4 ms·
I feel like you're taking the wrong conclusion here. Perhaps modern society and guns being widely accessible don't mix. Other countries took measures when the p
by mcaruso 7y ago
I feel like you're taking the wrong conclusion here. Perhaps modern society and guns being widely accessible don't mix. Other countries took measures when the problem became apparent, the US didn't.
- neverartful 7y ago2 things: other countries don't have 2nd amendment in constitution, and US doesn't pretend to be the same as all the other countries.
- mcaruso 7y ago> other countries don't have 2nd amendment in constitution Changes to the constitution can and do happen. And it's kind of beside the point anyway because a degree of gun control already exists in the US without being in conflict with the constitution. > US doesn't pretend to be the same as all the other countries Clearly. You're also the only one where this is such a problem.
- neverartful 7y agoYou're 100% correct - changes to the constitution can happen (and have happened). It's not beside the point because any additional controls have to be weighed in the context of the 2nd amendment (as it is written and interpreted today). The United States has more individual freedoms than most (if not all) countries. The downside of those freedoms is when individuals use their free will for evil purposes.
- mcaruso 7y agoAgreed! If a conscious decision is being made to value the ability for people to own guns in expense of frequent killings then go for it. But it's usually phrased as "there's nothing we can do" and gun control wouldn't help, which is dishonest.