If gun control does come, bear in mind it will be just part of a program to prevent such massacres in the future. If you listen to the gaggle of experts and pundits interviewed in the wake of these slaughters, many don't even see gun control as the biggest piece of the puzzle. Other pieces one hears proposed:
1) An end to violent shoot-em-up video games. I hope you like The Sims, because if they have their way, no more Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto.
2) More attention to mental illness, which threatens to catch people who are eccentric (or even "goth") in the same net as the true crazies. Concentration camps for schizophrenics and bipolars? Maybe not concentration camps but if the mentally ill suffer from public misperceptions now, things won't get better for them.
3) Throttling the violence available to the public via TV and movies. Imagine a world with no Batman or James Bond movies and no crime/police movies on TV. Instead nothing but chick flicks and "uplifting" or "inspiring" TV shows.
4) Getting God back into our everyday lives, focusing on the schools and on promoting Christian-oriented television.
The lesson: be careful what you wish for, because you may get it along with a few other things you won't like nearly as much.
But isn't "increased aggression", which seems to be the consensus finding of all the video game studies, still not the same as increased actual violence (unless I'm misinterpreting it)? It seems to me that aggression is a temporary thing, like a mood. It still requires an additional mental break of some kind for a person to become literally violent.
Maybe you won't understand, but plenty of people have multiple firearms. I think what non-gun-people don't get is that it's not about "needing" all of them to defend your home or survive an apocalypse or fight off the government because you're some kind of militant nutcase. Basically, you're asking "why?" and people whose hobby is shooting or hunting are asking "why not?". Jay Leno has 100 cars. Why does he need so many? Not for transportation. The point is that having a collection or hobby is common, and a gun hobby is no different. There are a lot of different categories of firearms made for different purposes. I have a handgun I once used on the job as a security guard, a small handgun for concealed carry, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, an "assault rifle" (sorry if that bothers people), a .22 for cheap shooting practice, and several older firearms handed down from my father and grandfather that I would never part with. One example of gun usage that I would say does not constitute misuse is heading out into thinly populated stretches of the great American West with my family and friends to camp, shoot targets, and hunt prairie dogs. Just a different lifestyle than you're probably familiar with.
I'm not going to argue whether I should be allowed to own these weapons or defend the NRA or anything. This is just by way of explanation, since it was brought up.
1) An end to violent shoot-em-up video games.
Wait what? Why? Does that actually include digital media, such as games?
Umm... Very specifically, I would think.
The Supremes don't typically simply reverse themselves. They may find some points in some cases allowing room for some changes, but I doubt if they would be fundamental.
I'd be surprised if they didn't find some reason to reverse just part of the prior decision most of the time instead of admitting "Boy did we get that one wrong!!"
The difference between what happens in Canada and America (the United States of) is the difference between the typical Canadian and the typical American. There may be something in the Canadian psyche or national character that has them responding to all these stimuli differently.
That because Canadians generally tend to be more of a laid back society and we Americans tend to be a very fast paced society. Everything in America is about how fast I can get what I want. This stems from the very first creation of the country, where you can attain the American dream by working your butt off. There never seems to be the idea of just taking it slow and witnessing the time for itself but rather how it can correlate back to being advantageous for one. So in the end our though of action is geared towards soaking it all in and never realizing what it really means.
We go to the movies and watch violent movies, play games with violence in them, watch tv shows with violence and murder in them and then go to sleep. Wake up the next day and its time for work. Then we never bother to think how any of this actually affects us or the influence it has on us.
What Unseen has posted is basically what I've been getting at with this issue. When the US gov cracks down on things they slip in so much crap that it is ridiculous. I mean we had some serious criminals back in the day so the US declared the "war on crime'. Tons of police were recruited and in a lot of cases this just isn't good. Then some drugs were smuggled in and -mark me if I'm wrong but -wasn't the CIA the biggest purveyor of cocaine in the beginning? Hence the "war on drugs". Then some nutty religious zealots crash a some planes into some buildings and the the "war on terror". With all of these instances we lost /gave up some rights.
We are all aware of some of the changes the gov has made since 9/11. In one case under the homeland security bit you can go to jail in Kentucky for up to a year for not believing in god. I don't know what that has to do with anything or how it got snuck in there but its there. I worry about our rights.
I seriously doubt there will be successful legislative attempts to limit violence in media. Consuming violence for entertainment is central to our culture.
The DSM currently doesn't include eccentrics or goths. Paranoia is listed as a criterion for several conditions.
Of course there is a turn to religion. In the wake of every tragedy, people cling to their beliefs to make sense of it. It doesn't last.
I get the feeling that you oppose gun regulation. The problem with what you wish for--and have--is that we've gotten a few other things along with deregulation that we don't like nearly as much. 1,000,000 deaths since 1968. That's more civilians than soldiers lost in WWII. Be careful what you wish for.
I don't oppose gun regulation per se. I oppose legislation that won't work. They tried to ban alcohol in the early 1900's. How did that work out? More recently, they've tried to crack down on marijuana and other drugs. As in the case of prohibiting alcohol, it simply isn't working.
Why would banning guns work any better?