There still are schools with graduating classes of 9 or less, and back when you graduated there were schools with graduating classes of over 100, its more about location than times when it comes to the size of schools and graduating classes.
The point of this thread is not to compare the USA to Canada but since Allan keeps deviating from the point I think its best to ignore him until he starts getting on track of the point.
Sure, if you've got data to back it up, if you want your argument to be effective.
The point I am trying to make is that there are many more large schools than before. And so a larger percentage of students are in large schools. So the comparison is different. Also 50 years ago campuses were not open like today. The population has doubled in the last 50 years. I don't think any data you have shown justify your first post.
This link shows that mass shootings were much less commonplace 50 years ago and earlier, then they are today.
We've been told repeatedly that the gun ownership rates have been declining.
We kept them in unlocked glass front display cases, or in a closet. As a junior high and high school student my rifle and shotgun were stored on a rack in my bedroom.
Gosh, we've been buying M1 Garands and M1 Carbines since the end of the Second World War.
Many firearm owners now are former soldiers for the extended Gulf War.
The homicide rate for the 2010s decade was the second lowest for a decade in the last 100 years. That's 8 decade of people killing more people at a higher rate than the decade we just left.
Who has stopped fist fights between kids in school?
Yes, and we had a lot fewer laws back then, for whenever "back then" was. The NRA didn't become political until various organizations tried to ban handguns.
Retailers didn't even process background checks until 1992. What were retailers doing to be more responsible?
Do tell.
Name a "common sense" gun law.
I do not believe the data includes all mass shooting for the last 50 years. It has more data for later years and I have tried to explain why.This link shows that mass shootings were much less commonplace 50 years ago and earlier, then they are today.
List of mass shootings in the United States - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
No I cited an article which used Jungian analysis to argue that America is in a state of mass psychosis.
Yes, Carl Jung held racist views which were a reflection of the times in which he lived. Many of the crafters of your county's second constitution owned, bought and sold slaves and thus practiced overt racism because that was a reflection of the times in which they lived. Everything in context. Shall I list the slaveowner crafters or is that just overkill?
As already explained, no it wouldn't. Redraft the constitution a la the crafters of your second constitution did to get around the first constitutions amending formula or have Congress use the Exception Clause of your present constitution. The legal precedents was set by your present-day constitution's creation and ratification.
Gun rights advocates would like everybody to believe that but from a factual and legal perspective these are not impossible actions at all.
You're right. I am just responding to a thread on a debate forum. I am just pointing out one possible answer to the OP's question about rising gun violence rates in America.
RF667799:
No, you are mistaken and I have explicitly stated that the psychosis spans the whole political spectrum. There is psychosis amount the left - Antifa, silencing dissent on university campuses by violence or by threats of violence and rioters burning city blocks. There is psychosis on the right - Charlottesville March, the Big Lie and the Jan. 6th riot/insurrection. There is psychosis from the centre. The crazy is becoming pervasive. No place for unlimited and unregulated firearms laws.
RF667799:
Good to know.
RF667799:
And once again you delve into the theoretically possible vs practically impossible.Exceptions Clause Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Exceptions clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution that grants Congress the power to make exceptions to the constitutionally defined appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This clausedefinitions.uslegal.com
This power is called the Exception Clause and can be found in Art. 3, Subsection. 2, clause 2 of your present-day constitution.
Interesting that the criminal manifestation of such only appears in a tiny fraction of the politicians, and that you recognize it only it the context of the Second Amendment. Surely allowing government to ignore the 4th Amendment would yield positive results for the population as a whole, and likewise with the 4th, 6th and 8th Amendments.
The act of attempting to redraft a new constitution would be unconstitutional in itself, and the participants subject to arrest and prosecution. No such alternate constitution would be legitimate or recognized by enough people to be functional.
Theoretically, no; practically, yes.
True, and well researched it was. I commend you for that.
Absent this "psychosis", or presume it's diminished enough not to be barrier, what laws would you expect Congress to be able to pass? How effective would those laws be?
I suppose it could also be done with a civil war, if the side that wanted to scrap and rewrite the Constitution won.
The Kulp article from the winter 2020 Vol. 43 of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy was written by a Supreme Court clerk named Brian Kulp. He has a vested interest in writing the article as he has. It did not present the full history of the invocation of the Exception Clause by Conngress leaving the impression that this was a rarely-used and monumental option for Congress to invoke. The Exception Clause has been routinely invoked by Congress to help the SCOTUS out when it has been overwhelmed with case backlogs. There was no complaining by jurists then..And once again you delve into the theoretically possible vs practically impossible. ...
Interesting read, and you want to pay attention to Part III.
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
The nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarshipwww.harvard-jlpp.com
No. It applies to many aspects of your constitution and Bill of Rights. But that is outside the purview of this thread. This thread is about gun laws only.
And yet that is exactly what the framers of your second constitution did in 1787. Precedence is be a right bitch, innit.
I disagree that it would be impossible. So we disagree.
The right to keep and bear arms is part of the American legal tradition. What I am advocating for is not extinguishing those rights, I want to see responsibilities be attached to those rights for the common good and for domestic tranquility. This is not the place to detail what needs to be done so I will just say regulation, state-controlled gun registration, phased in right to keep and bear arms by age depending on the comparative danger of weapons and much better training and storage requirements for firearms. Vouching by existing gun-owners for new young gun-owners might be a good idea too during a probationary period. Placing tracking technology into each gun which cannot be tampered with or removed without disabling the gun and tracking infrastructure to detect guns in public places are needed. Ending concealed carry so that only open carry is permitted.
Thank you.
It is true that there are those left, right, and center who advocate for gun rights. It seemed to me that you were saying this advocacy in itself is an indication of psychosis. That advocacy is a political position, which would mean that a political disagreement with your own views, is itself viewed as an indication of psychosis. Labeling one's political opponents as insane has history.
The percentage gun owners hasn't changed. There are more firearms today because there are more people, a lot more people. There was only 2.5 billion people on the planet in 1950, and there are 8 billion people on the planet today.
My father was a WW II vet., and an avid hunter. He kept his firearms in soft gun cases in my bedroom closet.
ROFL! You obviously have no clue whatsoever. The NRA was very anti-Second Amendment and pro-gun control prior to Joe Foss being elected President of the NRA in 1988. It was the NRA who wrote the unconstitutional National Firearms Act of 1934, and the subsequent illegal Federal FIrearms Act of 1938, and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NRA was so anti-Second Amendment that Gun Owners of America formed during the 1970s to counter the NRA.
If Joe Blow down the road murders his family then blows his head off, then that means Joe Blow down the road has problems. An accidental discharge as far as I'm concerned is a negligent discharge. I fired a round off accidentally but it was still negligent on my part. I was alone, not in the house and far from anyone and the only victim was the floor of my car. Lesson learned 42 years ago and not repeated. I'm not Joe Blow down the road nor are most firearm owners. We don't like catching shit for other people.
