Summations Only

In Canada we don't consider depriving the mentally ill of their constitutional rights to be "common sense".And in US code, "common sense measures" seems to mean arming the congregation as they come in the door.

With the exception of private gun sales, aren't those laws already on the books?

Neither do I. Are you interpreting the US constitution as preventing the state from restricting access to guns by folks who are demonstrated to be violent under a process with the appropriate due process? If not, then what is your point?Seriously Ringo, in one set of posts about gun control, you complain that folks in the US don't simply ignore their constitution, but in this recent post, you express the idea that Canada is a virtuous example of constitutional purity. One might think that you don't actually have an opinion of your own and simply like to argue.Of course, I already knew that.

1. That is a pretty huge exception.2. No, those laws are not all on the books at the federal level.3. Those are just examples. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm pointing out that that's how the US Constitution seems to be interpreted by the NRA and the Supreme Court. On the contrary, I'm only putting Canada one or two steps above the US. Any dope can have an opinion. It takes a little reflection and understanding to juggle two.

1. The NRA is not part of the government.2. Why don't you cite a relevant Supreme Court decision? I don't believe there are any such decisions, but as long as you are "pointing out" why don't you give me a pointer. Right. I am suggesting that you don't have either an opinion or an understanding. I'd like to see at least one of those in your post.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Really? How huge is it? Oh, yeah fuck that. Are the "common sense" gun control measures only at the federal level? What are they, explicitly? What would the legislation look like?What are the top five common sense gun control measures that will have the biggest impact on the goals that are trying to be achieved?

Four people were killed and ten injured when a gunman went on a rampage in Northern California. Washington Post: At least 4 dead after gunman ‘randomly picking targets’ goes on shooting rampage in Northern CaliforniaThe carnage won't stop until we get rid of the guns. Guns are not a hobby nor a means of defense - they're a menace.--Percy

Will it ever be possible to get rid of all of them?It's a bit like the nuclear genie. Getting rid of nuclear weapons will likely never happen. I feel that the chances are even less likely with guns.Of course, the argument is that if guns are controlled so that they cannot be easily purchased, the number of shootings and victims will inevitably decrease. The ball is in the public court. The debate is likely to drag on for years. The NRA is a powerful lobby that won't roll over quietly.And what of the black market? The old adage...that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns...seems apt. The number of random deaths by mass shootigs would inevitably decrease, however. That much is likely.

No. Most murders are not committed by outlaws. They're committed by normal people who own or happen to have access to guns. An older study found that 80% of murder victims knew their killers and 16% were blood relatives (Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988).--Percy

You will never get rid of all guns. Even in countries with stricter gun control laws, guns are still accessible. I grew up in rural Canada and lots of people had guns. Including my neighbor who took me hunting a few times. It's further complicated in the United States in that the 2nd Amendment provides the right to own firearms. So laws are limited with regards to restrictions. With that being said, there are some very simple common sense measures that most Americans support, such as closing the gun show loophole and limiting the types of weapons that are accessible. There are provisions that could be made regarding black market sales. Most of that would involve stricter penalties for the using a gun in the commission of a crime and also for anyone selling guns illegally. Not sure how strongly those types of measures are enforced, but it could help.In my opinion, the biggest issue in the USA is the mindset. It's the gun culture. As I mentioned, I grew up in Canada. We have lots of guns in Canada. It's a hunting and fishing culture. Even handguns can be purchased, although it is much more difficult to get one.But the big difference in my opinion is how people view their guns. In the USA, people seem to have an almost bizarre fixation on their gun. The culture seems to glorify usage of guns and the USA is one of the few countries I have seen that makes criminals into celebrities. Billy the Kid, Bonnie & Clyde, John Dillinger, etc. These individuals were murderers and criminals but they are treated in an almost iconic sense. I never really understood that when I moved here. But my suspicion is that is part of the problem as it pertains to the gun culture.The other facet is the 'shoot first, ask questions later' mindset. To me, that is the worst possible message to send to anyone. People should consider usage of a gun as an absolute last resort. Not a knee-jerk reaction. De-escalating the situation is a far better option.And finally, the USA also has this notion that it needs an armed populace in order to prevent a tyrannical government from taking over. This to me is the most nonsensical, anachronistic nonsense I can fathom. The guns available to the general population, even when accounting for assault weapons, are absolutely nothing compared to the firepower available to the US Military. If the government became tyrannical, we would actually look to our military to overthrow the corrupt government. Attempting to challenge the US Military with a civilian militia would be patently laughable. You may pick off a few infantry here and there. But when the tanks roll in and the Apache gunship has you in its sight, adios.

Wanted to comment on this sentence. I think your post was dead on, but this notion is not nationwide. The idea that guns are needed to prevent a government takeover is held by a large number of Americans, but it simply isn't a mainstream idea. We should not push the impression that every single thing the NRA puts out is the majority opinion.

I gotta pick this nit: the 2nd does NOT provide the right. It prevents the right from being infringed. How many of these mass murderers got their guns through a gun show "loophole"? How many of the guns used in homicides were got at a gun show?I don't think its much, and I don't see how that's gonna help much. And if I have to do a background check on my brother before I give him a shotgun for Christmas, then count me out. Meh, I'm not so sure. I don't think the "gun culture" is causing these mass murders - there are a lot fucked up men with serious issues that aren't being addressed.The gun culture, in my opinion, is what is causing the bulk of the (non-suicide) gun deaths - its mostly young men killing acquaintances in the inner cities. Young men are going to fight each other, and it's the glorification of guns that is causing them to shoot each other. I mean, they are entertaining \_(ツ)_/ That sounds like a lack of training.Everyone who owns a gun should take a concealed carry class. Sure, but I look at it differently. It's not that the civilians would win an all out firefight. It's that the prevalence of guns in the civilians hands prevents the initiation of the firefight. It would be too costly.Remove the guns, remove the cost, and then it is an option on the table. The government has a vested interest in the citizens being alive. They only "win" if we can't defend ourselves.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : No reason given.

You say this despite having expressed the opinion that there are no natural rights and that your actual rights are not inalienable. So we know that this particular nitpicking is just an argument of convenience for you.

Piss off, there are natural rights.