All our rights under the Bill of Rights have limitations, none are absolute.
Even under the 1st, you can’t commit slander, libel or possess child porn. You can’t copy other people’s works, either.
No right is absolute.
Your implication is utterly ridiculous. And from a lawyer no less.
It’s not an experiment. Many other countries have done exactly what we are proposing and have achieved the desired results. America is still literally the only civilized country that just refuses to impose the obvious and effective solutions.
And people like you who keep making the same failed argument while ignoring the evidence are the root of the problem. But none of this is news to you. How many times does someone have to repeat the same facts before you actually listen?
I wouldn’t expect a reply from DrDeth. He hasn’t answered my question as to why he thinks a country-wide ban on many guns would’t work, even if he is in principle against this type of effective gun control that you alluded to. I suspect it’s because he doesn’t have a good answer. I don’t want to just assume this, so I wish he would answer.
All of those nations didnt have America’s level of gun ownership and violent crime, nor any sort of “gun culture”. They didnt have literally around one gun per citizen. And in many cases, such as Mexico, they increased their gun controls and got more violence. Despite the fact that the USA has more guns per capita but falls almost exactly in the middle of all nations murder rate.
In other nations they have plenty of guns and only moderate gun controls- Switzerland, Finland* for example, and possibly the only other nation with a gun culture like the USA is Yemen, which has lots of guns, loosely enforced laws and a murder rate only slightly higher than average.
- until 1998, when they were forced to tighten their guns laws due to joining the EU. This had no significant effect on their violent crime rate.
You bring up Finland. Who cares about Finland right now? I wonder why you didn’t bring up Japan. Compare their gun laws/ownership/gun death stats with ours and tell me why we couldn’t have the same results here.
Certainly it is possible it could work. It’s also possible it wont work. All indications, all gun bans and thigh gun laws in the USA- all have failed.
Like I said, it would be a experiment on the level of Prohibition, but worse. At least with prohibition, most voters were initially in favor (however, they thought beer wouldn’t be banned). However, in the USA only a small number are in favor of wide reaching bans.
Perhaps violent crime would decrease. But it* certainly *would cost tens of billions and certainly would put millions of otherwise law abiding citizens in jail. Just like with Prohibition scofflaws would be common.
*Proponents of the amendment hailed the new law as a cure for myriad social ills. Eliminating alcohol consumption would, they argued, reduce crime and corruption and lower the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses. Moreover, they contended, Prohibition would improve the health of the American public and prevent the disintegration of families.
Despite these noble intentions, alcohol prohibition was a failure on all fronts. Although alcohol consumption sharply decreased at the beginning of Prohibition, it quickly rebounded. Within a few years, alcohol consumption was between 60 and 70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level.2 The alcohol produced under Prohibition varied greatly in potency and quality, leading to disastrous health outcomes including deaths related to alcohol poisoning and overdoses. Barred from buying legal alcohol, many former alcohol users switched to substances such as opium, cocaine, and other dangerous drugs.3 Criminal syndicates formed to manufacture and distribute illegal liquors, crime increased, and corruption flourished. In light of these failures, the Eighteenth Amendment was eventually repealed in 1933.4
Few today would argue that alcohol prohibition was a wise policy. Even those who largely oppose alcohol consumption recognize the failure of the Eighteenth Amendment. *
And for another example- the war on drugs- over 2 Million arrested (mostly for marijuana! :eek:) . Currently half of the USA prison population is there due to the failed war.
and the cost?
The monetary cost of U.S. domestic drug policy is equally remarkable. Since the War on Drugs began more than 40 years ago, the U.S. government has spent more than $1 trillion on interdiction policies. Spending on the war continues to cost U.S. taxpayers more than $51 billion annually.8
Now, that was for something the voting population quite heavily was in support of.
Still, it cost us millions in prison, and over a Trillion dollars- and we are no better off.
So, what you are proposing is another Prohibition- on guns this time.
Prohibition on booze failed disastrously. Costing billions, many incarcerated and increasing crime.
Prohibition on drugs *continues to *fail disastrously. Costing trillions, many incarcerated and increasing crime.
Prohibition on guns? There is no doubt in my mind: *Costing trillions,many incarcerated and increasing crime. *
Japan never had a high violent crime rate. Japan never had many guns. And Japan *lost *WW2, which removed all guns from the populace- altho true, there really werent many anyway.
The USA has historically had a violent crime rate higher than Japan. The USA has always had many guns and a gun culture. And- we won WW2.
Do note that the main cause of “gun deaths” in the USA is suicide. And Japan has a much higher suicide rate than America. And they dont need guns to do it.
With the gun culture we currently have, what war would you say we are winning?
Violent crime has been on the decrease for quite some time.
Yes, and anyone who doesn’t seriously consider this as a possibility should just admit they don’t really care about the number of senseless deaths because of guns.
Please stop bringing up this argument to me specifically. I have already explained why I think this won’t do any good.
Another thing you keep bringing it up. The next time, could you show some evidence?
This is not about either of those things, so don’t try to distract from the issue or draw fallacious/unsupported conclusions.
As for my Japan comment
You can continue from above, and see that over the centuries, the gun culture in Japan changed dramatically, so that now gun deaths are almost non-existent. There is no reason we cannot do the same in the US. Yes, as I have said, it won’t happend over night and might take years, decades, or even a century. But it can be done!
Well, that’s nice, can I ask that you stop bring up a argument?
300 Million guns. Let us say we ban half. 150 Million guns @ $500 each. Do the math. How much would just that cost be? And then the cost of the extra police and prisons.
It is, it is about Prohibition. Which hasnt worked in the USA.
Yes, a few Japanese warlords had guns Four Hundred fucking years ago. Matchlock muskets. That hardly equates to the USA having 300 million guns.
And, you think it can be done. I dont.
In fact I think it will increase violent crime.
You’re concerned about that amount of money? What else do you think the government is spending too much on?
It’s certainly interesting to learn that matchlock muskets of 400 years ago are irrelevant, while choosing to make a stand about something written 230 years ago when *flintlock *muskets had taken over. But that’s your hill, and you can die on it if you like.
The logic and data that can be extrapolated to show an increase in violent crime from reducing the means to perform it are even more interesting, though.
The War on Drugs.
Because matchlocks werent the weapon of the common man, like flintlocks were in America. More or less you were expected to own a flintlock and be part of the militia in America. Peasants were;t allowed to own any weapons at all. Japan never had many guns, they never had a gun culture.
Gun sales and ownership is increasing every year, which the trend is for a reduction in the violent crime rate. We have more guns, and less violence now.
You seem to be under the impression that the only way to ban a shitload of guns is to say the government has to do a buyback when it happens. They don’t. And you have no evidence about the extra cost of police and prisons. You simply saying something is not proof of anything. Do you have any?
As for Japan, you are misstating what the link I gave says. And you also demonstrate that when given evidence that it’s possible to reduce guns greatly in a society that used to have them, you simply ignore it because it refutes your points and proves you wrong. That in a nutshell is what’s wrong with gun owners that I’ve argued with before. Why not just come out and say it: you have NO interest in reducing deaths if it means giving in on anything to gun control advocates. And that’s fine, it’s a free country. Just say it.
Ah so seizure without recompense? Wow, let’s go total nazi, why not? :rolleyes:
Ok, so you’re gonna take 150 Million guns away from armed citizens, without any buyback. You dont think you’re gonna need a few extra cops?:dubious:
And of 100 million gun owners, you dont think any are gonna resist or refuse?
NO interest here at all for you to take away my property without compensation based on the pipe dream, without any evidence, that it might reduce some rate or another.
You can understand my trepidation when you offer the solution of taking the guns away from the folks NOT causing the problems. Maybe that’s just me, but I doubt it.
You tell me: Which category was Stephen Paddock?
Was he a ‘law abiding gun owner?’ Was he an American who proudly protected his Second Amendment Rights? Was he a ‘good guy?’ Because all available evidence shows that he had no criminal record until he just arbitrarily decided to shoot 900 people. So please, explain it to me. Because I hear so much about ‘law-abiding gun owners,’ and the ‘good guy with a gun,’ and yet over and over we see the ‘law-abiding good guys’ just wake up one day and decide they feel like mass murder.
But it’s wrong to take away Stephen Paddock’s guns because he was NOT causing the problem, until he did.
Until you can acknowledge reality, I no longer care what you think.
Those are called ‘criminals.’ And I don’t care what they want or what happens to them.
Ah yes, you can make anything illegal, and then they are 'criminals". Let’s make being a atheist a crime. Viola-* Those are called ‘criminals.’ And I don’t care what they want or what happens to them.*
Publishing stuff that insults the President:Those are called ‘criminals.’ And I don’t care what they want or what happens to them.
Owning cars or trucks that get less than 12 MPG:Those are called ‘criminals.’ And I don’t care what they want or what happens to them.
Or what had happened not so very long ago: Being Gay: Those are called ‘criminals.’ And I don’t care what they want or what happens to them.
See how easy that is?