Mr. President, do NOT ban assault weapons!

[Spirit of Hope]

Very true laws do have to change and be undated, I'm simply pointing out that the protections afforded by the Constitution, which isn't a series of laws, still apply.

Which is why we have background checks, why I support expanding background checks, why I don't think it is the worst idea to keep those the FBI suspects of planning or assisting terrorists from getting firearms (so long as due process is followed), and why I don't appose most of the heavier regulations on full autos.

I don't think the US's homicide problem however is fully the result of guns, but rather a result of the US's high income inequality combined with a broken legal and prison system. Which is where I would much rather we focus our efforts.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by expanding background checks? Is that the universal background check idea or just to specific places not already covered?

And I have to agree. While I think it's not wrong to bring the question of access to guns into the debate, if we don't tackle some of the causes of crime things won't get much better regardless of the crime in question.

I also much ask that if only 10% of gun crimes are from lawful purchases, why is the illegal obtainment for the same crime so high? is it just in hopes of staying off the record?

My choice for dealing with background checks would be to make the existing NICS system publicly open, and require it's use for all handgun sales. While the system is not perfect it does work, is in place, normally gets results quickly and is easy to use. So it would be a universal background check using one system, yes. It would not however require the use of an FFL or licensing system thus reducing the burden on the seller and the buyer to a minimum.

Large percentage of crimes are committed by those who have already had run in's with the police. 70% of crimes are committed by persons with at least one arrest, 40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out by a person with a past felony conviction.

Only around 40% of guns used in crimes come directly from illegal sources, a further 40% come from friends and family of the criminal. I would say most guns are obtained this way because it is the most convenient to the person carrying out the crime.

[Fanosolia]

Out of curiosity, what do you mean by expanding background checks? Is that the universal background check idea or just to specific places not already covered?

And I have to agree. While I think it's not wrong to bring the question of access to guns into the debate, if we don't tackle some of the causes of crime things won't get much better regardless of the crime in question.

I also much ask that if only 10% of gun crimes are from lawful purchases, why is the illegal obtainment for the same crime so high? is it just in hopes of staying off the record?

My choice for dealing with background checks would be to make the existing NICS system publicly open, and require it's use for all handgun sales. While the system is not perfect it does work, is in place, normally gets results quickly and is easy to use. So it would be a universal background check using one system, yes. It would not however require the use of an FFL or licensing system thus reducing the burden on the seller and the buyer to a minimum.

Large percentage of crimes are committed by those who have already had run in's with the police. 70% of crimes are committed by persons with at least one arrest, 40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out by a person with a past felony conviction.

Only around 40% of guns used in crimes come directly from illegal sources, a further 40% come from friends and family of the criminal. I would say most guns are obtained this way because it is the most convenient to the person carrying out the crime.

Hmmm, I think see where you're coming from. So anyone would be able to look up if someone is on say National Crime Information Center under this plan?

[Galloism]

My choice for dealing with background checks would be to make the existing NICS system publicly open, and require it's use for all handgun sales. While the system is not perfect it does work, is in place, normally gets results quickly and is easy to use. So it would be a universal background check using one system, yes. It would not however require the use of an FFL or licensing system thus reducing the burden on the seller and the buyer to a minimum.

Large percentage of crimes are committed by those who have already had run in's with the police. 70% of crimes are committed by persons with at least one arrest, 40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out by a person with a past felony conviction.

Only around 40% of guns used in crimes come directly from illegal sources, a further 40% come from friends and family of the criminal. I would say most guns are obtained this way because it is the most convenient to the person carrying out the crime.

Hmmm, I think see where you're coming from. So anyone would be able to look up if someone is on say National Crime Information Center under this plan?

I think that would create new problems, honestly.

[Greed and Death]

Hmmm, I think see where you're coming from. So anyone would be able to look up if someone is on say National Crime Information Center under this plan?

I think that would create new problems, honestly.

If you have a common name like Bill Williams false positives, I could HR departments screening people here for employment interviews.

[Rusozak]

Damn it, people against banning weapons specifically designed for shooting many targets in a short time frame just because they like their toys, meanwhile a bunch of children don't get to grow up and and minority groups are afraid to leave their homes.

And what's with this "assault rifles aren't mentioned in the 2nd amendment therefore they can't be banned" mentality? Can we think for ourselves and stop taking laws written by a bunch of slave owning old people almost 250 years ago as gospel? Laws are for the purpose of maintaining society. As society changes and evolves, so must laws. What if 200 years ago they set a universal speed limit of 25 mph? Similar scenario.

[The balkens]

Damn it, people against banning weapons specifically designed for shooting many targets in a short time frame just because they like their toys, meanwhile a bunch of children don't get to grow up and and minority groups are afraid to leave their homes.

And what's with this "assault rifles aren't mentioned in the 2nd amendment therefore they can't be banned" mentality? Can we think for ourselves and stop taking laws written by a bunch of slave owning old people almost 250 years ago as gospel? Laws are for the purpose of maintaining society. As society changes and evolves, so must laws. What if 200 years ago they set a universal speed limit of 25 mph? Similar scenario.

Appeal to emotion, nice.

[Spirit of Hope]

My choice for dealing with background checks would be to make the existing NICS system publicly open, and require it's use for all handgun sales. While the system is not perfect it does work, is in place, normally gets results quickly and is easy to use. So it would be a universal background check using one system, yes. It would not however require the use of an FFL or licensing system thus reducing the burden on the seller and the buyer to a minimum.

Large percentage of crimes are committed by those who have already had run in's with the police. 70% of crimes are committed by persons with at least one arrest, 40% of homicides and aggravated assaults are carried out by a person with a past felony conviction.

Only around 40% of guns used in crimes come directly from illegal sources, a further 40% come from friends and family of the criminal. I would say most guns are obtained this way because it is the most convenient to the person carrying out the crime.

Hmmm, I think see where you're coming from. So anyone would be able to look up if someone is on say National Crime Information Center under this plan?

Anyone, with the right information, would be able to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The buyer would fill out the Form 4473, the seller would enter the information. The system would spit out, an approval, denial or a delay. In the case of the delay they hold on to the form until three days pass or they get one of the other responses. In the case of an approval they sell the gun, everyone is happy. In the case of a denial the seller hands the form over to the local police.

I think that would create new problems, honestly.

If you have a common name like Bill Williams false positives, I could HR departments screening people here for employment interviews.

You need more than a name, you need address, ethnicity, place of birth, birth date, gender, weight, and height. Social is optional to reduce false positives. Give the information required, the fact that it only spits out an approval or denial, and the fact that many jobs carry out background checks already I don't see this being a huge issue.

[Greed and Death]

Damn it, people against banning weapons specifically designed for shooting many targets in a short time frame just because they like their toys, meanwhile a bunch of children don't get to grow up and and minority groups are afraid to leave their homes.

And what's with this "assault rifles aren't mentioned in the 2nd amendment therefore they can't be banned" mentality? Can we think for ourselves and stop taking laws written by a bunch of slave owning old people almost 250 years ago as gospel? Laws are for the purpose of maintaining society. As society changes and evolves, so must laws. What if 200 years ago they set a universal speed limit of 25 mph? Similar scenario.

You are confusing assault weapons and assault rifles. Assault rifles have select fire that fires full auto(or burst) and is used almost exclusively by the military and police forces.

Assault weapons look like assault rifles but fire at the same rate as any other semi automatic.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Damn it, people against banning weapons specifically designed for shooting many targets in a short time frame just because they like their toys, meanwhile a bunch of children don't get to grow up and and minority groups are afraid to leave their homes.

And what's with this "assault rifles aren't mentioned in the 2nd amendment therefore they can't be banned" mentality? Can we think for ourselves and stop taking laws written by a bunch of slave owning old people almost 250 years ago as gospel? Laws are for the purpose of maintaining society. As society changes and evolves, so must laws. What if 200 years ago they set a universal speed limit of 25 mph? Similar scenario.

There's a method to change/repeal an amendment. If anti-gun people want, they can try. Since 44 states have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions though, I don't see an attempt being successful at this time.

[Rusozak]

Damn it, people against banning weapons specifically designed for shooting many targets in a short time frame just because they like their toys, meanwhile a bunch of children don't get to grow up and and minority groups are afraid to leave their homes.

And what's with this "assault rifles aren't mentioned in the 2nd amendment therefore they can't be banned" mentality? Can we think for ourselves and stop taking laws written by a bunch of slave owning old people almost 250 years ago as gospel? Laws are for the purpose of maintaining society. As society changes and evolves, so must laws. What if 200 years ago they set a universal speed limit of 25 mph? Similar scenario.

Appeal to emotion, nice.

It's the truth, is it not?

[Neu Leonstein]

Well? How many mass killings has Australia had since Port Arthur?

This reminds me of the last crazy guy running around trying to kill people in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/f ... re/7496102

A mentally ill person had somehow "gone missing" from a psychiatric hospital and wandered around a mall with a kitchen knife mumbling. Police came and told him to drop the knife. The guy lunges at the police, who open fire.

Victims: 4 injured - the attacker and three old ladies out shopping who got hit by stray bullets.

If only there had been more people with guns there, this wouldn't have happened!

[The balkens]

Appeal to emotion, nice.

It's the truth, is it not?

no.

[Spirit of Hope]

Damn it, people against banning weapons specifically designed for shooting many targets in a short time frame just because they like their toys,

Multiple errors here, first any firearm post 1860 is designed to shoot many targets in a short time frame, as time has gone on we have been able to increase the number of targets, decrease the time, and decrease intervals when the gun can't shoot. The world record, IIRC, for ten shots with a revolver is 3 seconds.

Secondly it isn't just because I like my "toy" (a phrase that should never be used to refer to firearms), but because 60-100,000,000 people enjoy their use for sport, defense and hunting.

meanwhile a bunch of children don't get to grow up and and minority groups are afraid to leave their homes.

Yes, they are tragedies so let us look how we can fix them. The number of guns in the US has increased, yet the number of gun crimes has been decreasing. Maybe we should look at things like income inequality and and the broken justice system. Which are far more connected to the issue of crime and homicide.

Also the kids aren't dead because of assault rifles, and the minorities aren't scared because of them. Assault rifles are fully automatic, which legally have been used in 1-2 non mass shooting crimes since 1934 and illegally represent less than 3% of all gun crimes. Even military style semi autos, what you may call assault weapons, represent less than 10% of gun crimes.

And what's with this "assault rifles aren't mentioned in the 2nd amendment therefore they can't be banned" mentality?

That is not the actual argument put forward by either side. Those in favor of gun control point out semi autos, full autos and other modern firearms did not exist at the time of the founders, and that they thus should not receive the protection of the 2nd amendment.

Those who appose that stance point out that this creates a double standard between the 2nd and other amendments, and that the 2nd amendment does not specify guns of the time period.

Can we think for ourselves and stop taking laws written by a bunch of slave owning old people almost 250 years ago as gospel?

Well for one they aren't laws, the constitution sets out the framework for how the systems of government work, all the bill of rights does is create specific things the government can't do. No one treats the constitution as gospel, there is an entire branch of the government dedicated to interpreting it in the modern day. And another whole branch whose job it is to create new laws to interact with the modern day.

Finally if people wanted to they can amend the constitution, gun owners only represent about a third of the total US population.

Oh and assault rifles are pretty hard to get, what with no new productions, registry, extra taxes and a special background check.

Laws are for the purpose of maintaining society. As society changes and evolves, so must laws.

Well it is a good thing the constitution isn't a set of laws then, isn't it? And that it includes a whole branch of government to write new laws. Which in the case of guns they have done.

What if 200 years ago they set a universal speed limit of 25 mph? Similar scenario.

In the case of a law, congress could re write it, in the case of the constitution you amend it. Which we have done several times, like when slavery was made unconstitutional.

Oh and the bill of rights creates negatives, things the government can not due, it basically does nothing to actually govern the people, like a 25mph speed limit. And a speed limit is something the founding fathers would have found very confusing.

[The East Marches]

Well? How many mass killings has Australia had since Port Arthur?

This reminds me of the last crazy guy running around trying to kill people in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/f ... re/7496102

A mentally ill person had somehow "gone missing" from a psychiatric hospital and wandered around a mall with a kitchen knife mumbling. Police came and told him to drop the knife. The guy lunges at the police, who open fire.

Victims: 4 injured - the attacker and three old ladies out shopping who got hit by stray bullets.

If only there had been more people with guns there, this wouldn't have happened!

If cops had to qualify with their weapons more often, this wouldn't have happened. Increasingly in the U.S., all kinds of agencies and personnel are getting kit they have no business having.

You ought to read this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176?mod=trending_now_5

As well, look up the standards for what a police officer has to qualify for at the range. Then look up their total hit percentage in a fight (18%, 4 out of 5 bullets don't hit the target).

[Washington Resistance Army]

This reminds me of the last crazy guy running around trying to kill people in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/f ... re/7496102

A mentally ill person had somehow "gone missing" from a psychiatric hospital and wandered around a mall with a kitchen knife mumbling. Police came and told him to drop the knife. The guy lunges at the police, who open fire.

Victims: 4 injured - the attacker and three old ladies out shopping who got hit by stray bullets.

If only there had been more people with guns there, this wouldn't have happened!

If cops had to qualify with their weapons more often, this wouldn't have happened. Increasingly in the U.S., all kinds of agencies and personnel are getting kit they have no business having.

You ought to read this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176?mod=trending_now_5

As well, look up the standards for what a police officer has to qualify for at the range. Then look up their total hit percentage in a fight (18%, 4 out of 5 bullets don't hit the target).

Don't complain about that, all these nonsensical government agencies getting guns might help us get MG rights back

[Neu Leonstein]

Oh and the bill of rights creates negatives, things the government can not due, it basically does nothing to actually govern the people, like a 25mph speed limit. And a speed limit is something the founding fathers would have found very confusing.

Yeah, but on the other hand the founding fathers would find a lot of things in modern America very confusing. Wouldn't even be surprised if that included the modern gun debate too, given how the text they wrote so strongly refers to the reason for gun ownership being one of military expediency. And before you point it out, I know that's not the view of the Supreme Court.

[The East Marches]

Oh and the bill of rights creates negatives, things the government can not due, it basically does nothing to actually govern the people, like a 25mph speed limit. And a speed limit is something the founding fathers would have found very confusing.

Yeah, but on the other hand the founding fathers would find a lot of things in modern America very confusing. Wouldn't even be surprised if that included the modern gun debate too, given how the text they wrote so strongly refers to the reason for gun ownership being one of military expediency. And before you point it out, I know that's not the view of the Supreme Court.

Its also a matter of grammar. If you've ever read anything the founding fathers wrote post-independence, you'd find they agree with that too.

I highly doubt the founding fathers would compromise on the bill of rights. They would be appalled if anything at the erosion of basic things like "fair and speedy trial" and due process among other things.

[Greed and Death]

This reminds me of the last crazy guy running around trying to kill people in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/f ... re/7496102

A mentally ill person had somehow "gone missing" from a psychiatric hospital and wandered around a mall with a kitchen knife mumbling. Police came and told him to drop the knife. The guy lunges at the police, who open fire.

Victims: 4 injured - the attacker and three old ladies out shopping who got hit by stray bullets.

If only there had been more people with guns there, this wouldn't have happened!

If cops had to qualify with their weapons more often, this wouldn't have happened. Increasingly in the U.S., all kinds of agencies and personnel are getting kit they have no business having.

You ought to read this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176?mod=trending_now_5

As well, look up the standards for what a police officer has to qualify for at the range. Then look up their total hit percentage in a fight (18%, 4 out of 5 bullets don't hit the target).

You qualify at a range that due to safety concerns is a very sterile environment as far as stimuli go, and then real life is not such a sterile environment and accuracy goes down. There are other judgement that simply, put do not come into play at training for instance the old oblivious ladies behind the suspect the gathering crowd of children watching you with your gun drawn because they do not know better, you now have a fraction of a second to judge your safety vs the risk of bystanders being hit.

There are also other factors you never know how your respond to a real life situation until you've been in one, soldiers with decades of training, and several expertise badge curl up in balls and cry mom the first time a bullet wizzes by them. Some freeze others flee. Some lucky few the world just slows down for them and it is like they almost become a machine.

[Neu Leonstein]

Its also a matter of grammar. If you've ever read anything the founding fathers wrote post-independence, you'd find they agree with that too.

Maybe ironic that I have to ask in a sentence about grammar, but agree with what? With me or with the Supreme Court?

I highly doubt the founding fathers would compromise on the bill of rights. They would be appalled if anything at the erosion of basic things like "fair and speedy trial" and due process among other things.

Who knows. I suspect that they'd have such a hard time reconciling the world they were writing about with the modern one that they might be open to looking again at a few things. Stuff that was super important in the pre-industrial/fighting Britain US and that they cared about a great deal seems a bit of a joke now (like, what is up with the Third Amendment?!). Other things that they didn't care much for became so important that it's hard to imagine the modern US without them (really most of the amendments since... the 13th, 15th and 19th come to mind - or even the 16th in terms of practical policy).

Point being is that times change and while no one is disputing that as a general statement of principles the original bill of rights was great for its time, as a non-American I find the almost religion-like insistence on the finality of those sentences a little bit strange. And given that I think of (most) of the founding fathers as fairly well-meaning, educated and rational people, I don't think they'd have been completely against the idea of revisiting those original rules (or at least clarifying them) for use in a society that is almost completely incomparable to the one they knew and wrote about.

[Neu Leonstein]

You qualify at a range that due to safety concerns is a very sterile environment as far as stimuli go, and then real life is not such a sterile environment and accuracy goes down. There are other judgement that simply, put do not come into play at training for instance the old oblivious ladies behind the suspect the gathering crowd of children watching you with your gun drawn because they do not know better, you now have a fraction of a second to judge your safety vs the risk of bystanders being hit.

There are also other factors you never know how your respond to a real life situation until you've been in one, soldiers with decades of training, and several expertise badge curl up in balls and cry mom the first time a bullet wizzes by them. Some freeze others flee. Some lucky few the world just slows down for them and it is like they almost become a machine.

This sounds quite reasonable. It also doesn't exactly constitute a great advertisement for the idea that more people carrying guns in public places makes those places safer to be in.

[Greed and Death]

Oh and the bill of rights creates negatives, things the government can not due, it basically does nothing to actually govern the people, like a 25mph speed limit. And a speed limit is something the founding fathers would have found very confusing.

Yeah, but on the other hand the founding fathers would find a lot of things in modern America very confusing. Wouldn't even be surprised if that included the modern gun debate too, given how the text they wrote so strongly refers to the reason for gun ownership being one of military expediency. And before you point it out, I know that's not the view of the Supreme Court.

That is not quite as clear as you make it sound once we travel to the world of 18th century English. The term 'militia' could refer to the what is now called the national guard, a posse commitatus, or every single white male of military age(the 13th, and 14th amendments would have extended these obviously).

Looking at the text of the Constitution as a whole we see the president is the commander and chief of the "Militia of the Several States" and the second amendment refers to simply "militia". Generally in legal matters if you use a different word or phrase you are referring to something different.

[The East Marches]

If cops had to qualify with their weapons more often, this wouldn't have happened. Increasingly in the U.S., all kinds of agencies and personnel are getting kit they have no business having.

You ought to read this

http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-the-irs-need-guns-1466117176?mod=trending_now_5

As well, look up the standards for what a police officer has to qualify for at the range. Then look up their total hit percentage in a fight (18%, 4 out of 5 bullets don't hit the target).

You qualify at a range that due to safety concerns is a very sterile environment as far as stimuli go, and then real life is not such a sterile environment and accuracy goes down. There are other judgement that simply, put do not come into play at training for instance the old oblivious ladies behind the suspect the gathering crowd of children watching you with your gun drawn because they do not know better, you now have a fraction of a second to judge your safety vs the risk of bystanders being hit.

There are also other factors you never know how your respond to a real life situation until you've been in one, soldiers with decades of training, and several expertise badge curl up in balls and cry mom the first time a bullet wizzes by them. Some freeze others flee. Some lucky few the world just slows down for them and it is like they almost become a machine.

Real life may not be such a clean environment, I agree. However, having to qualify only and only getting once a year to go to the range (Chicago PD) is ridiculous. 100 rounds every 12 months, 6 months if you are lucky, is not nearly enough. Not to mention the laws of the city make impossible for an officer to find a decent place to get his range time in and over half can't use their service pistol if they wanted to. The ideal goal is to train how you fight. I recognize that isn't always practical nor finacially viable on a mass scale. What is practical is small changes to allow officers to practice with their service weapons outside of the department. Alternatively, opening up more range time for them even if they have to provide their own ammo to cut costs.

That would be like asking some poor bastard in combat support to the job that belongs to a guy in combat arms. They are two different branches with two different intended roles. I think the MPs shoot a bit more than the average 50 per year for combat support. I agree with the other factors. However, if you don't know how to use your tools, you're fucked. Thats why people train in the first place.

[Greed and Death]

You qualify at a range that due to safety concerns is a very sterile environment as far as stimuli go, and then real life is not such a sterile environment and accuracy goes down. There are other judgement that simply, put do not come into play at training for instance the old oblivious ladies behind the suspect the gathering crowd of children watching you with your gun drawn because they do not know better, you now have a fraction of a second to judge your safety vs the risk of bystanders being hit.

There are also other factors you never know how your respond to a real life situation until you've been in one, soldiers with decades of training, and several expertise badge curl up in balls and cry mom the first time a bullet wizzes by them. Some freeze others flee. Some lucky few the world just slows down for them and it is like they almost become a machine.

This sounds quite reasonable. It also doesn't exactly constitute a great advertisement for the idea that more people carrying guns in public places makes those places safer to be in.

From my experience thus far I know myself carrying a gun makes me safer.

An interesting point about experience, if you hear a bullet it means that bullet did not hit you.

[The East Marches]

Maybe ironic that I have to ask in a sentence about grammar, but agree with what? With me or with the Supreme Court

The grammar section aside, post-war they made very clear their opinions through their writing. They were not vague about why they advocated for certain things.

On the topic of the grammar section, I have lots of interesting things that can explain it better for a non-English speaker.

Who knows. I suspect that they'd have such a hard time reconciling the world they were writing about with the modern one that they might be open to looking again at a few things. Stuff that was super important in the pre-industrial/fighting Britain US and that they cared about a great deal seems a bit of a joke now (like, what is up with the Third Amendment?!). Other things that they didn't care much for became so important that it's hard to imagine the modern US without them (really most of the amendments since... the 13th, 15th and 19th come to mind - or even the 16th in terms of practical policy).

Point being is that times change and while no one is disputing that as a general statement of principles the original bill of rights was great for its time, as a non-American I find the almost religion-like insistence on the finality of those sentences a little bit strange. And given that I think of (most) of the founding fathers as fairly well-meaning, educated and rational people, I don't think they'd have been completely against the idea of revisiting those original rules (or at least clarifying them) for use in a society that is almost completely incomparable to the one they knew and wrote about.

Again, I sincerely believe you are wrong. As an American, I find the European contempt for the rule of law (as evident your joke contract law system) and willingness to abrogate their rights maddening. I agree that they would be surprised. I disagree that they would upturn or compromise on their ideals.

[Neu Leonstein]

That is not quite as clear as you make it sound once we travel to the world of 18th century English. The term 'militia' could refer to the what is now called the national guard, a posse commitatus, or every single white male of military age(the 13th, and 14th amendments would have extended these obviously).

Looking at the text of the Constitution as a whole we see the president is the commander and chief of the "Militia of the Several States" and the second amendment refers to simply "militia". Generally in legal matters if you use a different word or phrase you are referring to something different.

Yeah, but I wasn't so much talking about who would be allowed to have a gun, but why they needed to be allowed to have them. Think about what any definition of militia would have been there to do in 18th century North America. In that world, having an entirely professional army that was exclusively in charge of national defense was not realistic. So making sure that raising a citizen militia that could bring its own arms was practically important. Militarily expedient, as I said. But there is also a political aspect to it, that's true. Even if it had been feasible, I'm not sure how enthusiastic the founding fathers would have been about an entirely professional military without citizen soldiers who take up arms themselves when required. And even aside from arguments about the moral duties and character of the American citizen, there's the whole line of argument about how having an armed populace prevents tyrannical dictatorship.

To me those are the topics that the 2nd amendment are about. I personally don't think they really work in the 21st century, but that's beside the point. And the reason for that is that somehow the modern courts have interpreted the amendment as apparently being more about the rights of gun ownership in general, for hobby, hunting or self-defense. That seems a weird way to read that piece of text, but as I said, I didn't grow up in that culture so I don't have an emotional stake in trying to read it a certain way.

From my experience thus far I know myself carrying a gun makes me safer.

Sure, you are relatively unlikely to shoot yourself by accident. The more pertinent question is whether you think you are safer because I carry a gun into the same mall you are in.