6-year-old boy dies after being shot during road rage incident

Sounds like another example of government failure.

 

Do you have specifics on this, or is this just a hunch you have? How familiar are you with the process of, for example, purchasing a handgun / rifle in California vs Netherlands?

 

Been paying attention to Chicago on a weekend? Where there are strict gun laws, and 43 plus deaths on an average weekend?

Who does those shootings? Are they legal gun owners?

 

I do actually.

So, you can't defend your position, but expect me and others like me to just give up and accept them?

My side can show where countries that have fewer guns have less overall death.

And yes, culture is a factor. Race is a factor. Freedom is a factor.

So, you tell me. Which factor is easier or more possible to change?

Guns? Freedom? Race? Culture?

I am going with guns myself.

We can't just keep on doing nothing. Eventually, things will escalate and boil over. And you won't want to be living in the USA when that happens.

 

Who cares what Americans claim? More people are killed by cares than guns, what exactly is your solution again?

 

I responded to this in post #140.

 

Come on, you know that areas outside of Chicago have very LAX gun laws, don't you?

Any solution to this problem would HAVE to be implemented on a nation-wide scale to have a good chance to work.

Freedom is not absolute.

 

I've defend my position just fine. You believe people should depend on someone else to defend them. I don't.

You go with your choice, and I will go with mine. If you are an honest and lawful person and never threaten me or mine, never would our twains meet. See how straight forward that is? Very simple. Yet you believe I shouldn't have the right to do that.

Just because you think that changing a factor will bring you the results you think are right, doesn't make it so. If you were to remove the right to defend, you are making the decision that everybody should depend on someone else. That's in the entire conflict of freedom, the rights of the Constitution and its Amendments.

Do you understand what is in the Constitution, and why it is there? What was necessary to actually create this country, and why? The 2nd Amendment exists to make sure that this country should never have to go through that again.

 

So it's law abiding citizens shooting up Chicago every weekend, eh? People who follow the laws?

There is no reason to disarm law abiding citizens. You have not supported your position other than to try and tell me that it's what you want.

 

My comparison is fair as firearms do not operate any different based on the level of income. Gun laws allow gangs to terrorize neighborhoods leaving good people with no way to defend themselves.

Gun laws allow the mentally disturbed killer to increase the body count.

For clarity, how far would you go on the gun control issue? Would you ban firearms for armored car guards?

 

California has ALL the "common sense" gun laws.
Why didn't they prevent this?

 

And rightly so -- the positions of rational, reasoned, people are not swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion.

 

California has ALL the "common sense" gun laws.
Why didn't they prevent this?

 

Even if this nonsense were true, it doesn't mean you get to ignore it.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The US as we know it will cease to exist before the 2nd is repealed.

 

You refusal to consider his arguments only demonstrates your inability to counter them.

You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in those countries and their lower rates of gun violence.
As such, your "only thin that really works" claim is unsupportable nonsense.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

And yet, so few do.

 

Yes, I do believe, at least in part, that people should depend on others. We have seen in the USA what a country of selfish, greedy, entitled people can do. I take note if how the rest of the PLANET thinks if us. We SHOULD be thinking and considering about the conditions of others outside our circle.

I will go with my choice, thank you. I will endorse or promote every LEGAL action I can to restrict guns until the frequency and severity of mass death goes down. I have the numbers on my side, it's only a matter of time.

Could you agree the USA if today is not the same country as it was when it was first formed?

The constitution, like everything else, us NOT absolute. It also has to be ammended to reflect the times we are in.

We are not there yet. But doing nothing is just slowly ramping up the angers and tensions if everyone, so I figure it will change before too long

 

20,000,000 AR15s in the US.
Over the last 40 years, 16 AR15s were used to kill 266 people in mass shootings.
That's 0.4 rifles per year, killing 6.7 people per year.
Out of 20,000,000 rifles.

Thus, your point, whatever you think it was, negated.

 

You posted. That is not an answer to compare one country to another that exist under very different cirumstances.

Do tell, how many times have they fought a Revolution freeing themselves from an oppressing government? A couple of them have, and the majority haven't. Most of them allow for gun ownership of one sort or another, so your argument is a bit flat.

 

Again not solving the mental health issue. You want to focus on the tool as that is what your handlers tell you that you should focus on and continue to ignore the mental health epidemic.

This could be a real bipartisan win, win in that it would reduce these types of attacks and give people who need help, the help they really need. Not a 1 pilled chemical cocktail and not an abridgement of others constitutional rights.

And as you like to bring up the successes of other nations that took action against the tool, yet those same nations are also not seeing the real issue as mental health is a world issue and their own epidemic is getting out of hand.

Domestic violence increases rapidly in New Zealand - strangulation, beatings 'commonplace' in 2020

 

Can you demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, the restrictions you seek?
If not, why then do you seek them?
If not, then how do the restrictions you seek not run afoul of the 2nd amendment?

It was. In 1791.
One of those amendment states a certain right "shall not be infringed".
Until you repeal that amendment, it remains in force.

 

Then you go with the dependency factor, and I wish you luck.

Something you should keep in mind, 'mass' murders are committed by less than 1% of gun owners. You are going to have a very long wait.

Actually, a Constitution is not a lightly drafted document, and is not 'living'. The process for amending it is long and drawn out for the very reason you are claiming it should be changed - because there is something in it you don't agree with.

We aren't 'doing nothing'. Many people are being taught about firearms, what they are and what they can do, how to handle them. It takes away the mystery and misconceptions of what they actually are. As with many things, the fear is in the unknown.

 

Up until they are caught, tried, and convicted, yes, the are.

I am willing to look at laws that address those human factors that help create angry, selfish people that are willing to commit violence to get their way.

But no one, even on this board, seem willing to do that. Freedom Trump's all. Nothing can be done, etc.

Sorry, but I will never just GIVE UP. Not for as long as I live.

 

Interesting.
~53% of the murders in the US are committed by a demographic that makes up about 6% of the US population: Black males.
What laws do you believe will address the human factors that help turn black men into angry, selfish people that are willing to commit violence?