The stats on deaths & injuries by firearms in the US are so horrendous by world standards that it routinely amazes those of us not living in the US that it has not seriously crossed the minds of the US citizens to re-visit their commitment to widespread gun ownership. Constitutional change is hard in most jurisdictions, but it should never be considered “off-limits”.
Hopefully as societies mature, the merits of keeping guns out of society will increasingly win favour. I, for one, am entirely happy with gun control laws having as their aim the progressive diminishing of the gun population. Perhaps this begins with forbidding the holding of assault/military style weapons, rapid action rifles, various forms of concealed weapons and so forth. Is it really so offensive to deny citizens ownership of this?
That’s not more correct, it’s somewhat of a contortion. It maintains a belief in the premise that the guns are needed in the hands of the citizens of a mature society.
What is horrendous was the tens of millions of people killed by their own governments in the last century. If we want to impact the events of gun violence, the first goal should be to make sure it isn’t only governments that are armed. Or, governments should be disarmed first.
We live in the present, and in the present, the US experience is not good.
Those who fail to learn history will live to repeat it. We live in the present, with an understanding of the past. Governments are no more reliable now than they were 40 years ago. To believe so is foolishly naive. But if things are better now, then let government disarm first. That’s where gun control should start, if we are basing the need on the amount of violence.
Actually the Constitution and Bill of rights include things about ensuring our right to have access to EQUAL weapons as the government at the time, this was done in case the people needed to revolt and fight a tyrannical govt, the people would not stand much of a chance if the Govt had all the big weapons and the people had only pea shooters.
No, it means that a mature society would not find it necessary to regulate guns. It simply would not care, as the members of the society would act maturely.That’s not more correct, it’s somewhat of a contortion. It maintains a belief in the premise that the guns are needed in the hands of the citizens of a mature society.
Sorry I was clearer as the point I was making, which was this: The 14% figure quoted initially gives the impression that background checks would affect relatively few guns used in crimes. But that conclusion misses an additional way in which background checks can affect the availability of guns used in crimes. That is, guns may be purchased by someone who would not pass a background check. Let’s call him criminal #1, even though we don’t know that he has committed any crime. The criminal #1 sells the gun to criminal #2 as a “street purchase”, and criminal #2 actually does use the gun to commit a crime. When criminal #2 is caught and interviewed as to where he got his gun, we find out it was not bought through normal legal channels. Therefore his gun would not be counted in the 14% figure, even though a background check might have stopped the gun from falling into his hands. All this shows is that the actual figure on the percentage of guns used in crimes that would be affected by background checks might be somewhat higher than 14%. And even if it is only 14%, that is not an insignificant number.
You well make the case to disallow the collection of dangerous items throughout our households, for they would have no purpose but constitute a near and present danger - of accident or misuse by those not entirely responsible for their actions.
Hand grenades? RPGs? What next? What is it the British say? In for apenny, in for a pound!
Of course at that time there was no big difference between weapons of the common man and military weapons. OK, cannons might be an example of a difference, but what evidence do you have that the Constitution contains anything at all about the people’s weapons needing to be sufficient for a revolt against the government? “The right of people to keep cannons shall not be infringed”? I think you are making this up.
Not at all. I have a cannon in my closet just in case the government gets out of hand in confiscating firearms.
I don’t have a cannon, but on occasion I have tons of ammonium nitrate in my possession. Diesel fuel too. That’s what Timothy McVeigh used.
Not really. To assume it’s ludicrous, one would have to further assume the Armed Forces would shoot down civilians. A corrupt government is resented but tolerated in the U.S., so I doubt that would be the cause of an armed rebellion. More likely a more tyrannical government that we presently have would be the cause.
Hillary Clinton will certainly attempt to expand Obama’s gun regulations. I’m not sure where Donald Trump stands on this issue; however, Bernie Sanders is opposed to gun sellers’ and manufacturers’ being held liable for buyers, much to the chagrin of many liberals. I see his point as well as yours. Still, I can hardly imagine prolife activists being on the no-gun list; but stranger things have happened. I am nonetheless in favor of sensible gun restrictions, and I emphasize the word “sensible.” Is the government capable of such? Maybe not.
