would you support an amdt. to constitution that bans the sale & ownership of

[Franzl]

I'd find it a bit extreme, but BY FAR preferable to the status quo.

Pretty much.

[Franzl]

LOL @ the outrage, and ROLF @ the left-wing outrage. Oh no, banning guns, so terrible.

It's a cultural thing. I don't really understand it either.

[Franzl]

LOL @ the outrage, and ROLF @ the left-wing outrage. Oh no, banning guns, so terrible.

It's a cultural thing. I don't really understand it either.

You know how drugs are banned, and thus it's SOOOOOO HARD to get drugs now? Oh wait...

And yet other countries show that guns can be successfully regulated. I don't see why the two are a valid comparison.

[Franzl]

LOL @ the outrage, and ROLF @ the left-wing outrage. Oh no, banning guns, so terrible.

It's a cultural thing. I don't really understand it either.

You know how drugs are banned, and thus it's SOOOOOO HARD to get drugs now? Oh wait...

And yet other countries show that guns can be successfully regulated. I don't see why the two are a valid comparison.

There's countries with similar gun ownership rates to the US with far less violent crime: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25201471

Also considering how many handguns are currently in ownership and circulation banning them now would be closing the barn door after the cows have left.

Now that is a valid argument, although again, even if it's gotten so bad, that's not a reason to condone it and provide an absolute right to guns.

And I stress that eliminating that constitutional right is not equivalent to banning guns. There's no reason why Wyoming and New Jersey should or would choose the same gun policy.

[Franzl]

And I stress that eliminating that constitutional right is not equivalent to banning guns. There's no reason why Wyoming and New Jersey should or would choose the same gun policy.

That's not what the question is though.

No, but that would be the best solution. I merely said if forced to choose between a ban and the status quo....I'd take the former.

[Franzl]

They don't care....GUNS=SCARY!

[Franzl]

They don't care....GUNS=SCARY!

Indeed, the odds are SOOOOO freaking remote that the people that worry about it probably don't understand them, even more so if you don't happen to live in a handful of specific square miles.

So pure coincidence that the chance is about 10-15 times higher in the US?

Of course the odds of being murdered with a gun are low for any individual person, but we're talking about thousands of human beings that are dying every year. You may not care about it, but it's obvious that the American gun problem is real.

[Franzl]

They don't care....GUNS=SCARY!

Indeed, the odds are SOOOOO freaking remote that the people that worry about it probably don't understand them, even more so if you don't happen to live in a handful of specific square miles.

So pure coincidence that the chance is about 10-15 times higher in the US?

Might hand gun ownership not be the only variable here? Of those countries listed, the United States is a far more unequal society with less readily available access to mental health care.

I don't believe gun ownership is the only variable, but I also don't buy that mental health has a lot to do with it overall outside of random mass shootings.

Economic inequality, I'm sure, plays a role, but easy access to guns allows people to murder that would not be able or willing to do it a different way.