How US gun culture compares with the world

That's the crux of a many a discussion here - what gun control suggestions do or do not actually restrict the right of the citizens. We have many pro gun control people who attempt to argue from the position that the right is only a collective right, rather than an individual right. As you would expect, their proposed gun control definitely restricts the rights of the citizen.

Additionally, Constitutionality is only one component of an acceptable law. It should also be effective, enforceable and necessary, and would be enforced by our judicial system.

 

Which, again, are largely committed by those who cannot legally possess a firearm, but do so regardless.

Which, again, would do what to physically prevent someone from using a firearm in a reckless or otherwise negligent manner, because they did not think that anything negative would occur as a result of their actions? Specifically, how do you force someone to note be stupid in their own home?

According to the member 6Gunner, who has served not only in the federal law enforcement capacity, but also as a firearms instructor to local level law enforcement, law enforcement officers are prone to negligent discharges of firearms despite all of their training. During the era where law enforcement carried revolvers, one of the requirement for duty sidearms was bobbed hammers, and heavy trigger springs, because officers had a habit of leaving their revolvers cocked in their holsters. They found it impossible to train this reckless habit out of applicants, so instead they simply chose to reconfigure their firearms to stop this from being a possibility.

Even in the modern era with semi-automatic firearms being the main issue, trigger springs have to way far more on law enforcement handguns than those sold to the public, because they simply cannot stop behaving negligently.

Which is correct, but ultimately has proven impossible to achieve.

 

I'm against gun control, why should I prove it works or doesn't work?

Incorrect. When you restrict a person's natural or Constitutional rights, you are taking away their rights. Example; Internet bullying is a problem. LW Authoritarian solution? Ban computers to everyone under 18 and every computer must be registered and monitored by the police without a warrant or the knowledge of the user. Are you good with this? Did anyone lose their "right to freedom of speech"?

 

Clearly you are determined to derail the discussion.

Good day.

 

All good and/or interesting facts. One thing I've rarely seen from the anti-gun Left are exact details on "common sense" gun laws. They are always evasive or vague about those details because they know their words would be shredded as being antiConstitutional and authoritarian.

 

Good day. Here is the discussion:

There is a difference between people being allowed a choice and people being restricted to having no choice. One is freedom, the other is authoritarianism.

 

Yes.
According to the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center, firearms are used at least 67,000 times per year for self-defense.
Thus:
For every person who commits suicide with a gun, >3 guns are used in self-defense.
For every person murdered with a gun, >8 guns are used in self-defense.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

 

Laws, related to guns or otherwise, cannot prevent accidents, negligence or suicide.
Or anything else, really.

 

Whoops! Constitution! Sorry.
This requirement violates the constitution in exactly the same way as if it were applied to abortion.

 

Agreed. It's like saying people should be required to register their typewriters/computers and take classes in "responsible free speech" plus obtain an annual license in order to exercise their rights to free speech.

 

All you have to do is ask them if they think such a restriction would be constitutional if applied to abortion.
They usually do not respond.

 

Of course not. You register all kinds of things and file all kinds of forms with the government. This is ridiculous

 

Name another Constitutional right that requires you to register in order to exercise it.

 

Voting.

 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/motor-voter-act-the-national-voter-registration-act-of-1993-nvra/

Your driver's licence can count as ID to buy a gun. Oh, wait...

 

Drivers license acts as a registration....I agree

 

Is that an enumerated right? Everyone can vote as long as they can prove they are a legal citizen.

 

Voter registration is the least restrictive means to protect the right to vote, by making sure everyone who votes may legally do so.
The same cannot be said for gun registration as gun registration does not protect the right to keep and bear arms or any other right.
The difference is plain, clear, and obvious to the reasoned and honest.

 

Do all rights have to be enumerated? Have you read the 9th amendment? You think voting is not a right? Really? LOL

 

But it is registration of a right. The precedence is crystal clear

 

We'll have to disagree. The 91 is shorter and has a pistol grip which makes it ergonomically superior. It's really a much better battle rifle and is better in terms of reliability and will eat just about 7.62 ammo. The sights are a really a modified partridge type and that makes them much quicker to get on target with the irons. There's nothing wrong the double claw H&K mounts in terms of stability.

 

No they don't have to be enumerated, but you are trying to restrict an enumerated right more than an unenumerated one. Why?

 

Well, everybody's physiology is different. I can't use the 91 at all; none of the controls are in the right place and, to me, the ergonomics stink. I'm a much better rifleman with something like a M1A if we're talking battle rifles. Overall, I prefer a lighter rifle for field use, so I gravitate towards Scout-type rifles in the Cooper style.

 

well we will disagree. I have never heard of anyone winning any long range shooting events with a 91 or it having any utility is a "sniper rifle". the main use of a 762 over the 556 is longer range and that means accuracy

 

I used to have an H&K 91 in the 1980s and am sorry I had to sell it, but while it is a good battle rifle, I agree it's not the best for sniping. Great for iron sights out to 500 yards, but that doesn't make the best use of the 7.62NATO. Although I have a DPMS in 7.62mm, I have a "poor man's sniper rifle" with a Mosin-Nagant.