True. And it might not, of course. And we all die one day anyway (of course). Maybe the winner is the one who dies with the biggest and best collection of guns and weapons? Or maybe the winner is the one who inherits those guns and weapons after a person dies. Lol.

I have to agree but I knew that going in and it is a major part of my argument. Guns are an extremely emotionally charged issue and this is why IMHO there is so much passion to control them, which also IMHO, I think is a plan of steps (it doesn't stop with mere tightening of regulations) that ends in forbidding possession altogether meanwhile breaking both the means and the spirit to defend oneself and loved ones.

B U T

It has it's flip side and the extreme on the Pro side are just as rigid and resistant to any evidence as the Con side, which is why this thread is now at it's expected end, and we still have problems to solve that may never be solved directly.

It's done. I'm out. My, maybe Our, only hope in this issue is that threads such as this may serve as an example that the issues aren't as simple as one extreme versus the opposite extreme always ending in stalemate. There are some here who are not extreme and don't have a problem with continuing to objectively weigh real evidence to attempt to reach a solution with the best odds of having positive results.

@OP

I'd argue that over the last 20-30 years guns have become a symbol, a political statement. In the last 20-30 years we've gotten the internet and the 24 hour news cycle which thrives on gore and controversy. When something becomes a symbol more stupid people take part and with the internet and 24 hour news you end up with the fuster cluck we have right now. Because of said fuster cluck we cannot talk about guns because we've reduced every one to either a "gun grabber" or "gun nut".

I like my guns and would rather not have .gov knowing all about them but I'm also not all that comfortable with shall issue concealed carry or constitutional carry.

Have a look to the numbers here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ted_death_rate

Anyway the best comparison would be the same country with and without gun allowance, or even better, only the US with and without allowance, as the idiosyncrasies of every country are different and maybe the comparison would not be valid enough.

Interesting subject.
My opinion is that it is better a "no gun allowed" situation, but I think that in the US we are on a situation were maybe it is too late to forbid owning guns and the approach should be different.

Maybe a hard training would help and also a psychological test.

See what I meant? Honestly aizkorri, I mean nothing at all personal because I actually treasure each of our rights of having our own opinions, but the very fact that some people do indeed have such an opinion and are honest enough to say so, when we add those that either hide what they really desire or conveniently ignore how things progress in degrees, perhaps you can see this is where regulation most likely ends - total disarmament.

I have brought up cases where people living in rural environments still have serious and peaceful need of firearms. I might be convinced that regulation could be conditional on zones since on the surface I don't know of urban situations where a person may need to be armed, unless part of some authorized security force. However just because I don't personally know of a job or situation that might come with such a need, doesn't mean I have the right to support legislation that would make their jobs/lives harder , even deadly.

If you have any sense of Justice and Fair Play can't you consider that what may at first glance seem good to you has the potential to create conditions dangerous for others at the very least and ultimately blow back on you personally? The simple fact is that all Laws are not equal in that there are many laws on the books that are very low priority and even quite a few totally ignored not only by the citizenry but by law enforcement. It does not seem to me at all wise to add yet more laws that a (or many) government(s) can selectively enforce or not. I think it would be far wiser to purge laws that have become obsolete, always were ridiculous and/or unenforceable, and have better accountability for those that we deem reasonable and proper

There are already laws "on the books" that regulate who can legally buy a firearm but they are not always actively enforced. Drivers licenses must be periodically renewed and I don't see why such periodic checkups can't apply to not only firearms but any manner of dangerous items just like motor vehicles. This would reinforce the concept that to own a firearm comes with serious responsibility. This, of course, does nothing to deal with the issue of illegally obtained firearms but NO legislation can deal with that UNTIL one is used in an actual illegal act, rather than the passive condition of mere possession.

I truly don't understand why this is so difficult for some to understand unless I apply the age-old concept of "Whose Ox is Gored" which includes the myopic view that ignores the fact that if any person's ox can be gored, that can someday apply to you as well and be extended to other possessions, too. Be careful what you wish for, eh?

I am a little surprised being from Basque country that you are anti gun, however, I appreciate your sentiment that each country is different and therefore has different laws/beliefs etc...

I think the block to what you are suggesting is that in the US its a "right" to bear arms and its not a "right" to drive. Driving is a privilege which is why its very easy for courts to remove that privilege, and why testing is required before a license is obtained. Off topic but I would be in favor of requiring a retest (written and road) every time a persons drivers license is up for renewal, far too many people drive as if they either forget the rules or never learned.

Back on topic, if you look at the states that have the strictest gun laws (Illinois, New York, California, Michigan etc...) they also have the highest rates of gun violence, criminal gangs, violent crime, rapes, home invasions etc... So we do have evidence in the US at least that more gun laws allows more violent crime and only reduces guns among those who follow the laws not the criminals.

Do you want to demonstrate Michigans strict gun laws?

Would you like to differentiate between Chicago and NYC and their respective states?

Chris,

https://mic.com/articles/22835/gun-c...rol#.YkXyhvJW0
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/gun-l...igan-gun-laws/
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...s/firearms.pdf
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ou-might-think

https://www.gunstocarry.com/gun-laws...york-gun-laws/
https://www1.nyc.gov/nyc-resources/s.../3424/gun-laws
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Illinois

Remember, thugs, criminals, gangs etc... do not follow gun laws, so the gun laws only affect law abiding citizens, whom are the very people that have the right to protect themselves.

I'm not going to go through all the links since the first article is 7 years old and is greatly out of date

The line between "right" and "privilege" has always been blurry and for several reasons. The first is that The (US) Bill of Rights is part of a Social Contract and in all contracts the status of one is contingent on the status of the other. It is assumed that both The State and Individuals must live up to their side of the bargain to be worthy of said rights/conditions. This is not the place to list each of the Amendments and demonstrate how the very wording left considerable "wiggle room" in interpretation but one simple example should suffice to get it started. You may look up the exact wording and see for yourself the balancing act they each represent.

Just consider the most important of all Rights, so important that it is the very First Amendment, the Right to Free Speech. We all know from elementary school on the exception of "yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater" but there also followed laws against sedition, libel, defamation of character, inciting to riot, etc etc etc.

Specific to this thread the Second Amendment actually includes the words "well regulated" like this...

... and it is subject to interpretation how far regulation extends since one would be that the justification for keeping and bearing arms seems to be that a militia is a necessity and since it must be "well regulated" it is debatable if it follows that the arms that make a militia anything more than a straw man, a farce, must also be well regulated as part of the whole. I don't see any blank checks. Every amendment has conditionals built in and the simple fact is that individual rights tend to take a beating because government is more powerful which is why it was such a groundbreaking event to limit the power of The State and express Individual Rights, in writing, in the first place. AFAIK it was the first founding document to do that. It should however be noted that many historians even consider that when the term "men" is used it literally means "male landowners" which is part of why it took a subsequent amendment 140 years later to extend the right to vote to women.

It should be obvious that babies shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, nor paranoid schizophrenics, hardened criminals and several other categories of those with insufficient responsibility to handle a deadly instrument, especially one with reach that is easily concealed. So it already is conditional. I'm just proposing we not be lax on those existing regulations before we consider making any new ones.

As for the statistics for the strictness of gun regulations versus the amount of crime and/or gun-related deaths, it is difficult to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. Perhaps stricter regulations were enacted because of higher crime rather than vice versa.

Be that as it may I am concerned with the bigger picture of cost/benefit. We have only to look at a very similar situation that resulted in two amendments, the 18th and the 21st, the 18th to prohibit the possession of a dangerous substance, alcohol, and the 21st to repeal the 18th because it was such a catastrophic disaster, despite the fact that alcohol is the 3rd leading preventable cause of Death in the US still to this day. It is far and away more massive than gun-related deaths but yet that is chump change compared to what happens when it is outlawed. However, cracking down on drunk drivers (please note this is an act, chosen behaviour, not mere possession) has saved countless lives without taking away the basic right as long as it is handled responsibly. I submit this has strong parallels in every case of mere possession, guns included.

Well, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

You can prefer a society without guns, but, if you are going to run a revolution you might need them.

enorbet, excellent post. Yes, the founders/framers had legendary debates regarding the rights of the people, rights of the State and the role of a Federal government.

Regarding the Second Amendment, it is important to note how they wrote it: "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."

*A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (they observed how even though they won the war against the UK, they would have fared better if they had a properly trained militia instead of just volunteer farmers etc... They were concerned with future wars and preparing for future defense as they did not trust that it was a once off occurrence with the UK.)

*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (this was also to guarantee the right of the people to protect themselves from each other, criminals, wildlife and especially protection from the well regulated militia and the government. The founders knew that by instituting a military force/militia, they were creating the potential for tyranny, so the counter balance to that was to ensure the people had the right to defend themselves as well.) They even referenced the UK laws in their letters to each other when the King made it illegal for the colonists to have guns, black powder, laws allowing British soldiers to take over your home etc...

Humans are emotional so their decision might fail too. So whenever they land with a weapon while emotional or got hurt by fellow humans might land up with killings. So the American government needs to find alternate ways in protecting individuals.

While that has truth in it, it is dependent on environmental experience. What I mean is that children brought up around guns develop that sense of seriousness about firearms that becomes ingrained and fundamental where emotional isn't an issue. It is people who never went through that process, who maybe pickup a firearm once a year for a week's hunting trip, or worse, after they've bought a gun, pack it away and never get it out until something goes bump in the night that are subject to emotions and whim as well as irresponsible behavior since they have no experience they are irresponsible let alone the possible consequences.

It is analogous to practicing to pass your driving test to get a license and never driving for years and then being thrust into freeway driving where the first guy that cuts you off may result in road rage and bad choices or a simple rain storm may fill you with such second-guessing fear your lack of skill comes to the fore and you skid out of control. I don't know how city dwellers can easily amass such familiarity and experience but surely there are ways to impress upon people that driving a car or owning a firearm are not casual things. That problem to me is far easier to solve that a population devolving into sheep and the flip side of that coin, a ruling elite used to a compliant population where every whim can become Law, whether actually written, or even spoken, at all. In a word - Entitlement.