Not the thread for this my good man. That's better in this thread
.
Though I don't disagree. Coming from a family of former military men myself. Both of my grandfathers were veterans in WW2. One as a member of the US Navy, and one as an MP for the Filipino military(rest in peace). The one that's alive is very skilled with a pistol, and would be incapble of defending himself otherwise given his old age(mid 80s). He's well trained and well accustomed to it.
That said, I agree some regulation is necessary(as is the case with literally anything). Specifically background checks. Some states are very lenient in their gun laws and don't require much.. Which is bullshit. I agree. You shouldn't impede on a citizens right to defend his/herself. But there need to be some rules set in place.
Yes, I'm pro gun, but understand that there's some regulation necessary. Albeit minimal regulation in my humble opinoin. If I recall correctly, you Mili, are also a former military man. Meaning regardless of what branch you served in, you are well trained in the use of firearms. Given your(no disrespect of course), more advanced age(you've talked of having grandchildren in the past), I'd have to assume(I understand the implications behind this.. I am sorry in advanced.. Jesus I love parentheticals) that you're comfortable and more than capable of using a firearm responsibly. You had to take firearm safety courses in the military I'm presuming. I'm pretty sure that in some states you don't(but don't quote me on it), which creates a massive problem. I don't want to put a gun into someone who isn't mentally stable enough to fire it, or mature enough to responsibly use it(in the case of children anyway). And yes I know, "guns kill people. If you got rid of them, there'd be less death". In theory but..
There's the problem that guns have been legal in this country for literally forever and there's no way in hell we'd be able to confiscate them all as a government. There'd likely be people who do some crazy shit and do something like bury their guns to avoid confiscation, and like alcohol during prohibition, and drugs during the war on drugs, guns become an incredibly valuable, and expensive commodity on the black market(hell, assault rifles are illegal in several states, and you can still acquire them, albeit for a particular price. Arms dealers make a living off of that stuff).
In a country of 320 million+, that's not a feasible or possible solution. In fact, similar to the war on drugs, this would actually create much more of a problem than cause a solution. Because of this, mass shootings would still happen in all likelihood even if they decrease. Psychopaths would still create scenarios where they could cause mass amounts of death in a short period of time. Their would still be a lot of crime. In a country of 300 million +, it wouldn't be rare. And sure, mass shootings would go down, but that doesn't mean that other means of killing people still wouldn't exist/everyone would be a law abiding citizen. Again, it's a good idea in theory but likely isn't feasible in a country of this population
at this stage. If we were just starting off, it would likely be more effective.
People tell me that the second amendment needs to be abolished. For those who don't know the second amendment is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." People interpret this as, "only a militia should be able to own them.. Nothing more. This is outdated for that reason". It may not be
applicable at this current moment, but it's not really an outdated idea, or even a dumb one. It gives the people power(which several governments in the world do not give to their people), and the ability to defend themselves if the governing body ever became too powerful, thus deterring people running for elected office from ever abusing their power along with the other checks and balances set in place. Because a government that's too powerful is usually corrupt, and oppresses their citizens. If the government ever becomes too powerful(and even though I hate Trump. Sorry, we're not going to be hailing him as a tyrannical emperor anytime soon. Tbh the second amendment would become beloved if anything like that we're ever the case) and starts oppressing every citizen, the well regulated militia can rebel. An extreme scenario sure, but that does play a big part into why people don't try to invade us. It also prevents the country from ever going into martial law(especially in the deep south), and in turn is a big part of why foreign enemies won't invade.
The other extreme, but still valid, scenario is the land invasion. There hasn't been a true war fought on the U.S Mainland(all states excluding the territories, Hawaii, and Alaska) since the Civil War. Sheer amount of guns is likely a major reason. Yes, our military is a hegemonic super power at the moment, but if a land invasion were attempted, most opposing fighting forces would have to contend with 270 million guns. Sure, only a minority of citizens( I believe 37% of them) own them, but a lot of gun nuts have an entire armory, and if their were ever a hypothetical invasion, not only would gun sales be at an all time high, but the people who own an arsenal would be able to sufficiently share his guns/ammunition with everyone,
thus forming a well regulated militia . Fortunately, it's never really come to a point where the people are so oppressed that they are likely to do this, or have we really had a land invasion in our lifetime(*knock on wood*. Kim Jong Un is a psychopathic moron and I wouldn't put it beyond him to try something so utterly stupid. The war would be over in less than a month given our territorial advantage, military might, and the fact that we'd have a well regulated militia).
And yes, this applies to self defense. If some moron breaks into my home, the proper procedure is, I get to cover with my gun, and hold it up to him, and call the police. This will easily stop an intrude if he's unarmed. If he attempts to charge at me with a melee weapon I shoot him in the leg. If he keeps moving and is undeterred by that and is about to get close to striking distance, then I kill him in self defense, because a knife in a short distance by a trained opponent is far more dangerous than a firearm(surprisingly. But it actually makes sense. You need to aim your gun which takes seconds, but in a life or death situation time isn't your friend. In a close proximity it takes less time to go for the throat with a knife). If he also has a gun, and aims it at you, and tells you not to move, then you use your cover advantage to get to safety if he decides to fire, and then you return. In a world without guns, there's a chance that the intruder is still armed in this country because of black market activity, but a guarantee that I'm not(unless I'm not a law abiding citizen).
"But China has a billion people and strict gun laws.. That works. So why not USA". China has had gun laws set in place for a much longer period of time. Since the 1800s, when China was not nearly as heavily populated, gun laws for strict. Then for a short period they were legal, then in 1949 with the People's Republic of China was established they became illegal unless you have a hunting permit. Given that gun use wasn't nearly as prevalent of an issue as it is today, there's a strong chance that there weren't a lot of guns circulating through china even when it was legal. Although China had 549 million at the time. They likely didn't have 270 million + guns circulating throughout the country. Thus confiscating them was a lot easier. It just isn't a feasible idea.
TLDR: Pro-second amendment. Regulation needed, but banning guns in the U.S isn't feasible given that we've been an established state for 200+ years, and have an incredibly large population. Second amendment gives power to the people. Also is a factor in preventing land invasions on U.S soil. Not going away any time soon. Sorry.
