All my life I have been listening to the excuse, that the US had to be flooded with weapons, because if a dictator ever came to power, these weapons were the guarantee that the people could defend the US against the dictator.
They did not.
They voted for him.
When the Constitution was written, each state had its militias - there would be no national militias or standing armies. Stupidiest thing they ever considered good policy. The War of 1812 was an embarrassing disaster.
Come the American Civil War, all the state millitias were reordered into standing armies anyway.
The Second Amendment should have been abolished at that point and the entire constitution should have been rewritten at war's end.
@tuban_muzuru and I suppose now arms industry interests guarantee that a change to the 2nd amendment will never come.
I could understand how this could continue in a vacuum, but the US exists right next to Canada — the counter example is right there, next door — and still a majority of US citizens cannot seem to figure out why people die of gun violence.
Here's what I know about constraints n markets - the obstacles define the parameters of the market. We don't think twice about requiring insurance on autos and licenses on drivers - as varies risk, so must vary regulation. Too much regulation is entirely possible, but we'll let the actuaries work all that out.
The largest cohort of people who die by handgun are middle aged white men committing suicide with their own weapons.
That would be the net effect, over time. All these people, pro- or anti-gun - are missing the best argument of all -
As varies risk, so must vary regulation. Cars are risky, so we make people get licenses and now we make people purchase insurance. We regulate the food supply, nobody wants rat shit in the peanut butter.
So people have the right to own guns and society at large has the right to oblige risk creators to get insurance.
Randahl Fink
tuban_muzuru