[flagged]
Same sentiment. For a lot of people, freedom is more valuable than even life itself.
Were the troops his clones?
This time, it was he that fell victim to a preventable gun death. No more, no less.
(The rifle used isn't known yet, but only one shot was fired)
I merely remarked that someone else considered preventable gun deaths an acceptable cost to what he considered as sacrosanct. Well, tragic as his death is, I'm not the one who considered it an acceptable cost.
My response was meant to illustrate that this was essentially not a "preventable gun death", or at least not preventable by any level of gun control ever implemented in a Western country. Similarly, the assassination of Shinzo Abe using a homemade pistol/blunderbuss was not a preventable gun death.
Australia now has more guns per capita than it did prior to the national unification of gun laws.
Unwanted guns, guns no one was willing to license, and guns not acceptable for licensing were bought back for cash, filling skip bins full of guns - much publicized as confiscation in the US.
Australian gun control was about regulation - every legal gun registered and tracked, every gun sale logged, twelve year olds joining gun clubs only with qualified supervision and unable to purchase and own a gun until adulthood.
Gun regulation following the Port Arthur massacre, the largest mass shooting in the world at that time, changed relatively little in West Australia at that time - what did happen was that regulation in Queensland, in Tasmania, and the Northern Territory and the ACT were all bought in line with with the major states of Australia for a uniform nation wide code.
I'm in rural Australia, I have firearms, my close neighbour target shoots at 5,000 yards (not a typo - 24 inch steel targets at five thousand yards - longer than any confirmed sniper shot as he and his partner are ULR (ultra long range) fanatics .. and good at it).
What regulation in Australia has achieved is a near elimination of mass shooting events, since Port Arthur there have been fewer than fingers on hand such events in 25+ years total - ie fewer mass shooting than occur in five days in the USofA.
It's also made guns extremely difficult to access for village idiots, the stupidly violent, petty criminals, etc.
Unregistered guns are on the rise in Australia being smuggled in and used by criminal enterprises with not stupid ex military enforcers, ghost guns are about, etc.
Having strong regulation makes for more open ground and an easier time of it cracking down on criminal use of guns.
It hasn't eliminated assassination by gunshot, but such events are relatively rare in Australia.
Political violence cannot be deterred with strict gun laws. Remember, it is only law abiding citizens who are affected by the gun laws. Criminals by definition don't need to follow the law and they don't need the 2nd amendment
This is kind of an argument from tautology that is disconnected to reality. In the real world, supply of criminality and violence is elastic, if you raise the cost, you lower the amount supplied. Crimes and violence committed are affected by committers having the opportunity and tenacity to do so. If you erect more barriers to achieving it, make it less convenient or straight forward to do it, you'll deter some percentage of violence/criminality who just give up or don't make it past the hurdle or whatever.
Otherwise, to take your argument to its logical conclusion, we could get a whole bunch of dumb conclusions, like:
We should just abolish auditing and other anti-corruption accountability mechanisms. By definition, cheats don't need to follow the law, so auditing doesn't catch them, it just imposes extra paperwork on law-abiding citizens!
Definitely, considering what is happening in Nepal ATM. However, some kind of ban on gun supply (not just controlling them) definitely has an impact on your country's murder rate. You can't just expect 20 million guns produced in the USA for consumers not to get in the hands of people who want to do bad things with them. Really, I would be happy if they just lowered that number a lot (to say 1 million) without any other gun control laws, the murder rate across the whole continent would fall.
El Salvador:
Rate: Over 1,000 per 100,000 residents as of early 2024, with a specific rate of 1,659 per 100,000 in March 2024.
USA:
The U.S. incarceration rate was approximately 541 per 100,000 residents in 2022, with nearly two million people in state or federal prisons and local jails. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate among independent democracies and is home to the world's largest prison population.
(we don't get a rate for 2024, but it probably hasn't grown much since then)
The current president even suggested doing so was ok, in his first campaign, naming the amendment in the process. (Anyone who was paying attention at the time and noticed this didn’t immediately end his campaign like it definitely would have in any prior election in living memory, should have been able to guess we were about to have a spike in political violence)
There’s no “defense of liberty” justification for the individual right to bear arms that isn’t also saying “political violence is sometimes necessary”.
(I happen to think that justification’s silly, personally—I’m not endorsing it)
If a simplistic definition of political violence is targeted killings of political leaders, then this is trivially false. Look at Europe, Australia and other countries with comparable statistics to US and look at the number of events you'd classify as political violence. It is likely zero. The only person I can think of from recent memory is Shinzo Abe.
In the US alone, thanks to no gun control, we have attempts at Presidential candidates, and successful killings of state-level law makers, CEOs, and now, political influencers.
talking about gun control as a form of solution is talking about spilled milk under the bridge. There are 100 guns per capita in the US and even if gun sales are banned, the black market will be enough to supply guns for another century
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " - The US Constitution
Neither do private citizens.
What part of "well regulated militia" is unclear? Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."
It means what it says, not what some gun owners like to pretend it says and the simple truth is that making them harder to get does actually reduce crime every single time it's been tried.
That said, I would argue that the definition should be updated to include women as well.
Madison said "the advantage of being armed," together with "the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Source: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...
- A well regulated Militia: noun phrase,
- being necessary to the security of a free State: parenthetical phrase,
- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms: another noun phrase
- shall not be: verb
- infringed: adjective
> "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
I think that's very clear. They were deeply concerned about the threat a standing army posed, and wanted the militias to act as a balance. Based loosely on that Madison's first draft then said:
> "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Again, more comprehensible than what we have today. Still a bit oddly phrased, but it's clear that the right can't be infringed BECAUSE we need a well regulated militia.
Then, after much debate and quibbling over the exact phrasing and in regard to religious objectors the committee submitted this to the senate:
> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
As you can see, even this version was a more complete thought, and made it very clear what the purpose of those arms actually was.
However, the senate then did the final butchery, that resulted in the version we have today and because unscrupulous people have exploited it's vagueness, school children can't be safe:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Reference: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...
To me, the real bitch is that the original purpose (to serve as a balance against the standing army) is completely null. There is no militia, or even professionally trained army strong enough to stand against the permanent army the founding fathers didn't even want us to have. Thermonuclear warheads and fighter jets didn't exist back then.
Even though the NRA likes to claim the "militia" means every American, that is NOT what Madison and the others meant by it. It's made clear in the Federalist papers, and even if it were what the founding fathers meant not even the NRA seems to be taking the stance that since the "miltia" means "Everyone" then "Everyone" can own thermonuclear warheads.
The second amendment has been wrongfully interpreted, and it's killing people.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is unclear? If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.
> Maybe all of it if you have a political slant, but no literate person who didn't set out with an agenda actually takes the second amendment to mean "any lunatic with $100 and an axe to grind should be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction without even proving they're sober and sane."
What WMDs can be had for only $100 that would actually fall under firearm regulation?
Maybe I have a coupon? Is the price really the part of this that sticks in your craw?
>If you're going to base your argument on the first few words you can't win against the opposition does the same with the last part.
I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.
It was the price and also the reference to WMDs. You can't get WMDs at all so the price part is irrelevant.
> I'm fine with not infringing on the well regulated militias rights. Exactly as it was written.
That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line. You're intentionally leaving out the part that is inconvenient to your opinion.
How many deaths per minute do you consider the minimum to qualify as a WMD? There are probably several firearms legally available that can meet it.
> That's also a cherry-picking way to interpret that line.
See my other post beneath this grandparent. It's long, but a bit more nuanaced.
It's objectively clear what the founding fathers meant, and it wasn't "lunatics should be able to buy guns without a drug test first" as the NRA seems to think.
well regulated = properly functioning, like a watch is well regulated when it keeps good time
militia = everyone, all citizens. In counterpoint to the army, professional paid soldiers.
No it doesn't. Even then that usage was uncommon. This is something later scholars made up to justify their position.
Again, common sense says that it means what it says and you don't get to ignore the bits you don't like.
But then again, when it comes to quoting a culture war grifter, you can find a lot of stupid ass quotes.