Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

Interpretations are subjective. So whose interpretation are you talking about? I presume it's your own interpretation you are talking about.

The only interpretation that counts is neither yours nor mine. It is the responsibility of SCOTUS to interpret the law, including the American Constitution.

The judiciary interprets the law, true. In a free country such as is the USA the citizen as an individual has the right and the duty to change the law as and when democratic process demands.The Constitution is not Almighty God.

[AverageBozo]

The US Constitution is a living document via the amendment process,but nowhere in the document or its amendments is the possession of an AR-15 protected. It’s the interpretation that needs to be changed.

Interpretations are subjective. So whose interpretation are you talking about? I presume it's your own interpretation you are talking about.

The only interpretation that counts is neither yours nor mine. It is the responsibility of SCOTUS to interpret the law, including the American Constitution.

The judiciary interprets the law, true. In a free country such as is the USA the citizen as an individual has the right and the duty to change the law as and when democratic process demands.

True, the Constitution is not. Regrettably, there’s little a citizen can do to change it, save communicating his wishes to his Representative & Senators, and maybe carry a placard during a rally or protest. If both houses of Congress agree on a draft amendment, then it goes to the States for ratification before being signed into law. A citizen can vote for candidates who espouse support for the desired new law. That’s about as far as it goes for an individual’s right & duty to change the law.

[Robert66]

For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.

All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics

Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. EG:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895

[Robert66]

*Edited and reposted for the sake of clarity

For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.

All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics

Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. eg:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895

[InfinityMuse]

The problem with gun control arguments is the lack of knowledge of the political arena. Pro gun control political socialites are totally outrageous. There is a feminist pro feminine-women subservience movement that wants to disarm Washington to over through the state of thought control. The biggest issue with gun control is what happens next? Declared state of optimism as a prostitution of imperialism? It surly is a crazy attack of bias on retributions in criminal justice.

[InfinityMuse]

*Edited and reposted for the sake of clarity

For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.

All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics

Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. eg:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895

Hence fourth unusual weapons. People are being rigged with Brain mass interface tech that kills them when they swipe a debt card. Thought control being disguised as orthodontics and cancer reasearch equipment. What is a gun now ' days? Murder is sooo predicted.

[Sy Borg]

What is the value of an American life? It depends. A life on "our side" is priceless. A life on "their side" is worth less than spit.

So (many) Americans insist on their right to destroy each other and their society as a whole. They deeply resent outsiders trying to find ways to save them from themselves.

[LuckyR]

What is the value of an American life? It depends. A life on "our side" is priceless. A life on "their side" is worth less than spit.

So (many) Americans insist on their right to destroy each other and their society as a whole. They deeply resent outsiders trying to find ways to save them from themselves.

Guns definitely cause damage, but irrespective of the thread's title, it's definitely not in the form of mass murder, or generally even murder. It's mostly suicide and if you add accidents to the number of suicides, it's an even greater majority.

[Sy Borg]

Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".

[LuckyR]

Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".

Most definitely, though the term "mass murder" specifically refers to mass shootings, a relatively new phenomenon associated with dramatic news coverage, out of proportion with the fact that they account for about 0.2% of the murders in the US. Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.

[ernestm]

*Edited and reposted for the sake of clarity

For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.

All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."

https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics

Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. eg:

p.55: 'We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'

So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.

How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored.

Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:

'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'

...

'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain, Roughing it, 1872

The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide, South Australian Register, 10/14/1895

WhenI see this kind of thing these days, I can't help but think of the Lockheed versus Elon Musk paradigm. Ever since Lockheed designed the SR-71, it's been advancing the 'if it ain't quite right, add something more complicated to fix it.' People have started to notice that this doesn't work very well in the information age, because the more complicated things are more likely to go wrong too. So the DoD handed Lockheed their dream machine specs, and 21 years later, 16 years behind schedule, Lockheed handed back the F35 and a 1.1 trillion dollar bill.

It seems to me Musk is much better at it, having handed NASA the Raptor-2 rocket engine which is not only 95% fuel efficient, has 10% as many moving parts as its NASA equivalent, and 2% of the price, but also can be controlled so precisely it can land a rocket vertically when it comes back from space.

His method starts with making the design less stupid.

It is undeniable that the 2nd Amendment is very badly written. It should be just thrown out and replaced with something more sensible, such as 'people in wheelchairs and the like definitely need lethal self defense, but the rest of you wimps have lots of non-lethal defense means, so man the hell up.'

[Sy Borg]

Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".

Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.

It's a fair consideration, no doubt a product of retrograde euthanasia laws.

On the downside, guns make it easy for young, healthy people to make an irreversible error. I've heard it reported that most people who didn't die after a suicide attempt were glad they survived. Then again, perhaps that's why they survived? Maybe there was a lack of total conviction in their actions? Still, for sick and elderly facing a rough life end, having a gun around may be a blessing.

Still, it's a digression. The issue is that, if guns are so easy to get, then you end up with more lethally-armed nutters that you otherwise would. I don't think machine guns belong in urban settings, aside from Ukraine's situation. (Not that the US would ever be an enticing invasion target, guns or no guns).

[LuckyR]

Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".

Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.

It's a fair consideration, no doubt a product of retrograde euthanasia laws.

On the downside, guns make it easy for young, healthy people to make an irreversible error. I've heard it reported that most people who didn't die after a suicide attempt were glad they survived. Then again, perhaps that's why they survived? Maybe there was a lack of total conviction in their actions? Still, for sick and elderly facing a rough life end, having a gun around may be a blessing.

Still, it's a digression. The issue is that, if guns are so easy to get, then you end up with more lethally-armed nutters that you otherwise would. I don't think machine guns belong in urban settings, aside from Ukraine's situation. (Not that the US would ever be an enticing invasion target, guns or no guns).

Very true on both accounts. Most decisions to commit suicide are performed within the hour of the attempt. In the absence of guns, most attempts are unsuccessful.

The US will never be invaded militarily by humans for exactly that reason, though since that is such a statistical unlikelihood regardless, it isn't a reasonable indication for unrestricted gun access.

[Mounce574]

His method starts with making the design less stupid.

It is undeniable that the 2nd Amendment is very badly written. It should be just thrown out and replaced with something more sensible, such as 'people in wheelchairs and the like definitely need lethal self defense, but the rest of you wimps have lots of non-lethal defense means, so man the hell up.'

There is an issue I have with this statement. I can kill you with my hands, a knife, and any number of items.
Also calling people wimps unless they are in a wheelchair is not valid. I am a 5'3 125lb female. If a man who is 6'0 200lbs wants to hurt me, could I possibly overpower him unarmed? Not in your life- and I have military training. I am going to use an equalizer. There is a saying "It was him or me." I am always going to pick me.

Gun control will not solve anything. It just allows criminals superior power. They know they won't get shot in house robbery. If the knowledge that they will get shot by a home owner, they are less likely to attempt the robbery. The police response time to a 911 call for a robbery in progress is anywhere from 10 minutes or longer- if you get to call them. It took 35 minutes for the police to arrive for me with the gun shots occurring during the 911 call. Had I not been able to get out of the house to the neighbor, I probably would have died. If I had a gun at the time, I know I could have incapacitated the man.

Hunting- the stupid statement from Biden (deer don't wear kevlar) is ignorant. Bears, mountain lions, wild hogs, and such don't wear kevlar but they can be found hunting deer as well. No gun? What are you going to do then? I hunt dear for food. I have used an AR-15. Keep in mind AR doesn't mean Assault Rifle. It is a brand name.

[Sy Borg]

Lucky, 40,000+ deaths by firearm per year could be said to constitute a "mass".

Of course suicides by gun outnumber murders by gun in the US.

It's a fair consideration, no doubt a product of retrograde euthanasia laws.

On the downside, guns make it easy for young, healthy people to make an irreversible error. I've heard it reported that most people who didn't die after a suicide attempt were glad they survived. Then again, perhaps that's why they survived? Maybe there was a lack of total conviction in their actions? Still, for sick and elderly facing a rough life end, having a gun around may be a blessing.

Still, it's a digression. The issue is that, if guns are so easy to get, then you end up with more lethally-armed nutters that you otherwise would. I don't think machine guns belong in urban settings, aside from Ukraine's situation. (Not that the US would ever be an enticing invasion target, guns or no guns).

Very true on both accounts. Most decisions to commit suicide are performed within the hour of the attempt. In the absence of guns, most attempts are unsuccessful.

The US will never be invaded militarily by humans for exactly that reason, though since that is such a statistical unlikelihood regardless, it isn't a reasonable indication for unrestricted gun access.

Yes, fewer guns would mean fewer impulsive errors. Still, this is perhaps an unpopular view but, there are eight billion humans in the world and ...

The US is impossible. Allies on either side, long oceanic distances, the strongest military. Ultimately, the point of America's gun proliferation is for Americans to target other Americans.