OK, by that logic no new weapons in development are covered under the 2nd amendment right if they are not yet legal. So, if we decide to ban all new weapons (never make them legal) it would not infringe on the 2nd amendment. And applying the principle retroactively, nothing but the weapons originally extant at the time of the 2nd amendment were covered by the 2nd amendment. Ergo, nothing but muskets and the like need be covered.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5997656/moped-gang-oxford-street-machete-watches-of-switzerland-robbery/

Who needs guns to scare the shit out of people and maybe kill a few off at the same time?

It's your perverse interpretation of the right that's the issue. You don't have the right to bear any arms you want otherwise you would have the right to bear machine guns and bazookas etc. Are you complaining about not having the right to a machine gun. Is that an infringement on your 2nd amendment right? — Baden

I know, right? That's crazy. And does she even realise that her slippery slope argument is a fallacy?

If you are legally able to own a machine gun or a bazooka, who am I to make it illegal? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Wow. :monkey:

Peace Officers — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Who the heck, or what the heck, are "Peace Officers"? That's just a made up term, isn't it? What you have are police officers, and they keep coming up in the news for shooting unarmed black people.

So once again nothing changed. Life is bizarre.

As I said once before, or maybe several times. It is people that kill, not guns. And if people do not have access to guns they will use something else. — Sir2u

It bears repeating tho, that since bullet wounds are statistically a lot more damaging than blade wounds, even if all gun crimes were translated into knife attacks, violent crime would be about 1/3 to 2/3 less deadly, depending on the organ wounded.

Yes, and what an AR-15 bullet, for example, can do to the body in terms of damage is not comparable at all to an average stab wound just like sticking a pin in someone is not comparable to sticking a knife in them. That's been demonstrated earlier in the discussion. And these are the types of weapons that most gun control advocates want banned. Why so many Americans insist on having guns that can create holes the size of pineapples in each other is just beyond me.

Mmmm, pineapple.

It bears repeating tho, that since bullet wounds are statistically a lot more damaging than blade wounds, even if all gun crimes were translated into knife attacks, violent crime would be about 1/3 to 2/3 less deadly, depending on the organ wounded. — Akanthinos

Yes, and what an AR-15 bullet, for example, can do to the body in terms of damage is not comparable at all to an average stab wound just like sticking a pin in someone is not comparable to sticking a knife in them. That's been demonstrated earlier in the discussion. And these are the types of weapons that most gun control advocates want banned. Why so many Americans insist on having guns that can create holes the size of pineapples in each other is just beyond me. — Baden

Yeah, it did indeed come up earlier. I was one of the people who posted links to statistical evidence, not that that should be necessary. And yet, this misleading point keeps being made, as it has been repeatedly throughout the preceding discussion.

And yet, somehow, it's me who's being unreasonable, because I won't craft a piece of extensive legislation detailing the changes I would like to see upon request.

(And yes, that's right. I am indeed referring to you once again, indirectly. Does that make you mad?)

Here's my legislation:

Basic handguns and rifles allowed but on a licensed basis i.e. you have to pass a competency test and undergo strict background criminal and mental health checks to own one. Everything beyond that including semi-automatic weapons banned. Simple. (And no impact on the much coveted 2nd amendment as owners still have the right to bear arms just not all arms—the latter point being in principle already conceded by acceptance of the illegality of machine guns and etc.)

Predicted result: A little less freedom (for owners of dangerous guns). A lot less death and injury for everyone else.

Here's my legislation:

Basic handguns and rifles allowed but on a licensed basis i.e. you have to pass a competency test and undergo strict background criminal and mental health checks to own one. Everything beyond that including semi-automatic weapons banned. Simple. (And no impact on the much coveted 2nd amendment as owners still have the right to bear arms just not all arms—the latter point being in principle already conceded by acceptance of the illegality of machine guns and etc.)

Predicted result: A little less freedom (for owners of dangerous guns). A lot less death and injury for everyone else. — Baden

Well, that's at least better than the status quo.

Here's my legislation: — Baden

Hey, you are not a law maker are you?

Basic handguns and rifles allowed but on a licensed basis i.e. you have to pass a competency test and undergo strict background criminal and mental health checks to own one. Everything beyond that including semi-automatic weapons banned. Simple. (And no impact on the much coveted 2nd amendment as owners still have the right to bear arms just not all arms—the latter point being in principle already conceded by acceptance of the illegality of machine guns and etc.) — Baden

See, it was not hard. But some of the most brilliant minds(according to them) could not come up with that.

The problem I see is and always has been the implementation and enforcement of any kind of controls, even the simplest as you state them.
How many people are actually qualified to do mental health checks on all of the people that own guns, how many would be needed?
How many people are actually qualified to do competency testing for any kind of weapon? I doubt that there are enough to test the millions of people that own guns.
Criminal checks would not be a problem, supposedly, because everyone in the USA has a social security number and/or identity of some kind and the interstate cooperation between police forces is fantastic. So it would be easy to track down and check up on all registered gun owners. Except that there are so many that are not registered and there are a lot of fake IDs used to get jobs never mind guns.

Who would have to foot the bill for all of this? The general public, the gun owners? What would happen to all of the people that have been employed to do all of these checks once they had finished.
What about the security of the data bases used to hold all of this information? If so many other government and private sites are being hacked, would you like to have so much of your personal data in one place like that? It would almost be like a shopping list for someone that wants a gun. The would know where you live, what kind of gun you have and be able to guess when you are not home by your work details.

I don't think too many people would be willing to register their guns if they had to go through all of that. Guns can and are bought on the street and someone that wants one will get one.

Predicted result: A little less freedom (for owners of dangerous guns). A lot less death and injury for everyone else. — Baden

I would prefer less freedom for dangerous owners of guns. But yes, less death and injury would help.

Hey, you are not a law maker are you? — Sir2u

See, it was not hard. — Sir2u

The problem I see... — Sir2u

Yeah, it's probably easier to find problems in legislation that hasn't been crafted by members of a legislative body, with all of the experience, skills, and processes that that involves.

Similarly, with regards to implementation, I would want to hear from, or be advised by, the relevant authorities, like the police. Or at least know a great deal about it.

I'm not going to pretend that I know better than them. I am not an professional. I don't have that expertise. I have not done the groundwork. I have not spent the time and resources that one would expect to go into a project like this. But hey, you're free to speculate.

You ask a number of valid technical questions about how a proposed gun control act would work. I don't see the questions as being important to the philosophical debate though, because we can observe that they have practical, satisfactory answers from the simple fact that most OECD countries have rules of this type and they work in an acceptable, cost-effective manner.

For any proposed piece of legislation, however uncontroversial, I could ask dozens of important questions about who implements it, who pays, how it is enforced, what is done to protect abuse and so on, but they don't really have any bearing on the determination of whether to do the legislation unless there is reason to suppose they do not have satisfactory answers.

Imagine a discussion between a couple over whether to have a child. One might ask - but what will we feed them, how will we toilet train them, how will we teach them road safety, at what age will we allow them to have a mobile phone etc etc etc. But those questions are not part of the decision about whether to have a child, because we know that there are acceptable answers to them [pax, ye antinatalists. I am not saying that means the answer is always 'yes, we should have a child'. I am saying that it will turn on, amongst other things, the issues that concern you, like what are the moral implications of creating another being that can suffer, rather than how many hours of screen time per day we will allow them].

You ask a number of valid technical questions about how a proposed gun control act would work. I don't see the questions as being important to the philosophical debate though, — andrewk

Not much of the discussion has actually been philosophical, it is mostly peoples' opinions.

because we can observe that they have practical, satisfactory answers from the simple fact that most OECD countries have rules of this type and they work in an acceptable, cost-effective manner. — andrewk

You are right about that, many countries have succeeded in restricting guns. But how many of them had the amount of guns that are in the US?

For any proposed piece of legislation, however uncontroversial, I could ask dozens of important questions about who implements it, who pays, how it is enforced, what is done to protect abuse and so on, but they don't really have any bearing on the determination of whether to do the legislation unless there is reason to suppose they do not have satisfactory answers. — andrewk

So why has it not been done already, surely there are sufficient experts in the country to arrange for all of these problems to be resolved efficiently. This then, is obviously one of the reasons why legislature has not been passed.
If they thought that legislation would work they would have implemented it years ago. Most of the problems with any laws that are passed is the implementation of them, if they are not going to be enforced for whatever reason then it is a waste of time to pass them.

The other reason is the financial loses that it will incur. There are millions of registered guns that pay for permits. Gun manufactures pay taxes and provide jobs to thousands. Sales tax is paid on the guns bought. Hunting permits bring in cash to places that have very little to offer except hunting a few months a year. There are plenty of financial reasons not to bring in laws.

So why has it not been done already, surely there are sufficient experts in the country to arrange for all of these problems to be resolved efficiently. This then, is obviously one of the reasons why legislature has not been passed. — Sir2u

My impression is that that is not the reason. If it were the reason, the debate would be about the details of draft legislative bills. But it is not. The debate is about whether there should be a bill at all, and the NRA seeks to stop the discussion ever getting beyond that point to issues like working through the practical details. They would fear that if it got to the stage of discussing implementation they would have lost, as it would indicate that the electorate was accepting gun regulation as potentially reasonable and practical, rather than some devil-inspired commie plot.

The reason it has not been done already is simply that the NRA is enormously powerful and does not want gun control legislation of any form, no matter how practical and affordable it may be.

The reason it has not been done already is simply that the NRA is enormously powerful and does not want gun control legislation of any form, no matter how practical and affordable it may be. — andrewk

The NRA might be powerful, but if the US public wanted something like gun bans there would be gun bans. The last yanks I talked to about this were living outside of the US, and they said that they paid too many taxes already, and that they were not willing to let the government tax them more so that people could have their guns taken away. Especially as the major part of gun crimes were committed with illegal guns that could not be confiscated.

Gun controls will not work, for many reasons. The only way to stop gun violence is to remove the guns.
There are an estimated 270,000,000 guns in the country, if it takes a dollar for each one to be picked up how much is that. Would that money not be better spent on education? Most think it would.

Gun controls will not work, for many reasons. The only way to stop gun violence is to remove the guns.
There are an estimated 270,000,000 guns in the country, if it takes a dollar for each one to be picked up how much is that. Would that money not be better spent on education? Most think it would. — Sir2u

Why would a gun amnesty cut funds in education? I mean, it's not going to be free, but it certainly won't cost in the billions. How much trash is generated in a week in the U.S? If it cost 1 dollars to pick up every one of those trash bags... See where I'm going with this?

Why would a gun amnesty cut funds in education? — Akanthinos

Where did I say that it would cut funds to education?

In case you have not noticed there are a bunch of teachers striking because of low pay, there is a deficit in nearly all states of qualified teacher, and they are having problems with security in the schools. would it not make more sense to bolster education? Would it not make sense to start proper training facilities for gun use and teach people the dangers of firearms?

How much money do you think the government has already spent across the country in legal costs to try and implement gun laws? I will try to find the article again, but it said basically that millions have been spent in court cases that have come about because of the government trying to put restrictions on guns.

And I seriously doubt that a general amnesty would work, not many would willing give up their guns.

I mean, it's not going to be free, but it certainly won't cost in the billions — Akanthinos

Some of the estimates go over 300,000,000, A realistic amount to pick up each gun, including people going house to house with court orders to require the people to hand over their weapons, the cost of each court order, the cost of finding out who has guns so that the court orders can be issued. Take into account how many man hours it will take and multiple that by the minimum wage, let's say $10, we wont count the multitude of high priced lawyers that will be fighting it ever step of the way. I think that you are well into the billions, and that is if you don't run into any serious problems.
And then there is the transportation cost to take into account. And the storage of all those weapons with plenty of security because obviously you don't want anyone stealing the guns again after you spent all of that money getting them. And then there is the destruction of them. Wow, that does not sound cheap.

How much trash is generated in a week in the U.S? If it cost 1 dollars to pick up every one of those trash bags... See where I'm going with this? — Akanthinos

No, I don't see where you are going. There is absolutely no way to compare the two procedures. At least when I lived stateside the people happily took their trash to the edge of the road and the guy just had to pick it up and throw it into the truck.

Hey but maybe they could convince people to to the same with their guns.

Hey but maybe they could convince people to do the same with their guns. — Sir2u

They managed to convince them in Australia in 1996-7. In fact they convinced them to take the guns not to the roadside but all the way to the local police station or other designated local collection facility and hand them in.

As noted above, all the problems you mention have been solved in other countries. Sure the solutions cost money but spending money to provide security is a fundamental role of government, not an optional extra. IIRC for Hobbes, it was the only role of government. Given what the US spends on defence and on spying on its own citizens, that principle seems to be perfectly well accepted there.

Exactly.

Would that money not be better spent on education? Most think it would. — Sir2u

Yeah, maybe. And then someone shoots up your school, and suddenly you see things differently.

They managed to convince them in Australia in 1996-7. In fact they convinced them to take the guns not to the roadside but all the way to the local police station or other designated local collection facility and hand them in. — andrewk

Did you check to see how many there were? There was a big difference between what they had in Australia and what they have in the US. Remember size counts, especially with a problem like this.

As noted above, all the problems you mention have been solved in other countries. Sure the solutions cost money but spending money to provide security is a fundamental role of government, not an optional extra. IIRC for Hobbes, it was the only role of government. Given what the US spends on defence and on spying on its own citizens, that principle seems to be perfectly well-accepted there. — andrewk

OK, so I ask again. If it is so easy, why has it not been done already? Because of all of the problems involved in doing it maybe.

The only way to solve the problems of a country is through education. I have said from the beginning that if you don't want people to have guns, then you need to educate them to not want guns.

OK, so I ask again. If it is so easy, why has it not been done already? — Sir2u

This question was answered in my antepenultimate post.

You responded with an opinion, based on a handful of expat Americans whose opinion you sought, that Americans don't want to pay for gun control. I suspect your opinion is mistaken.

This question was answered in my antepenultimate post. — andrewk

OK.

You responded with an opinion, based on a handful of expat Americans whose opinion you sought, that Americans don't want to pay for gun control. I suspect your opinion is mistaken. — andrewk

You responded with your opinion, based on who knows what. I suspect your opinion is mistaken.

NRA Convention Bans Guns To Protect Mike Pence.

It's almost as if the Secret Service knows that it's dangerous for the average citizen to possess a gun.

It's almost as if the Secret Service knows that it's dangerous for the average citizen to possess a gun. — Michael

It is similar to the idea that if everyone has a gun, those who arrive in an authoritative role will have difficulty in knowing who the aggressor is. It almost happened to armed bystander, the "good guy with the gun" when Representative Gabby Giffords was shot in Tucson, AZ.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,"

It happens and even properly trained firearm users can and do make mistakes.