Gun control in the U.S. is almost non-existent and, in my opinion, that is because of the constitution.
The second ammendment, the right to bear arms, was written in an era where it was almost a necessity. Let's not forget...they were committing genocide by stealing land from the natives and wiping them out...so guns were needed by almost everyone.
It is in the constitution and will always be there...so strap in.
Tightening up the gun laws may help a bit...but there is more to it than that. Drugs and prostitution are perfect examples.
Since I work on these ideas professionally, I do want to tweak this just a bit. I know this will be pedantic, but we might as well get our constitutional law right. In a sense, nothing is "in" the constitution until it is established by the Supreme Court; is it the court that decides what's in the constitution. The second amendment is enormously complicated, and the so-called "right to bear arms" is widely contested. In fact, both federal and most state laws long held that governments could limit gun ownership in many ways. It was in 2008, the landmark District of Columbia vs Heller, that the Supreme Court expanded gun-ownership rights dramatically, essentially siding with the opponents of gun control, arguing that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms regardless of whether he/she is connected to a militia. Because the Supreme Court can't be "wrong," that is now federal law and is the current reading of the Constitution; in that sense it is "in" the constitution. But it was not "in" the constitution before this case, and the Supreme Court was divided in this case. There were four justices who dissented, essentially saying it's not in the constitution, and many legal scholars feel that the decision is a misreading. (Again, it's the now the law, so for now it is the "correct" reading of the document.) But there are still many ways to enact gun control that are consistent even with this ruling; it would likely not be considered unconstitutional to enact more rigorous background checks, to limit the "loopholes" of unregulated purchases at gun shows, to limit access to purchasers on the no-fly list, etc. And it is also not the case that "it will always be" in the constitution. The constitution is a living document; its meaning changes (as it did in the Heller case), and of course the constitution can be changed. In fact, the wording about the right to bear arms is in an amendment, not in the constitution itself.
Also, I remain baffled by people saying that laws don't do much. All the evidence from other countries suggests exactly the opposite. When gun violence spiked in Norway, Scotland, Australia, etc, new and stricter laws had measurable effects on gun violence. The pro-gun lobby does not dispute this, they simply prioritize the rights of gun owners. That seems like a real argument to me, though I don't agree with it. (They also argue that in the US we're safer with more guns, an argument with little evidence since we've seen a dramatic rise in gun ownership over the last decade and, obviously, no decrease in gun violence.)
Finally, the notion that laws don't work to curb prostitution misses the point, as I explained earlier. Those laws are weak, and amount to shaming. Most of us on this board who hire escorts, in the US and Canada, do so knowing the legal (and health) risks. In fact, one reason that Montreal is so popular is that the laws are generally weaker than in many of the US states. We know the laws, know that they're rarely enforced, and know how to work around them; for example, we don't ask explicit questions over email or in a public setting that suggest the exchange of money for sex. But if those laws were changed, behavior would change. If the law in Montreal made it clear that hiring an escort could result in a 15-year minimum jail sentence, being named on the sexual offenders list, and chemical castration, and if the city government made it clear that all emails and phone conversations were going to be monitored in support of this law, then this board would disappear overnight, as would virtually all the Montreal agencies, Backpages, etc. Would such a law completely eliminate prostitution? No. Would it dramatically alter behavior? Yes, it surely would.
Sorry to lecture. Again, I'm more interested in how we make arguments than in what positions we take. I'm making a case for clarity in argument here, not disagreeing with anyone.
