I have no idea what that is supposed to show.

That Americans have already engaged in a revolutionary war, in part, to retain ownership of their guns, and that it would behoove you to understand why, rather than simply respond with incredulous disapprobation.

That Americans have already engaged in a revolutionary war, in part, to retain ownership of their guns, and that it would behoove you to understand why, rather than simply respond with incredulous disapprobation. — Thorongil

I understand why they did back then. From that article:

So, to many Americans, the issues were simple: Would the Americans surrender their natural right of self-government – a right guaranteed by the colonial charters? Would they submit to the tea tax the tip of the spear for the principle that Parliament could tax, govern, and impose its rule without American consent?

...

The Intolerable Acts were offensive, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: [t]hat in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.

It isn't at all comparable to the situation of Congress (and the States) – those with legitimate authority over the U.S. – agreeing to an amendment that repeals the Second Amendment, and subsequently introducing strict gun control.

At best you can argue, using historical precedent, that gun ownership is required to defend against foreign governments trying to impose their rule on the U.S – but then that's exactly what your armed forces are for.

Alternatively, you might provide us with a reason for why there is something wrong with trying to retain ownership of guns. Thus far, you have not done so, but merely repeated the claim. I linked the article so that you might understand perhaps why Americans do not think it wrong to retain ownership of guns.

Alternatively, you might provide us with a reason for why there is something wrong with trying to retain ownership of guns. Thus far, you have not done so, but merely repeated the claim. I linked the article so that you might understand perhaps why Americans do not think it wrong to retain ownership of guns. — Thorongil

In the situation we're discussing, a legitimate legislature would have made it illegal to own guns, and would send designated officials to enforce the law. It would therefore be illegal to retain ownership of said guns, and even more so if you use violence (which is also against the law) to do so. And it's wrong to break the law.

You'd need a compelling justification for the use of violence, especially to defend what would be a criminal situation (owning guns).

At best you can argue, using historical precedent, that gun ownership is required to defend against foreign governments trying to impose their rule on the U.S – but then that's exactly what your armed forces are for. — Michael

But the second amendment was intended to enable the citizenry to protect against both foreign governments and domestic, should the latter descend into tyranny.

In the situation we're discussing, a legitimate legislature would have made it illegal to own guns, and would send designated officials to enforce the law. It would therefore be illegal to retain ownership of said guns, and even more so if you use violence (which is also against the law) to do so. — Michael

I don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to merely beg the question by assuming that a "legitimate" legislature would ban guns.

I don't know what you're talking about here. You seem to merely beg the question by assuming that a "legitimate" legislature would ban guns. — Thorongil

Legitimate as in they were elected (in a fair democracy). They have the legitimate authority to decide what is or isn't to be illegal (and given the numbers, what is or isn't to be constitutional). As opposed to China deciding that it doesn't want Americans owning guns and so trying to take them away.

But the second amendment was intended to enable the citizenry to protect against both foreign governments and domestic, should the latter descend into tyranny.

So you're saying that because of British intervention in the 18th century, Americans are fearful of a tyrannical domestic government, and so will start a civil war to defend their gun ownership in the event that the Second Amendment is repealed and strict gun control introduced?

I stand by my claim that there's something very wrong with American society if you would be willing to kill those who would simply be enforcing gun control laws.

But the second amendment was intended to enable the citizenry to protect against both foreign governments and domestic, should the latter descend into tyranny. — Thorongil

Was it? Where does it say single-shot muskets were to attack the government? Nowhere. The 2nd amendment was to enable the "militia" to be armed and ready against Indians, French, and British.
We have moved on since then and that amendment is hopelessly out-of-date.

So you're saying that because of British intervention in the 18th century, Americans are fearful of a tyrannical domestic government, and so will start a civil war to defend their gun ownership in the event that the Second Amendment is repealed and strict gun control introduced? — Michael

Yes, I think this is what would happen. And the founders who drafted the second amendment did so on the basis of said fear, which, as I tried to show by linking the article, didn't come out of nowhere.

I stand by my claim that there's something very wrong with American society if you would be willing to kill those who would simply be enforcing gun control laws. — Michael

Just as I stand by my claim that there is something wrong with a government that would forcibly try to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens. You gave examples of countries that elected representatives who then passed laws that effectively banned guns, which means such laws had the consent of the people and in turn that the people were willing to give up their guns when the government enforced those laws. That is very different from a government attempting to seize guns unlawfully, which is what the "civil war" scenario is predicated on. Obviously, the second amendment can be lawfully repealed. However, you still haven't given me a reason why it ought to be and why, subsequent to that, guns ought to be effectively banned. That is what I have been asking for. So once again: why is it wrong for people to retain ownership of guns?

I am for gun control, yet also am against a ban on privately owned firearms, even if don't own myself guns. — ssu

This describes me completely. I appreciate your post.

I don't doubt that, as I conceded earlier that getting people to buy more guns certainly seems to be part of the NRA's agenda. I'm only trying to point out that that's not all they do. By the way, I appreciate the tact and civility with which you have inserted yourself into this debate. — Thorongil

Thank you. As for the NRA, understand my quarrel is with its leadership, not necessarily its members.

Yeah, that's fair.

Just as I stand by my claim that there is something wrong with a government that would forcibly try to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens. You gave examples of countries that elected representatives who then passed laws that effectively banned guns, which means such laws had the consent of the people and in turn that the people were willing to give up their guns when the government enforced those laws. That is very different from a government attempting to seize guns unlawfully, which is what the "civil war" scenario is predicated on. Obviously, the second amendment can be lawfully repealed. However, you still haven't given me a reason why it ought to be and why, subsequent to that, guns ought to be effectively banned. That is what I have been asking for. So once again: why is it wrong for people to retain ownership of guns? — Thorongil

I wasn't talking about the government attempting to seize guns unlawfully. Were you? Because it seemed to me that you were offering reasons for why it would be impractical to repeal the Second Amendment and pass stricter gun control laws (or maybe just pass stricter gun control laws that the Supreme Court deems to be constitutional).

And when we're talking about the police we're talking about handguns mostly, which I imagine are the most accurate after rifles. — Benkei

Handguns are terrifyingly inaccurate. I think TV series and movies about the "Old West" have persuaded too many of us that they can be handled with considerable accuracy. Gunfights likely involved many shots.

Were you? — Michael

Yes.

Because it seemed to me that you were offering reasons for why it would be impractical to repeal the Second Amendment and pass stricter gun control laws. — Michael

The reason I gave that you have focused on was about a scenario in which the state attempted to confiscate guns. It wasn't predicated on the second amendment being lawfully repealed and strict gun control passed, as I said in the clause right after the part you bolded above.

My mistake then.

Stop yabbering and act.

Your describing it as "unlikely" is equally mere speculation. By the way, I never prefaced the pragmatic reasons I gave by saying that they were indubitable facts, since we're talking about possible future events. — Thorongil

Thorongil, I was responding to this post by Michael in which he quoted you. Green Alert: You are not under attack.

Did you read what I said in context? Thorongil said that if a ban on guns were to happen then it would lead to something of a civil war. It didn't happen in the UK or Australia. So if, in the face of a ban on guns, "armed citizens would defend themselves with their guns to prevent the latter from being confiscated, which would force the government to engage in mass murder of its citizens in order to confiscate their guns" — Michael

I posted your statement, rather than quoting his use of your statement. It was to Michael that I was directing the statement "isn't a statement of fact. It's speculation about an extremely unlikely event."

You are right, my statement about a seizure of guns and civil war is also speculation.

Hmm, I think I get it now. Thanks for the clarification.

There's an analysis in the NY Times today which shows that the reason for the large number of mass shootings in the US is obvious:

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns. ...Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. ...Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people. ... Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

As far as mental health is concerned:

If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. ...countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings.

And as to whether America is intrinsically more violent than other countries:

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

...American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

In conclusion:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

Amending the US constitution is possible but is neither quick nor easy. Congress must first pass an amendment, and then 38 of the 50 state legislatures must vote in favor of the amendment. (The POTUS does not figure into the process.) That's 39 campaigns -- first to get the congress to pass an amendment, then 50 campaigns in the states.

Calling a constitutional convention would be another way of changing the Constitution, but there is a huge risk in doing so: At this meeting, the present constitution could be junked and a very different, less felicitous, document could be presented to the states. I don't think anyone wants to take that risk at this point.

Besides, it isn't necessary. We arrived at our present state through normal political processes. We can get out of this state by employing the same normal political processes.

So why the hell don't we do so, then?

Reason number 1 is that the number of people who believe in the rights of Americans to own guns, and actually own guns themselves, is more than a small minority. In 1959, the Gallop Poll found 60% of Americans were in favor of banning hand guns, except for the police. In 2017 the Gallop Poll found 28% were in favor of banning hand guns.

Reason number 2 is that pro-gun voters are more militant than anti-gun voters. People vary in how strongly they hold opinions. Pro-gun opinions seem to be more strongly held than anti-gun opinions.

Reason number 3 is that banning any type of gun seems to be pointless, because there are so many guns already in the hands of citizens -- something like 100 million, with more being manufactured and imported every year.

Reason number 4 is that many jurisdictions have laws regarding guns, and unless a class of laws (like segregation law) can be found unconstitutional and suppressed all at once, the battle would need to be fought state by state. (that is my understanding; maybe I am not correct on this point)

Reason number 5 is that there is some logic in the idea that guns are not the problem. I don't accept this logic, but a lot of people do. Ban guns and deranged people or terrorists will find other means to kill: bombs made out of certain fertilizers combined with aviation fuel, trucks or cars, poisons, sabotage of gas lines, and so on.

The action that can and should be undertaken.and is entirely practical even if not easy, is a major, focused effort by a broad coalition of people to first change the way we think about guns, and secondly to curtail access to new guns, suppress the manufacture or importation of ammunition, and the manufacture of guns. This might be a decades long effort. The #1 idea that can be promoted is that GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.

http://www.academia.edu/10621580/How_the_British_Gun_Control_Program_Precipitated_the_American_Revolution — Thorongil

The article is by David Kopel, who has an interesting history.

David B. "Dave" Kopel[1] (born January 7, 1960) is an American author, attorney, political science researcher, gun rights advocate, and contributing editor to several publications.

He is currently research director of the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado, associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute, contributor to the National Review magazine and Volokh Conspiracy legal blog. Previously he was adjunct professor of law, New York University, and former assistant attorney general for Colorado.

Kopel earned a B.A. in history with highest honors from Brown University, and won the National Geographic Society Prize for best history thesis with a biography of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.[2] He graduated magna cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School. He was also a contributing editor of the Michigan Law Review.

Politically he is a lifelong registered Democrat but a confessed small government libertarian at heart who voted for Ralph Nader.[3] He voted for Ron Paul in 1988.[4]

In 1996, he and former Illinois senator Paul Simon wrote an article published in the National Law Journal criticizing the practice of mandatory minimum sentence.[5]

Kopel opposes gun control and is a benefactor member of the National Rifle Association. His articles on gun control and gun violence have been cited in the Opposing Viewpoints Series.[6] In 2003, Kopel wrote in National Review "Simply put, if not for gun control, Hitler would not have been able to murder 21 million people.[7]" He recently contributed an article to the 59th Volume of the Syracuse Law Review entitled "The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller's Lesson for the World."[8] He is a critic of Michael Moore and provided a list of what he characterized as Moore's "deceits".[9][10] He appeared in FahrenHYPE 9/11, a film that disputes the allegations in Fahrenheit 9/11. Kopel's Independence Institute received 1.42 million dollars of funding for its activities by the National Rifle Association.[11][12] — Wikipedia

A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. ...countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings.

That seems odd, because...

Suicide is the second-most common cause of death for Americans between 15 and 34, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Across all ages, it is the 10th-most common cause of death, and caused 1.6 percent of all deaths in 2012. — New York Times, 2015/18/Oct Upshot

Not all suicides employ guns, of course, but most do. I am assuming that suicide represents a mental health issue, at least.

Pretty complcated issue, I imagine. There’s a suicide epidemic in the US due to many reasons, economic and social among them.

That argument about ‘gun control’ and Hitler seems entirely vacuous. What a pity that an otherwise intelligent fellow seems to have swallowed the NRA kool aid.

The majority of gun deaths are suicides, while the majority of homicides are committed with handguns and are usually related to drugs in some way. I think that reforming our drug policy would go a long way to reducing gun violence.

That argument about ‘gun control’ and Hitler seems entirely vacuous. — Wayfarer

What argument are you talking about? The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws, but the Nazis later relaxed them for everyone except the Jews. There are other historical examples of governments banning guns and confiscating them from a certain demographic about to be persecuted or undergo genocide.

I thought it was the idea that had the German populace been armed, then they might have overthrown the Nazis. But it was a single sentence, and was parsed badly, so hard to tell what it meant. But the general argument of a well-armed populace as a bulwark against state tyranny is a furphy, I’m sure. Whenever there are armed conflicts between militia and the Department of Defence, then it’s pretty obvious who is going to win, and the upshot will only be yet more gun deaths.

But the general argument of a well-armed populace as a bulwark against state tyranny is a furphy, I’m sure. — Wayfarer

You've no reason for such surety.

Whenever there are armed conflicts between militia and the Department of Defence, then it’s pretty obvious who is going to win, and the upshot will only be yet more gun deaths. — Wayfarer

You might consult more the pages of history, which show that revolutions can and have occurred, despite the military power of the state being overthrown.

How can anyone take seriously the immediate recourse to fantasies of civil war and fairy tale comparisons to the Nazi state? As if these are the problems? As if these flights of fancy were the immediate points to be addressed? This displacement of reality for fantasy - as if the gravity of the real belonged soley to the latter - is insidious and politically asphyxiating. No one should be taking it seriously except as an example of how not to discuss these issues, of how to unmoor the reality of massive disproportionate death so as to float off into the imagination of conspiratorial delusion. Shameful discussion.

Shotguns, assault rifles are allowed too right? By rifle I mean a typical hunting rifle. One shot, reload, sort of thing. — Benkei

"Assault rifles" are legal, if by that is meant semi-automatics. Semi-automatic guns are self-loading (you don't have to manually load after every shot). Semi-automatics go "bang-bang"; automatic firearms go "rat-a-tat." Semi-automatics may function as automatics through the use of bump firing, i.e. using the recoil to fire shots in rapid succession, which is facilitated by the use of bump stocks as all now know. There are semi-automatic shotguns, but sporting shotguns have limited magazines, usually 3-5 shells with one in chamber. "Assault rifles" usually have magazines with 20-30 shells.

I'm not a hunter, but know of no hunters who would use an "assault rifle" in hunting. I know of no sporting events in which they're used, but perhaps there are such events. I'm not sure why anyone would want to own one; I can think of no good reason for owning one, personally, nor do I know how a "right" to own one could be defended.

The Second Amendment has obtained a peculiar status in the U.S., for some of us in any case. The gun itself has a peculiar status for some also. For them, the gun is an object of reverence. For them, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. I'm not sure how this came about, but I think the gun has become a totem of sorts. Ownership of a gun or guns seems to be considered something which makes someone American; it's a source of pride and distinction. I don't say the gun manufacturers are responsible for this attitude, though I'm inclined to think they exploit it.

You might consult more the pages of history, which show that revolutions can and have occurred, despite the military power of the state being overthrown. — Thorongil

You'd perhaps have to provide examples, because I cannot properly recollect of a single revolution in which we can clearly and simply say that the revolutionnary powers have defeated the state's military force. In each cases I can recollect, the revolution was a success despite the armed forces of the state (because they were otherwise engaged or simply not present), or because of them (because the revolutionnaries mostly coincided with the militaries).

When the armed forces are deployed effectively against an armed population, the result is either a very quick massacre (Napoleon against the Royals in Paris comes to mind) or a very drawn out massacre.

Cuba might be the conterfactual here, but I simply do not know enough about it.