Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[Kittamaru]

Americans, Americans of all people, with their recent KKK history and Latin American examples right in front of them, should know that it's not the government's army you have to watch out for, when a flip to authoritarian rule is in the balance. That's not how it happens.

Then we don't need firearms to defend ourselves against the Military or the Government, as 2A thumpers continually claim, and given that the US Military Oath is to the Constitution, not the Government, if the Government goes rogue then the Military will (should) take care of it.

So, the point still stands - if the US Military goes rogue, armed citizens are fucked. If the Government goes rogue, and the Military stands with them, armed citizens are fucked. If the Military does its job, then armed citizens are basically superfluous.

SO, that said, we can safely say that we do not, in fact, need lethal weapons to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government nor military, and they are, in fact, necessary to defend ourselves against other armed citizens who have broken the law (eg, slavery).

It would stand to reason, then, that we can lay that argument to rest as a defense against re-examining the role firearms play in everyday America.

THAT said, I think some discussion on what kind of common-sense changes can be made that would help prevent mass-shootings is in order. Would you agree? Or, would you prefer to do nothing and allow yet another school to be shot up...?

And yes, I'm a bit peeved by the hem-hawing that has been going on for years. Hell, the school districts my mother teaches at and the one my newborn is likely to attend in a few years (based on our location anyway) are both closed today because of what was deemed a "legitimate threat" made against them on social media. It's beyond ridiculous, and this apparent desire to do nothing useful and offer up "thoughts and prayers" every time this continues to happen is beyond pathetic.

 

[Bowser]

Yes - because the freedom of others to live trumps the freedom of their neighbor to do whatever they want to with their guns.

Over simplified--Idea being that your neighbor owning a gun is a direct threat to your life. In my community, you can't use a bow and arrow in your backyard.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, I do. That is a type specimen, right here:

I would have thought that you'd at least have looked it up. Google is cheap.

 

[Write4U]

Over simplified--Idea being that your neighbor owning a gun is a direct threat to your life. In my community, you can't use a bow and arrow in your backyard.

And you wonder why?

Distance. You can shoot at a target and if you miss, kill your neighbor's kid!

 

[Kittamaru]

Over simplified--Idea being that your neighbor owning a gun is a direct threat to your life. In my community, you can't use a bow and arrow in your backyard.

If your backyard is the size of a postage stamp, then that is probably a reasonable restriction. Then again, we banned Lawn Darts after a handful of children died... yet we've done nothing for the hundreds killed by firearms... *shrug*

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Happily, we never hear of neighbor-on-neighbor aggression.

 

[Bowser]

If your backyard is the size of a postage stamp, then that is probably a reasonable restriction. Then again, we banned Lawn Darts after a handful of children died... yet we've done nothing for the hundreds killed by firearms... *shrug*

Try discharging a weapon in your backyard and see what happens.

 

[Bowser]

And you wonder why?

Distance. You can shoot at a target and if you miss, kill your neighbor's kid!

I understand the reasoning, but I could just as easily back over my neighbors kid with my car, which is probably more likely than shooting him with an arrow.

 

[Kittamaru]

Try discharging a weapon in your backyard and see what happens.

My grandfather and I used to take out squirrels and rabbits with bow and arrow (we also practiced our archery with a target backed by haybales) and more than once took out a groundhog with a 22LR.

Granted, he had a decent sized yard, not the seemingly all-too-common postage-stamp BS that passes as a lawn today heh.

I understand the reasoning, but I could just as easily back over my neighbors kid with my car, which is probably more likely than shooting him with an arrow.

All the same, if the neighbors kid is halfway intelligent and not paralyzed, they stand a good chance of getting out of the way once you start backing up. I doubt they have the reflexes to dodge an unexpected arrow.

That, and being knocked over by a car is generally less damaging than an arrow to the chest cavity (unless, of course, you didn't notice the thump and actually ran him over)

Also, you need a license to drive a car (and said licensing test is supposed to include rudimentary safety and situational awareness checks). I don't believe you need anything to purchase and use a compound bow capable of launching an arrow across the neighbors lawn at sufficient speed to be lethal.

 

[Bowser]

Also, you need a license to drive a car (and said licensing test is supposed to include rudimentary safety and situational awareness checks). I don't believe you need anything to purchase and use a compound bow capable of launching an arrow across the neighbors lawn at sufficient speed to be lethal.

So we should be required to get a license for every potentially dangerous activity? There's potential danger in lighting my barbecue. Maybe there are laws that regulate such. I honestly don't know.

 

[Kittamaru]

So we should be required to get a license for every potentially dangerous activity? There's potential danger in lighting my barbecue. Maybe there are laws that regulate such. I honestly don't know.

Actually, there are regulations regarding the dangerous part of said BBQ - such as proper purchase and storage of propane.

Should licensure be required for every potentially dangerous activity? No, of course not. Should it be required for ones that have the potential to inflict massive damage to untold numbers of people beyond the person engaging in said activity? I would say yes.

Is it really so unreasonable to expect someone to have to show a modicum of proficiency and good judgement before allowing them to wield something that can easily cut people down?

 

[Write4U]

I understand the reasoning, but I could just as easily back over my neighbors kid with my car, which is probably more likely than shooting him with an arrow.

So we should be required to get a license for every potentially dangerous activity? There's potential danger in lighting my barbecue. Maybe there are laws that regulate such. I honestly don't know.

Yes there are. Life is not simple anymore. Commerce is via automobiles. Trucks are required to have back-up warnigs. Why not on cars? As I understand it, before you back -up out of your driveway, you are required by law to assure that it is safe to do so, which includes checking for possible obstacles behind the car. If these laws were enforced we'd save lives.
The few preventive measures (seat-belts) have saved lives. The statistics are available.

 

[Bowser]

Life is not simple anymore.

It is a safer place, I agree.

 

[Bowser]

Is it really so unreasonable to expect someone to have to show a modicum of proficiency and good judgement before allowing them to wield something that can easily cut people down?

Okay, lets require people to observe safe practices when handling a firearm. Tell me again how that will stop a maniac from using one to kill others.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, lets require people to observe safe practices when handling a firearm. Tell me again how that will stop a maniac from using one to kill others.

There are 34 innocent people killed for every bad guy with a gun who gets snuffed. This is not about crime, it's about stupid people with guns.

 

[spidergoat]

So we should be required to get a license for every potentially dangerous activity? There's potential danger in lighting my barbecue. Maybe there are laws that regulate such. I honestly don't know.

I don't know, did gas grills kill 30,000 people last year?

 

[Bowser]

I don't know, did gas grills kill 30,000 people last year?

NO, but what's to stop me from throwing hot coals on my neighbor?

 

[Write4U]

It is a safer place, I agree.

Actually it is much more dangerous. However, regulations have minimized the dangers of our modern technology.
This is why we have three pronged electrical outlets, breakers which trip when in case of an electric "short".

Ask how many people were killed by a horse drawn wagon backing up? Today with electric cars , you can't even hear them. Requiring motorcycle riders to wear protective helmets has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives.
The more complicated and faster our lives become the more danger is associated. Preventive warnings and control systems are a requirement to cope with increased dangers in all areas.

 

[Bowser]

The more complicated and faster our lives become the more danger is associated. Preventive warnings and control systems are a requirement to cope with increases of dangers in all areas.

But has our lives really become that much more complicated, or have we become that much more obsessive compulsive? Perhaps we are making it more complicated in our effort to cover every aspect with bubble wrap.

 

[sculptor]

There is no law that forbids an amendment to an Amendment.

Of course not. And the means of doing so is clearly laid out in the constitution.

.......................
So what are the odds of getting 2/3 of congress or 2/3 of the states/state legislatures to propose an amendment designed to amend the second amendment?
And then, getting the 3/4 needed for ratification?