Guns: how much longer will it take ....

As most peoples you identify correctly that there is a problem - i mean very simple to identify - but instead of looking at root of the problem you look at symptoms - guns are not a problem in this particular case

If people obeyed the law we wouldn't be having this interminable discussion.

Yeah, people in regard to the militia, what it says in the Second Amendment.

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton says that you are wrong. His use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

No he doesn't.

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

What he says does not preclude the good regulation of the keeping and baring of arms.

The good regulation of the militia in regard to keeping and bearing of arms is not an infringement as per the Second Amendment.

Nuh-uh.

Wrong.

If any regulation violates the Constitution, it wouldn't be a regulation.

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

Nuh-uh.

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

People shouldn't be able to keep certain types of arms.

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton says that you are wrong. His use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

Nuh-uh.

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

What he says does not preclude the good regulation of the keeping and baring of arms.

Americans bought an estimated 150m guns in the past decade, as a drumbeat of mass shootings and other violence has convinced more people that owning a gun for self-defense will make them safer.

In a country where the leading cause of gun death is gun suicide, public health experts say a growth in gun ownership is likely to lead to more deaths.

In the 10 years since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, the US gun safety movement has gained some political power, while the National Rifle Association has been weakened by internal disputes and legal battles. At the same time, overall gun ownership in the US appears to have grown.

People who choose to own guns are still a minority of the US population, with about a third of Americans saying they personally own a gun, and fewer than half saying they live in a house with a gun, according to survey estimates.

But the total number of American gun owners appears to have risen in recent years. One large survey conducted by Harvard and Northeastern University researchers estimates that the number of American gun owners rose by 20 million since 2015, from an estimated 55 million to 75 million people.

The number of Americans who choose to carry guns in public also appears to be rising, with 16 million people saying in 2019 that they carried a handgun at least once a month, and 6 million saying they did so daily, according to a new research study. That’s roughly double the number who said they regularly carried handguns in public in 2015.

Surveys over the past few decades show that an increasing proportion of Americans say they own a gun for self-defense, not hunting or recreation, said Deborah Azrael, a Harvard firearms researcher. In 2021, Gallup found, 88% percent of gun owners cited “crime protection” as their reason for owning a firearm.

Americans’ perception of the risk of crime and violence has often not lined up with reality: Gallup also found that, for nearly three decades, large majorities of Americans said almost every year that crime had risen nationally since the year before, even in the years when it was falling sharply. In 2013, Pew found that the majority of the public was simply unaware that the country’s gun homicide rate had fallen nearly 50% since 1993.

In the past three years, the coronavirus pandemic, nationwide protests against police violence and the insurrection at the US capitol supercharged US gun sales, with an estimated 5 million Americans becoming gun owners in 2020 and 2021, researchers found.

The top reasons for buying a gun early in the pandemic, according to a survey of California residents, were concerns about lawlessness, concerns about people being released from prison, the “government going too far,” and “government collapse.”

“When social problems happen, guns are one of the tools at the disposal of Americans”, and for many Americans, they are “a familiar tool”, Jennifer Carlson, a sociologist who studies US firearms culture, told the Guardian in an early 2020 interview, as gun sales surged. “If there’s a run on toilet paper, what’s going to be next? It’s just the prudent thing to get a gun.”

The majority of US gun owners are still white men, and the largest proportion live in the South, according to survey data. But research studies and gun industry sources agree that the demographics of gun ownership is shifting, with women estimated to make up half of new gun purchasers since 2019, and people of color making up nearly half, according to one major survey. Between 2019 and 2021, an estimated 5% of Black adults in the United States bought a gun for the first time.

Because of the political influence of gun rights advocates, there is no official government data on how many Americans own guns, or even exactly how many guns there are in civilian hands. Estimates range from 345m to 393m to more than 420m, according to the firearm industry trade group’s most recent data.

While there’s lots of interest in the eye-popping total number of guns in the US, “what matters is how these guns are distributed across people and households”, said Matthew Miller, a Northeastern University professor who specializes in firearm research, and what that distribution means for their increased risk of gun suicide, homicide or accidental injury.

His 2021 study found that a surge of gun buying before and during the pandemic meant that an additional 5 million US children now live in households with guns.

The best proxy for US gun sales over time is examining the number of federal criminal background checks conducted on gun sales by licensed firearms dealers. (In many states, individuals can sell guns to each other without any background check.)

Two widely cited estimates, both based on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ background check statistics, put the number of gun sales in the US since January 2013 at around 150m, though that figure is likely an undercount.

Because Americans can buy multiple firearms at one time with a single background check, and because some states also allow people with a concealed weapons license to buy guns without background checks, the actual number of gun sales in the past decade is almost certainly higher than 150m, said Mark Oliva of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group that estimates there were at least 152m guns sales since January 2013.

At the same time, the number of background checks over the past decade will also include some double-counting of the same guns re-sold between people, said Jurgen Brauer, the co-founder of Small Arms Analytics, a firearms data company. Brauer estimates that, by the end of December, the total number of US gun sales in the past decade will reach nearly 164m.

Gun deaths have been rising in recent years, with a stark 35% increase in the nation’s firearm homicide rate in 2020, but a study that examined the pandemic surge in gun sales and increase in gun murders at the state level found no evidence of a clear association.

There were nearly 21,000 firearm homicides and more than 26,000 firearm suicides across the US in 2021, according to preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Nuh-uh.

Nuh-uh.

That is contrary to what you need to do.

What he wrote does not preclude the good regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms.

Nuh-uh.

Yes you did.

No it's not.

Your non-address of the argument continues.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton says that you are wrong. His use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

No he doesn't.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186

InfraBlue wrote:

What he says does not preclude the good regulation of the keeping and baring of arms.

True. But Alexander Hamilton's words do make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

InfraBlue wrote:

The good regulation of the militia in regard to keeping and bearing of arms is not an infringement as per the Second Amendment.

True. But Alexander Hamilton's words make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. Your proposals are blatantly unconstitutional.

InfraBlue wrote:

Wrong.

That is incorrect. It depends on the details. Some gun regulation violates the Constitution and some gun regulation does not.

That's why some gun regulation is struck down by the courts and other gun regulation is allowed by the courts.

InfraBlue wrote:

If any regulation violates the Constitution, it wouldn't be a regulation.

Nonsense.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton's use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

Nuh-uh.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186

InfraBlue wrote:

People shouldn't be able to keep certain types of arms.

OK.

But there are also certain types of arms that people have the right to possess.

For example, the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have enough firepower for effective self defense.

And the Heller ruling protects the right of people to have any gun that there is no justification for prohibiting.

InfraBlue wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton says that you are wrong. His use of the term "well-regulated" makes it very clear that "well-regulated" means that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

Nuh-uh.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0186

InfraBlue wrote:

What he says does not preclude the good regulation of the keeping and baring of arms.

True. But Alexander Hamilton's words do make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

That's what the Constitution says.

Exactly. He doesn't say I'm wrong.

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton's words make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

No they don't.

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton's words make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

No they don't.

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

Nuh-uh. Nuh-uh.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

If any regulation violates the Constitution, it wouldn't be a regulation.

Nonsense.

No it's not.

Exactly. He doesn't say I'm wrong.
Exactly. He doesn't say I'm wrong.

oralloy wrote:

Alexander Hamilton's words make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

No they don't.

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day or even a week that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labour of the country to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expence of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labour and industry to so considerable an extent would be unwise; and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured.

it's the guns, stupid...

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. The term "assault weapon" applies only if a gun is capable of full-auto.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. Your 1994 law focused on pistol grips on ordinary hunting rifles, and did not address assault weapons in any way.

InfraBlue wrote:

That is contrary to what you need to do.

I'm not a serf and you aren't my lord. You have no say over what I do or don't need.

InfraBlue wrote:

What he wrote does not preclude the good regulation of the keeping and bearing of arms.

True. But Alexander Hamilton's words do make it clear that the only thing that "good regulation" means is that the militia in question can fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

Sort of like the gears in a "well-regulated" watch all work together as a single coherent unit.

InfraBlue wrote:

Nuh-uh.

That is incorrect. The NRA continues to defend people's civil liberties. You will never be able to stop them.

InfraBlue wrote:

Yes you did.

That is incorrect. I did not paraphrase your argument.

My statement that you have mislabeled as a "paraphrase of your argument" is actually an explanation as to how your logic is catastrophically bad.

InfraBlue wrote:

No it's not.

That is incorrect. My statement that you have mislabeled as a "paraphrase of your argument" is actually an explanation as to how your logic is catastrophically bad.

Perhaps you disagree with my assessment of your logic. But that does not change the fact that my statement was an assessment of your logic, and was not a paraphrase of your argument.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your non-address of the argument continues.

That is incorrect. "Pointing out that we've already been registering guns for more than 50 years now" directly addresses "calling for us to start registering guns."