So just like I stated. If you wish to engineer thevreserched towards an agenda you can.

What, that it's possible that the two are linked, but the level of an increase in murder rates it causes is dependent upon the underlying population density?

That's not engineering. That's called due diligence.

I like the point about 'well regulated militias' and 'stolen' legal firearms.

If all guns a held but well regulated militias (whether private or public) then they should be harder to steal. You basically have like, gun clubs.

Weapons are kept secured safely when not in use. All thefts are reported and investigated. Security failures on the militias part liable for any crimes involving those weapons.

Then get all other weapons off the street (a govt buy back and place those weapons at the disposal of state militias?). Ongoing costs? Minimal; constitutional rights? Intact.

What will the NRA say? Well they represent gun manufacturers so they will oppose it. But the effect of having gun manufacturers decide your gun laws is the situation you find yourself in today.

Maybe going after the manufacturers directly is the better choice. There is no right in the constitution to make arms, is there?

No. You want the data to show their is a correlation so you’ll engineer everything to fit that conclusion.

Actually, i wonder, what does the US constitution say about the federal govt having a standing army? I mean, i naturally assume the 2nd amendment is about national security... I've read the text after all.

And the founding fathers would have taken steps to avoid the kind of Tyranny they had seen in the Old World. Surely taking away the power of the state to run a professional standing army would have massive benefits, and make america great - like the founding fathers would have wanted.

1) massive savings on actually running an Amry.
2) returning power to states.
3) retain a nuclear deterent.
4) a chunk of the savings could be spent on mental health needs, maybe even universal health care, and research into societal health (the social causes of violence, inner city deprivation, how urbanisation contributes to increased mental health issues, how diet and advertising affects obesity...) you could build a much healthier society.

But i guess i'm a dreamer...

@orathaic

well regulated militia means something very different than what you think it means

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

I mean, i will admit to stretching my interpretation in order to achieve the end i find most desirable... But i'm not going so far as to hand control over to the government.

Ok, you could probably distinguish between 'well-regulated' an a band of ruffians up to no good.

But i don't think that distinction is particularly at odds with mine. Unlike others here who suggested state militias, i'm perfectly happy to see private militias form. Guns be registered - not taken from anyone. Collective security measures - of the militias choice - and personal/collective responcibility.

You're supposed to lap up the responcibility stuff. (And it is also necessarily a voluntary collective...)

“And the founding fathers would have taken steps to avoid the kind of Tyranny they had seen in the Old World. Surely taking away the power of the state to run a professional standing army would have massive benefits, and make america great - like the founding fathers would have wanted.”

I’ve studied American early constitutional period quite a bit recently, and that is very not the case. Part of the reason for establishing the federal government in the first place was that defense would actually be easier. A standing army of states that weren’t controlled at a larger level would be feared as brewing and capitalizing on animosity as was seen under the Articles of Confederation. Those we call Anti-Federalists who were against the Constitution were the ones who advocated for the Bill of Rights, but they were also more along the lines of the sort of people who would want even more local control than at the state level.