Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns

[dannyboy]

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns)



By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "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."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."

Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.

Gun rights supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other gun regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of machine guns. Other laws keep felons from buying guns and provide for an instant background check.

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.

[drougan]

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."



I agree with this guy.

[supra-genius]

Ahh, @#$@# it, give everyone a god damn gun and lets start thinning the herd. If you make it through the day, good on you, if not, tough shit...

Yeah, Im in one of THOSE moods today.

[Slar]

I guess the only remaining question is whether gay Americans have the right to have guns.

[classicgrrl]

Ahh, @#$@# it, give everyone a god damn gun and lets start thinning the herd. If you make it through the day, good on you, if not, tough shit...

Yeah, Im in one of THOSE moods today.

right behind you.

[patio]

right behind you.

with a gun?

[wileE]

with a gun?

Nah, he's the shield.

[Chespo]

I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom."Providing relief"? "Deprived of this freedom"? Christ, there goes the neighborhood.

[Tweak Tweak]

So I guess that the gun-violence-free, 32-year golden era that the ban brought about in Washington, DC is at an end.

[akip]

you still won't be able to take a gun into a federal building. so the politicos will have to leave their piece under the seat.

[patio]

So I guess that the gun-violence-free, 32-year golden era that the ban brought about in Washington, DC is at an end.

hahahaha!! good one

[Tweak Tweak]

hahahaha!! good one

Are you saying there was not a 32-year, gun-violence-free, golden era in DC? That my comment came off as sarcastic? A joke of some sort?

How could there possibly not have been a 32YGVFGE in the District? GUNS WERE ILLEGAL, ERGO NO ONE HAD ANY GUNS!*

Perhaps people OUTSIDE the District, where guns are legal, shot INTO the 100% GUN FREE* zone and inflicted death on its good citizens.

That is the only possible explanation for 34.1 gun deaths per 100,000 people in a place THAT HAD NO GUNS*.

*Guns = Illegal in DC 1976-2008.

[Predot listener]

Are you saying there was not a 32-year, gun-violence-free, golden era in DC? That my comment came off as sarcastic? A joke of some sort?

How could there possibly not have been a 32YGVFGE in the District? GUNS WERE ILLEGAL, ERGO NO ONE HAD ANY GUNS!*

Perhaps people OUTSIDE the District, where guns are legal, shot INTO the 100% GUN FREE* zone and inflicted death on its good citizens.

That is the only possible explanation for 34.1 gun deaths per 100,000 people in a place THAT HAD NO GUNS*.

*Guns = Illegal in DC 1976-2008.

As hard as it is for all of us to believe, it's possible he thought something you wrote was actually somewhat funny.

[upwithpeople]

So I guess that the gun-violence-free, 32-year golden era that the ban brought about in Washington, DC is at an end.So, basically, nothing should ever be illegal, because it occurs?

[drougan]

As hard as it is for all of us to believe, it's possible he thought something you wrote was actually somewhat funny.

nah...

patio probably has too much firsthand knowledge of the subject at hand (being violent gun deaths) to have found the remark funny.

You know what I find funny? The fact that pretty much anyone who's clamouring about gun ownership rights and mocking gun bans aren't typically the ones dying of gun violence.

[akip]

it will be interesting to see if the ban lift has any effect on the murder rate. though in bad times, the stats usually get worse anyway.

[the happy prole]

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.

To me, the first part is an explanation for the law rather than a condition. A well regulated militia is necessary, hence the right to bear arms is necessary.

It's like "Gravity being a force of nature, a dropped apple will fall to the Earth."

There's no condition there like "so long as a well regulated militia is necessary" or "if a well regulated militia is necessary." The way that is written, a well regulated militia is necessary, period.

If you decide to change our minds about the well regulated militia, you need to rewrite that law. That would take a constitutional amendment and not a ruling from the court.

[markalot]

I read as all people have the right to bear arms, the excuse being a well regulated militia. A well regulated militia is not required, but the right to bear arms is.

In other words, because of the need to rise up against an oppressive government the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

I believe the gun crime rate in DC will drop, but I could be wrong. I'm happy to have a chance to find out.

[Duemellon]

Focusing attention on #2 & citing an implied desire for the authors to secure the capacity for "the people" to confront a out-of-control government is a bit too focused.

Especially when considering that our government has neutered our rights to free speech & gathering. What are we going to do when we collectively don't like the government? How would we know? We gonna just grab our guns, go out in the street, but not be able to talk over the media, dig below the hype, & get a permit for a gathering before we rebel?

Most people who leverage the right to bear arms as a tool to defend against oppression are really just doing so with lipservice. In no way can they actually feel that is a practical means to change the government because most of them feel the government is just fine & will always be fine.Like, giving someone the right to drive their car to the grocery store when they live on a farm that they can live off of. Why would they ever really exercise that right? They can get their license, but will never need it.So why act as if you're arming yourself & your fellow 'mericans against a government you'd never really imagine them defending themselves from? If you're really never going to have an armed revolt, why arm yourself "in case"? You know dang well the moment you stick that gun towards the Prez you'll have the 101st up your ass & a ton of SS... err Secret Service people even further up your colon....And you wouldn't want it any other way!

[the happy prole]

Nah, it won't make a difference. It's not like the people getting shot in DC don't have guns. Someone drew quicker, shot straighter or just caught them off-guard is all.

DC will just pass a law requiring licenses for possession and concealed carry. No one's going to bother to go through that. If you want a gun, you'll just get a gun. Same as it is now.

[classicgrrl]

I think we should issue a handgun to every single person born in this country.

no matter what.

[frizgolf]

Focusing attention on #2 & citing an implied desire for the authors to secure the capacity for "the people" to confront a out-of-control government is a bit too focused.

Especially when considering that our government has neutered our rights to free speech & gathering. What are we going to do when we collectively don't like the government? How would we know? We gonna just grab our guns, go out in the street, but not be able to talk over the media, dig below the hype, & get a permit for a gathering before we rebel?

Most people who leverage the right to bear arms as a tool to defend against oppression are really just doing so with lipservice. In no way can they actually feel that is a practical means to change the government because most of them feel the government is just fine & will always be fine.Like, giving someone the right to drive their car to the grocery store when they live on a farm that they can live off of. Why would they ever really exercise that right? They can get their license, but will never need it.So why act as if you're arming yourself & your fellow 'mericans against a government you'd never really imagine them defending themselves from? If you're really never going to have an armed revolt, why arm yourself "in case"? You know dang well the moment you stick that gun towards the Prez you'll have the 101st up your ass & a ton of SS... err Secret Service people even further up your colon....And you wouldn't want it any other way!

Back when the amendment was written, every Tom, Dick, and Harry had access to the same types of weapons the armed forces were equipped with. I honestly believe the forefathers had no crystal ball to see that there would be such a wide chasm between what the gov't is armed with nowadays and what the average Joe can get. I feel, as do lots of folks, that the 2nd amendment was a deterrent to forceful gov't takeover.

Now, where are those damn nukes I ordered last week?

[monkey neck]

My neighborhood's so bad, you can get shot while you're getting shot.

[the happy prole]

If you step outside the realm of pure legal argument, Due has a pretty compelling policy argument.

I mean, what do you call someone who wants to shoot a (Republican) President? A lot of people would call that person a terrorist.

You've got all these laws for harsher sentencing and more government intrusion at the same time you're paying lip service to limiting government and being able to overthrow them.

If I want to buy a gun for the express purpose of overthrowing the government-- well that's all fine and dandy because that's what the second amendment protects. And yet, if I want to call up a friend and merely talk about overthrowing the government, I'm a traitor and should get the harshest of sentences.

It really makes no sense.

[Marlowe]

it's amazing that the same people who read into the "emanations of the penumbra" of the constitution to create from thin air various rights that never existed before, have so much trouble reading black and white, straight-forward language, and use post-modern literary critique methods to look at the sub-text in order to deny what's plain for anyone to see right there in the "text". and it's also amusing that so-called advocacy groups like the ACLU protect and defend the entire bill of rights to the extreme, except for that nettlesome 2nd amendment.

i personally wouldn't care all that much if guns were banned, although it would pose a huge practical challenge. but more than that, the reality is that the US will never change the constitution because they like having the right to bear arms.

i live in a country where you can't have a gun and crime is super-low, but i've also lived in places where the crime rate was super-low and guns were legal. so i'm not really sure if there's a correlation or not. but to me that's not really the point.

[Jumbo Shrimp]

Hello? 2nd amendment gives me the inalienable right to bear arms!

[yoshomon]

Hello? 2nd amendment gives me the inalienable right to bear arms!

But the real question is: deez nuts? or those nutz?

[akip]

seems to me that some of the biggest proponents of gun control in big cities were usually the police. i suppose they'll be the ones who see any changes in arrests/convictions, if any.

[Duemellon]

i suppose they'll be the ones who see any changes in arrests/convictions, if any.Those who live long enough.

Having guns easily available increases the severity of every incident. This escalation reduces the amount of "mistakes" a cop can make. This also means any call, from a cat being stuck in a tree to screaming 7-year-olds next door, now includes a greater chance of a gun being involved.

If a gun is present, the cop will most likely produce their gun. Escalation begins & panic sets in (it should only set in on one side of this cop - non-cop equasion, but that's not necessarily how it plays out). Shit happens.

[akip]

apparently the next challenges are likely to be chicago, nyc, philadelphia and detroit:

nytimes: coming next, court fights on guns in cities (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27guns.html?hp)

[epeolatry]

But the real question is: deez nuts? or those nutz?

no question.

http://chaos.com/coverscan/1595000/1591451.jpg

[the happy prole]

I really don't think this case is that big a deal for gun advocates. In fact, it may actually hurt them more than it helps.

Kennedy is kind of more a policy/moral guy so when it comes time to formulate a balancing test he could easily swing the way of the liberals and make it very, very difficult to actually obtain or do anything with a gun. I was kind of surprised that Scalia limited the reach of his opinion as much as he did.

[clonE]

Having guns easily available increases the severity of every incident. This escalation reduces the amount of "mistakes" a cop can make. This also means any call, from a cat being stuck in a tree to screaming 7-year-olds next door, now includes a greater chance of a gun being involved.



how do you get a cat out of a tree if you don't have a gun?

[TripleShockPowa]

Focusing attention on #2 & citing an implied desire for the authors to secure the capacity for "the people" to confront a out-of-control government is a bit too focused.

Especially when considering that our government has neutered our rights to free speech & gathering. What are we going to do when we collectively don't like the government? How would we know? We gonna just grab our guns, go out in the street, but not be able to talk over the media, dig below the hype, & get a permit for a gathering before we rebel?

Most people who leverage the right to bear arms as a tool to defend against oppression are really just doing so with lipservice. In no way can they actually feel that is a practical means to change the government because most of them feel the government is just fine & will always be fine.Like, giving someone the right to drive their car to the grocery store when they live on a farm that they can live off of. Why would they ever really exercise that right? They can get their license, but will never need it.So why act as if you're arming yourself & your fellow 'mericans against a government you'd never really imagine them defending themselves from? If you're really never going to have an armed revolt, why arm yourself "in case"? You know dang well the moment you stick that gun towards the Prez you'll have the 101st up your ass & a ton of SS... err Secret Service people even further up your colon....And you wouldn't want it any other way!

But were these things not written by people who had just done that very thing? using guns to throw off an opressive government?

<opinion>This nation was forged with guns and so guns became part of our culture and our history; like it or not.

I find it laughable that people think that BANNING something (guns, prostitution, drugs, etc.) will make criminals who; by definition; are already engaged at IGNORING said laws; will suddenly say "Oh my, this is not permitted. I'll simply stop now."

Laws are no longer deterents, nor are our ghetto-country-club prisons. I'm increasingly afraid that it will take such a foundation-shaking moral change in our society to leave this path that the Nation may not emerge intact.</opinion>

[akip]

how do you get a cat out of a tree if you don't have a gun?

very cute.:D:D

[Macpherson]

so lets play out the argument that you can form a militia and overthrow the oppressive gov't.

if you formed a militia tomorrow to battle the gov't, what do you think the gov't is going to do in response? they're either going to oppressively arrest you or kill you to stay in power. then they'll ban the right to arms just to stay in power.

it's going to have to be societal change before there are gun law changes. americans just love their guns and the power that goes with them to give them up.

[akip]

the phrase i also don't get is "well-regulated" militia. wtf is regulated about an uprising?

[Kruschev]

The second amendment is quite antiquated as I can't imagine anyone feeling the urge to rise up against the government. More of an excuse to own guns anyway. I don't like guns have never shot one. With that said I still support this decision. Safety's a big issue for folks, even though a majority probably haven't needed to use their weapon for safety's purposes. Of all the licensed gun owners I figure a good majority is for hunting or sport purposes. What about them? I also wholeheartedly support the concealed carry legislature. Guns obtained illegally aren't gonna stop.

I feel though, that anyone wishing to obtain a gun should go through some sort of training course before they get their gun. A course in how to handle situations with your gun before you need to use it. Also training in keeping your kids away your steel. Though I kinda think those stories are overblown. The message from the course should be, "when you buy a gun, you buy responsibility." I mean, who actually wants to kill somebody?

[akip]

I mean, who actually wants to kill somebody?

kruschev, i think you should copyright all your posts and whip up a tv show concept, starring you.

[the happy prole]

The whole Bill of Rights was fatally flawed from the start. I honestly have no idea why everyone thinks it is so great. I think we'd actually be better off if it had been some squishy talk about principles to uphold rather than "rights."

If you don't have a "right" until the government expressly grants it to you, then how is it's not really a right held by the people is it? Any of those "rights" can be legally revoked via constitutional amendment at any time. So it's really a temporary privilege granted by the government.

The result has been a stupid focus on what the founders intended and all this historical bs rather than just thinking about the actual implications. We consult some centuries old document written by people who never contemplated the present situation as if it has some sort of authority instead of thinking for ourselves.

You're really asking the Supreme Court to make policy, which is not what they are supposed to do. And you're asking them to make it based on the constitution, and not on what might actually be a good idea.

[Duemellon]

I think we'd actually be better off if it had been some squishy talk about principles to uphold rather than "rights."Yep. Same here. Absolutely. I agree.

[Tweak Tweak]

The whole Bill of Rights was fatally flawed from the start. I honestly have no idea why everyone thinks it is so great. I think we'd actually be better off if it had been some squishy talk about principles to uphold rather than "rights."

If you don't have a "right" until the government expressly grants it to you, then how is it's not really a right held by the people is it? Any of those "rights" can be legally revoked via constitutional amendment at any time. So it's really a temporary privilege granted by the government.

The result has been a stupid focus on what the founders intended and all this historical bs rather than just thinking about the actual implications. We consult some centuries old document written by people who never contemplated the present situation as if it has some sort of authority instead of thinking for ourselves.

You're really asking the Supreme Court to make policy, which is not what they are supposed to do. And you're asking them to make it based on the constitution, and not on what might actually be a good idea.

Canada's current charter is based on squishy principles, and they've given up free speech (Google: "human rights commission" + Macleans). I'm not saying the Bill of Rights is flawless, but your suggested alternative is worse.

[Motti]

I like gun bans.

And here's the reason: I don't think sane people carry guns around. I might be wrong, but I don't want to be around people with guns. Never. I don't think I ever have. If a friend of mine told me they bought a gun and decided to walk around with it, I wouldn't hang out with him anymore. I don't think anything good results from carrying a gun, quite the opposite.

By establishing a gun ban, you're basically saying "if you have a gun, you're in trouble". I think that's a better deterrent to criminals then "hey, that guy might or might not be carrying a gun, so I won't attack him".

That said, I understand it's basically impractical. But if it spares the lives of, say, two people per year, I think it's worthy.

[Tweak Tweak]

That said, I understand it's basically impractical. But if it spares the lives of, say, two people per year, I think it's worthy.

DC had a gun ban for 32 years, and it's pretty safe to say it didn't save a single life.

[clonE]

This discussion is interesting, and I like the tone here a lot more than from my right wing college 'friends' [their discussion is about how much the dissenting opinion sucks]

What's funny about it is there a sportsman's club near my house that trap shoots and I'm thinking about checking it out. As long as I don't need my own gun.

Having a gun and carrying a gun are two different issues too. Even if I were to someday own a gun I wouldn't keep it in a rack in my truck or wear a holster.

Realistically, if you wanted to overthrow the gov't, you're not going to do it with store bought legal guns anyway.

[Motti]

DC had a gun ban for 32 years, and it's pretty safe to say it didn't save a single life.

Hmmm, but how can we be sure? Maybe the police arrested one or two guys -- for carrying a firearm -- that were on their way to kill some other guy?

Or a child didn't blow his/her brains out playing with his dad's guns?

Those are the cases.

[Tweak Tweak]

Hmmm, but how can we be sure? Maybe the police arrested one or two guys -- for carrying a firearm -- that were on their way to kill some other guy?

Or a child didn't blow his/her brains out playing with his dad's guns?

Those are the cases.

As long as you balance this against those that were, presumably, shot to death without recourse to defend themselves because they obeyed the law.

[the happy prole]

That's a rather stupid presumption, however.

[Tweak Tweak]

That's a rather stupid presumption, however.

No more stupid than the notion that the gun ban saved a life. Any life.

Obviously we're talking, on both sides of the presumptive fence, about people you can count on one hand (Which, in your case = 6. Because you're inbred. And inbreds have congenital birth defects. Like an extra finger. You can count to two on your palate. Because it's cleft. Another congenital birth defect. Resulting from inbreeding. But you can only count to one on your foot. It's a club foot. You guessed it: Congenital birth defect. Often resulting from sister marriage. Which I'm implying your Ma and Pa did.)

[berzerker]

So, basically, nothing should ever be illegal, because it occurs?

No, nothing should ever be assumed to not occur, because it is illegal...

[the happy prole]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. In DC anyway. The cops in DC don't give a crap about who owns guns or who kills who so it really doesn't matter a whole lot what the law says.

[Tweak Tweak]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. In DC anyway. The cops in DC don't give a crap about who owns guns or who kills who so it really doesn't matter a whole lot what the law says.

No dancing.

[berzerker]

No dancing.

http://www.vitia.org/pictures/footloose.jpg

[Marlowe]

Q: how do the aclu and 'civil libertarians' on the woxy boards count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

[frizgolf]

Q: how do the aclu and 'civil libertarians' on the woxy boards count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

You could probably dig deep enough to find that some of the people questioning the existence or wisdom of the founding fathers in crafting the second amendment are the very same who question the current administration's abuse of Gitmo's prisoners' constitutional rights.

[the happy prole]

They have the better side of the argument, frizgolf.

They don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. They're protesting the erosion of the of the rights they DO believe are important by exercising the rights they believe are in important to keep the government in check. It's all consistent.

You, on the other hand believe that the 2nd Amendment is the one you use to preserve the other 9. So if that's the case, shouldn't you get out your get out your gun and blow away the President? If you're not going to use the 2nd Amendment to stop a government from stripping away your fundamental freedoms, then what is it good for?

[lounatic]

I find it laughable that people think that BANNING something (guns, prostitution, drugs, etc.) will make criminals who; by definition; are already engaged at IGNORING said laws; will suddenly say "Oh my, this is not permitted. I'll simply stop now." </opinion>

Wow it took almost two pages to get a smart post in here! This may be cliche but "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

[frizgolf]

They have the better side of the argument, frizgolf.

They don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. They're protesting the erosion of the of the rights they DO believe are important by exercising the rights they believe are in important to keep the government in check. It's all consistent.

You, on the other hand believe that the 2nd Amendment is the one you use to preserve the other 9. So if that's the case, shouldn't you get out your get out your gun and blow away the President? If you're not going to use the 2nd Amendment to stop a government from stripping away your fundamental freedoms, then what is it good for?

Actually, I'm more afraid that by successfully deconstructing one particular amendment, that such deconstruction could be used against any article by any party as they see fit. If the second amendment is seen as wobbly by civil libertarians, it bolsters an administration's view that the right to speedy trial and due process is a wobbly concept.
In either case, there was no way the constitutional framers could have had any idea what scope of weapons and communication devices would be available to the masses.
So, yeah, I pulled a bit of a straw man to bolster my belief that the articles as a whole are only as strong as their weakest link.

[the happy prole]

Actually, I'm more afraid that by successfully deconstructing one particular amendment, that such deconstruction could be used against any article by any party as they see fit.

Yeah, I agree with you there to a certain extent. I mean, it's in the Constitution same as the other rights, so it has to be treated with the same respect. Torturing the language to try to finagle a way to say there is no right to bear arms does no one any favors. That's why as a legal matter, I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. If you want to ban handguns, you need to pass an amendment.

As far the broader issue goes, I have to say I think it's a pretty stupid right. It's just not what I view as a fundamental freedom, especially since no one is going to overthrow the government with a bunch of handguns. The original rationale behind it no longer works.

If it were up to me, I would do away with the 2nd Amendment but I would also personally vote against a handgun ban.

[the happy prole]

Wow it took almost two pages to get a smart post in here! This may be cliche but "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

When murder is outlawed, only murderers will murder.

Pretty much every regulation or law ever written can be construed as a ban on something. If banning primarily aids those who break the rules then we should just do away with all of them.

[patio]

Q: how do the aclu and 'civil libertarians' on the woxy boards count to 10?
A: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

wtf! Thats not right, it goes: 1,2,3,4...

[frizgolf]

As far the broader issue goes, I have to say I think it's a pretty stupid right. It's just not what I view as a fundamental freedom, especially since no one is going to overthrow the government with a bunch of handguns. The original rationale behind it no longer works.

Yeah, I don't see how anyone can construe the 2nd as being a tool to overthrow a government. They may have seen it more as a disincentive for an administration to forcefully impose martial law or simply steamroll over a population within the time constraints of an election cycle.
It may have just been a way to deter invading armies from outside. That seems to have worked quite well.

[DaHood]

From the Constitution... Amendment II

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.

I don't see where the second amendment necessarily or literally means that it is to insure the ability to overthrow an oppressive government. It could be interpreted to mean a lot of different things, such as defending against invaders, assisting the military or fighting other oppressive forces such as criminals. But the one thing which is quite clear is "shall not be infringed".

For whatever reason, or how much anyone disagrees why, the right to bear arms is quite clear. Gun bans are unconstitutional. If you don't like that you have to fight to change the constitution because simply banning guns is not constitutional.

[Marlowe]

If you don't like that you have to fight to change the constitution because simply banning guns is not constitutional.
yeah but, why try to use the power of persuasion to change people's minds and use the appropriate legal process when you can instead get some renegade judge to just do it for you?

what social-engineering liberal types never understand (or more likely, don't care about) is that when you force change down people's throat by judicial fiat, all you do is inflame public opinion and divide people. when you instead actually use the system, social changes will have a broad public consensus.

[Duemellon]

...when you force change down people's throat by judicial fiat, all you do is inflame public opinion and divide people. when you instead actually use the system, social changes will have a broad public consensus.Like prohibition? Yah, that worked so smoothly.

I guess the emancipation proclaimation went as smooth as butter (Jif, Peanut Butter: Chunky style) too.

Yet, over time, we've lost many inhabitions regarding sex & sexual expression. Very few laws were actually passed for that. There's nothing in the constitution, bill of rights, or amendments, regarding the right to be homosexual, wear a bikini, or a thong. Yet,... it hapened.

[Duemellon]

They may have seen it more as a disincentive for an administration to forcefully impose martial law or simply steamroll over a population within the time constraints of an election cycle.Which entity would be in a position to do such? What entity would impose martial law to affect the outcome of an election?

If it's a non-government entity, one that is contrary to the government's interest, wouldn't the government be involved in fighting/fending off that entity & not "the people"?

The only entity "the people" would have to be armed against would be those entities the government isn't actively fighting/fending off. The only entities the government wouldn't fight/fend off are those it supports or at least is complacent to. Therefore... the very government, put in place to defend the freedoms of "the people" is failing.

Which leads us back to "the people" being armed to resist things the government should be resisting on their behalf but aren't. That's either a corrupt or incompetent government.It may have just been a way to deter invading armies from outside. That seems to have worked quite well.If an external entity is invading "the people" & the government fails to resist it using it's federal troops, then the government has failed or is incompetent in that scenerio too. The people are left to defend themselves.

However, historically speaking, when a war happens, one entity attempts to destabilize the other to where they are unable to continue the war. When that happens, the central authority (be it government, military, or religious) has lost the ability to properly govern. With the dissolution of the central authority, what entity is protecting "the peoples'" rights or ensurnig their rights anymore anyway? There is no government. Why write a law for a scenerio you can't enforce the law in because the government doesn't exist?

[akip]

yeah but, why try to use the power of persuasion to change people's minds and use the appropriate legal process when you can instead get some renegade judge to just do it for you?

what social-engineering liberal types never understand (or more likely, don't care about) is that when you force change down people's throat by judicial fiat, all you do is inflame public opinion and divide people. when you instead actually use the system, social changes will have a broad public consensus.


let's stick to the original constitution that made no provision for women's rights. just 'cos.

[Marlowe]

let's stick to the original constitution that made no provision for women's rights. just 'cos.

yeah well, while you are being sarcastic, you actually raised the perfect example of the point i'm making. women's rights were secured through the legislative process and by changing the constitution by adding the 19th amendment. today as a result of that democratic, legislative process, women's rights are broadly agreed to across all strata of our society, where 150 years ago they weren't. if some judge sitting in DC had done this by judicial fiat, it would have actually hurt the cause because people don't like societal choices being foisted upon them.

so thanks for backing me up on this one.

[akip]

yeah well, while you are being sarcastic, you actually raised the perfect example of the point i'm making. women's rights were secured through the legislative process and by changing the constitution by adding the 19th amendment. today as a result of that democratic, legislative process, women's rights are broadly agreed to across all strata of our society, where 150 years ago they weren't. if some judge sitting in DC had done this by judicial fiat, it would have actually hurt the cause because people don't like societal choices being foisted upon them.

so thanks for backing me up on this one.

but because of a large radical group and sympathetic judges, are still under threat. without basic reproductive rights, women aren't equal citizens.

[markalot]

By reproductive rights you mean fuck without consequences? O shit, I'm pregnant, that's ok I'll just kill the fucker. That's my fucking right!

I actually support that on principal, but it still makes me sick to read it.

Abortion rights was not legislated, yet another example.

[akip]

By reproductive rights you mean fuck without consequences? O shit, I'm pregnant, that's ok I'll just kill the fucker. That's my fucking right!

I actually support that on principal, but it still makes me sick to read it.

Abortion rights was not legislated, yet another example.

typical jumping to conclusions---assumes that any woman who gets pregnant accidentally is a whore.

and i think it's a perfect example of how society has changed in 200+ years, with both the roles of women changing AND advancements in medicine that make safe abortions possible.

[akip]

face it---ever since we moved away from an agrarian society where women gave birth to their own farmhands, the conditions under which the constitution was written changed.

[Marlowe]

Abortion rights was not legislated, yet another example.
exactly.

ever wonder why abortion is still so controversial in the US but there's a relative social consensus across most countries in europe? is it because they're just more enlightened than we are, and we're all just a bunch of bible-thumpin' fools? no, it's because abortion in europe was settled legislatively rather than through judicial fiat. in europe, the give-and-take of democracy resulted in abortion being legalized but having a few more restrictions than we see in the US.

the benefits of this are that people on both sides can live with it since they (or their elected representatives) hashed it out, as opposed to abortion in the US, where a sizable minority (or slight majority) are uber-pissed that social change was forced down their throat by judicial fiat.

[frizgolf]

Which entity would be in a position to do such? What entity would impose martial law to affect the outcome of an election?


The current administration at any time. I merely implied that the 2nd was another in a long line of checks and balances aimed at keeping a president or legislative body from thinking of becoming dictatorial due to the relatively short election cycle, and not necessarily that they'd try to affect the outcome. Let's face it, in a dictatorship, an election is useless most of the time any way.
The 2nd was conceived, I believe, to keep power-hungry takeover-minded forces, both internal and external, occupied for as long as possible in the physical act of forceful takeover by keeping in mind they'd have to clear every nook, cranny, and hiding space of every gun they know or don't know about.
Makes 'em think about forcing things down our throats.

[frizgolf]

a sizable minority (or slight majority) are uber-pissed that social change was forced down their throat by judicial fiat.

Makes 'em think about forcing things down our throats.

I forgot about judges. Appointed rather than elected, they, too, can become quite power-mad.

[jps]

As is my normal method to throw around a little bit of moderation to the discussion.
It's quite possible that the ruling was correct based on the constitution and that it is still constitutionally acceptable to ban some guns. For what its worth the 2nd amend says keep and bear arms. It says nothing about guns, bombs, bows and arrows, etc. It doesn't specify what kinds of arms you are allowed to keep and bear. It would seem then that unless you are espousing the rights of your neighbors to build nukes and keep them in silos in their back yards, then you are in favor of some regulations regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Somewhere in here is where some form of common sense comes into play... and also where some form of interpretation of what was meant by the framers of the constitution both when they wrote it and into the future. Judges. In this case, simply stated, they made a ruling that said the handgun is not the kind of arms that can be banned based on the 2nd amendments language and the history of the nation (both at its inception and throughout its history). They ruled that the framers intent was that citizens have the right to defend themselves with common armaments of the day. Had the DC ban been a ban on some more "exotic" firearm that was fully automatic and had a grenade launcher and rocket launch attachment they may have ruled differently.

Personally, I don't care for guns but I don't mind the 2nd amendment. I do mind people discounting the word "regulated" as well as those who disregard the words "shall not be infringed"

For what its worth (and probably for another thread) there was a study done a few years ago to see which SCOTUS voted most often to strike down or overturn laws passed by the Congress... So what were the stats? Which justices "legislated from the bench" the most:
Thomas 65.63 % (% of time voted to strike down or overturn laws passed by congress)
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

[Duemellon]

Yeah, I don't see how anyone can construe the 2nd as being a tool to overthrow a government.I think it is to marginalize gun ownership by focusing on the idea of overthrowing the government.
...
Now, whether Joe down the block could or should overthrow the government is immaterial. Once again, like you alluded to, it is among other things a check against the government.If the people defending the right to own guns turns to the 2nd amendment, they will have no problem stating it was written to arm the individual citizen from the effects of corrupt or inept government.

It's the thing they focus on. It's because everyone knows that's what they wrote it for. The context points to it. The literal language points to it. It's one of the defining aspects of it.

However, people may cite it as "a" reason to be armed, but then turn around & use the guns for every reason but "the" reason they cited. The Constitution doesn't garauntee anyone the right to go hunting. It doesn't secure anyone the right to defend their homes from non-government criminals. It doesn't even give citizens the right to own guns to defend themselves from an invading foreign power without being in a militia.

It coupled the right of the individual to have a gun with their desire to ensure everyone can bring to bear armed resistance against abuses of government. You can't turn to it to protect your guns & then turn your back on that aspect because you don't want to use your guns "just for that specific reason".

[the happy prole]

Jefferson believed that guns were useful to overthrow the government, and a rebellion every 20 years was a necessary thing for the health of the country. I doubt that many people agree with that today.

John Adams believed that guns were useful to protect the government. His idea of "militia" is essentially a volunteer police force/army because at that time the US didn't have a standing army.

Adams and Jefferson were on completely opposite sides. The only thing they had in common was that they wanted their side to be armed, just in case. So the compromise is that the 2nd Amendments says you can bear arms, and then the signers would go back to their states and fill out the details.


The Massachusetts Constitution (written by Adams) reads like this:

Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

So really, both sides are right. Under Adams' interpretation, guns are only for the army and police to protect the US, and now that we have standing armies and police forces guns can and probably should be banned. Under Jefferson's interpretation, guns are still necessary. Just depends on which founding father you choose to side with.

[the happy prole]

yeah but, why try to use the power of persuasion to change people's minds and use the appropriate legal process when you can instead get some renegade judge to just do it for you?

what social-engineering liberal types never understand (or more likely, don't care about) is that when you force change down people's throat by judicial fiat, all you do is inflame public opinion and divide people. when you instead actually use the system, social changes will have a broad public consensus.

So then, you would be against the Supreme Court using their power to overturn a law that has existed for 32 years and is still supported by the overwhelming majority of the governing body that passed the rule?

This ruling is pretty much a text book case of so-called judicial activism run amok, isn't it?

[frizgolf]

Another thing to be considered at the time the articles were written is that the country was still wild, with lots of buffalo, wolves, wild cats, moose, and them thar pesky red-skinned Injuns, who probably weren't even considered good enough to be given rights as 3/5 of a person. The savage and wildlife element was a constant threat to the burgeoning agriculture and colonizing efforts of the day. Arms were needed.

[classicgrrl]

I believe Americans should have the right to kills themselves and others. it's exercised frequently and I don't think passing any laws to the contrary would have an effect.

[Shlep]

You know what I find funny? The fact that pretty much anyone who's clamouring about gun ownership rights and mocking gun bans aren't typically the ones dying of gun violence.

You know what I find equally funny about this assertion? That the same can be said for people who get worked into fits of pious, high-minded dudgeon when clamoring for *MORE* gun control.

I've yet to meet a single person living in a shady or dangerous neighborhood (some of whom were to the sort of folks I referred to as "my neighbors") who steadfastly supported attempts by elected lawmakers on any level to criminalize the act of being able to defend themselves from people who-- unlike them-- were not only actually dangerous but actually armed *AND* actually likely to slay someone in the commission of a crime or other random act of senseless violence. Instead, I find more often than not that it's the sort of earnest, educated folks who live in nicer locales and who make it a point to find the time to really, *really* totally care about stuff to where it motivates them to try and help save the less-enlightened majority from themselves that gripe about how we need more gun control.

So, basically, nothing should ever be illegal, because it occurs?

Of course not. I doubt I'll have any better luck getting the point across, but I'll try anyway. The facts of the matter are this:

1) For just over three decades, Washington DC has had strict regulations against gun ownership, particularly against handguns, concealable firearms, and various weapons which have been incorrectly been branded as "assault weapons" because it sounds scary and makes them easier to ban.

2) During this same period of time, Washington DC became a notoriously dangerous place to live-- particularly in the city's Southeast section, and in the Anacostia district if I recall correctly-- due to violent crime. This state of affairs was attended by the conspicuous use of firearms in the commission of these crimes, particularly firearms which were absolutely illegal to own under prevailing DC law.

At first glance, this sort of thing might appear to be some odd sociological/behavioral anomaly that stands in stark defiance of logic and reason. That is, until one takes care to bear in mind that throughout the United States (and perhaps even a number of foreign countries) there has historically existed a very strong positive correlation between being a criminal and being possessed of a higher-than-normal inclination towards breaking the law. I think there have actually been formal studies conducted to support this hypothesis, though I admit I have no specific ones I can cite right this second.

Anyway, this phenomenon tends to bring certain things into focus...such as when trying to figure out why, for instance, enacting a law that rules the possession or use of something illegal may not prove entirely effective in reducing its prevalence among people for whom breaking the law is a common, if not pervasive, fact of their daily existence. The odds that there is a strong relationship between this factors would seem to only be stengthened by the fact that DC is by no means or stretch of the imagination unusual or unique with regards to be a crime-ridden urban center where imposing increasingly rigid gun laws has had unimpressive results in curbing gun crime.

Over the years, a succession of mayors, civic leaders, and police chiefs has tried tactics ranging from more aggressive policing to gun buy-back programs (the latter being a real windfall for people short of cash who had unserviceable or inoperable weapons they wanted to get rid of) and alas, DC remained pretty dangerous.

Now, the law is set to be changed in such ways as to allow people who are *NOT* currently disposed to commit violent crimes involving guns to legally own them.

Predictably, this has touched off the time-honored debate of gun control in many quarters, with WOXY being no different; in an equally predictable manner, the folks who oppose the relatively free exercise of the 2nd Amendment are acting like this is a catastrophe, since this means there will be, like, *WAY* more guns in circulation in DC, and this of course is going to lead to a sharp increase in pain and suffering and all other sorts of bad stuff guns cause (as opposed to, say, recreation and the ability to defend ones' self).

The part where I (and I do not believe I am at all alone in this regard) get truly confounded is that being a fairly reasonable person, when someone acts like something happening or not happening is a major horrible occurance and a course for wailing and lamentation, I kinda expect for them to explain *WHY*. And you know what? I'm *STILL* waiting for someone on the opposite side of this issue from myself to explain why making firearms more readily available to people who are law-abiding is going to result in an increase in crime. In terms of standing up to logical rigor, this makes about much sense as draconian gun control measures do in the first place, inasmuch as they seek to prevent crime by punishing people who aren't breaking the law.

If gun control worked, cities with the strictest laws *AGAINST* gun ownership would be remarkable for the lack of gun-related crimes, just as other jurisdictions where guns are nowhere as restricted (including a couple I am aware of where gun ownership is mandatory) would be rife with shootings. Neither generally seems to be the case.

[Shlep]

Or a child didn't blow his/her brains out playing with his dad's guns?


What are some other things you favor banning because banning them would reduce or remove the risk that a child might get injured or killed through someone else's recklessness or irresponsibility?

[Shlep]

You, on the other hand believe that the 2nd Amendment is the one you use to preserve the other 9. So if that's the case, shouldn't you get out your get out your gun and blow away the President? If you're not going to use the 2nd Amendment to stop a government from stripping away your fundamental freedoms, then what is it good for?

Maybe because ol' Frizgolf understands that the 2nd Amendment existing as a bulwark against tyranny does not also mean it was intended to be used by random individual citizens to completely circumvent the electoral process with the pull of a trigger because they feel justified in doing so.

Or, maybe Friz would just be content to wait a few months and vote for the person who will inevitably replace Bush as President , since his Constitutionally-mandated term limit means he is leaving office regardless of whether he could get voted in or not.

That is, assuming that he can bear to go on living even one more day in the sort of dictatorial hellhole of a country where individual liberties and human rights have been eroded to the point where people can openly post stuff on Internet messageboards having to do with the hypothetical validity of assassinating the head of state under federal law.

[the happy prole]

I notice that there's a ban on murder in most poor urban areas. And yet despite that ban, murders continue to take place at an alarming rate. It seems to me then, that we ought to go ahead and make murder legal since banning it accomplishes nothing but turn murders into criminals.

[akip]

:D

and we could all drive around in little tanks.

[Shlep]

I notice that there's a ban on murder in most poor urban areas. And yet despite that ban, murders continue to take place at an alarming rate. It seems to me then, that we ought to go ahead and make murder legal since banning it accomplishes nothing but turn murders into criminals.

Because just like with gun ownership, decriminalizing murder would mean that I could kill people without infringing upon the rights of others? Sure.

And by making murder legal, that would lead to an increase in murders since law-abiding people not presently predisposed towards towards slaying someone would begin running around indulging in their new-found freedom to murder?

Thanks, THP. I expected that when I asked the same perfectly simple, straightforward question I always ask in gun-control debates that the result would precisely this sort of feeble, inane, illogical and irrelevant attempt at making it sound silly.

I appreciate you validating my expectations, and doing so even faster than I might have expected.

[Duemellon]

Another thing to be considered at the time the articles were written is that the country was still wild, with lots of buffalo, wolves, wild cats, moose, and them thar pesky red-skinned Injuns, who probably weren't even considered good enough to be given rights as 3/5 of a person. The savage and wildlife element was a constant threat to the burgeoning agriculture and colonizing efforts of the day. Arms were needed.That's another aspect people tend to sleep on that I haven't had reason to point out until now.

When the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, & shit were all signed & put into place, the US wasn't anything but 13 colonies & some settlements in some other territories. To the north were the Brittish. To the south were the Spanish. To the west were the French & the natives. The states were meant to be sovereign entities in a new type of representative conferderacy. The authors of the original laws could not have fathomed how large, populous, nor powerful, their nation would become. How could they have foretold the annexation of Texas? The discovery of gold in California? The purchase of Lousiana & the rest of those states? The control over Guam, Peurto Rico, & Virgin Islands?

They couldn't. They didn't. They were basically expecting their new nation to resemble the European model* of cooperative soveriegn states in an elected representative confederacy.

* btw, before someone decides to start jumping & screaming about how the US was "unique" in it's design & was a radical departure from Europe & there was no "model"... cut it out. They weren't basing it on how it worked at the time, but how they though the different European entities should work it out at that time. Basically, how do you get different entities with divergent identities to cooperate in a way benefiting all involved & creating incentive for earnest participation & subjegation to the welfare for all.

[the happy prole]

Because just like with gun ownership, decriminalizing murder would mean that I could kill people without infringing upon the rights of others? Sure.

I'm against banning handguns shlep, in large part for this very reason.

And by making murder legal, that would lead to an increase in murders since law-abiding people not presently predisposed towards towards slaying someone would begin running around indulging in their new-found freedom to murder?

Did I say that? Straw man, dude. Really. Work on it.

I appreciate you validating my expectations, and doing so even faster than I might have expected.

Don't thank me. You did it all on your own.:p

Look, if you want to know what I think it should be clear. If not, here it is again. People are not getting shot in DC because they obeyed the law and don't own a gun while criminals do. People get shot in DC because everyone owns guns and you can kill people and the cops are too incompetent and corrupt to do anything about it.

Handguns are banned in DC just like murder is banned in DC. Neither ban is effective because no one is enforcing the rules and no one is interested in following the rules.

The reality is, there is effectively no handgun ban in DC. It exists on paper only. You can argue that it's impossible to police illegal handguns anywhere, I suppose, but DC is a bad example to use. They won't even enforce the law properly on things we all agree are wrong like murder, rape, stealing, etc.

And you just pointed out the folly of making simply murder legal just because we can't stop it in DC, which was the point I was trying to make.

The whole DC thing is a red herring. The arguments for or against handguns shouldn't depend on a case history where the cops and elected leaders are corrupt crackheads. If we're going to assume that's the case, every law is equally stupid and equally ineffective.

[the happy prole]

The problem with either argument following this line is to attach a violent act to the gun. The purest argument really is the "guns don't kill people..." one.

Exactly. It's still overly simplistic because I doubt most people will go so far as to argue that "nukes don't kill people..." but the general sentiment has merit.

[Marlowe]

So then, you would be against the Supreme Court using their power to overturn a law that has existed for 32 years and is still supported by the overwhelming majority of the governing body that passed the rule?

This ruling is pretty much a text book case of so-called judicial activism run amok, isn't it?

no, mr. lawyer. as you well know, the legislature can't enact unconstitutional laws, and the supreme court acts as a check-and-balance to ensure that doesn't happen. but, you are welcome to change the constitution to rescind the 2nd amendment if you can get enough people to agree with you. that's the same fate of the 18th amendment, so it's been done before.

[Marlowe]

What are some other things you favor banning because banning them would reduce or remove the risk that a child might get injured or killed through someone else's recklessness or irresponsibility?

a lot more children drown than are killed accidentally by their parents' guns. maybe we should also ban water? the number 1 killer of kids is auto accidents. let's also ban cars. presto, we just eliminated the #1 & 2 killers of children. i'm sure motti will go to sleep peacefully tonight knowing how many children we just saved.

[Duemellon]

The analogy I wonder how someone could interpret the information that way.


I don't think that's the right way to interpret the facts.


You're an idiot.Now, if this was said as a response in a conversation they, at some point, are saying the same stuff. It's clear that whoever said it doesn't agree with what the other said. We can look at this & say the 1st response wasn't that harsh at all. In fact, the conversation can continue & if someone feels hurt by it, it's still rather civil. No bloody noses, u'kno?


The 2nd one, well, is a bit more standoffish & judgmental. It pretty much escalated the situation from being civil to being condescending to the point of personal. Sure, there's room to recover,... words to recant... maybe even a chance it could remain civil.


The 3rd one? Well, that's a "conversation" ender. We're basically saying the same thing as before but the consequences have been upped as the situation has become more extreme.Why point this out? Well, that's what it's like when people start talking about how violence will still exist without guns & then argue that eliminating guns won't eliminate violence.

Guns Don't Kill People - Isn't the topic
Basically, the person responding with that (guns don't kill people...) are pretty much declaring the other was saying they were trying to stop violence in all forms. The conversation then gets derailed & people miss that spot where it turned down the wrong road.

Well let me be clear, I am against violence. I wish violence wasn't ever used in any form. However, I'm talking about gun violence in this discussion. Not just any violence. If you take away guns then you, by default, take away gun violence. Will it be replaced by more knife violence? Maybe. I don't care because that's not what I'm talking about.

Instant Access to Dire Consequences
Another analogy from the above statement's extreme nature & it's escalations. That's what guns are like. A verbal disagreement is like the 1st one. Still basically civil because everyone gets to "go home" & come back the next day.


The 2nd is like a controlled fist-fight. People will be hurt, but if things still stay metered & monitored everyone goes home. Probably embittered & dealing with cuts & bruises, but still, they live.


The 3rd? Well, that's like a gun. Once you've "gone there" something's going to happen. Something bad. Something absolute. It's not that it's somehow changed the fact you disagreed (just like it doesn't change it from being "violent" to being a "new violence"), it simply changed what's at stake.Sure, people will still be murdered by cars, poisons, stabbing, & tossed out of windows. Killing someone, however, will not be as easy without them. It also creates more opporuntities for de-escalation, recovery, & resolution.

If guns didn't have such an marked increase in the likelihood of the results being tragic in extreme fashions, I wouldn't care. You have to work a lot harder to stab someone than you do to shootsomeone. And killing someone with a baseball bat usually takes more swings than it takes to shoot someone.

It's about reducing or stopping gun violence, not just any ol' violence.

[Duemellon]

a lot more children drown than are killed accidentally by their parents' guns. maybe we should also ban water? the number 1 killer of kids is auto accidents. let's also ban cars. presto, we just eliminated the #1 & 2 killers of children. i'm sure motti will go to sleep peacefully tonight knowing how many children we just saved.People choke. People die from conditions induced by food-habit based obesity. People get diabetes through improper food consumption.

- at the same time -

People need food. They can't live a normal life without it. It's their responsibility (or their caregivers') to ensure they are using it properly when they have access to it.

Necessary luxuries - Oxymoronic reality
Cars? People might not "need" cars, but thanks to the evolution of our society there are certain mandatory luxuries to participate. So, banning cars would inhibit virtually everyone's abilty to keep this society functioning & reduce the likelihood of a successful life by our social standards.

What about guns? Do you need guns? You don't have to hunt to eat. It's probably cheaper for you to go to the store & buy plastic-wrapped USDA approved corpses than to go hunting anyway. Is it equal to a "mandatory luxury" for the daily-functioning of our society? No. It's truly a luxury. An un-necessity. Like a chihuaha in a purse or a diamond bracelet. It's not a car, work-appropriate clothes, & it's definitely not something as necessary as food or water.

Suggesting they're on par with each other is a distraction & isn't relevent at all.

[Shlep]

Look, if you want to know what I think it should be clear. If not, here it is again. People are not getting shot in DC because they obeyed the law and don't own a gun while criminals do. People get shot in DC because everyone owns guns and you can kill people and the cops are too incompetent and corrupt to do anything about it.

Handguns are banned in DC just like murder is banned in DC. Neither ban is effective because no one is enforcing the rules and no one is interested in following the rules.

The reality is, there is effectively no handgun ban in DC. It exists on paper only. You can argue that it's impossible to police illegal handguns anywhere, I suppose, but DC is a bad example to use. They won't even enforce the law properly on things we all agree are wrong like murder, rape, stealing, etc.

And you just pointed out the folly of making simply murder legal just because we can't stop it in DC, which was the point I was trying to make.

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how you are missing the massive, gaping holes in this line of reasoning.

1) If you really do believe that anti-gun laws in DC don't help because a) "everyone" supposedly has a gun, b) they are shooting each other, and c) the DC people are either too inept, too incompetent, or too disinterested to address the violent crime problem in the District, then it should not make the slightest whit of difference to you whether city law restricts gun ownership or not.

2) If the DCPD, through their bumbling ineptitude and/or indifference, cannot be counted on to protect law-abiding citizens, what possible reason would you have for wanting to have a state of affairs where law-abiding people forced by circumstance to take their safety and well-being into the own hands would be put at risk of being charged, convicted, and jailed for doing so?

3) Comparing the act of murder to the act of owning a gun is patently absurd. Are you seriously trying to convince me that I or anyone else who exercises the legal right to own a gun infringes upon the primary individual rights and liberties of others in our respective communities to a degree anywhere near what it would if I/we were exercising our legal right to murder them?

[the happy prole]

no, mr. lawyer. as you well know, the legislature can't enact unconstitutional laws, and the supreme court acts as a check-and-balance to ensure that doesn't happen. but, you are welcome to change the constitution to rescind the 2nd amendment if you can get enough people to agree with you. that's the same fate of the 18th amendment, so it's been done before.

Hey man, I agree with you about the Supreme Court's ruling in this case. I also happen to agree that most people are looking too much to the courts to fix things when in reality the legislature is supposed to do most of the work and the courts are there to rule on the law and only change it in extreme circumstances.

All I'm saying is that a Federal court in this case overturned a state (well DC, but you get the idea) law enjoying overwhelming support and that has been in existence for 30 years. And that the Supreme Court has in fact been extremely active and will be even more active now that the conservatives have the majority.

Most Americans are pro-choice, but the Supreme Court is almost certainly going to revisit and overturn Roe v. Wade. And it is likely they will issue a Federal ruling about exactly when (if ever) abortions can be done, thus limiting the people and the individual states' say in the matter.

So, the whole conservative railing against supposed "activist judges" is total BS. The judges we got are plenty active and they are in reality bitching about them not being active enough. "Judicial activist" is just a neocon buzzword for "justices who don't agree with me."

[the-dude]

You, on the other hand believe that the 2nd Amendment is the one you use to preserve the other 9. So if that's the case, shouldn't you get out your get out your gun and blow away the President? If you're not going to use the 2nd Amendment to stop a government from stripping away your fundamental freedoms, then what is it good for?

I really dont think killing the president would do any such thing. Nor killing 100 politicians. Its not the revolution anymore, there really is no way for civilians to overthrow the government by violence.

[Shlep]

Since it appears, and correct me if I am wrong here, that what you are arguing that ANY AND ALL control of firearms is an infringement of the 2nd amendment...

You are indeed quite wrong.

People must be of a certain age to own and/or drive a car. They must demonstrate that they possess some grasp of how to properly operate a motor vehicle in a responsible manner that meets a predefined legal threshold. Those who are found to be lacking the maturity, discretion, and sound judgment to handle the responsibility of driving a car in a manner that does not pose a potential hazard to the safety and well-being of others can be punished in any number of ways ranging from fines all the way up to having their legal right to drive a car suspended or completely revoked.

I think the same should hold true for firearms. In fact, I would support legislation that requires individuals wishing to own a firearm to attend a formal course of instruction that schools them in the fundamental basics of how to properly own and operate a firearm as is done with automobiles, incliding a written and a practical application test which must be passed to a satisfactory degree before that person is legally able to own a gun. At present, these tend to be required to get a concealed carry permit, not simply own a gun.

I believe doing this would cause a sharp reduction in the number of gun deaths involving people blowing their own heads (or the head of someone else) clean off because they knew nothing of proper gun handling and were grab-assing around with the damned thing. This, in turn, would reduce the number of annual deaths brought about by irresponsible gun ownership and use; these being deaths lumped in with the homicide and suicide deaths to present an inflated and skewed annual tally of gun deaths bandied around by gun-control advocates.

[Duemellon]

...there really is no way for civilians to overthrow the government by violence.Precisely.

So why defend your (no, not necessarily you; those who do) right to own a gun to protect yourself from an unjust government when you know it's not the real reason you want the gun?

[markalot]

Precisely.

So why defend your (no, not necessarily you; those who do) right to own a gun to protect yourself from an unjust government when you know it's not the real reason you want the gun?

Because I don't believe it's true. There's a lot of citizens with guns, yea small guns, but guns none the less. People with guns stand a better chance then those without. The government would have to resort to a scorched earth policy if they wanted to win against a well organized militia.

But realistically the right to defend yourself starts local ... against a corrupt police force perhaps. It's the general principal that citizens, if needed, can rise up against an oppressor.

[the happy prole]

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how you are missing the massive, gaping holes in this line of reasoning.

Heh. Why don't you just stick with nick on this one? ;) No reason to pick an argument with me when there doesn't have to be one.

It's really pretty simple. Murder and handguns are completely unrelated for the exact reason you already mentioned. You owning a handgun does not inherently affect anyone else's rights. That's a very good reason why they ought to be legal. And in case you missed it, it's something I happen to agree with.

All the rest of it is just silly stuff. You really can't support the argument that banning things only hurts law abiding citizens as a principle unless you are willing to look at every single ban of everything everywhere. And like nick says, then you're in cost-benefit land and I don't think you want to play there. At least not using DC as an example because they have so many other fucked up factors going on there that you'll never be able to isolate a handgun ban as the source for the violent crime rate.

[the happy prole]

Because I don't believe it's true. There's a lot of citizens with guns, yea small guns, but guns none the less. People with guns stand a better chance then those without. The government would have to resort to a scorched earth policy if they wanted to win against a well organized militia.

But realistically the right to defend yourself starts local ... against a corrupt police force perhaps. It's the general principal that citizens, if needed, can rise up against an oppressor.

It's kind of a difficult stance though, isn't it?

Because at what level of armament do we insure that enough citizens with righteous indignation over extreme governmental abuse will have just enough firepower to serve as a check on the government while ensuring that some random crackpot with mental issues doesn't end up shooting a just and popular leader or some totally innocent citizens?

And then too, if it takes say 100 guys to get together to take down a corrupt police force then those guys will have to talk to each other and organize an action. If you had 100 guys that knew had weapons and were trying to put something together... well, wouldn't we consider that organized crime or possibly even terrorism? So then you have to closely monitor their communications and such. You're merely trading the right to bear arms for the right to privacy, as Due pointed out earlier. And for me... I'd rather have the right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. I'm not trading the nine other rights in for the 2nd amendment.

Or if you need a license for a gun, aren't you defeating the whole purpose? I mean, I just can't see the government not asking "Hey, if you have this gun do you plan to shoot a bunch of cops and politicians?" And if you say "yes," I just can't see them going "Okay then, sure fire away."

I can kind of buy your argument, but in the end I agree with frizgolf. Regardless of historical precedent, the right to own a gun really has to be rooted in something other than the whole governmental overthrow thing.

If it's wrong to dictate by force of arms, it seems to me that that should apply to everyone.

[Shlep]

It's really pretty simple. Murder and handguns are completely unrelated for the exact reason you already mentioned. You owning a handgun does not inherently affect anyone else's rights. That's a very good reason why they ought to be legal. And in case you missed it, it's something I happen to agree with.

I must have missed that earlier; my bad.

All the rest of it is just silly stuff. You really can't support the argument that banning things only hurts law abiding citizens as a principle unless you are willing to look at every single ban of everything everywhere.

Nonsense. Banning some things (asbestos, lead paint, lawn darts, items made from the skins/shells/hides/bones of endangered species) makes sense, or is at least logically defensible, for a variety of reasons. Punitive legislation that effectively punishes law-abiding gun owners as a means to deter people who think that laws are for suckers (and who are actually committing the crimes) is ridiculous.

At least not using DC as an example because they have so many other fucked up factors going on there that you'll never be able to isolate a handgun ban as the source for the violent crime rate.

I never said gun were the source of crime; that notion is far closer to the reasoning adopted by gun control advocates who seem to think that there is some corrolation between owning guns legally for legally-accepted uses and crimes involving guns used illegally which were, in all likelihood, also procured illegally in the first place.

[Shlep]

It's kind of a difficult stance though, isn't it?

Because at what level of armament do we insure that enough citizens with righteous indignation over extreme governmental abuse will have just enough firepower to serve as a check on the government while ensuring that some random crackpot with mental issues doesn't end up shooting a just and popular leader or some totally innocent citizens?

The Iraqi insurgency has been doing a swell job of keeping 140,000 of our guys busy with little more than small arms and improvised explosives.

The "random crackpots with mental issues" problems has generally been kept well in hand by the US Secret Service. And the last one of them who succeeded in plugging a sitting US President-- and in doing so came seriously close to killing him-- used an old pissant .22 revolver.

[markalot]

It's kind of a difficult stance though, isn't it?

Doesn't matter, it's not the point. A well organized militia is made up of citizens with guns. You don't let the government have the guns and then ask for them when you need them.

Gun laws don't prevent law abiding citizens from getting them. If they did they would be ruled unconstitutional. :)

[the happy prole]

What is unconstitutional is the government not letting anyone have guns under any circumstances and that's as far as it presently goes.

The government holding the guns and telling exactly when you can have them and which ones you can get (if any) was specifically affirmed as constitutional in Scalia's holding. It also describes the present state of the affairs in the US.

[the happy prole]

What are some other things you favor banning because banning them would reduce or remove the risk that a child might get injured or killed through someone else's recklessness or irresponsibility?

Lawn darts :rolleyes:

[Shlep]

Lawn darts :rolleyes:

They're banned, I'm obviously cool with it.

My point-- which I would have assumed you picked up on-- was that the average household is positively fraught with peril when it come to things that infants and small children can happen upon and wind up injuring and killing themselves, and moreover in fact do in large numbers. This in turn results in needless injuries and deaths occurring in large numbers which often could have been prevented had proper precautions and responsible handling could have prevented, and moreover, nobody (or hardly anybody) suggests banning these things outright is a practical solution.

Lawn darts, on the other hand, turned out to be an ill-conceived idea whose absence does not meaningfully affect anyone.

[akip]

Most Americans are pro-choice, but the Supreme Court is almost certainly going to revisit and overturn Roe v. Wade. And it is likely they will issue a Federal ruling about exactly when (if ever) abortions can be done, thus limiting the people and the individual states' say in the matter.

So, the whole conservative railing against supposed "activist judges" is total BS. The judges we got are plenty active and they are in reality bitching about them not being active enough. "Judicial activist" is just a neocon buzzword for "justices who don't agree with me."

thank you.

i think one could also say that the judiciary should be the check-and-balance hold out when an activist minority like the pro-life movement becomes so powerful as a voting block that they effectively have a stranglehold on one party's platform, and can thereby impede the rights of the majority...rights that were not even dreamed of as issue in 1776, but certainly have evolved to an issue front and center in 2008.

[the happy prole]

Nonsense. Banning some things (asbestos, lead paint, lawn darts, items made from the skins/shells/hides/bones of endangered species) makes sense, or is at least logically defensible, for a variety of reasons. Punitive legislation that effectively punishes law-abiding gun owners as a means to deter people who think that laws are for suckers (and who are actually committing the crimes) is ridiculous.

Look, I'm just going to point this out. If you can't see the problem, I can't do anything more for you.

You have not made a logical distinction between a hand gun and lawn dart. All you've done is dress up a hand gun ban with different descriptive words in a faulty appeal to emotion.

I've never been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. Therefore, I can be classified as a law-abiding citizen whether we are talking about lawn darts or guns. So there goes the first part of your sentence. Now-- if not being able to get something I want is "punitive," then a ban on lawn darts or guns are both "punitive." Personally, I'd rather have lawn darts. I like lawn darts. So if anything, the ban on lawn dart is more "punitive" from my perspective. So there goes the second part of your point.

Look at the hole you've dug yourself. You've now admitted that banning things can be both logically defensible, effective, and helpful to public safety. And if you're going to ban dangerous things, do we not agree that a gun is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a lawn dart or lawnmowers without a safety bar? That's a damn good reason to ban guns and not other things.

You cannot simultaneously pursue a slippery slope argument where equate guns with other objects and complain about why people want one banned and not the other while at the same time try to distinguish a gun from a lawn dart.

Pretty much all the ways in which a gun can easily be distinguished from a lawn dart justify a ban. Except for one thing: the US Constitution.

[Shlep]

Look, I'm just going to point this out. If you can't see the problem, I can't do anything more for you.

That was downright hilarious. Thanks. :)

You have not made a logical distinction between a hand gun and lawn dart.

Until now, I would have never imagined that I would have to spell it out for anyone.

All you've done is dress up a hand gun ban with different descriptive words in a faulty appeal to emotion.

Let's not forget that I also asked why it makes a lick of sense to address the problem of criminal misuse of firearms by attempting to keep them out of the hands of everyone else *not* inclined to commit crimes. This being a question that neither you or anyone else has answered despite being absolutely at the crux of this issue. Any day you wanna get around to doing so would be just spiffy.

I've never been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. Therefore, I can be classified as a law-abiding citizen whether we are talking about lawn darts or guns. So there goes the first part of your sentence.

No, it doesn't. Lawn darts were banned because they were an ill-conceived toy which when used in the manner intended caused people to get friggin' stabbed, not because of any tendency to be criminally misused. I thought this was a fairly well-known fact.

Now-- if not being able to get something I want is "punitive," then a ban on lawn darts or guns are both "punitive." Personally, I'd rather have lawn darts. I like lawn darts. So if anything, the ban on lawn dart is more "punitive" from my perspective. So there goes the second part of your point.

...or it would, except ownership of lawn darts is not a crime; rather, they are no longer legal for manufacture or sale in the US. This is why you're not likely to find someone doing a nickel upstate for felony lawn-dart possession.

Also, not being able to own lawn darts does not in any way leave you at a relative disadvantage with regards to the array of options for defending yourself from miscreants who are themselves armed with sharp, pointy things they can hurl at you. Then there is the whole issue of the option to own lawn darts not being something which is secured as a basic, fundamental right in the very document upon which this country was founded.

Look at the hole you've dug yourself. You've now admitted that banning things can be both logically defensible, effective, and helpful to public safety. And if you're going to ban dangerous things, do we not agree that a gun is a hell of a lot more dangerous than a lawn dart or lawnmowers without a safety bar? That's a damn good reason to ban guns and not other things.

Tell me, prole: is it often that you resort to insulting your own intelligence in order to prevail in messageboard arguments?

I explained in what I thought were the simplest terms possible why divesting people who are not committing crimes of the right to own guns makes no sense if the objective is to preclude people who *are* committing crimes from getting guns. If anything, the greater success that the legal system has in making sure that law-abiding citizens can't arm themselves, the more it helps the criminal element for the simple fact that their victims will be less likely to be able to adequately defend themselves. If anything, it increases the likelihood that the sort of crimes that gun bans are supposed to reduce actually increase, which was exactly what happened in DC.

For someone who is spending an increasing amount of time spouting irrelevant crap and claiming all along that it's *I* who just isn't "getting it," you seem curiously unable to grasp this very simple, very basic point.

[the happy prole]

I explained in what I thought were the simplest terms possible why divesting people who are not committing crimes of the right to own guns makes no sense if the objective is to preclude people who *are* committing crimes from getting guns. If anything, the greater success that the legal system has in making sure that law-abiding citizens can't arm themselves, the more it helps the criminal element for the simple fact that their victims will be less likely to be able to adequately defend themselves. If anything, it increases the likelihood that the sort of crimes that gun bans are supposed to reduce actually increase, which was exactly what happened in DC.

Yes, you've spent an inordinate amount of time belaboring this point while providing no evidence to show that it's true.

How do you know that the homicide rate is greater in DC because "law-abiding" citizens who choose not to arm themselves are getting shot by thugs? OR that only solution is to remove the ban instead of doing a better job enforcing it?

The cops in DC are extraordinarily corrupt. There is a culture of violence and a drug issues. People are very poor and have little to lose. Having lived in the area, none of this should be news to you. So how do you know it isn't one of these factors rather than the ban on hand guns?

A huge proportion of homicides in DC are related to gangs or drugs. So many of the people getting shot are people who have no qualms about breaking the law. Perhaps they got shot because they were caught off-guard, didn't shoot as well, or were outnumbered-- not because they chose to not own a gun because of a law. Or maybe they caught a stray. Repealing the gun ban isn't going to solve any of those problems.

[Shlep]

Yes, you've spent an inordinate amount of time belaboring this point while providing no evidence to show that it's true.

Here's some evidence to show it's true. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/31/AR2007123102329.html)

Gun violence rose sharply in the District in 2007, with the number of homicides jumping 7 percent after several years of decline.

Nonfatal shootings and other gun crimes were also up, preliminary police data show

The increase in gun violence in the District comes as the city is waging a U.S. Supreme Court fight to preserve its 30-year-old gun law, one of the strictest in the nation.

There's more to that article, in addition to about a zillion others readily and easily available on the Internet which illustrate the otherwise arcane and obscure circumstances surrounding gun violence in DC.

How do you know that the homicide rate is greater in DC because "law-abiding" citizens who choose not to arm themselves are getting shot by thugs?

That's not the point. The point is:

1) Banning guns in DC has done a piss-poor job of keeping gun-related crime down.

2) Disarming law-abiding citizens does not keep guns away from criminals.

3) Armed thugs mingling among an unarmed and largely defenseless populace is not exactly a situation ripe for creating disincentives to violent crime.


OR that only solution is to remove the ban instead of doing a better job enforcing it?

I'm sure there are plenty of ways that law enforcement could drastically reduce the number of guns that find their way into the city limits and into the hands of criminals without the necessity of draconian measures and aggressive enforcement tactics that would further infringe the civil liberties of the city's residents and turn into a political and public-relations nightmare for the mayors' office and the police leadership. However, I can't think of any. Can you?

The cops in DC are extraordinarily corrupt.

Yes, you've mentioned repeatedly your belief (which I do not take much issue with, it should be noted) that the DC police have often proven themselves to be at best hapless and inefficient and at worst corrupt to the point of being not much different than the people they are supposed to be protecting the public from apart from having a badge and a taxpayer-subsidized paycheck. IN fact, I seem to recall that background checks run on officers a few years after the DCPD liberalized their hiring policies to get more cops on the street found that many were one in the same.

As you clearly are aware of this, I fail to see why you think a set of laws that the cops can't or won't enforce in a city where they cannot be reasonably relied on to do their jobs helps safeguard people from violent crime.

There is a culture of violence and a drug issues. People are very poor and have little to lose. Having lived in the area, none of this should be news to you. So how do you know it isn't one of these factors rather than the ban on hand guns?

I'm don't doubt that a myriad of social and economic factors play a role in violent crime. I also fail to see why this matters. It'd be great if DC was a utopian sort of place where people were so deliriously happy (and well-adjusted, and not drug-addled, or prone to violence, perhaps possessed with a greater feeling that life is worth living and not meant to end sooner rather than later...) that people didn't get violently assaulted or shot. But that's not the case, is it? So until that golden age of peace and prosperity arrives, I imagine people would like to be able to defend themselves.

A huge proportion of homicides in DC are related to gangs or drugs. So many of the people getting shot are people who have no qualms about breaking the law.

Gee, that sounds awfully familiar...

Perhaps they got shot because they were caught off-guard, didn't shoot as well, or were outnumbered-- not because they chose to not own a gun because of a law. Or maybe they caught a stray. Repealing the gun ban isn't going to solve any of those problems.

Yet since you continue to make a great case for why the gun ban isn't worth dick, I fail to see why you oppose repealing it.

[Motti]

What are some other things you favor banning because banning them would reduce or remove the risk that a child might get injured or killed through someone else's recklessness or irresponsibility?

IDK, any suggestions? The criteria would be (i) be a dangerous thing; (ii) be an useless thing.

a lot more children drown than are killed accidentally by their parents' guns. maybe we should also ban water? the number 1 killer of kids is auto accidents. let's also ban cars. presto, we just eliminated the #1 & 2 killers of children. i'm sure motti will go to sleep peacefully tonight knowing how many children we just saved.

Nah, that's oversimplifying the issue. I just don't see any reason for someone to have a gun at home (except playing DeNiro in front of the mirror, obviously). Now swimming pools rule!:cool:

[DaHood]

IDK, any suggestions? The criteria would be (i) be a dangerous thing; (ii) be an useless thing.Yes a gun is dangerous. You can best believe that the gun owner is counting on that. But one other thing that gun owner is counting on is its usefulness. Therefore I submit that your first criteria is met but rendered invalid and the second is not met.

[Motti]

Yes a gun is dangerous. You can best believe that the gun owner is counting on that. But one other thing that gun owner is counting on its usefulness. Therefore I submit that your first criteria is met but rendered invalid and the second is not met.

I know a gun owner thinks a gun is useful, but I can't see how that is the case. I don't know what purpose is served by having or carrying a gun (except, again, the DeNiro impersonations).

[DaHood]

I know a gun owner thinks a gun is useful, but I can't see how that is the case. I don't know what purpose is served by having or carrying a gun (except, again, the DeNiro impersonations).

the gun owner doesn't just believe his gun is useful, he knows it. At the same time, he hopes he never has to use it for its primary purpose. I don't know what to say to you to help you consider my argument but I should also point out to you that I am not a gun owner. But I thank the powers that be that if I should ever feel the need I can becomes a gun owner provided I meet the requirements.

[Motti]

the gun owner doesn't just believe his gun is useful, he knows it. At the same time, he hopes he never has to use it for its primary purpose. I don't know what to say to you to help you consider my argument but I should also point out to you that I am not a gun owner. But I thank the powers that be that if I should ever feel the need I can becomes a gun owner provided I meet the requirements.

I see your point, but I still can't understand that. Not that you didn't explain it well, I just can't grasp the concept of someone wanting to have a gun and considering the possibility of using it. Context is everything, but even if someone broke into my house I'd rather not kill him. So I'll never have a gun, because I never want to use it, even if the unthinkable happens.

I just don't think everyone has full control of himself/herself 100% of the time, so that's why I think people should not carry guns. I mean, if you go to the bathroom and someone hits on your girlfriend and gets loud when you intercept it, maybe even punches you, you wouldn't pull your gun out? (This is not "you" you, it's the hypothetical "anyone" you.) There are lot of annoying situations in everyday life that may turn into a fistfight of no consequences... or death if someone has a gun. Which happens a lot, at least here (lots -- if not most -- murders by gun in Brazil happen in low income districts, during weekend nights, in bars, by people without a previous criminal record).

... and that's not even considering the accident scenarios.

[Tweak Tweak]

lots -- if not most -- murders by gun in Brazil happen in low income districts, during weekend nights, in bars, by people without a previous criminal record.

Are you sure of this?

In the US, lots if not most murders by gun happen in private homes or on the street, by people with extensive criminal records.

[the happy prole]

shlep-- I am against the hand gun ban in DC for most of the broad moral-type arguments that you, nick and others have made.

Just because there are high violent crime rates in DC and a hand gun ban, does not mean the two are correlated. That's been my point from the beginning. There's no gun ban in LA; doesn't stop gang members from having guns and shooting each other.

I don't believe that the gun ban is the cause of violent crimes in DC. I don't believe removing the ban will have any impact on reducing violent crimes in DC. And I guess I don't believe that anyone actually very much about violent crime in DC because if they did, things would not have been this bad for this long. I suppose I am guilty of that myself.

I might be wrong about those assertions, but I don't see sort of data from you that would counter it. You are citing a high violent crime rate on one hand, and lots of good philosophical reasons why guns ought to be legal on the other. The two things don't really have anything to do with each other.

The next time someone wants to ban something trivial like lawn darts, you're going to complain about horrible government over-regulation trying to protect idiots from themselves like you've done many times before. Where is the outcry over the lawn dart laborers who lost their jobs?

And yet, when someone wants to ban something decidedly more dangerous, you complain about how it's that very danger that creates an integral reason why people need them for self-defense.

With the cherry on top of how banning actually encourages crime, or how the poor lawn dart assembly workers or small gun business owners are losing their income.

You don't need to come up with ten crappy side points to support your central argument. Nor is it necessary to try and refute other people's crappy side arguments (real or perceived) by arguing the opposite. That's what I mean when I say you are constantly attacking strawmen.

It seems apparent to me that the real reasons you favor gun rights has nothing to do with solving the violent crime problem in DC. If the violent crime rate in DC doubled in the next year, would you change your mind? I wouldn't.

[Motti]

Are you sure of this?

In the US, lots if not most murders by gun happen in private homes or on the street, by people with extensive criminal records.

Very, very sure.

ETA: Of course, you have to consider the lack of eficiency by the Brazilian police. So just because someone lacks a criminal record does not mean he is not a criminal. Even than, a person without a gun, in that situation, would not kill someone else. They did some attempts to close bars at 2am and the crime rate plummeted.

[classicgrrl]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_re_us/gun_deaths_suicide

Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer
Mon Jun 30, 9:18 PM ET

ATLANTA - The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners.

One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns.

Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack.

Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate.

Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence.

The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s.

But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control.

Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted.

Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis.

[DaHood]

I see your point, but I still can't understand that. Not that you didn't explain it well, I just can't grasp the concept of someone wanting to have a gun and considering the possibility of using it. Context is everything, but even if someone broke into my house I'd rather not kill him. So I'll never have a gun, because I never want to use it, even if the unthinkable happens.

I just don't think everyone has full control of himself/herself 100% of the time, so that's why I think people should not carry guns. I mean, if you go to the bathroom and someone hits on your girlfriend and gets loud when you intercept it, maybe even punches you, you wouldn't pull your gun out? (This is not "you" you, it's the hypothetical "anyone" you.) There are lot of annoying situations in everyday life that may turn into a fistfight of no consequences... or death if someone has a gun. Which happens a lot, at least here (lots -- if not most -- murders by gun in Brazil happen in low income districts, during weekend nights, in bars, by people without a previous criminal record).

... and that's not even considering the accident scenarios.Likewise, I understand your point as well, but I believe that the intent of gun ownership is usually protection. This is just a hypothetical scenario, but what if that person breaks into your home with a machete intending to hack up your family? I'm not suggesting that this is common but if it's me and he's standing over me or a loved one ready to lop off some cranium, I certainly would want to use whatever means are necessary to prevent that from happening including a bullet straight between the eyes.

I don't believe that most well trained, conscientious owners of firearms would ever lose control and "go postal". Also, I think it's important to point out that not all gun owners in this country carry their guns at all times. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, gun experts) that most law abiding owners of firearms do not have a permit to carry it on their person, and they don't do so.

[Shlep]

IDK, any suggestions? The criteria would be (i) be a dangerous thing; (ii) be an useless thing.

(i) Where to begin? Everything from common household chemicals to various appliances to an endless myriad of prescription and over-the-counter medications to plastic bags to a set of stairs can be, and often is, a hazard that causes injuries and fatalities to children. Mishaps involving these and any number of other things can and (I would presume) often are far more likely to befall a child involving a degree of forgetfulness or negligence or just plain bad luck well below that which would be involved in leaving a loaded, operable firearm laying about for an infant or toddler to just happen upon and shoot themselves with.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the home is the most likely place for people in *any* age group (or any other demographic into which humans are commonly subdivided and categorized) to be involved in a injurious or fatal misadventure. Would you recommend making home-building illegal and forcing people to live in the street for their own protection?

NOTE TO YOSHOMON: yes, we all know *you* would agree with this. You needn't bother answering

(ii) Your decision to include the criteria of uselessness is...well, quite frankly useless. not to mention obviously false and just plain silly. Firearms have numerous recreational and sporting applications, as well as practical ones (primarily: personal defense).

Nah, that's oversimplifying the issue. I just don't see any reason for someone to have a gun at home (except playing DeNiro in front of the mirror, obviously). Now swimming pools rule!:cool:

Well then it goes largely without saying that you either have a profound deficiency with regards to knowledge and/or experience with firearms, or a major personal bias against them that rises to the level of being irrational if not pathological.

And ya know what? That's all good. You think guns are icky or stupid or "useless" or just dangerous toys for men with serious Freudian issues? Fine...don't keep any around. Just don't insist that anyone else can't because of how you feel about them.

[Duemellon]

DaHood & Motti,

Guns are not a necessity. Lawn darts are not a necessity. Water is. Food is. Growing older is, unless you're dead.

Why are you arguing if guns should be banned & then equating them to lawn darts & swimming pools? That shouldn't even be allowed. Water & lawn darts statistically have far less incidents of being used for purposes of crime or suicide. The amount of times a death has occurred when people have used water (in any form) is so minute compared to when someone has used a gun. As for lawn darts? The amount of injuries or deaths from Jart (lawn darts) misuse, however, is much higher than water. Therefore, Jarts are banned.

Why is this even a focus of discussion? Considering the frequency deaths & injuries occur when one is employed for it's intended use than the other pretty much shuts it down. It's a distraction.

____________
tHP & whoever,

The idea that increasing gun ownership will reduce crime is misleading. Sure, you can ask a criminal if they want to burglarize someone who's armed & of course they don't want to. They want softer targets. However, how could they know? Consult a psychic beforehand?

The best impact banning guns has is reducing the amount of handguns in circulation. That alone will create a better & safer environment from the logical consequences of reducing them.

When you talk about handguns, violence, & crime & start talking about how crime & murder existed before handguns & how they'll exist afterwards. So? Reducing "gun violence" is the point. Gun violence is more deadly, more instant, & escalates the situation much quicker. Even if crime increased but gun violence dropped, the amount of deaths & severe injuries would drop in comparison.

Handguns are unlike other weapons used in crimes. That's the point of specifically targetting them.

[Motti]

Likewise, I understand your point as well, but I believe that the intent of gun ownership is usually protection. This is just a hypothetical scenario, but what if that person breaks into your home with a machete intending to hack up your family? I'm not suggesting that this is common but if it's me and he's standing over me or a loved one ready to lop off some cranium, I certainly would want to use whatever means are necessary to prevent that from happening including a bullet straight between the eyes.

I don't believe that most well trained, conscientious owners of firearms would ever lose control and "go postal". Also, I think it's important to point out that not all gun owners in this country carry their guns at all times. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, gun experts) that most law abiding owners of firearms do not have a permit to carry it on their person, and they don't do so.

Yeah, I understand someone would rather shoot the machete guy, but I wouldn't. I mean, in that situation, I would want to shoot him, obviously. But, rationally, I don't want to live with that. A gun has a single purpose, which is to kill people, which is something I don't want to ever do.

And I'm not thinking about "going postal", I'm thinking about having the urge to punch someone (which might happen in any traffic fender-bender) and realizing you can just shoot him. There's a few times in my life I wanted to pull a gun at someone and, thankfully, didn't have one. And I consider myself a pretty peaceful dude.

Shlep, you are correct. I have no training with guns, I've never touched a gun, never seen a gun and hopefully never had any friend that had a gun. But hey, a gun is as recreational as heroin.

One last thing (I really hate talking about this): at least in Brazil, a huge part of guns aprehended by the police are actually legally registered... to the name of someone else. So lots of criminals obtain their guns by stealing from someone that keeps them at home for "protection" or entertainment (which adds more fuel to the fire).

[akip]

I just don't see any reason for someone to have a gun at home (except playing DeNiro in front of the mirror, obviously). Now swimming pools rule!:cool:

forget trying to argue that there's really no rational reason to consider a gun a necessity (let alone claim that a handgun is a necessity, but an auto a mere luxury, in 2008 USA). forget pointing out that many more seemingly "regular" guys (without gang ties or criminal records) are likely to shoot themselves or their wife/girlfriend than prevent a dreaded home invasion. you're wasting your time 'cause of the high emotional charge of packing and the sacred second amendment.

it's an identity thing, a creed, a religion. it's our history and national mythology. if you want to know why, you'd be more likely to find the answer in those hundreds of movies you're watched---the action flicks, the westerns, and the gangster movies. and be sure not to forget to watch "death wish."

[Motti]

forget trying to argue that there's really no rational reason to consider a gun a necessity (let alone claim that a handgun is a necessity, but an auto a mere luxury, in 2008 USA). forget pointing out that many more seemingly "regular" guys (without gang ties or criminal records) are likely to shoot themselves or their wife/girlfriend than prevent a dreaded home invasion. you're wasting your time 'cause of the high emotional charge of packing and the sacred second amendment.

it's an identity thing, a creed, a religion. it's our history and national mythology. if you want to know why, you'd be more likely to find the answer in those hundreds of movies you're watched---the action flicks, the westerns, and the gangster movies. and be sure not to forget to watch "death wish."

:)

I'm really not trying to convince anyone, I just stated by opinion, then further clarified it when asked about it. But I just decided it's pretty cool to associate guns with drugs. They're both recreational, dangerous and their users just know they can control themselves. :D

PS: I have never seen 'Death Wish' but it's in my Netflix queue now.

[akip]

I'm really not trying to convince anyone, I just stated by opinion, then further clarified it when asked about it.

you are very wise.;):)


you know, i have only seen "death wish" in bits, but it was clear that it really hit a nerve at the time, but also lingered like a chronic itch.

[yoshomon]

NOTE TO YOSHOMON: yes, we all know *you* would agree with this. You needn't bother answering

Agree with what? Obviously I have no problem with people owning firearms, regardless of what the law is. Or did you mean something else?

[DaHood]

Guns are not a necessity.
That's an opinion. You've obviously never been on the south west side of Detroit.

[Duemellon]

That's an opinion. You've obviously never been on the south west side of Detroit.That's an opinion. You've never been to ...
uhm...
Indian Hill, Cincinati.

ooooh... take that retort sucka!

[silentpaul]

That's an opinion. You've obviously never been on the south west side of Detroit.

That's an opinion. You've never been to ...
uhm...
Indian Hill, Cincinati.

ooooh... take that retort sucka!

http://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/card/archives/nelson-muntz.gif

Ha ha! You've been rebuffed.

[DaHood]

That's an opinion. You've never been to ...
uhm...
Indian Hill, Cincinati.

ooooh... take that retort sucka!Cincinnati? Cincinnati?! HAHAHA. Detroit eats Cincinnatian criminals for breakfast!

[berzerker]

Cincinnati? Cincinnati?! HAHAHA. Detroit eats Cincinnatian criminals for breakfast!

... and then burns down an abandoned building to celebrate.

[the happy prole]

Duemellon's right. A gun should never be a necessity.

If you need a gun to survive in South Detroit, then the government has failed. Even under the most libertarian framework, the government has an obligation to protect us from violent crime. No one should have to live in a society where their right to life, liberty, etc. depends upon them winning a shootout. If you allow the government to say "Get a gun, you're on your own" then they are shirking their basic duties.

The number of times a gun is used in self defense should be 0. I understand we don't live in a perfect world, so it's nice to have a gun as a last resort. Still that number should be as low as possible. It should be like "Thank God I had a gun that one time I ran into that crazy fuck." And not "Man do I need a gun because there's 500 people out here trying to kill me."

Even if we all had guns and that worked like gangbusters and violent crime dropped to zero, what happens to all the gun rights arguments? Now you got liberal types going "Let's dump all the guns because we don't need them. There's no violent crime, and not a single person was shot last year."

So really, pointing out the number of violent crimes in an area-- you are measuring the wrong thing. The ridiculous levels of crime in certain urban areas speaks a lot more about a failure of government than it does about the need for gun ownership.

[Shlep]

tHP & whoever,

The idea that increasing gun ownership will reduce crime is misleading.

Hi, "whoever" here.

First, I just wanted to point to one possible case study on the effect of increased gun ownership on crime: the town of Kennesaw, GA, which mandated gun ownership in 1982 and saw its crime rate plummet.

LINK (http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm)

To be perfectly clear: I do not support making gun ownership a legal obligation, and I do not think that the results in Kennesaw can be logically extrapolated to mean that if everyone had a gun, there'd be no crime.

Rather, I just wanted to highlight one of a number of ways in which it is easily demonstrated that opposition to gun ownership is, from what I've seen, rooted in simple hysteria largely unsupported by facts.

Sure, you can ask a criminal if they want to burglarize someone who's armed & of course they don't want to.

Formal studies do in fact back up this claim. So then: how does gun ownership not have the potential to affect crime rates in a positive manner? It is well-known to provide a disincentive for burglary, among other things.

They want softer targets. However, how could they know? Consult a psychic beforehand?

They perhaps could do that.

Or maybe, just maybe, they could-- this is crazy, I know, but bear with me-- maybe they could somehow reason that if the city or town in which they are seeking targets for whatever crime they wish to commit has a far-reaching and unilateral ban on the mere ownership of guns (never mind the legally-permissible carrying of them in ones' car or person) that people unlike themselves for whom breaking the law and being punished for it is a catastrophe instead of a simple risk of their profession will be less likely to be armed. They might even have the wit to further deduce that this poses a reduced risk of getting shot by their intended mark.

The best impact banning guns has is reducing the amount of handguns in circulation. That alone will create a better & safer environment from the logical consequences of reducing them.

You'd have an excellent point here, were it not for the fact that it is so obviously and demonstrably opposed to reality.

In Washington, DC-- the city central to this entire thread-- their ban on handguns and ongoing variety of efforts and initiatives to remove handguns from circulation has been accompanied by periods of considerable increases in crimes involving guns.

This fact is not in dispute, and DC is by no stretch of the imagination unique or even rare in this regard. It does, however, seem to have passed notice with you even though reputable info has been linked to in this thread, thus suggesting your opinions here are wholly unencumbered by any actual knowledge of the topic.

When you talk about handguns, violence, & crime & start talking about how crime & murder existed before handguns & how they'll exist afterwards. So? Reducing "gun violence" is the point. Gun violence is more deadly, more instant, & escalates the situation much quicker. Even if crime increased but gun violence dropped, the amount of deaths & severe injuries would drop in comparison.

Actually, the entire scope of recorded human history shows that human beings have been nothing if not highly adept at preying on each other on a variety of scales up to and including mass genocide without so much as even getting gunpowder involved.

And we're not just talking the distant past here; the architects of the 1994 Rwandan genocide which claimed 800,000 to 1,000,000 people (the most optimistic estimates ranging from 500,000 to 750,000) in a matter of weeks prepared by arming the vast majority of the gangs intended to carry out the slaughter with machetes. And it was with these rather basic implements (available at any hardware store with no serious restrictions I know of, despite being the preferred weapon of numerous warring tribes worldwide for generations) that most of the killing was carried out.

Though I suppose in this case, the dearth of private gun ownership was a tremendous benefit to the population that saved many lives. Assuming, of course, that the population you're referring to was the machete-twirling Hutu militias.

[geoboy]

I don't think someone like the Virginia Tech shooter could have killed as many using a machete though. There's really nothing to stop a group of people intent on genocide, but places without any guns are probably safer from random street violence than places awash with guns, generally speaking.

[the happy prole]

Why did we invade Iraq? I seem to recall something about supposed weapons of mass destruction and the violent threat the posed to the U.S.

That doesn't really make sense, though. We should have been LESS likely to invade them because they just upped their firepower. And of course we know, we're not assholes who suppress other people by dint of weaponry. We're completely peaceful and reasonable innocents who were unfortunately forced to kill.

So someone armed themselves-- or rather they didn't really, but we thought they did-- and it led to violence from a peaceful nation just looking to protect their own. Of course it's different in Iraq's case. Because Saddam's an insane person who might just attack a better armed country even if it means he gets shot. Unlike the guys who do the killing in the US. Our guys are completely reasonable.

Like that Virginia Tech guy. Totally reasonable. If he'da known someone on campus had a gun and would shoot him, he never would have tried it. He did it secure in the knowledge that he had superior firepower. Of course he died anyway. And of course if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have had superior firepower.

And of course the Virginia Tech guy was not reasonable but pretty much insane, which probably would have been a good reason not to let him have a hand gun. We should just pass some laws saying homicidal types have guns. That worked so well in DC. I mean, there aren't ANY armed assholes in DC with guns. No one ever killed anyone in DC while having the type of criminal record that would have taken away their right to own guns in just about every state in the nation.

There WERE people like that in DC? Well that just goes to show the impossibility of enforcing any sort of arms control. Except for Japan, which has a ban on handguns and a gun ownership rate maybe 50 times less than ours. And almost no violent crime, to boot. Weird. Then again, those guys can put a TV in a wristwatch! They must be a bit more competent than DC government.

You get the point. The causes of violence are much more complicated than the arguments either side are put forward to support their cause. There's about a thousand things that could be done to fix DC if people cared more safety than trying to support silly gun control arguments.

[akip]

heard part of a good "to the point" (host warren olney always lines up a good panel) on PRI yesterday:

does gun control have a future? (http://www.kcrw.com/media-player/mediaPlayer2.html?type=audio&id=tp080701does_gun_control_hav)

participants:

robert levy, co-counsel on the parker v. DC hand gun ban challenge
william bratton, chief of LAPD, former chief of NYPD
paul helmke, pres of brady center to prevent gun violence
chuck michel, attorney for NRA
whit collins, former editor of "guns & ammo" mag, firearms safety consultant


what's clear is there is going to be a long, expensive legal battle in many jurisdictions over regulatory minutia---licensing and registration, etc. there'll also be some technological push to improve home gun design (for safety), though that won't be easy to mandate either.

helmke of the brady center optimistically thinks that the supreme court's decision has essentially eliminated the extreme positions, both pro and con, from the debate, and consequently will open up opportunities to create sensible, moderate policy, instead of the usual "all or nothing." but we'll see.

[Unrequited]

If you need a gun to survive in South Detroit

There is no South Detroit. South Detroit is Canada. Carry on. :D

[the-dude]

Why did we invade Iraq? I seem to recall something about supposed weapons of mass destruction and the violent threat the posed to the U.S.

That doesn't really make sense, though. We should have been LESS likely to invade them because they just upped their firepower. And of course we know, we're not assholes who suppress other people by dint of weaponry. We're completely peaceful and reasonable innocents who were unfortunately forced to kill.

So someone armed themselves-- or rather they didn't really, but we thought they did-- and it led to violence from a peaceful nation just looking to protect their own. Of course it's different in Iraq's case. Because Saddam's an insane person who might just attack a better armed country even if it means he gets shot. Unlike the guys who do the killing in the US. Our guys are completely reasonable.

Like that Virginia Tech guy. Totally reasonable. If he'da known someone on campus had a gun and would shoot him, he never would have tried it. He did it secure in the knowledge that he had superior firepower. Of course he died anyway. And of course if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have had superior firepower.

And of course the Virginia Tech guy was not reasonable but pretty much insane, which probably would have been a good reason not to let him have a hand gun. We should just pass some laws saying homicidal types have guns. That worked so well in DC. I mean, there aren't ANY armed assholes in DC with guns. No one ever killed anyone in DC while having the type of criminal record that would have taken away their right to own guns in just about every state in the nation.

There WERE people like that in DC? Well that just goes to show the impossibility of enforcing any sort of arms control. Except for Japan, which has a ban on handguns and a gun ownership rate maybe 50 times less than ours. And almost no violent crime, to boot. Weird. Then again, those guys can put a TV in a wristwatch! They must be a bit more competent than DC government.

You get the point. The causes of violence are much more complicated than the arguments either side are put forward to support their cause. There's about a thousand things that could be done to fix DC if people cared more safety than trying to support silly gun control arguments.
Wow, theres like 50 layers of sarcasm in this post!

[jd1]

Guns are not a necessity. Lawn darts are not a necessity. Water is. Food is.But this is situational. Right now, a good trauma surgeon is not a necessity--to me. If I get hit by a bus, though, things change.

Guns are the same way. When you do need one, it's as necessary as can be. And as a wiser man than me once said, you don't get to schedule an emergency.

--JD

[Duemellon]

Street Mugging
Now I don't have official statistics, but considering my own personal experience it would seem the amount of times someone is mugged on the streets, very few end in a shooting or a death. Of the 9-10 muggings/robberies I've known (2nd & 1st hand), only 4 involved a gun that was actually produced. The others might have, but unconfirmed. In all of these situations none of the victims were armed.

Of the 40% of the muggings that did have a gun, the gun was fired in 2 of them. Neither of them were fired in a way that was intended to kill the victim. One was to scare someone else away & the other was to wound the victim. A 3rd time the victim was pistol whipped without a shot fired.Remember, these aren't crimes reported in the paper. They aren't including stories from people talking about other people being mugged. These are the victims telling me their stories or my own story.I'm confident that if anyone else pulled a gun out, the victim, a passerby, or anyone in conflict with the original criminal, then shots will be exchanged with intent to kill instead.

Why? Guns provide instant escalation. There's no more room for beatings, intimidation, or whatever. It's about not being the one dead & the most efficient way is to keep the other person from being able to shoot at you.

Now, in the scope of reality, having guns on both sides pretty much ensures someone is going to get shot. Having guns only on one side greatly reduces that. Is it worth it to you to lose your credit cards, family photos, maybe some teeth & such to stay alive? Or do you feel you have to punish them for their brash insult?

[frizgolf]

I dunno. Does the fact the mugger has a gun, concealed or not, or at least the impression he may have a gun give him more confidence to pull off the mugging in the first place? If you could convince me the first part of that escalation, the thought of carrying out the crime, wasn't influenced by the fact the mugger had more "muscle" (or put off the impression he did), thereby increasing his proclivity to make money the easy way, I'd go along with the escalation argument. The mugger escalated the situation by packing heat, even before the mugging opportunity presented itself.
If an equalizer makes itself more present, perhaps in the form of concealed-carry, the muggers of the future will think twice about that first stage of escalation.

[akip]

forget quantifying how much crime is prevented by legal gun ownership. it just cannot be done. but if i were to take a wild guess, i'd doubt that the sort of people who commit crimes despite the threat of long prison sentences, or even the death penalty, stop to think, "oh gee, i'd better not try to rob that guy. he might have a gun." i don't think that the penitentiaries in texas are any less full than the ones in ny state.

[Duemellon]

I dunno. Does the fact the mugger has a gun, concealed or not, or at least the impression he may have a gun give him more confidence to pull off the mugging in the first place?That leads into a discussion about power, perception of power, & actual capacity of power. Which is part of the whole discussion I was having about non-violent response to violence. But yah, the fact they had a gun & not just a bat or their fists pretty much escalates it. They want to impress upon someone they have the power to cause them harm or take their life & make the decision about their life/injury or their money/material good.

However, when they are challenged in their position of power they either have to use it or loose it. If you accept their position of power, the situation can go on & then comes to a close while most of the time it comes out alright (you live without major injuries). Sure, you run across the occasional person who's just a psychopath & wants to kill someone period, but those are rare.

Producing a weapon or resistance changes any armed criminal from being someone who is threatening to someone who must act.If an equalizer makes itself more present, perhaps in the form of concealed-carry, the muggers of the future will think twice about that first stage of escalation.The fact the criminal can't consistently accurately predict who does or doesn't want to comply doesn't deter them from committing their crime. Whether or not a prospective victim has a gun, if they resist, it's not what the criminal wants.