5 year old kills 2 year old sister... with a birthday present.

[Tony]

Please, enlighten us.

"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."

Basically, it was to prevent militias weapons from being taken away.

Here's a quote from an article that puts in into words better than I'd be able to...

"The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for our freedom from the federal government."

So now that we don't rely on militia's anymore, the amendment is completely moot.

 

[Bronco70]

As brash as you were, declaring everyone's ignorance regarding the 2nd amendment, I expected you to come with something revelatory, or at least substantive - not just a regurgitation of some tired rhetoric.

That interpretation is not nearly as cut and dry as you present it to be. The Supreme Court itself has interpreted it several different ways. You seem to feel that the opening clause sets fully inclusive conditions that render the second clause null. I disagree. I don't believe the two clauses to be mutually dependent. And even if they are, just because organized militias are not functioning today does not mean that need never can or will exist again.

 

[Stoked]

As brash as you were, declaring everyone's ignorance regarding the 2nd amendment, I expected you to come with something revelatory, or at least substantive - not just a regurgitation of some tired rhetoric.

That interpretation is not nearly as cut and dry as you present it to be. The Supreme Court itself has interpreted it several different ways. You seem to feel that the opening clause sets fully inclusive conditions that render the second clause null. I disagree. I don't believe the two clauses to be mutually dependent. And even if they are, just because organized militias are not functioning today does not mean that need never can or will exist again.

Basically you think people are stupid for not seeing it your way. Very enlightened of you...

 

[One Brow]

So now that we don't rely on militia's anymore, the amendment is completely moot.

While I generally support more gun control, I have to agree that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has not been supported in American jurisprudence. The right is about more than state militias.

 

[One Brow]

I don't care about it enough to research it myself. I do believe they are pertinent questions when establishing whether their gun control measures had any effect on crime there, or more importantly, what sort of effect they had.

Reviewing your questions so far:

They've managed to successfully prohibit something? They figured out how to stop the law of supply and demand?

Yes, they probited semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. It seems to have worked.

So are guns like really hard to get in Australia now?

Everythings relative. Licensing was made more difficult, and the are restrictions on magazines sizes and calibers.

There were multiple questions that I wondered aloud, none of which you answered, the major questions being how many criminals have guns in the country and how often are they to use them brazenly. In this country shootings are extremely common in the inner cities. How common are they in the inner cities of Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Australia

The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States.[2] The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States.[3] The overall homicide rate of Australia was 1.2 deaths per 100,000 for 2007-2008,[4] as compared with 4.8 per 100,000 in 2011 for the United States.

 

[The Thriller]

Bad parenting. Who in the right mind gets a gun for their kid? They had it rigt in a Christmas Story. You'll shoot your eye out!

 

[Nate505]

Reviewing your questions so far:



Yes, they probited semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns. It seems to have worked.



Everythings relative. Licensing was made more difficult, and the are restrictions on magazines sizes and calibers.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Australia

The rate of homicides involving firearms per 100,000 population in 2009 was 0.1, as compared with 3.3 in the United States.[2] The rate of unintentional deaths involving firearms in 2001 was 0.09 as compared with 0.27 in the United States.[3] The overall homicide rate of Australia was 1.2 deaths per 100,000 for 2007-2008,[4] as compared with 4.8 per 100,000 in 2011 for the United States.

It seems to have worked? Based on what? The only thing you're basing it on is mass shootings. Not on availability or if access is much harder, or if there are any side effects associated with the ban, such as an increase in home invasions. It's like saying that prohibition against booze worked in the 20s because consumption decreased, and ignoring the fact that booze wasn't impossible to get during that time or that crime caused by prohibition increased.

The last part just spouts off a bunch of statistics and doesn't answer the questions at all. The murder rate is worse in the US than Australia? No kidding, who didn't know that. Does Australia have any areas that resemble Detroit? I doubt it.

 

[DutchJazzer]

England hasn't devolved into something dictatorial, despite strict gun control for decades. Dictatorships sprang up in France even with well-armed populaces. I don't see a relationship.

yet they are a kingdom.
in my world dictator ship and monarchy/kingdom are the same ****.

a kingdom is barbaric.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I agree that current situation in USA looks like huge mess which is difficult to solve. Well, at least make it more difficult to possess guns in the future. Ban handgun sales. Create registry of gun owners. Create laws which makes it unlawful to possess gun in public places. See what Australia and UK are doing - I think that's something to learn from. Promote gas guns instead - they will defend you just fine but they would not be fatal.

LOL
more potential places for mass shootings!

did you know that all except 1 mass shooting happened in a gun free zone.
the one was an assasination attempt gone wrong

 

[DutchJazzer]

1 guy is what you use to support your statement? You can find 1 person to support almost any claim you have no matter how insane it is.

In fact let us forcibly steralize people that have IQ below 115. By force, no exception. I guarantee there are people that would support that statement.

i support that statement

 

[DutchJazzer]

So, does anyone think the parents (in the original post, whose 5 year old son accidentally killed his sister) should still be allowed to purchase firearms without any additional restrictions?

I know I do. If I made the laws, they would probably be just the type of people I would like to see have to go through at least a few extra hoops before they are allowed to buy a gun.

why not
natural selection.

do you want those parents to reproduce their genes?

give them guns
let their own stupidity wipe out there gene pool

 

[DutchJazzer]

I still do not understand the need for guns for all those responsible people. Is daily american life so dangerous that you need a gun in 88% of households? I get it if you work some night shifts in downtown of big city or live in bad area, but for average Joe Smith somewhere in Hayden, Idaho - why would he need a gun???

yes ofcourse.
because akmvp does not understand it we are not allowed to own guns

screw you

 

[reignman40]

I still do not understand the need for guns for all those responsible people. Is daily american life so dangerous that you need a gun in 88% of households? I get it if you work some night shifts in downtown of big city or live in bad area, but for average Joe Smith somewhere in Hayden, Idaho - why would he need a gun???

Who said everyone owned guns to kill people or for protection alone? 90% of the guns in my home are for hunting/target shooting... Gun control extremists just don't understand. People can own them for recreation or collection.

 

[MVP]

yes ofcourse.
because akmvp does not understand it we are not allowed to own guns

screw you

Who said you not allowed? take it easy man, I am trying to learn "american way of life" here... No need to screw me, lol.

 

[MVP]

Who said everyone owned guns to kill people or for protection alone? 90% of the guns in my home are for hunting/target shooting... Gun control extremists just don't understand. People can own them for recreation or collection.

So what is the purpose of the remaining 10%?

 

[MVP]

LOL
more potential places for mass shootings!

did you know that all except 1 mass shooting happened in a gun free zone.
the one was an assasination attempt gone wrong

What is your solution then? Do you agree that you guys have a problem?

 

[reignman40]

So what is the purpose of the remaining 10%?

All of the above.

 

[DutchJazzer]

STOP BLAMING THE FRICKIN guns.

STOP.

it is STUPID to blame the gun

 

[MVP]

STOP BLAMING THE FRICKIN guns.

STOP.

it is STUPID to blame the gun

I think everybody agrees that guns itself are not the problem. But when you leading developed countries by gun related injuries, accidental death by firearms, children death by firearms and by number of guns per household then I think you guys have a problem.

 

[One Brow]

It seems to have worked? Based on what?

As I thought, you has your questions answered, and came back with more question, but you don care enough to actually find out what the answers are. If these are answered, there will be other pointed questions, and you won't care enough to research those answers, either. What a fun game.

The only thing you're basing it on is mass shootings. Not on availability or if access is much harder, or if there are any side effects associated with the ban, such as an increase in home invasions. It's like saying that prohibition against booze worked in the 20s because consumption decreased, and ignoring the fact that booze wasn't impossible to get during that time or that crime caused by prohibition increased.

The last part just spouts off a bunch of statistics and doesn't answer the questions at all. The murder rate is worse in the US than Australia? No kidding, who didn't know that. Does Australia have any areas that resemble Detroit? I doubt it.