Bill's banner is emblematic of this country's gun problem:
1. Not all crazy people can be topped, therefore no crazy people can be stopped, therefore gun deaths must be accepted as inevitable.
2. Firearms can't be banned [under current Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as understood by the NRA], therefore gun deaths must be accepted as inevitable.
… thus …
3. Since some gun deaths are inevitable, all gun deaths are inevitable, therefore there is no justification in trying to stop any gun deaths. Because madness / liberty.
4. Gun deaths cannot be the responsibility of gun-available craziness, thus they are caused by … um … secularists and progressives. Because religious fanatics and anti-government conservatives are never involved in gun shootings.
Bill O’Reilly blames rise of ‘nihilism’ and ‘secular-progressive’ attitudes for Virginia journalists’ deaths
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly argued on Thursday that secularism was a contributing factor to the shooting deaths of Alison Parker and Adam Ward, as well as other mass shooting attacks.“Individuals in this country now, I believe, are tending away f
A bit of a typo in point #1. Because topping crazy people has a whole other meaning then the point you are trying to make. 🙂
Since money and guns equal freedom and liberty in this country, yes, gun deaths are inevitable and should be dealt with in a "so it goes" fashion.
Unless the majority of Americans can figure out how to take money (bribery and freedom of speech) out of politics or can figure out how to outspend those that have more money than 90% of the population, then this is the new normal.
The other outcome is that the 1% are able to convince the other 99% that the only solution to the problem is building a soviet style police state (For safety and liberty!), that the foundations of which have been built during the WWI red scare freakout, strengthened during the Cold War, and several floors built since 9/11.
+Stan Pedzick Typo corrected!
This is going to be difficult to correct as long as a significant portion of the country's population cannot distinguish between facts and opinions presented as facts.
I saw an interesting suggestion: Gun owners must have insurance for their guns. Not sure how they suggestor thought it would work but I would suggest.
Every gun is test fired etc (whatever needs to be done technically) and the individual characteristics of the bullets/gun registered, to aid crime detection.
When a gun is transferred the old and new owner have to notify the authorities. If it is stolen you MUST notify the police. The old owner must see proof that the new owner has insurance, or an offer of insurance.
Every gun you own must be insured against misuse.
If a gun registered to you is misused the liability rests with you for insurance purposes., with certain exceptions – ie it has been removed from your control and you have not had reasonable time to notify the authorities. The insurers MUST pay to any victims, no matter whether you were in contravention of their terms and conditions, except in cases of fraud etc. It is up to the insurer to recover the costs of invalid insurance costs from the owner.
Nobody is being denied ownership – as long as you can afford insurance you can have a gun. If the insurers don’t trust you then that isn’t the government denying: there is already that provision anyway for the fact that ex-felons can’t own guns. It is ‘Well regulated’.
No, it won’t stop all the murders, but perhaps it will prevent the 3 year old picking it up as a toy, the person who doesn’t lock away and gets it stolen, those who are an obvious insurance risk. No losing guns because someone sold it at a gun fair with no requirement to notify.
These are designed to kill. That is why a gun is made. It is it’s purpose. If you are not prepared to say ‘This weapon is mine’ then you are not fit to own a gun.