Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Hey John,

you raise a good point about bias.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Fact of the matter is there is NO completely unbiased study, as gun control advocates want the studies to show firearms are inherently evil and citizens are not trustworthy and should subject themselves to the protection of the government, meanwhile firearms rights advocates, such as myself, are drawn to the studies showing net crime reduction in locales which reduce the death hold on gun rights.

I completely agree with your point if you mean that bias shows up in how we interpret the data. There is usually an amount of built in bias when surveying any kind of social data. However that doesn't mean that meaningful data hasn't been collected. The real question of bias comes in the interpretation and weighing the importance of the numbers. For example, with regards to the W Post editorial you chose to focus on the data as it pertained to suicides, whereas I chose to focus on seeming effectiveness during home invasions - both of us exhibiting obvious bias. The key will be having decision makers who are able to approach the issue from as objective a view point as possible. I believe that some SC justices on both sides of the decision tried to do that.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I do not believe that the founders or anyone else felt that the government should be deciding we can only have this weapon, or that weapon, and restricted from the other, because, well, only the government gets to have THOSE. I feel if the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, etc. it should make no difference what the citizens want to own wrt arms.

Keep in mind that the founding fathers lived in a time when population density was basically non-existent and their weapons could fire a single round. Surely there has to be a line where it becomes unreasonable to allow anyone access to any weapon. The armed forces maintains arms to protect the nation and it's interests. You would know better than I, but I assume that weapons are less frequently stolen from the armed forces armouries than from peoples' bedrooms. Also I suspect there are few six year olds rooting around the armouries and magazines. The point being that the "government's weapon" are usually handled with a very high degree of responsibility and care. If it could be guaranteed that every gun owner would do the same I suspect the 2nd amendment would be a non-issue.

Is there no amount of destructive power which is unreasonable to be allowed to be kept in someone's suburban rec room? An M203 launcher, an M249, a SRAW? (yes, I played a lot of BF2 when I had an internet connection that could handle it ). If people are keeping these things in their underwear drawer, waiting for the day when the nation is ruled by a despotic tyrant, so that he may be overthrown - well, I'm sad that there is such little trust in our system on their part.

Because the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, doesn't mean they are equivalent in terms of authority and responsibility. If that's true, I'm going to start collecting taxes . I have a keen interest in physics, chemistry and biology. The bill of rights doesn't explicity discuss my rights with regards to home chemistry and yet I have no right to mix up a batch of ricin in my kitchen no matter how responsible and careful I am.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Just thought I would point out, that just because the "Baby Boom" generation has gotten older doesn't mean there aren't people born every day. I admit perhaps a little laziness here, but just wanted to point out that there are ALWAYS citizens in those "primary violent crime-committing years". Per capita it really doesn't matter how old "Baby Boomers" "Gen-X"ers or any other group is.

I believe the point being made was that, while the total population is gradually increasing, the age distribution fluctuates considerably. The number of people in the "crime committing ages" is anything but static.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Likewise in modern times, areas with less restrictive gun laws also typically have lower crime rates per capita, not higher. Most restrictive gun laws: LA, NYC, DC...highest murder rates: LA, NYC, DC... just as an example. One could also point at the Swiss, who have all the same modern conveniences we do (and likely more) as well as an automatic weapon in every household. EXTREMELY low crime rate.

This is a chicken-egg problem. Cities implement stricter gun laws usually to address a pre-existing problem with gun crimes. One could ask the question - how much worse would the problem be without strict gun laws?

Switzerland has mandatory military service, and annual mandatory refresher courses. Perhaps that every male is taught to handle weapons with respect and responsibility (I'm making an assumption that this a common feature of most modern armed forces) has an impact of attitude and wisdom regarding handling of weapons.

If you want to compare to other nations, the impact of culture is usually overlooked and in my opinion far from insignificant. Some cultures are simply more law abiding than others. And acceptable conflict resolution varies hugely from culture to culture. My interpretation of this is that wide spread gun ownership will cause more issues in some cultures than others.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Here, I agree completely. +1. It is ridiculous that as Americans we decry foreign television shows which perhaps show more nudity, sexuality, or some such-something anyone married experiences, hopefully-but we would gladly show our children gang-related, brutal, violent, gory MURDER, without blinking, then we let them play it out graphically as if THEY were the star, shooting police officers, selling drugs, etc. on their playstations. Where are our priorities!

+10

Originally Posted by JohnP

Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA. Not saying what you are claiming is false, but I've never heard of any such rallies to taunt grieving families.

I believe the reference was to the NRA convention that was held in Denver very shortly after the Columbine tragedy. The NRA scaled back, but refused to reschedule the event or change venue when asked to do so.

Originally Posted by JohnP

One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.

You are comparing apples to oranges to some extent. Hammers and cars are designed to transport people and put nails into lumber. Firearms are designed to kill and injure, or threaten to do so. Yes, they are ubiquitously used for target practise and recreation, but to argue that it was for this purpose that firearms have been developed into such efficient tools is disingenuous.

It is a complex issue and I think statements like "guns = bad" and "the founding fathers guaranteed that we can own any weapon we want" do nothing to solve or even lessen the very real problem of gun crime.