Supreme Court Guns
Tom King, President Tom King, president of the plaintiff New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, speaks in his office, in East Greenbush, N.Y., on Thursday. Photo: AP/Michael Hill
world

U.S. Supreme Court expands gun rights, with nation divided

66 Comments
By JESSICA GRESKO

In a major expansion of gun rights after a series of mass shootings, the Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, a ruling likely to lead to more people legally armed. The decision came out as Congress and states debate gun-control legislation.

About one-quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling, which struck down a New York gun law. The high court's first major gun decision in more than a decade split the court 6-3, with the court's conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.

Across the street from the court, lawmakers at the Capitol sped toward passage of gun legislation prompted by recent massacres in Texas,New York and California. Senators cleared the way for the measure, modest in scope but still the most far-reaching in decades.

Also Thursday, underscoring the nation's deep divisions over the issue, the sister of a 9-year-old girl killed in the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, pleaded with state lawmakers to pass gun legislation. The Republican-controlled legislature has stripped away gun restrictions over the past decade.

President Joe Biden said in a statement he was “deeply disappointed” by the Supreme Court ruling. It "contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” he said.

He urged states to pass new laws. “I call on Americans across the country to make their voices heard on gun safety. Lives are on the line,” he said.

The decision struck down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry a gun in a concealed way in public. The justices said that requirement violates the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” That right is not a “second-class right," Thomas wrote. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have laws similar to New York's. Those laws are expected to be quickly challenged.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, D-N.Y., said the ruling came at a particularly painful time, with New York mourning the deaths of 10 people in a shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo. “This decision isn’t just reckless. It’s reprehensible. It’s not what New Yorkers want,” she said.

Gun control groups called the decision a significant setback. Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on the Second Amendment, wrote on Twitter that the decision could be the “biggest expansion of gun rights” by the Supreme Court in U.S. history.

Republican lawmakers were among those cheering the decision. Tom King, president of the plaintiff New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, said he was relieved.

“The lawful and legal gun owner of New York State is no longer going to be persecuted by laws that have nothing to do with the safety of the people and will do nothing to make the people safer," he said. “And maybe now we’ll start going after criminals and perpetrators of these heinous acts.”

The court’s decision is somewhat out of step with public opinion. About half of the voters in the 2020 presidential election said gun laws in the U.S. should be made more strict, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of the electorate. An additional one-third said laws should be kept as they are, while only about 1 in 10 said gun laws should be less strict.

About 8 in 10 Democratic voters said gun laws should be made more strict, VoteCast showed. Among Republican voters, roughly half said laws should be kept as they are, while the remaining half closely divided between more and less strict.

In a dissent joined by his liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer focused on the toll from gun violence.

Since the beginning of this year, “there have already been 277 reported mass shootings — an average of more than one per day," Breyer wrote. He accused his colleagues in the majority of acting “without considering the potentially deadly consequences" of their decision. He said the ruling would “severely” burden states' efforts to pass laws “that limit, in various ways, who may purchase, carry, or use firearms of different kinds.”

Several other conservative justices who joined Thomas’ majority opinion also wrote separately to add their views.

Justice Samuel Alito criticized Breyer’s dissent, questioning the relevance of his discussion of mass shootings and other gun death statistics. Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun" and nothing "about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”

“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”

Backers of New York’s law had argued that striking it down would lead to more guns on the streets and higher rates of violent crime. Gun violence, on the rise during the coronavirus pandemic, has spiked anew. Gun purchases have also risen.

In most of the country gun owners have little difficulty legally carrying their weapons in public. But that had been harder to do in New York and the handful of states with similar laws. New York’s law, in place since 1913, says that to carry a concealed handgun in public, a person applying for a license has to show “proper cause,” a specific need to carry the weapon.

The state had issued unrestricted licenses where a person could carry a gun anywhere and restricted licenses allowing a person to carry the weapon but just for specific purposes such as hunting and target shooting or to and from their place of business.

The challenge to the New York law was brought by the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which describes itself as the nation’s oldest firearms advocacy organization, and two men seeking an unrestricted ability to carry guns outside their homes.

The Supreme Court last issued a major gun decision in 2010. In that decision and a ruling from 2008 the justices established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense. The question for the court this time was just about carrying a gun outside the home. Thomas, who turned 74 on Thursday, wrote in his opinion that: “Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.”

Associated Press reporters Mark Sherman, Hannah Fingerhut and Zeke Miller in Washington and Michael Hill in East Greenbush, New York, contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


66 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

In America, guns have more rights than people.

31 ( +36 / -5 )

“We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

Clarence, name for me another constitutional right that one can exercise outside the home that can directly result in the death of another person.

Thomas proves yet again that he was unfit for the bench when he was appointed and remains so today.

12 ( +17 / -5 )

Sounds OK to me, so long as nobody gets angry, triggered, disenfranchised, mentally ill, jealous, starving, homeless, depressed, vengeful, fired, resentful, bitter, anxious, offended, irritated, extorted, defrauded, cheated, taunted, and more - you know, like being alive.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

The decision is just a reflection of the gun culture of the US, you can kill their children before you can take their guns.

21 ( +24 / -3 )

The “conservatives” are all about states rights (to regulate guns within their own jurisdiction in this case) until they are not. Then suddenly they need to step in.

A woman’s right to control her body is a state issue, but going full-Rambo for a quart of milk at the corner store - THAT’S something they need to speak out on.

I remember a time, when crime rates were higher, when the idea of civilians walking around packing a gun just because was widely thought of as insane.

My father, an expert rifleman in the USMC, a licensed gun dealer, guns smith (and trial attorney) who taught me to shoot starting around age 6 thought the idea of people carrying around guns “just because” to be the height of judicial idiocy.

Scalia’s mini-me can dress this up in constitutional language all he wants, this is a stupid ruling that will result in more gun violence, more suffering, more Americans being denied their lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Couldn’t be happier! A huge win! Couldn’t be happier.

-23 ( +6 / -29 )

I blame the shift in ethos and morality for these mass shootings. I mean, Americans have always had guns. This nothing new. In the Wild West, people would call you out for duel. Nowadays, people open fire on unarmed children without warning. Nothing could be more cowardly than that. But that’s what happens when the government promotes the opposite of taking personal responsibility. Because when that’s gone, you have no honor. And that’s what it takes to open fire unexpectedly on unarmed people. No honor. And when there’s no honor there’s cowardice. And when the government and schools and all the institutions promote victimhood, “lived experiences” and “your truth” and participation trophies, and that your feelings are more important than objective reality, you breed cowardice and mass shootings. Americans had tons of guns during the pioneer days, no mass shootings.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

This is why I love America.

All the gun lovers from all around the world who are oppressed by the strict gun laws in their own nations (which have done nothing to stop the proliferation of illegal firearms) aspire to the great American ideal of freedom and justice for all.

-17 ( +4 / -21 )

Madness. Making an already incredibly dangerous place even more dangerous and unliveable.

Youd be mad to willingly visit or work in the US.

13 ( +18 / -5 )

All the gun lovers from all around the world who are oppressed by the strict gun laws in their own nations (which have done nothing to stop the proliferation of illegal firearms) aspire to the great American ideal of freedom and justice for all.

No.

We actually love our children.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

We actually love our children.

So do we and every law-abiding gun owner.

-21 ( +2 / -23 )

We actually love our children

Me too. If I were an American my kid would have learned to shoot before he learned to walk or talk.

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

When a country is ruled by the minority, it is no longer a Democracy. Sad day for America.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

We actually love our children.

I agree. It does seem like America hates it’s children.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

What kind of crappy country makes people

so afraid they feel they need to carry firearms? What an awful situation.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

When a country is ruled by the minority, it is no longer a Democracy. Sad day for America.

It’s also not a democracy when you say, hey, come follow us, do as we do, and believe as we believe. And if you don’t, I’ll call you undemocratic.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

America always takes money over the will of the people

11 ( +12 / -1 )

So any jurisdiction that has a 'may issue' statute - in that local law enforcement can apply more rigorous vetting - becomes 'shall issue.' And I thought republicans were pushing for expanded background checks.

Now anybody can stick a loaded handgun down their waistband and walk into pretty much any building they like, totally legally. Sounds...insane.

That's what happens when you base public safety laws on a poorly written, ambiguous, anachronistic statement from 250 years ago.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

What kind of crappy country makes people

so afraid they feel they need to carry firearms? What an awful situation.

Crappy country? More name calling (as if our feelings is hurt by that) Anyway, it has nothing to do with being afraid and everything to do with my 2nd amendment rights and the SC realized this. So if foreigners hate my country or think it’s crappy because the SC upheld that right…oh, well…

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

Welcome to Wild West MAGA-America - where any insult can be responded to with a five round burst from your Glock...

Absolute and utter craziness...

12 ( +16 / -4 )

That's what happens when you base public safety laws on a poorly written, ambiguous, anachronistic statement from 250 years ago.

That constitution is the best plan for government laid out to date in all the history of humankind. It doesn’t go unnoticed to me that many people on the left, Europeans, and people with anti-American sentiments in general salivate at the idea of getting rid of the constitution of the United States. After all, that would be the end of America.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Because when that’s gone, you have no honor. And that’s what it takes to open fire unexpectedly on unarmed people. No honor. And when there’s no honor there’s cowardice.

Right... No one ever shot the unarmed and children in the Wild West .

This historical ignorance and romanticization is a big part of the problem with the 2nd Amendment and American gun culture.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

That constitution is the best plan for government laid out to date in all the history of humankind

I was talking about the Second Amendment specifically.

And didn't you just have an attempted coup? Yeah, everything is just hunky dory in America. See you in two weeks when another 20 kids are slaughtered in their classroom.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Welcome to Wild West MAGA-America - where any insult can be responded to with a five round burst from your Glock...

As responsible gun law-abiding citizen, if someone wants to harm my family, my property, I have the right to defend them

Absolute and utter craziness...

That’s quite ok if you think so.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Well look at that, the Constitution makes a rare appearance.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

And didn't you just have an attempted coup? 

Yeah. And Americans on both side were equally appalled. But it really wasn’t a coup in the sense that you want me to believe right before an election cycle. It was more like a mob of idiots high on adrenaline and propaganda.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

It's like they're being wilfully blind to the series of mass shootings that have happened in the States over the last few months. The average citizen does not need to walk around armed; that's why you have law enforcement - to protect you. This ruling is a blatant f-you to all the current and future victims of school shootings. The Supreme Court has declared with this ruling that children's lives don't matter. It's appalling and they should be ashamed of them themselves.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

That constitution is the best plan for government laid out to date in all the history of humankind.

With the notable exception of the 2nd Amendment in the considered opinion of several constitutional scholars including Warren Burger (appointed by Nixion) who said quote,

“The gun lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

This is a self-contradicting confusing piece of legalese that has been hijacked by lunatics (and I say that as a 40 year gun owner) to endanger Americans in public places in the name of “Freedumb!”

And Alito can take his righteous indignation and pound sand. He is in the majority at the moment: History will judge him rather differently than he’d like to imagine.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

This is a self-contradicting confusing piece of legalese that has been hijacked by lunatics (and I say that as a 40 year gun owner) to endanger Americans in public places in the name of “Freedumb!”

Ok….

And Alito can take his righteous indignation and pound sand. He is in the majority at the moment: History will judge him rather differently than he’d like to imagine.

I see, well…anyway, it’s a great day that the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution, time to crack open a bottle.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

The average citizen does not need to walk around armed; that's why you have law enforcement - to protect you. 

That’s not exactly true. After the defund the police movement and the vilification of law enforcement which caused cops to exit the field in waves, 911 operators and police departments are underfunded and understaffed. Not to mention the low morale amongst cops which resulted from the public’s poor treatment of them; many cops literally just sit in their cars. You couldn’t arrest them anyway. Democrats are erasing the requirement to post bail and letting hardened criminals back in the streets within hours. It’s literally safer to pack and protect yourself. Now I agree. That’s a sad state of affairs to have to live in. But that’s the truth. Too bad the real culprits will most likely never face justice. Only re-election.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Nothing to do with the second Amendment and you should be educated àbout incidents like Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears.

Already know. Your arguments are just red herrings.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Shall not be infringed.

pretty clear.

They even used “shall” to remove any doubt people could create from “should” not.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

So of course the governor of New York immediately starts rambling about “muskets” again.

you know the one that has armed guards all around her for her protection.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

So if foreigners hate my country or think it’s crappy because the SC upheld that right…oh, well…

How many countries have constitutions?

Spoiler; almost all of them.

How many are entirely broken because of a hundreds of year old constitutional amendment that most of its citizens disagree with?

Just yours.

Gun owners are the tyranny. The great majority of US citizens don’t have a gun.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

And the article disingenuously uses the word "expands" in the rhetoric. Nothing was expanded. The correct term is DEFENDED, because the decision DEFENDS the well-established Constitutional RIGHT delineated in the Second Amendment (an integral component of the Bill of RIGHTS), which includes SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Welcome to Wild West MAGA-America - where any insult can be responded to with a five round burst from your Glock...

As responsible gun law-abiding citizen, if someone wants to harm my family, my property, I have the right to defend them

Indeed, and you don't need an assault rifle to do that...take my word for it, I carried one for 27 years...

More over-the-top "keep them scared" tactics from the gun nutters - who only own firearms to compensate for their insecurity and sense of helplessness...

Guns give them their only sense of power...

Absolute and utter craziness...

That’s quite ok if you think so.

A majority of Americans think so too - why else did McConnell and Cronyn cave and agree to the the new gun control bill - supported by 14 Repubs...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Oh dear, it just gets worse

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

In a major expansion of gun rights after a series of mass shootings, the Supreme Court said Thursday that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, a ruling likely to lead to more people legally armed. 

Thankfully the highest legal authority makes some sense of a basic right, which leftist extremists have been trying to take away as part of their continued tyrannical goal of depriving citizens of their basic rights.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

How many countries have constitutions? 

Who knows, who cares? None have a 2nd amendment. We are talking about the US.

Gun owners are the tyranny.

No, we are the solution.

The great majority of US citizens don’t have a gun.

But support the 2nd amendment.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

And this is what the destruction of a first-world, democratic American looks like - in real-time....

An attempted coup to overthrow a free and fair election - to subvert the will of the majority through a criminal scheme to use PHONY electors to remain on power...like some third-world dictator...

A violent attack on the center of our democracy on Jan 6th...incited by this same autocrat using a faux "fraud" narrative he knew was untrue...

"Be afraid" - "Guns for everyone" - with no vetting or checks...solve that parking dispute the best way - with your Glock...

Sound familiar? Yes, the Repubs want to make American more like Afghanistan...or the country closest to their heart - Russia...

1 ( +5 / -4 )

A majority of Americans think so too

In Blue states, I’m sure. They also have the money to hire people to defend them. More lib hypocrisy.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

This may not be as bad as it seems at first glance. The SC decision may make concealed carry permissible, only to those who already have pistol permits, which are issued after considerable background checks including the FBI criminal fingerprint database. This does not add more privately owned handguns to the NYS population. The current pistiol permits are limited to hunting and target shooting. Concealed carry is prohibited without showing need, which is what the SC has struck down.

Of course if one believes that people should not own any guns, or that people should not be allowed to legally carry guns concealed, then yes it's bad. But if you believe that having people armed, in today's dangerous environment of frequent criminal gun shootings, who could stop such crimes, then it would be a good thing.

My concern is that if the law is going to allow public concealed carry, it must be made mandatory for premit holders to receive mandatory training for carry among the public. The circumstances are entirely different from hunting or a shooting range.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bob FosseToday  09:24 am JST

How many countries have constitutions? 

Spoiler; almost all of them.

Really? Can you be more specific?

Because the UK for example, does not have a codified, written constitution.

Australia's constitution does not have a Bill of Rights.

A broad, overgeneralized, knee-jerk emotional statement.

Kind of like saying, How many countries have a military?

When of course, none of them come even close to the quality, level, and power of the US'.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

They also have the money to hire people to defend them. More lib hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy like the NRA banning guns from their little freakshow in Houston?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Very CLEAR wording: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

THAT'S the Law of the Land.

Yet it is infringed all the time. Certain firearm restrictions and prohibitions for children, felons, drug users, domestic abusers, the mentally ill. Or would you prefer all those people have unlimited access to firearms?

Gun-free zones, training and licensing requirements, capacity limits...

2 ( +4 / -2 )

That's what you get when rightwing rednecks and religious nuts get control of the "supreme " court!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Until there is an amendment to the US Constitution, we will have problems controlling firearms in the USA.

Repeal the 2nd and put in place a compromise that has firearms locked up in gun clubs, checked out for specific events, licenses with training to use any firearm, and slowly phase out conceal carry laws.

Have exceptions for people who live in and on the edge of wilderness, provided they have firearm safety insurance, a cement gun safe and trigger locks. The exception requires the firearms to remain outside populated areas.

And go after any crime committed that has a firearm anywhere nearby. Melt them down and pay the price/lb of the scrap metal.

Sportsmen aren't shooting 50 rounds into a deer. They use 1 or 2 shots, so there is little need for a sportsman to have rifles with more than 5 rounds. Same for shotguns.

I'm certain there are other valid uses for firearms that someone can point out. But it shouldn't get higher priority in law than driving a vehicle on public roads or have fewer training and license requirements for the privilege of owning and firing a firearm.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The 2nd amendment is very short. It says:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It was proposed by James Madison to give the states the same power as the federal government.

The question I always have that no one will answer is, “What well-regulated Militia do you belong to?”

2 ( +3 / -1 )

At this point, Republicans look like cartoon villains. I mean, to be so blatantly pro-gun and anti-children...You just can't make this stuff up.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

And this is what the destruction of a first-world, democratic American looks like - in real-time....

Democrat authoritative rule, coming to an end very soon

An attempted coup to overthrow a free and fair election

According to the left, but fail and unwilling to acknowledge the attempted takedown of a former duly elected President via the weaponization of our FBI, fascism in its purest form

Sound familiar? Yes, the Repubs want to make American more like Afghanistan...

Democrats and liberals are the last people that should utter Afghanistan, just the optics from their past look atrocious.

.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

The second amendment was passed long before there were automatic weapons and mass shootings. At some point an ancient document must be reviewed and amended if it no longer has any application or relevancy to modern life.

If Americans cannot simply look at the here and now and craft legislation that makes sense today to protect their citizens from gun violence today, then they are as daft as any of the theocracies that exist that are trying to make their citizens live by an ancient set of theological rules that cannot be directly attributed to God, but can be directly attributed to fallible men trying to speak for God. 

America is becoming quite a joke.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Democrats and liberals are the last people that should utter Afghanistan, just the optics from their past look atrocious.

Yes the neo con George Bush who got the US into Afghanistan was atrocious.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The United States = a nation divided.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Good news. Hunt down and jail the criminals, leave the citizens alone. Bloomberg wants to turn all New Yorkers into Palestinians.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

I think the left is just angry because this is an issue where they just absolutely no control over and that just infuriates them.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

If you live in the USA do you feel safe without carrying a gun or having one on the bedside table ?

How do you defend without one.

Don't expect the police to be able to defend everyone.

Police usually only arrive after a crime.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

GUNS FOR EVERYBODY!! Just another symptom of America's increasing insanity and impending disintegration... and that rag, The U.S. Constitution, is seriously in need of an upgrade from 18th Century mentality. And what were all afterthoughts, the most important parts, the Amendments, need to be included in the body. The Supreme Court needs to be TOTALLY divorced from political influence and religious idiocy and Congressional 'lobbying' defined as a clear form of TREASON against the People. Another nice touch would be, while maintaining stock Corporations who can sell stock to the public and buy back stock, making 'trading stocks' an offense punishable by fine AND forfeiture of the stock to the People. And, for the benefit of stockholders, a LIMITING ratio of lowest to highest paid workers (from part-timers to CEOs and board members) should be established and equivalent 'bonuses', when awarded, awarded to all (1:20?; 1:30?). And the Corporate Tax Form should be the 1040AEZ and, since Corporations are now 'People', equivalent graded tax rates for all. These are very modest proposals really...

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Here comes the Wild, Wild West! Yippee-Kai-yeaaaaa!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Well, since the police won't be able to distinguish good guys with guns from bad guys with guns, they'll take care of the problem by shooting or locking up everyone with guns.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If US citizens didn't purchase fire arms or feel the need to do so, The NRA would not exist.

The US Gun industry provides a cultural need for firearms ownership. In the billions

That is where gun control advocates will need to focus.

How can one step over the quote from my cold dead fingers, so often used by gun rights lobbyists

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You heard it here, folks. You have a constitutional right to carry guns in public places. Public places like, say, the public sidewalks in front of Supreme Court justices' homes.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Here comes the Wild, Wild West! Yippee-Kai-yeaaaaa!

love those movies

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Can’t believe people are so stupid on here. 1 ban on guns would just take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, yet the criminals and nut jobs would still have all the guns they could ever want .

2 There is like 20 guns for every person in America, a little exaggeration but not much. How could you possibly get rid of all the guns?

3 better option that would actually work would provide the same kind of security for places like schools , churches, public places, that movie stars, and politicians get.

4 convict and send criminals that try to buy guns to Federal Prison.

5 spend money and provide mental health care/ counselors at schools to catch the crazies before they shoot up a school.

6 better security. Nobody should be able to walk into a school and start blasting away. Undercover retired police officers seem like a good idea.

ban on guns will never work. The above 6 things would result in real change

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

They are wonderful westerns, movies for escapist entertainment

The Unforgiven, The Wild Bunch (uncut), Django Unchained plus The Hateful Eight Bone Tomahawk, 3:10 to Yuma.

All were never produced to be reenacted up and down and across American.

Breaking Bad, The Sopranos.

Does society become accustomed to violent gun crime?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That’s not exactly true. After the defund the police movement and the vilification of law enforcement which caused cops to exit the field in waves, 911 operators and police departments are underfunded and understaffed. Not to mention the low morale amongst cops which resulted from the public’s poor treatment of them; many cops literally just sit in their cars. You couldn’t arrest them anyway.

Then the solution should be to reform the law enforcement system and funnel funds into proper training. Arming citizens who are not trained to handle firearms is a cause for more trouble and disaster, and allows people to go around shooting innocent bystanders like for example, at schools. Other countries function just fine with unarmed citizens. Certain law enforcement officers in some countries like the UK don't even carry and they get things sussed out just fine.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sure, American gun nuts love their own children. They just don’t care about anybody else’s.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites