Ok, then who is responsible?

From what I see, guns are mainly purchased for sport and protection as a secondary or am I wrong?
I don't know as I'm British

everyone is responsible for their part, Retailers who sell the mini weapons of mass destruction for profit and manufacturers who make them for profit and people who use them for mass destruction of multiple lives. The founding fathers had weapons that shot two at a time and had to be reloaded. some of the weapons in civilians hands now just really have no place in any community.

Well...that was the technology of the time. Technology has obviously advanced. The second amendment was written with the purpose of affording civilians the same armament as the military for the purpose of denying government absolute rule and subjugation of its citizens like the British empire did at that time. Well.. Technology has changed but the governments desire for absolute rule has not. Hence our desire to retain the right to keep and bear arms. When the government says we don't need the second amendment anymore...then we need it even more. History has shown us that on multiple occasions.

It could be argued that the second amendment was written FOR THE MILITARY, which at the time was armed citizens expected to be well and fully trained and not so widely drugged and exposed to all the worldwide rhetoric and extremist views of today's times.

We now have a standing army, who still are fully trained with access to those weapons. We now have a citizenry which is not expected to have that similar training.

Now I can agree with that. But I am both. I am a highly trained veteran and civilian that has said weaponry. Now here is a question id like to pose to you. Since the topic is gun control and you obviously have an open mind d yet a different view. What would YOU propose as acceptable gun control policy. Or what would you change?

Well thatsme.
That is the $54000 question as we say.
I think it's ultimately the responsibility of the person. Not a fan of what we call 'nanny state's where people are told how to do everything.
Imo I see the main problem is how do you identify a wrong or bad person?
I'd probably up the age limit. those here that have guns have to have secured storage for them. Make a greater emphasis on the responsibility of 'some 'owners to keep them un accessible to there younger children and maybe restrictions on the more powerful guns /rifles to those involved in hunting/competition only.
It is a very difficult one though.
As one of your presidents said 'can't remember who '
Talk softly and carry a big stick!
If someone breaks in to your home or attacks you then let em have it!

Even in your answer. It comes down to society. We already have fairly strict gun laws. Universal back ground checks restrictions on weapon type. I can't own a fully automatic rifle. I don't have the proper licence. Why make it even more difficult for the law abiding citizens to obtain their firearms. Also..why is it when someone commits one of these crimes. All of the firearms owners, the NRA and the manufacturers criminalized? No one held ford responsible when that clown plowed down a crowd in New York. No one said... We need tougher restrictions on rental vehicles. Outlaw enterprise rent a car. . or more laws for giving immigrants drivers licences. No one peep like that. But if its a gun... Ban the NRA... Take away guns.... More gun laws...blah blah blah. Soon only the bad guys will have guns. They don't care about the laws. Now where I live. Guns are fairly easy to get due to the majority of the area being conservative and guess what. Violent crime is nill because they know we can and will shoot back. And to tie into your closing.... Let em break in and threaten my family ... Bring a mop and buckets. There won't be much left.

Lol.
From what you've saying on the restrictions you have and what you had to do then that seems pretty tough anyway!
I just said what I thought without knowledge of what is in place.
And you're right, we have the occasional amnesty here for knives /fire arms etc but it will only be the law abiding citizens that hand them in
A criminal isn't going to!
Another thought is maybe it's because the gun manufacturers is such a big business that it's more those who protest are just against corporates, lefties? They are the types here that complain about most things!

I keep it simple actually. I do what maybe works elsewhere, like in the UK, where they have to have character reference, take training, and have a review of their criminal AND health history.

or to even duplicate the checks and training of our actual standing army, in honor of the second amendment reference to armed citizens as a form of 'well regulated' militia.

Yes msharmony but gun ownership is minimal here plus you can't carry!
We have had people who were certified ok then gone mad so it's hard to regulate the future of someone's mental health.
And as thatsme says. A criminal will get a gun or anything else if they want to kill.

thats true, and thieves will steal, and crooks will embezzle, but the laws are what make them criminals and make prosecution possible, and the knowledge of that possibility may at least be deterring those who might otherwise do more than just consider it.




UK just doesn't have the same level of gun violence rates and mass shooting rates, so something is working. If we cant duplicate the culture, we can at least find things we can duplicate.

Sure, we don't have the level you have but if we had more guns there is no saying it wouldn't be any different.
Really, it has to do more with society .

it wasnt just about a foreign invasion, granted that was a big concern at the time, but it was also about domestic problems as well, keeping the police and government from disabling our rights as well... The founding fathers new that it could be an issue, as it had been in the past, and in our past as well... Did you ever think as to the reason why the US has never been invaded? One of the main reasons is because of armed citizens...

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

I agree. it wasnt just about foreign invasion, but it was about a 'well regulated' militia comprised of the citizens. We now have an army and they have training and expectations (regulations). At the least, citizens who also want to live in the spirit of the constitution as a 'well regulated militia' should have similar training and expectations to do so.

I think US has not been invaded because it is young, because of the geography, because of its allies, and its size and its actual trained military and military weapons.

i dont disagree... I did say "one" of the reasons...

Look if you don't want a gun, don't buy one!

Don't ever think that because you lack the discipline or courage to own a weapon that such a pathetic existence should apply to everyone else.

No one cares about your references to the UK, and perhaps if you weren't so partisan you would acknowledge the fact that the UK has more assault instances with knives and other weapons than we have gun related homicides here in the USA.

I really despise people who think like the poster above.

Hmmm... The Dick Act of 1902 and The Militia Act of 1903

I'm sure if you were to be invaded they'd have more than rifles,
Just as Afghanistan - ak47 v the b1 lol

I am sorry you feel that way, mostly because it reveals that you didnt comprehend what I actually posted.

I dont want a gun, nor do I own one. That is not 'pathetic' it is my preference. I tend to believe having a gun makes one more likely to use or feel the need to use a gun because the presence of the gun makes any encounter more likely to turn fatal one way or another, and I do not wish to live with anyone else's life on my conscious.

however, I do not berate and have never berated anyone's preference who wishes to own a gun, as many of my loved ones do and many of my loved ones have served in one capacity or another.

someone cared enough about my reference because someone asked my opinion about solutions. I did acknowledge that there has been a period of a month or two recently when knive violence in LONDON( not the whole of UK) has surpassed that of gun violence in NEW YORK( not the whole of America). I tend to believe these will be outliers (person or thing differing from all other members of a particular group or set) and wont disprove the general historical reality of the UK's control over gun violence compared to the US, especially since the comparison is only between certain PARTs of both countries and not the country as a whole.



I stand by my opinions regarding what I was asked directly about possible solutions that would not ban guns, but would treat their ownership like that of the 'well regulated militia' which the constitution refers to.