March for our lives is flawed.

What is important is who they are lobbying on behalf of. The NRA lobbies on behalf of it's grass roots supporters, to suggest otherwise is not supported by facts.

 

???? ?? what's wrong with japan?? they have exceptionally low crime rates and have almost eradicated gun violence. the yakuza doesn't even use guns because they're such a bother. where are you going with this

it's a start yeah, but I'd prefer the little hecker tryna use a knife, much less effective.

go back to english class you'll find my post devoid of that fallacy

 

First off, as denien said (or maybe meep lord) it's a whole different culture. Second off, have you seen their tv?

 

neither of these arguments hold any water. a difference in culture is not an excuse when we both have democracy, I'm not attempting to compare standards to China or Russia. Japan's constitutional monarchy isn't so dissimilar from our government that we can't pass this legislation, if anything, it should be easier to pass the legislation in our government. Just because they're on the other side of the globe doesn't mean we can't learn from their legislation and enact in here. The arguments that "America is just too different" or "America is way too big" are cop-outs, and completely unsubstantiated.

and WHAT are you going on about? their TV? please elaborate on how japan's gun legislation has effected their TV, which is apparently more important than people's lives.

 

as Denien said: "
Do you realize that, other western countries with gun control, have much lower homicide rates? Like, it's been proven hundreds of times there is a direct correlation between gun control and lower homicide & burglary rates.
This point is not relevant because it does not take into the culture of the nations you are using to compare. America fundamentally has a different culture than most of Europe / the western world. Firearms has been in that culture since we broke free of tyranny through war. Firearms willcontinue to be in our culture for a longer time to come.

Yes, the cost is more deaths however an armed population is the ultimate deterrence against tyranny. Why do almost all authoritarian nations opt to disarm their people?
"

 

Specifically, what legislation? Culture aside, which provides immense differences, politically Japan isn't comparable to America because we have etched the right to bear firearms in our constitution. Japan has not.

 

Citizens are permitted to possess firearms for hunting and sport shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure. After ten years of shotgun ownership, a licence-holder may apply to obtain a rifle. Then, buying ammunition is a whole other situation, you have to have license for that. That's what my ideal would be, to first and foremost ban guns, and then have hunting be a "special circumstance" in which you have to undergo due process to obtain the gun and the ammo.

we etched in prohibition too

 

Guns DO NOT kill people, People kill people.

 

Nuclear weapons DO NOT kill people, people kill people.

Shoulder mounted rocket launchers DO NOT kill people, people kill people.

Military grade attack planes DO NOT kill people, people kill people.

 

Exactly. A bad idea limiting our rights led by people with no idea what they were banning. Harmed the economy too, and if I recall alcohol was readily obtainable.
Why? Do you have something against a laid back Texan lifestyle? Next people like you are gonna ban cars because "they kill people"

 

While I wish you luck in your endeavor, what you are essentially talking about is a repeal of the 2nd amendment. For me as a voter that would be a non-starter and I don't suspect there would be enough support for a straight repeal for quite some times, possibly decades, considering even Midwest liberals own and love guns as well.

I would urge you to consider the precedent set by a popular (unlike prohibition) amendment that has existed since the creation of our nation (unlike prohibition) being repealed. If we repeal one amendment from the bill of rights then what stops us from repealing others that no longer suite our ideal situation?

I do warn, though, that America is not immune to tyranny. We can see right now an example of someone with authoritarian tendencies with our sitting President. Known for attacking judges or the press for disagreeing with his lie or advocating the use of the military for law enforcement. When the mechanisms of democracy fail to prevent a tyranny then we have no other options to defend our democracy the same was as our founders fought for the creation of a democracy here, through the fires of war. While I maintain Trump is not a tyrant, he proves the notion that sometime down the road we may be faced with a reality where we have an actual tyrant and power and we can use many modern day examples to show that sometimes the mechanisms of democracy are not strong enough to defend against a tyrant lawfully taking over. See Turkey.

America is Rome. We're the militaristic society of today and that's a good thing. If America wasn't the hegemony then Russia or China would be the hegemony and I'm not entirely sure who would want to live in that world. American culture is a key factor in the rise of our nation to be the greatest in the world. (Scientifically, Economically, Militarily)

My version of gun control would be, to contrast yours.

People who have violent criminal or violent mental health tendencies would be prohibited from owning a firearm.

In order to legally own a firearm you must certify competency handling firearms every 4 years.

 

Lol remember the last time america tried that?

 

im not sure if you know this but cars have a use beyond killing things

 

that's exactly why our constitution has amendments, so that we can alter it when it no longer suits our country's needs. It's arguable that the 2nd amendment doesn't even properly translate to modern times due to it being written when guns were substantially less effective.

I understand that we do have a lot of gun-lovers in american culture and repealing the second amendment isn't even close to being on the table at this time, but my hope is that one day it will be. For now, I'll fight for common sense gun-restrictions, like banning weapons that can shoot dozens of belly-blasting shots in a single second. Atleast then if there's a school shooting it would be a handgun/shotgun, and have much less casualties. I know this fight will be slow and treacherous, and by no means do I believe that only the populace should be disarmed, the police force should be as well (just look at what terrible war weapons they pulled out against a bunch of civilians in Ferguson).

With your point of America being a major military power, I can't debate that. I know that we are, and that our presence as a giant military is what protects all of our allies (notably South Korea), but that doesn't have to be our police force, and our people. The military is a separate sector, and I'd argue that it shows instability when American people don't feel safe in their own country. It's not as easy to hide instability now that every instance of injustice or terrible tragedy is posted online.

To make an emotional appeal, I legitimately no longer feel safe going out anymore. Concerts, parades, and festivals now have me looking around constantly for an escape route if there's an active shooter. I go to college every day with that fear and have mapped out what rooms in the building have the ability to be locked in case an active shooter comes on campus. My friends who are still in high school have active shooter drills and are forced to wear clear backpacks as if that should prevent anything. I have to avoid pride events because I know it's only a matter of time until one is shot up. Pulse was, and that's only half an hour from my house. I know people hold hate in their hearts against people for whatever reasons, but they shouldn't be able to hold a gun that could wipe out an entire room in a few seconds. This shouldn't be my reality, or yours, and there's steps we can take to help make the country safer that are being ignored in lieu of old tradition.

 

I still haven't heard a reason to have a semi or full automatic weapon besides it being fun or being able to kill many people at one time.

 

Only 3% of firearm homicides were used with assault rifles. 66% are committed with handguns.
The Virginia Tech shooting in 2007 was committed with a handgun.
Only 14% of mass shootings were done by a gun that qualifies as an "Assault Weapon"
An assault weapon ban won't stop mass shootings.

edit: An 'Assault Weapon' Ban Won't Stop Mass Shootings

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 4, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 4, 2018 ---

Home defense

 

It's never incumbent on someone to explain why they should be able to do something. This question falsely frames the discussion.

 

So do guns (an example; insurance against tyranny)

can you name a weapon a civilian can own with this capability? A ban won't change the fact that automatic weapons are expensive and difficult to obtain (mass shootings with automatic weapons rarely happen because of their high cost, homemade bombs are cheaper)

@iMelXP are you Canadian?

 

When something has negative effects without clear present positive effects, it isn't logical to maintain that just on the basis that this is a freedom that someone before me created. Firearms that have the high capacity to kill, and are mostly that. I don't believe that in a home defense scenario firing three bullets into an attacker is more effective than one, as you are trying to deter most often not kill.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 4, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 4, 2018 ---

I never used the term assault weapon, and maybe because handguns are more used because they are more prevalent than "assault weapons".

 

I was responding to imelxp, not yourself.

If someone breaks into my house, armed with a gun, and I am very threatened in that situation. I would not try to scare him off. I would try to kill him to prevent him from doing harm to me.