Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Here's the thing though , ANY INFORMATION towards ANY THING , is kept in a computer valt .

Hence freedom of any kind , is a challenge , to say the least .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True, but that was at a time when we were the occupied country at war with England. Thus citizens were the militia.
I don't think we need to worry about becoming an occupied country again and hopefully our institutions will prevent a pure dictator from taking over the government. The US is not at war against itself or it's government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True , and tragic .

Freedom , from government control has its , black marks .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes indeed , it's a fragile thing. But to arm the citizenry to the teeth with deadly military weapons is not the answer. It only aggrevates the situation.

We are going back to the days of the Wild West. IMO that is the wrong direction. I prefer a kinder more civilized country.

 

We don't need freedom from our government, they have to follow the law also. We need freedom from the threat of being mowed down by a crazy kid with a weapon of war.

 

To your last statement , so do I . But this not the point .

Guns are what keep the government in check so to speak . The People , can fire back .

I'm not in any way promoting insane use of guns .

 

I'm sorry River, but that is a rather naive statement. Remember the Establishment Clause?
Is that less binding than freedom to carry weapons of war.

 

What is the , Establishment Clause ? Looked it up , found no relevance to this thread .

 

Just to make it clear, no bunch of drunks with guns are going to stop the government from doing anything, nor make the government do anything.

 

it happens to a child every single day of the week in the usa.
But, a critical part of the US culture is not discussed along with Gun Control Laws.
That Critical part of US social morality & Culture is a belief in Pure Capitalism Social policy as a social morality.

i find it interesting that the thousands of US psychologists sociologists & Anthropologists do not get a voice on TV(or maybe they are denied access)

pure Logic defines one or both of 2 different things.
1 the majority of US citizens simply do not care
2 The US Citizens percieved value of other People(including children) is not of a high enough level to become a moral construct inside their own perception of reality.

not withstanding the wash, back n forth of marginal statistical voter opinion seeking to normalise the slight majority whom are in favour of not doing anything to reduce the loss of lifes.

Yet Look at the Drug issue with laws being made to increase minimum sentences for drug arrests close to schools.
a law that does not reduce drug addiction or drug use.
does it reduce deaths of children taking drugs ? no
does it reduce deaths of children in households with hard core drug addicts ? no

soo... the use of the school and the children is not a process of protection.
it is a process of exploitation to give greater power to administration ? police ? judges ? whom ?

Slum schools with massive gang problems because the unemployment rate and poverty rule ....

where should the money go ? or is that the point. it doesnt actually have any link to more money while in fact it has specifically NO money attached to it.

so it is a way to make an illusion of extra funding for slum schools ?

is that how it works ?

bizar !

p.s ... i was pondering that all those government tax collectors taking working class taxes to spend on private armed protection and metal detectors...

surely it should be equally hard for a child to carry a machine gun into a government building or a school ?
surely the kids are almost equal value ? almost ? ok maybe not, maybe a lot less value ?
is that what is proven by the amount of money spent ?
is that a morality in clear display ?

 

You miss one option for the US public: They have been told the rules CAN'T be changed, so they believe we're stuck with dead kids in the classrooms.

 

while polling those same people the next question should be
do you think the usa can win a war against russia or china ?

 

If you say so.

 

Another problem is that if you have a gun it's easy to kill 58 people. If all you have is a knife (or a truck) it is very, very hard to kill 58 people.

We should not be making the jobs of mass murderers so easy.

 

Yup, there's a reason we give soldiers guns rather than pocket knives.

 

They are also illegal. Methods that felons use to get guns SHOULD be illegal, and the right wing should stop trying to keep them legal.

Sorry, no. The rule he repealed allowed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System access to Social Security Administration data - including the names of individuals receiving certain federal mental health benefits. That allowed the NICS to identify such people.

Sorry, again, no. If the transfer is approved, all identifying information of the purchaser must be deleted within 24 hours. From the actual law:

========================
From 28 CFR 25.9 (Retention and destruction of records in the system)

In cases of NICS Audit Log records relating to allowed transactions, all identifying information submitted by or on behalf of the transferee will be destroyed within 24 hours after the FFL receives communication of the determination that the transfer may proceed. All other information, except the NTN and date, will be destroyed after not more than 90 days from the date of inquiry.
=========================

Sounds like you are another victim of right wing fake news.

 

You know, we could save a lot of money arming our soldiers with baseball bats rather than guns.

 

No need for universal bans. Just bans for felons and mentally defective people - with universal background checks - would be a good start.

Right - but cars are useful; they get us from place to place. Seatbelts just lower the death rate when using them, by mandating safety equipment. We also lower the death rate by requiring licensing, registration and insurance, and we pass laws dictating how fast you can drive them, what condition you have to be in when operating them and when you have to stop using them.

Why not apply such commonsense regulation to guns?

 

There's no reason semi-automatic firearms can't be banned.

 

=
There's no reason that freedom of speech can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom of religion can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures can't be banned.
There's no reason that trial by jury can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom from excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment can't be banned.
There's no reason that freedom of assembly can't be banned.
.....etc...(it's a long list)

Be careful when advocating for the removal of other's rights that do not matter to you.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

As an existentialists, when you speak for yourself, you speak for all of mankind.