to be fed, when the weather turns cold I would have to use small heaters in the water so they don't get too cold, the pond would need to be cleaned, the water would need to stay aerated or in motion, neighborhood cats might drop by to see if they can catch a snack (although koi are bigger than many people think they aren't so big that a decent-sized cat couldn't catch one for dinner), etc.
*************
@Quickblade Unfortunately, Congress is forbidden from enacting laws which prevent citizens from owning guns. States do not have this restriction, of course, but if State A enacts strict gun control laws and its neighbor State B does not then State A might as well not have enacted the laws.
Remember when marriage equality finally became the law of the land everywhere? How did that happen? Oh, yes--the general argument was via the Full Faith clause--if a marriage license is State A is legal then State B had to honor it. Similarly, if I have a concealed carry permit in Texas then every other State must honor that license, else Full Faith is not being fulfilled. Probably tricky to argue in court, but it is only a matter of time before someone tries that argument.
Why do people care only about mass shootings, anyway? No one gives a **** about the one or two people who get shot in Chicago every single day. I guess their lives are unimportant or don't make for a flashy headline.
1) Criminals gettings guns anyway:
It is true that criminals will be willing to risk getting a gun even if they are illegal. But the majority of illegal weapons were legal weapons at some points, that got stolen, imported into another federal state without permission (see Chicago) or are gotten from straw purchases. Today's legal gun is the criminal's illegal gun of tomorrow.
Also relevant, people often discuss this like the typical criminal/terrorist is some kind of genius. It is certainly true that even with gun control a sufficiently ruthless, clever and savvy criminal will be able to get a hand on a gun. But of them can not be described in that way, especially if you look at the typical school shooter.
I am in a country which has gun control, and there have been school shootings regardless. And there will be again. But for every school shooting there were multiple attempts where the perpetrator did not manage to get a weapon or where he was caught attempting to illegaly buy one. And even if they get one, it is usually a simple hand gun.
Don't underestimate the stupidity of people - this includes criminals. A considerable proportion will not manage to buy an illegal weapon or be caught doing so.
What is true that any effective control needs be on the federal level. Gun free zones are pretty useless, if you can buy a fancy rifle next door.
2) There being already too many guns around:
If certain weapons become illegal, some (not the majority) will return them. Others will be seized over time if they are being carried around or otherwise detected. Will it take years? Yes. Is this a reason not to start? Certainly not. If we are not willing to take a 10-20 year perspective on things, we might as well start defunding all elementary schools. It won't be a quick fix, but it will be a beginning.
Also, I find it ironic that the same arguments made by many right wing types could as well be applied to abortion. Woman who want to get one were also always able to get one, if they had the right contacts (if they had very good contacts, it could even be safe) or enough money. So why bother making it illegal?
Before you claim I am a hypocrite, because I am against outlawing abortion but pro gun control, please remember that I am not against outlawing abortion because I think women could get one anyway. I think it would made it much harder for them and consider that to be a bad thing.