11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That particular right exists in the United States because of the Second Amendment. It is not a universal right recognised in the same form by most other developed nations, which is precisely why its existence and scope are central to this debate.

Like free speech in that way, yes?

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If the discussion is simply whether Americans currently have that right under the Constitution, there is no disagreement. They do.

The debate is whether that constitutional provision continues to serve society well in its current form.

And it's worth remembering that the Second Amendment is itself one of 27 amendments to the Constitution. By definition, amendments can be amended. The US constitutional framework was designed to evolve if lawmakers and citizens decide that circumstances have changed.

No disagreement from me there.

Except I have.

The justification is the United States' firearm mortality rate, which is dramatically higher than that of every comparable developed nation.

Hou claim that the higher gun homicide rate justifies it, yet you concede the gun homicide rate has most always been higher, even before most of Europe banned guns.

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You may disagree with the proposed solution, but pretending there is no justification is simply ignoring the evidence.

And by the same logic, you have presented no compelling justification for why the Second Amendment, written in the 18th century and amended into the Constitution over 200 years ago, should remain unchanged despite producing outcomes that are markedly worse than those seen in peer countries.

Rights are not self-justifying. They exist to serve society. When the outcomes are poor, it is entirely reasonable to question whether the framework should be revised.

You're mixing personal preferences, individual anecdotes and public policy outcomes as though they're interchangeable.

The fact that millions of people want something is not, by itself, a compelling argument for it. Millions of people have wanted all sorts of things throughout history. Popularity is not evidence of wisdom.

Nor does the existence of defensive gun uses settle the debate. For every person who feels safer with a firearm, there are firearm suicides, accidental shootings, domestic homicides and gun crimes that would not have occurred without easy access to firearms.

And "other things kill more people" is not a serious argument. We regulate dangerous things all the time without first solving every other problem in society.

Most importantly, you're arguing from hypotheticals while ignoring outcomes.

The United States has widespread civilian gun ownership. Other developed nations largely do not. The US also experiences firearm death rates far above its peers (this fact seems to elude you repeatedly).

You can argue about causes, solutions and trade-offs, but you can't pretend the outcomes aren't real.

And no serious proposal involves magically removing every gun overnight. The real debate is whether the current framework serves the public interest better than the alternatives. On that question, the US statistics are a very uncomfortable place to start.

I have never said the US did not have higher rates of gun deaths than Europe, and I have stated in a previous response to you that banning guns would result in fewer gun deaths. You pretending otherwise is dishonest.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Like free speech in that way, yes?

The right to free speech also comes with limitations.

You cannot legally make threats, commit fraud, incite violence, defame people, or in many countries engage in certain forms of hate speech.

Nobody argues that those restrictions mean free speech no longer exists.

The same principle applies here. The existence of a right does not automatically mean it is unlimited, immune from regulation, or beyond amendment.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Hou claim that the higher gun homicide rate justifies it, yet you concede the gun homicide rate has most always been higher, even before most of Europe banned guns.

Not quite.

A historically higher homicide rate in the US doesn't somehow prove that gun availability is irrelevant. If anything, it raises the obvious question of why America has remained an outlier for so long.

More importantly, most European countries did not simply "ban guns". They adopted varying levels of regulation over time, while still allowing ownership for hunting, sport shooting, farming and collecting.

And even if the US homicide rate was higher before modern European gun laws, that doesn't demonstrate that widespread firearm ownership improves outcomes. At best, it suggests there are multiple contributing factors.

The problem for your argument is that you seem to think "guns aren't the only factor" somehow leads to "guns aren't a factor" ..... It doesn't.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I have never said the US did not have higher rates of gun deaths than Europe, and I have stated in a previous response to you that banning guns would result in fewer gun deaths. You pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Then we're actually closer to agreement than you seem to think.

If you accept that fewer guns would result in fewer gun deaths, you've already conceded that firearm availability influences outcomes.

Where we differ is on what weight should be given to that fact.

Calling me dishonest doesn't really address the substance of the argument. The entire debate revolves around whether the benefits of widespread gun ownership justify the additional deaths that come with it.

And that's the point you've yet to convincingly address.

You acknowledge the costs. You simply believe they're worth paying. That's a very different position from claiming the costs don't exist.

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The right to free speech also comes with limitations.

You cannot legally make threats, commit fraud, incite violence, defame people, or in many countries engage in certain forms of hate speech.

Nobody argues that those restrictions mean free speech no longer exists.

The same principle applies here. The existence of a right does not automatically mean it is unlimited, immune from regulation, or beyond amendment.

The right to keep and bear arms also comes with limitations, I have not argued otherwise.

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not quite.

A historically higher homicide rate in the US doesn't somehow prove that gun availability is irrelevant. If anything, it raises the obvious question of why America has remained an outlier for so long.

More importantly, most European countries did not simply "ban guns". They adopted varying levels of regulation over time, while still allowing ownership for hunting, sport shooting, farming and collecting.

And even if the US homicide rate was higher before modern European gun laws, that doesn't demonstrate that widespread firearm ownership improves outcomes. At best, it suggests there are multiple contributing factors.

The problem for your argument is that you seem to think "guns aren't the only factor" somehow leads to "guns aren't a factor" ..... It doesn't.

Then we're actually closer to agreement than you seem to think.

If you accept that fewer guns would result in fewer gun deaths, you've already conceded that firearm availability influences outcomes.

Where we differ is on what weight should be given to that fact.

Calling me dishonest doesn't really address the substance of the argument. The entire debate revolves around whether the benefits of widespread gun ownership justify the additional deaths that come with it.

And that's the point you've yet to convincingly address.

You acknowledge the costs. You simply believe they're worth paying. That's a very different position from claiming the costs don't exist.

I would call you pretending that I am arguing gens are not a factor in gun deaths is dishonest, if it was not ridiculous.

I see banning guns as a dirty band-aid on a much bigger problem.

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Calling me stupid is a really effective argument. I'll have to write that down.

Your argument that Europeans do not like guns and voted to have them taken away is another great argument as well.

You guys are voting to have your free speech rights taken away as well, yes? The left wants to take our free speech rights away as well. For the greater good don't 'cha know.

In the US, a lot of people like guns, and a lot of people do not like guns. If the number of people than do not like guns significantly outnumber the people that do like guns, then they can amend the second amendment and take the guns away. It is really quite simple.

Every right Americans enjoy has some number of people that are against it.

Virtually every person murdered with an assault rifle is reported in the New York Times. You know what the New York Times does not report? the 30-50 times as many people murdered with handguns, why? Because nutters with AR-15s are generally white, while criminals using handguns generally are not.

You know what else the New York Times will not report on? The number of people who protect themselves with guns every day.

Why it no one howling to prosecute existing gun laws, and or beef up penalties for gun laws already on the books? It is easy to make laws, it is difficult to enforce laws. When someone violates their parole or probation by being in possession of a firearm they are often not sent to prison, or back to prison.

The federal government cannot keep drugs off the street, out of the schools, or even out of the prisons. They cannot enforce existing gun laws, but we are to believe that they will find ferret out and eliminate all guns.

Banning guns will get guns out of most law-abiding citizens, but it will do little to take guns from criminals. If guns are outlawed, gun deaths would no doubt go down, just as if alcohol were criminalized, alcohol related deaths would go down. But it not without cost.

Nice word salad of fallacies served with a dash of no reasoning, and bad faith.

Facts alone aren’t enough — logic is what determines whether they actually support a conclusion. If your argument contradicts itself or avoids the question, it fails, regardless of how many “facts” you throw in.

Here’s what’s going on:

1. Red herring: The question is why U.S. firearm death rates are higher than comparable countries. Shifting to media coverage, drugs, or general crime avoids that question.

2. False equivalence: “Alcohol kills more people than guns” doesn’t support gun policy—it just points to a different harm. By that logic, nothing gets addressed unless it’s the single biggest problem.

3. Non sequitur: Bringing up the Constitution or comparing gun rights to free speech doesn’t explain differences in outcomes. That’s a separate debate.

4. Straw man: Claiming people want to “take all guns” misrepresents most proposals, which are about regulation, not confiscation.

5. Hasty generalization: “Criminals will always get guns” doesn’t mean policy has zero effect. Outcomes vary across countries with different laws and enforcement.

6. Appeal to enforcement limits: “We can’t enforce perfectly” isn’t proof laws don’t work. No law works perfectly—many still reduce harm.

7. Cherry picking: Anecdotes about defensive gun use or selective media examples don’t outweigh population-level data.

8. Topic substitution: Reframing this as a rights issue avoids the original causal question entirely.

Bottom line: pointing at alcohol, media bias, or constitutional rights doesn’t explain why U.S. firearm mortality is so high relative to its peers. It just deflects from it.

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The right to keep and bear arms also comes with limitations, I have not argued otherwise.

Significant limitations - I'd argue.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing that all firearms should be banned.

I believe gun ownership should remain legal, but under significantly stricter regulation.

Handguns, in particular, should not be routinely carried in public. If someone wishes to own one for legitimate purposes such as sport shooting, collecting or use at a licensed range, that's fine. Keep it securely stored and transport it unloaded to and from where it is being lawfully used.

What I do not accept is the notion that society benefits when large numbers of civilians carry concealed firearms in shops, restaurants, malls and other public spaces.

Likewise, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for widespread civilian ownership of high-capacity semi-automatic firearms that outweighs the associated societal costs.

This isn't an argument against the right to own firearms. It's an argument that rights come with responsibilities, restrictions and regulation, and that the current balance in the United States appears far too permissive.

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I would call you pretending that I am arguing gens are not a factor in gun deaths is dishonest, if it was not ridiculous.

A simple question: If civilian firearm ownership in the United States were drastically reduced, and access to guns became similar to that of other developed nations, do you genuinely believe that ten years later America's rates of gun homicide, firearm suicide, mass shootings and firearm deaths would remain unchanged?

Because if your answer is no, then you've already conceded that gun availability plays a significant role in the outcomes we're discussing.

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I see banning guns as a dirty band-aid on a much bigger problem.

I don't completely disagree with your comment.

I also think the United States has a broader societal problem, and many of the same trends can be seen across the Western world: declining social cohesion, increasing political tribalism, rising mental health issues, growing isolation, reduced trust in institutions, a coarsening of public discourse, and a general erosion of personal responsibility and consideration for others.

Those are real issues.

What I struggle with is that many other developed nations are facing similar social pressures, yet they do not produce anything like the same levels of firearm homicide, firearm suicide, mass shootings and overall gun deaths.

That's the point - I think its a strong argument against guns.

The existence of deeper societal problems does not somehow make firearm availability irrelevant. If anything, it makes the question of easy access to lethal weapons even more important.

You can argue that guns are not the only factor. I'd agree completely.

What becomes much harder to argue is that they're not a significant factor.

Anyway @NewGuy87 & @Yellowtail - its been interesting debate for a couple of hours... thanks for keeping it civil.

On 6/5/2026 at 7:21 PM, Yagoda said:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/06/04/gun_safety_violent_crime_drops_as_more_americans_pack_heat_1186651.html

"After the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law in 2022 which had sharply limited the number of people who could carry concealed weapons, six states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, were forced to make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications. “This dangerous decision will make America a less safe country,” Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy warned. Those states did, indeed, see an enormous increase in the number of permits issued. In New Jersey, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased from 1,212 in 2022 to 57,245 in 2025. In Hawaii, the total has now gone from zero to 4,000.

Violent crime, however, has fallen in all six states."

And gun crime, in particular?

25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The right to keep and bear arms also comes with limitations, I have not argued otherwise.

I would call you pretending that I am arguing gens are not a factor in gun deaths is dishonest, if it was not ridiculous.

I see banning guns as a dirty band-aid on a much bigger problem.

It's a start.

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Significant limitations - I'd argue.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing that all firearms should be banned.

I believe gun ownership should remain legal, but under significantly stricter regulation.

Handguns, in particular, should not be routinely carried in public. If someone wishes to own one for legitimate purposes such as sport shooting, collecting or use at a licensed range, that's fine. Keep it securely stored and transport it unloaded to and from where it is being lawfully used.

What I do not accept is the notion that society benefits when large numbers of civilians carry concealed firearms in shops, restaurants, malls and other public spaces.

Likewise, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for widespread civilian ownership of high-capacity semi-automatic firearms that outweighs the associated societal costs.

This isn't an argument against the right to own firearms. It's an argument that rights come with responsibilities, restrictions and regulation, and that the current balance in the United States appears far too permissive.

A simple question: If civilian firearm ownership in the United States were drastically reduced, and access to guns became similar to that of other developed nations, do you genuinely believe that ten years later America's rates of gun homicide, firearm suicide, mass shootings and firearm deaths would remain unchanged?

Because if your answer is no, then you've already conceded that gun availability plays a significant role in the outcomes we're discussing.

I don't completely disagree with your comment.

I also think the United States has a broader societal problem, and many of the same trends can be seen across the Western world: declining social cohesion, increasing political tribalism, rising mental health issues, growing isolation, reduced trust in institutions, a coarsening of public discourse, and a general erosion of personal responsibility and consideration for others.

Those are real issues.

What I struggle with is that many other developed nations are facing similar social pressures, yet they do not produce anything like the same levels of firearm homicide, firearm suicide, mass shootings and overall gun deaths.

That's the point - I think its a strong argument against guns.

The existence of deeper societal problems does not somehow make firearm availability irrelevant. If anything, it makes the question of easy access to lethal weapons even more important.

You can argue that guns are not the only factor. I'd agree completely.

What becomes much harder to argue is that they're not a significant factor.

I'd add that, even today, failure of gun owners to lock their guns unloaded in a gun safe should be criminalised.

24 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Nice word salad of fallacies served with a dash of no reasoning, and bad faith.

Facts alone aren’t enough — logic is what determines whether they actually support a conclusion. If your argument contradicts itself or avoids the question, it fails, regardless of how many “facts” you throw in.

Here’s what’s going on:

1. Red herring: The question is why U.S. firearm death rates are higher than comparable countries. Shifting to media coverage, drugs, or general crime avoids that question.

2. False equivalence: “Alcohol kills more people than guns” doesn’t support gun policy—it just points to a different harm. By that logic, nothing gets addressed unless it’s the single biggest problem.

3. Non sequitur: Bringing up the Constitution or comparing gun rights to free speech doesn’t explain differences in outcomes. That’s a separate debate.

4. Straw man: Claiming people want to “take all guns” misrepresents most proposals, which are about regulation, not confiscation.

5. Hasty generalization: “Criminals will always get guns” doesn’t mean policy has zero effect. Outcomes vary across countries with different laws and enforcement.

6. Appeal to enforcement limits: “We can’t enforce perfectly” isn’t proof laws don’t work. No law works perfectly—many still reduce harm.

7. Cherry picking: Anecdotes about defensive gun use or selective media examples don’t outweigh population-level data.

8. Topic substitution: Reframing this as a rights issue avoids the original causal question entirely.

Bottom line: pointing at alcohol, media bias, or constitutional rights doesn’t explain why U.S. firearm mortality is so high relative to its peers. It just deflects from it.

Thanks for the cut and paste lefty, come back when you are able to formulate an argument.

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Anyway @NewGuy87 & @Yellowtail - its been interesting debate for a couple of hours... thanks for keeping it civil.

Go with God, brother, it was fun

5 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I'd add that, even today, failure of gun owners to lock their guns unloaded in a gun safe should be criminalised.

Why?

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Thanks for the cut and paste lefty, come back when you are able to formulate an argument.

Says Yellowtail ,who just references Faux News as the gospel truth ,

regards worgeordie

26 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

Says Yellowtail ,who just references Faux News as the gospel truth ,

regards worgeordie

I told you I do not watch Fox News, and I have not referenced Fox News, you just made it up. +

Why do leftists here all seem to rely on dishonesty? Are none of them able to formulate a coherent argument?

I would strongly urge any Englishmen in the area to not point out to the locals the idiotic gun culture in the US, but be respectful of local culture and traditions while remaining safely locked up in their hotel rooms!

'Nine injured in shooting near England's World Cup base camp'

https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/nine-injured-shooting-near-englands-world-cup-base-camp-2026-06-07/

5 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

I would strongly urge any Englishmen in the area to not point out to the locals the idiotic gun culture in the US, but be respectful of local culture and traditions while remaining safely locked up in their hotel rooms!

'Nine injured in shooting near England's World Cup base camp'

https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/nine-injured-shooting-near-englands-world-cup-base-camp-2026-06-07/

That is not gun culture; it is ghetto culture.

5 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

That is not gun culture; it is ghetto culture.

Ah, yes, of course. Pretty bright in the ghettos, innit!

https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/world/article/shooters/

https://www.theviolenceproject.org/databases/mass-shooters

9 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Ah, yes, of course. Pretty bright in the ghettos, innit!

https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/world/article/shooters/

https://www.theviolenceproject.org/databases/mass-shooters

You've never been to Kansas City, have you? It's a ghetto neighborhood.

On 6/3/2026 at 4:46 AM, richard_smith237 said:

• The Second Amendment was written in 1791 for a world of muskets, not modern semi-automatic firearms.

• The claim that "more guns make us safer" is not supported by international evidence.

• The United States has one of the highest levels of civilian gun ownership in the world and also suffers far higher rates of gun deaths than most developed nations.

• Countries with strict gun laws such as Japan, the UK, Australia and Singapore have dramatically lower rates of gun homicide and mass shootings.

• Australia tightened gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. Mass shootings virtually disappeared for decades and gun deaths fell significantly.

• If "only criminals would have guns" were true, countries with strict gun laws should be drowning in armed crime. They are not.

• Criminals obtain guns more easily when guns are widespread throughout society. Reducing supply makes illegal access harder.

• The existence of a luxury Colt pistol celebrating Jesús Malverde, a figure closely linked to narco culture, undermines the idea that the firearms industry is purely about self-defence and public safety (which is implied in your comments).

• Gun manufacturers profit from selling more guns. Public safety is not their primary business model.

• The United States has more civilian-owned guns than people. If widespread gun ownership created safety, America should be one of the safest countries on Earth. It isn't.

• The evidence from other developed countries is simple: fewer guns generally means fewer gun deaths.

I think you're oversimplifying a much more complicated issue.

You're acting like the only meaningful difference between the United States and countries like Japan, Singapore, Australia and the UK is gun ownership.

It isn't, those countries have different cultures, demographics, immigration policies, crime problems, legal systems and attitudes toward government and law enforcement.

Pointing to a country with fewer guns and less violence doesn't automatically prove that fewer guns caused the lower violence. Correlation isn't causation.

Take Japan and Singapore. They don't just have strict gun laws. They have very strict immigration policies, strong social order, low gang activity, harsh penalties for crime and cultures that are very different from the United States. If you're going to compare countries you have to look at the whole picture not just one variable.

And if more guns automatically caused more crime, then the millions of law-abiding gun owners in America would somehow be the problem. Most gun owners never commit a crime in their lives.

You also mention the Second Amendment being written in 1791 as if constitutional rights expire when technology changes. The First Amendment was written before the internet, television, and social media, yet nobody argues free speech only applies to printing presses.

At the end of the day, people own firearms for different reasons: self-defense, hunting, sport shooting and because they believe an armed citizenry is an important safeguard against government overreach. You may disagree with that philosophy, but it's a legitimate argument not something that can be dismissed by comparing the U.S. to a handful of countries with completely different histories, cultures, and legal systems.

The issue is a lot more complicated than "fewer guns = less crime."

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

Ah, yes, of course. Pretty bright in the ghettos, innit!

https://multimedia.scmp.com/news/world/article/shooters/

https://www.theviolenceproject.org/databases/mass-shooters

I think you’re mixing two different issues.

Those charts are about mass public shooters, which is a very narrow category.

The Violence Project database goes back to 1966 and tracks a little over 200 mass public shooting cases. That is not the same thing as overall gun violence in America.

If we’re talking about the bulk of gun deaths mass public shootings are not the main driver.

Most gun deaths are suicides and most gun homicides are not the high-profile “random public mass shooter” cases that make national news.

So saying “mass shooters are mostly white” may be true depending on the database and definition being used, but it doesn’t prove that white people are behind most gun violence overall. That’s a category error.

A more honest discussion would separate mass public shootings from everyday gun homicides which are heavily concentrated in certain cities and are often tied to street violence, disputes, drugs, repeat offenders and breakdowns in policing and community stability.

So we can talk about mass shooters. But don’t use a 40-year mass-shooter database to imply it explains America’s gun violence problem as a whole. It doesn’t.

5 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

And gun crime, in particular?

Look it up

15 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

You've never been to Kansas City, have you? It's a ghetto neighborhood.

15 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

You've never been to Kansas City, have you? It's a ghetto neighborhood.

KC MO or KC KS? Anybody with a brain stays out of places where they aren't wanted.

13 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Look it up

You brought it up, Yag. Prove it.

15 hours ago, ericthai said:

The issue is a lot more complicated than "fewer guns = less crime."

Not really - Australia is the case study for proving that.

In 1996, after the Port Arthur massacre, Australia restricted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, introduced stricter licensing and registration requirements, and removed more than 650,000 firearms through a national buyback.

What followed was not societal collapse, tyranny, or a crime wave.

A study found that in the 18 years before the reforms Australia experienced 13 mass shootings. In the decade following the reforms there were none. The decline in firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides also accelerated after the reforms.

No one claims the reforms solved every crime problem or that guns are the only variable.

But any claim that tighter gun laws cannot reduce firearm deaths is difficult to reconcile with Australia's experience.

The country restricted access to rapid-firing firearms, tightened ownership requirements, and subsequently experienced substantially lower firearm mortality and far fewer mass shootings.

So - while there are 'other' societal issues at play - fewer guns would equal less gun deaths / less gun related crime.

15 hours ago, ericthai said:

You also mention the Second Amendment being written in 1791 as if constitutional rights expire when technology changes. The First Amendment was written before the internet, television, and social media, yet nobody argues free speech only applies to printing presses.

You've accidentally made my point.

The First Amendment still exists, but nobody treats it as unlimited. We don't allow threats, fraud, libel or incitement simply because "free speech is a right"

Rights survive. Their interpretation evolves.

The fact that the Second Amendment was written in 1791 doesn't mean it has expired. It means it's entirely reasonable to ask whether a law written for a nation of muskets should be applied identically to a nation of modern semi-automatic firearms.

15 hours ago, ericthai said:

A more honest discussion would separate mass public shootings from everyday gun homicides which are heavily concentrated in certain cities and are often tied to street violence, disputes, drugs, repeat offenders and breakdowns in policing and community stability.

I don't disagree that they should be analysed separately.

The problem is that gun advocates often separate them, then proceed to dismiss both.

Mass shootings are written off as mental health issues. Everyday gun homicides are written off as gangs, drugs, policing failures or social breakdown.

At some point you've explained away every category of gun death except the guns themselves.

The reality is that street violence, drugs, poverty, gangs, mental illness and social dysfunction exist in many developed countries. What most of those countries don't have is America's level of firearm mortality.

Those factors may explain who is pulling the trigger. They don't explain why the outcomes are so much more lethal.

19 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I'd add that, even today, failure of gun owners to lock their guns unloaded in a gun safe should be criminalised.

I'd go further.

Failure to securely store firearms should absolutely be criminalised. If a gun owner leaves a firearm accessible to children, thieves or unauthorised users, they should bear legal responsibility for the foreseeable consequences.

I also see little justification for either open carry or concealed carry of handguns in public.

Handguns are specifically designed to be portable, concealable and immediately accessible. They are also the firearms most commonly used in everyday criminal violence - heat of the moment.

The argument that widespread carrying makes society safer has always struck me as questionable.

The United States has some of the most permissive carry laws in the developed world and yet continues to experience firearm death rates far above its peers. If more people carrying guns were the answer, one would expect to see that reflected in the stats.

As for automatic weapons, there is virtually no legitimate civilian argument. And while semi-automatic firearms are a more complex discussion, I struggle to see a compelling public interest case for widespread civilian ownership of high-capacity semi-automatic rifles beyond recreation.

Hunting is different. In rural areas, firearms have legitimate uses for hunting, pest control and land management. Those activities can be accommodated through licensing, training, registration and strict storage requirements.

Home defence is where the issue becomes genuinely difficult. I do believe people have a right to protect themselves and their families. But there is an obvious contradiction at the heart of the argument.

A firearm that is unloaded, locked in a safe and stored separately from its ammunition is unlikely to be particularly useful during a sudden home invasion.

A firearm that is loaded, accessible and ready for immediate use is also accessible to children, visitors, thieves, impulsive decisions, accidents and misuse.

The more secure a firearm is, the less useful it becomes for emergency self-defence. The more useful it becomes for emergency self-defence, the greater the risks associated with having it in the home.

For me, that's one of the strongest arguments for treating firearm ownership as something subject to extremely strict regulation, regardless of whether it remains a constitutional right.

Rights are not absolute. Every right in a functioning society comes with responsibilities, restrictions and safeguards.

In my view, the Second Amendment should be accompanied by far more stringent regulation, oversight, training, licensing and storage requirements than currently exist. The right may remain, but the framework governing it needs to be significantly stronger.

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You've accidentally made my point.

The First Amendment still exists, but nobody treats it as unlimited. We don't allow threats, fraud, libel or incitement simply because "free speech is a right"

Rights survive. Their interpretation evolves.

The fact that the Second Amendment was written in 1791 doesn't mean it has expired. It means it's entirely reasonable to ask whether a law written for a nation of muskets should be applied identically to a nation of modern semi-automatic firearms.

I should not make light of this subject but you gave me the vision of this kid reloading...his musket...in a school shooting!

42 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'd go further.

Failure to securely store firearms should absolutely be criminalised. If a gun owner leaves a firearm accessible to children, thieves or unauthorised users, they should bear legal responsibility for the foreseeable consequences.

I also see little justification for either open carry or concealed carry of handguns in public.

Handguns are specifically designed to be portable, concealable and immediately accessible. They are also the firearms most commonly used in everyday criminal violence - heat of the moment.

The argument that widespread carrying makes society safer has always struck me as questionable.

The United States has some of the most permissive carry laws in the developed world and yet continues to experience firearm death rates far above its peers. If more people carrying guns were the answer, one would expect to see that reflected in the stats.

As for automatic weapons, there is virtually no legitimate civilian argument. And while semi-automatic firearms are a more complex discussion, I struggle to see a compelling public interest case for widespread civilian ownership of high-capacity semi-automatic rifles beyond recreation.

Hunting is different. In rural areas, firearms have legitimate uses for hunting, pest control and land management. Those activities can be accommodated through licensing, training, registration and strict storage requirements.

Home defence is where the issue becomes genuinely difficult. I do believe people have a right to protect themselves and their families. But there is an obvious contradiction at the heart of the argument.

A firearm that is unloaded, locked in a safe and stored separately from its ammunition is unlikely to be particularly useful during a sudden home invasion.

A firearm that is loaded, accessible and ready for immediate use is also accessible to children, visitors, thieves, impulsive decisions, accidents and misuse.

The more secure a firearm is, the less useful it becomes for emergency self-defence. The more useful it becomes for emergency self-defence, the greater the risks associated with having it in the home.

For me, that's one of the strongest arguments for treating firearm ownership as something subject to extremely strict regulation, regardless of whether it remains a constitutional right.

Rights are not absolute. Every right in a functioning society comes with responsibilities, restrictions and safeguards.

In my view, the Second Amendment should be accompanied by far more stringent regulation, oversight, training, licensing and storage requirements than currently exist. The right may remain, but the framework governing it needs to be significantly stronger.

There’s a difference between ‘protection’ and ‘defence’. The former has to do with safety: locking your doors aso. Defence is trickier. Do you have the moral right to shoot a looter?

Such a situation would not arise were handguns under control.

Nobody I know in the US owns a firearm. They live in both city and country. No assaults, rapes or thefts.

Is there really any situation in which one needs to be packing in the streets? Ban concealed carry. It makes everyone less safe.

7 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

I should not make light of this subject but you gave me the vision of this kid reloading...his musket...in a school shooting!

This is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the entire debate.

Schools in Thailand (the schools I know at least) there were security guards on every gate and a yearly lockdown drill. Children were taught what to do if an armed attacker entered the school. They practised staying in classrooms, hiding under desks, and teachers locking and barricading doors.

When you stop and think about it, that's a pretty grim thing to normalise.

By contrast, in the UK, most schools don't have armed security, and active-shooter lockdown drills remain largely alien to the experience of most children.

I know someone will inevitably point to the Hungerford massacre 30 years ago Dunblane school shooting 30 years ago. Both were horrific events, but they occurred decades ago and were followed by significant changes to UK firearms legislation.

Since then, there have been no / zero shootings at schools in the UK.

The United States, meanwhile, has experienced dozens of school shootings over the past decade alone. The fact that American children routinely participate in active-shooter drills, while most British children have never even heard of one, should give people pause.

Whatever side of the gun debate you fall on, that difference is difficult to ignore, and I recognise there is an argument which brings in societal differences but the facts remain stark and shocking:

The UK has had 49 mass shooting deaths in a 50 year period.

The US has recorded approximately 7,000+ deaths from mass shootings in the last decade alone.

(also of note: mass shootings are just 1-2% of firearms deaths in the US).

Since the Firearms (Amendment) Act (roughly 37 years since 1988), a total firearm death toll in the UK of approximately 3,000-5,000 deaths, including homicides, suicides, accidents and other firearm-related fatalities.

The UK experiences fewer than 200 firearm deaths per year from all causes combined.

The US experiences roughly 45,000-50,000 firearm deaths per year.

So in a single year, the US suffers roughly 250-500 times as many firearm deaths as the UK, despite having only about 5 times the population.

A common argument is that if firearms were less available, violence would simply switch to another weapon such as knives.

The data doesn't really support that claim.

The United States records roughly 1,500-1,800 knife homicides per year, equating to around 0.45-0.55 deaths per 100,000 population.

England and Wales record roughly 200-260 knife homicides per year, equating to around 0.33-0.43 deaths per 100,000 population.

The UK does not have a knife crime problem instead of a gun crime problem. The US has both a higher gun homicide rate and a similar, or slightly higher knife homicide rate.

Edited June 9Jun 9 by richard_smith237