Gun control

Now let's take a humanitarian perspective on gun control. It is clear that a firearm is a weapon capable of killing a huge number of people at once at a very high speed compared to various swords. In the case of swordsman, there are various variables such as force, speed, and distance, but a gun can kill a myriad of people if only basic shooting skills and visibility are secured.

Regarding the Second Amendment authorising the rights to possess a firearm to use for lawful, self defence purposes, we must not the fact that the amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. In the era of semi-automatic firearms where individuals can kill dozens of people, not just one or two, it is a statement that does not fit the current era. The statement is no longer legally applicable because a well-regulated militia cannot guarantee the sovereignty of each state. Also, if resistance is the purpose, it is unconstitutional to use or carry a firearm for self defence.

Is the level of armament so important in exercising resistance? If so, who? To everyone, as stated in the Second Amendment? People who have mental problems do not have the right to buy guns, and this contradicts to the viewpoint where the Second Amendment allows everyone the right to resistance. Another issue on the issue is whether the resistance is justified. We must always doubt whether the actions of resistance are always justified. We mush also assume that simple riots or terrorists might justify their acts with the insistence of resistance, and might carry out assault, assassination and terrorism with guns or explosives against civilians and government agencies.

The second point to point out is the reality of self defence using firearms. First of all, many of the people who carry guns during their work often leave the chamber empty to prevent accidents, set firearms to safety, or both.

Secondly, if a robbery or rapist attacks on the street, it is too late to pull out the gun because the killer already would have a weapon out or attacked them in order to use it as self defence. If so, the use of firearms for self defence by the bearer is limited to interfering with unauthorised domestic intrusion or crimes.

Also, if you fire at an unspecified place, high up and hard-to-find, you can't really do anything to stop it. Therefore the defence theory is highly unrealistic because there are so many holes. Self defence against people who have the skills and ability to plan and use it for a murder? The problem of these skills becomes even more evident especially in the 2016 Dallas case, when the shooter is from an organisation with a certain level of expertise, such as the military or PMC.

Also, going back to the argument of self defence, the number of these cases based on statistics alone is not a consideration of the victims' position at all. The problem does not end only with the number of people killed or succeeded self defence actions by firearms, but makes mistakes that overlook social and cultural phenomena such as increased social anxiety and reduced interpersonal trust.

We also have to note that the U.S. law has different regulations for Gun Carry and Gun Ownership. Security checks for belongings and carrying firearms is already a very challenging problem, is very demanding and rigorous, and demands a lot of public forces to intervene. This means that the statute for expanding the

...