Police said four people had died, and 10 were wounded in the incident in Stockton. Later, the city's vice mayor confirmed that the shooting happened at a child's birthday party.
So, you want to take away rights from all people, even those who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own firearms, because a very small minority of people abused those same rights? Why should I be punished because someone else broke the law? How is that not a violation of my sixth ammendment right to due process?
If I were interested in being snarky, this is where I would tell you to think like an adult, not a tyrant.
Your desire for this right harms others. Harm reduction isn’t personal.
You feeling punished is immaterial, life isn’t fair. There are many cases where restrictions are required because humans are flawed. For example air travel. It’s not fair that I can’t fly anonymously but we live in today’s reality and not some imagined future where such a measure is unnecessary.
Gun owners have been giving ample time to come up with a solution but have resist every effort and actually expanded gun rights and worsened the problem.
An amendment to nullify the second amendment is our only resource because your movement has given us no alternative recourse.
I am thoroughly disgusted that the unrelenting behavior of gun culture has caused a need to “for that children” on this issue but here are. :
I not ok with anymore children being murdered by gun violence. You and other gun enthusiasts aren’t, gun rights expanded. It’s fucking depraved. Anyone who isn’t pushing for reform is culpable.
The opinion of those who allow children to be murdered is of zero interest to me.
I do not expect you to agree you’re culpable because I believe your opinion would change. If I’m wrong there, please report to the nearly wood chipper. At least most pedophiles leave the child alive.
Gun owners have been giving ample time to come up with a solution but have resist every effort
The lack of legislative action in the US to address gun deaths and gun violence isn’t because gun owners in the US don’t want it, it’s because of the regulatory and legal capture that’s been building in this country over the past half a century or so. Every gun owner I know would like (or at least wouldn’t mind) seeing some sensible measures in place that significantly reduce the number of gun deaths in the US. We also agree that the most effective way to reduce gun deaths and gun violence is to address the root causes and societal factors that contribute to them; poverty, homelessness, drug use, mental health, police training, and so on. If you really want to prevent these deaths, address those first. Most gun owners, in fact, most Americans, agree these things should happen, do advocate for them, and would vote for them, but the sad reality of our political system means these interests aren’t represented.
You feeling punished is immaterial
You’re right, it’s about much more than just me and my feelings; allow me to word my argument more appropriately.
The vast, VAST majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US exercise their right to bear arms responsibly. Less than one percent of gun owners in the US commit all gun violence on US soil (since shootings on military bases and US embassies abroad contribute to the statistics, I’ll refer to them too).
To restrict the rights of everyone, including everyone who doesn’t exercise that right, and everyone who exercises that right responsibly, because one percent of the people who do exercise that right, abuse it, is not a net benefit to, and should be a very concerning proposition to a free society.
I’m not against well thought out gun control. But most proposals aren’t well thought out and are knee jerk reactions.
I’m saying we, as a society, have huge issues that still need to be addressed even if guns were banned entirely. Wealth inequality, mental health issues, our entire culture around conflict resolution, racism, housing, social services, food insecurity, etc.
We have lots of underlying issues that lead people to gun violence and those issues won’t magically disappear if gun violence were impossible. Gun violence is a symptom of a desperate population AND easy access to firearms. Fixing the access to guns is only a portion of the solution.
By defend crops do you mean kill things? There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible. Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
Yes. White-tailed deer are invasive, eat crops, and cause many single-car accidents in rural areas where emergency services can take 30-45 minutes to respond, if you have cell service to call them. It’s very desirable to hunt them during mating season to control their population. Wild boar are also invasive, eat crops, and leave giant ruts that damage equipment.
There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible.
There is an unfortunately significant overlap between guns ideal for completely legitimate and responsible purposes and guns ideal for committing horrible atrocities.
Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
Hunting often involves walking long distances into remote areas. For this reason, hunters often desire the lightest rifle they can find that will get the job done. In fact, one of the reasons the AR-15 was so popular when it was introduced to the civilian market (as a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, btw) is because it was two pounds lighter (six pounds instead of eight) than the Ruger Mini 14, which was the most popular hunting rifle at the time.
Also, hunting often involves putting yourself in the same areas bears and other dangerous animals call their home. Not being prey is the first rule of hunting. The type of rifle you’re suggesting would offer significant challenges to a hunter who needed to defend themselves from a wild animal.
Violence against animals leads to violence against people. You can’t avoid that. If invasive species need to be controlled it should be done by authorities who have access to guns while doing their duty. Not random farmers killing at will.
American travel overseas and do just fine without their guns. There’s no reason they couldn’t adjust to not having guns on hand at home.
It’s not that we wouldn’t do fine.
But I think we have bigger issues that go deeper than accessibility to guns.
Cool.
Don’t give a fuck.
Our issues mean we cannot be trusted with guns.
Fix the issues then we can think about having guns again.
Think like an adult, not an gun addict.
So, you want to take away rights from all people, even those who have demonstrated an ability to safely and responsibly own firearms, because a very small minority of people abused those same rights? Why should I be punished because someone else broke the law? How is that not a violation of my sixth ammendment right to due process?
If I were interested in being snarky, this is where I would tell you to think like an adult, not a tyrant.
Your desire for this right harms others. Harm reduction isn’t personal.
You feeling punished is immaterial, life isn’t fair. There are many cases where restrictions are required because humans are flawed. For example air travel. It’s not fair that I can’t fly anonymously but we live in today’s reality and not some imagined future where such a measure is unnecessary.
Gun owners have been giving ample time to come up with a solution but have resist every effort and actually expanded gun rights and worsened the problem.
An amendment to nullify the second amendment is our only resource because your movement has given us no alternative recourse.
I am thoroughly disgusted that the unrelenting behavior of gun culture has caused a need to “for that children” on this issue but here are. :
I not ok with anymore children being murdered by gun violence. You and other gun enthusiasts aren’t, gun rights expanded. It’s fucking depraved. Anyone who isn’t pushing for reform is culpable.
The opinion of those who allow children to be murdered is of zero interest to me.
I do not expect you to agree you’re culpable because I believe your opinion would change. If I’m wrong there, please report to the nearly wood chipper. At least most pedophiles leave the child alive.
The lack of legislative action in the US to address gun deaths and gun violence isn’t because gun owners in the US don’t want it, it’s because of the regulatory and legal capture that’s been building in this country over the past half a century or so. Every gun owner I know would like (or at least wouldn’t mind) seeing some sensible measures in place that significantly reduce the number of gun deaths in the US. We also agree that the most effective way to reduce gun deaths and gun violence is to address the root causes and societal factors that contribute to them; poverty, homelessness, drug use, mental health, police training, and so on. If you really want to prevent these deaths, address those first. Most gun owners, in fact, most Americans, agree these things should happen, do advocate for them, and would vote for them, but the sad reality of our political system means these interests aren’t represented.
You’re right, it’s about much more than just me and my feelings; allow me to word my argument more appropriately.
The vast, VAST majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US exercise their right to bear arms responsibly. Less than one percent of gun owners in the US commit all gun violence on US soil (since shootings on military bases and US embassies abroad contribute to the statistics, I’ll refer to them too).
To restrict the rights of everyone, including everyone who doesn’t exercise that right, and everyone who exercises that right responsibly, because one percent of the people who do exercise that right, abuse it, is not a net benefit to, and should be a very concerning proposition to a free society.
I’m not against well thought out gun control. But most proposals aren’t well thought out and are knee jerk reactions.
I’m saying we, as a society, have huge issues that still need to be addressed even if guns were banned entirely. Wealth inequality, mental health issues, our entire culture around conflict resolution, racism, housing, social services, food insecurity, etc.
We have lots of underlying issues that lead people to gun violence and those issues won’t magically disappear if gun violence were impossible. Gun violence is a symptom of a desperate population AND easy access to firearms. Fixing the access to guns is only a portion of the solution.
Some of us live in rural areas and use guns almost daily to defend crops and livestock from pests and predators. How should those people “adjust”?
By defend crops do you mean kill things? There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible. Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
Yes. White-tailed deer are invasive, eat crops, and cause many single-car accidents in rural areas where emergency services can take 30-45 minutes to respond, if you have cell service to call them. It’s very desirable to hunt them during mating season to control their population. Wild boar are also invasive, eat crops, and leave giant ruts that damage equipment.
There is an unfortunately significant overlap between guns ideal for completely legitimate and responsible purposes and guns ideal for committing horrible atrocities.
Hunting often involves walking long distances into remote areas. For this reason, hunters often desire the lightest rifle they can find that will get the job done. In fact, one of the reasons the AR-15 was so popular when it was introduced to the civilian market (as a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, btw) is because it was two pounds lighter (six pounds instead of eight) than the Ruger Mini 14, which was the most popular hunting rifle at the time.
Also, hunting often involves putting yourself in the same areas bears and other dangerous animals call their home. Not being prey is the first rule of hunting. The type of rifle you’re suggesting would offer significant challenges to a hunter who needed to defend themselves from a wild animal.
How do farmers in other countries do it? Lots of countries have farming without needing ar15s.
You build a road through the middle of the forest, then complain that deer go on the road? So the solution is to kill more deer. You’re so American.
If you’re unable to comprehend the importance of controlling the populations of invasive species, this conversation can serve no purpose.
There is nothing quite so uniquely irritating as someone who is intensely critical of something they know very little about.
Violence against animals leads to violence against people. You can’t avoid that. If invasive species need to be controlled it should be done by authorities who have access to guns while doing their duty. Not random farmers killing at will.