As gun control is not possible...

As another user mentions, priorities and values have to shift.

Frenetic Zetetic wrote: I'm really not trying to be a downer here, but I honestly cannot see a viable solution that will actually work. I'm not a gun owner or enthusiast, despite living in the "Live Free or Die" state.

The solution is an outright ban, but as you suggest, that's not a 'viable' solution.

I'm really not trying to be a downer here, but I honestly cannot see a viable solution that will actually work.

Hah that sounds like something off a Monty Python sketch.

There is of course also the whole trust debacle. Do most Americans, or indeed most westeners, trust their governments these days? The amount of misinformation and media nonsense dressed up as "news" often sway people to distrust.
I remember when Japan was hit by that tsunami a couple of years back. Thousands of people were saved because they trusted the Japanese governments's instructions. Now I don't for one second believe that Japan is any less susceptible to dirty politicians and being lied to in general, yet there seems to be an underlying belief in the powers that be, at the end of the day, wants the best for its people and generally knows what it's doing.
I shudder to think if this catastrophe happens in societies where such trust is lost.

So what happens if the US government decides to change the second amendment?

Edited by Guldbamsen - February 15 2018 at 07:33

A bit of a daft analogy here but nevertheless here goes: one of my old friends from Senegal is muslim. He has been one all of his life yet was complerely ostrasized by his community, when he stopped obeying one "law". He eats pork. No real revolution or grand scheme behind this other than he likes the taste of it. Anyway he said to me, that this law surely made sense back in a time, when there were no refridgerators. In such a warm climate pork quickly turns and can become poisenous. Ergo make a public health announcement diguised as divine "law".

My point though, however conveluted it may appear, is that laws in general have to be looked at again and again and measured up against society and how they indeed govern the very same. If the opposite seems to be the case, then it either needs to be abolished or indeed amended.
The whole thing about overthrowing an evil government is by today's standards ridiculus to say the least. Today the US government owns remote controlled missile launching fighter planes, tanks, helicopters and just about everything else you care to think of in terms of weaponry. Back then things were a little more even.

Wasn't it Kevin Hart or someone equally random who said that they should just restrict the sales of ammo to the small amount you need to protect yourself in case of emergency? I can't say much against that...

This is a subject that highly fascinates me yet at the same time feels so incredibly absurd. Then again I was not brought up in a culture, where guns were available to the general public. We actually never see them unless something very grave happens. They simply look out of place here outside of military ranks and the rare instances where the police is forced to use them.

With the amount of people ending up dead on the wrong side of the gun it truly baffles the foreign mind how the US can continue to stick to its guns. If something is called the amendment it is surely by its very definition subject to change? Especially when it is of great danger to the people.

Sure but are people really crazier now than at any other time?   It seems highly unlikely.   American culture has gone through civil and world war, race riots, assassinations, economic catastrophe, topsoil destruction, terrorism and suddenly in the past ten to twenty years people are more crazy than they ever were?   I mean it ain't Trump's fault this time.

The best theoretic solution I can think of is some new tech in guns that prevents them from being used unless it's a legitimate reason.

When personal liberty includes access to military weapons, that's taking it too far.   I will say this: up until a few years ago it was illegal to sell, buy, or carry a switchblade knife in most states including California.   Consequently those knives were extremely scarce and only available in places like Mexico.   That law was changed, those knives are now legal to own but not carry, and luckily there has been no notable increase in knife violence as far as I know.   The point is when you make something strictly illegal to sell or buy, it does make a difference in availability and access .   Gun laws need to be changed to reflect an attitude of balance between gun rights and public safety wherein guns are manufactured in smaller quantities and only those of non-military grade.

Blacksword wrote: I'd just written a long reply, but it was destroyed by Captcha... I don't have time to re-write it, but in essence I just posed the question. Does the argument that someone may eventually figure out how to ge a bomb through really justify doing nothing at all in the short term to prevent shootings? You have to consider who is carrying out these attacks. They are lone individuals and not members of sophisticated terrorist organisations with contacts on the 'inside' They are far less likely to be able to get bombs through fortifications.

Edited by Frenetic Zetetic - February 15 2018 at 03:12