US Guns in the U.S.

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

John Paul Stevens said:
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

The thing that makes this interesting, is that John Paul Stevens is not a Fringe Democrat, but rather a Republican former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court (1975 until his retirement in 2010).
 
Last edited:
I was watching a clip on the TV about a memorial service about the assassination of MLK. It got me thinking that in the future, the calendar of the USof A will be full of memorial services of past presidents, civic leaders and the mass shootings of all description if the USA doesn't get its act together and implement some sort of nationwide requirement to get a gun licence different to what the present model is.

It takes 6 months of intense scrutiny to get a firearm licence down here and there is no appeal if you get turned down.
 
Love this....

DbHUQ8hW4AA2YzA.jpg


DbHUQ8iWsAArPYl.png
 
I saw an interesting comment today in a video (it was Noam Chomsky who said it) and he said that perhaps the reason there are so many guns in the US is because of the history and specifically that the US was started as a country in a violent way. First the independence from the British, then killing and displacing Native Americans (including with guns) and then the owning of slaves and the need to have guns to counter a rebellion.

This strikes me as plausible, do you think that's true? Apologies if this was discussed earlier in the other 19 pages and I've forgotten or didn't see it.

Many of the reasons why US people prefer guns, such as freedom, sports, protection etc, don't really explain why a lot more people in the US have guns than in other countries.

People may not think of Native Americans or slavery as a reason for having a gun, but indirectly it might be since that might have created the initial traditons and arguments and status quo that stands today even though those original reasons are no longer relevant.

Still, you might argue that if this argument were true, we might expect to see more guns in other players with a similar history like Israel, which actually has far less guns per person than US. The US is still pretty unique so there could be a mix of factors here.
 
Very interesting article:

The scientifically proven explanation for why better gun control really will stop school violence

Robyn Pennachia said:
In 1963, Britain experienced 5,714 suicides. Over the next several years, that number declined steadily and quickly; by 1975, the country had 3,693 suicides. This decline took place against a rise in suicides throughout the rest of Europe.

Social scientists started looking for something to explain the drop. What they realized was that the decrease in suicide had coincided with the progressive transition in British households from carbon monoxide-producing coal gas to natural gas, beginning in 1958.

Prior to the switch, 40% of all suicides in Britain were suicides by household gas, a death that was relatively easy, painless, and required little planning. People would just turn the oven on and drift away. When that option was no longer available, fewer people chose to commit suicide overall.

This phenomenon was documented by criminologists Ronald V. Clarke and Patricia Mayhew in a 1988 study titled “The British Gas Suicide Story and Its Criminological Implications.” Clarke and Mayhew found that, when denied the most convenient means of being able to kill themselves, many people just didn’t bother. “Few of those prevented from using gas appear to have found some other way of killing themselves,” they write in their abstract. “These findings suggest that suicide is an intentional act designed to bring an end to deep, though sometimes transient, despair, chosen when moral restraints against the behavior are weakened, and when the person has ready access to a means of death that is neither too difficult nor repugnant.”

Considering that suicides actually make up about 60 % of gun deaths, I think that this makes a lot of sense, and is very vital to the discussion. (Also, as mass shootings are typically "extended" suicides, meaning that a person does not want to live anymore, but also wants to first get their "revenge" on others :mad:)

I always find it somewhat ironic - in a very gruesome way - that gun owners fight tooth and nail against anybody suggesting people should have fewer guns, when the largest group of people killed by guns (in the US, at least) is ... gun owners, by their own guns.
 
Last edited:
The guns nuts in town are throwing a fit because the police were called on a man walking down the street, near a bus stop with kids, carrying a rifle. :rolleyes: