"Basically non-existent [sic]" like backgrounds checks.
How would nanny state regulations work or be comparable when Americans already possess many guns? Cow / barn door.
How would nanny state regulations work or be comparable when Americans already possess many guns? Cow / barn door.
You now argue that it doesn't work because the item being regulated is in wide spread possession. Drones are not. Thus by your own chain of reasoning it is perfectly reasonable to enforce very strong regulations NOW if we wish to have any chance of managing drones.
I guess, thank you for making such a great argument for strong regulation from the onset.
I don't think that the gun lobby having been so successful at achieving a sort of crony capitalist vendor lock-in with the American public implies in any way that this is a good thing, which is what you'd have to demonstrate for this analogy to really help the case you're trying to present.
I mean, if you're trying to say that regulation doesn't work, then pointing out that the the gun lobby has secured laws that severely limit firearm regulation in the USA, so now Americans already own a lot of guns and shoot each other a lot and there's nothing that can be done about it anymore, is perhaps doing more to illustrate the case that you're trying to argue against.
Your analysis of the data may vary, but:
Between 1998 and 2019, there have been more than 391,897,875 background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.[1].
It is unknown which of those were for rifles; it is also unknown what percentage of those background checks were for multiple firearm purchases in a single transactions.
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle by far, so it seems entirely plausible that there are perhaps vastly more than 100 million AR-15's in private ownership in the U.S. (An interesting point is that it is rather unlikely that most people would be so unwise as to advertise ownership.) (Of note, there is no legal definition of assault rifle, and the "AR" in AR-15 stands for Armalite, one of the first manufacturers of the AR-15.)
In total, less than 400 killings (including murders, self-defense, suicide etc) per year committed with all types of rifles[2]. (In fact, more people are killed each year with blunt objects like clubs, hammers, etc.)
Those who wish to increase ownership of handguns would do well to note that many, many people in the U.S. own handguns for personal defense, and a very tiny fraction are used for killing in any given year. By far the largest handgun numbers are from people taking their own lives, and most of the others are from criminal activities, typically in large cities. Those criminal activities are committed by people who, by definition, do not obey the law.
This is obviously a politically fraught topic; just wanted to provide some actual, if somewhat surprising, data. Again, your analysis and politics may vary, but that's the data.
1. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_mo...
2. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
1. social response / cancel culture
2. theft
3. legal liability
The gun lobbies didn't secure laws that severely limit firearm regulation. They didn't have to. It was enumerated as the 2nd amendment in our constitution - and for damn good reasons.
The difference between the American and French Revolutions - the American Revolution started from the place that the people have all rights and our constitution restricts governments ability to infringe upon those inalienable rights. The French Revolution came from the perspective of the states rights and in turn grants rights to the people. I think I prefer the former over the latter.