The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

[Dr. Shades]

I still don't see what you mean, since if I was that kid and lived in a high-crime neighbourhood and if I did press my magic button to change to a US-level of gun availability, everybody else (hence lots of criminals) would have lots of guns and ammunition too. So how would I gain anything?

In that scenario, you probably wouldn't.

I note that my capitalised question about exactly what benefits I would get from suddenly having a US-level of gun availability in my society remains unanswered.

Your country would probably be far less likely to be invaded.

[Chap]

I still don't see what you mean, since if I was that kid and lived in a high-crime neighbourhood and if I did press my magic button to change to a US-level of gun availability, everybody else (hence lots of criminals) would have lots of guns and ammunition too. So how would I gain anything?

In that scenario, you probably wouldn't.

I note that my capitalised question about exactly what benefits I would get from suddenly having a US-level of gun availability in my society remains unanswered.

Your country would probably be far less likely to be invaded.

Every decision in life and politics is a balance of costs and benefits. I have to consider:

1. What is the probability that an enemy (let's say Russia, since it is the only plausible one) might launch a large-scale invasion of (say) the UK? The following factors are relevant:

• (a) In order to do so, they would have to conduct an opposed amphibious landing on a large scale.
  (b) In order to have a suitable base to launch this amphibious operation, they would have had to conquer large parts of France and other countries on the continent of Europe.
  (c) An invasion of the UK could only be considered in the context of a general war with NATO, of which the UK and the other countries of Europe are members.

Result: The chance of an enemy launching a large scale invasion of the UK in the foreseeable future is very small indeed.

2. Supposing such a land invasion was, against all probability, to take place, what is the probability that a number of untrained and unorganised civilian gun owners would prove to be a significant factor (compared to the military) in opposing it?

Result: From even the small amount of military training I have undergone, I'd say negligibly small.

3. What is the probability that modifying the society I live in (where gun ownership is rare, and by no means easy to arrange, and certainly excludes the possession of military style weapons) to something like the US model would have major negative consequences in terms of firearms causing deaths amongst the population that would not otherwise have taken place?

Result: From the most casual comparison of US and UK crime and morality statistics, I'd say pretty large.

So: negligible and hypothetical benefits, and a pretty well guaranteed downside in adopting the US model of gun availability.

The conclusion is obvious. And what is more, the conclusion is so very obvious that for the life of me I cannot that you meant your suggestion to be taken seriously.

[Physics Guy]

Yeah, how the heck is widespread civilian gun ownership supposed to deter invasion of First-World countries today? Suppose an enemy has somehow been able to defeat the British Army, the Royal Navy, and the RAF. Or, say, the entire US armed forces including the Marine Corps.

So now these hypothetical modern-day Viking invaders are rampaging through the cities and countryside. A bunch of disorganised civilians with thousands of different models of weapons and limited ammunition supply are somehow going to be a serious problem for a force that has just demolished the world's most powerful and modern militaries?

Are these invaders even going to have been deterred at all by those extra armed civilians they'll face after military victory? This enemy would be gung-ho to roll the dice with the armoured divisions, but Billy-Bob with his trusty AR-15, ooo, he scares them?

If it really works that way, then go for it. Defund and disband the armed forces. Save the cash. Who needs a nuclear fleet when you've got ten million good ol' boys with their squirrel guns?

[Chap]

I agree with Physics Guy.

I have a lot of respect and gratitude for Dr Shades' achievements as founder of this board. But I do have the impression that he sometimes posts off the cuff, and that he is not very interested in explaining or justifying his views.

[honorentheos]

I don't know that they are off the cuff so much as regurgitation of the fear-based marketing of firearms in the US.

Crime? Foreign invaders? We live in terrifying times (probably due to people forgetting about God, apple pie being decried as too carb-y, and baseball being too boring to be the national pastime.) Everything everywhere that feels safe or familiar-ish in memory is under attack. You love your country and everything the flag stands for because you stand up for the flag, right? Well the Federal Government is trying to ruin your country and too busy forcing kids to learn how "evil white people" are to blame for everything, and they openly describe you as deplorable! They want to take your money and give it to welfare queens who just breed more takers who grow up to be criminals and hate people like you! They want condoms in school bathrooms and rapey boys allowed in girls restrooms because they "chose" to be a girl that day. Those clouds you see on the horizon? That's trouble and it's moving towards us faster than you think. The Bible says in the last days a child brought up in the ways of the Lord will be a blessing to their nation or something. We don't know but it sounds like something the Bible says so its as good as the word of God thank you very much. When the end times kick off, you need your lamp lit and your house in order. Teach that child to defend themselves and stand shoulder to shoulder with you in keeping your family safe until Jesus finally ends all those evil nasty people once and for all!

[Gunnar]

Given the comparatively bad and still worsening situation in the US due to gun violence and mass shootings, it is sheer insanity to continue to deny that the downsides of too easy availability of guns and too lax regulations on who may purchase and own guns are far, far worse than the real or imagined downsides of reasonable and strictly enforced regulations on firearms and their use and ownership. And no one, as yet, has come even close to reasonably answering Chap's question of how he or his fellow UK citizens would be any better off or safer if his country adopted the same attitudes and lax regulatory standards towards guns that prevail in our country.

Please consider honestly what former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, (described as a rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon) had to say about the 2nd Amendment:

“If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn’t be any such thing as the Second Amendment…. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word “fraud,” on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia—if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn’t 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It’s got to be registered, that you can’t just deal with at will. … I don’t want to get sued for slander, but I repeat that they [the NRA] have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see—and I am a gun man. I have guns. I’ve been a hunter ever since I was a boy.”’

[Chap]

And no one, as yet, has come even close to reasonably answering Chap's question of how he or his fellow UK citizens would be any better off or safer if his country adopted the same attitudes and lax regulatory standards towards guns that prevail in our country.

No-one has even made a serious attempt to answer it, so far as I have have noticed.

[Gunnar]

No-one has even made a serious attempt to answer it, so far as I have have noticed.

I agree!

[Kukulkan]

No-one has even made a serious attempt to answer it, so far as I have have noticed.

The UK will never be safe as long as mushy peas exist.

All kidding aside, I don't think the UK would be made safer with a large proliferation of guns. I think the U.S. is stuck in this weird loop that because there is such a large proliferation of guns that are used in violent crime, it makes sense to own a gun for self-defense. It is simultaneously creating the problem and solving the problem at the same time. I think many gun owners cringe at the idea of their legal guns being taken away and being at the mercy of armed criminals, whether the threat is truly there or not. I can sympathize with that. As a gun owner myself, it gives me peace of mind that if I hear a crash in the middle of the night and someone is breaking into my house, I have a weapon I can use to defend myself and my family knowing that the chance of the person robbing me is probably armed.

[Physics Guy]

Conversely, though, an American home invader may only be bringing a gun because he's afraid that if he accidentally breaks into a house with people in it then the homeowner will start a gunfight. Taking people's stuff is profitable, after all, but killing random civilians has no payoff. Instead it brings more police attention and a heavier potential punishment. If you're not worried about having to shoot it out with people you're trying to rob, you might as well avoid the risk of an armed robbery rap and skip the gun.

Looked at from the criminals' point of view, I think you could also say that most criminals only need guns because so many law-abiding citizens have them.