Caperucita Roja
Posts: 11,508
Birmingham, England, United Kingdom
I come from a family of lawyers, politicians and my own father works with nuclear submarines, so I've been lucky to hear many different perspectives and develop a clear opinion. One thing that they've all agreed on so far is that they don't want gun use legalised in the way the USA has.
So here are my thoughts, based on things I've read and people I've met:
* 2nd amendment quote, "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 only person specified as having the right to bear arms, as far as I can see here, is the militia themselves. People who are TRAINED properly, people who are given proper psychological assessment before even being able to call themselves part of the militia.
* Your guns are to 'defend' yourself. But guns, by definition, aren't a defensive weapon, they're an OFFENSIVE weapon, designed to kill. You can't compare that to knives, the primary purpose of a knife is not purely to kill- even if people can use it that way. Comparing guns to knives is the same as comparing guns to your bare hands. Hands aren't designed to kill, they can do lots of things.
* Many more countries in the world live just fine without access to guns. Many more countries are happier this way.
* Yes England USED to have a stupid law, which meant that if you hurt or killed someone trying to attack you, that you would be imprisoned for being the attacker, despite the other person 'starting it'. That law has actually changed now because someone finally realised it was stupid, so stop bringing that argument into your gun debates.
* I realise that getting rid of guns at this stage in America would be impossible, but do you really need an AK47? If you're going to have a gun, why should it be more than a 6 bullet shooter? That's stupid.
* The problem with granting everyone the same gunrights, is that you're granting it 90% of the time to stupid people. Yes, most of us make up that stupid percentage. Dumbasses cause accidents, so prevent is as much as possible. Sure taking away guns won't stop death, but if history shows anything it can have a really fucking good effect.
* I saw this today. No idea if this is correct compared with statistics, but if it's true then there are a lot of American's in denial about the true effects of their almighty, godly gun use.
I guess, whether your pro or not, you can't deny there's a need for real change and real restrictions!
Caperucita Roja wrote: One thing that they've all agreed on so far is that they don't want gun use legalised in the way the USA has.
Since they don't have the same problems with gun violence that the US has, it's not surprising.
The only person specified as having the right to bear arms, as far as I can see here, is the militia themselves. People who are TRAINED properly, people who are given proper psychological assessment before even being able to call themselves part of the militia.
This has already been decided.
And "militia only" does not cover the development of this country. In the world of the frontier, gun ownership and use was necessary for defense and just to eat. Now, you could argue that circumstances have changed since the musket days of the drafting of the Constitution, and you would be right, but the tradition has carried through.
But guns, by definition, aren't a defensive weapon, they're an OFFENSIVE weapon, designed to kill.
No, many a home, a fort, a nation, a person has been defended by use of a gun.
You can't compare that to knives, the primary purpose of a knife is not purely to kill- even if people can use it that way. Comparing guns to knives is the same as comparing guns to your bare hands. Hands aren't designed to kill, they can do lots of things.
I agree. It gets even more silly talking about transportation comparisons.
* Many more countries in the world live just fine without access to guns. Many more countries are happier this way.
I agree.
* I realise that getting rid of guns at this stage in America would be impossible, but do you really need an AK47? If you're going to have a gun, why should it be more than a 6 bullet shooter? That's stupid.
I don't deny the logic of what you're saying (although examples may be supplied that illustrate the extreme), but Pandora's box has opened in this country, the nation is inundated with it, and it ain't going back in the box.
* The problem with granting everyone the same gunrights, is that you're granting it 90% of the time to stupid people. Yes, most of us make up that stupid percentage. Dumbasses cause accidents, so prevent is as much as possible. Sure taking away guns won't stop death, but if history shows anything it can have a really fucking good effect.
I do not believe you can "take away guns" in this country. Legally or practically.
I guess, whether your pro or not, you can't deny there's a need for real change and real restrictions!
If the majority of Americans want to live like that - suffering 35.000 gun-related deaths a year and almost 200.000 gun-related injuries that cost billions of dollars to treat - that's the will of the majority and dissenters have to accept that.
In a democratic society, the will of the people should be respected and represented by the government.
If the people want more gun regulations, they are free to vote for representatives that agree with them. So far they haven't done that, despite many shootings in recent years.
Lightcraft Studio wrote: It hasn't stopped killing in tiny little Scotland though (a mere 5 million people... as compared to over 300 million in the US):
So we go to the per capita rate.
.04 per 100,000 in Scotland in 2009. In the US, I believe it was 5+. The total number of gun homicides in Scotland from 2000 to 2009 per year didn't even break double digits.
ETA: Just followed your link. Apparently, assuming the stats I found are right, there was a horribly anomalous year in Scotland.
.04 per 100,000 in Scotland in 2009. In the US, I believe it was 5+. The total number of gun homicides in Scotland from 2000 to 2009 per year didn't even break double digits.
ETA: Just followed your link. Apparently, assuming the stats I found are right, there was a horribly anomalous year in Scotland.
The real question is "How many lives are saved by guns"... and is that number greater or less than the lives lost... probably impossible to determine, since no one keeps stats on how ofter someone scares off a mugger/attacker with a gun.
A gun is no more an offensive or defensive weapon than a hammer is a construction or demolition tool. They are both tools and it depends what you do with it.
There are many in the States who share the OP's views of the Second Ammendment. SCOTUS does not. Case settled.
Lightcraft Studio wrote: The real question is "How many lives are saved by guns"... and is that number greater or less than the lives lost... probably impossible to determine, since no one keeps stats on how ofter someone scares off a mugger/attacker with a gun.
The simple math is that if a country is awash with guns and has a 5/100,000 gun homicide rate and another country has very rare gun ownership and a .04/100,000 gun homicide rate, it looks like one country just might have a gun problem and the other just might not.
I'm not saying I think we should go to Door No. 2. Because we can't.
.04 per 100,000 in Scotland in 2009. In the US, I believe it was 5+. The total number of gun homicides in Scotland from 2000 to 2009 per year didn't even break double digits.
ETA: Just followed your link. Apparently, assuming the stats I found are right, there was a horribly anomalous year in Scotland.
US Homicide Rates at 50 Year
"Murder rates are measured by the number of deaths per 100,000 people, which allows comparisons to be made independent of the overall population. In 2011, the U.S. murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000, the lowest since 1963, when the rate was slightly lower at 4.6 per 100,000."
Justin wrote: .04 per 100,000 in Scotland in 2009. In the US, I believe it was 5+.
What Fun Productions wrote: US Homicide Rates at 50 Year
"Murder rates are measured by the number of deaths per 100,000 people, which allows comparisons to be made independent of the overall population. In 2011, the U.S. murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000, the lowest since 1963, when the rate was slightly lower at 4.6 per 100,000."
We're not disagreeing. We're on different years. And I distinctly and purposely said "I think" regarding 2009. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to have the correct number supplied.
The fact that U.S. gun deaths have gone down from horrendous to somewhat less horrendous should be a call to joy for all. I mean, the other First World countries don't even get to 1. Yay, us.
What Fun Productions wrote: US Homicide Rates at 50 Year
"Murder rates are measured by the number of deaths per 100,000 people, which allows comparisons to be made independent of the overall population. In 2011, the U.S. murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000, the lowest since 1963, when the rate was slightly lower at 4.6 per 100,000."
Justin wrote:
Justin wrote: .04 per 100,000 in Scotland in 2009. In the US, I believe it was 5+.
We're not disagreeing. We're on different years. And I distinctly and purposely said "I think" regarding 2009. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to have the correct number supplied.
The fact that U.S. gun deaths have gone down from horrendous to somewhat less horrendous should be a call to joy for all. I mean, the other First World countries don't even get to 1. Yay, us.
My link is not about gun deaths. It's the murder rate overall.
Caperucita Roja wrote: I come from a family of lawyers, politicians and my own father works with nuclear submarines, so I've been lucky to hear many different perspectives and develop a clear opinion. One thing that they've all agreed on so far is that they don't want gun use legalised in the way the USA has.
So here are my thoughts, based on things I've read and people I've met:
<snip>
I guess, whether your pro or not, you can't deny there's a need for real change and real restrictions!
It's nice to hear all the standard gun grabber talking points are alive and well across the pond.
What Fun Productions wrote: My link is not about gun deaths. It's the murder rate overall.
Well, OK. The US murder rate, two-thirds of which is by firearms, is at 4.8/100,000. The UK is 1.2. So the US is ... let's see... I can figure this out.... oh, exactly four times higher than the UK.
I'm not sure what this is proving, except that we have a high murder rate - even though it's lower, it's still high - both overall and with firearms specifically.
Justin wrote: Well, OK. The US murder rate, two-thirds of which is by firearms, is at 4.8/100,000. The UK is 1.2. So the US is ... let's see... I can figure this out.... oh, exactly four times higher than the UK.
I'm not sure what this is proving, except that we have a high murder rate - even though it's lower, it's still high - both overall and with firearms specifically.
I recently read an article that Houston finished 2012 with the lowest murder rate since sometime in the 1960's. Is the overall US murder rate in the US also down?
Robert Helm wrote: A gun is no more an offensive or defensive weapon than a hammer is a construction or demolition tool. They are both tools and it depends what you do with it.
There are many in the States who share the OP's views of the Second Ammendment. SCOTUS does not. Case settled.
Robert stop, it makes you sound like you are not in touch with reality.
ernst tischler wrote: I recently read an article that Houston finished 2012 with the lowest murder rate since sometime in the 1960's. Is the overall US murder rate in the US also down?
The overall murder rate, I believe, is down. Like Scotland, there are exceptions. Chicago's rate has risen the last four years.
The murder rate in this country has improved from reprehensible to merely horrifying. We're looking to upgrade even more to just embarrassing.
We're still a lot better than some other countries. Like Jamaica, Uganda, Mexico, Kryg... Krgz...Kryzg.... um, Russia (!), North Korea.
We're on a par with some countries like Thailand and Turkey... well, Turkey's actually lower than ours (!).
You start getting into the other countries - notably, the Western European ones - and they're significantly below us. Places like Norway, Austria, Japan don't even crack the 1/100,000 mark.
First, cut the US rate in half.
Over half the gun related deaths in the US are suicides.
Second, over 70% of the gun homicides involve victims with a prior criminal record.
There are several people in my family who are in law enforcement and they all say the same thing - you will never hear a public statement to the evidence of it, but in 99% of the homicides the victims are known to the police. Indeed, in the city where they work, during the last year only one victim could rightfully be called 'an innocent', and that is a 6 month old child who was taken into a crack house by her mother and died being hit by a stray bullet.
People are ending their lives, good on them free will and all that. If not a gun, something else.
Criminals are also killing each other, sounds like a win/win to me.
We live in a very safe society considering, stop doing the knee-jerk due to media fearmongering.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,628
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Being from Europe, you are somewhat familiar with the financial meltdown of Greece. The US is just slightly more fortunate, but an economic meltdown here in the US would be significantly worse.
We've had some fairly large scale terrorist attacks here, they could get worse.
We have not had widespread nuclear fallout, but it could happen as a result of a nuclear attack, an accident or terrorist attack.
We have not been exposed to biological terror, but it could happen.
We could be hit with devastating, huge, natural disaster.
The end result or any of these things could be chaos, looting, martial law, civil unrest, marauders, etc. Any of this could provide a great reason to have a gun as a DEFENSIVE weapon, and could also justify a need for a magazine that shoots more than 10 rounds.
What is the likelihood that none of the above will ever happen?
The government cannot protect its' citizens in all situations.
If we're really serious about saving lives, maybe we could start with drunk drivers...who kill about the same number of people here annually. Instead, we often let them go after little, if any, jail-time...and they often become "repeat offenders" until they commit vehicular homicide.
Laws won't change behaviors of criminals. It's already illegal to murder people. We'll never get rid of 300+ million guns.
Caperucita Roja wrote: * 2nd amendment quote, "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 only person specified as having the right to bear arms, as far as I can see here, is the militia themselves. People who are TRAINED properly, people who are given proper psychological assessment before even being able to call themselves part of the militia.
If you read the first few pages of the SCOTUS decision in DC vs. Heller you will find your interpretation of the Second Amendment is not correct. the operative clause of the Second Amendment is "the right of the people".
This is all really so funny. I mean just take Mexico as a fine example. Guns are illegal in Mexico!
Is that stopping anyone? No. In fact I would wager that given a gun ban in the US, drug gangs here would be procuring guns with the same ease they procure the drugs they sell. To think otherwise is putting your head in the sand.
Viking Models
Posts: 1,553
Huntington Beach, California, US
Caperucita Roja wrote: I come from a family of lawyers, politicians and my own father works with nuclear submarines, so I've been lucky to hear many different perspectives and develop a clear opinion. One thing that they've all agreed on so far is that they don't want gun use legalised in the way the USA has.
I guess, whether your pro or not, you can't deny there's a need for real change and real restrictions!
The city of Chicago requires registration of firearms. Residents must complete a firearm safety course, pass a background check including fingerprinting,
Cook County and the city of Chicago have separately banned the possession of "assault weapons", and of magazines that can hold more than 10 or 12 rounds of ammunition respectively.
Illinois does not issue concealed carry licenses, nor does it accept CCLs issued by other states. It is the only state that has no provision for the concealed carry of firearms by citizens.
Minnesota law enables law-abiding, mentally-sound, citizens to easily obtain guns and concealed-carry permits, including assault rifles and hi-capacity magazines. Not all guns need to be registered (although many are), and it doesn't require a permit to own or purchase ammunition.
One would assume that Chicago, by virtue of about 50% fewer people and much stricter gun laws, would have fewer gun-related homicides than Minnesota. However, Chicago homicides outnumber U.S. troop killings in Kabul! They also outnumber the gun-related homicides in Minnesota (64 in 2010) vs. a whopping and increasing number of gun-related homicides in Chicago (435 in 2012).
Chicago's gun laws are such a miserable failure that the City is now using Twitter to solicit the public for suggestions...because the City hasn't got a clue. Criminals LOVE unarmed victims. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 … 29015.html
Caperucita Roja wrote: The only person specified as having the right to bear arms, as far as I can see here, is the militia themselves.
By law in the USA, the militia is every adult (actually, the law states every male citizen, but the equal protection clause results in that being applied to all adult citizens) and as has been noted by others, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the 2d Amendment refers to an individual right.
So rather than compare two countries of like station, we'll go a major metropolitan city in one state versus an entire state, rural and metro.
I guess we can cherry-pick all day. In a country awash with guns, we have high levels of gun violence. Pretty straight-line there.
And yet, the most similar societies to the USA that have lower gun violence (with gun control) have much higher overall violent crime rates.
As you noted, let's compare similar societies. Do we want a society with high levels of gun violence but in which 75% of gun violence is between criminals and the overall violent crime rate is lower (and declining) or a society in which the gun violence rate is low but the violent crime rate is high (and increasing)?
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,628
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Justin wrote: So rather than compare two countries of like station, we'll go a major metropolitan city in one state versus an entire state, rural and metro.
I guess we can cherry-pick all day. In a country awash with guns, we have high levels of gun violence. Pretty straight-line there.
Actually, the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area has a population of about 3.2 million people (that's about half a million more than Chicago). The Minneapolis–Saint Paul metro area is the most populous urban area in the U.S. and is composed of 182 closely-knit cities. I just tossed in the rest of the state because the homicide statistics were statewide. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&outp … 12&bih=593
There was no "cherry-picking" involved. I compared one urban area, (Chicago...with it's tough gun laws), to another urban area with a half-million more people (Minneapolis/St. Paul...with not-so-tough gun laws) and tossed in the rest of Minnesota for the heck of it....and we still have less crime...because we don't have laws like Illinois...or Chicago.
As a nation, I agree with you....we DO have a lot of guns. We DO have high levels of gun violence. However, the states with the toughest gun laws are the states whose crime rates are rising and the rates for crimes with a firearm are also rising in those states, Chicago and Illinois are perfect examples of places where that's happening. The states that have "must-issue" laws have corresponding declining rates.
We can, no provision of the Constitution is in stone....but, I don't think we WILL and I don't think we SHOULD. But we CAN...
Well, conceivably we could amend the Constitution, but reality is that no amendment of the 2d Amendment will ever pass.
And then there becomes the question of how you get all those firearms out of the hands of their owners. Military? Likely they won't do it. Police? Likely they won't do it.
I think Justin is right. We can't. Not in real, practical terms.
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,628
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Al Lock Photography wrote: Well, conceivably we could amend the Constitution, but reality is that no amendment of the 2d Amendment will ever pass.
And then there becomes the question of how you get all those firearms out of the hands of their owners. Military? Likely they won't do it. Police? Likely they won't do it.
I think Justin is right. We can't. Not in real, practical terms.
I agree with you and Justin. We can't. Not 300+ million guns....and that's a conservative estimate.
We could pass a law that requires everyone to give up some types of guns or all guns of all types and/or any other law we think we might like. Then, everybody who obeys laws would volunteer to comply if they felt that they would be fairly compensated for their legally-obtained guns. The "gun buyback programs that really don't do much good", are paying about $200 per gun. Assuming that every law-abiding citizen agrees that's a fair price, we could eliminate 300 million guns from existence for about $60,000,000,000.
After that, we would discover how many people did not turn in their guns and didn't much care about the laws. Gun violence in this country would dramatically increase as criminals used guns against the gun-less, law-abiding citizens who cannot defend themselves and whom the police cannot defend. If that seems "far-fetched" then look at the gun-related crime rate drop in the states with laws that require issuance of a concealed-carry permit to law-abiding, adults who have received safety training, passed a proficiency test, and have received the required education.
More laws, generally, isn't the answer...except for one. Gun owners should have a duty to be responsible in how they store their weapons. If they fail in this duty, and someone is injured or killed with their weapon, then the irresponsible gun owner should be held accountable the same as if they pulled the trigger. We could call it "The Nancy Lanza Bill", since if Nancy was a responsible gun owner, and had she taken the necessary measures to insure that a mentally ill person living in her home could not access her guns, then Newtown CT. would be a different place today.
Anna Adrielle
Posts: 17,057
Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
Mike Kelcher wrote: Being from Europe, you are somewhat familiar with the financial meltdown of Greece. The US is just slightly more fortunate, but an economic meltdown here in the US would be significantly worse.
We've had some fairly large scale terrorist attacks here, they could get worse.
We have not had widespread nuclear fallout, but it could happen as a result of a nuclear attack, an accident or terrorist attack.
We have not been exposed to biological terror, but it could happen.
We could be hit with devastating, huge, natural disaster.
... please explain? how does having a gun stop a terrorist attack, a nuclear fallout or a natural disaster?
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,628
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Lightcraft Studio wrote:
The real question is "How many lives are saved by guns"... and is that number greater or less than the lives lost... probably impossible to determine, since no one keeps stats on how ofter someone scares off a mugger/attacker with a gun.
"Based on a 2000 study, Americans use guns to defend themselves from crime and violence 989,883 times annually. Banning guns would leave about 1,000,000 Americans defenseless from criminals who have no problem acquiring guns illegally."
"A nationwide survey of almost 5000 households found that over a five-year period 3.5% of households had a member who used a gun to protect themselves, their family, or their property. This also adds up to about the same 1,000,000 incidents annually."
"The Clinton Justice Department identified 1.5 million cases per year of citizens using guns to defend themselves."
"Another survey found that Americans use guns to frighten intruders away from a home break-in about 500,000 times annually."
"Armed citizens shoot criminals more than twice as often as police each year (1527 to 606)."
"Each year about 200,000 women use a gun to defend themselves from a sexual crime or abuse."
"The Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful."
Mike Kelcher
Posts: 11,628
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
Anna Adrielle wrote: ... please explain? how does having a gun stop a terrorist attack, a nuclear fallout or a natural disaster?
You actually mis-quoted me....and didn't include the part that would provide understanding. Here's the part you missed. The end result or any of these things could be chaos, looting, martial law, civil unrest, marauders, etc. Any of this could provide a great reason to have a gun as a DEFENSIVE weapon, and could also justify a need for a magazine that shoots more than 10 rounds.
To answer your question directly...
It doesn't....and people can and probably would die from any of those. However, chances are a number of people won't die. If that happens, don't expect people to behave as they do now, if they are cold, hungry, need potable water to survive, or need something that you have in order for them or their family to survive.
If the power grid goes out for...lets...say...two weeks. This country will come unglued.
"Based on a 2000 study, Americans use guns to defend themselves from crime and violence 989,883 times annually. Banning guns would leave about 1,000,000 Americans defenseless from criminals who have no problem acquiring guns illegally."
"A nationwide survey of almost 5000 households found that over a five-year period 3.5% of households had a member who used a gun to protect themselves, their family, or their property. This also adds up to about the same 1,000,000 incidents annually."
"The Clinton Justice Department identified 1.5 million cases per year of citizens using guns to defend themselves."
"Another survey found that Americans use guns to frighten intruders away from a home break-in about 500,000 times annually."
"Armed citizens shoot criminals more than twice as often as police each year (1527 to 606)."
"Each year about 200,000 women use a gun to defend themselves from a sexual crime or abuse."
"The Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful."
... please explain? how does having a gun stop a terrorist attack, a nuclear fallout or a natural disaster?
Well, having a gun definitely resulted in a stopped terrorist attach in LAX a couple of years back when an EL AL security guard shot and stopped a man who came in intending to shoot up the security lines...
| 
| 
| edu