Justices agree on right to own guns

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Just to be clear on this, I too, grew up shooting guns. It was the greatest treat for me to go with my father and shoot the .22 rifle that was "mine". I killed so many coke cans, in the parallel Coke Can Universe, I'm known as one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. We stopped going after we shot a groundhog and I cried. I think it freaked him out a bit, realizing that even though I was a big old tomboy, I would still cry over a groundhog. But, you know, it is fun and a test of skill but, just like Sonart, I think the cost is too high.

Fortunately, there are a lot of other places to live out there that have laws similar to the ones you seem to demand.

[lsbskins1]

An interesting read on defensive gun use statistics. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Fortunately, there are a lot of other places to live out there that have laws similar to the ones you seem to demand.

But I don't live in those places and neither do you. I do not plan to move and neither do you, so here we are, right back where we started, discussing what is better policy.

[another day]

Quote by: HelioPrime Sad thou. If only the need for guns could be banned universally for all non uniformed citizens. Instead we allow the rights to own them and thus create the need to own them for protection as well.

Hah right. I sure wouldn't want to live in a world where only cops and soldiers have guns. Seen what's happening in Tibet lately?

People may think it's a "libertarians wet dream" to overthrow the government with guns, but the situations around the world show a clear need for the people to have power when their government is completely callous about shooting citizens to control the population.

I might agree with banning guns to lower crime rates, except for the government situation. The us government is becoming increasingly authoritarian and repressive of protest, and continuing to take away rights.

But without that threat, why would we ban the owning of guns instead of the production of guns? Why wouldn't you just ban the manufacturing of firearms?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: another day But without that threat, why would we ban the owning of guns instead of the production of guns? Why wouldn't you just ban the manufacturing of firearms?

Perhaps that might work but it would still leave room for outsiders to produce guns. If guns were to be totally banned from manufacture then all the world would have to follow suit.

In the hands of uniformed officers or soldiers guns are meant to defend and serve the public, state, and country. This is the only acceptable location for the use of firearms.

[Halofan48]

For the argument about using guns to fight the government, in this day and age, its pretty much impossible. I seriously doubt your shotgun is going to bring down a heavily armed and armored squad, or a tank rolling down the street

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Sonart Yes, take a look. Switzerland may be less murderous than the U.S., but it is still number FIVE out the 37. And this, Lindsay, is a small, insolated, peaceful agricultural nation that has no history of taming a wilderness, going to war or crime. A quaint, humble land of cheese,watch makers and banking... and they're number five. How does that work?

Number five? They're the 8th one down on that chart..

Anyways, I don't know why. But we can't find the answers by just comparing murder rates and gun control laws, ignoring all the other factors - cultural, poverty, drug trade, etc, etc.

Here's an excerpt from a good article comparing Britain and the United States, that shows how relating murder rates to gun control can be misleading..

Historically, America has had a high homicide rate and England a low one. In a comparison of New York and London over a 200-year period, during most of which both populations had unrestricted access to firearms, historian Eric Monkkonen found New York's homicide rate consistently about five times London's. Monkkonen pointed out that even without guns, "the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years." Legal historian Richard Maxwell Brown has argued that Americans have more homicides because English law insists an individual should retreat when attacked, whereas Americans believe they have the right to stand their ground and kill in self-defense. Americans do have more latitude to protect themselves, in keeping with traditional common law standards, but that would have had less significance before England's more restrictive policy was established in 1967. The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides. The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible. By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible. The London-based Office of Health Economics, after a careful international study, found that while "one reason often given for the high numbers of murders and manslaughters in the United States is the easy availability of firearms...the strong correlation with racial and socio-economic variables suggests that the underlying determinants of the homicide rate are related to particular cultural factors." Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991. Over the same period, America's has been falling dramatically. In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall." We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime. As a result the English and American murder rates are converging. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

Quote by: Sonart LOLOLOL!!! Yeah, right... Germany takes on the largest, most modern army in Europe, France, and the huge Soviet Empire. But they're terrified of little Swithzland and their militia??? Switzerland was non-political, largely Aryan, and had neutral banks, Lindsay. Germany liked Switzerland the way it was... it's where they stashed all their loot.

You're right, upon reflection I can see I was way oversimplifying there.

Quote by: Sonart Got it... other countries are less violent than the U.S. because their poor and middle class people live better. But not that that's a GOOD thing.

Of course it's a good thing, I just don't think that government system is the best way to reduce poverty. But that's way off topic..

Quote by: Sonart No, it's Switzerland's way of avoiding the expense of supporting a large standing Army. (Obviously they don't need a Navy). Are you suggesting the U.S.A. do away with our Army, Navy and Marines and go back to neighborhood militias, just so folks could own a gun... whether they wanted to or not?

No, I don't think you should get rid of your Army, etc. I am suggesting that you keep your constitutional right to protect yourself. Strict gun control laws in Britain hasn't made their citizens any safer...

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

Reason Magazine - Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

[Halofan48]

Ugh, there are other ways to protect yourself without a firearm. N.L.W.s can be used just as well.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Halofan48 Ugh, there are other ways to protect yourself without a firearm. N.L.W.s can be used just as well.

Against a criminal with a gun?

[Halofan48]

Lets think about the average crime with a gun. Someone getting robbed. Lets say your a cashier. A gun pull out a gun and tell you to give him the money. You have a tazer under the counter. He turns around to check for cops, and you pull it out and shoot him with the tazer. You do the same with the gun. Now you have the same event, except in one, he lives and faces trial.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Fortunately, there are a lot of other places to live out there that have laws similar to the ones you seem to demand.

An interesting sentiment coming from someone who bitches as much as he does about the state of America and how far we've falen from our founding ideals.

Quote by: another day People may think it's a "libertarians wet dream" to overthrow the government with guns, but the situations around the world show a clear need for the people to have power when their government is completely callous about shooting citizens to control the population.

The Phillipines got rid of Marcos without guns, the Czechs and Slovaks had a revolution without guns, the former Soviet states like Poland, Belarus, the Baltic States.

Non-Violent revolutions are far more successful and the wave of the future. Violent revolutions have become incredible bloodbaths, thanks to modern weaponry.

Quote by: another day But without that threat, why would we ban the owning of guns instead of the production of guns? Why wouldn't you just ban the manufacturing of firearms?

Because the same people fighting the banning of guns are also fighting controls on production. It was the NRA that led the successful fight AGAINST communities suing gun manufacturers for selling their guns out the back door to gangs and criminals.

Quote by: Lindsay Number five? They're the 8th one down on that chart..

Oops... my bad, sorry. My dyslexia kicking in again.

Having said that, quiet, peaceful Switzerland is the 8th most murderous out of 37, ahead of every country in Europe except Northern Ireland... I wouldn't be bragging about it.

Quote by: Lindsay Anyways, I don't know why. But we can't find the answers by just comparing murder rates and gun control laws, ignoring all the other factors - cultural, poverty, drug trade, etc, etc.

Or maybe it's just that simple. Violence happens when the means to achieve deadly violence with the tug of a finger becomes easily available.

Quote by: Lindsay No, I don't think you should get rid of your Army, etc. I am suggesting that you keep your constitutional right to protect yourself.

Which has been the point of this thread, Lindsay... for the last 70 years, those tasked by our Constitution as the arbiters of what is and isn't constitutional, the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Courts have ruled that we do NOT have an individual right to own guns. Doesn't mean we can't, it just means it's a Privilege, not a Right.

Quote by: Lindsay Strict gun control laws in Britain hasn't made their citizens any safer...

If the U.S.A has a gun death rate of 14.24 per 100,000 people, and Britain has a gun death rate of 0.41 per 100,000, how exactly do you figure British citizens aren't safer? London may be crime ridden, but the Brits seem far less inclined to actually shoot people.

.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Halofan48 Lets think about the average crime with a gun. Someone getting robbed. Lets say your a cashier. A gun pull out a gun and tell you to give him the money. You have a tazer under the counter. He turns around to check for cops, and you pull it out and shoot him with the tazer. You do the same with the gun. Now you have the same event, except in one, he lives and faces trial.

Knowing that a store is likely to have a gun, a criminal would be more deterred than by a taser.

And with a taser you have to be pretty close to the person, but he can shoot you with a gun from a further distance. And a taser might not be enough to stop some strung out, crazy drug addict..

But I think that the deterrance is the most important factor. Any criminal who wants to point a gun in someones face and threaten their life, they should know that they put their own life in danger as well. If that's the precedent we set, there will be less crime attempted, and ultimately, less death.

[Halofan48]

The average range of a tazer is about 15-30 feet so range isn't to much of a problem. Also, if we spent more time and resources on N.L.W.'s we'd likely improve technology for N.L.W.s

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Facinating. Ask yourself a simple question. If I proposed legislation tomorrow that had has it's central provision that everyone is the country could keep all their guns as long as they only used them when the government authorized the use and that every home was subject to random ammunition and weapons use tests, who do you think would be the first ones ready to kill me, those who support gun control legislation or those who oppose it? Just asking.

This only continues to be an issue with you, and your like minded friends because you see the pulling of the trigger as the first act of aggression, whereas we see your use of the government coercion as the first use of force.


That's why we want the guns, to protect ourselves from people like you.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 But I don't live in those places and neither do you. I do not plan to move and neither do you, so here we are, right back where we started, discussing what is better policy.

No, you want to frame the debate as if it were "a policy decision", unfortunately for you, I see this as one of my birthrights, so don't expect our side to come around to your framed debate position, because we see right through your little charade.


Subversive!

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Milton Bradley This only continues to be an issue with you, and your like minded friends because you see the pulling of the trigger as the first act of aggression, whereas we see your use of the government coercion as the first use of force. That's why we want the guns, to protect ourselves from people like you.

That's not his idea, Milton. Isbskins was describing how things are NOW in Switzerland, the gun rightists' posterchild for how things should be.

Whew... good thing you don't live in Switzerland. You'd be dead now.

Quote by: Milton Bradley No, you want to frame the debate as if it were "a policy decision", unfortunately for you, I see this as one of my birthrights, so don't expect our side to come around to your framed debate position, because we see right through your little charade. Subversive!

Sick.

.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley This only continues to be an issue with you, and your like minded friends because you see the pulling of the trigger as the first act of aggression, whereas we see your use of the government coercion as the first use of force. That's why we want the guns, to protect ourselves from people like you.

And my point is proven...

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley No, you want to frame the debate as if it were "a policy decision", unfortunately for you, I see this as one of my birthrights, so don't expect our side to come around to your framed debate position, because we see right through your little charade. Subversive!

Yes, I want to frame the debate as a policy decision because that is what it is. It is not a birthright, because we do not all enter the world with a gun strapped to our hips. But, if you would prefer, I can go the less snarky rout and say that every birthright that exists at all, exists because someone made a "policy decision". The most famous "birthright", the right of primogenitor, was a policy decision that some still cling to and others have discarded, as a matter of policy. God did not ordain your right to own a gun, anymore than he ordained the first born son to always inherit the title and position of his father. Unless you want to bring that archaic practice back to our shores, you must admit that we pick and chose what "birthrights" we have, as a matter of policy.

Think of it this way, when the Founders accepted Jefferson's text for the Declaration of Independence, they said what they meant to England and to posterity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are your birthrights. The Constitution is the mode of enacting the policy they felt, at the time, best safegarded those birthrights. They gave us the ability to amend if we wanted to change policy and they vested the Supreme Court with the power to interpret what they meant and what the document should mean in the future. By whatever course, it is all still about the best policy for protecting your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and a firearm.

[leegao]

Of course, banning civilian possession of firearms might reduce the crime rate a little, but not very significantly since they can still get firearms from the black market. And also, even when we do legalize firearm possession the smart criminals will still go for the black market since it's next to impossible to trace the gun back to him. On the other hand, if we do ban the firearms the very people that we're trying to protect will find themselves without any thing to defend them whereas the criminals will still have a source to supply them with the firearms they need. Just my opinion.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: leegao On the other hand, if we do ban the firearms the very people that we're trying to protect will find themselves without any thing to defend them whereas the criminals will still have a source to supply them with the firearms they need. Just my opinion.

So you're saying that if gun manufacturers don't have a legitimate market for their products, they'll continue making guns to sell directly to criminals.

Thankfully, gun manufacturers had the Bush League on their side, to sign a bill that prevented gun manufacturers from being sued for doing exactly that... selling guns used in crimes.

Fortunately the lower courts, as of last November, are fighting back.

.