Purely academic discussion about gun control

yawn-more harassing honest people based on the bogus and discredited claim it will impede criminals.

 

Without a constitution, you certainly could make more/any laws. In a pure democracy, ethics are defined by majority rule only. The question is: how are you going to make people follow the laws? The constitution is just a piece of paper. Its really just a reminder of: 'hey, this is important.' The reality is: America is a gun culture and theres not really anything a majority can do to disarm a large minority without a lot of blood. Laws are meaningless without the ability and will to enforce them, and enforcing strict gun laws in America will be very difficult.

Academicly speaking, how many dead gun owners, police officers and military servicemembers would be acceptible to acheive the ends of more 'sensible gun control?' Thats the real crux of the issue.

(nb4 'gun owners would be an easy target for the police and military' - no, many police and military are pro-gun rights. Such a conflict would be devastating all around)

Or to put another way: You can't meaningfully restrict a large group of people from firearms in a pure majority-rules scenario because they already have the firepower to prevent you from doing so. Is that academic enough?

*It should be noted that in a pure majority-rules society, the instant the majority decides to restrict a minority, the minority essentially ceases to be part of that society by default (the majority has rejected and cast them out as 'criminals') and the majority becomes more of an invader/oppressor (from the minority's perspective) that the minority must then decide whether to acquiesce to, or to resist. The Constitution, while being the limiter of how much a majority can 'have their way' with a minority, also provides a degree of moral/ethical obligation to the minority to acquiesce (because that acquiescence is limited), to an extent, to certain 'allowable' (constitutional) restrictions. I don't think you want a pure democracy as much as you think you do... as will become more apparent as more people begin to view laws to be unconstitutional and the entire system thusly illegitimate. The republic exists, in part, as a means to convince a greater percentage of a society to accept the 'social contract' as it were. Undermining that dynamic is tantamount to inviting social unrest, rebellion and revolution.

 

Not all gun deaths are homicides - you will find that there are roughly 33,000 gun deaths per annum in the USA, but only about 11,000 of those are homicides. The rest are accidents and suicides. However, people are no less dead if the cause was unintentional, or the wound self-inflicted.

Would you like to know how many firearm deaths the UK suffers each year?

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/10/03/26-gun-murders-equiv-130-england-vs-11004-us-annually

 

Try actually answering a question as it was presented to yourself, rather than misrepresenting it into something else.

Do these regulations exist for a legitimate and compelling reason that justifies their existence? Or do they exist solely to remind the public that someone holds authority over them?

How do miles per gallon performance requirements, weight requirements, and emissions inspections, serve to reduce the risk of accidents and deaths? Explain such. Do the other requirements actually work at reducing the risk of such, or is that simply how they are justified to the public while not achieving the intended goal?

 

It happens even in the state of California, which has everything being proposed by yourself. What more can realistically be done in response to such?

 

How many mass killings will be prevented by such?

 

And those people need to be arrested and put in jail.

 

The 2nd Amendment aside, nothing.
This is, of course, why we have the 2nd. Good of you to recognize it prevents these things.

 

This behavior should not surprise you - it's why we have an ignore button.

 

who mentioned mass-killings?

I sure didn't.

 

local gun rules are kinda useless when they are null & void right across the border.

the only gun laws that REALLY matter, are national gun laws.

 

prevents? no sir.

complicates? totally.

 

I don't understand how 1 handgun purchase a month does anything but harm law-abiding people. Let's say I go to a gun show, and a man is selling off his collection of a certain type of handgun. I see three of them that will fill in my collection. Why should I have to wait three months to do that? I can only shoot two handguns at a time.

 

It's arbitrary and is based on illogic. There are no monthly limits on buying almost anything in our society. To add this is a major imposition above and beyond what we do to other products.

 

Except we are not discussing a matter pertaining to when local rules are rendered moot by a simple change of venue across state lines. Rather we are discussing when local firearm-related restrictions fail in situations where the firearms is acquired within the state itself. What is the proposal then?

 

False. We don't start as a clean slate; we are genetically predisposed to violence. What does a toddler do when another takes a toy away?

Mother Theresa was self-serving and greedy. Many fancy buildings were erected in her name and those who did not convert were left to starve. She deserved a kick in the taco!

 

Never mind that federal law controls the transfer of firearms across state lines; to not follow the law is to commit a felony.

 

Said firearm-related restrictions are almost never enforced in the united states, largely due to the fact the prosecutors responsible for pursuing such charges are lazy and do not wish to actually do their assigned jobs.

 

Perhaps - but the fact remains: The weak state v strong state argument fails because federal law applies.
This means, for instance, you, as a resident of CA, cannot legally go to AZ, buy an AR15, and bring it back to CA .

 

um....ok.

 

all guns used in crimes originate from legal purchaes.

someone along the chain of possession is acquiring multiple guns and selling them illegally.

one way to stop or reduce this illegal trafficking, is to limit handgun purchases to say 1 per month.

such a rule would harm no one.

all it would do is cause a possible inconvenience to mass collectors.

 

Under existing federal level firearm-related restrictions, any individual who purchases two or more firearms in a five day period has their name forwarded to the ATF for investigation of possible firearms trafficking, so that they may determine if a pattern of multiple purchases is being carried out by the same individual. These firearm rationing laws make it impossible to determine such.

Beyond that matter, why is only one firearm purchase every month regarded as being acceptable for everyone? What was the basis used for concluding such? What was the scientific methodology utilized to determine that a rational basis in reality was utilized in reaching this amount, and it was not selected either arbitrarily or capriciously?

 

which are constitutionally unsound

 

Most people are unwilling to discuss the cause, so they focus on the symptom. Ignoring the root cause of violence does not make it go away.

Please explain how limiting non-violent people to one gun a month will prevent a single murder.

 

nonsense.

and where do you get off claiming it would harm no one? that's complete garbage. You not being a professional level competitive shooter have no idea that we often buy two new guns at once to have a backup. Why should I wait a month because I MIGHT do something illegal. there's that LETS HARASS HONEST PEOPLE so we CAN PRETEND we are doing something BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO ENFORCE CURRENT LAWS

given your posting history, its plain that harassing honest gun owners is the real goal