I generally support all American gun freedoms, and in any case believe any hope of control is futile; however I should warn Americans visiting Britain — and most of the world — that they will not be defended in libraries by guardians with guns.
Thanks-That seems to cover a bit more, but I can’t open those files at work. Could someone have a look and see if it covers accidents and suicides?
I have not been in the military, but I have been given to understand that it is very much your gun. At one time, marines slept with their gun.
Oh,and the Israelis and some other countries send you home with it when you leave the army. That militia thing. 
My research hasn’t uncovered anything that meets your specific critiera. Do you have a counter example? For me, the current jurisprudence realted to this issue is sufficient. I appreciate the anti-tyranny and defending against foreign invaders angles, but my primary interest lays in self defense. I introduce the cite to illustrate the issue is resolved in the modern sense. Feel free to provide modern or contemporary evidence to the contrary.
I’m told that the only legal self defense product in Britain is a rape alarm.And no product may be made or adapted to cause a person injury. Go go badguys in Britain!
I’m going to guess that you didn’t read the link. I didn’t quote it so no big deal.
(my bold)
But it’s not like you’re grasping at any item that may bolster your position. I mean, I would expect you’d engage in some level of effort to deduce this on your own. It’s not like we’ve discussed this issue before…
And you may have missed me posting this same study in that same thread - I mean, you didn’t post in it afterwards so that’s possible.
But it seems like you already received the answer back in 2014 to part of the question you are asking:
Thank you for that reminder. It seems that gun violence hasn’t exactly gone down, then, according to the links you so kindly reposted. And thank you for the reminder that gun violence is not the same thing as gun crime.
(my bold)
I’m not sure how you draw this conclusion when the link posted directly contradicts your statement, unless you are using the word “exactly” to impart meaning not presented. Maybe you’re trying to draw a distinction between gun violence and gun crime - that there could be decreases in gun crime but not gun violence that isn’t a crime? I can’t parse it. What are you trying to say when you insert this word? There are clearly areas of crime and death as a result of firearms that have gone down. The overall trend across all categories is clear.
(my bold)
There are also great declines in accidental firearm related death and accidental firearm related injuries.
Unfortunately the rate of suicide is higher in recent years. That’s sucky.
That was more an offside comment than my main point: we have many “milestone” ages, but the age to purchase a pistol is generally the latest milestone date in American society. Unless we wish to make it 25, along with such life-changing events like running for Congress and renting a car hassle-free.
Crime statistics are in competition with attitudes towards GMOs and nuclear power as the creationism or global warming of the left – an issue where ideology trumps plain facts and mainstream science all the time. Denying statistics is no better than denying biology.
Once again(for the hard of reading): Gun Violence Is Not The Same Thing As Gun Crime.
When we are talking about the violence caused by guns, we also include the accidents and the suicides.
I don’t consider suicides when talking about gun violence. Suicide is a tragedy, but remedies for suicide are not necessarily overlapping with those for gun violence.
Suicide by gun is violence done with a gun, and I’m sorry it interferes with the “gun violence is going down” thing some have going on.
Good luck with that. I’m sure that protecting people from themselves by imposing restrictions on everyone else will go over great with the Newsweek crowd. The author should have added that as one of the compromises so it could be dismissed with the rest of the proposals.
This has nothing to do with giving an accurate statement about the level of gun violence in this country, which is rather obviously what I was talking about.
Good luck getting the second amendment repealed. And good luck with “security” when the home invaders with guns start breaking into houses knowing that the homeowners aren’t armed.
You’re right that it won’t be repealed anytime soon. Probably not in our lifetime.
But that does not mean it is ok or right. History is replete with examples of “legal” things done that were immoral.
First you’d have to establish that this scenario happened in Australia after they banned guns. Or explain why gun violence went way, way down there. Taking guns away from the populace inherently also takes them away from the criminals, because they get their guns from the populace.
Not that I support a gun ban. But these scenarios are stupid. As is the persecution complex by gun owners. I don’t know why you want to act like those poor, persecuted Christians.
There must be ab awkward time there when the good guys do not have guns and the bad guys do.
Home invasions are much more common in Australia than the U.S., and became so after the gun ban. Home invasions prompt calls for more police resources - ABC News The main reason this particular crime is brought up is because the numbers are so stark, and it’s a crime that really does depend totally on knowing that you won’t find an armed victim.
Crime and murder in Australia can be described the same way as crime and murder in the UK. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html Namely: They both have more crime, but less murder, than the US, and neither the crime rate nor the murder rate has changed much since the gun bans. There never was an epidemic of murder (by guns, or otherwise) in either country; they banned guns in a wave of hysteria in response to aberrant, headline-grabbing mass shooting incidents; since aberrant, headline-grabbing mass shooting incidents are not indicative of nationwide trends, the crime and murder rates remained the same as they were before.
This is accurate and helpful, and I agree with it.
However, this is lunatic nonsense.
Anyway, here’s my gun control proposal:
Pro gun -
Shall-issue conceal carry permits everywhere
Open carry allowed everywhere
No outlawed features or styles (including magazine capacity)
No background checks (after all, the 2nd amendment doesn’t say “…shall not be infringed, unless you’re the wrong sort of person.”)
Gun control advocates -
Universal firearm registration. Failure to report or register a stolen, sold, purchased, owned, found, given, or manufactured firearm within a reasonable time (I’m thinking days or weeks) would be a federal crime, with a mandatory penalty of being denied the right to own firearms for a probationary period (I’m thinking months, up to a year). A repeat offence would extend this penalty for the remainder of your life.
I think if you have a problem with the way the second amendment is written, the solution is not to pretend that it actually says something else. The text is plain, and the wording is unambiguous. If you don’t like the law, you should campaign to amend the constitution to make it say what you want it to.
Being required to register a firearm is not infringing on the right to carry that firearm. Registration *fees *(like polling fees) would be infringing on that right, so this registration scheme would need to come from tax money. Also, being denied the right to carry a firearm as part of your sentence for a crime is not out of line, as criminal penalties are universally understood to be taking particular rights away from you.
Any great compromise that doesn’t include “an additional amendment clarifying in explicit language that no further laws regarding guns may ever be passed” is just boiling the frog.