General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: IT'S. THE. GUNS. [View all]moondust
(19,958 posts)But once you give Joe Schmoe the power of life or death over anything that comes near him at the mere squeeze of a finger, you'll have a tough time taking that kind of power away from him.
I suspect the 2nd Amendment had a lot to do with slavery. Without guns to keep them under control from a bullet's reach, the slaves are going to split. Plus the one percenters and settlers of the day out on the frontier couldn't really depend on police to quickly get there on horseback to defend them and their property from robbers and natives and...disgruntled slaves. Some of that probably applies even today as one percenters don't want to have to depend on police to defend them and their property; if THEY wanted the 2nd Amendment repealed or restricted, it would probably happen.
There is no way to predict with certainty who is going to snap or when or what they will do when that happens. Maybe the best you can do is make it difficult for anybody who does snap to get their hands on the tools of death and destruction, which implies greatly reducing the numbers of those tools in general circulation. That would probably take decades in the U.S. even with incentive programs.
A melting pot like the U.S. is probably more prone to violence due to the diversity, racism, and conflict between groups--often stoked and exploited by contemptible politicians; the worst kind of place to widely disseminate the tools of death and destruction.
These countries with historically more homogeneous populations and less internal conflict seem to have figured it out. I think I like Italy's "need-to-own" approach. Of course keeping the slaves in line is no longer a valid excuse.