The Constitution wins! [Archive]

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 03:28 PM

Wouldn't that count as a Civil War if the citizens decide not to follow the government. What is the militias actual role, are they supposed to keep the peace or are they the ones that lead the charge.There is a long history of militia in the United States, starting before the country became a country, with the colonial militias normally consisting of all adult male citizens of a community, town, or local region. This practice was continued after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, and remained relatively unchanged until the late 1800s. After the Civil War, state guard units composed of select militia were created. After 1903, the militia was divided into two groups, unorganized and organized. Organized units were created from portions of the former state guards and became state National Guard units. Some states later created State Defense Forces for assistance in local emergencies. Privately organized militias, not affiliated with any government organization, and usually formed by citizens suspicious of the activities and politics of Federal and state governments, blossomed in the mid 1990s.
The Constitutional Militia Movement consists of citizen groups who espouse strict construction of the U.S. Constitution according to the original understanding and intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States, especially in regard to the right to keep and bear arms (see Second Amendment to the United States Constitution). Constitutional Militias train in the proper and safe use of firearms, that they may be effective if called upon to uphold liberty, protect the people in times of crisis (i.e. disasters such as Hurricane Katrina), or to defend against invasion and terrorism. U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 15 & 16.
According to Title 10, USC, Section 311, all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 not serving in the armed forces or state national guard units are considered the unorganized militia, as well as all commissioned female officers of state national guard units.
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defense of a free state..." --George Mason, declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People," later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 1788.

IJ Reilly

Mar 10, 2007, 03:43 PM

Wouldn't that count as a Civil War if the citizens decide not to follow the government. What is the militias actual role, are they supposed to keep the peace or are they the ones that lead the charge.

The concept of militias is antique and inimical to modern democracy. Need proof? As Exhibit A, I offer Iraq. I don't think anyone wants to see heavily armed bands of paramilitary soldiers roaming the streets of the United States, beholden to nobody by themselves -- but if you're a strict originalist, then that's pretty much the way you have to think it needs to be. The Supreme Court is going to have their hands full if they ever take this case.

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 03:49 PM

So technically if you read how The Bill Of Rights was written a lot of the gun laws on the books now would be illegal.

IJ Reilly

Mar 10, 2007, 04:01 PM

So technically if you read how The Bill Of Rights was written a lot of the gun laws on the books now would be illegal.

I suppose you directed that question at me.

The short answer is no. Strict originalists would say that, but they are members of a kind of judicial cult, who dance to music that hardly anybody else hears. Sadly, at least two and possibly three of our Supreme Court justices are members. I think they in particular are going to be faced with a very tough choice if this case comes their way.

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 04:06 PM

I think this explains how the militia stands today.Dec. 3, 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt called for a reform of the militia system, declaring to Congress that:
our militia law is obsolete and worthless. The organization and armament of the National Guard...should be made identical with those provided for the regular forces. The obligations and duties of the Guard in time of war should be carefully defined, and a system established by law under which the method of procedure of raising volunteer forces should be prescribed in advance. It is utterly impossible in the excitement and haste of impending war to do this satisfactorily if the arrangements have not been made long beforehand.

In response, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903, which, despite its name, essentially did away with the type of militia that had been common at the time of the Revolution. The fact was that modern warfare needed trained men with modern weaponry, and the law provided for these in a regular army as well as the National Guard, founded in 1903. Although the Guard is the descendant in many ways of the old unorganized militia, it is a far more disciplined and trained entity, since their program is now held to high standards set by the regular army. The members get their weapons from the national government, and do not own them individually.

Following the assassination attempt on President-elect Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, President Roosevelt advocated and Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. The general mood at the time of the assassination attempt was that a deranged man had committed the act.
An individual right to bear arms was occasionally addressed, for instance by President Ulysses S. Grant, who mentioned in an address to Congress on April 19, 1872 that "to deprive colored citizens of the right to bear arms" was among the goals of the Ku Klux Klan. Ulysses Grant later served as president of the National Rifle Association in 1883.

In 2001, the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum opinion stating that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Some critics of John Ashcroft have noted that his objectivity is questionable, considering his lifelong membership of the National Rifle Association, well known as individual gun right proponents, though he was not acting in an official capacity of the NRA at the time. The opinion stated:
the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may be invoked only by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.[56]
In 2004 the Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft issued "Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right," a lengthy memorandum opinion tracing the historical development of the Second Amendment aimed at justifying its earlier conclusion.

mactastic

Mar 10, 2007, 04:09 PM

Just don't forget: We have an AG who's view of Habeus Corpus is that because it doesn't explicitly guarantee you Habeus, (it only spells out when it can be suspended), you don't have an actual right to it.

That kind of logic, if accepted as legal precedent, would allow any future AG to say that because the 2nd Amendment only says you can't have you right to keep and bear arms "infringed" upon, that doesn't mean you have an actual right to the arms.

It's twisted, but it sets a dangerous precedent.

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 04:13 PM

The militia as written into the constitution is now considered to be they National Guard. So unless the guard is going to overthrow itself the militia that is supposed to keep the government in check is run by the government.

So if the Guard is supposed to protect the homeland how can it be fighting over seas?

IJ Reilly

Mar 10, 2007, 04:26 PM

I think this explains how the militia stands today.

So if the militia system in place in 1791 no longer exists, then how are we to interpret the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" today? Strict originalists seem to want to simply scratch out the inconvenient language about "well regulated militias" and hang their hats entirely on the last phrase, using whatever grammatical and logical jujitsu is required to get there. This reasoning doesn't work for me, and when it comes down to fish-or-cut-bait time, I don't think it's really going to work for them either. These judges may not live entirely in the same world as you or I, but I suspect they still aren't going to want to see men in the streets toting AK-47s and bandoliers of hand grenades on their way to the country club. I expect they're going to find a way to reconcile "well regulated" with "shall not be infringed," because to assume the supremacy of the latter over the former is simple madness.

EricNau

Mar 10, 2007, 04:31 PM

The concept of militias is antique and inimical to modern democracy...
It seems to be working just fine for Switzerland.

IJ Reilly

Mar 10, 2007, 04:42 PM

It seems to be working just fine for Switzerland.

Let's hear it for the Swiss. The Swiss "militia" is actually the nation's organized standing army, in which every male citizen must serve.

Meanwhile, back on the subject...

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 10, 2007, 05:18 PM

Trying to say by outlawing guns you can stop people from killing is idiot, criminals dont pay attention to laws so all you do is disarm the law abiding citizen. Plus people kill, inanimate objects dont and guns dont just go off. These things needed to be said Along with this.... Do we even have a national guard? I thought they were all fighting in Iraq. Another silly gunlaw that does nothing but empowers the beauracrat and the police state. Im glad it was shot down and it should be. Start holding people accountable.

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 05:29 PM

IJ Reilly

Mar 10, 2007, 06:05 PM

If we outlaw all dangerous weapons what's next, sticks, rocks, forks. Anything can be used as a deadly weapon. To say that we would all be safer without guns is asinine. Lets get the dangerous people of the streets and not worry about what the law abiding person has in his own house.

This is a classic slippery-slope argument. The problem with slippery-slope arguments is that they can also be argued the other way round. Should any "law abiding citizen" be able to own rocket propelled grenade launchers? Surface-to-air missiles? Hydrogen bombs? Reductum ad absurdum results in only one kind conclusion: absurd. Notice how they get us no closer to either a practical solution or a functional interpretation of the Constitution.

Blue Velvet

Mar 10, 2007, 06:15 PM

To say that we would all be safer without guns is asinine.

No, what is asinine is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that nations that outlaw the use of handguns have a far lower per capita homicide rate.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 10, 2007, 06:31 PM

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 06:46 PM

No, what is asinine is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that nations that outlaw the use of handguns have a far lower per capita homicide rate.You have to get at the root of the problem, The guns are not the problem. It's society that is the problem, guns are an easy scape goat for that problem.

miloblithe

Mar 10, 2007, 08:42 PM

You have to get at the root of the problem, The guns are not the problem. It's society that is the problem, guns are an easy scape goat for that problem.

And how, pray tell, do you fix society?

Desertrat

Mar 10, 2007, 09:54 PM

"No, what is asinine is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that nations that outlaw the use of handguns have a far lower per capita homicide rate."

Nope, just fewer homicides via handguns.

'Rat

Thomas Veil

Mar 10, 2007, 10:07 PM

If we outlaw all dangerous weapons what's next, sticks, rocks, forks. Anything can be used as a deadly weapon.The problem with that argument is that a gun has no other purpose except as a weapon.

To say that we would all be safer without guns is asinine.As Blue Velvet says, nations which have banned guns have found that not to be true. Quite the opposite.

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 10:15 PM

The problem with that argument is that a gun has no other purpose except as a weapon.The average person that owns a gun isn't going to just randomly fire at people. The people that want to cause harm will use what ever they can find.

As Blue Velvet says, nations which have banned guns have found that not to be true. Quite the opposite.But how dangerous are those places to begin with, is there a high drug problem in these other countries.

QCassidy352

Mar 10, 2007, 10:25 PM

The actual text:

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 supremacy of the latter half over the former makes sense because the latter is an actual declaration of what may not be done. What exactly the first half is doing there is not entirely clear. It could be part of the command, or it could simply be explanatory, in that it informs the reader why the drafters included the actual command.

Given that the drafters are all dead and there are no similar sentences attached to any other prohibition in the Bill of Rights, we really don't know. I'm studying con law a lot these days, and it's not clear to me. It's also not clear to the Federal Courts of Appeals, which are currently split (2 to 1, in favor of the DC Circuit's reading) on this issue. Pretty much any con law expert who isn't pushing an agenda will tell you the same thing.

So where does that leave us? Well, in a position that courts are in all the time, albeit usually on less divisive issues. They have to guess. They can (and do) look at the text, the historical record, the commonly enacted laws and held beliefs at the time, and a host of other material, but ultimately, they don't know, I don't know, and neither does anybody else. Anyone who says they know what the 2nd Amendment means is either kidding him/herself, or is trying to pull a fast one on you.

MacNut

Mar 10, 2007, 10:26 PM

The solution is not to ban guns altogether but to get them out of the hands of the criminals. The majority of gun owners are law abiding, why punish them.

obeygiant

Mar 11, 2007, 12:09 AM

Those that give up Liberty of owning a gun to have temporary Security deserve Neither......anonymous

You'll never see the day where handguns are outlawed. But hopefully someday we won't need them.

IJ Reilly

Mar 11, 2007, 01:20 AM

The supremacy of the latter half over the former makes sense because the latter is an actual declaration of what may not be done. What exactly the first half is doing there is not entirely clear. It could be part of the command, or it could simply be explanatory, in that it informs the reader why the drafters included the actual command.

Given that the drafters are all dead and there are no similar sentences attached to any other prohibition in the Bill of Rights, we really don't know. I'm studying con law a lot these days, and it's not clear to me. It's also not clear to the Federal Courts of Appeals, which are currently split (2 to 1, in favor of the DC Circuit's reading) on this issue. Pretty much any con law expert who isn't pushing an agenda will tell you the same thing.

So where does that leave us? Well, in a position that courts are in all the time, albeit usually on less divisive issues. They have to guess. They can (and do) look at the text, the historical record, the commonly enacted laws and held beliefs at the time, and a host of other material, but ultimately, they don't know, I don't know, and neither does anybody else. Anyone who says they know what the 2nd Amendment means is either kidding him/herself, or is trying to pull a fast one on you.

Ah, someone actually willing to discuss the Constitution. Thank you. ;)

You're right, the "exact meaning" of the original text is impossible to determine, and even if it was, some of the language and concepts simply do no translate to the present century. What a shame, we might have to make sane rules for modern society without without being totally certain of the Framer's original intent, as they so cryptically stated it 218 years ago.

It's the absolutists who have it wrong, and they are found on both sides of the issue. Balancing personal freedom against a rational society is a completely pragmatic problem. So what if the Framers can't help us solve it with their ancient words. Isn't that why they created legislatures and courts?

MacNut

Mar 11, 2007, 01:43 AM

Ah, someone actually willing to discuss the Constitution. Thank you. ;)

You're right, the "exact meaning" of the original text is impossible to determine, and even if it was, some of the language and concepts simply do no translate to the present century. What a shame, we might have to make sane rules for modern society without without being totally certain of the Framer's original intent, as they so cryptically stated it 218 years ago.

It's the absolutists who have it wrong, and they are found on both sides of the issue. Balancing personal freedom against a rational society is a completely pragmatic problem. So what if the Framers can't help us solve it with their ancient words. Isn't that why they created legislatures and courts?But how do we go about changing the right parts without ruining others. Im sure there are some that would love to get rid of the Bill Of Rights all together.

yg17

Mar 11, 2007, 03:27 AM

skunk

Mar 11, 2007, 05:21 AM

If anyone can explain how an individual American walking around with a gun contributes to the security of a free state, I'd like to hear about it.

Desertrat

Mar 11, 2007, 07:32 AM

skunk

Mar 11, 2007, 07:35 AM

Leaving aside the precise interpretation of what Jefferson et al. meant in 17-whatever, can you answer my question above?

j26

Mar 11, 2007, 07:50 AM

In terms of constitutional interpretation, should a constitution be interpreted on the morals of the 18th century, or the morals of today. Jefferson was a slave owner (http://www.samsloan.com/slaves.htm). That was considered acceptable then, its not now. I'm not saying discount his interpretation because of this, but his vews were a product of their time, and society was very different then than it is now.

I believe a constitution is an organic document, and should change with society.

I don't think any society needs to be armed to the teeth in the modern world.

skunk

Mar 11, 2007, 08:04 AM

I believe a constitution is an organic document, and should change with society.Yes, but you're up against the Vatican mindset here: "You can't let people pick and choose, or the whole edifice comes crumbling down". The fundamentalist, literalist world is full of slippery slopes.

takao

Mar 11, 2007, 08:33 AM

The solution is not to ban guns altogether but to get them out of the hands of the criminals. The majority of gun owners are law abiding, why punish them.

and how do criminals get guns ? ... you know in the beginning all guns are "legal"
how many guns get stolen each year ?

it goes so far that the majority of illegal guns here in austria,europa are actually coming from the USA and not eastern europe ..

why are there so many illegal guns in the USA that it makes such a big impact ? (around here the majority of murders involving guns are made with legal guns in the family sphere)

after all having strict gun laws doesn't mean that guns are impossible to get ... i could walk down to a gun store and get a 2 barrel shotgun with rather little problem while a handgun would quite difficult to get and even more difficult to get allowance to carry them around

the problem with guns in the USA IMHO is the whole culture about guns:
if you have a gun at home and you aren't a official hunter, (former) police officer or re-enactor (whose front loading guns aren't restricted anyway) you will be suspicious to a lot of people around here

skunk

Mar 11, 2007, 08:37 AM

the problem with guns in the USA IMHO is the whole culture about guns:
if you have a gun at home and you aren't a official hunter, (former) police officer or re-enactor (whose front loading guns aren't restricted anyway) you will be suspicious to a lot of people around hereI think a lot of the pro-gun people in the States are "re-enactors", still trying to fight off them pesky Redcoats...

Music_Producer

Mar 11, 2007, 08:53 AM

No, banning guns won't stop professional criminals from killing someone. What it will prevent is the guy who gets pissed off at his wife one night and decides to shoot her, or the high school student who gets bullied one too many times and finds a gun laying around the house and things it would be a good idea to shoot up the school. I'm all for banning guns, your average joe doesn't need them.

I absolutely agree. That was the same point I was going to make.. people put a lot of emphasis on 'criminals' owning guns. Criminals can purchase guns anyway.. they are not after the common man. You won't see a professional criminal holding up a school hostage.. shooting a few kids and then himself.

Guns become dangerous when they are easily accessible to everyone and anyone. In a country where citizens are already beset with psychological problems.. it's a lot easier for them to kill anyone with a gun.. whether that is their goal or not. Any situation where a gun toting person can get extremely aggravated (trivial incidents such as tail gating on freeways has caused shootings) is dangerous.

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 11, 2007, 09:33 AM

If anyone can explain how an individual American walking around with a gun contributes to the security of a free state, I'd like to hear about it. Its about personal freedom and liberty, something thats been diluted in the UK. Its also about protecting yourself from others if need be its also about freedom to hunt animals if your into that. In 1 word its about freedom. Lets stop blaming the gun and start blaming people for their own actions or lack of.

skunk

Mar 11, 2007, 10:11 AM

Its about personal freedom and liberty, something thats been diluted in the UK. Its also about protecting yourself from others if need be its also about freedom to hunt animals if your into that. In 1 word its about freedom. Lets stop blaming the gun and start blaming people for their own actions or lack of.Freedom to execute other humans and liberty to kill other species? (Although we know that the "liberty" bit only applied to white-skinned people, and the "freedom" bit was a freedom to enslave). Very laudable, of course, but it does not actually answer my question.

Thomas Veil

Mar 11, 2007, 11:01 AM

The average person that owns a gun isn't going to just randomly fire at people.Not randomly. But statistically that average person's gun is more likely to be used on a friend or family member than on a criminal.

But how dangerous are those places to begin with, is there a high drug problem in these other countries.I doubt it. A lot of them have already legalized drugs. :D

mactastic

Mar 11, 2007, 11:35 AM

So what if the Framers can't help us solve it with their ancient words. Isn't that why they created legislatures and courts?Antonin Scalia would certainly disagree with you there.

Desertrat

Mar 11, 2007, 12:17 PM

j26, Jefferson's morals had zilch to do with the meaning of the words he wrote. The issue is "intent", is it not? That depends on the message, not the messenger.

skunk asked, "If anyone can explain how an individual American walking around with a gun contributes to the security of a free state, I'd like to hear about it."

Simple: An armed citizenry has the power to say, "No!" to a government gone awry. It's not what one citizen does; it's what that person and others of like mind can do if need be. An unarmed citizenry is helpless against repression.

An armed citizenry came together, made of itself an army, and ended Britain's rule of the colonies. Without individual, privately owned arms, that would not have been possible.

It's about ability, not will, at this point in our lives. I think it's obvious that the WOD, the WOT, Iraq, FBI snooping, whatever, aren't repressive enough that the citizenry thinks it's time to go to the cartridge box.

Thomas Veil, the bit about a gun being used on a family member is irrelevant and meaningless, even if it were correct. I suggest you do some looking at the statistical efforts of Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU on just that very sort of thing. My comment about the doctor at CDC who came up with the notion is that he must be a bloodthirsty SOB, if the only successful use of a firearm is to kill. "Success" in defense lies in ending the threat. That doesn't necessarily require even that a shot be fired.

As far as the militia and the National Guard, etc: Two years ago is not ancient history:

1/03/05
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

'Rat

skunk

Mar 11, 2007, 12:28 PM

j26, Jefferson's morals had zilch to do with the meaning of the words he wrote. The issue is "intent", is it not? That depends on the message, not the messenger.Sort of like "Mission Accomplished", eh?

skunk asked, "If anyone can explain how an individual American walking around with a gun contributes to the security of a free state, I'd like to hear about it."

Simple: An armed citizenry has the power to say, "No!" to a government gone awry. It's not what one citizen does; it's what that person and others of like mind can do if need be. An unarmed citizenry is helpless against repression.

An armed citizenry came together, made of itself an army, and ended Britain's rule of the colonies. Without individual, privately owned arms, that would not have been possible.Are you saying that the BoR was retrospective? I never knew that. As for unarmed citizenry being helpless, I dare say Gandhi, Havel, Walensa and others might disagree.

IJ Reilly

Mar 11, 2007, 12:30 PM

But how do we go about changing the right parts without ruining others. Im sure there are some that would love to get rid of the Bill Of Rights all together.

As it happens, the Bill of Rights does not mention guns. It speaks of "arms." We know what the word "arms" meant to people in 1791, but what does it mean today? This is an absolutely critical question. Anyone who pretends to know is simply making up their interpretation out of whole cloth. Even if we were to accept the very debatable presumption that the last phrase of the Second Amendment is the only one that matters, and completely nullifies the rest of the text, then we still won't have a clue about what kind of arms are Constitutionally protected, because the Bill of Rights simply does not say. These issues have to be settled legislatively and judicially.

IJ Reilly

Mar 11, 2007, 12:39 PM

"...the "exact meaning" of the original text is impossible to determine..."

Correct me if I'm wrong: Didn't Jefferson and Adams do the writing, the phrasing of the BOR?

They certainly wrote extensively as to their views on "bearing arms". Numerous letters over several years.

It seems to me that if one writes a sentence on a subject, and then writes at length about the meaning and intent of one's views on that subject, the sentence is then readily understood.

But again: How can restraints upon government be at the same time restraints upon the citizenry? The BOR is to limit government (as is the entire Constitution, for that matter) and protect the citizenry from abuse of power. You don't protect by imposing limits on the protectee.

Side-note: "Well regulated" at the time of the writing of the Constitution meant functional or in good working order. There was even a brand name for a clock, "Regulator".

'Rat

I think I answered this question in the post above, but suffice to say that the personal writings of Jefferson and Adams, even if they were seen as explaining the words in the Bill of Rights, do not answer the present-day questions about which "arms" should be protected. We have to answer that question ourselves, without any help from the Framers.

Antonin Scalia would certainly disagree with you there.

If this case ends up in the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is going to be faced with a real dilemma. I think he's going to find that the application of his ideology in this instance does not necessary produce a country that he'd like to live in.

MacNut

Mar 11, 2007, 12:43 PM

As it happens, the Bill of Rights does not mention guns. It speaks of "arms." We know what the word "arms" meant to people in 1791, but what does it mean today? This is an absolutely critical question. Anyone who pretends to know is simply making up their interpretation out of whole cloth. Even if we were to accept the very debatable presumption that the last phrase of the Second Amendment is the only one that matters, and completely nullifies the rest of the text, then we still won't have a clue about what kind of arms are Constitutionally protected, because the Bill of Rights simply does not say. These issues have to be settled legislatively and judicially.Im sure the only "arms" they had back then were muskets and swards. They did not have rocket launchers in those days.:rolleyes: So I would say only guns would be under the Second Amendment.

MacNut

Mar 11, 2007, 12:49 PM

But how dangerous are those places to begin with, is there a high drug problem in these other countries.

I doubt it. A lot of them have already legalized drugs. :DAnd that is the answer, Legalize drugs and a lot of the gun violence will go down.

IJ Reilly

Mar 11, 2007, 01:03 PM

Im sure the only "arms" they had back then were muskets and swards. They did not have rocket launchers in those days.:rolleyes: So I would say only guns would be under the Second Amendment.

But that's just a convenient and arbitrary invention, because these words simply don't exist in the Bill of Rights, nor anything even remotely like them. An equally strong (meaning, weak) argument could be made that only the private ownership of muskets is protected. These were the "WMD" of the 18th century, when the words were written. If literalism could solve this problem, then who's to say that the far more destructive arms (gun included) we've developed since then aren't covered? If not all, then which ones? Why or why not?

Sayhey

Mar 11, 2007, 01:30 PM

MacNut

Mar 11, 2007, 01:38 PM

IJ Reilly

Mar 11, 2007, 01:59 PM

The problem is that somebody might want to reinterpret the whole constitution to fit there needs. If we pick apart the second amendment what's to say that the whole bill of rights doesn't see a change.

Somebody always wants to do something. Two facts: First, the Constitution has been interpreted since day one. It was designed to be interpreted. That's why we have a Supreme Court. Second, the Second Amendment does not say what many believe it says. It does not even mention guns.

mactastic

Mar 11, 2007, 02:00 PM

The problem is that somebody might want to reinterpret the whole constitution to fit there needs. If we pick apart the second amendment what's to say that the whole bill of rights doesn't see a change.
Reinterpret? No. Interpret? Yes. Happens all the time. Cases come before the courts regularly that involve some section of the Constitution but aren't expressly covered. Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to incite a riot, but there's nothing in the Constitution about that kind of limit. It's an interpretation of the Constitution, balancing one right against another. Just because the courts are allowed to interpret the Constitution that doesn't mean that they will "reinterpret the whole Constitution to fit their needs".

j26

Mar 11, 2007, 04:19 PM

j26, Jefferson's morals had zilch to do with the meaning of the words he wrote. The issue is "intent", is it not? That depends on the message, not the messenger.
Yes, but I said I was specifically talking about the morals of the time, not just Jefferson. Times change, and I for one am not willing to be stuck in the mindet of over 200 years ago
skunk asked, "If anyone can explain how an individual American walking around with a gun contributes to the security of a free state, I'd like to hear about it."

Simple: An armed citizenry has the power to say, "No!" to a government gone awry. It's not what one citizen does; it's what that person and others of like mind can do if need be. An unarmed citizenry is helpless against repression.

An armed citizenry came together, made of itself an army, and ended Britain's rule of the colonies. Without individual, privately owned arms, that would not have been possible.

The IRA (the original one) did quite well in the early 20th century in fighting the British army to a stalemate (a mere 3-4,000 active service members), and they began with very few arms. Gun-running is a time honoured guerrila tradition. Would you deny your revolutionaries the thrill of that? Of course, this is quite aside from Ghandi, and most of the revolutions across Eastern Europe in the late 20th century which took place without the need for armed militias.

Anyway, it's your government, are you seriously saying that you have to have guns to protect yourself from your own state. It's really sad that the citizens have so little trust in the government that they spend so much time going off to war to prop up.

I don't think guns are the answer to that.

Desertrat

Mar 11, 2007, 06:47 PM

Seems to me it's an issue of will. How do you think a Ghandi or a Walesa would have done against a Stalin? Or a Mao? Pol Pot?

The deal is what a citizenry CAN do, not what they might or might not need to do.

I'd be happy as a bug if the only usage of any firearm was for the enjoyment of punching paper and for hunting. I think it would be great if the concept of self defense or national defense wasn't even a "maybe" thought.

Unfortunately, human nature and the real world are always gonna be there.

'Rat

Sayhey

Mar 11, 2007, 06:56 PM

'Rat, once you get to the point of taking up arms against your government, abiding by gun control laws is the least of your worries. The point being that the best safeguard against authoritarianism is an organized and involved populace in their own governmental affairs. The personal ownership of hand gun stops nothing, rather it reflects a romanticized notion of cowboy politics.

hulugu

Mar 11, 2007, 07:17 PM

But that's just a convenient and arbitrary invention, because these words simply don't exist in the Bill of Rights, nor anything even remotely like them. An equally strong (meaning, weak) argument could be made that only the private ownership of muskets is protected. These were the "WMD" of the 18th century, when the words were written. If literalism could solve this problem, then who's to say that the far more destructive arms (gun included) we've developed since then aren't covered? If not all, then which ones? Why or why not?

This is an interesting point. The WMD of the time would have been the bombardment by a ship of the line (or intentional use of plagues). Infantry were supported by mortars and cannons and yet the second-ammendment curiously only refers to 'arms.' The most realistic inference for 'arms' is the common infantry weapons of the time, which included rifles, pikes, swords, as well as various close-combat weapons. Not to mention the various 'sapper' weapons of the time, which included barrels of black-powder to destroy fortifications.

Lastly, the minuteman militia is an effective myth, the civilian 'citizen soldiers' were widely derided in their time and fought in combination with the often ignored regulars, artillery troops, as well as naval troops and Marines who were professional soldiers. The idea has always held more value than the reality, and by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, any astute observer could see that a force of armed civlians was more likely to be cannon fodder than anything else.

hulugu

Mar 11, 2007, 07:23 PM

Seems to me it's an issue of will. How do you think a Ghandi or a Walesa would have done against a Stalin? Or a Mao? Pol Pot?'Rat

Well I'd say that a well-armed populace would be bunch of corpses against Stalin, who executed well-armed military officers along with everyone else during his purges, or Mao who pushed the well-armed Chiang Ki-Shek into the sea.

The mistake is in focusing on the arms. In any scenario in which the citizens want to revolt against their government, arms are far less important than a collective response. One man with his trusty rifle is but a helicopter gunship and a squad of troops away from being an unfortunate statistic.

j26

Mar 11, 2007, 07:23 PM

Seems to me it's an issue of will. How do you think a Ghandi or a Walesa would have done against a Stalin? Or a Mao? Pol Pot?

Ghandi was a pacifist and was philosophically anarchist. He was never going to take up a gun. It would have taken time, but in the end it would have won out. He was a pioneer for non-violent civil disobedience, which served civil right movements well over the years. Yes, under Stalin or equivalent, more people would have died and it would have taken longer (don't forget that the British Empire was a pretty ruthless regime), but would have won out in the end as he had the support of the people. No matter how strong it appears, a state depends on the assent of its citizens to exist. Withdraw that assent and the state collapses like a pack of cards.

If you like a less pacifist view have a look at what happened in Albania a few years ago. During the crisis caused by market reforms the people rose up spontaneously and stormed police stations and army barracks UNARMED (okay, I concede, they did arm themselves at that point). The revolution was eventually beaten, but that was due to strategic errors, not any military victories by forces loyal to the government.

The deal is what a citizenry CAN do, not what they might or might not need to do.
As I said above, a citizenry can be very powerful if they just realise it.

I'd be happy as a bug if the only usage of any firearm was for the enjoyment of punching paper and for hunting. I think it would be great if the concept of self defense or national defense wasn't even a "maybe" thought.
So would I. I'm not against guns just because they exist. I have no problem with hunting, or sport ( I did some target rifle myself in college) I just think putting lethal force into any morons hands is moronic.

Unfortunately, human nature and the real world are always gonna be there.

'Rat

Ah, the human nature argument. Why does the US have so many gun deaths, while Europe seems to get by with very few. The Japanese gun death rate is 95% lower than the US. Why is that, do you think?
It would seem from that that the "human nature" you're talking about is more American culture (North and South America), since the level of gun deaths outside of the Americas that are not caused by war are pretty low. The rest of the world survives pretty well without being armed to the teeth.

A civil society requires that people resolve their differences without resorting to violence. Putting guns out there for everyone encourages people to use the (lethal) power they have in their hands.

skunk

Mar 11, 2007, 08:00 PM

IJ Reilly

Mar 11, 2007, 09:53 PM

This is an interesting point. The WMD of the time would have been the bombardment by a ship of the line (or intentional use of plagues). Infantry were supported by mortars and cannons and yet the second-ammendment curiously only refers to 'arms.' The most realistic inference for 'arms' is the common infantry weapons of the time, which included rifles, pikes, swords, as well as various close-combat weapons. Not to mention the various 'sapper' weapons of the time, which included barrels of black-powder to destroy fortifications.

The musket must have been a fairly terrifying weapon in its day. Not that it matters -- the Bill of Rights simply fails to describe in any way, shape or form what sort of arms the people have a protected right to bear, let alone under what circumstances. This comes as a rather inconvenient fact for those who assume that handguns and rifles are the protected thing, which I suppose is the reason why the interest in discussing this issue is virtually zero.

Sayhey

Mar 11, 2007, 10:11 PM

Are you seriously that paranoid, that you think your own government would turn into a Stalinist or Pol Pot-type regime? And that delusional that you imagine your trusty rifle would make any difference if they did? Wow. The amazing thing is that there are millions who have watched too many cowboy movies and think the hand gun by the bed scares away potential dictators.

The mistake is in focusing on the arms. In any scenario in which the citizens want to revolt against their government, arms are far less important than a collective response.

Exactly!

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 11, 2007, 10:25 PM

Are you seriously that paranoid, that you think your own government would turn into a Stalinist or Pol Pot-type regime? And that delusional that you imagine your trusty rifle would make any difference if they did? Wow.We just had a president use Bin Laden as an excuse for the Iraq war, as a excuse to spy on Americans and as a excuse to call anyone who didnt agree with him as a terrorist supporter. Wake up for gods sakes. These kinds of tactics are throughout mankinds history.

pseudobrit

Mar 11, 2007, 10:46 PM

We just had a president use Bin Laden as an excuse for the Iraq war, as a excuse to spy on Americans and as a excuse to call anyone who didnt agree with him as a terrorist supporter. Wake up for gods sakes. These kinds of tactics are throughout mankinds history.

And we've got a war on the Bill of Rights happening with the war on drugs and war on terror. One guy with a pistol is just going to get himself killed if he decides to take a stand against some task force commandos who mistakenly got his address.

obeygiant

Mar 12, 2007, 12:03 AM

And that delusional that you imagine your trusty rifle would make any difference if they did? Wow.

I know a lot of people who own guns. They don't own them in case the goverment goes crazyor so they can defend the "potential dictators". They own them because they either want to protect their family against home intrusion, or they like shooting and target practice, or they are just collectors. Hunting season around were I used to live was a way of life, like a skill-set that was passed down in families.

obeygiant

Mar 12, 2007, 12:11 AM

We just had a president use Bin Laden as an excuse for the Iraq war, as a excuse to spy on Americans and as a excuse to call anyone who didnt agree with him as a terrorist supporter.

Thats a pretty broad statement you're making there.

LethalWolfe

Mar 12, 2007, 01:05 AM

No, what is asinine is ignoring the overwhelming evidence that nations that outlaw the use of handguns have a far lower per capita homicide rate.

I feel like we've done this dance before in a previous thread.

You are more likely to be a victim of gun violence in England now than you were 10 or so years ago. You are less likely to be a victim of gun violence in the US now than you were 10 or so years ago. Guess which country has instituted significant anti-gun laws in the past 10 years?

England has cited increasing levels of drug related gang violence as the cause of the escalation and, surprise surprise, the people smuggling in illegal drugs are also smuggling in the guns. That shouldn't really be too much of a shocker considering the drug fueled violence in the US. In the US about 90% of guns used in crimes were obtained illegally. Most of them purchased from crooked or unlicensed dealers while theft (especially from a private citizen) was one of the least likely ways to obtain a firearm.

I'm not even going to go to the Bill of Rights aspect of this discussion because, IMO, it's moot. Disarming the law abiding populace is not going to disarm the criminals that already have guns, nor the criminals that will buy future guns smuggled in from across the border and it ignores the socioeconomic problems that are the root cause for violent crime to begin with (as an aside only about 25% of the violent crimes committed in the US are committed w/a gun).

Want to pass some feel good legislation? Then go ban some handguns or "assault rifles" and watch some little girl in the hood still get killed by cross fire that came thru her bedroom window. Want to actually reduce gun crime? Pressure the Feds into giving the BATF the money and man power it needs to effectively do the "firearms" part of its job. Want to actually reduce violent crime? Take a long, hard look at the where violent crime is centered and help start the long, hard process of addressing the needs of those communities.

Lethal

Sayhey

Mar 12, 2007, 01:09 AM

Thats a pretty broad statement you're making there.

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own." George W. Bush, January 28, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." George W. Bush, May 1, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html)

"First of all, the NSA program is an important program in protecting America. We're at war, and as Commander-in-Chief, I've got to use the resources at my disposal, within the law, to protect the American people. And that's what we're doing.

The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people. In other words, the enemy is calling somebody and we want to know who they're calling and why. And that seems to make sense to me, as the Commander-in-Chief, if my job is to protect the American people." George W. Bush, January 1, 2006 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060101.html)

"You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror." George W. Bush, November 6, 2001 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011106-4.html)

"I've said in the past that nations are either with us or against us in the war on terror." George W. Bush, June 24, 2002 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020624-3.html).

Now, you may agree with the above, but DHM is right on the mark with his "broad statement."

hulugu

Mar 12, 2007, 01:16 AM

Want to pass some feel good legislation? Then go ban some handguns or "assault rifles" and watch some little girl in the hood still get killed by cross fire that came thru her bedroom window. Want to actually reduce gun crime? Pressure the Feds into giving the BATF the money and man power it needs to effectively do the "firearms" part of its job. Want to actually reduce violent crime? Take a long, hard look at the where violent crime is centered and help start the long, hard process of addressing the needs of those communities.

I agree with you mostly, however I question the value of so-called 'junk guns' or widely available and cheap (both in build and price) pistols that are often sold in failing neighorhoods. Furthermore, there is some value in banning certain types of weapons and ammunition, including assault rifles (and all associated derivatives therein). There is also a value in continuing to enforce five-day waiting periods as well as connecting gun dealers (all of them) to central databases for criminal background checks. Limiting the availability of guns would bring our society in line with the society that existed in 1780, when guns were expensive and rare.

IJ Reilly

Mar 12, 2007, 01:20 AM

I'm not even going to go to the Bill of Rights aspect of this discussion because, IMO, it's moot.

The courts don't seem to think it's moot. Why do you?

I suspect you don't need reminding, but for purposes of discussion, keep in mind, the primary reason why we've got a crazy-quilt of arbitrary, ineffective and poorly enforced firearms laws in this country is because a significant segment of the population firmly believes that firearms regulations are inherently unconstitutional. The entire national debate is warped because of this ubiquitous bit of misinformation. Moot? Hardly -- not legally, not politically and not socially. It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about.

hulugu

Mar 12, 2007, 01:26 AM

I know a lot of people who own guns. They don't own them in case the goverment goes crazyor so they can defend the "potential dictators". They own them because they either want to protect their family against home intrusion, or they like shooting and target practice, or they are just collectors. Hunting season around were I used to live was a way of life, like a skill-set that was passed down in families.

Good for them, and I don't have a problem with some dude owning a Mauser or plinking targets with his .45 on a Saturday afternoon. Nor do I have a problem with shotguns or hunting rifles.

We can make some limits without threatening the legal and responsible gun-owner, just as we do with automobiles.

takao

Mar 12, 2007, 08:28 AM

defending against/overthrowing the state just with hand guns and rifles ? good luck with that without help from another country (french navy anyone ;) )

that aside the discussion of arms in the document is rather intresting so you either have to interpret it in the time it was written which would mean melee weapons and front loading muskets or it is interpretted generally which would mean that shoulder fired RPG, machine guns, flame throwers, grenade launchers, hand grenades etc. are equally legal

about rockets: actually the chinese have used them launched from carriable tubes rather early afaik

how many shots could one drilled musketeer fire in 1780 ? 2 or 3 per minute ? perhaps 4 ?
the guns of today shot so fast that many are modified back during peace to save ammunition

Swarmlord

Mar 12, 2007, 10:31 AM

leekohler

Mar 12, 2007, 10:44 AM

About time the courts came down on the side of the law abiding citizen. The criminals already have the guns and in some cities it's been open season on the unprotected.

My house is protected by Smith & Wesson and there's a sticker on the window of the front and side doors attesting it.:cool:

OMG- we agree on something. It's all about education people. Learn about firearms, go get a hunting license and go to a firing range. There's way too much of a mystique in this country regarding guns. I grew up around them and they were always in our house. And for as many people in the world who deserve to be shot, I never shot any. :)

Swarmlord

Mar 12, 2007, 10:49 AM

OMG- we agree on something. It's all about education people. Learn about firearms, go get a hunting license and go to a firing range. There's way too much of a mystique in this country regarding guns. I grew up around them and they were always in our house. And for as many people in the world who deserve to be shot, I never shot any. :)

We've agreed on the War on Drugs also. :)

I hope the deterent factor is sufficient that I'll never have to make the choice to shoot someone, but I can and will to protect my family.

Desertrat

Mar 12, 2007, 11:55 AM

j26, I'm only talking about word meanings. What was meant at that time had nothing to do with the morals of that time. Just how words were used, as look at "intent". Times change, sure. The way we use words changes, sure. But that's why looking back at what was written then is helpful.

"Arms": They used pistols, rifles, muskets and some variant of swords. The specific forms might have changed, but that's not important. Face it: The First Amendment applies to typewriters and word processors as well as quill pens.

En passant I note that cannon were privately owned, although I'm not an advocate of howitzers in the front yard and RPGs in one's basement. :D

Stipulating that anyone here is neither of a felonious nature nor insane, I really don't care if you have an Abrams tank and a boxcar-load of ammo. I only ask that you not tear up the pavement, obey traffic signals and don't violate any ordinance against excessive noise. If you have some reasonable place to turn money into noise, good for you.

Again: I don't envision the U.S. changing to some sort of despotic regime where an armed revolution need be considered. Highly unlikely, I think and hope. I see nothing wrong with the citizenry being able to prevent such a regime if need be.

My view is that of insurance against unlikely events. No different from homeowners' insurance or car insurance, other than the degree of probability. But, since our citizenry is some 98% good and honest folks, why worry about it? We'll keep on electing Clintons and Bushes and Conyers and Doggetts and Cornyns and keep on keeping on. Pretty much like we've been doing...

Which takes us back to targets and Bambi and self-defense and all that worrisome stuff. :) Which is a whole 'nother thread. :D

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Mar 12, 2007, 12:13 PM

"Arms": They used pistols, rifles, muskets and some variant of swords. The specific forms might have changed, but that's not important. Face it: The First Amendment applies to typewriters and word processors as well as quill pens.

En passant I note that cannon were privately owned, although I'm not an advocate of howitzers in the front yard and RPGs in one's basement. :D

Why not? They are "arms," and the Bill of Rights makes no distinctions with respect to firepower, caliber or anything else. By your own First Amendment example, any type of arms invented by humanity since 1791 should be covered by the Second Amendment. By what reasoning does the Constitution protect unimpeded private ownership rifles and handguns, but not howitzers and RPGs?

takao

Mar 12, 2007, 12:29 PM

By what reasoning does the Constitution protect unimpeded private ownership rifles and handguns, but not howitzers and RPGs?

or "special equipped" rpgs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

DZ/015

Mar 13, 2007, 12:32 AM

In my younger years I was mugged, twice. Once at my job as a gas station attendant and once outside my home. On both occasions I was unarmed and defenseless against others who both were armed and outnumbered me.

In the years following I joined the military and was trained in the proper handling and use of many types of weapons. During that time, I decided to protect myself with a personal weapon, a handgun. Since then I have always been armed. Not out of fear, but out of the desire to even the field and to be prepared for anything that may come.

A few years later I was required to use my firearm to persuade an individual from a violent course of action (against me). All that was needed was to show my weapon. No shots were fired. It was not necessary. An ugly physical confrontation was avoided merely by showing a firearm.

To those who say the US has a gun culture, you are wrong. We have a freedom culture, a liberty culture, a personal responsibility culture. Firearms ownership is just a natural extension of this.

Personal protection is just that, personal. I don't advocate that everyone have a gun. Don't want one, don't get one. Just don't tell me that I don't need one. My personal experience tells me otherwise.

IJ Reilly

Mar 13, 2007, 12:04 PM

or "special equipped" rpgs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

Hey, why not?

But apparently this topic is toxic. Nobody wants to get anywhere near it.

skunk

Mar 13, 2007, 02:37 PM

To those who say the US has a gun culture, you are wrong. We have a freedom culture, a liberty culture, a personal responsibility culture. Firearms ownership is just a natural extension of this.So is assuming your "culture" is the natural end-product of five billion/six thousand years of evolution/intelligent design, and a desirable recipe for everybody else on the planet if only they were enlightened enough to see it.

Personal protection is just that, personal. I don't advocate that everyone have a gun. Don't want one, don't get one. Just don't tell me that I don't need one.You don't need one.

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 02:41 PM

Hey, why not?

But apparently this topic is toxic. Nobody wants to get anywhere near it.

I'll give it a whirl. I could use a little flaming.

As I see it the Swiss model is precisely what the framers had in mind.

So far as I can figure there's only two ways to make the entire 2nd amendment fit and neither camp on the "gun control" issue would accept either one of them.

Interpretation 1: Being that at the time of the Framing the presence of an actual structure for Paramilitary agencies such as Police and the necessity for a unified Military were not parameters it could be quite effectively argued that these armed agencies, which are controlled by all manner of local and national governments constitute the requisite "Well Regulated Militia".

The fly in the interpretational ointment is that if one wanted a firearm they would be required to become attatched to one of these agencies.

Interpretation 2: Being that the Framers had a great distrust for a large, centralized military complex the entire Military apparatus with the exception of the Navy and by extension the Marines would be unconstitutional.

However, being that a "Well Regulated Millitia" is the goal of the Second Amendment (gramatically speaking it is the imperative of the statement) It would then be reasonable to keep the structures for training, screening and deploying the existing system but to a new purpose.

The Pentagon would become the central agency for training, licensing, registering and, when in need calling up anyone who is in legal posession of a Firearm. Licensing would work similarly to vehicles: Training, screening, licensing, Serialized registration, insurance and mandatory on-call status (like the National Guard) would all be required with standards getting ever more stringent as the firepower increases.

MacNut

Mar 13, 2007, 02:54 PM

You don't need one.So you are saying that a person doesn't have the right to protect themselves?

skunk

Mar 13, 2007, 03:04 PM

So you are saying that a person doesn't have the right to protect themselves?I'm not aware that I said that. :confused:

MacNut

Mar 13, 2007, 03:06 PM

Personal protection is just that, personal. I don't advocate that everyone have a gun. Don't want one, don't get one. Just don't tell me that I don't need one. My personal experience tells me otherwise.

You don't need one.Am I reading it wrong?

Swarmlord

Mar 13, 2007, 03:09 PM

<snip>
The Pentagon would become the central agency for training, licensing, registering and, when in need calling up anyone who is in legal posession of a Firearm. Licensing would work similarly to vehicles: Training, screening, licensing, Serialized registration, insurance and mandatory on-call status (like the National Guard) would all be required with standards getting ever more stringent as the firepower increases.

Oh, now THAT would make me feel safer - not!

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 03:10 PM

So you are saying that a person doesn't have the right to protect themselves?

Deliberate misinterpretation.

Self Defence is protected no matter the level of force in use. The statement was a reaction to the word "need".

The number of times a Firearm is actually the safest, most effective and least legally risky way to deal with any of the common excuses (intruder, mugger, etc.) is incredibly small.

To say you "need" a firearm implies a local "arms race" in your area in which law-abiding citizenry are no longer under the effective and timely protection of Law Enforcement. The only other reason (other than the above Second Amendment scenarios) I can think of is in the event of a Catastrophic Event that destroys all infrastructure.

Chances are heavilly weighted in favor of you not "needing" a firearm. Your perception and therefore your "want" for a firearm is another matter.

BTW: Have a look at a few studies of what the best "deterrant" for intruders is from a few non-NRA sources. The top deterrant? A big, loud dog. Dogs are cheaper than guns and don't keep their lethality out to a range of more than two miles.

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 03:12 PM

Oh, now THAT would make me feel safer - not!

As I said. Neither solution would be popular with either special interest group.

Both groups are fundamentally paranoid.

Neither group actually wants to take responsibility.

Stalemate.

leekohler

Mar 13, 2007, 03:29 PM

Desertrat

Mar 13, 2007, 04:10 PM

IJ, I doubt that we need controls over howitzers and RPGs any more than any other weapon. It's just that those are high maintenance, long term. :) Like my Abrams example.

Railing against "junk guns" is not all that wondrous an idea. They're mostly owned by the poorer among us, which is why the Black Caucus called the proposed ban on "Saturday Night Specials" racist, back in the 1970s or 1980s.

Gun control laws began after the Civil War, as part of the Jim Crow package of anti-black legislation. In Missouri, for example, the carrying of handguns was outlawed--but completely unenforced for the whites.

What stands out through history is that no gun control law has ever affected the rate of violent crime. While limited to Florida and the laws of that state, "Under The Gun" by Wright, Rossi & Daly (Univ. of Fla. Press, 1985) supports this. They began their studies as neutral to mildly anti-gun.

Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, a card-carrying ACLU member and statistician, did one of the largest telephone-interview surveys in US history. Statistical scatter by ZIP code. It was concluded that at least 800,000 times a year--and possibly up to 2.4 million times--some type of use of a firearm stopped a crime from occurring. "Use" could be as trivial as one lying, "I have a gun! go away!" Or, mere display or a warning shot. The issue, really, is stop the crime, not kill the bad guy...

All this noise and pother is rather amusing to me. I began shooting a .22 rifle in 1941. I started handloading for my .30-'06 in 1950. It wasn't until the 1970s that people started seriously talking about armed self-defense with handguns, and the various efforts to get licensing programs for carrying a handgun on one's person. Now, some 37 or 38 states have such programs.

To illustrate the incredible foolishness of the anti-gun people, every time some legislature begins consideration of a new carry-law program, the anti-gun types begin chanting, "Blood in the streets! Blood in the streets!" They did it in Florida. No blood. They did it in Texas. No blood. They did it in Missouri. No blood. And in many instances it was the same people moving in over and over, repeating the mantra.

Not slow learners; lying no-learners. The Sarah Brady Bunch, et al. I guess they lie awake at night, dreaming up variants of the non-existent "cop-killer bullet" or the legislatively-named "assault weapons" which aren't at all the same as the military assault rifle.

And those who know little to nothing about firearms wind up with skewed notions of reality through no fault of their own; just bad information.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Mar 13, 2007, 04:20 PM

As I said. Neither solution would be popular with either special interest group.

Both groups are fundamentally paranoid.

Neither group actually wants to take responsibility.

Stalemate.

Right. I know my interpretation isn't very popular with either special interest group. As nearly as I can tell (and nobody has yet contradicted this view), the Second Amendment is essentially meaningless in a current context. Weapons ownership privileges by private citizens ought to be decided legislatively and through national consensus.

IJ Reilly

Mar 13, 2007, 04:33 PM

IJ, I doubt that we need controls over howitzers and RPGs any more than any other weapon. It's just that those are high maintenance, long term. :) Like my Abrams example.

I think you're missing my point. If the expansive view of the Second Amendment were to be accepted, then there's no logical limit to the type of arms Americans would have a Constitutional right to not only own, but presumably to carry ("bear") wherever they wished. So I guess you're right -- if the Second Amendment were interpreted as giving broad arms ownership rights to Americans, then controls over private ownership of heavy weaponry would not be needed -- because it would be inherently unconstitutional. Do I feel a need or desire to carry an AK-47 in the supermarket? It's a right, and you can't stop me.

The fact that hardly anybody really wants this to occur, makes me wonder why anyone argues that the Second Amendment confers any rights at all.

Swarmlord

Mar 13, 2007, 04:36 PM

Deliberate misinterpretation.

Self Defence is protected no matter the level of force in use. The statement was a reaction to the word "need".

The number of times a Firearm is actually the safest, most effective and least legally risky way to deal with any of the common excuses (intruder, mugger, etc.) is incredibly small.

To say you "need" a firearm implies a local "arms race" in your area in which law-abiding citizenry are no longer under the effective and timely protection of Law Enforcement. The only other reason (other than the above Second Amendment scenarios) I can think of is in the event of a Catastrophic Event that destroys all infrastructure.

Chances are heavilly weighted in favor of you not "needing" a firearm. Your perception and therefore your "want" for a firearm is another matter.

BTW: Have a look at a few studies of what the best "deterrant" for intruders is from a few non-NRA sources. The top deterrant? A big, loud dog. Dogs are cheaper than guns and don't keep their lethality out to a range of more than two miles.

What are you talking about? There's numerous examples of people defending themselves from breaking and entering criminals in their homes.

For the most part law enforcement when called to your home is an "after the fact" appearance to fill out paperwork and collect forensic evidence - hopefully not your body too! Unless they parachute in to your neighborhood or the station is around the corner. It would take even the most motivated cop 30 minutes to get to my place. I could damned near have the perp taken care of and already be working on getting the blood stain cleaned up by then.

I carry only when I go out at night, but not when I go to work. And, yes. I have a dog too.

mactastic

Mar 13, 2007, 04:43 PM

If I have the money and the technological know-how, what in the Second Amendment prevents me from turning money and sand into noise and glass? Does the Second Amendment make any distinction between a pocketknife and a cannon?

That's the fundamental issue IJ is after. Ok, so the 2nd allows you to bear arms. All arms? Any arms? Or just the ones the legislative bodies decide we can have?

And I think we can all see that there are limits to what arms We The People are allowed to bear, by necessity. But who draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable?

Edit: Oh, and my freakin mutt has cost me way more than a decent handgun would have cost me at this point. Of course a handgun doesn't wag it's tail at me when I get home either...

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 05:08 PM

What are you talking about? There's numerous examples of people defending themselves from breaking and entering criminals in their homes.

Repitition of a stupid idea doesn't make it any less stupid. The number of examples in which a firearm has "made the difference" is greatly outweighed by the number of times people, animals or property have fallen victim to some poorly trained gun toting schmuck who needs an ego boost provided by a handgun.

I have news for you.

1: Most handgun owners have spent almost exactly zero time in a range, therefore they have almost zero chance of hitting anything they couldn't just as easily swing a Maglight on. It aint so easy as it's made out to be.

2: "I could damned near have the perp taken care of and already be working on getting the blood stain cleaned up by then." Not true. Your average GSW will create a bloodstain greater than three feet across and I can tell you that unless you're a crack people-shooter your perp won't go down immediately which leaves you stuck with the rather ugly situation of having a wounded, panicked human crawling through your house bleeding. If you manage to hit center mass he'll likely also be gurgling and hacking between screams. You'd likely have to whack him over the head anyway just to shut him up.

3: When you're stalking around your house at night with a loaded semiautomatic handgun, all cocked and ready to go How likely do you think it is that you'll blow the crap out of your cat, kid, house, car, daughter's boyfriend, etc. because you're too damn hopped up to turn on the damn lights?

4: If you live so far out in the middle of nowhere who the hells' going to trek their ass out to your house to break in? It's much easier to go rob someone in town who isn't known throughout the community as a gun-toting paranoid nutcase.

5: Why are you so paranoid? "What If"? Hon, if we all lived by "What If" we'd have gone completely 1984 a very long time ago and never strayed. The only completely safe country is the totalitarian police state and you obviously don't want that.

6: You own a Dog and live in the boonies. Short of keeping your neighbors from cooking Meth in your woods I really can't think of a good reason to be armed with anything other than a shotgun or rifle, certainly nothing for use in the house.

MacNut

Mar 13, 2007, 05:22 PM

leekohler

Mar 13, 2007, 05:28 PM

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 06:04 PM

The following things will keep a person from robbing your house, Dog, security system, and a gun.

A person is allowed to have all three if they so choose. Nobody is saying that everyone needs a semi automatic to protect themselves or to go hunting with. But until it is addressed then everyone has the right to it. Granted there are locks to keep kids away or unwanted people from using a gun. But to say a person should not own a gun is going to far. This is still land of the free and free means allowed to have privileges.

Totally different things:

Having the right to posess something.

vs.

Posession being a good idea.

So far as I'm concerned the right to bear arms is only a good idea when in the context of a well regulated militia.. It cannot be infringed, fine. It can, however be treated realistically.

You want a rifle? cool. Prove you know how to use it safely, have a license for it, have it registered and be willing to be Called Up.

Same goes for any other ordinance you care to name. The more specialized it gets the more training, screening and Level Of Service you'd better be willing to deal with.

A gun is not a bigger penis.

It's a means of ending someone's life.

There's nothing romantic about them. They're just like a chainsaw in many respects, just more politicized. That, and a chainsaw's only lethal out to it's length plus the length of your arms.

Personally, I'd rather use a good old fashioned blunt object. Less to clean out of the carpet, nothing to chisel out of the wall, and allows a moment for my unannounced visitor to identify themself between whacks. Of course, I also know how well a handgun does in the dark and exactly how well I can swing a big ass Maglight.

There's the added bonus here of knowing that a handgun would likely be worth more than anything else in my house to a burglar.

Unlike most folks I happen to have great confidence in my ability to see, move silently and kick the crap out of someone naked and in the dark. Bad for moralle having your ass kicked by a pissed off naked computer tech armed with a towel and a cat. Ever had a cat thrown at you unawares? Rather distracting.

IJ Reilly

Mar 13, 2007, 06:22 PM

Totally different things:

Having the right to posess something.

vs.

Posession being a good idea.

You got a license for that cat?

You've entirely caught my drift with the distinction between a right and good idea. Hooray, and thank you! Saying on the one hand that gun ownership is not a Constitutionally protected right is not at all like saying that people should not be able to own guns. I believe getting the rights claims (a canard, at best) off the table would significantly advance the debate over what kind of gun regulations would be sensible, effective and not an undue impingement on individual freedoms.

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 06:42 PM

You got a license for that cat?

Yes. Both of them. Microchipped and registered. I'm now reconsidering this tactic as something I may market. Any interest in a seventeen pound schitzhund trained attack cat that will shoulder launch by verbal, hand or tap signals? Still sweet and cuddly otherwise, just watch out for when they bring home "presents"... it may be the neighbor's chihuahua.

SpookTheHamster

Mar 13, 2007, 07:00 PM

Again the guns are outthere so who is going to obey the law? the criminal or the law abiding citizen. I put my money on the citizen so what have you acomplished? Oh you have disarmed the good guy. Terrific but thats the beauracrat thinking. Plus now you created a larger police state. Here is a better idea. Prosecute the heck out of gun toting criminals and make them accountable for their actions.

Being far too lazy to see if this has already been brought up, I'm going to jump in on this one.

You're assuming that all gun crime is "good guy" vs. "bad guy", out in the street. Sure, if that's the case then it's great for the "good guy" to have a weapon. But what about the huge number of shootings where it's the "good guy" who turns bad?

I'm talking about when the "good guy" comes home from a rough day at work, gets in an argument with his wife and before you know it, somebody has been shot.

Or when the "good guy's" kid steals his gun and shows it off to his friends at school and there's an accident that kills someone.

These are the deaths that could be avoided easily by limiting access to firearms.

Desertrat

Mar 13, 2007, 07:38 PM

Dont Hurt Me

Mar 13, 2007, 07:54 PM

Our forfathers who wrote the Constitution knew better then any party or politician we have now. Leave well enough alone, because those guys who wrote it were brilliant. The more we mess with the original laws the more we will screw it up.

mactastic

Mar 13, 2007, 07:58 PM

First time I was in Arizona I had just crossed over from California and stopped at a Circle K for some smokes (Yes, back then I smoked). My first impression of the state was made watching a guy all in leather riding a Harley with White Supremacy tattoos sleeved up and down his arms and carrying a pistol on each hip pull into the parking spot next to me.

Somehow he didn't seem like a Good Guy to me...

I didn't know Arizona was a right-to-carry state until then. :eek:

MacNut

Mar 13, 2007, 08:00 PM

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 08:02 PM

dmischief said, "The number of examples in which a firearm has "made the difference" is greatly outweighed by the number of times people, animals or property have fallen victim to some poorly trained gun toting schmuck who needs an ego boost provided by a handgun."

Factually incorrect. See my reference to Prof. Kleck's work.

And, mischief, you're re-defining "militia" into your own ideas about what you think it should be. Again, I gave a reference and text in an earlier post. The unorganized militia is, mostly, every healthy citizen who's not directly associated with the military. As written, it's males at least 17 and under 45; and women who are in the National Guard.

"A gun is not a bigger penis."

100% agreement. However, it's mostly pro-gun-control folks who make that association. :D

I dunno why some folks think that bad guys are somehow more likely to have the requisite skills with handguns than good guys. Bad guys generally don't have the self-discipline for developing a skill, nor take the time to practice. That lack of self-discipline is a large part of why they're bad guys.

IJ commented: "Do I feel a need or desire to carry an AK-47 in the supermarket? It's a right, and you can't stop me."

If you're not being threatening, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dam." :D In a lot of states right now you're legal, although a lot of today's folks would get all nervous and look at you funny. For that matter, open carry of a pistol in a holster is quite legal in Virginia, Wyoming, Nevada away from Vegas, and Arizona. Maybe others. But few people bother.

Back when I was a kid, I and buddies regularly bicycled to some shooting spot with our .22 rifles. Nobody cared. Around 1951 I rode a city bus to downtown Austin with my '06, to get some gunsmithing work done. The driver politely asked that I remove the bolt. The little old lady next to me asked about the rifle and what sort of shooting I did.

Modern folks have gone all wonky. Pickin' fly poop outta pepper. :D

The bottom line is that gun control laws, whether or not they're constitutional, don't affect crime rates. They don't solve crimes. They don't prevent crimes. There is no crime committed via firearm that's not already against the law without the use of a firearm.

Ah, well, more range time and less Internet time. My last CHL renewal, I shot lousy groups. Didn't ever miss; just lousy groups. Gotta practice. But, I'm gettin' old and arthritic. Probably gonna have to quit .45 and go to 9mm. Bummer.

'Rat

I do apologize, though I still think that for the general public the risk outweighs the bennefit. Now if we had Firearms training, use of force and EMT training as a mandatory part of High School nationwide I'd be more receptive. Out here in Cali we have far more of the "own it to have it don't know how to use it" crowd. Plus out here there's good enough public safety infrastructure that we'd really rather leave the firearms to the professionals.

The gun/Freud reference covers a lot more ground than just what Boxer/Pelosi's crowd uses it for. There are a lot of people out there who assume that gun ownership is all the protection and empowerment they need. This is an incredibly dangerous fallacy.

You and I are exceptions. We have range time, we've been properly trained, you live in an area where you can set up your own range on your own land without worry. My concern is that the average citizen who buys a gun will do nothing more than the mandatory requirements and then has a deadly implement. I don't trust half the morons I meet in a day to drive let alone shoot!

Gun control laws do no good because they're always about "Guns are bad/No wait, guns are good" and are often written by soft handed beurocrats who don't know jack.

Real progress can only be achieved by recognizing that Firearms aren't going away and what we really need is CONTEXT. If it were required that all firearms be registered, perhaps ballistically fingerprinted and that buying ammunition required a current license for the class of firearm in question (skills must be proven to renew) and that a scale of competency be used to scale with the relative destructive potential of the weapon in question we might get somewhere.

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. So far as I'm concerned the sensible middle ground requires that both sides admit that they're circumventing the intent of the Second Amendment to their own purposes.

Yes, I'm pulling a model out of thin air but I see very few other options that truly fit the intention of the Bill Of Rights while still meeting the needs of Public Safety.

Gun Laws have zero impact. That's a factoid that cuts both ways. I really don't care what or how many guns are out there. I just really feel that they should be accounted for and in the hands of people who are both competent to use them and known to their local authorities. Have a LAV Medium Mobile Howitzer for all I care so long as you're willing to be Well Regulated.

Nukemkb

Mar 13, 2007, 08:02 PM

Pro-gun here - period.

MacNut

Mar 13, 2007, 08:04 PM

If we are going to make the argument that people should not have guns, Im sure there are a good number of cops that should not carry one either.

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 08:35 PM

If we are going to make the argument that people should not have guns, Im sure there are a good number of cops that should not carry one either.

I agree. Much of my rhetoric about training comes from the officers who trained me. They pounded it into us that anyone who doesn't spend enough time at a range to really be able to use their weapon effectively at need (officers included) should probably not be in posession of one.

I used to enjoy watching the COPS series to watch for the more subtle use-of-force violations that went uncommented. Watching some goon with his gun pulled just because he was tired of running his fat ass after a perp and then winds up pumping a round into the ground next to his partner's foot during the takedown... What a jerk! No reason to have it out, no reason to have his finger anywhere inside the guard, no reason to fire a round. Incompetence on either side of the fence is my beef.

If your average joe on the street out here can't figure out how to fit his car in a parking space straight do I want him in posession of a Glock anywhere within that 2.5 mile circle of me? no way man!

People are undertrained and overconfidant. That's my problem. If we treated airplanes the way we treat Firearms Jumbos would be illegal, cheap Cessna and Piper Cub knockoffs would be everywhere and very few people would posess the corrosponding skills to fly, (though they'd all call themselves a "pilot") and almost nobody would actually practice.

The difference? No oddly written Amendment about The Right to Fly Planes.

"In order to maintain a well regulated Air Service the right to fly shall not be infringed."

Anyone think of a few questions such phrasing might raise?

Seems a tad general and perhaps mildly circular considering that regulation and infringement are often one and the same in the minds of Conservatives. This would then imply that perhaps the framers had in mind that we use a little restraint and common sense in determining the specifics.

IJ Reilly

Mar 13, 2007, 08:41 PM

IJ commented: "Do I feel a need or desire to carry an AK-47 in the supermarket? It's a right, and you can't stop me."

If you're not being threatening, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dam." :D In a lot of states right now you're legal, although a lot of today's folks would get all nervous and look at you funny. For that matter, open carry of a pistol in a holster is quite legal in Virginia, Wyoming, Nevada away from Vegas, and Arizona. Maybe others. But few people bother.

Who's to decide threatening? I'd wager that 99% of the population would feel threatened by someone lugging an AK-47 in the bread aisle. I know I would. Funny looks would not cover the feeling I'd have. Out the door as quickly as possible might.

More to the point, if arms bearing is a Constitutionally protected right, then can there be any limits to the kind of arms a person could bear anywhere they so desired? If so, why?

MacNut

Mar 13, 2007, 08:42 PM

If the right to fly was in the Bill of Rights in the 1700's then there would be no problem, The fact that Right to Bare Arms is in makes it a harder argument.

mischief

Mar 13, 2007, 08:49 PM

If the right to fly was in the Bill of Rights in the 1700's then there would be no problem, The fact that Right to Bare Arms is in makes it a harder argument.

Are you oversimplifying on purpose? The point I was making was that anything in the original Bill of Rights that governs an inherently risky activity or posession, when phrased with such ambiguity is asking for trouble.

How well do you think congress would have done by now? Would we all be stuck with Hot Air balloons because they're "safer"?

Incompetent Politicians, Paranoids and Incompetent gun owners have made the issue a giant mess. I really believe that it could have been any subject, guns just happen to have been it here. Have a look at Bolivia's recent changes regarding Coca and we have a similar slippery subject.

It's a mess. The original law was eloquent but assumed that a sane electorate and a sane legislature would come to dsane solutions on implementing their intent. they were optimistic in the extreme.

MacNut

Mar 13, 2007, 08:51 PM

Nobody wants to touch the bill of rights, that is like rewriting the bible. Everyone is afraid to change anything.

Swarmlord

Mar 13, 2007, 10:49 PM

Nobody wants to touch the bill of rights, that is like rewriting the bible. Everyone is afraid to change anything.

Amen to that!

mactastic

Mar 13, 2007, 11:41 PM

Yes all guys that ride Harleys must be bad people.:rolleyes: That was a very stereotypical statement, if a guy rides a Harley wears leather and carries a pistol he must be bad.
LOL! You obviously do not know me very well. Trust me, it wasn't the Harley, it wasn't the leather, and I was only mildly shocked by the weaponry -- and that only because it was the first time I'd seen someone in a right-to-carry state actually carrying, combined with the fact that I didn't know it was a right-to-carry state until then.

Go back and read my post again. There's another reason in there that was the big factor in my making the call that he wasn't a Good Guy.

Maybe you won't make such sweeping judgments about me next time? Mmmkay thanks.

IJ Reilly

Mar 14, 2007, 01:05 AM

Nobody wants to touch the bill of rights, that is like rewriting the bible. Everyone is afraid to change anything.

Is it? Even when you don't know what it means?

Sayhey

Mar 14, 2007, 01:58 AM

If the right to fly was in the Bill of Rights in the 1700's then there would be no problem, The fact that Right to Bare Arms is in makes it a harder argument.

I'm all for the "Right to Bare Arms" as I hate having my arms covered in hot weather. I'm also for the right to arm Bears because as quadrupeds they need the use of all their limbs. I just have a problem with an unlimited right to bear arms of any kind. It's crazy and has nothing to do with what the Second Amendment is about.

zimv20

Mar 14, 2007, 02:17 AM

I'm also for the right to arm Bears because as quadrupeds they need the use of all their limbs.

http://www.boxsetauthentic.com/images/1abv-bear.jpg

hulugu

Mar 14, 2007, 03:04 AM

What are you talking about? There's numerous examples of people defending themselves from breaking and entering criminals in their homes.

There are also numerous examples of people accidentally shooting their friends and family and even their dog.

A few facts to chew on:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

From 1987-1990, victims used firearms to protect themselves in fewer than one percent of all violent offenses.

In 1998, there were only 134 justifiable handgun homicides by a private citizen compared with a total of 6,498 handgun murders in the United States.

In other words, there's nearly a 50 to 1 relationship between home defense using a gun and the number of handgun murders in the US.

solvs

Mar 14, 2007, 06:31 AM

I prefer my tazer, and my swords (though they're more decorative) but to each his own I guess.

takao

Mar 14, 2007, 09:12 AM

hm funny how my service in the austrian army turned my from pro-gun to anti-gun because seeing how a pretty good average group of 150 people could handle a gun was quite a impression

and that with 2 months of daily training before... like the one guy who fired off his gun with exercise amunition inside of a filled tent (blowing a hole in the roof thank's to gas pressure) only to repeat it an hour later

or the other guy wou was leaning behind a tree holding the rifle in his right hand at his hip and his left index finger in his ear and repeating his rifle after every shot with his left hand and putting the finger back into the ear every time before he shot

or those with a barrel completly filled with dirt so they had to organize a long metal stick to free it (yeah that will be good for the chrome-inside of the barrel)

or others who thought it would be a good idea to clean the rifle in the shower

or others who would take exercise rounds out of the guns and bury them in the woods because they are too lazy to clean the gun after the exercise

it's an old joke in movies that persons would in the barrel from front to check if the gun are loaded, after my army service i know that this is based on reality

Desertrat:i think nobody has a problem with you having guns since you can handle them well and most important: responsible
if somebody can do that, i have no problem with it, the problem lies in all those who don't understand that a handgun/rifle not only comes with "protection" but also additional responsibilities

about gun laws:
in Austria a psychological test is now required if you want to own a handgun and from one year to the next the amount of handgun licences dropped 1/3 .. not because 1/3 failed the test (90% passed it actually) .. the fear from being psychologically tested was so big in 33% that it outweighted their need for a handgun

about switzerland: in switzerland the military police/police is doing random checks of the weapons are sufficent secured in homes... unannounced and also _during the night_ ... imagine that being proposed in the USA ...

dsnort

Mar 14, 2007, 10:32 AM

I have read this thread with great interest as this is an issue have been close too for a long time.

A few thoughts:

I'm also for the right to arm Bears...

There was actually a series of SciFi novels built around this very concept, they were mildly amusing.

1: Most handgun owners have spent almost exactly zero time in a range, therefore they have almost zero chance of hitting anything they couldn't just as easily swing a Maglight on. It aint so easy as it's made out to be.

This could not be more true. I cannot count the number of people who have told me they own a handgun but have never fired it.

Mostly, handguns are a poor choice for home defense, they are too difficult to operate accurately.

The best choice is a 20 gauge shotgun, loaded with #4 shot, preferably pump action. Easy to hit with, super stopping power, won't over penetrate. ( And the sound of a shotgun slide being racked is a distinctive and thought provoking sound )

A few facts to chew on:
"Snip"

Here's an important "fact to chew on".

Both sides in this debate have produced reams of propaganda filled with fuzzy statistics, critically flawed studies, and outright lies. I have no idea of the source of your facts, but excuse me if I don't just automatically accept them as gospel.

Desertrat

Mar 14, 2007, 07:22 PM

dsnort, I've named my sources, pretty much throughout. I commonly have used numbers from various federal agencies (BATFE, FBI, DOJ, etc., as well as the CDC.) during the (Sheesh!) forty years I've been in this ongoing argument. I got into all this during the runup to the GCA '68.

takao, never underestimate the power of human stupidity. However, I'd note that during my own basic trainng in the Army, we kept our Garands in the huts where we lived. No ammo was issued, although a few of us commonly had a few rounds hidden away. (I'd shot a Garand more before I went in than after. :) ) Anyhow, nothing bad ever happened. In Korea, our personal weapons were M2 Carbines, select fire; I know we did have ammo out in the gun squads (I was a squad leader on an M16 halftrack with four quad-.50s as armament.)

Overall, it's my view that parents are obligated to make sure their children are at least knowledgeable about firearms safety, beginning at an early age. Remove the mystique, the "thrill of the illicit" or the lure of the forbidden thing. Something that makes me as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs is a 24-year-old with his first rifle at his first deer hunt. I started my son out before he was big enough to hold a 1911, which was part of my point in doing so. "When YOU think you're big enough, tell me and we'll go shoot it." That took the "big deal" out of it all.

Oh: Hey, inside the house, #9 Skeet will work as well as #4, from a 20-gauge. But that's another story. :D

'Rat

DZ/015

Mar 14, 2007, 10:39 PM

On the best for home defense I would advocate the .44 special revolver. It fires a large, slow moving slug that dissipates all of its energy in your target. No punishing recoil. No chance of the bullet going through your wall, your neighbors wall, etc. Experience a misfire, pull the trigger again. No need to clear a jam using both hands.

And 'Rat, the 9mm is not so bad. :) I happen to like it. It's cheap and readily available everywhere.

hulugu

Mar 15, 2007, 03:32 AM

Here's an important "fact to chew on".

Both sides in this debate have produced reams of propaganda filled with fuzzy statistics, critically flawed studies, and outright lies. I have no idea of the source of your facts, but excuse me if I don't just automatically accept them as gospel.

Actually, these statistics came from the Bureau of Justice statisitics during their National Crime Victim Survey.

hulugu

Mar 15, 2007, 03:39 AM

...Overall, it's my view that parents are obligated to make sure their children are at least knowledgeable about firearms safety, beginning at an early age. Remove the mystique, the "thrill of the illicit" or the lure of the forbidden thing. Something that makes me as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a roomful of rocking chairs is a 24-year-old with his first rifle at his first deer hunt. I started my son out before he was big enough to hold a 1911, which was part of my point in doing so. "When YOU think you're big enough, tell me and we'll go shoot it." That took the "big deal" out of it all.'Rat

'Rat, you're the kind of gun owner I respect, I may disagree with you on policy, but I appreciate your point of view.

DZ/015

Mar 15, 2007, 03:41 AM

Actually, these statistics came from the Bureau of Justice statisitics during their National Crime Victim Survey.

Can you provide a link? I have never seen this on their website.

hulugu

Mar 15, 2007, 03:45 AM

Can you provide a link? I have never seen this on their website.

Start here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/overview.htm), the results are in a difficult to skim format, and some of this came from the Brady site as well.

DZ/015

Mar 15, 2007, 03:59 AM

There are also numerous examples of people accidentally shooting their friends and family and even their dog.

A few facts to chew on:

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

From 1987-1990, victims used firearms to protect themselves in fewer than one percent of all violent offenses.

In 1998, there were only 134 justifiable handgun homicides by a private citizen compared with a total of 6,498 handgun murders in the United States.

In other words, there's nearly a 50 to 1 relationship between home defense using a gun and the number of handgun murders in the US.

I have been to the BoJ site. I saw nothing to justify the above statements. I was hoping you could provide a link to your source for the quoted statements. If it is the Brady site or another anti-gun site, I would suspect the source of the information.

hulugu

Mar 15, 2007, 04:28 AM

I have been to the BoJ site. I saw nothing to justify the above statements. I was hoping you could provide a link to your source for the quoted statements. If it is the Brady site or another anti-gun site, I would suspect the source of the information.

The quoted statements are from the Brady site here (http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/fs1.php). And they closely mirror the BJS information on points the BJS tracks.

Suicide, for example, isn't tracked by the BJS.

Here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.htm#justifyreason). (Number of justifiable homicides)

Here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm#weapons). (Number of handgun murders)

Here (http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm). (From the CDC, numbers of children killed by firearms).

You can also refer to the JAMA site (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/22/1759) for an epidemiological study on the use of firearms in home defense.

Here (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#circumgun). (Circumstances for shootings.)

Desertrat

Mar 15, 2007, 12:35 PM

The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has a lot of stuff on causes of deaths and injuries. Breakdowns by age, sex, race, maybe something else. I haven't checked it for a few years.

As a for instance, back in the late 1990s, via firearm, there were some 15,000 homicides and about the same number of suicides. In one of their press releases, the Brady Bunch lumped them all together.

Of the 15,000 homicides, some 12,000 were via handgun; the remainder were undifferentiated between rifles and shotguns.

For children under 14 years of age, the accidental deaths totalled around 103. Other children under 14 died from gunshots, but the shots weren't fired accidentally. Lumping all these deaths together skews the argument about "child safety from accidents". FWIW more really-little children drowned in five-gallon plastic buckets than were killed via firearms. And, for the under-14 set, some 1,100 drowned.

It was one of the doctors at CDC who came up with the bit about the relative number of killings of burglars vs. intra-family killings. It's a totally irrelevant comparison. I said in an earlier post that you have to be bloodthirsty to consider the only successful defensive use of a firearm to be that of killing.

The CDC's breakdown of homicides by race illustrates a societal tragedy. I'll let y'all hunt that up. It's a thread all by itself.

'Rat

miloblithe

Mar 15, 2007, 12:45 PM

FWIW more really-little children drowned in five-gallon plastic buckets than were killed via firearms. And, for the under-14 set, some 1,100 drowned.

It was one of the doctors at CDC who came up with the bit about the relative number of killings of burglars vs. intra-family killings. It's a totally irrelevant comparison.

Why is one of those comparisons more relevant than the other? Is it that one supports an argument that you want to make and the other doesn't?

Desertrat

Mar 15, 2007, 12:45 PM

In keeping with my lighthearted cynicism:

No central government should be allowed to have guns. Only the citizenry and the local, municipal police.

Depending on whose numbers you read, during the 20th century central governments killed some 100 to 120 million people. Individual citizens' homicides, compared to this, were statistically insignificant.

Were all citizens armed, or it was known that they might be armed, there would be an increase in courtesy and politeness. Over time, this would become an ingrained and customary trait throughout society. Bullies would be seriously constrained against misbehavior. Those who might be prone to cheat in business transactions would likely restrain such tendencies.

When familiarity with firearms begins at an early age, the accidents to which you earlier referred would be minimal.

Throughout a society, there would be much less resentment among the various economic classes, I think, due to the implications of Texas Ranger Captain "Lone Wolf" Gonzaullas' statement, "God created all men equal. Sam Colt made them all the same size." In that context, small women are as large as pro-football linemen.

I strongly favor equality under the law and in daily life.

:D, 'Rat

miloblithe

Mar 15, 2007, 12:48 PM

No central government should be allowed to have guns. Only the citizenry and the local, municipal police.

Depending on whose numbers you read, during the 20th century central governments killed some 100 to 120 million people. Individual citizens' homicides, compared to this, were statistically insignificant.

Were all citizens armed, or it was known that they might be armed, there would be an increase in courtesy and politeness. Over time, this would become an ingrained and customary trait throughout society. Bullies would be seriously constrained against misbehavior.

Have you thought about moving to Somalia? Central government doesn't have guns. Most people do. Check. Check. In fact, there is no central government! Even better!

pseudobrit

Mar 15, 2007, 11:51 PM

A few years later I was required to use my firearm to persuade an individual from a violent course of action (against me). All that was needed was to show my weapon. No shots were fired. It was not necessary. An ugly physical confrontation was avoided merely by showing a firearm.

I was under the impression that kind of action is a cardinal sin of self-defence. You don't draw your weapon unless and until you are prepared to shoot and kill someone.

An "ugly physical confrontation" was avoided in that case but next time you could likely find your reckless gun waving getting you into a firefight.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 12:10 AM

I need to post my former boss's story again. I believe I have before. I don't see any reason why responsible people should be left defenseless. It would have really upset me if anything had happened to him or his kids. That family has done a lot for me. There are many more articles on this situation on the web as well. Look them up if you feel the need.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0401220356jan22,1,1015150.story

Why I used a gun to defend my family and my home
Wilmette man explains his drastic actions

By Hale DeMar
Hale DeMar lives in Wilmette
Published January 22, 2004

Many of us have experienced a sense of violation upon returning to our homes, only to find that someone has been there. Someone has trespassed in our bedrooms, looting and stealing. And many of us, still haunted by that violation, will never again have a sense of security in our own homes.

Few of us, however, have awakened to realize that we have been violated as we slept in our own beds, doors locked, as the family dog patrolled the home. For me, the seconds--until I found my children were still safely tucked in their beds--were horrifying. The thought that one of my children might have been hurt or abducted was incomprehensible.

The Wilmette police were called and in routine fashion they came, took the report and with little concern left, promising to increase surveillance. Little comfort, since the invader now had the keys to my family's home and automobiles. The police informed me that this was not an uncommon event in east Wilmette and offered their condolences.

What is one to do when a criminal proceeds, undeterred by a 90-pound German shepherd, a security alarm system and a property lit up like an outdoor stadium? And now he has our house keys and an inventory of the things he'd like to call his own. Would the police patrol my dead-end street as effectively the second time as they had the first? Would my small children be unharmed the next time? Would the criminal be satisfied with another automobile, another television, or would he feel the need to climb the staircase to the bedrooms, perhaps for a watch or a ring or a wallet, again risking little?

Would my children wake to find a masked figure, clad in total black, in their bedroom doorway, a vision that might haunt them for years? Would the police come again and fill out yet another report and at what point should I feel comfortable that the "bad guy" got everything he wanted and wouldn't return a third time?

I went to the safe where my licensed and registered gun was kept, loaded it for the very first time and tucked it under the mattress of my bed. I assured my frightened children "that Daddy would deal with the bad guy ... if he ever returned."

Little did I imagine that this brazen thief was waiting in the back-yard bushes as I tucked my children into bed.

Fifteen minutes after bedtime, the security alarm went off. Three minutes after the alarm was triggered the alarm company alerted the police to the situation and 10 minutes later the first police car pulled up to my home, but only after another call was made to 911 by a trembling, half-naked father.

I suppose some would have grabbed their children and cowered in their bedroom for 13 minutes, praying that the police would get there in time to stop the criminal from climbing the stairs and confronting the family in a bedroom, trembling, dreading the sound of the door being kicked in.

That's not the fear I wanted my children to experience and it is not the cowardly act that I want my children to remember me by.

Until you are shocked by a piercing security alarm in the middle of the night and met in your kitchen by a masked invader as your children shudder in their beds, until you confront that very real nightmare, please don't suggest that some village trustee "knows better" and that he or she can effectively ask the police to protect your family from the miscreants that this society has produced.

The man who has been charged by police with invading my home has been arrested numerous times.

He was convicted of residential burglary in Minnesota. He served time last year after pleading guilty to felony motor vehicle theft in Minnesota.

He was convicted in 1997 of retail theft in Cook and DuPage Counties and in 1995 of drunk driving in Georgia.

How many other family homes has he violated, how many innocent lives have been affected, how many police reports have gone into some back-office file cabinet, only to become some abstract statistic? How is it that these people are free to roam our streets, violating our homes and threatening the safety of our children?

If my actions have spared only one family from the distress and trauma that this habitual criminal has caused others, then I have served my civic duty and taken one criminal off of our streets, something that our impotent criminal justice system failed to do despite numerous arrests and convictions.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 12:20 AM

I think that explains it best. Either protect your family or get hurt doing nothing.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 12:35 AM

I think that explains it best. Either protect your family or get hurt doing nothing.

Well no, you're supposed to hide and call the police and hope they show up in time. :rolleyes: There are so many horror stories here in the city about people who did just that and lost their lives. You can't own a gun in the city of Chicago and that law hasn't solved a thing.

Desertrat

Mar 16, 2007, 10:40 AM

"I was under the impression that kind of action is a cardinal sin of self-defence. You don't draw your weapon unless and until you are prepared to shoot and kill someone."

No. You do the minimum that's needed to stop the potential violence. If display does the stopping, why shoot? Now, taking no action beyond display doesn't mean that you weren't prepared to shoot. That's part of one's situational awareness and self-control.

Scenario: A guy with a knife or club is running at you, cursing you by name. You draw, shoot--and MISS! But, he drops his weapon and turns to run. Question: What next?

Both state and federal courts have held that the police in the U.S. are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizen. You can't sue because the cops didn't show up in time, or came, looked, saw nothing overt and passed on. The police are only responsible for the overall peace of the community as a whole. They basically function in a janitorial fashion, cleaning up after some untoward event. IOW, the courts have ruled that the individual has the sole responsibilty for his own safety and security.

So, on the one hand, you have the courts holding that, "Hey, little Bubba, you're on your own." On the other hand, you have state laws saying, "No, we won't allow you to protect yourself." Schizophrenic, neh?

Maybe some of our constitutional experts here can speak to the view that the Fourteenth Amendment covers the availability of deadly force in self defense: "Equal protection under the law." If the cops can't and won't protect, who, then, can and will, besides individuals, themselves?

Next question: Isn't it desirable that people be able to protect themselves from violence? What is the morality of a system that makes a woman helpless against rape or murder? Suggestion: Check Google or Wikipedia for "Kitty Genovese".

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 11:28 AM

I think that explains it best. Either protect your family or get hurt doing nothing.

As someone who was very nearly shot to death by a roommate, call me unimpressed by these stories of people protecting their families with guns.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 11:45 AM

As someone who was very nearly shot to death by a roommate, call me unimpressed by these stories of people protecting their families with guns.

My brother committed suicide with a gun. What's your point? Your roommate could have tried to stab you and my brother could have just as easily jumped off a bridge. Anything can be misused.

Not that I don't feel for your situation, but I don't think it should preclude you from seeing the other side of the arguement either.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 12:04 PM

My brother committed suicide with a gun. What's your point? Your roommate could have tried to stab you and my brother could have just as easily jumped off a bridge. Anything can be misused.

He would not have stabbed me. But he did almost shoot me, thinking I was a burglar. Trust me, if this happened to you, you'd never forget having a gun aimed at your head by a very overexcited individual. You'd never forget begging for your life. If he'd pulled the trigger, it would have been an accident, just another statistic. Fortunately this happened in broad daylight, so at long last he did recognize me, and did not pull the trigger. He also had good sense to remove that gun from our house. If he hadn't, I would have moved out. I will never live a household with a gun again.

takao

Mar 16, 2007, 12:10 PM

Desertrat: the US legal system with it's lawsuits is a whole different can of worms... how you americans can get by with such a broken system should be worth some compliment
same with your judicative/supreme court making laws etc...

about rape:
if the american attitude towards gun is helping to prevent rape then it is kidna useless with the america be on number 9 concering rapes per capita

in terms of rape prevention the best is self defense courses for girls which around here are federally sponsered
you talk about guns like it's the only way to defend yourself..which they aren't

there are also peppersprays, electric shockers etc.
actually i know even a male who own a peeperspray

if law sensitve citizens arm themselves with guns, so will criminals then
for example i don't remember a single case where a burglar killed somebody here

edit: forgot the links
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 12:18 PM

He would not have stabbed me. But he did almost shoot me, thinking I was a burglar. Trust me, if this happened to you, you'd never forget having a gun aimed at your head by a very overexcited individual. You'd never forget begging for your life. If he'd pulled the trigger, it would have been an accident, just another statistic. Fortunately this happened in broad daylight, so at long last he did recognize me, and did not pull the trigger. He also had good sense to remove that gun from our house. If he hadn't, I would have moved out. I will never live a household with a gun again.

Fine- that's your business. And FYI- I have had guns pointed at me by wackos before. I've lived in the city for 14 years IJ- I've been mugged and so have a lot of my friends. It happens- especially in the early 90s, it could be quite scary when the Bulls would win the Championship. There were guns everywhere. But guns were still illegal to own- didn't stop anyone, did it?

Just out of curiosity, what in the world made your roommate think you were a thief?

zimv20

Mar 16, 2007, 12:32 PM

As someone who was very nearly shot to death by a roommate
!!!!!!!

Desertrat

Mar 16, 2007, 12:58 PM

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 01:30 PM

As someone who was very nearly shot to death by a roommate, call me unimpressed by these stories of people protecting their families with guns.Guess what if you were a burglar like your roommate thought you were I would want to protect myself too. If you were a burglar what's to say that you would not of shot him first. Now almost shot to death would imply that he did shoot at you but a, missed or b, shot you but did not do serious injury. What he did was point a gun at you because you were mistaken for a burglar but did not fire. I would rather that then get walked in on unprotected.

Now lets take this a step further, lets say you roommate is a cop and you are just some person on the street with your hands in your pockets. You might not have anything on you but the cop pulls his gun points it at you and says hands where I can see them. Is he intending to shoot you by pointing the gun at you or just trying to protect himself. Does he have that right to protect himself or think this guy is probably harmless.

dsnort

Mar 16, 2007, 01:36 PM

Actually, these statistics came from the Bureau of Justice statisitics during their National Crime Victim Survey.

....and some of this came from the Brady site as well.

Yeah, I thought that first one sounded familiar.

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

If memory serves, this is a study often quoted by gun control activists. It was conducted by three medical doctors in New Jersey, and was debunked by Kleck in his book "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America". In fact, I believe he used it as an example of some of the fuzzy statistics being used in the debate.

It's also interesting to note that in 1993 the National Crime Victim Survey estimated that there were 108,000 instances of Defensive Gun Use (DGU ) in the US annually. 13 other surveys conducted in the same time frame peg the number at 800,000 to 2.5 million annually.

Link:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 01:46 PM

Guess what if you were a burglar like your roommate thought you were I would want to protect myself too. If you were a burglar what's to say that you would not of shot him first. Now almost shot to death would imply that he did shoot at you but a, missed or b, shot you but did not do serious injury. What he did was point a gun at you because you were mistaken for a burglar but did not fire. I would rather that then get walked in on unprotected.

Now lets take this a step further, lets say you roommate is a cop and you are just some person on the street with your hands in your pockets. You might not have anything on you but the cop pulls his gun points it at you and says hands where I can see them. Is he intending to shoot you by pointing the gun at you or just trying to protect himself. Does he have that right to protect himself or think this guy is probably harmless.This is an example of the totally-off-the-wall thinking that makes guns so dangerous. Your logic is completely asinine.

takao

Mar 16, 2007, 01:49 PM

takao, when the general subject is guns, I talk about guns. I'm certainly aware that there are numerous other ways to assist one as to public safety. And I don't recall ever saying "only" about guns.

Howsomever: Some people are unaffected or relatively unaffected by Mace or pepper spray. And then? I note that it takes no longer to draw and use a handgun than it does to draw and use pepper spray. I'm absolutely unconcerned as to the fate of a would-be rapist. His demise would definitely improve the gene pool.

well that doesn't change the fact that the US has higher numbers of rapes per capita despite rather loose gun laws in the US

or could it perhaps be that guns are the worst form of protection against rape ?

what are the chances of drawing a gun when the oponent is within 3 meters ? or even worse the opponent is coming from behind ... quite slim even when you have the gun inside of a holster
let's face it, a gun is the worst kind of self defense in such a case ... around here having attended a self defense course has showed that it's the best way for defense against rape

but of course that's not the american way because it actually requires training

and sorry if i don't believe the "omg it's the drug dealers fault" on every crime... you know other countries have problems with drugs as well... mine included
switzerland has more drug offences per capita as the US and there some uses of marihuana are legal

edit:about england: it normally takes a few years for laws taking effect and also in england gun imitations are also incorperated into gun crimes

also from wikipedia:
"Although it is sometimes claimed that since Britain banned the private ownership of handguns, gun crime has steadily increased, there is no evidence of a causal link.[21] Handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population[22], and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen steadily to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[23] Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the poilce or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 fireasrms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[24]"

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 01:50 PM

This is an example of the totally-off-the-wall thinking that makes guns so dangerous. Your logic is completely asinine.
How stupid of me, I should let the burglar kill me and steal my stuff.:rolleyes:

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 01:52 PM

How stupid of me, I should let the burglar kill me and steal my stuff.:rolleyes:Why would a hypothetical burglar kill you if he wasn't being threatened with a gun?

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 01:54 PM

Why would a hypothetical burglar kill you if he wasn't being threatened with a gun?If a Burglar didn't think anyone was home and is startled don't you think he would pull a weapon. Why should I let the Burglar roam free in my house without any recourse. He is trespassing in my home. I have a right to defend my house.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 01:56 PM

Fine- that's your business. And FYI- I have had guns pointed at me by wackos before. I've lived in the city for 14 years IJ- I've been mugged and so have a lot of my friends. It happens- especially in the early 90s, it could be quite scary when the Bulls would win the Championship. There were guns everywhere. But guns were still illegal to own- didn't stop anyone, did it?

Just out of curiosity, what in the world made your roommate think you were a thief?

I'm not talking about making guns illegal to own. It's weird how that line gets thrown out, almost instantly and without fail. No wonder we can't talk sensibly about this subject.

After I graduated from college, I lived in a big, old two-story house with three roommates. I'd been out of town over this particular weekend. While I was gone, the house was burgled. I came back very early Monday morning, probably around 2 AM and slept in to around 8 AM. When I got out of bed I noticed that something was amiss. I was walking around the upstairs hallway in my bathrobe trying to figure out what had happened, when BANG, a bedroom door flings opens and one of my roommates is aiming a rifle at my head. He was so pumped up with adrenalin that he didn't recognize me, even though I was standing right in front of him in an orange bathrobe, pleading with him for the longest time to put the gun down. This is how it happens, folks. This is why a gun is more likely to be used to kill a member of a household than an intruder. I suppose I should be grateful that he didn't hear me arrive home at 2 AM. In the dark, he probably would have shot me. He nearly did anyway.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 01:59 PM

That sounds more like a roommate that is mental then anything else, just because he can't handle a fire arm does not mean that everyone is incapable.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 02:09 PM

I'm not talking about making guns illegal to own. It's weird how that line gets thrown out, almost instantly and without fail. No wonder we can't talk sensibly about this subject.

After I graduated from college, I lived in a big, old two-story house with three roommates. I'd been out of town over this particular weekend. While I was gone, the house was burgled. I came back very early Monday morning, probably around 2 AM and slept in to around 8 AM. When I got out of bed I noticed that something was amiss. I was walking around the upstairs hallway in my bathrobe trying to figure out what had happened, when BANG, a bedroom door flings opens and one of my roommates is aiming a rifle at my head. He was so pumped up with adrenalin that he didn't recognize me, even though I was standing right in front of him in an orange bathrobe, pleading with him for the longest time to put the gun down. This is how it happens, folks. This is why a gun is more likely to be used to kill a member of a household than an intruder. I suppose I should be grateful that he didn't hear me arrive home at 2 AM. In the dark, he probably would have shot me. He nearly did anyway.

I have to say I agree with MacNut on this one. Your roommate sounds more than a little off-balance. He definitely shouldn't have been in possession of a gun. And if we're not talking about legality here, what is the point of your story? Licensing?

takao

Mar 16, 2007, 02:11 PM

If a Burglar didn't think anyone was home and is startled don't you think he would pull a weapon. Why should I let the Burglar roam free in my house without any recourse. He is trespassing in my home. I have a right to defend my house.

well that's the end result of your gun culture... around here the majority of all burglars flee as soon as they are caught/surprised

(edit i just read how a man drove away a burglar with a broom just across the border in switzerland)

edit2: also i would call it much more dangerous to confront a burglar with gun

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 02:13 PM

This is an example of the totally-off-the-wall thinking that makes guns so dangerous. Your logic is completely asinine.

It's kind of jaw-dropping, isn't it? I'm not what anyone is likely to call a gun prohibitionist, but I have to say this kind of irresponsible reasoning strikes me as the worst kind of fantasy-land thinking. Frankly, as a near-victim of an accidental shooting, it scares the crap out of me to know that some gun owners might be willing chalk it up as a necessary casualty in the war against whatever.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 02:15 PM

I have to say I agree with MacNut on this one. Your roommate sounds more than a little off-balance. He definitely shouldn't have been in possession of a gun. And if we're not talking about legality here, what is the point of your story? Licensing?

No point, obviously.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 02:19 PM

well that's the end result of your gun culture... around here the majority of all burglars flee as soon as they are caught/surprised

(edit i just read how a man drove away a burglar with a broom just across the border in switzerland)

edit2: also i would call it much more dangerous to confront a burglar with gunI don't think a broom will work to well around here.

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 02:20 PM

I don't think a broom will work to well around here.That is the point.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 02:31 PM

That is the point.Yes and that is the reason we need real protection.

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 02:33 PM

Yes and that is the reason we need real protection.No, the point is that your little arms race achieves nothing except an increase in lethality all round.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 02:33 PM

No point, obviously.

I wasn't trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to figure your position on all this.

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 02:34 PM

I wasn't trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to figure your position on all this.It's really not that difficult. See above.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 02:38 PM

That is the point.

It may be one point, but the other is whether it's worth ending a life, anybody's life, over a handful of material items.

The house I lived in was burgled twice, both times when nobody was home. The things they took were typical easily fenced, low-value items -- a TV, some stereo equipment, loose change -- all stuff that can easily be replaced. Does anybody deserve to die over that, least of all, a member of the household who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Come on, a show of hands. Who believe in shooting petty thieves? Who believes it's worth the risk of killing a member of their own household in the hope that they might someday thwart a petty thief?

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 02:42 PM

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 02:44 PM

It's really not that difficult. See above.

I'm a fan of the direct approach and I did read it. IJ is saying that guns shouldn't be illegal to own, but then turns around with the roommate story which would seem to indicate an anti-gun stance. So IJ, I'll be direct- what is your position on the owning of firearms? That's all I'm trying to figure out.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 02:46 PM

I wasn't trying to be insulting, I'm just trying to figure your position on all this.

I'm not sure I need a position -- but okay, I'll play.

My position, previously stated, is that I would not live in a household with a gun.

Let's say my roommate was unbalanced. In fact he could be a real hothead. But he was also a college graduate, gainfully employed, intelligent and without a criminal record. Under what scenario does he not have a gun, if he wants one?

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 02:51 PM

Certainly not I. That was my point really, I suppose.

Then consider it expanded upon. ;)

I'm a fan of the direct approach and I did read it. IJ is saying that guns shouldn't be illegal to own, but then turns around with the roommate story which would seem to indicate an anti-gun stance. So IJ, I'll be direct- what is your position on the owning of firearms? That's all I'm trying to figure out.

Without meaning to do so, you have succinctly stated the problem, the entire problem with this debate IMO. Why would you conclude that these are incompatible views?

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 02:52 PM

I'm not sure I need a position -- but okay, I'll play.

My position, previously stated, is that I would not live in a household with a gun.

Let's say my roommate was unbalanced. In fact he could be a real hothead. But he was also a college graduate, gainfully employed, intelligent and without a criminal record. Under what scenario does he not have a gun, if he wants one?

I'd say under the one you just presented. Do you need more proof than your own story that he should never be near a gun or any sharp objects for that matter? Or are you just saying that since certain people can't handle themselves around guns, no one should have guns?

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 02:55 PM

I'd say under the one you just presented. Do you need more proof than your own story that he should never be near a gun or any sharp objects for that matter? Or are you just saying that since certain people can't handle themselves around guns, no one should have guns?

You are avoiding the question.

dsnort

Mar 16, 2007, 02:58 PM

It may be one point, but the other is whether it's worth ending a life, anybody's life, over a handful of material items.

The house I lived in was burgled twice, both times when nobody was home. The things they took were typical easily fenced, low-value items -- a TV, some stereo equipment, loose change -- all stuff that can easily be replaced. Does anybody deserve to die over that, least of all, a member of the household who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Come on, a show of hands. Who believe in shooting petty thieves? Who believes it's worth the risk of killing a member of their own household in the hope that they might someday thwart a petty thief?

Against a sane, rational, burglar your argument is spot on. No material object in my house is worth a human beings life. Such a burglar however, would be unlikely to attempt to intrude into a house that occupied, or they think will soon be occupied by the owners. They like to plan their visits for when no one is home.

But there are things in my house that are worth defending with all the force I can bring to bear; my wife, and my children. And there is no denying that there are monsters roaming this world who are desperate enough, or deranged enough, to try to take them.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 03:01 PM

You are avoiding the question.

How? You just told me what the guy did with a gun- definitely not good. I'd try to make sure he was never near one again. He's obviously not mentally fit to own one.

Without meaning to do so, you have succinctly stated the problem, the entire problem with this debate IMO. Why would you conclude that these are incompatible views?

So you're anti-gun and pro-gun? I'm sorry, I really am trying to understand.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 03:05 PM

Against a sane, rational, burglar your argument is spot on. No material object in my house is worth a human beings life. Such a burglar however, would be unlikely to attempt to intrude into a house that occupied, or they think will soon be occupied by the owners. They like to plan their visits for when no one is home.

But there are things in my house that are worth defending with all the force I can bring to bear; my wife, and my children. And there is no denying that there are monsters roaming this world who are desperate enough, or deranged enough, to try to take them.

You have nearly addressed this point for me. As you say, burglars rarely enter occupied residences. Ours did, twice -- three weeks apart, to the day and hour, when everyone was away. Yet this thought did not enter into the thinking of my roommate.

Yes, there are monsters in this world. No doubt. My advice is to not be one of them.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 03:11 PM

How? You just told me what the guy did with a gun- definitely not good. I'd try to make sure he was never near one again. He's obviously not mentally fit to own one.

How in the world would you do such a thing? Even assuming that he had to be more than warm and breathing to buy the gun, then what box on what form would prevent him from owning one? Is it the one that asks, "Are you now or have you ever been a hothead?"

So you're anti-gun and pro-gun? I'm sorry, I really am trying to understand.

I'm not sure what part of "I would never live in a household with a gun" is difficult to understand. I wouldn't live in a household with a Pitt Bull, either.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 03:17 PM

So now everyone with a gun is bad and everyone that has a dog is bad too?

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 03:17 PM

How in the world would you do such a thing? Even assuming that he had to be more than warm and breathing to buy the gun, then what box on what form would prevent him from owning one? Is it the one that asks, "Are you now or have you ever been a hothead?"

Ah-you mean what prevents him from obtaining a gun in a store. Nothing. But what prevents an alcoholic from purchasing booze and drunkenly ramming a car into another, killing all inside? I don't see a difference.

I'm not sure what part of "I would never live in a household with a gun" is difficult to understand. I wouldn't live in a household with a Pitt Bull, either.

I understand that. I wasn't arguing that point. I was asking your position on private gun ownership, not whether or not you'd live in a house with a gun.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 03:20 PM

He is actually proving the point about gun deterrents. He won't be anywhere with a gun. Just as a burglar is likely to think twice about robbing a house with a gun inside

TheAnswer

Mar 16, 2007, 03:23 PM

He is actually proving the point about gun deterrents. He won't be anywhere with a gun. Just as a burglar is likely to think twice about robbing a house with a gun inside

So now IJ is a thief? Is that what you are saying? :eek: :confused:

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 03:27 PM

So now IJ is a thief? Is that what you are saying? :eek: :confused:Wow talk about spin. Im saying if he is afraid to go into a house with a gun inside, isn't that the point. A gun is not meant to be played with it is a weapon. If you are afraid of a gun you should be. A person has a gun for protection and if you are going to be in that house for a bad reason expect that gun to be used. If a law abiding person doesn't want to have to deal with a gun imagine what the criminal is thinking.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 03:35 PM

Let me clarify, If you don't respect a gun you are nuts. A gun is meant to protect, a person that does not fear a gun are those that you should be worried about. A person with a gun does not mean they are going to kill you once you walk in the door. It is there as a last resort and if there is no reason to use the gun there is nothing to fear. If someone walks into my home and he knows there is a gun there I guarantee that person is not going to try anything stupid. He will respect the fact that a gun is there and leave it at that.

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 03:51 PM

And how exactly are you going to advertise the fact that you have a gun?

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 03:59 PM

And how exactly are you going to advertise the fact that you have a gun?

Something tells me Macnut isn't interpreting IJs post correctly. ;)

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 04:01 PM

So now everyone with a gun is bad and everyone that has a dog is bad too?

Oy veh. Yeah, obviously. :rolleyes:

zimv20

Mar 16, 2007, 04:05 PM

Come on, a show of hands. Who believe in shooting petty thieves? Who believes it's worth the risk of killing a member of their own household in the hope that they might someday thwart a petty thief?
in chicago, i've been burgled three times. my response was to get an alarm system (which foiled one of the attempts), never even considered getting a gun. but i do keep a baseball bat handy.

in each of the three incidents, the thieves waited until the house was unoccupied.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 04:08 PM

Ah-you mean what prevents him from obtaining a gun in a store. Nothing. But what prevents an alcoholic from purchasing booze and drunkenly ramming a car into another, killing all inside? I don't see a difference.

If you're going to say that my former roommate is the kind of person who should not own a gun (and you did), then I think it's incumbent upon you to tell me how a gun is kept out of his hands.

I understand that. I wasn't arguing that point. I was asking your position on private gun ownership, not whether or not you'd live in a house with a gun.

That is my position, on the only matter I raised. You are the one who assumes that I must have either a "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" position. May I have some other choices, please? As I've pointed out before, this is the problem with this entire debate -- a non-extreme position is seen as no position at all. It's not even comprehensible, apparently.

Swarmlord

Mar 16, 2007, 04:10 PM

And how exactly are you going to advertise the fact that you have a gun?

NRA sticker or "This house protected by Smith & Wesson" sticker on a window by each door. My sticker may be a lie as far as the criminal is concerned, but don't you think he'll try another house? My dog has sensitive ears too, so if he's close enough to read the sticker, the dog is already throwing herself against the door.

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 04:10 PM

But there are things in my house that are worth defending with all the force I can bring to bear; my wife, and my children. And there is no denying that there are monsters roaming this world who are desperate enough, or deranged enough, to try to take them.This is such a tired old argument. Real life isn't like that.

Swarmlord

Mar 16, 2007, 04:11 PM

So now everyone with a gun is bad and everyone that has a dog is bad too?

I must be a very bad boy!

skunk

Mar 16, 2007, 04:12 PM

My dog has sensitive ears too, so if he's close enough to read the sticker, the dog is already throwing herself against the door.I'd stick with the dog. We have a sign on our front door which says it all: ATTENTION! CHIEN BIZARRE.

Swarmlord

Mar 16, 2007, 04:12 PM

This is such a tired old argument. Real life isn't like that.

Tell that to the relatives of Tate/LaBianca.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 04:15 PM

And how exactly are you going to advertise the fact that you have a gun?

Neon, I believe is the preferred method.

Something tells me Macnut isn't interpreting IJs post correctly. ;)

I think you're a lot closer to getting my point.

TheAnswer

Mar 16, 2007, 04:18 PM

NRA sticker or "This house protected by Smith & Wesson" sticker on a window by each door. My sticker may be a lie as far as the criminal is concerned, but don't you think he'll try another house? My dog has sensitive ears too, so if he's close enough to read the sticker, the dog is already throwing herself against the door.

If he waits for the house to be unoccupied, as most burglars do...your sign just reads as "Find gun to kill dog" or "Find gun, wait in stealth to take hostages, rape women"

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 04:18 PM

If you're going to say that my former roommate is the kind of person who should not own a gun (and you did), then I think it's incumbent upon you to tell me how a gun is kept out of his hands.

There isn't. All you could to is give him advice and try to convince him not to own one. I guess I wasn't clear. There are lots of things people shouldn't do that are just as deadly to them and others. In many of those cases we can't stop them either. I thought I just pointed that out.

That is my position, on the only matter I raised. You are the one who assumes that I must have either a "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" position. May I have some other choices, please? As I've pointed out before, this is the problem with this entire debate -- a non-extreme position is seen as no position at all. It's not even comprehensible, apparently.

I'm still not clear on what the position is. Is it:

a. I am against private handgun ownership
b. I do not like to be around guns, but have no problem if others choose to own them.
c. Everybody should have a gun! (I know, not likely I'm just being silly. :))

I suspect it's b., but I'm not totally sure.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 04:31 PM

There isn't. All you could to is give him advice and try to convince him not to own one. I guess I wasn't clear. There are lots of things people shouldn't do that are just as deadly to them and others. In many of those cases we can't stop them either. I thought I just pointed that out.

A little late to have this discussion, after you've got a bullet in your head, don't you think? And it sure isn't apparent to me how you have the conversation before the gun's been pointed at you.

I'm still not clear on what the position is. Is it:

a. I am against private handgun ownership
b. I do not like to be around guns, but have no problem if others choose to own them.
c. Everybody should have a gun! (I know, not likely I'm just being silly. :))

I suspect it's b., but I'm not totally sure.

Again if having a position is necessary in order for me to have other opinions (why this is required still eludes me), then choice B would probably be closest to my overall feelings on the matter.

Actually, I'm not particularly uncomfortable around guns. I'm perfectly comfortable around them, in the right environment. I just don't want one in my home.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 04:42 PM

A little late to have this discussion, after you've got a bullet in your head, don't you think? And it sure isn't apparent to me how you have the conversation before the gun's been pointed at you.

Yes it is. But I don't see any other solution either. No law is going to stop people from getting guns. I definitely would have had a serious conversation with him about it after the incident you described. I'd have been pretty firm too. Either he got rid of the gun, or I'd leave.

Again if having a position is necessary in order for me to have other opinions (why this is required still eludes me), then choice B would probably be closest to my overall feelings on the matter.

Actually, I'm not particularly uncomfortable around guns. I'm perfectly comfortable around them, in the right environment. I just don't want one in my home.

It's kind of difficult to have a conversation when you don't know where someone stands. And you just answered my question. Thanks- that's all I was looking for.

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 05:01 PM

Yes it is. But I don't see any other solution either. No law is going to stop people from getting guns. I definitely would have had a serious conversation with him about it after the incident you described. I'd have been pretty firm too. Either he got rid of the gun, or I'd leave.

As I thought I mentioned earlier, he did take the gun out of the house after this incident. I don't recall if it was because I asked him to or he did it voluntarily. I'm glad it did not come to a confrontation. How do you have a serious, firm and insistent discussion with a hothead with a gun? Besides, how would I even know he had a gun before he pointed it at me? Let's get real here. People kill people in their own households all the time. Maybe there's a reason. Maybe it's not so easy to avoid, if people perceive a need to keep loaded guns around their homes, if they really believe that they're more likely to kill an intruder than someone in their own household, against all the evidence.

It's kind of difficult to have a conversation when you don't know where someone stands. And you just answered my question. Thanks- that's all I was looking for.

I can't agree. It should be perfectly easy to have this conversation without knowing anything beyond the facts I've related and how I came to feel about guns in the home, as a result. The insistence that I express some other position is the problem, not the solution. This is one of the main reasons why we have so much trouble holding a rational debate about guns.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 16, 2007, 05:01 PM

Damn, I always miss these interesting threads...

I'm a gun owner myself, so I guess you could place me into the ridiculously oversimplifed "pro-gun" category, although I would avoid such uselessly loaded terms (Ha ha, funny pun).

Speaking personally, I don't own any weapons for self defence. All of my firearms are kept locked up when I'm not using them. If armed robbers entered my house I would try to flee and call the police.

I haven't really made up my mind on the subject, but this issue is bound to get more contentious with the new (much more draconian) assault weapons ban already in congress - the one in which any sem-auto handgun with a capacity over 10 rounds is legally considered a "semi-auto assualt weapon"...WTF?.

I suspect a Democrat in the White House will lead to more serious attempts at gun control legislation. I'll still vote Democrat, though I am disappointed in their oversimplified views on firearms.

leekohler

Mar 16, 2007, 05:23 PM

As I thought I mentioned earlier, he did take the gun out of the house after this incident. I don't recall if it was because I asked him to or he did it voluntarily. I'm glad it did not come to a confrontation. How do you have a serious, firm and insistent discussion with a hothead with a gun? Besides, how would I even know he had a gun before he pointed it at me? Let's get real here. People kill people in their own households all the time. Maybe there's a reason. Maybe it's not so easy to avoid, if people perceive a need to keep loaded guns around their homes, if they really believe that they're more likely to kill an intruder than someone in their own household, against all the evidence.

As I've said before, I think the answer here is education, just like anything else. People think they can just walk into a gun shop, buy a gun and poof- they've got protection. There is a lot more to owning and handling a gun than that. There's a lot of naivete out there.

I can't agree. It should be perfectly easy to have this conversation without knowing anything beyond the facts I've related and how I came to feel about guns in the home, as a result. The insistence that I express some other position is the problem, not the solution. This is one of the main reasons why we have so much trouble holding a rational debate about guns.

But there's certainly nothing wrong with your stance. And I don't understand how that undermines the ability to have this discussion. You're fairly middle of the road on the topic. And since this thread is about a particular gun ban, I don't see the problem with asking your position on the subject of gun bans.

MacNut

Mar 16, 2007, 06:18 PM

Just for clarification IJ Are you opposed to a gun period in the home or if its locked away in the safe is that ok?

IJ Reilly

Mar 16, 2007, 08:16 PM

As I've said before, I think the answer here is education, just like anything else. People think they can just walk into a gun shop, buy a gun and poof- they've got protection. There is a lot more to owning and handling a gun than that. There's a lot of naivete out there.

I agree, in general. Education also takes the form of understanding the real risks you face by keeping a loaded weapon in your home for self-defence. I have an idea that if more people realized that they were more likely to shoot a family member than a bad guy, then fewer people might end up buying one for that purpose.

But there's certainly nothing wrong with your stance. And I don't understand how that undermines the ability to have this discussion. You're fairly middle of the road on the topic. And since this thread is about a particular gun ban, I don't see the problem with asking your position on the subject of gun bans.

Actually, the thread started on the subject of a single court case and the Constitution. Hardly anyone seemed to want to discuss either issue directly, which was pretty disappointing to me since I think it's a far more interesting subject than "guns good/guns bad." What bugged me was being forced into choosing a simplistic "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" stance, when I was simply relating my experience with guns in homes, and how it affected my views of same.

Just for clarification IJ Are you opposed to a gun period in the home or if its locked away in the safe is that ok?

I'm not sure what you mean by "opposed." I've got no reason to want one in my home locked or otherwise, so the question doesn't seem to pertain to me.

dsnort

Mar 17, 2007, 12:19 AM

This is such a tired old argument. Real life isn't like that.

So your argument against weapons for self defense devolves to "bad things don't happen to good people"? How.... Disney like!

skunk

Mar 17, 2007, 03:22 AM

So your argument against weapons for self defense devolves to "bad things don't happen to good people"? How.... Disney like!You miss my point entirely. My argument is that weapons make nobody safer.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 17, 2007, 12:22 PM

You miss my point entirely. My argument is that weapons make nobody safer.

In a country like the USA, where gun ownership is widespread (and there are far more guns around than in many other countries), the problem with gun control laws are that they only affect law abiding citizens.

If they passed a law banning firearms that I owned and demanded I surrender them, I would be very angry but comply with the law. Ditto if they passed a law requiring me to register all my firearms.

The problem with that is that the majority of gun crime is committed with stolen or black market weapons. People in that situation ignored the law when obtaining the gun in the first place, so the law would fail to disarm the people who are the real source of the problem.

The statement "weapons don't make anyone safer" is an oversimplification. I think it is not possible to make such a general statement one way or another, when there are an infinite number of circumstances to consider. Many times they don't, but I can't agree that they are useless. I think that the most important aspect to owning a weapon for self-defence is to get training in its use - and the critical part of that is to learn when to use it and, more importantly, when not to use it. People who buy a gun for self defence without taking a training class pertaining to home defence are a danger to themselves.

But disarming the American public is not necessarily the best way to attack the problem of gun crime, because as I said most of the guns used in crime are not within the law in the first place.

As far as D.C. goes, I'm a bit torn. D.C., as the seat of national government, might be a candidate for a unique citywide gun ban. I doubt the hard-core NRA guys will stand for that because of the possibility of the precedent it will set; but other cities have enacted various types of gun bans so it wouldn't be the first.

takao

Mar 17, 2007, 12:33 PM

But disarming the American public is not necessarily the best way to attack the problem of gun crime, because as I said most of the guns used in crime are not within the law in the first place.

so from where do those illegal guns come ?

1. run off the assembly line
2. ???
3. black market gun

care to fill in the blank without the obvious "stolen from law abiding citizens" ?

you know for me the correlation "more legal guns ->more legal guns to steal -> more illegal guns " seems rather logical
also "more illegal guns -> citizens need protection -> more legal guns"

vicious cycle anyone ?

IJ Reilly

Mar 17, 2007, 12:38 PM

In a country like the USA, where gun ownership is widespread (and there are far more guns around than in many other countries), the problem with gun control laws are that they only affect law abiding citizens.

This argument can be used to deny the effectiveness of any law or regulation. It doesn't apply to gun controls any more than it does to, say, building codes. The fact that some people will always be willing to violate laws is not a serious argument against having laws.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 17, 2007, 01:33 PM

This argument can be used to deny the effectiveness of any law or regulation. It doesn't apply to gun controls any more than it does to, say, building codes. The fact that some people will always be willing to violate laws is not a serious argument against having laws.

Nor is it in argument in favor of simply illegalizing everything that can in some way be associated with criminal activity. Many people see no need for guns at all and seek to whittle away at legal gun ownership legislatively until it no longer exists. But many people legally own and use firearms and feel they should be able to continue to do so. I don't think either side is right or wrong, but the debate is generally characterized that way.

The argument that guns can be used to kill does in itself not provide a serious reason to ban them, because it is hardly an argument unique to firearms. People can act responsibly with firearms.

Gun ownership is something I believe should be protected under the constitution, subject to limitations. Rather than making fundamental changes to the laws, people on both sides of the issue should concentrate on tuning legislation to promote responsible gun ownership and prevent gun crime. I don't think that banning legal gun ownership should be on the table.

so from where do those illegal guns come ?

1. run off the assembly line
2. ???
3. black market gun

care to fill in the blank without the obvious "stolen from law abiding citizens" ?

you know for me the correlation "more legal guns ->more legal guns to steal -> more illegal guns " seems rather logical
also "more illegal guns -> citizens need protection -> more legal guns"

vicious cycle anyone ?

There are more than enough illegal guns out there already to supply the criminal world for generations - no replenishment cycle is needed. If we banned guns tomorrow the situation would not change in that regard. Production of cocaine in the US is totally illegal outside a small amount for medical use yet we're drowning in it - guns could be smuggled every bit as easily.

I'm not arguing that draconian gun bans would not reduce the number of guns in the US. But it would anger and alienate all legal gun owners while only impacting some criminals. The bulk of the armed criminal element would be unaffected.

IJ Reilly

Mar 17, 2007, 01:50 PM

True. But it is, in my opinion, a strong argument to use when considering the form of gun control legislation. I think that people on both sides of the issue must be more willing to compromise.

The argument that guns can be used to kill does in itself not provide a serious reason to ban them, because it is hardly an argument unique to firearms. People can act responsibly with firearms.

Gun ownership is something I believe should be protected under the constitution, subject to limitations. Rather than making fundamental changes to the laws, people on both sides of the issue should concentrate on tuning legislation to promote responsible gun ownership and prevent gun crime. I don't think that banning legal gun ownership should be on the table.

I didn't know that a ban was on the table. Even so, I think it's widely accepted that some arms should not be in the hands of individuals. Given that gun ownership is not a Constitutional right, I don't know what point is served by suggesting that it should be, except to pollute the entire debate.

If it were entirely up to me, all guns would be registered and all gun owners would be screened and required to demonstrate at least some minimum level of competency in their use. If a rational argument against this exists (one that doesn't rely on Constitutional rights fantasies or deep paranoia), then I haven't heard it yet.

mactastic

Mar 17, 2007, 03:54 PM

I'm still unsure what part of the 2nd Amendment prohibits me from turning sand into glass, should I possess the necessary land and resources?

It doesn't say "... keep and bear some arms but not others..." does it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a gun-toting lefty. But I'm curious about how absolute the 2nd is.

skunk

Mar 17, 2007, 04:57 PM

I'm still unsure what part of the 2nd Amendment prohibits me from turning sand into glass, should I possess the necessary land and resources?You're going to arm yourself with a kiln? Radical! :cool:

Lord Blackadder

Mar 17, 2007, 05:23 PM

I didn't know that a ban was on the table. Even so, I think it's widely accepted that some arms should not be in the hands of individuals. Given that gun ownership is not a Constitutional right, I don't know what point is served by suggesting that it should be, except to pollute the entire debate.

I shouldn't say "protected by the Constitution"; I don't think that gun ownership is a right, but it is permitted by law.

There is currently a new "assault weapons ban (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:)" that has been proposed. It is similar to the one enacted in '94 and expired recently except that it has no expiration date, it prohibits private sales of weapons considered "assault weapons", (you have to go through a Class 1 FFL certified dealer) and adds weapons like the AR-15, and Mini-14, and WWII-era M1 Carbine to the list of "assault weapons".

One thing that bothers me is that the legal definition of a "semi-automatic assault weapon" has become distorted from it's original technical meaning and is now a buzzword meant to be an umbrella term for guns that some people think should be banned. By restricting "assault weapons" and then expanding the list of which guns can be termed "assault weapons", lawmakers create confusing and emotionally-infused laws.

I think the whole assault weapons ban concept should be scrapped because I don't think it is helpful. With the exception of characteristics that have already been restricted (fully automatic weapons and weapons of a caliber considered beyond that of small arms - generally anything over .50BMG), I think that universal registration and safety training would be adequate. The current SBR (short-barreled rifle) rule is rather arbitrary but I don't have a huge problem with it.

If it were entirely up to me, all guns would be registered and all gun owners would be screened and required to demonstrate at least some minimum level of competency in their use. If a rational argument against this exists (one that doesn't rely on Constitutional rights fantasies or deep paranoia), then I haven't heard it yet.

I don't have a problem with the concept of registering firearms to keep track of them, or requiring some sort of safety training, especially for weapons meant for home defence. I know a lot of gun owners disagree with me on that, but I think it is a good idea.

Desertrat

Mar 17, 2007, 08:47 PM

HR 1022 is proposed once again. It not only would resurrect the old "assault weapon" ban, it would add other semi-auto rifles and shotguns to the list.

IJ, if a law that's intended to reduce crime does not in fact affect crime rates, what is the point of having it? Why bother? If a law that's intended to reduce crime in fact enables freer criminality, how is that law good? If a law that's intended to reduce crime in fact endangers people, how is that law good?

Lord Blackadder, do you think that free speech is only protected by law?

You come late to the discussion. Do you disagree with the intent of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? Do you think the first ten amendments to our constitution are speaking to rights given us by government? If so, you'd be at odds with the people involved in writing the Constitution and the BOR, per their other and voluminous commentaries.

'Rat

Lord Blackadder

Mar 17, 2007, 09:25 PM

Lord Blackadder, do you think that free speech is only protected by law?

Free speech is at the core of any truly representative government. Anything less whould be tyranny.

You come late to the discussion. Do you disagree with the intent of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights? Do you think the first ten amendments to our constitution are speaking to rights given us by government? If so, you'd be at odds with the people involved in writing the Constitution and the BOR, per their other and voluminous commentaries.

'Rat

The writers of the Constitution intended the Bill of Rights to represent "rights" that were God-given, or above any human "law". In that sense, the right to bear arms means that I, as a citizen, have the right to arm myself in such a manner as to be able to defend life, family and property, either at home or as part of a citizen-army.

Of course, the writers of the Bill of Rights (for all of their considerable foresight) could not have known the path that society and technology would take.

These days, war is arguably much more professional than it was in the 1770s, or even the 1860s. The individual soldier is much more highly trained and posseses a great deal more firepower proportional to the Revolutionary soldier. The US no longer has hostile borders to defend or any real threat of invasion.

Still, current events have shown us that the citizen-soldier concept is far from dead. Well-armed irregulars can bog down the best armies with a guerilla war, to the point that the invading army finds the battle too costly to continue.

But I don't know whether I can say I have the "right" to be armed. I don't feel that they should be taken away from me, I can tell you that. I haven't made up my mind completely, to tell you the truth. One thing I can say, is that I feel that neither of our nation's political parties represents me in this matter, each being one of two extremes.

IJ Reilly

Mar 18, 2007, 02:17 AM

I shouldn't say "protected by the Constitution"; I don't think that gun ownership is a right, but it is permitted by law.

Some weapons you may own, others you may not. I don't think many people, even avid gun owners, would fundamentally disagree with this concept. Does every law make sense? Of course not.

I don't have a problem with the concept of registering firearms to keep track of them, or requiring some sort of safety training, especially for weapons meant for home defence. I know a lot of gun owners disagree with me on that, but I think it is a good idea.

I think many other gun enthusiasts might be in agreement, but it can't happen in the current environment because the faux Constitutional debate pollutes the discussion.

IJ, if a law that's intended to reduce crime does not in fact affect crime rates, what is the point of having it? Why bother? If a law that's intended to reduce crime in fact enables freer criminality, how is that law good? If a law that's intended to reduce crime in fact endangers people, how is that law good?

This country has never had guns laws which were intended to be effective. For the primary reason why, see above.

orangemacapple

Mar 18, 2007, 04:02 AM

a regulated militia IMO would be able bodied persons taught in the proper and safe use of arms – so they can secure themselves and their homes and rally against enemies (whether it is our own government that is out of hand or foreign invaders)

an organized militia is an army devoted to the whims of government.

which exactly does the constitution advocate – or is the interpretation clouded?

Lord Blackadder

Mar 18, 2007, 12:01 PM

Some weapons you may own, others you may not. I don't think many people, even avid gun owners, would fundamentally disagree with this concept. Does every law make sense? Of course not.

I don't think anybody fundamentally disagrees with that concept, though we certainly wrangle over where to draw the line.

I think many other gun enthusiasts might be in agreement, but it can't happen in the current environment because the faux Constitutional debate pollutes the discussion.

I agree that the the discussions surrounding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are not really adressing the most immediate issues, but that isn't the whole story. I think that people on both sides have become mired in stereotypes to the point where an informed, constructive discussion is very difficult. I've been in discussions with people on each side of the issue (without them knowing my stance) and have had some anti-gun people use simply nauseating stereotypes to describe "what gun owners are like". The same goes for the ways people on the other side of the issue have described gun-control advocates. These people will bring those prejudices to the discussion with them.

How can you have an informed debate about critical issues when everything is emotional, personal, and people don't bring any kind of respect to the discussion? Websites on both sides of the issue are full of misinformation or misquotes and people lap them up and spew them at each other.

a regulated militia IMO would be able bodied persons taught in the proper and safe use of arms – so they can secure themselves and their homes and rally against enemies (whether it is our own government that is out of hand or foreign invaders)

an organized militia is an army devoted to the whims of government.

which exactly does the constitution advocate – or is the interpretation clouded?

I think the notion that we can protect ourselves from the government or force the goverment to fear or respect its citizenry by being armed is a complete anachronism. Still, the legacy of that notion survived in a more useful form as the Civilian Marksmenship Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program) (CMP). It was originally intended as an organization that familiarized the public with firearms safety and marksmanship techniques so that, in the even of a war, conscripts would enter training in a less "raw" state. While it is no longer a Federal organization, it's still around. It's emphasis on safety and marksmanship training is pretty much the same as ever, though the government no longer supports it directly, except for donation of surplus rifles for sale (all of which are WWII vintage weapons).

IJ Reilly

Mar 18, 2007, 12:21 PM

I don't think anybody fundamentally disagrees with that concept, though we certainly wrangle over where to draw the line.

Exactly -- this is the national discussion we need to have, but we can't I believe in large part because gun rights advocates promote a bogus interpretation of the Second Amendment. If one side insists that gun ownerships is a "right," then how can we even start to talk about guns? Rights aren't negotiable.

I agree that the the discussions surrounding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are not really adressing the most immediate issues, but that isn't the whole story. I think that people on both sides have become mired in stereotypes to the point where an informed, constructive discussion is very difficult. I've been in discussions with people on each side of the issue (without them knowing my stance) and have had some anti-gun people use simply nauseating stereotypes to describe "what gun owners are like". The same goes for the ways people on the other side of the issue have described gun-control advocates. These people will bring those prejudices to the discussion with them.

How can you have an informed debate about critical issues when everything is emotional, personal, and people don't bring any kind of respect to the discussion? Websites on both sides of the issue are full of misinformation or misquotes and people lap them up and spew them at each other.

Interesting. You, a gun owner, me a non-gun owner have almost exactly the same views on this issue. This alone challenges the "pro" and "anti" gun stereotypes. Maybe pigeonholes aren't such a great place to put people after all. The truth is, if we could lop off the extreme positions on both sides of this issue, I think it would go a long way towards starting a constructive national debate. We haven't been able to do it yet, though. Not in this country.

mactastic

Mar 18, 2007, 12:57 PM

I've been in discussions with people on each side of the issue (without them knowing my stance) and have had some anti-gun people use simply nauseating stereotypes to describe "what gun owners are like". The same goes for the ways people on the other side of the issue have described gun-control advocates. These people will bring those prejudices to the discussion with them.
This actually happens to me regularly. People find out that I have liberal views, so they assume I'm rabidly anti-gun and feel free to embark on a tirade about "those gun-nuts". I generally ask them if they feel that I am nuts, which takes a few seconds to sink in. Then they get really pissed, as if I have betrayed the cause of liberalism.

And of course the opposite has occurred, where I meet people with bumper stickers that say "piss of a liberal, buy a gun" who tend to be full of the most venomous and hateful opinions of leftys. I was talking guns with a guy one time and he made some nasty crack about liberals. I politely informed him that I was one, and he couldn't deal with it. He walked away in a huff.

Those kind of sentiments are what prevent a rational debate about gun policy.

Since no one has bothered to answer my question about what in the Constitution prevents me, or anyone else, from possessing a nuclear device, I can only conclude that everyone here understands that there is a practical limit to the "arms" we're allowed to "bear". Thus the debate is over where to draw the line, not whether there is a line at all.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 18, 2007, 02:40 PM

Since no one has bothered to answer my question about what in the Constitution prevents me, or anyone else, from possessing a nuclear device, I can only conclude that everyone here understands that there is a practical limit to the "arms" we're allowed to "bear". Thus the debate is over where to draw the line, not whether there is a line at all.

...And sometimes the line gets drawn in weird places. For example, California's stance against bayonets...why? The bayonet is by far the least dangerous part of a semiautomatic rifle. They make the weapon clumsy to manipulate indoors and pretty much impossible to conceal. I'm going to go rob a store...hmm, let's see, should I take my compact, easily concealed snubnosed .38 revolver (which is legal in Cali AFAIK) or my 10lb, 5ft long M59/66 rifle?:rolleyes:

I'd love to see bank robbers attacking the police with a bayonet charge. :D :rolleyes:

hulugu

Mar 18, 2007, 04:30 PM

...And sometimes the line gets drawn in weird places. For example, California's stance against bayonets...why? The bayonet is by far the least dangerous part of a semiautomatic rifle. They make the weapon clumsy to manipulate indoors and pretty much impossible to conceal. I'm going to go rob a store...hmm, let's see, should I take my compact, easily concealed snubnosed .38 revolver (which is legal in Cali AFAIK) or my 10lb, 5ft long M59/66 rifle?:rolleyes:

I'd love to see bank robbers attacking the police with a bayonet charge. :D :rolleyes:

I thought that the 'bayonet rule' was just part of the overall description of a particular (if in reality non-existent) classification of certain small-arms. It wasn't the bayonet, but the ability to attach a bayonet (and other such under-barrel accessories, such as grenade launchers) that could make a weapon part of this 'class' of weapons.

hulugu

Mar 18, 2007, 04:39 PM

There are more than enough illegal guns out there already to supply the criminal world for generations - no replenishment cycle is needed. If we banned guns tomorrow the situation would not change in that regard. Production of cocaine in the US is totally illegal outside a small amount for medical use yet we're drowning in it - guns could be smuggled every bit as easily.

I'm not arguing that draconian gun bans would not reduce the number of guns in the US. But it would anger and alienate all legal gun owners while only impacting some criminals. The bulk of the armed criminal element would be unaffected.

What about putting limits or taxes on the sale of ammunition? I can see that in some cases, such as sub-machine guns that fire handgun rounds, this would be nearly useless, but couldn't there be some limits placed on the sale of ammunition used in 'assault rifles' and the like? While the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16 is little, couldn't a limitation on 5.56mm rounds help to constrain the market enough to make a ban useful while not impacting legal gun owners.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 18, 2007, 05:08 PM

I thought that the 'bayonet rule' was just part of the overall description of a particular (if in reality non-existent) classification of certain small-arms. It wasn't the bayonet, but the ability to attach a bayonet (and other such under-barrel accessories, such as grenade launchers) that could make a weapon part of this 'class' of weapons.

It's part of what defines an "assault weapon".

SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON: (As defined by 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) Section 921(a)(30) - "The term 'semiautomatic assault weapon' means ... (B) a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of -

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a bayonet mount

(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) a grenade launcher"

NOTE: Section 922(v)(1) states that "It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon".

My Yugo M59/66 has both a grenade launcher and a permanently attached folding bayonet. So it's an illegal "assault rifle", right? Not quite. You see, the M59/66 is listed by the BATF (http://http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/index.htm#Firearms) as a Curio & Relic (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/curios/0301to0505update.htm) firearm (scroll down to see it on the list), which means that it is legal to import, buy and sell so long as it is not altered from its original military configuration. Curio and Relic firearms are weapons determined by the BATF to be historically signifcant and/or of interest to collectors, and thus exempt from certain restrictions so long as they are not substantially modified.

California law (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php) on the subject is more strict and the mere presence of the grenade launcher alone classifies this weapon as an illegal assault rifle.

So actually I was wrong - I've seen Yugo M59/66 rifles advertized as "California Legal". They had the grenade launcher cut off, replaced by an ugly flash suppressor permanently welded on (the grenade launcher uses a pin to hold it in place and can be removed), the bayonet removed and the bayonet lug ground off. I've also seen "California Legal" M59/66s with the bayonet intact - apparently the more chopped up weapons were the result of a dealer erring on the side of caution. Either way, the "modifications" done to make the weapon legal in Cali destroy its collectability, and its collectability was what caused the BATF to make it C&R in the first place...:confused:

What about putting limits or taxes on the sale of ammunition? I can see that in some cases, such as sub-machine guns that fire handgun rounds, this would be nearly useless, but couldn't there be some limits placed on the sale of ammunition used in 'assault rifles' and the like? While the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16 is little, couldn't a limitation on 5.56mm rounds help to constrain the market enough to make a ban useful while not impacting legal gun owners.

The difference between 5.56mm NATO and .223 Remington is so small as to be pretty negigible. Most popular semi-autos that use one type can use the other; for example pretty much all AR-15 or M-4 type rifles manufactured by Colt, Bushmaster and Armalite can use either type, as can the Mini-14. There is really only one difference between an M-16 and an AR-15: the trigger group, which in the '16 allows for burst or auto, wheras the AR-15 is strictly semi-auto. Other than that, the AR-15 is identical in every way to a standard-issue U.S. military M-16.

There are few restrictions on specific ammunition AFAIK. Off the top of my head I can say that DU (Depleted Uranium) and explosive rounds are generally restricted. Also the 5.7x28mm ammunition developed by FN specifically for defeating body armor is restricted (http://www.impactguns.com/store/fn_ammunition.html) to law enforcement and military sales - though a special civilian version with degraded performance is available. Tracers and some armor-piercing rounds are not restricted. Most legal "armor piercing" rounds are WWII era loads for machine guns and are usually only found among collectors. At any rate normal FMJ (full metal jacket) full sized (think .308, 30-06 or .303) rifle rounds will defeat all body armor at close and medium range, so the old "armor piercing" stuff doesn't confer a much of an advantage over regular FMJ rifle ammunition.

Just as an interesting side note to this discussion, many of you may not be aware of the fact that fully automatic weapons can be legally owned by civilians in the United States, though there are a lot of hoops (http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns_legalities.html) you must jump through to get there. Any machine gun that is properly documented and legal to sell to qualified individuals or governement agencies is called a transferable magine gun. Some very well-heeled firearms collectors have extensive collections of light & heavy machine guns, machine pistols, submachine guns and assualt rifles as well as other military collectables such as mortars and grenade launchers.

Many Class 3 FFL dealers that specialize in selling to the military and police also carry a variety of very rare and very expensive (http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html) collectible automatic firearms. Where do they come from? 3 sources usually:

1. A "bringback" weapon brought by a member of the military illicitly from action (usually Vietnam or WWII) and subsequently amnestied by the government.

2. A "Law Enforcement Sample"; a weapon bought by a law enforcement or government agency as a sample when choosing new eqipment - these weapons are transferable to qualified dealer for sale between agencies and to qualified civilians.

3. A legal "Conversion". Occasionally a law enforcement agency converts some of its semiauto weapons to full auto. These weapons are also transferable.

Of course, one look at the prices and red tape and you can see why this is (thankfully) restricted to a very small group of rich firearms collectors, many of whom are law-enforcement and military personnel as well.

Desertrat

Mar 18, 2007, 07:23 PM

hulugu, you can buy semi-auto hunting rifles made by Remington, Winchester and Browning that use cartridges that are far more powerful than the 7.62x39 that's common to the "ugly guns", those so-called, mis-labelled "assault weapons".

If somebody just HAS to shoot me, I hope it's with a 7.62x39; odds are that it's FMJ and thus much less expansion and energy than any average deer rifle. MUCH less tissue damage. Far more survivable.

Our army's 5.56mm cartridge is rather a pipsqueak, compared to many of the common 22-caliber centerfires used by varmint hunters. I was rather startled when folks first ever started talking about that round when it was first introduced. 1966? Something like that. Hey, three-fourths of the muzzle velocity of my .220 Swift! Who cares? And I darned sure won't allow anybody to use one, hunting out of my deer camp.

45 grains weight of H414 and you can drive a 40-grain bullet 4,200 feet per second. Rough on prairie dogs, those "fire ants with fur". :D But, that's not all that much faster than the old Savage .22 Hi-Power, introduced in 1899.

Competition shooters, whether civilian or military, practice many hundreds and even thousands of rounds per week. It's common for folks to have somewhere around a year's supply on hand. "Buy now, beat the price increase." The stuff will keep for decades. I still have some old GI hardball for .45ACP that was new in 1943. It still works.

IOW, high performance cartridges have been around since Old Man Mauser's 7mms at San Juan Hill, Cuba. Semi-auto rifles have also been around since early in the 20th century. Most of these para-military things are nothing more than a way for lower-income people to have something to shoot or protect their homes. Folks nowadays get too excited, mostly due to a lack of knowledge. IMO, the media are among the most ignorant, and they pass on a ton of misinformation.

Well, back to the loading bench.

:D, 'Rat

Lord Blackadder

Mar 18, 2007, 10:05 PM

If somebody just HAS to shoot me, I hope it's with a 7.62x39; odds are that it's FMJ and thus much less expansion and energy than any average deer rifle. MUCH less tissue damage. Far more survivable.

I'd take the 5.56 over that even, less lead. The 5.56 isn't much of a man stopper, as we've come to find out.

I shoot 1947 vintage Turk 7.92x57mm in my mauser rifles...it's fairly hot stuff, the 154gr. bullet comes out of the muzzle @ almost 3000fps. That's nearly 7mm Remington Magnum territory...

IJ Reilly

Mar 18, 2007, 10:10 PM

What this has to do with the topic...?

Desertrat

Mar 19, 2007, 08:20 AM

Topic, IJ? There's a topic? :D

I dunno that there's anything in the Constitution that says you can't have whatever sort of weapon you want.

As to meaning of the Second, there was quite a bit of discussion in the Federalist and in the Anti-Federalist papers as to intent. It seemed a general agreement that the rights under the Second did not or should not apply to those of "unsound mind" or of "ill repute". I take that latter to mean what we today call felons.

Again, for all that it might seem "anachronistic", the Bill of Rights is a package of restraints against government. Its Preamble tells us it is intended to prevent an abuse of power by the state. The BOR restrains the State and enumerates (not "gives") some of the rights of the citizenry.

So, when it comes to gun rights under the Second, I can but ask how something intended to restrain government can in any way be at the same time a restraint upon the citizen?

At the time of the writing, the militia was expected to provide its own arms. It was expected to be self-organizing at the local level, training together. The word "regulated" at that time meant functional or competent. (I note that a change in word meaning to today's usage does not change the original intent from that earlier time.)

Militia? Able-bodied males, 17 through 44 years of age. A couple of years ago, Congress specified "organized militia" as being the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" is able-bodied males, 17 through 44, plus certain women. (I cited it, way, way back in this thread.) The unorganized militia is not a figment of a pro-gun-rights imagination nor an anachronism from 200 years ago.

'Rat

hulugu

Mar 20, 2007, 02:40 PM

What this has to do with the topic...?

Sorry, I asked a question and set it off on yet another tangent.

Desertrat

Mar 20, 2007, 07:53 PM

hulugu, I've always figured that honest questions that are tangential do no harm. Most threads that run beyond two or three pages generally have run their course.

As far as limits on ammo, there are just so many ways around it that it's pretty much a waste of time and effort. And: Just how many rounds are actually shot by bad guys? Rifle ammo commonly is sold by a box of 20; pistol is mostly a box of 50. (Some of the more costly, 25 to a box.) If somebody with no criminal record buys just one box of pistol ammo, his badnews buddy or her badnews boyfriend is in business for quite a while.

Then there are thousands of guys like me: I found a discount outlet sporting goods store on I-75 in Georgia. Primers at $13/thousand instead of $19. Powder about the same. So, I stocked up; the stuff keeps essentially forever. For rifles, 150 to 300 rounds per pound of powder. For many pistol loads, a thousand per pound and even more. Lots of hobby guys take pride in casting their own bullets.

Limiting rates of purchase of anything does not stop any misuse.

'Rat

hulugu

Mar 21, 2007, 02:40 AM

Limiting rates of purchase of anything does not stop any misuse.

'Rat

Yep, thought so, but just thinking aloud. I can't help but think that this country has far too many guns and people are far too irrational for it to be easy and cheap to buy a weapon.

One of the things that struck me was Guns in America, a fantastic book that compared the gun ownerships of people throughout US history and described how rare and expensive guns were up until the Civil War.

Desertrat

Mar 21, 2007, 11:13 AM

The problem with "Guns In America" is that it was mostly falsehood. Bellesile?Bellesiles? Remember, the author got his award publicly rescinded, for lying. That event was noted in the newspapers as being about as rare as hen's teeth, but the false scholarship was just way too egregious. Tom Teepen of the Atlanta unConstitution had egg all over his face. He'd lauded the book to the heavens when it came out, and then, "Oops!"

Bellesiles in part relied on records he said he read in California. Unfortunately for him, the librarian at his stated source pointed out that what he said he'd read had been destroyed in 1906. Earthquake. Fire. All that bad stuff.

He said he relied on court records in the northeastern states of estates and wills. Trouble with that is, personal property items were not commonly listed. Still aren't. Other researchers say that as much as 70% of estates passed down firearms.

Hey, during the Revolution, there was no US Government source of arms. So, where did all those guns come from? Obvious answer: From home. Remember all the multitudes of stories about the hunters with rifled-barrelled guns that so devastated the redcoats? Those were their meat guns. Most of the townies in Washington's army had smooth-bores, like the British.

But instead of focussing on the users and how many of what were had by whom, focus on the gun industry of the colonial days. There are many, many articles which talk about the numerous small-scale machinists who produced rifles, shotguns and pistols. Lathes of wood, treadle powered like the Singer sewing machine of a later day. Very mild, easily cut steel for barrels. Museums are full of "Kentucky rifles", and even today there are auctions of extensive collections from the 18th century. Somebody was buying all that early production.

Something I've found interesting about all this gun argument is the behavior pattern oin the general public that shows up anytime there's some perceived threat to ownership: Sales go through the roof.

The BATFE's website has a chart of production of rifles/pistols/shotguns in the US. It only shows ten-year periods, from whenever you download it. I looked at it maybe three years back. Anyhow, the previous ten years showed five million per year. Clinton's assault weapons ban helped increase the gun population by some 40 million--and the rate hasn't dropped. Now, with the perceived anti-gun Democrats in control of Congress, the rate has increased, according to gunstores around the country.

The behavior, today, is a reprise of 1967/1968, during the run-up to the GCA '68. Or 1993, for the assault weapons ban.

What has happened is that gun owners have become more political, and more and more are joining in. It's an Internet thing. Our voting bloc is growing daily--and legislators know it.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Mar 21, 2007, 11:42 AM

He said he relied on court records in the northeastern states of estates and wills. Trouble with that is, personal property items were not commonly listed. Still aren't. Other researchers say that as much as 70% of estates passed down firearms.

I don't know a thing about this book and have no opinion about it -- but I do know that this statement is suspect. As someone who does historical research for a living, I can report that personal property, including guns, watches, cows, you name it, was often recorded in both estate and tax records, especially the latter in the days when personal property was taxed. You can discover a lot about what people owned by researching these records. It's a legitimate research tool.

Desertrat

Mar 21, 2007, 11:51 PM

Okay. I've gotta go by what was said by the various commentators as to the man's work. Lemme say this about that: Other researchers/historians say that some 70% of estates included firearms. Now, whether or not that supposition came from a review of courthouse records, I don't know.

I do know that firearms makers were numerous. To make a living, they had to sell guns. Over a half-century or so of production before the revolution, that's an s-load of guns that were bought by individuals. Certainly enough folks were armed that the British worried about it. That's part of the why of Bunker Hill and all that: Folks wouldn't give up their guns.

That hasn't changed. :D

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Mar 22, 2007, 12:02 PM

Lord Blackadder

Mar 22, 2007, 02:59 PM

So if the Redcoats show up again, we'll be set.

Like I said, I can't comment on this individual's scholarship because I know nothing about it. I just don't want to hear that personal property ownership patterns can't be legitimately researched using tax and probate records.

They can, but speaking from an historical archaeologist's perspective they can be incomplete - people left a lot of items out of those lists for various reasons, so even an expensive item like a firearm may not have made it into a probate inventory.

Still, if you're trying to find out about certain types of property ownership (guns for example), probate records can be very useful. I haven't read the book in question though, so I can't comment on it. It's also important to note that bad scholarship can negate the value of good source material.

Desertrat

Mar 22, 2007, 03:18 PM

Look: I read numerous articles about Bellesiles and his book, but that was several years ago. I don't pretend to remember all the grimy details.

People who claimed to have expertise in colonial-era history, and who claimed to be researchers and apparently are much like IJ and Lord Blackadder as to expertise reviewed Bellesiles' work. This was in print publications, remember.

Some, apparently, did serious review of his source material. One claim was that if some of his source material contradicted his conclusions, it was ignored. He was alleged to have used only that source material that supported his preconceived ideas.

This was apparently convincing enough refutation that the award folks did the rare event of rescinding his award, publicly. (Sorry, I don't remember the award name.)

Okay: From Wikipedia:

"...the book was awarded Columbia University's (N.Y.) Bancroft Prize, although this award was later rescinded on the grounds of scholarly misconduct."

And:

"Shortly after Arming America's release, several researchers, including law professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University (Ill.), pointed to evidence suggesting a pattern of serious errors. In two scholarly articles, Lindgren reported that Bellesiles:

counted guns in about a hundred Providence, R.I. wills that could not be located and may not have existed,

cited as a source, San Francisco County probate inventories -- which would be impossible as the San Francisco records were destroyed in the famous 1906 earthquake,

reported a national mean for gun ownership in 18th-century probate inventories that was mathematically impossible given Bellesiles' regional totals,

had (under Lindgfren's interpretation of the same files) misreported the condition of guns described in probate records in a way that fit Bellesiles's thesis,

mis-cited the counts of guns in Massachusetts censuses and/or militia reports,

had over a 60% error rate in finding guns in one sample of Vermont estates, and

had a 100% error rate in finding gun-related homicide cases in the Plymouth records Bellesiles cited."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellesiles

So: I guess this old man's memory isn't all that bad, neh?

:), 'Rat

mactastic

Mar 22, 2007, 03:35 PM

Some, apparently, did serious review of his source material. One claim was that if some of his source material contradicted his conclusions, it was ignored. He was alleged to have used only that source material that supported his preconceived ideas.
Oh the irony... If only pro-gun conservatives like you had this level of skepticism about our pre-war intelligence regarding Iraq...

IJ Reilly

Mar 22, 2007, 04:34 PM

They can, but speaking from an historical archaeologist's perspective they can be incomplete - people left a lot of items out of those lists for various reasons, so even an expensive item like a firearm may not have made it into a probate inventory.

Still, if you're trying to find out about certain types of property ownership (guns for example), probate records can be very useful. I haven't read the book in question though, so I can't comment on it. It's also important to note that bad scholarship can negate the value of good source material.

Sure, methodology is everything.

People who claimed to have expertise in colonial-era history, and who claimed to be researchers and apparently are much like IJ and Lord Blackadder as to expertise reviewed Bellesiles' work. This was in print publications, remember.

Some, apparently, did serious review of his source material. One claim was that if some of his source material contradicted his conclusions, it was ignored. He was alleged to have used only that source material that supported his preconceived ideas.

Alleged is the correct word. I wasn't previously familiar with this controversy, but in reading into it, I find that it (lo and behold) has two sides.

It may come as a surprise, but historians, like anyone else, can make mistakes. This does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they are frauds. I remember a few years ago when Doris Kearns Goodwin was found to have made some errors in a book of hers, a sin for which she was publicly flagellated. The fact is, she is a fine historian and an excellent writer. She made a mistake.

Scholarship today is a good as it's ever been, probably better. But the ability to have your work fact-checked to within a gnat's eyelash has advanced even more quickly. Given how ideologically driven our world is today, you have to wonder about how many babies are being disposed with very little bath water.

Desertrat

Mar 22, 2007, 09:52 PM

Yes, IJ, very true. In this instance, however, we're not talking about "a" mistake, or even just a few. We're talking wilful mis-statements and outright lies.

'Rat

IJ Reilly

Mar 23, 2007, 11:48 AM

Yes, IJ, very true. In this instance, however, we're not talking about "a" mistake, or even just a few. We're talking wilful mis-statements and outright lies.

'Rat

This is not necessarily true. As I said, this story evidently has two sides. If you'd read only one, I can see why you'd be so convinced.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 23, 2007, 11:49 AM

Scholarship today is a good as it's ever been, probably better. But the ability to have your work fact-checked to within a gnat's eyelash has advanced even more quickly. Given how ideologically driven our world is today, you have to wonder about how many babies are being disposed with very little bath water.

There is an interesting forum discussion in The William and Mary Quarterly (Vol. 59, No. 1, Jan., 2002) concerning Arming America, where various experts assess Bellesiles' scholarship concerning probate inventories, guns in historical society, the 2nd Amendment, and modern gun violence. JSTOR doesn't have it, so I can't read the entire discussion (:( ), but portions of it are available here (http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/wm/59.1/index.html) in the "Historians and Guns" section.

I still can't comment conclusively without reading the entire forum (and Bellesiles' attached response), but the reaction by the scholars examining the work is generally (in some cases strongly) negative.

Whenever a scholar of history chooses to address a current issue in so direct a manner a microscopic analysis of his/her work is inevitable by interested parties on both sides, and since nobody is perfect mistakes in scholarship will surface. It seems, however, that Bellesiles should have been much more rigorous in researching a book that would be sure to set off a political and scholarly firestorm, especially since book caused him to be labelled "the NRA's worst nightmare". Perhaps he didn't anticipate this response, or appreciate just how rancorous an issue firearms ownership can be. Or perhaps it was intentional, though I personally doubt that.

Without having read it, I can say that there seems to be enough concern over its scholarship to regard it with suspicion.

IJ Reilly

Mar 23, 2007, 12:27 PM

Without having read it, I can say that there seems to be enough concern over its scholarship to regard it with suspicion.

Sure, I can understand that. Books are by design public documents. They are a form of two-way communication. They generate discussion, debate, and even controversy, as well they should. I heard a well-known history publisher say once that the process of writing, editing and printing didn't interest him nearly as much as the dialog which ensues after the book is released. That observation was a real revelation to me. The printed word doesn't fall from the sky like some kind of commandment -- it is meant to be discussed, argued and even disagreed with. Some arguments are framed better than others, some are researched and documented better than others. Some writers are more careful with their facts than others. This one clearly should have been more careful, especially given the incendiary nature of the subject.

Hold that thought. I recently wrote a lengthy historical narrative on an important regional event. In the course of my research I read everything I could find on the subject. One of my sources was a popular book. Knowing what I know about the topic, I was filled with amazement as I read this book. It was full of obvious factual errors. The author had clearly not obtained some of the primary research materials which she was claiming to be quoting. I knew, because I had them right in front of me as I was reading the book. She made up most of one chapter, essentially out of whole cloth, attributing verbatim quotes to people, which the primary sources did not back up. She also took events out of sequence.

So where is the controversy? Why was this author never disgraced publicly? Why am I one of the few people on Earth who know that she invented things to make her story more compelling? Why is this book still in print, years later, factually uncorrected? It's because of the subject matter. Nobody cares enough -- which is a damned shame, because this is a very important story.

My point is, these controversies should be put in some perspective. People who write books about deeply contentious issues should expect to generate a great deal of probing by those who fundamentally disagree with their conclusions. That doesn't necessarily mean that their errors of fact or methodology are excusable, only that their missteps will be pursued far more vigorously than if they were made in books about more arcane, and dare I say it, less ideologically divisive topics.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 23, 2007, 01:33 PM

My point is, these controversies should be put in some perspective. People who write books about deeply contentious issues should expect to generate a great deal of probing by those who fundamentally disagree with their conclusions. That doesn't necessarily mean that their errors of fact or methodology are excusable, only that their missteps will be pursued far more vigorously than if they were made in books about more arcane, and dare I say it, less ideologically divisive topics.

I completely agree. One of the things that hit me immediately when I began archival research was that having a primary document in front of you can really change the way you recieve secondary scholarship based on that document.

Another thing that struck me as a student about writing history was that thousands of pages of scholarship are produced every year that nobody reads, outside a small circle of specialists. Whether they are good or bad, their impact is small because of their esoteric nature. Even seminal academic works that are widely read within universities may have little or no presence outside academia.

So there is a need for perspective. If Bellesiles was writing about cast-iron stove ownership, or pipe-smoking culture, the quality of his scholarship would not be scrutinized and debated to the extent it has. He made a bold, sweeping conclusion that could be used in a current political debate. As a result the book became a battleground.

In the event, it appears to have been at least partially discredited by scholars, though it is important to note that many voters who heard about it when it was first published may not have followed the subsequent debate concernig its scholarship. Many people who have read the book may not read The William and May Quarterly and thus may take the book as gospel. It's written by a professor, right? So it must be true...

It's also worth mentioning that books may not be peer-reviewed at all, and Bellesiles would probably have had a more difficult time getting his probate researches published as a journal article if they were indeed weak, or would have had to revise them at any rate.