Your figure is off by two orders of magnitude, it's ~48k gun deaths, including suicides (for 2022).
So about 5k more than your car accident figure.
And it's odd to me you're arguing the license angle; are you advocating for a licensing system like there are for cars, like written and applied tests a citizen must pass before gun ownership?
Unfortunately, we can't require licensing. The Supreme Court already ruled that the core tenet of the 2nd Amendment is self defense and that can't be burdened.
What I PERSONALLY would like to see is a full root cause analysis on every shooting and plugging the holes that allowed it to happen.
For example:
In the Maine shooting, he bought the guns he used 10 days before being reported for abberant behavior and being involuntary committed for 2 weeks.
Background checks wouldn't work because he bought the guns before there were any reported problems.
Being involuntarily committed should have resulted in a seizure of all weapons. It did not. Why not? In most cases because seizures require a court ruling and if the commitment wasn't court mandated, that doesn't happen.
Bonus - if the commitment isn't court mandated, that also won't turn up on a background check, a common problem with other mass shooters.
That needs to change, and it doesn't involve the 2nd amendment or a change in gun laws, it just has to expand what already happens in court adjudicated cases to non adjudicated cases.
Alternately, you push ALL mental health commitments through court to ensure guns are withdrawn and the commitment shows up on background checks.
And we all know the Supreme Court never reverses a decision. That's why abortion is still legal nationwide.
All it takes is 50 years and a polar shift in opinion...
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court requires neither to reverse a decision. What with other decisions that weren't Roe taking a lot less than 50 years and what with their not caring about popular opinion.
Is this the first time you've heard of them?
Reversing Roe took 50 years because it took that long to get enough conservative judges appointed. It could not have happened sooner.
In my lifetime, Democratic presidents have only been able to appoint 5 justices to the court compared to 15 for Republican presidents.
If we want to change the gun rulings, that needs to be reversed, which should only take, oh, another 50 years or so.
Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
Stevens, John Paul - Ford
O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
Kagan, Elena - Obama
Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump
Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden
I see, because the past decides what happens in the future when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices. I had no idea.
The trend is for the court to get more and more conservative. This is NOT accidental. It's intentional.
In a fair world, the number of conservative vs liberal judges would be evenly distributed, it's NOT a fair world. So we get 15 Republican judges vs. 5 Democratic ones.
Going by age, the next two justices to be replaced should be Thomas and Alito. Unless that happens under a Democratic President, the people who replace them will be younger and more extreme, locking in the court for the rest of our lives.
Even under a Democratic President, it's still not guaranteed as we saw with Merrick Garland, you need a Democratic Senate as well.
If we're super lucky, we'll get Biden in '24, but his chance of replacing another judge is unlikely. Thomas will be 80 in 2028 and Alito will be 78. So whoever gets elected in '28 will likely get to replace them.
You're still saying the past decides what happens in the future.
It’s not the past when it keeps happening.
No, I'm saying the conservative think tanks that manipulated the past are, right now, as we speak, manipulating the future and it's not changing.
Took 13 years to undo prohibition, which unlike abortion and gun rights, was based on a clear and direct constitutional amendment with no arguments about "framers intent" or changes to technology/interpretations of rights over time.
This entire "50 years of cultural shift and overcoming supreme Court decisions" is straight bullshit.
We don't have the same environment now that we did then. We can't currently get an amendment to do ANYTHING at this point. Everything is too divided.
290 votes in the House, that couldn't get 217 to decide their own leadership.
67 votes in the Senate, that can't get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.
38 state ratifications where 25 states can't admit Joe Biden won the last election.
It's untenable, even on topics lots of people can agree on, like, say, term limits for Supreme Court Justices, or barring convicted felons from public office.
The definition of mass shooting shouldn't detract from the fact that 500+ shootings 4+ injured is too many
500+ shootings in a country with 330 million people and 400 million guns is a rounding error.
Last year there were 42,795 fatal car accidents, we have 233 million licensed drivers. 85 times more than shootings with 4 or more injured.
https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/auto-insurance/fatal-car-crash-statistics/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191653/number-of-licensed-drivers-in-the-us-since-1988/
Your figure is off by two orders of magnitude, it's ~48k gun deaths, including suicides (for 2022).
So about 5k more than your car accident figure.
And it's odd to me you're arguing the license angle; are you advocating for a licensing system like there are for cars, like written and applied tests a citizen must pass before gun ownership?
Unfortunately, we can't require licensing. The Supreme Court already ruled that the core tenet of the 2nd Amendment is self defense and that can't be burdened.
What I PERSONALLY would like to see is a full root cause analysis on every shooting and plugging the holes that allowed it to happen.
For example:
In the Maine shooting, he bought the guns he used 10 days before being reported for abberant behavior and being involuntary committed for 2 weeks.
Background checks wouldn't work because he bought the guns before there were any reported problems.
Being involuntarily committed should have resulted in a seizure of all weapons. It did not. Why not? In most cases because seizures require a court ruling and if the commitment wasn't court mandated, that doesn't happen.
Bonus - if the commitment isn't court mandated, that also won't turn up on a background check, a common problem with other mass shooters.
That needs to change, and it doesn't involve the 2nd amendment or a change in gun laws, it just has to expand what already happens in court adjudicated cases to non adjudicated cases.
Alternately, you push ALL mental health commitments through court to ensure guns are withdrawn and the commitment shows up on background checks.
And we all know the Supreme Court never reverses a decision. That's why abortion is still legal nationwide.
All it takes is 50 years and a polar shift in opinion...
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court requires neither to reverse a decision. What with other decisions that weren't Roe taking a lot less than 50 years and what with their not caring about popular opinion.
Is this the first time you've heard of them?
Reversing Roe took 50 years because it took that long to get enough conservative judges appointed. It could not have happened sooner.
In my lifetime, Democratic presidents have only been able to appoint 5 justices to the court compared to 15 for Republican presidents.
If we want to change the gun rulings, that needs to be reversed, which should only take, oh, another 50 years or so.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx
Burger, Warren Earl - Nixon
Blackmun, Harry A. - Nixon
Powell, Lewis F., Jr. - Nixon
Rehnquist, William H. - Nixon
Stevens, John Paul - Ford
O'Connor, Sandra Day - Reagan
Scalia, Antonin - Reagan
Kennedy, Anthony M. - Reagan
Souter, David H. - Bush, G. H. W.
Thomas, Clarence - Bush, G. H. W.
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader - Clinton
Breyer, Stephen G. - Clinton
Roberts, John G., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr. - Bush, G. W.
Sotomayor, Sonia - Obama
Kagan, Elena - Obama
Gorsuch, Neil M. - Trump
Kavanaugh, Brett M. - Trump
Barrett, Amy Coney - Trump
Jackson, Ketanji Brown - Biden
I see, because the past decides what happens in the future when it comes to appointing Supreme Court justices. I had no idea.
The trend is for the court to get more and more conservative. This is NOT accidental. It's intentional.
https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority
Which gives us:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/05/1109444617/the-supreme-court-conservative
In a fair world, the number of conservative vs liberal judges would be evenly distributed, it's NOT a fair world. So we get 15 Republican judges vs. 5 Democratic ones.
Going by age, the next two justices to be replaced should be Thomas and Alito. Unless that happens under a Democratic President, the people who replace them will be younger and more extreme, locking in the court for the rest of our lives.
Even under a Democratic President, it's still not guaranteed as we saw with Merrick Garland, you need a Democratic Senate as well.
If we're super lucky, we'll get Biden in '24, but his chance of replacing another judge is unlikely. Thomas will be 80 in 2028 and Alito will be 78. So whoever gets elected in '28 will likely get to replace them.
Harris? Yeah, no. Snowball's chance.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4103153-kamala-harris-is-far-from-the-worst-vice-president-why-do-polls-say-otherwise/
You're still saying the past decides what happens in the future.
It’s not the past when it keeps happening.
No, I'm saying the conservative think tanks that manipulated the past are, right now, as we speak, manipulating the future and it's not changing.
Took 13 years to undo prohibition, which unlike abortion and gun rights, was based on a clear and direct constitutional amendment with no arguments about "framers intent" or changes to technology/interpretations of rights over time.
This entire "50 years of cultural shift and overcoming supreme Court decisions" is straight bullshit.
We don't have the same environment now that we did then. We can't currently get an amendment to do ANYTHING at this point. Everything is too divided.
290 votes in the House, that couldn't get 217 to decide their own leadership.
67 votes in the Senate, that can't get 60 to over-ride a filibuster.
38 state ratifications where 25 states can't admit Joe Biden won the last election.
It's untenable, even on topics lots of people can agree on, like, say, term limits for Supreme Court Justices, or barring convicted felons from public office.
And those should be the uncontroversial topics...