If such a large majority agrees with gun control, what's stopping us?

If we had kept known dangerous people locked up who we already had enough evidence on to keep locked up, thousands and thousands of innocent people would still be alive.

 

I realize that committing a mass shooting is a crime, making the shooter a criminal. But how many mass shooters were criminals before they committed the mass shooting?

 

I have resisted getting a gun for years. I also would very much prefer not to have a weapon in the house but today I'm going to get a Glock. society seems to be continually devolving and I would much rather have a weapon and never need it than need it and not have it.

 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles...masses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings

 

I think the only way you will get them off the street, and it would take time, is to make the possession of them federally illegal with a mandatory penalty. This would include the fire arm that has the ability to receive said magazines. Lets say all non revolvers get banned. Revolvers limited to lets say 8 rounds. Eventually through traffic stops, turn ins, secondary arrest, etc... you would lower the amount of said guns. Maybe the mass shooter loses his gun in a traffic stop before he snaps and uses it.

Thats the only way we will ever reduce these mass shootings. Doubt it will ever happen, but thats how it would be reduced IMO.

 

From that same article, 77% of the mass shooters purchased their guns legally. Another article (below) states that two thirds of them had a prior history of domestic violence.

Gun control measures targeting ownership by domestic violence criminals might help to cut those numbers down.
https://efsgv.org/press/study-two-thirds-of-mass-shootings-linked-to-domestic-violence/

 

The 77% is cases that could be confirmed. Thirty five percent of total cases couldn’t be determined with certainty.

Yep domestic violence is a huge predictor. And gun crime has high recidivism rates as well.

And yet, even folks who lie about their legality of owning a weapon at point of purchase aren’t prosecuted.

There is a lot of room to improve things in relation to mass shootings that don’t harm law abiding folks.

 

how many people would get killed trying to enforce such idiocy. I think citizens should have access to the same weapons that their own civil government might use against them.

 

Lots have displayed rather large amounts of anti social behavior

 

Because people don’t understand what their answers mean when they respond to a poll. In this set of polls when asked if we should have stricter gun laws only 36% say they are unsatisfied with current law and want stricter law. But when asked if there should be a ban on assault rifles 55% say there should be a ban.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

People are too dumb to answer a poll consistently. You kind of have to have stricter law to ban assault rifles, right? Yet those dumb enough to respond to polls obviously can’t comprehend that.

You have made the mistake of assuming all polls even show a majority want stricter control when in fact they do not. Let alone a large majority.

 

27 states have permitless carry legislation passed by representatives that the people of those states voted into office. That's a huge piece of evidence, by itself.

 

You want to ban semiautomatic rifles. That's "banning guns".

 

More school security would have spared many parents a lot of grief.

 

Not as many as in our yearly mass shootings imo. And under that idiocy citizens should have ballastic missiles? Rocket launchers? Fighter jets? Tanks?

 

As AI Bard said: an estimated 251,000 Americans die each year from medical errors and an estimated 45,800 Americans die each year because they lack access to affordable health insurance, so I see it as very simple problem:
if you are near 2 swimming pools and in the first one child is drowning, in the second 3 children are drawing – you starting rescuing from the swimming pool with 3 children, unless you think that the life of kid from the first swimming pool is more important.

Talking about ‘Sounds like, in your mind, you can have fries with your Big Mac OR Coke, but not both”, “giving psychopaths unrestricted access to guns” is just plain demagogy.

 

What about the lives saved? Did you do your research?

 

But........in this case those rights exist in the heads of conservative SC justices. If there had been a liberal majority when key cases were decided those rights would not exist. So, not conveyed by the Constitution. Conveyed by its wrongheaded interpretation.

 

Your opinion and hypothetical if doesn't matter.... They do exist and that's just the way reality is