5 ms·

> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spre

by lolsal 9y ago

> That's exactly the case. Just because numbers are going down doesn't make it any less of an epidemic. 'Epidemic' is usually used to refer to the rate of spread of something. This sort of hyperbole is exactly why it's hard to have honest or productive discussions about this topic. > Suggesting people don't own assault rifles is not an "extreme reaction". I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal.

tacomonstrous 9y ago
>I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal. No, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that we interpret the 2nd amendment differently. There is clear precedence for limits on arms ownership. It's just a question of where they should be.
dabeeeenster 9y ago
I'm British, so I'm not really concerned by it. The US is collectively losing its mind, on many levels.
- uhhyeahdude 9y ago
  Well, it's a good thing that the countries are not tied to one another, Politically, Economically, Diplomatically, Socially. . .
- merb 9y ago
  To be fair, the European's and British, losing their mind on many levels as well. (I'm german)
  - masonic 9y ago
    It's a good thing that the crazy European, British, and Americans were around to counter those sane, rational Germans in the 1940s.
- lolsal 9y ago
  The US is not perfect, for sure! But don't let sensationalism in the media shape your perception of everything outside of Britain.
kelnos 9y ago
The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it's a blanket grant for anyone to be allowed to own a firearm, is actually recent (2008!). Before that, it was well understood that there are limits to the forms of firearm ownership that the 2nd Amendment grants. There is nothing preventing us from going back to the older (IMO correct) interpretation.
matt_the_bass 9y ago
One question that perhaps we should be asking is Should the right to bear arms include assault rifles or only lower power guns similar to what we’re available at the time of its writing? There seems to be general public agreement that the right to bear arms does not include RPGs or stinger missles, etc. Yet those are certainly arms. Why are assault riffles in the same category as shot guns?
- stale2002 9y ago
  Almost all guns are semi automatic. So banning semi auto weapons, as you suggest, would be equivent to an almost total gun ban. You are free to believe that, but you should realize that this is a very extensive ban.
  - matt_the_bass 9y ago
    Hmm. Not sure why you were down voted. I’m interested in hearing logical arguments. I have no idea if your statistics are correct for “almost all guns are semiautomatic”. One impression I’ve had regarding recent 2nd amendment rights arguments is that we need guns for hunting, home protection, self protection, and protection from the government. 1. I’ve never met a hunter that insists on semi automatics for hunting. To many that seems un sportsman-like. 2. Shotguns are very effective for home protection against the most common types of home “invasion” since they don’t need perfect aim. They are not generally semi-Automatic. 3. I understand that for many, self protection may mean a hand gun. Sure some are semi-automatic. 4. If a modern government “wants you”, no amount of currently legal private arms will stop them regardless if they are semi-automatic. So of those scenarios, only #3 has a strong argument for semi-automatic imho. And we don’t often see hand guns as the main tool in mass shootings (though they are clearly a tool in general crime related gun violence - gang shooting, robbery, demos tic abuse, etc). I’m interested in logical arguments why the gun lobby argues against this idea. Note, I’m not saying I agree with the idea that guns are the best solution for 2 and 3. I do believe in responsible hunting. I have fired a number of different types of guns.
    - lmlsna 9y ago

by lolsal 9y ago

tacomonstrous 9y ago

>I would assert that it depends on whether or not you feel altering (or violating) the Bill of Rights is an "extreme reaction". Getting the USA constitution modified takes a lot of effort and is a big deal. No, it doesn't mean that at all. It just means that we interpret the 2nd amendment differently. There is clear precedence for limits on arms ownership. It's just a question of where they should be.

dabeeeenster 9y ago

I'm British, so I'm not really concerned by it. The US is collectively losing its mind, on many levels.

uhhyeahdude 9y ago
Well, it's a good thing that the countries are not tied to one another, Politically, Economically, Diplomatically, Socially. . .
merb 9y ago
To be fair, the European's and British, losing their mind on many levels as well. (I'm german)
- masonic 9y ago
  It's a good thing that the crazy European, British, and Americans were around to counter those sane, rational Germans in the 1940s.
lolsal 9y ago
The US is not perfect, for sure! But don't let sensationalism in the media shape your perception of everything outside of Britain.

kelnos 9y ago

The current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that it's a blanket grant for anyone to be allowed to own a firearm, is actually recent (2008!). Before that, it was well understood that there are limits to the forms of firearm ownership that the 2nd Amendment grants. There is nothing preventing us from going back to the older (IMO correct) interpretation.

matt_the_bass 9y ago

One question that perhaps we should be asking is Should the right to bear arms include assault rifles or only lower power guns similar to what we’re available at the time of its writing? There seems to be general public agreement that the right to bear arms does not include RPGs or stinger missles, etc. Yet those are certainly arms. Why are assault riffles in the same category as shot guns?

stale2002 9y ago
Almost all guns are semi automatic. So banning semi auto weapons, as you suggest, would be equivent to an almost total gun ban. You are free to believe that, but you should realize that this is a very extensive ban.
- matt_the_bass 9y ago
  Hmm. Not sure why you were down voted. I’m interested in hearing logical arguments. I have no idea if your statistics are correct for “almost all guns are semiautomatic”. One impression I’ve had regarding recent 2nd amendment rights arguments is that we need guns for hunting, home protection, self protection, and protection from the government. 1. I’ve never met a hunter that insists on semi automatics for hunting. To many that seems un sportsman-like. 2. Shotguns are very effective for home protection against the most common types of home “invasion” since they don’t need perfect aim. They are not generally semi-Automatic. 3. I understand that for many, self protection may mean a hand gun. Sure some are semi-automatic. 4. If a modern government “wants you”, no amount of currently legal private arms will stop them regardless if they are semi-automatic. So of those scenarios, only #3 has a strong argument for semi-automatic imho. And we don’t often see hand guns as the main tool in mass shootings (though they are clearly a tool in general crime related gun violence - gang shooting, robbery, demos tic abuse, etc). I’m interested in logical arguments why the gun lobby argues against this idea. Note, I’m not saying I agree with the idea that guns are the best solution for 2 and 3. I do believe in responsible hunting. I have fired a number of different types of guns.
  - lmlsna 9y ago