Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Then look for them. Jeeze, this isn't hard to find.

j

Actually its extremely hard to find the link between repressive gun laws and a reduction in violence, because it has often been proven just the opposite, I think that was his point.

I'm just waiting for any of our friends n the UK to tell us how well their handgun ban has worked to end violence and crime.

What is the rate of violent crime in the U.S. vs. comparable nations (comparable in industrialization, education, etc.)? U.K.? Germany? Canada?

What is the rate of violent crime in NYC vs., say, Miami? Houston? Dallas? The rate compared to Wyoming is irrelevant. People there don't live close enough to each other, and they don't have the poverty pockets.

I'm on your side, people, but if we don't deal with these issues, we're all SOL. Time to get our heads out of the sand. It's not a Supreme Court issue, if most of our compatriots want to take away our rights. Some demagogue politician (or is that redundant) will lead a crusade and we'll be turning them in.

j

Originally Posted by Seraphim

You are at your apartment in a bad section of D.C., it's 2am, you hear someone trying to force open your rear door.

What I would do in that situation, is bark as convincingly like a big dog as I could, whether I had a gun or not. I don't want to shoot anybody, whether anybody thinks they deserve it or not.

Originally Posted by jockeys

couldn't disagree more. a gun is designed to send a projectile towards a target. the target and the projectile are entirely up to the user. guns aren't only for killing any more than bows and arrows or spears. (track and field, anyone?)

I couldn't disagree more. Guns don't just send a projectile at the target, they do it with deadly speed and force. I wouldn't be in favor of banning pellet guns, which is what is most commonly used at sporting events, nor would I be in favor of a ban on what are clearly hunting rifles, shotguns or handguns. Guns are a dangerous tool, and like all dangerous tools, their use needs to be regulated.

furthermore, it's a definite ad hominem that you accuse gun proponents of demanding that gun ownership is an absolute right that should be extended to felons, the mentally ill, and children. I mean, it's a pretty slick tactic to make us look reprehensible, and a common one at that (frequently used by the Brady bunch) but not, I would argue, a valid one. neither I nor most gun owners think that is the case; I am big on personal responsibility and have no problem with there being reasonable standards of responsibility required for gun ownership.

It is no more an ad hominem than the equally slick tactic gun-rights advocates use in painting all gun-control advocates of wanting to ban guns. If you require reasonable standards of responsibility for gun ownership, then in essence, we agree. All that needs to be worked out is what those standards are.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

As a life-long owner of firearms, I find this potentially troubling. Not absolutely troubling, mind you, but potentially.

The problem we have that nobody is addressing is the perception of rampant gun violence. If nothing is done about that, the American people will amend the Constitution to try to effect a solution. Nobody -- not the NRA (the idiots), not the Congress, and certainly not the Supreme Court, seems to be dealing with this issue.

As long as the majority of the American People believe that firearms are a threat, our rights are in jeopardy.

It is absolutely true that our country has a higher rate of gun violence than any other developed nation. It is also true that most areas with gun control -- New York City is a prime example -- have lower rates of violence than areas with less control, like Texas and Florida. Contrary to a previous post, New York is a far less violent place than any other city even remotely its size in this country.

If we don't do something about gun violence, our rights will be curtailed, sooner or later. That's the issue, people. Not whether it's guaranteed in the second amendment or not.

I mean, who was the f---king idiot who gathered the NRA at Columbine within weeks of the killings? "From my cold, dead hands" indeed. The fricking morons!

Perception is everything, and we're losing the battle. Wake up!

j

The is precisely the problem I see for gun rights. Thank you for saying it more clearly than I did.

Originally Posted by gatorfan

In 1981 the Supreme Court ruled in "Warren vs the District of Columbia", that the police cannot be held liable for damages due to any inability perceived or not to protect the INDIVIDUAL. Police responsibilty is to protect society at large.

The ruling means that the INDIVIDUAL is responsible to protect him or herself.

Today's ruling helps to support the idea that we in this country hold near and dear to our hearts.

Let us do for ourselves.

A simple google search of local newspapers will render a HUGE number of articles detailing where every day citizens use a firearm to protect themselves or a third innocent party. Compare those numbers to the times when police officers have to do the same and there is nowhere near as many.

That about sums it up for me...
Oh and Yea!!! for the 5 justices who agreed and BOO, HISS to the 4 justices who dissented.

No where did I recommend that you give your personal responsibility for your own safety to some faceless bureaucracy. All I'm saying is that if your personal safety is your concern, there are more effective tools at your disposal that are not lethal, including social tools like neighborhood crime watch. If you really think a gun is best for your own personal protection, I'm fine with that too. But you don't need a fully automatic assault weapon with armor piercing rounds to do it.

This website:

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/pro-guns/3-8-Permitting-people-to-carry-concealed-weapons-will-lead.html

Carries the following ‘headline.’

This article is from the talk.politics.guns Official Pro-Gun FAQ, by Ken Barnes ([email protected]) with numerous contributions by others.
3.8 "Permitting people to carry concealed weapons will lead to increased violent crime, and people killing each other at the slightest provocation."

It also contains the following paragraph.

“Of the 204,108 licenses issued in the Florida law's
first 6 1/2 years of operation, seventeen (17, or .008%) were
revoked for unlawful conduct while the firearm was present, and many
of these violations were either technical (such as carrying into a
restricted area, like an airport or bar) or non-gun related (such
as revoking a permit due to a drunken driving arrest). In Oregon,
over 60,000 concealed carry permits have been issued, and none has
been revoked.”


Concealed Carry Permit holders do NOT present a problem to Society!
This website carries some VERY interesting facts.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

Like THIS:

“* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%…”

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

What is the rate of violent crime in the U.S. vs. comparable nations (comparable in industrialization, education, etc.)? U.K.? Germany? Canada?


j

This is apples and oranges, as there are to many other factors such as culture, or other laws that you can't compare simple violent crime per capita and in any way equate it to guns.

You can compare time trends before and after certain events like laws being passed as the study Brother Jeeter quotes from. if you do you find that in every case when a more restrictive gun law is passed gun crime may decrease but all other categories of violent crime increase and when you de-regulate firearms ALL categories of crime decrease. This is why guns are called the great equalizer, grandma can defend herself with one as competently as her hulking 21 year old descendant, this is the only weapon for which this is true.

"American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)"

So these statistics are irrelevant?

Hate to tell you, people, but as long as a majority of Americans believe that these statistics are relevant -- and I find it hard to convince myself that they're meaningless -- we have a big problem.

Again, I'm on your side. Wake up.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

"American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)"

So these statistics are irrelevant?

Hate to tell you, people, but as long as a majority of Americans believe that these statistics are relevant -- and I find it hard to convince myself that they're meaningless -- we have a big problem.

Again, I'm on your side. Wake up.

j

actually, the statistics you quote include teen suicides by gun, which I don't think counts as "accidents" or "murders" fwiw

Originally Posted by jockeys

actually, the statistics you quote include teen suicides by gun, which I don't think counts as "accidents" or "murders" fwiw

Oh, well then! Never mind!

j

do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

Originally Posted by jockeys

do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

Yeah, sorry. My dark side, I suppose.

I get tired of arguing about this while my rights slip away. Don't get me started on the NRA. They represent gun manufacturers, not owners. They don't give a damn if my grandson inherits my favorite octagon barrel, as long as second quarter 08 is up over a year ago.

A propos of your statistic: between 1/4 and 1/3 of the child deaths I cite are attributable to suicide. That still leaves a whole lot.

j