World News Random, Random

[Suliso]

Some randomness is inevitable.

[mmmm8]

There is a commonality - vast majority of these are perpetrated by males with a history of violence and/or isolation.

But that's a commonality not a connection.

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

Serbia takes a different approach than "thoughts and prayers":
Serbia Responds to Mass Shootings With ‘Almost Total Disarmament’ Instead of Thoughts and Prayers

[ti-amie]

Serbia takes a different approach than "thoughts and prayers":
Serbia Responds to Mass Shootings With ‘Almost Total Disarmament’ Instead of Thoughts and Prayers

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

I find it hard to blame Iran in this one. A treaty was in place, it had been worked out by almost every major power.
And then the USA broke up the deal. Why would they believe that if, a democratic president again signs a deal, the next republican president will not renege on it?

[ti-amie]

I find it hard to blame Iran in this one. A treaty was in place, it had been worked out by almost every major power.
And then the USA broke up the deal. Why would they believe that if, a democratic president again signs a deal, the next republican president will not renege on it?

I have to agree. TFG did so much damage.

[JazzNU]

Serbia takes a different approach than "thoughts and prayers":
Serbia Responds to Mass Shootings With ‘Almost Total Disarmament’ Instead of Thoughts and Prayers

The difference between having the right to bear arms in your constitution and not having it there. It's a monumental difference, but that is why the others are able to take such sweeping actions. Those moves are in line with an Executive Order here, and if our presidents did that, it would be immediately overturned on constitutional grounds. Our interpretation is for ish for sure and exacerbates the problems.

That article is high on emotion, low on facts unfortunately. I appreciate the sentiment expressed and wanting to call out US problems, but Serbia would need to like quintuple the estimate of that announced disarmament to even get rid of half of their guns owned by average people. There is heavy gun ownership in Serbia, so in the neighborhood of 250k is a drop in the bucket. This appears to be a public relations move from a populist president, not an actual effort to truly disarm their population like we've seen in other countries following mass shootings.

[JazzNU]

[ti-amie]

Whoa. They're not playing around are they?

[ponchi101]

...
The difference between having the right to bear arms in your constitution and not having it there. It's a monumental difference, but that is why the others are able to take such sweeping actions. Those moves are in line with an Executive Order here, and if our presidents did that, it would be immediately overturned on constitutional grounds. Our interpretation is for ish for sure and exacerbates the problems.

That article is high on emotion, low on facts unfortunately. I appreciate the sentiment expressed and wanting to call out US problems, but Serbia would need to like quintuple the estimate of that announced disarmament to even get rid of half of their guns owned by average people. There is heavy gun ownership in Serbia, so in the neighborhood of 250k is a drop in the bucket. This appears to be a public relations move from a populist president, not an actual effort to truly disarm their population like we've seen in other countries following mass shootings.

Serious question here.
The 2nd amendment starts with the words "A well regulated militia...". It seems that that gives legislators a broad spectrum of options to implement. For example, I can't see a reason why the right to bear arms would be infringed if strict regulations to own a weapon were enacted; it would be like the right to drive a car, but you can't do so without training, testing and carrying insurance.
So why the lack of such regulations?

Also. Following Chris Rock's idea. Regulate the sale of ammunition. You want to buy your AR-15? Ok, protected by the constitution. You want ammo? Different story.

[skatingfan]

Serious question here.
The 2nd amendment starts with the words "A well regulated militia...". It seems that that gives legislators a broad spectrum of options to implement. For example, I can't see a reason why the right to bear arms would be infringed if strict regulations to own a weapon were enacted; it would be like the right to drive a car, but you can't do so without training, testing and carrying insurance.
So why the lack of such regulations?

Also. Following Chris Rock's idea. Regulate the sale of ammunition. You want to buy your AR-15? Ok, protected by the constitution. You want ammo? Different story.

The Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller interpreted the 2nd amendment as an individual right to bear arms, as opposed to a state right to maintain a militia. Though the court maintains that the right is not unlimited the ruling has led to the quashing of gun laws that restricted weapons based on type, as well as requirements for licensing, purchase, possession, and carrying of weapons.

[JazzNU]

...
The difference between having the right to bear arms in your constitution and not having it there. It's a monumental difference, but that is why the others are able to take such sweeping actions. Those moves are in line with an Executive Order here, and if our presidents did that, it would be immediately overturned on constitutional grounds. Our interpretation is for ish for sure and exacerbates the problems.

That article is high on emotion, low on facts unfortunately. I appreciate the sentiment expressed and wanting to call out US problems, but Serbia would need to like quintuple the estimate of that announced disarmament to even get rid of half of their guns owned by average people. There is heavy gun ownership in Serbia, so in the neighborhood of 250k is a drop in the bucket. This appears to be a public relations move from a populist president, not an actual effort to truly disarm their population like we've seen in other countries following mass shootings.

Serious question here.
The 2nd amendment starts with the words "A well regulated militia...". It seems that that gives legislators a broad spectrum of options to implement. For example, I can't see a reason why the right to bear arms would be infringed if strict regulations to own a weapon were enacted; it would be like the right to drive a car, but you can't do so without training, testing and carrying insurance.
So why the lack of such regulations?

The above answer is mostly correct. But it's not a single ruling, that's a more (comparatively speaking) recent landmark case, but obviously we had widespread problems long before that ruling came down. But it's the interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court (and also Circuit Courts, which get forgotten, but are significant and binding) over hundreds of years that matters here, not just the text of the constitution. And there's another ruling that came down in 2022 that further expanded gun right ownership and effectively put limitations on what state gun laws could limit.

[Suliso]

Presidential elections in Turkey today. I'd say the outcome will be of importance in a wider region not merely in Turkey itself. The last opinion polls show Erdogan slightly behind the main opposition candidate.