They are slick, I gotta give them that.
Bonus points for asking a bureaucracy to review whether they are legal, rather than jumping behind legislation to ban them. They know their politics.
With a little Obama-blaming thrown in for good measure.
Why didn’t Obama take these weapons away from us? Really that’s their stance?
Olaf was pretty sure that Obama was gonna take his guns, and then when that didn’t happen, that Clinton was gonna take away his guns.
Amusing if it now becomes "why didn’t they take away my guns?!”
Yup, they got in their “Thanks Obama” for the Las Vegas shooter being able to have his bump stocks.
Would that qualify as ‘breathtaking effrontery’? Or possibly ‘mind-shattering chutzpah’?
There was more in that thread than just including the suicide numbers (and by the way I know from personal experience a big danger for someone caught in suicidation is impulse control; you can vomit up pills, but getting rid of the bullet in your brain is a little bit harder.) Regardless, I can retract that and let stand the peer reviewed journal article, the article in Scientific American (and the CDC studies cited therein) because while I am not a statistician nor a scientist I trust those sources more than I do a chart provided from Nat’l Review/AEI etc. (which are the same sorts of graphs they use for “proving” a global warming pause. The WaPo op-ed did give me pause, but that’s how I found that other information.)
However, let’s try something else: There are roughly 34,000 gun-related deaths in this country each year. Is that an acceptable number of deaths for the right not to be inconvenienced for owning a gun? Let’s assume it’s not and that some number of those deaths are preventable. Will background checks et al reduce that? Probably. How much? Impossible to say but the likelihood of that number going down is I think it’s safe to say greater than doing nothing (or praying.)
Edit: Forgot to add, the lack of posts in your thread does not’ indicate disinterest, rather it’s more likely most of us are in broad agreement. That tends to generate fewer responses (someone linked an article pointing out that trend.) There’s so many responses in this thread because it’s just the Qt3 echo chamber run amok ;) )
Ask Mitch McConnell as he’s already done it before.
That’s a fair question, and I’m going to say it depends on the level of cost and inconveniences. The problem is that the cost is going to be born solely by the 41% of the households that have guns, and the much smaller number who are active users/collectors of guns.
But you know what else also kills roughly 34,000 people? automobiles. Fortunately, automobile deaths like guns deaths have had a nice steady decrease, due to a combination of safer cars. and changes in behavior like less drunk driving.
It seems to that if say gun registration and mandatory gun safety class save 100 lives per year. Then we should be equally happy to require say mandatory driving test for those between 16 and 21 and every few years for those over age 65 , which would let’s say would also save 100 lives per year.
Imagine despite the lack of evidence of it saving many lives in Australia, we decide to ban assault weapons/semi-automatic guns. Based on it saving 1,000 lives per year. Let say the cost of buying back guns and regulation would be $50 billion, and very inconvenient for sportsman, hunters and folks who have semi-automatic weapons for home defense.
Logically as a society we should be willing to spend $150 billion (~$750) to install a device in our cars which eliminates the primary causes of distracting driving, by turning off all electronic devices, cell phones, screens, radios, music devices when the car is moving. After all distracted driving cost 3,154 lives per year.
But of course there is no serious discussion of this suggestion and our friends at AARP, do a good job in keeping mandatory road test down to a few states.
I know there is a visceral reaction to gun violence, that makes any type of rational cost-benefit analysis impossible. I believe like that Gates Foundations every life has equal value. For political reasons, I’m willing to spend say 5x more taxpayer bucks to save an American life than African kids lives. Based on the data I’ve seen, gun control regulation isn’t a sensible use of money.
Strollen, not trying to attack you, but serious question: Do you not really see the difference between deaths caused by a device meant to transport people very quickly as a side effect of their use, and deaths caused by a device specifically designed and used to cause death?
I’m confused by why gun advocates equate these two things when they are not at all the same.
Doesn’t the fact that one is INTENDED to kill make it even more obvious it needs more regulation and oversight?
Definitely agree - guns should be compared to something else that’s designed to kill, like the Republican healthcare plan.
We do have have mandatory safety tests before you can get a driver’s license.
And in most places, older drivers must take driving tests more frequently and also take more eye exams.
So, are we ready to start doing the same for guns?
No, because you are assigning an evil intention to an inanimate object. Guns are designed to accurately place a projectile with a certain amount of force. I’m pretty sure that when civilian gun manufacturers develop new guns their design goals are something along the lines of accuracy, weight, ease of maintenance, and not how many people can it kill
For a sportsman, a gun is designed for target shooting
For a hunter, a gun is for feeding the family
For a rancher, a gun is for protecting livestock
For a woman in a rough neighborhood, a gun provides security.
Only for the last case is the function of a gun to kill a person, and I’m sure in almost all cases, the primary function would be intimidation “get out of my house I have a gun.”
To an extreme environmentalist, a car is designed to enrich our corporate overlords in the car and oil industry and maintain our addiction to consumerism. Given cars potential to destroy the entire planets eco-system, they should be regulated extremely and banned ASAP.
When you consider the externalities caused by cars, they are an order of magnitude more dangerous than guns. Or don’t you believe that climate change is the most serious problem the country faces?
In all seriousness, automobiles and guns are a technology. Technology is not inherently good or evil, and death is death.
Actually, no state requires older drivers to take mandatory driving tests (one had it but dropped it). Many do require eye exams and more frequent license renewals. It seems sensible that requiring older drivers to demonstrate they can still drive would save lives Yet somehow we don’t.
The difference between guns and automobiles is that a driving a car is privilege while owning a gun is a right.
I certainly would favor amending the 2nd amendment to allow states to require a gun safety license.
Requiring a driving test before being allowed on the road is an issue totally separate from gun safety. They should BOTH be implemented.
And when they fail those eye tests the DMV gives them a license anyway a lot of the time because they don’t want to deal with the bitching.
Most people would, but the reality is that mass shooters would easily pass that. They aren’t making mistakes or anything. It might prevent a few accidental deaths, which would be worth it. Then again states like Indiana would make the test so pathetic it might not really matter big picture.