OT: Highland Park 4th of July Parade Mass Shooting

[League Circles]

I feel bad for what's happening in the US. Sorry, I don't mean to call out just 1 country, obviously violence exist in every country. But this random mass shooting I think is relatively unique to the US. I hope you guys figure it out soon. It's a recurring issue, and I'm surprised US with its long and rich civil rights movement background haven't been able to make much progress to solve it for quiet sometime now.

Just take a look at Twitter comments when it involves a mass shooting and you'll see how messed up America is. Instead of everyone working together to find a solution, it's always pointing fingers. Even with the shooting yesterday, people are like "See! He's MAGA!", "No! He's Antifa! Here's proof!" We're focused on the wrong things and like people have said earlier, America is so divided now to the point of no saving, sadly.

I agree with you point, but worth noting that twitter isn't american, and in any given discussion nobody has any idea who is from what country and who is a robot vs a real person. At least That's how I understand it. I don't use Twitter myself.

[Bullflip]

I know mental health is an issue but there are mental issues in other countries too. It is not exclusive to the US. The problem is people can legally purchase these type of assault rifles. I have no problem with people owning handguns but what is the purpose of owning an assault rifle. Sure people can kill with handguns but an assault rifle can literally mow down crowds of people in seconds. I am all for banning assault rifles

[League Circles]

I know mental health is an issue but there are mental issues in other countries too. It is not exclusive to the US. The problem is people can legally purchase these type of assault rifles. I have no problem with people owning handguns but what is the purpose of owning an assault rifle. Sure people can kill with handguns but an assault rifle can literally mow down crowds of people in seconds. I am all for banning assault rifles

1. I have no opinion of note on whether or not any particular guns should be allowed or disallowed.

2. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Almost no gun violence in this country is done with assault rifles.

3. In many ways handguns could be easier to kill more people if that's what you wanted to do because they are so much more easily concealed.

4. The purpose of owning an assault rifle or any kind of firearm from a philosophical standpoint is self-defense against threats including the government. A lot of people laugh at the notion that having a gun would do anything against the might and capabilities of the government. That's not exactly true. Yes if the government wants to exert force they will always win in the end, but the cost of doing so and willingness of govt employees to get in fire fights with their friends and neighbors is a strong counter force afffecting freedom. Look at the unwillingness of many Russian troops to get as brutal and effective at killing Ukrainians as Putin would want them to be. It's not because Ukraine stands a solid chance of actually defeating Russia in a war. It's because when you have people willing to fight even if they are outmanned and out armed the prospect of exerting force on them becomes incredibly less desirable and more difficult. I'm not necessarily saying that the right to protect yourself from the government is fundamentally crucial to me but it is not a laughable argument that makes no sense. It makes perfect sense especially in light of all the examples in history where totalitarian governments were able to easily manipulate the incapable masses.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Any of the silly semantics that comes after the idea of banning all guns is such a waste of breath. It’s a right wing talking point to muddy waters. The Democrats have been so worthless on this as well, and now it’s being brought to attention that one of the reasons Democrats are so worthless in power is because they use these arguments as fundraising opportunities.

Where do we draw the line on what to ban? All of them, problem solved. Next question.

What is a good prison sentence for this? 10 years, problem solved, next question. Public funding can be spent on prisons, easy.

How will I defend myself from the person that doesn’t look like me down the street? Well, more funding would need to go to police and mental health. Conservatives will like that one, everyone is happy there.

All guns should be banned. And you know what, lots of people will be mad. They’ll tell “don’t take muh guns.” And there will be outbreaks. And that’s ok.

People make the mistake of saying a gun ban won’t immediately ban all guns, so we can’t do that. And the point isn’t that all guns will be out of the country within a week of a gun ban. Or a year. Or even a decade.

But after 20/30 years of a gun ban, a good portion of the generation that loved them will be dead. And the young generation that are hiding in their classrooms right now? They’ll be able to live a happy, and much safer life. That’s the point.

[Bullflip]

I know mental health is an issue but there are mental issues in other countries too. It is not exclusive to the US. The problem is people can legally purchase these type of assault rifles. I have no problem with people owning handguns but what is the purpose of owning an assault rifle. Sure people can kill with handguns but an assault rifle can literally mow down crowds of people in seconds. I am all for banning assault rifles

1. I have no opinion of note on whether or not any particular guns should be allowed or disallowed.

2. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Almost no gun violence in this country is done with assault rifles.

3. In many ways handguns could be easier to kill more people if that's what you wanted to do because they are so much more easily concealed.

4. The purpose of owning an assault rifle or any kind of firearm from a philosophical standpoint is self-defense against threats including the government. A lot of people laugh at the notion that having a gun would do anything against the might and capabilities of the government. That's not exactly true. Yes if the government wants to exert force they will always win in the end, but the cost of doing so and willingness of govt employees to get in fire fights with their friends and neighbors is a strong counter force afffecting freedom. Look at the unwillingness of many Russian troops to get as brutal and effective at killing Ukrainians as Putin would want them to be. It's not because Ukraine stands a solid chance of actually defeating Russia in a war. It's because when you have people willing to fight even if they are outmanned and out armed the prospect of exerting force on them becomes incredibly less desirable and more difficult. I'm not necessarily saying that the right to protect yourself from the government is fundamentally crucial to me but it is not a laughable argument that makes no sense. It makes perfect sense especially in light of all the examples in history where totalitarian governments were able to easily manipulate the incapable masses.

So then should be people be allowed to buy grenade launchers? That would be more effective in fighting a government coming after people.

[League Circles]

I know mental health is an issue but there are mental issues in other countries too. It is not exclusive to the US. The problem is people can legally purchase these type of assault rifles. I have no problem with people owning handguns but what is the purpose of owning an assault rifle. Sure people can kill with handguns but an assault rifle can literally mow down crowds of people in seconds. I am all for banning assault rifles

1. I have no opinion of note on whether or not any particular guns should be allowed or disallowed.

2. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Almost no gun violence in this country is done with assault rifles.

3. In many ways handguns could be easier to kill more people if that's what you wanted to do because they are so much more easily concealed.

4. The purpose of owning an assault rifle or any kind of firearm from a philosophical standpoint is self-defense against threats including the government. A lot of people laugh at the notion that having a gun would do anything against the might and capabilities of the government. That's not exactly true. Yes if the government wants to exert force they will always win in the end, but the cost of doing so and willingness of govt employees to get in fire fights with their friends and neighbors is a strong counter force afffecting freedom. Look at the unwillingness of many Russian troops to get as brutal and effective at killing Ukrainians as Putin would want them to be. It's not because Ukraine stands a solid chance of actually defeating Russia in a war. It's because when you have people willing to fight even if they are outmanned and out armed the prospect of exerting force on them becomes incredibly less desirable and more difficult. I'm not necessarily saying that the right to protect yourself from the government is fundamentally crucial to me but it is not a laughable argument that makes no sense. It makes perfect sense especially in light of all the examples in history where totalitarian governments were able to easily manipulate the incapable masses.

So then should be people be allowed to buy grenade launchers? That would be more effective in fighting a government coming after people.

In my opinion, no they shouldn't be allowed to buy grenade launchers. I don't even necessarily think people should be allowed to buy AR-15s but it is commonly suggested that there is no reason anyone would want or need such a rifle, so I was just letting you know what the reason is. A reason protected by the constitution. Also, an AR-15 or similar style rifle is far, far more accurate than a handgun to use effectively in self defense.

Again I don't necessarily think that AR-15s should be legal. But it's not because they are assault rifles which they are not and it's not because there's no valid reason that anyone would want or need one because there definitely is. It's because the bullet capacity and modularity of the guns is just a little bit too effective in killing people. That said, if all AR-15s magically evaporated from our society tomorrow I would not expect much of a decrease in gun deaths or mass shootings. So while I would be okay with stronger regulation of them such as severe penalties for certain modifications and maybe elevated background checks and maybe an age restriction, as a problem I find them to be more peripheral than the problem the lack of social/moral values and the glorification of fame and violence.

[TheStig]

I know mental health is an issue but there are mental issues in other countries too. It is not exclusive to the US. The problem is people can legally purchase these type of assault rifles. I have no problem with people owning handguns but what is the purpose of owning an assault rifle. Sure people can kill with handguns but an assault rifle can literally mow down crowds of people in seconds. I am all for banning assault rifles

1. I have no opinion of note on whether or not any particular guns should be allowed or disallowed.

2. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Almost no gun violence in this country is done with assault rifles.

3. In many ways handguns could be easier to kill more people if that's what you wanted to do because they are so much more easily concealed.

4. The purpose of owning an assault rifle or any kind of firearm from a philosophical standpoint is self-defense against threats including the government. A lot of people laugh at the notion that having a gun would do anything against the might and capabilities of the government. That's not exactly true. Yes if the government wants to exert force they will always win in the end, but the cost of doing so and willingness of govt employees to get in fire fights with their friends and neighbors is a strong counter force afffecting freedom. Look at the unwillingness of many Russian troops to get as brutal and effective at killing Ukrainians as Putin would want them to be. It's not because Ukraine stands a solid chance of actually defeating Russia in a war. It's because when you have people willing to fight even if they are outmanned and out armed the prospect of exerting force on them becomes incredibly less desirable and more difficult. I'm not necessarily saying that the right to protect yourself from the government is fundamentally crucial to me but it is not a laughable argument that makes no sense. It makes perfect sense especially in light of all the examples in history where totalitarian governments were able to easily manipulate the incapable masses.

So then should be people be allowed to buy grenade launchers? That would be more effective in fighting a government coming after people.

I hope you stay away from the gun store. All those guns are going to organize and get you.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The person in Waukesha ran over and killed people in a SUV. Will we be removing all suvs from the road? People can take the bus or train where they need to go.

I think the proper course is good background searches and proper training. However, incidents will always happen. Anything can be used as a weapon if someone wants to.

[League Circles]

If the gun laws in Illinois were passed Federally, it is about as much regulation as we could want. Then comes down to enforcement of those laws.

When I discuss this with my Gun loving friends , they always say Illinois has toughest laws but Chicago still has murders so don’t do anything is their answer. The issue is that 20-30% of guns used in Illinois crime come from neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana with very soft gun regulation. It’s why it has to be federal.

Another sticking point for gun owners is registration of every gun. It is a non starter for them “if the Government knows what guns I have, that is first step to taking them” It’s ridiculous, there has to be a well funded aggressive ATF with a database of who owns what. My counter has always been, if you are a good guy with gun, why would you care about them being registered.

If a husband has 30 guns, beats his wife and gets convicted of a felony with jail time, He will be put on the can’t buy a gun list anymore. But no one goes to his house and gets the other 30 guns because there is no database of what he has to match it against. Almost all women who are murdered are by domestic abusers. The most common trait of mass shooters is a domestic violence history. For me, a database of registered guns and enforcement of current laws is a big first step. Convicted violent criminals should have their guns taken away and lose that right to bear arms in the future. ATF database would allow for that. A national registry would also monitor “straw purchasers” and the movement of guns. I am sure police would love to know when they show up to a house, how many guns are there before they knock on the door.

Mental health is part of the equation and everyone is on board with finding ways to help them, but only half the debate wants them to not buy guns. Trumps first act as president was to UNDO a law preventing mental health sufferers from buying guns.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the bolded part is a great idea that I have been trying to promote for a long time. It's a good way to make it much much harder to get away with crimes while still protecting constitutional rights. I'm not sure how much of an impact it would have on random mass shootings but it would be good to reduce gun violence overall for sure. And really supports the spirit of the idea of a well-regulated militia. I think you may be surprised at how many gun owners would be okay with fully mandated national registration. Just like with any political issue those on the extremes are the loudest and mass media portrays their stances as more mainstream than they actually are.

[Dresden]

I think the problem is both guns and the American culture. It's pretty obvious that strict gun laws will prevent gun violence- all you have to do is look at most of Europe. Or Australia or Japan. that experiment has already been run, and it works. You need registration, you need certification, you need limits on what types of gun, how much ammo, you need mental health screenings, you need strict enforcement. You need all of that, and then gun violence will be a fraction of what it is now.

There may only be 288 mass shooting deaths since 2000, but the number of deaths per year due to guns is something like 25K, half from murders, half from suicides. So it's quite a toll. And it is very expensive- the cost of police work every time there is a shooting, the health care costs for treating gun shot victims, and all the other costs that go along with this. So we already are paying a very heavy price for it.

But as someone brought up- we have this unique culture in the US that equates guns with freedom- guns helped "tame" the frontier (by wiping out indigenous populations, bad guys, wild animals, etc), guns protect us from harm, etc. That's a tougher thing to combat, and it's been enshrined in our psyches by decades of reinforcement through movies, myths, etc. I don't know how you solve that, other than to hope we just grow up as a nation and stop believing in things that are so blatantly contradicted by the facts.

One key problem is getting out "the facts" is that the NIH for years was prohibiting in doing any type of research on gun violence and it's causes and costs by a law passed by the GOP during Bush's reign I believe. I think that has finally been overturned. It would be nice to see the federal govt. do more "public service" type ads talking about the facts about gun violence.

[RSP83]

Yes, I’m willing to put people in prison for guns.

No, I don’t think it’s like drugs at all. There hasn’t been a successful drug ban in the western world, to my knowledge, which is why most countries have switched their focus from enforcement to treatment.

Weapons of mass death, on the other hand, are successfully banned in many, many countries.

I think this is a good point, but I don't think it fairly accounts for the context of the history of this country and cultural value around guns that runs really, really deep in many areas. I think it'd be very hard to do so successfully here and actually get the guns off the streets.

I think the cost to actually solve shooting problems is so much higher than the benefit you would gain in solving it. You literally might need to spend a trillion dollars to solve this problem. I'd rather dump a trillion dollars into social safety nets then imprisoning people who keep guns or paying for the program to get rid of 100s of millions of guns.

Coming off of the COVID crisis and massive debt we have added, when we have to make really hard choices about our finances as a country and getting the most out of our dollars, how much money would you dump into preventing mass shooting deaths? Top google search said we have 277 mass shooting deaths since 2000.

The deaths around suicide may not go down with reduction of guns and violent crime deaths will be tougher to stop because they already hinge on illegal guns, but both of these areas can probably also largely be impacted positively via social change vs changes in gun laws.

I'm not attached to keeping guns in this country at all, and if I could wave my magic wand and remove all the guns and make us a gun free area, I would do so, but the cost to get from here to there vs our other problems and the benefits gained from solving this problem or other problems are exactly the things you have to consider. Would I rather put 1 trillion dollars into getting guns off the streets or social reform for minorities? That's a real choice you might need to take. As you well know, we don't have infinite money.

It isn't a direct either or, we can iteratively get better about guns without solving the whole problem, and I don't set our budget so don't know what you could go about doing reasonably. I would love to have reform to iteratively move in the right direction though.

I think the same. I feel the history and cultural value of guns really runs deeply there. I live in a country where guns is just so uncommon and almost irrelevant to society. You'll be surprised that most people in my country have never seen a gun closely in real life other than from watching the military parade during the independence day's state ceremony. Gun related crimes do happen, but relatively scarce compare to other means. There are gun markets, but mostly only accessible to the elites and people from the military or law enforcement. I think taking guns away in the US is just going to be super challenging. I thought maybe the least US can try to do is to make it more difficult to access.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I used to play baseball regularly all but 5 minutes away from the shooting. Absolutely a dark day.

I'm going to let the police do their jobs before speculating on the matter further. I hope others do the same instead of listening to a media that honestly does not care about reporting factual information.

I do hope the police have the shooter in custody.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Put them in prison, or put them in prison for life?

What's the significance of the "western world"? There are plenty of countries in the arbitrarily defined other half of the world without drug problems.

What is a "weapon of mass death" as opposed to a weapon of moderate death? Virtually any firearm can trivially be used to kill many people randomly.

And did any of the countries that have successfully banned them have more guns than people (not to mention constitutional protection) at the time of the ban?

This is an American problem that requires a specifically American solution. You could ban every firearm in the country tomorrow and if the penalties aren't strong enough, gun use won't be decreased.

I reference western countries because nearly all are on the spectrum of republic to direct democracy. Draconian laws and enforcement aren’t an option to the degree they are in, say, China or Saudi Arabia (though I think there are select examples of the US falling down in this respect).

I’m not interested in parsing prison sentences. That’s not the discussion. Weapons of ‘mass death’ versus ‘moderate death’ is also something for the technocrats to work out. What’s very clear is that AR-15-style rifles have no place in civilian hands. If we can’t agree on that much, there isn’t much else to discuss.

I don't see what's inherently draconian about punishing someone for 50 years for something that is already punished for, say, 10 years (drug or gun violations). It sounds like you are saying that what would actually be effective is too harsh for you to stomach. Which I totally respect. But should be identified if that is in fact the case. Because they're can truly be a massive massive difference in incentives between prison sentences like that. A lot of people would risk doing something if the punishment was 10 years in prison that would not risk doing the same thing if the punishment was life in prison. For me legal punishments are primarily for the purpose of deterrence, not punishment.

The problem is that "AR-15 style rifles" is an incredibly vague and arbitrary description, usually offered by mass media for clicks and people who know nothing about guns. That's why people ask questions like I do such as what exact attributes of an AR-15 style rifle are the attributes that we are trying to regulate against? It's an honest question. It could be bullet capacity or it could be modularity or it could just be sensationalism. Sadly, it's trivial to kill a lot of people if that's what you want to do, whether it's with an "AR-15", a (more powerful than an AR-15) hunting rifle, a common handgun, or driving a van through a crowd of people on the sidewalk.

I really want to stress that I am not throwing my hands up and saying oh there's nothing that can be done we just have to accept this. I'm just saying that the devil is in the details and we need to be very specific about what we are trying to do, about what our expectations are, and about what trade-offs we are willing to accept. I don't see a lot of that in the public discourse on the issue of gun control and violence.

Drugs: no, it’s not about what I can “stomach.” I believe it’s immoral to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint on the street or succumbing to addiction. Most of the West agrees, and will of the people is increasingly reflected in our laws.

Guns: AR-15s, specifically, are the most popular guns in mass shootings by far, so let’s start there. As to broadening the ban, there’s no shortage of firearms experts to consult with policymakers on which models and modifications are most dangerous. The layman doesn’t need to know the ins and outs of gun specs any more than they do tort law or ICD-11 codes. This isn’t a real obstacle, it’s just a talking point from the gun lobby.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

This isn’t a real obstacle, it’s just a talking point from the gun lobby.

Bing-freakin-o.

[MrSparkle]

It’s pointless debating Stig cause it’s like debating the Holy Ghost at this point, but the fact is that tools have different grades of danger, and common sense would make it exponentially more difficult to get more dangerous tools without the proper license, training or credentials.

OK, you ride a bicycle, you don’t need a license. You brandish a knife, you don’t need a license. Drive a car, you need a license. Have a pistol, get your self a license. Fly a military grade helicopter or F35: whoa buddy, get some very serious training and pass some tests. Don’t take an AR-15 out the house without passing a series of tests and long training (and mental evaluation that comes with piloting a more complicated vehicle).

Republican/pro-NRA politicians like to promote the idea of making an assault rifle locker in your family’s bedroom. This is mentally ill behavior for a state representative:

Watch on YouTube

[League Circles]

Any of the silly semantics that comes after the idea of banning all guns is such a waste of breath. It’s a right wing talking point to muddy waters. The Democrats have been so worthless on this as well, and now it’s being brought to attention that one of the reasons Democrats are so worthless in power is because they use these arguments as fundraising opportunities.

Where do we draw the line on what to ban? All of them, problem solved. Next question.

What is a good prison sentence for this? 10 years, problem solved, next question. Public funding can be spent on prisons, easy.

How will I defend myself from the person that doesn’t look like me down the street? Well, more funding would need to go to police and mental health. Conservatives will like that one, everyone is happy there.

All guns should be banned. And you know what, lots of people will be mad. They’ll tell “don’t take muh guns.” And there will be outbreaks. And that’s ok.

People make the mistake of saying a gun ban won’t immediately ban all guns, so we can’t do that. And the point isn’t that all guns will be out of the country within a week of a gun ban. Or a year. Or even a decade.

But after 20/30 years of a gun ban, a good portion of the generation that loved them will be dead. And the young generation that are hiding in their classrooms right now? They’ll be able to live a happy, and much safer life. That’s the point.

10 years in prison for what? For anyone who doesn't come hand their gun in?

"Public funding can be spent on prisons, easy"

Easy? LOL, we can't even pay for like 40% of our federal spending as-is. There is no money. That's why we need to balance priorities.

How exactly would more police funding help protect you from someone who wants to kill you? You could double or triple police budgets and they still couldn't protect you. It's not possible. It could increase the number of people caught, but mass shooters generally want to get caught anyways.

"The young generation hiding in their classrooms"

Ummm, virtually all of these killers are in that young generation.

There's no reason to think the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation would ever be removed from society with measly 10 year prison sentences. If there were, we should expect that drugs would have already been eradicated. Criminals wipe their ass with 10 year prison sentences.

[WookieOnRitalin]

But after 20/30 years of a gun ban, a good portion of the generation that loved them will be dead. And the young generation that are hiding in their classrooms right now? They’ll be able to live a happy, and much safer life. That’s the point.

And that is what any centralized power would prefer.

The implicit trust in the "good" actions of the Federal government is beyond me. What have they done to earn such blind faith?

An armed citizenry guarantees better actions by the State. This is what the founders intended and by God was it insightful. They conceived of a future where citizens would be in the exact same position they were in 1776. Knowing that a group of collected, intelligent people would choose to take up arms against a centralized entity that did not consider their representation led to an unthinkable action among that group. They knew that the central entity was abusing its power (from their perspective) and thus required a dramatic action and had they not had arms of their own, they would have failed in the attempt.

So they conceived and believed that the situation could happen again. Here. Considering how well they knew history, better than most High School graduates today, the motivations were clear that the abuse of power upon a citizenry was one of the most common abuses in any society so a deterrent and right of a human is the right to defend their autonomy even against a central power.

This is caked into the American spirit and if we do not understand that as a people, then we are so distant from the values that founded this country, I would argue that we are not really Americans.

This problem is simple. You want the guns, you're gonna have to create an amendment to get the guns. The only way you're going to accomplish that outside of an amendment is to revolt or violate the Constitution (thus breaking the law).

I do not personally own a firearm, but I will defend anyone's right to do so. It is just in cause and I hope it remains that way.

[WookieOnRitalin]

Guns: AR-15s, specifically, are the most popular guns in mass shootings by far, so let’s start there. As to broadening the ban, there’s no shortage of firearms experts to consult with policymakers on which models and modifications are most dangerous. The layman doesn’t need to know the ins and outs of gun specs any more than they do tort law or ICD-11 codes. This isn’t a real obstacle, it’s just a talking point from the gun lobby.

Fact: Majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns.

If you want to save lives, you're going to have to ban handguns. That will never happen,

The equivalent of a rifle in the Continental army is what a citizen should have been able to legal purchase and own.

The equivalent of a US Army rifle is what a citizen should have the the ability to purchase and own today.

It's one of the major points of the 2nd amendment. I support background checks, licenses, and training. I honestly believe you would get an overwhelming amount of support from gun owners and people who support the 2nd amendment.

[dougthonus]

An armed citizenry guarantees better actions by the State.

This is a common thought, but I don't think this is true at all. What laws or treatments do you think are better because citizens are armed? Do you think your lawmakers go "well damn, Wookie's got a gun, better make laws that favor him?" and if they did, it'd be a big fricken problem that we catered to a gun toting population vs general population.

In the theory that maybe if things get bad enough the populace could overthrow the government is there, but this is such an edge case towards what is really happening.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Guns: AR-15s, specifically, are the most popular guns in mass shootings by far, so let’s start there. As to broadening the ban, there’s no shortage of firearms experts to consult with policymakers on which models and modifications are most dangerous. The layman doesn’t need to know the ins and outs of gun specs any more than they do tort law or ICD-11 codes. This isn’t a real obstacle, it’s just a talking point from the gun lobby.

Fact: Majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns.

If you want to save lives, you're going to have to ban handguns. That will never happen,

The equivalent of a rifle in the Continental army is what a citizen should have been able to legal purchase and own.

The equivalent of a US Army rifle is what a citizen should have the the ability to purchase and own today.

It's one of the major points of the 2nd amendment. I support background checks, licenses, and training. I honestly believe you would get an overwhelming amount of support from gun owners and people who support the 2nd amendment.

Personally, I’m in favor of banning handguns too. Failing that, however, I’ll settle for banning the guns that my 6–year-old’s school does drills to prepare for.

[dougthonus]

Fact: Majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns.

If you want to save lives, you're going to have to ban handguns. That will never happen,

The equivalent of a rifle in the Continental army is what a citizen should have been able to legal purchase and own.

The equivalent of a US Army rifle is what a citizen should have the the ability to purchase and own today.

It's one of the major points of the 2nd amendment. I support background checks, licenses, and training. I honestly believe you would get an overwhelming amount of support from gun owners and people who support the 2nd amendment.

I think quoting the second amendment is sort of pointless when deciding what you should do today. The idea that the constitution isn't perfect and times would change is baked into the constitution.

Gun laws absolutely could be one of those things. We got slavery and equal rights for women wrong for an awfully long time in the constitution. We shouldn't be using the beliefs of 200 years ago as rationalization for today, we should rationalize whether gun ownership provides value or harm to society as a whole today.