That’s bothered me about so much airport (and elsewhere) security after Sept 11… few of the new rules would have prevented the disaster that triggered them.
So now everything is a constant hassle / expense, and seem to prevent nothing.
This doesn't sound possible to me. Do you have a source?
It's such a bad joke.
A few years ago I went through an airport that had a dog checking everyone. The handler was struggling to get the dog to do his job, people were not being checked, dog / puppy just wanted to play.
Once there was a woman in front of me who asked why we take our shoes off and the response was "Once someone put a bomb in there shoes."
1. I don't love remedies to problems that happened once.
2. We had an international pandemic once... by your logic shouldn't we always mask at the airport?
Post-pandemic it's become a highly political thing now and depending on where your at you may get some unfriendly looks.
The real id, would not have done anything.
My point being a key 9/11 inspired law would not prevent even the event that inspired it, even in theory.
So again, what specific gun control laws would actually make a difference that aren’t already on the books?
> Most gun control attempts that I see would at least in theory possibly prevented the tragedy that inspired them.
…yet when asked about specifics, they declined to provide any. So they did in fact dodge my question.
The point that they are making is that this 9/11-inspired law would not have, even in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. They are saying that they can conceive of gun control laws that would have, in theory if one assumes perfect enforcement, prevented 9/11. Coming up with a specific intention of such is not relevant to their point.
I’ll answer your question to hopefully illustrate the point: no guns in US airports. That law, in theory, at least would have had a chance of preventing the attack, which is not something that can be said about this one.
Also remember that in America there is a constitutional right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. So please keep your proposal constitutional.
That's not clear-cut. The language of the amendment is more nuanced than that, and the interpretation you're using is a modern one. In the not-so-distant past, it was interpreted as meaning that states could have well-regulated armed citizen militias, not that everyone has a right to carry a firearm.
It is the final check and balance against a tyrannical government.
Well, I disagree. However, this underlines that the issue isn't so easy. It's one of several areas where the constitution isn't nearly clear enough in its meaning and can be reasonably interpreted in contradictory ways. That's the very essence of not being clear-cut.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” -James Madison
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton
https://quotesanity.com/quotes-from-founding-fathers-of-the-...
By most estimates we have more guns than people in this country and a not insignificant amount of people would refuse to willingly turn over their firearms to the government. The toothpaste is already out of the tube.
Also, how would you account for the increased violent crime rate due to average citizens being unable to defend themselves against armed criminals?
Additionally, how would you propose that we the people keep our government from becoming tyrannical in the absence of our right to bear arms? It seems particularly absurd to give up our right to firearms when so many people are expecting our current president to become a tyrannical, fascist dictator.
Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
Banning them doesn’t get rid of them. As the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
> Demonstrate that there would be an increase in violent crime without guns.
As a corollary to my previous point. Criminals will still have guns because they are criminals and they don’t have any respect for the law. They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
> The current government was elected in a society with guns. The best way to prevent tyrannical governments is an educated populace that doesn’t vote for tyrants.
What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed? You greatly underestimate how afraid the elites are of an armed populace.
Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.
> They will be emboldened by knowing that every potential victim they come across will be unarmed.
Check historical instances of gun bans. They don’t line up with this assertion.
> What is preventing a government from declaring marshal law and suspending elections as soon as the citizens are disarmed?
The same thing that prevents this in countries with gun bans.
Contrast that to urban areas where extensive gun control laws are in place. The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
We are not Western Europe or Australia.
Also, like I said in another comment, guns are everywhere here and that toothpaste is already out of the tube. Most guns are not registered. No one knows for certain how many there are and who owns them. There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people. Even law enforcement and large swaths of the military are unlikely to cooperate with confiscation efforts.
Citation needed. Per capita, those in rural areas are more likely to die from suicide by gun than urbanites from gun homicide. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/280...
> The issues are social and cultural and are not something that a gun ban will solve.
Citation needed. Where have gun bans failed and why? Mexico, central, and South America, primarily because it’s so easy to obtain weapons in the U.S. and smuggle them down.
> There will at best be no cooperation with forced confiscation, and most likely there will be active resistance against such a tyrannical incursion upon the rights of free people.
Citation needed. There are absolutely nut jobs that won’t follow the law, but that’s true of any law. The solution isn’t to not pass laws. These folks will be dealt with like any other criminal.
You make a lot of assertions that seem to stand up to even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You don’t back any of it up with any data.