You've watched C-SPAN. There's not a lot of brainpower working on it. And, I'm doing a bit. I'm serious. About 33% of the congress people are simply doing everything they can to stay in office, because it pays better and has better guaranteed benefits / perks than they can get in the private sector. About 33% have absolutely no idea what they are doing - they're either newly elected or simply filling a void because no other warm body took the slot. About 33% are actually there either out of obligation to serve their country or are genuinely good people who think they can make a positive difference. There is simply not enough effective brainpower to actually do what you're proposing.
I'd be in favor of using the no fly list to extend a waiting period for further review before a gun purchase is allowed. Is it perfect? No, but it's a start. The no fly list is garbage but it's a list the democrats like and it's not denying a gun purchase which is something the republicans like. I don't care for the straw man position of "if we can't think of a good solution immediately, we must want to do nothing." It's just that it's not easy to accomplish a goal that would require trampling on people's rights to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure.
Because almost all of the recent massacres that prompted this discussion have been committed by people who have undergone background checks and bought the weapons legally from licensed firearms dealers. In the two cases where it might have worked, Charleston and VA Tech, it failed, yet you're suggesting that we expand that to all purchases. What you're failing to realize is the common disconnect between a law's intended effect and the reality of its implementation. It is a waste of time, effort, and public resources to pass laws that will not have the intended effect. I'll beat this dead horse one more time: The Brady Bill, had it been in effect in 1981, would not have prevented James Brady and President Reagan from being shot. It is egregious to pass laws that will have no real effect simply for the sake of making everyone feel better. Sure, if we as a society feel that these massacres are an important problem, then let's pass laws that will prevent them. Extending background checks to private sales will make no difference. It will only make you feel better because "That's not right! People shouldn't be able to do that." Again, which people who have committed gun crimes were on the no-fly list? Dylann Roof? James Holmes? Omar Mateen? Seung-Hui Cho? None of them were on a no-fly list. Which sales would this law have prevented? How do you reconcile the bolded parts of your post? If we pass laws that have no effect, then nothing will change, and we will have to pass more laws, likely with no effect. At what point will we actually do something that will make a difference?
Shooting at German cinema leaves 25 wounded http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/europe/germany-mass-shooting/index.html?adkey=bn German gun laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Current_laws
I'm not picking on you shimmered, or think that what you've written is wrong in anyway, and I'm just an outsider from Canada. But these statements right here are what I think is wrong with gun violence/ownership in the States. Until Americans start saying you know what I don't need x number of guns in the safe, I only a one for hunting, or target shooting, or whatever, and lets get rid of or destroy the rest, this problem will continue. It's a cultural thing and until that changes you're stuck with this issue. No amount of law making will change the outcome. Like VI said earlier (paraphrasing) "we need to accept that gun violence is going to be a part of our lives as long we continue to love our guns in the way that we do".
What do you think we do with our weapons? We have heirlooms, certainly. But everything is a hunting or a target weapon. Shooting a pistol is different from shooting a rifle. Once you figure mine plus his we have several. We also advocate knowledge and safe handling. But we lock everything up. All the time. Pistols are shitty home defense.
I'll fan these flames a bit. I get the notion of an armed America, if we do desire we can rise up in armed resistance and overthrow our government and replace it, like the Founding Fathers. I'm not sure how realistic that is. If our government turned our armed forces against us, I'm not sure that armed civilians could take it on. It would be a horrible civil war, but one I think would be lost and the government would be in tact. I'm just not sure how groups of people with ARs would do against helicopters jets and so on. The insurgency's have shown an armed population can take on a an army, however the biggest issue the army had there was they weren't on their home turf, they had trouble holding ground, and the local populations didn't support them, not to mention other nations discretely supporting those insurgencies. US gov't is on its home turf, there are no secrets about the landscape, there is no homefield advantage. It would be a horrible horrible thing if it ever came to that, but I think it'd be a losing cause.
It would be an awful and terrifying thing and in no way at all am I advocating it. It would end very badly for all involved.
The third officer on trial in the Freddie Gray case has just been acquitted on all charges. This was supposedly Mosby's strongest case. Now the question is, will she drop the remaining cases or continue this farce and waste of money?
You have to factor in just how many members of the military would actually fire on US citizens. If our country got to such a point that there was armed rebellion I have a feeling a great deal of the military would be involved in the rebellion themselves.
I don't understand your argument. So what is the harm in requiring background checks on private sales? Yes, it will not stop it from happening, but if we penalize people who get caught doing it, I imagine most will do the background checks. Also, if an excon is trying to buy a gun and it comes up on the first check they can report it. It's better than nothing. What's the worst that can happen? I agree it's not going to solve a whole lot, but at the least we shouldn't just turn a blind eye. Don't get me wrong though. Again, I'm not real big on this idea of fixing violence through more legislation.
Like I said, I wasn't specifically saying you or singling you out in anyway. I was using your statements as blanket statements that I've found most Americans believe. You may advocate knowledge and safe handling, but's probably fair to say that some don't. You might lock everything up all the time, but it's probably fair to say some don't. There's an estimated 300 million guns in the US with a population of around 367 million. Until the gun culture in the states changes and the general population reduces the amount of guns voluntarily, this problem will continue. Changing or enacting laws won't make a difference. Registering owners and guns would be an utter failure. Like we showed in Canada most owners wouldn't follow the legislation, and it didn't make a lick of difference to gun crimes. I own a .22 long rifle, and I couldn't be bothered to register something I used as a kid to shoot gophers with. Same goes for forcing private sales to complete background checks. Without regular oversight (which to be honest would be outrageously expensive) this will fail as well. The change has to come from the populace that will look in their safes and go we own several guns, why do we need this many? Let's get rid of or destroy some of them. Alternatively, you can also accept that owning lots of guns, and having a gun culture that's tied to the constitution, leads to high levels of gun violence, and move on.
The harm comes from expending resources on a solution that will have little or no effect on crime. This entire debate was prompted by the massacre in Orlando, plus the other mass shootings in recent memory. Although these proposals might have an effect on other types of crime, when we as a society realize at the next shooting that what we did had no effect, we will all demand something more. My point is that if we're talking about gun legislation because of mass shootings, then let's do something that will actually reduce or prevent mass shootings. Unfortunately, nobody is talking about the 50 people who have died by gunshot just in the Chicago area in June; 281 year-to-date. Where I'm trying to ultimately lead this discussion is the realization that mass shootings, while frightening to think about, are such a tiny problem compared to everything else going on that we should not even be talking about them yet. Pointing that out is not very popular with the public though. If I get rid of guns out of a gun safe, how does that reduce crime? Honestly, considering that there are 300 million guns in the U.S., the fraction used in crimes is infinitesimally small. We're actually doing pretty fucking well. Would reducing the number of guns by 50% reduce the number of shootings by anywhere near the same amount? It would not, since the vast majority of guns in the U.S. have never been used in a crime.
Update: "An early report from German public TV said 25 people were injured in the incident. But it's not clear if any of the injured were shot, or were hurt in other ways. Beuth said police received a report about four shots fired." They're now saying that the wounded may have been tear gassed, the police shot and killed the gunman.
I completely agree about mass shootings. I still don't see the harm in requiring background checks. It's not like you have to dump billions into a new initiative or anything. Whatever though - not going to do much anyway. I'm somewhat skeptical of the arguments about expanding mental health care as well, but that's another story...
Armed militias will never own bunker busters, supersonic jets and re-entry vehicles that can single-handedly wipe out half a dozen cities at the same time. The citizens do not stand a chance. Unless the soldiers themselves turned on the government this is a non-thing.
If you remove fuel from a fire does it not get smaller. If you take guns out of circulation, then access to those guns for violence would drop, and in turn you would think that gun violence should follow suit. If reducing the number of guns by 50% lead to a decrease of gun violence by 10% (or 2%, or 15%, or x%), would that not be seen as a win? Again I think this would only work if the general population voluntarily gave up their guns.
Let's just stop this bullshit. Everyone is fooling themselves. The argument on increased gun control is done and over. It ended when a madman went into an elementary school and murdered 26 children. In response we as a country did nothing. The war on guns never existed because a neo-nazi entered a church in Charleston with legally obtained weapons and gunned down a sitting U.S. Senator during a prayer group. There are 300 million gun in circulation in America. So let's stop pretending anyone except hippies want to get rid of guns completely. We are talking about mitigating the loss of life in an inevitable shooting. But that will never happen. Look at the responses in this thread in the past hour. Far as I'm concerned we deserve everything we get.
In both the examples you cited, though, there was another common theme besides a gun or guns being used. It's the fact that the shooter was a nutball. So, a lot of people who use guns regularly or own several of them, without every shooting anyone, want to know why is the focus on guns. Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns and Adolf Hilter used gas chambers. Fucked up people do fucked up shit. Road rage results in people getting dragged from their cars and having the shit beat out of them. Because another driver caused them to be 17 seconds late. Someone in a Burger King gets their teeth kicked in, because they didn't properly acknowledge the other persons place in line. Why are you picking guns as the focus of your "we deserve everything we get?" Everybody is shitty to their fellow man and it fosters more entitle shittiness.