earhere t1_iw8lw7a wrote
Reply to comment by George_Hayduke in Suspect in custody following fatal shooting of 12-year-old, 14-year-old also injured in Colorado shooting by spiceponey
Total firearm ban
[deleted] t1_iw9gmty wrote
[removed]
CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw92cl8 wrote
What part of shall not be infringed was unclear?
earhere t1_iw95gbp wrote
Here's the thing about the constitution: it's not an infallible document gifted from the heavens. It can be changed, and there are still errors in it that should be. Just because politicians don't want to make those changes because it is too hard and or unpopular to do so, doesn't mean they shouldn't be made.
Hell, you don't even have to change the constitution. Just make acquiring a firearm a lot more difficult than just going to a store and buying it. Make it so you need to have three personal references that the seller can contact to make sure it's not a mistake selling you a firearm. Make it so you need to have a gun safe to store the weapon before you can get one. The ease of firearm acquisition and ownership is making the country less safe, but because gun perverts will not consider any gun legislation that does not stop 100% of gun violence for all eternity, nothing changes and people keep getting killed that did not need to be.
CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw96u3f wrote
>Hell, you don't even have to change the constitution. Just make acquiring a firearm a lot more difficult than just going to a store and buying it.
You do realize that those purchases require background checks right?
Criminals ain't using gun stores.
>Make it so you need to have three personal references that the seller can contact to make sure it's not a mistake selling you a firearm.
Hell no. That's beyond an invasion of privacy. And again, criminal background checks.
And it won't do a damn thing to prevent criminals.
>Make it so you need to have a gun safe to store the weapon before you can get one.
Only if the government provides a gun safe to each and every person, free of charge.
Otherwise, it's a tax on a right and that's abhorrent.
>The ease of firearm acquisition and ownership is making the country less safe, but because gun perverts will not consider any gun legislation that does not stop 100% of gun violence for all eternity, nothing changes and people keep getting killed that did not need to be.
First of all, there's hundreds of thousands of defensive uses with firearms every year.
Second of all, everything you said does not appear to do a damn thing to actually lower crime.
Third of all, calling your opponents "gun perverts" does not do you any favors.
Fourth of all, the right to self-defense is absolute. Banning firearms infringes on our rights to bear arms and our rights to self-defense.
earhere t1_iw97p8w wrote
See, you're proving my point. Because the measures I suggested, in your opinion, won't stop 100% of gun crimes and gun violence for all eternity; they aren't worth doing. So the solution is to just continue as the country has been doing and just ignore the mass shootings that occur every other day and keep pumping more guns into the country and the hands of individuals who are one road rage incident away from committing a murder.
CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw98asg wrote
You don't have a point to stand on!
None of those measures would decrease shootings--they'd only punish the law-abiding.
Start coming up with things that would actually decrease crime!
Stop conflating gang violence with horrific massacres.
And there's literally more defensive uses of firearms by an order of magnitude compared to homicides.
earhere t1_iw98wl5 wrote
To stop crime you have to deal with poverty. Lower the wealth gap, increase minimum wage, improve schools and education. Offer more after school programs and community centers where kids can go to participate in positive activities. But, we were talking about gun violence, and if there's less guns available then there's going to be less gun violence.
CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw962ud wrote
Well, there's an actual process for how that's supposed to happen. The Constitution defines how it's actually to be amended and it's meant to be as hard as possible.
It's not meant to be done on the whims of the populace duped into believing misleading statistics from a media hellbent on spreading fear for ratings or from statists obsessed with accumulating power.
And let me ask you something--would you be so willing to ditch the protections for the 1st Amendment? After all, the Constitution is not infallible.
earhere t1_iw96vc8 wrote
What does the 1st amendment have to do with this conversation? The first amendment doesn't lead to a school shooting. Being able to call the president a piece of shit without cops beating you up and sending you to jail doesn't have anything to do with a teenager buying an assault rifle to blow away people at a school.
CryptidGrimnoir t1_iw9825g wrote
>What does the 1st amendment have to do with this conversation?
You're demanding we throw out the 2nd Amendment. It's only fair that I bring up amendments you don't want to see changed.
>The first amendment doesn't lead to a school shooting.
Actually, it could very well do so.
Sociologists have pleaded for years for the media to not report so heavily on tragedies--including school shootings--for fear of encouraging copycats.
The media tends not to listen.
>Being able to call the president a piece of shit without cops beating you up and sending you to jail doesn't have anything to do with a teenager buying an assault rifle to blow away people at a school.
Actual assault rifles are heavily regulated and have been so for forty years and cost thousands and thousands of dollars to purchase.
And what might encourage that teenager is seeing report after report in the news where they turn the shooter into a legend.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments