We’ve been over this already, and you yourself even said that some of the things that would help to reduce gun violence would be against 2A, or at least doubtful that they would be considered constitutional.
You did see the heller decision, did you not?
Yes, there are some proposed solutions that might violate the 2nd, none of them would actually help to reduce gun violence.
So, again, what solutions do you propose that would significantly reduce violent crime, but require the 2nd Ad to be repealed?
In your opinion.
Again?? You want me to repeat myself again?
Or give me a post number, yes. So far I havent seen any- by the posters who came here and demanded the 2nd ad be repealed and that that was the only solution.
If the 2nd Amendment were repealed, it would be up to the states, some of which already have something equivalent to the 2nd Amendment in their state constitutions. So if nothing else, one possible outcome of repealing the 2nd Amendment would be that guns would be banned in New York but not in Texas.
I think that licensing (with some firearms more difficult to obtain a license for) and registration of firearms are a must, plus some modest restrictions on who can own a firearm.
None of these things actually require a repeal of the 2nd (because all rights have to be regulated to some extent in practice), but getting rid of some vaguely-worded piece of crap about government tyranny would make principled, common-sense reform simpler to implement.
That said, let’s be clear that we’re talking about a magic-wand fantasy. I know it will not be repealed in the lifetime of anyone reading this, so we have to get gun reforms through while it’s still there; stinkin’ up the joint.
Oh and to answer the question about how it makes us safer: restricting the sale of guns in general, and of powerful and rapid-firing weapons in particular, will reduce the number of “bad guys with guns” as a side effect. Look at the example of…basically the rest of the developed world. And secondly licensing means a population that, if nothing else, knows how to store weapons and ammo properly will mean fewer accidental deaths occur and, again, it’s harder for people who shouldn’t have guns to acquire them.
Sorry, that whole “rest of the developed world” bit is crap. You can define “developed” however you want.
America is pretty much in the middle in violent crime and murder over all nations.
And “powerful and rapid-firing weapons” are not used very often in crimes or murders. Sure, you hear about them in the flashy but extremely rare mass shootings but in they day to day 8000 murders a year, they are used about 4% of the time, so restricting them will have NO significant effect.
And career criminals dont usually buy their guns from gun stores, so “restricting the sale” will only reduce the number of good guys with guns.
In what other context would one ever say that?
“OK, the US is way worse than all of Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea…basically any country with a per capita GDP anywhere in the same ballpark, for a benchmark that is normally proportional to GDP.
But worldwide we’re average; right between Peru and Ghana, so…U S A?”
Firstly, so what if they’re a minority of crimes? Child rapes are less common than shoplifting, but absolute numbers are not everything, and a large proportion of the the population considers this a serious problem that we need to take steps to address.
Secondly I said licensing should be *tougher *for that kind of weapon, not restricted to them. So I’m not saying only make it harder to obtain an SMG.
Firstly, I see no reason to restrict the conversation to career criminals.
Secondly you missed my point: making it harder to legally procure a gun will indirectly make it harder for the crims to get one. Once again just look at…the world. Places where it’s hard to legally buy a gun generally have far less gun crime, with the exceptions being countries that are awash with guns from, for instance, a recent civil war.
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t actually say anything about “government tyranny.”
That’s why I didn’t put that in quotes. It’s inferred by many to be about defence against the government itself because it talks about the people bearing arms, and a militia rather than an army.
I agree it’s a debateable interpretation but my whole point was that it’s open to interpretation. We wouldn’t write it that way today.
I’m not sure whether you think this is a good thing.
There are far less shootings in countries with gun control (Canada, West Europe, Australia etc.)
There are far more shootings in Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria (which don’t have gun control.)
I wouldn’t put the argument that way though.
Because you can find countries with gun control and yet high numbers of gun crime; they’re generally dirt-poor and awash with guns from recent wars, but still.
And you can find countries where most adults are given a gun, and yet have low gun crime. They’re generally (only?) wealthy countries, and the gun is given as part of military service, with accompanying training. It’s misleading to call these countries with no gun control in the US sense (they have licensing and registration because of fucking course), but still.
I don’t think eliminating guns or restricting the types of guns people have will do anything to stop mass violence at schools. If kids can’t get their hands on guns, they will borrow a car and drive it into the lines of children waiting for buses.
Did you know that in 2017 more than 40,000 people died in automobiles in the US, and over 15,000 died from firearms, most of those suicide? In fact in 2017 the total fatalities for mass shootings was 344 according to this website: Bulletin: Gun Deaths Increased in 2017, Gun Violence Archive Data Show
Why is there no outrage over automobile use? Probably because almost every American uses an automobile, but not every American owns firearms. But in terms of numbers, guns account for relatively few premeditated deaths. Personally I do not see the value in eroding the 2A on such a basis.
The 2A exists for a reason. I find in my conversations with people it really boils down to if you trust the government or not. Many gun owners do not trust the government and therefore wish to partake in the 2A, which was created for the very purpose of staving off tyranny. And before anyone enters the argument with, “But the government has drones and air power!” Well, the US had vastly superior air power in Vietnam, too, but we lost. The US was literally evacuating Saigon as the NVA rolled in. Within a week of the US pulling out of Vietnam the south’s government fell and the country became communist. Overwhelming firepower does not always win, quite often pure numbers wins. Also the very fact that many Americans do own guns means that they can storm Army Depots or National Guard outposts to secure more guns, tanks, etc. That is what the 2A grants us. Ask yourself how much you really trust the US government right now. Is it worth destroying the final line that is the 2A for less than ~15000 gun related homicides a year? Personally I’m not convinced that it is.
Once one kid uses a car to conduct mass violence at a bus stop they will prove that taking away guns is/was nothing short of masturbatory. Not to mention many proposed gun laws are quite ignorant to gun ownership facts. One example: “high” capacity mags can be 3D printed now, so eliminating the ability to purchase them legally only means that anyone who wishes to have a high capacity mag can manufacture one, which means that only law-abiding citizens will follow the law anyway. Such a law is worthless. Did you know that you can purchase something called an 80% lower, which is an AR-15/10 receiver that does not have to be registered or sold through a licensed firearm dealer? That’s because, according to the law, it is not yet a firearm because 20% of it has yet to be milled. Enthusiasts can purchase 80% lowers, mill the other 20% out, and have themselves a lower receiver. It has no serial number, requires no background check, and comes with no bill of sale from an FFL. These 80% lowers can also be 3D printed. In short: you simply cannot restrict people from manufacturing anything as “simple” as a lower receiver. That would be like trying to make it illegal for people to make their own clothing.
Many of these school shootings are conducted using weapons that kids obtained from their parents, or purchased from civilians and not licensed firearm dealers (such as in the case of Columbine). Inhibiting the sale of guns and types of guns will not stop mass shootings at schools. It might stop one or two, I’ll grant you. But again, was that worth the erosion of the 2A? Personally, I’m still not convinced it would be worth it.
Right now you have to be 21 to own a handgun. I would support legislation that required citizens to be 21 to own any semi-auto firearm. Any hobby follows a progression; most children start with .22 rifles, then make their way up. Most parents buy their high schooler a used sedan, not a brand new sports car. Gun ownership should be looked at in the same way, an 18yo maybe should not be purchasing an AR-15 as a first gun. I would also support legislation that mandated a gun-safety class be taken upon purchasing your first firearm, much in the same way people need a driver’s license, or they need to become endorsed for motorcycle riding. Gun-safety classes would be a good source of revenue for local municipals, and they would provide a strong barrier against misuse of gun ownership since it would be another way to flag offenders.
In closing I think most suggestions to limit the sales of guns would do nothing to curb violence and I think people wishing to conduct mass murder would find other means. When Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people and injured over 600 others, we didn’t blame the fertilizer that he used, we blamed him. Why is it different with firearms? I do support holding parents accountable for not locking up their guns and I do support age restrictions and mandatory gun-safety classes, but trying to eliminate the types of guns people have access to won’t do a damn thing in preventing mass murder.
If the repeal results in civil war, will you be accepting responsibility for that?
Even if criminals don’t get their guns from gun shops: Where do they get them? From pawn shops? No problem; if guns were banned, pawn shops wouldn’t be allowed to sell them, either. From gun shows? All the more reason to stop pretending that gun shows are different from gun shops. Stolen from law-abiding citizens? Well, if no law-abiding citizens have them, then there won’t be anything to steal. Yes, right after the ban, there would continue to be criminals with guns, but those guns would gradually wear out, or be confiscated, or be ditched in inaccessible places to get rid of evidence, or otherwise leave circulation, and they wouldn’t be replaced. Over time, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would steadily decrease. It’d take a while, but that’s just because we’ve been idiotic about the subject for so long. All the more reason to start fixing it sooner, rather than later.
Mexico has very strict gun control.
…at which point weapon smuggling joins drug smuggling in lucrative black market professions…
The responsibility for crime resides with the criminals.
That’s what the well-regulated militia stuff means, huh? How about all the other stuff in the Constitution about suppressing insurrections - that’s all about staving off tyranny too, is it?
Come on now. That interpretation was created only in the last few decades.
Three answers to your rhetorical question:
The automobile deaths are almost entirely accidental. You may as well say “Why do we care so much about child abuse when children tripping over and hurting themselves happens more frequently?”
Cars are an essential tool for modern society, particularly in the US. There would be absolute chaos if we tried to cut the number of cars or trucks significantly overnight.
Whereas, if all the SMGs / assault rifles etc disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn’t affect much of anything except the effect it might have on mass shootings.
We do do a lot to mitigate automobile deaths. Like, oh look - tiered licensing and registration, the things I have been saying would form the core of common-sense gun control.