First, the NRA LOVES LOVES LOVES criminals with guns. Loves it. Has no desire to stop it. Wants it. It is good for business. Give me one proposal they have put forth to prevent them from getting them. Just one. They are implicitly arming criminals, and know it. And let me clarify on drugs. Legalize marijuana. Decriminalize use of some drugs and focus on treatment and not incarceration. And continue to go after suppliers and pushers of hard drugs.
Only the top heel in WWE can do this and it be both awful and amazing at the same time. Sasha heeling... like a BO$$!
I mean... there isn't much more I can say about those two women. Feud of the year in my opinion. I felt the Brooklyn match was a little better as it was the culmination of Bayley's journey. But damn, still a 5 star match. 30 minute iron woman match!!! Great storytelling and psychology within the match. Awesome ending that made sense based on the build. Sasha kept saying "you were only better than me for 3 seconds", and then in the iron woman match she taps out.... with exactly 3 seconds left on the clock. Perfection. Sad to see Sasha go to die on the main roster, but now counting down the days until Bayley shows up on RAW and the next chapter of their feud begins. PS - Sasha gave Izzy (the girl she made cry) her flowers after the show. PPS - fitting send off for Sasha at the end. Got a little dust in my eyes seeing her reaction at the end.
And that "culture that can affect politics" would be the difference in the government coming to take all the guns. That was my point. If we are different in that manner than that difference is a differnce that makes fear of total confiscation nothing more than rhetorical fear tactics Suicide rate wasn't what I was talking about. It was survival of suicide attempt rates. People who survive dont ultimately die from suicide, they get the help they need and recover to live full lives. The most effective by far way to succeed in an attempt is guns. So their deaths are not just to be chalked up as inevitable. It was indeed based off a quote but that misses the larger purpose of the ruling, that there are limits in free speech of they cause a danger or deaths to the general public. And communicating threats is also against the law and not protected by the 1st amendment. My definition and your definition of reasonable will differ.
Oh is it just the constitution? Because I was led to believe it was cultural. Glad we have broken down that facade of the fallacy of uniqueness. 60% are indeed from suicides. But over 90% of suicide attempt survivors go on to get the treatment they need and go on to not ultimately die by suicide. The best way not to survive a suicude attempt? Guns. So your suicide numbers just illustrates how many lives can be saved, not as you imply that their fate was inevitable. The government does actually limit your right to speak freely in matter of general welfare and safety. Communicating threats is illegal. Yelling fire in crowded areas or theaters is illegal, and constitutional. They past such laws after people were falsely yelling fire in crowded areas and 100s of people were killed. Reasonable gun control falls into that same manner of thinking.
BTW I am glad to see there is a common concern for mental health in this country. Since most of mental health, especially serious mental health issues rely on Medicare and/or Medicaid for their treatment and medicines, are we all in agreement that expansions and increased funding for Medicare and/or Medicaid is in order? Which brings me to this thought. If Republicans want to work to help mental health in this country why are GOP legislatures always trying to reduce funding for Medicaid?
New York and New Jersey isn't the same as a federal registry obviously. And the argument that I always hear is that the US is culturally different than Canada, England and Australia. It seems they only get mentioned by gun advovates when it is to use scare tactics of the government coming to take your guns. A registry makes sense. Without it it is impossible to track who is buying the guns that end up in the hands of criminals. Hard truth is that the NRA doesnt care if criminals have guns because it works for them on a few fronts 1 - people who buy the guns for criminal at least are paying customers making the manufacturers happy with the revenue they get from these purchases, and so they give more money to the NRA 2 - it helps them scare the people already paranoid to believe that around every corner there is someone trying to kill them so they better carry their gun around with them at all times 3 - it helps further scare people who are already paranoid that the government is secretly planning to take your guns so they can finally implement their tyrannical rule they have been planning for 50 years now and you wont be able to protect yourself from the criminals with guns, who are getting them from legal purchasers. And people believe that mess. To the point that they put their guns as a priority over 35,000 people dead every single year. They value their guns over lives. Even their own. "From my cold dead hands!!" Merica
This is flat out false. You register your gun because most of the criminals get their guns from people who purchase the guns legally. The #1 supplier of illegal guns comes from US retailers. They are not guns imported from Mexico or anywhere else in the world. So the end result is if you buy a gun for another person, we know who is actually supplying these guns to the criminals. If the gun was obtained because it was stolen, then there would be a police report about it. Without it there is zero controls on criminals getting guns. This is complete common sense and it sad that so many believe it is a trojan horse to come take all your guns.
I don't know if there is data from the old west, but I do know it wasn't like in the movies with everyone carrying their six shooter through town. In most of those western towns like Deadwood, Tombstone, and others you either were not allowed to carry gun in town limits or had to turn them over to police until you left. Everyone needed a gun on the frontier, but once in town limits you either had to put your weapons up, or turn your weapons in at police headquarters and get a check and could retrieve your weapons when leaving the town limits.
I would sign up for this plan and is probably the easiest way to get most guns out of the hands of people who we dont want to have them over a long period of time. It would take a while (probably decades) but what would eventually happen is that guns used by criminals and murderers will eventually be confiscated by the police. As that happens, the number of guns in circulation would start to drop, and the people left with guns would be responsible gun owners. You could still allow gun purchases from second hand shops like pawn shops (in case your existing gun becomes broken or no longer functions you can get a gun for self defense, etc.), but would end the millions of guns per year flooding in at a higher rate than going out. And the Constitution doesnt say anything about the right to manufacture or sell weapons, so it probably wouldn't be unconstitutional. I like it.
I posted something similar to that but that was in regards to 3-D printed guns and Ghost Gunner guns. They are not cheap and you would have to know who is making them, and after equipment and materials it is going to cost a lot of money, and just like any business it would be marked up considerably, and then if like most black market items there is a middle man (a supplier then separate distributor) there will be a double mark up. Also, if demand was really high it would be marked up more. Black market actually functions in same economical way as regular market. By the time it got to the final buyer the cost woukd likely be in the $1,000s. As far as guns with serial numbers filed off, that is going to be a problem. That is why it would be smart to start investing in technology that makes that impossible, or at least more difficult