I understand your logic but the bad guy will always find a way to get a gun, legally or illegally. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

With 100 million guns in circulation (not all of them suitable for mass murder, of course, lots of them are only good for selective murders, one here, one there), any bad guy who wants a gun will certainly be able to get one, no matter who talks and walks with whom, or what laws are passed.

That horse (the whole herd of horses) has long since left the barn.

Making lists of people who are too bad to carry a gun will not, therefore, work very well. The supply is just too extensive.

Who is to blame? Well, gun manufacturers are partly to blame, certainly, as are gun customers who stock up on types of guns which have no place in a civilized society. Gun advocates of years past, who approved of pumping millions of guns into the market share some of the blame. Legislators who have refused, refuse now, and will refuse to act in the future are partly to blame. Presidents who say, the day after a mass murder with a gun, that "guns are not the problem" are partly to blame (and Trump isn't the first one to say that),

I know that it's a right. I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be a right if it causes more harm than good. — Michael

Chief Justice Berger (1969-1986) called the interpretation of the Second Amendment to mean everyone had a right to a gun "stupid".

Thank you for helping me understand your question. Your idea would be apply if we had to have a reason to own a firearm but we don't because owning a firearm is a right. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Rights are granted and taken away all the time. It's a bit more difficult with constitutional rights such as, say women's suffrage, but it can be done. The right to bear arms was granted initially for a reason and doesn't exist in a vacuum. If that reason is no longer valid or supervening reasons against that right come to the fore, it seems reasonable to withdraw the right or to introduce limitations on it.

I understand from various discussions that originally it was to prevent oppression from the government and there's some division among constitutional lawyers as to what a "well-regulated militia" means. It doesn't follow from there that limitations aren't possible. Although I personally think doing away with guns entirely is even better, at least some form of gun control could be applied.

I also like Chris Rock's solution. Make each bullet cost 100 USD. That way, before you're going to shoot someone you better make sure it's worth it.

Sorry Tiff, but I find the thought of a "good guy with a gun" firing away at bad guys rather frightening because, as I've said before, I doubt the majority of those good guys have spent or will spend the time necessary to learn to shoot accurately. It may be that someone would be of some use in some situations, but in the majority of cases it's likely the good citizen will shoot some poor unfortunate standing too close to the bad guy.

The NRA leadership, with its ties to the gun manufacturers, sanctions the "good guy with a gun" argument for only one reason, I think--to sell more guns.

The killer had a felony on his record and so owned firearms illegally. So how could this shooting have been prevented, except with greater vigilance in enforcing already existing gun control laws? The only solution would be to ban all guns, but this isn't really a solution for a variety of reasons, which I shall summarize once more:

The principled reason is that we have the second amendment, which is based on the natural right to self-defense. The pragmatic reasons are that 1) there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, such that it would be impossible to confiscate all of them, 2) those who would do the confiscating, the police and military, are themselves made up almost entirely by people who privately own guns and support the second amendment, such that they would never follow an order to confiscate guns, and 3) even if such an order were followed, armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns, such confiscation originally being meant to prevent... mass murder by guns. Ergo, guns will never be banned in the U.S., and those who believe that they can or ought to be are both ignorant and naive.

As for statistics, there are conservatively hundreds of thousands of instances a year of law abiding citizens preventing crimes and protecting themselves with the use of a gun, which dwarfs the number of gun deaths per year. So one can quite easily say that guns protect more than they harm.

The killer had a felony on his record and so owned firearms illegally. So how could this shooting have been prevented, except with greater vigilance in enforcing already existing gun control laws? — Thorongil

That would get my vote. It would at least be a start, until a greater solution can be reached.

The only solution would be to ban all guns, but this isn't really a solution for a variety of reasons, which I shall summarize once more — Thorongil

Given the current state of affairs, it would be hugely impractical and come at a great cost. As a progressive, and not a defeatist, I view that as something to work on. I don't need a summary of the reasons, although some of them I find weak and meaningless, like this interpretation of the second amendment as a so-called natural right for just about any old schmuck to own a firearm.

I doubt the majority of those good guys have spent or will spend the time necessary to learn to shoot accurately — Ciceronianus the White

Why would you doubt this? Do you have statistics to prove it? Most gun advocates, like the members of the NRA, are very well trained and encourage proper training and gun safety.

Consider the following from a CNN article (hardly a pro-gun outlet):

The organization's overall revenue, which includes membership dues, program fees and other contributions, has boomed in recent years – rising to nearly $350 million in 2013. The majority of this money funds NRA initiatives like member newsletters, sporting events and gun safety education and training programs.

As for this:

The NRA leadership, with its ties to the gun manufacturers, sanctions the "good guy with a gun" argument for only one reason, I think--to sell more guns. — Ciceronianus the White

From the same article:

Some political funding comes from big corporations, many within the gun industry, which donate millions to the NRA. But companies are barred from donating to the NRA’s political action committee, which the agency uses to fill campaign coffers, run ads and send out mailers for and against candidates.

Contributions came from nearly 30,000 donors, with around 90% of donations made by people who gave less than $200 in a single year. According to the NRA, the average donation is around $35.

Only one person has donated even close to the maximum amount allowed by federal law, which is $5,000 per year: a computer programmer from Houston.

In addition to its PAC, the NRA also has a powerful lobbying arm, the nonprofit NRA Institute for Legislative Action, which lobbies for new laws and runs issue-based campaign ads of its own.

Unlike the PAC, it isn’t able to donate directly to candidates. But it is able to receive millions of dollars in donations from corporations. The group is not required to disclose the names of its contributors or the details of these contributions, though some major gunmakers like Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Company have announced large donations in the past (though the NRA says that the vast majority of money comes from individual donors just like the PAC).

I'm not saying that the NRA isn't in bed with gun manufacturers to sell more guns, but to pretend that that is its principle reason for being, one would have to ignore all the evidence that points to the organization principally being one that wants to protect the second amendment and provide gun information and training to its members.

like this interpretation of the second amendment as a so-called natural right for just about any old schmuck to own a firearm — Sapientia

But said right doesn't and ought not apply to just any old schmuck. Convicted felons, the psychologically impaired, and, I would add, the untrained don't possess it. They have forfeited it.

The principled reason is that we have the second amendment, which is based on the natural right to self-defense. The pragmatic reasons are that 1) there are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation, such that it would be impossible to confiscate all of them, 2) those who would do the confiscating, the police and military, are themselves made up almost entirely by people who privately own guns and support the second amendment, such that they would never follow an order to confiscate guns, and 3) even if such an order were followed, armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns, such confiscation originally being meant to prevent... mass murder by guns. — Thorongil

Then there's something very wrong with American society. Because when most gun ownership was banned in the UK and Australia, private citizens didn't go to war to keep their guns; they gave them up voluntarily (and with compensation, I believe), because that was the (new) law.

But said right doesn't and ought not apply to just any old schmuck. Convicted felons, the psychologically impaired, and, I would add, the untrained don't possess it. They have forfeited it. — Thorongil

My qualification of "just about" accounted for those excluded by current legislation, so I stand by that statement. It is comparatively true that in the U.S.A., just about any old schmuck can get their hands on a gun. That ought to change, and that ought to be the goal, irrespective of the finer details about the means.

It is comparatively true that in the U.S.A., just about any old schmuck can get their hands on a gun. That ought to change, and that ought to be the goal, irrespective of the finer details about the means. — Sapientia

What, in addition to the things I listed, do you think ought to bar someone from legally owning a firearm?

Then there's something very wrong with American society. — Michael

Yes, there is, and that needs to change.

What, in addition to the things I listed, do you think ought to bar someone from legally owning a firearm? — Thorongil

The goal would be to replicate what we have here in the UK. The question is how best to go about it.

The goal would be to replicate what we have here in the UK. The question is how best to go about it. — Sapientia

What, in addition to the things I listed, does UK law include that bars someone from legally owning a firearm?

What, in addition to the things I listed, does UK law include that bars someone from legally owning a firearm? — Thorongil

Without looking it up, I don't know, or don't remember from what I've read previously. Presumably there are important differences in terms of both legislation and enforcement.

Firearms licensing law, 2016

One of the key parts is that there must be a good reason to own a gun, which includes profession, sport, collecting, study, and research, but doesn't include self-defence.

Your idea would be apply if we had to have a reason to own a firearm but we don't because owning a firearm is a right. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Try this, Warren Burger on the 2nd amandment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo

You have a right to own a gun the way Nazis had the right to commit genocide - after all, it was legal! You should know better! What do you imagine the first part of the amendment is there for? Scalia, et al should get the Roger Tawney "Dred Scott" award for discriminating jurisprudence.

Granted, while there is no right to own a gun, it also seems unreasonable to ban them entirely except for good cause, that I mainly understand in terms of local enforcement. So how about some reason in this argument. If no reason, then why cannot I own a bazooka, or whatever the modern equivalent is - or any other armament I might take a shine to, without limitation.

You mention above the good man with the gun. Ok, a situation; and so far as we know, he did no harm. But is that really what you want, your neighbor getting out his rifle and "engaging" the bad guys? Where you live, is that the best you can do? Anyone who says yes should check out the correlation between gun control and gun deaths.

You have a right to own a gun the way Nazis had the right to commit genocide - after all, it was legal! — tim wood

An ironic example, given that Nazi Germany banned Jews specifically from owning guns.

Giving people the right to own lethal weapons was always going to be a great idea. Who thought of that?

Well, we could exchange articles on the NRA and its connections with gun manufacturers all day, no doubt. Try this one:http://fortune.com/2016/01/05/nra-gun-owners-obama/ Or, this one: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

The real money connecting the NRA with the gun manufacturers is in advertising and donations which aren't necessarily made in a political guise. The NRA likes the money. It's back being scratched, it scratches back. Thus, "the only way to fight a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." I say nothing of most of its members.

As for the accuracy issue, it's based mostly on personal experience as a gun owner who uses shotguns with some regularity in shooting clays and is impressed by the number of times he and others who do so also regularly miss. That can happen for a number of reason, not necessarily related to the user of the gun.

Shooting a small, moving target with a shotgun takes some skill, as its barrels are not rifled, but with a shotgun one also benefits from the fact that the shot spreads. That's not the case with a handgun, and handguns are what people who like to carry guns with them all over the place (either concealed or unconcealed) typically carry, long guns being a bit cumbersome, in case (or with the hope?) they'll have the chance or need to use them to fight the bad guys. Handguns are, in my experience (which is limited) very difficult to shoot with accuracy even when one is using them to hit a stationary target. I infer from this that they're even more difficult to shoot with any accuracy when the target is moving, shooting, and the adrenaline is flowing.

I ask myself, then--to what extent is it likely that those who scamper to get handguns and concealed-carry permits whenever there's been a shooting and the NRA and others are shouting that they're gonna take our Second Amendment rights away, spend significant time training in their use? I think it's likely that not many spend much time doing so. I have no statistics, though, alas.

Well, it was a vastly different time, as too many fail to consider. It's likely most everyone had guns then, and that many used them even to get food to eat. Also, the Founding Fathers were probably a bit leery of professional armies like that of the British, had first-hand knowledge that they could be used to suppress people, and perhaps imagined what it would be like if they didn't have the guns they had. That's no longer such a pressing concern, though.

Do you support stronger gun laws in America? — Brian

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter because I don't live in USA and it isn't the center of the world. Speaking of which, it's not even the centre of America, which is the continent and not the country. I don't think Canada has a problem with their gun laws.

I was under the impression this was an international forum. How local issues may be discussed here until the moderators take action? May I start a thread on the selection of mayor in my home village? Where is the line drawn?

I was under the impression this was an international forum. How local issues may be discussed here until the moderators take action? May I start a thread on the selection of mayor in my home village? Where is the line drawn? — BlueBanana

There is no line. Talk about what you like, so long as it's in the right category (and not illegal or offensive).

Although I wouldn't expect many replies in a discussion about your village's mayor.

What about low effort rule?

Well, yes, that's almost always in effect, regardless of subject matter.

Very well, you may expect pages upon pages of content on the society of ants in my back yard.

With winter approaching, the events are about to turn most fascinating, don't you think?

Back to the subject:

What actual basis is there to ban the guns or limit them? Can the issue be discussed before we discuss the necessity of laws, society, even morals or value of human life first?

What if we just eliminate the real problem, which seems to be people? As Stalin (I think) said, "no people, no hunger".

to what extent is it likely that those who scamper to get handguns and concealed-carry permits whenever there's been a shooting and the NRA and others are shouting that they're gonna take our Second Amendment rights away, spend significant time training in their use? — Ciceronianus the White

I think a majority of them. The people who fall into the category you describe above are the people who would likely be found at gun ranges practicing, at education events, gun safety events, etc.

What actual basis is there to ban the guns or limit them? — BlueBanana

Obviously, the effect that it would likely have on gun crime.

Can the issue be discussed before we discuss the necessity of laws, society, even morals or value of human life first? — BlueBanana

It already has been. It takes some gall to turn up to a discussion and start making requests about the direction of the discussion without having paid enough attention to what's already been covered.

What if we just eliminate the real problem, which seems to be people? As Stalin (I think) said, "no people, no hunger". — BlueBanana

Serious proposals are welcome. Do you have any?

I think a majority of them. The people who fall into the category you describe above are the people who would likely be found at gun ranges practicing, at education events, gun safety events, etc. — Thorongil

You're more optimistic than I am. But, perhaps you're right. Then we may take comfort in the fact that, e.g., only 40% of those carrying guns have no training in their use.

I hope that people are as eager to train as you think, as there are several states which have no concealed carry permit requirement, and many of those that do don't require live fire training as a condition for issuance of a permit.