In practical terms the US is completely ****ed whatever it does with gun laws because of the sheer number of guns it's allowed into private ownership.

But the right to gun ownership is enshrined in some document or other written hundreds of years ago by important guys, so it must be defended at any cost.

I don't think we need a refresher on rights.

I honestly put in a good faith effort to find a point in all of that, and I failed.

Nor should it be revered so highly by the ignorant that it is above examination. The Constitution was seriously flawed when it was written--flawed in ways that would not be repeated if it were written by the third-graders of today.

Lawyers, guns, and money: we'd all be lost without 'em.

Thanks for illustrating many of my points.

I disagree; I think you do.

The US constitution including the Bill the Rights and all subsequent amendments are under examination and scrutiny everyday through the Judicial Branch of the US Government and daily court proceedings. Also the legislative branch in the writing of laws to make sure it conforms to current constitutional rulings. The Executive Branch of government is also under limits imposed by the constitution that must be under consideration daily on decision that it undertakes.

Also enshrined in the US constitution is provision for amendments, and this works both ways. For additions or repeal. See the link below for some history on a famous one:

history.com/this-day-in-history/prohibition-ends

If you are a US Citizen and you think the 2nd amendment odious and/or outdated or wrong then you should agitate for its repeal.

Outbursts of emotional-driven rhetoric is a good tactic and an excellent propaganda tool. Mr. Tooth used it extensively, if not wisely.

So, you have to join the military or the police force to use a decent gun in gunfreetopia.jpg. Yeah, no forseeable unintended consequences there.

I think Zeno wants to get a little more rigorous about this politards stuff than suits me, and possibly others. That's fine though. My old buddy from pog well named is the same way about this stuff.

I figure I'm not in law school here, or a grad school philosophy class. It's like talking in a bar; that's my level of commitment.

Zeno raises the bar in a good way. I'd have a beer with him for sure.

That's a dangerous path and time consuming. And since I'm retired it is not a wise thing to do. And exploring all the details as you point out is just too rigorous, especially for a forum like this - which is just basically fun and entertaining while exploring political brouhaha.

I predict Well Named will soon become unhinged by being so thorough and reasonable and nice. I hope I'm wrong. But the probably still hangs in the air.

Well, this is curious since this thread hasn't even been about rights or amendments at all until you moved the discussion in that direction.

The published literature clearly shows that countries/states with more guns have more homicides and suicides. The correlation holds even when other factors are accounted for.

I'm not sure what citing this research has to do with rights. I choose not to own a gun because of the extra risk and little to no reward for me personally. People who dismiss the evidence or claim without evidence that guns make people safer aren't providing others with accurate information.

Ya, thanks but I'm pretty sure everyone here understands how the three branches of gov't work. Like 13ball says, I don't think your audience needs an Intro to Government 101 tutorial lecture.

OK, yes, people who think a law is bad should try to get that law changed.

Is there a broader point here? Are you implying that gun control proponents should refrain from enacting legislation like the assault weapons ban?

Chez has asked that old forum drama not be talked about here, I assume the erstwhile Mr. Soother falls into that category.

There's also the point that gun ownership may have prevented an invasion on American soil in WWII and also Switzerland is an example where guns are very common.

There are whole enterpises based on the premise of figuring and handling risk. It's called insurance which would find a happy medium. If you're mentally ill and buy a bazooka, insurance company is not going to go for that for your home, cost prohibative. In fact, you may be the risk in general and belong in a cozy room. But if you take classes, are sane, and buy some protection, insurance company may reduce your premiums.

LMAO, guns MAY HAVE prevented the next hitler from being born so we shouldn't **** with them at all. Ever.

Yuh handguns stopped the Nazi invasion Jeb.

Humans are really bad at predicting disasters until they happen.

Works for the Swiss, surpised I'm the first to point that out.

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the...re-that-works/

Sure if you want to switch to Swiss laws that would be great. Mandatory military training for able bodied men, restrictions on ammunition, mandatory weapon training, banning of high powered weapons, background checks, **** yeah lets do it!

http://factmyth.com/factoids/switzer...s-to-own-guns/

So are we arguing culture or are we arguing statutes? Free Tibet still isn't free btw.

This reminds me of when michel focault argued that bringing guillotines back would make a more humane society. It isn't completely without merit. I live in kansas and know a lot of people with guns.

You can't just say "here is a place with guns that doesn't have the same outcomes as the US" without looking at some of the other factors in play. Sure, it could be culture but it could also be the strict restrictions they put on guns, much stricter than the US.

It's definitely some of both imho. Culture makes the statutes. And the statutes influence the culture. The hypothetical invasion, I admit, in wwii is perhaps overstated. I probably fell for some stupid fake quotes of the general of Japan in a previous debate.

But you know, my overarching point is that insurance companies asses risk, and they'd figure this **** out. You don't need a quite room full of philosophers because we live in an economy in the real world.

It's tilting because it's plainly obvious to the mises.org crew that entrepreneurs figure this out, because their main concern is property.