Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Thursday saw yet another mass shooting bring death, carnage and frustrated misery to the US as nine people were killed by a gunman on a college campus. Chris Harper-Mercer was carrying four guns when he opened fire on the grounds of Umpqua Community College before being shot dead himself by police.

Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism O-GUN-DEATHS-570

Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism O-GUN-DEATHS-570

A clearly exasperated Barack Obama once again addressed the nation to urge for tighter gun controls - something vigorously opposed by many in the US. While the debate continues, this chart lays bare the stark reality of the numbers of US citizens killed on US soil by guns compared to terrorism related deaths and gun deaths in the UK. Despite the disparity, the US continues to spend billions of dollars every year on counter-terrorism ($16bn in 2012) while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) submitted a request for £1.2bn for 2016.

Obama expressed frustration that it was necessary for him to frequently console victims' families and that he was again calling for new gun control regulations."Somehow this has become routine," Obama said from the White House. "We've become numb to this. "We should politicise it," he said. "As I said each time we see one of these mass shooting, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. … It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/02/oregon-shooting-us-gun-deaths-uk_n_8232148.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:14 pm

is this criticising US gun control....excusing terrorism or seeking to make a lie up about UK gun homicides

see

it is actually all 3 (or could be used to do so)

BAAAAD statistics

since the pure statistic "gun homoicide" utterly fails to distinguish between legaly held and illegaly held firearms

banning the one will NOT stop the other.....

however what is patently obvious is that the US desperately needs the kind of regualation we have over here

as a passing note on statistics, the homicide rates for shootings should in order to be fair, be adjsted to deaths per 100,000 population....otherwise they are meaningless....

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:18 pm

Eh?
How many less deaths would there be without the legal status of guns in America even more so by spree killers.
Would they have beeen able to like in this case be able to make all people lie down and then ask them one by one to stand up ask them their religion and then murder them?
Could they do this with a car?
No.
A knife.
No

So again its blatantly obvious to most rational people that guns in the US should be banned. This may not stop murders, but it would certainlly diminish the amount of victims.

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:39 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Eh?
How many less deaths would there be without the legal status of guns in America even more so by spree killers.
Would they have beeen able to like in this case be able to make all people lie down and then ask them one by one to stand up ask them their religion and then murder them?
Could they do this with a car?
No.
A knife.
No

So again its blatantly obvious to most rational people that guns should be banned. This may not stop murders, but it would certainlly diminish the amount of victims.

weve been here before didge.......

the yanks need the same sort of regualtion we have over here.

thing is it wont work...people will just hide the gubs they have and...since no one knows who owns what.....

moreover the govt coundnt afford to do it.......

how many millions of dollars would they have to pay out.

dunno what the answer is...there are plenty of "solutions" ...but non are practicable....

as for over here ...even if banned, guns by the 100 will STILL be available to the criminals....

remember HANDGUNS are banned here......yet 90% + of the killings by guns here are firstly by illegal users AND secondly with hand guns
legal gun owners account for a minute fraction of homicide incidents involving guns here.....
what does That tell you

It should tell you that despite the ban handguns ARE available
that no amount of bans actually prevents gun crime though i'd agree it may reduce it somewhat, by making things "difficult"
and that those that legitimately own guns (in this country at least) are the least of your worries.
It should also tell you that the theft of privately owned guns is NOT a threat either.....most stolen guns are shotguns, with the odd small bore rifle
most killings are with handguns.........

interestingly enough there appears to be a different psychology at work in the states to over here

Most people over here (including criminals) seem to have an inbuilt distaste of misusing guns, and that attitude is quite old and ingrained.....going back even into the late 1800s
guns were(apart from the "duelling" classes) never seen as a solution to person to person disputes in the way they are in america. They never became "the FIRST resort"

by nicko Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:44 pm

didge, absolutely no chance of them banning guns,

it,s written in their Constitution, "the right to bear and carry arms"

Vic, has said it all!

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:46 pm

even adjusted for population....315 million vs 64 million

i.e 5 times as many

te american gun homicide rate is ghastly....

now...what I want to know is....

how many are illegal deaths by

a) ilegal gun owners
b) legal gun owners

how many are ultimately "lawful homicides"

i.e by people shooting burglars....(which I happen to approve of)

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:47 pm

Sorry but claiming something will not work Victor does not mean that it cannot work.

Like I say if you have something available that makes it far easier to murder someone then that accessibility, increases the chances of a murder, of which you know is true.

I agree the laws should be like the UK, as there is nothing stopping this other than the US waking up to the fact the Second Ammendment requires changing, as its creation had once a purpose of which now it does not.

So you go on about gun murders here are 90 percent illegal but only make up 10-15 percent of murders in the UK. That is telling in itself and they are often gang related and in some cases hiring the same illegal gun. The point is in the UK not havig accessability to such weapons decreases the methods to kill someone. There is no denying this and in the US they have had countless spree killers who could not have been as devesating as that had been with no access to guns.

I get your point on a cultural apsect of the people in this country having a distain of misusing guns, but there is no denying that not having access to guns for many has clearly reduced the methods to commit murder and with guns multiple murders, makes this very easy.

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:58 pm

America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and 15 times as many as Germany:
Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism Gun_homicides_per_capita__1_.0

Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism Gun_homicides_per_capita__1_.0

This chart, compiled using United Nations data collected by the Guardian's Simon Rogers, shows that America far and away leads other developed countries when it comes to gun-related homicides. Why? Extensive reviews of the research by the Harvard School of Public Health's Injury Control Center suggest the answer is pretty simple: The US is an outlier on gun violence because it has way more guns than other developed nations.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/10/2/9439435/americas-gun-violence-statistics

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:06 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Sorry but claiming something will not work Victor does not mean that it cannot work.

and wishing it would doesnt mean it WILL either

Like I say if you have something available that makes it far easier to murder someone then that accessibility, increases the chances of a murder, of which you know is true.

I agree the laws should be like the UK, as there is nothing stopping this other than the US waking up to the fact the Second Ammendment requires changing,

actually I dont see that it does.....we have the same in our constitution
what they did, very wisely if you ask me, was to say ok...you have this right...HOWEVER, in common with many other rights...you have to show that you are a fit and proper person to claim that right.....

thing is didge...changing the constitution is no simple matter....however changing the way it applies can be a LOT easier......

as its creation had once a purpose of which now it does not.

So you go on about gun murders here are 90 percent illegal but only make up 10-15 percent of murders in the UK. That is telling in itself and they are often gang related and in some cases hiring the same illegal gun. The point is in the UK not havig accessability to such weapons decreases the methods to kill someone. There is no denying this and in the US they have had countless spree killers who could not have been as devesating as that had been with no access to guns.

I get your point on a cultural apsect of the people in this country having a distain of misusing guns, but there is no denying that not having access to guns for many has clearly reduced the methods to commit murder and with guns multiple murders, makes this very easy.

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:14 pm

The thing is Victor its access that creates the ability to have far more gun deaths whether through illegal or legal means. The guns are being mass produced making it far easier to have access to. Like I say things have to change or the US will continue down the same path.
There have been 27 Ammendments to the US Constition Victor, which again shows it can be done. Okay 10 were at its creation and no matter how difficult does not mean it cannot be done. The simple fact is the US is a mass producer of guns and where there is more guns, there is more homicides:

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:36 pm

nicko wrote:didge, absolutely no chance of them banning guns,

it,s written in their Constitution, "the right to bear and carry arms"

Vic, has said it all!

Wrong.

The second amendment doesn not give an individual the right to bear arms.

by nicko Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:15 pm

Prove it!

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:39 pm

nicko wrote:Prove it!

Read it!

by Original Quill Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:33 pm

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

US Constitution wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a decision that held the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court held that the 14th Amendment makes applicable (incorporates) the 2nd Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the 2nd Amendment applies to the federal government.

The problem is much deeper than merely outlawing firearms. They are symbolically rooted in the American culture, as a means as well as an expression of political independence. Besides, they are neat little toys.

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Oct 04, 2015 5:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads:

US Constitution wrote:"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a decision that held the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court held that the 14th Amendment makes applicable (incorporates) the 2nd Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the 2nd Amendment applies to the federal government.

The problem is much deeper than merely outlawing firearms. They are symbolically rooted in the American culture, as a means as well as an expression of political independence. Besides, they are neat little toys.

It was meant to protect the rights of individual states against the federal government.

The case studies you mention are interpretations of the amendment. Which can be changed.

by nicko Sun Oct 04, 2015 7:21 pm

Zac, why not admit you were wrong ha ha

by Guest Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:19 pm

I'm afraid it's you that's wrong Nicko, it was originally done so that States could form militia if the English decided to attack again:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:^[30]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

by Fuzzy Zack Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:23 pm

nicko wrote:Zac, why not admit you were wrong ha ha

Or you could learn to read.

That's the problem with simpletons like you. You didn't even know what the amendment was, let alone what it meant.

by Original Quill Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:58 am

In District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia held specifically that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

As to the issue of the prefatory clause, "a well regulated militia being necessary..." the Court said:

Dist. of Columbia v. Heller wrote: It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

Italics added.

It is true that this case can be overturned. But only when another such case, providing the perfect facts, winds its way through the court system, and finds an agreeable Supreme Court. Right now, the Court is 5-4 conservative. It probably won't happen in our lifetime.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:08 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
nicko wrote:Zac, why not admit you were wrong ha ha

Or you could learn to read.

That's the problem with simpletons like you. You didn't even know what the amendment was, let alone what it meant.

lol I thought you were against ridiculing within debate and then you constantly go and end up putting your foot in your mouth doing the same. What happened Mowgli, did none of the advice by Bagheera and Baloo make any impact on you?
Nicko is right and as proven by Quill you have no clue what you are talking about
So show some humility by apologising to Nicko

by nicko Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:12 am

No problem didge, half the time he does not know what he,s talking about.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:16 am

Cool Nicko, is just funny seeing him get all over excited over nothing.

He should though admit he is wrong but I doubt it

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:31 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Or you could learn to read.

That's the problem with simpletons like you. You didn't even know what the amendment was, let alone what it meant.

lol I thought you were against ridiculing within debate and then you constantly go and end up putting your foot in your mouth doing the same. What happened Mowgli, did none of the advice by Bagheera and Baloo make any impact on you?
Nicko is right and as proven by Quill you have no clue what you are talking about
So show some humility by apologising to Nicko

Can you stop calling him "Mowgli"? It's childish and a bit racist.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:34 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

lol I thought you were against ridiculing within debate and then you constantly go and end up putting your foot in your mouth doing the same. What happened Mowgli, did none of the advice by Bagheera and Baloo make any impact on you?
Nicko is right and as proven by Quill you have no clue what you are talking about
So show some humility by apologising to Nicko

Can you stop calling him "Mowgli"? It's childish and a bit racist.

Its not racist, its just very funny and is more to do with his feeble build of his body lol

I do not see you complaing where I am called Dodge, a zionst, walter etc.
Of which I am not bothered about either
So when you speak out on all name calling, then I may listen, otherwise your words are meaningless

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:36 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Can you stop calling him "Mowgli"? It's childish and a bit racist.

Its not racist, its just very funny and is more to do with his feeble build of his body lol

I do not see you complaing where I am called Dodge, a zionst, walter etc.
Of which I am not bothered about either
So when you speak out on all name calling, then I may listen, otherwise your words are meaningless

It's not funny, and you know it's not to do with his build of body.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:41 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Its not racist, its just very funny and is more to do with his feeble build of his body lol

I do not see you complaing where I am called Dodge, a zionst, walter etc.
Of which I am not bothered about either
So when you speak out on all name calling, then I may listen, otherwise your words are meaningless

It's not funny, and you know it's not to do with his build of body.

It is to do with his body as I call him twiggy also.
So you are very much mistaken.
Like I say you say nothing about other name calling which makes your claim here hypocritical.

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:42 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not funny, and you know it's not to do with his build of body.

It is to do with his body as I call him twiggy also.
So you are very much mistaken.
Like I say you say nothing about other name calling which makes your claim here hypocritical.

Call him Twiggy then.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:44 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

It is to do with his body as I call him twiggy also.
So you are very much mistaken.
Like I say you say nothing about other name calling which makes your claim here hypocritical.

Call him Twiggy then.

I already do

Doh

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:45 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Call him Twiggy then.

I already do

Doh

Instead of Mowgli. Calling him that just makes you look a bit racist.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:49 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I already do

Doh

Instead of Mowgli. Calling him that just makes you look a bit racist.

I have explained why I call him Mowgli, if you do not like it tough shit ha ha ha

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:53 am

nicko wrote:No problem didge, half the time he does not know what he,s talking about.

Is Dist. of Columbia v. Heller part of the constitution or an interpretation of the constitution.

The orginal drafters of the constitution wanted the people to defend themselves against the government. Not to give people unlimited rights to carry firearms.

Otherwise, why don't all states allow you to carry arms? D'UH!

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:54 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Instead of Mowgli. Calling him that just makes you look a bit racist.

I have explained why I call him Mowgli, if you do not like it tough shit ha ha ha

Don't worry Didge. I don't mind as it exposes every time I wind you up.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:55 am

But as seen by winning in such cases they can which is why your point was incorrect, you would need to show where people have lost in such cases, hence why Nicko was right.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:56 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I have explained why I call him Mowgli, if you do not like it tough shit ha ha ha

Don't worry Didge. I don't mind as it exposes every time I wind you up.

lol its called great piss take.
Seriously you are the only one daily emotional everytime you reply.

Laughing

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:56 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
nicko wrote:No problem didge, half the time he does not know what he,s talking about.

Is Dist. of Columbia v. Heller part of the constitution or an interpretation of the constitution.

The orginal drafters of the constitution wanted the people to defend themselves against the government. Not to give people unlimited rights to carry firearms.

Otherwise, why don't all states allow you to carry arms? D'UH!

Absolutely right, it was about being allowed to form militias and has been re-worked over the years. The ignorance about it amazes me.

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:57 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Instead of Mowgli. Calling him that just makes you look a bit racist.

I have explained why I call him Mowgli, if you do not like it tough shit ha ha ha

If you want to be seen as racist, that's up to you. It will look hypocritical if you accuse anyone of not liking refugees because of their colour, or any other comments you make regarding racism.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

I have explained why I call him Mowgli, if you do not like it tough shit ha ha ha

If you want to be seen as racist, that's up to you. It will look hypocritical if you accuse anyone of not liking refugees because of their colour, or any other comments you make regarding racism.

Look you are the one being hypocirtical looking as per usual to start a fight.

I really am not bothered what you think.

Not one admin has stated it is racist.

So clearly this is you as per usual starting a fight.

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:59 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If you want to be seen as racist, that's up to you. It will look hypocritical if you accuse anyone of not liking refugees because of their colour, or any other comments you make regarding racism.

Look you are the one being hypocirtical looking as per usual to start a fight.

I really am not bothered what you think.

Not one admin has stated it is racist.

So clearly this is you as per usual starting a fight.

Racist!

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:00 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Look you are the one being hypocirtical looking as per usual to start a fight.

I really am not bothered what you think.

Not one admin has stated it is racist.

So clearly this is you as per usual starting a fight.

Racist!

Thank you for proving my point.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:01 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Don't worry Didge. I don't mind as it exposes every time I wind you up.

lol its called great piss take.
Seriously you are the only one daily emotional everytime you reply.

Mate, I've seen your rant about me on the other thread.

Don't lie - you are clearly wound up.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:03 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

lol its called great piss take.
Seriously you are the only one daily emotional everytime you reply.

Mate, I've seen your rant about me on the other thread.

Don't lie - you are clearly wound up.

Rant?

You mean where I easily showed up your hatred of Israeli,s where you scream Zionist to anyone who disagrees with you lol

Seriously, you are to easy to wind up and all you come out with is the BDS textbook replies.

You also are hypocritical to your view on ridiculing lol

So calm down Mowgli before you fall over.

Still waiting for you to condemn the attacks

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:03 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Racist!

Thank you for proving my point.

Thanks for proving my point, racist.

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:03 am

Cuchulain wrote:But as seen by winning in such cases they can which is why your point was incorrect, you would need to show where people have lost in such cases, hence why Nicko was right.

Then why doesn't it apply in all states?

Exactly.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:04 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:But as seen by winning in such cases they can which is why your point was incorrect, you would need to show where people have lost in such cases, hence why Nicko was right.

Then why doesn't it apply in all states?

Exactly.

Oh my, but people can as seen win through the supreme court, or has this escaped your attention?

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:05 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Thank you for proving my point.

Thanks for proving my point, racist.

Of course it's racist Rags. What, I just happen to be Indian.

When Didge gets pissed, his bigotry (probably from his days as a football hooligan) does come out. ;-)

by Fuzzy Zack Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:06 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Then why doesn't it apply in all states?

Exactly.

Oh my, but people can as seen win through the supreme court, or has this escaped your attention?

You couldn't answer the question.

When you do, let me know.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:07 am

lol how hilarious and very desperate

Oregon Shooting: US Gun Deaths Compared To UK And Those Killed By Terrorism 250?cb=20150917045823

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:08 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Oh my, but people can as seen win through the supreme court, or has this escaped your attention?

You couldn't answer the question.

When you do, let me know.

Again if it is won in the surpreme court what does that tell you?

Doh

Seriously you are getting more embarressing with everyday

by Raggamuffin Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:11 am

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Thanks for proving my point, racist.

Of course it's racist Rags. What, I just happen to be Indian.

When Didge gets pissed, his bigotry (probably from his days as a football hooligan) does come out. ;-)

It makes a mockery of all his hectoring and badgering about racism. I always knew that he's not being genuine about that anyway.

by Guest Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:11 am

In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.^[ In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

by Sponsored content