Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

ElectricFetus said:
Then why, why for the love of god can't we even get it legislated?!?! What is preventing that huh?
Click to expand...
Probably a number of things, but one of them is the "all or nothing" approach that too many take to both this issue and others.

A legislator COULD put forth a universal background check bill (or a ban bump stocks bill, or even a bill that does both), but two things would happen immediately - the far right, gun crowd would scream "slippery slope", and the far left anti-gun crowd would scream "It's not enough"...and in the end, though most people agree with the idea, no one accepts the legislation, and we're back where we started.
 
FauxItalian said:
Probably a number of things, but one of them is the "all or nothing" approach that too many take to both this issue and others.

A legislator COULD put forth a universal background check bill (or a ban bump stocks bill, or even a bill that does both), but two things would happen immediately - the far right, gun crowd would scream "slippery slope", and the far left anti-gun crowd would scream "It's not enough"...and in the end, though most people agree with the idea, no one accepts the legislation, and we're back where we started.
Click to expand...
When have we seen that happen?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Since you're blowing off anything related to the issue why should I bother?
Click to expand...
Oh bullshit. Nothing's been blown off by me. I've taken everything here seriously, no matter how whack.
Bother doing what?
FauxItalian said:
.and in the end, though most people agree with the idea, no one accepts the legislation,
Click to expand...
How did you get from extremists screaming to the large majority of non-extremists rejecting a good idea? That's hardly inevitable, after all. Extremists scream about everything, bills get passed anyway.

For instance, the three beneficial policy initiatives verified as significantly effective by the Cook and Donaghue stat analysis in December 8's "Science" magazine have all been adopted by enough States to permit their analysis.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
Oh bullshit. Nothing's been blown off by me. I've taken everything here seriously, no matter how whack.
Bother doing what?

How did you get from extremists screaming to the large majority of non-extremists rejecting a good idea? That's hardly inevitable, after all. Extremists scream about everything, bills get passed anyway.

For instance, the three beneficial policy initiatives verified as significantly effective by the Cook and Donaghue stat analysis in December 8's "Science" magazine have all been adopted by enough States to permit their analysis.
Click to expand...
Congress is mostly either "extremists" or party line voters. Tough to get elected these days if you are not.
 
Sales of firearms slowed dramatically after the election of Republican Donald Trump as president in 2016 allayed fears of a Democratic crackdown on gun owners.
Gun store owners say the so-called "Trump slump" in sales has continued despite renewed calls for controls after the massacre at a Florida high school last month.
Sales of firearms slowed dramatically after the election of Republican Donald Trump as president in 2016 allayed fears of a Democratic crackdown on gun owners.
David Dobransky runs a small gun store in North Canton, Ohio. He says the day after Trump's election, it was as if someone turned off a faucet. Sales have slumped since then, and nothing has changed recently.
In Rapid City, South Dakota, things are back to normal at Rapid-Fire Firearms after panic buying under President Barack Obama.
Gun makers Sturm, Ruger and American Outdoor Brands have both seen their stocks plunge since Trump was elected.

WOW
whodathunkit

seemingly:
If you want less guns: Elect a republican.
 
Last edited:
As I suggested earlier, there appears only one way that the USA can, over time, manage their penchant for firearms better. After reading this thread and noting the paranoia associated with firearms the only way I see going forward is to enforce responsibility on those who seek to block or otherwise hinder reasonable gun controls and regulations.
The best way to do this is to empower the NRA with regulatory authority and thus make the NRA and it's members legally responsible for any tragedy that they have allowed due to their inability to see common sense universal nation wide regulation as an answer.
  • All Fire arm Purchases, ownership, use can only be made with paid up NRA membership. (NRA gun licence)
  • All firearms and owners being part of a nationwide data base - accessible by law enforcement etc.
  • Lobbying the government for fire arms regulation/legislation becomes the NRA's responsibility.
  • The NRA (membership) can be sued for injuries etc caused by a lack of regulation or regulations blocked by the NRA.
Example:
The recent death of 17 persons/students in Florida could bring a class action against the NRA due to it's opposition to the proper regulation of Assault rifles and methods of removing guns and preventing those with historical mental health issues from obtaining them.

It is only when the NRA suffers a significant financial and moral impost that it would take it's responsibility seriously.

Over time and with much hassle the issue of gun regulation will settle down and eventually become more reasonable and sensible. IMO

Basically the fire arms owners (NRA) should pay for their passion for the second amendment. As I do not see why those who are victims should pay only.

The cost of the 2nd amendment is appalling!
This should not be paid for by victims of the 2nd amendment alone.
just thoughts....
 
Last edited:
Alternatively just ask the question:

Why should victims of the 2nd amendment be the only ones to bear the cost of the amendment?
 
iceaura said:
One major problem that you can address directly is that nobody trusts you - the "we" - with legislative power over them, and in many the mistrust outweighs their fear of their neighbor's guns.
Click to expand...

And how the fuck am I suppose to fix that? If I could fix that trump would not be president let alone that we would have universal background checks!

One major reason they don't is that you accept bad arguments and falsehoods as a proper basis for screwing around with the Constitution and other people's lives.
Click to expand...

That is rich coming from you.

The gun control "side" (the fraction of gun control favor that is loudly and actively occupying the public arena of discussion) is legislatively - apparently - not controlled by reason and sense. They are talking about misreading and/or rewriting the Bill of Rights, for example, on the basis of such argument as appears in the link in post 504 above.
Click to expand...

I can't even read that link, it is behind some kind of pay wall, I assume if I de-activate adblocker maybe I could read it... but fuck that. Look man if that "side" had political power I might agree with you, but instead the NRA side has power, a side that would rather entertain the idea of mass shootings are hoaxs perpetrated by the deep state than consider gun regulations. So sorry the side that think adding amendments to the constitution is more sane.

The fear of the lack of law control is as real as the fear of lack of gun control - and rather better based, in history and evidence.
Click to expand...

Lack of law control? What like anarchy? Tyranny? Yeah well historically people fight the government and then millions die, more so they might as well be preparing for World War III. We can't have universal background checks because we need to fight off the government... that makes no sense!

Notice, for example, the lack of public health advice delivered in good faith to the reaction purchasers after mass shootings - the obvious and expected first reaction by the genuinely concerned in such emergencies. "In time of fear you may decide to purchase a gun. We recommend that you not do that, but if you plan to or have already here's some tips and good advice from people who know how to handle firearms safely." Something like that, in a concerted campaign.
Click to expand...

"Hey black people, in a times of poverty don't smoke crack cocaine, but if you do here are some tips and good advice" Seriously? You think that is a meaningful solution?

Nope. No nationwide ads or public announcements showing safe storage and handling tips for the first time or inexperienced gun owner, no advice on model and ammunition, no face of experience on TV calm-talking the newbies and wannabes - after Sandy Hook the reactionary purchase statistical blip in accidental death by gunfire was about 60 people (including 20 children), every single one of them preventable without the slightest threat to the Constitution or even the passage of ordinary statute, and the entire scene predicted years in advance.
Click to expand...

Back when I was a kid we use to have DARE campaigns to teach us how wack drugs are... useless. You think some national ads would prevent accidental gun deaths, seriously? First of all these are not people that like being told stuff by the guberment, only alex jones is telling the true truth.

If prevention of such deaths were the real motive behind the gun control media voices, it was hard to see. So you can understand the lack of trust, no?
Click to expand...

No I think that is conspiratorially insane. Look man if Obama was not a Muslim-African manchurian candidate he would have released his long form birth certificate right away, not waited. You can understand the lack of trust for Obama, no?

sculptor said:
seemingly:
If you want less guns: Elect a republican.
Click to expand...

I rather have everyone owning a gun willy-nilly in trade for universal healthcare, universal education, taxing the rich, renewable energy, democrats elected, far left progressive democrats.

Quantum Quack said:
Basically the fire arms owners (NRA) should pay for their passion for the second amendment. As I do not see why those who are victims should pay only.
Click to expand...

Look I'm not saying that if some psychos shot up NRA headquarters, it would not be morally wrong, but I am saying it would be delightfully ironic.
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
So, the NRA should support totalitarian democrat candidates?
Click to expand...
They can't - they'd lose what little credibility they have left. So instead they support criminal GOP candidates, while hoping they lose. (But there is a lot of celebration within the ranks of the NRA when a democrat wins, in any case. Ka-ching.)
 
It seems that we're looking at divergent forces at work.
(forget bush and his anti-patriot act)
When a perceived totalitarian like Obama seems to threaten our rights, then, non gun owners rush out and spend their money to become gun owners.
Operating from fear and ignorance, they then join and donate to the NRA, and vote for someone who seems opposed to the perceived tyranny of the previous administration. Maybe they get some training along the way?
And then, their candidate wins, and gun sales go down, and gun dealers and manufactures cut back on their donations to the NRA.
So the NRA gets more money from everyday people and less from the industry?

Dis you ever get the feeling that:
"Some days, it just ain't worth chewing through the restraints"?

.........................
are you now or have you ever been an NRA member
 
What's the point of having police or an army then, if citizens are prone to picking up guns every time an elected government passes a law that they don't personally like? Revise the constitution, take away the guns from warm hands or cold dead ones, put people in jail for resisting the law, problem mostly solved.

All the arguments about constitution and cold dead hands are the same ones that were used to justify and fight for slavery. 1 million rednecks even gave their lives to keep those slaves, but justice prevailed in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top