You do understand that America has ALWAYS been a gun culture based society.
Of course. For generations they were a major source of livelihood, food production and protection against a wilderness of troubles. They were even a part of our national identity through militias. It's nowhere more impressed upon the culture than here in the South.
what has changed is that parents do not PARENT much anymore.
I'd say a great deal more than that has changed, including the relatively inexpensive availability of weapons that can allow anyone with a modest amount of cash the opportunity to cause a great deal of death and damage in moments.
Kids have been taught that life has no meaning and if you want to play and be careless just kill your own baby. Add to that today the kids are being taught to doubt their own birth sex to their own personal ( perverted ) preference.
Here's the thing, the increase in homicidal violence that I noted prior began with the children of the "Greatest Generation" and rose until those children began to age into their 30s and beyond. Presumably they were taught better on average, had more stable homes on average, lacked the exposure to the celebration of the worst expression of personal liberty so often found glorified in the popular media.
And yet those coming up with, as you note, a great deal less than that are actually behaving a great deal more than that generation. That too often rudderless generation born of the Baby Boomers, and the one following it, were actually part of the lessening of violence on average, dropping us out of the double digit nightmare, back into the national average only a little higher than what was true for the 50s, as per my earlier link.
To make it even worse God was yanked out of the public consciousnesses ( prayer removed from schools and the public square ) and replaced by situational ethics and morals.
Prayer has not been removed from schools or the public square, only the ability of some to use the state to promote a particular idea of Him. And if God is not recalled where moral instruction must begin and largely live, in the home, then no amount of propaganda from the state will undo that damage.
In Australia the crime rate went up NOT down after weapons were confiscated.
Gun laws aren't in place to prevent all crime, and in the case of Australia were mostly about impacting mass shootings, which they unquestionably did over the course of the next two decades and counting, as 0 occurred where 13 had taken place within 18 years ending with the Port Arthur massacre and the changes in their laws.
That said, I haven't seen your statistical database establishing the point. Link to it if you would so everyone can see the degree, the trend, etc. I mean, when you made the claim about our violence dropping more profoundly than Australia's did the year of the gun law change the statistical data on hand pretty comfortably explained why that was so without that impacting the larger point of gun law efficacy. I suspect the same will hold true here.
Kids are chemically baby sat with ADHD drugs instead of being parented , corrected, and punished. This new liberal and permissive society was created by socialist that want a one world government with a one world leader, and have no fear it is coming soon. The new world leader will be the anti-Christ and he will rule the whole world.
In the meantime, we can and should reconsider the reasonableness of providing all those less adjusted, corrected and punished kids growing toward 18 years of age with an easy access to weapons of mass destruction.
There is a town in Georgia where everyone has a weapon and it is the law, and since the law passed they have had one murder. Your empirical evidence is wishful thinking.
Empirical evidence is actually the opposite of wishful thinking and an enemy of your unfortunate habit of relying on internet memes in lieu of that very thing.
The town you're referencing is Kennesaw, Georgia.
Here's the actual ordinance as passed:
Sec. 34-21. – Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or relgious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
In other words, the ordinance was a paper tiger. If you wanted to own a gun you were "required" to and if you didn't believe you should you weren't. A position not unlike the reality that existed immediately prior to the passage of the ordinance.
Said the Kennesaw Police Dept. spokesman Craig Graydon,
“It was not meant to be an enforceable law. The police department has never searched homes to make sure you had a gun. It was meant more or less as a political statement to support citizens’ second amendment rights to own firearms.”
And this from Snopes:
"In 1982, Kennesaw’s mayor and chief of police told the New York Times that their crime rate had always been low, and the entire state of Georgia experienced a drop in all crimes cited (burglary, property crime, and murder) in the years immediately following the law."
What part of " shall not be infringed " do you not understand ?
I understand it entirely, and so does the Court, yet impositions on particular weapons have been upheld as constitutional. Or, no right is absolute in its expression though the right itself must remain absolute. So, as I said, you have the right to assembly, but it does not follow that every group can exercise that right without regard for the rights of others. Any number of examples, but if you need yet another try telling your local or federal government that your religious expression requires you to perform a nudist march down the middle of your town each Sunday and see for yourself.
So your answer is to limit or confiscate the weapons of law abiding citizens because criminals break the law ?
My answer to gun violence is to look at models that do a better job protecting citizens from it and to, while preserving the right, address the more fundamental right to be that our current approach fails more often than it should.
The constitution of the United States is NOT based on what other countries do or do not do.
I never said that is was. What I've said is that the constitution itself is subject to correction where it has been found lacking, as with slavery, women's rights as citizens, the civil rights laws...but I believe we can accomplish a great deal short of that ground.
Guess you never heard of Australia
I've noted it repeatedly, though my argument doesn't rest on any one country. In fact, looking at this problem over numerous threads I've touched upon varying responses to gun violence in many other nations sharing our foundational form of government and spoken to their varying degrees of success, all of which dwarf our own.
Also, you're off your own point, as you said "total confiscation" began with registration. None of the countries I've noted, including Australia, have done that. You can have guns in any one of them, but you can't have any sort of gun in any of them.
where weapons were confiscated, which of course started off as a registration solution for gun violence and resulted in Australians having their right to defend themselves trampled on by their government.
It really didn't. There wasn't a registration as a stepping stone approach by the major players. The gun laws relating to particular weapons came as a response to Port Arthur and a national outrage coupled with the understandable desire to be rid of mass shootings, or at least to make them as unlikely as could be. Turns out to have been wildly successful too.
Yelling isn't really an argument either. :e4e: