Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Post Reply New Topic

It really depends on the property. If you have space, what else is around it. If you want to fire mortars, and rpg, then maybe shouldn't just be on anyone's property. That is why say some guns should be housed in gun clubs. It it isn't about self defense or anything other then pure enjoyment and it is the high powered military weapon, then do that in the context of a licensed gun club, and have them house it and handle the transfer.

It would also mean people wouldn't be smuggling these types of weapons in to Mexico, that there will have to resort to buying inferior weapons on the black market, that are not in the UK.

The idea that because you own something you can do anything on your property, is not absolute. There are laws for all sort of things. If you want to mine, in most cases you still have to get the paper work sorted, go through the checks, and pay tax. Otherwise you are usually mining illegally.

Not sure what your point is. Yes it is to defend our liberty against a tyrannical government, just as it for self defense or sporting or hunting. The right to bear and keep arms is not to be infringed. You are making a distinction where there is none. We have the right to bear and keep arms, period.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the meaning of a "well regulated militia", regulated back then basically meant well trained and well equipped control not controlled through government as it does now. That's not a requirement on the people but a restriction on the federal government, they cannot infringe on militias no matter how well trained or well equipped they are. This is obvious in the context of defending against a tyrannical government, you could see how there could be a conflict of interest when if the tyrannical government itself determined what tyrannical was.

I think it's unreasonable to leave weapons accessible to people who commit atrocities. I'd advocate misdemeanor charges to whoever's weapons are used for any kind of assault or murder. Responsible gun ownership means controlling access.

As long as they are behind closed doors in my house or even my vehicle that is secure enough. I won't be held responsible for the actions of burglars.

massachusetts already does that in some circumstances.your required to use certain types of cases or safes and you will be arrested if someone gets shot with your improperly secured gun.

take a look though at gun violence in mass.springfield has a higher per capita violent crime rate then miami.

is the law working?

It's one thing if someone breaks into a house and the owner reports them stolen. But in cases where they're left accessible to people with known problems, gun owners should be expected to exercise better judgment.

The Amendment is NOT about sport or hunting, because sport or hunting are nothing to do with the security of the free state, but you are right about the infringed part.



I'm not misunderstanding anything a well regulated militia is exactly what it sound like, especially the regulated bit. It doesn't just mean trained and equipped but regulated too. Regulated means regulated there is no confusion, it is common English.

People debate about what a militia means. Normally a militia means an organized force, or at least a force that would act as a defense force, when the time comes. Later on the supreme court ru;ed that people should be able to keep arms outside of a context of a militia.

You say I'm misinterpreting? People are willfully misinterpreting the Amendment.

The words are succinct and clear.

If you were talking about some other law that would be a different matter but we are talking about the 2nd Amendment which is for the security of the free state.

What constitutes what is a secure for storage should be regulated.

Supreme court says that the regulations don't infringe your right to bear arms, and keep. They can put regulation how you keep arms, when you are not using them, should it enter statute.

You many not be responsible for all actions of others but you do have a responsibility to others' safety.

I don't thing banning guns would stop crime and violence. People find other ways. Sure less people get killed and I wonder what happens to hunting? You need guns for that. Maybe less animals get killed during hunting season. Plus it's in our amendment that we have the right to have one. But I do hate guns and think it would be nice if everyone just used tranquilizers. Even that 15 year old autistic kid in Chicago would still be a live after charging an officer with a butter knife and people wouldn't raise a stink about it because of his autism. Or maybe they will because how dare they shoot him with a tranquilizer making him drowsy. Officers should be trained to handle such things without being a wuss about it by shooting.

In my honest opinion, even if guns are banned, people who are desperate to commit murder will find some other way to commit murder. (E.g. If murderers can't shoot, maybe murderers will plant bombs instead.)

I'm not very comfortable with disclosing my nationality in this post mainly because my country's media lacks credibility--it is ranked horribly low on the Press Freedom Index although it isn't in the Red Zone reserved for countries where press freedom is nearly non-existent. My country's media paired a report on the Sandy Hook shooting with a list of countries where gun control laws are strict, perhaps hinting that USA's gun control laws have been too lax. Many news columnists wrote that US should ban guns before more lives are lost. Even a politician's daughter weighed in, writing that US students will continue to live in fear of school shootings unless guns are banned. But surprisingly, my country's media later reported that California has the highest rate of gun crimes despite having the strictest gun control laws, so I can't tell my country's media's overall stance on gun control.

There is actually a slow decline of violence across the world, but people don't perceive it that way, because of small world syndrome. People have a rose tinted idea of the past, and seem to think that standard are declining, when in fact they have improved in long the term. It is just part of the political landscape to propagate this view. That is not to say there isn't issues and violence, and the violent crimes that happen are acceptable.

I posted an an example of historical attitudes to death. We have much higher standards than ever before. Quite a lot of crime were accepted as a given, not worthy of mention, which is different today.

Far fewer people die in conflict, and we actually care about minimizing that. Think how many people were killed in WW1

In the end it really is about culture, and to do with how we manage are animal behavior/aggression.

So with shifts in attitudes, it is part to do with legislation, but the legislation has to reflect the nation. US banning guns far fetched, but it not far fetched for some other countries. Japan has very low gun ownership, and culturally and practically it works.

It'd be hard to show that there's a correlation between its low firearm ownership and its overall murder rate though, see:

Finland has twice the murder rate at 0.6 compared to 0.3 [per 100,000 per year] but something like 53 times the amount of firearms ownership. Technically, Japan should have a far lower murder rate when comparing these two developed countries if one is to use a linear progression of firearms ownership increasing equally with the murder rate. It never does progress equally. In fact, there's little difference between the average of all developed countries regarding overall murder rate when comparing it to firearms ownership (easy to compare them all as the data is out there in the public domain and free to use).

Though this is only focusing on murders. I haven't touched other forms of violent crime itself and a correlation between that and firearms; it might be different.

(Of course, "firearm violence" will be higher in countries with a higher rate of firearms ownership (though it doesn't logically have to), but that's misleading as it's only pointing out the object used, especially when you compare the overall rates and they're pretty close for most of equal levels of income.)

Culturally, Japan is different; they've always had restrictions or outright bans on weapons throughout their history, and said history has shaped their culture even today. One can probably say this about most countries though. What's good for one isn't always good for the other (which is what you said).

Honestly I'm not even sure what your argument is anymore. Is it semantics or are you making a distinction? If it is a distinction then you are simply just wrong, As has been said, the constitution is a restriction on government not the people, it is not a granting of rights. These rights exist outside the constitution. The constitution protects are our right to keep and bear arms, period. Our 2nd, 9th, and 10th amendment make it quite clear.

I'm not really understanding how you can't understand. I said it was about the 2nd Amendment there is no point referring to other Amendments or other laws that came later. The reason for mentioning this is because of people who cite the 2nd Amendment, for things it does not cover. The whole natural rights topic is besides the point.

I think you do understand perfectly well.

I never denied you had these rights. I'll leave it as that.

Semantic arguments can be tedious, however laws are tested by their wording. It is a necessary tedium, and wording is important.

The forefathers they considered all sort of things, and the gave reason for or against, this is precisely how they figured out the limits of government.

Like I said they discussed the concept of direct democracy, this is the idea that you can hold referendums on anything any everything, sort of as a substitute for governance. They rejected it, and the reason why was because they thought it could be used by a majority to oppose it's will on, or oppresses a minority. This is perceptive and correct. There are many other reasons why it wouldn't work, not least it is technically infeasible at any real scale. Politician still flirt with it as a gimmick, though.

So in the case of the 2nd Amendment the right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed, and the core reason for that is security of the free state. Whether other natural rights and laws are strengthened by that is secondary, the Amendment itself hangs on security of the free state, that is the concept of that Amendment, and is contemporary to the language of the day.

The entire constitution is applicable. When you argue semantics of the 2nd amendment then the 9th and 10th are totally relevant to what it means and doesn't mean. Perhaps your not good at getting your point across which is understandable given where we are but I understood it as you saying that because constitution makes note of right to keep and bear arms as a means defending against tyranny somehow means that it also doesn't protect our right to bear and keep arms for the purpose of self defense, hunting, or sport.