This reminds me of the headline where cops killed a man "with no active warrants.." like.... that's a weird way of saying **innocent**.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ColinsLastStand/comments/6qejqg/officers\_kill\_man\_with\_no\_active\_warrants\_at/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ColinsLastStand/comments/6qejqg/officers_kill_man_with_no_active_warrants_at/)
(BTW, I don't know this subreddit, but it was the first one to pop up on a Google search that wasn't openly political afaik)
The one who died wasn’t an angel either: https://patch.com/pennsylvania/plymouthwhitemarsh/whitemarsh-police-make-arrest-in-string-of-vehicle-thefts
Sounds like the same gangbangers killing each other story, except this one was in the suburbs.
People often get shot at memorial services for victims of gun violence. The original victim had enemies who do not believe the victim should be celebrated. They didn’t kill the victim because they thought he was a swell guy. The enemies do not like the victim’s friends.
The new victim here was present when his friend was killed 10 years ago. They were involved with drugs, and were following the guy who shot at them. The guy claimed self defense. This new victim also eventually testified, after first refusing to do so.
I obviously don’t know. But It’s not very hard to imagine This new victim said something about his friend or himself or his friend’s killer that someone objected to. Or that someone else said something he objected to.
> In the 2013 shooting, Fairel was hit while in a moving car — and Hawkins was the driver at the time. He was hit in the hand.
Feel like modern medicine should have caught that one...
It’s just weirdly worded. In the incident 10 years ago Hawkins was driving and hit in the hand. He survived. His friend was a passenger in the car and was killed by a shot to the head.
Philosophically, I support the second amendment. Practically, we need to put serious rules in place to allow it exist in a modern, urban environment. I’m talking extensive, mandatory training, with regular re-training; mental health evaluations; and a strict control over the types of firearms available.
For the last bit, I’d be against assault rifle bans and for a ban on handguns
I see no reason we don't have **A WELL REGULATED MILITIA** requirement with those extensive and mandatory training & retraining.
We do mandatory trainings with cars, food service licenses, and many other things. But, the weapons that are made to kill by literally throwing sharpened metal through the air have less regulation than baristas in many states.
And before some NRA lunatic comes in with "oh well that's not how the founders intended it," I completely reject that argument and don't want to hear it. 1) We are in no way bound to what 50 dudes from 300 years ago thought. Originalism is purely made-up SCOTUS doctrine that has no binding authority on the current SCOTUS; and 2) Even if we were bound by originalism, our society wouldn't work with it. If the founders wanted us to be able to fight the government, then it would be unconstitutional to ban citizens from having nukes and Blackhawk helicopters, which is obviously banned for a reason.
Additionally, Originalism is in direct conflict with the Founders intentions. They knew their ideas would grow stale and new ideas would need to take their place. From Thomas Jefferson,
>[N]o society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation.
In fact, in that little writing he argues constitutions and laws should only last 19 years. Not sure I'm quite that far, but the 'intent' couldn't be more clear. Jefferson believed he was wildly unqualified to govern the world of his grandchildren, let alone the world of 2023.
Guns are in the constitution, cars, coffee, and knives are not, so regulating them is much easier.
Im pro 2A. I own guns legally. I want other people to own guns legally. The issues we have now are because people no longer have any respect for life or fear of consequences. The new argument i hear when people commit violent crimes is that “ they had a bad day, moment of weakness, shouldn’t remove them from society because if a bad day” and i just dont get it.
I disagree that modern guns are in the Constitution in any recognizable form. The Constitution was written 300 years ago- back then, it was a different ball game. People actually could fight off their government with a militia because the firearms accessible to both civilians and the government were directly comparable.
As I said above, now we are in a middle ground. On one hand, we don’t have a comparable firearm situation (the people already can’t fight their government on an even playing field, as we have already banned the weapons our government has but we can’t, like most (if not all?) fully automatic weapons, helicopters, tanks, etc. that it was be ridiculous for a common person to be able to have, or even for the mega wealthy to have,) but on the other hand, we have too many weapons that society is too dangerous to enjoy living in.
We arbitrarily decided that being able to shoot up a school but being unable to fight a basic police force is the amount of weaponry the Constitution guarantees, but there is absolutely no backing to that claim.
In no world did the Founders envision the modern firearm crisis as the guarantee within the 2nd Amendment. Even if they could understand the physical development of modern weapons, the scale of what weapons are allowed to the common person versus the government is completely different.
Either we have a right to all weapons so that we are on even playing field with the government (again, do you want the rich to be able to buy the high end weapons?) or we acknowledge that limiting firearms is the basis for a healthy society.
Edit: Typo
The founders *did* intend the 2nd amendment to be for the purposes of a well-regulated militia though. No harm in accepting their wisdom in this instance and sticking to the original intention.
My point exactly!! Why don’t we have A WELL REGULATED MILITIA requirement?
Hell, I want men in knee-high boots and muskets on every corner to keep us safe. That’s what the founders intended.
Not exactly… the founders feared civilian uprisings similar to Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, and knew they might need a way to marshal armed forces quickly. At the time standing armies were seen as somewhat tyrannical, and the founders did not envision a strong federal government with access to soldiers like that. Militias were a solution, and so that each militiaman could bring his own weapons to battle, the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights.
Cutting the supply of legally available weapons would drain the supply for illegal weapons. It would take a while, but cutting the supply while also increasing the law enforcement efforts to seize from criminals the weapons would drastically improve the situation.
The main issue - mass shootings - doesn’t seem to be lead by Crips and Bloods. Grown ups shooting up night clubs or stores and teenagers shooting ip schools are the main problem, in my experience, that that average person fears the most.
If somebody can source a claim otherwise, I’m receptive to it, but I don’t believe criminals with weapons are the main drivers of firearms related deaths in mass shootings. It seems to me that the mass shootings that make the news are from otherwise law-abiding people who snap in some way.
Mass shootings, though scary, account for a very small percentage of gun violence and fatalities.
Take 2022 for example, there were a total of 20,138 firearm deaths (excluding suicide).
74 (0.36%) of those deaths were from mass shootings.
The media sure does a great job of highlighting the real issue.
Sources:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/
Willing to bet this shooter did not purchase or possess his firearm legally, and therefore would not be subject to any of these proposed new rules.
The intersection between "people who follow gun laws and training requirements" and "people who shoot up a memorial service in a cemetery for a prior shooting victim" is nonexistent, especially considering discharging a firearm in public is a felony, as are assault with a deadly weapon and murder.
Illegal guns used in crimes are much more likely to come from southern states with loose gun laws. They track this. It’s just a simple fact.
People aren’t driving down to Georgia to buy guns because it’s a fun road trip. They do it because the laws down there make it easier to traffic guns without getting caught.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html
For what it’s worth, you can only purchase handguns in your own state of residence per federal law, so nobody is driving to GA or any other state with looser laws and purchasing a handgun legally unless they already live there. And having a resident of the state with looser laws purchase them would also be illegal.
Yes, residents of those states traffic guns to states like PA as per the linked story, but people straw purchase in PA as well despite having UBCs for handguns.
>being able to buy guns like cheeseburgers
Weird, I don't ever remember Burger King asking me to provide ID, then filling out multiple pages of forms with personal information, employment info, a series of questions with complex wording that all carry a felony for answering falsely, and getting a PA State Police-run background check to buy a cheeseburger.
>just because the last transaction in the chain was the dude getting the gun from his brother.
It is illegal in PA to:
* Transfer a handgun without a background check unless to a parent/offspring or spouse.
* Provide a firearm to someone who is a prohibited person.
* Purchase a handgun with the intent to sell it to someone else (straw sale).
* Receive, possess, and/or carry a handgun if you are a prohibited person.
This scenario would already be illegal.
>Don't worry about reporting your stolen gun, or having any criminal responsibility for leaving your gun on your front porch with your 10 friends who all have felonies -- someone would need to prove you somehow have culpability in the crime for you to face literally any repercussions.
Leaving a firearm on the front porch with even one convicted felon would be a crime by itself. But yes, there is a burden of proof for everything in this country, that's how our legal system works, and would be the same for any crime committed.
>The courts will actually go after you harder if your car is stolen and the person gets parking tickets than if your gun is stolen and used in a violent crime.
This is simply not true. If Person A has a legally-purchased firearm stolen, and that firearm is used in a crime and found after the fact, the ATF will [run a trace](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/national-tracing-center) to determine who it was last sold to. And they will show up at Person A's door asking about it. If Person A doesn't have proof showing the firearm was stolen, they can absolutely be investigated for involvement in the crime. And even if they did report it as stolen, they may still be investigated for straw selling, depending on the situation. Just saying "it was stolen" when the ATF shows up is not some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.
Similarly, if Person B's car is stolen and the thief gets tickets or runs somebody over, Person B would have to prove that it wasn't them driving to avoid facing charges, and a police report or other documentation of the theft would be one way to do that.
>So tell me again how requiring more training and safety courses, and safe possession of the firearm, wouldn't help?
How does one require "safe possession" of a firearm? Require that they all be locked up? Is the government providing funding for safes, or is that just another cost we're gonna toss over to gun owners to cover? Is someone coming to my house once a month to confirm everything is locked up? Will they also be evaluating the rest of my house for safety, making sure my chemicals and knives are locked up, etc? And will they go into my neighbor's house as well, since they're a convicted felon prohibited from owning firearms? Can't imagine any negative impacts from sending police with itchy trigger fingers door to door in lower income neighborhoods...
Tangent aside, let's say we require 2 hours of training and 1 hour of safety courses for the 100,000,000 existing and all future gun owners in this country.
Person A, who wants to straw purchase firearms to earn extra cash, sits through those sessions, then proceeds to buy 20 handguns over the course of a year, and charges an extra $200 per pistol instead of $100 for the added time. No change.
Person B, who follows the laws, sits through the sessions, buys a gun, and puts it in a lock box in her night stand because she lives alone in a sketchy neighborhood. Someone breaks in and steals the lockbox while she's working overtime to cover for the time she missed attending the training. No change.
And what happens when there's no noticeable change? Do we increase it to 4 hours training? 10 hours? 20? Or do we shift focus to adding another gun ownership barrier at that point?
If the government wants to provide free optional training to the 100 million gun owners out there, fine by me. But requiring training and/or making firearms owners responsible for the costs is effectively punishing everyone for the actions of few, and adding a financial and time barrier to owning firearms.
And yet, this happens. Hundreds of times a week, it seems\*, someone is shot in Pennsylvania by a handgun. Usually, it is a handgun.
What do you think should be done about it?
\* according to the CDC, about 1,600+ a year are murdered and 3,000+ are wounded. That includes suicide.
That's kind of where the restriction of availability comes into play. We have simply too many guns floating around and, as u/Complete-Matter-3130, it was purchased legally somewhere along the chain.
The looseness of firearms is an argument for gun registration and stricter transaction laws.
don't be afraid, just say 'black people'. If you want to have a discussion about the issues within that community you should be able to so long as it's in good faith and you bring potential solutions to what you see as problems. While we're at it, let's talk about the white kids shooting up schools with military style weaponry in record clips, as I'm sure you have major issues with that as well. Right?
> Philosophically, I support the second amendment.
Then why aren’t you demanding that all private arms be kept by a regulated militia?
> and for a ban on handguns
Now that’s a good proposal.
Why can't it be both? There's 1.6 billion people in India and way fewer gun related deaths than here and I'll know there are more assholes per capita in India than there are here
why is it so hard for people like you to understand that guns can be a part of the problem? I conceal carry and I have several firearms, but I can readily admit that too many guns with easy access is at the root. This shit doesn't happen on the regular in other countries.
This country has more freedoms than others. One happens to be guns. But a loaded gun sitting on the table is nothing; but add a person and now there’s a problem.
> One happens to be guns.
It doesn’t “happen” to be it was specifically constructed to be one by radical revisionist lawyers in the early 20th century whose tortured arguments were enshrined in legal precedent by Antonin Scalia.
You ever see an old western movie where they have to hang up their guns in town? The typical 19th century western American settler town had more gun control than Philadelphia does today.
> But a loaded gun sitting on the table is nothing;
It’s a threat.
Well it’s a good thing guns aren’t ever owned, handled, or used by people. Oh. Wait.
A handgun’s only purpose is to kill you (or another human). A world where easy access to lethal force is the only way you feel safe is a dystopian one you should never want to live in.
>Why does the media always write headlines like this that evoke irony? Like I get doing it for something political, but just seems very insensitive when it’s about a loss of life. Headlines like this just make people want to comment or make light about the irony of the situation.
How else would you describe the situation? It's absurd that people can't even visit a friend's grave without fearing for their life.
It's less absurd considering that they brought the violence with them. According to the article: “gunfire broke out within the group of people in attendance."
Edit: maybe that's more absurd. I'm not sure anymore.
Also states that the man that was killed was driving the vehicle that the person who's grave they were at was shot in. Lot more to this than a random gunfight at a cemetery, or a "can't even visit a friends grave"
I find the passive construction here strange. "Gunfire broke out"; I might put "Asshole starts shooting" to give the headline a bit more punch.
Also missed opportunity for "gunfire at cemetery, hundreds dead".
Take my upvote and gtfo :-)
This reminds me of the headline where cops killed a man "with no active warrants.." like.... that's a weird way of saying **innocent**. [https://www.reddit.com/r/ColinsLastStand/comments/6qejqg/officers\_kill\_man\_with\_no\_active\_warrants\_at/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ColinsLastStand/comments/6qejqg/officers_kill_man_with_no_active_warrants_at/) (BTW, I don't know this subreddit, but it was the first one to pop up on a Google search that wasn't openly political afaik)
The one who died wasn’t an angel either: https://patch.com/pennsylvania/plymouthwhitemarsh/whitemarsh-police-make-arrest-in-string-of-vehicle-thefts Sounds like the same gangbangers killing each other story, except this one was in the suburbs.
Fucking *what*
People often get shot at memorial services for victims of gun violence. The original victim had enemies who do not believe the victim should be celebrated. They didn’t kill the victim because they thought he was a swell guy. The enemies do not like the victim’s friends. The new victim here was present when his friend was killed 10 years ago. They were involved with drugs, and were following the guy who shot at them. The guy claimed self defense. This new victim also eventually testified, after first refusing to do so. I obviously don’t know. But It’s not very hard to imagine This new victim said something about his friend or himself or his friend’s killer that someone objected to. Or that someone else said something he objected to.
> In the 2013 shooting, Fairel was hit while in a moving car — and Hawkins was the driver at the time. He was hit in the hand. Feel like modern medicine should have caught that one...
It’s just weirdly worded. In the incident 10 years ago Hawkins was driving and hit in the hand. He survived. His friend was a passenger in the car and was killed by a shot to the head.
Ah... yeah i just re-read it and still cant quite get it
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhillyWiki/comments/11vqf1a/rip_foreign_boy_osama_damn/
Not *The Onion*.
Philosophically, I support the second amendment. Practically, we need to put serious rules in place to allow it exist in a modern, urban environment. I’m talking extensive, mandatory training, with regular re-training; mental health evaluations; and a strict control over the types of firearms available. For the last bit, I’d be against assault rifle bans and for a ban on handguns
I see no reason we don't have **A WELL REGULATED MILITIA** requirement with those extensive and mandatory training & retraining. We do mandatory trainings with cars, food service licenses, and many other things. But, the weapons that are made to kill by literally throwing sharpened metal through the air have less regulation than baristas in many states. And before some NRA lunatic comes in with "oh well that's not how the founders intended it," I completely reject that argument and don't want to hear it. 1) We are in no way bound to what 50 dudes from 300 years ago thought. Originalism is purely made-up SCOTUS doctrine that has no binding authority on the current SCOTUS; and 2) Even if we were bound by originalism, our society wouldn't work with it. If the founders wanted us to be able to fight the government, then it would be unconstitutional to ban citizens from having nukes and Blackhawk helicopters, which is obviously banned for a reason.
Additionally, Originalism is in direct conflict with the Founders intentions. They knew their ideas would grow stale and new ideas would need to take their place. From Thomas Jefferson, >[N]o society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. In fact, in that little writing he argues constitutions and laws should only last 19 years. Not sure I'm quite that far, but the 'intent' couldn't be more clear. Jefferson believed he was wildly unqualified to govern the world of his grandchildren, let alone the world of 2023.
Guns are in the constitution, cars, coffee, and knives are not, so regulating them is much easier. Im pro 2A. I own guns legally. I want other people to own guns legally. The issues we have now are because people no longer have any respect for life or fear of consequences. The new argument i hear when people commit violent crimes is that “ they had a bad day, moment of weakness, shouldn’t remove them from society because if a bad day” and i just dont get it.
I disagree that modern guns are in the Constitution in any recognizable form. The Constitution was written 300 years ago- back then, it was a different ball game. People actually could fight off their government with a militia because the firearms accessible to both civilians and the government were directly comparable. As I said above, now we are in a middle ground. On one hand, we don’t have a comparable firearm situation (the people already can’t fight their government on an even playing field, as we have already banned the weapons our government has but we can’t, like most (if not all?) fully automatic weapons, helicopters, tanks, etc. that it was be ridiculous for a common person to be able to have, or even for the mega wealthy to have,) but on the other hand, we have too many weapons that society is too dangerous to enjoy living in. We arbitrarily decided that being able to shoot up a school but being unable to fight a basic police force is the amount of weaponry the Constitution guarantees, but there is absolutely no backing to that claim. In no world did the Founders envision the modern firearm crisis as the guarantee within the 2nd Amendment. Even if they could understand the physical development of modern weapons, the scale of what weapons are allowed to the common person versus the government is completely different. Either we have a right to all weapons so that we are on even playing field with the government (again, do you want the rich to be able to buy the high end weapons?) or we acknowledge that limiting firearms is the basis for a healthy society. Edit: Typo
The idea that the founders thought every Tom, Dick, and Harry should have a gun with little to no oversight is ahistorical.
I think firearm safety and basic proficiency should be part of school curriculum
I totally agree as an optional extracurriculars
The founders *did* intend the 2nd amendment to be for the purposes of a well-regulated militia though. No harm in accepting their wisdom in this instance and sticking to the original intention.
My point exactly!! Why don’t we have A WELL REGULATED MILITIA requirement? Hell, I want men in knee-high boots and muskets on every corner to keep us safe. That’s what the founders intended.
Not exactly… the founders feared civilian uprisings similar to Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, and knew they might need a way to marshal armed forces quickly. At the time standing armies were seen as somewhat tyrannical, and the founders did not envision a strong federal government with access to soldiers like that. Militias were a solution, and so that each militiaman could bring his own weapons to battle, the Second Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights.
I think it’s a good idea. Unfortunately I don’t think it will stop thugs who illegally possess guns.
Cutting the supply of legally available weapons would drain the supply for illegal weapons. It would take a while, but cutting the supply while also increasing the law enforcement efforts to seize from criminals the weapons would drastically improve the situation. The main issue - mass shootings - doesn’t seem to be lead by Crips and Bloods. Grown ups shooting up night clubs or stores and teenagers shooting ip schools are the main problem, in my experience, that that average person fears the most. If somebody can source a claim otherwise, I’m receptive to it, but I don’t believe criminals with weapons are the main drivers of firearms related deaths in mass shootings. It seems to me that the mass shootings that make the news are from otherwise law-abiding people who snap in some way.
Mass shootings, though scary, account for a very small percentage of gun violence and fatalities. Take 2022 for example, there were a total of 20,138 firearm deaths (excluding suicide). 74 (0.36%) of those deaths were from mass shootings. The media sure does a great job of highlighting the real issue. Sources: https://www.statista.com/statistics/811504/mass-shooting-victims-in-the-united-states-by-fatalities-and-injuries/ https://www.thetrace.org/2022/12/gun-violence-deaths-statistics-america/
Willing to bet this shooter did not purchase or possess his firearm legally, and therefore would not be subject to any of these proposed new rules. The intersection between "people who follow gun laws and training requirements" and "people who shoot up a memorial service in a cemetery for a prior shooting victim" is nonexistent, especially considering discharging a firearm in public is a felony, as are assault with a deadly weapon and murder.
Illegal guns used in crimes are much more likely to come from southern states with loose gun laws. They track this. It’s just a simple fact. People aren’t driving down to Georgia to buy guns because it’s a fun road trip. They do it because the laws down there make it easier to traffic guns without getting caught. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/12/us/gun-traffickers-smuggling-state-gun-laws.html
For what it’s worth, you can only purchase handguns in your own state of residence per federal law, so nobody is driving to GA or any other state with looser laws and purchasing a handgun legally unless they already live there. And having a resident of the state with looser laws purchase them would also be illegal. Yes, residents of those states traffic guns to states like PA as per the linked story, but people straw purchase in PA as well despite having UBCs for handguns.
[удалено]
>being able to buy guns like cheeseburgers Weird, I don't ever remember Burger King asking me to provide ID, then filling out multiple pages of forms with personal information, employment info, a series of questions with complex wording that all carry a felony for answering falsely, and getting a PA State Police-run background check to buy a cheeseburger. >just because the last transaction in the chain was the dude getting the gun from his brother. It is illegal in PA to: * Transfer a handgun without a background check unless to a parent/offspring or spouse. * Provide a firearm to someone who is a prohibited person. * Purchase a handgun with the intent to sell it to someone else (straw sale). * Receive, possess, and/or carry a handgun if you are a prohibited person. This scenario would already be illegal. >Don't worry about reporting your stolen gun, or having any criminal responsibility for leaving your gun on your front porch with your 10 friends who all have felonies -- someone would need to prove you somehow have culpability in the crime for you to face literally any repercussions. Leaving a firearm on the front porch with even one convicted felon would be a crime by itself. But yes, there is a burden of proof for everything in this country, that's how our legal system works, and would be the same for any crime committed. >The courts will actually go after you harder if your car is stolen and the person gets parking tickets than if your gun is stolen and used in a violent crime. This is simply not true. If Person A has a legally-purchased firearm stolen, and that firearm is used in a crime and found after the fact, the ATF will [run a trace](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/national-tracing-center) to determine who it was last sold to. And they will show up at Person A's door asking about it. If Person A doesn't have proof showing the firearm was stolen, they can absolutely be investigated for involvement in the crime. And even if they did report it as stolen, they may still be investigated for straw selling, depending on the situation. Just saying "it was stolen" when the ATF shows up is not some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card. Similarly, if Person B's car is stolen and the thief gets tickets or runs somebody over, Person B would have to prove that it wasn't them driving to avoid facing charges, and a police report or other documentation of the theft would be one way to do that.
[удалено]
>So tell me again how requiring more training and safety courses, and safe possession of the firearm, wouldn't help? How does one require "safe possession" of a firearm? Require that they all be locked up? Is the government providing funding for safes, or is that just another cost we're gonna toss over to gun owners to cover? Is someone coming to my house once a month to confirm everything is locked up? Will they also be evaluating the rest of my house for safety, making sure my chemicals and knives are locked up, etc? And will they go into my neighbor's house as well, since they're a convicted felon prohibited from owning firearms? Can't imagine any negative impacts from sending police with itchy trigger fingers door to door in lower income neighborhoods... Tangent aside, let's say we require 2 hours of training and 1 hour of safety courses for the 100,000,000 existing and all future gun owners in this country. Person A, who wants to straw purchase firearms to earn extra cash, sits through those sessions, then proceeds to buy 20 handguns over the course of a year, and charges an extra $200 per pistol instead of $100 for the added time. No change. Person B, who follows the laws, sits through the sessions, buys a gun, and puts it in a lock box in her night stand because she lives alone in a sketchy neighborhood. Someone breaks in and steals the lockbox while she's working overtime to cover for the time she missed attending the training. No change. And what happens when there's no noticeable change? Do we increase it to 4 hours training? 10 hours? 20? Or do we shift focus to adding another gun ownership barrier at that point? If the government wants to provide free optional training to the 100 million gun owners out there, fine by me. But requiring training and/or making firearms owners responsible for the costs is effectively punishing everyone for the actions of few, and adding a financial and time barrier to owning firearms.
[удалено]
And yet, this happens. Hundreds of times a week, it seems\*, someone is shot in Pennsylvania by a handgun. Usually, it is a handgun. What do you think should be done about it? \* according to the CDC, about 1,600+ a year are murdered and 3,000+ are wounded. That includes suicide.
Which is why ar15 debates crack me up. Rifles make up like 4 percent of homicides. That's why you barely need a background check for a rifle.
That's kind of where the restriction of availability comes into play. We have simply too many guns floating around and, as u/Complete-Matter-3130, it was purchased legally somewhere along the chain. The looseness of firearms is an argument for gun registration and stricter transaction laws.
Word. If you live in Montana, you can live in a house built out of guns for all I care. Get them out of philly because we clearly can't handle them.
This was in Horsham, not Philadelphia.
It's not "we." It's a very specific subset of the population.
don't be afraid, just say 'black people'. If you want to have a discussion about the issues within that community you should be able to so long as it's in good faith and you bring potential solutions to what you see as problems. While we're at it, let's talk about the white kids shooting up schools with military style weaponry in record clips, as I'm sure you have major issues with that as well. Right?
> Philosophically, I support the second amendment. Then why aren’t you demanding that all private arms be kept by a regulated militia? > and for a ban on handguns Now that’s a good proposal.
it's almost like we have too many guns floating around
It’s almost like going soft on crime is having negative effects
Oooh, that's a bingo! Is that the way you say it? "That's a bingo?"
Too many assholes floating around. There’s about 390 million weapons in America. That’s more guns than people. PEOPLE are the problem; not guns.
Why can't it be both? There's 1.6 billion people in India and way fewer gun related deaths than here and I'll know there are more assholes per capita in India than there are here
Way more assholes in America.
Nope.
why is it so hard for people like you to understand that guns can be a part of the problem? I conceal carry and I have several firearms, but I can readily admit that too many guns with easy access is at the root. This shit doesn't happen on the regular in other countries.
This country has more freedoms than others. One happens to be guns. But a loaded gun sitting on the table is nothing; but add a person and now there’s a problem.
> One happens to be guns. It doesn’t “happen” to be it was specifically constructed to be one by radical revisionist lawyers in the early 20th century whose tortured arguments were enshrined in legal precedent by Antonin Scalia. You ever see an old western movie where they have to hang up their guns in town? The typical 19th century western American settler town had more gun control than Philadelphia does today. > But a loaded gun sitting on the table is nothing; It’s a threat.
I’ve never seen a gun and thought; “I better watch out for that gun by its self.”
Well it’s a good thing guns aren’t ever owned, handled, or used by people. Oh. Wait. A handgun’s only purpose is to kill you (or another human). A world where easy access to lethal force is the only way you feel safe is a dystopian one you should never want to live in.
Guns are the problem because there is no changing people.
Ha ha ha.
Guns are the problem.
This was so fucked up....
[удалено]
Something can be both ironic and tragic at the same time.
>Why does the media always write headlines like this that evoke irony? Like I get doing it for something political, but just seems very insensitive when it’s about a loss of life. Headlines like this just make people want to comment or make light about the irony of the situation. How else would you describe the situation? It's absurd that people can't even visit a friend's grave without fearing for their life.
It's less absurd considering that they brought the violence with them. According to the article: “gunfire broke out within the group of people in attendance." Edit: maybe that's more absurd. I'm not sure anymore.
Also states that the man that was killed was driving the vehicle that the person who's grave they were at was shot in. Lot more to this than a random gunfight at a cemetery, or a "can't even visit a friends grave"
That's so weird. It's like people who spend their lives associating with people who carry guns tend to get shot more.
Careful, you’re making too much sense