yeah I view all this mainly as a thought exercise, due to that whole finicky "shall not be infringed" part. I think the only way we'll achieve any meaningful impact on the amount of mass shootings is not through gun control -- as you said, that's not gonna happen -- but through an increase in social services and things like mental healthcare. For A LOT of people, on both sides, gun control is a non starter. Never mind the constitutionality of it.
Maybe in NY the laws are different then in CT, but I thought you could buy a pistol in CT with filling out a standard form, but to get a CCP you had to do a full FBI background check. It's very possible this has changed since the last time I looked into the laws surrounding it.
I have a permit in CT and in MA. In CT you could not buy one without a CCP, and that requires a full background check and fingerprinting. They’ll give you a temp permit while your waiting, but you can’t buy a gun with it.
I don't really think the mental health part is a 1 for 1 way to curb gun violence. Having nearly unfettered access to almost instant death is more of the problem. Yes, I know you can kill people with knives and cars and all sorts of creative items, but it doesn't eliminate the fact guns are REALLY efficient at doing one thing and there are hundreds of millions of them in the US.
In TN (where I bought my handgun), I had to do a background check, and put my fingerprints on record. If I wanted to do CCP, I would’ve had to do a training program and he signed off by a licensed instructor at the range.
Got it. I wasn't sure if you needed the full CCP requirements to buy a pistol or if they were two separate things.
It’s almost like guns are tools made specifically for killing. A fact lost on the “but what about knives?!?!” Crowd
I think Dave Chappelle had one of the best ideas. If you want meaningful change surrounding gun laws, go out and register as many black people as possible to own guns. White folks' opinions will change *real* quick about who can and can't own guns. Somewhat related
Everybody keeps parroting the same "well if there are laws, only the criminals will have guns" line, but if that were the case, why is it that in this most recent event, the shooter (who clearly had prior planning of what he wanted to accomplish) waited until exactly when the law was no longer an impediment to him obtaining the weapons he needed to carry out his plan? In the vast majority of these mass shooting events it's found out that the shooter(s) obtained their weapons legally, so why isn't it that hard to believe that if you implement higher barriers to obtaining weapons, it might actually stop some of these events from occurring? And I'm not calling you out specifically, but it's just the same thing often cited by many as to why ANY restrictions wouldn't have prevented A mass casualty event, let alone multiple.
You see that thing you did, right there? That's what the pro-birth crowd should be doing instead of brute force legislation.
This is the modern method of debate though, you just use actual comments from the social media of the people you’re arguing against. (for the record, I have no opinion on abortion, so I usually stay silent. Which means I’m violent)
I didn't want to say it, but from the start of this portion of this thread, people were very open to increasing gun laws, but when actually confronted with implementing just about anything besides "better background checks" most of the support completely vanishes. Not saying proposed ideas are perfect or attainable, but even the thought of doing something major to adjust how we handle gun laws is pretty much ignored as a pipe dream and akin to climate change policy. It feels as if people think they should be on board because people being murdered by guns is a bad thing, but in actuality, it's an acceptable reality to make sure the current convenience of owning a gun isn't changed in any major or impactful way.
Here's my radical-but-maybe-not gun control idea: no further restrictions than we have now, but every individual who owns a gun is required by law to present arms and undergo a week of military drills twice a year. The fact that these drills would take place in Indio at the height of summer should only highlight an individual's devotion to the Second Amendment and the state militia it enables. Failure to present arms for any reason will be prosecuted as desertion.