How many kids need to die before we get a sensible gun law?

Lizzy Borden agrees

----------

That was before the remote control.  Americans are too out of shape to hack each other up now.

To me, the single most sickening example of just how far off the reservation some gun enthusiasts go in their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is when they started talking about it being OK to bring guns into church.

That clearly goes beyond anything the founding fathers would have conceived of.

Now, bringing the guns to church, as long as you left it in the gunhouse that one at least used to build as an antechamber to the church itself, that's OK. But into the church itself? Not unless the church was besieged by a band of killers.

Which is hardly the case now.

   Speaking as an American citizen who doesn't own a gun in spite of it being permitted in my country's constitution, I don't think we're going to just drop it because of the lack of any serious internal threats to our livelihoods and liberty.  In fact, I could agree with those who'll defend the 2nd Amendment on the grounds that it could give the American people something to fall back on in case they must defend themselves at a time when hostile actions are being taken against them and the authorities are unavailable or unwilling to intervene.  As is shown by the gang violence in many cities, and in the cases where a raiding intruder finds a door he wants to break down, having a gun on hand does give the potential victim a chance of survival and discourages the "wiser" criminals from randomly striking at targets.

   For my part, I'm not against private ownership of guns in one's own home at all.  However, the Constitution also doesn't make it mandatory to own a gun.  Given a rule of common sense that one doesn't go around packing a loaded pistol, a knife or any other sort of weapon, and that I've found it to be a hassle to try and purchase a gun in today's regulatory environment, I'm using the other option: I simply avoid those areas where gang violence is rampant, keep an eye open for potential hostility from crowds, and avoid going into certain areas at nighttime.

   Your solution is to take the guns away from law-abiding citizens.  I will repeat the statement made by many in the "pro-gun lobby" that you're so eager to demonize and say, "Only the criminals will have guns."

I've said my ¥¥.  I'm not sticking around to join your little rhetorical war.

If we're going to argue the rhetorical positions in extremis, then if law abiding citizens couldn't buy guns, there wouldn't be any guns around for criminals to get.

The argument "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns" is a tautology, a statement that is rigged to be right by definition. So it really doesn't "prove" anything.

We have lots of guns in my country as well, but a big difference is that you can't fill your house with military grade weaponry. The only way someone gets to be in possession of a regular semi-automatic rifle is if they're active in the national guard and that's the weapon they've been issued by the guard.

For hunting rifles, you can't use semi-automatics even, you have to manually reload with bolt action between each shot. Also, to hunt, you need to be certified in tracking so you can tell one animal from the other and in hunting ethics. You also need marksman certification every year before the hunt, for which you need to belong to a certified gun club.

In order to be allowed to own a handgun, you need to be a member of a pistol club and be certified in the proper use and handling of handguns.

Also, all guns must be stored unloaded, in metal cabinets or guns safes that can't just be picked up and carried off. Technically they recommend that the weapon's firing pin be separated from the main weapon and stored separately. Even in army boot camp, that was standard procedure. Firing pins were removed and stored in a safe in the CO's office when not in use.

There are a lot of steps that can be taken without any threat to the 2nd amendment to ensure that guns are stored and handled safely, and that gun violence goes down.

But that requires good faith efforts on the part of "pro-gun" gun owners, gun manufacturers, gun sellers and law enforcement. And far too often that doesn not seem to be forthcoming.

I see a parallell with what happened with smoking (and I'm sure many will disagree).  A lot of smoking in public caused discomfort and aggravation for non-smokers. Especially those who were asthmatic or allergic. Smokers kept insisting on their "right to smoke" regardless of the problems and potential health hazards. Efforts were made to eke out compromises, reasonable compromises, but they were fought all the way or subverted through "civil disobedience". The basic principle should be simple: "your right to smoke stops when the smoke ends up in my lungs." But no. 

Then, at least in my country, it was established that smoking in restaurants and cafes caused an unacceptable health risk for wait staff and work safety standards were invoked. So now there's no smoking anywhere.

And now there are complaints because non-smokers "refuse to compromise". The problem is: they no longer can. Even if they wanted to (and why would they want to). There is no room for compromise, because smokers wanted to push it until they came up against the law.

What I see as a similarity here, is that instead of a solid compromise to make sure safety standards are followed and loopholes are plugged and everyone just starts to obey the laws that are already there, in good faith and with some idea of the big picture, this might get pushed so far that the law has to be specifically and unambiguously interpreted.

Can you imagine the outcry if, with a ruling before the Supreme court, the "Well ordered militia" line became a guideline for requirements for buying or owning guns?

That you had to belong to a well ordered government approved militia, where you had to prove that you knew how to handle a gun (be certified) , and where you had to own gun safes or metal gun cabinets for every gun in your possession. And you had to prove all of these steps had been taken before being allowed to buy a gun?

I'm not saying I'm sure that's going to happen, but the downside to a hardline position is that no-one's going to offer you a compromise if you lose.