Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]

Those guns come from somewhere, and are purchased legally before they cross over to the illegal resale market. I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

A gun show is a sales event put on by a reputable production company. They sell table space to gun dealers, and charge admission to the public. Every gun show I have ever heard of requires that vendors are federally licensed gun dealers who rigorously conform to and comply with all state and federal laws.

To purchase a gun at a gun show from a vendor, you must pass federal and state guidelines. The federal requirement is a real-time check of your ID against the federal criminal database. Some states require a locally issued purchase permit, either for all guns or just for hand guns. The feds waive their check if you have a state permit. There is no other way to purchase a gun from a vendor at a gun show.

Often private citizens take guns to a gun show to offer them for sale to the gun dealers. It sometimes happens that an individual attending the show sees another individual with a gun for sale, asks about it, and buys it on a person to person basis without a licensed dealer involved. This is a private sale, regardless if it takes place at a gun show, at a gun range, in a home, or under a bridge in the dark of night. Specific laws regarding private sales of firearms vary from state to state.

If you are selling a gun in a private sale, you had best be familiar with, and obey, your state laws regarding private sales. And those laws are generally quite different than the laws governing sales by licensed dealers. There are no loopholes for sales at gun shows. If you are a dealer at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to dealers. If you are a private citizen at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to a private citizen. No exception. No loopholes.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.




[/ QUOTE ]

Fie. I fart in your general direction. You haven't a clue as to what a "huge percentage" is, or how such sales could possibly occur at a gun show.

Re: Guns in America
 

I didnt read most of this thread so I might be repeating what someone else said.

Hand guns SUCK. They are absolutely pointless. People use the excuse that "they need them for protection". Protection from what, other people with guns? That is [censored]. I dont think they'd need these guns if nobody had guns. I cant really think of one good use for a hand gun. Maybe recreationally, for markmanship competitions but thats about it.

I dont get how the Gov't can be so controlling over far less harmless things such as marijuana and internet gambling yet basically allow anybody and their brother to own multiple hand guns. Christ, in almost every other civilized country in the world the police dont even carry guns.

I am perfectly fine with the right to own rifles and shotguns as they can be used in a purposeful manner. But handguns... are you [censored] me? what a joke.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.

I differ with you here. Having written a law review note on the subject, I can assure you that the Framers understood that the Freedoms protected could/would be abused by some among us, but felt the overall good outweighed the bad. Street crime as we know it was not much of a factor, but being secure in your home was. Similarly, having just defeated an army of professional and mercenary soldiers with lightly trained militias, the concept that individual citizens had a right to own weapons was so clear that it frankly bore little discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're saying the same thing here. Its the same as with the VI Amendment, you know some guilty criminals are going to be set free. Its better than the alternative.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence? I find that hard to believe. I of course agree that other factors play a huge role as well.

Second, this isn't really a thumbs up or thumbs down question. A very small percentage of people have a problem with a farmer in Kansas hunting deer with a legally purchased rifle. Likewise, a very small percentage of people think that the Second Amendment should be interpreted so as to prevent the state or federal government from restricting the purchase of anti-aircraft weaponry. The right answer obviously is somewhere in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your first argument isn't really valid. Of course there is a direct correlation between the number of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. If there are zero guns in the country there can be no gun violence. I'm sure the framers knew when they wrote the Bill of Rights that innocent people would die as a result of the 2nd amendment. They thought that LESS innocent people would die (through government actions rather than "street criminals") if the populace were armed.

You are correct in your second point, the answer is somewhere in between. Its a slippery slope, though. The problem when laws are written, is only law-abiding citizens take note. Law-abiding citizens are not the problem with gun violence, by definition. The majority of gun owners are law-abiding. How much hassle should they be put through to keep the guns out of the hands of a few criminals?


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin,
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[/ QUOTE ]

Paul Phillips -- "Now as it happens I believe that 0% of the gun deaths in the US are preventable through gun prohibition."

I asked the first question because I wanted to know exactly how many people agreed with the above quote from the Paul Phillips article, which struck me as absurd on its face.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no, that's not what you asked. You asked if people thought if there was a correlation between the amount of guns in the country and the amount of gun violence. And I'd actually like to be able to take back my statement of saying there's a direct correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun violence. This is true to a point, as if there are no guns, there will be no gun violence. But you better damn well believe that if guns are prohibited, and there are only 50,000 guns in the country, its going to be the unsavory among us who own them. PROHIBITION IS NOT ELIMINATION. Elimination is not practical, and probably impossible without massive resources being devoted to it.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I agree, it did that for me too (and I'm not even American). I like this idea a lot, it strikes me as being a long term wise balance to government.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here, here. In the olden days of prehistory, I first learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts, probably at about age 12. I also took a class in Gun Safety and Marksmanship as a physical education elective in college. My university had a rifle range under the stadium grandstands. I'm sure that the mere suggestion of such things would cause cardiac arrest in the majority of today's nanny-staters.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, I used air rifles in the boy scouts and proper rifles in the CCF (cadet force) at secondary school - and I'm in the UK. We aren't even talking about a long time ago, I am 27.

However, I think that the arguments for gun ownership to "protect yourself from criminals" are extremely tenuous and I suspect a waste of time. I also have an underlying feeling that rewarding people for owning guns is a bad thing, but obviously the gun control issue isn't too big of a one in the UK so I haven't given it enough thought.

The argument that you should have the right to bear arms so that you have protection from your government is a very strong one to me though, and I agree with it completely. It's the only valid argument that I can see really, and I think that widespread gun ownership has definite problems, it's just that they are not as important as the long term benefit - i.e, protecting democracy.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the opposition forces in those countries resisted with military hardware, most of it supplied by foreign governments (or pilfered from internal standing armies)

[/ QUOTE ]
An American dictatorship would be opposed by a lot of nations, notably any democracies that still existed at the time, but even if there were none there would still be enemies of the American government and people who would happily supply weapons/aid to see it stuck in a quagmire of guerilla civil war.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is obviously a correlation, I just think that the price is sufficiently small to be offset by the benefits to the long term health of the civilisation.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Funs facts:

From 2001-2005 in the US:

An average of 42,000 people die in auto-accidents.
An average of 20,000 people die from the common flu.
An average of 17,000 people die from gun-related suicide.
An average of 11,000 people die from gun-related homicide.

When examining violent crime in the US from 2001-2005:

98% of violent crimes committed are non-fatal.

Of those, less than 10% are gun-related.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fun fact from the DoJ website -- "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

If your numbers are correct, this is pretty startling. Less than ten percent of violent crime involves a gun, yet two-thirds of murders involve a gun. I think that this seriously undermines the argument that would-be murderers would simply use a knife, baseball bat, etc. if guns were unavailable.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funs facts:

From 2001-2005 in the US:

An average of 42,000 people die in auto-accidents.
An average of 20,000 people die from the common flu.
An average of 17,000 people die from gun-related suicide.
An average of 11,000 people die from gun-related homicide.

When examining violent crime in the US from 2001-2005:

98% of violent crimes committed are non-fatal.

Of those, less than 10% are gun-related.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fun fact from the DoJ website -- "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

If your numbers are correct, this is pretty startling. Less than ten percent of violent crime involves a gun, yet two-thirds of murders involve a gun. I think that this seriously undermines the argument that would-be murderers would simply use a knife, baseball bat, etc. if guns were unavailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...og/gsupply.gif

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I remember Paul Phillips wrote what I thought was a very good blog entry on this subject a while back, one that, honestly, changed my mind a little.

(digs up link)

ah, here we go: http://extempore.livejournal.com/180946.html

[/ QUOTE ]

One other point on the Paul Phillips blog entry. He points to Hitler as evidence that tyrants always disarm the populace before imposing their will. The facts concerning Hitler and gun control are not as undisputed as he makes them out to be. As the attached article points out, numerous pro-gun groups dispute the Hitler/gun control argument. The author of the article is a University of Chicago law school professor, not just some internet hack.

Bernard Harcourt article

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funs facts:

From 2001-2005 in the US:

An average of 42,000 people die in auto-accidents.
An average of 20,000 people die from the common flu.
An average of 17,000 people die from gun-related suicide.
An average of 11,000 people die from gun-related homicide.

When examining violent crime in the US from 2001-2005:

98% of violent crimes committed are non-fatal.

Of those, less than 10% are gun-related.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fun fact from the DoJ website -- "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

If your numbers are correct, this is pretty startling. Less than ten percent of violent crime involves a gun, yet two-thirds of murders involve a gun. I think that this seriously undermines the argument that would-be murderers would simply use a knife, baseball bat, etc. if guns were unavailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...og/gsupply.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that total homicides track gun related homicides doesn't prove much. That was inevitable given that such a high percentage of homicides are committed with a gun. Secondly, the decrease in homicides in the last 15 years has a lot to do with improved emergency medical care (i.e. less people die). Violent crime as a whole has not decreased at nearly the same clip.

Re: Guns in America
 

Or, try this page for info on gun control and genocide.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt read most of this thread so I might be repeating what someone else said.

Hand guns SUCK. They are absolutely pointless. People use the excuse that "they need them for protection". Protection from what, other people with guns? That is [censored]. I dont think they'd need these guns if nobody had guns. I cant really think of one good use for a hand gun. Maybe recreationally, for markmanship competitions but thats about it.

I dont get how the Gov't can be so controlling over far less harmless things such as marijuana and internet gambling yet basically allow anybody and their brother to own multiple hand guns. Christ, in almost every other civilized country in the world the police dont even carry guns.

I am perfectly fine with the right to own rifles and shotguns as they can be used in a purposeful manner. But handguns... are you [censored] me? what a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is pure opinion without any attempt to be objective or to present any facts or data to support your position.

There are in fact numerous reasons that a handgun is superior to a rifle or shotgun for self-defense. The primary reason is for the safety of the homeowner, his family, and his neighbors. A handgun is easier to keep away from children while remaining accessible in times of emergency. A handgun is much easier to control, particularly in a very tense situation and in the close quarters of a home. It is easier to learn safe and effective operation of a handgun than a long gun. The bullet from a handgun is much less likely to injure innocent people. (A shot gun blast can spread out and strike several targets. A rifle shot can penetrate the target and hit someone in the background. A rifle shot can penetrate apartment walls.)

Your emotional opposition to handguns shows a total lack of familiarity with handguns and a total lack of knowledge of the characteristics and uses of firearms.

[ QUOTE ]
Christ, in almost every other civilized country in the world the police dont even carry guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any facts to support this assertion?

Re: Guns in America
 

"I am just curious. Do people on this forum really believe that there is absolutely zero correlation between the number of guns in this country and the amount of gun violence? I find that hard to believe. I of course agree that other factors play a huge role as well.

Second, this isn't really a thumbs up or thumbs down question. A very small percentage of people have a problem with a farmer in Kansas hunting deer with a legally purchased rifle. Likewise, a very small percentage of people think that the Second Amendment should be interpreted so as to prevent the state or federal government from restricting the purchase of anti-aircraft weaponry. The right answer obviously is somewhere in between."

I think the amount of guns do have something to do with the amount of crime. But I also believe the ease at which someone can attain a permit to legally carry a gun has something to do with the fact that violent crimes have gone down in the majority of those states.

Isn't the main problem with guns obtained legally the fact that some get stolen and used by those who can't legally obtain them? Well I guess another one is one person legally obtains it and gives it to the person who can't legally purchase it.

The age old arguments is and always will be (IMO) is if all guns were taken away the only people to have them wouldbe the crooks.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Those guns come from somewhere, and are purchased legally before they cross over to the illegal resale market. I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself.

There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole".

A gun show is a sales event put on by a reputable production company. They sell table space to gun dealers, and charge admission to the public. Every gun show I have ever heard of requires that vendors are federally licensed gun dealers who rigorously conform to and comply with all state and federal laws.

To purchase a gun at a gun show from a vendor, you must pass federal and state guidelines. The federal requirement is a real-time check of your ID against the federal criminal database. Some states require a locally issued purchase permit, either for all guns or just for hand guns. The feds waive their check if you have a state permit. There is no other way to purchase a gun from a vendor at a gun show.

Often private citizens take guns to a gun show to offer them for sale to the gun dealers. It sometimes happens that an individual attending the show sees another individual with a gun for sale, asks about it, and buys it on a person to person basis without a licensed dealer involved. This is a private sale, regardless if it takes place at a gun show, at a gun range, in a home, or under a bridge in the dark of night. Specific laws regarding private sales of firearms vary from state to state.

If you are selling a gun in a private sale, you had best be familiar with, and obey, your state laws regarding private sales. And those laws are generally quite different than the laws governing sales by licensed dealers. There are no loopholes for sales at gun shows. If you are a dealer at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to dealers. If you are a private citizen at a gun show, you must obey the laws applicable to a private citizen. No exception. No loopholes.

[ QUOTE ]
I have to believe that the gun show loophole is the portal for a huge percentage of these guns.




[/ QUOTE ]

Fie. I fart in your general direction. You haven't a clue as to what a "huge percentage" is, or how such sales could possibly occur at a gun show.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worked in gun shows for years and I most certainly can't tell you what the law IS I can tell you how it was told to me.

To legally sell a gun as a buisness you must have a FFL. However many people who sell guns at a gunshow do try to sell under a loophole of selling their "personal collection". Because you are allowed to sell your personal guns at gun shows w/o filling out any of the paperwork if either party had a FFL.

So the way it works is John buys various guns from various places, like at a gun show, then they put it on their table as a "personal gun collection sale". I've also heard of dealers with FFL's buying a gun and selling it as a consignment gun w/o putting it on their papers.

I think a way to clean it ALL up would be to have 2 people with the ATF work every gun show at the promoters expense and every person to person sale must go through the ATF.

I've personally sold used guns at new prices because they were part of my personal collection and the person buying didn't have to fill out paperwork. But I have alsways asked the buyer for a DL so I could verify who they were and if the cops every came looking for me I could pass that on.

P.S. - I don't know if I misunderstood you or not I do know that (in Tn) even if you have a CCP you still have to go through their "instacheck" with TBI.

P.P.S. - At every gun show I've been to there's someone checking all guns that enter the building to make sure they're unloaded. Well the guy that checked guns at this articualr show was an off duty police officer.

So I'm in the gun show and I hear "Oh Shiat, I've been shot!"

Turns out the off duty officer cleared the gun by pulling the trigger and shot some dude in the leg.

Re: Guns in America
 

It would make sense to pass gun control laws if they actually reduced gun crime. Even complete handgun bans have absolutely no positive impact.

I'd be in favor of it if it worked. As it stands, with the utter elimination of all firearms impossible, allowing law-abiding citizens to purchase and carry firearms seems to make more sense than the alternatives.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or, try this page for info on gun control and genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that page is that the premise doesn't seem to follow from the evidence they present. OK, so governments that commit democide (genocide is not quite accurate here) often have gun control. It doesn't follow from this that democide is impossible, or even less likely, in an armed state. That's especially true when most places have gun control anyway.

Iraq, as a counter-example, appears to have had plenty of guns in private hands pre invasion. It didn't prevent the state killing large numbers of its citizens or running a brutally repressive regime. Same in Afghanistan.


On the whole I find that the quality of debate surrounding gun control is pretty awful, on both sides. Will gun control increase or reduce murders, violent crimes? Everyone is convinced they know the answer but AFAICT there's really not enough data to say. Do guns prevent tyranny? Well they're not sufficient and they're not necessary. Do they help? Impossible to say with confidence.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]


To legally sell a gun as a buisness you must have a FFL. However many people who sell guns at a gunshow do try to sell under a loophole of selling their "personal collection". Because you are allowed to sell your personal guns at gun shows w/o filling out any of the paperwork if either party had a FFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

That varies from state to state. The point remains that if you are selling a gun, you are bound by either the laws covering a licensed dealer or by the laws covering a private sales. A private sale is covered by the appropriate state laws, and those laws in any state are generally the same whether the sale actually occurs at a gun show or anywhere else.

The impression you would get from the media and the would-be gun controllers is that guys in turbans and robes are flocking into gun shows and buying up truck loads of assault rifles because of the "gun show loophole".

[ QUOTE ]
P.S. - I don't know if I misunderstood you or not I do know that (in Tn) even if you have a CCP you still have to go through their "instacheck" with TBI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that TBI is the TN Bureau of Investigation. I was referring to the federal check. As far as I know, the feds waive their check any time the state requires a permit and/or a check. And it is likely that the TBI also checks the fed database when they run a check.

Re: Guns in America
 

"I assume that TBI is the TN Bureau of Investigation. I was referring to the federal check. As far as I know, the feds waive their check any time the state requires a permit and/or a check. And it is likely that the TBI also checks the fed database when they run a check."

Yes the TBI is Tn Bureau of Inv and I was told that if the state law is more strict than the normal fed check then you go by the state deal. I do find it odd that you can have the CCP and still have to go through their instacheck. I personally think it's because they charge $10 for it.

I also agree with you that the haters put the bad spin on it. To a certain degree we all do it though. Yes I agree it's stupid and sucks.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Funs facts:

From 2001-2005 in the US:

An average of 42,000 people die in auto-accidents.
An average of 20,000 people die from the common flu.
An average of 17,000 people die from gun-related suicide.
An average of 11,000 people die from gun-related homicide.

When examining violent crime in the US from 2001-2005:

98% of violent crimes committed are non-fatal.

Of those, less than 10% are gun-related.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another fun fact from the DoJ website -- "The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms."

If your numbers are correct, this is pretty startling. Less than ten percent of violent crime involves a gun, yet two-thirds of murders involve a gun. I think that this seriously undermines the argument that would-be murderers would simply use a knife, baseball bat, etc. if guns were unavailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...og/gsupply.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that total homicides track gun related homicides doesn't prove much. That was inevitable given that such a high percentage of homicides are committed with a gun. Secondly, the decrease in homicides in the last 15 years has a lot to do with improved emergency medical care (i.e. less people die). Violent crime as a whole has not decreased at nearly the same clip.

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't the point. The point is that total homicide and gun homicide is not related to the per capita gun supply, which has increased steadily for 4 decades. Since the murder rate appears to be independent of the gun supply, the argument that substitution would not take place appears to be false.

Re: Guns in America
 

I have a question that could be related and I don't know if anyone knows the answer or knows how one could find the answer. In Saddam Hussein led Iraq, what was the status of firearms there? Were they illegal? Regardless of their legal status about what % of the population had them? Many people have this idea of people in the Arab World going outside and shooting guns in the air to celebrate just about anything. Did that happen in Iraq as well?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since the murder rate appears to be independent of the gun supply, the argument that substitution would not take place appears to be false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't missing the point. I was raising the possibility that the ratio of gun supply to murder rate is affected by other factors, such as the quality of emergency medical care. I couldn't find the statistics, but my recollection is that homicide rates have dropped much more quickly than the rate of overall shootings.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or, try this page for info on gun control and genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with that page is that the premise doesn't seem to follow from the evidence they present. OK, so governments that commit democide (genocide is not quite accurate here) often have gun control. It doesn't follow from this that democide is impossible, or even less likely, in an armed state. That's especially true when most places have gun control anyway.

Iraq, as a counter-example, appears to have had plenty of guns in private hands pre invasion. It didn't prevent the state killing large numbers of its citizens or running a brutally repressive regime. Same in Afghanistan.


On the whole I find that the quality of debate surrounding gun control is pretty awful, on both sides. Will gun control increase or reduce murders, violent crimes? Everyone is convinced they know the answer but AFAICT there's really not enough data to say. Do guns prevent tyranny? Well they're not sufficient and they're not necessary. Do they help? Impossible to say with confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
my recollection is that homicide rates have dropped much more quickly than the rate of overall shootings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the result of a lack of training. If people would attend marksmanship classes, take regular target practice, and maintain their firearms properly, they would not have this problem of sloppy shooting.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since the murder rate appears to be independent of the gun supply, the argument that substitution would not take place appears to be false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't missing the point. I was raising the possibility that the ratio of gun supply to murder rate is affected by other factors, such as the quality of emergency medical care. I couldn't find the statistics, but my recollection is that homicide rates have dropped much more quickly than the rate of overall shootings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I found a reference to the article that I was remembering. Once again, I am citing research from professors at good universities, not rhetoric from gun control blogs.

Homicide article

The gist of the article is that aggravated assaults skyrocketed during the period from 1960-1999, while murder rates remained mostly flat. The explanation -- a lot of shootings, etc., were now aggravated assaults rather than murders because trauma care was much improved.

Re: Guns in America
 

Rococo,

Thanks. Good stuff. I'll stop using the gun supply vs. homocide chart in such discussions.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The current Supreme Court precedents say that the 2nd Amendment is a "Group" right, not an individual right, meaning that the right is upheld as long as someone is allowed to have weapons. Furthermore, that someone has been ruled to be the National Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any link is useless because that is entirely false. One of the extremely few US SC precedents specifically said that the Rights of Individuals to bear Arms pre-dates the Constitution - i.e. it is similar to the rights of Free Speech and Assembly, a natural, god-given right that all men have which pre-dates the existence of our very country.

Nowhere does it say the right exclusively lies with the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment is to protect us from the Gov't and tyranny, that is why it comes directly after Freedom of speech and religion in the Bill of Rights.

The 'right of the people' specifically mentioned in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th, 9th, etc refer to individuals. They don't magically turn into an organized gov't group because there's a 2 in front of the Amendment.

The Embarrassing 2nd Amendment
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html
[long, but worth it]
There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or least all of those treated as full citizens of the community. Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."


Also:
T. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in The United States of America 298 (3d ed. 1898): "The Right of the People to bear arms in their own defense, and to form and drill military organizations in defense of the State, may not be very important in this country, but it is significant as having been reserved by the people as a possible and necessary resort for the protection of self- government against usurpation, and against any attempt on the part of those who may for the time be in possession of State authority or resources to set aside the constitution and substitute their own rule for that of the people. Should the contingency ever arise when it would be necessary for the people to make use of the arms in their hands for the protection of constitutional liberty, the proceeding, so far from being revolutionary, would be in strict accord with popular right and duty.

Re: Guns in America
 

Also, I believe in the SW US, there are 4 guns for every man, woman, and child last time I did the research. So a raw average is misleading as Zeno suggests.

Regardless, there are over 300mm guns at large in the US. You will never, ever, ever be able to get rid of them.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the right to bear arms (or defend oneself) is not granted by the constitution or the government. It is the natural right of man to do so. The Bill of Rights only serves to remind us of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is the right to bear arms a "natural right"? Because Paul Philips says it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the US SC:
'the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank held that ...the right "of bearing arms for a lawful purpose" is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Nor, in the view of the Court, was the right to peacefully assemble a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment: "The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is and has always been one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. . . .It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution."

This is what is meant by a natural right. It existed long before the US or Supreme Court did.

Re: Guns in America
 

from the previous thread:
A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution's Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.
...``There are too many instances of `bear arms' indicating private use to conclude that the drafters intended only a military sense,' Senior Judge Laurence Silberman wrote for himself and Judge Thomas Griffith. '

The N.O.-based 5th Circuit agreed previously that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals.

The US SC hasn't ruled directly on a 2nd Amend case in 70+ years.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope more Americans get guns. An armed population is the last defense agains tyrany.

By the way, that is a good 'blog' entry on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF are you guys waiting for then? You've had a tyrant running your country for what, 8 years?

Re: Guns in America
 

First off, you're citing Cruikshank out of context. That passage had nothing to do with any natural rights. Its meaning was limited to its plain meaning: the Constitution does not protect the right "of bearing arms for a lawful purpose". Indeed, Cruikshank specifically upholds the right of the government to restrict or prohibit the formation of private militias, which refutes one of your claims in your first post. There is no natural right to bear arms that has been recognized by this country's courts.

Your claims that the "militia" represents everyone is antiquated. Besides my earlier posts concerning the existing case law, a true citizen army is obsolete. There is no frontier to defend and no threat of foreign invasion. The Court's view that the modern militia is the National Guard is supported by the reality of modern warfare.

Also, you cite the DC decision, but that was news precisely because it overturned settled law as I discussed earlier. It is wrong to cite that decision as law because it goes against a vast body of case law.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no natural right to bear arms that has been recognized by this country's courts.


[/ QUOTE ]


Natural rights>>>>> courts

Just because the court doesn't recognize it, doesn't mean it isnt there or true.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]


Your claims that the "militia" represents everyone is antiquated.

[/ QUOTE ]


Would you think it is antiquated perhaps in the same way that private property is in eminent domain issues? Or perhaps antiquated the way free speech is prior to a campaign?

Perhaps it is antiquated like Scott or Plessy?

Re: Guns in America
 

How can there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist in nature?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist in nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every living thing defends itself.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist in nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every living thing defends itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant, you're discussing the right to bear arms, not to defend oneself. Besides which, since when does an is imply an ought?

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can there be a natural right to something that doesn't exist in nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just about every living thing defends itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant, you're discussing the right to bear arms, not to defend oneself. Besides which, since when does an is imply an ought?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, that is really dense.

Second, I don't understand your Clintonspeak.

Re: Guns in America
 

[ QUOTE ]
To me, these are just startling numbers. I've always felt a little uneasy about how easy it is to attain firearms in the U.S. and all "guns don't kill people, people kill people" arguments aside i truly believe most people aren't responsible enough to own one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I generally feel that an armed populace is the best deterrent to crime. Who is gonna rob a store when there could be a shotgun behind the counter, who is gonna rape a woman if she could have pistol in her purse.

As for the peopl ewho misuse their 'right' and commit crimes with firearms or generally acts like a jackass while firing them with no regard for the safety of others I think that the best way to handle it is to increase the penalties for these incidents. If you commit a violent crime with a gun an extra 20-30 years should be added to you're sentence on top of whatever you get for the crime.