Japanese Americans who have access to guns commit murder at a lower rate than Japanese who live in Japan.

Citation needed on that one.

It's not really small, 6% of the population of the US hunts in any given year. Used to be closer to 10%.

Anyways to answer your question, when I lived in a rual setting, I always kept my AR-15 in my truck. I'd use it for Varmint and Coyote control on the property. Could I have done those two tasks with a bolt action, traditional hunting rifle? Of course. But I liked that I could defend myself where the cell service is spotty and a cop ain't getting to where you are for at least 1/2 an hour.

Now that I live in the city, I ccw a glock 43. People have this misconception that a CCW invites conflict. I'd argue the opposite. You don't yell back at the crazy hobo, defend your honor with the drunk or any other petty arguments. You simply walk away.

But that is the problem with people today, a lot of them can't simply walk away. I feel a lot of people were on the teet too long and never learned that respect is earned, not gained. People have an ego problem here in the US. Babies with guns is not a good mix.
And to answer what good are guns for?
My father owns and keeps over 70 firearms in his home. He is retired law enforcement and was a state champion trap and skeet shooter for 20-30 years. If you don't understand the "sport" of firearms, go shoot some skeet or trap and it may change your prospective. He has been a hunter his whole life and he is also an expert marksman. Also, those guns are worth a ton of money and many, if not most, are irreplaceable.
Oh, and he has never shot a single person in his life. All the while shooting hundreds of thousands of rounds.

People understand the "sport". It is just in civilized countries we understand that "sport" is not worth trading for hundreds of dead kids and thousands of dead adults per year. It is similar to talking about the "rights" of paedophiles.

Not that there is any point in this discussion. Essentially the solution to every problem with an American is violence. Civil unrest. Shoot 'em. Foreign countries not selling us oil? Bomb 'em. Gun violence-MORE ****ING GUNS.
It is impossible to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion on the matter.

Not to call you out, but is the same type of logic used against alcohol consumption, or even something like speed limits?

We pay a price for many things. It's up to the people of that society to decide.

So I guess you are for paedo rights?

Those subjects are different. For one they are less emotional and also prohibition against alcohol was tried and failed. Prohibition for drugs has also failed, but the difference is we haven't tried it for guns yet.

How many people in the US are for common sense gun limitations Wil?

Australia

Terrible analogy. Guns don't have free will.

I've never put much thought to it. Philosophically, yes, in practice, I don't know. I can't think of anything more deplorable than a pedophile but if they are human beings, which they obviously are, that doesn't mean we get to suspend all civility in how we treat them. Again, I haven't given it any thought, if there's a specific scenario you had in mind, I'd be happy to hear it.

What is less emotional than losing people to alcoholism or drunk driving or car accidents? Even if you were correct, it being less emotional doesn't invalidate the argument. We could lower automobile deaths by a drastic number tomorrow if we reduced the speed limit X amount. We can all agree to that fact, correct? We choose not to make the speed limit 30 mph for reasons we feel make it worth accepting a certain amount of death. In many ways the gun argument is the same thing.

A stupid question from a stupid person. If 99% of the population wanted to reinstate slavery, would that make it correct?

Our gun rights are in the Constitution. As much as I dislike guns I accept the fact that they are here to stay. I have no real suggestions on how to lower gun deaths, except maybe trying to change our culture. Hand guns are the problem and I don't see how we can rid ourselves of them.

So which is it? We the People should have some say in the restrictions put on firearms or are we are powerless because it's in the constitution? Which is not as clear cut as the gun lobby would have you believe.

Do you know how our government works? Maybe you should buy a book on the subject and read about it.

Wil - timeout. Please don't post in this thread or on this topic in any other thread for 24 hours.

Your philosophy is pretty well stymied by the fact that we can't predict the future and know who is going to illegally shoot others.

The discourse on guns tends to meander in and out of what's ideal and what's practical. Practically speaking, we are not going to be mass confiscating guns here. That's just out of the question. In fact, any attempt to do so would be extremely dangerous at this point with so much racist, armed opposition out there ready to take out invading terrorist ghost hordes from Kenya.

Are lesser measures practical? I have my doubts. It seems like the more lethal attacks are committed by those with actual military training and legal access to guns. And dedicated political terrorists don't need guns to kill en mass. Even those mass shooters who aren't military trained seem to have legal access to the guns they use with no conceivable restrictions possible which might have restricted their access. I mean, if you've never committed a crime before and your not diagnosed, how are authorities supposed to deny a gun? And even if you were diagnosed what sort of privacy laws would allow sharing that information with gun merchants (who by the way aren't exactly boy scouts by and large).

We've got to change the way we treat each other generally if we are going to stop mass violence. Those growing up in urban areas have to unlearn the culture of honor which has infested the inner cities. Those with mental illness have to be identified and treated instead of marginalized and ignored while they get worse. The public school system is a candidate institution to handle these tasks if we augmented it with the capacity. Unfortunately, we are going the other way with privatization and the general dismantling of institutions which can attack systemic problems. Capitalism does not meet demand generally, only individualized, inefficient demand. Increased control of government by private business interests will see a rise in mental illness and the mass shootings. There is little possible in the way of gun control legislation that can conceivably stop this.

Invest in pizza delivery chains maybe. Are there stocks for gun manufacturers? lol. I mean, between the mental illness, the backlash to our exploitative and barbarous ME policies, and the Trump administrations incompetence (and perhaps even willingness invite justification of their pressing their domestic control) we could be looking at a country that will increasingly want to stay home and order in.

You yourself say Americans are more likely to shoot people. That's a good argument for gun control in america. Doesn't matter that it would be pointless in Japan because they don't kill people.

The advantage against terrorists groups in countries like the UK is that they can be picked up at the time they are trying to procure weapons or bring them into the country. Criminals can be arrested for possession before they commit any other crime with the gun.

I couldn't agree more but it's as well as, not instead of.

This is incorrect. You have the premise(s) all contorted. And then draw a baseless conclusion. BTM2 has castigated you multiple times for this same conceptual mistake.

In other words, "those who would" is everybody. Which is maybe your point by contortion. So stack all the guns up in a pile and burn them. Along with all the bad books. And all the bad art. But I digress.

You need to begin with the fundamentals. And I doubt anyone would even agree on what those are. But that's a more coherent way to begin.

You're the one who has his premises tied in knots. Arguing that we shouldn't try to keep guns away from people who are more likely to kill is something that only the most irrational gun enthusiasts believe.

Coupled with your stance that one can never compare two countries when it comes to gun violence, it appears you have some significant biases that are challenging your thinking on this topic.

We're not just trying to prevent mass shootings, but everyday shootings.

Owning a gun makes it more likely that you are going to die by gun, for example by suicide. I doubt many gun owners are accurately gauging their risk. Most believe that owning a gun makes them safer. I'm sure that's what Adam Lanza's mom thought.

If America has a uniquely violent culture that other nations don't have, it seems like a bad idea to saturate the US with guns.

I'm was assuming the stated premise that there's something about American society that is different to some other societies.

The fact that that could demonstrate that guns in themselves aren't the problem is not much of an argument for allowing guns in societies where guns are a problem. An alternative could be to fix whatever is 'wrong' with American society that makes guns a problem.

Ah. You've noticed that.

The fundamental question(s) is one of rights/freedoms in the US. The thread title is explicit in this, though it does have a subjective slur in reference to “gun violence”. A loaded term (pun intended). A more objective title could have been constructed. A thorough review of current US legal rights with regard to firearm ownership would be an objective start to any discussion. I doubt anyone here, including me, has any qualifications or expertise in this area, beyond a broad conceptual idea, probably biased by emotionalisms and political agendas and/or leanings and the social circles one wishes to impress. The emotionalisms displayed by various posters are understandable but does more damage to constructive debate than enabling it.

My criticism is very basic (and it is also unrealistic in view of this forum, human nature [see Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman] and most of the posters): you already know X, the outcome you wish for, (say the elimination of or some form of harsher restrictions/control on US firearm ownership) and then backfill in all the requisite arguments for your preconceived idea. The second amendment, in the US Constitution, should not be so easily waved away because it does not fit into the preconceived notions of the ignorant. The eroding of rights and freedoms enshrined in the entire Bill of Rights is also endangered by the ignorant, whether willful or not. Individual Rights and Freedoms have consequences, across the board. That provides fodder for an excellent discussion.

Start first with the fundamentals, in regard to the US. This is not a compare and contrast thread title. Compare and contrast could come after a serious discussion of fundamental rights and freedoms of individual, and how those mesh and/or conflict with other concerns of society (say those of safety and security). And then use those as a jumping off point to comparisons to other societies/countries or regions. That is only a brief outline. Any discussion would entail a great deal of leg work, reading, and knowledge of all the issues at hand. Certainly scientific studies have been conducted by a variety of institutions. Those could have valuable input - Depending on the source.

But all this is just too much, it so much easier just dismiss it all, and fix your sights on the one thing you already know.

To make this post even more boring, I collect some interesting articles and information that can help with some fundamental thinking about, well – the basics and so posters do not make those fundamental errors and mistakes so well illustrated by our famous (or infamous) Mr Tooth:


Some background information on rights and natural rights, Rights in general:

Rghts/

This US constitution was greatly influence by and an outgrowth of natural rights as best elucidated by John Locke.

LawNat

John S. Mill had interesting ideas that are seemly indirect:

LibeFreeCharActi


An interesting review of the second amendment right in the US constitution; an update after the Heller decision (You can regard this has a bias source):

the-second-amendment-as-an-expression-of-first-principles/

That's a good few days of reading and study, plus any supplementary material that may be of use from reputable sources. Enjoy