people lives with guns for a very long time without the types of crimes that have happened in the last few years

Some people spend far too much time focused on the "gun" part of "gun violence" and nowhere near enough time paying attention to the "violence" part of "gun violence." Violence is going to happen with or without firearms. It is violence which needs to be addressed, not the tools with which it is done.

And if you would like to address that, then you need to answer some questions about it.

If you can't answer the questions, then you can't do anything about the violence. You don't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. You cure it by treating the cause. What are the causes of the violence? That's the question which needs to be asked and answered.

I currently live in a state with stupid gun control laws and they want to add more. Whether they get to before everyone has left before they tax everyone out of state is a different question. But if you want to fight me trying to get my rights back, a little peice at a time, just because "but it's still a form of gun control" then to hell with you people, you would be the exact same as the asshats trying to take them away

And the answer is really rather simple. The causes of the violence are socio-economic.

and also the aforementioned drugs

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-05-every-mass-shooting-over-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-it-isnt-guns.html

Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin

repeat.

@LotheronPrime exactly. 204 years of Civilian ownership of firearms with very rare incidents of mass shootings by civilians outside of gang violence during prohibition. So why did we go for over 200 years with exceptionally rare instances of mass shootings by civilians, and then all of a sudden the rate increased to 1 every 300 days in the 1980's, and then after 2012, why did that rate triple to one every 80 Days?

Boy, you guys really stop listening the moment you label it "gun control". How progressive of you.

I don't think that the compromise is necessary. At all.

And I do apologize, Grenade, but I was talking with someone besides you as well as with you. To say that I stopped listening, however, would be incorrect.

If I thought "gun control" would change anything, sure, I'd look at it

but its futile

its not ht eproblem

again, London murders are higher than NY

and they have gun control

so obviously that's not it

The challenge is violence. And the solution to that challenge is to address the causes. The causes are socioeconomic. And I'm including mental health and psychiatric drugs under the category of socio-economic.

But what compromise would YOU be making? I already said let's tweak, or add a provision, that made it optional. Which would mean it would make it something I could sign up, that would make it easier for me to get a gun, and other gin owners, but wouldn't make you have to sign up for it. The only "comprise" would be supporting it to help people who like guns that still live in states with "unconstitutional" laws.

It would be an easier fight, and consolidate all the stuff you usually fight for into one law.

I will say that there has been no establishment of a causal relationship between psychiatric drugs and Firearm violence. There has, however, been a positive correlation noticed. A positive correlation is not necessarily a causal relationship.

It could be explained also by those people having gone off their meds.

Just like a positive correlation between obesity and tv. But it ain't the tv.

We simply don't have sufficient data yet to draw any real conclusions.

And yet not ones looking at it because the drug industry

Well, some of us are looking at it, but I suppose you mean people in government.

yup

or the activists that think that taking away guns is going to solve all the worlds problems

Yes, again, Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. Very bad decision by the Supreme Court. Need a constitutional amendment to overturn that.

Those activists need an education. Most of them don't even know what the fuck they're talkin about half the time they start talking. I mean, what the fuck is "fully semi-automatic"? And that's just one example of many.

30 caliber magazine clip

but those activists are the ones that make the news because they fit the narrative

I wouldn't mind having an AK-47 just for collection purposes. But if I got one, I would insist on it having a 30 round banana "clip" painted red. For authenticity's sake.

Well, the mainstream media is always going to go for the sensationalistic, especially if it fits the narrative they are trying to promote.

yup and with critical thinking a rarity

Well, you know critical thinking hasn't been promoted in school for a long time

It's always "here is what you need to memorize" and not "here is how you find truth in the world"

Yes, one of the things I think is absolutely necessary is that logic should be a required course for high school graduation. I mean what is now university-level logic. A full year. I mean two semesters of course, but yeah. I have said this for over a decade. And as someone with a degree in philosophy, with a focus in logic and the history of ideas, I know what I'm talking about. Logic would help the voter see through the bullshit rhetoric of political candidates, among other benefits.