Posted: 17 Dec 2012, 17:11
(I've split this off from the newsworthy thread)
I don't think that armchair diagnoses of mental illness are altogether helpful by the way.
But it's beside the point. It was written for a situation that pertained two centuries ago. The situation that pertains today is one in which the US has a gun-death rate per capita thirty-six times as high as that in the UK.
Also, I think Anders Breivik is a red herring. (As I understand it he was the legal owner of the guns he used -- an argument for stronger gun controls in Norway?) No-one is claiming that gun control is perfect; there's always a chance that someone can slip through the net. Hells, even Japan, probably the country with the most stringent gun controls in the world, manages to have a handful of gun deaths a year.
I don't think that armchair diagnoses of mental illness are altogether helpful by the way.
Hmmm. OK, thanks. but I still think that the amendment was probably intended to be read along the lines of "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people who belong to this militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."sultan2075 wrote:Oh, and Markfiend: a militia, in the colonial context, would have been a group of civilians who train and drill to protect their communities. It would not have been a professional military. So yes, the Amendment does pertain to individual gun ownership. The American Founders were generally suspicious of standing armies, and the necessity of such armies was a subject of much controversy during the ratification debates surrounding the Constitution.
But it's beside the point. It was written for a situation that pertained two centuries ago. The situation that pertains today is one in which the US has a gun-death rate per capita thirty-six times as high as that in the UK.
Interestingly, that statistic is completely opposite to what I've been reading. I've been looking internationally rather than within and between states, but a country having strong gun control laws, well enforced, correlates very closely with that country having lower gun death rates.sultan2075 wrote:Interestingly, there seems to be a correlation between low Brady Campaign scores (the Brady Campaign is an anti-firearm interest group in the United States; low scores indicate a higher prevalence of private firearm ownership in a state) and low homicide rate (per CDC numbers). Now, correlation is not necessarily causation--it may be that US states which are culturally more comfortable with firearms are also less likely to be breeding grounds for the sort of alienation that leads to such horrific actions.
Also, I think Anders Breivik is a red herring. (As I understand it he was the legal owner of the guns he used -- an argument for stronger gun controls in Norway?) No-one is claiming that gun control is perfect; there's always a chance that someone can slip through the net. Hells, even Japan, probably the country with the most stringent gun controls in the world, manages to have a handful of gun deaths a year.