zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
I'm mildly curious what the reaction to this will be compared to the reaction to other recent political murders, like the Hortmans, or of Thompson.

That said, I think people need to recognize that in many aspects what's happening is connected to societal issues that gun control and gun regulations will have very little impact on - remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.

>>Glypto+mV
> remember, even in Japan somebody could make some kind of battery ignited home-made shotgun and kill Shinzo Abe.

Countries with strict gun control enjoy far lower rates of firearm accidents, suicides, and murders. IMO it's clearly worth the tradeoff. Very few of us live in a place where only guns can solve our problems.

The fact that occasionally someone goes to great lengths to kill doesn't mean we should make it easier for everyone.

>>paulry+AZ
I think it's simply too late for real gun control in the US. Like how would that ever be enforced? There's too many guns already, and we have too many people down south that would be happy to smuggle guns back up North. And trying to control the ammo would be even more unrealistic. The gun culture America created over the past 100+ years is a massive mistake, and I don't think there is any undoing of it. Should have been more control immediately post WWII imo.

>>Group_+111
Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.

>>artifi+y71
The 2nd amendment specifies "well regulated militias", but somehow this part is always left out by gun enthusiasts. The idea was to ensure states can have militias, and that those militias would be allowed to have guns. Somehow this has been stretched by the gun lobby to "everyone should be able to have a gun with absolutely no restrictions", when that's absolutely not what is stated in the 2nd amendment.

>>ryan_l+nd1
The bill of rights are about personal freedoms, as is made clear during the discussion leading up to them. All states copied these in some form into their own constitutions, and if you go look at those, most are quite explicit this is a personal right. The claim otherwise is a very recent claim.

Congress around 1982 had the Library of Congress issue a study about this in great depth, with millions of citations to historical documents, which give ample evidence and quotes. You may have to dig to find it, but it's a good read to gain more understanding.

Also the second militia act of 1792 actually required all able bodied men to own guns, and this was the law for well over the following century.

The founders had no qualms about everyone having arms.

>>SideQu+DQ1
I'm not personally against individuals owning guns, but the part that is somehow vehemently opposed is the "well-regulated" part. There's effectively no regulation, and somehow the 2nd amendment has been warped to leave out the part of regulation, to make folks believe they're entitled to guns without limit.

>>ryan_l+M54
"well regulated" applies not to guns but to militias, and has nothing to do with legal restrictions. It means well functioning, well trained, efficient. It has nothing to do with legal regulations.

The word has many meanings. Learn which one the phrase in the Constitution is using.

>>SideQu+t2K
So you're saying that we should be able to add training requirements to use a firearm, if well-regulated means "well functioning, well trained, efficient". Similar to how we require folks to show they know how to properly drive a car before we allow them on the road?