Guns in America

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
I often see when reading about people who were murdered with a gun that they wouldn't have been killed if the person who owned the gun had just been more responsible. <-that's sarcasm for you slow people.

It never has anything to do with anger or depression or drugs and alcohol or money or who's wife was fking who. It's just that they weren't responsible enough. Like if they hadn't had a gun they would've never been able to figure out how to bash the guy's head in with a tire iron or stab him to death.

People that don't believe in the 2nd amendment piss me off. You have nothing to fear from the overwhelming majority of gun owners unless you're doing something you shouldn't be.

And, I would add that the statistics in the OP are misleading at best and geared toward making America look like a bunch of gun nuts. Did you know that 66.7% of statistics are either manipulated or just complete BS?

New gun laws only make it more difficult for honest people to legally own firearms. Some groups would love to see that happen though, mostly because they want to totally control the populace. I would wager that most people who are anti-gun couldn't tell you anything about current gun laws in their state, statistics regarding gun deaths and gun ownership in their area, or anything else other than they read some tear-jerking story and now they know that guns should be banned.

That paul phillips blog makes me want to buy another gun.

[/ 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.

[jba]

guns in america

[iron81]

I am not a lawyer, I just have an interest in the topic. My post wasn't an analysis of what anyone would like the law to be, it was an analysis of what the Law is. The 1982 decision I cited (Quilici v. Morton Grove) is an example of the existing law on the 2nd Amendment. The decision basically said 1. That the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and 2. It wouldn't matter if it did because the precedents have basically gutted the 2nd Amendment to the point that handguns are not covered. This was well settled until the DC Circuit handed down its decision a few months ago. I'll admit that the Supreme Court decisions predate the incorporation doctrine, but the Supreme Court has routinely declined to hear cases dealing with this issue including Quilici. I think that has to count for something.

Furthermore, I think its wrong to assume that if the Supreme Court finds an individual right to bear arms that its an automatic fist pump that the 2nd Amendment will be applied to the states. Rights such as indictment by grand jury and against excessive bail have well settled law on their side and yet the Supreme Court has elected not to incorporate them. Indeed, under Rochin v. California, the Supreme Court may only incorporate Amendments "if its application 'shocks the conscience,' offends 'a sense of justice' or runs counter to the "decencies of civilized conduct." It seems like a stretch to say that a court that cared so little about the 2nd that it hadn't heard a case in 70 years would suddenly care so much that failure to uphold it would "shock the conscience of the Court". Of course its possible, but it is by no means guaranteed.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer, I just have an interest in the topic. My post wasn't an analysis of what anyone would like the law to be, it was an analysis of what the Law is. The 1982 decision I cited (Quilici v. Morton Grove) is an example of the existing law on the 2nd Amendment. The decision basically said 1. That the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states and 2. It wouldn't matter if it did because the precedents have basically gutted the 2nd Amendment to the point that handguns are not covered. This was well settled until the DC Circuit handed down its decision a few months ago. I'll admit that the Supreme Court decisions predate the incorporation doctrine, but the Supreme Court has routinely declined to hear cases dealing with this issue including Quilici. I think that has to count for something.

Furthermore, I think its wrong to assume that if the Supreme Court finds an individual right to bear arms that its an automatic fist pump that the 2nd Amendment will be applied to the states. Rights such as indictment by grand jury and against excessive bail have well settled law on their side and yet the Supreme Court has elected not to incorporate them. Indeed, under Rochin v. California, the Supreme Court may only incorporate Amendments "if its application 'shocks the conscience,' offends 'a sense of justice' or runs counter to the "decencies of civilized conduct." It seems like a stretch to say that a court that cared so little about the 2nd that it hadn't heard a case in 70 years would suddenly care so much that failure to uphold it would "shock the conscience of the Court". Of course its possible, but it is by no means guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. As with so many things, I guess the result would turn in large part on the composition of the case at the time a relevant Second Amendment case is heard. I haven't analyzed the issue thoroughly, but I wonder if it is a tough one for the Scalia (aka strict constructionist) wing of the Court. In other words, the argument that the Framers intended to preserve an individual right to bear arms may be very weak. Conservative courts (like the current one) might be reluctant to hear a case where the "strict constructionist" result was at odds with the politically conservative result. Just a thought.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, we may disagree on what counts as successful resistance. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I'm sure that opposition forces in Aghanistan and Vietnam suffered casualties that were 20-30 times as high as American and Soviet casualties.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and because they won on the bodies scoresheet, the Americans won the Vietnam War.

The point, you missed it.

[Innocent Kitty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I often see when reading about people who were murdered with a gun that they wouldn't have been killed if the person who owned the gun had just been more responsible. <-that's sarcasm for you slow people.

It never has anything to do with anger or depression or drugs and alcohol or money or who's wife was fking who. It's just that they weren't responsible enough. Like if they hadn't had a gun they would've never been able to figure out how to bash the guy's head in with a tire iron or stab him to death.

People that don't believe in the 2nd amendment piss me off. You have nothing to fear from the overwhelming majority of gun owners unless you're doing something you shouldn't be.

And, I would add that the statistics in the OP are misleading at best and geared toward making America look like a bunch of gun nuts. Did you know that 66.7% of statistics are either manipulated or just complete BS?

New gun laws only make it more difficult for honest people to legally own firearms. Some groups would love to see that happen though, mostly because they want to totally control the populace. I would wager that most people who are anti-gun couldn't tell you anything about current gun laws in their state, statistics regarding gun deaths and gun ownership in their area, or anything else other than they read some tear-jerking story and now they know that guns should be banned.

That paul phillips blog makes me want to buy another gun.

[/ 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

[Rococo]

[ 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.

Lines are always difficult to draw. For the purpose of criminal liability, how do you decide when someone has gone far enough with a plan to rob a bank for it to constitute an attempted crime? Is casing the bank enough? Buying a stocking to wear over your head? Recruiting a friend to drive the getaway car? Walking through the bank door with a concealed gun? Pointing it at the teller? You have to draw the line somewhere. Abortion, and in paticular the question of when a state's interest in protecting fetuses outweighs the mother's right to privacy, is yet another exercise in line drawing. The fact that lines are difficult to draw doesn't absolve a responsible society from making the effort.

I would like to hear from gun owners. Is it really an incredible hassle to buy a gun in your state? My impression is no, but I have never bought a gun, so maybe I'm wrong.

[Bond18]

Had it not been for our current Iraq war i would have thought the argument that an armed populace can be highly disruptive to a modern army was completely ridiculous.

I've since become convinced otherwise.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Had it not been for our current Iraq war i would have thought the argument that an armed populace can be highly disruptive to a modern army was completely ridiculous.

I've since become convinced otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bond18= not dumb.


Rococo- I think I will go buy a .45 today in your honor. I "need" one for Tahoe in case I have to take down a bear in my kitchen. The transaction should take about 10 min.

[ncpokeresq]

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.

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?

As was noted elsewhere, many State constitutions contain a right to bear arms. This largely eliminates the militia argument because the State would not need to protect itself from itself in order to arm a militia. Most States adopt some form of reasonable regulation approach, akin to what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure. Drawing that line is where the disputes arise.