Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.

  1. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Then we don't need firearms to defend ourselves against the Military or the Government, as 2A thumpers continually claim, and given that the US Military Oath is to the Constitution, not the Government, if the Government goes rogue then the Military will (should) take care of it.

    So, the point still stands - if the US Military goes rogue, armed citizens are fucked. If the Government goes rogue, and the Military stands with them, armed citizens are fucked. If the Military does its job, then armed citizens are basically superfluous.

    SO, that said, we can safely say that we do not, in fact, need lethal weapons to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government nor military, and they are, in fact, necessary to defend ourselves against other armed citizens who have broken the law (eg, slavery).

    It would stand to reason, then, that we can lay that argument to rest as a defense against re-examining the role firearms play in everyday America.

    THAT said, I think some discussion on what kind of common-sense changes can be made that would help prevent mass-shootings is in order. Would you agree? Or, would you prefer to do nothing and allow yet another school to be shot up...?

    And yes, I'm a bit peeved by the hem-hawing that has been going on for years. Hell, the school districts my mother teaches at and the one my newborn is likely to attend in a few years (based on our location anyway) are both closed today because of what was deemed a "legitimate threat" made against them on social media. It's beyond ridiculous, and this apparent desire to do nothing useful and offer up "thoughts and prayers" every time this continues to happen is beyond pathetic.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Over simplified--Idea being that your neighbor owning a gun is a direct threat to your life. In my community, you can't use a bow and arrow in your backyard.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    I would have thought that you'd at least have looked it up. Google is cheap.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    And you wonder why?

    Distance. You can shoot at a target and if you miss, kill your neighbor's kid!
     
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    If your backyard is the size of a postage stamp, then that is probably a reasonable restriction. Then again, we banned Lawn Darts after a handful of children died... yet we've done nothing for the hundreds killed by firearms... *shrug*
     
  9. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    Happily, we never hear of neighbor-on-neighbor aggression.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Try discharging a weapon in your backyard and see what happens.
     
  11. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    I understand the reasoning, but I could just as easily back over my neighbors kid with my car, which is probably more likely than shooting him with an arrow.
     
  12. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    My grandfather and I used to take out squirrels and rabbits with bow and arrow (we also practiced our archery with a target backed by haybales) and more than once took out a groundhog with a 22LR.

    Granted, he had a decent sized yard, not the seemingly all-too-common postage-stamp BS that passes as a lawn today heh.

    All the same, if the neighbors kid is halfway intelligent and not paralyzed, they stand a good chance of getting out of the way once you start backing up. I doubt they have the reflexes to dodge an unexpected arrow.

    That, and being knocked over by a car is generally less damaging than an arrow to the chest cavity (unless, of course, you didn't notice the thump and actually ran him over)

    Also, you need a license to drive a car (and said licensing test is supposed to include rudimentary safety and situational awareness checks). I don't believe you need anything to purchase and use a compound bow capable of launching an arrow across the neighbors lawn at sufficient speed to be lethal.
     
  13. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    So we should be required to get a license for every potentially dangerous activity? There's potential danger in lighting my barbecue. Maybe there are laws that regulate such. I honestly don't know.
     
  14. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    Actually, there are regulations regarding the dangerous part of said BBQ - such as proper purchase and storage of propane.

    Should licensure be required for every potentially dangerous activity? No, of course not. Should it be required for ones that have the potential to inflict massive damage to untold numbers of people beyond the person engaging in said activity? I would say yes.

    Is it really so unreasonable to expect someone to have to show a modicum of proficiency and good judgement before allowing them to wield something that can easily cut people down?
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Yes there are. Life is not simple anymore. Commerce is via automobiles. Trucks are required to have back-up warnigs. Why not on cars? As I understand it, before you back -up out of your driveway, you are required by law to assure that it is safe to do so, which includes checking for possible obstacles behind the car. If these laws were enforced we'd save lives.
    The few preventive measures (seat-belts) have saved lives. The statistics are available.
     
  16. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    It is a safer place, I agree.
     
  17. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    Okay, lets require people to observe safe practices when handling a firearm. Tell me again how that will stop a maniac from using one to kill others.
     
  18. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,864
    There are 34 innocent people killed for every bad guy with a gun who gets snuffed. This is not about crime, it's about stupid people with guns.
     
  19. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I don't know, did gas grills kill 30,000 people last year?
     
  20. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    NO, but what's to stop me from throwing hot coals on my neighbor?
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Actually it is much more dangerous. However, regulations have minimized the dangers of our modern technology.
    This is why we have three pronged electrical outlets, breakers which trip when in case of an electric "short".

    Ask how many people were killed by a horse drawn wagon backing up? Today with electric cars , you can't even hear them. Requiring motorcycle riders to wear protective helmets has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives.
    The more complicated and faster our lives become the more danger is associated. Preventive warnings and control systems are a requirement to cope with increased dangers in all areas.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
  22. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    But has our lives really become that much more complicated, or have we become that much more obsessive compulsive? Perhaps we are making it more complicated in our effort to cover every aspect with bubble wrap.
     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Of course not. And the means of doing so is clearly laid out in the constitution.

    .......................
    So what are the odds of getting 2/3 of congress or 2/3 of the states/state legislatures to propose an amendment designed to amend the second amendment?
    And then, getting the 3/4 needed for ratification?
     

Share This Page