I am all for reasonable regulation of firearms possession. The argument is about what constitutes 'reasonable'. And part of determining 'reasonable' is being pragmatic about 320,000,000+ firearms in the hands of 80,000,000+ civilians and the SCOTUS decisions that the Second Amendment grants the individual right to keep and bear arms.
To enact an outright gun ban would require either amending the Constitution or a future SCOTUS reinterpreting the Second Amendment. Neither is a short-term proposition.
The U.S. has a societal violence problem, not a gun problem per se. Of course, the prevalence of guns makes it more deadly, but guns aren't the cause of the problem.
Switzerland also has a long history of gun culture and a high rate of ownership - they don't have a "gun problem" since they don't have a violent society.
The debate about firearms is highly polarized and full of misinformation and lies from both ends of the spectrum. If you are pro-gun, you might want to be more rational about reasonable restrictions. If you are anti-gun, you might want to be more rational about reasonable restrictions.
For the antis: if you are going to argue for banning or restricting certain firearms, you would do well to learn the facts about firearms and crime before making fools of yourselves.
For the pros: if you are going to argue for no restrictions, you would do well to learn the facts about the risks that firearms pose unless you like sounding like cretinous libertarians.
To enact an outright gun ban would require either amending the Constitution or a future SCOTUS reinterpreting the Second Amendment. Neither is a short-term proposition.
The U.S. has a societal violence problem, not a gun problem per se. Of course, the prevalence of guns makes it more deadly, but guns aren't the cause of the problem.
Switzerland also has a long history of gun culture and a high rate of ownership - they don't have a "gun problem" since they don't have a violent society.
The debate about firearms is highly polarized and full of misinformation and lies from both ends of the spectrum. If you are pro-gun, you might want to be more rational about reasonable restrictions. If you are anti-gun, you might want to be more rational about reasonable restrictions.
For the antis: if you are going to argue for banning or restricting certain firearms, you would do well to learn the facts about firearms and crime before making fools of yourselves.
For the pros: if you are going to argue for no restrictions, you would do well to learn the facts about the risks that firearms pose unless you like sounding like cretinous libertarians.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
