Overall, the USA is more economically well off than Japan:>
What kind of misbegotten logic is that? What don't we just make murder legal then?>
Said by NOBODY! Where do you get this from?
Just because you allow murder doesn't mean that people will do it. Ridiculous>
Most people wouldn't go out and start killing, they have morals and limits. I have faith in my fellow man.
Purposely allowing guns into bars is the equivalent of selling guns to a drunk. 95% of the people in bars are there to drink alcohol.>
I don't think that it's a good idea. Is it MANDATORY, though? And do the bartenders have shotguns? There are also schools that arm their teachers.
No. That's not what driving tests are for at all. Anyone can learn how to drive without a test. A test gives you a license and without a license, you're driving illegally.>
Yet we don't allow certain segments of the population to drive, and you can lose your license.
What's your point?>
That people should be allowed to drive because other people use their cars for criminal intents and purposes. Just like responsible gun owners should be allowed to buy or get a gun because other people use their guns for criminal purposes, or buy alcohol because other people use it for illegal purposes.
If they never have to use their guns, then they don't need them>
Not true at all! People get guns for all kinds of reasons, it doesn't mean that they always use them. You can get one for protection, but still not use it. Many (Even most from some reports that I have read.)police officers don't use their guns, but they still need them. There are also people who have insurance that they never use. A training course would be beneficial, but certainly can't be made mandatory.
In fact, the police in many countries don't carry guns.>
That's nice, but they do in this country.
If cops misuse their weapons, that is in spite of their training. Gun owners should all receive training>
Regular gun owners are different than police and security officers. And most gun violence is not due to accidental misuse. Also, cops have no legal obligation to protect you.
But more people don't have guns. The rate of gun ownership has been on the decline.>
Were you not paying attention during The Obama presidency? Obama himself even said that he was good for gun sales. After mass shootings, gun sales go up. There are said to be more guns than people, so if guns themselves were the problem we would pretty much all be dead. And no, guns will not just go away, people have been trying for decades. Sorry! And one thing that you don't note about gun crime is that it usually occurs in poor areas and how it is connected to poverty. No amount of gun laws are going to help if you still have those conditions.
So you're against all illicit drugs being illegal. You think heroine should be legal?>
YES! Maybe not outright legal, but at least decriminalized. You can't imprison someone for just being a heroin addict (Unless they commit a crime to harbor said addiction.), just like you don't imprison people for being alcoholic or addicted to caffeine or tobacco. Also, the big problem is PRESCRIPTION drugs! And opioid's.
When has the Second Amendment been amended?>
In plenty of court cases.
Because, contrary to your claims, suicide in the vast majority of instances, is a very bad thing,>
I didn't say that it wasn't.
and justifiable homicide is a very rare thing.>
Not at all. Even the CDC study said that it's not.
All you're arguing is that because stricter gun laws wouldn't solve everything, we shouldn't have them.>
Again, not at all. I said that it wouldn't stop mass killings or school shootings.
Court rulings are not amending. They are interpretations. And most of the SCOTUS determinations have been fairly consistent until Heller. Which was the first case to really grant an individual right to own a gun.
Before that, people could have them, but that was not how the Amendment was viewed. In fact, one can make a fairly compelling case that most arguments for why the Second Amendment is or should be are pretty wrong. At least the ones the NRA likes to bring up the most.
It is really a historical hold over from a time of militias. Given the nature of things early on the government required all white men of a given age be in one and because they were not going to provide guns upfront than everybody needed to bring one. Simple as that. Turned out this was a problem because gunsmith quality was not consistent at all. And they ended up forming a standing army and arming it.
What we ended up with in terms of the debate anymore has more to do with a concerted push at changing history or at least pretending it is something when it is not. There is a bit more to it than what I laid out but for the most part that covers it more than the Second Amendment gives some permission to insurrection.