America - The Official Thread

[Touring Mars]

Another terrible tragedy befalls innocent children and their families in America.

-

It's a truly sick situation when certain people make tens of millions of dollars by peddling conspiracy theorist garbage - even about a massacre of school children - while absolutely nothing gets done to stop such massacres from happening again and again.

Frankly, there is no way that America will resolve this conundrum, but it adds insult to terrible injury to know that not only will horrific incidents like this never stop, but that there are also plenty of people ready, willing and able to exploit such tragedies in order to enrich themselves, even if their words and actions actively foment further paranoia, violence and a complete disregard for other people and even the truth itself.

-

The whole bit is still on point today, but this was in 1996.

And yet some people still consider George Carlin a mere comedian.

 

[Blitz24]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again even though I’ll get flamed for it, nobody really wants this to stop. Every time this happens it’s a cycle, people yell at each other, maybe throw a little protest but at the end of the day will continue voting for the same Republicans that don’t even pretend to care about rights and Democrats that aren’t fit to manage a laundromat.

This what a 2-party “lesser of two evils” race to the bottom system looks like. Enjoy it America because no matter what letter is next to your name the blood is on all of our hands.

100% correct. It won't end until one party grows a spine and moves to make it end. Too bad one party actively wants this and the other party is too incompetent to do anything about it.

 

[Danoff]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again even though I’ll get flamed for it, nobody really wants this to stop.

You're wrong.

Every time this happens it’s a cycle, people yell at each other, maybe throw a little protest but at the end of the day will continue voting for the same Republicans that don’t even pretend to care about rights and Democrats that aren’t fit to manage a laundromat.

You don't understand.

This what a 2-party “lesser of two evils” race to the bottom system looks like.

I think we're somewhat beyond that.

Enjoy it America because no matter what letter is next to your name the blood is on all of our hands.

It isn't. You're responsible for what you do. You're not responsible for what others do.

 

[Joey D]

This is the America thread and the statement was about the USA.

It wasn't about America though. The statement very clearly said that these types of tragedies only happen in America, which isn't correct. It happens in many places even though it does happen in the US more often. That was the point, that's all. There wasn't a hidden agenda in my statement and I'm not excusing mass shootings by any stretch of the imagination.

It really shouldn't matter at all what happens in other countries, one school shooting should be enough to change the laws. Those that are against strict weapons laws have the blood of these kids on their hands. They made it possible.

It matters when there's a statement that says this only happens in America.

But how do you propose we change the laws? You can't ban guns and making certain guns illegal will just increase the number of illegal guns or change the weapons that are used. Stricter gun laws, for the most part, end up punishing law-abiding gun owners who don't go on mass shooting rampages. If you really want to solve the violence problem, you need to figure out what's causing it in the first place. Someone hellbent on killing is going to kill. We've seen it time and time again. And when someone doesn't have access to a weapon, they end up using a car to just drive through a crowd of people.

I personally think it needs to start with mental healthcare, but there's more to it than that. Enacting legislation using emotion doesn't work and whenever a tragedy like this happens, you have people calling for laws based on emotion instead of actual data, such as banning certain guns outright based on how they look. Unfortunately, the US government is more concerned about making the opposing party out to be the bad guy instead of working together to actually solve problems. Congress could do something, but they won't. Hell President Biden could do something, but he gets up in front of the nation and gives an impassioned speech that amounts to thoughts and prayers.

In addition to fixing and destigmatizing mental healthcare, things like universal background checks would help (most gun owners support this), requiring background checks for private sale, creating a database of registered guns, and rooting out ghost guns would certainly all help in my opinion. But I'm curious what would you do?

 

[TheCracker]

 

[UKMikey]

I think these guys are suggesting the PLCAA needs looking at.

Gun Industry Immunity

Universal background checks save lives from gun violence.

giffords.org

 

[Joey D]

Gun Industry Immunity

Universal background checks save lives from gun violence.

giffords.org

I can understand the logic behind the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act being overturned, but I can also see it becoming a precedent we don't want. Think about if someone uses a Chevy Tahoe to drive through a group of protesters, should GM be held liable over that? I'm not sure what it's like in other areas of the world when it comes to lawsuits but the US is an incredibly litigious society and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of predatory lawfirms just looking for a chance to sue. It could even go as far as people suing places like McDonald's because they got heart disease from living purely on Big Macs. Changing a law like PLCAA needs to be part of a larger change in both the culture and how the courts function.

Targeting gun sellers who don't follow the current laws would certainly help though. While I'm guessing most reputable, big-name dealers like Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop follow the laws, the smaller shops are probably a bit looser. When I bought my handgun, I was told they did a background check, but I'm not sure if they really did or not. If it's found out that a dealer sold a gun to someone that shouldn't have been able to purchase it, then they definitely should have criminal and civil charges brought against them. I would say the same for a car dealer that sold a vehicle to someone that shouldn't have it either.

The case of the school shooting in Michigan is also a step in the right direction by holding the parents responsible as well. That needs to be done more and if we find out that the shooter in Uvalde had someone purchase the gun for him or allowed him access to it, they should be held responsible as well since they are accessories to several counts of first-degree murder and domestic terrorism.

 

[Danoff]

I've said it before in the guns thread, and I'll re-iterate here. The first step toward fixing this problem in America is for schools to ban backpacks, a heavy coat check at the front door, and metal detectors.

Security is still lax at schools. I don't know why that's tolerated. Kids are getting shot but people want to cry about trying to change the constitution. The 2nd amendment is not going to get changed. It would require enormous support in congress, beyond what basically everyone alive has ever seen. Or it would require a heavy left supreme court. It's not happening, and as long as people continue to pretend that that's what's going to solve the problem, kids will keep getting shot. It's not the right solution either.

There are steps schools can, and should, take. Today, right now.

Longer term, we need to find and help these kids better and faster. Mental health still sucks in the US. We need to make it harder to sell guns, especially at trade shows. We need to require basic training and handling and mental screening before someone can purchase a gun (a license).

But tomorrow schools can ban backpacks.


...and yes, I realize that banning backpacks would not have stopped this latest one. From what I can tell, he was able to gain access by shooting a security guard. My kids' school is better locked up than that. Schools can do better than that.

 

[UKMikey]

I can understand the logic behind the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act being overturned, but I can also see it becoming a precedent we don't want. Think about if someone uses a Chevy Tahoe to drive through a group of protesters, should GM be held liable over that? I'm not sure what it's like in other areas of the world when it comes to lawsuits but the US is an incredibly litigious society and there are hundreds, if not thousands, of predatory lawfirms just looking for a chance to sue. It could even go as far as people suing places like McDonald's because they got heart disease from living purely on Big Macs. Changing a law like PLCAA needs to be part of a larger change in both the culture and how the courts function.

Targeting gun sellers who don't follow the current laws would certainly help though. While I'm guessing most reputable, big-name dealers like Cabela's or Bass Pro Shop follow the laws, the smaller shops are probably a bit looser. When I bought my handgun, I was told they did a background check, but I'm not sure if they really did or not. If it's found out that a dealer sold a gun to someone that shouldn't have been able to purchase it, then they definitely should have criminal and civil charges brought against them. I would say the same for a car dealer that sold a vehicle to someone that shouldn't have it either.

The case of the school shooting in Michigan is also a step in the right direction by holding the parents responsible as well. That needs to be done more and if we find out that the shooter in Uvalde had someone purchase the gun for him or allowed him access to it, they should be held responsible as well since they are accessories to several counts of first-degree murder and domestic terrorism.

I don't think this article is talking about overturning it completely. With Travieso v. Glock Inc. they talk about how that particular shooting was a volitional act by the 14-year-old shooter even though it was unintentional and discuss measures intended to limit such shootings. I don't know how constitutional or unconstitutional this would be, or how effective.

Also as I understand it Chevy Tahoes have certain restrictions that prevent unauthorised access by children and young teens which guns don't. I guess this comes down to the smart gun idea again. They also require training before they can be legally used.

None of those address illegal guns but the link I posted previously suggests those weapons are more likely to flow from states with weaker gun laws.

Just attempting to summarise the articles, I'm trying not to take a strong position on this as my knowledge of the relevant legislation is pretty weak.

 

[Exorcet]

There are steps schools can, and should, take. Today, right now.

Longer term, we need to find and help these kids better and faster. Mental health still sucks in the US. We need to make it harder to sell guns, especially at trade shows. We need to require basic training and handling before someone can purchase a gun (a license).

I also really want to see a push for smart guns. The technology has existed for a while, it should be widespread by this point. The faster it becomes the norm the faster it can evolve and improve. That, more careful screening of gun sales/transfer, and better mental health should curb the problem.

 

[Danoff]

It is not outside of our control to make schools far safer. And until people focus on that, specifically, kids are going to keep getting shot. It's mind boggling to me why people keep screaming at the sky and pretending that politicians can wave a magic wand when the door is wide open and angry violent kids are walking in unchecked every day.

My kindergartener does active shooter drills. It started before that, at pre-school. You could not gain access to my kids' pre-school or their elementary school the way this guy did. The doors are heavy and locked while the school is in session. There was a botched shooting in California that failed to get past that kind of security. But it could be quite a bit safer still. There are still obvious vulnerabilities that would not require a whole lot of effort to address. But it is worth the effort.

No, let's complain about the NRA some more. That'll fix it.

My kids schlep home huge backpacks full of paper that they do not under any circumstances need to move between school and home. It's pure insanity. My 60 lb kid has a 20 lb pack on her full of stuff that just goes back and forth. I try to push to take stuff out and she insists that she simply cannot remove any of that paper. Backpacks are a tool that most school shooters (including this latest one) use to transport guns and ammo into the school. They're totally unnecessary.

 

[Joey D]

I don't think this article is talking about overturning it completely. With Travieso v. Glock Inc. they talk about how that particular shooting was a volitional act by the 14-year-old shooter even though it was unintentional and discuss measures intended to limit such shootings. I don't know how constitutional or unconstitutional this would be, or how effective.

Ah ok, that makes sense and yes, I believe in the cases of Travieso v. Glock Inc. it would've been justified for a lawsuit against the manufacturer. I'm not sure if Glock would've won or not though, but given how other industries have fared due to lack of safety I could see them losing overall.

Also as I understand it Chevy Tahoes have certain restrictions that prevent unauthorised access by children and young teens which guns don't. I guess this comes down to the smart gun idea again.

I 100% support smart guns and wish the technology was more readily available for the general public. If I could have grips on my handgun that could identify my biometrics and would only allow me to use it, I'd be all for it. I mean for god sake we have smart everything now, from toothbrushes to TVs so there's no reason we can't have a smart gun. It could also have a system like LoJack on it where if the weapon was stolen it could be remotely deactivated. Obviously, all systems can be bypassed, but if it becomes more trouble than it's worth to bypass it, criminals will likely think twice.

No, let's complain about the NRA some more. That'll fix it.

Can I still complain about the NRA and how utterly useless they are? I'm strongly anti-lobby, but I'm especially anti-NRA since they don't have responsible gun owners' interests in mind. All the NRA wants is money and politicians only listen to them because they're bribed get donations to do so. I mean we know that the NRA has committed fraud and misappropriated money, yet people still donate to them in droves and that baffles me...ok it doesn't baffle me because people also donate to fascism in droves too.

 

[Danoff]

Obviously, all systems can be bypassed, but if it becomes more trouble than it's worth to bypass it, criminals will likely think twice.

A smart gun would probably be safer than whatever you have in your home. But it's not going to solve this particular problem. Ignoring, for a moment, the gazillions of non-smart guns in circulation in the US, the kid in this case purchased his guns when he turned 18. They'd be biometrically registered to him.

Can I still complain about the NRA and how utterly useless they are?

By all means, the NRA is horrible.

 

[Exorcet]

A smart gun would probably be safer than whatever you have in your home. But it's not going to solve this particular problem. Ignoring, for a moment, the gazillions of non-smart guns in circulation in the US, the kid in this case purchased his guns when he turned 18. They'd be biometrically registered to him.

Potentially we can make the gun capable of more than just recognizing an owner. I've mentioned location tracking guns before. I don't know if any manufacturer has seriously pursued the idea, but they could help prevent shootings even with legally purchased guns. One idea is that you might buy a gun for home defense specifically and this gun wouldn't work outside of your home. If someone were to buy a gun with gun reason but later become unstable this could deter or at least delay their plans. Or you might use a gun for sport that locks itself at times when it's unlikely to be in use.

Some of these are probably more feasible than others, but I'm sure something could be figured out. Pre existing dumb guns are also an issue but I'd like to think we could get the support of well meaning gun owners in re balancing the population to a degree.

 

[Danoff]

Potentially we can make the gun capable of more than just recognizing an owner. I've mentioned location tracking guns before. I don't know if any manufacturer has seriously pursued the idea, but they could help prevent shootings even with legally purchased guns. One idea is that you might buy a gun for home defense specifically and this gun wouldn't work outside of your home. If someone were to buy a gun with gun reason but later become unstable this could deter or at least delay their plans. Or you might use a gun for sport that locks itself at times when it's unlikely to be in use.

Some of these are probably more feasible than others, but I'm sure something could be figured out. Pre existing dumb guns are also an issue but I'd like to think we could get the support of well meaning gun owners in re balancing the population to a degree.

Like we got the support of those same people to put on masks during a respiratory pandemic?

GPS takes a lot of battery, especially if you want it to check frequently where it is. I guess I need a new gun safe with usb ports.

In a word where smart guns shut themselves down at schools, and dumb guns are no longer in circulation in general including at trade shows, and smart guns could not be jailbroken or hacked to work where they're not supposed to, I could see it getting in the way of some would-be shooters. Hopefully not police responders.

Every school should be working on security. Including mine.

 

[GBO Possum]

In America, it's pretty much true that if an action is "legal", it no longer matters that it's "morally reprehensible".

So to get around the inconvenient "moral" issue, laws are created which eliminate that inconvenience.

 

[Exorcet]

Every school should be working on security. Including mine.

Yes, smart guns aren't an alternative to that. They're an additional layer of security.

Like we got the support of those same people to put on masks during a respiratory pandemic?

I know there will be those who will oppose the technology, but when it's basically at 0% of the gun population it has no where to go but up. I also think with time, the acceptance will grow which is why it's important to get the technology into the world sooner.

GPS takes a lot of battery, especially if you want it to check frequently where it is. I guess I need a new gun safe with usb ports.

Until the technology is mature I don't think they should be mandatory. If you're worried about the reliability or complexity of the system, and it's right to be in a matter of life and death, then don't get one.

If I were to buy a gun I'd want a smart system. In my situation the primary reason for owning a gun would be recreation. Security might also play a part but I could go my entirely life without needing to rely on the gun for that.

In a word where smart guns shut themselves down at schools, and dumb guns are no longer in circulation in general including at trade shows, and smart guns could not be jailbroken or hacked to work where they're not supposed to, I could see it getting in the way of some would-be shooters. Hopefully not police responders.

They don't need to be perfect to make a difference. Something as simple as a door lock can vastly improve the security of your house just by slightly raising the bar for unwanted entry. I think for sure it will take a number of years for smart guns to have a noticeable effect, but again that's why I want them in production now.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, smart guns aren't an alternative to that. They're an additional layer of security.

In theory, with a lot of pretty extreme assumptions.

 

[Exorcet]

In theory, with a lot of pretty extreme assumptions.

Hopefully my edit addresses some of that, if you did not see it. I realize that smart guns won't fix things over night, but there doesn't seem to be a downside in developing the technology in the long run. I suppose lawmakers might try to force a shift in technology while that technology is still immature and cause problems that way. That's something to look out for, but it doesn't have to be an insurmountable problem.

 

[UKMikey]

Iron Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems reasonable to me that if states with weaker gun laws have three times the gun deaths per capita of those with stronger laws as per my earlier link, then the former should be looking at what the latter seems to be doing to bring those figures down rather than throwing up one's hands and saying "illegal guns are everywhere".

 

[Blitz24]

Iron Pipeline - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems reasonable to me that if states with weaker gun laws have three times the gun deaths per capita of those with stronger laws that the former should be looking at what the latter seems to be doing to bring those figures down rather than throwing up one's hands and saying "illegal guns are everywhere".

Looks at the list of the 10 states mentioned and sees Florida and Texas.

Well, that was a good 5 minute read to determine nothing can happen there.

 

[Danoff]

Hopefully my edit addresses some of that, if you did not see it. I realize that smart guns won't fix things over night, but there doesn't seem to be a downside in developing the technology in the long run. I suppose lawmakers might try to force a shift in technology while that technology is still immature and cause problems that way. That's something to look out for, but it doesn't have to be an insurmountable problem.

Every tiny step toward better safety with guns can be helpful. A trigger lock, a gun safe, a biometric gun, a GPS gun. All of it can be helpful.

Looking at this specific situation, a gun safe, trigger lock, and biometric security would not have helped (similarly for some other school shootings and mass shootings such as Vegas). The reason is because the shooter purchased his guns as an adult (the moment he became one).

GPS in a smart gun (I'm not sure if that exists), seems seriously problematic from a lot of perspectives. One is battery life. Another is signal access, does the gun lock when it can't figure out where it is? If that's true, your gun stops working in a parking garage or under a bridge. If it's not true, how do you stop people from covering or breaking their gps antenna on their gun to prevent the GPS from getting lock when it goes onto school grounds? I'm sure that's not an impossible technical problem, but it is challenging, and I don't know that we have perfect solutions to it today.

If we could make it work perfectly (big assumption), yes GPS would help. But we still have this enormous problem of millions and millions of guns in circulation (and being sold) which are not smart. Guns don't really wear out, as I'm sure you know. I mean, yes, technically they do. I have a double-barreled shotgun that is so old that a piece of it cracked off the last time it was fired, which was probably a century ago. But for the most part, guns get used infrequently and just last forever - which is why there are so many of them circulating. @UKMikey's iron pipeline link is another reason.

Until we address that, the tiny security improvement from newly purchased smart guns seems like a drop in the bucket. I agree that in theory, over a long period, it might eventually take over and make a big difference, and it's worthy of working on.

 

[kjeldsen]

It wasn't about America though. The statement very clearly said that these types of tragedies only happen in America, which isn't correct. It happens in many places even though it does happen in the US more often. That was the point, that's all. There wasn't a hidden agenda in my statement and I'm not excusing mass shootings by any stretch of the imagination.

It matters when there's a statement that says this only happens in America.

But how do you propose we change the laws? You can't ban guns and making certain guns illegal will just increase the number of illegal guns or change the weapons that are used. Stricter gun laws, for the most part, end up punishing law-abiding gun owners who don't go on mass shooting rampages. If you really want to solve the violence problem, you need to figure out what's causing it in the first place. Someone hellbent on killing is going to kill. We've seen it time and time again. And when someone doesn't have access to a weapon, they end up using a car to just drive through a crowd of people.

I personally think it needs to start with mental healthcare, but there's more to it than that. Enacting legislation using emotion doesn't work and whenever a tragedy like this happens, you have people calling for laws based on emotion instead of actual data, such as banning certain guns outright based on how they look. Unfortunately, the US government is more concerned about making the opposing party out to be the bad guy instead of working together to actually solve problems. Congress could do something, but they won't. Hell President Biden could do something, but he gets up in front of the nation and gives an impassioned speech that amounts to thoughts and prayers.

In addition to fixing and destigmatizing mental healthcare, things like universal background checks would help (most gun owners support this), requiring background checks for private sale, creating a database of registered guns, and rooting out ghost guns would certainly all help in my opinion. But I'm curious what would you do?

It's very very easy,

Ban the guns

Without guns it's only the illegal weapons that are circulating. Those caught with a illegal weapon moves directly into jail for 5 years. Suddenly weapons will disappear from everyday life and those with a "mental" problem won't have easy access to weapons. "Those that want to kill will kill anyway", that is the weakest excuse there is, in other countries when someone wants to kill "anyway" they don't succeed in killing 19! children they way they do in the USA.

And there isn't a bad party, just politicians that should never have been elected, if they don't want to ban guns, they are part of the problem.

 

[Danoff]

It's very very easy,

Ban the guns

Cannot be done in the US because of the second amendment. Also causes other problems, but that's beside the point.

Without guns it's only the illegal weapons that are circulating.

And there are and would be a lot in the US. Especially among the crowd that is calling for a civil war over having to wear masks. They'll take this news in stride I'm sure.

Your entire post is completely unhelpful, unrealistic, and if it's our plan, more kids are going to get killed. Thanks for playing.

 

[kjeldsen]

Cannot be done in the US because of the second amendment. Also causes other problems, but that's beside the point.

And there are and would be a lot in the US. Especially among the crowd that is calling for a civil war over having to wear masks. They'll take this news in stride I'm sure.

Your entire post is completely unhelpful, unrealistic, and if it's our plan, more kids are going to get killed. Thanks for playing.

Politicians that doesn't plan on going to hell would change the second amendment, it has no place in a modern world, its from a time when slavery was accepted!

 

[Danoff]

Politicians that doesn't plan on going to hell would change the second amendment, it has no place in a modern world,

They cannot do it, and if they did somehow do it, January 6th would look very much like a warmup, and school shootings would not stop.

its from a time when slavery was accepted!

So is calculus.

You're completely missing the problem.

 

[Joey D]

It's very very easy,

Ban the guns

Without guns it's only the illegal weapons that are circulating. Those caught with a illegal weapon moves directly into jail for 5 years. Suddenly weapons will disappear from everyday life and those with a "mental" problem won't have easy access to weapons. "Those that want to kill will kill anyway", that is the weakest excuse there is, in other countries when someone wants to kill "anyway" they don't succeed in killing 19! children they way they do in the USA.

And there isn't a bad party, just politicians that should never have been elected, if they don't want to ban guns, they are part of the problem.

Banning guns is not legal nor possible in the US. It's not realistic either, nor does it address the issue. There are millions of guns in the US and millions of responsible gun owners who've never committed a crime with their firearm. Why should those people be branded criminals just because they happen to own a tool? I have several guns, I don't go around killing anyone and I'm not giving them up because I want to protect my family, I don't trust the police to do anything, and I want to be able to hunt occasionally.

It's also completely false that in other countries they don't succeed in killing the same way they kill in the US either. In 2015, 148 students were killed in Kenya, in 2016, 22 were killed in Pakistan, 18 were killed in India in 2004, and 17 were killed in Germany in 2002. Violence against students isn't anything new and taking away the guns won't change that.

 

[Danoff]

To put it bluntly, if somehow, despite impossible odds, the US were to remove the 2nd amendment, it would cause many deaths due to gun violence.

 

[Famine]

It's very very easy,

Ban the guns

It depends if you want to solve violence, or if you only want to solve violence that uses guns.

According to the current stats of violent crime and murder, the USA has more of it not involving firearms than any other developed country, and then twice as much violent crime and murder on top of that involving firearms (although we need to bear in mind that a chunk of the murder - actually "homicide" - is suicide; a gun is more likely to be used to kill the person holding it than any other person).

To put it another way, if all guns vanished from the USA overnight, it would still have more violent crime and more murder and at a higher rate than any other developed country (it's likely that it will increase, as perpetrators no longer have to fear that their victim has a gun).

The guns absolutely make it easier to do a violence, and to do more violence, but they don't cause the violence - and the violence is the problem.


You could probably reduce deaths by 60% by magically making all guns disappear (and school shootings by almost 100% of course), but simply banning them won't have anywhere near the same effect.

The illegally held (and illegal) guns currently held by criminals go nowhere, while the legally held ones held by not-criminals (there is also an overlap here; some legally held ones are held by people who use them to become criminals) all go into police lockups... where they'll never possibly ever go walkabout and end up in the hands of criminals because the police in the US are all saints as we know.

That leads to a massive imbalance wherein people who break the law can continue to do so without any fear of being fired upon by those they are victimising, and those who don't break the law have to wait for the police to turn up... wherein they probably get killed by the police they've called, especially if they happen to be black.

Also, as per @Danoff's point, you would see a straight up civil war, and in many cases the gun nuts not only outnumber the police, they include the police. There's simply not enough National Guard or indeed armed forces to deal with it.


Logistically, banning guns in the US would also require a Second Amendment amendment to be tabled, passed by 66% of the House, passed by 66% of the Senate, and then ratified by 75% (38 of 50) of the States - likely by their Governors - and most of the required votes in all three cases would come from people petrified of the above result. Good luck.


I do wholeheartedly agree that there are a great many firearms in the possession of a great many people who shouldn't be wielding anything more dangerous than a ballpoint pen. That has a slightly different solution.

Just for fun, it might interest you to know that your home country has nearly one licensed civilian firearm for every ten people, and your neighbours to the north have nearly one for every three people. Yet both have among the lowest rates of gun violence and general violence - lower than the UK, which has one licensed civilian firearm for every 15 people (and actually only 150k people have a firearm licence at all).

 

[GBO Possum]

The 2nd amendment is essentially in conflict with the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence.

Like the other principles in the Declaration of Independence, this phrase is not legally binding, but has been widely referenced and seen as an inspiration for the basis of government. It's more of a "moral aspiration", which can be ignored.