Genuinely interested in starting to pin this down a little bit - Mods, I hope this is separate enough that it can stand alone as a thread / poll.

What is your opinion on the US Gun Control situation?

My own view is that the modern world and the current interpretation of the Second Amendment are hopelessly outdated and have been shown not to work - but what do you think?

I'd also be interested (if you are in favour of the status quo), what (if anything) would need to happen for you to change your mind?

The unwillingness to address the issue despite the shameful numbers of innocent people gunned down in either accidents or massacres suggests that there will be no change. At least in our lifetime.

I agree - but I'm more interested in people's own feelings on the subject, rather than whether the politicians will ever address it

it is not a question of our reading of the 2nd Amendment being "outdated", it is that our reading of the 2nd Amendment is entirely inconsistent with plain English. given his lifelong dedication to conservative jurisprudence, i.e. originalism, Scalia should burn in Hell for all eternity for what he has done with the 2nd Amendment.

I don't pay attention to the details of the recent shootings. But in what percentage of the cases were the firearms legally acquired and possessed as per the constitution.

Not being from the US, it's difficult to relate to the whole debate, but if I had to profer and opinion, it would be close to the last. I don't think the US should be entirely gun-free, but there should be way more restrictions on who is able to buy a gun legally, and what sort of guns.

in the typical high-profile case, e.g. Columbine, the guns are purchased legally.

Fair enough.

The next question would be: In the case of the Columbine shooting, what is the chance of it not happening/less severe, if the US had adopted stricter gun laws before hand.

that is the $64,000 question, whether or not a deranged killer would (a) know where to purchase weapons illegally, and then (b) be willing to commit a felony in order to commit the crime of murder. my personal guess (and obviously it is only a guess) is that strict gun control laws in the US would have little to no impact on "criminal against criminal" gun violence like is rampant in most US urban areas, but would act as a strong deterrent against the "first time criminal" crimes like Columbine, Aurora, etc.

at the end of the day, though, the issue for me is more a simple exercise in plain English. the country's founders intended it to be one way, and we are making it another.

The pro-gun lobby always seem to trot out the same old addage that they would have got their hands on the weapons illegally if they hadn't been able to obtain them legally. My opinion on that is that all "illegal" weapons were "legally" possessed at some stage and made their way onto the black market at some time or another.

"The right to arm bears bear arms"
but at the time the founding fathers wrote that there was a need for ready access to firearms as there were bears, Injuns, and worse.. British behind every rock.

what is the need today?



re. the poll.. I don't think much of any of the answers.. it's not a question of "if" something bad has happened.. it has, and I havent changed my mind re. firearms. but I don't think america should be free of firearms, as a wise Cornishman says they should be available but better regulated.

here is the full text:

"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."

the first part of the amendment makes it pretty clear that the purpose of the amendment was to ensure a well regulated militia. how we ended up where are today is totally baffling to me, and an offense to the English language - for the last 50 years we have simply ignored the words that precede the comma.

Personally, I do not want to interefere with the American right
to hunt. It is a long tradition that should be upheld, BUT

Obama put it correctly IMHO, "The gun laws for New York City
should be different than those of rural Montana."

I would make it extremely difficult to get handguns and ban assault
weapons totally. They should also close the loop in the law for gun shows.

Do I think gun laws will change? probably not!!

While I voted for no guns, I strongly believe this matter should be addressed v carefully so that the guns are not taken out of the hands of "law abiding citizens" only but criminals as well.

While it is clear that criminals would find ways to get hold of guns anyway, more strict gun policies would lower the amount of guns "around". As paddyG said, a lot of illegal weapons were purchased legally at some point in time.

As for arguments such as "I need a gun to protect myself and family": Widespread availability of guns where everyone carries guns leads to anarchy.

Out of interest, what are the main reasons for Americans wanting to own guns in the first place? From reading this forum over time, it would seem the main reasons are hunting/sport, self-defence or a general interest in firearms.

Is there any other reason(s)?

I think the latter two are possibly where it all goes wrong. Self-defence seems a massive wobbly grey area and the "hobby" in firearms sometimes seems to include a rather obsessive interest in accumulating a full arsenal.

Maybe as a Brit I don't "get" the gun obsession over there but it just seems that with so many people owning a gun, the only law in play is the law of probability which means the risk that someone is involved in an accident or other gun-related tragedy is greatly raised.

Discussion around the comma issue from the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/op...6freedman.html

Well maybe all is exaggerated, but I am sure quite a lot...

I understand that the whole spirit of the Second Amendment is that "the people" should be able to overthrow an unjust or illicit government, if needed, at gunpoint. This is an understandable thought, seeing the USA actually gained independence through an armed rebellion, and thus wishes to retain the ability to do that again should the need arise.

If you expand on that chain of thought, any attempt by the government to limit the ability to rebel, is at the same time a strengthening of the government's ability to do as it pleases and ultimately become unjust without having to fear consequences.

So to reformulate the above question "what would need to happen for you to permit the government more means of unchecked repression", I would say "liberty is more valuable than security".

Maybe in a broader sense, you could turn it into the government needing to earn the trust it is requiring people to give it so they turn in their guns, rather than asking for the people to muster that trust and believe the government will then live up to its side of the bargain, as in "turn over your guns now and we promise to one day when we run out of other things to do, stop trampling over your rights".

I believe that knee-jerk reactions to singular events should not shape policy. Think of the Reichstag fire.

I should add that I'm not form the US and I don't actually believe guns are the answer (at least not here and now). But the above response comes from putting myself into the US perspective and my interpretation of US freedoms, which I greatly respect.

even with the extra commas, I am still baffled as to how a judge managed to completely ignore the first half of the amendment.

Why does everyone quote the second half of this amendment, while ignoring the first half?

The right to bear arms in order to secure the free state -- in other words, the right to defend the country -- is what was intended. The founding fathers lived in a time when firearms were single-shot, fairly inaccurate weapons which needed to be re-loaded manually. If there had been drunk rednecks with fully-automatic AK-47s back then, they probably would have written this amendment more carefully.