Question for Americans....
I dont think guns will ever be banned in the U.S because its too late. its swamped with guns , therefore if banned , criminals will have no problem obtaining them.
*If* you lived in a country that wasnt swamped with guns , because they were banned, and therefore extremely difficult for criminals to get hold of them, would you be happy to live without them then?
So are you saying that it's OK for every single country in the world to have guns except the USA?
shareKind of.
Countries with strict weapon laws have fewer shootings. In my country, Denmark, it would be impossible for me to buy a semi-automatic weapon. As it happens, we haven't had a single high school shooting. Ever.
OK, the only reason I ask is that, since a large proportion of the posters on here are from the US, the tone of your OP does sound a little inflammatory; it's one thing saying guns should be banned, but quite another saying just in the US. You might be in for a rough ride on this one.
shareThanks for your reply, AK. My OP was indeed meant to be polemic, I admit, but not vicious in any way. I used to be a regular poster here btw, and back in those days people tended to be less sensitive than now.
shareDon't get me wrong, I'm British (although I have dual US nationality) and having lived and worked over there, I can see both sides of the argument (what with the UK being virtually gun free). It's just that, as soon as I read your OP, I was thinking oooouuuch!
shareNo problem, Andy! š
I actually like guns and firearms but I also enjoy a good discussion!
I have never chosen to have a gun in my house, because I understand that having a gun in my house does not make my family safer, in fact it makes them less safe!
My own position on guns is pretty radical, but perhaps not as radical as the OP. Basically, I goes like this, I do not believe one should both have access to firearms AND mind altering chemicals simultaneously. So, should one choose access to firearms, then their ID should be altered such that they are prevented from also purchasing things like alcohol, marijuana, cigarettes, coffee, being prescribed pharmaceuticals, etc...
Should people also have to choose between mind altering substances and the privilege of driving?
What about police officers and the armed forces? Many are on pharmaceuticals from what they've been through in the line of duty.
Also, caffeine and nicotine? Seriously? Those are two substances that don't effect your judgement.
Lastly, all this would do is create a black market. And what comes with a black market? Crime.
Driving, yes. Military and police, yes. And, yes, both nicotine and caffeine do penetrate the blood brain barrier, and do affect judgement. If you arenāt a smoker, try a little experiment, smoke a cigarette and see how āmessed upā it makes you. Now, tell me you want folks driving around and carrying firearms in that state. Next?
shareI agree your position is radical and would never become reality. Even most gun control advocates would roll their eyes. Your entitled to your opinion, so no offence.
shareThatās fine. I roll my eyes at gun advocates regularly.
shareI don't roll my eyes at Constitutional Rights. We're lucky to have them.
shareIs the constitution a flawless perfect document though, incapable of being improved upon? I mean, it was just written by a guy! The 2nd amendment could use an overhaul to better reflect the modern age, and besides that, the courts have already ruled that certain limits are not unconstitutional (automatic weapons, tanks, shoulder mounted RPGs, nukes, all banned for civilians), so now we're just talking about where exactly that limit should be...
shareIf you want an overhaul, you would need a Constitutional Amendment with 2/3 of the House and Senate approving, along with 2/3 of the States. This won't happen on the 2nd Amendment issue.
Automatic weapons are not banned, although they are heavily restricted and you need deep pockets to own one.
RPGs are a type of arms. No one has definitely ruled on whether or not they are protected under the 2nd amendment, though SCOTUS has said that restrictions can be applied to dangerous and unusual weapons. The RPG definitely meets both criteria. However, it's not illegal, just more strictly regulated.
You can certainly own a tank, although its described as a destructive device, so the main cannon would have to be disabled.
[deleted]