Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

The weird cognitive disruption in the shift from "ownership" to "driving" and back again, on the other hand, has been been smoothed over by so many repetitions it hardly registers any more.
It will register, of course, in any actual legislation - it's a central and basic issue in law, both statute and enforcement - and likewise in insurance, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here
If born after a certain date a gun safety course if required to get a hunting license.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/a-gun-control-solution-perhaps.160629/page-24#post-3516534
see 477

I may not drive the rifle to work but i virtually drive it to the grocery store upon occasion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Think of how many lives could have been saved if gun safety courses were mandatory. Imagine if every American were required to take such a course before purchasing their first firearm, and even have to pass a quiz at the end to make sure they were paying attention. I'm sure many folks at home (and in prison) wish they had known about gun safety tip #3 before making their first purchase: "It's highly advised not to shoot your spouse when he/she commits adultery, because shooting human beings can potentially cause serious injuries or even death."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yeah, because mandatory safety courses and testing worked so well in AUS for driving, we should consider the same for guns
https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

now, I don't disagree that safety and training are important. It can mitigate the number of deaths etc,

however, it cannot change human nature, nor can it mitigate an action done in the heat of the moment or because of overwhelming irrational emotional situations (let alone substance abuse situations, like alcohol, drugs, etc). it can make someone aware of common mistakes, but it can't change your mind when you've become irrational or handicapped by strong influences. just like it can't change how you act in a car under the exact same circumstances.

this is directly demonstrated in that link of AUS road statistics

moreover, the NRA that is villified by everyone performs safety and training in our state for gun owners.
for free.

 

It seems most likely that safety training in the use and care of firearms would be a good idea for anyone who wants to own one.
That training does not need to be institutionalized, A good mentor would most likely be better.
That being "said": I suspect that the best you should hope for such courses is a slight reduction of accidental discharges.

 

I had no formal training, but some damned good teachers. Since the age of eight, I've had three ADs, one of which was a Remington 700.

Each time, the weapon was pointed in a safe direction.

Have you ever seen a newbie's first hang-fire? That's freaking scary.

 

<------------ Never had, nor witnessed a hang-fire.
How long till it's reasonably safe to open the bolt or jack a round?

 

Up to 2 minutes before I feel good about anything heavier than .22 rimfire, especially with military surplus rounds.

 

OOPS
I had thought that one minute should be sufficient.

....................
we need a new 3 letter rejoinder
LAL
live and learn

 

Just read the Federalist Papers.

We didn't have an army under Madison?

Straw man, as the Constitution didn't say anything about what the militia had, nor was allowed. Only what rights it protected, e.g. "shall not be infringed."
You trying to move from is to ought is a complete red herring.

No, again, nowhere in the Constitution does it detail weapons. Is doesn't prove ought. That's a naturalistic fallacy.

And?

Because one person can face due process of law, where legal justification is required for restricting one person's rights.

No, castle doctrine means that any property owner has the right to determine what/who is allowed on his property, including vehicles.
You can also be ejected from a plane for being too disruptive with your First Amendment rights. Again, private property rights.
No, these are not an excuse for slippery slope gun control. They are interactions between existing, guaranteed rights.

Gun safety training is a good idea for everyone. Both for safety and demystification of not only guns but gun laws as well. For example, everyone should know what brandishing is and feel free to report it.

 

But where in the constitution does it explicitly say that laws can be passed which would lead to one's second ammendment rights being restricted? You can't pass laws that lead to one's constitutional rights being taken away, unless those laws are themselves consistent with the constitution. Airplanes aren't private homes, they're involved in providing a service to the public and are therefore forbidden from discriminating against people exercising their basic constitutional rights. That's standard NRA logic, even if they themselves don't recognize it. Besides, if someone wanted to start an airline which allowed guns onboard, they'd be denied permission, so again that's a constitutional violation (unless the constitution says something about fighting terror in the skies).

I have a feeling either none of you guys read the full content of my post(s), or else you all feel that Gun Safety Tip #3 is a real life-saver. Personally I don't think gun safety courses would make much difference in practice, since most gun deaths in the US are entirely deliberate.

 

"Explicitly?" Nowhere. It's the natural interaction between equally protected rights. In the US, any business is private property, even those providing a public service. As such, private property rights apply, in which the owner can determine what they want on their property. Possessions are not a class protected against discrimination, only the inherent traits of people. And no, the NRA doesn't believe otherwise. When it comes to flying, you're also dealing with an airport that services many airlines, not just a single carrier.

Yep, suicides. But just because the vast majority are deliberate (and self-inflicted) doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit unintentional deaths or educate people.

 

In the inclusion of more than one right, all rights are restricted.
The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate a world in which basic aspects of logic and reality had to be explained to anyone over the age of eight.

Except for poster 925, poster 930, and - I hadn't realized you needed it spelled out to your satisfaction before acknowledging it - me here. Gun safety is for mishap prevention, and it's increasingly important in a world of gun owners with decreasing exposure to relevant life experience of any kind (tools, machinery, large animal care, etc).

 

The thing is , is that , semi-automatic weapons are given to males that have no business having possession of these firearms .

 

Ok, so then it seems there's at least some consensus here that the 2nd ammendment isn't a free-for-all, and that other rights have to be taken into consideration as well, especially the right of the public to be secure and to feel secure. And it would seem that the degree to which one right takes precedence over another is subject to some interpretation. So I guess it's simply up to a majority of Americans to elect the right President to appoint the right SCOTUS judges, and individual states to implement whatever restrictions they feel comfortable with, without needing the consesus of 90% of Americans across nearly all regions in order to impose such changes.

And on the subject of Brandishing, I'm glad to see it's taken seriously in the US. As I read from one source, when you're armed, you're legally required to be the coolest head in the room. It's not a toy for scaring off some skater kids spraying grafitti on your fence, it's not a substitute for standard law enforcement. Also in most states, your life is said to be endangered only if you don't have a viable escape; you can't go pick a fight with someone, wind up on the losing end and shoot them to save yourself, except in roid rage states like Florida.

 

erm... and femals too.
Hell, in the military, they give them (Male, Female, etc) automatic weapons, armour piercing rounds, explosives and explosive rounds, and so much more, including nukes. they get to play with armour, tanks, ships, submarines and lots of weapons that most people only dream about when they watch TV or movies with them in it. (or play video games)

if a person is responsible enough at 18 to vote, live on their own and take responsibility for their lives and actions, then why limit their access or ability to protect themselves?

you mean like Chicago, LA, DC, NYC or Jersey?
Huh...

I wonder why no one thought of that!

 

Let us consider the 14th amendment
in part:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ...

It really does not matter in the long run what some mob driven podunk politicians from Maryland do. They can ban an ar15 today, and some anti-gun ignorant or just plane stupid lower federal court judge can call an ar15 a weapon of war.
Just because they are either driven by the media assisted whim of the mob, or because they are just ignorant or stupid, and they think that they can get away with trampling rights guaranteed by the constitution to not be violated, does not mean that their silliness will not be challenged.
...
In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland's law aren't protected by the Second Amendment.
"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court
................
Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn't even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority "has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms." He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

"For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland's law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand," Traxler wrote.
..............
OK, I'm with Traxler------------except:
I do not want on interpretation of my right to hinge on personal defense.
I want a free market where I can buy whatever I want and can afford whenever I want, with not so much as a "by your leave" to those who would decide to be my masters!
...................................
The Maryland law has been on the books for over a year and the supreme court has yet to issue a grant of certiorari..................?
I wonder:
Why?

 

More importantly, let us consider the 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
In other words, states can make their own laws.

 

It doesn't really matter what some gun nut judge says. The Supreme Court ruled on this. Restrictions on guns are constitutional.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

 

We didn't have a standing army when the Constitution was written, and there was opposition to ever creating one.

You have it backwards. Nowhere does it protect cannon. Is doesn't prove ought.

The government may restrict guns. It's perfectly ok within the limits established by the Constitution.

And thereby you set yourself up to be evicted, even enslaved, by the first rich man who comes along. A world of private armies is not a world of freedom.
You can't afford what they can. And they will not ask for a "by your leave".