Should we repeal the 2nd Amendment?

[Orphia Nay]

Not always, but many. Even if they are outlawed it still won't prevent mass shootings. Maybe a lower death count, but it's still going to happen.

Gun law reform would probably help, but it doesn't prevent the phenomenon of disturbed people.

If assault weapons are banned, mass shootings will be less.

Just because there will still be some multiple shootings doesn’t mean it’s not worth saving many, many lives going forward.

 

[PitPat]

Not disagreeing, it would help. Try getting enough politicians to defy the NRA and their political clout. Just not going to end them. You have extended magazines, auto sears, etc.

 

[jt512]

Aren’t assault weapons always used in mass shootings?

Whether they are or not, it doesn't logically follow that banning assault weapons would reduce mass shootings. It very well might, but it doesn't necessary follow that it would.

 

[psionl0]

Whether they are or not, it doesn't logically follow that banning assault weapons would reduce mass shootings. It very well might, but it doesn't necessary follow that it would.

Calling something illegal never works. You also need to get rid of the guns.

 

[arthwollipot]

Whether they are or not, it doesn't logically follow that banning assault weapons would reduce mass shootings. It very well might, but it doesn't necessary follow that it would.

If it prevents even one mass shooting, then it's worthwhile.

 

[jt512]

Calling something illegal never works. You also need to get rid of the guns.

I was objecting to Orphia's logic, which was: Mass murders are committed with assault weapons. Therefore, if we were to get rid of assault weapons, we would get rid of mass murders.

While that could turn out to be true, it doesn't logically follow, since just because mass murders are committed with assault weapons doesn't imply that they have to be. There are lots of other guns that mass murderers could use instead.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of banning firearms. The problem with the Second Amendment is that it's existence prevents common sense regulations such as prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from possessing them.

These aren't the same thing. And sensible gun control is neither.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm in favor of repealing the Second Amendment. But that doesn't mean I'm in favor of banning firearms. The problem with the Second Amendment is that it's existence prevents common sense regulations such as prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from possessing them.

This seems sensible.

I'm sure there must be innumerable attempts at doing this already out there but if the 2nd amendment didn't exist and had to be written from scratch tomorrow, what might it look like?

 

[PitPat]

This seems sensible.

I'm sure there must be innumerable attempts at doing this already out there but if the 2nd amendment didn't exist and had to be written from scratch tomorrow, what might it look like?

Tomorrow? Probably the same at is now, maybe worse. Nobody wants to touch it except with empty platitudes, like "It's not guns, it's people." Cherry picked examples of "Good guy with a gun." "We need better mental healthcare and Biden is failing at that." Ad nauseum.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Tomorrow? Probably the same at is now, maybe worse. Nobody wants to touch it except with empty platitudes, like "It's not guns, it's people." Cherry picked examples of "Good guy with a gun." "We need better mental healthcare and Biden is failing at that." Ad nauseum.

Yes, nobody dares touch the hundreds-of-years-old thing in case they accidentally screw something up, but that's why I framed the question as what if it didn't exist?

What job is it that you actually need the amendment to do? The one you've got appears to be a repurposed tool, originally designed to facilitate the creation of citizen's militias in case the president declares himself king and needs to be overthrown. I'm not saying you absolutely don't need that protection any more, but that's not what it's being used for.

 

[Hercules56]

Aren’t assault weapons always used in mass shootings?

No, most mass shootings are done with handguns. Not assault weapons.

 

[Hercules56]

If assault weapons are banned, mass shootings will be less....

Wrong.

The current definition of "assault weapon" does not include many weapons that have the exact same power and firing rate as the AR-15.

If we expanded the definition of "assault weapon" to include all semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and confiscated all 100 million of them, people would still have access to semi-auto handguns, which are responsible for most mass-shootings.

Would there be less mass-shooting in such a hypothetical world? Likely not. Would they kill less people? That's mere speculation, no way to prove it.

Would there be less mass-shootings if we also banned semi-auto handguns? Not likely. Would mass-shootings kill less people if only bolt-action, pump-action rifles and shotguns were allowed, and only revolver handguns were allowed? Yes, cuz such firearms require more time and movement to reload.

 

[Thermal]

Wrong.

The current definition of "assault weapon" does not include many weapons that have the exact same power and firing rate as the AR-15.

If we expanded the definition of "assault weapon" to include all semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and confiscated all 100 million of them, people would still have access to semi-auto handguns, which are responsible for most mass-shootings.

Would there be less mass-shooting in such a hypothetical world? Likely not. Would they kill less people? That's mere speculation, no way to prove it.

Would there be less mass-shootings if we also banned semi-auto handguns? Not likely. Would mass-shootings kill less people if only bolt-action, pump-action rifles and shotguns were allowed, and only revolver handguns were allowed? Yes, cuz such firearms require more time and movement to reload.

Well we could glance over at the UK and Australia, who did exactly that, and in fact their mass shooting rates did reduce quite dramatically. No speculation needed; we have the data.

Also, while it's true that most mass shootings are done with handguns, four of the five actually deadliest mass shootings were done with an AR-15. The .223 round and high capacity makes it an efficient crowd killing favorite, that has no civilian use.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

It's all about priorities, man.

 

[Hercules56]

Well we could glance over at the UK and Australia, who did exactly that, and in fact their mass shooting rates did reduce quite dramatically. No speculation needed; we have the data.

Also, while it's true that most mass shootings are done with handguns, four of the five actually deadliest mass shootings were done with an AR-15. The .223 round and high capacity makes it an efficient crowd killing favorite, that has no civilian use...

Please provide evidence that mass-shootings decreased in the UK and Australia after they enacted strong gun control.

And please specify the details of these new gun control laws.

 

[Thermal]

Please provide evidence that mass-shootings decreased in the UK and Australia after they enacted strong gun control.

And please specify the details of these new gun control laws.

No. I'm not here to do busy work for you which you will handwave away and ignore.

 

[Hercules56]

No. I'm not here to do busy work for you which you will handwave away and ignore.

You made a claim.

I asked for evidence for this claim, and you tell me to shove off?

LOL!!!!!

How honest and intelligent of you.

 

[Thermal]

You made a claim.

I asked for evidence for this claim, and you tell me to shove off?

LOL!!!!!

How honest and intelligent of you.

Because we both know exactly what you're going to do. You've done it before, bro. I'm really not into endless Goundhog Day repetition.

You want lots of guns, in the only first world country that has 5 digit gun deaths annually.

The dead kids at Sandy Hook are more than enough for me to agree that we don't need easy public access to weapons designed to kill humans. I love me some guns, but I hate me some bullet ridden corpses of children. One of them far eclipses the other.

Eta: I'll concede that we have always had more mass shootings and continue to have them, while Oz and the UK never really had the volume of mass shootings that we do. I actually meant to say school shootings, where the number is zero for both countries I mentioned since Port Arthur and Dunblane. We have more school shootings each and every year, although zero is not a tough number to beat.

 

[Hercules56]

Because we both know exactly what you're going to do. You've done it before, bro. I'm really not into endless Goundhog Day repetition.

You want lots of guns, in the only first world country that has 5 digit gun deaths annually.

The dead kids at Sandy Hook are more than enough for me to agree that we don't need easy public access to weapons designed to kill humans. I love me some guns, but I hate me some bullet ridden corpses of children. One of them far eclipses the other.

All guns are made to kill humans.

You made a claim, I asked for you to support the claim, you made a bunch of excuses to not support your claim.

We can only assume there are really 2 reasons why you refuse to support your claim:

#1. You dont want to take the time to support your claim and think I and others should simply trust you.

#2. You know that any evidence you provide will show that the facts do not actually support what you claimed.

 

[Thermal]

All guns are made to kill humans.

Factually untrue, and you know it. Many guns are made with very specific animal hunting and competitive sport shooting as "what they were made for".

You made a claim, I asked for you to support the claim, you made a bunch of excuses to not support your claim.

We can only assume there are really 2 reasons why you refuse to support your claim:

#1. You dont want to take the time to support your claim and think I and others should simply trust you.

#2. You know that any evidence you provide will show that the facts do not actually support what you claimed.

No, the endless repetition which ends with you changing the subject when things stop going your way just gets boring after a few dozen repetitions. Plus, see my eta.

I'm open to any more on topic discussion. I even put up a short list of gun control measures that could be enacted to satisfy everyone without repealing 2A.

 

[Hercules56]

No, the endless repetition which ends with you changing the subject when things stop going your way just gets boring after a few dozen repetitions. Plus, see my eta.

I'm open to any more on topic discussion. I even put up a short list of gun control measures that could be enacted to satisfy everyone without repealing 2A.

So you're saying you either don't feeling like making the effort to actually support your claim or you fear any evidence you provide will not actually support the claim you have made.

Got it.