Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms, just "keeping" them, so there's room there, the plain language of the 2nd Amendment notwithstanding.

Plus the law at all levels, as well as pretty much everyone but I suppose the criminal class, supports making it illegal for a "violent, law-breaking gang member" to possess a firearm if he's been convicted of a violent felony (well, any felony, but we all agree about the violent ones).

You didn't address the question. Of course it's illegal -- how would you stop them from __getting__ them, though? We've seen that making it illegal won't be enough, as drugs and prohibition have shown: there would be a black market, just as there almost certainly already is.

At the moment I can buy a beer in a corner store.

During prohibition, it was much harder (and more expensive) to get beer (or liquor), and more liquor than beer was consumed at a considerably higher price. One outcome was significantly lower alcohol consumption and all that that means (lower deaths by cirrhosis, lower city drunkenness arrests).

If we take prohibition as an analogy, then sure, a dedicated criminal will still be able to get guns. However, a casual street-level criminal is going to have to work harder to get them because they're no longer available in the mall or from the pawn shop, and he's going to have to pay ten times as much to get one from Benny in the pool hall. That'll significantly reduce the number of guns out there, and that is what creates the environment and the expectation that results in cops shooting civilians.

> Well, the Supremes don't actually support "bearing" arms

Almost every appellate court below does in some capacity.

As does the original text of the Second Amendment (as you said.)

But again, how are you going to stop violent gang members from getting firearms without infringing on the law abiding?

Why not focus on the problem: rehabilitating the violent individuals + improving mental health, instead of hoplophobic, knee-jerk legislation.

When it's come to the Federal appellate courts and concealed carry, only the 7th (Illinois) has (ordering shall issue, which Illinois acquiesced to without drama (!)), with the 9th looking to reverse the positive Peruta v. San Diego County district court decision (which would also hit Hawaii). It's still in progress for D.C., and the 1st-4th did not, and the Supremes denied cert.

Hasn't and won't in the foreseeable future come up for 5-6th, 8th, and 10-11th circuits. So with the score currently 1-4 at the appellate level and 0-4 with the Supremes, I don't find the Federal legal situation at all encouraging, since there's no state that forbids all unloaded movements of guns, I don't see much wiggle room for your "in some capacity".

It's better to not make any laws because someone might break them.

It's better to not make any unenforceable laws because it's a delusional exercise in futility.

Gun control laws are absolutely enforceable--there's no question about that. Look to the other Western countries for examples.

Against law-abiding citizens, yes.

I can go to one of those countries with strong gun control right now and turn a formidable firearm if you like - do they need better mill control?

Do you lock the doors of your house when you leave? Those locks are useless to a thief with a crowbar.

So if you do lock your house doors when you go out, you're implicitly agreeing that you do this to make it more difficult for someone to get inside your house, reducing the likelihood of theft.

Same thing with guns.

> Same thing with guns.

So America has zero house burglary?

??? Seems you missed my point entirely.

Parent claims guns shouldn't be restricted since someone can make one on a lathe if they cannot buy one at a store.

Meanwhile parent almost certainly locks their house doors despite a thief with crowbar being able to bypass their lock.

Therefore, the parent's reasoning that gun control won't work because a criminal can mill their own gun is not logically sound.

You reduce opportunity which gets rid of opportunistic criminals. Ones who might rob your house because it is unlocked and they are less likely to get caught (compared to the shattering of glass or breaking down a door).

I'm going to go out on a limb and claim murders are not an opportunistic crime. People are not killing because they can and can get away with it. The comparison you are trying to make dies there because the type of crime is not comparable.

It's the acquisition of the gun that's comparable, not the crime committed with it.

Since someone can physically go and mill a gun, should that be the reason not to enact gun control? Seems like a ridiculous reason to me, but apparently is a core bit of logic for the gun crowd.

The enforcement in other western countries is limited to not selling them as easily, tons of people still have unregistered guns and illegally importing them isn't difficult.

This makes no sense. I've lived in the UK my whole life, and when growing up spent some time around pretty unsavoury people. I've once seen a firearm, and that was at a clay pigeon range.

I don't dispute that some people may own illegal firearms, but its by no means an endemic problem. Somebody getting shot in the UK is guaranteed to make the news. Just the presence of a criminal with a gun will interrupt live news channels, that's how rare it is.

Exactly. In the UK, 99% of the population wouldn't even know how to begin getting hold of a handgun. If they started making serious enquiries, chances are they'd run into an undercover cop before they found someone able to supply them something illegal.

While I don't doubt that the knowledge of who to talk to and where to go to get a gun is present in certain UK communities, the basic fact that everybody involved in procuring, handling and importing guns is committing a criminal act certainly acts as a pretty solid prevention mechanism to stop, say, an angry 20-something man from acquiring sufficient guns and ammo to go on a shooting rampage at a college.

Breivik tried to buy illegal weapons. He was unable to do so. He ended up buying weapons legally.

It's better not to make laws that are ineffective at stopping criminals, but completely effective at hindering law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights.