You raise many excellent points I think no one expects that we could ever significantly eliminate guns And there is virtually no public support to do this if it were possible But imo the recognition of realistically achievable results is not an argument that validates the idea that nothing can be done. For instance... If we had loaded guns littering the Streets, would there likely be more problems due to guns? I think obviously yes. Well if we did have guns littering the street and came up with a plan to achieve the current situation.... Would that not reduce gun associated problems? ... Logically yes So logically, it seems reasonable to think that some increased regulation might reduce gun related problems from current levels... Whether you think the result is constitutional, or worth the infringement us a separate question. But if we WANTED to reduce gun related problems, it seems it should be possible , Cars compared to guns In fact, we do test driving skills before giving a license We also significantly regulate how drivers can use their car And while you can have a very powerful car In most places you are practically unable to use that power Except on private property And in fact there are regulations for making a car street legal You cannot buy any car you want or dream of and put it on the road No monster trucks driving around, no sherman tanks And if you want to drive a big truck or motor cycle, again a special license and driving test
The president said on national tv that Americans should have similar laws to the uk and Australia... Both those countries have all but de facto gun bans. He's essentially saying he wants guns banned and confiscated. Wake up.
Then he can sell all the guns to drug cartels to say "well, i guess gun bans weren't enough" time for the stormtroopers
The driving test required to obtain a license is laughable. I got my drivers license when I was 17 years old. I am being 100% honest when I say that I passed the driving test having driven a vehicle only two times prior to that. The test consists of straight, turning, stopping, and backing up. ANYBODY can pass that, the test is so easy that whenever we would hear about somebody failing it in high school we would all collectively make fun of them for being idiots. Places like Germany have real driving courses you must pass before being allowed on the road. American driving tests just want to see if you can turn the car on and make it move. We regulate how people can use their car based on speed limits and things like "reckless driving" laws. Yet people blow those laws off by the millions every day. How many people do you actually see going 65mph on the highway? The next time you are at a redlight just take a look around and notice how many people are texting on their phones or trying to eat lunch or put makeup on etc. Yes you can have an extremely powerful car and you can drive it on public roads as long as it meets some basic "street legal" protocols. You can't drive a NASCAR on the public roads but you can literally build a car with as much hp or way more hp than a NASCAR and drive it on public roads. The regulations that keep racing cars off the roads have nothing to do with the amount of power the car has it has to do with things like tires and exhaust setups. The power under the hood has nothing to do with it. I agree you are unable to LEGALLY use that type of hp on public roads but you can still have it and since you can have it people drive it fast. Why? Because they can. I'm always seeing people burning out at redlights, power shifting gears, going way faster than the speed limit, street racing each other etc. That is the point I am making. In regards to cars we virtually say you can have whatever you want but if you act stupid we will arrest YOU. Authorities aren't out there advocating we take away aftermarket modifications or put hp caps on vehicles. They aren't going after the cars themselves they are going after the irresponsible people who drive them. My question is why can't we apply this same logic to firearms? Why is it ok to tell somebody they can't have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine because a small handful of people are crazy yet we have no problem allowing anybody to own virtually whatever car they want although auto accidents account for more deaths than all gun related deaths each and every year? Like I said, we go after the PERSON in regards to vehicles yet we go after the OBJECT in regards to guns. Like you said, you can't go out and buy a monster truck and drive it on the road, we have regulations in place in regards to really outrageous vehicles which makes sense. We also have regulations in regards to carrying around outrageous weapons as well. The regulations aren't much different. You can't drive around in a Sherman tank just like you can't walk around with a fully auto belt fed machine gun or a bazooka. So how about we keep the laws and regulations level across the board? Before the end of today somebody in this country will crash into somebody else and kill them while driving stupid on the highway in their high hp sports car. Yet tomorrow morning we WILL NOT see ANYBODY on the news advocating we take away sports cars. The cops will simply arrest THAT PERSON and put them in jail for vehicular homicide. So the next time some psychopath commits murder with an AR-15 how about we arrest THAT PERSON and don't start advocating taking assault rifles away from everybody else? Deal?
Then why doesn't the media present the copious murders in Chicago or Detroit with the same intensity? Why don't they cover the 10,000+ drunk-driving deaths per year with the same passion? It seems that if nine people are killed by gang members brandishing illegally-obtained firearms in Chicago, Washington D.C., or any other city with extremely strict gun-control laws, then the national media won't even bother covering it. If nine people are killed by a drunk driver, then the national media also would not waste their time covering the story. But, if they have a story that they can spin to facilitate their anti-gun agenda, then that story gets 24-hour coverage. We aren't desensitized to mass shootings, but we are very aware of the media (and the president) shamelessly exploiting this tragedy for political gain.
Why the huge discrepancy in news coverage then? Why does the national media provide nonstop coverage of a mass shooting in a suburban area where 9 people died, but not provide any national coverage when the same number of people are killed in a 48-hour duration in inner-city Chicago? Why does the media unabashedly push an anti-gun agenda that admittedly would not stop (or even remotely slow down) any of the mass shooters, while failing to cover the plague of drunk driving deaths that could be nearly eliminated with common sense legislation? Drunk driving deaths do not have to be endemic in this country (or in Europe): It only is that way due to our failure to enact sensible laws.
Although crazy, mainly young, gun lovers going on a killing spree is common in America, there are sufficiently long intervals between each event to make them news. Also, people who live in deprived inner city areas have come to expect drive-by shootings and shooting in the back by cops so that is not news either but when it is a school or cinema everyone, even whites, can feel vulnerable.
I agree that drunk driving is a plague here, but other than harsher punishment, what can we do? Prohibition didn't work and it won't work with guns. Impound and sell all cars belonging to convicted drunk drivers on top of their sentence. People who use a gun to rape, rob, and murder in blatantly obvious cases with prior offenses should be quickly executed. We need to punish the criminal and not the tool. Punishing the rights of everybody just makes more criminals.
Neither are the drug addiction habits of many celebrities, and yet they receive extensive coverage as if they actually mattered to the public. They do not.
Harsher punishment would be a sensible place to start, along with permanently removing the licenses of drunk drivers. For the life of me, I don't see why someone who crashes his car into someone should retain his privilege to drive (after all, if someone shoots an innocent person with a gun, the government takes away his right to continue to own firearms): There should be a "one-strike-you're-out" rule for all drunk drivers who collide into another vehicle or person. Also, since the government already mandates that car companies install seat-belts and airbags in all vehicles, there is no reason why they couldn't mandate that all new cars be fitted with a breathalyzer that will not allow the ignition to start unless the blood alcohol content is below a certain threshold. If politicians actually cared about saving lives, then they would stop going after fictional boggy men (such as "assault weapons" and "cop killer bullets") and actually implement the very simple aforementioned proposals, and thousands of lives would be saved annually. Agreed.
First, to consider these psychopathic killers as "gun lovers" is as disingenuous as calling them "liberals:" They are sociopaths who happened to use guns as their method of choice for committing heinous acts of mass murder. Do you think that they would be peaceful and productive citizens if guns were magically removed from the population and they only had access to knives, clubs, and homemade bombs? Second of all, deaths via massacres such as these are indeed rare in our country of over 325 million people (you are more likely to get struck by lightening than get killed in a mass shooting), and the news media does indeed sensationalize (and politicize) these events. Are the lives of innocent people in the inner cities so worthless that they deserve ZERO time on the national media (compared to 24+hour straight coverage of the Oregon community college massacre and similar massacres)? By not even illustrating the daily slaughters in these places (while sensationalizing the coverage of rare school shootings), the media is creating a false narrative of where gun-related murders are occurring in this country.
I would still like someone to show me where a gun has killed anyone on it's own without the help of a person.I will make you a deal show me the prove of this and I will give up my guns and support you.If you can't then stop blaming the gun and join the rest of us that are blaming criminals,mentally ill,and irresponsible people.Do we have a deal,I will be waiting.
Us, if you are talking about legal gun owners. Will be driven underground to buy and sell to each other. Them. Well them are just going to have to deal with it. I have no issue with this. Seeing as I buy just as many guns from friends as I do gun shops.
