Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Here's the thing though , ANY INFORMATION towards ANY THING , is kept in a computer valt .

Hence freedom of any kind , is a challenge , to say the least .
 
river said:
Because the citizen of the USA has the right , legally , to defend them selves from the government , armed .

That to me is what is missing here , the understanding of why a USA citizen can be armed with a gun .
Click to expand...
True, but that was at a time when we were the occupied country at war with England. Thus citizens were the militia.
I don't think we need to worry about becoming an occupied country again and hopefully our institutions will prevent a pure dictator from taking over the government. The US is not at war against itself or it's government.
 
Write4U said:
That is the danger of a semi-automatic weapons, an angry child that can pull a trigger could potentially kill 50 people, without needing to worry about reloading or aiming.
Click to expand...

True , and tragic .

Freedom , from government control has its , black marks .
 
river said:
Here's the thing though , ANY INFORMATION towards ANY THING , is kept in a computer valt .

Hence freedom of any kind , is a challenge , to say the least .
Click to expand...
Yes indeed , it's a fragile thing. But to arm the citizenry to the teeth with deadly military weapons is not the answer. It only aggrevates the situation.

We are going back to the days of the Wild West. IMO that is the wrong direction. I prefer a kinder more civilized country.
 
river said:
True , and tragic .

Freedom , from government control has its , black marks .
Click to expand...
We don't need freedom from our government, they have to follow the law also. We need freedom from the threat of being mowed down by a crazy kid with a weapon of war.
 
Write4U said:
Yes indeed , it's a fragile thing. But to arm the citizenry to the teeth with deadly military weapons is not the answer. It only aggrevates the situation.

We are going back to the days of the Wild West. IMO that is the wrong direction. I prefer a kinder more civilized country.
Click to expand...

To your last statement , so do I . But this not the point .

Guns are what keep the government in check so to speak . The People , can fire back .

I'm not in any way promoting insane use of guns .
 
Last edited:
river said:
To your last statement , so do I . But this not the point .

Guns are what keep the government in check so to speak . The People , can fire back .

I'm not in any way promoting insane use of guns .
Click to expand...
I'm sorry River, but that is a rather naive statement. Remember the Establishment Clause?
Is that less binding than freedom to carry weapons of war.
 
Write4U said:
I'm sorry River, but that is a rather naive statement. Remember the Establishment Clause?
Is that less binding than freedom to carry weapons of war.
Click to expand...

What is the , Establishment Clause ? Looked it up , found no relevance to this thread .
 
Last edited:
Just to make it clear, no bunch of drunks with guns are going to stop the government from doing anything, nor make the government do anything.
 
Write4U said:
That is the danger of a semi-automatic weapons, an angry child that can pull a trigger could potentially kill 50 people, without needing to worry about reloading or aiming.
Click to expand...

it happens to a child every single day of the week in the usa.
But, a critical part of the US culture is not discussed along with Gun Control Laws.
That Critical part of US social morality & Culture is a belief in Pure Capitalism Social policy as a social morality.

i find it interesting that the thousands of US psychologists sociologists & Anthropologists do not get a voice on TV(or maybe they are denied access)

pure Logic defines one or both of 2 different things.
1 the majority of US citizens simply do not care
2 The US Citizens percieved value of other People(including children) is not of a high enough level to become a moral construct inside their own perception of reality.

not withstanding the wash, back n forth of marginal statistical voter opinion seeking to normalise the slight majority whom are in favour of not doing anything to reduce the loss of lifes.

Yet Look at the Drug issue with laws being made to increase minimum sentences for drug arrests close to schools.
a law that does not reduce drug addiction or drug use.
does it reduce deaths of children taking drugs ? no
does it reduce deaths of children in households with hard core drug addicts ? no

soo... the use of the school and the children is not a process of protection.
it is a process of exploitation to give greater power to administration ? police ? judges ? whom ?

Slum schools with massive gang problems because the unemployment rate and poverty rule ....

where should the money go ? or is that the point. it doesnt actually have any link to more money while in fact it has specifically NO money attached to it.

so it is a way to make an illusion of extra funding for slum schools ?

is that how it works ?

bizar !

p.s ... i was pondering that all those government tax collectors taking working class taxes to spend on private armed protection and metal detectors...

surely it should be equally hard for a child to carry a machine gun into a government building or a school ?
surely the kids are almost equal value ? almost ? ok maybe not, maybe a lot less value ?
is that what is proven by the amount of money spent ?
is that a morality in clear display ?
 
Last edited:
You miss one option for the US public: They have been told the rules CAN'T be changed, so they believe we're stuck with dead kids in the classrooms.
 
Bowser said:
Perhaps one murder is one too many. The problem is people will kill regardless of the tools available, whether that be a gun, explosive or a U Haul truck.
Click to expand...
Another problem is that if you have a gun it's easy to kill 58 people. If all you have is a knife (or a truck) it is very, very hard to kill 58 people.

We should not be making the jobs of mass murderers so easy.
 
billvon said:
Another problem is that if you have a gun it's easy to kill 58 people. If all you have is a knife (or a truck) it is very, very hard to kill 58 people.

We should not be making the jobs of mass murderers so easy.
Click to expand...
Yup, there's a reason we give soldiers guns rather than pocket knives.
 
Vociferous said:
Straw man purchases are the main way felons get guns. They just send someone who can pass the background check to make the purchase.
Click to expand...
They are also illegal. Methods that felons use to get guns SHOULD be illegal, and the right wing should stop trying to keep them legal.
No, he didn't. The federal law keeping those "adjudicated as a mental defective" or have been committed from receiving a gun was not affected by Trump getting rid of that Obama policy.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. The rule he repealed allowed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System access to Social Security Administration data - including the names of individuals receiving certain federal mental health benefits. That allowed the NICS to identify such people.
That's either a lie or ignorance.
Click to expand...
Sorry, again, no. If the transfer is approved, all identifying information of the purchaser must be deleted within 24 hours. From the actual law:

========================
From 28 CFR 25.9 (Retention and destruction of records in the system)

In cases of NICS Audit Log records relating to allowed transactions, all identifying information submitted by or on behalf of the transferee will be destroyed within 24 hours after the FFL receives communication of the determination that the transfer may proceed. All other information, except the NTN and date, will be destroyed after not more than 90 days from the date of inquiry.
=========================

Sounds like you are another victim of right wing fake news.
 
Bowser said:
Perhaps one murder is one too many. The problem is people will kill regardless of the tools available, whether that be a gun, explosive or a U Haul truck.
Click to expand...
You know, we could save a lot of money arming our soldiers with baseball bats rather than guns.
 
Bowser said:
You want to ban semi-automatic weapons.
Click to expand...
No need for universal bans. Just bans for felons and mentally defective people - with universal background checks - would be a good start.
Also, there would be no need for seat belts if we just banned cars.
Click to expand...
Right - but cars are useful; they get us from place to place. Seatbelts just lower the death rate when using them, by mandating safety equipment. We also lower the death rate by requiring licensing, registration and insurance, and we pass laws dictating how fast you can drive them, what condition you have to be in when operating them and when you have to stop using them.

Why not apply such commonsense regulation to guns?
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
There's no reason semi-automatic firearms can't be banned.
Click to expand...

=
There's no reason that freedom of speech can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom of religion can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures can't be banned.
There's no reason that trial by jury can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom from excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom of assembly can't be banned.
.....etc...(it's a long list)

Be careful when advocating for the removal of other's rights that do not matter to you.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

As an existentialists, when you speak for yourself, you speak for all of mankind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top