After every major shooting, the gun control advocates can be counted on to ask "NOW can't you see the need for gun control?" But does gun control really make sense?
Would gun control have prevented this slaughter? I doubt it. Guns will continue to be available for the person determined to get one, and the kind of person who does something like the Colorado movie theater shooting would be determined.
The problem isn't the weapon, it's the intent, and there are plenty of other ways to kill. There are even plenty of ways to kill en masse. A bomb brought into the theater could have killed more as could an incendiary device. In other contexts, there's poisoning food or water.
Is the cause of gun violence really the availability of guns or is it the nature of the people who use them? Other countries have similar or greater rates of gun possession (I believe both Israel and Switzerland have higher rates), but they don't have nearly the rate of gun violence.
The difference in gun violence between Switzerland and the United States comes down to the difference between the Swiss people and Americans, and I don't see Americans changing in any fundamental way anytime soon.
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but there's a few fundamental differences between us and Switzerland. Each and every one of their males from 20-30 years is conscripted into their militia. They do not have a standing army. Their men must be ready at a moment's notice, so they keep their arms at home...
The U.S. on the other hand, no longer has a militia and hasn't for quite a long time. We have a formally trained volunteer military force.
Now, consider for a moment the first for words of the 2nd Amendment that people seem to miss.. "A well-regulated militia, .." .Now you have you ask yourself.."Since we don't have a militia anymore, but we do have a formally trained military, just how truly valid it the 2nd Amendment..? "... Just a thought..
D.C. vs. Heller. .. It was in relation to being able to have guns has household protection in a federal enclave.For instance, arson, theft, receiving stolen goods, destruction of property and robbery are all prohibited in Federal enclaves. Property offenses which violate state law but are not otherwise punishable under federal law become federal crimes when committed on a federal enclave within the state. Since D.C. is considered a Federal enclave not a state it would have different rules of law then say a state would. ... In others words, DC vs Heller didn't related to those living in a state.
Right, but they weren't talking about states and the 2nd Amendment in that case. They were talking about whether or not the 2nd Amendment pertained to areas like D.C. which are not states, but federal enclaves.
Isn't "militia" just another word for an army? And wouldn't the terminology "well-regulated militia" describe a professional army like the U.S. military than some nut jobs running around the backwoods of Idaho or Arkansas? What "regulation" is there of those guys?
That's the thing, a militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramility service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.(wiki def)... So you can see the basic differences between the two.. For a good part of the our history, the U.S. used militias in their military battles... the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and the War of 1812 are prime examples.
The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:
No, "militia" is not another word for army. An army is made up of professional soldiers. A militia is an emergency force drawn from the general population who typically provide their own equipment. A "well regulated" militia simply means that emergency force gets some periodic training in emergency response. The National Guard isn't a militia either. They get paid. :)
Ok, I'm sure this has been addressed elsewhere, but the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary for ...," does not read "You must be a member of a well regulated militia for the rest of this legal protection apply to you". It's a statement of belief by the writers of the amendment. And you are in error. There are legally recognized militias in all 50 states last time I checked, and they were all "well regulated". They typically help in national and local disasters. They attract their share of flakes (sadly, so do the police and military), but they are stable community service organizations with a long, respected history. Your conclusion relies on a false premise.
Yes, this stuff only happens in countries that are swimming in guns. In the UK we get it maybe once in two decades. In the US it seems to be at least twice a year. We just never get someone walking into a crowd with full body armour and a selection of heavy weapons.
What about your "Saturday Night Specials" I have heard about? People getting drunk and foolish with their toys on a Saturday night? Doesn't happen here. People get knifed, they don't get shot. If I want to shoot someone, I can do it from all the way over the other side of the room. I don't have to engage them personally.
Better to spend your money on health care, believe me.
Believe it or not, you're more likely NOT to survive a knife assault. Why? A typical gun wound is one bullet hole. A typical knife assault involves multiple stab wounds, anywhere between 6 and two dozen penetrations. The result is that the victim will die of exsanguination before all of the wounds can be dealt with.