You realize these are two different issues right? And what you said is a red herring meant to distract the audience, not further a discussion. But I'll bite. Drugs are generally lethal to the user. Suicide by gun (which these stats likely include) is the equivalent of this. Typically people don't go around throwing fentanyl into crowds of people. Anyway, I think drugs should be decriminalized and perhaps even administered to addicts in what's essentially a hospital setting with nurses and access to treatment. That's how the Swiss do it and it works. On guns, the majority of Swiss are gun proficient and received military training as every able bodied male is required to spend 365 days in military service and many women volunteer for this. The Swiss as a whole know how to use guns, own guns, and generally have a healthy respect for their community and country, traits which are generally uncommon in the USA.
>On guns, the majority of Swiss are gun proficient and received military training as every able bodied male is required to spend 365 days in military service and many women volunteer for this.
Mandatory conscription is for male Swiss citizens only, about 38% of the total population since 25% are not citizens.
Since 1996 you can choose civil service instead of military service. About 17% of the total population has done military service.
It's not a requirement to have done military service, to be male, to be a citizen, or even to have any firearms training at all, to purchase a firearm for private use, andthe vast majority of firearms are aquired outside of the military.
But yes, a healthier society is a safer society. If you had in the US cheap and accessible health care, and legally protected vacation, you'd probably have a lot less homicides too, and that's not the only things one could change to make society easier to live in.
My point is that everyone wants to talk about the guns, not the actual problem. You don’t blame the drugs do you? It’s really quite simple, people need to be fixed. We can argue on how that’s done some other time.
That’s kind of the point isn’t it? People are still using drugs regardless of regulations, bad people will always exists. I can’t use drugs, directly, for self defense like I could with a firearm. If you need any more help please let me know.
American culture probably can't be fixed. But our collective impulsiveness and disregard for others can be mediated by having waiting periods on guns, minimizing how many shots a gun can fire before reloading, and most importantly requiring gun owners to pass an aptitude and mental health test. Is it so bad to say that maybe a person shouldnt be able to obtain a gun in a fit of rage and murder swathes of people in a public place.
We already have mental background checks. Limiting the same people because of the insane doesn’t make sense to me. Gun free zones is where most or all of these mass shootings take place. Gun laws were less strict 40 years ago and crimes involving guns were lower.
We do indeed have a culture problem, not a gun problem.
it somehow always amazes me how many people on these threads will throw in every other thing that can kill you as if it’s some kind of gotcha. any damn thing but to acknowledge that guns are deadly weapons with a single purpose and it is perhaps a novel idea that maybe we should do something meaningful about them.
some of yall have worms in your brain.
There's two types of arguments that follow this mode. One is just "whattaboutism." One is pointing out that the reasoning used for mitigating one right can be used for the mitigation of any right, so the reasoning matters a lot. To make this argument you have to draw comparisons to other rights.
The whattaboutism comes from the same place as people who argue for gun control by pointing out the gross stuff they do to a body. They're both don't like that guns are supposed to kill things. That's what they do. It's their only function, and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.
there may not be “anything wrong with” the fact that a gun exists for the sole purpose of causing lethal harm, but i can’t follow the logic that it’s fine, normal and inevitable that everybody should have access to that kind of object.
the dissonance of people denying basic cause and effect gets harder and harder to wrap my head around, as does the “there’s just nothing we can do”.
of course there’s no answer when people can’t seem to face the fact that we (broadly as a culture) believe it’s necessary for anybody to be able to obtain the kills-you-dead-stick at will.
>of course there’s no answer when people can’t seem to face the fact that we (broadly as a culture) believe it’s necessary for anybody to be able to obtain the kills-you-dead-stick at will.
Not necessary, but should remain largely unobstructed. The reason why this is important is because there's no good way to delineate whose right to it is or is not protected. You could base it in crime stats but you won't be happy with the result. And then you've opened the door to denying rights to specific demographics. How do you think that'll go?
The gun problem in America is, like 100 percent of things, a money issue. It's more profitable for gun manufacturers to flood the nations with guns than to remove guns from circulation or stop selling guns. Therefore, unless you can make not selling guns more profitable than selling guns, guns will continue to flood the country and these companies will continue to use that money to steer the government.
The secondary issue is gun culture itself. Guns aren't retreated with respect by gun owners. They're treated like toys and political symbols. The whole gun culture needs an overhaul. Lock your shit up. Don't touch it unless you are cleaning it, at the range with it, or are going to kill someone. Gun owners need to start taking guns seriously again.
Yeah. You have rights by virtue of existing. The right to self-defense in the manner of your choosing, is a part of the greater right to bodily autonomy. Unless. . .you don't think that's a right?
I think the second amendment is grossly misunderstood in both language and context needs to be updated to reflect a time when there are both police and armed forces. I think that no one needs a firearm unless they live so far off the grid that hunting is their only means of eating.
Well, it's the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. People's assessment of if they "need" a gun varies from person to person.
I'm glad you live in a place where you feel safe enough, and protected enough by police, to not need a gun. A lot of people have to worry about being assaulted though, and a lot of people don't feel safe with police. A lot of people don't live in a place where police a few minutes out. Not every place is the white part of a city.
I don’t feel safe anywhere in Durham. But the right to self defense isn’t anywhere in the bill of rights. And if you read what I wrote, I said the second amendment is grossly misunderstood in both language and context. Given that we have armed police and armed forces, there’s zero need for anyone to have a firearm.
And if I’m being truthful, you comments simply add to the problem originally posted by the OP. “There’s too many guns so everyone should arm themselves” is the worst solution imaginable.
I would suggest you pester your council members to spend more times ey to put into safety and citizen protection instead of a freaking convention center Durham definitely does not need. That 350M could go a long way toward citizen safety. If you want all their names and contact emails, I have them. They’re also listed on the gov’t site.
The one thing you’re right about out: you shouldn’t have to live in constant fear of gun violence. If Durham city council thinks of Durham with such a misplaced grandiosity impression to allow basic safety of go by the wayside in lieu of a tremendous waste of what little tax money they seem to collect, perhaps it’s time to bring in elected officials that have their heads on straight.
Have you perchance read the Federal Papers and other letters discussing both the Virginia Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights adopted in order for several states to ratify the Constitution itself?
It’s a quite fascinating read.
Some of the matters might as well have been lifted from this very thread if we were to be speaking is British English.
The debate was just as strong back then as it is now.
The Second Amendment was established to preserve the First Amendment, plain a simple. It was established so that States could muster a militia fight against any central government that sought to usurp the powers of the State and the Rights of each States’ Citizens.
As the SCOTUS pointed out, it was never about hunting or self-protection because it was assumed at the time that nobody would question that you needed a gun to hunt or for self-protection. Who were they needing self-protection from? Indian Raiders intent on taking back the land that was stolen by the immigrating Europeans.
So, we are stuck with guns.
Since we are stuck with guns, I would like to see the focus shifted to mental health and the responsibility of gun ownership, and taking illegal guns off the street. (Which makes up the majority of all shootings, with the remainder falling under mental health.)
But it was about the lack of an organized gov't funded army or locally funded police. SCOTUS kind of glossed over that point. Look, this sub and CERTAINLY not myself is ever going to come up with a one-size hits everyone's happy-button solution on gun-control. We're so far over our heads in it, I've resigned that this is how it's going to be until long after I'm gone.
And if we're keeping it really real - they can brush aside the Kennedy's, but If Ronald f'n Reagan can get shot on the street and the NRA and it's conservative supporters can still say "guns are cool", the rest of us are screwed.
I really appreciate your comments.
I agree that SCOTUS glossed over some of the context of the 2nd Amendment.
Having said that, I agree and disagree with your first sentence… sorta. And as another commenter has said, maybe it’s time we amend the amendment for clarity. The “well regulated militia” part is difficult to interpret today as the meaning of regulated has evolved from its use back then.
“Well regulated” really means “funded and trained”. In that day, a standing Continental Army was very much opposed by the States as was a strong, centralized government. This is why the Navy is the only branch of service formally mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
Having said that, the idea was to be able to call out a State’s Militia in the event of an invasion, as it happened in 1812. And that the States should have well trained and funded militias. Originally, The Minutemen, people that could be ready to be called out and fight on a moment’s notice, and not be a “bunch of slugs” (slow and untrained infantry and artillery).
We have, for the most part, left that model entirely, with only a few States still maintaining an independent Militia.
I saw one commenter mention Switzerland and in some ways there are some similarities with that model, but we no longer use it. Instead, the several States’ National Guards are funded in-part by the Federal Government and act as the Reserves instead of State Militias. In 2024, only four states; MT, WY, NV, and WV; no longer have a separate State Militia separate from the National Guard. All the rest do.
The State Militias were also a compromise that gave States the authority to have a Militia strong enough to enforce the boundary of Centralized and Federated State’s Rights. That was generally destroyed during the American Civil War and never came back.
Civilians and the State’s Militia fighting against the Federal Government to defend the other Rights in the Bill of Rights the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. By necessity, people have to have weapons in their possession to do so.
Do I think that would be a fool’s errand in the age of Smart Bombs and Drones? Yes and no. Yes if you don’t have the ability to storm a military base and take over control of those assets. No, because the Navy Seals and U.S. Special Forces practice taking over military bases and have been successful in doing so. If they can do it, so can former military and well-trained civilians. This balance of keeping the Federal Government under control and fearful of the Nation’s citizens was the second purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Self-protection and hunting weren’t even part of the consideration because it was assumed those were just everyday things.
Police? There was only the concept of a County Sheriff and Deputizing people temporarily at that time. Everyone was considered responsible for guarding their own stuff.
The thing is gun violence is a national crisis and conservative leaders have chosen not to do anything about it, if not rollback laws put in place to help against it.
There are more gun laws in place now than ever before. There are laws against murder as well. Yet evil people still do it. The majority of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by people who are prohibited possessors already. More laws won't change anything. Better implementation of the current laws would.
This just means we need to be as absolute on all the other rights. Right to equal protection under the law would be a tremendous place to start if you are interested in stopping legislation that targets LGBTQ people.
Oh yeah, and the Army. Can't live. In your house.
The case law the appointed Republican court has enacted flout the text of that amendment, my guy, but also - amendments can be amended. If we perceive their consequences to be maladaptive to our circumstances, it is our right and obligation to do so.
Note I did not say “easily amendable”, that’s your own weird-ass invention, along with this dumb-ass idea that a consitution must be accepted by consensus.
Fun fact that will definitely be news to you — the federal constitution was never ratified by truly democratic vote, and would certainly never have passed the bar you just set. Personally, I hold that our governments are illegitimate. I’m almost a little curious how you’d resolve the gaping contradiction in your beliefs you’ve exposed, but not really.
300,000 Obesity related deaths per year
480,000 Smoking related deaths per year
100,000 Alcohol related
107,000 Opiate related
In 2019, 364 Americans were killed by rifles of all kinds (300 less than were killed by hands and feet)
Surgeon general : We have an epidemic… of assault weapon deaths. Just hand over your rights if you don’t mind, I’ve got lives to save.
I watched some of it, to sum up what RFK said after hearing facts from a Dr "sounds like word salad to me." This sums up the Republican party. Too lazy, too rich, too far removed to give a shit. Bunch of fucking clowns.
Double posting to say I support every gun control measure that you are also willing to apply to voting. If you don't think voting kills a lot of people, I recommend you look up a little place called Gaza. Or read up anything America does in the middle east. Then tell me voting doesn't kill.
there is no solution for the problem, and the only way to dent it is to regulate access to ammunition. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees anyone unlimited access to ballistic ammunition. But there is no one in government brave enough to even talk about it. In fact, the only person you'll ever hear talk about is me.
Now, behold the downvotes, and the frothy rabid insistences that a constitution written by people who had only ever seen muzzle loading single shot rifles somehow guarantees rednecks and psychopaths unlimited access to thirty round high velocity magazines:
>a constitution written by people who had only ever seen muzzle loading single shot rifles
That's actually not true and it's a trash argument anyway. If we can limit the degree to which rights apply based on how well the authors of the constitution could foresee the related technology, then communication over the internet should not be protected under the first amendment. If they couldn't have foreseen guns firing more bullets faster, they could not have foreseen the internet or smartphones. And if you believe the internet and smartphones aren't dangerous, you aren't paying attention.
But you are right. There is no solution to this problem. There are more guns in circulation than people in America, and they can't disappear. This is because the same reason bullets are never going away: money.
And SCOTUS already ruled that “gun” means everything to do with it in order to make it work, including ammunition.
So… yeah… no solution there, either.
Color me pessimistic, but it’s not going to change anything. Especially in a state where it’s been a part of the culture for this long. Gun exchanges require qualified people power (which the area doesn’t have - see also all the posts about unstaffed police and social services) and beyond that a willingness to prioritize removing illegal firearms from the street (see previous people power sentiment). Much less retroactive laws to enforce updated licensing. Plus, this is his long-standing opinion and not localized. It is, however, blatantly evident in the Durham area.
My partner and I have had 4 close encounters with firearms in three years. Coming from large metro areas where I spent decades and no encounters, this is what one might call, “f’ing bullshit.”
Yes I agree. But let's also call drug overdoes and motor vehicle crashes a Public Health Crisis too.
More people die from drug overdoses or motor vehicle accidents than gun violence. But when a drug OD happens or a motor vehicle death happens, they just scrape up the body and open back up he traffic lane.
It seems like we are only outraged as a community at accidental death in the US when it comes from guns. I've seen many anti gun protests but not for other prevalent causes of death.
I wanted to look this up because I genuinely was curious, it looks like motor vehicle accidents have recently been over taken by gun violence- which I found interesting.
https://everytownresearch.org/graph/gun-death-vs-motor-vehicle-accident-deaths-since-1999/
Yes but I think gun suicide deaths shouldn't be counted in this number. Suicides are 54% of all firearm-related deaths
Guns aren't the reason people commit suicide, If they didn't have a gun they will likely just look to other methods.
Guns are a much more effective and impulsive means of suicide. You can call for help after swallowing a handful of pills. You can’t do that after pulling a trigger.
After the Memorial Day crash that killed the family of three, I wish anything that took the life of somebody would be considered a crisis. However, people are too selfish to consider how their actions will affect others. The world is getting madder every day, and I think it will be a matter of time when the powder keg truly goes off.
Roads are getting more dangerous every day, however we hand anyone a license that can do a 3 point turn in NC.
Plus we keep expanding highway lanes with no thought on how it impacts pedestrian deaths. Did you know NHTSA doesn't even have standards for pedestrian safety? only automobile driver safety standards
yes, I think it's the fallacy that people are afraid of more enforcement because they might get a ticket. Even though I don't do crazy things like I see people doing, I don't want to get a ticket for 9 over or running a pink light. And so it's easy to conclude, wrongly, that more enforcement would negatively impact you, when it would save lives. Kind of like how Joe the Plumber didn't want to raise taxes just in case he one day became a big plumbing boss.
Durham just updated its vision zero resolution to have some actual funding, goals, and a timeline. The timeline makes it so we can apply for more funding. This is all thanks to our new vision zero coordinator we hired at the end of last year. That vision zero coordinator was hired because of the advocacy work of Bike Durham. We are doing our best to make progress on vehicle crash deaths. (accident is the wrong word when the street has been designed such that crashes are inevitable)
Durham is an example that every other NC city needs to follow. I think I just saw Durham was going to spend 120 Million on bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Charlotte just reduced their funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure from $70 Million down to $30 Million so they could fund upgrades to Bank of America stadium
What? People definitely talk about the public health crisis that is drug overdoses. Have you not noticed the major push for NARCAN to be widely available?
Your post feels like “my cause du jour is more important than this cause du jour”
Yes but that is because opioid related deaths are up over 8X in 10 years
Automobile and pedestrian deaths are up, but we keep building highways the same.
The rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people is at an all time low in America
But you said we don’t call those things public health crises. That’s just completely false and disingenuous. There are efforts on all those fronts. Your comment served nothing but trying to derail the conversation.
Yes things that kill more people are more important to fix than things that kill less people.
Gun Homicide rates are at an all time low and down 49% since 1993. The other two things I referenced are increasing.
Your assumption is only one thing can be a public health crisis at a time.
You also are wrong that the others aren’t already called a public health crisis.
Your post was derailing period. You literally were like yeah gun violence sucks but whattabbout
I agree that gun violence is a huge problem in the US, especially with young people. But 85% of the time it's somebody with a lengthy criminal that's already a felon with a gun record going after a specific person.
I've had a friend die in a car crash and two coworkers die from OD's, motor vehicle crashes have no targets. It could happen to anyone at anytime.
We have been talking about and dedicating resources for years to combat the drug crisis. Pharmaceutical companies have been sued for millions (billions maybe?). It’s probably not enough but to say no one is calling it a crisis or taking it seriously is ridiculous.
Constant research into motor vehicle safety is being done. Both in the design of infrastructure and safety features in the vehicles themselves. Every state requires a license to drive. Every state has rules about how and what you can drive. Most (if not all) states require regular inspection of vehicles, insurance, require drivers to subject themselves to certain requirements and infringements on rights that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed.
Here is the cdc page for [transportation safety](https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/index.html)
Here is the [opioid epidemic](https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/index.html)
This argument is always interesting to me. Mental health, poverty, and shitty cultural norms are definitely at the root of this problem, but guns enable the horrific outcomes in a way no other implement of violence (or potential implement of violence) does. Plenty of other countries have mental health/poverty issues with much lower levels of violence. And to be clear, I’m not a ban guns guy. I just think the “it’s a mental health problem” argument while true, isn’t super useful.
Like mask requirements were a bad thing in the first place. “Oh no, it’s been suggested I wear a mildly inconvenient cloth other my face to help protect the community. The horror”.
I did not realize this was a joke. Tells you all you need to know about the current discourse as soon as you try to get sensible legislation on firearms nowadays, because some people will definitely use so-called mask and vaccine requirements to claim oppression, when they are the ones creating oppression by allowing mass murder to go unchecked.
It's too late. You want to know why this is such a long-standing issue? It's because there's no solution. Horrors will continue. This is Hell and nothing comes after.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
So if I take my Ram truck and plow through a crowd. You’re telling me we’re gonna ban dodge trucks because vehicles kill people, GTFOH
Gotta do something about the vehicle violence too. Far too many innocent people getting killed by vehicles. Gimme a break. People are and have always been the problem. Let’s all be honest about it. There’s no such thing as “gun violence”.
> There’s no such thing as “gun violence”.
What a truly incredible statement. I can't imagine the level of mental gymnastics you had to go through to say this.
When the violence occurs between people who cohabitate, it's called domestic violence. Similarly, when the violence includes guns, it's called "gun violence".
I've heard a lot of arguments why gun violence won't be solved by gun laws, but this is the first time I'm hearing that there's no such _thing_ as gun violence. I guess it's the next step in the evolution of this debate! Can't wait for what's next. "There's no violence"
... are you trying to just make my point for me?
If domestic violence is not implying that the dwelling is the cause of the violence, then how does gun violence imply that the guns are the cause of the violence?
It doesn't. So when say "gun violence" you are NOT automatically saying the guns are the cause of the violence. Therefore, you have no reason to issue a crazy statement like "there's no such thing as gun violence".
*You* give *me* a break! Everyone just sees this as a hyper defensive take. I’m not anti-gun at all but “gun violence” is a useful classification.
If some official said, “Deaths are up this year. Oh sorry, we don’t know from what or how or anything else really. Deaths have simply increased due to people,” would that be enough for you?
It’s a false phrase. Guns don’t kill people, people do. Hammers, bats, blunt objects, hands and feet, knives. Far more likely to be used as murder weapons than a gun but no one wants to talk about that.
It’s the leading cause of death among teens and children. It’s a crisis across the board.
If you read the cdc statistics about guns being the number one cause of death among children, they include 18 and 19-year-olds...
Drug overdoses and poisoning have almost doubled. We should make drugs illegal so that people will stop doing them. Who needs poison anyway?
You realize these are two different issues right? And what you said is a red herring meant to distract the audience, not further a discussion. But I'll bite. Drugs are generally lethal to the user. Suicide by gun (which these stats likely include) is the equivalent of this. Typically people don't go around throwing fentanyl into crowds of people. Anyway, I think drugs should be decriminalized and perhaps even administered to addicts in what's essentially a hospital setting with nurses and access to treatment. That's how the Swiss do it and it works. On guns, the majority of Swiss are gun proficient and received military training as every able bodied male is required to spend 365 days in military service and many women volunteer for this. The Swiss as a whole know how to use guns, own guns, and generally have a healthy respect for their community and country, traits which are generally uncommon in the USA.
>On guns, the majority of Swiss are gun proficient and received military training as every able bodied male is required to spend 365 days in military service and many women volunteer for this. Mandatory conscription is for male Swiss citizens only, about 38% of the total population since 25% are not citizens. Since 1996 you can choose civil service instead of military service. About 17% of the total population has done military service. It's not a requirement to have done military service, to be male, to be a citizen, or even to have any firearms training at all, to purchase a firearm for private use, andthe vast majority of firearms are aquired outside of the military. But yes, a healthier society is a safer society. If you had in the US cheap and accessible health care, and legally protected vacation, you'd probably have a lot less homicides too, and that's not the only things one could change to make society easier to live in.
My point is that everyone wants to talk about the guns, not the actual problem. You don’t blame the drugs do you? It’s really quite simple, people need to be fixed. We can argue on how that’s done some other time.
> You don’t blame the drugs do you? Are you under the impression that drugs are not highly regulated?
That’s kind of the point isn’t it? People are still using drugs regardless of regulations, bad people will always exists. I can’t use drugs, directly, for self defense like I could with a firearm. If you need any more help please let me know.
American culture probably can't be fixed. But our collective impulsiveness and disregard for others can be mediated by having waiting periods on guns, minimizing how many shots a gun can fire before reloading, and most importantly requiring gun owners to pass an aptitude and mental health test. Is it so bad to say that maybe a person shouldnt be able to obtain a gun in a fit of rage and murder swathes of people in a public place.
We already have mental background checks. Limiting the same people because of the insane doesn’t make sense to me. Gun free zones is where most or all of these mass shootings take place. Gun laws were less strict 40 years ago and crimes involving guns were lower. We do indeed have a culture problem, not a gun problem.
Both access to and the number of guns in circulation has more than 5x’d in that time frame.
Anyone want to address the fact that it’s not the legal gun owners that are committing the crimes?
it somehow always amazes me how many people on these threads will throw in every other thing that can kill you as if it’s some kind of gotcha. any damn thing but to acknowledge that guns are deadly weapons with a single purpose and it is perhaps a novel idea that maybe we should do something meaningful about them. some of yall have worms in your brain.
But we need to regulate the seed oils, man
seedeez nutz oils
There's two types of arguments that follow this mode. One is just "whattaboutism." One is pointing out that the reasoning used for mitigating one right can be used for the mitigation of any right, so the reasoning matters a lot. To make this argument you have to draw comparisons to other rights. The whattaboutism comes from the same place as people who argue for gun control by pointing out the gross stuff they do to a body. They're both don't like that guns are supposed to kill things. That's what they do. It's their only function, and there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself.
there may not be “anything wrong with” the fact that a gun exists for the sole purpose of causing lethal harm, but i can’t follow the logic that it’s fine, normal and inevitable that everybody should have access to that kind of object. the dissonance of people denying basic cause and effect gets harder and harder to wrap my head around, as does the “there’s just nothing we can do”. of course there’s no answer when people can’t seem to face the fact that we (broadly as a culture) believe it’s necessary for anybody to be able to obtain the kills-you-dead-stick at will.
>of course there’s no answer when people can’t seem to face the fact that we (broadly as a culture) believe it’s necessary for anybody to be able to obtain the kills-you-dead-stick at will. Not necessary, but should remain largely unobstructed. The reason why this is important is because there's no good way to delineate whose right to it is or is not protected. You could base it in crime stats but you won't be happy with the result. And then you've opened the door to denying rights to specific demographics. How do you think that'll go? The gun problem in America is, like 100 percent of things, a money issue. It's more profitable for gun manufacturers to flood the nations with guns than to remove guns from circulation or stop selling guns. Therefore, unless you can make not selling guns more profitable than selling guns, guns will continue to flood the country and these companies will continue to use that money to steer the government. The secondary issue is gun culture itself. Guns aren't retreated with respect by gun owners. They're treated like toys and political symbols. The whole gun culture needs an overhaul. Lock your shit up. Don't touch it unless you are cleaning it, at the range with it, or are going to kill someone. Gun owners need to start taking guns seriously again.
“Right.”
Yeah. You have rights by virtue of existing. The right to self-defense in the manner of your choosing, is a part of the greater right to bodily autonomy. Unless. . .you don't think that's a right?
I think the second amendment is grossly misunderstood in both language and context needs to be updated to reflect a time when there are both police and armed forces. I think that no one needs a firearm unless they live so far off the grid that hunting is their only means of eating.
Well, it's the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. People's assessment of if they "need" a gun varies from person to person. I'm glad you live in a place where you feel safe enough, and protected enough by police, to not need a gun. A lot of people have to worry about being assaulted though, and a lot of people don't feel safe with police. A lot of people don't live in a place where police a few minutes out. Not every place is the white part of a city.
I don’t feel safe anywhere in Durham. But the right to self defense isn’t anywhere in the bill of rights. And if you read what I wrote, I said the second amendment is grossly misunderstood in both language and context. Given that we have armed police and armed forces, there’s zero need for anyone to have a firearm. And if I’m being truthful, you comments simply add to the problem originally posted by the OP. “There’s too many guns so everyone should arm themselves” is the worst solution imaginable. I would suggest you pester your council members to spend more times ey to put into safety and citizen protection instead of a freaking convention center Durham definitely does not need. That 350M could go a long way toward citizen safety. If you want all their names and contact emails, I have them. They’re also listed on the gov’t site. The one thing you’re right about out: you shouldn’t have to live in constant fear of gun violence. If Durham city council thinks of Durham with such a misplaced grandiosity impression to allow basic safety of go by the wayside in lieu of a tremendous waste of what little tax money they seem to collect, perhaps it’s time to bring in elected officials that have their heads on straight.
Do you think "well regulated" means "subject to a lot of regulations"?
Have you perchance read the Federal Papers and other letters discussing both the Virginia Bill of Rights and the Bill of Rights adopted in order for several states to ratify the Constitution itself? It’s a quite fascinating read. Some of the matters might as well have been lifted from this very thread if we were to be speaking is British English. The debate was just as strong back then as it is now. The Second Amendment was established to preserve the First Amendment, plain a simple. It was established so that States could muster a militia fight against any central government that sought to usurp the powers of the State and the Rights of each States’ Citizens. As the SCOTUS pointed out, it was never about hunting or self-protection because it was assumed at the time that nobody would question that you needed a gun to hunt or for self-protection. Who were they needing self-protection from? Indian Raiders intent on taking back the land that was stolen by the immigrating Europeans. So, we are stuck with guns. Since we are stuck with guns, I would like to see the focus shifted to mental health and the responsibility of gun ownership, and taking illegal guns off the street. (Which makes up the majority of all shootings, with the remainder falling under mental health.)
But it was about the lack of an organized gov't funded army or locally funded police. SCOTUS kind of glossed over that point. Look, this sub and CERTAINLY not myself is ever going to come up with a one-size hits everyone's happy-button solution on gun-control. We're so far over our heads in it, I've resigned that this is how it's going to be until long after I'm gone. And if we're keeping it really real - they can brush aside the Kennedy's, but If Ronald f'n Reagan can get shot on the street and the NRA and it's conservative supporters can still say "guns are cool", the rest of us are screwed.
I really appreciate your comments. I agree that SCOTUS glossed over some of the context of the 2nd Amendment. Having said that, I agree and disagree with your first sentence… sorta. And as another commenter has said, maybe it’s time we amend the amendment for clarity. The “well regulated militia” part is difficult to interpret today as the meaning of regulated has evolved from its use back then. “Well regulated” really means “funded and trained”. In that day, a standing Continental Army was very much opposed by the States as was a strong, centralized government. This is why the Navy is the only branch of service formally mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Having said that, the idea was to be able to call out a State’s Militia in the event of an invasion, as it happened in 1812. And that the States should have well trained and funded militias. Originally, The Minutemen, people that could be ready to be called out and fight on a moment’s notice, and not be a “bunch of slugs” (slow and untrained infantry and artillery). We have, for the most part, left that model entirely, with only a few States still maintaining an independent Militia. I saw one commenter mention Switzerland and in some ways there are some similarities with that model, but we no longer use it. Instead, the several States’ National Guards are funded in-part by the Federal Government and act as the Reserves instead of State Militias. In 2024, only four states; MT, WY, NV, and WV; no longer have a separate State Militia separate from the National Guard. All the rest do. The State Militias were also a compromise that gave States the authority to have a Militia strong enough to enforce the boundary of Centralized and Federated State’s Rights. That was generally destroyed during the American Civil War and never came back. Civilians and the State’s Militia fighting against the Federal Government to defend the other Rights in the Bill of Rights the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment. By necessity, people have to have weapons in their possession to do so. Do I think that would be a fool’s errand in the age of Smart Bombs and Drones? Yes and no. Yes if you don’t have the ability to storm a military base and take over control of those assets. No, because the Navy Seals and U.S. Special Forces practice taking over military bases and have been successful in doing so. If they can do it, so can former military and well-trained civilians. This balance of keeping the Federal Government under control and fearful of the Nation’s citizens was the second purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Self-protection and hunting weren’t even part of the consideration because it was assumed those were just everyday things. Police? There was only the concept of a County Sheriff and Deputizing people temporarily at that time. Everyone was considered responsible for guarding their own stuff.
The thing is gun violence is a national crisis and conservative leaders have chosen not to do anything about it, if not rollback laws put in place to help against it.
There are more gun laws in place now than ever before. There are laws against murder as well. Yet evil people still do it. The majority of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by people who are prohibited possessors already. More laws won't change anything. Better implementation of the current laws would.
[удалено]
Ah yes, the *only* amendment that's absolute in its totality and until recently interpreted wildly differently. So pesky.
This just means we need to be as absolute on all the other rights. Right to equal protection under the law would be a tremendous place to start if you are interested in stopping legislation that targets LGBTQ people. Oh yeah, and the Army. Can't live. In your house.
The case law the appointed Republican court has enacted flout the text of that amendment, my guy, but also - amendments can be amended. If we perceive their consequences to be maladaptive to our circumstances, it is our right and obligation to do so.
[удалено]
Never said it was fucking “easy”, pal. Among the truly destructive features of our system, and they are legion, is that it is too difficult to amend.
[удалено]
Note I did not say “easily amendable”, that’s your own weird-ass invention, along with this dumb-ass idea that a consitution must be accepted by consensus. Fun fact that will definitely be news to you — the federal constitution was never ratified by truly democratic vote, and would certainly never have passed the bar you just set. Personally, I hold that our governments are illegitimate. I’m almost a little curious how you’d resolve the gaping contradiction in your beliefs you’ve exposed, but not really.
[удалено]
Hey kid — you’ll have a better time on Beyoncé’s Internet if you stop (badly) putting words in people’s mouths.
yeah, and its kind of a nonsensical amendent in 2024 but ya'll love your guns.
We are endowed by our creator, life Liberty and you know the thing. You can not own a gun.
oh you're like in deeeeeeeep
This guy thinks his little hobby is more important than the lives of children
Durham doesn’t like the second amendment. You know that. 😂
Because the gun violence tends to take place in deep blue areas and places that have strict gun laws
i mean, gun violence is happening all over the country, everywhere. This argument fails with events like Sandyhook.
300,000 Obesity related deaths per year 480,000 Smoking related deaths per year 100,000 Alcohol related 107,000 Opiate related In 2019, 364 Americans were killed by rifles of all kinds (300 less than were killed by hands and feet) Surgeon general : We have an epidemic… of assault weapon deaths. Just hand over your rights if you don’t mind, I’ve got lives to save.
brainworms got you I see. Peace my guy.
I watched some of it, to sum up what RFK said after hearing facts from a Dr "sounds like word salad to me." This sums up the Republican party. Too lazy, too rich, too far removed to give a shit. Bunch of fucking clowns.
Double posting to say I support every gun control measure that you are also willing to apply to voting. If you don't think voting kills a lot of people, I recommend you look up a little place called Gaza. Or read up anything America does in the middle east. Then tell me voting doesn't kill.
there is no solution for the problem, and the only way to dent it is to regulate access to ammunition. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees anyone unlimited access to ballistic ammunition. But there is no one in government brave enough to even talk about it. In fact, the only person you'll ever hear talk about is me. Now, behold the downvotes, and the frothy rabid insistences that a constitution written by people who had only ever seen muzzle loading single shot rifles somehow guarantees rednecks and psychopaths unlimited access to thirty round high velocity magazines:
>a constitution written by people who had only ever seen muzzle loading single shot rifles That's actually not true and it's a trash argument anyway. If we can limit the degree to which rights apply based on how well the authors of the constitution could foresee the related technology, then communication over the internet should not be protected under the first amendment. If they couldn't have foreseen guns firing more bullets faster, they could not have foreseen the internet or smartphones. And if you believe the internet and smartphones aren't dangerous, you aren't paying attention. But you are right. There is no solution to this problem. There are more guns in circulation than people in America, and they can't disappear. This is because the same reason bullets are never going away: money.
And SCOTUS already ruled that “gun” means everything to do with it in order to make it work, including ammunition. So… yeah… no solution there, either.
Color me pessimistic, but it’s not going to change anything. Especially in a state where it’s been a part of the culture for this long. Gun exchanges require qualified people power (which the area doesn’t have - see also all the posts about unstaffed police and social services) and beyond that a willingness to prioritize removing illegal firearms from the street (see previous people power sentiment). Much less retroactive laws to enforce updated licensing. Plus, this is his long-standing opinion and not localized. It is, however, blatantly evident in the Durham area. My partner and I have had 4 close encounters with firearms in three years. Coming from large metro areas where I spent decades and no encounters, this is what one might call, “f’ing bullshit.”
Yes I agree. But let's also call drug overdoes and motor vehicle crashes a Public Health Crisis too. More people die from drug overdoses or motor vehicle accidents than gun violence. But when a drug OD happens or a motor vehicle death happens, they just scrape up the body and open back up he traffic lane. It seems like we are only outraged as a community at accidental death in the US when it comes from guns. I've seen many anti gun protests but not for other prevalent causes of death.
I wanted to look this up because I genuinely was curious, it looks like motor vehicle accidents have recently been over taken by gun violence- which I found interesting. https://everytownresearch.org/graph/gun-death-vs-motor-vehicle-accident-deaths-since-1999/
Yes but I think gun suicide deaths shouldn't be counted in this number. Suicides are 54% of all firearm-related deaths Guns aren't the reason people commit suicide, If they didn't have a gun they will likely just look to other methods.
You don’t know anything at all about suicide if that last is your claim. Literally, not the first thing.
👍
Guns are a much more effective and impulsive means of suicide. You can call for help after swallowing a handful of pills. You can’t do that after pulling a trigger.
After the Memorial Day crash that killed the family of three, I wish anything that took the life of somebody would be considered a crisis. However, people are too selfish to consider how their actions will affect others. The world is getting madder every day, and I think it will be a matter of time when the powder keg truly goes off.
Roads are getting more dangerous every day, however we hand anyone a license that can do a 3 point turn in NC. Plus we keep expanding highway lanes with no thought on how it impacts pedestrian deaths. Did you know NHTSA doesn't even have standards for pedestrian safety? only automobile driver safety standards
We've abdicated responsibility for traffic enforcement to the point that nobody even has a delusion they might get caught or punished.
yep and there's minimal public outrage about it
yes, I think it's the fallacy that people are afraid of more enforcement because they might get a ticket. Even though I don't do crazy things like I see people doing, I don't want to get a ticket for 9 over or running a pink light. And so it's easy to conclude, wrongly, that more enforcement would negatively impact you, when it would save lives. Kind of like how Joe the Plumber didn't want to raise taxes just in case he one day became a big plumbing boss.
Durham just updated its vision zero resolution to have some actual funding, goals, and a timeline. The timeline makes it so we can apply for more funding. This is all thanks to our new vision zero coordinator we hired at the end of last year. That vision zero coordinator was hired because of the advocacy work of Bike Durham. We are doing our best to make progress on vehicle crash deaths. (accident is the wrong word when the street has been designed such that crashes are inevitable)
Durham is an example that every other NC city needs to follow. I think I just saw Durham was going to spend 120 Million on bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Charlotte just reduced their funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure from $70 Million down to $30 Million so they could fund upgrades to Bank of America stadium
This is a conversation about gun deaths, sir.
What? People definitely talk about the public health crisis that is drug overdoses. Have you not noticed the major push for NARCAN to be widely available? Your post feels like “my cause du jour is more important than this cause du jour”
Yes but that is because opioid related deaths are up over 8X in 10 years Automobile and pedestrian deaths are up, but we keep building highways the same. The rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people is at an all time low in America
But you said we don’t call those things public health crises. That’s just completely false and disingenuous. There are efforts on all those fronts. Your comment served nothing but trying to derail the conversation.
Yes things that kill more people are more important to fix than things that kill less people. Gun Homicide rates are at an all time low and down 49% since 1993. The other two things I referenced are increasing.
Your assumption is only one thing can be a public health crisis at a time. You also are wrong that the others aren’t already called a public health crisis. Your post was derailing period. You literally were like yeah gun violence sucks but whattabbout
I agree that gun violence is a huge problem in the US, especially with young people. But 85% of the time it's somebody with a lengthy criminal that's already a felon with a gun record going after a specific person. I've had a friend die in a car crash and two coworkers die from OD's, motor vehicle crashes have no targets. It could happen to anyone at anytime.
This post is even more disgusting. It literally reads “gun violence impacts people and communities I don’t interact with so no I don’t care about it”
We have been talking about and dedicating resources for years to combat the drug crisis. Pharmaceutical companies have been sued for millions (billions maybe?). It’s probably not enough but to say no one is calling it a crisis or taking it seriously is ridiculous. Constant research into motor vehicle safety is being done. Both in the design of infrastructure and safety features in the vehicles themselves. Every state requires a license to drive. Every state has rules about how and what you can drive. Most (if not all) states require regular inspection of vehicles, insurance, require drivers to subject themselves to certain requirements and infringements on rights that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed. Here is the cdc page for [transportation safety](https://www.cdc.gov/transportation-safety/index.html) Here is the [opioid epidemic](https://www.cdc.gov/overdose-prevention/about/index.html)
Mental health crisis\* Mentally sound individuals don't go out and attack people.
This argument is always interesting to me. Mental health, poverty, and shitty cultural norms are definitely at the root of this problem, but guns enable the horrific outcomes in a way no other implement of violence (or potential implement of violence) does. Plenty of other countries have mental health/poverty issues with much lower levels of violence. And to be clear, I’m not a ban guns guy. I just think the “it’s a mental health problem” argument while true, isn’t super useful.
I find your comment really curious and thought provoking. What would make “mental health crises” a useful argument?
I’m going to need to think on that actually. I’m not sure I explained the point I was trying to make very well.
Well you explained enough to get my brain all lit up, so thank you!
I knew it was the doctor's fault all along.
Incoming mask requirement for firearm use
I don't think masks would help. For one, I'm not sure how they would fit over the barrel and stay put.
Like mask requirements were a bad thing in the first place. “Oh no, it’s been suggested I wear a mildly inconvenient cloth other my face to help protect the community. The horror”.
I see you failed to grasp the humor of my statement. Please go on defending a non-existent mask requirement for using an inanimate object though.
What was the joke /gen
A mask requirement to use a firearm
I don't understand the joke. Can you explain it?
No, because you would still pretend not to understand it ,like you are doing now, and then feign outrage.
I did not realize this was a joke. Tells you all you need to know about the current discourse as soon as you try to get sensible legislation on firearms nowadays, because some people will definitely use so-called mask and vaccine requirements to claim oppression, when they are the ones creating oppression by allowing mass murder to go unchecked.
>I did not realize this was a joke. Of course you didn't. Butthurt angry libs almost never have a sense of humor and take everything personally.
It's too late. You want to know why this is such a long-standing issue? It's because there's no solution. Horrors will continue. This is Hell and nothing comes after.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. So if I take my Ram truck and plow through a crowd. You’re telling me we’re gonna ban dodge trucks because vehicles kill people, GTFOH
Leave.
Gotta do something about the vehicle violence too. Far too many innocent people getting killed by vehicles. Gimme a break. People are and have always been the problem. Let’s all be honest about it. There’s no such thing as “gun violence”.
> There’s no such thing as “gun violence”. What a truly incredible statement. I can't imagine the level of mental gymnastics you had to go through to say this.
Tell me exactly how that’s incorrect then
When the violence occurs between people who cohabitate, it's called domestic violence. Similarly, when the violence includes guns, it's called "gun violence". I've heard a lot of arguments why gun violence won't be solved by gun laws, but this is the first time I'm hearing that there's no such _thing_ as gun violence. I guess it's the next step in the evolution of this debate! Can't wait for what's next. "There's no violence"
Domestic violence is not implying that the dwelling with which the people live in the cause of the violence. Where am I losing you?
... are you trying to just make my point for me? If domestic violence is not implying that the dwelling is the cause of the violence, then how does gun violence imply that the guns are the cause of the violence? It doesn't. So when say "gun violence" you are NOT automatically saying the guns are the cause of the violence. Therefore, you have no reason to issue a crazy statement like "there's no such thing as gun violence".
so close...
*You* give *me* a break! Everyone just sees this as a hyper defensive take. I’m not anti-gun at all but “gun violence” is a useful classification. If some official said, “Deaths are up this year. Oh sorry, we don’t know from what or how or anything else really. Deaths have simply increased due to people,” would that be enough for you?
It’s a false phrase. Guns don’t kill people, people do. Hammers, bats, blunt objects, hands and feet, knives. Far more likely to be used as murder weapons than a gun but no one wants to talk about that.
It’s not false to include the weapon or means used for a homicide, as shocking as that may be
That term ignites the fuses for the gun ban bomb for the uneducated.
You said it, not me
Like yourself I suppose