Wushu Panda said:
mrdude2010 said:
Hm. Funny how the violent crime rate dropped consistently once the Brady Bill went into effect.
Most of the illegally obtained guns used in crime were stolen/illegally purchased from people who bought them legally. It's pretty hard to smuggle an american-made gun into a country it's already in. Obviously systematic gang violence using smuggled weapons that aren't legal in most western countries is an exception.
Anyway, the 2nd amendment actually is kind of ambiguous. When they wrote "bear arms," what arms did they mean? They obviously didn't specify, but does that give everyone the constitutional right to own a bazooka? It also mentions a "well-regulated militia." Now, that's even more ambiguous. How do you define "well-regulated?" Do you mean like the colonial militias in Great Britain, the occasional hoplite training sessions in Greece, or does everyone automatically belong to "the militia?" (I mean the amendment itself is pretty ambiguously worded, the various interpretations of it based on an ancient court ruling are pretty clear.)
I personally think guns need to be regulated in some way, but a complete ban is something different. The other option is to go the route of several other countries, and require everyone to undergo military training, then issue them a powerful rifle. When everyone has one, it's a lot less safe to break into someone's house, so basically as long as everyone has one or no one does, it helps the crime rate. But to be honest, if you're going to half ass it, you might as well regulate certain types of weapons. There will never be a need for any person to own an automatic weapon, since hunting with one is impractical and inefficient, target practice with one is even sillier (Have you ever tried holding an automatic weapon steadily on a target? Even in short bursts it's probably not as a effective as a semi-automatic weapon at any appreciable range), and using an automatic weapon for home defense is just going a little over the top, to be honest. No one will ever need heavy ordinance. Handguns are even less practical, as they're basically useless at any range of over 40 yards, they're easy to conceal (and thus easier to commit crimes with), they're cheap and easy to obtain, and capable of killing a lot of people quickly. When something has no practical use aside from killing people, is it really something you want to have as a widespread aspect of your society? Things like hunting rifles and shotguns, even semi-automatic ones, have clear purposes for both sport and hunting, and as long as you pass the mental health/criminal background check, you should be able to own one in pretty much any caliber allowed under the geneva convention.
Also, going back to the accidents, that's exactly the point. If guns are easy to obtain (a la no gun control laws), lazy and irresponsible people will have easy access to them, and thus accidents will happen frequently. You are more likely (statistically, probably not you personally, from your attitude) to accidentally hurt your own family member than a burglar. You can't regulate gun ownership based on arbitrary determinations of someone's responsibility/laziness, so you really can't keep stupid lazy irresponsible people from owning guns. What you can do is keep them from owning guns most likely to cause those accidents.
Exactly where is the article/document stating that crimes rates dropped in direct correlation to the Brady Bill? Exactly when does restricting peoples' access to something help the matter? Remember prohibition? USA banned alcohol and organized crime exploded. And as I have previously stated, criminals obtain guns through illegal means. If this Bill worked so well then why is there still an issue of "gun control" and wasnt solved with the Brady Bill?
Um, no. The 2nd Amendment isnt ambiguous at all. Youre either clawing at desperate attempts to prove your pathetic point or just to dull in the brain to understand. I do sincerely hope its just a sad attempt to get me angry and you really arent that ignorant. Here is a specific portion of the video I linked, if you cannot even understand the 2nd amendment then dont bother posting anymore. You shouldnt be trying to argue points if you cant even comprehend what it is youre arguing.
Honestly, reading your large paragraph makes me think youre just a troll. You just restated everything you said and paraphrased me. You didnt even contribute one real idea as to HOW guns can be regulated to ensure accidents dont happen. Sure, idiots can pass background checks so long as theyve been law-abiding idiots.
But you wanna know what I think should be done? You cant own a gun unless you provide proof of receiving instruction on proper cleaning/maintenance of firearms and additional instruction on the use (shooting). But hey, Im crazy. Im actually concerned with gun safety, but people like you only stereotype gun users by thinking that everyone wants to go hunting with automatics. And thinking that you know a thing or two about which firearms should be rightfully restricted (despite not even understanding the 2nd amendment itself).
I actually know the constitution pretty well, having taken a few polisci courses in my time, and understanding the constitution being kind of important to most of those classes. The exact wording of the 2nd amendment: "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." Why would the bit about a well regulated militia even be in there unless it was part of the rest of the statement? It could easily imply that not being part of a well regulated militia, or one clearly not being necessary (we have the national guard for that now, you know) could mean the second part of the sentence doesn't apply. It says "keep and bear arms," and it specifies no limits. Does that mean that someone could open a bomb making shop in their garage? The differences in technology and the affordability of said technology couldn't be anticipated by the framers, so they left most of it intentionally vague for future congresses and supreme courts to clarify as time passes. Like I said, the amendment itself is ambiguous, but the interpretations of it have not. You're the one deliberately oversimplifying it to try to support your point.
also, crime rate drop: http://stubbornfacts.us/files/ViolentCrimeRateTrend2.gif- Brady Bill went from about 1994-2004, notice how the violent crime rate levels off there? That and Britain has a very low gun crime rate, especially compared to the U.S., and they have a handgun ban in place.
You didn't mention it, I mentioned it because I figured it was relevant to the topic to describe what I meant by "regulating guns."
Using one example such as prohibition, which was repealed, isn't a good way to make your case. Nearly everyone in the United States drank. Nearly everyone went to some church or another, where they had to partake in the holy sacrament, which involves wine. It was such a bad idea to ban something so already widespread throughout the country that of course an illegal market was going to build around it. If you tried to ban the purchasing of cigarettes because secondhand smoke is dangerous, the crime rate would shoot up too.
I'm concerned with gun safety too. I grew up on a farm, hunted, plenty of my dad's friends were in the armed forces, etc. I've fired many different types of guns. I always knew that guns could be dangerous, and that they're not nearly as dangerous if you're intelligent about using them. I know that it would be nice if you force everyone to take a gun safety course, but even passing that course will not prevent accidents. Some states already have laws like that, and accidents still happen. Even if you pass the course, it doesn't guarantee that you will always follow it, and even one break with the safety guidelines can be fatal. I mean, look at driving school: people are constantly told not to drink and drive or text and drive, and then shown gruesome videos of the consequences, and they still do it, and accidents still happen.
And seriously, how different is regulating who can purchase a weapon more of an "infringement" (if you take you're oversimplified version) than regulating which weapons people can purchase? With all the crime there already is, if any criminal could readily get access to an automatic weapon, it would get worse. Obviously, some will still make their way into the states, but it will be much more difficult to smuggle one in. If someone has the drop on you, nearly every gun is useless anyway, unless you're Jessie James.