redballooon

Introducing regulations usually doesn’t mean complete and utter ban.

First of all, gun laws have been more or less the same for the past 100 years in the U.S., so how can they be the cause of the recent rise in mass shootings? Simple answer: they’re not.

So guns changed over the past 100 years, but the laws did not adjust. Sounds like a bad idea. How can a new technology a cause for a new problem? Did that ever happen???/s

Semi-automatic rifles were not overly widespread before the 1990, and when they became, in 1994 there was a time-limited ban for semi-automatic firearms, which then expired in 2004. And what are the major concerns for mass shootings in recent years? It is semi-automatic firearms.

If they were serious about curbing gun violence, their focus wouldn’t be on mass shootings so much as smaller-scale gun crime.

Why do you think they want to ban all guns? But when you've a gun proponents such as in the US you gotta get real about what you can achieve. So it is not hypocrisy to focus on assault weaponry.

That hobby thing can be said about many forbidden things, for example smoking cannabis.

"Just ban guns" is the slogan for demonstrations. Any politician who is elected for doing that will obviously need to have a better plan. Usually such plans don't fit on a poster.

Civilian disarmamends happened in various countries, i.e. Australia in 1996/97, UK after the Dunblane school massacre in 1996, Japan post WW2, South Africa in 2000, Colombia in 2000 and 2016, New Zealand after Christchurch.

Strategies and success vary, but it's not unheard of.

Many liberals have terrible views about gun violence in general IMO, and a serious lack of comprehension of the problem.

Could you elaborate that a bit?

What country is that?

Maybe Egregore?

And this is the normal thing how it works Just not online because what’s said there doesn’t fade away. It just keeps up standing there regardless if the author since then changed their mind.

Does not stand to scrutiny. I counted and only 3 out of 13 are like that. And only two of those would post online.

I suppose the positions you are describing are not reached by reasoning, rather by being part of a group, religion or ideology. In those cases it’s quite clear that they can’t give up the position unless they weaken their ties to that group/religion/ideology, or abandon it entirely.

Some times in their life people are open to big changes, but most of the time not.

I have my phone unlock when it sees my face.

There’s Siri.

And GPT-4 is a good way to double check some suspicions how historical events may be connected, and when I’m looking for a name. And other things too.

Close enough