This is the better option. But, if you’re gonna do that, there needs to be some kind of program that allows people to sell their banned vehicle to the government for above market value so they can afford to purchase a comparable, but more suitable vehicle instead. Otherwise, you’re gonna have a bunch of pissed off people with six-figure, three-ton lawn ornaments crying about how they couldn’t have known their vehicle would get banned and it’s now useless.
Close. I believe you’re referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for “heavy duty” trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of “crossover” vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a “truck.”
So, pass a ban that only applies to poor people and let the rich continue to do whatever they want still since they can afford the fine?
Once you subtract suicides, self-defense, justifiable homicides, officer involved shootings, and accidents, what you’re left with is a statistic that indicates 100% of gun violence is caused by less than 1% of gun owners.
Overall, the vast, VAST majority of gun owners in the US are safe and do make good choices.
No, the biggest problem (IMO) is that we enshrine the right to bear arms, but mandate no education about firearms in public school. If we’re going to embrace guns the same way we do cars, we should teach “shooter’s ed” the same way we teach “driver’s ed.”
The second biggest problem is, even though most Americans agree that the root causes of violence need to be addressed (poverty, homelessness, unemployment, mental health, etc.) the sad reality of our political system is that these interests aren’t represented because capitalists have hijacked our government for their own benefit.
I’m a member of the American public. I abide by the rules, make smart choices, and don’t tolerate those who don’t. All my friends are the same way.
Less than 1% of American gun owners commit 100% of gun violence in the US.
Have you ever tried it?
There’s nothing quite so uniquely irritating as someone intensely critical of something they know very little about.
Friendly reminder that medieval peasants only spent 20-30 hours per week working the land.
Unless you called the cops don’t talk to them.
If you have a problem and call the police, now you have two problems.
No, that’s the Democrats. The Republicans are openly complicit.
If you’re unable to comprehend the importance of controlling the populations of invasive species, this conversation can serve no purpose.
There is nothing quite so uniquely irritating as someone who is intensely critical of something they know very little about.
A tire patch kit is less than $10. You could have fixed that in your driveway in a few minutes.
Dear Canada,
Please don’t.
Sincerely,
-Every American
By defend crops do you mean kill things?
Yes. White-tailed deer are invasive, eat crops, and cause many single-car accidents in rural areas where emergency services can take 30-45 minutes to respond, if you have cell service to call them. It’s very desirable to hunt them during mating season to control their population. Wild boar are also invasive, eat crops, and leave giant ruts that damage equipment.
There can be exceptions for specific people to own specific types of guns that would make mass shootings impossible.
There is an unfortunately significant overlap between guns ideal for completely legitimate and responsible purposes and guns ideal for committing horrible atrocities.
Eg. If it is a heavy rifle that takes minutes to reload.
Hunting often involves walking long distances into remote areas. For this reason, hunters often desire the lightest rifle they can find that will get the job done. In fact, one of the reasons the AR-15 was so popular when it was introduced to the civilian market (as a hunting rifle with a 5-round magazine, btw) is because it was two pounds lighter (six pounds instead of eight) than the Ruger Mini 14, which was the most popular hunting rifle at the time.
Also, hunting often involves putting yourself in the same areas bears and other dangerous animals call their home. Not being prey is the first rule of hunting. The type of rifle you’re suggesting would offer significant challenges to a hunter who needed to defend themselves from a wild animal.
Until the root causes and societal factors that contribute to violence are addressed, any ban serves only to disarm and criminalize what is an otherwise perfectly law-abiding citizenry.
My original point was that the entire process becomes streamlined so long as you don’t mind presenting yourself as a conservative.
Well I’m glad you clarified then. For a minute there, I thought your original point was that an FFL was an easy loophole to legal machine gun and suppressor ownership in California. Since the ATF regulates FFLs, how does one “present themself as a conservative” during a presumably remote, paper-driven process?
Gun owners have been giving ample time to come up with a solution but have resist every effort
The lack of legislative action in the US to address gun deaths and gun violence isn’t because gun owners in the US don’t want it, it’s because of the regulatory and legal capture that’s been building in this country over the past half a century or so. Every gun owner I know would like (or at least wouldn’t mind) seeing some sensible measures in place that significantly reduce the number of gun deaths in the US. We also agree that the most effective way to reduce gun deaths and gun violence is to address the root causes and societal factors that contribute to them; poverty, homelessness, drug use, mental health, police training, and so on. If you really want to prevent these deaths, address those first. Most gun owners, in fact, most Americans, agree these things should happen, do advocate for them, and would vote for them, but the sad reality of our political system means these interests aren’t represented.
You feeling punished is immaterial
You’re right, it’s about much more than just me and my feelings; allow me to word my argument more appropriately.
The vast, VAST majority (over 99%) of gun owners in the US exercise their right to bear arms responsibly. Less than one percent of gun owners in the US commit all gun violence on US soil (since shootings on military bases and US embassies abroad contribute to the statistics, I’ll refer to them too).
To restrict the rights of everyone, including everyone who doesn’t exercise that right, and everyone who exercises that right responsibly, because one percent of the people who do exercise that right, abuse it, is not a net benefit to, and should be a very concerning proposition to a free society.
Yeah, pretty sure you’re right. Though I’ll admit I’ve forgotten much more than I know on the topic.
Right, I forgot about passive vs active. Good point.
Close. I believe you’re referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for “heavy duty” trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of “crossover” vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a “truck.”