If they go through with that they should all be arrested. A fake shooting spree is not a joke. There's going to be a panic as random people are running through campus with gun shot sound blaring. If they actually do it I hope the police are already waiting with handcuffs for all of them.
I once offered hypothetical to counter the idea that everyone should own a gun.
And the hypothetical was exactly what Magicman657 wrote. If everyone has a gun, what if one guy decides to randomly shoot from afar.
You have a mass panic. The only difference is you have a mass panic of untrained civilians with guns, some of whom will be trigger happy.
Civilians with guns are not a military platoon. They have not trained to work together. Even if some are ex-marines, not all will be. And the ones who are trained aren't trained to work together. You're going to have lots of independent minded individuals who are each going to take the matter into their own hands.
The last time I wrote that hypothetical, it was completely dismissed.
I'm not linking the study because I'm lazy but you two are basically right. Pretty sure the only times that civilians have managed to shut down mass shootings effectively have involved individual ex-military or ex-law enforcement members as the counters to the shooters. Generally people counter-shooting either panic or extend the mayhem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I'm always bothered by the concept that if everyone owned guns, somehow crime would be lessened.
It's one thing for lots of people in rural areas to own guns. I'm all for that. You live in some place in this country and the outdoors is a legitimate threat.
It's another thing for random people in the suburbs or on college campuses to own guns. Not even police officers, who are trained and retrained regularly, always use their firearms appropriately. Why is arming joe schmoe a better solution? It always presumes the perfect scenario when you've got 'the drop' on someone, but that's rarely ever going to happen. And in most scenarios where you would use it, it's almost always better to let yourself be stolen from than risk death in a gun fight.
Instead of the peaceful utopia these people imagine, you get pissing contests that would have stopped at shouting or a fist fight turning into a gun battle.
What they forget about arming everyone is that you're arming everyone. That means every idiot with an ego the size of the great state of Texas would have one too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-gun, but I think they should stay in the home or in a case until you're at the range - unless you're a police officer or out somewhere animal attacks are a real risk.
I'm always bothered by the concept that if everyone owned guns, somehow crime would be lessened.
It's one thing for lots of people in rural areas to own guns. I'm all for that. You live in some place in this country and the outdoors is a legitimate threat.
It's another thing for random people in the suburbs or on college campuses to own guns. Not even police officers, who are trained and retrained regularly, always use their firearms appropriately. Why is arming joe schmoe a better solution? It always presumes the perfect scenario when you've got 'the drop' on someone, but that's rarely ever going to happen. And in most scenarios where you would use it, it's almost always better to let yourself be stolen from than risk death in a gun fight.
Instead of the peaceful utopia these people imagine, you get pissing contests that would have stopped at shouting or a fist fight turning into a gun battle.
What they forget about arming everyone is that you're arming everyone. That means every idiot with an ego the size of the great state of Texas would have one too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-gun, but I think they should stay in the home or in a case until you're at the range - unless you're a police officer or out somewhere animal attacks are a real risk.
The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
Oh come now. When you cross the street, you're trusting that the drivers nearby won't suddenly accelerate and slam right into you.
When you drive, you're trusting that the fellow behind you will brake when you brake. You're trusting that people won't suddenly swerve right into your car. And so on and so forth.
Should you not be able to drive unless you go through a battery of psychological tests and have been determined by a therapist that you don't have an anger issue and won't commit road rage?
What about drivers? Why the hell do we let so many people who are clearly piss-poor drivers drive? Do we trust that they can drive competently simply because they passed the test? That's bull***** right?
I mean, gun owners need to take a couple courses in gun safety and jump through a bunch of hoops in most states to get the license to own a gun. Yet y'all seem to think that people will become trigger-happy maniacs who'll break the law at the slightest provocation.
The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
Oh come now. When you cross the street, you're trusting that the drivers nearby won't suddenly accelerate and slam right into you.
When you drive, you're trusting that the fellow behind you will brake when you brake. You're trusting that people won't suddenly swerve right into your car. And so on and so forth.
Should you not be able to drive unless you go through a battery of psychological tests and have been determined by a therapist that you don't have an anger issue and won't commit road rage?
What about drivers? Why the hell do we let so many people who are clearly piss-poor drivers drive? Do we trust that they can drive competently simply because they passed the test? That's bull***** right?
I mean, gun owners need to take a couple courses in gun safety and jump through a bunch of hoops in most states to get the license to own a gun. Yet y'all seem to think that people will become trigger-happy maniacs who'll break the law at the slightest provocation.
Yes you are trusting that the drivers wont suddenly accelerate and kill you. You are absolutely 100% correct.
But they are required by law to have insurance. They take a driver's license test. While driving they are subject to numerous traffic laws on how they can use their car. If they infract too many times, they will lose their licenses. We test their vision as well. If they have nightblindness, they are forbidden to drive at night time. If you lend you car to someone else, you can be sued for the damages they commit. There are laws against drink and driving. Finally you literally have a group of people hired for the sole purpose of policing whether you are using said car within the bounds of the license--traffic cops.
the point is as you say. If drivers are so bad, why do we let them drive? Perhaps we should subject them to a litany of regulation and licensure?
And that's exactly what I'm saying. Sure why not? Why not make gun owners go through the hoops they do for driving? I'm fine with that position. But Im guessing most gun owners are not.
Yes you are trusting that the drivers wont suddenly accelerate and kill you. You are absolutely 100% correct.
Then what is the point of your previous post? You fully agree with me that you're placing a great deal of trust that other drivers won't ram into you or run you over. How is this trust any different from trusting that someone with a gun won't shoot you?
But they are required by law to have insurance. They take a driver's license test. While driving they are subject to numerous traffic laws on how they can use their car. If they infract too many times, they will lose their licenses. We test their vision as well. If they have nightblindness, they are forbidden to drive at night time. If you lend you car to someone else, you can be sued for the damages they commit. There are laws against drink and driving. Finally you literally have a group of people hired for the sole purpose of policing whether you are using said car within the bounds of the license--traffic cops.
And yet accidents occur regularly. Drunk driving can pretty much be described as common-place, enough to the point that we need traffic cops and a bunch of ads that discourage it. Road rage is also common, even if it may not lead to violence or genuine physical harm.
What do you think would happen if we gave accidents and crimes with cars the same logic we give with guns?
Yes you are trusting that the drivers wont suddenly accelerate and kill you. You are absolutely 100% correct.
Then what is the point of your previous post? You fully agree with me that you're placing a great deal of trust that other drivers won't ram into you or run you over. How is this trust any different from trusting that someone with a gun won't shoot you?
But they are required by law to have insurance. They take a driver's license test. While driving they are subject to numerous traffic laws on how they can use their car. If they infract too many times, they will lose their licenses. We test their vision as well. If they have nightblindness, they are forbidden to drive at night time. If you lend you car to someone else, you can be sued for the damages they commit. There are laws against drink and driving. Finally you literally have a group of people hired for the sole purpose of policing whether you are using said car within the bounds of the license--traffic cops.
And yet accidents occur regularly. Drunk driving can pretty much be described as common-place, enough to the point that we need traffic cops and a bunch of ads that discourage it. Road rage is also common, even if it may not lead to violence or genuine physical harm.
What do you think would happen if we gave accidents and crimes with cars the same logic we give with guns?
I think you would have far fewer accidents with guns. I also think you would have fewer crazies with guns.
According to this website the crazy people with cars and accidents are about the same.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you knew anything about the lore you'd see that they were clearly hinting that the madness on Innistrad was caused by Uncle Istvan wearing Urza's Power Armor ... tainted with Phrexyian Oil"
Graham from Loading Ready Run
People: we know that guns being less common makes western-democratic societies safer because countries like Britain, New Zealand and Australia exist and they've had a relative minimum of mass shootings. Presumably removal of cars would stop car deaths also, but we've collectively decided that cars are more reliably useful/worth the cost than guns are.
It's less a question of "how do we prevent all fatalities from everything" and more "what is worth the cost".
As far as differences between these nations go you could also turn this into a discussion about American culture and guns as a social/psychological concept [lazy example here], but frankly I can't be arsed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
People: we know that guns being less common makes western-democratic societies safer because countries like Britain, New Zealand and Australia exist and they've had a relative minimum of mass shootings. Presumably removal of cars would stop car deaths also, but we've collectively decided that cars are more reliably useful/worth the cost than guns are.
Australia's kind of an interesting example, actually. Gun ownership of course plummeted dramatically immediately after the post-Port-Arthur reforms. But it's been steadily climbing since and is now almost back to the pre-Port-Arthur level... without a corresponding return to the pre-Port-Arthur level of gun violence. I suspect what's happening is that the new laws remain effective at keeping guns out of the hands of violent crazies, and that as long as they do that, the number of guns in the hands of regular people is simply irrelevant.
Of course, the United States constitutionally cannot do what Australia did.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
People: we know that guns being less common makes western-democratic societies safer because countries like Britain, New Zealand and Australia exist and they've had a relative minimum of mass shootings.
People: we know that guns being less common makes western-democratic societies safer because countries like Britain, New Zealand and Australia exist and they've had a relative minimum of mass shootings.
Switzerland.
Mandatory military service and laws against keeping guns loaded and on/about your person in public. Not an exact comparison to the USA.
Also according to that home of accuracy, wikipedia, apparently Switzerland's guns per capita is about the same as NZ (~0.2 guns per person) if you're not counting Militia weapons. If you count Militia weapons it's still about half the US rate (apparently the US has 1.1 guns per person).
Australia's kind of an interesting example, actually. Gun ownership of course plummeted dramatically immediately after the post-Port-Arthur reforms. But it's been steadily climbing since and is now almost back to the pre-Port-Arthur level... without a corresponding return to the pre-Port-Arthur level of gun violence.
I did not know that! Interesting.
I suspect what's happening is that the new laws remain effective at keeping guns out of the hands of violent crazies, and that as long as they do that, the number of guns in the hands of regular people is simply irrelevant.
Yeah, that sounds legit.
Of course, the United States constitutionally cannot do what Australia did.
Aren't there a bunch of amendments to the constitution already?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
People: we know that guns being less common makes western-democratic societies safer because countries like Britain, New Zealand and Australia exist and they've had a relative minimum of mass shootings. Presumably removal of cars would stop car deaths also, but we've collectively decided that cars are more reliably useful/worth the cost than guns are.
It's less a question of "how do we prevent all fatalities from everything" and more "what is worth the cost".
As far as differences between these nations go you could also turn this into a discussion about American culture and guns as a social/psychological concept [lazy example here], but frankly I can't be arsed.
You misunderstood the purpose of my argument.
The post by TomCat26 that I responded to made the claim that he can't trust people to not harm others with guns.
I responded by saying that we already place an enormous amount of trust in others to not do use bodily harm. A car is a simple example in this because they're ubiquitous in our lives and, frankly speaking, extremely dangerous if not handled properly.
And then he responded by saying that he fully agrees with me that we do place an enormous amount of trust in others.
Australia's kind of an interesting example, actually. Gun ownership of course plummeted dramatically immediately after the post-Port-Arthur reforms. But it's been steadily climbing since and is now almost back to the pre-Port-Arthur level... without a corresponding return to the pre-Port-Arthur level of gun violence.
I did not know that! Interesting.
I suspect what's happening is that the new laws remain effective at keeping guns out of the hands of violent crazies, and that as long as they do that, the number of guns in the hands of regular people is simply irrelevant.
Yeah, that sounds legit.
If this is the case, then why are people focusing so much on gun ownership in of itself in the U.S.?
Mandatory military service and laws against keeping guns loaded and on/about your person in public. Not an exact comparison to the USA.
Except that's the point: if you need to look at something other than gun numbers to explain lack of gun homicides, you're admitting that gun homicides are not correlated to amount of guns per capita.
Aren't there a bunch of amendments to the constitution already?
There are 27 amendments to the Constitution. Of them, only one repeals a previous amendment, and the amendment it nullifies is the 18th Amendment, which was not part of the Bill of Rights.
Aren't there a bunch of amendments to the constitution already?
The United States Constitution is one of the most stable written constitutions in the world. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were basically launch day DLC. In the two hundred twenty-six years since then, it has only been amended seventeen more times. And as magicware99 and Highroller have noted, none of these touch the Bill of Rights, except to extend their protections, as the 14th does. Most of them are procedural patches. And the latest one, the 27th Amendment, was actually an article of the Bill of Rights that took two centuries to ratify. (Seriously. And there's another article that's technically still pending.)
One of the reasons for this stability is that we Americans are generally pretty happy with our Constitution. The other is the amendment process:
Quote from Article Five of the United States Constitution »
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
Gun control is generally considered a losing issue for Democrats even in blue states: card-carrying socialist Bernie Sanders, for instance, has a notably permissive record on the issue because his state of Vermont, while very liberal, is also very rural. So the long and the short of it is that, given the required majorities, a repeal of the Second Amendment absolutely will not happen at any time in the foreseeable future. Frankly, the notion isn't a serious part of the conversation on either side.
PS: I don't think I've weighed in on the OP yet, but staging a mock mass shooting is one of the dumbest and most irresponsible ideas I've heard in a long time. It might actually be criminal, depending on what happens -- the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" exception to the First Amendment seems dreadfully likely to come into play.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Mandatory military service and laws against keeping guns loaded and on/about your person in public. Not an exact comparison to the USA.
Except that's the point: if you need to look at something other than gun numbers to explain lack of gun homicides, you're admitting that gun homicides are not correlated to amount of guns per capita.
Except they are as a general rule. More guns available to a population means more people get shot more often, particularly in impulsive situations like robberies gone bad or suicides.
You've made a good point that to do things Switzerland style is better. So:
Gun owners in the US get to keep their guns if they register for firearms licenses with each gun recorded on them, but can't keep guns loaded while stored or own more than (for example) five bullets per gun, and each gun and all ammo has to be registered for use. Farmers and hunters can apply to keep more bullets because they have legitimate use for them. Also low power rabbit hunting guns aren't registered at all. Certain weapons will be entirely illegal, but I think the USA already has provisions for that.
Gun owners have to register for legal transport of weapons and ammo outside of designated regions for training, and the transport provision needs to be on your gun license. Open and concealed carry of loaded weapons has to be applied for, and each gun gets a separate application. As before, farmers and hunters get an easier time of it.
Finally, the entire registered population from the age of 18 upward has to take mandatory weapons training, at least once a year. (The Switzerland system is one of full conscription into the militia for men between 20 and 30, but I figure the US is more egalitarian than that.)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Lets regulate that militia.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Except they are as a general rule. More guns available to a population means more people get shot more often, particularly in impulsive situations like robberies gone bad or suicides.
Except suicides are not homicides.
Second, you're losing sight of what correlation means. If you have situations in which there are large numbers of guns but low numbers of gun crime, then there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.
Gun owners in the US get to keep their guns if they register for firearms licenses with each gun recorded on them, but can't keep guns loaded while stored or own more than (for example) five bullets per gun, and each gun and all ammo has to be registered for use. Farmers and hunters can apply to keep more bullets because they have legitimate use for them. Also low power rabbit hunting guns aren't registered at all. Certain weapons will be entirely illegal, but I think the USA already has provisions for that.
Yeah, the Switzerland system really wouldn't work in America.
Also, "legitimate use"? Really? The entire purpose of the second amendment is to protect the citizens' ability to destabilize society through use of firearms. That is actually what it's for. It's not protecting our right to hunt deer.
Finally, the entire registered population from the age of 18 upward has to take mandatory weapons training, at least once a year. (The Switzerland system is one of full conscription into the militia for men between 20 and 30, but I figure the US is more egalitarian than that.)
Does Switzerland have mandatory training for everyone or just all men?
Regardless, would never fly here. We're as a populace pretty adamantly opposed to a draft.
If you hear gunshots on saturday it's probably fake.
Art is life itself.
And the hypothetical was exactly what Magicman657 wrote. If everyone has a gun, what if one guy decides to randomly shoot from afar.
You have a mass panic. The only difference is you have a mass panic of untrained civilians with guns, some of whom will be trigger happy.
Civilians with guns are not a military platoon. They have not trained to work together. Even if some are ex-marines, not all will be. And the ones who are trained aren't trained to work together. You're going to have lots of independent minded individuals who are each going to take the matter into their own hands.
The last time I wrote that hypothetical, it was completely dismissed.
Art is life itself.
It's one thing for lots of people in rural areas to own guns. I'm all for that. You live in some place in this country and the outdoors is a legitimate threat.
It's another thing for random people in the suburbs or on college campuses to own guns. Not even police officers, who are trained and retrained regularly, always use their firearms appropriately. Why is arming joe schmoe a better solution? It always presumes the perfect scenario when you've got 'the drop' on someone, but that's rarely ever going to happen. And in most scenarios where you would use it, it's almost always better to let yourself be stolen from than risk death in a gun fight.
Instead of the peaceful utopia these people imagine, you get pissing contests that would have stopped at shouting or a fist fight turning into a gun battle.
What they forget about arming everyone is that you're arming everyone. That means every idiot with an ego the size of the great state of Texas would have one too.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-gun, but I think they should stay in the home or in a case until you're at the range - unless you're a police officer or out somewhere animal attacks are a real risk.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The problem with a world where everyone has a gun is that you are inherently saying I trust my neighbor more than the government.
I get the position of people when they say government enroaches on rights, where government isn't necessarily trustworthy. I'm sympathetic. But that doesn't mean that I trust my neighbor more.
When you give everyone in your town a weapon, you're basically saying: I trust that none of you guys are insane, that none of you are trigger happy, that all of you are responsible.
To me you're putting an immense faith in humanity, and I just don't see where one can justify that kind of faith.
Imagine you are in a starbucks where everyone is packing heat.
You are trusting that one guy isnt going to shoot you in the back of the head and steal your gun while you pay for coffee. Or the random dude open carrying the AR-15--You are trusting he isnt going to lift it up and use it.
Or that ex-cop in a movie theater---You are trusting he isn't going to shoot you if you're making noise during some movie previews and out of anger you throw a piece of popcorn at him.
Sorry to say that last bit of implicit trust didn't work out too well.
Oh come now. When you cross the street, you're trusting that the drivers nearby won't suddenly accelerate and slam right into you.
When you drive, you're trusting that the fellow behind you will brake when you brake. You're trusting that people won't suddenly swerve right into your car. And so on and so forth.
Should you not be able to drive unless you go through a battery of psychological tests and have been determined by a therapist that you don't have an anger issue and won't commit road rage?
What about drivers? Why the hell do we let so many people who are clearly piss-poor drivers drive? Do we trust that they can drive competently simply because they passed the test? That's bull***** right?
I mean, gun owners need to take a couple courses in gun safety and jump through a bunch of hoops in most states to get the license to own a gun. Yet y'all seem to think that people will become trigger-happy maniacs who'll break the law at the slightest provocation.
Yes you are trusting that the drivers wont suddenly accelerate and kill you. You are absolutely 100% correct.
But they are required by law to have insurance. They take a driver's license test. While driving they are subject to numerous traffic laws on how they can use their car. If they infract too many times, they will lose their licenses. We test their vision as well. If they have nightblindness, they are forbidden to drive at night time. If you lend you car to someone else, you can be sued for the damages they commit. There are laws against drink and driving. Finally you literally have a group of people hired for the sole purpose of policing whether you are using said car within the bounds of the license--traffic cops.
the point is as you say. If drivers are so bad, why do we let them drive? Perhaps we should subject them to a litany of regulation and licensure?
And that's exactly what I'm saying. Sure why not? Why not make gun owners go through the hoops they do for driving? I'm fine with that position. But Im guessing most gun owners are not.
Then what is the point of your previous post? You fully agree with me that you're placing a great deal of trust that other drivers won't ram into you or run you over. How is this trust any different from trusting that someone with a gun won't shoot you?
And yet accidents occur regularly. Drunk driving can pretty much be described as common-place, enough to the point that we need traffic cops and a bunch of ads that discourage it. Road rage is also common, even if it may not lead to violence or genuine physical harm.
What do you think would happen if we gave accidents and crimes with cars the same logic we give with guns?
I think you would have far fewer accidents with guns. I also think you would have fewer crazies with guns.
According to this website the crazy people with cars and accidents are about the same.
Graham from Loading Ready Run
It's less a question of "how do we prevent all fatalities from everything" and more "what is worth the cost".
As far as differences between these nations go you could also turn this into a discussion about American culture and guns as a social/psychological concept [lazy example here], but frankly I can't be arsed.
Art is life itself.
Of course, the United States constitutionally cannot do what Australia did.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also according to that home of accuracy, wikipedia, apparently Switzerland's guns per capita is about the same as NZ (~0.2 guns per person) if you're not counting Militia weapons. If you count Militia weapons it's still about half the US rate (apparently the US has 1.1 guns per person).
I did not know that! Interesting.
Yeah, that sounds legit.
Aren't there a bunch of amendments to the constitution already?
Art is life itself.
You misunderstood the purpose of my argument.
The post by TomCat26 that I responded to made the claim that he can't trust people to not harm others with guns.
I responded by saying that we already place an enormous amount of trust in others to not do use bodily harm. A car is a simple example in this because they're ubiquitous in our lives and, frankly speaking, extremely dangerous if not handled properly.
And then he responded by saying that he fully agrees with me that we do place an enormous amount of trust in others.
I am confused by his response.
If this is the case, then why are people focusing so much on gun ownership in of itself in the U.S.?
To my knowledge, there has never been an amendment that applied to the first ten amendments.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights are sacred cows. They're practically untouchable.
There are 27 amendments to the Constitution. Of them, only one repeals a previous amendment, and the amendment it nullifies is the 18th Amendment, which was not part of the Bill of Rights.
One of the reasons for this stability is that we Americans are generally pretty happy with our Constitution. The other is the amendment process:
Gun control is generally considered a losing issue for Democrats even in blue states: card-carrying socialist Bernie Sanders, for instance, has a notably permissive record on the issue because his state of Vermont, while very liberal, is also very rural. So the long and the short of it is that, given the required majorities, a repeal of the Second Amendment absolutely will not happen at any time in the foreseeable future. Frankly, the notion isn't a serious part of the conversation on either side.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You've made a good point that to do things Switzerland style is better. So:
Gun owners in the US get to keep their guns if they register for firearms licenses with each gun recorded on them, but can't keep guns loaded while stored or own more than (for example) five bullets per gun, and each gun and all ammo has to be registered for use. Farmers and hunters can apply to keep more bullets because they have legitimate use for them. Also low power rabbit hunting guns aren't registered at all. Certain weapons will be entirely illegal, but I think the USA already has provisions for that.
Gun owners have to register for legal transport of weapons and ammo outside of designated regions for training, and the transport provision needs to be on your gun license. Open and concealed carry of loaded weapons has to be applied for, and each gun gets a separate application. As before, farmers and hunters get an easier time of it.
Finally, the entire registered population from the age of 18 upward has to take mandatory weapons training, at least once a year. (The Switzerland system is one of full conscription into the militia for men between 20 and 30, but I figure the US is more egalitarian than that.)
Lets regulate that militia.
Art is life itself.
Second, you're losing sight of what correlation means. If you have situations in which there are large numbers of guns but low numbers of gun crime, then there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.
Yeah, the Switzerland system really wouldn't work in America.
Also, "legitimate use"? Really? The entire purpose of the second amendment is to protect the citizens' ability to destabilize society through use of firearms. That is actually what it's for. It's not protecting our right to hunt deer.
Does Switzerland have mandatory training for everyone or just all men?
Regardless, would never fly here. We're as a populace pretty adamantly opposed to a draft.