prohibition

[Leih]

because if we are going to restrict guns, we damn well better start cracking down on sugars and fatty foods, this includes industries that for years marketed their consumption to children and adults for the better part of the last century.

A lot more kids are being impacted by that then anything else.

You kill yourself by eating unhealthily. You kill other people when you shoot them. It's not really comparable.

[Torgent]

guns can be 3d printed now.

Not reliable and long lasting ones. This is a myth. Most of the "3d printed guns" are actually just one or 2 pieces of the gun. Typically the lowers. Creating a fully functioning all 3d printed gun is very difficult and not going to last long at all.

[Endus]

You can't require all of those things as they price people out of a constitutionally protected right. It would be like making someone pay so they can vote.

You act like it being in the Constitution makes it immune from change.

I'll point out that Prohibition was just as much in the Constitution. As was slavery. The Constitution was meant to be changed and updated.

[Deleted]

Why do people think that prohibition on guns will work in the US when prohibition against alcohol and drugs has never worked?

Since when did increased regulations mean prohibition?

[Doctor Amadeus]

You kill yourself by eating unhealthily. You kill other people when you shoot them. It's not really comparable.

Well not true, you eat unhealthy you get diseases, you cost taxpayers lots of money to treat you for illness and disease, and not only choices you personally make but choices you are encourage to make and lied to and told are good for you.

It is the same thing and a lot more kids are dropping dead from disease along with adults than they have from gun violence.

[Leih]

Well not true, you eat unhealthy you get diseases, you cost taxpayers lots of money to treat you for illness and disease, and not only choices you personally make but choices you are encourage to make and lied to and told are good for you.

It is the same thing and a lot more kids are dropping dead from disease along with adults than they have from gun violence.

It's really not the same thing I don't have a strong enough opinion on the solution to American gun issues to say one way or the other what I think should be done, but I think it's being a bit crazy to suggest that a literal weapon you can use to instantly murder an unsuspecting person in cold blood is comparable to fatty foods costing tax payers money, when it comes to deciding whether one thing should be banned/restricted or not...

[Doctor Amadeus]

It's really not the same thing I don't have a strong enough opinion on the solution to American gun issues to say one way or the other what I think should be done, but I think it's being a bit crazy to suggest that a literal weapon you can use to instantly murder an unsuspecting person in cold blood is comparable to fatty foods costing tax payers money, when it comes to deciding whether one thing should be banned/restricted or not...

Yeah well I do, see I am all for the kids, and what not and the better of society, the problem is you have too many willing to point their fingers at others and what they should do, even if their actions directly aren't involved with whatever problem that is being addressed.

Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, isn't going fix the problem that causes school shootings, it's just a simple fix that takes away the right some, while require no sacrificed from others.

No as I said we know of the health epidemic in this country and we know there are things right now we could do to end it just like Violence, the only difference is you can tell it as a way of stripping freedoms away because the people who have to give up something are too busy trying to tell everybody else who the problem is and who else should have to give something up and what that is.

[Altrec]

You act like it being in the Constitution makes it immune from change.

I'll point out that Prohibition was just as much in the Constitution. As was slavery. The Constitution was meant to be changed and updated.

I never said it couldn't be changed. I was just pointing out that you can't require all of those things now as it stands. That being said it is pretty unlikely we will ever see any real changes to the first 10 amendments. I also don't think the Constitution was "meant" to be changed, or at least not easily. Rather, we have the option to change it built in when meeting certain requirements. If it was truly "meant" to be changed it would have much easier requirements to allow for those changes.

[Independent voter]

After gun prohibition we catch someone with a gun and we'll shoot them.

[carlos9949]

Why do people think that prohibition on guns will work in the US when prohibition against alcohol and drugs has never worked?

Cause given guns to mentally retarded people only causes masacres on people. There is not really a good reason why people need to have assault weapons in their hands.

[Dundebuns]

Look at what happened in Australia and the UK. Someone went on a rampage with a gun, laws enacted to severely restrict ownership, no school shootings since.

Also the US banned kinder eggs after a single child chocked on the toy and died. Since then, no Kinder related deaths.

[Allybeboba]

And, alcohol isn't made to kill you.

Yet it does. And it effects kill others.
Besides, guns aren’t made to kill. They are made to direct a projectile.

Peace

[Jerot]

Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, isn't going fix the problem that causes school shootings, it's just a simple fix that takes away the right some, while require no sacrificed from others.

You say that, but the numbers just don't back it up. Canada has 1/3rd of the guns (per 100 people) and 1/7th the gun related homicide (per 100,000). It's not like there are many other factors at play here, we're comparing geographical neighbors. We have similar education systems, we consume the same media, we share borders, language, trade.

Creating an environment where you can trust people who have guns to be well trained and background checked to own them, and enforcing heavier penalties for mishandling of firearms is going to make everyone safer. You don't have to take away peoples guns, unless they aren't willing to submit to the necessary background checks, requirements, and mandatory education/training.

It can also partially alleviate the issue of paranoid cops (who wouldn't be when everyone is packing) who shoot first and ask questions later. There have been over twice as many deaths in school shootings THIS MONTH in the US, as there has been in the rest of the world in the last 3 years.

You're arguing for giving people a tool designed to end the life of another human being, and not requiring to teach them how to use it. And in many cases, not doing any form of background check. Hypothetically, its less of an issue if you let people buy cars and drive without any form of license or training, because they're specifically designed NOT to kill. Think for one moment how absolutely batshit insane that makes gun advocates sound to people outside the USA.

You can't require all of those things as they price people out of a constitutionally protected right. It would be like making someone pay so they can vote.

A gun is not provided for free if you cannot afford one, what of the homeless who can't even afford a meal? Are they not entitled to this right? How about the Mentally handicapped, or criminally insane? Is the time and travel required to make a vote not considered paying, through wasted opportunity to work? Kind of a weak argument you have there.

[Hella clutch]

what a whimsical straw man of an argument. kudos.

[Allybeboba]

Look at what happened in Australia and the UK. Someone went on a rampage with a gun, laws enacted to severely restrict ownership, no school shootings since.

Also the US banned kinder eggs after a single child chocked on the toy and died. Since then, no Kinder related deaths.

But there have been similar choking related deaths.

Peace

[Torgent]

But there have been similar choking related deaths.

Peace

Similar choking, less gun. Which means less deaths overall. So an improvement is still present.

[Endus]

I never said it couldn't be changed. I was just pointing out that you can't require all of those things now as it stands. That being said it is pretty unlikely we will ever see any real changes to the first 10 amendments. I also don't think the Constitution was "meant" to be changed, or at least not easily. Rather, we have the option to change it built in when meeting certain requirements. If it was truly "meant" to be changed it would have much easier requirements to allow for those changes.

Right, but the USA is at a tipping point.

It can make sweeping changes to gun legislation/controls.
Or it can decide that dead kids and a staggeringly high homicide rate is a price they're willing to pay, as a society, so that people can have their murderous security blankets, that are more likely to kill a family member than to protect anyone in the family.

[Zekthul]

As a lurker on this website is finally had enough and made an account. The catalyst being all these ignorant posts suggesting we amend the US constitution to neuter the 2nd Amendment. Please educate yourself to the process required to do so and then look at a simple election map.

Once you do this hopefully you realize this suggestion is a waste of time and move on. It only takes 12 states to veto an amendment. The 12 least populous solid Republican states account for less then 10% of the population. They will never vote yes in the near future, let alone some of the larger red states. So even if 75% of the population supported this meausre, which they don't, it still wouldn't pass.

[Altrec]

A gun is not provided for free if you cannot afford one, what of the homeless who can't even afford a meal? Are they not entitled to this right? How about the Mentally handicapped, or criminally insane? Is the time and travel required to make a vote not considered paying, through wasted opportunity to work? Kind of a weak argument you have there.

There can be reasonable hurdles when exercising rights, but those hurdles can also go too far. It is reasonable that someone has to pay for a product(a gun) because it has a material and labor cost. A homeless person still has the right to own one even though it is obviously going to be more difficult for them to pay for one, but extra hoops such as paying for a license and paying for additional training only make it that much more difficult. Courts have ruled on similar things on what is or isn't a reasonable burden(travel time to vote would be considered reasonable). Not a weak argument at all.

As for the criminally insane, and mentally handicapped it already is illegal for them to posses a firearm in most if not all states.

[Calfredd]

Yet it does. And it effects kill others.
Besides, guns aren’t made to kill. They are made to direct a projectile.

Peace

You say that but...