Should America have gun control?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-41488081?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ==#referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Some excerpts from the article:

"What do young people think about gun control?

When looking at the period before the Parkland shooting, it is interesting to track how young people have felt about gun control.

Support for gun control over the protection of gun rights in America is highest among 18 to 29-year-olds, according to a study by the Pew Research Centre, with a spike after the Orlando nightclub shooting in 2016. The overall trend though suggests a slight decrease in support for gun control over gun rights since 2000.

Pew found that one third of over-50s said they owned a gun. The rate of gun ownership was lower for younger adults - about 28%. White men are especially likely to own a gun.

How does the US compare with other countries?

About 40% of Americans say they own a gun or live in a household with one, according to a 2017 survey , and the rate of murder or manslaughter by firearm is the highest in the developed world. There were more than 11,000 deaths as a result of murder or manslaughter involving a firearm in 2016.

Homicides are taken here to include murder and manslaughter. The FBI separates statistics for what it calls justifiable homicide, which includes the killing of a criminal by a police officer or private citizen in certain circumstances, which are not included.

In about 13% of cases, the FBI does not have data on the weapon used. By removing these cases from the overall total of gun deaths in the US, the proportion of gun-related killings rises to 73% of homicides.

Who owns the world's guns?

While it is difficult to know exactly how many guns civilians own around the world, by every estimate the US with more than 390 million is far out in front.

Switzerland and Finland are two of the European countries with the most guns per person - they both have compulsory military service for all men over the age of 18. Cyprus and Yemen also have military service.

How do US gun deaths break down?

There have been more than 90 mass shootingsin the US since 1982, according to investigative magazine Mother Jones.

Up until 2012, a mass shooting was defined as when an attacker had killed four or more victims in an indiscriminate rampage - and since 2013 the figures include attacks with three or more victims. The shootings do not include killings related to other crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence.

The overall number of people killed in mass shootings each year represents only a tiny percentage of the total number.

 Latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show there were a total of almost 33,600 deaths from guns in 2016 - of which more than 22,900 were suicides. Suicide by firearm accounts for almost half of all suicides in the US, according to the CDC.

A 2016 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found there was a strong relationship between higher levels of gun ownership in a state and higher firearm suicide rates for both men and women.

Attacks in US become deadlier

The Las Vegas attack was the worst in recent US history - and five of the shootings with the highest number of casualties happened within the past 10 years.

The Parkland, Florida, attack is the worst school shooting since Sandy Hook in 2012.

What types of guns kill Americans?

Military-style assault-style weapons have been blamed for some of the major mass shootings such as the attack in an Orlando nightclub and at the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut.

Dozens of rifles were recovered from the scene of the Las Vegas shooting, Police reported.

A few US states have banned assault-style weapons, which were totally restricted for a decade until 2004.

However most murders caused by guns involve handguns, according to FBI data.

How much do guns cost to buy?

For those from countries where guns are not widely owned, it can be a surprise to discover that they are relatively cheap to purchase in the US.

Among the arsenal of weapons recovered from the hotel room of Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock were handguns, which can cost from as little $200 (£151) - comparable to a Chromebook laptop.

Assault-style rifles, also recovered from Paddock's room, can cost from around $1,500 (£1,132).

In addition to the 23 weapons at the hotel, a further 19 were recovered from Paddock's home. It is estimated that he may have spent more than $70,000 (£52,800) on firearms and accessories such as tripods, scopes, ammunition and cartridges.

Who supports gun control?

US public opinion on the banning of handguns has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. Support has shifted over time and now a significant majority opposes a ban on handguns,according to polling by Gallup.

But a majority of Americans say they are dissatisfied with US gun laws and policies, and most of those who are unhappy want stricter legislation.

Some controls are widely supported by people across the political divide - such as restricting the sale of guns to people who are mentally ill, or on "watch" lists.

But Republicans and Democrats are much more divided over other policy proposals, such as whether to allow ordinary citizens increased rights to carry concealed weapons - according to a survey from Pew Research Center.

In his latest comment on the shootings, President Donald Trump said he would be "talking about gun laws as times goes by". The White House said now is not the time to be debating gun control.

His predecessor, Barack Obama, struggled to get any new gun control laws onto the statute books, because of Republican opposition.

Who opposes gun control?

The National Rifle Association (NRA)campaigns against all forms of gun control in the US and argues that more guns make the country safer.

It is among the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy.

In total about one in five US gun owners say they are members of the NRA - and it has especially widespread support from Republican-leaning gun owners, according to Pew Research .

In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy.

The chart shows only the recorded contributions to lawmakers published by the Senate Office of Public Records.

The NRA spends millions more elsewhere, such as on supporting the election campaigns of political candidates who oppose gun controls."

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

When various individuals, walk around with their gun, flopping around in the right front pocket of their pants, who do these random weapons displayers, think that they are trying to intimidate, or impress, with their gun in their pockets like that? 

(One had their gun in a holster.)

Their guns looked like 9mm's? 

Someone on the streets? 

Maybe the above typy of casual gun display, has some sort of a gang affiliation attached to it? 

Or maybe is just showing off their leg iron, or their heater? 

What say you, some of the pro gun crowd, narrative providers? 

Why is it any of your business what other people have in their possession? 

You're fine with a individual treating their gun possession, like it's a front pocket accessory? 

Maybe, its their way of controlling the people around them, with their gun possession? 

Intimidation, by showing off their gun possession, to the neighborhood they are a part of? 

John_C_87

Wow! that is a lot of ink, graphs, and math. Is this what is being done with the corruption of Time?

Did you know that as many as 84 people have been killed in one car crash. The solution was to fix the position and exposure the spectators had been placed in. A car is not even a common defense to the general welfare of the United States Constitution. If a gun had rights it would be given a better exhaust system, and only assault weapons would be made and sold. Kind of scary isn't it. 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Why is it any of your business what other people have in their possession? 

You're fine with a individual treating their gun possession, like it's a front pocket accessory? 

Maybe, its their way of controlling the people around them, with their gun possession? 

Intimidation, by showing off their gun possession, to the neighborhood they are a part of? 

It doesn't impress me. If you feel intimidated, that's a personal problem.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"It doesn't impress me. If you feel intimidated, that's a personal problem."

No, it could be a law enforcement issue.

And the gun possession guy, has the personal problem.

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"It doesn't impress me. If you feel intimidated, that's a personal problem."

No, it could be a law enforcement issue.

And the gun possession guy, has the personal problem.

More than likely, it's a law enforcement officer.  Either way, there's no need for it to be your concern.

TTKDB

 @John_C_87 ;

@CYDdharta

@AppleSauce

Who opposes gun control?

The National Rifle Association (NRA)campaigns against all forms of gun control in the US and argues that more guns make the country safer.

It is among the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy.

In total about one in five US gun owners say they are members of the NRA - and it has especially widespread support from Republican-leaning gun owners, according to Pew Research .

In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy.

The chart shows only the recorded contributions to lawmakers published by the Senate Office of Public Records.

The NRA spends millions more elsewhere, such as on supporting the election campaigns of political candidates who oppose gun controls." 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

 @John_C_87 ;

@CYDdharta

@AppleSauce

Who opposes gun control?

The National Rifle Association (NRA)campaigns against all forms of gun control in the US and argues that more guns make the country safer.

It is among the most powerful special interest lobby groups in the US, with a substantial budget to influence members of Congress on gun policy.

In total about one in five US gun owners say they are members of the NRA - and it has especially widespread support from Republican-leaning gun owners, according to Pew Research .

In terms of lobbying, the NRA officially spends about $3m per year to influence gun policy.

The chart shows only the recorded contributions to lawmakers published by the Senate Office of Public Records.

The NRA spends millions more elsewhere, such as on supporting the election campaigns of political candidates who oppose gun controls." 

LOL, as a lobbying organization, the NRA is a bit player.  They aren't even in the top 50.  Their strength comes from their members, who are unusually politically active.  It is a real grassroots organization.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"More than likely, it's a law enforcement officer.  Either way, there's no need for it to be your concern."

Either way, it's all of everyone's concern.

And the next time, I see an individual, like that individual walking around where kids and parents, and others that were around this or another individual like them while in a store shopping, casually walking around with a gun stuck in their pants pocket again, I'll call the police, and they can deal with the individual, you view as this?  
"Either way, there's no need for it to be your concern."

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"More than likely, it's a law enforcement officer.  Either way, there's no need for it to be your concern."

Either way, it's all of everyone's concern.

And the next time, I see an individual, like that individual walking around where kids and parents, and others that were around this or another individual like them while in a store shopping, casually walking around with a gun stuck in their pants pocket again, I'll call the police, and they can deal with the individual, you view as this?  
"Either way, there's no need for it to be your concern."

IMO, it's a senseless overreaction, but whatever gets you thru the day.  Just don't be surprised if the cops don't show up (they usually have important things to do) or if they do show up, they do nothing (the person carrying the gun is doing so legally).

It's rather apparent you've never touched a real gun.

Applesauce

@TTKDB

what an incredibly dishonest thing to say 
people are opposing MORE, useless and meaning less infringements on the 2a
I would say a large majority of gun owners think we need laws to keep guns out of criminals hands and there should be more punishment for them when they are caught with them etc
to say gun owners and or the NRA oppose gun control is a flat out lie and dishonest, you should do better than that, stop being such a troll.

And the next time, I see an individual, like that individual walking around where kids and parents, and others that were around this or another individual like them while in a store shopping, casually walking around with a gun stuck in their pants pocket again, I'll call the police, and they can deal with the individual, you view as this?  

assuming they are in a state and area where that is legal, what would you report?  Oh there's someone exercising their constitutional right and I don't like it, come and use force, violence and guns against them on my behalf.  You are garbage.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"IMO, it's a senseless overreaction, but whatever gets you thru the day.  Just don't be surprised if the cops don't show up (they usually have important things to do) or if they do show up, they do nothing (the person carrying the gun is doing so legally.)

IMO, we live in the country with the most weapons, legal and illegal, it would seem? 

And gun violence happens daily.

So your view of the police, is irrelevent when they deal with gun violence, daily, while you talk about why gun control, is whatever to you on the internet. 

"It's rather apparent you've never touched a real gun."

Everyone who has been reading this forum, is aware that you are pro gun, and you are protective of how you observe the second amendment.

TTKDB

@Applesauce:

You are entitled to your opinion.

"assuming they are in a state and area where that is legal, what would you report?  Oh there's someone exercising their constitutional right and I don't like it, come and use force, violence and guns against them on my behalf.  You are garbage."

And how do you view the various offenders who have hurt innocent people with their gun violence, the mass shooters? 

Do you maybe, view them as garbage as well? 

Or just those who are, pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro peaceful, pro second amendment as well?

When an offender or criminal has killed innocent people, do you maybe view that offender or criminal as being, pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro peaceful, and pro second amendment as well, after having committed their gun violence crimes? 

Applesauce

@TTKDB

no garbage is too kind a word for violent criminals, I don't care if they use a gun or not, it's their actions that count, why do you only hate gun violence and gun murders?  seems pretty cold hearted. don't you have sympathy for Heather Heyer's family?  How about all the family members of those killed by Jeffrey Dhamer?  Or those left behind from Jim Jones, Jonestown?

Gary Ridgway

Victims	Convicted of 49, confessed to 71

Many of his victims were around 16 years of age, and some were under the age of consent
 He strangled his victims, usually by hand but sometimes using ligatures.

tell me again about bump stocks or guns as being the problem and not the person, society.

here pick some bed time reading and get educated on the realities rather than the alternate one you seem to live in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_serial_killers_in_the_United_States

TTKDB

@Applesauce

The theme of the forum is this: 

Should America have gun control?

What does this:

 "He strangled his victims, usually by hand but sometimes using ligatures."

Or some of the serial killers, have to do with gun control?

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"IMO, it's a senseless overreaction, but whatever gets you thru the day.  Just don't be surprised if the cops don't show up (they usually have important things to do) or if they do show up, they do nothing (the person carrying the gun is doing so legally.)

IMO, we live in the country with the most weapons, legal and illegal, it would seem? 

And gun violence happens daily.

So your view of the police, is irrelevent when they deal with gun violence, daily, while you talk about why gun control, is whatever to you on the internet. 

"It's rather apparent you've never touched a real gun."

Everyone who has been reading this forum, is aware that you are pro gun, and you are protective of how you observe the second amendment.

You switch between a guy you notice carrying a gun and a guy committing gun violence as if they're the same.  Make up your mind about what you want to discuss.

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987:

The same questions for you:


The theme of the forum is this:

Should America have gun control?

What does this:

 "He strangled his victims, usually by hand but sometimes using ligatures."

Or some of the serial killers, have to do with gun control? 

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987:

The same questions for you:


The theme of the forum is this:

Should America have gun control?

What does this:

 "He strangled his victims, usually by hand but sometimes using ligatures."

Or some of the serial killers, have to do with gun control? 

Because gun control will equal an increase of using knives, rocks, swords, cars, fists, scissors, keyboards etc.

Restricting the use of guns will do nothing, but result in criminals using other ways to kill people. Before you know it, there will be sword control, or knife control 

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987 :

Do you think that the innocent people killed by the mass shooters, may give a care about your below points of view? 

"Because gun control will equal an increase of using knives, rocks, swords, cars, fists, scissors, keyboards etc.

Restricting the use of guns will do nothing, but result in criminals using other ways to kill people. Before you know it, there will be sword control, or knife control"

 
Why don't you reach out to the Vegas police department who dealt with the Vegas shooter, and see if they concur with your above points of view? 

Applesauce

@TTKDB

it just proves the difference between people like me who care about all lost lives and you who only cares about lives lost to guns, you suffer from selective moral outrage.


the industry sure does miss Obama.

TTKDB

Why doesn't all of the pro gun individuals, reach out to the Vegas police department who dealt with the Vegas shooter and ask them to please check out this forums debate question:

"Should America have gun control?"

And see what they think of the various pro gun points of view, and the various individual pro gun philosophies that are being expressed per each pro gun individual?

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987 :

Do you think that the innocent people killed by the mass shooters, may give a care about your below points of view? 

"Because gun control will equal an increase of using knives, rocks, swords, cars, fists, scissors, keyboards etc.

Restricting the use of guns will do nothing, but result in criminals using other ways to kill people. Before you know it, there will be sword control, or knife control"

 
Why don't you reach out to the Vegas police department who dealt with the Vegas shooter, and see if they concur with your above points of view? 

And... O.F.F T.O.P.I.C N.E.X.T.!

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

Why doesn't all of the pro gun individuals, reach out to the Vegas police department who dealt with the Vegas shooter and ask them to please check out this forums debate question:

"Should America have gun control?"

And see what they think of the various pro gun points of view, and the various individual pro gun philosophies that are being expressed per each pro gun individual?

Why do you keep telling everyone else what to do?  Why don't you do it yourself?

TTKDB

@Applesauce

I'm pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive me.

"it just proves the difference between people like me who care about all lost lives and you who only cares about lives lost to guns, you suffer from selective moral outrage."

And you continue, to educate the various individuals who are reading this forum, with your select choices, of your pro gun narratives?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

"Why do you keep telling everyone else what to do?  Why don't you do it yourself?"

I'm pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive me.

And where have I told anyone what to do? 

This is my position, 

"I'm pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive me."

I haven't directly told anyone to do anything.

Applesauce

TTKDB said:

@Applesauce

I'm pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive me.

"it just proves the difference between people like me who care about all lost lives and you who only cares about lives lost to guns, you suffer from selective moral outrage."

And you continue, to educate the various individuals who are reading this forum, with your select choices, of your pro gun narratives?

what select choices have I made?  I have included all murders, you just focus on gun murders, you are being selective, I am being inclusive.

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

Nope the below is still on topic:

TTKDBsaid:

« hide previous quotes

@Zombieguy1987 :

Do you think that the innocent people killed by the mass shooters, may give a care about your below points of view? 

"Because gun control will equal an increase of using knives, rocks, swords, cars, fists, scissors, keyboards etc.

Restricting the use of guns will do nothing, but result in criminals using other ways to kill people. Before you know it, there will be sword control, or knife control"

 
Why don't you reach out to the Vegas police department who dealt with the Vegas shooter, and see if they concur with your above points of view? 

And... it's not off topic.

The theme of the forum is what? 

Should America have gun control?

Those innocent people, killed by gun violence, are the dna to the theme of the forum.

Zombieguy1987

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

Nope the below is still on topic:

TTKDSsaid:

« hide previous quotes

@Zombieguy1987 :

Do you think that the innocent people killed by the mass shooters, may give a care about your below points of view? 

No, innocent people shouldn't be killed by mass shooters, but banning guns will do nothing

"Because gun control will equal an increase of using knives, rocks, swords, cars, fists, scissors, keyboards etc.

Restricting the use of guns will do nothing, but result in criminals using other ways to kill people. Before you know it, there will be sword control, or knife control"

 
Why don't you reach out to the Vegas police department who dealt with the Vegas shooter, and see if they concur with your above points of view? 

What does asking the VPD have to do with this debate?

And... it's not off topic.

The theme of the forum is what? 

Should America have gun control?

And what does this have to do with the Las Vegas Police Department?

Those innocent people killed, by gun violence, are the conversational dna to the theme of the forum.

But what does the Vegas Police Department have to do with the debate!?

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"Why do you keep telling everyone else what to do?  Why don't you do it yourself?"

I'm pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive me.

And where have I told anyone what to do? 

This is my position, 

"I'm pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive me."

I haven't directly told anyone to do anything.

Everyone commenting in this thread is pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive them, so you really don't need to post that anymore, it doesn't distinguish you from anyone else.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

They are my words. 

"I'm pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment.

And I'm exercising my first amendment right/ freedom of speech, when I express them.

"Everyone commenting in this thread is pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive them, so you really don't need to post that anymore, it doesn't distinguish you from anyone else."

And you are entitled to your opinion.

TTKDB

https://aagunv.org/

Some excerpts from the website:

"The time has now come that we must enact stringent gun control legislation…"
Quarter measures and half measures will no longer suffice…

Pious condolences will no longer suffice…"
gun control legislation comparable to the legislation in force in virtually every civilized country in the world."
Senator Thomas Dodd, June 11, 1968"

 

"Read the winning essays in the 2018 Americans Against Gun Violence National High School Essay Contest

A Message from the President of Americans Against Gun Violence

"What can we do to prevent these mass shootings?"

A friend sent me an email the day after the mass shooting on November 7 at the Borderline Bar and Grill in Thousand Oaks, California. He asked:

"Bill, what can we do to prevent these mass shootings?"

I replied:

"It's simple, Jim. We need to adopt stringent gun control laws in the United States comparable to the laws that have long been in effect in every other high income democratic country of the world - countries in which such mass shootings are rare or non-existent. Such laws include stringent restrictions, if not complete bans, on civilian ownership of handguns and all automatic and semi-automatic rifles."

If my response to Jim seems familiar to you, it's probably because you’ve been reading my earlier  president's messages and/or the Americans Against Gun Violence Mission Statement below. 

The Thousand Oaks mass shooting, in which 12 people were killed and at least 20 more were injured, comes on the heels of the October 27 mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue in which 11 people were killed and six others injured. The response to the Pittsburgh mass shooting focused on the fact that the shooter was rabidly anti-Semitic. The responses to other mass shootings have also focused in many cases on the shooters' motives - including racial hatred in the cases of the Sikh temple mass shooting in 2012 and the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church mass shooting in 2015; suspected anti-gay hatred in the Pulse nightclub mass shooting in 2016; and political extremism in the Alexandria, Virginia baseball field mass shooting in 2017. And as usual, the response to the Thousand Oaks mass shooting has focused on the question of what motivated 28 year old Ian David Long to commit an atrocious mass murder before killing himself.

By definition, there is some perverse motive behind every mass shooting, even if the motive is never clearly identified, as was the case with the worst mass shooting to date in U.S. history - the Las Vegas massacre in 2017; as was the case in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas mass shooting in February of this year; and as may well turn out to be the case in the Thousand Oaks mass shooting. But as our keynote speaker, Joshua Sugarmann, Excecutive Director of the Violence Policy Center, stated at our annual dinner last year, the main reason why people in the United States keep committing these horrific mass shootings is not because of any particular motive - it's because they can. It's because we, as a society, let them do it. It's because we, as a society, choose not to prevent them from doing it.

The United States doesn't have higher rates of anti-Semitism than other high income democratic countries. In fact, anti-Semitism, while it is abhorrent and may be on the rise, is less prevalent in the U.S. than in other Western European nations that have far lower rates of gun violence. We don't have significantly higher rates of mental illness and substance abuse than other high income democratic countries - not that we don't need to improve mental health care. And while I would be the first to agree that we need to address bullying and the glorification of violence in our media, the rate of physical assault by means other than guns is lower in the United States than in most other high income democratic countries.

The obvious reasons for the extraordinarily high rate of gun violence in our country, including the uniquely American phenomenon of regular mass shootings, are the reasons that we as a society choose to largely ignore - the extraordinarily lax gun control laws in our country as compared with every other high income democratic country of the world, the extraordinarily high number of guns in circulation, and what the late Senator Thomas Dodd referred to as "the ridiculous ease" with which almost anyone in our country can acquire almost any kind of a gun.

Before 2008, there was no constitutional obstacle to adopting stringent gun control laws in the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in four previous decisions that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to own a gun.  But in 2008, a narrow 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court became a party to what the late Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger called " one of the greatest pieces of fraud - I repeat the word, 'fraud' - on the American public by special interests" that he had ever seen in his lifetime. The special interests to which he referred were the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby which, in the 2008 Heller decision, succeeded in effectively deleting the phrase, "A well regulated militia," from the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of calling out the Heller decision for what it really was - a rogue decision, an abomination, and a death sentence - we, as a society, chose to live with it. Even then presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said of the Heller decision:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms....Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country."

With all due respect, presidential candidate Barack Obama's statement was nonsense. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled unequivocally in U.S. v. Miller in 1939, 69 years before Heller, and had reiterated in Lewis v. United States in 1980, 28 years before Heller, “The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” And far from providing "much-needed guidance," the counter-factual and internally contradictory Heller decision led to more than 1,000 lawsuits being filed by the gun lobby against all kinds of gun control laws, with conflicting rulings in courts across the country that remain unresolved.

In order to adopt stringent gun control regulations like those in other high income democratic counties, in the short term, we need to overturn the Heller decision. In the long term, we need to either repeal the Second Amendment entirely or adopt another amendment that ensures that the Second Amendment can never be hijacked by the gun lobby again.

My friend, Jim, replied to my email:

"Thank you, Bill. I realize what we need to do. What can we do right now?"

I suggested to Jim that he join Americans Against Gun Violence and that he make an additional donation, if he was able. Jim did both. Americans Against Gun Violence is the only national gun violence prevention organization in the United that openly advocates overturning the rogue Heller decision and adopting stringent gun control regulations in the United States comparable to the laws in all other high income democratic countries. By joining and contributing to Americans Against Gun Violence, Jim is helping to build a critical mass of people and an effective infrastructure through which we can accomplish those goals. Jim’s donation also helps support our high school essay contest through which we’re fostering and rewarding critical thinking and activism among our youth in the area of gun violence prevention.

I recommended to Jim that he call his state and federal elected officials, as I have, and tell them that he is an Americans Against Gun Violence member and that he expects them to openly advocate and to do everything within their power to work toward overturning the Heller decision and adopting stringent gun control laws in the United States comparable to the laws in other high income democratic countries. Many people estimate the importance of making calls or other contacts with elected leaders. We know from talking with staff members of members of Congress that as few as 10-20 calls on a given issue can influence the position an elected official takes on an issue and the way that he or she votes. And when we act in concert as members of Americans Against Gun Violence, our collective voice becomes greater than the sum of the voices of our individual members.

I also recommended to Jim that he talk openly with friends, family, colleagues, and anyone else who is open-minded enough to listen about the fraudulent misrepresentation of the Second Amendment by the gun lobby, the rogue Heller decision, and the need to adopt stringent gun control laws in the United States comparable to the laws in other high income democratic countries. And I told him that if people say, "You don't propose taking away people's guns, do you?" I would recommend that he reply unapologetically, as I do, "Yes, lots of guns, in fact, millions of guns, just like Australia did after a mass shooting there in 1996, and where hunters and target shooters can still practice their sports, but where there hasn't been another mass shooting since 1996."

I told Jim that there are many other things that we can all do to help stop the shameful epidemic of gun violence that afflicts our country, and I recommended that he check out the Facts and FAQ's page of the Americans Against Gun Violence website for some more suggestions.

I shared my responses to Jim with our supporters on the Americans Against Gun Violence listserv, and another friend replied:

"This country, I’m afraid to say, will never give up its guns. Too many people and too many politicians beholden to the NRA."

I’ll admit that at times, I become discouraged myself. The cynical statement above, though, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. And while there are elements of our society that will not listen to reason on the issue of gun control, I firmly believe that if given accurate information, the majority of Americans, including the majority of our elected officials, will support the adoption of stringent gun control laws in our country comparable to the laws in all other high income democratic countries, and that one day, we will end the shameful epidemic of gun violence that afflicts our country. It’s our mission at Americans Against Gun Violence to make that day come sooner rather than later, and I hope that you’ll join Jim and me and the many other members of Americans Against Gun Violence who are doing everything within our power to accomplish that mission.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Bill Durston, MD

President, Americans Against Gun Violence

Note: Dr. Durston is a board-certified emergency physician and a former expert marksman in the United States Marine Corps, decorated for "courage and composure under fire" during the Vietnam War.

Preventing Firearm Related Deaths and Injuries in the United States of America
Mission Statement of Americans Against Gun Violence

Firearm related deaths and injuries are a serious public health problem in the United States of America, and the rate of gun violence in the USA is much higher than in all other economically advanced democratic countries. It is the position of Americans Against Gun Violence that we have not only the ability, but also the moral responsibility, to reduce rates of firearm related deaths and injuries in our country to levels that are at or below those in the other economically advanced democratic countries of the world.

We support incremental steps toward reducing gun violence in the United States such as expanding background checks. At the same time, we believe that it is critically important to make the American people aware that in order to reduce rates of firearm related deaths and injuries in the United States to levels comparable to those in other economically advanced democratic countries, we must adopt comparable gun control laws. Such laws include stringent regulations, if not complete bans, on civilian ownership of handguns and all automatic and semi-automatic rifles. Such laws need not prevent responsible hunters and target shooters from practicing their sports with traditional sporting rifles and shotguns. In order to stringently regulate or ban handguns, the Supreme Court's radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment in the 2008 Hellerdecision must be overturned. We further believe that stringent regulation of civilian firearm ownership should be accompanied by stringent regulation of the use of lethal force by law enforcement officers.

In addition to educating the American people regarding the need for the adoption of definitive gun control laws, it is our mission to debunk the myths promoted by the gun industry and its associated lobby, including the myth that honest, law-abiding people should own or carry guns “for protection;” the myth that the Second Amendment was intended to confer an individual right to own guns; and, the most insidious myth of all, that the gun lobby is more powerful than the rest of the American people.

We are confident that one day the United States will adopt stringent gun control laws comparable to the laws already in place in every other economically advanced democratic country of the world. The only question is how many more innocent Americans will be killed and injured by preventable gunshot wounds before that day arrives. It is our mission to work to make that day come sooner rather than later." 

TTKDB

@Zombieguy1987

And what does this have to do with the Las Vegas Police Department?

Those innocent people killed, by gun violence, are the conversational dna to the theme of the forum.

"But what does the Vegas Police Department have to do with the debate!?"

Because they dealt with the shooters gun violence.

So they, and the other police departments like the ones in Texas, and Florida, along with the other states who have dealt with the gun violence shootings, because of the mass shooters.

They are applicable, to the theme of the forum. 

Applesauce

TTKDB said:

@Zombieguy1987

And what does this have to do with the Las Vegas Police Department?

Those innocent people killed, by gun violence, are the conversational dna to the theme of the forum.

"But what does the Vegas Police Department have to do with the debate!?"

Because they dealt with the shooters gun violence.

So they, and the other police departments like the ones in Texas, and Florida, along with the other states who have dealt with the gun violence shootings, because of the mass shooters.

They are applicable, to the theme of the forum. 

finally you are making some sense (whether you meant to or not lol)
they do have to deal with the shooter's violence, you are correct in putting the blame on him.
these sick in the head people, we all have to deal with what they do imo, I can't ignore it, can you?  However I would expand it to include sickos who strangle or in some other way kill their victims.

If someone hangs themselves to we blame the rope?  do we call for a rope ban?
When someone drives a car or truck into a crowd and kills people do we demand stricter vehicle control?

do you see a common denominator here?  I've given you the answer before, do you remember what it is?  I say we focus on that common denominator to try and reduce all kinds of murders (which btw have been going down for many years now even w/o any added gun control etc)

If you watch the video I posted previously they show gun sales and how they skyrocketed when Obama called for more gun control.  Fast forward to today and the sales are way down.  Seems the best way to reduce guns in society is leave them t.f. alone.  Democrats are calling for gun control again, want to be sales go back up?  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot....lol they have learned nothing or gain a lot by increased gun sales otherwise why would they do things that will increase them?
The U.S already has "gun control" and while most of us would probably agree improvements to what is already in place need to happen, laws already in place need to be enforced better and consistently, some punishments increased, there's no need for more because they won't do anything.

Justify, if you can, making silencers/suppressors and short barreled rifles class 3 weapons.

btw if you don't start answering my questions, you know give and take as I do answer yours, there will be no point in us exchanging posts any longer.

John_C_87

@TTKDB ;

The Right to Fire-Arm is a united State Constitutional right given by preamble. The second amendment is unless accompanied by a declaration of Indecencies is stating that right cannot be lost if a militia is formed as long as it is well regulated.

Hence Amendment to United States Constitution.

John_C_87

oops! Meant to type independence not indecencies.

TTKDB

@Applesauce

"btw if you don't start answering my questions, you know give and take as I do answer yours, there will be no point in us exchanging posts any longer."

btw, nothing.

Are you maybe trying to dictate to me how you apparently desire to have a conversation to go? 

It's sad, that it would maybe appear, that some of the extreme pro weapon individuals, defend the heck out of the very weapons that they own, and routinely use the second amendment to do that defending with?

But a guess, in regards to the
weapons, that can't be defended, by those same individual, second amendment platforms?

The guns that were use by offenders and criminals who used their guns to commit the mass shootings with? 

And it would be a simple courtesy, to amend the Second Amendment, to be reflective of that issue, as well as to address an offenders or a criminals gun violence, and their punishment/s within the preamble of the Second Amendment itself? 

The difference between some of the pro gun crowd, and how they apparently, view weapons in general? 

The March for Our Lives rally in DC last year?

The kids from the various schools, that were affected by the gun violence, those kids, were defending the kids, with their reflective conversations.

While, the conversation within the confines of this forum, are, it would appear, to be about the various individuals, and the way that weapons are being defended in general? 

And how some of the participants from that rally, have had certain dialogues expressed in their direction, during the continued course of this very debate? 

Applesauce

@TTKDB

And it would be a simple courtesy, to amend the Second Amendment, to be reflective of that issue, as well as to address an offenders or a criminals gun violence, and their punishment/s within the preamble of the Second Amendment itself? 

how?

TTKDB

@Applesauce

Instead of fixating on this point of view? 

And it would be a simple courtesy, to amend the Second Amendment, to be reflective of that issue, as well as to address an offenders or a criminals gun violence, and their punishment/s within the preamble of the Second Amendmentitself? 

how?

How about addressing the other points of view as well? 

"btw if you don't start answering my questions, you know give and take as I do answer yours, there will be no point in us exchanging posts any longer."

btw, nothing.

Are you maybe trying to dictate to me how you apparently desire to have a conversation to go? 

It's sad, that it would maybe appear, that some of the extreme pro weapon individuals, defend the heck out of the very weapons that they own, and routinely use the second amendment to do that defending with?

But a guess, in regards to the 
weapons, that can't be defended, by those same individual, second amendment platforms?

The guns that were use by offenders and criminals who used their guns to commit the mass shootings with? 

And it would be a simple courtesy, to amend the Second Amendment, to be reflective of that issue, as well as to address an offenders or a criminals gun violence, and their punishment/s within the preamble of the Second Amendment itself? 

The difference between some of the pro gun crowd, and how they apparently, view weapons in general? 

The March for Our Lives rally in DC last year?

The kids from the various schools, that were affected by the gun violence, those kids, were defending the kids, with their reflective conversations.

While, the conversation within the confines of this forum, are, it would appear, to be about the various individuals, and the way that weapons are being defended in general? 

And how some of the participants from that rally, have had certain dialogues expressed in their direction, during the continued course of this very debate?  

Applesauce

@TTKDB

I'm done playing your dishonest disingenuous posts.  Your trolling attempt to answer questions with questions is tiresome, maybe the others can tolerate it, but I've had enough, we are done.

@CYDdharta 
I'm done feeding the troll, you are on your own.

Zombieguy1987

Applesauce said:

@TTKDB

I'm done playing your dishonest disingenuous posts.  Your trolling attempt to answer questions with questions is tiresome, maybe the others can tolerate it, but I've had enough, we are done.

I know how you feel. That’s why I left this forum 

@CYDdharta 
I'm done feeding the troll, you are on your own.

TTKDB

@Applesauce

This response from you, is what you decided to use, as your pro gun narrative driven, counter arguments to the various points of view I expressed to you.

"I'm done playing your dishonest disingenuous posts.  Your trolling attempt to answer questions with questions is tiresome, maybe the others can tolerate it, but I've had enough, we are done.

@CYDdharta 
I'm done feeding the troll, you are on your own."

Here are those points of view that you balked at.

"btw if you don't start answering my questions, you know give and take as I do answer yours, there will be no point in us exchanging posts any longer."

btw, nothing.

Are you maybe trying to dictate to me how you apparently desire to have a conversation to go? 

It's sad, that it would maybe appear, that some of the extreme pro weapon individuals, defend the heck out of the very weapons that they own, and routinely use the second amendment to do that defending with?

But a guess, in regards to the 
weapons, that can't be defended, by those same individual, second amendment platforms?

The guns that were use by offenders and criminals who used their guns to commit the mass shootings with? 

And it would be a simple courtesy, to amend the Second Amendment, to be reflective of that issue, as well as to address an offenders or a criminals gun violence, and their punishment/s within the preamble of the Second Amendment itself? 

The difference between some of the pro gun crowd, and how they apparently, view weapons in general? 

The March for Our Lives rally in DC last year?

The kids from the various schools, that were affected by the gun violence, those kids, were defending the kids, with their reflective conversations.

While, the conversation within the confines of this forum, are, it would appear, to be about the various individuals, and the way that weapons are being defended in general? 

And how some of the participants from that rally, have had certain dialogues expressed in their direction, during the continued course of this very debate?  

This point of view: Your single word response was "how?"

And it would be a simple courtesy, to amend the Second Amendment, to be reflective of that issue, as well as to address an offenders or a criminals gun violence, and their punishment/s within the preamble of the Second Amendmentitself? 

how? 

@AppleSauce:

Please explain this?


"Everyone commenting in this thread is pro community, pro family, pro law abiding, pro law enforcement, and pro second amendment, regardless of how you perceive them, so you really don't need to post that anymore, it doesn't distinguish you from anyone else."

They are?

Does the Second Amendment, somehow belong exclusively to the pro weapons owners? 

Applesauce

@TTKDB

I'm finished with you, good day to you sir.

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@Applesauce


The March for Our Lives rally in DC last year?

The kids from the various schools, that were affected by the gun violence, those kids, were defending the kids, with their reflective conversations.

LOL, you mean the demonstration that was put on by Bloomberg and Hollywood leftists where they tried to make their failed point using kids who know nothing?

Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives?

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@Applesauce 


The March for Our Lives rally in DC last year?

The kids from the various schools, that were affected by the gun violence, those kids, were defending the kids, with their reflective conversations.

Do you maybe have a probable issue with the student survivors, or some of the parents who lost their kid, to a mass shooting situation, and they speaking up about gun violence? 

"LOL, you mean the demonstration that was put on by Bloomberg and Hollywood leftists where they tried to make their failed point using kids who know nothing?"

Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives?

I was there, and I didn't one time, hear or see the name "Bloomberg" or the word,  "Hollywood" being bantered about by anyone at the rally.

Now, if some of the pro gun crowd, wants to wrap a name or a label, around a rally, to use that tactic, to defend their pro gun narratives with, then go to this or that internet based website, and get whatever alternative platform device that you can muster up, and use it to platform their pro gun narratives with, just as the Second Amendment itself, is used for apparently for the same apparent purpose? 

Does the Second Amendment, exclusively, belong to you and some of the other pro gun extremist's? 

Or does it belong to the peaceful seeking public as a whole?
 
Yes, or no, does the Second Amendment, belong to the peaceful seeking public as a whole, or to some some of the pro gun extremist's?

Where does the truth reside? 

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

"LOL, you mean the demonstration that was put on by Bloomberg and Hollywood leftists where they tried to make their failed point using kids who know nothing?"

Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives?

Does the Second Amendment, exclusively, belong to you and some of the other pro gun extremist's?

Yes, yes it does.

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

Does the Second Amendment, exclusively, belong to you and some of the other pro gun extremist's? 

"Yes, yes it does."

Prove it.

Show me where, from the language of the Second Amendment itself, where your name is, where AppleSauces, or Zombieguy1987, names are on the Second Amendment as well, and it explicitly states that it belongs to the pro gun extremist's only? 

And can you show as well, where the Second Amendment belongs or belonged, to the mass shooters as well, while you're looking for your names to be factually written within the language of the Second Amendment, that in reality belongs to the United States of America, and not to the three of you explicitly? 

Please, prove that the Second Amendment belongs to you and those mass shooters? 

TTKDB

@CYDdharta

@Zombieguy1987


Do the two of you have any counter arguments for the below? 

The March for Our Lives rally in DC last year?

The kids from the various schools, that were affected by the gun violence, those kids, were defending the kids, with their reflective conversations.

Do you maybe have a probable issue with the student survivors, or some of the parents who lost their kid, to a mass shooting situation, and they speaking up about gun violence? 

"LOL, you mean the demonstration that was put on by Bloomberg and Hollywood leftists where they tried to make their failed point using kids who know nothing?"

Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives?

I was there, and I didn't one time, hear or see the name "Bloomberg" or the word,  "Hollywood" being bantered about by anyone at the rally.

Now, if some of the pro gun crowd, wants to wrap a name or a label, around a rally, to use that tactic, to defend their pro gun narratives with, then go to this or that internet based website, and get whatever alternative platform device that you can muster up, and use it to platform their pro gun narratives with, just as the Second Amendment itself, is used for apparently for the same apparent purpose?  

CYDdharta

TTKDB said:

@CYDdharta

Does the Second Amendment, exclusively, belong to you and some of the other pro gun extremist's? 

"Yes, yes it does."

Prove it.

Show me where, from the language of the Second Amendment itself, where your name is, where AppleSauces, or Zombieguy1987, names are on the Second Amendment as well, and it explicitly states that it belongs to the pro gun extremist's only? 

And can you show as well, where the Second Amendment belongs or belonged, to the mass shooters as well, while you're looking for your names to be factually written within the language of the Second Amendment, that in reality belongs to the United States of America, and not to the three of you explicitly? 

Please, prove that the Second Amendment belongs to you and those mass shooters? 

The 2nd Amendment belongs to the people who wish to arm themselves in defense of the innocent and the country.  That is the whole point and purpose of the amendment.

I'd say stop trying to lump law-abiding gun owners in with mass shooters, but you apparently don't see a difference between the two.

Applesauce

@CYDdharta
every citizen has that right, until it is lost.
If I use my speech to get someone killed, which is a crime, do I loose my right to talk?

CYDdharta

Applesauce said:

@CYDdharta
every citizen has that right, until it is lost.
If I use my speech to get someone killed, which is a crime, do I loose my right to talk?

In a sense, yes.  If you're in jail you can't host a television or radio show.  You can talk, but not many people will hear you.