Comments by "Deborah Freedman" (@deborahfreedman333) on "What other countries do differently than the US to stop mass shootings" video.

  1. Both problems are due to bad decisions by recent Supreme Courts. In 2008 SCOTUS reversed a 1938 decision, that said the 2nd amendment did not apply to individuals, and said it meant everyone could have a gun. In 2010, SCOTUS made campaign contribution limits unconstitutional, by claiming corporations were people, and money was free speech, so limiting contributions went against the 1st amendment.
    9
  2. Canada and Australia have long traditions of gun ownership, yet have sensible laws that prevent the carnage we suffer.
    5
  3. Other nations have even more stressed out populations. Japan for example. Yet, very little mass killings. Because they don't have so many guns.
    5
  4.  @Uvoted4this  Do you think the cost of gasoline is less in Europe?
    5
  5.  @vitalsigns2679  Gee, how did farmers kill varmints before semi-automatic weapons? Oh yeah, my family used a shotgun. Worked just fine. And for human intruders, they used rock salt instead of buck shot. It got the message across without killing anyone.
    3
  6. What happened in New Zealand and Australia, when guns were bought back? I can't think of any oppression or persecution. Do you think any gun you have, would protect you if the military decided to 'persecute' you?
    2
  7. Nice, but the need to find out what drives these sickos, should not prevent measures to keep them getting firearms.
    2
  8. Being bullied is no excuse for killing people. That's just a sad distraction from the fact that it is too easy, for a disturbed individual to get a gun in the US. Every intelligent kid, or kid with glasses, or a funny last name, was bullied in school. We never use that as a lame excuse to murder people, just do well at university, and let living well be our revenge. There is no excuse for the US's lax gun laws, none.
    2
  9. It depends upon the social media site.
    2
  10.  @odinson6348  The second amendment need not be amended. We just need to return to its original intent, making sure our military is armed. Read the text, it was never intended to refer to any random person, but only those who are protecting the security of the state, the armed forces.
    2
  11. It all starts with the Supreme Court. It was that court that decided, in 2000, that "W" Bush would be president, and stopped the recount of Florida votes. In 2008, they reversed US v Miller, in Columbia v Heller, and said that the right to bear arms extended to the individual, despite the wording of the second amendment. It was that court that decided campaign funding limits were unconstitutional, and guaranteed that elected officials would work for lobbyists, not their constituents. Imagine the horrible judgements that will come out the current court.
    2
  12.  @kenkubesh3516  We could, we are just ornery. BTW Scientists use metric, even in the US.
    1
  13. Great, if the only places US citizens were gunned down were schools. What about everywhere else?
    1
  14. Actually, Australia and Canada are quite comparable. We all started as British colonies, have English as an official language (except Quebec), are democracies, have diverse populations, are prosperous, and have a strong history of self reliance. If mass shootings only occurred at schools, your solution might protect children, although it would makes schools seem even more like prisons. But what does your suggestion do for all the other places Americans get slaughtered, restaurants, places of worship, grocery stores, shopping malls, nightclubs, bars, concerts, factories, warehouses, post offices, walking down the street, etc. etc. etc. ? Rather than turning every place we study, work, pray, eat, shop or recreate into a fortress, why not address all the guns in the hands of lunatics?
    1
  15. First the parents of the children would object. Second, it was not pictures of dead GIs that people against the war, but photos of the Mai Lai massacre.
    1
  16. It's an utter fantasy, based upon poor data interpretation.
    1
  17. Go to a Walmart. Guns and food, and oversized clothing.
    1
  18. Sure, for members of the National Guard or armed forces.
    1
  19. And it would be best if people with rage issues, didn't own any gun.
    1
  20. It seems your attitude is, people will break the laws, so there is no reason to have laws. And the only people the second amendment says must be armed, are members of a "well regulated militia" dedicated to keeping the state secure. That's the armed forces and Guard, not some twit who has watched too many Rambo movies. Read the whole amendment, it's only one sentence.
    1
  21. Clearly, our armed forces and National Guard are the well ordered militias protecting the security of the state. Only they are constitutional required to be armed.
    1
  22. Just looked at University of Sydney gun facts. In 2019, the US had 39,682 gun deaths, New Zealand had 50. That's 1.2 x 10-4 deaths per person in the US, and 9.9 x 10-6 in New Zealand. Or an American is more than twelve times likelier to die from guns than a Kiwi.
    1
  23.  @KanadianRaven  We just need to return to the interpretation before 2008. Prior to Columbia v Heller, the second amendment did not apply to individual rights. In 1938, the Supreme Court concluded as you and I do, that it only refers to the Guard.
    1
  24.  @tyleredwards7162  Not free of gun violence.
    1
  25. Nobody expects one person to do the gun buybacks. That's a lame excuse.
    1
  26. American gun control has become looser, rather than stricter, over the years.
    1
  27. So, what part of the Constitution says everybody can have a gun? Not the 2nd amendment, it only says that members of a well regulated militia, defending the security of the state, must be armed. Individuals have no such right.
    1
  28. That was truly as shame. And fortunately, a taxi driver prevented the bombing of one of your maternity hospitals. Your intelligent gun laws don't prevent all killings, like the MP meeting his constituents, but you don't have nearly the number of mass killings we have.
    1
  29. Great, if you're a member of the well ordered militia, protecting the security of the state, the National Guard, you've the right to be armed. Otherwise, nope.
    1
  30. It's a lot easier to shoot a couple dozen people, than it is to stab them.
    1
  31. The only well regulated militia, that protects the security of the state, is the National Guard. In 1938, the Supreme Court decided that the second amendment in no way can be individuals have a right to weapons to protect themselves. It is a travesty that wise decision was overturned in 2008, by justices who called themselves strict originalists, when the 1938 decision was the strict interpretation of the amendment, as written.
    1
  32. Where do you think Mexican gangs and cartels get their weapons? Most are smuggled in from the US, because they are so easy to buy here.
    1
  33.  @andresc5915  We are not faring well. And our laws are to blame. Why is it gun manufactures are the only companies that cannot be sued for the deaths they cause? Why is it that it is illegal to maintain a searchable database of registered guns? Why is there no national law requiring background checks and waiting periods? As it is now, if you live in a city or state with intelligent gun regulation, you can take a quick trip to a neighboring city or state, that has no requirements.
    1
  34. So no laws then? After all, even though theft is illegal, people still steal.
    1
  35. Blame the Citizens United v FEC decision, 2010.
    1
  36. No, but a poor SCOTUS interpretation, in 2008, might.
    1
  37. We can just go back to the interpretation before 2008. In 1938, the Supreme Court decided that there was no way you could misconstrue the second amendment applied to individuals, that it clearly referred only to the military. That was the logical interpretation, if you read the text.
    1
  38. Wrong. The US has more guns than citizens. No other country has so many guns.
    1
  39.  @joedelira2337  No, plenty of registered Republicans are fine with this. But, the NRA and gun manufacturers pay politicians, to go against the wishes of the people.
    1