Violent crime in the US is lowest it's been in decades, FBI report shows

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

A hypothetical what-if , but I rather think that regular constitutional conventions would have tended to strengthen state sovereignty and the second amendment as it applies individually or in the context of militia in either case. The anachronism to be pruned would have been centralization.
Thus a very different country altogether -- or eventually different countries , which , I dunno , for some reason would offend or horrify those offended or horrified by Belgium or Liechtenstein.

You may be right on that point I concede; there would probably still be a significant gun lobby at each convention, but in the wake of the Civil War (which I don't see regular conventions averting, save for if the Senate is removed) I think many might have seen the benefits of a regular standing army of some bulk (as the US has today), rather than hastily improvised militias, as the Amendment allows for and supports:

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.

- The Version as Ratified by the States.

The Right to bear arms is a consequence of the militias and if no need was seen of them the right may not have stood; but I grant it could resurface as a right in itself rather than a right by necessity, as it is now (as I see it), at one of the Conventions.
I any case it couldn't hurt, the Electoral College should be on the chopping board by now. I just think people seem to heed the Constitution as a document more than the spirit of the Constitution as a principle, which I view to be a grave error. But I stray from the subject at hand.

[Sphere]

The 2nd Amendment arose out of the republican/anti-federalist fear of a standing national army.

A major factor in spurring the Revolution had been abuses of the British army stationed in the colonies. A theme which comes through loud and clear in the Declaration of Independence's list of grievances agaisnt the King;

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
...
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
...
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

And of course, the opening battles of the Revolution were sparked by the British Army trying to capture local armories and thus disarm colonial militias.

After the revolution, the national "Continental Army" was quickly disbanded. In its place was instituted the "First American Regiment" of only 700 men, which would be filled by state militia men who volunteered for 1 years service. Later in the 1780's Federalists saw the need for, and starting writing in favor of, a permanent national force independent of the state militia's (Federalists Papers #8). Despite anti-federalist opposition for any such thing, the Federalists won the argument, and creating/paying/commanding national forces was provided for in the text of the Constitution of 1789.

However, in order to get the Constitution ratified (especially in Virginia) it was more or less agreed that the first legislature elected under the new Constitution would formulate a list a amendments which would expressly curtail federal power and guarantee personal rights. This would eventually become the 10 Amendments which make up the Bill of Rights.

You can see in Amendments 2 & 3 the traditional anti-federalist concern of a standing national army. At this point some form of national army was inevitable, and indeed the first congress began setting up "regular" US army regiments. But the anti-federalists, through the Bill of Rights, wanted to make sure that it wouldn't lead to the disarming/disbanding of the militias, nor to the stationing of these new Federal troops in peoples homes.

That in a nutshell is the reason the 2nd (and the 3rd) Amendments came about.

[Gertrudius]

You're right, doubtless the US's high poverty rates when compared to other Western nations contributes to the disparity - but because the NRA/2nd Amendment Lobby is often tied to the Republican Party I don't hold out much hope that this issue will be resolved either. Please look at the following:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ghts-movement/
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013...m-deaths/4902/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...-control-laws/

So you acknowledge that more goes into creating violent crime than just guns, but then turn around and post a bunch of news articles talking about random aspects of gun control? I've read many such articles, as well as DoJ and Home Office crime statistics and peer reviewed papers, but the point is there's is not consensus. Granted, being a lay person I don't see more than a fraction of the actual data and research, but it seems invariably any paper that makes a definitive overarching conclusions, doesn't stand up well to peer review. I could go tit for tat posting articles based on academic papers that disagree with the assessments in those articles, but I have no interest in doing so. My purpose isn't to prove that guns or gun control are good or bad, it's to convince people to be wary of what they read in random articles or even selective academic papers. I'm not looking to debate you, however the level of ignorance on both sides of this issue makes it hard for me to keep my mouth shut.

The Supreme Court is correct in saying there is a right to arms (though I would raise the point about the amendment presupposing that guns will be used in militias), my point is its archaic, Jefferson's proposal for a constitutional convention every ten years to remove archaic elements makes ever more sense to me in this context.

Frankly what it should be or how it should be doesn't matter, the supreme court has reached a conclusion repeatedly on this issue, which has set the precedent for policy. Wishing it was different serves no real purpose.

Whilst a causal correlation is hard to prove, the logic seems clear to me; you never hear of a massacre committed with a knife, and if you do it's on nothing like the scale of ones committed with guns.

and that's the crux of this general problem (referring to gun crime as a whole). There are implicit "common sense" assumptions about the efficacy and affect of guns both used to commit crime and to deter it. The research isn't nearly so clear. On mass attacks, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

So you acknowledge that more goes into creating violent crime than just guns, but then turn around and post a bunch of news articles talking about random aspects of gun control?

I admit there are other factors that compound the problem, there are root causes independent of the guns, but the guns are the medium of expression (so to speak) for these general problems - and are more effective than most.

I've read many such articles, as well as DoJ and Home Office crime statistics and peer reviewed papers, but the point is there's is not consensus.

Fair point - but I wonder how much some are generated by ideology. However, that Europe (and indeed almost the whole western world outside the US) has less gun crime proportionality is widely know, this I think, constitutes proof enough.

My purpose isn't to prove that guns or gun control are good or bad, it's to convince people to be wary of what they read in random articles or even selective academic papers. I'm not looking to debate you, however the level of ignorance on both sides of this issue makes it hard for me to keep my mouth shut.

That's fair enough - I suppose one paper will always refute another, but this only really seems to be an issue of academic dispute in the US so there will be an institutionalized bias.

Frankly what it should be or how it should be doesn't matter, the supreme court has reached a conclusion repeatedly on this issue, which has set the precedent for policy. Wishing it was different serves no real purpose.

Alas you are correct. My issues with the Supreme Court (and it's incorrect interpretation in my view) as well as the wider issues of the Constitution, are of no consequence - I only hope others might raise them.
Jefferson had more foresight in this area than most it seems.

and that's the crux of this general problem (referring to gun crime as a whole). There are implicit "common sense" assumptions about the efficacy and affect of guns both used to commit crime and to deter it. The research isn't nearly so clear. On mass attacks, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

No problem. But I can't recall any mass knife murders is my point.

[Denny Crane!]

Chinese train station massacres with knives killed 29 in Kunming, Yunna and injured 140 others.

UK doesnt even have legal handguns, we have still had gun massacres and in fact gun crime is on the rise. Our last fun gun run was in my home county with a Mr Raoul Moat. Prize tosser. Switzerland on the other hand has a huge gun ownership and not so much in the way of any sort of crime.

If all we are after is a utilitarian approach there are far less barriers in the way in dealing with the other problems the USA has and lets face it, like shooting fish in a barrel finding a problem in a society that incarcerates the most people per thousand than any other country on earth I believe. It is either a fucekd up system or there is some freaky non existant biological cause at work that makes the USA more inherently crimnal and violent than the rest of the world and damn, they got to have guns then!

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Chinese train station massacres with knives killed 29 in Kunming, Yunna and injured 140 others.

That was a group of 8 individuals however - your typical US shooting is a lone-wolf (or perhaps two). You rarely hear of lone-wolf knife massacres, because it's hard for them to happen.

UK doesnt even have legal handguns, we have still had gun massacres and in fact gun crime is on the rise.

Seems to be a failure of implementation and execution rather than principle in which case, and a recent failing at that;

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. There were 0.04 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2009.

-Wikipedia

Our last fun gun run was in my home county with a Mr Raoul Moat. Prize tosser. Switzerland on the other hand has a huge gun ownership and not so much in the way of any sort of crime.

That is partly due to the conscription in Switzerland, and also with Switzerland's general prosperity.
I don't deny that high prosperity will likely reduce gun crime (but not of the massacre type, which is often more to do with psychology) and that indeed if a nation has high prosperity and good social programs you can possibly negate the negative aspects of gun control.
However in the case of the US I see little hope of some grander social policies to alleviate the effects in the near future; and so control at present seems the best course of action.

[Denny Crane!]

But how can it be a failure of implementation when we have never had large gun ownership in the UK and no history of culture or affiliation. Quite simply it is far more complex than gun ownership vs anti gun ownership. In fact this is perhaps the lesser part of the causality framework that makes events happen.

We have a low crime rate, that is to be celebrated but does that mean if someone wants a gun to do something they cant get one? Lets look at the figures:

In England and Wales violence against the person (37%) and robbery offences (26%) accounted for almost two-thirds of all firearm offences recorded by the police in 2010/11. Criminal damage offences represented 29% of all firearm offences recorded.

Maybe if America got its social policies sorted like ours were they would have a similar figure who knows. There are so many problems and counter examples to just simply put the blame on guns. Switzerland proves it can be done.

You dont see hopes of grand policy changes? Well moving away from the war on drugs would be a big one given that they are taking huge steps to the decriminalisation or outright legalisation of cannabis across many states if not on the federal level.

And you know what why should Alabama, Vermont, South Dakota or a few other states who have less gun crime per 100k than the UK be penalised because say the war on drugs has created a mass cultural change in LA or Washington DC. Doesnt make any sense.

There are a few fundamental problems that inform all other ones, picking away at the side consequences is just crazy and will be ineffective ultimately. I reckon you have more chance at getting them changed than prising guns out of American hands anyway.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

But how can it be a failure of implementation when we have never had large gun ownership in the UK and no history of culture or affiliation. Quite simply it is far more complex than gun ownership vs anti gun ownership. In fact this is perhaps the lesser part of the causality framework that makes events happen.

I do admit that it is a complex issue, and that there are more dimensions to it than just pro or anti gun; but in relation to the United States I do think that some measures of gun-control, implemented at a Federal level, are needed. The number of massacres that occur in the US is simply ridiculous, there is also a terrible number of school shootings specifically - and regularly, these crimes are often committed for psychological reasons; hence why the policy of gun control seems most appropriate at present. Is it cultural - perhaps, regardless it is a phenomena that happens all to often, when I hear some of the cases the ease with which the weapons were gained is astonishing, regulation would do nothing to worsen the situation.

We have a low crime rate, that is to be celebrated but does that mean if someone wants a gun to do something they cant get one? Lets look at the figures:

People will always slip through the net - but at least the UK has a net (some US States do I know, but not of the caliber of the UK).

Maybe if America got its social policies sorted like ours were they would have a similar figure who knows. There are so many problems and counter examples to just simply put the blame on guns. Switzerland proves it can be done.

We can venture some blame I contend - look at the disparity in gun crime between the US and Canada. Canada has both gun control and better social policies I admit, so exact determining is hard, but we know one or the other is needed - the example of Switzerland ultimately points us to better social policies as the ultimate solution, but I see few steps down that route in the case of the US.

You dont see hopes of grand policy changes?

Given the huge resistance to the relativity moderate Obamacare, no I don't. Perhaps there will be a change of heart however - all I say is until there is control remains the best idea; but again the same resistance might emerge - ultimately it depends on which nut is easier to crack.

Well moving away from the war on drugs would be a big one given that they are taking huge steps to the decriminalisation or outright legalisation of cannabis across many states if not on the federal level.

That would be, but I don't see the more Conservative elements in Congress, especially the next Congress, giving in to this. On Federal level we may see little change for a long time - it will be at a state level where most progress can be made. How large an effect will this have? I don't think it will reverse the general trends - only a grand social policy can do this - European style.

There are a few fundamental problems that inform all other ones, picking away at the side consequences is just crazy and will be ineffective ultimately. I reckon you have more chance at getting them changed than prising guns out of American hands anyway.

Perhaps - something's got to budge.

[Denny Crane!]

Well as someone living in the UK and a fair fan of the NHS I am still a huge opponent to ACA for many good and rational reasons not least of which there were a raft of simple changes that would have made healthcare cheaper for all immediately instead of ACA which has caused disruption, has not really accomplished a lot of what it set out to do and by the time it got through congress was not even the same bill it started out as. But I mean different topic.

I think all western societies are making progress on more rational social policies at least. Equality under the law for race and sexuality is largely a battle won, it is in the latter stages and the likes of the war on drugs has more supporters than opponents even if the supporters are politically entrenched. I am generally optomistic on everything except the economy. Violence even in America in the longer term has been in decline (see Steven Pinkers great talk on this) so it is not getting worse to say the least.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Well as someone living in the UK and a fair fan of the NHS I am still a huge opponent to ACA for many good and rational reasons not least of which there were a raft of simple changes that would have made healthcare cheaper for all immediately instead of ACA which has caused disruption, has not really accomplished a lot of what it set out to do and by the time it got through congress was not even the same bill it started out as. But I mean different topic.

I'm not throwing my weight behind Obamacare - I was merely saying that the fact that there was such huge backlash over any Government control of medical care bodes poorly for the creation of a US style NHS. It does not bode well for great social programmes; ones I think are needed.

I think all western societies are making progress on more rational social policies at least. Equality under the law for race and sexuality is largely a battle won, it is in the latter stages and the likes of the war on drugs has more supporters than opponents even if the supporters are politically entrenched. I am generally optomistic on everything except the economy. Violence even in America in the longer term has been in decline (see Steven Pinkers great talk on this) so it is not getting worse to say the least.

I do agree that the war on drugs seems to be the Prohibition of our time; you can see the arguments in favour but it just ain't practical. It is doomed to collapse under it's own weight. The US has made progress by legalising it in some States - but on a national scale the US lags behind the Western world in terms of social programmes. I do think progress here would bring down gun-crime; but I suspect the US will always be behind the West ​in tackling gun crime.

[[NC]Master]

Switzerland on the other hand has a huge gun ownership and not so much in the way of any sort of crime.

I really hate that so many politicians outside of switerland(esspassialy in the US bring that up) because what they don't understand is the situation, historicly and also what kind of guns that are which is higly important.

a male citicn in switzerlan has (if able) to serve 360 day's in the military. after that service the gun is eighter given back to the state or the person takes it home. mostly those guns are rifles so no small arms. All those guns are kept in check by the state and you can't sell them or walk around with them outside of military service. A person who does have the "Militärwaffe" at home has to visit a range all 2 years i believe. to use this sort of weapon in a crime would obvioulsy be very stupid. Historicly this law was pretty necessary around WW1 and 2 but today most people in switzerland just see it more as a tradition or silly law. After the service many give their weapon back to the state. The reason why the number of weapons compared to people is so high is because most of those guns are military weapons and all of those are registered.
In the US in contrast i think there is a large flow of unregistered guns which also are probably used more for crimes!
But to take Switzerland for a comperison in tems of gun laws to us or other countrys sounds pretty silly to me, since they work ina other way. Unfortunatly there are many suiceed made with firearms in switzerland.