Let me ask you a question, is more freedom worse than less freedom? If you answered no, then you must be able to protect yourself against threats to freedom. I can't understand the logic of the far-left to think that guns should be banned, and still think colored people are wrongfully being incarcerated. If you answered yes, then I think your previous argument is now concise. I'd also like to point out the fact that London's crime rate is now higher than New York's, even though guns and even knives are now banned. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/03/londons-murder-rate-higher-than-new-york-citys/480860002/

The left always brings up instances of countries where guns are banned and the crime rate is significantly lower than others. Well here's some conflicting evidence http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22288564

Take a look at this chart:

Homicide count in 2009

Brazil 43,909
Denmark 47
Iceland 1
UK 724
US 15,241

Iceland had ONE homicide. So there's clearly more at play here than banning firearms.

The way you put it there it looks like Iceland has way less homicides than Denmark or especially the UK. So do Monaco and the Vatican I bet.

But here are actual rates per 100,000 population (rates offering the only meaningful comparison) for more recent years:

Iceland: 0.91 (2015)
United Kingdom: 0.92 (2014)
Denmark: 0.99 (2015)

And the difference disappears. (All in the top 50 lowest for homicide rates).

And the US?

United States: 4.88 (2015)

Down there at no.126 just behind that glorious bastion of freedom, Kazakhstan.

+In Iceland (from your bbc source):

"...acquiring a gun is not an easy process -steps to gun ownership include a medical examination and a written test.
Police are unarmed, too. The only officers permitted to carry firearms are on a special force called the Viking Squad, and they are seldom called out."

By all means, implement all that in the US and you might make some progress.

Well, I do submit to the fact that my Iceland source was an unfair comparison. However, if you look at the rates of homicides per state in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state . If you sort by gun murder rate, you can see that there's little correlation between gun ownership and gun murder rate. You'd expect there to be a larger gun murder rate in states with more relaxed gun laws, but there seems to be more at play here. So what is it exactly? It appears that some of the areas with the highest percent of gun ownership have the lowest gun murder rates. However, they also account for some of the highest gun murder rates. I find this very confusing.

Something to think about, however, is how guns could stop potential homicides. The Texas church shooting was stopped by a bystander in the NRA, not the police or other authorities.

I'm also all for more rigid background checks, however I disagree with most police officers being unarmed.

But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now.

It's not a straightforward picture, I agree, but I think someone posted a comparison graph earlier in the discussion that showed a strong correlation if not between gun ownership and reduced gun homicides at least between stricter gun laws and reduced homicides in the US state by state. I'll try to dig it up.

It would be a good start to enact compulsory training. You need a license to drive a car, and so should you to carry a gun. Disarming the police wouldn't be practical at all as things stand admittedly but in a perfect world you could get there. Which means you won't. So, let's forget that one for now.

But again, gun murder rates over the past few decades have overall been declining, so I see no problem that should be fixed as of now. — ep3265

If they could be declining faster then that's still a problem as in more people getting unnecessarily killed is always a problem regardless of the base comparison.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I agree, I just see no viable option as of now. Perhaps making a gun training course necessary would be practical.

we had the example of a small child shooting another small child: clearly no crime involved — tim wood

That is a crime, a juvenile and unintentional one, but still a crime. In my mind a crime is an act that is directly stated as unlawful. And I see nothing wrong with the opening of options, and calling that openness of options "freedom". Many people in America are overweight, and I praise God everyday we have the freedom to do something like that. Many of my coworkers smoke cigarettes, and I and my father smoke pipes. Are any of these things good for you? No. Should these particular acts be celebrated? Not really. Should we be thankful that we're allowed to do all of the right things, and all of the wrong things as well? Yes absolutely, because then your destiny is more so determined by your own actions (ignore hard determinism for a minute.)

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Perhaps in your sense of the word freedom. I have not yet become addicted, therefore I smoke a pipe as a mild hobby.

But really I feel to truly be free one must first restrict his or her actions to things that they find better themselves

The second amendment is not difficult. Just say what is there instead of preconconvied notions. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. Well regulated meant something that works properly at the revolutionary time, as they would say to clocks that kept precise and true time that they were well regulated. Militia than actually meant adult white men that would be able to call to service in an event of an invasion or rebellion. The being necessary part was detailing the first part as to what is. The right of the people is the interesting part because it written in a way where the right was already there before it talks about. To keep and bear arms does not require revolutionary dictionary or grammar understanding. Keep means to have and bear means to be in active possessions Arms meant any weapon that may be used against the enemy and since it gives no condition, you do not need one to keep and bear one. The shall not be infringed part is the mandate on the amendment with regard to people in keep and bear arms. An example of the structure in modern time would be ," a well informed public, being necessary for a civilized society, the right of the people to spread true information, shall not be infringed". It is important to know that there were arms regulation at the founders time, but this was at the state level where you certain hand guns restricted and canon size having laws. The first 10 amendments apply to the federal government only than as Barron v. Baltimore says. But since the 14th amendment made a majority of rights in the 10 amendment applicable to states. The regulation would technically be unconstitutional, but the courts would not risk today's weapon with no regulation. Reading the federalist papers would help give context to the founders reason for citizens being armed. Oh, another proof against the argument about arms being for military purpose is a draft of the second amendment that the founders made but discarded for the one we have said" a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed".

I am glad I was born in a Nation and in a State and that I also now live in a State that allows me to be free to own guns.

I have a pistol that goes with me everywhere and protects my life and the lives of everyone around me.

I have a scoped hunting rifle that helps me hunt deer, elk, moose, and antelope. I am a meat hunter not a trophy hunter. My State is covered with all these animals and they taste good and are very nutritious meat.

I have a shotgun which I use to guard banks, shopping malls, construction sites, liquor stores, and other places that I guard for a living from robbers, burglars, arsonists, and other criminals.

I have an assault rifle with high cap mags that helps me defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies both foreign or domestic.

Australia cannot say that. Australia is dependent on the USA to defend them from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

The USA is the arsenal of democracy. There is a gun behind every blade of grass. I am glad.

Anyone who is not glad about that should move to Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore, Wales or someplace else outside the English Speaking World.

You obviously are a romantic philosopher.

Thank you.

For a more Romantic twist on this issue and my response, I would have to say:

"God created all mankind.

Samuel Colt then finally made them all equal."

There is a gun behind every blade of grass. — hks

I've been checking the news every hour or so this day of Thanksgiving to find out if there has been another hideous gun attack somewhere -- shopping mall, church, day care, hospital, Macy's Day Parade, a bar... So far, so good.

Every silver lining has its cloud. And every toy or tool can cause injury if improperly used.

While I am neither for nor against the personal ownership of assault weapons, now that this particular genie is out of the bottle everyone must also have an assault weapon of their own to be able to defend themselves from everybody else. And everyone must also have the legal right to carry them in public to defend themselves in public. Especially true during these times of Islamic Jihad against the non-Islamic world.

The same is true of any kind of weapon or tool, such as machetes, knives, baseball bats, hiking sticks, tomahawks, hatchets, spears, arrows and bows, slings and sling shots, cars, trucks, pots and pans, boiling water, bar stools and chairs, etc.

I'll just spray postmodern deconstructionism on anyone who points a gun at me, and they'll start coming apart at the seams.

SO, there was a minor shooting at a shopping center in Mississippi. Some idiots were arguing over something pointless, one of them pulled a gun, shots were fire, and a cop ended up shooting one or both of them. Well, hardly a world-class shooting, but at least the tradition was observed.

I have an assault rifle with high cap mags that helps me defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies both foreign or domestic — hks

I think protection against your own government is the only valid reason for owning a weapon.

Could you not have a law that its OK to stockpile arms but illegal to bear them? That way the streets would be save (no guns) but you could still form a rebel army in case Donald Trump gets out of hand.

Animals are just like us, they having feelings, some are even more intelligent than us (whales, dolphins).

So when God says 'Thou shall not kill' he probably means animals as we as humans. So we don't need guns for killing animals either.

I have an assault rifle with high cap mags that helps me defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies both foreign or domestic. — hks

I think protection against your own government is the only valid reason for owning a weapon. — Devans99

Ah, the love that Americans have for the defence from their Constitution.

Anyone who is not glad about that should move to Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand, Scotland, Singapore, Wales or someplace else outside the English Speaking World. — hks

Translation: born and bred US citizens shouldn't stay in the USA because they disagree with you.

By that logic, anyone who is glad about guns should move out of the USA so that anti-gun laws can finally be passed.

I don't get it. sorry.

You are a very bad boy. You just used a big fallacy called putting words in someone else's mouth. Also known as a straw man.

So let me correct you:

Born and bred in the USA should leave the USA if they cannot support the U.S. Constitution including all the amendments.

And you had best square your act away and stop using fallacies. You are a Sophist.

Handing you my helmet....prepare for incoming :zip:

Yet another strawman fallacy. You are also a Sophist and a very bad boy.

The Peoples' Republic of California has laws that you cannot bear your guns in public. They also have one of the highest crime rates in the Nation. So your foolish notion does not work for self defense in public.

The 2nd Amendment was instituted to facilitate the Body Politic in defending the Constitution and the Nation from tyrants. However it has mostly seen its main application in self defense against crime on the streets such as robbery and murder.

Nations like Australia and England that have managed to rid their islands of guns have simply promoted knife crimes.

Born and bred in the USA should leave the USA if they cannot support the U.S. Constitution including all the amendments. — hks

I guess you don't believe in freedom of speech. Maybe you should leave the USA.