Log in

View Full Version : "Assault weapons" ban may return



Pages : 1 [2]

ArmySGT.
04-02-2007, 06:47 PM
Egads Women! With Guns! In California! :P

Dirty Ernie
04-02-2007, 10:08 PM
Will took me to task for just giving my opinion, while he provided data and historical fact.
Sorry Will, but quoting historical figures isn't providing "data and historical facts", it's just giving me well known people's opinion.

I could drudge up murder rates per 100,000 for the U.S., Japan, Britain, France, and Canada, but you're probably familiar with them. And while you like to quote dictators and heads of totalitarian states, if your argument of strict gun control leads to despots rising to power, how do you explain the failure to do so in the largely democratic countries I've listed?

How about we look at a country where virtually every home had an automatic weapon. IRAQ. Somehow 20% of the population oppressed 80%, despite the fact everyone owned an AK-47. Again these facts seem to indicate your premise is invalid.

This is why the Hitler argument doesn't work. He didn't have to work within the frame of our Constitution. He didn't ban guns, he banned Jews from owning guns. You can't legislate that in this country without violating a couple of other amendments first. Besides, I'll let you in on a little secret. The Hitler argument wasn't intended for use in debate with those that disagree with you, it was intended to whip the believers into a froth and increase NRA coffers. It's fearmongering at it's finest and it works.

(EDIT) OMG your greatest fear has been realized. I have found an example of the Hitler analogy that appears to be happening in a democracy and share it in fairness. At the behest of this administration, and with the backing of our military, house to house searches and weapon seizures are now occuring in the newly free and democratic Iraq. Where is the outrage? I listen for your outcry and I hear...silence. And, in my book, silence equals consent. Unless you're all too busy organizing an assault on Washington. J/K But seriuosly, I would like your thoughts on this.

Frankly, I'd be a little disappointed with an organization that claims the resources and political clout of the NRA, that tells it's membership, despite all they give, that they are so ineffective that the sole thing they stand for constantly teeters on the brink. How 'bout that DC circuit court decision. Oh wait. That was good for you guys. Still better send another check, cuz Hitler's waiting in the wings.

Are any of you willing to fight against infringements on any amendment or just the 2nd? While not despotic, this administration has shown itself as wanting to be monolithic. Backdoor recess appointments and politicization of the judicial branch and regulatory commissions are as close to a despot this country has seen. But, he's your guy, so as long as he doesn't mess with the only amendment that concerns you, you're content with the status quo.

I'm a little disappointed that a group that is as patriotic as gun owners are, has so little faith in our system of government that they believe an entire amendment of our Constitution is in danger of being...what? Repealed? Not gonna happen. Removed? Again No. If some despot were to get ahold of the country (please provide me with a plausable scenario in which this could happen, I can't think of one) by the time he got around to banning guns, the democracy will have already failed, and I will be lined up next to you guys. Of course, I'll need to borrow a gun.:D

Anyway, this is written by a guy in the middle with a HS education who feels blessed to have been born in this country, and believes it works best under the guise of three co-equal branches of government. I'm sorry some of you feel differently.

crizgolfer
04-03-2007, 03:34 AM
[quote=Dirty Ernie;1024490] Are any of you willing to fight against infringements on any amendment or just the 2nd? While not despotic, this administration has shown itself as wanting to be monolithic. Backdoor recess appointments and politicization of the judicial branch and regulatory commissions are as close to a despot this country has seen. But, he's your guy, so as long as he doesn't mess with the only amendment that concerns you, you're content with the status quo.[/guote]

Yes, I defend ALL the amendments. Bush administration is not MY administration. "Backdoor recess appointments and politicization of the judicial branch and regulatory commissions" have been occurring long before this administration.

Dirty Ernie
04-03-2007, 08:01 AM
Criz, my replies were aimed more torward those using the NRA talking points and even then I made an assumption about those posters that I shouldn't have. I'm also a little guilty of falling into the trap of polarizing this discussion, but I don't want to discourage any replies, so i'll try to leave any rhetoric out of it, going forward.

I would like the thoughts of the well armed citizens of this thread on the prospect of stepping into the booth in '08 having to pull the lever for Hillary or Rudy. Not a pleasant thought, I suppose.

threlayer
04-03-2007, 09:04 AM
Why not make mortars, rockets, bazookas, and howitzers available to a public whose right is to bear arms? That way turf wars won't last very long, and they will be spectacular.

T-10
04-03-2007, 10:39 AM
Also while they are at it why not make it legal to own and use bio and chemical weapons too? Because gee, isn't banning those type of weapons also a violation of the "right to bear arms" too ::)

TheSexKitten
04-03-2007, 10:42 AM
Oooh and how bout legalizing tank ownership?! And hydrogen bombs!! This way, if I want to overthrow my government or neighborhood thugs, I am adequately equipped, despite the complete fallacy of that argument in the first place.

TheSexKitten
04-03-2007, 10:44 AM
BTW article two of the constitution referes to a "REGULATED militia"...

Phil-W
04-03-2007, 10:53 AM
Congratulations, you have just created the perfect police state... Statistically, you are FAR more likely to be murdered by your own government than you are by a criminal or an invading army.

So, do (for example) the US, UK, French, German, Japanese, or Australian governments kill more of their own citizens than criminals do?

Please post the links to reputable websites substatiating this.


After World War II, the "international community" determined that the most important goal of the new international system created for the post-war era would be the prevention of genocide.

Among the nations who signed were Cambodia (1950), the Congo (1962) and Rwanda (1975)...These three nations, of course, went on to become the greatest sites of genocide in the second half of the 20th century.

Are you seriously drawing a parallel between these countries and the US and suggesting that the only thing stopping the US goverment commiting genocide on its own citizens is the 'right to bear arms'?

Doesn't say much for your political process.

Sorry to be cynical, but when extreme arguements are advanced to support a position, I begin to wonder if the arguement is being conducted more on emotional than logical grounds.

Phil.

Phil-W
04-03-2007, 11:20 AM
What guns are USED for is what’s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.

A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.

The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on

In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI’s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.

Whoa.

Lets look at the statistics first. A gun used 5 times more to prevent a crime?

Can you give me the statistics in the US for:

(a) The number of armed crimes in the US annually. [i.e. the number of times guns are used when crime is committed].

(b) The number of times police, other law enforcement or citizens used their guns to prevent a crime.

Got a feeling there will more crimes commited by guns than prevented. On your statistics, if guns are used to prevent a crime 2.5 million times, they are only used to commit a crime 500,000 times - seems unlikely.

Some verifiable numbers please.

Lets also look at the pyschology behind killing. This is a subject of much interest to the military and criminal pyschologists, and there's been a fair body of work published on the subject.

(a) There is a clear correlation between distance and the psychological ease of killing. The larger the distance, the easier it is to kill. Killing a man with a knife is personal, because you see his face as he dies. Killing a man with a rifle at a hundred yards is easier, because he's just a shape than crumples. (And killing a man with artillery is easiest, because you never see him).

Possession of a rifle makes is psychologically easier to kill.

(b) We are (as a species) largely reluctant to kill - but this can be overcome by the correct conditioning. Amongst other things it's why armies train in the way they do.

[The US army had a big wake-up after WW2 when their official historian, S.L.A Marshall, found that only 10% of riflemen deliberately fired at an opponent.]

Most armies have now designed their training such that >90% of riflemen will fire deliberately at a human target if so legitimately ordered.

There are pyschological parallels between this training and (say) violent video games, television programs and films.

So, we've made available a weapon that takes away some of the psychological hurdles against killing away, at the same time, as we've allowed society to impose an impromptu conditioning further removing some of the other pyschological hurdles.

Not good.

Certainly in the UK, I would trace the rise we have in gun crime to the increase in social acceptability of gun.

When they were not socially acceptable in the 50's and 60's in the UK, few criminals carried them and there was little gun crime. As it became more socially acceptable, more criminals caried them and gun crime rose.

As more criminals carried guns, so more police started to need guns, and so a vicious spiral has been set up.

Nope, I'll back anything that in general takes society away from the position where
guns are socially acceptable.

Phil.

T-10
04-03-2007, 03:35 PM
BTW article two of the constitution referes to a "REGULATED militia"...

Exactly!

Clearly the founding fathers realized the need for limitations.

Lysondra
04-03-2007, 03:48 PM
Check out the murder rates in the gun-banned Australia and tell me this isn't a good idea.

PS: They said you had the right to bear arms... that doesn't mean you can bear an AK47 all the fricken time. A handgun? Yes. A WoMD? No.

ArmySGT.
04-03-2007, 06:25 PM
BTW article two of the constitution referes to a "REGULATED militia"...

Historically a "Well Regulated Militia" is made of Private Citizens who provide their own Rifle, Powder, Shot, Knife, Hatchet, and other acoutrements as neccessary to be summoned at a moments notice without supply.

Regulated. This refers to Major General Fredrich Von Steuben's "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States"(1780), which became the army's standard drill manual.

Since Wars of the Period were fought in close Order Drill, (Ranks and Files).


Exactly!

Clearly the founding fathers realized the need for limitations.

Clearly the Founding Fathers did expect Limitations, and the Limitations would be placed upon Government

ArmySGT.
04-03-2007, 07:19 PM
The Murder breakdown by State for 2005


Agg Assault by State 2005


The expanded Homicide Data page. Here is the Statistical break down of who was killed by whom with what. Private Citizens account for 192 Justifiable Homicides. Data on crimes prevented because an attacker was incapcitated but, not killed was not included. Crimes prevented because the Victim was Armedand the criminal ceased, fled, or apprehended was not included.


This is the last (only time) the DOJ compiled data on the number of firearms used in Self defense. The Data is from 1992. Did Janet Reno order further reports discontinued?

ArmySGT.
04-03-2007, 07:24 PM
While I loathe Wikipedia as a source. Out of pure laziness and the need to get on with my Entrepreneurship class homework. Militias and the present National Guard.

T-10
04-03-2007, 08:22 PM
To those who want assualt weapons to be legal to own and use-

Do you really oppose ANY limitations on the type of weapons that should be legal?

Do you want all the various types of weapons to be legal and available? Even bio and chemical weapons too?

If not, then you support limitations on weapons just like those of us who support a ban on assualt and semi assualt weapons. The only actual difference would be the type of weapon.

ArmySGT.
04-03-2007, 09:39 PM
To those who want assualt weapons to be legal to own and use-

Do you really oppose ANY limitations on the type of weapons that should be legal?

Do you want all the various types of weapons to be legal and available? Even bio and chemical weapons too?

If not, then you support limitations on weapons just like those of us who support a ban on assualt and semi assualt weapons. The only actual difference would be the type of weapon.

That's a fringeworthy opinion ::) and shows your lack of reasonable or mature ability to "debate". So if you can't debate you will substitute with wild accusations and hystrionics. Where ever you are going to University. Stop, get a refund, go to a better school.

Then there is the impracticalities of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare.

Lets examine Biowarfare? Well theoretical Captain Tripps or Real world Hemmorraghic fevers do not work in a timely enough manner for me, with Meth heads kicking in doors, car jackers now fequenting grocery store parking lots, and other places People once felt safe. Just can't wait hours for it to work on that crackhead. The one hitting you with a broken piece of concrete.

Chemical Warfare- well Sarin B would be highly effective in the very right now. Sarin B could even be in a spray like OC pepper Sprays. With Sarin B's lethal dosage of only .00001mg;hard not to kill your attacker and everyone else in a six block radius. Good news! It is enviromentally friendly. After Sarin kills everything with a central nervous system it degrades it a nitrogen rich fertilizer. Blood agent could work too and it works on contact! Don't even need to breathe it. Course your attacker has a few minutes to lazily kill you before his red corpuscles lose the ability to transmit oxygen. Blister agent stops people right in there tracks but its corrosive nature makes that to difficult to carry. Blister agent would sure make would be rapists easy to identify at the hospital. Blisters the size of oranges! Just don't break that jar in your pocket.

A nuke? Naw everbody would just leave it at home. Damn steel case to make it work right is just too heavy. Smallest I have seen was a 155mm Artillery shell a something like .5 KT. who wants to carry a 200lb shell? Everybody would need a Treaty with Russia and the Lawyers get rich.Then you gotta change the motherboard that controls the firing circuit regularly. That requires a clean room. Can you see the bother.

Now my Glock 17 is simple, effective, unobtrusive and easy to handle. heck I just went took a CCW class to brush up and to get a Range Safety Certification. I let three women that were using borrowed guns try it and they all loved it.


Lets be reasonable then. Everyone has the Right to go about peaceably and safe in their own pursuits. Criminals see it as their right to take your possesions or to take possesion of you. Therefore it should go without debate that everyone has a reasonable right to effective means of self defense.

So lets say Phil's Idea worked a machine is built and every firearm disappears. So what. In a very short time criminals who already don't give a fuck about the Laws will build or import more. So by banning firearms you make the law abiding defenseless to criminal predators and create more criminals out of People who never had intentions of harming anyone else. Now you can ask Phil or LillithMorrigan who live in countries with highly restrictive gun laws and they can tell you. Criminals are still commiting crimes with illegal firearms. Why? Because their criminals its what they do. afer for them too with the general populace disarmed.

Dirty Ernie
04-03-2007, 11:11 PM
Well, we manged to get 2 pages of civil discourse before this began to spiral down, as this debate tends to do. I was hoping to return to this thread and maybe dabble into the construct and context of the 2nd Amendment, particularly the latter half, because I didn't think anyone concerned about it would still be unaware of the historical definition of "well regulated".

Anyway, I think I'll just slip out the door now.

GnBeret
04-04-2007, 02:01 AM
"Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons" are not much different than your standard hunting rifle. Fully Automatic is a different story.

Not true - and the proof of same lies in the fact that no none uses 'semi-auto assault weapons' for hunting. Know why? Because hunting rifles were designed to kill by making a hole, thereby killing animal. In contrast, assault weapons were purposely designed to cause maximum amount of tissue/organ damage in victim.

Beyond that, modifying virtually any semi-auto assault weapon to be fully automatic is a piece of cake. That's how they were originallly designed, the blue-prints, parts, etc., exist and are readily available and, if you know what you're doing, it takes all of $15 in parts and an afternoon in your garage to do so. In contrast, the typical hunting rifle was never designed and/or intended to be full-auto and, given their typical base design, would be very difficult (if not impossible) to convert to a fully automatic weapon that functioned with any kind of reliability and consistency.

There's only one reason to own an assault rifle - whether it be semi or full auto... to HUNT PEOPLE. That's what they've been specifically designed/built for, that's all they're good for, and outside of same, there's no legitimate use for them.

T-10
04-04-2007, 10:21 AM
There's only one reason to own an assault rifle - whether it be semi or full auto... to HUNT PEOPLE. That's what they've been specifically designed/built for, that's all they're good for, and outside of same, there's no legitimate use for them.

Agreed. I support the right to personal protection but that can be done without having to resort to using a semi or full assualt weapon. Imho, the purpose of a semi or full assualt weapon is NOT personal protection. Therefore I feel those weapons have absolutely no legal purpose outside of the active military.

Jay Zeno
04-04-2007, 10:57 AM
That's a fringeworthy opinion ::) and shows your lack of reasonable or mature ability to "debate". So if you can't debate you will substitute with wild accusations and hystrionics. Where ever you are going to University. Stop, get a refund, go to a better school.Incivility on these issues is why we have Member Boards for political discussions.

ArmySGT.
04-04-2007, 11:06 AM
Not true - and the proof of same lies in the fact that no none uses 'semi-auto assault weapons' for hunting. Know why? Because hunting rifles were designed to kill by making a hole, thereby killing animal. In contrast, assault weapons were purposely designed to cause maximum amount of tissue/organ damage in victim.

Beyond that, modifying virtually any semi-auto assault weapon to be fully automatic is a piece of cake. That's how they were originallly designed, the blue-prints, parts, etc., exist and are readily available and, if you know what you're doing, it takes all of $15 in parts and an afternoon in your garage to do so. In contrast, the typical hunting rifle was never designed and/or intended to be full-auto and, given their typical base design, would be very difficult (if not impossible) to convert to a fully automatic weapon that functioned with any kind of reliability and consistency.

There's only one reason to own an assault rifle - whether it be semi or full auto... to HUNT PEOPLE. That's what they've been specifically designed/built for, that's all they're good for, and outside of same, there's no legitimate use for them.


Well intentioned but untrue. Since semi auto rifles specifically AR-15's the are used for predator elimination, and varmint elimination here in Colorado and I believe most western States.

Modifying a Semiauto like an AR-15 to fire full auto? Not so likely unless your a talented machinist able to make auto sears and disconnectors from blue prints. By the way BATFE regulations are interpreted by the Agency to mean; if you own the parts and an unmodified AR-15, you intend to build a machinegun. Felony conviction right there. I think you were considering those old STEN gun kits? Yeah those are much simpler to build. If you buy one of those kits expect a visit from the BATFE. If you have the kit, the kit has the auto sear, you have a tube even uncut. Intent to build a machinegun and it is off to the Federal pen. Don't play with the BATFE. They have the Attorney General on speed dial and you may never see the light of day again.

Phil-W
04-04-2007, 12:08 PM
ArmySGT,

Thanks for the links to the data - in the one link which compared data from different years, gun crime was going up. I guess part of this debate is to whether freely available guns protect people from the threat or contribute to it.

I'd agree with GreenBt about the assault weapons - I believe the Armalite round is designed to tumble as it goes through the human body to cause the tissue damage he mentioned.

As I said in an earlier post, I think the key to gun crime is social accepability. If it's not socially acceptable to own or carry a gun people won't do it.

It's not (normally) legal to own or carry a gun in the UK, so I would rigidly enforce a law that said you if you were caught in possession of a gun while carrying out a crime that added an automatic 10 years to your sentence. (With mandatory life for a seond offence). I would also ensure that there were sufficient prison places to enforce the policy.

I would like to think that (although it might take a number of years) people would eventually realise that carry a gun to commit a crime could cost them the best years of their lives in jail. Hopefully then, the number of guns carried by criminals would start to fall.

If the number of guns carried by criminals starts to fall, you would need less armed police officers.

With enough similar measures you might actually start up a virtuous cycle of less and less guns in circulation.

There is (sort of) a test precedent being tried on smoking at the moment in the UK. Taxes on cigarettes are being steadily raised and smoking is to be banned in public places from July of this year. My money say's that enough compulsion to to put smoking into decline and eventually make it socially unacceptable.

And if it works with cigarettes, why not guns?

Phil.

T-10
04-04-2007, 03:32 PM
Here is some info on public opinion on gun restrictions which I found while looking up some polling information on another topic. I thought it might be of some interested to those following this thread.

ArmySGT.
04-04-2007, 08:57 PM
ArmySGT,

Thanks for the links to the data - in the one link which compared data from different years, gun crime was going up. I guess part of this debate is to whether freely available guns protect people from the threat or contribute to it.
There are two things hat would skew the data. The rise and change in the American population for one. The US reached a population of 300 million just last year. So without looking back at the data represented does it show violence as a percentage of population? in conjunction with this is the explosion of Latino gang violence such as MS-13; which are highly violent groups. Second the Katrina effect of 2005 where low income and impoverished families were driven out of their areas by the affect of the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These families with a high risk for becoming criminal are in new territory and probably stripped of all material possesions by the disaster. So crime rises as criminals fight over territory, respect, and market.



I'd agree with GreenBt about the assault weapons - I believe the Armalite round is designed to tumble as it goes through the human body to cause the tissue damage he mentioned. Now a bit of irony. The Geneva conventions that outlined the conduct of War after World War I mandated bullet construction. Bullet wounds of the day were grievous. The bullets were large, ofthen soft lead, usually with blunt round noses. Each side accused the other of intentionally deforming bullets to cause greater wounding with a design to maim. So one of the things was bullets were mandated to be pointed. No flat, blunt, hollow point, dum dum, etc type bulets were to be used by signatories Regular Armed forces engaged in conflict with a similar foe. No for the ironic part. A pointed bullet is lighter at the front than the back. Being more or less coneshaped the majority of bullet weight is in the base. What happens when a bullets strike an object such as a human body? The front poit being lighter of mass slows very rapidly such as a Volkswagen Bug slamming on their brakes. The rear of the bullet has the majority of the mass like a large truck (Lorry) and can't stop instantly. So they switch places. The bullet yaws turning over to travel rear first through tisue. So the geneva Convention to mandate bullet manufacture to reduce grievous wounds and maiming has actually made this increase. The bullet wasn't designed for that effect but is a consequence of the design.



As I said in an earlier post, I think the key to gun crime is social accepability. If it's not socially acceptable to own or carry a gun people won't do it. I don't think peer pressure is going to reduce crime. One criminals are commiting crimes and that is socially unacceptable. Two if the illegal firearm makes commiting a crime easy or even convenient criminals are just not going to give them up.


It's not (normally) legal to own or carry a gun in the UK, so I would rigidly enforce a law that said you if you were caught in possession of a gun while carrying out a crime that added an automatic 10 years to your sentence. (With mandatory life for a seond offence). I would also ensure that there were sufficient prison places to enforce the policy. What's ten years with a life sentence? You might find your Prison places are full at the moment. The UK is already famous for her fleet of prison barges. With your prisons full of illegal aliens and drug users like ours. The UK like the US is going to have to really rethink what is a criminal act and what needs to be punished with incarceration.



I would like to think that (although it might take a number of years) people would eventually realise that carry a gun to commit a crime could cost them the best years of their lives in jail. Hopefully then, the number of guns carried by criminals would start to fall.

If the number of guns carried by criminals starts to fall, you would need less armed police officers.

With enough similar measures you might actually start up a virtuous cycle of less and less guns in circulation. One would hope they were thinking that now. Doesn't however appear to be the case. What's the culture now? Get rich or die trying. Their not talking about starting in the mail room and working to CEO. Few if any appear to be thinking in the long term;so even considering what are their best years would be a stretch for some. To start a virtuous cycle We, as in our respective cultures would have to emphasize value for virtue and virtuous acts. Has Chivalry died? Look at those we glorify, are today's celebrities virtuous?



There is (sort of) a test precedent being tried on smoking at the moment in the UK. Taxes on cigarettes are being steadily raised and smoking is to be banned in public places from July of this year. My money say's that enough compulsion to to put smoking into decline and eventually make it socially unacceptable.

And if it works with cigarettes, why not guns? Just to dissimilar to be a precedent. A cigarette is a vice. A cigarette doesn't produce more cigarettes. While in prison and some other situations cigarettes are barter; an amount has to be surrendered to gain the barter. An illegal firearm in the hands of a criminal is their profit tool. Step in to your walk up point the gun at the Clerk, demand cigarettes, clerk gives you cigarettes, and away you go. Nothing lost but time. So while a criminal can make immense profit in no time with little risk the opinion of the public will matter not.



Phil.
Good talking to you, by the way do you think those English Lords gave up the Holland & Holland or Purdey's Shotguns worth a 100,000 pounds each. I think the Laws are for you and not the Royals. /:O Course As an American I have no use for Royals.}:D

Paul

ResQ
04-05-2007, 09:18 PM
http://www.gunfacts.info/

Great stuff, the author points out sources for his info too.

As for the 2a being written for a well regulated militia, perhaps you should read it more closely.

maximvsv
04-06-2007, 12:12 PM
I highly doubt that the framers of the constitution knew what type of weapons civilization would have created 200 years later.

Sort of. You have to keep in mind that there was private ownership of warships in the 1700's. Nobody needs a dozen deck-mounted cannon for home defense.

The way I see it, you have to look at a number of aspects of society from that period. The focus was that you weren't supposed to have to rely on the government for your own defense, not just as individuals but as a community. If you had ships, you could have your own navy to protect them. If you OWNED a town, and several people did, you could have your own, private militia and police.

Back before the civil war, whether as colonies or states under the Articles of Confederation, places like Pennsylvania and Delaware and Maryland were supposed to act as independent nations, with their own militaries. Occasionally, they did set up to shoot at one another.

After the civil war, the federal government federalized national military actions and centralized the means and authority for the use of force. This is a fundamental change from the context of the 'founding fathers' on a scale even more profound than that of the pre-civil war regulation of slave ownership.

Really, original intent is not that relevant, but it is the means by which the Supreme Court reviews legislation, so it defines the terms of the conflict. Everything would be avoided if the Congress simply repealed the second amendment, like it repealed prohibition. Instead, Congress and the individual states act through legislation, which is easier to pass and easier to amend, but requires the constittutional review of the Supreme Court on the issue.

The fundamental arguments are that people should leave all law enforcement, use of force and defense issues to the government or that people should be responsbile for themselves and involve the government only in those situations where someone has a disproportionate ability to manipulate the relevant social group (like when dealing with unions or organized crime figures, depending on your views of who is or is not a villain).

The people drafting the bans hope they can have them passed because it is easy to argue that other people should not be allowed to own or use things easily adapted to the purpose of hurting other people, since most of the anecdotal references to the use of such things involves the hurting of those other people. The people against the bans hope they can block them because the bans aren't related to actual risks or actual harm, and allow the people promoting the bans to manipulate the public into limiting access to guns on a purely emotional basis, which paves the way for future arguments as public standards of behavior change.

Notions of people being able to defend themselves from the goverment are out off date, as illustrated by the extraction of Elian Gonzales back in the 90's. No private militia is going to have enough guns to stand up to federal law enforcement groups, and against the US military, any direct confrontation would have the same result as with the former Iraqi army.

Civillian disarmament isn't about preempting the ability to confront a totalitarian state. With the Patriot Act, we're already voting to implement one. It's about managing the degree of deference and argument directed to the resulting authority.

Better surveillance will have a result of decreasing crime, and if a gun ban is instituted, it will be credited with that effect. I don't expect that it will have any actual effect on crime or on violence or on gun-related accidents.

threlayer
04-09-2007, 12:16 PM
Probably half toe households in the Us have a gun somewhere inside. Buthow many of those households can reliably use it to protect themselves from an intruder? I know many regard hunting as an enjoyable sport, sometimes with even a little edible reward, and I know a few people enjoy survivalist lifestyles; those can justify gun ownership. Pistols are concealable, but rifles and shotguns are harder to hide. Seems to me that owning concealable weapons has much less justification. I can see no justification for semi-automatic weapons. Probably the only justification for mass ownership is for protection against criminals.

Even here it is a tricky thing.With our judicial system as it is, if you defend yourself in you home with a weapon, the criminal often has a right to sue you for damages, at least if he does not shoot first. My friend says, if you shoot for protection, do as the police do and shoot to kill. Problem is that you only get one shot for such, or you may get into big trouble with the police too.

Will
04-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Probably half toe households in the Us have a gun somewhere inside. Buthow many of those households can reliably use it to protect themselves from an intruder? .

Some facts vs. myths you may hold regarding guns:


The Cold, Hard Facts About Guns

by

John R. Lott, Jr.

America may indeed be obsessed with guns, but much of what passes as fact simply isn't true. The news media's focus on only tragic outcomes, while ignoring tragic events that were avoided, may be responsible for some misimpressions. Horrific events like the recent shooting in Arkansas receive massive news coverage, as they should, but the 2.5 million times each year that people use guns defensively are never discussed--including cases where public shootings are stopped before they happen.
Unfortunately, these misimpressions have real costs for people's safety. Many myths needlessly frighten people and prevent them from defending themselves most effectively.

Myth No. 1: When one is attacked, passive behavior is the safest approach. The Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun.

Myth No. 2: Friends or relatives are the most likely killers. The myth is usually based on two claims: 1) 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances and 2) anyone could be a murderer.
With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. However, what is not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings: between 1990 and 1995 just 17 percent of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors and/or roommates.
Murderers also are not your average citizen. For example, about 90 percent of adult murderers have already had a criminal record as an adult. Murderers are overwhelmingly young males with low IQs and who have difficult times getting along with others. Furthermore, unfortunately, murder is disproportionately committed against blacks and by blacks.

Myth No. 3: The United States has such a high murder rate because Americans own so many guns. There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40 percent lower than Germany's, and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's. Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40 percent below Canada's. When one studies all countries rather than just a select few as is usually done, there is absolutely no relationship between gun ownership and murder.

Myth No. 4: If law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns, people will end up shooting each other after traffic accidents as well as accidentally shooting police officers. Millions of people currently hold concealed handgun permits, and some states have issued them for as long as 60 years. Yet, only one permit holder has ever been arrested for using a concealed handgun after a traffic accident and that case was ruled as self-defense. The type of person willing to go through the permitting process is extremely law-abiding. In Florida, almost 444,000 licenses were granted from 1987 to 1997, but only 84 people have lost their licenses for felonies involving firearms. Most violations that lead to permits being revoked involve accidentally carrying a gun into restricted areas, like airports or schools. In Virginia, not a single permit holder has committed a violent crime. Similarly encouraging results have been reported for Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Tennessee (the only other states where information is available).


Myth No. 5: The family gun is more likely to kill you or someone you know than to kill in self-defense. The studies yielding such numbers never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone they knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in these studies were committed by guns brought in by an intruder. No more than four percent of the gun deaths can be attributed to the homeowner's gun. The very fact that most people were killed by intruders also surely raises questions about why they owned guns in the first place and whether they had sufficient protection.

How many attacks have been deterred from ever occurring by the potential victims owning a gun? My own research finds that more concealed handguns, and increased gun ownership generally, unambiguously deter murders, robbery, and aggravated assaults. This is also in line with the well-known fact that criminals prefer attacking victims that they consider weak.

These are only some of the myths about guns and crime that drive the public policy debate. We must not lose sight of the ultimate question: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? The evidence strongly indicates that it does.


Dr. John Lott, Jr. is the John M. Olin law and economics fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law

threlayer
04-10-2007, 09:24 AM
Sounds like this Dr John Lott is an expert defense witness.

Anyway, what do you think I was incorrect about?

Will
04-10-2007, 09:41 AM
Sounds like this Dr John Lott is an expert defense witness.

Anyway, what do you think I was incorrect about?

You were using a fair number of generalizations that we do have figures for, such as the number of people (approximately) who use guns defensively and we know the outcomes which speaks directly to your question “But how many of those households can reliably use it to protect themselves from an intruder?” Or your comments on concealed handguns when studies find states that passed CCW laws had a decrease in crime as more law abiding citizens carried concealed weapons, as pointed out in other places in the thread and the article below.

Other comments regarding “justification” and semi auto guns tells me you hold some of the myths and or don’t know much about guns in general.

Your comments on the legal issues of self defense are also overly simple, and BTW, police do not “shoot to kill” they shoot to stop the threat. There is a difference between them, etc, etc.

I have posted more than enough reading and URLs in this thread for anyone really interested in the topic of guns, so no reason to beat the dead horse. Here’s a short article on guns and women I like, and seems especially applicable given the community of women who frequent this forum:


WOMEN, 911 AND GUNS

American women are often taught to rely on emergency 911 police
responses in the event of physical aggression. Unfortunately, more
than 95 percent of 911 calls are not dispatched to police in time to
stop a crime or arrest a suspect.

This sad statistic is unlikely to improve significantly in the near
future because almost every state has ruled that police have no legal
obligation to protect citizens from crime.

The slowness of 911 emergency response -- and the ineffectiveness of
restraining orders issued by today's courts -- suggests that
self-defense may be a better option, according to attorneys Richard
Stevens, Hugo Teufel and Matthew Biscan.

"A woman with a firearm...can credibly threaten and deter an attacker
of any size, shape, or strength," they write in THE WOMEN'S
QUARTERLY. "Even though weaker and unskilled in the use of firearms,
she can sometimes protect herself with a sidearm without firing a
shot. In more than 92 percent of defensive gun uses, the defender
succeeds by firing only a warning shot or never firing the gun at
all." (The article is excerpted from their chapter in the Independent
Institute book LIBERTY FOR WOMEN: Freedom and Feminism in the
Twenty-first Century, edited by Wendy McElroy.)

The above may help explain why, in recent years, women have
reportedly purchased firearms and enrolled in gun-safety classes in
record numbers.

Stevens, Teufel and Biscan conclude: "Individual women in peril quite
frequently fare better when they develop skill and confidence in the
carrying and using of defensive firearms. Victim disarmament ("gun
control") laws that discourage women from developing the skills and
using defensive firearms actually heighten the risks of criminal
violence that women face. Such laws place women at a disadvantage
against violent men and run against the feminist goal of equal
treatment under the law."

See "Disarming Women," by Richard W. Stevens, Hugo Teufel III, and
Matthew Y. Biscan (THE WOMEN'S QUARTERLY, Summer 2002)
http://www.independent.org/tii/lighthouse/LHLink4-30-3.html

A longer version of this article appears in LIBERTY FOR WOMEN:
Freedom and Feminism in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Wendy
McElroy. See http://independent.org/tii/content/briefs/b_lfw.html

************************************************** *********************
Professor Joseph Olson Hamline University School of Law
<[email protected]>

Rockette
04-10-2007, 01:39 PM
But how am I supposed to defend my home... from ninjas... and SWAT teams?

Deciding like a ninja (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khS4zlinxk0)

threlayer
04-11-2007, 07:43 PM
Cowboys in white hats shoot to disarm or disable. Cops shoot to kill, as the chest is a bigger target. They certaily do not shoot in the chest to disarm. I was quoting some news source (CBS or CNN) on the percentage of households. At least two problems with household gun protection - the gun is not where you are when you need it, and the robber/etc has a gun trained on you before you have one trained on him or he overpowers you or he's there to steal your gun, etc. Still if most households had a weapon for protection the number of robberys etc might decrease if you assume the perpetrators are rational enough to calculate odds. And I guess I can see one use for semi-auto's, make sure you kill the bear or puma (or murderer or drugged up armed robber) before he kills you. I know criminals have guns and I don't so that gives them a big advantage. But where did the criminal get the gun? Some of this is tongue-in-cheek, but I'm trying to be neutral here and see both sides.

End of comments.

Will
04-12-2007, 07:28 AM
Cowboys in white hats shoot to disarm or disable. Cops shoot to kill, as the chest is a bigger target. They certaily do not shoot in the chest to disarm.

False. You didn’t read my comments correctly. I didn’t say disarm, I said stop the threat vs shoot to kill. There are very specific differences between them both physical and legal.


I was quoting some news source (CBS or CNN) on the percentage of households. At least two problems with household gun protection - the gun is not where you are when you need it, and the robber/etc has a gun trained on you before you have one trained on him or he overpowers you or he's there to steal your gun, etc. Still if most households had a weapon for protection the number of robberys etc might decrease if you assume the perpetrators are rational enough to calculate odds. And I guess I can see one use for semi-auto's, make sure you kill the bear or puma (or murderer or drugged up armed robber) before he kills you.

As you state below, tongue-in-cheek is the above. You are speculating on various scenarios vs using the actual data that exists. What matters is not a specific possible scenario but the data that exists that examines whether or not the net effect of law abiding citizens having guns is a net negative or positive on crime rates, etc. So far, the data, some of which I has supplied, points strongly to a net positive for citizens. If this topic interests you, additional resources can be supplied.




I know criminals have guns and I don't so that gives them a big advantage.

No doubt!


But where did the criminal get the gun? Some of this is tongue-in-cheek, but I'm trying to be neutral here and see both sides.

Criminals get their guns from various sources, but get them they will period.


End of comments.


You promise? ;D

flickad
04-12-2007, 08:13 PM
Speaking as a Brit, I live in a (relatively) gun free society - you can't legally hold and carry a firearm and I'm more than happy for it to stay that way. I feel damn safer over here knowing that in 99% of the places I go there won't be any firearms. (The other 1% are dodgy areas and I avoid those anyway).

The points been well made earlier that your constituton was framed over two centuries ago by people who had no idea of its effect two hundred and fifty years later.

Part of the original reason was to allow the then citizens to hold firearms to defend the fledgling US against external agression (like from us Brits after you booted us out in the War of Independence). Who's going to invade you now? The needs gone away.

If you do want a reasonable right to self defence in (say) your home:

(1) Why do you need an assualt rifle? A .45 calibre revolver will do the job perfectly adequately.

(2) You say you need the guns to defend yourself against other US citizens who also have the right to bear guns - that sounds a pretty circular arguement to me.

Why not pass a law saying anyone found carrying a weapon goes to jail for a minimum of 10 years - I'll bet that would stop a lot of people carrying weapons, and if they don't have them, you don't need them.

And finally - to defend yourself against the state? To overthrow a despotic government?

In the red corner, Joe Citizen with his army surplus M15 and in the blue corner the US military with an Abrahams tank. My money's on the tank every time.

I thought that's why you had elections - to give you the option of booting out a goverment of which you didn't approve. Seems a far more democratic way than saying "this is a despotic government - I'll pick up my M15 and overthrow it"

Phil.

Yep, couldn't have said it better.

Of course, I live in a country highly influenced by the ways of Mother England.

ArmySGT.
04-12-2007, 11:01 PM
Then you should read my response to that exact same post.

Because of todays events 16 April, 2007 this author has decided to place for free the .PDF version of his book.

*Lynn*
04-06-2018, 03:33 PM
I want to bump this thread.
BUMP!
This is so great, and wonder how many people that felt this way in 07 have been manipulated by the media and all this gun control craziness.

I personally like the pirate idea. :-)

I know it was mentioned that the founding fathers didn't have a clue about the type of weapons that would exist, but the same goes for government and military.
Their weaponry technology is was more advanced that assault weapons and automatics.