Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[cduggles]

^Ban carzzzz!!! They kill thousands every year!

Much needed laugh! :D

 

[JessFR]

Ban all guns. They are stupid.

There.

You aren't an American. I get the feeling tathra was speaking exclusively from an American context. And in that context, he's mostly right.

Right in the sense that the right really is always talking about how the left is trying to ban all guns while the left in reality is actually saying they want to ban a few specific categories of guns that they believe are the most dangerous and unsuitable for public ownership.

Mostly in the sense that the right is justified in their fear that the left secretly wants to just ban all guns, regardless of what they say publicly. No matter what the left says, no matter what they themselves honestly believe. I have absolutely no doubt that if they got their way. Today they'll ban assault weapons. It won't work for all the reasons I've said this whole thread. So next shooting, they'll ban even more. Then more after that. Then they will start saying the problem is that there are still all the guns they've banned on the market grandfathered from when they were legal. And then they'll try to take them away. And then they'll say that we need licensing too. Little by little.

This pattern has repeated on countless controversial issues, in many different countries, many different times throughout history. And is still happening now. They are still banning new drugs despite the failure of previous bans.

They never decide enough is enough. So the right is perfectly justified in saying that if they give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

Now just to be clear, by left and right, I'm speaking exclusively to American politics except where I've specified that it's not specific to American politics.

But the point being, you, and the Australian perspective in general that you've just reflected. And it's similar variants in other countries like the UK. Do not reflect the political situation in the US. And it seemed pretty clear to me that that's what tathra was expressing frustration for.

Perhaps he was adapting that frustration for examples he's seen in this thread though. Suggesting that right leaning members here are doing the same thing. But even so that cultural divide is still an important distinction to pay attention too.

On many occasions I've heard Australians talk about how they don't want to be America. I've had Australians tell me that they didn't want American style free speech.

Well you know what? I don't think Americans want to be fucking Australians either. Or rather they wouldn't if they had the same obsession with Australian politics as Australia does for American.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Ban all guns. They are stupid.

There.

if making drugs illegal didn't work, why would making guns illegal work?

there's some parts of the U.S. where this is infeasible due to extremely high gun ownership per capita.

 

[JessFR]

if making drugs illegal didn't work, why would making guns illegal work?

there's some parts of the U.S. where this is infeasible due to extremely high gun ownership per capita.

I can tell you it doesn't. I lived in Sydney for 6 years. I'm temporarily somewhere else but that's where I normally live. In that time I've known some shall we say, less than entirely law abiding people in my extended time as a heroin addict.

I could have gotten a semiautomatic within a day if I'd been so inclined. That's the thing that really brought home to me how much of a joke Australian gun control was. I saw guns everywhere.

If you think about it, it's pretty obvious why there aren't spree killings in Australia like in the US. It is because of low legal gun ownership. I've said that a few times. It does work for that function. Because think about the kind of people who tend to go on spree killings? They tend to be people with little criminal association until their crime. So such people in Australia really do find themselves without easy access to guns because they don't know the right people.

But criminals don't. And that's where almost all crime comes from. Repeat criminals.

So sure, if you wanna stop spree killings at all costs, getting rid of legal gun ownership is one way to do it. But there's nothing to say there aren't other, better ways that don't reduce societies freedom. And it still doesn't tend to have any impact on the actual crime stats. Spree killings, horrifying as they are, are a very very small portion of the total deaths each year. I mentioned earlier how the stats fluctuate from year to year anyway. They can fluctuate by far greater numbers than that for no apparent reason at all

 

[oxyloveUK]

Trump wanting to make it a policy that school teachers carry guns just shows how messed up and corrupt your country is.. any students could get the guns and then go on shooting rampages not to mention the teachers themselves. Just like with opioids, making a problem much worse with extreme measures that dont work

who cares about legal gun shop owners and weapon manufacturers who's business will suffer, they deserve it

 

[JessFR]

Trump wanting to make it a policy that school teachers carry guns just shows how messed up and corrupt your country is.. any students could get the guns and then go on shooting rampages not to mention the teachers themselves. Just like with opioids, making a problem much worse with extreme measures that dont work

who cares about legal gun shop owners and weapon manufacturers who's business will suffer, they deserve it

Just like with opioids? Uhh no.

If you're going with the opioid metaphor, trumps solution is like saying we should make opioids more accessible. And you're saying that we should ban all opioids.

You've got it all backwards.

Isn't it amazing.. People in Australia, and the UK. They go on and on about how horrible America is because we try to enforce our values on the world.

Yet they do exactly the same thing. Acting like their culture is superior and we should be just like them. The only difference is they aren't powerful enough to actually do it. Fucking hypocrites.

 

[Xorkoth]

Trump wanting to make it a policy that school teachers carry guns just shows how messed up and corrupt your country is.. any students could get the guns and then go on shooting rampages not to mention the teachers themselves. Just like with opioids, making a problem much worse with extreme measures that dont work

who cares about legal gun shop owners and weapon manufacturers who's business will suffer, they deserve it

Agreed that the suggestion to arm teachers in response to school shootings is unfathomably stupid, fucked up, depressing and wrong. I just wanted to point out though that this is far from the way that all American think. The problem here (among others) is that the republicans and some deocrats are in the pocket of the NRA. The NRA (national rifle association, basically the gun industry() has absolutely enormous political power. There is a vocal minority who buy into the NRA's bullshit hook, line and sinker, and lots of politicians who are the NRA's bitches who won't go against anything. Arming teachers in every school across American would sure sell a whole lot of guns. That's what this is all about.

However, most Americans are interested in sensible gun policy, not the lunacy being forced by the NRA. Gr4eater background checks, closing the gun show loophole where you can get guns without background checks... I think most Americans support these measures. We're not a bunch of moronic redneck gun nuys over here, even if some of us are. Mosat Americans are disgusting and horrified by the political situation here. You guys think you're disgusted by it? Imagine what it's like for us... it's OUR country. God it makes me want to puke every day.

To me, the line is gray. Society, not just me but society has to decide where the line between freedom and safety should be. And I do think some safety must be sacrificed for freedom, just as some freedom must be sacrificed for safety.

Personally I don't have a clear cut line myself. But what's definitely not in the gray area of the line is any attempt to reduce freedom where there is evidence that it will not have any benefit to society.

It's one thing for us to debate as a society how safe we want to be vs how free, in a subject where it's one or the other. But if the subject in question is only being suggested to be banned based on people's assumptions and prejudices and ignorance, that's not in the gray area.

To me, I think there should be at least some rational reason to ban it, and in no circumstances should we be doing anything where there's evidence that it fails to improve safety.

There is a gray area. Some of these questions are on it. Is stopping school shootings, statistically small that they are, worth a reduction in freedom? I'm not sure. Perhaps. But even if so, there's not just one way to try doing it.

I don't believe the 2nd amendment should be absolute. I don't think everyone should have the absolute right to own a gun. I think we should have a licensing system. Focus on who has guns, not what guns they have. That's where the evidence ive seen has brought me.

I do however think that society should never ask the question "why does anyone need X?". That assumes a legal system where all is illegal until legalized. A system fundamentally in contradiction to the assumption of freedom.

Everything should be allowed no matter how seemingly unneeded, unless removing that freedom is the only way to protect people. And assuming the number being protected is large enough to warrant that sacrifice. And assuming society is collectively OK with losing that freedom for that safety.

Okay, I'm glad we're on the same page about it being a gray area. So really the difference between your position and my position in this debate is that, to me, from what I've gathered and considered, it is fully worth the restriction of freedom to not allow owning semiautomatic large magazine guns, because of the potential to reduce harm. While you have not found sufficient evidence to convince you of that. That's fine though, I'm glad you also feel that 100% personal freedom is not aolways the answer in a complex society.

But then, I don't believe there should be a fundamental right of all people to be armed. I believe that generally speaking, a way should be made available for anyone who is not a danger to other people to receive training and obtain a firearm for their protection or other reasons. That that should always be a freedom we have until there is no question that such a freedom is impossible without costing a substantial number of lives as its cost.

As for the specifics, I think more than anything else why ever we do should be evidence based. Scientific. I don't think we should retry failed ideas or try ideas that aren't sensible to start with because they are uninformed ideas.

So it might be more accurate to say I believe in an assumption of freedom and decisions born from scientific method, than the 2nd amendment.

But that said. I do believe the 2nd amendments only valid interpretation is individualist. I think it's probably a mistake that's come about as society has changed. And that it's probably too extreme for the modern world. But I won't deny its meaning just because I disagree with it.

Not everyone should be allowed to have guns. Most people probably should. But I think we should have a stronger system to control who has access to them. But I don't think there's any real evidence to suggest there are good answers to be had in banning specific typed of guns.

And I think that you should probably have to receive at least some basic training to possess weapons.

Yep, I also agree with this. The current state of affairs is deplorable with gun control. Anyone can walk into a gun show and buy any sort of gun all the way up a semiautomatic AR-15 and walk right out of there with it. No training, no background check. We need to be vetting gun owners much more. The gun show loophole is insanity. But people should be allowed to own guns. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible with them and enjoy using them for hobby or hunting. And that's perfectly fine. What needs to be done is to take measures to reduce the incidence of people who are going to use guns for nefarious purposes from being able to get them. We can never stop them all, I mean there's a black market, but to use that as a reason to do nothing is ridiculous. Once we begin to try to restrict gun acquisition to only those who have been deemed safe, we can begin to make progress towards fixing this issue we're facing today.

 

[LandsUnknown]

Ban all guns. They are stupid.

There.

Guns aren't something that interest me personally, but I could never vote for a candidate that talked about banning all guns as it would be in violation of the 2nd amendment. And once unconstitutional laws get passed, it is a slippery slope. One day, it could be guns....... next it could be freedom of speech and press. Though, on a theoretical level, I agree that humanity would probably be better off without them. Would be a more peaceful world.

 

[JessFR]

Guns aren't something that interest me personally, but I could never vote for a candidate that talked about banning all guns as it would be in violation of the 2nd amendment. And once unconstitutional laws get passed, it is a slippery slope. One day, it could be guns....... next it could be freedom of speech and press. Though, on a theoretical level, I agree that humanity would probably be better off without them. Would be a more peaceful world.

In my experience, Australians don't comprehend this.

They don't have a bill of rights, and as a society, Australia already accepts that you don't have the right to say absolutely anything. It's already the case here that you can get in legal trouble for say, racial vilification. You can't get away with saying all the stuff you can in the US in Australia. And in my experience, Australians like it that way. They don't think about the concept of rights in the same way.

Finding Americans who believe that free speech should cover racist speech, sexist speech, etc. That you have a right to say it without risk of say, being sued or fined. It's easy. Lots of Americans believe that.

In my experience I've found almost no Australians do.

Australian culture doesn't have the same kind of reverence for a document enshrining inheirent rights like America does. Cause none exists.

All rights in Australia are the laws of parliament, and those laws can be changed by the government at any time. It's as if the bill of rights in America were just another law passed by congress. Which can be easily changed by other laws. Or have future laws create exceptions.

If you're say, a journalist in Australia, and you write an opinion piece that says say, that some indigenous Australians who look superficially white, are really white and pretending to be indigenous. You could, and people have, gotten in legal trouble and lost.

Very different to America.

I bring this up because, in my pretty extensive experience, Australians just don't buy the slippery slope argument. They are far far more likely to create exceptions and see limits in rights like free speech. It's a cultural difference. I think it's cause of differences in upbringing.

I think most Australians think we're actually crazy to hold the constitution in such high regard. There is no equivalent in their society.

I've lived here a long time, I think I could count on one hand how many Australians I've met that seemed to comprehend the reality of guns in America and the complexities. And grasp that even if we passed a law introducing gun control, it should be and could be thrown out by he Supreme Court. And that it's not possible in our legal system with the current political climate among the population to change the 2nd amendment.

Most of them truly don't seem to grasp why we can't just do it like they did. Cause when they did it, they didn't have anything like the same kind of gun culture we do. I've met some who imagined they did, but it's obvious they don't comprehend what it's like in the US and how different it is. And unlike the US. In Australia, their legal system empowered them to do it. It wasn't unconstitutional.

Australia's constitution doesn't protect almost any rights. Because it reflects a political system and philosophy that says that parliament is the ultimate authority on the law. And they should be able to do almost anything. Because they are the elected representitives. Most Australians couldn't quote you even one sentence of the Australian constitution. That's how irrelivent it is outside obscure legal issues. And I think a lot of them don't appreciate that America simply can't bring in gun control like Australia did. Even completely ignoring the political fallout from the pro gun side. The legal situation is drastically different.

In short. Australians and Americans are unlike each other in ways I don't think many people appreciate. It's probably not possible to appreciate it unless you've lived an extensive period of time in both cultures.

 

[tathra]

So sure, if you wanna stop spree killings at all costs, getting rid of legal gun ownership is one way to do it. But there's nothing to say there aren't other, better ways that don't reduce societies freedom. And it still doesn't tend to have any impact on the actual crime stats. Spree killings, horrifying as they are, are a very very small portion of the total deaths each year. I mentioned earlier how the stats fluctuate from year to year anyway. They can fluctuate by far greater numbers than that for no apparent reason at all

everything in life is decided on the cost vs the benefits. the costs of having unrestricted access to firearms far outweigh the benefits. and "it wont work perfectly, there will still be guns [so we shouldn't bother trying]" is the nirvana fallacy.

prohibitions against drugs and prostitution aren't really valid analogies because those are issues of bodily autonomy, theres no way you can put gun ownership into terms of bodily autonomy - self defense doesn't require lethal force, and there are much better methods for suicide. gun ownership is directly analogous to car ownership tho - tools that are extremely deadly to innocents if mishandled and training is absolutely necessary for proper, responsible operation.

 

[alasdairm]

jessfr, i agree with you to some extent on the deeply-ingrained cultural differences between, e.g., australians and americans.

i often wonder if, day to day, australians feel any less free than your average american.

in 2017 in the u.s., excluding suicides, about 16,000 died as a result of gun violence. the latest figures i can find for australia are from 2014 - 32 people.

australia has made a different choice. i don't think they're a bunch of nanny-state sjw cucks simply for wanting to live in a society where parents don't have to wonder, when they send their kids of to school, whether they'll be next...

alasdair

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Trump wanting to make it a policy that school teachers carry guns just shows how messed up and corrupt your country is.. any students could get the guns and then go on shooting rampages not to mention the teachers themselves. Just like with opioids, making a problem much worse with extreme measures that dont work

who cares about legal gun shop owners and weapon manufacturers who's business will suffer, they deserve it

A teacher can go on a rampage as is, there's no cops with metal detectors at the door scanning the teachers in virtually all the schools... 8(

"A teacher could go on a rampage" is a pretty poor argument against allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons.

 

[Xorkoth]

The idea that arming and training teachers is the answer to this problem is incomprehensible to me and it boggles my mind that it is even being put forth as a viable solution. So, teachers are now supposed to, besides teaching their students, guiding their students, parenting their students, be prepared to kill their students if need be? If that's what we want, then we have fallen down a really weird and terrible hole. We need to examine why it is that we have gotten to a place where such a suggestion seems reasonable. How is it that we are at a place where we think the answer to guns in schools is more guns in schools, teachers armed and trained to kill? This is madness, it's sick, it's disgusting. I can't believe this is the reality of our situation right now. Something has gone terribly, terribly wrong and it disturbs me to my bones.

Good god, imagine being the teacher who has to make the decision to kill a student. What the fuck is going on here? We've fallen off the rails if we think this is sensible. When is enough enough? This is some sick shit going on right now. The gun control debate has gotten out of control. There are people accusing grieving survivors of being actors in a plot to undermine gun rights. This is happening and people are repeating it. People need to get a grip. NRA spokespeople are making claims that people who are pushing for stricter gun control are trying to eliminate the 2nd amendment, and from there go on to destroy the rest of our freedoms. And people are buying this. No, no, no. No.
There is some sinister, sinister shit going on right now and it makes me fucking sick. I can't even believe this is real. How did we get here? Kids are dying and somehow people are conflating the desire to limit access to deadly weapons with some European socialist plot to take away all our freedoms? No. This is absurdity. What the fuck is wrong with people? I'm so creeped out by this whole situation.

 

[JessFR]

jessfr, i agree with you to some extent on the deeply-ingrained cultural differences between, e.g., australians and americans.

i often wonder if, day to day, australians feel any less free than your average american.

in 2017 in the u.s., excluding suicides, about 16,000 died as a result of gun violence. the latest figures i can find for australia are from 2014 - 32 people.

australia has made a different choice. i don't think they're a bunch of nanny-state sjw cucks simply for wanting to live in a society where parents don't have to wonder, when they send their kids of to school, whether they'll be next...

alasdair

Just to be clear, my post on the differences between Australian and American culture isn't intended to say that Australians are outright wrong. There are some things where I do think they're wrong, but in the post I wrote I was honestly just trying to explain my observations about some of the differences between Australian and American culture in a reasonably unbiased way. Obviously I have my own views on a lot of it, but I was trying to keep them out of that post and keep it to just explaining the differences I've observed without passing judgement on any of it.

And in the spirit of trying to objectively state my observations of the differences... No. I don't think Australians feel any less free in a generalized sense than Americans. But I do think an American living in Australia could easily come to feel less free here. And I do think, some Australians might notice just how extreme Australia is from living in America.

It's not all gun rights and free speech. To quote pulp fiction, it's the little differences. A million small seemingly unimportant things where in Australia you'd find yourself fined for doing something you'd be free to do in much of America. Or find is illegal here or harder to do or more restricted.

No, you MUST wear a helmet or be fined.
No, you MUST wear a seatbelt or be fined.

There are countless small things. Where you're just that little bit less free in Australia. And I think it's because culturally Australians just don't worry as much about respecting each other's freedoms. I don't think they put as much value on freedom as a concept as we do.

You can't buy an airsoft gun, they're all illegal, they look too much like real guns. You can't own pepper spray, you can't own body armor, you can't carry ANYTHING to defend yourself whatsoever. You can't buy various drugs that are legal in the US, like melatonin, you need a script. And a million others I can't name off the top of my head. If your home has a swimming pool it MUST have safety signs, it MUST be surrounded by a fence. It can't have anything near it a child might use to climb over it. This applies even if you don't have kids, and they have the legal power to come to your home to personally check that you're following the rules. If you're getting a drivers license you MUST display a sign on your car that marks you as a learner or provisional driver for several years. And you MUST take it off again any time a regular driver is driving.

And countless other small things like these. Things that might be legal in much of the US but in Australia such restrictions are just accepted. Australians accept restrictions to their freedom with far less fuss than Americans do. They honestly don't see it as a problem.

And maybe that's fine for them. Maybe if I were an Australian it wouldn't bother me either. And to be fair, it does sometimes get excessive enough even Australians are bothered by it. But they do far less about it than Americans do in the end. And there is far less legal ability to do something about it. For the reason I mentioned before about the rights situation. And they are only ever bothered by it when it effects them.

I've never seen an Australian show frustration about something like what I've just mentioned unless it is actually a problem for them. If it's a problem for someone else, they don't care.

Americans I think are far more likely to get outraged on sheer principle when it comes to reduced freedoms.

And hey, if they wanna live like that, that's fine. I've long accepted that. And who am I to say they shouldn't? I'm not saying they should change, it's not up to me. I'm just explaining the differences to provide some context into the differences in how Australians and Americans in general see the world.

 

[alasdairm]

Australians accept restrictions to their freedom with far less fuss than Americans do. They honestly don't see it as a problem.
...
And hey, if they wanna live like that, that's fine. I've long accepted that. And who am I to say they shouldn't? I'm not saying they should change, it's not up to me. I'm just explaining the differences to provide some context into the differences in how Australians and Americans in general see the world.

of course.

i didn't mean to imply that you felt they're 'wrong'. if i did, i apologise.

there are certainly bluelighters who insult and look down on australians because of the choices they're made. they're almost certainly (full disclosure: complete guess) the same kind of people who harp on about the importance of state's rights yet they can't seem to respect australians making choices for themselves.

alasdair

 

[tathra]

if everyone's guns get taken away (for reasons other than a despotic autocratic takeover) its going to be because gun fetishes keep pushing so desperately to keep everything to do with guns competely unregulated. they should be the very first ones pushing to ensue firearms are restricted and training and such be mandatory. instead their unwillingness to work to prevent all these massacres and accept nothing less than compete and total deregulation is going to ensue that everyone loses all their guns once things finally get pushed too far, and we're almost at that point now.

i like guns and i like shooting, that's why i want there to be proper regulations in place. i know how this is going to turn out if nothing changes, I've known it for a long time.

 

[alasdairm]

about 90% of americans agree with the idea of background checks. further, 92% of american who own guns support universal background checks. so why doesn't it happen? just ask guys like john mccain and marco rubio who have taken millions from the nra over the course of their careers.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

And where does the NRA get that money from? Mostly ordinary Americans.

Did any of these spree killers actually get their guns using a gun show loophole? I don't know of any. And if not, focusing on it is stupid if your goal is to stop spree killings.

By the way. Have you given any thought to the possibility that the NRA doesn't actually care about the gun show loophole themselves? That by fighting against the anti gun side over it, they keep the anti gun people distracted on an issue where even if they win, the NRA and the gun lobby have barely lost anything? It keeps you focused on an issue they're willing to eventually sacrifice. And when they do, years of time and enormous resources will have been wasted but people fighting against guns, by fighting for something that won't change barely anything and that the gun lobby doesn't care about. You might have been putting all your effort into fighting for registration or licensing or gun bans. Shit they really don't want to happen. But by pretending to care about the gun show loophole they keep you fighting for it. And away from anything they do care about.

The gun show loophole only involves small private sales. The gun industry doesn't even make money from it. But it's a great way to keep people fighting over something they don't themselves even care about. So you aren't focusing on something else that they really do care about. And even if you eventually win. They can then point to it and how it didn't stop to next spree killing and make gun control look like a failure.

Divide and conquer.

I must confess it's brilliant.

Imagine you're the gun lobby. Someone like the news or whomever has just done a report on how small time private gun show sales. Rare one at that since most are already background checked anyway. Are a way you could theoretically evade background checks.

Your sales already involve background checks, you make no money from it. So you have nothing to lose by seeing the gun show loophole closed.

You see your enemy, the anti gun people start going nuts over it. Do you...

A. Ignore it, see it taken away, and they move on to the next issue they want to legislate regarding guns. Perhaps something you really do care about and really will hurt sales.

Or.. B. You pretend you care about it greatly and would hate to see them win. So they fight for it harder. You fight back as hard as you can. Knowing in the long run you'll likely lose the argument anyway. But who cares? It won't affect your sales at all. And when you lose, you can use it to talk about how you've already compromised later on when something you really do care about comes into the enemies sights. And since it's provoked by spree killings, none of which are done through that loophole anyway. Next time one happens you can also use it to make gun control generally look like a failure.

It's all win for you, to fight for the gun show loophole and pretend to care about it. And you can play your enemies for suckers.

 

[cduggles]

Australian culture doesn't have the same kind of reverence for a document enshrining inheirent rights like America does. Cause none exists.

All rights in Australia are the laws of parliament, and those laws can be changed by the government at any time. It's as if the bill of rights in America were just another law passed by congress. Which can be easily changed by other laws. Or have future laws create exceptions.

Actually this is basically true... the Bill of Rights were amendments to another document that enshrined previous inherent rights and inequalities.

I think most Australians think we're actually crazy to hold the constitution in such high regard. There is no equivalent in their society

I don't know what you think the average American knows much less cares about, but I'm absolutely sure it isn't based on a deep understanding and love for the Constitution and its subsequent amendments.

I've lived here a long time, I think I could count on one hand how many Australians I've met that seemed to comprehend the reality of guns in America and the complexities. And grasp that even if we passed a law introducing gun control, it should be and could be thrown out by he Supreme Court. And that it's not possible in our legal system with the current political climate among the population to change the 2nd amendment.

It's quite possible to change the way the 2nd Amendment is interpreted and/or enforced. (We don't need to change the Amendment... just like free speech isn't absolute.)

In the judiciary, a gun control case could wend its way to the Supreme Court and then the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution in whatever way it wants as it relates to that case, narrowly or broadly. (Technically the law wouldn't be thrown off the books either.)

See Brown v Board of Education and Roe v Wade

Neither of these cases were decided by a popularity contest. Desegregation and abortion were quite controversial then, and I think we all know about now.

Also, Congress could pass something that the President signs into law quite quickly. See: shoddy Trump tax cuts.

Now there are a lot of laws on the books that aren't enforced, and without funding from Congress (the Appropriations Committee, in some cases) or other government appropriation processes, they are just paper laws.

But let's just be clear that it isn't the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the 2nd Amendment, The Chronic album, or the will of the American people that is holding up gun control.

It's the very well-funded and organized gun lobby and the politicians who like to win reelection. It's a really bad system.

Most of them truly don't seem to grasp why we can't just do it like they did. Cause when they did it, they didn't have anything like the same kind of gun culture we do. I've met some who imagined they did, but it's obvious they don't comprehend what it's like in the US and how different it is. And unlike the US. In Australia, their legal system empowered them to do it. It wasn't unconstitutional.

Sorry, I just get tired of the word "unconstitutional" being used in many arguments. The Constitution is a living document interpreted by our judiciary. And with issues like desegregation and the death penalty, the Supreme Court has completely turned around. Multiple times on the death penalty, actually.

Most Australians couldn't quote you even one sentence of the Australian constitution.

How many Americans would like to claim that we'd do well on this particular exercise?

The legal situation is drastically different.

Yes, but there are ways it could be done very quickly (see: Shoddy Trump tax cuts). It's not impossible. Actually the enforcement is the difficult, expensive part.

A relevant case would have to make to the Supreme Court docket (just because it could easily be overruled if in a lower court), but the Supreme Court could just shut down the show.

How law enforcement dealt with the decision would be difficult. And expensive. But not this "pry it from my cold, dead hands" drama. That usually ends after some prying.

In short. Australians and Americans are unlike each other in ways I don't think many people appreciate. It's probably not possible to appreciate it unless you've lived an extensive period of time in both cultures.

Probably not, but I can say we look backwards and uncivilized to the rest of the so-called first world in the gun debate. And I think you grew up in gun subculture, which is very specific. (I know because I did too.)

But by and large most Americans want their kids to be safe in school. It's so weird to me that you seem to think 17 dead kids are the net impact on the "stats". Maybe gun mortality. That doesn't even include the injured. The effect on the American psyche is cumulative to an extent, and profound.

Mass shootings in movie theaters, open air concerts and schools make a lot of people start thinking about gun safety.

And Jess, I respect your opinions on any number of topics, and your knowledge about guns. But most people don't have your level or Tathra's level of understanding about them.

Neither of you has an obligation to educate anyone, but it would be helpful if you at least acknowledge that people don't need to know the difference between a modified semi-auto and an automatic weapon to participate in this discussion.

In fact, the reality is that most of these political and policy decisions will be made by people who know nothing about guns.

You're really a resource for this debate in many ways and I'm happy you're engaging. But while it might frustrate you, this is how most people on BL feel when they hear about "normies" talk about drug policy.

It's easy to understand the frustration and criticize, and it's harder to see the opportunities to educate. I really see some opportunities.

 

[zephyr]

Im suprised the American culture holds the constitution in high regard yet have not really updated it to suit the current times as a document that old really needs to syit life as it is today and not what the situation was when guns were a pain in the arse, fired one round at a time (?) and I dont think many could afford them.


We dunno what ours is here and dont have to know it ir pledge allegiance. I mean shit a lot of our politicians havent read it. The dual nationality thing proved that.



It would hrlp to know all the gun laws and loopholes or just not have a gun plethora easily available to crazy people.