I hard disagree on the tightly regulated stance. We are in the middle of a facist coup and you want to disarm every one? I have to question your motives, and I wonder if you have ever read a history book.
I think Roosevelt had it right when he said talk soflty and carry a big stick.
There's a huge spectrum between "nobody should ever own any gun" and "your local corner store should have an 'assault rifle and two sixpacks of beer' combo special".
I completely your point, but unless you're willing to actually start a civil war they aren't going to be very helpful. They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
At the same time the US is still the only country in the world which regularly sees school shootings. This was the case before Trump, and I see no reason to believe it'll be any different after Trump.
I agree that the timing probably isn't the best right now, but after fixing the completely broken democratic system gun control should probably be placed somewhere near the top of the agenda.
It seems pretty clear that the populace is not going to use guns to oppose the fascists. Since that was a major (if not the most important) reason for the second amendment, it appears vestigial.
Also, as others rightly pointed out "much more tightly regulated" ≠ "banned entirely".
None of the points or sentiment I have raised here are new in anyway. There are many millions of people who feel the same as I do.
Why does wanting to own a tool for self defense make "us people" the reason for this mess?
I'm pretty certain this mess is due to the on going class war and our racist president that suffers from early onset dementia. Rome is on fire, but i had nothing to do with it.
So does the one it's in reply to. But you skipped that one to complain about this one.
It's absurd that anyone could pretend to believe that more people having guns is a "deterrent" mild or otherwise to lethal use of force? In every interview about why american cops shoot and kill orders of magnitude more people than most civilized countries, americans always argue it's because their citizenry is armed so the police need to be prepared to make life or death decisions in a split second at every moment on the job.
Nobody suggested that more guns were a solution to anything.
Guns have been more accessible and readily available for the entire history of the United States. School shootings are a relatively new development.
Access to and availability of guns has been more greatly restricted over that time. With virtually no impact.
Perhaps the desperation and miserable mental health of our population are bigger factors?
Every country you would point to likely has better access to healthcare, education, and much better social safety net than the US. As well as law enforcement and prison systems less focused on restitution/justice and more focused on education and rehabilitation. Other countries also see less recidivism and lower violent crime rates in general.
All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
> They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
Is a quote from a sibiling comment to the one I replied to.
It seems that at the very least an extraordinarily loud minority of americans believe that arming the general population should somehow result in fewer gun deaths. On the big social media platforms, the larger news networks, and right here on HN, I am always surprised that such an obviously incorrect idea can be so pervasive.
> All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
No, it doesn't. You can't just assert that because it's what you think. Societal issues do play a part, but just as you need oxygen and fuel for a fire, removing either one stops the flames. So if changing the individual minds and morals of seemingly half your country seems easier than enacting legislation restricting access to guns... well I don't think you should hold your breath.
You're misquoting me. That was in the context of a hostile government, not guns in general for civilian-against-civilian "self-defense".
Also, the "at best" and mild" are quite important there. I believe that armed civilians might prevent someone like the National Guard from firing on groups of protestors when it gets hairy, out of fear of being shot in response. They aren't suicidal: you don't escalate when you are in a disadvantaged position!
I think Roosevelt had it right when he said talk soflty and carry a big stick.