day of retribution

[Barnaby]

G'day c.d.

If it wasn't possible to buy them anywhere in the country and they had to pass a customs post surely it would restrict the availability.

I wonder why DC has strict laws but major gun problems and New York State has strict laws but much less of a problem. Is it the adjacent state thing, or underlying socioeconomic factors?

[GUT]

G'day Barnaby

I wonder why DC has strict laws but major gun problems and New York State has strict laws but much less of a problem. Is it the adjacent state thing, or underlying socioeconomic factors?

Is the socioeconomic mix much different between DC and NY. I thought that they both had affluent areas and, shall I say less affluent ones.

[kensei]

G'day c.d.

I agree that most guns used in crime are illegally obtained.

BUT

If it wasn't possible to buy them anywhere in the country and they had to pass a customs post surely it would restrict the availability.

It will always be possible to buy them in America. Even if guns were banned across the board and all gun owners were ordered to give them up, it is not a matter of customs keeping new guns from entering the country because millions and millions of them are already here, and the number that did not get turned in despite the order would be incredibly high. Under such a ban, the problem of law abiding citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals would get far worse than it already is.

[kensei]

If everyone can have a gun why not a hand grenade or even an A-Bomb.

First of all, not everyone can have a gun. Those diagnosed mentally ill cannot, convicted felons cannot, even people convicted of completely non-violent crimes. And soforth. "Gun control" already exists in America with multiple laws that are just not always enforced well enough. We don't need any new ones, we just need to be more stringent with the ones we already have.

Secondly, in my understanding, when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment their heaviest and most devastating weapon was the cannon, and I don't think they intended for civilians to be able to own those or any other future weapon of mass destruction that required highly advanced training to use. Their aim was for whatever the standard infantryman's battlefield weapon was in any age to also be made available to civilians. In their day it was the musket. Today it is what is commonly referred to as the "assault rifle."

[Errata]

First of all, not everyone can have a gun. Those diagnosed mentally ill cannot, convicted felons cannot, even people convicted of completely non-violent crimes. And soforth. "Gun control" already exists in America with multiple laws that are just not always enforced well enough. We don't need any new ones, we just need to be more stringent with the ones we already have.

Secondly, in my understanding, when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment their heaviest and most devastating weapon was the cannon, and I don't think they intended for civilians to be able to own those or any other future weapon of mass destruction that required highly advanced training to use. Their aim was for whatever the standard infantryman's battlefield weapon was in any age to also be made available to civilians. In their day it was the musket. Today it is what is commonly referred to as the "assault rifle."

I'm mentally ill. I can have a gun. Which surprised the hell out me, but there it is. You just can't have a gun if a judge rules you mentally unfit or incompetent. So essentially only those people a court throws in the loony bin can't have a gun. Unless they petition to get it back, which is almost always granted. So there's that. Except for people who go into court ordered treatment for addiction, the can keep their guns. You know. Exactly the people we want keeping their guns.

I'm a fan of taking the second amendment literally. All of it, not just the first several words.

[Scott Nelson]

When was the second amendment written? Were times a bit different then than they are now?

[Cogidubnus]

I live in Washington, D.C., the nation's capital. You really don't need to look any further for a perfect example of the argument. D.C. has very strict gun laws and there are no gun stores in D.C. Up until just a few short years ago it was illegal to own a handgun in D.C. That law was challenged in court and you can now apply for a gun permit but it is a lengthy, costly process and you have to jump through a great many hoops. Now given all that, you would expect D.C. to have virtually no gun violence or gun related crimes at all. But the fact is that the opposite is true. D.C. has gun violence out the wazoo. Well how can that be? The answer is pretty simple. Criminals in D.C. go to neighboring Virginia where guns are legal. They purchase them illegally and then bring them back into D.C. Why would they do such a thing? Again the answer is pretty simple. It's because they are criminals and don't give a rat's behind about the gun laws. So as a result of D.C.'s strict gun laws, criminals are the ones with guns and law abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves. That makes zero sense.

So, applying the same simplistic logic, if you sort out the stupid and obsolescent gun law in your neighbouring states, then you've cracked it?

All the best

Dave

[c.d.]

I wonder why DC has strict laws but major gun problems and New York State has strict laws but much less of a problem. Is it the adjacent state thing, or underlying socioeconomic factors?

Hello Barnaby,

I would say that the primary reason is that D.C. is a very small area and is bordered by the states of Virginia and Maryland. You can travel back and forth between all three on the subway.

It is not unusual for the police to trace a gun used in the commission of a D.C. crime back to Virginia.

c.d.

[GUT]

A lot of people seem to rely on self-defence when talking about Gun control, but the 2nd Amendment only talks about a well armed Militia, I would have thought that in a day and age when the government arms the armed forces the 2nd Amendment becomes redundant.

In the 1790's, a year or so after the 2nd amendment, a law was passed requiring every male between 18 and 45 to be in the army and provide their own weapons.If those joining the armed forces still had to provide their own weapons a law allowing each person to own a gun would be sensible. Funny that no one ever seems to address this issue

[GUT]

Of course the real issue isn't gun ownership, it is what you do with those guns.

Switzerland high gun ownership and one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world, go figure.

[c.d.]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias, while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.

c.d.

[Robert]

Yeah but have you seen their crossbow statistics?

[c.d.]

So, applying the same simplistic logic, if you sort out the stupid and obsolescent gun law in your neighbouring states, then you've cracked it?

All the best

Dave

Hello Dave,

Are you saying my logic is simplistic or D.C.'s gun laws?

c.d.

[GUT]

G'day c.d.

That's right, but I was referring to the reasoning for the Amendment, I know what the Supreme Court said.

But why not not limit it to single shot weapons, the Court said that's OK.

[c.d.]

G'day c.d.

That's right, but I was referring to the reasoning for the Amendment, I know what the Supreme Court said.

But why not not limit it to single shot weapons, the Court said that's OK.

Hello Gut,

Being Australian, I don't know how familiar you are with the National Rifle Association (the NRA) here in America. They are an extremely powerful lobby and politicians live in total fear of them. The NRA believes that the government is coming to take their guns away. Any step in that direction, no matter how logical, innocuous or beneficial is seen as the first misstep on a slippery slope. They will target any politician who they believe is taking an anti-gun stance and will do their best to see that he does not get reelected.

c.d.