When the Editorial board of the Voice says one thing, the right answer is to do the opposite.

Banning anything is going to be hard.

However, maybe we can attack this from an image point of view. I would suggest that there be a national requirement that all guns be painted bright pink. Any gun not pink is illegal. Police guns have to be pink. All private weapons need to be either painted pink or they need to be made incapable of firing by filling the barrel.

This certainly allows people to own guns for protection. They can even fight the government with pink guns. It does make them significantly less cool, and makes them stand out very readily.

Does it solve all problems? Not a chance. But, it is a simple requirement that doesn't violate the second amendment, and it makes guns much less cool.

And image goes a long way with young men who are trying to look tough.

@MySmallSuggestion

"Banning anything is going to be hard."

Just like banning alcohol was "hard", meaning a total failure.
Just like banning recreational drugs is "hard" and a total failure.
Banning machine guns was also "hard" and is a total failure.

According to the Clinton Administration statement that many millions of machine guns were stolen from the military and law enforcement and many millions more are illegally smuggled into the USA.

"However, maybe we can attack this from an image point of view."

You mean stop making these mass killers famous??? Good idea!

"I would suggest that there be a national requirement that all guns be painted bright pink."

Some guns are made in bright pink already, women like guns of various colors, especially pink.

If you want to paint all 393 million guns that civilians have, that's going to take a huge amount of paint.

And only the most law-abiding people would cooperate with the law, criminals would not.

"It does make them significantly less cool,"

I would think that these mass killers would not care one bit and maybe, they would like it because you can just imagine the headline of a mass killer being the first one to use a pink gun.

"and it makes guns much less cool."

If all cars were normally pink or black, that wouldn't change how cool they were. Ask Henry Ford.

"And image goes a long way with young men who are trying to look tough."

That's not why these mass killers do it, they do it for fame, what color the gun was would be irrelevant.

@author of this mis-information article

I have offered for decades to educate all sorts of people about firearms.
Many people have taken me up on the offer, including a few politicians, but the one group of people that have NEVER allowed themselves to be educated about firearms are reporters!

Back in 2003-2004 Wolf Blitzer (and other CNN reporters) repeatedly went on CNN and outright lied to the American people by saying that the end of the "1994 Assault Weapons Ban" would mean that fully-automatic machine guns would become commonly available to the general public at gun stores all across the USA. This was of course a lie, but CNN beat that drum countless times trying to get the useless AW ban re-authorized.

Reporters and editors and other news professionals simply wont be educated about firearms. I believe that deep-down reporters are aware that they are lying to the public about firearms and they are aware that this violates everything they believe in about their profession.

This is why reporters will NEVER allow themselves to be educated about guns because that would take away their plausible ignorance and make it so much more difficult for them to lie to the public with a sincere look on their faces.

Reporters would prefer to simply parrot the claims of a gun-ban groups and avoid asking themselves if it makes any sense:
"Editorial: It's past time for a federal ban on assault weapons"

They say that this ban is about that specific type of firearm, but then they say this non-sense to trick the public:

"The United States has seen 258 mass shooting incidents in the 225 days of 2019, according to data published Wednesday by the nonprofit Gun Violence Archive."

They are trying to trick you into believing that these so-called "mass shootings" are all about "assault weapons", when in fact, only a tiny few cases involved any type of rifle.

They also have a tricky definition of "mass shootings" that includes any shooting case anywhere with 4 or more people shot regardless of the type of gun or motive for the shooting. Meaning that almost every case of a "mass shooting" was in fact a drug-gang case, NOT someone randomly attacking people in public places with an AR-15 or similar.

About 98% of all firearms homicides are done with ordinary handguns and less than 1% involved something like the AR-15.

They further mis-inform the public:
"Earlier this month there were three mass shootings in the span of a week in Gilroy, El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio."

In fact, the Dayton Ohio case was a common HANDGUN, not any type of rifle!

"The House of Representatives in February passed two bills, HR 8 and HR 112, that would strengthen background checks."

There are two main problems with background checks:
First, less than half of the information required by law to be reported to the FBI and state agencies is NOT being sent along to be included in the databases. Meaning that the majority of the people who should be denied the purchase of a gun are simply missing from the background check systems.

Let's get law-enforcement agencies to actually OBEY the LAWS for a change.
Anyone disagree with doing that?

Second problem with background check systems is that in spite of the Obama Administration study showing that many millions of criminals were prevented from buying a gun from a gun store (which is in itself another Federal felony by the way), only a few dozen criminals were actually arrested for that new Felony and only a few of those were prosecuted.

Under the existing long-standing Federal and state LAWS, once a person has failed a background check, this is suppose to trigger a law-enforcement response to find and arrest the criminal for the additional Felony of attempted firearms possession by a felon and for perjury by lying on the form 4473.

Since the criminals know that no police will ever come looking for them, they have no fear of arrest from repeatedly trying to buy guns from legal dealers. No matter how many times they try, nobody will come to arrest them, so they can keep trying until some FBI agent hits the wrong button and approves the sale.

If people honestly wanted safety from guns, they would get the police to OBEY the LAWS by arresting prohibited people who try to buy guns.

Does anyone disagree with doing that?

Okay, I understand. Nothing can be done.

Then, I would suggest that we change our message altogether. "Freedom is not free. The price of the freedom to own a gun is the blood of innocent victims that is occasionally spilled."

We aren't mad that 500 children under 10 die in backyard swimming pools. And owning a pool isn't a right. So, why should we be that upset when 20 kindergarten children are slaughtered in their classroom?

Let's just say it -- the blood of the kindergarten children is the price that gun owners are willing to pay to have a gun. It's not a price that's too high.

No amount of blood is too much for a gun owner.

@MySmallSuggestion,
You Sad,
"Let's just say it -- the blood of the kindergarten children is the price that gun owners are willing to pay to have a gun. It's not a price that's too high."

Guns are just one tool, in fact there are many more tools out there that kill more children and adults than guns.

Such shallow thinking will never address and solve the problem. Mental illness.

@MySmallSuggestion

"Okay, I understand. Nothing can be done."

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


Nobody claimed that: "nothing can be done".
I gave several ways to reduce homicides.
I gave ways to prevent these mass killings too.
I gave ways to make the background check system more effective.
I gave ways to discourage criminals from possessing guns.
The news media COULD avoid making mass killers famous.
Law enforcement agencies and the courts COULD obey the existing laws.
If a law is not going to be enforced, what good is it?

"Freedom is not free."

Everything humans do is a cost/benefit calculation.
Civilians owning guns is a massive net BENEFIT to society and lives saved.

Tobacco kills 400,000 Americans each year.
Tobacco illness alone costs over 300 billion to the USA.
Tobacco use serves no positive purpose to anyone but those who make and sell it.

Civilian owned firearms save vastly more innocent lives than are lost.

"The price of the freedom to own a gun is the blood of innocent victims that is occasionally spilled."

The price of the freedom to travel is the blood of innocent victims that is occasionally spilled.

The price of the freedom of speech or religion is the blood of innocent victims that is occasionally spilled.

Same for any other basic human rights we have.
People who abuse their rights and harm other people should be punished.
Any tool can be mis-used by anyone to kill, that does not mean we ban tools.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

It is truly brave of you to let small children die for your right to bear arms.

@ConsiderReality

"It is truly brave of you to let small children die for your right to bear arms. "

It is truly brave of you to let small children die for your privlidge to drive a car. A vastly greater danger that kills many times more small children.

If that's the best you go to offer, it's not worth the effort.

@MySmallSuggestion

"Okay, I understand. Nothing can be done."

Meaning that since you know that none of the ideas you have been spoon-fed have any chance of improving anything, you prefer to give up before even considering and other ideas.


so, you have nothing to contribute.

Author of Editorial:

These were cases before the aceptence of the 14th Amendment that expanded the protections that limited actions by Congress to also stop the states from violating our rights. These cases show that from the first cases the Supreme Court recognized that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right which was not bound by any collective.

1857 Supreme Court Stated:
"who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to"..."and it would give them the full liberty of speech..., and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857)
"...and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property, beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right"...

"Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor"...

"...the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law."...

"...who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction,"..."and it would give them the full liberty of speech..., and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876)"
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. "

"Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-65 (1886)"
"The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

"Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894)"
"...case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures."

"Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897)"
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;"