Mass shootings occur once a day in the US? I know a lot of you guys are smarter than that, and everyone should work to be a lot less biased in how easily they accept these kinds of articles. It's these kinds of statistics that make it look like you don't actually want to work with the other side and find a solution to mass shootings that is amenable to the 2nd Amendment. And to be fair, some of you want full repeal of the 2nd (which is a valid political opinion). But it's never going to play in most of the country and you need a huge majority to ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. I asked "How would you stop mass shootings?" a while ago and that was the big solution: Outlaw firearms. I get it, that would work to the extent of stopping mass shootings for the most part. It doesn't always work surely, we can look at Paris to see that, but they do have fewer shootings than we do. It's not a question of whether or not that would work, it's a question of how well you can convince the other side that it's worth it and you refuse to see the value of firearms in any case. That's ludicrous. Articles like this are BS and are equivalent to the NRA telling me that, "Jesus had an AR-15 and so should you!" It's political propaganda but you are choosing to buy into it because it verifies what you're talking about. Here's another NYT article which discusses why this article is terrible. A quick quote from that article: "Almost all of the gun crimes behind the much larger statistic are less lethal and bear little relevance to the type of public mass murder we have just witnessed again. Including them in the same breath suggests that a 1 a.m. gang fight in a Sacramento restaurant, in which two were killed and two injured, is the same kind of event as a deranged man walking into a community college classroom and massacring nine and injuring nine others." Don't get me wrong, all gun violence is tragic, and these lives count just as much as someone else, but you can clearly see that's not the same thing. This is media bias 101. This makes me doubt that you credibly want to work with me toward an actually viable solution. You are the deadlock that you hate to see in Congress where one side digs in deep and refuses to move. Is that really who you want to be politically? An idealistic zealot who won't concede an inch? I could guess that you'll say, "I'm only like that on guns. Guns are the one issue I won't compromise on." But I kind of doubt that once you're dug in on one issue that you don't mirror that in others. Entrenched ideas look like burial to everyone else.
Hyperbole will always be a part of any discussion, no matter how much one might try to keep it away. There are other statistics, too. One is as likely to die (statistically) from a gun homicide as from a car crash (NYT quotes CDC and the Graduate Institute of Geneva) in the United States of America. Additionally, it's about the kind of argument one makes about global events and the hypocrisy of people's statements. You see all these politicians in America (mostly Republicans, incidentally) praying and mourning the losses of gun-based terrorism in our and other countries (see: Paris, Planned Parenthood, San Bernandino), stating we need to deal with terrorism more effectively and find ways to deal with this. Yes, we have terrorist watch lists, and many people who have done acts of extreme violence (some in Paris, those at the Boston Marathon, those in San Bernandino) have either had contact with people on these lists or are on these lists, yet there are those in the Senate (again incidentally Republicans) who vote against bills to limit gun sales to, say, people who are on terrorist watch lists or have had contact with known extremists... It is a painful wound, being from California, to realize that the people who shot up a workplace in San Bernandino were able to purchase those guns legally despite their known communications with extremists. It just doesn't make sense. I welcome a counter-argument to this, as long as you... ... let me remind you of two things: 1) Because I post an article, does not necessarily mean I agree with all of it. No shit that this was an overblown statistic, but it generates conversation. For example, without this headline, you may not have chosen to add your points to this discussion. 2) This: is ad hominem, whether you meant it or not. Not cool.This makes me doubt that you credibly want to work with me toward an actually viable solution. You are the deadlock that you hate to see in Congress where one side digs in deep and refuses to move. Is that really who you want to be politically? An idealistic zealot who won't concede an inch?
But I kind of doubt that once you're dug in on one issue that you don't mirror that in others. Entrenched ideas look like burial to everyone else.
That Republican prayer vote mongering nonsense is part of the problem. They don't actually want to stop gun violence. They want to stop talking about it by calling it terrorism, which in some cases it is (Dylan Roof obviously). But they never actually do anything about it because each side is so polarized. There's no room for compromise because Republicans are set up to defend gun rights and they have great success painting Democrats as wanting to take them away (even if they were only trying to enact better background checks for example). It's all political theater and nothing changes. Statistics like the ones from this article make it very easy for both sides to stay entrenched is my point. The anti-gun crowd gets to say that a shooting happens every day, and the pro-gun crowd gets to say look how ridiculous our opponents are. Nobody wins. For shit's sake, the article even points out that this a statistic made up by a Reddit anti-gun group called GunsAreCool. It's not a tool of discussion, it's a tool of polarization. This response wasn't written to you in particular, but to people who would carry this article under the banner of gun-control. I didn't mean for you to take it personally and I'm sorry if it made you feel as if I don't respect you. That was not my intent. In the tone of the paragraph there is no 'you' in reality, but a caricature of a lot of entrenched people, both left and right who refuse to work with each other.
I don't understand if you are willing to concede that the solution presented will fix the problem what is there to discuss?I asked "How would you stop mass shootings?" a while ago and that was the big solution: Outlaw firearms. I get it, that would work to the extent of stopping mass shootings for the most part.
Because there are considerations other than how to solve the problem in the debate. For one, that solution is completely in opposition to the 2nd Amendment which is not going anywhere making it a moot point. I would like to see solutions which greatly contribute to the overall safety of citizens without infringing upon the Constitutional rights beyond what is included in a wholesale ban. For example, it has been reported that the husband and wife who committed the crimes in San Bernardino were on the no-fly list. Why is someone who is not allowed to fly because they are suspected of being a terrorist still allowed to purchase a firearm? Closing that loophole seems prudent. Dylan Roof was allowed to buy a firearm despite having been arrested within a few days of the shooting incident. He was allowed to purchase the gun because the FBI didn't get back to the retailer within 3 days of the background check being completed. Making sure that the FBI is equipped to handle purchase applications in a timely manner seems very prudent. The Virginia Tech shooter used 10 round magazines that were compliant with the California Assault Weapons reforms as did the shooters in the Columbine shootings. They just brought more of them. This therefore seems a silly ban which only infringes on legal users for no actual purpose. Closing straw purchase loopholes seems like an obvious step. Closing individual sales being exempt from federal background checks seems like an obvious step. There are many things which could greatly contribute to the safety and peace of a majority of citizens which do not infringe on the Constitutional rights of legal gun owners. These are the kinds of things which we should be discussing.
Opposition to an amendment doesn't make the point moot. The constitution was designed with change in mind. A change to the amendment is well within the the power of the government. I also do not agree that owning a gun should be right by any mean, but that is more of my own opinion on the matter which I've mentioned a few time before. In most cases a lot of the countries that practice strict gun laws do not outright ban them in every circumstance. The law simply stipulates that there are just very few situations where owning a gun is warranted. Most of the discussion you are referring to has already been discussed and proposed in Congress. Its just the gun lobby would choose not to discuss anything that takes away their "right." I would say that because of that extremist point of view much in the words of tacocat in your previous thread on this topic. Since they don't seem to want to take any middle ground then what choice does anyone have, but to oppose them entirely? I think our points differ in our views on the second amendment, and its constitutionality in modern day society.
My point is not that changing an amendment is impossible theoretically, it's that the path a repeal of the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution is so far from the realm of possibility in the current political climate (and will be for the foreseeable future) that acting as if supporting a repeal is actually contributing to gun reform is more of an argument in how the constitution works rather than gun reform.