69
Biden renews call for assault weapons ban after ‘tragic and senseless’ spate of July 4 shootings
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2023
69 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19080 readers
2882 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
K, not everyone has those kinds of problems and a ban would prevent everyone from owning a gun. That would be a bit like banning booze or cars because some people are drunk drivers.
Banning guns won't get anyone any treatment which seems vastly more important than prevent one kind of means some people may or may not seek out on their own.
why are you framing the conversation as if folks are deciding between better mental healthcare or getting rid of guns, when the conversation is about getting rid of guns or not getting rid of guns
are you misrepresenting what the conversation is actually about for a specific reason?
If you think there's any real conversation around "getting rid of guns" you are simply engaging in fantasy.
There will be no "getting rid of guns" in any of our lifetimes in the USA. Our rights to bear arms are practically set in stone with multiple SC precedents confirming the individual right that the Constitution gives us, and recent additional precedents show the sitting court interprets the legality of limiting those rights as an extremely narrow thing.
Even if all the above were not the case, the simple logistics of the matter are that we have 400 million guns in private hands, mostly unregistered, distributed across the USA. People will simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them.
its true, never in the history of any nation has illegalising something made that thing less common
your disagreeing with the practicality of getting rid of guns does not, in fact, change the current conversation from being about how the usa should obviously get rid of guns, regardless of how difficult you lot will continue to make it 'in any of our lifetime'
That's kind of a generic reply that doesn't address the point that making them illegal is most likely impossible.
a generic reply that barely addresses any point was pretty appropriate for a generic statement that barely qualifies as having one to address, i felt like
it turns out 'the simple logistics of the matter' are that guns do not appear in the hands of criminals magically, rather the USA imports and manufactures ridiculous amounts of new killing machines for them entirely legally, making sure that getting your hands on one illegally remains as easy as absolutely possible
it turns out schoolkids and teenagers do not in fact get their military weaponry from their extensive mob/maffia/cartel ties, they take daddys entirely legally purchased firearm because having a country where millions of people can legally own guns means having a country where millions of kids can just grab one
it turns out people will not 'simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them', because first, some people actually do care about following the law, and second, enforcement of bans on things does actually tend to lower the prevalence of those things
we know this because weve seen that happen, repeatedly, including in the USA, most every time anything was illegalised in recent history
we also know this because if a gun is confiscated from someone, it is physically impossible for that person to shoot someone else with that gun, because they do not have it
the literal only reason 'criminals can still get guns' is because theres so fucking many legal ones
Here's some info to educate yourself on the logistics I was speaking of - noncompliance with gun bans in New York, where even the county sheriffs refuse to enforce their "assault weapon" bans.
https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/
If those bans go so poorly in NY state, how well do you think they would work in states with more conservative populations?
Additionally, there are states with "gun ban bans" coded into law already, making compliance with federal gun bans illegal. Obviously the Supremacy Clause would nullify those laws, but they tell you how the state will be unlikely to comply on a practical level. Shit ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you fantasize it happening.
i am shocked that the US police, let alone the new york police, known for their immense professional, legal and moral integrity, are refusing to enforce the laws already in place
i am also shocked that your totally not generic reply that definitely addresses the point that the USA should obviously get rid of guns is just going 'yeah well they arent right now!!'
see
by the way, did you figure out an excuse for why you framed the conversation as being about picking between fewer guns and better mental healthcare yet?*
*did not realise you were not in fact the same guy i originally replied to
You have me confused with someone else, I never said anything about mental healthcare. We definitely need better resources for all Americans to get help with that if they need it though.
I'm opposed to gun bans because Freedom is more important than anything else, especially Security Theater. Banning "assault weapons" amounts to only Security Theater because only 3% or less of homicides in the USA involve rifles including "assault weapons" so it would not help anything but a possible small fraction of the overall violence. When you add the current small impact that they have on the overall amount of violence with the logistic nightmare of enforcing bans, and the unlikelyhood of any bans surviving Supreme Court review, it amounts to a hill of beans that accomplishes nothing except losing voters who value their liberty.