Advertisement
Monday was a very sad day for this nation. Enough is enough! How many more lives does it cost to die from gun related violence and crime, and how many more school shooting rampages does it take for our citizens to say to our government: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH??? We need a complete reform in our gun control law!!! The NRA and the misled public always use the Second Amendment as an arguement about the "civilian's" right to carry firearm.
HERE'S IS WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT "REALLY" SAY THAT THE NRA WANT TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM KNOWING THE TRUE ESSENCE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
What does the Second Amendment Mean?
How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.
The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.
The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent
The Second Amendment states: "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 NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.
The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
The Second Amendment Today
In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.
Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
The Second Amendment in the Courts
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.
Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a 'Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precedents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).
Gun Control Laws and The Second Amendment
Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.
For more information:
www.bradycampaign.org/
www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/
IN 2004, GUNS MURDERED:
5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
37 IN SWEDEN
57 IN AUSTRALIA
73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
184 IN CANADA
AND 11,344 IN THE UNITED STATES!
GUNS DO KILL! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO BECOME RAMPAGE MASS MURDERERS BEING ABLE TO KILL 30 PEOPLE IN 5 MINUTES IF THEY HAD WEAPONS OTHER THAN GUNS. THE U.S IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT HAS THESE SHOOTING RAMPAGE BECAUSE OF THE EASY ACCESSIBILITY TO FIREARMS BY CIVILIANS
HERE'S IS WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT "REALLY" SAY THAT THE NRA WANT TO KEEP THE PUBLIC FROM KNOWING THE TRUE ESSENCE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT
What does the Second Amendment Mean?
How often have you heard someone argue against gun control laws by claiming: "Gun ownership is a constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment"? The assertion that the Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees a broad, individual right to "keep and bear arms" and that it precludes any reasonable restrictions on guns is the philosophical foundation of the National Rifle Association's opposition to even the most modest gun control measures.
The NRA's constitutional theory is, however, divorced from legal and historical reality. It is based on carefully worded disinformation about the text and history of the Second Amendment and a systematic distortion of judicial rulings interpreting the Amendment. The result is a Second Amendment "mythology" which has been difficult to counter.
The History of The Second Amendment: Original Meaning And Intent
The Second Amendment states: "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 NRA tends to omit the first, crucial, half of the Second Amendment - the words referring to a "well-regulated militia."
When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" - a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was "well-regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various requirements such as training, supplying their own firearms, and engaging in military exercises away from home. It was a form of compulsory military service intended to protect the fledgling nation from outside forces and from internal rebellions.
The "militia" was not, as the gun lobby will often claim, simply another word for the populace at large. Indeed, membership in the 18th century militia was generally limited to able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45 - hardly encompassing the entire population of the nation.
The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III's troops fresh in their minds, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.
The Second Amendment Today
In the 20th century, the Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have the citizen militia like that of the 18th century.
Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard - has more limited membership than its early counterpart and depends on government-supplied, not privately owned, firearms. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today's militia, since those laws invariably do not apply to arms used in the context of military service and law enforcement. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issues.
The Second Amendment in the Courts
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.
Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.
In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court addressed the Second Amendment issue again, after the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning handguns (making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the military, and collectors). After the town was sued on Second Amendment grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (Quillici v. Morton Grove). In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower court rulings to stand.
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a 'Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
Since the Miller decision, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, up until March of 1999 (see below), the courts decided that the Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in connection with a state militia. Even more telling, in its legal challenges to federal firearms laws like the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, the National Rifle Association makes no mention of the Second Amendment. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has not challenged a gun law on Second Amendment grounds in several years.
The Renegade Decision: U.S. v. Emerson
On March 30, 1999, U.S. District Judge for Northern Texas Sam R. Cummings restored a domestic abuser's firearms, citing the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. This decision flies in the face of years of precedence and jurisprudence and can only be viewed as a renegade decision. In his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual judicial practice and cite legal precedents that undergird his decision because there are none. This ruling has been appealed and since that decision, two federal courts, including a higher Circuit court, have ruled that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms (Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis).
Gun Control Laws and The Second Amendment
Even if one believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, does that mean that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? Of course not. In fact, several states have clauses in their state constitutions which explicitly guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, yet not a single gun control law has been overturned in those states for violating that clause.
The rights guaranteed by the Constitution have never been absolute. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, yet libel laws prevent newspapers from printing malicious lies about a person. The First Amendment also protects free speech, yet one cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. It is doubtful that the Founding Fathers envisioned a time when over 30,000 people are dying from gun violence a year, when high-power military-style weapons like AK-47's with 30-round magazines are available on the streets, when an 14-year-old can take his father's guns and mow down his classmates, or when parents leave a loaded pistol around and a two-year-old can easily fire it. The vast majority of the American people support reasonable gun control laws and view them as necessary to reduce the level of gun violence in this country. The framers of the Constitution would surely agree.
For more information:
www.bradycampaign.org/
www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/
IN 2004, GUNS MURDERED:
5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
37 IN SWEDEN
57 IN AUSTRALIA
73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
184 IN CANADA
AND 11,344 IN THE UNITED STATES!
GUNS DO KILL! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO BECOME RAMPAGE MASS MURDERERS BEING ABLE TO KILL 30 PEOPLE IN 5 MINUTES IF THEY HAD WEAPONS OTHER THAN GUNS. THE U.S IS THE ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THAT HAS THESE SHOOTING RAMPAGE BECAUSE OF THE EASY ACCESSIBILITY TO FIREARMS BY CIVILIANS
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:56 AM> We need a complete reform in our gun control law!!!
No, we really don't.
Automotive vehicles kill and injure far more people than guns. Should we have a car control law? -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 3:23 AMHA! Nice try skooter but you're comparing apples to oranges. Using transportation as a comparrison to weapons just doesn't wash.
What I find interesting though is that while I don't defend the NRA at all - one also has to take the second ammendment in hystorical context as was pointed out which ALSO means that even though the right to bear weapons WAS intended to mean that citizens had a right to defend their boarders and property by bearing arms. Keep in mind it WAS refering to personal protective rights as well as the volunteer militia. They weren't talking about recreational rights to own firearms.
The second ammendment was written at a time when there was no organized military nor a public police force to protect citizens. Today we have both.
The other reality is that in this country, MOST gunowners collect guns for sport and hobby and those who own them for protection own them to protect themselves from other gun owners! At least that appears to be the case.
I'm not saying that recreational use of firearms is wrong but I think that the original poster makes a very valid point about the relationship between gun laws in other countries and the number of people killed by guns.
And if you want to make a comparison that is actually applicable when refering to cars - think about how many lives were saved when laws began requiring safety belts when the correlation between mortality and not wearing one became obvious.
Same would apply to the correlation between the number of people killed by guns in countries with stronger gun control versus those without. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 3:42 AMGod I'm tired...please forgive the bad spelling!
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:01 PM>>Automotive vehicles kill and injure far more people than guns. Should we have a car control law?<<
First off I think this is a ridiculous comparison.
But in reality we have tons of car control laws. First you need to take a written and a practical test to make sure you are qualified to drive. Then once you are qualified and liscensed you need to insure yourself against harming anyone and your car needs to be inspected and reregistered every few years.
On second thought, i think we should make shooting and gun ownership EXACTLY like car ownership. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:36 PM> First off I think this is a ridiculous comparison.
But you don't say why.
Deaths are deaths. It matters not if it's as a result of a a car or gun. The base of the argument is wanting to prevent more deaths. Comparatively, few people are willing to recognize that a car is a lethal weapon and consequently treat it with little care. Were we to treat guns in the same manner of cars we'd have far more deaths.
Something to note, the statistics that are being quoted here as current gun deaths, how many of those are from lawful, justifiable use of force by individuals and law enforcement? Discounting those numbers could significantly change this discussion. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:44 PMAgain, I say comparing ownership of a car to ownership of a weapon is QUITE different and like trying to compare apples to oranges.
If you're going to say that the ONLY basis for comparison is death count, then you have to compare it to legal execution, mountain climbing, swimming and ANYTHING in which a death has ever occured. Nope - it doesn't fly. Sorry - nice try. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 11:09 PM>
If you're going to say that the ONLY basis for comparison is death count, then you have to compare it to legal execution, mountain climbing, swimming and ANYTHING in which a death has ever occured. Nope - it doesn't fly. Sorry - nice try.
>
Other than death counts you're overlooking the most obvious commonalities of lethal weapon, public availability and judicial regulation; traits that don't even remotely compare to mountain climbing, legal execution and swimming. So although I appreciate the effort it is a mite off base.
But that goes give me another thought. Driving a car, at least in Cali, is strictly a privilege and with gun control it's a discussion of constitutional rights. Hmmmmm. Rich, any thoughts on that? -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 11:42 AM>>Driving a car, at least in Cali, is strictly a privilege and with gun control it's a discussion of constitutional rights.<<
The right to bear arms is one of the most misquoted and least understood constitutional issues. The NRA uses it to elect right wing politicians by dumbing the debate down to "THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS AND ENSLAVE US"...that's just not the case.
Please really read the initial post in this thread which describes the constitutional situation better then I ever could.
And anyway I never said people shouldn't have guns (although i personally would support a total ban on assault weapons), I'm just saying that a background check, a few days wait, and preferably some proof of gun savy by testing would all be great ideas.
What's your problem with that Skooter? -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 2:11 PMI've already said in a post below that I support the idea. Did you forget your glasses, grandpa? :)
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 3:55 PM>>It matters not if it's as a result of a a car or gun. The base of the argument is wanting to prevent more deaths. Comparatively, few people are willing to recognize that a car is a lethal weapon and consequently treat it with little care. Were we to treat guns in the same manner of cars we'd have far more deaths. <<
Again, I think it would be great to make gun owners pass a written and practical liscensing test and have to carry insurance and have the registration on their firearm renewable every couple of years. Do you have some problem with that?
BTW if you own a gun you are 22% more likely to have it used against you or a loved one then to use it yourself in defense. (according to talk radio host asd author Thom Hartmann) -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 4:47 PM>
Again, I think it would be great to make gun owners pass a written and practical liscensing test and have to carry insurance and have the registration on their firearm renewable every couple of years. Do you have some problem with that?
>
No, actually I think that would be a great idea. But I wouldn't put that under "gun control", I would consider that part and parcel of responsible ownership of a lethal weapon. That type of proposal is a far cry from the argument above that starts out saying we should significantly reform gun control, to reasonable gun control, and no control of assault weapons is what brought about the shooting at virginia tech - an argument all over the map.
I'd love to get into this more but between potty training and playing princess I'm a tad distracted. And no, I'm not the one playing princess =0)
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Fri, April 27, 2007 - 9:21 PMThis is rediculous because ....
the reality is we have laws to reduce car deaths...
("car control laws")
therefore by your own argument we can have
laws to reduce gun deaths...
later days -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Fri, May 11, 2007 - 10:34 PM> This is rediculous because ....
the reality is we have laws to reduce car deaths...
("car control laws")
therefore by your own argument we can have
laws to reduce gun deaths...
later days
>
But there aren't laws that prevent you from buying a V12 and limit you to a inline-3 - and don't be lame and sidetrack on emission laws. Either way they still kill people, 5 times more per year than guns. The difficulty is that the discussion is gun control, and in the context of the VTech shooting, the calling is preventing crazy people from buying guns, or at least less powerful guns. Yet we let crazy people drive cars. Worse than crazy people are stupid people yet we let them drive too
You think the government should be in the business to mentally the populace and tell them they're mentally fit to buy a Civic but not a Tacoma? And you would tolerate the government telling you, presumably a normal person, you aren't allowed consumer choice? Placing analogous controls on cars, as proposed here for guns, is doing exactly that. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, May 12, 2007 - 1:26 AM<<Yet we let crazy people drive cars. >>
My niece has Bipolar and was asked the question "Was she taking any medications" when applying for a drivers license ... When she disclosed that she was on several, including antidepressants, it became a condition that she provide a medical report (every six months) that she is fit to drive …. Mind you, if she had not disclosed – they would not have checked and it would not have become a condition (a bit like when you buy a gun in some states in America)
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:13 PMWe do have car control laws-lots of them. Drivers liscences are a good example. There are also age restrictions, vision and other physical imparement restrictions, mandatory drivers education, mandatory insurance laws, I could go on a lot longer with this. Technically that you can't drive your car on the sidewalk and must stay in the street is a car control law.
I happen to think these car control laws are a good thing and that requireing someone to at least take a course in how to fire a gun and some responsible gun ownership laws would probably be pretty helpful. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:17 PMYes, these laws have saved many lives but I do remember (back in the ol' days) when seatbelt laws first went into effect, there were people outraged that their civil liberties were being taken away and that it was unconsitutional to tell adults they had to wear a seat belt. Same thing happened with the first helmet laws for motorcycles and cyclists.
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:17 PMOops, Rich's post wasn't there when I started mine-didn't mean to sound like a parrot. Obviously I completely agree. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:35 PMSince it seemed to fit, I couldn't help posting this news story...
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070...eauty_queen
I guess there are arguments for both sides of the issue - eh?
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 2:40 PM> Technically that you can't drive your car on the sidewalk and must stay in the street is a car control law.
But people intent on being careless or killing don't pay attention to those laws any more than those for guns. There's plenty of incidences over the years, especially recently, of people driving people over deliberately. Laws don't prevent such things. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 3:57 PM>>Laws don't prevent such things. <<
Bottom line. The Virginia Tech shooter legally bought his two high powered hand guns in a state with absolutely no background check or waiting period. In this case it seems a background check would have probably stopped this sale. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:21 PM> Bottom line. The Virginia Tech shooter legally bought his two high powered hand guns in a state with absolutely no background check or waiting period. In this case it seems a background check would have probably stopped this sale.
I haven't been keeping up in the last day or so. Did he have a record or some sort that would have prevented him from getting a permit? And how that's handled, isn't that a state issue? -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 11:44 AM>> Did he have a record or some sort that would have prevented him from getting a permit? And how that's handled, isn't that a state issue? <<
Yes it is a state issue. VA has the least regulation for any state. you can go in to a gun store and buy whatever you'd like with no check at all.
The shooter was generating all sorts of notice on campus from teachers and other students and I beleive was recently hospitalized and on a suicide watch...sorry i'm fuzzy on the details of this -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 12:04 PMWow, I'm gone for a day and here is a whole lot more to think about...I like the way this discussion is flowing.
I totally agree that we should have licensing which includes a thorough screening of one's ability to use a gun safely. Which, IMO would include mental health. This seems to be one of the BIGGEST factors in these tragedies. It's interesting that there are certain health conditions that restrict the ability to obtain a driver's license but none that restrict owning a gun...now that's a frightening thought!
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 2:26 PMRich - The shooter had also been reported for stalking two female students (last I heard they were trying to figure out if one od the girls was his first target) but they didn't press charges. Certainly this was a preventable tragedy in many ways - not only did a teacher raise a flag regarding some disturbing stories he'd handed in. But there had been two reports of him stalking women that clearly neither the women nor the police took seriously enough.
Just a little aside. Crazy people who want to shoot people can get guns to do so (or find other ways to kill masses of people) even in countries with gun control. And, of course there are hunting rifles which can often be modified to be semi-automatic pretty easily (this was the case in the last school shooting in Montreal). What gun control DOES tend to prevent or reduce are the amount of accidental deaths due to children shooting themselves or others, drunk people shooting each other during arguments, and the many situations of stupidity or neglect that actually account for a fair amount of shooting deaths. You're much more likely to survive a domestic dispute if you're attacked with a knife than a gun. Though, if the US finally got gun control it would mean less handguns flowing across the border into Canada which would be a very good thing.
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 8:57 PMNo, I suppose that if someone is absolutly intent on driving on the sidewalk a law isn't going to prevent them. However, having law in place gives guidelines for what society belives to be acceptable and unacceptable as well as a basis for holding someone accountable when they do break the law.
That wasn't the point tho, the point was that your post made it sound like we didn't have car control laws when, in fact, we have lots and lots and lots of them.
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 7:58 AMIf the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28)
My concern with the right to keep and bear arms falls back to Jeffersonian positions. It is not the militia we need to be concerned about but rather oppressive govt. A govt that wishes to oppress by force will first remove the personal arsenal of the people
www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
The Mother of All Stats
The Human Cost of "Gun Control" Ideas
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians
(mostly Christians) 1-1.5 million Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915 • Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession
Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political opponents;
farming communities 20 million Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties
Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples" 20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938 •Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession
China, Nationalist 1927-1949 Political opponents;
army conscripts; others 10 million Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 •Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership
China, Red 1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976 Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state 20-35 million Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957 •Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"
Guatemala 1960-1981 Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies 100,000-
200,000 Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964 •Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools •Confiscation powers
Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970 •Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers
Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons;
Political enemies 2 million Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 •Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints •License inspected quarterly
Rwanda 1994 Tutsi people 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify
need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers
In the 20th Century:
* Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
* Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.
Hmmm make those 11,000 killed a drop in the bucket
The reality is the Bill of rights are our protections against oppressive govt... It is the enumeration of the rights of the people in terms of how they relate to the govt.
The preamble to the Bill of Rights spells this out:
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Our right to free speech, press and religion is so we may criticize our govt, Right to keep and bear arms id to protect our person and property from the govt. 3rd amendment protects us from the govt taking over our homes to house soldiers. <interesting that they address soldiers in the bill of rights but the arguers against the 2nd claim that it was militia that existed> Search and seizure protection for our stuff from the govt. 5th protection against torture by our govt. 6th Speedy trial makes sure we don't disappear in the system without charges filed and a trial to address those charges <Guantanamo Bay vacation anyone> 7th Trial by Jury....Keeps the govt from taking liberty and property without a jury trial by your peers. 8th protection against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. 9th protects other rights not specifically enumerated. 10th states rights and personal rights... tells ya if it is not enumerated in the constitution it is NOT the right of the govt to act on it.
Gun control laws fly in the face of the 2nd 7th and 10th amendment. Short of an amendment to the constitution the govt has no right to limit or remove those rights... The 10th amendment tells ya that.
Sure some of the NRA stuff is not historically accurate... guns are not protected for home defense. They are protected for defense against oppressive govt. The preamble explains that.
The use of militias during the revolutionary war was not to defend the US against outside groups but rather to act against the oppressive British govt... you remember those guys in the red coats.
Since the revolution Militias have and do exist still:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mili...ted_States
United States
Main article: militia (United States)
There is a long history of militia in the United States, starting before the country became a country, with the colonial militias normally consisting of all adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. This practice was continued after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, and remained relatively unchanged until the late 1800s. Central to the complete concept of "militia" as used by the American Founders in the second amendment of the Constitution was that it be "well-regulated", which meant well-trained and well-organized, but not necessarily by government. Thus, the term would not have been properly used to refer to an armed, unruly mob, but only to persons who behave in a responsible, law-enforcing mode, and who might act to control an armed, unruly mob as an "insurrection".
After the Civil War, state guard units composed of select militia were created. After 1903, the militia was divided into two groups, unorganized and organized. Organized units were created from portions of the former state guards and became state National Guard units. Some states later created State Defense Forces for assistance in local emergencies. Privately organized militias, not affiliated with any government organization, and usually formed by citizens suspicious of the activities and politics of Federal and state governments, blossomed in the mid 1990s.
The Constitutional Militia Movement consists of citizen groups who espouse strict construction of the U.S. Constitution according to the original understanding and intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States, especially in regard to the right to keep and bear arms (see Second Amendment to the United States Constitution). Constitutional Militias train in the proper and safe use of firearms, that they may be effective if called upon to uphold liberty, protect the people in times of crisis (i.e. disasters such as Hurricane Katrina), or to defend against invasion and terrorism. U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 15 & 16.
According to Title 10, USC, Section 311, all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 (who are citizens or have declared their intent to become citizens) not serving in the armed forces or state national guard units are considered the unorganized militia, as well as all female citizens in state national guard units. Honorably discharged veterans of the armed forces regular components under the age of 64 may be considered as part of the unorganized militia pool, with congressional authorization to be enrolled for enlistment, warrant, or commission in national guard units until reaching that age.
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defense of a free state..." --George Mason, declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788.
Ben Franklin had it right
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 8:50 AM"Ben Franklin had it right
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759 "
This is very true.
The same logic hold true when it comes to other constitutional rights which seem to have been trampled on in the name of "safety"; namely, things being done by the Department of Homeland Security.
I'm not saying that taking away constitutional rights is the way to solve the problem, I merely feel that it is important to understand the true context of the Constitution and not take it out of context for the sake of convenience. There is a big difference between taking away the right to bear armas and creating more realistic laws in keeping with the context of living in America in the 21st Century. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 9:03 AM" I merely feel that it is important to understand the true context of the Constitution and not take it out of context for the sake of convenience."
And one more thought...it's just as important not to read more into the context of the Constitution than was actually there because one has philosophical ideas pro or con regarding an issue as it appears many on BOTH sides of the issue have.
As you pointed out, the Contitution was penned to protect individuals from opressive government.
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 9:35 AMB wrote:
"I'm not saying that taking away constitutional rights is the way to solve the problem, I merely feel that it is important to understand the true context of the Constitution and not take it out of context for the sake of convenience. There is a big difference between taking away the right to bear armas and creating more realistic laws in keeping with the context of living in America in the 21st Century."
The problem has been all schemes to do so have involved potentially dangerous release of information to groups that are likely to use that info to oppress... IE Databases of gun owners, registration <wouldn't have helped the Vtech situation> ect... Where do ya think the cops and army are going to go first if the govt decides to remove weapons? Um to the list of registered gun owners.
Hell here in Washington we just had a cop in Federal Way's kid steal his guns. Yeah they were registered and he allegedly was trained in the safe handling.... Ya know we should really take the guns out of the hands of the cops since they can't act responsibly with them.
seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...re.html
The reality is there are going to be risks... You want a viable control... Charge people who have been irresponsible gun owners with a crime... You have your gun's stolen then you are responsible. Perhaps people would begin to use things like gun safes and trigger locks. The problem is not the guns... The VAST majority of owners are responsible and do not go on shooting rampages, do not hold up 7-11's. Removing their liberties is not the solution.
As to the OP's original statement that you can't kill massive amounts of people without a gun... Two words Oklahoma City... Look up Kerosene and Fertilizer... should prolly illegalize and register those too.
Honestly B I am open to suggestions as to how to create more realistic laws... Banning and required registration are not realistic or workable.
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 9:43 AM"Banning and required registration are not realistic or workable. "
Well, that's not completely true. The countries cited at the beginning of this thread are a good example of these things actually working and those countries cited in the first post did not become communist nations simply because they controled arms. The rub is in finding a way to do so without trampling on the Constitution (which we all agree is the foundation of this nation's government) - that's the challenge. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 10:23 AMNot all countries I cited were or are Communist. They simply are where abuses have taken place. The Original poster's list is also incomplete... the reason for the counter stat is to demonstrate that gun control is not the nirvana folks claim it is... It is an opening for oppression.
The stats really mean nothing and cannot be cooralated unless compared against other rates.
For example the highest Murder rate in the world is in India
with 37,000 murders... Guess what the Govt controls guns there through pricing and registration
www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/
Another interesting
Washington DC after very strict gun control limits were created in 1975 had their murder rate increase by 134% and still is considered one of the most violent cities in the nation..
The problem is the stats the op posted can be attributed to other factors not strictly gun control laws... they also are not broken down to the means by which they were committed.. One glaring thing I noticed is that all the countries cited HAVE SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE
It would seem to me care for the populace would have more to do with the lower stat than controls on the weapons... Folks that need mental health care can get it... There are also better social welfare systems in those nations... Maybe if folks did not have to be as concerned with the day to day misery of their lives the impetus to act in a violent manner would not be as strong... Understand the Highest murder rates are in the poorest sections of the population... Guess what... Where they have nothing to lose. The problem does not lie with the second amendment... Murder rates are rooted in deeper ills. The murder is not the problem it is the symptom.
JSin
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 1:57 PMYes, the issues are far more complex than simplistic solutions. As you pointed out socialized health care is probably a bigger factor in preventing tragedies due to mental illnes than anything.
Ultimatelly, "stats really mean nothing" on either side of the issue. It would be just a foolish to claim that banning personal weapons is the reason that other civil rights are abused as it is to claim that banning personal weapons is the panacea which would cure the ill of all violent crime.
It's a complex inter-connectedness of issues which have to be addressed and it seems that "some" countries have found a somewhat reasonable resolution to their own violent crime problems but we can't measure our own nations issues by another nation's issues either. It would be like thinking we could treat EVERY infection with the same antibiotic.
I agree we need to address the bigger picture and stop treating individual symptoms rather than the overall illness.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 9:28 AMI'm convinced that IF our founding fathers were writing the Constitution today, in the 21st Century - the tenants would have been exactly the same but the wording would have been much more specific.
Seems the same arguments arise whenever there are lawmakers with partisan viewpoints trying to interpret what people living two hundred years ago were thinking when they wrote The Bill of Rights.
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 3:20 PMi can realize a government that creates domestic catastrophies for the purpose of totalitarian control. some of the cover-ups have been uncovered. in a country that takes these sort of actions, in a country with corporate private armies, legal ownership of weapons by the public is the only deterrent to full police state (and more than likely invasion by external threat. i am all for the planetary abolition of all mechenized weaponry, short of that, i fully support the second amendment protecting the right of private ownership of arms. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 3:28 PMIn a country where the above is true, why should gun ownership deter the government from anything? There is far more to worry about from the media and the PR firms spinning reality for the masses... If you can use lies and divisive poitical tactics to instill fear in the people, why would gun ownership make a difference in government control?
If it's self-defense from the government you're worried about, being armed with information and actively trying to make a difference is far more useful than being armed with a hunting rifle, IMNSHO.
The fact is, there is no real gun control right now. The VT shooter walked into a gun shop and lied about his record...anyone with a prior history of being committed for mental instability is barred from buying a gun - according to NPR, I will admit I have not had time to check the laws - but the fact of the matter is, gun control will not give the government any more license than it has ALREADY taken and may, just may, make a difference on the streets. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 4:40 PM"The United States has the largest number of guns in private hands of any country in the world with 60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms."
This is from the following article:
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservic..._art29.shtml -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:21 PMI'm in complete agreement with JSin whose posts were clear , concise, factual and above all - logical.
I do have a comment to what Free posted:
........- but the fact of the matter is, gun control will not give the government any more license than it has ALREADY taken and may, just may, make a difference on the streets.
****
Yeah, because all the laws banning drugs have made a huge difference on the streets.
In fact, yes, it has made a huge difference on the streets: increasing crime
And what happened, too, is that the Drug War became a war against the poor.
Are we to assume that if guns were banned and strict laws were put in place that there were be no mentally ill /deranged people fulfilling their "prophecy" to kill others and themselves? Would mental care be reduced, even more, because society felt "safer" for having stringent gun laws?
Ignorant thinking indeed -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:32 PMHow are you comparing gun laws to drug laws? You don't kill someone from a distance by whipping out a bag of pot. You don't walk into a university classroom and mow down thirty-plus people in a few minutes with a crack rock.
I don't support drug laws. I think the fact of the matter is, dropping a tab of LSD in your living room is a lot less of a threat than letting people who have been committed as a danger to themselves and others buy deadly weapons. And yes, the "Drug War" is a war on the poor. How is gun control a war on the poor? Please support your conclusion.
Of course, by your logic, perhaps we should do away with laws altogether. Any control at all is likely to increase crime. Let's do away with the police altogether. It's having laws that cause people to break them. Without laws, we'd all be one big happy family, eh? -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:49 PMthe two laws are comparable because it all comes down to the individual and how they handle themselves within the confines of the law.
there are people, like yourself who smoke dope and drop acid without harming themselves or others and, since marijuana is not as highly addictive , the actual dealers tend to be more active members of our society. You don't have to trick yourself out cop your dime bag, right? No need to think about how many blowjobs you'll need to give and where you'll send the kids so you can get your fix, right?
then there are the people with serious addictions who engage in high risk behaviour from prostitution to involvement in gangs. This is a very different drug environment from the one you live in. You do mention crack and you take away from its danger by commenting that someone wouldn't smoke crack and then go mow down thirty people in a few minutes. But in a crack addicts lifetime, which could be very short or rather lengthy, they could easily damage many people by transferring AIDS (unsafe sex), as one example.
Can you only deal with that which is immediately tangible to justify YOUR conclusion?
Drug addicts and dealers can be equally as dangerous as some mentally ill person wiedling a sidearm and I'm saddened that you don't take the former more seriously.
When I made the comparison to the drug war being a war on the poverty I was implying that gun control could end up being a "war" (though the term is used loosely) on the mentally ill and others who would use guns to hurt / kill other people and themselve.
We are missing the point that its not the gun, its the person.
Had the shooter at V Tech been in better receipt of mental care- true mental care not just perfunctory across the board tests, he may have been committed and received help.
That which is important is invisible to the eye - while I stole that from St Exupery, I'm using it to clarify that broad based statements always have further definitions going on behind and in between the lines.
There is never NEVER one aspect of ANYTHING that if changed will change it ahelp wholeheartedly. Yet society wants a quick fix, hence the re-visiting discussions of more stringent gun laws.
More stringent gun laws will not prevent murders from happening. period. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:57 PM<<then there are the people with serious addictions who engage in high risk behaviour from prostitution to involvement in gangs. This is a very different drug environment from the one you live in. You do mention crack and you take away from its danger by commenting that someone wouldn't smoke crack and then go mow down thirty people in a few minutes. But in a crack addicts lifetime, which could be very short or rather lengthy, they could easily damage many people by transferring AIDS (unsafe sex), as one example. >>
I think that by using crack addicts to justify your conclusion, you are turning your own argument on its head.
One could argue (and I am not) that it is the person and not the drug, just as you are arguing it's the person and not the gun.
It's ease of access I'm talking about. I don't see drug addiction as intangible. I see addiction, like violence, as something that requires mental and physical medical intervention...
I'm curious what your logic argues if carried further. You are comparing apples and oranges. And you are ascribing an argument to me that I'm not making. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 2:18 AMYa know free... It is interesting that the cities in the US with the highest rates of Murder also have the highest addiction rates... I think the use of the drug laws as a parallel is applicable as it also follows the same socio economic lines... ... In fact given that drug related arrests are so correlated maybe it is the drugs not the guns. And ya know as stated before the drug control laws have worked so wonderfully... almost as well as prohibition in the 20's... oh wait gun related deaths rose there too.....
hmm... something to ponder... maybe it is not the guns but rather the profit motive that drives the murder rates.
I definitely know from personal experience that when I was a speed addict <15 years ago> I could get my illegal gun the same place I got my dope... Hell it would even be loaded and good to go... Good combo. Even with gun control and registration I would still be able to get it. Ya know it would make me happy knowing when I broke into a place that there was a good chance I would be the only one armed.
As stated before fix the underlying problems not the symptoms. The major issue is socio economic not drug laws and gun control laws.
JSin -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 2:46 AM<<As stated before fix the underlying problems not the symptoms.>>
No argument from me there. But I wonder how effective that can be in the short-term, given that the underlying problems are, as you pointed out, socioeconomic in nature and that is much easier said then done.
I was never advocating taking everyone's guns away. Hell, my dad kept a loaded rifle in the closet for shooting rabbits and I never took it to school. I merely made the point that MORE control would POSSIBLY make a difference.
<<hmm... something to ponder... maybe it is not the guns but rather the profit motive that drives the murder rates.>>
I wouldn't argue with this in the case of your prohibition example. But I wonder what the VT shooter's profit motive was? I would hesitate to correlate school shootings with drug crime, and that was my example.
To me, illegal weapons used in drug-related crimes is another topic altogether. The black market is alive and well, and there really is no way around that. But where were those people GETTING those illegal guns?
I find it fascinating, though, that societal laws = some form of control, and everyone is in favor of laws for, say, driving a car, but when it comes to guns, it hits this major cultural nerve. I like knives and sharp objects, but it's illegal for me to carry a 3-foot-long double-edged broadsword down the street. I don't find that a bad thing. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 8:38 AMFree wrote:
>"wouldn't argue with this in the case of your prohibition example. But I wonder what the VT shooter's profit motive was? I would hesitate to correlate school shootings with drug crime, and that was my example. "<
Problem is Mass murders are definitely the anomolie, the more common use of gun related crimes are individual killings. Certainly things like columbine and the VAtech murders make the news for weeks. But really in terms of gun related deaths they are the exception not the rule. To advocate a larger level of control based on unusual circumstances seems to be a knee jerk reaction. The other problem with your example is the shooter did have controls in place and circumvented them to some degree. The Columbine kids got their guns illegally. Most drug related shootings <a far more pervasive problem> are done with illegal guns. The fact of the matter is stricter controls would only really effect law abiding citizens... Most of them do not commit mass murder. As to where folks are obtaining illegal weapons. Many are from home burglary, many from break ins on govt bases. The TOW missile that the crips used to take down a LAPD helicopter in the 80's was stolen from a Nat Guard base. In fact our govt is prolly the least responsible gun owner. Many guns also come from cops, see article I posted a link to on fed way.
>"I find it fascinating, though, that societal laws = some form of control, and everyone is in favor of laws for, say, driving a car, but when it comes to guns, it hits this major cultural nerve. I like knives and sharp objects, but it's illegal for me to carry a 3-foot-long double-edged broadsword down the street. I don't find that a bad thing."<
Well the framers of the constitution did not protect the right to transportation. Personally I think it is bullshit that the DMV controls what amounts to a person's livelyhood as an administrative function. This is an area that needs major overhaul as well, but this is another argument. As to the broad sword, in Washington you certainly can carry a 3 foot broadsword down the street. It needs to be in plain sight and sheathed. But then again where are ya gonna conceal it. You also can carry a foot long bowie knife, if ya want.
Believe me it would not matter what amendment we are discussing I would just as vehemently advocate that the govt stay the hell away from it. The cultural nerve it hits is the protection of our rights against the slow and relentless erosion by the govt and the people out of fear and knee jerk reactions. This would include the Patriot act, Illegal wire tapping and other abuses that have occurred in the War on Terror, the various crimes against lawful search and seisure committed in the name of the War on Drugs, as well as other abuses people allow out of fear.
JSin
hide -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 9:49 AM*grins* ok, ok, i give on the subject of protection of rights. yes, the "unusual circumstances" get media attention, but the fact of the matter is, there's a gun problem in this country. we're also the only country where the right to bear arms is legally guaranteed, if i'm not mistaken...that there seems like a pretty strong indicator to me of a cultural predilection that is causing problems.
how would you suggest we eliminate the black market for weapons, then?
oh, and, re: the broadsword...i don't know about Washington, but in Oregon if it's double-edged and over a foot long, it's a problem. at least, last time i was carrying large weapons, that's what the nice officers told me. things may have changed since then. ;-)
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 4:09 PMin both cases it is the person neither the drug nor gun and my argument is that laws prohibiting either won't prevent the symptoms without implementing guidelines that address the mental instability. You don't use drugs, try to kill yourself and others and/or engage in high risk behaviours unless you have mental instability.
That said, I don't believe there is a viable option to do much more than reduce incidents rather than eliminate.
Additionally, there are those that would deem it an infringement on privacy and personal rights to be required to have psychiatric evaluations on a regular basis if they fit the profile.
Our h\Healthcare and Welfare systems also need to be involved, on every level, at an early age but there is no such safety net and hundreds of thousands fall through the cracks.
Until that foundation is remedied, no amount of laws, short of absolute prohibition (which will still have leaks) would decrease the occurence of incidents like the shooting. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 4:47 PM> Additionally, there are those that would deem it an infringement on privacy and personal rights to be required to have psychiatric evaluations on a regular basis if they fit the profile.
Psychiatric evaluations wouldn't function as a determinate of permit authorization. Not only are they cost prohibitive but they can be skewed more readily than statistics. You can have 10 psychiatrists evaluate the same person and very likely they'd all have different conclusions. And then factor in where we'd draw the line and the process of arriving at that line as adjudicated or independent. Add in the motivating factor of performance affecting salary and then you'd have a system of easily compromised dysfunction.
All of that in addition to your point that it's an invasion of privacy because we'd be legislating medical records into public domain. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:34 PMI would also like to mention that there is NO psychiatric evaluation that will tell you whether or not a person is going to commit murder. We have guesses, hints, and statistical means, but no magical test that can weed out the "crazies"
There is no magic pill to prevent the natural violence of the human animal from expressing itself, and the most effective salve is not punishment and alienation but social support and acceptance.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 6:26 AMGuinevere - Wasn't the gunman in this case from South Korea? From the way it was spoken about on the news I thought he was South Korean but studying in the US... (Someone please correct me if I've got it wrong!) Alienation and feeling disenfranchized seems to be part of the issue regarding these types of incidents but obviously someone has to have a tendency towards psychosis to reach the point where killing others becomes the best option (though considering how murderous rampages are glamorized in movies aimed at young men, you can see how murder can start to seem like a socially sanctioned and celebrated response to frustration and a form of self defense...hell, look at the offensive war in Iraq which is being fought in "self defense"). All these kinds of incidents have a common thread of seeking revenge, of feeling alienated and picked on, and shut out from the good things in life.
Actually people do drugs for all kinds of reasons, fun being one of them and avoiding personal pain being another. Obviously being addicted to drugs is a different thing than using them, and most people who use drugs don't go on killing sprees. Do we even know that the gunman had taken drugs preceding the shootings? I know that alcohol was involved in the last Montreal shooting, and undoubtedly in many domestic disputes that result in shootings. Are you proposing prohibition? While alcohol and other drugs that impair reasoning certainly accerbate psychosis, they're not the root cause in these cases (the psychosis is). Not having guns as easily available would at the very least make it slightly less easy to kill as many people as quickly. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 7:34 AMFifi wrote:
>"I know that alcohol was involved in the last Montreal shooting, and undoubtedly in many domestic disputes that result in shootings. Are you proposing prohibition? While alcohol and other drugs that impair reasoning certainly accerbate psychosis, they're not the root cause in these cases (the psychosis is). Not having guns as easily available would at the very least make it slightly less easy to kill as many people as quickly."<
Well ya got two problems with your argument. First is by citing Montreal...which is in one of the countries the OP held up as an example of gun control working, you destroy your last point... Making them less available will do nothing to alter the ability of a shooter to obtain the tools they wish to use... Gun control would impact the law abiding citizen not the person intent on murder, unless you are proposing we run around and take the guns away from said same law abiding citizens.
As stated before. The kids at Columbine did not obtain their weapons legally. Most murders committed with fire arms are committed with weapons that are obtained illegally. Stricter laws will not solve the issue. Murder is a symptom of a larger issue. See the article on Switzerland.
The part I believe you have right is the alienation and feeling disenfranchised. This is the part that comes down to individual responsibility and individual action. We cannot legislate community. It would be up to each person to begin to reach out to those in our communities. It is probable that it wouldn't help. The rot likely is too deep. But if people have a desire to do something about the situation... Start there.
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 8:49 AMMy point was never to say that gun control prevents psychotic people from killing (I thought I'd quite clearly said that wasn't the case). It does point to the argument that weapons that can be transformed into semi-automatic and automatic weapons shouldn't be allowed in Canada. If you want to hunt and consider this a sport, then you should be happy using a hunting rifle since this actually increases the actual "sporting" nature of hunting. Of course hunting rifles can still kill people, as can knives and fists, they just can't kill as many people as quickly and easily as a semi-automatic weapon can. There are good solid reasons for owning a hunting rifle in Canada if you live in a rural area - protection from bears being the most obvious. There's a difference between gun control and banning all guns. And, obviously with the amount of guns on the streets in the US already it'd take a massive effort to get them off the streets (if that was even possible). When gun registration was implemented here (not that long ago actually) a lot of weapons were turned in by people. That means less guns in citizens' homes to be stolen then used in crimes. It, of course, doesn't prevent illegal gun sales or crimes involving guns but it does go part way to reducing the number of guns available. The majority of handguns in Canada are smuggled in from the US.
The police or school officials here didn't send out any emails. What they did was respond swiftly and effectively which reduced the potential bodycount (two people died, nineteen were injured). Because of the Polytechnic slayings here in 1989 where six women were killed (yes crazy people have been around for a while, and this instance also had to do with a man feeling disenfranchised and threatened by women) the local police have been trained to deal with these kinds of situations. All the families involved in both killings advocate stricter gun control, as well as education and awareness about mental illness.
Making comparison's between Switzerland and the US is just silly for many reasons. The Swiss are given their guns by the government (this arose out of WWII) and all homes are outfitted with bunkers, military training is manditory, and the idea of gun ownership isn't about the right to bear arms in case their own govenrnment tries to impose fascist measures but to defend the country from invaders. The people ARE the state army in Switzerland so they'd be defending their freedoms from themselves (the Swiss also vote on everything, they've got a very active democracy so they'd also personally have voted for or against any restrictions on their freedoms). Keep in mind that the Swiss also have a trust system in regards to paying busfare, and are generally actually more of a collectivist society than an individualist one like the US. Even making comparisons between Canada and the US is a bit misleading considering that our social contract is integrally more collectivist. Not to mention that Canada is quite different from the US politically as well as socially.
Secondly, the numbers being bandied about here aren't particularly relevant because they're based purely on bodycount, not on percentage per population.
My point wasn't that psychotic people who want to commit mass murder won't be able to do it without guns (as I pointed out there are all kinds of other ways to kill lots of people if that's your intent). It was that many accidental (not intentional as in the case of the gunman) deaths due to guns in the US would be avoided - and "crimes of passion" such as murdering your lover in a fit of jealousy may be avoided or at least be less lethal. Stabbing someone to death isn't as easy as shooting them.
I don't see why any law abiding citizen would actually be against tighter gun control laws. After all, if they're law abiding citizens why would they have to worry about not being given a license to own one? And wouldn't they want increased accountability and a reduction in easy access for guns to people who are unfit (criminals, violent offenders, the mentally unstable)? Or people who are just negligent and create dangerous environments for children? Does anyone in the US really believe they could defend themselves against repressive government actions just with guns? David Koresh was armed to the teeth and it didn't help him. Sure he was a religious fanatic but putting his issues aside to look at whether citizens owning guns can actually prevent the government from repressing individuals or groups through owning and using guns, it seems to indicate that guns aren't a very effective way to protect political freedom. And isn't this what the second Amendment is all about? Protecting political freedom, not the "right" to shoot fellow citizens or protect oneself from criminals (other than those who are in political power)? I'd think that if the gun lobby was reallly interested in protecting political freedoms they'd have marched on Washington with their guns drawn by now! -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 8:56 AMHere's a thought: how about taxing the bullets. tax the living crap out of each and every one. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 9:06 AMSee the article on India that is how the govt is attempting to control arms there... It has lead to a larger black market and increased violence. Besides in a parallel look at the US fuel consumption... They tax the living shit out of the gas and folks still buy it by the tanker load.
Once again it comes down to solving the underlying social problems not the symptoms
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 9:23 AMJsin - we're in agreement about resolving the underlying social problems, though psychosis isn't always preventable (though it is treatable and there are certainly warning symptoms). And we'll probably never agree about gun control.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:52 PMoh and you also said (Free) ......letting people who have been committed as a danger to themselves and others buy deadly weaponse.....
keep in mind that the shooter at V Tech had not been committed. That was my primary issue - if he' d receive proper care, he would have been committed. Also, if there was a record of mental illness on his backround check, he wouldn't have received the gun, but there wasn't -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:57 PMActually, he had been committed, and then released. And apparently he lied on the application, so a background check should have caught that, and didn't. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 4:01 PMI'm sorry, there I go being non specific and/or absolute, again
he was not formally committed. when one is thought to be a danger to themselves (ie: attempted suicide) that 72 hour evaluation is NOT a formal "committing" and hence, the records did not reflect his stay at the hospital. I do think that the evals SHOULD be part of the record keeping but, because of privacy laws, they aren't
now, had he been formally committed, as we now know all he should have been, then, yes, the gun shop would have noticed it on the backround check.
hindsight, yes? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 9:21 AM>>now, had he been formally committed, as we now know all he should have been, then, yes, the gun shop would have noticed it on the backround check.<<
The problem is that VA has NO background check. I'm guessing that if there was one the shooter would likely have had a problem getting weapons.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 21, 2007 - 5:32 PMoh and I just want it to be known that I am in agreement that we need 'control' laws and am fine with backround checks and waiting periods but none of those laws will prevent hands from falling into the hands of those who will use them to hurt / kill other people / themselves.
Making it difficult to garner firearms may reduce the likliehood of damage caused by those who have half hearted intentions to hurt / kill but it won't prevent those hell bent (mentally ill or otherwise) from garnering firearms and setting out to hurt / kill.
And, yes, if one opens up the opportunity to revise one of the ammendments, it opens up that same opportunity for the rest of them and I think, that is the point , here; more than anything - tampering with rights is not an option regardless of whether it is thought that they don't fit into our 21st Century way of life.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:14 AMJust to provoke some conversation:
freshome.com/2007/03/21/...-of-weapons/
The comments/discussion are especially enlightening.
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:27 PMBut Switzerland has the largest number per capita of gun owners. You should take a gander at THEIR crime stats. Looks like guns might not be the issue.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
It is not the weapon but the mentality of the individual holding it and the culture in which that individual is found. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:33 PMThanks for reiterating that, Myriad...I did try to make a similar point above.
<<we're also the only country where the right to bear arms is legally guaranteed, if i'm not mistaken...that there seems like a pretty strong indicator to me of a cultural predilection that is causing problems. >>
Maybe not exactly what you had in mind, but along the same track. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:40 PMMy point has nothing to do with the American's attitude towards guns per se. I genuinely believe firearms are beside the point. Give guns to kindergarteners or remove them from society all together, it will not make a difference. The problem is that our society has a toxic predatory drive that we chronically turn on each other. Gun's are dangerous toys, but no fatal in and of themselves. My point is that you will find murder in cultures with a weak sense of community and personal responsibility and a strong aggressive drive and competitive impulse. Making laws that stand in lieu of a conscience tends to make this worse not better.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:18 PMYes, take away the guns.
When the number of death via stabbing goes through the roof take away the knives
Take away the toxic household chemicals
the explosives
the clubs
the rocks
and you will have to pull our teeth and cut off our hands
Until people no longer desire to kill one another no tool, nor lack of it, will prevent us from doing so.
I would also point out that a person bent on homicide is unlikely to give a flying fuck about getting pinched for unlawful possession of a firearm.
When did the government become an organism of preventative morality? -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:31 PM<<When did the government become an organism of preventative morality?>>
Whoa...not saying it necessarily SHOULD be, but since when has it NOT been?
Sociology 101: laws exist so social and cultural mores can be transmitted and enforced. There will always be those who choose not to abide by them. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:41 PMI have no problem with enforcing the action, but when one tries to weed out those who will commit the action in the future and hobble their ability to do so then you have entered into uncomfortable territory
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 10:55 PM> Sociology 101: laws exist so social and cultural mores can be transmitted and enforced.
It's worth mentioning that descriptive is an ideal state and does not reasonably reflect reality.
There's also a small matter of the distinct possibility of legislating ourselves into a fascist police state and/or communism. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sun, April 22, 2007 - 11:16 PM>>There's also a small matter of the distinct possibility of legislating ourselves into a fascist police state<<
Already being done...funny, the worst offenders in promoting the police state (Bush and the right wingers who love him) are also those most in favor of no gun control.
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 6:35 AMhello person of the dot and the line - it's much harder to kill 30 or so people with a knife. Even a great big machete (which is the weapon of choice for mass murder when using a knife).
Guns are specifically designed to kill people. Automatic weapons are specifically designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible with the greatest ease. It's not an issue of morality - it's an issue of common sense.
Besides, the whole argument about defending oneself from one's own government (which is the point of the second amendment in the first place) is kinda silly. The army has bigger and better weapons that any militia could muster - hell they could just launch a missile if they wanted a group of people dead. Or, much more easily, just disappear you into one of the alternate prison systems such as are already in place. To think that owning a gun is any form of protection against the state's increasing fascism means that you don't even understand what playing field the war is really being fought upon. Besides, Blackwater will always be there to do the dirty work the government can't force soldiers to do and as agents to act against the citizens. New Orleans would be a prime example of this. If anyone in the US is worried about being able to protect their freedoms and rights, then they're already aware that many of those freedoms and rights have been legislated away (without the use of guns).
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 7:53 AMFifi wrote:
"Besides, the whole argument about defending oneself from one's own government (which is the point of the second amendment in the first place) is kinda silly. The army has bigger and better weapons that any militia could muster - hell they could just launch a missile if they wanted a group of people dead."
Iraq and Vietnam of how hard it is for a modernized army to deal with a populace with fairly basic weapons... The deterance against oppression by the govt is not against the individual but rather as a collective... Certainly an individual has little chance against and army. But when you begin to have to hunt down and track down small groups in an urban setting your high tech weapons become almost useless.
Look at the philosophical reasons an armed populace is valuable as the peoples check on the govt. You will find many of them in my previous posts.
Even Gandi understood that an armed populace is far harder to control and oppress
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Lenin also knew the restriction of arms is requisite to controlling the people
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Finally one should look at what the militia in the context of our founding fathers
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."-- Patrick Henry
As to New Orleans, after Katrina this is a great example of modern use of Militia
www.oxfordpress.com/news/con...IERS.html
While you state many of our freedoms have been legislated away, you are absolutely correct... It is deplorable and as a citizen I am appalled. I also act to the best of my capacity to make sure that erosion does not continue, this includes but is not limited to participating in discussions such as this to get people to understand that our rights need to be defended and even if they don't like a certain thing if it is in the constitution and bill of rights we need to defend against the govt's attempts to remove them.
Simply because actions have been taken against the people and rights is no excuse to allow the continued erosion.
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 9:14 AMIt's relevant and interesting that the biggest example of American citizens standing up for equal rights and freedoms in the US - the movement for racial equality - didn't use guns to achieve it's goals. Nor did Ghandi (despite your quote from him).
Also, making comparisons between Iraq and the US is also silly. Not only is the US an invading foreign army (so they're hardly using guns to stand up against their own government) but may of the fighters are from outside of Iraq (and are trained fighters). Iraq is being used as the battle ground for a war that involves many nations. It's important to think about who profits from these wars and selling all these weapons (and creating a need for weapons in the first place, it's just business really).
And essentially I'm saying that while the philosophical reasons for wanting a populace that can stand up to a federal army are interesting, they're also not taking into consideration contemporary reality and are obviously not effective in preventing fascism and the limiting of citizens' freedoms. The idea of armed insurrection may be very appealing in a romantic way but it's obviously not doing anything to practical to protect political freedoms in the US in this day and age. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 9:19 AMOnce again, comparing the US to India is mixing apples and oranges.
I'd think that an organized group advocating the armed and violent overthrow of the US government wouldn't last that long in the US. They'd be considered terrorists - even if owning guns is legal. And, really, considering the technologies now available, to be consistent with the idea behind the second amendment then citizens should also be allowed to own effective weapons such as bombs and missiles to be able to deal effectively with the military's superior firepower.
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 9:33 AMFifi wrote:
>"Also, making comparisons between Iraq and the US is also silly. Not only is the US an invading foreign army (so they're hardly using guns to stand up against their own government) but may of the fighters are from outside of Iraq (and are trained fighters)."<
Hmm ya forgot I also used Vietnam as an example... that did start as a civil war, and did demonstrate that small arms are effective against modern weapons.
>"And essentially I'm saying that while the philosophical reasons for wanting a populace that can stand up to a federal army are interesting, they're also not taking into consideration contemporary reality and are obviously not effective in preventing fascism and the limiting of citizens' freedoms. The idea of armed insurrection may be very appealing in a romantic way but it's obviously not doing anything to practical to protect political freedoms in the US in this day and age."<
you are focused on the idea of a "Hot" war. Not the deterance factor on limiting Govt action.. Look at the standard operating procedure in a forced entry by cops here in the US. They don't just walk in and arrest at will, as various regimes have when dealing with a populace that is assumed unarmed, they have to assume that they are going to be facing a weapon. This also works on a larger scale. A govt facing an armed populace is going to be less likely to attempt to use armed means of suppression.. Historically it has been demonstrated, look to the list I posted earlier on gun control and oppression for historical Data on this.
This concept is the prime motivator in the framers ideas behind the 2nd amendment.
Secondly look to the article on the Post Katrina Militia action. This is the second reason to not quash the citizen's right to keep and bear arms... The govt and the police will not be there in the case of disaster... I live in the Pac NW... If a severe crippling earthquake occurs <Puget Sound has a history of 9.0+ quakes as does SF and others around the ring of fire> or if one of our mountains goes off this area will make Katrina look like a mud puddle. The ability for people to band together against looters and others <who most likely will have arms legal or illegal> is the crux of what a Militia is and the modern use of it.
JSin -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 9:49 AM<< they have to assume that they are going to be facing a weapon. >>
So they shoot first and ask questions later - as attested by the number of police shootings, many of them completely unecessary. Great way to go about things, IMO. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 11:21 AMFree wrote:
>"So they shoot first and ask questions later - as attested by the number of police shootings, many of them completely unecessary. Great way to go about things, IMO."<
Yeah prolly should disarm the cops... Then they won't be running around shooting developmentally disabled men wielding pencils like occured in Corona California in 1989... Or the deaf black man they shot here in Seattle 3 years ago when he didn't stop walking away from them.
If we are disarming folks based on anomalies we need to get rid of the Blue suited storm troopers that consistently or even occasionally fail to use their sanctioned legal registered weapons in an irresponsible manner.
JSin -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 11:40 AMThis brings back the question, of the 11k gun related deaths reported, how many of those are from law enforcement and justified individuals? I'll bet that the number is more realistically around 7 or 8k.
That may seem to be an unacceptable number in and of itself, but considering the size of the population and accounting for all other methods of daily deaths, those killed by guns is a remarkably small percentage. Which directly translates into an extremely small chance that any one person would die from a gun related injury. I haven't run the numbers but I'm willing to guess that the possibility of getting killed in a car accident is hundreds, if not thousands, of times more probable. And so, as most political arguments go, this one is inflated beyond all reasonable proportions. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 12:02 PMHere's a breakdown according to percentages...with the US leading (not unexpectedly). It should also be noted that Switzerland does in fact have quite restrictive gun control laws and better serves the argument FOR gun control than against.
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
But back to the statistics....
The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. Two other countries in the Americas came next. Brazil was second with 12.95, followed by Mexico with 12.69.
Japan had the lowest rate, at 0.05 gun deaths per 100,000 (1 per 2 million people). The police in Japan actively raid homes of those suspected of having weapons.
The 36 countries in the study were the richest in the World Bank's 1994 World Development Report, having the highest GNP per capita income.
The United States accounted for 45 percent of the 88,649 gun deaths reported in the study, the first comprehensive international scrutiny of gun-related deaths.
The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:
U.S.A. 14.24
Brazil 12.95
Mexico 12.69
Estonia 12.26
Argentina 8.93
Northern Ireland 6.63
Finland 6.46
Switzerland 5.31
France 5.15
Canada 4.31
Norway 3.82
Austria 3.70
Portugal 3.20
Israel 2.91
Belgium 2.90
Australia 2.65
Slovenia 2.60
Italy 2.44
New Zealand 2.38
Denmark 2.09
Sweden 1.92
Kuwait 1.84
Greece 1.29
Germany 1.24
Hungary 1.11
Ireland 0.97
Spain 0.78
Netherlands 0.70
Scotland 0.54
England and Wales 0.41
Taiwan 0.37
Singapore 0.21
Mauritius 0.19
Hong Kong 0.14
South Korea 0.12
Japan 0.05
Health officials believe that guns in the U.S.could become the leading cause of death attributed to injury by the year 2003, surpassing injuries due to motor vehicle crashes.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) termed the study shoddy because it did not examine all causes of violent deaths. ''What this shows is the CDC is after guns," the Associated Press quoted Dr. Paul Blackman from the NRA.
Following are gun safety recommendations of the National Rifle Association which MedicineNet editors suggest those using guns note.
The three fundamental rules of gun safety must always be applied simultaneously when handling or using a gun:
Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
The following gun safety rules should also be observed when using or storing a gun:
Know your target and what is beyond.
Be sure the gun is safe to operate.
Know how to use the gun safely.
Use only the correct ammunition for your gun.
Wear hearing and eye protection as appropriate.
Never use alcohol or drugs before or while shooting.
Store guns so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.
Be aware that certain types of guns and many shooting activities require additional safety precautions.
www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 12:15 PMLet's not limit to the richest nations since the argument was put forth that poverty and oppression were major factors. Once again for the people in the back... Murder Violence and other problems are not rooted in the guns. There are other causes.. Those causes are what need to be addressed not simply the guns. Also if ya look at the list the lowest rates are in nations that also have socialized medicine and mental health programs.
JSin
www.nationmaster.com/graph/c...r-capita
These seem to be more inclusive and more accurate
1 South Africa: 0.719782 per 1,000 people
#2 Colombia: 0.509801 per 1,000 people
#3 Thailand: 0.312093 per 1,000 people
#4 Zimbabwe: 0.0491736 per 1,000 people
#5 Mexico: 0.0337938 per 1,000 people
#6 Belarus: 0.0321359 per 1,000 people
#7 Costa Rica: 0.0313745 per 1,000 people
#8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people
#9 Uruguay: 0.0245902 per 1,000 people
#10 Lithuania: 0.0230748 per 1,000 people
#11 Slovakia: 0.021543 per 1,000 people
#12 Czech Republic: 0.0207988 per 1,000 people
#13 Estonia: 0.0157539 per 1,000 people
#14 Latvia: 0.0131004 per 1,000 people
#15 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0127139 per 1,000 people
#16 Bulgaria: 0.00845638 per 1,000 people
#17 Portugal: 0.00795003 per 1,000 people
#18 Slovenia: 0.00596718 per 1,000 people
#19 Switzerland: 0.00534117 per 1,000 people
#20 Canada: 0.00502972 per 1,000 people
#21 Germany: 0.00465844 per 1,000 people
#22 Moldova: 0.00448934 per 1,000 people
#23 Hungary: 0.00439692 per 1,000 people
#24 Poland: 0.0043052 per 1,000 people
#25 Ukraine: 0.00368109 per 1,000 people
#26 Ireland: 0.00298805 per 1,000 people
#27 Australia: 0.00293678 per 1,000 people
#28 Denmark: 0.00257732 per 1,000 people
#29 Spain: 0.0024045 per 1,000 people
#30 Azerbaijan: 0.00227503 per 1,000 people
#31 New Zealand: 0.00173482 per 1,000 people
#32 United Kingdom: 0.00102579 per 1,000 peopl -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 12:46 PM>
Once again for the people in the back... Murder Violence and other problems are not rooted in the guns. There are other causes.. Those causes are what need to be addressed not simply the guns.
>
Great numbers, thanks for posting. And they narrowed it down to criminal deaths and as I expected the number is closer to 8k. And the percentage is the same I came up with - per capita 0.027%
Car related deaths for 2005 - 39,189 or per capita 1.46%. Way higher numbers.
www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 3:36 PMInterestingly enough, most countries with socialized medicine also have quite rigorous gun control laws. It seems that it's not owning guns for hunting or work that's the problem, it's lack of appropriate gun control laws that are a problem. I think we all agree in this thread (correct me if I'm wrong and sorry if I'm assuming something incorrect from what I've read) that the root of the majority of violence in society is social causes. Both in the affluent countries and the impoverished. (Though, of course, there would be people who suffer from psychosis no matter the environment...one would just hope that in a compassionate culture that they'd be noticed and helped before reaching a point where they're a danger to others.)
JSin - I'm really sorry that you live somewhere that you are scared of your neigbors and are making preparations to be able to kill them if you feel the need. So what do you do in your part of the world to deal with the underlying social issues? Other than arm yourself of course! :) -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 11:37 PMFifi wrote:
>"JSin - I'm really sorry that you live somewhere that you are scared of your neigbors and are making preparations to be able to kill them if you feel the need. So what do you do in your part of the world to deal with the underlying social issues? Other than arm yourself of course! :)"<
Actually now I live in a neighborhood that is not bad... Should the need arise more likely I would be helping defend my neighbors. As to what I personally am doing to help the underlying social issues... I do the best I can to reach out to socially marginalized people and am there for folks I know if they need a means to seek help within this fairly poor system... As to my arms... They actually are locked in a gun cabinate that is bolted to the floor.. Should the need arise I can get them, but my interest in gun ownership is on a larger scale than simple home break in and the like. The bigger problem in that realm is someone might steal my guns and they would become a larger part of the illegal gun problem. So I am doing what I can to help the symptoms and act as a responsible gun owner.
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 4:58 AMJSin - So do you actively participate in the democratic process? Not only voting every once in a while but putting effort into getting legislation that helps the poor and marginalized? That actually tackles these social problems at their root? Do you go into impoverished neighborhoods and share your skills and knowledge through a community organization, or a literacy program, healthcare advocacy, local food coop or garden coop, or some such effort?
Since I doubt you're actually scared of the people you know and helping one's immediate circle isn't what we're talking about here, how do you 'reach out to the marginalized"?
Um, good to hear you practice basic gun security and responsibility....do you feel the need to mention it because it's not the norm for most gun owners?
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 7:37 AMI vote regularly not just presidential elections but those other like middle of March what have you type ones. Yes including voting for social programs.I also participate in letter writing campaigns and what have you... I attend City counsel meetings and and have spoken at that level a couple times.
In my work <remodeling> I also hire marginalized labor and if there is clearly a drug or alcohol problem I refer them to appropriate agencies and urge them to get help... While I cannot afford to have a drunk or a junkie working for me I also do not simply turn them out... I let em know if they straighten out I can help em get work and learn skills... Actually 2 of the folks I have helped in this way now have enough skills and sobriety to go out on their own and make a living doing home repair.
I have in the past also volunteered with programs that do outreach to the homeless by attempting to get them blankets and inform them of the options available to them.
The reason for mentioning gun security is that I feel it is an important part of the potential solution, as I had mentioned a possible solution is to hold gun owners culpable for their lack of responsibility. Including getting their weapons stolen. I actually don't believe it is the norm for most gun owners. I should be. But there is always some yahoo that thinks the closet or the underwear drawer is a secure place for their gun, including a cop in Federal Way Washington who had 7 guns stolen from him. <That Moron needs to be fired, but he wasn't he got written up... Good Job cops>
Despite my stand on Gun control my politics are pretty liberal. So yes I am doing all I can to try to make this shit hole a better place than I found it.
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 8:06 AMJSin - I respect that you make efforts to tackle one of the causes of violence, and that you're personally a responsible gun owner.
So do you mean that part of the solution is making sure that guns are locked up properly and not easily accessible to children and criminals? How do you think this should be enforced? And do you consider taking away the right to bear arms from someone who's proven themselves unfit as another part of the solution? And what about requiring licenses, proper firearms training and screening for anger and mental health issues?
Personally I don't worry to much about categories such as liberal or conservative. I'm interested in practical, compassionate solutions :) -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 8:23 AMI have no problem with some controls... Personally because of my political stance on govt I am not partial to registration. It just gives the government a list of doors to knock on should they decide to disarm the populace. Another reason not to be a member of the NRA.
but this being said I do think that programs such as firearms training and safety should be required not for purchase but for everyone <this does not actually have to include hands on training>
When I lived In Green River Wyoming, and in Billings Montana both states required that basic firearms safety be taught each year to students. That seems like a reasonable start.
The unfit category can be a problematic. How do you measure it and what guidelines do you use... I would not oppose a viable solution. I am not sure it would be workable though. As I said before most guns used in crimes are not legally obtained, they are off the black market. I think the conviction for a violent crime should be grounds for removing the right to bear arms just as here in the US you are disenfranchised for a felony. I also think there needs to be a means to restore your rights if you demonstrate that you have become a responsible citizen.
I definitely believe that govt and police agencies that are unable to control their weapons should be held liable for their actions. If a cop or a govt base has a gun taken and used in a crime they should be liable for the damages cause by it. They are supposed to be held to a higher standard than the average citizen since they are allegedly there to serve the populace and provide security for the state.
The other issue though is folks are looking for a federal solution... Doesn't work that way
The tenth amendment states
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So even as it stands these kind of laws would have to be enacted on a state by state basis or have to be an amendment to the constitution. As it should be.
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 8:32 AMJSin - so you're not actually opposed to gun control? Just against a federal law regarding gun control?
I believe under the current US anti-terrorism laws that knocking on people's doors is not required if you are deemed a threat to the state. Am I incorrect? -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 9:19 AMNot opposed to ALL gun control just those controls that would infringe on the intent of the 2nd amendment and or wording of the second amendment.
I oppose registration, in this day and age of computers an instant background check would be viable as long as the inquiries were not available to law enforcement and the government. Waiting periods seem to pose no real infringement on legitimate gun ownership. Training should be required for all US citizens but this would have to be dealt with on a state by state basis and should occur in the schools.
Understand this is a dangerous erosion once it starts just as the erosion of the 1st amendment is a dangerous start.
The anti terrorism crap is also an abomination and a definite motivator in my vehement defense of my right to keep and bear arms.
The no knock rule is actually a result of a case a couple decades ago Kerr vs State of California. In my view this is a greivious violation of US civil liberties as well.
I definitely am opposed to these actions as well. War on Drugs and War on terror are simply excuses to erode our civil liberties.
You can include wire tapping and other nastiness the US govt seems to believe it can do to "assure our safety"
JSin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 7:25 PM"Once again it comes down to solving the underlying social problems not the symptoms "
"the lowest rates are in nations that also have socialized medicine and mental health programs. "
I'm with you on both of these points JSin.
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 7:29 PM"removal of semi-automatic weapons from civilians"
Another interesting thought - what REASONABLE purpose is there for private citizens to own assault weapons? Owning a handgun or a hunting rifle is one thing but assault weapons were designed to kill humans in a combat situation...I don't think that the Bill of Rights is violated by prohibiting the ownership of assault weapons...when the Bill of Rights was written, they didn't even exist! -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 7:58 AM"Another interesting thought - what REASONABLE purpose is there for private citizens to own assault weapons? Owning a handgun or a hunting rifle is one thing but assault weapons were designed to kill humans in a combat situation...I don't think that the Bill of Rights is violated by prohibiting the ownership of assault weapons...when the Bill of Rights was written, they didn't even exist!"
There are a couple of problems with this argument.
1. We didn't have ANY semiautomatic weapons when they wrote the Bill of Rights. So we can hardly defend hand guns and most hunting rifles and shotguns under the same context in which we condemn assault weapons.
2. Again, our right to bear arms is based on our ability to defend ourselves against our or other governments. That means killing people. Assault weapons are great for that, as you pointed out.
3. Handguns are also designed specifically to kill people. The handgun is a close-quarters weapon. You don't hunt dear with a pistol.
4. Assault weapons (not machine guns) have the same functionality as many of today's hunting rifles. The main difference is the size of the weapon, i.e. barrel length, and the amount of ammuntition the weapon holds. This means a crazy person or mafia hit man can kill just as quickly with a hunting rifle, but would need to reload more often. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 8:10 AM
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 4:44 AM*B* - I think pretty much everyone in this thread agrees that social problems (poverty, poor education, inadequate healthcare) are at the root cause of much violence.
It's worth noting that nations with socialized medicine and mental health programs (which also have minimally adequate social safety nets like welfare and unemployment insurance, and so on) also have quite restrictive gun control laws. As someone who lives in Canada, I'd say that our reduced gun deaths have more to do with gun control laws than socialized medicine (or a lack of psychotic people).
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 12:33 PM> Here's a breakdown according to percentages
The only problem is we don't know what those numbers mean and how they were derived.
Just like what's been happening to death tolls in Iraq. To help keep the numbers down, they ship injured soldiers to other places, like Germany. If someone dies of their injuries they aren't counted in total deaths in Iraq.
Same goes in this case. I wonder how many of those counted were justifiable gun related deaths. And I wonder what current numbers are as those are quite old.
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 11:39 AMJsim - so you're using vietnam as an example of a people's uprising? So you're saying that individual gun ownership was what liberated the Vietnamese people? Or are you sayiing that the Kmer Rouge was able to mount a defense against American invasion because of the arms they had been supplied?
Usually it's the national guard that usually responds in a disaster situaton but they were all off fighting an offensive war in Iraq. I'd hardly call Blackwater a people's militia (though the people obviously paid the tab for their astronomical salaries). Perhaps Americans need to ask themselves why their government is putting them in debt for an offensive war but can't provide basic services at home? (And this is a government that panders to the pro-gun lobby and whose members profit personally from the sales of products and services related to war...such as guns.) While the soldiers of Blackwater may be paid by the US taxpayer, they don't answer to them. I'd think looking into how the US government uses private armies that are outside of the laws governing US soldiers impacts your political freedom. And, of course, there was that little incident where gangs of men with guns prevented people from escaping the flooding by threatening to shoot them if they crossed the bridge (which is public property). I'm not sure when that became a political right in the US.....
The US government actually seems more liable to use force against armed citizens (David Koresh being a prime example). Having a gun gives them an excuse to kill you. I'd argue that masses of unarmed citizens have more power in this area - the civil rights demonstrations being one example, Ghandi being another. It's hard to maintain an effective level of propaganda if you're gunning down unarmed citizens.
Have you ever lived through a crisis or disaster? My experience has been that people are actually less violent and it generates a sense of community and cooperation rarely seen. But maybe that's just in Canada...or just not in the US. We seem to manage fine without guns. Besides - you're now talking about going to war against fellow citizens not defending political freedoms and the ability to overthrow the government through the use of force (which is what the second amendment protects from my understanding). If you honestly think that people should be able to own guns as a means to defend themselves and property against fellow citizens that's a bit different than being able to overthrow the government if needed. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 11:43 AMAll I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in a country where people's first thought regarding disaster preparedness is "do I have the ability to kill someone". I'm pretty happy to live in a place where most people have shown that in a disaster (barring one or two profiteers who were appropriately exposed and shamed) people are generally helpful and not homicidal. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 9:28 AM>>All I can say is that I'm glad I don't live in a country where people's first thought regarding disaster preparedness is "do I have the ability to kill someone". I'm pretty happy to live in a place where most people have shown that in a disaster (barring one or two profiteers who were appropriately exposed and shamed) people are generally helpful and not homicidal.<<
Fifi, please don't paint all Americans with the same brush. I am generally nauseated by my countymen's attitudes pertaining to guns and violence as stated in this thread. They are based on fear and a misreading of the founding principles of the country as laid out in the constitution.
And JSin, although you claim to be pretty liberal, take a look at exactly who politicaly supports our current lack of gun control and ask yourself why they are the rightest of the right wing in most cases. Don't be fooled by conservatives plans to control government by appealing to misunderstanding and fear among the more liberal population. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 9:50 AMRich - I don't :) Some of my best friends are American... ;) ...um, actually that's true *lol* And there are yahoo paramilitary idiots in every nation (NOT casting aspersions on anyone in this thread!), just as there are psychotic people. I'm still glad that I don't live in a country where it's obviously pretty common to consider shooting people over possessions to be an appropriate and reasonable response, and where people are afraid of their neighbors and consider killing them in a crisis. Let's just hope that these people's paranoia doesn't send them off the deep and on a shooting spree!
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 9:50 AMRich wrote:
>"And JSin, although you claim to be pretty liberal, take a look at exactly who politicaly supports our current lack of gun control and ask yourself why they are the rightest of the right wing in most cases. Don't be fooled by conservatives plans to control government by appealing to misunderstanding and fear among the more liberal population."<
I actually have and this is one area in which my Civil Libertarian beliefs cooincide with the right wing... I general I oppose most of what they stand for. As an individual I am very independent... I vote on information and merit... I research and think out the positions I chose to take and the candidates I chose to back. Believe me I am not taken in by the bait and switch tactics of the current regime. I believe that free thinker should not be beholden to a given paradigm <left wing right wing liberal conservative ad nauseum> and my ballot does not reflect a given party affiliation.
The fact that we really don't have options in this country aside from what amounts to a 2 party system is pretty fucking pathetic in my view. Yes I am aware of the green party libertarians ect and have voted for candidates in those groups when their positions aproximate my beliefs.
Even though I agree with the position taken by the right wing where it concerns personal possession of fire arms. I oppose the vast majority of their platform, as such I am unlikely to vote for them... Gun control is not the only position I am passionate about. It just happens to be the only one the right wing seems to agree with me on. The fear mongering is a tactic used by both sides to push their agenda.
The system needs a bit of chlorine in general I believe.
JSin -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 10:13 AM>>The system needs a bit of chlorine in general I believe.<<
I agree. Thanks for that last post JSin, I do think that except for your views on gun control I agree with you completely.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 10:31 AM"I am generally nauseated by my countymen's attitudes pertaining to guns and violence as stated in this thread. They are based on fear and a misreading of the founding principles of the country as laid out in the constitution."
I disagree with you on the matter of the intent of the 2nd amendmant. However, I DO agree that it's possible. Herein lies the real challenge with settling the gun control debate, I think. All we can do 200 years after the constitution and bill of rights were written is interpret them. Consequently, we can't squeeze out concrete, provable specifics as to the authors' intent when doing so. I think that's the massive challenge of defining our "rights" with and living our lives under a somewhat antiquated document. We have the (theoretical) ability to change the constitution but we have not done so when it comes to guns. Until we do, we will never settle this debate.
Ultimately I will say that I'm pro gun for many of the reasons JSin has stated. However, there are some things about the scenarios surrounding guns that stick in my craw. First, I fucking hate lobbiests. All of them. Yes, there are good lobby groups out there, but they wouldn't need to play the game at all if it weren't for the low-down fuckers that have no compunction at all in sullying our governmental process (btw, the politicians are doing enough of that for everyone).
I do take issue with the Slippery Slope argument that says if the government takes away our assault weapons they will eventually take away our hunting rifles and handguns. Our government, which is remarkably far from a facist or totalitarian state despite its many shortcomings, can really only take from us what we allow them to. Our citizens do have the ability to replace politicians, fix broken laws, patch holes in the current laws, and make a difference in our political climate. The issue is that either not enough of us care or not enough of us agree on what's to be done.
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 12:05 PMThe Militia cited in the article I posted the link to was not blackwater. Read first...The militia I cited is a group of organized armed citizens that defended Their neighborhood against looters
As to Vietnam the argument was that small arms can be effective against modern Mechanized armies regardless of the source of the arms.
Look back on the list of Government slaughters of their own people and the Gun control measures that were implemented prior to those actions including the actions of the Khumar Rouge in Cambodia. Even Gahndi stated as I quoted before one of the most grievous actions the Brits too against the indians was disarming the population. So tell the masses of unarmed dead Soviet dissidents how effective unarmed revolt is under Stalin.
The example of Waco demonstrates that the US has No compunction against their population and no problem killing innocents if it suits their purpose. Armed or not the action would have taken place. Yet another reason why the govt should not be trusted to look after the interests of the people.
As to disaster... Yes I have the riots in LA.... Many of the citizens were forced to protect their property and persons against looters with the use of their own guns including groups joining together to suppress rioting in Neighborhoods that the cops were too busy to bother patrolling specifically in Long Beach. But then again I guess your position would be that I should allow others to kill steal and destroy the property lives ect of those around me. Oh maybe the cops will eventually get there.. Probably right after they get done protecting big Business. Sure in a disaster people will band together others will exploit it. The private ownership of arms allow those who band together to stand against those that wish to exploit... Look again to the article on the Katrina Militia... read it this time.
www.oxfordpress.com/news/con...IERS.html
JSin -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 12:41 PMAnd the current violent crime rates in New Orleans are...through the ceiling.
What if we had responded to the disaster instead of leaving people to shoot each other? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 11:29 PMWe would be in a better position... as it stood there was little to no response the police charged with protecting the citizenry were looting along side the criminal element. It came down to people protecting their person and property themselves.
JSin
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 9:29 AM>>And the current violent crime rates in New Orleans are...through the ceiling<<
Correct. A friends brother and sister were shot as they lay in bed in N.O. a few months ago. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 10:14 AMOh, God, Rich, I'm sorry to hear that...it's such a horrible mess there, how can anyone go untouched by the travesty the US gov't made of disaster relief there? I applied to work as a teacher in the NO school system, but came to the difficult conclusion that while I really wanted to support the rebuilding effort, I couldn't take my children there. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 10:23 AM>>while I really wanted to support the rebuilding effort, I couldn't take my children there. <<
I think that that is (unfortunately) a wise decision at this time.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 3:18 AM<<When did the government become an organism of preventative morality?>>
One view could be the that little thing called "Law" is all about performing that function... perhaps we should all have free expression and not be curtailed by any Law. Anarchy ?
Yes... if someone wants to kill and does not have a gun, they can use something else and to prevent this we would be banning the items you listed (how about chairs?) and chopping peoples hands off...
The <<desire to kill one another >> is driven by, well, lets call them, "negative emotions" and I agree that "a person bent on homicide is unlikely to give a flying fuck about getting pinched for unlawful possession of a firearm". But a gun is so easy. So quick. When you have SO MANY in SO EASY reach of many people - it gives them one of the most effective tools to act with and murder someone, when you have one in easy reach - the heat of the moment could have very different consequences than if you don't.....
Do you not think that reducing the number of guns in homes would see a reduction in deaths in domestic disputes... Is it not worth thinking about a change in law to avoid those situations, or perhaps at least an education program of the dangers of guns in the home ?
A lot more battered spouses/children survive such a single incident than shot spouses/children... I would much rather face the danger of a spouse feeding me draino than taking a shotgun blast to the head anyday... just a thought...
-
-
(sorry if this covers ground twice- reads this post on the w'end and wrote a reply in my pda)
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 7:03 PMA few weeks ago I posted;
“The prevalence of Gun Deaths and violent crime in America leaves me mystified. Our (Australia’s) Media probably makes much of this - but gun deaths make many parts of America look unsafe and violent. I am sure this is exaggerated by the media, but your rate of gun deaths is extremely high and does make you look like a war zone compared to other "developed" nations..”
aussie.tribe.net/thread/ba...b674d5704f <aussie.tribe.net/thread/ba...f7712fe46>
(VERY LONG POST - (WORSE THAN THIS ONE!) - THE ABOVE IS NEAR THE BOTTOM)
~~~
Australia is not untouched by gun massacres. For example we have
Hoddle St (1987 - 7 dead, 19 seriously wounded,
Queens St (1987 - 8 dead, 5 seriously wounded) &
most infamously
Port Arthur (1996 - 35 dead and 18 wounded) - our worst.
Yet these are isolated and rare events. The prevalence of Australian gun deaths is minuscule. I would suggest that in addition to our less aggressive culture - this is because of tighter gun control and consequent reduced opportunity to use them, particularly in crimes of passion. We also neither romanticise nor sexualise gun ownership.
Public and government reaction to Port Arthur Massacre resulted in the tightening of guns laws and the removal of semi-automatic weapons from civilians Australia wide. Fully-automatic arms have been banned in most Australian states since the 1930s, with the exception of Tasmania where they remained legal until 1996 …. 5.2% of Australians legally possess firearms (I am surprised it is this high).
I initially opposed Australian gun law reform seeing it as punitive towards legal and illegitimate gun owners. The combination of compensation and the realities of the requirements of legitimate gun use changed my mind. Particularly as I though this would save lives. I think this argument has proved. There is no legitimate use in civilian life for high powered assault weapons. Any selfish want to have the right to own such a weapon must be surrendered in consideration of the risk they present to society.
I am amazed at the argument that Americans need arms to protect themselves from the possibility of a rouge domestic government. This is probably reflected in your history (War of Independence, Indian Wars, Land Wars, & Civil War) which is very different from ours. The Eureka Rebellion (less than 30 dead in 1854) is probably the biggest military incident in Australian Civil History. The largest death toll from guns would be the “Cowra Breakout” of Japanese POW’s in NSW when 231 Japanese died either by suicide or by gunfire (probably suicide as well) Many they all RIP.
I am not about to start to interprit the American Constituion - but will for a second use the “mischieve rule” a look at its intetion - protect the freedom and safty of people. To do this you need to grant people rights. Given the disgustingly high death toll from guns in the States - action is required unless you want to see this continue.
If Waco - (53 adults and 21 children dead) is an example of how citizens need arms to protect their rights and liberty - you need a good hard look at yourselves.
We don’t give people the right to murder and rape. Perhaps they don’t need the right to hand, machine and semi-automatic guns either. …
I normally couch my post with politeness and caution - but must say that the American Gun Lobby are Nuts and twist the Constitution which is supposed to be there to protect. How do guns do that unless in the hands of police and military? The argument used that if all the students at Virginia University were armed, the recent massacre would have been averted defies logic for a peaceful society. What about when they took them home and their brothers and sisters played with them or they were high/drunk and their girlfriend pissed them off. Texas gun laws - scary.
Jsin. I am sorry but I think your post is crap. Countries sited were in states of Revolutionary and/or Political Wars. While “60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms.” has led to many shootings in the States - I don’t thing you're actually in a domestic War. AND if you were - owning a gun is a lot different to being able to use one defensively and offensively in a military operation. I would tackle a professionally trained infantry force half the size of an unprofessional one and expect to win. Easily. Make them SAS - and I would take a force 10-20% the size of your well armed but poorly trained suburbanites. If you really want an effective militia - give them excellent automatic high powered weapons, have them heavily trained in their use, and have them leave their guns at the base where they need them to train. What hope would a well armed civilian force have against a professionally trained and armed military. I hope your answer in not to advocate purchasing tanks, fixed wing aircraft and gunships. Think of the insurance !
“Freedom” and “Liberty” are best protected internally by active participation in a healthy democracy - not gun ownership. This private gun ownership seems symbolic - not an active and constructive participation in preserving “Freedom and Liberty” by the individual. Leave the protection of citizens to the Police, National Guard and State & Federal Armed Forces.
Gun ownership and use is not participation in democracy.
I approve of reasonable gun control. “Reasonable” is subjective. I would define the use of guns as both a tool and a toy - you need them on farms and can enjoy them on shooting ranges (if your into that kinda thing).. You don’t need them in your home to “protect yourself” and guns and ammo should never be kept together and both should be under lock and key. Duel key gun locks are a great idea.
Many gun deaths in Australia used to be “crimes of passion” - reducing the opportunity for their use in emotional situations (like domestics) through gun control makes common sense and saves lives. A simple fact. Arguing that the Second Amendment gives everyone the right (and duty?) to possess high power rapid fire arms makes you all unsafer.
If you use guns at as a toy - then they need to live at your shooting range- but that does make them vulnerable to theft. Maybe the ammo should be at the shooting range and the gun at home….
I don’t own a gun. I don’t need one. I have used them in target shooting (actually very relaxing) - you need to practise if you are going to use one as a “tool”. You don’t need an automatic weapon to hunt. The only time you need a big clip of ammo is when hunting pigs. But better to practise your aim and if several shooters can't bring a boar down with 10 shots each - don’t go pig hunting .. The only thing I have shot is roos - they’re good meat and pests on the station. They certainly make me nervous - guns not roos :) Unfortunately they make some people feel safe and powerful (guns not roos :) - and they’re often the type of people you don’t want to have them (guns not roos :) …
A handgun has no real use in civilian life. I have been shooting with handguns - but on a Navy base so it’s a little different…. I can’t see why more than one in 10,000 people might need a handgun. I would feel a whole lot better if it was 1 in 100,000. Mind you, high powered automatic and semi automatic rifles are a much better “killing machine” than a handgun and Americans seem to be able to get their hands on all these as easy as I buy candy. Semi-automatic weapons are outlawed here….
Criminals will always have guns. Trying to defend yourself against them leads to an arms race based on the faulted argument - he with the biggest gun wins. This will generate more legal, and illegal, gun ownership. The more guns, the greater the chance of misuse.
The Mentally ill should neither own nor have un-supervised access to firearms. If I was mentally ill, I would be happy to give up this right in the interest of everyone's safety. Anyone of unstable or criminal record should not possess a firearm.
Romanticising gun ownership as "patriotic" and cool seems silly. Gun ownership is not sexy, about as sexy as a room full of dead and dying students. Fortunately, not all American heroes owned guns.
Civilians are better off without guns than with… If the answer it to “defend yourself “ - learn to box. If the answer is “I need my 30 clip semiautomatic to go hunting” become a better shot - or don’t go hunting cause if you need such a thing - you’re shit at it anyway - so to the supermarket or, if you feel you need to kill something - go fishing or buy a ferret!!!
I will be surprised to see America's Gun laws changed. Certainly an obstacle beyond lobbies such as the NRA is the cost of doing so. With "200 million firearms.” in your society, imagine if a change in law saw half illegal. The only fair way to have them surrendered is with compensation. Even if each firearm was only worth $ 200 each, compensation would amount to 200,000,000,000. It will take much social and then political will to try and claw back some of the dangerous weapons you have in society - but you would be the better for it. -
-
Re: (sorry if this covers ground twice- reads this post on the w'end and wrote a reply in my pda)
Mon, April 23, 2007 - 11:27 PMBloke wrote:
>"Jsin. I am sorry but I think your post is crap. Countries sited were in states of Revolutionary and/or Political Wars. While “60 million people owning a combined arsenal of over 200 million firearms.” has led to many shootings in the States - I don’t thing you're actually in a domestic War. AND if you were - owning a gun is a lot different to being able to use one defensively and offensively in a military operation. I would tackle a professionally trained infantry force half the size of an unprofessional one and expect to win. Easily. Make them SAS - and I would take a force 10-20% the size of your well armed but poorly trained suburbanites. If you really want an effective militia - give them excellent automatic high powered weapons, have them heavily trained in their use, and have them leave their guns at the base where they need them to train. What hope would a well armed civilian force have against a professionally trained and armed military. I hope your answer in not to advocate purchasing tanks, fixed wing aircraft and gunships. Think of the insurance ! "<
Didn't know Mexico was in a political war or Revolution...Also if you look at the reality of the lower socio economic neighborhoods here in the states especially in the major cities, Washington, LA, Chicago there is a fun lil war our Govt has decided to get involved in "The War on Drugs" In actuality a good number of deaths here in the US are directly related to the drug problem and turf wars in those areas. You claim that the need to defend one's self is Bogus... let my former now dead Neighbor know that... he was shot 6 times his buddy 5 times, he didn't have a gun but the felon who was prohibited from owning one damn well did. Ya know what even with compensation and controls that same said felon still would.As to a militia with their guns checked into the base... Kinda hard to defend and or protect your neighborhood from looters and or others that decide to take advantage of a disaster if ya can't get to the base. As to what hope a civilian force would have against a well trained army, The American revolution, as well as other historical incidents of sucessful civilian uprisings have been covered in previous posts..
I am happy the Aussies have such a wonderful happy well adjusted social system. Once again though the roots are not the guns themselves, it is other issues that have been covered repeatedly.
As to this statement:
>"I normally couch my post with politeness and caution - but must say that the American Gun Lobby are Nuts and twist the Constitution which is supposed to be there to protect. How do guns do that unless in the hands of police and military?"
And they are so trustworthy and responsible with their fire arms. 7 guns stolen from a cop in Federal Way Washington. 150 automatic weapons and 4 TOW missles <one of which was used to down a LAPD helicopter in 1989> taken from a Base in California. The cops and the Military here are some of the worst offenders. The US Govt is eroding the rights of the people left and right from Warrentless search to denial of speedy trial an the grounds of an accusation of terrorism. Last thing I want are nutjobs like those who are allegedly charged with protecting my liberty to be the sole steward of it.
The reality is still and will continue to be gun control laws only really affect the legitimate gun owner and a nutjob will still find a way to get them.
I would also contend that the US Govt is not stable and our leadership can't be trusted to steward our rights and liberties. Things are reaching a crux point and it would not surprise me if the union did begin to fracture. If this is the case I will be thankful I have the means to defend myself and others to the best of my ability.
JSin -
-
Re: (sorry if this covers ground twice- reads this post on the w'end and wrote a reply in my pda)
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 3:25 AM<<I am happy the Aussies have such a wonderful happy well adjusted social system. Once again though the roots are not the guns themselves, it is other issues that have been covered repeatedly. >
Its not - For example we had a "race riot". Maybe it was a "gang war"... See aussie.tribe.net/thread/5b...1c55571e80 imagine if it had have been in the participants psychology to carry and use firearms and they were carrying guns that day.... You just don't see them too often in our cities, if you did, more people would carry them to "protect" themselves from other gun toting aggressors..
-
-
Re: (sorry if this covers ground twice- reads this post on the w'end and wrote a reply in my pda)
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 4:24 AMI dunno bloke, a roo in the wrong hands could be pretty dangerous ;) Great post. -
-
Australian Student Goes Berserk..
Fri, May 11, 2007 - 6:08 AMYou're probably all sick of this thread but something made me think of it this week....
Now we have had the odd student in Australia go on shooting rampages....
This week we had a mentally ill person go on another..
They were armed not with one, but three, yes, three knives and managed to stab another student who is in a “serious but stable” condition in hospital…
I wonder what would have happened if any of these students were armed with handguns… someone would have died… -
-
Re: Australian Student Goes Berserk..
Fri, May 11, 2007 - 9:20 PMDamn we are gonna have to outlaw all pointy things in aussie land. Cause ya know that student in crit con would not have gotten hurt if the student in question didn't have a pointy thing...
JSin -
-
Re: Australian Student Goes Berserk..
Sat, May 12, 2007 - 1:29 AMMaybe. Maybe not.... But I would like to keep all pointy questions though...
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 4:46 PMCountry ↓ Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
South Africa 74.5748
Colombia 51.7683
Thailand 33.0016
Guatemala 18.5000
Paraguay 7.3508
Zimbabwe 4.7460
Mexico 3.6622
United States 3.6000
Belarus 3.3100
Barbados 2.9963
Uruguay 2.5172
Lithuania 2.2463
Slovakia 2.1659
Côte d'Ivoire 2.0680
Estonia 1.5340
Macedonia, FYR 1.2802
Latvia 1.2648
Portugal 0.8488
Bulgaria 0.7714
Slovenia 0.6036
Germany 0.4672
Moldova, Republic of 0.4671
Hungary 0.4400
Poland 0.4289
Ukraine 0.3495
Australia 0.3073
Czech Republic 0.2624
Spain 0.2456
Azerbaijan 0.2236
New Zealand 0.1827
Chile 0.1776
Singapore 0.0249
--Just to show how stats get played with according to what people wish to hear.... this is how it really stacks up--
The countries where the general poulace has no access to firearms is where there are less than one death per 100,000....or perhaps one or so. Notice the highest numbers of deaths per 100,000 per capita. The top of the list (Guatemala, Thailand, Columbia, South Africa). These contries correlate with the number of guns owned by the general poulace, they have some of the highest rates of gunownership in the world. The more guns people have, the more people will die in those countries. That is a fact. Gun ownership in the US is surprisingly not that high per capita, but the amount of them out there account for themselves quite nicely in our almost 4 out of 100,000 death rate. We get more guns on the streets, and statistically, I am quite sure the death rate will go up accrordingly. Quite simply, when people have more guns...they use them.
But of course, these numbers are much higher in some years....we have had a five to six times higher death rate in the US in some years. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, April 24, 2007 - 9:04 PMI am astounded that The Philippines is not on this list? -
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 6:26 AMIraq ?
What about all the counties without stats??????????
-
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 11:25 AMIf we don't let citizens have guns, only cops and criminals will have them! Anyone who wants one bad enough for crime purposes will get one off of the black market. I think that if more people carryed them even, that people wouldn't go pulling guns on just anybody. Even as it is now the average person wouldn't be carrying a gun. Criminals could get a gun either way. It's kinda like drugs.... they aren't legal, but you can get them anyway. Almost anybody can. So strict gun laws would be the same, probably cause even more legal activity. I like swords more, personally. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 12:17 PMLive by the sword, die by the sword. Live by the gun, die by the gun. Either is not preferable to me personally.
<<If we don't let citizens have guns, only cops and criminals will have them! Anyone who wants one bad enough for crime purposes will get one off of the black market. I think that if more people carryed them even, that people wouldn't go pulling guns on just anybody. Even as it is now the average person wouldn't be carrying a gun. Criminals could get a gun either way.>>
I hear this all the time in defense of less gun control, but the truth is...people just want the right to buy a gun, but seldom do. And this simply facilitates those like Cho who have a sinister reason to buy one.
The fact is that countries who have gun control have safer streets than we do...and that is the truth. Statistically and in actual fact. It IS harder for anyone to get a gun there, including criminals.
Statistically, people who have guns and are armed use them, or provide them to criminals who steal them...or they accidentally shoot a family member. We are not safer for the guns out there, but very much LESS so.
Ask the guy Cheney shot in the face. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 12:39 PMTuesday, 25 April, 2000, 12:22 GMT 13:22 UK
Analysis: America's gun culture
Most gun law proposals focus only on new guns
By Washington correspondent Tom Carver
The pro-gun lobby is fond of saying it is not guns but people who kill.
In some cases that is certainly true. Some people would kill whether they had a knife, a gun or bare hands. But in many other cases, access to a firearm is what triggers the murder.
The right to own a firearm is embedded in the American psyche like a splinter of flint, jagged and immovable
This might seem self-evident to a European audience but there is debate on this side of the Atlantic - a debate not about how to remove guns from society but whether or not guns are even to blame.
The right to own a firearm is embedded in the American psyche like a splinter of flint, jagged and immovable.
It all goes back to the Founding Fathers who in 1791 amended the new American constitution with the following words: "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."
This amendment was drawn up by people living in an precarious agrarian society unrecognisable to modern Americans, when communities needed guns to hunt and to protect themselves from Indians and highwaymen.
The gun lobby has plucked out the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and used it ever since to beat down every serious attempt at gun control in America by claiming a violation of the constitution.
Ludicrous claims
I have heard a representative from the Gun Owners of America claiming that if children grow up with guns in the house they get used to them and know how to handle them.
He said that in the old days children used to carry guns to school on the New York subway to take part in shooting competitions.
Such is the power of the gun lobby, and most notably the National Rifle Association, that even the mildest gun legislation, a requirement that all new guns should be fitted with gun locks, got bogged down in Congress.
When a six-year-old boy shot dead a girl of the same age in front of their classmates, President Clinton said that had this legislation been approved the boy would not have been able to kill.
But that is just as ludicrous as the gun lobby's arguments.
How to solve the problem?
The gun the little boy used had been stolen and criminals do not tend to be too interested in keeping the locks on their guns.
Therein lies the biggest problem - how to remove the vast number of guns that are already in circulation in America.
None of the present gun law proposals tackle that - instead they deal with the acquisition of new guns.
The Democrats would like everyone who has a gun to have a licence.
They would like to step up the background checks on gun buyers, but they are not proposing outlawing sawed-off shotguns, semi-automatics, concealed weapons or anything else.
And if even they did, how would the police go about rounding up the arsenals of weapons in American homes?
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 9:01 PM>>If we don't let citizens have guns, only cops and criminals will have them!<<
I don't think anyone suggested not allowing the citizenry to have guns. More careful background checks are all I'm suggesting although I think a liscensing written and practical exam (like for drivers liscenses) would be a good idea too.
I would ban high powered, assault weapons though. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Wed, April 25, 2007 - 9:37 PMI agree with Rich
There is a distinct difference between Gun CONTROL and Gun PROHIBITION.
Those opposed to firearm control often speak in terms that any reform will result in the total removal of firearms... Misleading. Gun Control is NOT Total Gun Prohibition.
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Thu, April 26, 2007 - 7:59 AM"I don't think anyone suggested not allowing the citizenry to have guns. More careful background checks are all I'm suggesting although I think a liscensing written and practical exam (like for drivers liscenses) would be a good idea too."
I would love to see mandatory proficiency exams as a prerequisite to gun ownership. It should also be renewed regularly, again like drivers' licenses.
I'd also like to see a shell casing fired from each gun bought catalogued and associated with the serial number of the gun. That way we wouldn't need the murder weapon to identify suspects (obviously we'd still need the weapon to convict the murder in court). In this respect, it would be a lot like having people's fingerprints on file. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Thu, April 26, 2007 - 5:25 PM<<I'd also like to see a shell casing fired from each gun bought catalogued and associated with the serial number of the gun>>
Good idea.
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Fri, April 27, 2007 - 12:02 PMHere's a thought...
Maybe if more people had guns they could have defended themselves by shooting this guy and prevented this tragedy. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 6:44 PM>>Maybe if more people had guns they could have defended themselves by shooting this guy and prevented this tragedy.<<
or armored personnel carriers -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 6:46 PM -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 8:12 PMGreat story, thanks for sharing. This is just another shade of grey in this very complex issue - a far cry from the black and white rhetoric we usually encounter. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 9:19 PMYou would think the gun lobby would promote the shit out of incidents like that....
Why not ? -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 9:44 PMMaybe because that would be seen as promoting vigilantism
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Mon, April 30, 2007 - 9:51 PM"So you didn’t know about that. Neither did I until today. Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that” Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham “four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.”
I love this part... Yep those cops and military are gonna help us out Johnny on the spot n all. Wonder how long it took em to get to VA tech.
JSin
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Tue, May 1, 2007 - 11:30 AM
-
-
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Fri, April 27, 2007 - 12:02 PMHere's a thought...
If more people had guns they could have defended themselves by shooting this guy and prevented this tragedy. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Fri, April 27, 2007 - 2:28 PMI can see it now...next year's back-to-school special...
a free gun with every laptop.
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Fri, April 27, 2007 - 8:18 PM> a free gun with every laptop.
Well I didn't mean that. It's sort of echoes one of the often used arguments that gun control will result in only criminals having guns. I just don't like the odds of that situation. I'd much prefer the added deterrent that criminals will have a little fear in the pit of their stomach, not knowing if the crowd is armed - same goes for the government.
-
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Fri, April 27, 2007 - 7:27 PMAll thoughts should be thought through before deciding what you should think....
0.005698235878965478962589 seconds after thinking through this thought, you will decide....
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 12:46 PMskooter wrote - "If more people had guns they could have defended themselves by shooting this guy and prevented this tragedy."
Or shot a whole bunch of bystanders in their panic....or been shot by the police....more guns, and students keeping guns in dorms where everyone's getting drunk and partying down, is totally the reasonable answer. After all, what could be safer than guns in a dorm full of drunk uni students.... -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 12:51 PM<<After all, what could be safer than guns in a dorm full of drunk uni students....>>
Although I'm pretty sure Skooter was being facetious there, that thought scares the shit out of me, Fifi...having recently BEEN a student in the dorms... *yikes!!!*
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 1:16 PMThe same students drive cars. -
-
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 2:15 PMskooter - Considering how many car accidents are caused by drunk teenagers and uni students perhaps that should be brought into question as well. Less cars on the road would be good for everyone :) Though, there does need to be some way to cull the truly stupid from the herd - though unfortunately drunk drivers just as often kill someone else not only themselves. I pretty much feel the same way about cars and guns - if you were only killing yourself with them then I'd have no issue with people owning them without licenses and restrictions. Unfortunately there seems to be an increase in the number of suicidal people who choose to kill their families or others as well. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The myth of the Second Amendment
Sat, April 28, 2007 - 3:02 PMI don't know if there's an increase as much as there is more publicity. But as it's already been discussed, the likelihood of dying by a gun or a car as the lethal weapon is very small. 8k gun deaths or 0.027% per capita, compared to 38k car deaths or 1.46% per capita.
And we already have written driving tests and demonstrative tests yet the death rates continue to rise. We could apply the same process to gun ownership, and I think it would be a good idea, but it's doubtful it will reduce death rates. It still won't prevent crazy people from shooting everyone up. Take away the guns and instead they can just get in their car and drive people over. Dynamite or Chlorine. Guns or pipe bombs. It makes no difference. We're talking about factors that cannot be controlled by legislation or otherwise. It's like trying to apply a bandaid to a fence post.
-
-
-
-
