Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

Our FBI sets the number at 3 (or maybe it's 4).

The Hunt family murders was 5.

Pro gun control sites count a car backfire near a school as a school shooting. I kid you not.

 

You misinterpret my posts; I have not taken a position on anything in this thread one way or the other. I am neither in favor of nor in opposition to gun control. I just like to discuss the topic on both sides. It's too complex of an issue for me to think that I can realistically encompass all facets of the debate and formulate a complete position without extensive research for which I simply don't have the time or the inclination.

 

So in first example the man killed a hostage and the police killed him and a different hostage.

In the 2nd example the man killed his entire family.

And since we're using wikipedia...



A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearms-related violence.[1] The United States' Congressional Research Service acknowledges that there is not a broadly accepted definition, and defines a "public mass shooting"[2] as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed or injured, echoing the FBI definition[3][4] of the term "mass murder". However, according to the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law on Jan 2013, a mass shooting is defined as a shooting resulting in at least 3 victims, excluding the perpetrator.[5][6][7][8][9] Another unofficial definition of a mass shooting is an event involving the shooting (not necessarily resulting in death) of five or more people (sometimes four)[10] with no cooling-off period.[11] Related terms include school shooting and massacre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting

 

If I were to suggest an amendment, it would be a clarification of the language of the 2nd. One of the biggest issues with the right to bear arms, in my mind, is with people's understanding of its purpose.

• Some believe it was intended that the US have no standing army, but that regular citizens would take up arms in defense of the nation if/when necessary, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments to that end.
  • If this is the case, then the fact of the US having a standing army means that the second amendment is no longer valid, because the intended purpose is no longer necessary.
• Others believe that it was understood that the US would have a standing army, and as such it was essential that the populace be able to possess armaments in order to potentially protect themselves from a corrupt and overreaching government
  • If this is the case, then the size and might of the US government demonstrates that the second amendment is absolutely necessary

In my mind, it is incredibly difficult for various sides of the gun debate to actually communicate because they interpret essential elements of the debate in completely different ways.

 

If it wouldn't significantly impede the ability of Mexican cartels to bring large volumes of firearms into the country, then it would indicate that it is completely useless. So I'm asking the question based on the premise that the wall would actually serve its intended purpose. If you don't believe it would, then that answers the question completely, which I appreciate.

 

There are no mass shootings in Australia because we want to redefine what a mass shooting is, and mass shooting of certain people don't count.

Obviously no guns were used and nobody was killed!

How about paying attention to facts?

 

Would you prefer if they used the term "public mass shooting"--which really is what American anti-gun advocates are (pardon the pun) up in arms about?

 

Australia uses the metric system so there is no way to accurately compare shootings. Then factor in that Australia has fewer people than the United States and the deaths by gun per capita is probably about a million to one.

 

People always had guns in this country and the federal government never saw fit to claim ownership is not a Natural Right. Natural Right being one you are born with, under Natural Law.

The US had a standing army early on. Nobody, for a century+, suggested the 2nd could somehow be interpreted to deny this right.

The US had big cities since the 1700s, so it's not a new thing to have guns and cities together.

The words "shall not be infringed" have specific legal meaning. No matter what clause precedes it, "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means no matter what, the right shall not be restricted. Those words are extra syntax to make the intent as clear as can be. Words that aren't even used regarding the 1st amendment, for example.