Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.
In short if you want to have less violence involving guns in a select society then you stop the availability to own guns within that given population.
There is a lot of practical evidence to support that assertion in other countries. ie. Japan, UK, Canada who have high restriction levels.
The foreboding problems is how do you implement that in a society where gun ownership is a deeply ingrained law from out the legal constitution that created and formulated that very country ?
The answer to that might creating new laws that overrides those old formulated laws.
To start that withdrawal, an all out ban on certain Assault rifles would be a good starting point.
Let's use what it was when they were banned from 1994-2004. And anything that would meet that criteria that has been invented since.
Assault rifles seem to be like porn - hard to legally define but you know when you see it.
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia
i.e. the only ones that have the right to bear arms.
2nd amendment doesn't need to be rewritten or changed, just applied as intended instead of being perverted by the gun lobby.
Simon, this is not correct. The U S Supreme court has ruled that the 2nd amendment confers a right on individuals, not the militia. The organized militia, as defined in the statute, did not exist when the amendment was written and ratified into the constitution. Like it or not, this is the current state of the law here.
This investigation shows that banning the sales of assault rifles had little effect on gun violence in the States .
In other words you might reduce the usage of those particular guns but there are other choices to own or use illegally.
The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small
Finkelstein, that quote really just supports total gun banning. But this is america and we have to start somewhere. 20 kids killed in an elementary school didn't move america to do anything, I don't know what will.
But as I've asked before, I'm open to solutions to the problem. So far gun control is all that has been offered. I have heard many people say that that isn't the problem, but actually offer no solutions.
The U S Supreme court has ruled that the 2nd amendment confers a right on individuals, not the militia. The organized militia, as defined in the statute, did not exist when the amendment was written and ratified into the constitution. Like it or not, this is the current state of the law here.
That's a ruling. They need to make a better one.
The constitution can be amended and / or re-interpreted and laws change all the time.
The right has already had conditions placed on it ... just add some more. Nothing mandates the type of arms or the quantity. Are people allowed nukes? No - that would be crazy. We just need to find a better line of where "crazy" starts. An arsenal of weapons is crazy.
It just needs some political will.
The other observable dichotomy present in the US is that people buy and own guns from out their perceived protection of themselves, in acknowledgment that there are many other members in their population that own guns.
No wonder when you start the assertion that guns should be banned and taken away people get nervously up in arms waving the Stars and Stripes.
The irony of having a gun to protect from others who own guns is there was a man interviewed by CNN who had a side arm with him. He said he chose to run instead of using his side arm. It did him no good and played no part in his own personal outcome. It also adds question to the idea that if there were people in there with guns they would have used them and stopped the incident. I have heard that asserted repeatedly over the years. It's only valid if a person is willing to put their life on the line and shoot back and hit the target.
sloppyjoe... the point is that guy had a choice. He did what he felt was best for himself at the time. It also helps to confirm that most concealed carry holders are very responsible and don't just go off half caulked. Apparently no one else there had a choice. Their only option was to hide and hope for the best.
If you had to go through the same ordeal... would you honestly prefer NOT to be armed?