comment: >
  
  My good God this is now approximately the 700 mass shooting in the states 2022 - 2023 😳 What do you think the problem is? When is congress going to wake up You don't hear this shit happening anywhere else in the world, and they are putting a flight risk in Mexico? No other country compares to the USA The whole country should be under flight risk Fewer people are refusing to make the states a holiday of their choice I can only agree with them
context: Americans are brainwashed that they need guns to live and all the deaths associated with them are worthwhile collateral. >
  
  
  Vote for politicians that want to implement proper regulations on gun ownership?
  
  Like who?
  There are some things I support that would probably pass constitutional muster - like waiting periods (with the ability of a judge to issue a waiver).
  But Biden's AR ban would do nothing but mean BillyBob keeps his 15 ARs, and the blue haired trans person he hates can't buy one to protect themselves.
  High taxes on guns (unconstitutional) or ammo just means rich people get guns, not the poors.
  The upcoming brace ban accomplishes nothing much that I can see, except (putting on tin foil hat) a back door government gun registry.
  Lots of other common sense laws, like limiting the age of purchase, requiring training/licenses/insurance, that I might personally support are unconstitutional, or classist. >
  
  No, I am a registered Democrat in my 50s, and I vote Democrat almost exclusively.  I am a Bernie-style democrat - left of most.  I disagree with the Democrat platform on this issue though.  Considering the alternative is Fascism, I am voting for democracy, however flawed.
  Your reply is a cop out.  
  What proposed legislation does anything but grandstand?  If BillyBob already has 15 ARs, and is antagonistic towards anyone not white and right, what proposed legislation addresses that?  What legislation would you propose for that? >
  
  
  What do you propose?
  
  Bottom line, nothing *can* be changed significantly with the second amendment as it is.
  I am not saying there *is* a solution - guns have saturated the country to the point half-assed measures are going to be ineffective, and NO credible politician is advocation for forced confiscation.  The only solution I see as things are in the country now is mutual deterrence.
  If I were grand Poobah, though, I'd propose something meaningful and constitutionally sound - modifying the second amendment in a way that would have enough support to actually pass muster.  In particular - limiting edit: ~~Assault Rifle~~ Semi Automatic rifle purchases to 25 and older.  That would be hard for the GoP to argue against.
  Almost all school shootings and many other mass shootings are done by teenagers/early twenties young adults.  I think you could get broad support for something like that across the aisles, maybe even enough to pass, and it would have a significant impact.  I think a big majority of the population would like to see that limitation on both sides.
  I also think waiting periods, that could be overridden by a Judge (like if a person were credibly in fear of an ex-spouse or something), would actually be constitutionally sound now.  That would knock out a good chunk of crimes of passion.  Why has that not been proposed vs the AR ban?
  Also, Democrats should drop obviously unconstitutional, stupid or grandstanding gun control measures from their platform, and replace it with an emphasis on mental health and other social programs.  There are enough left leaning and minority gun owners now that make up a sizable chunk voters, that could be reliable Dem voters. >
  
  Your whole comment depends on this:  
  
  hard for the GoP to argue against
  
  This is laughable, and the point I think the other commenter had originally made (and others here).  You clearly underestimate the power of denial the GOP has and uses.  It's arguably the greatest reason we're in the state of gun death affairs that we're in.  
  They preach ignorance to the most ignorant, and have changed the whole culture around their interpretation of the constitution and use of the 2nd amendment by promoting nonsensical arguments against common sense.  It even extends to Dems.  That's been made especially evident by their unique ties to the NRA and its nefarious practices.  
  All we get are the thoughts & prayers paid for by millionaires and their billionaire handlers, while the millionaire lawmakers walk away with NRA support "scores".  Why even bother putting up common sense legislation when the overwhelmingly over-powerful Republicans who capitulate to capitalist terrorism organizations are running the show and will religiously block it to sustain their bottom line?  
  We get at least that much because Republicans have convinced too many that gun deaths are the "cost of doing business", a.k.a freedom. >
  
  You can pretty closely estimate the per capita death rate from firearms by taking the per capita gun ownership number and dividing it by 10,000.
  USA 120,500 predict: 12.05 actual: 12.21
  Switzer 27,600 predict: 2.76 actual: 2.64 >
  
  How is 120,500 the per capita ownership number? >
  
  "Per capita" in that case means per 100k people. They could've made that a bit more clear >
  
  Ah, gotcha. That makes more sense. Ty. >
  
  What's there to explain? We have too many guns and too few regulations thanks almost exclusively to the GOP and NRA. >
  
  I mean, there’s also a very self-oriented culture. No one wants to support their fellow citizens most susceptible to reaching for a firearm out of desperation. If they did, you would see it in the representation, policies, etc. The support is just not there. >
  
  Bad things can happen when the government has a monopoly on gun ownership. 100 million people were killed by their governments in the 20th century.
  Nazi Germany, USSR, Imperial Japan, Cambodia genocide (Pol Pot) Indonesian genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide, Chinese "great leap forward" all had something in common. The government had all of the guns and had no fear of retaliation from the people. >
  
  I agree with your sentiment, and also believe there ought to be some tighter regulations and more funding & focus on mental health. The people have a right to bear arms but we gotta do something man. >
  
  That's all well and good until the people making the regulations decide they don't want certain people to own guns. Are you for or against voter ID? It's the same principle. 
  Before the Supreme Court Bruen ruling it was next to impossible to get a concealed carry permit in some states unless you were rich/famous/politically-connected or donated heavily to the sheriff's re-election campaign. New York is fighting this ruling by saying "restricting who can carry guns is constitutional because we used to ban Native Americans and black people from doing it!" and then they quote laws from the 1800's to say that the precedent has been set. >
  
  It's pretty simple: we have a founding document that states in very few and unspecific terms that Americans have a right to weaponry and a supreme court which for many years has been sympathetic to taking mostly the most open interpretations of it. 
  There, explained. >
  
  I wish the SCOTUS was as militant about protecting voting rights as they are about supposed gun rights. >
  
  Voting Rights isn't even explicitly in the constitution. >
  
  Yes, it is (unless you meant in the original text, which is correct).  Numerous Constitutional amendments mention the right to vote. >
  
  It's not explicit like the 'right to bear arms'.
  There's no 'right to vote'.
  The 15th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because of race. The 19th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because of sex. The 24th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because they didn't pay a tax. And, the 26th amendment says you can't stop people from voting because of age (if you are over 18).
  But there is no amendment that guarantees a person's right to vote. In most constitutional democracies the right to vote is the most sacred right. In Canada's it's section 3 of their constitution:
  
  Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
  
  But in the US that right isn't explicitly defined. >
  
  I could not disagree more strongly.  It is ridiculous to say "yes, the phrase 'the right to vote' appears in the Constitution, but that doesn't mean there is actually a right to vote." >
  
  Yes, I am aware that some folks believe that to be the case.  But I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that it's not an explicitly protected right when the Amendments use the phrase "he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote" and similar.  
  It is pretzel logic to read that and say the Constitution doesn't recognize a right to vote. >
  
  Nobody says the right to vote isn't recognized. It's just not explicit.
  Just like how the right to an abortion was recognized but not explicit. >
  
  The two are not comparable.  And I still disagree that the right is not explicit.
  It is more explicit in some ways than the right to bear arms. >
  
  We all know what the problem is.
  It’s the solution we’re fighting about. >
  
  Eh, according to 2a zealots we don't even agree on the problem. They don't see gun deaths as a problem, merely as a side effect of retaining access to their hobby. >
  
  100% this >
  
  This take is beyond delusional. 40 years ago our gun laws were much much looser. You could buy fully automatic weapons over the counter.  You'd think the "enemies of democracy" would have won by now. >
  
  40 years ago we didn't have the internet and profitable "news" agencies pumping fear and nonsense into people's minds in a time of extreme isolation and bubbles. >
  
  
  One estimate from the Small Arms Survey, a Swiss-based research project, found that there were approximately 390 million guns in circulation in the US in 2018, or about 120.5 firearms per 100 residents. That number has likely climbed in the years since, given that one in five households purchased a gun during the pandemic. 
  
  We’re screwed. Even if everyone in DC - congress, the White House, the courts - suddenly changed course together on guns, we would never get all these off the streets. It’s a wonder there aren’t even more deaths with all these guns around. >
  
  
  It’s a wonder there aren’t even more deaths with all these guns around.
  
  Maybe it's because guns aren't the problem...?
  Not that long ago you could order guns through the mail from a catalog. No background check and they would ship to your front door. >
  
  Guns are very clearly the problem.  And there’s really nothing we can do about it either.   There is no way to put the cat back into the bag with 400 million guns already in circulation. Welcome to America. >
  
  -worst developed country in world for mental health care
  -dwindling life expectancy thanks to being among the worst in developed nations for depression/suicide/drug overdoses
  -don’t get me started on the education system…
  -one of the worlds worst countries in wealth disparity
  -most expensive, least effective and least efficient health care
  -the workforce in terms of hours worked, holiday, vacation, benefits…a whole book could be written on that.
  I could go on but no….I agree… it’s the guns that are turning this country into chaos and driving people to madness. >
  
  Money. Lobbyists slinging money from sources that have an interest in seeing the problem worsen, and the crooked politicians that pocket it. >
  
  The idea that guns equate with power and freedom through that power have long been engrained in American culture. A high percentage of our entertainment in movies and tv shows push that propaganda into our homes every day.
  The Supreme court has now read that into our US Constitution with the Heller decision in 2008. 
  
  In 2008, the Supreme Court effectively wrote NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre’s “good guy with a gun” theory into the Constitution. The Court’s 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) was the first Supreme Court decision in American history to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm. But it also went much further than that.
  Heller held that one of the primary purposes of the Second Amendment is to protect the right of individuals — good guys with a gun, in LaPierre’s framework — to use firearms to stop bad guys with guns. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Heller, an “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”
  As a matter of textual interpretation, this holding makes no sense. The Second Amendment provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
  
  Nothing will change until American’s cultural views about guns change and the 2nd amendment is revoked and replaced (if necessary) with a clear legal framework for regulating gun ownership. >
  
  Never going to happen. Be realistic. >
  
  Sure it will.  Laws change over time.  It won't happen today or tomorrow, but, eventually, it will  because sanctifying guns isn't compatible with human life. 
  I continue to see more and more reasons and support for repeal.  Former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens called for the repeal of the 2nd amendment and 2018.  Our constitution is out of step with almost every country in the world while having more gun violence than any other first world country.  The only other countries that, like the US,  have the right to bear arms in their constitutions are Mexico and Guatemala.  
  For those who say you'll never get people to give up their guns, there is a pretty straightforward solution.  Following 2nd amendment repeal, we can limit and regulate the sale of guns and ammo.  Existing guns won't go away overnight, but their availability and use will slowly go down over time as the only remaining ones are the ones passed down across generations, illegally given to friends, and the limited ones obtained legally,  There will be less illegal guns available as manufacturers will be selling fewer. >
  
  You need 38/50 states to agree on amending the Constitution. There is 100% no possible way you will ever get 38 states to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment. >
  
  No, not today or tomorrow.  Building consensus on constitutional amendments takes time, on the order of years if not decades, as it should. >
  
  Hell will freeze over before anything happens with the 2A. It’s not going to happen, ever. >
  
  
  All banning and restricting guns is going to do is force angry, violent people to start making their own untraceable firearms, which is already entirely legal if ostensibly done for the purposes of home defense and is well within the scope of 2A.
  
  This is the usual do nothing excuse.  How about risk mitigation steps.  Reducing the number of gun yo can own and making it harder to obtain a gun.  Every step any one suggest always seems to have an excuse not to try incremental steps. 
  It is as if there are no examples in the world where gun control works... >
  
  Republicans. Mystery solved >
  
  An amendment written 250 years ago when the idea of democracy was brand new.  It was the first attempt at codifying certain rights.  Written in a day where there were no large urban centers.  When arms were muskets and black powder pistols.  When the idea of needing to protect yourself against a tyrannical government had merit -- before the days of a national army, or police force.  
  Am I then suggesting you don't have a right to protect yourself?  Of course not.  But when the societal consequences of a law outweigh the personal benefits of the individual, then something needs to change.  That doesn't mean ban all guns and confiscate all existing ones.  But requiring extensive background checks, including mental, to ensure that person isn't endangering others doesn't seem unreasonable.  Enormous consequences for not being responsible with your gun (your kid took it to school, know someone in your house is mentally unstable, etc.) I think should be widely supported.  
  But our gun problems can't all be legislated away.  The gun culture itself need to change.  We as a society need to stop fetishizing guns. They are a dangerous tool.  A tool which should only be used in the more dire of circumstances.  While most gun owners do treat guns with respect, most isn't enough.  Other countries have large gun ownership but don't have the problems the US has.  That is a society problem.  Mental health, mindset, and just overall culture of gun ownership and use need to change.  They aren't toys. While it can be fun to shoot off a gun, the intent of a gun is not to have fun.  
  Its a big damn problem and I believe things will need to get a lot worse before something finally breaks in society that forces us in another direction. >
  
  To be entirely fair, the 2A was written when the fire rate was...1? To 3 a minute. (As you mentioned, muskets and bppistols) 
  It wasn't intended or thought out with automatic or even semiautomatic in mind. A hundred rounds a minute took an army capable of burning a town to the ground. Now Joe Dirt can go to Walmart and get extendzyerround clips for their compensating pistol and like fire with better accuracy and comparable fire rate to that army. >
  
  It was also written with the idea that a central standing army was not a good idea if you wanted to maintain a democracy. >
  
  The gun problem is a symptom of our bad social problems, not a source of an issue. >
  
  Its kinda odd how ready gun control advocates are willing to "throw in the towel" when it comes to approaching gun violence from any direction other than gun control. The article itself even claims that recent supreme court decisions have made addressing gun violence "impossible."  Like the black community have been pointing to generations of childhood trauma experienced by young black boys as being a primary driver for the violence within the black community, but I guess if we can't ban "barrel shrouds" then there's no point even bothering...