Why cant the US try some of the gun control laws that most developed countries have tried

[akbacchus_BC]

and are now working regarding mass shootings?

No one is trying to take away guns from people in the US, but why a person who is not of voter age is able to amass many guns? You do not need to stockpile weapons to be safe!

Here in Canada if you are not a homeowner, you cannot get a gun and it takes about six months to get through profiling and you have to get at least two recommendations from people who know you in order for a person to get considered to get or own a gun. That to me seems like a good idea. If you like in an apartment or a condo, you cannot own a gun in Canada. Is this so hard for America to introduce?

It breaks my heart to see so many killings especially with the recent one in Oregon!

[Armstead]

1. If you're not a homeowner you can't get a gun?

That sounds kind of unfair and discriminatory.

[akbacchus_BC]

2. That is our law in Canada.

[Armstead]

4. Kinda sucks. I know a lot of good people who rent. Including me.

I'm all for gun control but that's very arbitrary.

Not to mention an economic form of discrimination.

[akbacchus_BC]

7. I do not know about you, but for me, I would never want to own a gun.

Owning a gun will never make me safe!

[Fumesucker]

41. So banks can own guns in Canada?

Most "homeowners" don't actually "own" their home, the bank owns it and they pay the bank a monthly rent for a set period to buy it from them. Stop paying the bank and they take back the property that belongs to them.

[SheilaT]

3. Secon amendment, second amendment, second amendment.

At least that's what I'm told here when I suggested simple confiscation would solve the problem.

Apparently, the right to possess a gun far outweighs anyone's right to life.

[yeoman6987]

6. President Obama should say tomorrow that gun owners

Have 30 days to turn in all guns or go to jail. Secretary Clinton, senator sanders and governor O'Malley should be at the press conference in Agreement. Let the chips fall where they land. Most Americans would applaud all 4 of them. It would make everyone here giddy. We need some of that.

[akbacchus_BC]

10. You know that is not going to work. The NRA is very powerful and some states who are

represented by Democrats will not go against their voters.

[goldent]

12. I think the NRA's power is exaggerated because people want a bogeyman

I think in reality politicians fear the people -- gun owners and their supporters. Over the last five or so years I have seen several people who never touched a gun in their lives to buy guns and become very pro-gun. I still don't want one, but I understand their reasoning.

[akbacchus_BC]

14. You have to remember that some Democrats represent states that are pro-gun and

in order to keep their constituent, they vote with republicans when it comes to gun control.

I have no idea how hard it is to at least ensure that one person owns a gun as opposed to one person stockpiling guns. Why would a person need 10 guns?

No one is trying to take away anyone guns, but my goodness, why would someone need ten guns, are they preparing for an internal war?

[goldent]

18. Might be like asking why people need 10 guitars or 8 cats or 4 cars

It's just what people do.

[liberal_at_heart]

15. I disagree. Most Americans want some form of gun control such as background checks and waiting

periods. The NRA actively works to try and get all gun control laws stopped. They don't want any gun control laws at all. They would love for every American to own an arsenal because it would mean they get richer.

[goldent]

21. You are probably right that Americans want gun controls

But I think gun owners are a vocal group with or without the NRA, and there is a perception they always vote, and any group like that frightens politicians. The gun control advocates are nothing like that.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. I agree with that. It's weird. It's like they are the only group other than lobbyists politicians

will listen to. They sure as hell don't listen to the rest of us. Maybe it is because if politicians go against what they want, they are not afraid to vote them out of office. The rest of us seem to be frozen stiff with fear to even think about voting someone of our own party out of office. There may be a lesson there for the rest of us voters.

[akbacchus_BC]

22. I agree with you. Most Americans want some form of gun control but the

NRA is really powerful. How can the American people go against such a powerful organisation that controls politicians who are even Democrats in a red state? Those Dems have to pander to their constituents and we see some Dems voting with Republican on key issues!

[pipoman]

26. The only power the NRA has is our Constitution

A bill....like a federal universal background check bill...goes up to the judiciary committee of house or senate. The NRA points out that passage of this bill can and will be successfully challenged. The judiciary committee does their job and bounces the bill when they have determined that the bill will in fact be overturned. It is that simple.

[liberal_at_heart]

29. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 states there are certain people who cannot own a

firearm. Is that law unconstitutional? And if not, how are we going to keep those individuals from owning a firearm?

[pipoman]

31. what is and isn't possible federally has been pretty well defined....

[liberal_at_heart]

33. I disagree. If they can pass a federal law stating that certain people cannot possess a firearm

and they can pass a federal waiting period then they can pass a federal background check.

[pipoman]

37. You can disagree if you wish....disagreement doesn't change facts

A waiting period has been already determined unconstitutional.

There already is a federal background check requirement. Private sales between residents of the same state were exempted in 1994 and will never be required federally because the federal government has no jurisdiction in intrastate personal property transfers of legal goods....this is referred to as "the commerce clause". A few states can and have enacted private sale bg checks and this is constitutionally possible...at the state level..

[pipoman]

24. ridiculous

There has never been a poll right here on DU in GD which has even come close to approving amending the 2nd....among the US public it results in loss of elections to be in favor of such nonsense..just as silly and impossible as Trump wanting to deport 40 million people...no, sillier....

[Fawke Em]

47. It wouldn't make me giddy to violate the Constitution.

You can't just confiscate guns. It's a violation of Constitutional law, which has said gun ownership is spelled out in the Second Amendment.

That said: I am for gun control and any reasonable person, including more than 80 percent of the NRA's membership, is for. Instant background checks, banning from public use weapons that have no other purpose but to kill people arbitrarily (i.e. not personal protection weapons and hunting rifles) and other stop-gap measures. The Second Amendment does say we can regulate the militia.

We also need more and better access to mental health. Why are these young men snapping and doing this in the first place? What is so horrid in their lives that they feel the need to take others out before committing suicide by cop?

Other countries have both restrictions on weapons and ample access to health care and they don't see these mass shootings like we do.

It's a one-two combo, if you ask me.

[NaturalHigh]

51. That's among the silliest replies I've read on this subject...

and believe me, that's saying something.

[yeoman6987]

52. Gun lovers like yourself that doesn't surprise me

Wouldn't want you to lose the gun under your pillow after all. I'm sure it makes you feel so saaaaaaafe.

[NaturalHigh]

55. Gun under my pillow? Seriously?

Nobody keeps a gun under the pillow.

[yeoman6987]

56. Lol. I was being sarcastic

The problem I have with your reply to me is that you totally took it basically called me dumb because it wasn't what you preferred to happen. Obviously nothing is working so I went extreme.

[TeddyR]

54. Actually

Polls consistently show that "most Americans" don't support your position. Such a monarchical edict also would violate the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and, if someone attempted to enforce, probably the Fourth Amendment. Any federal court assessing such an order would enjoin its enforcement. In fact, that would be such a blatant violation of the Constitution that Republicans would almost assuredly implement impeachment proceedings and perhaps succeed.

[pipoman]

20. LOL...FFS...

"Simple confiscation" ..gawd it burns....

[Fumesucker]

43. No it doesn't or people wouldn't do it so damn much...

[HassleCat]

5. The Second Amendment

Our constitution is very bold in that it extends an extremely dangerous right to almost every citizen. We pretty much guarantee all citizens the unfettered right to own as many ordinary small arms as they want. Originally, we did this so the citizenry could organize itself to fight off the King when he came back to reclaim his colonies. And he did exactly that, reinforcing the idea that we all had to be armed and ready. Of course, armed citizens help chase the Indians off the plains, enforce Jim Crow laws, shoot down some criminals, etc. Some of these things were not things we are proud of today, but they reinforced our love of firearms. Our courts ignore the "well regulated" language and rule that all citizens are part of the unorganized militia, and therefore have an unqualified constitutional right to own firearms without the government even knowing how many and what kind they have, let alone putting any restrictions in the way of getting them.

Personally, I feel the situation is backward. If I were to bestow such a potentially dangerous right on someone, I would give it to you guys up there, where you still seem to have some notion of civic responsibility and duty to your fellow citizens. But those very traits make you hesitant to allow everyone to own guns. Here, we are more self-centered, more individualistic, more fearful of our government and our fellow citizens, so many of us feel we need guns to preserve our freedoms. Perhaps this is because so many of us have so little regard for each other and our freedoms that we cannot conceive of acting in concert to look out for the rights and freedoms of our neighbors. I don't know. I do know the right to keep an bear arms is an extremely liberal freedom, and we are proving ourselves not worthy of it.

[akbacchus_BC]

8. America has a lot of people who feels that owning a gun makes them safe but I disagree with that!

[liberal_at_heart]

9. Those in power keep power by whipping the citizens into a panic driven frenzy.

Fear is a powerful tool, and it works. But in order to get them worked up like that you have to throw them a bone now and then such as letting them own a few guns. What the government fearing militia folks seem to forget is our government has a lot bigger guns now than they did during the Revolutionary War. No matter how many handguns they allow us to have, all they would have to do if they wanted is roll into town with tanks and destroy those who tried to overthrow them. I do want much stronger gun control laws but I don't believe that all gun owners are as crazy as the mass murderers or even the government fearing militia freaks. But then again, most sane, law abiding gun owners are okay with most gun control laws as long as we don't outright ban them.

[akbacchus_BC]

11. That is the problem. the fear mongering, but I still do not understand how

owning a gun makes one safe!

I love looking at Border Security and I also love when some gun totting Americans say they have a right to own guns and then they are being told that you can have them in the US but not in Canada.

My question is, cannot America work with Canada to control who gets access to guns?

[pipoman]

17. No, the 2nd...in fact the entire constitution was written by people

Who understood the actual meaning of "risk". 30,000 minus the number of these suicides and murders which would occur in the impossible absence of guns equals a number which nobody wants to apply to every tool or activity used for suicide or murder.

[pipoman]

13. Because not enough states or voters wish to amend our Constitution....simple

And most US Americans don't believe in withholding rights based on economic status....

[akbacchus_BC]

16. I do no understand, is the US Constitution based on a gun mentality or an

economy uplifting mentality?

We have just seen how the Republicans want to down grade women's right to basic medical procedure and want to defund PP, that is so much waste of time and money.

[pipoman]

19. The US constitition is enumeration of individual rights and limitation on government.period.

[akbacchus_BC]

25. I think you have to explain what you mean!

You have totally lost me on this .. The US constitition is enumeration of individual rights and limitation on government.period.

[pipoman]

27. I don't know how to be more clear.

[akbacchus_BC]

30. Ok, am sorry if I challenged you. You are not the law maker

in the US but I still feel that if you all collectively fight against the status quo about guns and who owns them, it will make a huge difference to these mass killings in the US.

I do not know which American is not at a loss when someone who should not own a gun goes on a killing spree is not grossed out.

My prayers are with the family of the victims but I want to see change too in gun laws.

Thanks for messaging me.

[pipoman]

34. There is a process for amending the constitution

Just no chance of meeting the criteria in anyone's lifetime... there is no will to change it....38 states are needed and I don't believe more than 3 would even be close...

[TeddyR]

53. The Constitution

More specifically the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment, guarantee certain personal freedoms and imposes limits on what the United States government can and cannot do. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech. Similarly, the Second Amendment provides that the right to "keep and bears arms" "shall not be infringed" by the government. According to the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a firearm, subject to certain restrictions (which have not been fully delineated).

[Recursion]

28. Because they're largely the same laws that don't work in other large unequal countries

We could pass laws that make our gun regime roughly like both Germany and Brazil.

We have a population much more like Brazil (large, heterogenous, unequal economically) and I suggest we'd have outcomes closer to Brazil (which btw currently has a much higher rate of gun violence than us).

We always compare ourselves to OECD countries but none of the rest of them have a population remotely like ours; were much closer to a BRIC.

[akbacchus_BC]

32. The law works when it comes to gun control, but the US

is different and you are defending the gun control laws. Why are you comparing the US to Brazil? The US is a world leader and a developed Country, Brazil is not, so there is no comparison. Deaths in third world countries in not pleasant. The US needs to lead by example, the world looks up to the US!

[Recursion]

35. Because we're much more like Brazil than Germany

A large, colonial country with a history of racism and inequality.

Brazil is hardly "third world"; that's the point of the BRIC rubric. And they have strict gun laws and high gun violence.

[akbacchus_BC]

36. The US is working on the racism and inequality and you

and other Americans have to try to overcome that barrier. It is not easy but there is hope. We cannot live in the past!

[Recursion]

38. The past is not gone. It's not even past.

Our violence is a direct outcome of our history.

[akbacchus_BC]

39. You are so right! How can we as a people try to move forward?

Everyday, I try my best to do something positive towards people on my way to work but I have to tell you, it is not always easy!

We all have our stories but here is not the place to say it.

I really thank you for your response.

[F4lconF16]

40. It comes down to money.

As it always does. The gun manufacturers and retailers make huge money off of the sale of their weaponry. This causes them to do all sorts of things, like creating an extremely well-funded lobby to pressure Congress and incite violence and rightward political shifts among its many followers to and encouraging outright racism in the hopes of stoking fear and paranoia, both of which increase sales. By this point, the archaic form of the US Constitution has now allowed a small group of immensely powerful lobbyists and others to gain almost complete control over a large number of politicians, each of whom are unfortunately either bought and sold or simply cowards.

Though there is something to be said about our particular gun fetish and the quasi-religious nature of our attachment to them, I believe it's almost entirely because of the money involved. If there wasn't, there would be no interest in devoting the resources that are currently being spent on this. Gun fears might be stoked, but as a useful tool for encouraging racism and right-wing reactionary politics. The focus would not be on the gun, but on the desired reaction. As it is, though, the focus is all about owning a gun as a way for the owner to gain control, power, or status. Go look up some American gun advertisements sometime. The non-hunting ones illustrate this perfectly.

In the meantime, nothing will happen because we've let our system get completely fucked as usual, and nobody is standing up about it, like usual. We Americans are good at ignoring blatantly obvious problems in front of us.

Ain't American capitalism grand?

[Fumesucker]

42. In the US the pro gun control faction is wider but shallow, people won't go to the barricades for it

On the other hand the pro gun contingent is narrower but a lot deeper, a large number of pro gunners will vote based on nothing but guns.

The US has mass shootings on a nearly daily basis now, it's part of the background noise like car crashes. People are against car crashes too but they don't choose a candidate based only on their position on highway safety.

[DanTex]

44. Because of the NRA. And congressmen like Bernie Sanders.

It's not a big mystery. Every other advanced country has figured out how to deal with guns. We're the only ones that haven't. Like Obama said, it's a collective choice we make.

[Fawke Em]

48. Just had to get in a dig.

Sanders has a D- from the NRA. He's for instant background checks and the banning of certain weapons. If you wanted to bring politics into the discussion, any fool knows that the entire GOP delegation has blocked gun control more than anyone on the left, but you had to bring in SENATOR Sanders.

The odd thing is: you can't seem to see that your candidate of choice has far more ties to the death industry through her connections to corporate America and her war-hawkish positions. If you're really interested in protecting people, maybe you should ditch her in favor of someone who isn't constantly espousing killing people.

[DanTex]

49. The D- is meaningless. He voted against the Brady Bill, and for the immunity bill, which was the

NRA's top legislative priority.

Yes, the entire GOP delegation has blocked gun control, and there are more of them then Bernie. Of course, the entire GOP also voted for the IWR, but somehow I keep hearing that it's all Hillary's fault. Strange.

[Sunlei]

45. a start would be like cars, require insurance on more than 3 guns & registration fee, like /w cars.

And a HIGH federal tax on ammo, to help with the high costs to clean up all the tragedies caused by guns.

[LWolf]

46. It's a simple answer, really.

Because we must have a "uniquely" American solution...which means a solution that benefits someone other than the 99%.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Because, despite all the bluster, America is chickenshit when it comes to guns.

[ladjf]

57. Because our political system is FOBAR. nt