I think the nuance here is that guns with the capacity to kill large numbers of people in a very short amount of time are much more readily available in the USA than in many other developed countries — GRWelsh

Agree, but it’s hardly a ‘nuance’. It is a glaringly obvious fact. There was a feature by a journalist a couple of years ago about the process of acquiring a gun in Japan. Several exams, written questionnaires and more than one interview, taking more than a year in all. Of course Japan and America are vastly different culturally and socially, but then, Japan has almost zero gun deaths and I can’t recall ever reading of a mass shooting. (The assassination last year of Shinzo Abe was with a home-made weapon.)

One thing I’ll never understand about the Second Amendment argument is why there is complete deviation from the original wording, which talked of ‘well-regulated militias’. If a well-regulated militia was given control of AR15 assault rifles, it would presumably keep them under lock and key and the control of a responsible officer. Not make them freely available to anyone who happens to want to take one home. There was apparently another Supreme Court ruling some time back which interpreted ‘well-regulated militia’ to mean practically unlimited rights to own any kind of weapon. Which is another thing I don’t understand - why the US Supreme Court has such a libertarian attitude towards gun ownership.

:up:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

An interesting take just on how much actual gun culture means. Something that isn't obvious to many, actually.



To put it simply: In the US people have guns to protect them from other fellow citizens (and for hunting and sport). In Switzerland (and in Finland) they don't have them to protect from other fellow citizens. With the militia system of the Swiss this is more evident.

And the video tells clearly the obvious: 2nd Amendment means now something else than it originally was meant to.

One thing I’ll never understand about the Second Amendment argument is why there is complete deviation from the original wording, which talked of ‘well-regulated militias — Wayfarer

I agree with you in principle, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that the Supreme Court has so ruled (District of Columbia v. Heller, 552 U.S. 1229 [2008]). We can take the long view, like "pro-life" advocates did after Roe, and go a multi-decade quest to change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, we can only seek means to reduce the damage.

It’s not the guns. There are more guns in the US today than ever before yet crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been since their peak in the 1990s. Clearly there is something deeper at work than the mere existence of firearms. Not only that but even if you remove firearm homicides the US still has a higher homicide rate than most developed countries — Captain Homicide

Is that bolded part true? In recent years, 70% of homicides are by firearms (per FBI stats) Even if your statement is true, the statistics suggest homicides could be reduced with more controls on access to guns.

IMO, gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem. So the ideal would be to reduce ownership by the irresponsible and unstable. Training and exam (analogous to getting a driver's license) might help, as well as laws that support responsible ownership.

IMO, gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem. So the ideal would be to reduce ownership by the irresponsible and unstable. Training and exam (analogous to getting a driver's license) might help, as well as laws that support responsible ownership. — Relativist

That is not going to be easy when you have the 2nd Amendment and the current gun lobby. And the current political system where lobbies can have very much political power.

There's the obvious reasons when a lot of people have guns: If people have guns around to protect their homes and property, you will have problems. That's a lot of loaded guns lying around in drawers. If people who don't otherwise care at all about guns (don't hunt, don't go to the range), but still own especially small handguns, you will have problems.

Yet in the US example the whole culture around guns is one leading issue, and you simply don't change culture by exams and policy adjustments. For many Americans, the right to own a gun is part of being an American and what the US is all about.

That is not going to be easy when you have the 2nd Amendment and the current gun lobby. — ssu

I don't think my proposal violates the 2nd Amendment, although I agree the NRA would oppose anything that constrains gun ownership.

you simply don't change culture by exams and policy adjustments. For many Americans, the right to own a gun is part of being an American and what the US is all about. — ssu

It would be a political struggle, and require framing the issues in ways that more people could accept it. I'd open with my earlier statement: gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem.

I expect that nearly 100% of gun owners believe thaty they themselves are responsible and stable. If you're responsible and stable, you have nothing to fear! An example of a "responsibility" law is a law that requires gun owners to prevent access by children. 34 states already have such a law - even Texas(!), where I live. Laws like this are low-hanging fruit - but let's not overlook chipping away at the problem by harvesting it.

The problem is intractable in America unless truly draconian measures happen. A society reaches a tipping point where there are so many guns floating around, it becomes trivial for anyone (including criminals) to get their hands on one. That then creates an "arms race" where law-abiding people buy guns on the off-chance an armed person breaks into their house/apartment. That increases the number of guns, making it even easier for criminals to get one, etc. America reached that tipping long ago.

I agree the NRA would oppose anything that constrains gun ownership. — Relativist

This is the unfortunate strategy that the gun lobby, or nearly every lobby, follows. Fight everything, every inch. Assume there never will be a consensus and that the other side will be demanding a total ban on every kind of firearm for any use or ownership, hence trying to compromise will be useless and counterproductive.

That then creates an "arms race" where law-abiding people buy guns on the off-chance an armed person breaks into their house/apartment. That increases the number of guns, making it even easier for criminals to get one, etc. America reached that tipping long ago. — RogueAI

:100: That's why there's a huge surge of gun sales after every particularly heinous mass murder event. The most vicious of vicious circles.

That's why there's a huge surge of gun sales after every particularly heinous mass murder event. The most vicious of vicious circles. — Wayfarer

The only thing that decreases gun sales last time was when Trump got elected.

Yes, the urge to buy a gun is all between ones ears.

It's not about guns it's about fearmongering.

It was touch and go there for a while but Cletus made it home from the fast food restaurant alive. He’ll bring more weapons the next time. — Steven Leser · Apr 9, 2024

If most citizens have the right to gun ownership, what of illegal migrants?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

But I have not found a single one who will even respond to any question as to anyone who should not have a gun. — tim wood

Well, the gun nuts are not angry about the existing limitations like this:

18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

But I have not found a single one who will even respond to any question as to anyone who should not have a gun. — tim wood

I tend to vote more conservative than liberal these days and I object to illegal immigrants having guns.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Of course it is not an absolute restraint, but no gun-nut I've engaged with in any way will allow the conversation to get anywhere near questioning just what "shall not be infringed" actually means. — tim wood

Well, it's the typical modern day argument method: there is no room for any conversation. You simply repeat your line no matter what and simply ignore what the other one says. Any deviation from your line is like "giving your little finger to the devil". To say "This thing is this way, however..." is too complicated, too lax, as if you wouldn't have a firm opinion. Anyway, these people don't debate, they just are supporting their stance and making it clear to everybody.

It's like try to ask either a pro-choice or a pro-life person if they have exceptions to their rule. Good luck with that.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

↪ssu Amen. But I like to think that in every debate there is either a right answer or at least the better answer. — tim wood

If you have a right answer, you are dealing with mathematics and logic.

If the answer is better (or worse), then the next question is better for whom? Unfortunately the "better for everybody" becomes difficult to get now days.

The goofy second amendment, which was only re-interpreted to mean what we think it always has in 2008, should be abolished.

Gun manufacturers, their lobby, their propaganda, and the dupes that fall for it, have done enough damage and killed enough children. In a rational society they’d be in prison, or worse. May they rot in hell.

There are 400 million+ guns in America. It's easy for criminals to get their hands on one. Law-abiding citizens should have access to guns to counter the threat and that requires gun manufacturers.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Turns out that "law-abiding" citizens do most of the killing. — tim wood

Unpack this, please. If it's unjustified killing (murder/manslaughter), than the person is not "law-abiding". If it's a justified killing, then it's self-defense.

— tim wood

Btw, you want to "counter the threat." What threat is that, exactly, and how, exactly, do you plan to "counter" it?

The threat is someone breaking into my house. The counter is shooting them with my gun.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

He's law-abiding right up to the exact moment he is no longer law-abiding. The point being that "law-abiding" seems not a very good indicator of who should/should not have a gun. — tim wood

People without a criminal record should be able to buy a gun. I'm on the fence about mental health issues.

"As I suppose you know very well, state laws differ greatly on whom you can shoot and why, and in many cases are contradictory. E.g., in Maine you can shoot a woman hanging laundry in her own backyard. In Louisiana a boy coming up on your porch - if memory serves he rang the doorbell. In Florida, I gather, anyone who comes towards you whose looks you don't like. In Massachusetts your first duty is to retreat if you can."

I agree that you should retreat if you can, unless someone is breaking into your house.

So if you want to shoot an intruder, you shall have to consider what state to live in. — tim wood

I live in California. It's legal to shoot home invaders. I would only shoot someone if I thought they might kill me. Even then, I would fire a warning shot and tell them to get out. If they're running out the door with my TV, I would let them go.

And I'm sure too that you know perfectly well that by far the greater danger to the inhabitants of a house is the gun that is already in the house. So it would appear that justifications are more based in fantasy and wishful thinking than reality, and these fantasies get too many people killed that should not have been killed.

My kid is grown and moved out, no kids ever visit, and I wouldn't use it for suicide. I don't play with my gun or target shoot. It sits in a drawer. It's not a danger to anyone except someone trying to break in.

Washington Post says 100,000 cases of gun self-defense happen every year. That's a lot. How many of those would have been killed had they not had a gun? Even if it's only 10%, that's 10,000 people a year who were saved because they had a gun.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense

ETA: If/when I have grandkids, I'm not keeping a gun in the house. You're right there that the danger is just too great.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.