Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

So?

Because they seldom get caught, and cannot be reliably traced, under current slipshod law and enforcement.

Deterrence is not from severity, but certainty. New law can make it more certain.

Yes, it will. With you or without you - you guys are missing your last chance to guide and govern this thing. And the 2nd Amendment is silent on that matter.

Personally, I'd prefer a national gun owner registry (with grades of weapons qualified for beyond minimum militia, etc) - so there would be no automatic trace of a weapon unless by warrant and probable cause etc. But if the better informed and experienced don't step in here, the new laws are going to written by people who simply despise all guns and their owners.

The current situation is insane, and it's going to be changed - your choice to participate or not.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to classify weapons and restrict weapons owners by RPM capability, rather than endless complications of design and category, for example? But once they get the bit between their teeth people are going to ban anything that sounds bad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because so many people close to government and advising government and lobbying government want it to, and because governments in general are always prone to disarming the peasantry (hence the 2nd Amendment, formulated by experienced and wary ex-subjects of a Monarchy with such behaviors in its track record).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't currently. But if Democrats ever gain enough power, that could change.

And that's the difference between Australians and Americans. Australians never had an armed conflict and are generally uncomfortable with guns. But that difference doesn't keep the left from claiming the exact same thing would work just as well here. And the only way it could is forced confiscation.

You're never going to get a national gun registry.

The motor vehicle registration is a condition of driving on public roads. Would gun registration be a condition of nation-wide concealed/open carry reciprocity?
Driving is a privilege. Guns are a right.

More legally owned guns doesn't equate to more crime. So what proof?

So the government, who some people think should be the only ones with guns, are to blame?

Oh right, you're the mind-reader. So you would know what sales where not made in good faith.

I see no evidence any federal gun registry is on the horizon. And your plea sounds like a concern-troll attempt to get gun owners on the side of gun control.
California has already been trying to ban "features", but I live in a free state.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LOL
(thanx, I needed a good chuckle)

 

And more legally owned guns doesn't equate to less crime. So?
It does equate to more people getting shot, however. Including classrooms full of schoolchildren. So there's an issue here. How long are your fellow citizens going to tolerate mass shootings of schoolchildren, and when they hit their limit what are they going to do?

Now that's funny.
You do know who settled the US, pioneered beyond the commercial outposts, and ended up in wholesale revolt against the Crown, right? The Scotch-Irish, primarily. Should be familiar to an Australian. Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_Americans
Or if you prefer books: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159210.How_the_Scots_Invented_the_Modern_World
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1471875.Westering_Man

I wonder if there has ever been a monarchy, or any totalitarian government, that failed to disarm its peasantry - and if so, how long they lasted. It's kind of a no-brainer, for the average despot.

So far, so good. We wish you all the luck in the world, down the road.

 

Hahaha!

This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.
...
Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage's offenses, "what most irritated the People" was "seizing their Arms and Ammunition."
...
Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
​

So Parliament and King George III.
No permits being granted sounds an awful lot like "may issue" states, where concealed carry permits are not "must issue" to any legally eligible person, but the stipulations for "may issue" amount to very few, costly permits being issued. And carry permits are what allow people to take loaded guns off their own property. Like the militia that amassed in revolt.

I didn't. I said, "in any confiscation scheme." That doesn't mean there's one currently afoot.

As I already told you, it wouldn't likely be "in one fell swoop". It would be incrementally.
I don't think it's likely because we're never getting a national registry.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, you're an Aussie. Your country has never fought an armed conflict at home, and never had an attempted forcible disarming. It's great that you trust your police to protect you, even though the Australian and US murder rates have decreased by the same amount over the same period of time, with one decreasing firearms while the other increased them. Both reflecting a world-wide trend. https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-australias-declining-homicide-rates-79654
Your feelings on what is safer is an indication of your comfort level.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There's more reasons for self-defense than the government.

Or just criminals.

Who is making that argument here? Not me.

More Guns, Less Crime is a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. He presents the results of his statistical analysis of crime data for every county in the United States during 29 years from 1977 to 2005. Each edition of the book was refereed by the University of Chicago Press. The book examines city, county and state level data from the entire United States and measures the impact of 13 different types of gun control laws on crime rates. The book expands on an earlier study published in 1997 by Lott and his co-author David Mustard in The Journal of Legal Studies[1] and by Lott and his co-author John Whitley in The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime​

Studies to the contrary all seem to either not specify "legally owned", not account for the legal/illegal owned ratio, or just make assumptions based solely on guns per household.
When are my fellow citizens going to quit relying on incompetent police and government and try a real test of self-defense, where "gun-free zones" aren't such an appealing target?

 

Meanwhile, George gave in to the reality of patronage politics and lavishly doled out favors in return for a coterie of "king's friends" in Parliament. This later became fodder for American charges of corruption, foppery, and irresponsible degradation in the English government.
https://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/king-george-iii.html
​

But what does any of this have to do with anything. Why would it even matter if it were the king or parliament?

 

The official record of background checks would be the source of that information.

You've changed the question, in a manner directly relevant to your bullshit. Your original question was about "monarchy", not "monarch", and you hung your response on exactly that distinction.

I'll take a flier here and claim that every monarchy whose army carried firearms has sharply restricted or outright forbade its peasantry to carry them. Just as every such peasantry was forbidden swords, when swords were the King's Guard's weapons.

Likewise the 2nd Amendment restricts Congress, not the President.
And it wasn't just the British, disarming their peasantry - French, German, Russian, Spanish, they all did, from the Ming to the Incas. Every despotic regime disarms its peasants.

The "effect" would be somewhat different in the eyes of the beholder, including the disarmed newly vulnerable to the whims of the armed. It was maybe not as little, from their point of view, as the serene contemplators of grand history might assume. Those kinds of experiences tend to be memorable - the grandkids are raised and instructed accordingly.
The beholders in question, in this case, were the authors of the 2nd Amendment, and the descendants and heirs of all that "to'ing and fro'ing", contemplating what they feared most from this new central government they were setting up - and they were very definite, explicit, and direct, about that. It apparently wasn't "little", to them.

 

Shall issue conceal carry does not increase the number of guns.

And Lott fails to correct properly for overriding crime rate trends, which vary by geography and demography in a manner often correlated with such laws, and which also are affected by and/or correlated with other factors he does not correct for - such as simple prosperity, type of gun owned, number of guns per owner, etc.

If you aren't going to track legality of purchase and ownership (background checks, etc) you have to count illegal guns. Otherwise all you have is a hidden correlation of declining crime and people being more law-abiding - not much of an insight.

 

So records could show who bought a guns for themselves and later decided to sell it, and who brought one to immediately hand off?

Shall issue certainly promotes gun ownership more than may issue.

I don't believe you.

We can't estimate?

 

Do you have any articles by someone who wasn't paid by the NRA?

 

You and only you made the big deal of the distinction. That was you, splitting hairs. That was your distinction, entirely. In the context of this discussion, you were and are the only one attempting to make that distinction central and significant and thereby deny the significance of the British Crown's disarming of its peasantry in the considerations and motivations behind the political will of the heirs of that peasantry.
Nobody else, just you.
Which illustrates the fact that you are completely full of shit here.

And often disarmed, when a different ass sat on the throne.
Even England, with its Charters and codified restrictions on royal decree, repeatedly did exactly that: https://www.historytoday.com/stephen-cooper/gun-control-right-bear-arms

That loyal peasants were sometimes encouraged to bear arms of certain kinds appropriate to their station is irrelevant (except possibly in establishing self defense as a basis for the 2nd Amendment, which it does).

Desist with the bullshit, it's not getting you anywhere.
Britain's government was a monarchy. That's the name for when a hereditary King sits on a throne and issues decrees etc. That government, through its legislative subsidiary Parliament (which included a House of Lords, btw) disarmed its peasants, repeatedly, and they did not forget the experience of being disarmed by a central government.
And if they had forgotten, the American ones, they would have been reminded by the various confiscations and restrictions in the colonial years prior to open revolt.

Yes. They disarmed their disloyal peasantry, the people they wanted to rule without their consent. And the people they disarmed like that did not forget the lesson learned.
Do you understand why the victims of these statutory disarmaments - amounting to the entire peasantry, by turns, at whim, depending on who sat on the throne - would formulate and establish the 2nd Amendment?
Remember your original question, the comical one: Which monarchy would have been on their minds, the authors of the Bill of Rights?

And it hasn't been that long. The heirs of that six hundred year hard lesson have for two hundred and fifty more inherited the reaction, the intransigent defiance and no excuses reservation of capability for violence, including the sheer bloodyminded blockheaded refusal to reason: http://www.jeffreyearlwarren.com/the-westering-man/

 

Not really.

Makes no difference, in general.

So check for yourself. What he's attempting is a very difficult and tricky bit of gleaning from noisy data and a small base, and he isn't careful enough.

I doubt it. You could try - nobody's succeeded yet afaik.

 

The origin of the 2nd Amendment is documented, the motives clear, the historical considerations and factors blatantly obvious and the time and to this day. This isn't a judgment call - whatever one may think of the modern relevance of the circumstances of 1780, their contemporary nature is nailed down.

 

Do you judge everything based on guilt by association with people/things you don't like?
You must hate VWs.

I didn't think so. Just making sure.

Any data on that or just noise?

I'm satisfied with the finding.

No accounting for what you may not know.

 

...Listening to brain washed people talk about principal rules of the cult they prescribe to.
There are soo many new US laws which completely suspend &/or circumvent the 2nd amendment ideological principal that it reduces those espousing its fundermental concrete principal to be intellectually incongruent to normal discussion.

Reminding me of the fact only 50% of the voting population care to vote & the consequential inflection that derives of the true content & nature of touted democratic majority principals.