You didn’t read Muffin’s post very well, then:
The world list may be provided, but Muffin’s intent is clearly to only look at the upper tier.
I can’t see it. Can you explain how terrorists in X country would be prevented from planning and carrying out an attack by a curtailment of any US amendment?
Canada’s murder rate is 1/3rd of ours, but you’re feeling proud because ours is 1/3rd of Mexico’s.
We’re in the middle, that’s good enough, right?
The law does not deal exclusively (or even usually in philosophical purity). It can’t, because it reflects interests of conflicting populations. The framers wrote the 2nd amendment in a vague and coy fashion as to its intent, as an amendment to a self-amending document. This left it wide open to judicial and legislative erosion. The framers weren’t stupid, I suspect they knew they were kicking the can down the road to future generations.
I (like most people) would favor of an amendment to repeal and replace the 2nd amendment to provide more clarity around the “right to bear arms”, both for the real harm it would prevent, and for the clarity of knowing what is or isn’t allowed. Other people prioritize unrestricted ownership of arms above everything else, so they prefer the openness to interpretation.
Coincidentally (or not), gun enthusiasm seems more centered upon states with congressional representation disproportionate to their population, thus outright repeal is impossible even if a majority of the population supports it. Hence we end up with gradual erosion of a vague amendment, as expected. Someday we may reach the point of saying it’s eroded to uselessness, but I can’t imagine that happening anytime soon.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries
In those 26 upper tier, you have Brunei, Luxemburg, Andorra and Liechtenstein.
What is the purpose of Terrorism? To spread Terror.
If no one(other than the victims) knows it happened, no terror.
Not feeling good, not good enough. We can do many things to cut our violent crime rate, I have already listed many of them.
However, gun control isn’t one of them. The whole “Liechtenstein has gun control and a low murder rate thereby gun controls cause a low murder rate” isn’t only bad logic, but it falls apart when you look at ALL the nations. It’s bad logic but it’s the only thing in the gun grabber argument book.
What’s more important is that gun control , here in the USofA, has not reduced violent crime.
Gun control in the US hasn’t reduced violent crime because gun control in the US is a joke. No matter how hard Chicago cracks down on guns, they can’t stop someone from leaving Chicago, buying a gun, and driving back to Chicago.
The reality of guns is that they make killing people super easy. Easy enough that a toddler can do it, without even intending to. You want to kill someone with a knife? That’s WORK, you’re not flexing your finger 2 or 3 times from 20 feet away then making a run for it. You have to get right up in there, close and personal to make it happen. 75% of homicides use firearms. It’s simple math to see how getting rid of firearms means that 75% would have to be accomplished some other way, and every other weapon option is FAR harder than pulling a trigger.
Anyway, it’s not Liechtenstein that’s important, it’s Liechtenstein, Norway, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Poland, Singapore, Netherlands, Austria… It’s the 100 countries that have half our murder rate. That’s right, we could cut our murder rate in half tomorrow and not crack the top 100. Do we have problems they don’t have? Sure, but one of the biggest is the availability of guns.
Sure, but of course- it is illegal to buy a gun in a state where you are not a resident*. So there is a law to stop that. Illinois has pretty strict gun laws. It is rated B+ by gun control proponents.
- and it illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a out of state customer. Gun stores must check IDs. While it is true that private sales have no such requirement in all states, it is illegal for them to knowingly sell a gun to a out of state buyer.
So by going out of state to buy a gun you are breaking several laws, and you have to find a non-questioning private seller.
So the laws we have on the books don’t do anything.
Exactly.
And of course, since the gun laws we do have dont do anything, the only answer is more gun laws, right?:dubious:
Boy, you sure got me there! I fell into your clever trap. 
Seriously, if the gun laws are “let’s ban this cosmetic feature” or “let’s regulate sales in this tiny subset of the market”, then adding more of them is worthless.
Our gun laws don’t work because they operate under the umbrella idea that “every American has the right to buy a semi-automatic pistol or rifle, just cuz they want one” Until that nonsense goes away, none of these gun laws will do anything but pick at the edges of the problem.
Maybe, MAYBE, if we had a robust* system of registration, it might make a dent, other than that, it’s rearranging the deck chairs.
*Robust being a nice word for the government being ALL up in your ass about that gun you own.
Yes, and on a national level, too. It doesn’t help Chicago to have tight gun laws if they’re loose in adjoining Indiana, for instance. Yet the gun lobby loves to point to that and say “See? Gun laws don’t work!”, just as if they were pointing at a screen door and saying “See? Doors don’t keep the rain and wind out!”.
On an international level, the same principle applies across the border - for instance, most of Mexico’s illegal guns are trafficked from the US (things come from the places they’re easiest to get, duh).
Out of all the arguments I’ve made over the years regarding guns/gun control, this is the simplest and easiest to grasp when it comes to a way to reduce homicides. And yet, I’ve never convinced a single gun owner to agree with me. I once exaggerated something of the sort, asking somewhat facetiously, “how many gun-related homicides would there be in the US if we literally got rid of all guns?” Knowing that in this admittedly far-fetched example, saying none would illustrate my point for me, no one has ever dared answer. Predictably, they want to ask how we could get rid of guns or otherwise change the subject.
He said crime could be prevented, not terrorism. Let him speak up for himself.
Domestic terrorists would have their ability to organize hampered if we could curtail speech. Foreign terrorists could potentially be stymied if they weren’t able to coordinate with domestic persons. Ultimately, if we simply killed everyone, no more crime or terrorism.
What’s the gotcha? If all guns were magically disappeared then of course gun crime would plummet. If I had wheels I’d be a wagon. Is there some brilliant point to be made here?
Huh? 
But- would violent crime go down and stay down?
It’s all very nice to ask for a reduction in “gun crime” but myself, I’d also rather not be knifed, thenkyouverymuch.
Of course violent crime would go down for a while, until crooks adapted. Zip guns, or even guns made from 3D printers, crossbows, whatever. Now, I will guess that violent crime would be reduced somewhat forever- by waving that magic wand and making all guns go away. Or would it? The guns in the hands of police and security would go away also.
But if the same magic wand was used to say get rid of all ‘semiautomatic’ guns- that dip would be smaller and go away faster. Sawed off shotguns and revolvers can easily replace Glocks.
Guns killed more people in America than car crashes in 2017 (mostly via suicide).
If we’re interested in reducing a number of deaths comparable to car crashes, then regulating guns would be an effective way to do that. Particularly since many of these deaths were suicide, because guns so easily serve such impulse decisions.
Gun enthusiasts believe that guns mostly kill people who deserve it, but a more careful look reveals the victims to be innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc. We can assume some of that rage would find its way to a knife or tire iron, but those are much higher-effort ways to hurt someone. Guns are especially dangerous to people who don’t deserve to be killed.