ness31 wrote:So like one cafe or diner? No restaurants? No sporting clubs? No McDonalds? No investment from big companies?
Godstud wrote::lol: Seeing as you're a moron, and don't notice that they're already not doing anything to address the issue, me calling gun owners idiots won't change a damned thing.
The problem is with gun ownership, gun control, and access to guns. No one in USA wants to address this problem because their love of guns is more important than the lives of children. Other countries decided that sacrificing guns for the lives of people was more important that satisfying the fetishes of gun owners.
Sad facts, but facts they are.
Yes, we know that, dimwit. So how do you get people who consider gun ownership a key right and even a passage to adulthood to just decide to give them up again? Is it even feasible? A buyback program would help, but unless astronomical amount of money was spent (and probably even if it was), it's unlikely you'll see gun owners just give up their guns.
I guess calling them heartless morons or terrorists will surely convince them, won't it?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already answered the first question, and if you want the answer to the second, please Google it.
No, show how you did it.
Pants-of-dog wrote:There must be something cultural to it, since countries with similar histories and demographics do not have this problem,
And how do you change that culture? Thus far we've seen people calling them idiots and terrorists. How is that going to help exactly?
Drlee wrote:I am rapidly losing respect for the "fence builder" crowd.
Come on folks. Do you really think this matters? We could have cut the casualties of almost all mass shootings in the US by a ban on semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. I get that it would take a very long time before these were not available but the problem with these shooters is not that they plan a long time but that they go off their skids, arm and shoot fast. Making assault weapons unavailable would deter these kids in another way. They are not likely to take on a school armed with a revolver or bolt action rifle. They would feel completely under armed. And they would be. If you look at the attack on Congresswoman Giffords, the death toll was lower because the gunman was jumped while he stopped to reload. Would there be as many kids dead in Texas if the shooter had a revolver or a rifle with a three round magazine?
The problem is guns. The solution is gun control. There is absolutely no doubt about this at all. A ban on all semiautomatic weapons, period. A person can easily protect himself with a revolver if he is foolish enough to think he needs that at all. There is no hunting that cannot be done with a bolt or lever action rifle containing three or fewer rounds. There is no house that is safer with an AR-15 than it would be with a shotgun. The only possible use of semiautomatic weaponry other than crime is to overthrow the government and that is what these Republican idiots are talking about in their living rooms.
They need to own this at the polls. This time the democrats need to go after assault weapons, large capacity magazines and women's rights. They won't and that is, perhaps, the saddest thing of all.
An automatic weapons ban would obviously help but both of us know this isn't going to happen. And it won't be passed for the same reasons federal legislation on abortion deciding that issue won't. No, not for constitutional reasons by the way, just that voters in several states would not support the measure.
Unlike using this option to legitimize keeping abortion legal in as many states as possible, I'd imagine here even putting the question directly to voters would fail to yield the bans in several states:https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -and-guns/
And unlike abortion, what happens in the state doesn't stay in the state. Instead, there would be trafficking from states allowing automatic weapons into states banning them just like most the guns going on around where I live come from out of the state. That is, state regulation will fail to solve this issue, a ban that ever hopes to be effective must be done at the federal level (and even then we'd then to get to the implementation, which is a problem of its own as federal drug policy has shown).
So we make do with what we have, and that's background checks to limit access to guns to the mentally ill and criminals as much as materially feasible, which in no event will manage to get ALL guns out of the streets just like current drug policy isn't managing to keep ALL illegal drugs out of the streets, and physically restricting access to schools to people who aren't supposed to have it anyway.
Or we can just call Republicans living in rural areas morons and terrorists
...surely that will convince them and solve everything, in the mind of the dimwitted Canadian Thai wannabe.