Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 9th, 2022, 11:49 am
Gee wrote: ↑June 7th, 2022, 4:58 pm
You are implying that IF gun policy were changed, then there would no longer be a "few men running around firing their personally owned guns". IF "drastic measures are taken to control gun ownership" no one will be killed with a gun! Wonderful! All we have to do to accomplish this is to trash the Constitution.
Perhaps your Constitution need not be "trashed", but only updated in the light of changes in our world since it was written?
Gun deaths and injuries are more common in the USA than in most other countries, some of which also allow private gun ownership, but without the problems that seem to beset America. Changes to your Constitution might improve matters, but it looks to me like more fundamental, and wholly cultural, changes might achieve the best effects?
"Changes to your Constitution might improve matters?" Might
? Are you seriously suggesting that we change the foundation of our government because it might
solve the problem? Would you change the foundation of your house because it might make things better? What if it made things worse?
Back when I was studying law, there was a case that came up in California in the 1960's or 1970's. It was about a man who admittedly beat his wife with the express purpose of making her miscarry her pregnancy. Apparently the wife had told him that she was getting a divorce and explained that she was going to take half of his business, his money, his home, and was then going to make him pay for the support of her child for 18 to 20 years -- as was her legal right. He didn't like it, so in order to mitigate his damages, he beat her until she miscarried, saving himself 18 to 20 years of support payments. Apparently, he seriously doubted that the child was his, and had no intention of paying for it for a third of his lifetime. DNA testing might have released him from that responsibility, but maybe not as they were married at the time of conception. Different laws are written differently.
The police were called and he admitted his crime, but to their surprise, they could not charge him with anything more than assault. There was no law against killing a fetus. This would never do! The California legislature called an emergency session and wrote a law to ensure that a fetus would be protected and this could never happen again. Problem solved. Right?
Then the real trouble started; doctors and hospitals started refusing medical treatment to many pregnant women. Some pregnant women died. Why? Because doctors did not mind if they were sued because they made a mistake, but they were damned reluctant to go to prison for murder if they made a mistake and a fetus died. The law has since been changed, and changed, and changed, and there is still no resolution as to the rights of the woman, the man, the fetus, and the community -- as is evidenced by the recent Supreme Court activities regarding abortion.
It is not a good idea, nor is it wise to change laws because they "might" solve a problem. Nor is it a good idea to change laws because they need "updating" because of "changes in our world" since the laws were written. The Books of Law in the Old Testament of the Bible treats causing the death of a fetus as a civil act, not a criminal act, and those laws are thousands of years old, but still relevant.