In 2017 the US has 36 deaths per day because of guns:
https://twitter.com/GunDeaths/status/928387574015471616?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
While in the UK during 2013 there were only 0.28:
http://www.gunbabygun.com/many-people-die-end-gun-england-wales-data-examined/
US Pop. 323.1 million (2016) 5x the UK Pop. 64.13 million (2013)
Therefore 7.2 deaths per day compared to 0.28 per 64 million per day.
Or
36 deaths compared to 1.4 deaths per 323.1 million per day.
Okay, Watchman, there are several issues with your claims. First, let us examine this particular posit of evidence.
You are using two different countries, with two different years (a four year difference, too), and very different laws. So, your comparative statistics of deaths per day is immediately flawed, as it has too many inconsistencies in the variables. Thus, this stat can easily be rejected.
Also, cars kill more people than guns each year. But you are not calling for only the military and police forces to use cars. So, deaths associated with a particular inanimate object is the base of your argument, then you should be more for the banning of cars than guns.
Let us now move on to your first reply to me, as well as the subsequent clarification given to various other comments:
And the problem is the second amendment, as I have already said in this thread the US government should have amended the second amendment after there was no longer a threat from the British, and I will clarify this further by adding that more amendments could have and should have been made to reflect the changing threats to the country and to the individuals within the country but instead the US have gone on for over 300 years with the same stock ruling which is just madness and that's why there are 85+ murders a day compared to 0.01 per day in the UK.
Stats show that countries that allow the general public to have guns increases the murder rate dramatically. That is why it's okay for military and law enforcement to have guns but not he general public.
So, why would the founding fathers not have altered the second amendment after the revolution? Could it be that they knew the only way that civilians could defend themselves from tyranny was to be armed (I am being rhetorical)?
Why trust my word on it? Let us review some historical quotes from those who made the Constitution.
Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, No. 28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824: The Constitution of most of our stated (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book quoting Cesare Beccaria, 1744-1776: The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined no determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage then to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
George Mason, Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 17878: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
(I had these quotes handy, as I recently had to reply to the claim that "if the founding fathers knew how it would be today, they would not have made such a law.")
From these quotes, we can clearly see that the second amendment is about preventing tyranny and enabling the common citizen to be able to defend their lives and rights.
Lastly, you keep relating guns to crime, yet you are not examining the complete spectrum of gun use. Here are some more factual statistics for you:
Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.
(sources:
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm)
http://americangunfacts.com/
In conclusion, the founding fathers intended the amendment to be interpreted just they way they wrote it, and the way that we interpret it. So, it should not have been abolished. Guns save more lives than they take. Criminals don't obey the law, so gun laws wouldn't affect them; after all, it is illegal to commit murder, but that did not stop them, did it? Thus, guns are necessary for defense, from criminals and governments, and to abolish them would be an act of ignorance and tyranny.
lain: