Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
your response to the direct link between guns and the level of murders in a society seems to be "people kill each other anyway". that isn't borne by the facts, which is in societies with fewer guns there are fewer murders.
your mention of switzerland and hitler is not accurate. germany did not invade switzerland because of the need to use its banking system. it was switzerland's financial staus, not its military ability, that protected it from invasion.
in fact, there are close to twice a many guns per capita in the usa than there is in switzerland. guess what? there is close to twice as many murders per capita in the usa than in switzerland as well.
yes, more guns equate to more murders, more senseless loss of life.
guns need to be regulated, and the scotus opinion says that is legal.
|
Hitler very specifically said that he did not invade Switzerland because:
1)it would be too expensive in loss of life
2)it was a small country that he thought he could surround and starve into submission
You can't rewrite history.
The SCOTUS opinion says that guns can be regulated. It also says that such regulations cannot eliminate the guns. It ruled that the laws of Washington DC were unconstitutional because the regulations removed the reasonable ownership and use of the weapons. So, you can't regulate them into non existence. That is what the SCOTUS decision said.
And, it said a lot of other things as well. It said definitively that the Second Amendment protected the right of the private individual to own and bear and use firearms. The right can be regulated but it cannot be regulated into non existence of the ability to own, bear, and use the weapons.