131–140 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want it banned because my stepmom (and father cause why not) chain smoked indoors my whole childhood. It's weird that we allow that.
> It's weird that we allow that. Many states already prohibit exposing children to secondhand smoke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not true for firearms. More people die from falling off ladders than die in mass shootings.
And if mass shootings were the only deaths that ever occurred from firearms then they'd be much less of a problem...[1,2] (there were >20,000 gun homicides in 2021, versus about 300 deaths from falling off ladders. There have been 351 mass shootings so far in the US [3]) [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-... [2] https://www.lockjawladdergrip.com/blog/ladder-safety-usa-202... [3] https://…
Meanwhile, roughly as many people are killed in automobile accidents as there are gun deaths (of any kind, including suicide) every year.
Statistically, you likely don’t know a single person killed by a gun or a car. I absolutely do not.
Now, heart disease? Statistically you’re unlikely not to know someone who died from it.
In reality, you’re not going to be a random victim of gun violence. Gun homicides primarily consist of internecine violence between criminal elements who primarily use handguns.
Finally, there’s been a large rise in gun homicides over the last few years coinciding with a large rise in violent crime in general. Solve the crime issue, you solve the gun homicides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is by design, though. Just because state A has a big population doesn't mean it gets to strongarm state B.
>That is by design So low population state "strong-arming" the majority is OK? The design is poor, it is Tyranny by the minority.
The design appears to be working well looking over the 240 years since the US' Constitution was ratified. A broad consensus of the states, _not of the people in the US as a whole_, is required to effect large scale, national changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if mass shootings were the only deaths that ever occurred from firearms then they'd be much less of a problem...[1,2] (there were >20,000 gun homicides in 2021, versus about 300 deaths from falling off ladders. There have been 351 mass shootings so far in the US [3]) [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-... [2] https://www.lockjawladdergrip.com/blog/ladder-safety-usa-202... [3] https://…
If you dishonestly expand the definition of a word, you can create any statistic you want. Meanwhile, roughly as many people are killed in automobile accidents as there are gun deaths (of any kind, including suicide) every year. Statistically, you likely don’t know a single person killed by a gun or a car. I absolutely do not. Now, heart disease? Statistically you’re unlikely not to know someone who died from it. In…
And then you do it again: "what about automobile accidents?" Well that's a good question! Except (1) a great deal of effort is spent on reducing them, and (2) there are less drunk-driving related crashes then gun homicides in the US[1] - 13,384 in 2021.
And now you're onto just standard whataboutism about everything else. Maybe all causes of death are serious! Maybe one of these causes though has not only a historic lack of attention, but has been the unique recipient of legislation specifically designed to prevent the CDC even looking into it![2]
Because of everything you've listed, you know what's unique? No one is doing anything about gun-related death or injuries. Regulations are actively rolled back, and people like you work to shutdown any possible discussion of the problem. Literally no one is stopping you talking about cars, or heart disease, yet I seriously doubt you'd be bothering to "whatabout" those in any of the numerous studies which get posted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should private citizens be allowed to own rocket launchers with munitions? This is a hyperbolic argument, but so is "universally against gun controls".
It's already possible to do this, though with numerous, onerous restrictions (that I'd advocate against, obviously). For example, if you wanted to own a functional RPG launcher, that would be an NFA-registered DD, and each explosive projectile would be a separate additional NFA tax stamp. You'd also need an active FEL (Federal Explosives License). There's numerous other conditionals that apply, e.g., you wouldn't nee…
As to your previous message:
> I'd be interested in knowing how I'm as ignorant as people who [...]
To be fair, ignorance is sometimes subjectively influenced by the ideals of the person judging. I see it as ignorant to completely ignore the topic of gun crime in our government. You see it as an acceptable loss, to be written off. We disagree here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you dishonestly expand the definition of a word, you can create any statistic you want. Meanwhile, roughly as many people are killed in automobile accidents as there are gun deaths (of any kind, including suicide) every year. Statistically, you likely don’t know a single person killed by a gun or a car. I absolutely do not. Now, heart disease? Statistically you’re unlikely not to know someone who died from it. In…
Dishonest is your original assertion: that mass shootings must be the only type of gun violence in America (implicit by your comparison, rather then referring to any actual statistics). And then you do it again: "what about automobile accidents?" Well that's a good question! Except (1) a great deal of effort is spent on reducing them, and (2) there are less drunk-driving related crashes then gun homicides in the US[1…
> “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.)
The CDC wasn't banned from looking into it. They have looked into how guns may lead to deaths [0][1][2]. The were banned from using it to promote gun control.
Regulations are going to and fro. Some of them are getting rolled back, while others are progressing. Most of the ones that are getting rolled back have been useless at their intent. Or they violate the constitution. Or both!
0: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm 1: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pd... 2: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's true that a majority of Americans want stricter laws. We generally want more authority to carry without restriction, as seen in the rise of states that allow for concealed carry without a license. The laws are nonsensical, since there's many times more firearms in the country than people. Nevermind that we share a porous border with a country known for powerful drug cartels. At any rate, I'm a 10th…
At this point, what state governors and legislatures do has little to do with what the people of that state - let alone of the country generally - want. Let's look at real data. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx 57% think gun laws should be more strict. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/26/politics/cnn-poll-gun-laws/in... This time it's 64%. Yes, it is true that Americans want stricter gun laws. Your made-up reas…
I think I read somewhere recently that the majority of Americans were in favour of stricter gun reforms, yet no real change I laws seem to happen and all the current presidential candidates over in the US seems to not even dare touch the subject. I find it reprehensible and puzzling how they’ve got this weird relationship with guns, but it’s interesting how often people are using a certain interpretation of their con…
There are 2 schools of thought on the constitution. Living constitutionalists believe that the constitutional adapts or changes and can be fluid based on "modern" beliefs and the interpretation changes to allow for that. Originalists believe the text is strict and not up for debate and that the contract of the constitution is fixed. Most of what we are seeing is based on these 2 ideas in conflict.
This includes saying things like: constitutional review didn't exist until Marbury v Madison. This ignores that it was a thing under the various state constitutions, with it not being called out specifically, and that it falls naturally under the fact that SCOTUS has the power to decide all cases and controversies, and Stare Decisis combines with that to say that if SCOTUS decides one way on a constitutional issue, they'll continue to decide the same way on that issue, so if a lower court judge decides the other way, they'll get reversed when it gets appealed, probably summarily in a one line opinion of the Court.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is by design, though. Just because state A has a big population doesn't mean it gets to strongarm state B.
>That is by design So low population state "strong-arming" the majority is OK? The design is poor, it is Tyranny by the minority.
The intent is to make it changeable, but not too changeable. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's not beneficial if it can be changed at a whim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s because we don’t have a choice. A stacked Supreme Court that says any gun law has to be a gun law that would’ve been cool in 1776 has made any progress impossible without violent revolution
If that were true, the NFA would be repealed (the legal ground for it was pretty shaky originally and somehow it has stood)