http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html Excerpt from: A Text-Book of Astronomy, by George C. Comstock (This astronomy book was first published in 1901.)
Woman shoots man to death in self defense after apartment break-in https://abc13.com/shooting-gulf-fre...ebster-deadly-woman-shoots-to-death/11911589/
20 year old man shot after he entered a home without permission and assaulted one of the homeowners. https://www.wdtn.com/news/police-intruder-fatally-shot-at-butler-county-home/
Homeowner shoots, kills 2 suspects during reported home invasion https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/po...ssible-home-invasion-shooting-in-carbon-hill/
This again has little to do with the problem at hand. Sorry but this is starting to sound like you are a bit over the top. Gun Safety education is only good for those that choose to use it. Using a statement about more children being killed by their parents when it is a known FACT that the leading cause of deaths of children is guns and is no longer auto accidents seems again disingenuous at best. If you were a lawyer pleading this case you would have been thrown out of the court by now.
Do children who are killed by their parents not matter? Why aren't we talking about that? It happens far more regularly in far greater numbers, consistently every single year. All children matter. It seems logical to apply more focus on preventing the greatest number of casualties with with the fewest barriers as possible, does it not? There is no constitutional right preventing us from helping children or defending them in schools.
Every day 3 kids are murdered using guns in the US and 2 more die of gun inflicted suicides so it makes a ton of sense to restrict access to guns as much as possible to protect the kids. It is not the only measure that is needed - but it is clear that guns, given the ease they can cause death are a big issue that can help reduce these numbers - so education, and proper gun restrictions are required when guns are the #1 cause of kid death in the USA. Does not matter if it is parents that cause this death or someone else, and no-one is claiming that without guns there would be no kids deaths, since parental abuse is responsible for 44% of kids deaths at home - neglect is a big problem as well, but it is pretty clear that kids can not exist without parents but they can exist without guns, so this argument that more kids are killed by parents than in schools is a red herring. Education by itself is not going to solve this, and unfortunately, when we compare child intentional injuries in the US compared to the rest of the western world, we are up by a factor of 3 - and it would be absurd to assume that the ease of access to tools that can cause harm that are in the US are not a big part of the problem. Exactly. Time to fix that outdated problem and bring it up to date. Portions of this document are out of date and out of touch with reality - and this is what we need to work to fix. Everything else, unfortunately, is just band aid on the real problem. The 2nd amendment is a relic of the 18 century that needs to be updated and proper definitions of what constitutes arms and what constitutes regulation needs to happen.
Lol, I've made proposals that would have actually prevented this kid from buying guns legally, and give every person he tried to obtain guns from a very simple way to verify if he were legally allowed to own one. He threatened a school shooting when he was 17. That should have prevented him from buying Firearms pending his appeal and proof that he were not a threat. With my proposal, he would have had his ID marked, and anybody he tried to get a gun from would have known that he was a dangerous individual, and their own freedom would be at risk by providing him with firearms. Who has a problem preventing people who threaten school shootings from buying guns? Nobody. Who is going to oppose such legislation which doesn't impact law abiding citizens? Very few people. Your proposal requires an amendment to the constitution which is pretty much impossible in our current political climate. It would be political suicide for Republicans to allow it. Huge numbers of Republicans would stop showing up to vote. And the politicians know that. You're trying to make this an emotional knee jerk reaction which further drives a wedge between left and right. I'm trying to find common ground that I believe could actually be enacted this election cycle with very little resistance.
I'm not suggesting no restrictions. I'm suggesting restrictions that there is actually political will to enact and is far simpler to enforce. And that even republican states would likely be willing to enforce. This is not going to happen. It would be political suicide for Republicans to allow it and they know that. A huge chunk of their base would simply stop showing up. It would take a constitutional convention, which would require 38 states to approve. There are currently nearly that many states which support permitless carry and open carry, including the 7 more which joined their ranks in the last year alone. The CDC has said there are between 500k and 3 million defensive gun uses every year in the US. How many more kids would die if there were no guns for people to defend themselves? How long would they have to wait for police to come defend them? We need to be more logical about this. Emotional responses are not typical good decisions.
Knee jerk reaction would be something after say the first 10 or 15 school shootings. Unfortunately we are way past "Knee Jerk". Here's a list of the school shooting in the 21st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States It might have been considered Knee Jerk after Thurston High School. Not now it ain't.
@Phatguysrule is right on this. Anybody that thinks there is a chance we would repeal the 2nd amendment any time soon (next 10 years?) is smoking crack.
So that's about... 25 deaths per year? You don't think suggesting a constitutional amendment to restrict the rights of every American because of 25 deaths per year is knee jerk? Not only is it a knee jerk reaction, it is a flight of fantasy. Republicans are not going to allow a constitutional convention for risk of something they don't like happening. The majority of states support the 2nd ammendment as it currently stands. And we need 3/4 of the states to want it changed.
Less than what currently die if we had the same kinds of gun restrictions that other western, first world countries have, based on comparative data. I doubt that we will see an amendment anytime soon, but we are fooling ourselves if we think anything other than removing the easy access to death machines is going to make any reasonable change, we have hundreds of years of experience showing it is not so. As such, doing the long work to fix that real problem (too easy access to death tools) is well worth the work, even if it is going to take a while. It took us 90 years to abolish slavery and another hundred years to end segregation, which unfortunately shows you how bad the protections on the constitutions have really been for the US. The problem is clear, and I am all for small fixes to solve whatever we can, but we can not use these to limit the work on fixing the real problem and trying to restrict these tools from the hands of the unqualified. As such discussion of the problems of the 2nd amendment in it's current form need to continue to happen over and over again until it is fixed and brought up to date.
I've actually posted those numbers. The increased gun control in those countries didn't make much of a difference. They still have mass killings. Sometimes with guns. The UK has actually seen a fairly severe increase in intentional homicides... And they didn't have many mass shootings or as much violent crime or murder before those gun control measures. They have had lower rates since WW2 because they were forced to have better social services, which resulted in far better Gini Coefficient that the US. Universal Healthcare, Universal Education, vastly superior social safety nets and judicial systems. I have proposed restricting access to these tools from the unqualified (children and dangerous individuals). There is no need to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens in order to do that as effectively as possible. In fact, the push to do so prevents movement on other fronts that could actually be enacted in the near term. And no, I don't believe the Constitution has been bad for this country. It just didn't offer enough clear protections.
