4 ms·
> If the sensible restrictions worked, nobody would be talking about heavy restrictions or bans. I'm not so sure, since it really depends on how you define suc
by Chaebixi 9y ago
> If the sensible restrictions worked, nobody would be talking about heavy restrictions or bans.
I'm not so sure, since it really depends on how you define success. I'd wager strict gun control advocates would define it as something fairly extreme, like "an end to gun violence," which could only be achieved by extreme, not "sensible," restrictions.
> Wanting to solve the massive gun violence problem in America is not unreasonable.
True, but unfortunately we're also suffering from an extreme lack of trust. You're not going to see compromises unless that trust is rebuilt from both sides. Until then, the best you're going to get is opportunistic exploitation of temporary situational strength.
- simonh 9y agoI’m a foreigner, ignore me at will, but personally I’d want to make a deal. You’re never going to eliminate all gun deaths, criminals will always find ways to get guns, so let’s set an achievable goal. 5 years to halve gun deaths in America, or all automatic and semi automatic weapons get banned. You can set whatever laws you like, it’s your problem, you fix it. If you think it’s a mental health issue, fine, you get whatever funding you need to address it. That would still be 50% more gun deaths per capita than the European countries with the loosest gun controls and highest levels of gun ownership. It’s 2.5x Israel and is higher than Nicaragua.