Wonderful sense of community in America where everyone is so afraid of each other that many would rather have a civil war than give up their guns. And why are they so afraid? Well, because everyone has a gun, of course.

The Takings Clause is limited to "public use" as I recall, so the justification would need to be to secure the weapons perhaps for use to defend the public, not just that they didn't want folks having guns. The "just compensation" provision along with the right to trial by jury on what is just compensation would result in astronomical costs that could not be avoided after condemnation. The confiscation of weapons for public use would not illegalize future gun purchases either, thus making future purchases a good investment by citizens, likely bringing a massive return when predictably condemned.

Just as interesting (and candidly absurd) would be if citizens were to seek inverse condemnation of their guns by arguing usage restrictions have grown so severe they have been devalued and they then use the jury buy back program in the reddest of districts.

The Takings Clause is limited to "public use" as I recall, so the justification would need to be to secure the weapons perhaps for use to defend the public, not just that they didn't want folks having guns. — Hanover

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

Doesn't seem to be saying that property can only be taken for public use. Just seems to say that if it's taken for public use then it must be compensated.

We are not the United States. We are not trapped by our own rhetoric into believing that we are no more than an agglomeration of individuals, a temporarily paused anarchy. — Banno

Don't forget to mention your dancing unicorns.

The confiscation of weapons for public use would not illegalize future gun purchases either, thus making future purchases a good investment by citizens, likely bringing a massive return when predictably condemned. — Hanover

Presumably a restriction on buying guns will be part of the law that includes taking existing ones.

Doesn't seem to be saying that property can only be taken for public use. Just seems to say that if it is taken for public use then it must be compensated. — Michael

Do you interpret that to mean that if for public use, it must be compensated, but if taken arbitrarily, it's free?

Do you interpret that to mean that if for public use, it must be compensated, but if taken arbitrarily, it's free? — Hanover

Yes. Although the part that comes before that – "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" – suggests that "arbitrary" is the wrong word to use.

Wonderful sense of community in America where everyone is so afraid of each other that many would rather have a civil war than give up their guns. And why are they so afraid? Well, because everyone has a gun, of course. — Baden

The distrust of government (which you equate with "community") is an inherent principle of American ideology, thematic throughout the Constitution's checks and balances?

Actually, reading into it more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The federal courts, however, have shown much deference to the determinations of Congress, and even more so to the determinations of the state legislatures, of what constitutes "public use". The property need not actually be used by the public; rather, it must be used or disposed of in such a manner as to benefit the public welfare or public interest.

So "public use" is broader than I originally thought.

And you think any court has interpreted it that way? The government must pay for land it seeks for roads, but if they want your house just cuz, they can just take it for free?

The government must pay for land it seeks for roads, but if they want your house just cuz, they can just take it for free? — Hanover

Well, looking into it more, it seems that the government/Congress can't take possessions "just cuz".

Right. There were instances where private run down shops were taken and sold to developers to better the area, resulting in claims that went beyond "public use" traditionally limited to roads and utility access. The courts said that was acceptable.

Your argument here differs. You're arguing takings can be made for non-public use.

You're arguing takings can be made for non-public use. — Hanover

I just misunderstood what was meant by "public use". I'll blame that on you for saying "the justification would need to be to secure the weapons perhaps for use to defend the public". ;)

But if it just means that the appropriation is in the public interest (and can include disposal, as per the previous reference), then I suppose that takings can't be made for non-public use, and so compensation is always required.

And you think any court has interpreted it that way? — Hanover

Although I wonder why the courts interpret "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" as "nor shall private property be taken except for public use, [and not] without just compensation". Seems contrary to the rule of original meaning when interpreting the constitution ("What would a reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?").

As I said, the States are fucked. — Banno

I know that is how you feel which is why I looked into the Aussie way of solving the gun problem, knowing it wouldn't be a perfect templet but looking for a better way than what we in the USA are doing.

Yes, the buy back was compulsory; yes, people went to gaol rather than hand back their guns There are also plenty of gun stashes out in the bush. Organised bad guys still get illegal guns and bring them in. People are allowed hunting rifles and pistols for legitimate use.

We do not give guns to teenagers and children. — Banno

Just so we are clear, I never allowed my children to play with toy guns, they were never allowed to receive them as gifts, to the extreme of not allowing water guns to play with in the blazing summers. I never wanted to own a gun, I never wanted to have a gun in my home, nor did I want my children to be around any home that had a firearm. It was my first question when my children were invited to a play date. Do you have any firearms in the home? and if you do, are they secured out of the children's reach?

When a legal firearm did come into my home, both of my children were enrolled classes at Ben Avery Firing Range where they were professionally trained by a certified marksman how to safely approach, responsibly handle, understand the applicable laws and finally how to fire a firearm. The instructors take no shit and people who want to be responsible gun owners are not signing up for classes at a range where the local Sheriffs and police train.

We even have a Shooter's party in politics. Our equivalent of the NRA. They get 2.8% of the national vote.

We have problems with family violence that end tragically with bashings or stabbings. We have home invasions and aggravated robbery, more often with a machete than a machine gun. — Banno

It sounds like our countries share violence in common, just a different choice of weapon.

We are not the United States. We are not trapped by our own rhetoric into believing that we are no more than an agglomeration of individuals, a temporarily paused anarchy. — Banno

I think it is fair to say that both of our countries have our own challenges in being a better society.

We even have a health system that we can all use. — Banno

And we take in refugees that have sought political asylum in Australia because the Australian government does not believe in the humane treatment of illegal immigrants. But what has that got to do with the gun control debate?

The distrust of government (which you equate with "community") — Hanover

No, I didn't, but if it's your government you're afraid of, then next time you go to the polls, I suggest you vote one in you don't think is going to kill you.

The Takings Clause is limited to "public use" as I recall, so the justification would need to be to secure the weapons perhaps for use to defend the public, not just that they didn't want folks having guns. — Hanover

Well, yes. As I said, I've handled a few of these proceedings. That a public use/purpose is needed doesn't surprise me, and I haven't said guns can be taken by condemnation for any reason at all.

Blighted property may be taken, property posing a danger due to its condition, drug houses and such, may be taken for reasons of public health, welfare and safety. Perhaps a similar argument can be made regarding guns. I don't know; I don't expect the issue will arise, here in what Hunter S. Thompson called the Kingdom of Fear. Old Hunter was very much a gun man himself, even to the point of ending his own life with one.

As for costs, I know that this can be a factor. I defended a county against a claim for litigation expenses in an inverse condemnation proceeding. 2.6 acres of pasture land was said to have been taken; worth about $3,550. Litigation expenses claimed were in excess of $119,000. But, litigation expenses must be reasonable, and one of the factors taken into consideration in determining reasonableness, though not determinative in itself, is the value of the property at issue. Another is whether the matter has been over-litigated by the condemnee. The award was about $90,000 less than the amount claimed.

Certain guns can be expensive, certainly. But their worth is generally far less than that of real property. I wouldn't expect large awards of litigation expenses, relatively speaking.

I think it is fair to say that both of our countries have our own challenges in being a better society. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Indeed, our dealings with immigrants have been appalling. But it does appear that Australians are more willing than Yanks to share their taxes with each other. More generally, while other nations focus on building a safe society, Americans seem set only on securing their own individual wellbeing. So "I need a gun, even if that makes the nation overall less safe".

That's the relation to health care. "I'm going to pay more for my own health care rather than put in to a common bucket that will reduce health costs across the board".

Found an interesting article. Don't know exactly how accurate these numbers are, but they do seem to make it clear that gun controls wont help.

http://www.thinklikeacop.org/guncontrol.html

I took a quick look at that site. You might want to check his facts, his math, and some of his assertions. He's not wrong: he's too ignorant to be wrong. His nonsense does not arise to the level of even being wrong. It's just nonsense. The first thing that ought to catch your eye is his statistics:

"There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016.

Doing the math that is 0.000000925% of the population die from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant!"

He's got it at about 1 in one million. The correct figure is about in 10,000. In recent years, the number of people killed by guns is roughly equal to the number of people killed in auto accidents.

He says 65% of gun deaths are by suicide. Apparently that's about right. He goes on, "65% (19,500) of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws." None? Never? Really? Not any way? And, oh yes, 900 accidental gun deaths don't count as violence.

No point in reading further. Only leaves the questions as to why, Sir2u, you bothered to bother us with this.

The first thing that ought to catch your eye is his statistics: — tim wood

Actually what caught my eye was the numbers, not the percentages. As I said I have no idea how accurate they are, and I did not have any time to check them.
After looking for further information today it turns out that this is one of many copies of the article, some published by famous people on very popular social media sites. And it does seem that someone's math sucks, I wonder why no one has called the author out on it yet?

I think that he got something else wrong as well though. According to the FBI there were 16,470 murders where gun are stated as the weapon in the USA. His numbers only add up to about 12,000.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11

As you say, the part about suicide seems about right depending on the source. They tend to vary a bit.

The numbers for the cities also appear to be near enough to accurate, again depending on the source.

One of the parts that interested me though was the mention of these cities having the strictest gun laws. Is this true? After looking for more information I have found no really conclusive evidence of it one way or the other. Trump got hammered for a statement about Chicago, but how reliable is the other sides information?
His statement about California and Alabama also appears to be true, but what are their laws really like?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12

And, oh yes, 900 accidental gun deaths don't count as violence. — tim wood

Not for me, it doesn't for the FBI either apparently.

Violent Crime:
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force.

No point in reading further. Only leaves the questions as to why, Sir2u, you bothered to bother us with this. — tim wood

Err, maybe to get some intelligent conversation about it. But then maybe I am asking for too much.

If I had stopped reading every book or article after finding an error in it I doubt that I would have read half of the things I have read.

And here is another link that probably wont interest anyone either.
http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

And, oh yes, 900 accidental gun deaths don't count as violence.
— tim wood

Not for me, it doesn't for the FBI either apparently. — Sir2u

Fine. Do you see the problem? The accounting between gun deaths and violent deaths is getting confused, as well as confusing violent and violence. As in, gun deaths by accidental shooting don't count as gun deaths because they're not violent, taken as violence.

Better - often necessary - to go back to the roots. What, exactly, happened? What, exactly, is the significance of what happened? What, exactly, do we want to do about it, assuming we give good answer to the first two questions?

If the "machine" of gun ownership as it is today is a good, then maybe the 900 (per year) deaths are just an unavoidable consequence of having that good, and the only thing to do is to explain the benefits to the survivors so that they understand those benefits better. Does that sound good to you?

I have altogether different ideas about these things. It seems to me that the arguments generally try to quantify the bad, the evil - only a little isn't so bad. I tend to see it qualitatively: bad is bad; evil is evil. To be sure, what to do about it often devolves into a quantitative argument, often about money. The viciousness of the argument kicks in here when people deliberately confuse and obscure the distinctions between the qualitative and quantitative issues.

What I call vicious isn't, of course, limited to this technique. Any decent logic-textbook listing of forms of fallacious argumentation will seem a playbook for pro-gun advocates. Indeed for advocates of any badness or evil. Which is too bad, because many issues entangled in the fuzzy thinking or vicious arguments of advocates actually could be argued on real merits, leading to real progress, even if in the form of reasonable compromise until folks get a better understanding.

As to the author's math and other folks' ability to spot it, that may be a matter of number-illiteracy, that many, many people suffer from,, and that whole industries take advantage of.

Fine. Do you see the problem? The accounting between gun deaths and violent deaths is getting confused, as well as confusing violent and violence. As in, gun deaths by accidental shooting don't count as gun deaths because they're not violent, taken as violence. — tim wood

I have never been confused about what is counted as a violent crime, and suicide has never been on that list, no matter how ugly it was. Because I cannot perceive the act of taking one's own life as any kind of a crime. Accidental deaths are simple accidental, it makes no difference at all how the person died.

Better - often necessary - to go back to the roots. What, exactly, happened? What, exactly, is the significance of what happened? What, exactly, do we want to do about it, assuming we give good answer to the first two questions? — tim wood

Now this is where I agree with you 100%. But not just with suicides, with all gun deaths. The problems, as I have stated many times is not necessarily the guns but the people that use them for whatever reason.

If a person is going to kill themselves does the method make any difference? Which is easier to obtain, a gun or a piece of rope. Maybe even any one of dozens of household products under the kitchen sink are easier to get than a gun.

Any decent logic-textbook listing of forms of fallacious argumentation will seem a playbook for pro-gun advocates. Indeed for advocates of any badness or evil. Which is too bad, because many issues entangled in the fuzzy thinking or vicious arguments of advocates actually could be argued on real merits, leading to real progress, even if in the form of reasonable compromise until folks get a better understanding. — tim wood

I am not an advocate for either side of the argument, I really don't care if people in the US are allowed to have guns or not. I have my legally owned and registered gun, but I do not live in the US, and I am glad I have it because it has been useful on a couple of occasions.
But what I don't like about the discussion of the problem in the US is that everyone just wants to blame the guns. Fallacious argumentation and fuzzy thinking abound on both sides, mainly due to lack of concrete evidence. Why do some people get upset about the discussions?

I have not seen a single realistic proposal for solving the problem yet.

If I had stopped reading every book or article after finding an error in it I doubt that I would have read half of the things I have read.

And here is another link that probably wont interest anyone either — Sir2u

It's not just the errors. It's the credibility of the source. The first link was from an egregiously pro-gun site. The second is from a site campaigning against abortion.

There is never any point in sourcing statistics from such places. If you see something on such a site and want to know if it's true, go see if you can find corroboration on a credible, unbiased site like BBC, Australian ABC, or some government agency that is not involved in propaganda.

When people link to such sites to support their argument, the natural inference is that they were unable to find the information at an unbiased source, and hence to disregard any argument containing such links immediately.

This goes both ways. I would not trust statistics quoted on a SPLC site if I could not corroborate them at a neutral site.

I have never been confused about what is counted as a violent crime, and suicide has never been on that list, no matter how ugly it was. Because I cannot perceive the act of taking one's own life as any kind of a crime. Accidental deaths are simple accidental, it makes no difference at all how the person died. — Sir2u

Well, you are confused. If you were shot, would you call that a violence to your person? Accident? Yes? Then I reckon it wasn't a violence to your person. Crime? How could it be, if it's an accident? Of course it's not a violent crime in any case - no mens rea.

Do you begin to see how confused this gets?

And if the death is accidental, it doesn't make any difference how the person died? Come on! Jimmy, four years old, gets daddy's gun and shoots Tommy, age three, to death. Cause of death doesn't matter? Are you kidding?

But what I don't like about the discussion of the problem in the US is that everyone just wants to blame the guns. — Sir2u

Are you suggesting that guns are not part of the problem? Most thinking people in the US think that there are times and a places for guns, and for certain kinds of guns in those times and places. A hunting rifle in the country might be legally defensible (morally is an entirely other question). But not in a big city. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to ban hunting rifles. Solution: registration and controls. You go to the trouble of being a legal gun owner; do you have any objection in principle to your gun ownership being subject to control (not asking if it's inconvenient - that's likely a given).

Well, you are confused. If you were shot, would you call that a violence to your person? — tim wood

I would not call it a violent crime if I shot myself. It might be violent, but I do not think killing myself because I want to is a crime. And I would certainly like to see anyone arresting me for killing myself.

Do you begin to see how confused this gets? — tim wood

No. There is nothing confusing at all about it. At least from my point of view.

And if the death is accidental, it doesn't make any difference how the person died? Come on! Jimmy, four years old, gets daddy's gun and shoots Tommy, age three, to death. Cause of death doesn't matter? Are you kidding? — tim wood

Jimmy, four years old, bumps into Tommy, age three, while laying at the top of the stairs and Tommy falls to his death.
Very unfortunately Tommy is dead either way. But both were accidents caused by;
1. Ignorance on the part of the participants
2. Stupidity on the part of the parents for not taking adequate safety precautions.

Does it really matter how Tommy died?

Are you suggesting that guns are not part of the problem? — tim wood

No I am not, and have never said that. But read your own words, "part of the problem". Does it really make sense to place the blame on an inanimate object? Would that not be like blaming the pen for the bad accounting?

Most thinking people in the US think that there are times and a places for guns, and for certain kinds of guns in those times and places. A hunting rifle in the country might be legally defensible (morally is an entirely other question). But not in a big city. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to ban hunting rifles. Solution: registration and controls. — tim wood

Don't registration and controls already exist? I am sure I read somewhere that most states have at least some of these.

You go to the trouble of being a legal gun owner; do you have any objection in principle to your gun ownership being subject to control (not asking if it's inconvenient - that's likely a given). — tim wood

I have no objection at all to most forms of control. But when someone tells me I cannot retain my legal gun while they are doing little to control illegal weapons I will not be very happy.
Most of the weapons that are used in crimes are not legally owned and registered, so why should anyone be allowed to fuck around with the ones that are.

It's not just the errors. It's the credibility of the source. The first link was from an egregiously pro-gun site. The second is from a site campaigning against abortion. — andrewk

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12

Did you go to the pages to see? Because it says FBI.gov there somewhere.

There is never any point in sourcing statistics from such places. If you see something on such a site and want to know if it's true, go see if you can find corroboration on a credible, unbiased site like BBC, Australian ABC, or some government agency that is not involved in propaganda. — andrewk

So I have to go to the BBC to check out the FBI? Actually I got the links to the FBI from the BBC.

To the suggestion of unfairness, the end justifies the means. This is, and has always been, about getting your priorities straight. Okay, so maybe you take offence to a stark portrayal in a political poster? Big deal. Is that really more important than saving lives? I wouldn't care if people had to be drugged or dragged kicking and screaming to prise their guns off of them, if that was what it took. If you refuse the easy way, then it'll have to be done the hard way.

To the suggestion of unfairness, the end justifies the means. — Sapientia

The correct form is, the end justifies some means. I read your post as your being in favour of outright gun banishment/confiscation. Pretend the 2d amendment didn't exist. (It doesn't in the way that gun nuts suppose, anyway.) On exactly what grounds would you ban guns? And it makes sense to me to classify guns, if you need to, to make your argument.

Jimmy, four years old, bumps into Tommy, age three, while laying at the top of the stairs and Tommy falls to his death.
Very unfortunately Tommy is dead either way. But both were accidents caused by;
1. Ignorance on the part of the participants
2. Stupidity on the part of the parents for not taking adequate safety precautions.

Does it really matter how Tommy died? — Sir2u

Let's try an absurd example, a lucendo absurdum (light from absurdity). Jimmy's and Tommy's parents keep an extremely powerful bomb at home. They're not very careful with the detonating mechanism. Jimmy accidentally fires it while playing with it, sending himself, Tommy, and the rest of the neighborhood to heaven. Unfortunately, that includes your family - you're away on a business trip. But while in mourning, you're also indifferent to the cause - after all, it was an accident, and the victims are dead. Fair representation? Or not?

I think about these things differently. The greater the disproportion between the force needed to cause an event, and the force of the event itself, the greater the need for control. About one pound or less of trigger pull releases around 750 foot/pounds of muzzle energy. That is, a finger twitch can destroy lives. That much power calls for controls. The notion that, "Oh well, it can't be helped," is plain wrong. It can be helped, if for no other reason than to take to heart the lesson, and learn.

It's pretty clear that private ownership of guns creates risks of injury and death. Admittedly by people improperly trained. Imo the actual harm is too great for the anticipated benefit. That is, there is a serious problem. One solution is outright banishment - which imo is not - cannot be - right. Better mandatory controls and mandatory training. This I reckon you'd agree with - but gun nuts in the US cannot even tolerate the discussion.