You don't need to come up with some all-encompassing solution to do something practical. I would be happy to hear some effective means to address social media influences, which is frankly a big step removed from bullets flying through children, but worth considering.
Mostly I see people using arguments like yours about other causes as a way to avoid doing anything.
It's the same approach he uses regarding the global warming problem.
When it comes to actually passing laws that might help, the "gun lobby" gins up a storm of fear and loathing until everyone agrees that it's a slippery slope to Universal Confiscation And We Can't Have That.
That has already been done under Biden IIRC. New barrel length regulations have been implemented via the ATF.
Do you actually think a minimum 16 inch barrel length is adequate to meet the objective? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't affect the ArAk whatever weapons of kid destruction in question. Nice to have something to point to though.
edit: that might be the old rule. I couldn't find anything about a change by Biden.
If a person's mental state as determined (long-term) by a licensed professional is a "red flag," or (short term until a psych eval can be done) by a judge or some other authority so that person should not be allowed to bear arms, then demand it. Write it into your state laws and demand it be enforced. Bring the "background checks" into the modern age (they're deliberately made useless by some states). But good luck with that. When it comes to actually passing laws that might help, the "gun lobby" gins up a storm of fear and loathing until everyone agrees that it's a slippery slope to Universal Confiscation And We Can't Have That.
Do you mean Obama wasn't really coming for your guns?
The Right enables tiny change, and then points to "new gun regulation". Take Kurt's comment below... "That has already been done under Biden IIRC. New barrel length regulations have been implemented via the ATF." That enables rhetoric like âThis rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago,â from ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. âIn the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns.â
So we've made real progress on sawed-off shotguns, but can't address semi-automatic weapons? It's a joke, and the Right is literally laughing at the stupidity of anyone on the left suggesting that meaningful legislation has been delivered in a bipartisan fashion.
The Right plays the game better, which is why their minority feelings about issues still hold any sway in the US.
If a person's mental state as determined (long-term) by a licensed professional is a "red flag," or (short term until a psych eval can be done) by a judge or some other authority so that person should not be allowed to bear arms, then demand it. Write it into your state laws and demand it be enforced. Bring the "background checks" into the modern age (they're deliberately made useless by some states). But good luck with that. When it comes to actually passing laws that might help, the "gun lobby" gins up a storm of fear and loathing until everyone agrees that it's a slippery slope to Universal Confiscation And We Can't Have That.
Exactly right.
The Right enables tiny change, and then points to "new gun regulation". Take Kurt's comment below... "That has already been done under Biden IIRC. New barrel length regulations have been implemented via the ATF." That enables rhetoric like âThis rule enhances public safety and prevents people from circumventing the laws Congress passed almost a century ago,â from ATF Director Steven Dettelbach. âIn the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns.â
So we've made real progress on sawed-off shotguns, but can't address semi-automatic weapons? It's a joke, and the Right is literally laughing at the stupidity of anyone on the left suggesting that meaningful legislation has been delivered in a bipartisan fashion.
The Right plays the game better, which is why their minority feelings about issues still hold any sway in the US.
If a person's mental state as determined (long-term) by a licensed professional is a "red flag," or (short term until a psych eval can be done) by a judge or some other authority so that person should not be allowed to bear arms, then demand it. Write it into your state laws and demand it be enforced. Bring the "background checks" into the modern age (they're deliberately made useless by some states). But good luck with that. When it comes to actually passing laws that might help, the "gun lobby" gins up a storm of fear and loathing until everyone agrees that it's a slippery slope to Universal Confiscation And We Can't Have That.
It wasn't that long ago that many Americans wee up in arms over government making automakers put buzzers and other systems in cars to "force" people to use seat belts. Early in the last century (when cars were a new thing), they were arguing that speed limits would kill the blossoming automotive industry. I know at least one oldtimer that still maintains that lead based solder wasn't *that* bad and it really worked better (it is easier to use).
So it turns out that often times government does know better. I'll sit down now and let the gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands commence over that statement.
I would say that is true especially if you don't want to include possible causes or influences such as social media, which you basically implied was not a factor worthy of any consideration in an earlier post.
You and most others just want to talk about guns and how they are the problem, not a symptom of a greater set of problems. You want that part of the discussion off the table completely.
If a person's mental state as determined (long-term) by a licensed professional is a "red flag," or (short term until a psych eval can be done) by a judge or some other authority so that person should not be allowed to bear arms, then demand it. Write it into your state laws and demand it be enforced. Bring the "background checks" into the modern age (they're deliberately made useless by some states). But good luck with that. When it comes to actually passing laws that might help, the "gun lobby" gins up a storm of fear and loathing until everyone agrees that it's a slippery slope to Universal Confiscation And We Can't Have That.
You don't need to come up with some all-encompassing solution to do something practical. I would be happy to hear some effective means to address social media influences, which is frankly a big step removed from bullets flying through children, but worth considering.
Mostly I see people using arguments like yours about other causes as a way to avoid doing anything.
If you can't control sunspots, you shouldn't even think about touching my guns.
The gun lobby saying that they are basically the same thing is misdirection. I believe there are laws outlawing shotguns with short barrel lengths
so do the same for rifles
and while you are at it make them have a minimum weight and stock length or something. I'm not an expert but there are geeks out there who are. Oh, you want something your kids can take out hunting, of course under competent adult supervision? Well, restrict them to lower velocity bolt-action guns.
That has already been done under Biden IIRC. New barrel length regulations have been implemented via the ATF.
I would say that is true especially if you don't want to include possible causes or influences such as social media, which you basically implied was not a factor worthy of any consideration in an earlier post.
You and most others just want to talk about guns and how they are the problem, not a symptom of a greater set of problems. You want that part of the discussion off the table completely.
You don't need to come up with some all-encompassing solution to do something practical. I would be happy to hear some effective means to address social media influences, which is frankly a big step removed from bullets flying through children, but worth considering.
Mostly I see people using arguments like yours about other causes as a way to avoid doing anything.
I would say that is true especially if you don't want to include possible causes or influences such as social media, which you basically implied was not a factor worthy of any consideration in an earlier post. You and most others just want to talk about guns and how they are the problem, not a symptom of a greater set of problems. You want that part of the discussion off the table completely.
And you seem to want to talk about anything other than guns as being part of the problem.
Guns are indeed PART of the problem, but again, their usage in the events is also a symptom of greater problems that no one really wants to address. Sure we mention mental illness, but that is about all and there is great debate on exactly what mental illness is and that part gets bogged down nearly every time in most discussions. It is pretty clear looking back in this thread that no one on the left side of this equation wants to allow the effects of social media into the discussion. Is it because the left is who is really in charge of most social media platforms ?
Rule number two in problem solving is including all possibilities and variables. To ignore obvious factors prevents a proper solution from happening.
Destructive devices include explosive, incendiary or poison gas bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, and similar devices. Molotov cocktails, or glass bottles filled with gasoline that ignite their fuse when broken, are destructive devices and thus illegal to possess under federal law.
If the overriding concern is the sanctity of life property, then the poison gas bombs would appear to be the odd man out.
I think there is an important thing neglected in the discussion which is looking at the overall design of "Assault style" guns. Yeah, I'm not saying AR-15 or AK-47 or whatever even though you would probably know what I mean.
Being a semi-automatic is only part of the problem and high capacity magazines are only another part of the problem. Perhaps the most important parts but the other part is that they are designed to aim or point quickly in the general direction of what who you want to shoot at. An actual hunting rifle is designed to take careful aim with a long barrel and generally a heavier weight to maximize accuracy bringing down a deer or whatever food source of your choice. I sincerely doubt any 2A zealot would think that a hunting rifle would be as good a choice for blowing up children in a school. Similarly, I'm sure any cop busting into a room with a murderer would rather they had a gun that wasn't as easy to swing in the cop's direction.
The gun lobby saying that they are basically the same thing is misdirection. I believe there are laws outlawing shotguns with short barrel lengths so do the same for rifles and while you are at it make them have a minimum weight and stock length or something. I'm not an expert but there are geeks out there who are. Oh, you want something your kids can take out hunting, of course under competent adult supervision? Well, restrict them to lower velocity bolt-action guns.
It's the same approach he uses regarding the global warming problem.
