Gun control in the U.S. is working... we need to push for more gun control

[nick1985]

Point is "arms" is not clearly defined.

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm

From your source.

"term "arms," in its most comprehensive signification, probably includes every description of weapon or thing which may be used offensively or defensively"

My, what a convincing argument... /yawn


The author of that anti-second amendment blog article needs to get his facts straight.

 

[nick1985]

His point is valid. You just ignore it. While we should be and are allowed to have weapons, there is no valid reason to allow ALL weapons to be bought and held by everyone. Basing your reasoning from 200+ years ago, when the peak of technology was a muzzle-loading firearm is a bit problematic.

Now where that dividing line is, can be debated. But that fact remains. So try walking around with you M-60, or carry your auto M-16 into a restaurant. Or how about a nice minigun? That should really work well for protection. Might be uncomfortable to carry the ammo and power around though.

Garfield, look at what the founders said.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson


The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -- The Federalist, No. 46

- James Madison


"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

- Alexander Hamilton


"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

- Thomas Paine


I posted that earlier, and I can get more and more quotes if you would like.

Look at their message. They want the governemnt to fear its citizens. They want citizens to be able to defend themselves. They want foreign countries to be afraid to attack us. Its there, clear as day. Their message couldnt be any easier to understand.

Do you think the government would fear us if all we had were muskets? Same with all the other questions. The answer, obviously is no. The founders wanted citizens to have similar arms to the military. Should we be able to have an M-16 if we want? If you look at what the founders say, the answer is yes.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Garfield, look at what the founders said.

/quotes snipped for length

Look at their message. They want the governemnt to fear its citizens. They want citizens to be able to defend themselves. They want foreign countries to be afraid to attack us. Its there, clear as day. Their message couldnt be any easier to understand.

Do you think the government would fear us if all we had were muskets? Same with all the other questions. The answer, obviously is no. The founders wanted citizens to have similar arms to the military. Should we be able to have an M-16 if we want? If you look at what the founders say, the answer is yes.

First off, what people say doesn't mean that is what the law says (or has been interpreted over the years is probably more accurate).

And to nitpick, having foreign countries be afraid to attack us because of our personal weapons (as opposed to our military) is a bit ridiculous, especially in this day in age.

Yes, the government allows us to own weapons to protect us. I agree 100%.

But, again, that doesn't mean ANY firearm (or weapon). My point about muskets wasn't that we should be limited to only carrying them now (lol), but that back then, all sorts of weapons were not even thought of, or considered. Back then, pretty much, you had thousands of guys stand in lines on a field and shoot at each other while standing still. Not the same thing today, is it?

Just like with the US mail, it's protected by law so that the government can't open and read our mail. But back then, there were no phones, no email. So the law has to evolve and/or be interpreted to decide how to handle these new technologies. Same with weapons today.

Having firearms to protect oneself and your family/house/property is certainly fine. But at some point, there is a line that gets crossed from (for lack of a better term) defensive firearms to offensive firearms. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc, we would all agree are reasonable weapons to defend yourself, in the vast majority of cases. But I doubt anyone will argue that M-60's are great for home defense. Or miniguns, or whatever other examples people can think of.

So it becomes a matter of safety to not allow some weapons to be owned by people. Just like the government has rules on what cars can be used on roads, so people don't try and drive either an unsafe car or a formula 1 race car on the local highway.

 

[nick1985]

First off, what people say doesn't mean that is what the law says

Ah, but it is what the law says. We have the right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

And to nitpick, having foreign countries be afraid to attack us because of our personal weapons (as opposed to our military) is a bit ridiculous, especially in this day in age.

Its certainly something to consider. Look at history for the damage an armed populace can do to an invading army. Look at the Russian/Yugoslavian/Greek partisans of WWII.

Having firearms to protect oneself and your family/house/property is certainly fine. But at some point, there is a line that gets crossed from (for lack of a better term) defensive firearms to offensive firearms. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc, we would all agree are reasonable weapons to defend yourself, in the vast majority of cases. But I doubt anyone will argue that M-60's are great for home defense. Or miniguns, or whatever other examples people can think of.

But home defense isnt the only reason why someone would own a firearm. M-60's are legal with a special license. If they are so dangerous, there should be plenty of crimes committed with them. Can you point me to the last time a full-auto M-60 was used in the commission of a crime?

So it becomes a matter of safety to not allow some weapons to be owned by people. Just like the government has rules on what cars can be used on roads, so people don't try and drive either an unsafe car or a formula 1 race car on the local highway.

I agree weapons like bazookas and cannons should not be allowed, as they are ordnance and I already made my argument for that. I also have no problem with full-auto weapons requiring a class III license. That sounds pretty fair to me. These weapons are so rarely used in the commision of a crime that you are probably more likely to get struck by lightning. The crusade to ban them is silly at best.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Ah, but it is what the law says. We have the right to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

Just as a counterpoint, to show that laws get interpreted different ways over time:

This is the 1st Admendment of the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech, right? But we really don't have total freedom of speech, do we? Slander is still a crime, and you can't say anything that will incite crimes/rioting.

Same thing with the 2nd amendment. It gets interpreted over the years.

Its certainly something to consider. Look at history for the damage an armed populace can do to an invading army. Look at the Russian/Yugoslavian/Greek partisans of WWII.

No it isn't. While partisans can do damage (don't need to look further then Iraq and Afghanistan for that), I haven't read about too many countries wanting to invade another country, but were deterred not by their military, but by their civilian population. Certainly Afghanistan's history didn't stop us from invading.

I agree weapons like bazookas and cannons should not be allowed, as they are ordnance and I already made my argument for that. I also have no problem with full-auto weapons requiring a class III license. That sounds pretty fair to me. These weapons are so rarely used in the commision of a crime that you are probably more likely to get struck by lightning. The crusade to ban them is silly at best.

See, that is interpreting the 2nd amendment right there.

 

[nick1985]

No it isn't. While partisans can do damage (don't need to look further then Iraq and Afghanistan for that), I haven't read about too many countries wanting to invade another country, but were deterred not by their military, but by their civilian population. Certainly Afghanistan's history didn't stop us from invading.

Would 12 million armed jews have been herded into cattle cars and shipped to concentration camps?

 

[Modelworks]

Yep gun control works, really stops people from shooting others.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...n_shooting_rampage_then_fatally_shoots_s.html

 

[nick1985]

Yep gun control works, really stops people from shooting others.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...n_shooting_rampage_then_fatally_shoots_s.html

I love the quote from your article:


"It was "like watching something from America," taxi dispatcher Sue Matthews said. "I can't believe he would do that. He was a quiet little fellow.""


meanwhile their crime rate is higher than ours....

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Would 12 million armed jews have been herded into cattle cars and shipped to concentration camps?

How would I know? What relevance does this even have?

You said:

They want foreign countries to be afraid to attack us.

I pointed out that is incorrect nowadays, and said why. Last I checked, Germany didn't invade itself to do what it did to it's own citizens. Germany did invade other countries, but it wasn't for killing certain ethnic/religious groups, that was just something they did after the countries were under there control.

So where is this idea that an armed civilian population prevents an invasion again?

 

[piasabird]

The really large ammunition rounds are quite expensive. Go price some .50 caliber shells.

I think we should make all males be required to go to the military for basic training, so they can be trained to shoot and defend themselves. Maybe everyone should be required to have a weapon like an AK-47 or a shotgun for home defense.

There is a good place for common sense. Rounds that can be shot through steel doors and hand-grenades or dynamite are going just a little too far.

 

[flavio]

From your source.

"term "arms," in its most comprehensive signification, probably includes every description of weapon or thing which may be used offensively or defensively"

He used "probably" because the wording is unclear. Pretty well written piece showing all interpretations.

Fact is we really don't know what they meant by "arms" or how they would look at todays arms.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

How would I know? What relevance does this even have?

What what what what what what whathathwthawhtahtahwthawthahtahwthawt

 

[Atheus]

I love the quote from your article:


"It was "like watching something from America," taxi dispatcher Sue Matthews said. "I can't believe he would do that. He was a quiet little fellow.""


meanwhile their crime rate is higher than ours....

Be it down to gun law or not it is undeniable that these incidents occur most frequently in America. For whatever reason you seem to have an appitite for senseless violence which dwarfs that of all other nations.

I would also note that Bird had a licence for both his weapons, neither of which (obviously) are banned in this country, so to claim gun control failed to stop this incident is missing the point entirely. In fact one could easily argue that even tighter control could have prevented it...

Of course everyone recognises the laws here are already too tight and the usual post-tragedy call to harden legislation lost it's momentum extremely quickly.

 

[nick1985]

In fact one could easily argue that even tighter control could have prevented it...

Can you explain why violent crime in Australia and Britain, after strict gun laws were passed, went up? Arguing that tighter gun control reduces crime has been proven false time and time again.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What what what what what what whathathwthawhtahtahwthawthahtahwthawt

You have a question? Instead of just typing some gibberish?

 

[flavio]

Point is "arms" is not clearly defined.

http://brainshavings.com/supplements/arms/iii.htm

 

[irishScott]

Can you explain why violent crime in Australia and Britain, after strict gun laws were passed, went up? Arguing that tighter gun control reduces crime has been proven false time and time again.

But as long as we reduce "gun crime", we have something to pat ourselves on the back about. Despite the fact that we're now down to more primitive, painful, damaging and brutal weapons.

 

[Modelworks]

I would also note that Bird had a licence for both his weapons, neither of which (obviously) are banned in this country, so to claim gun control failed to stop this incident is missing the point entirely. In fact one could easily argue that even tighter control could have prevented it...

Or if gun laws had been more lenient then someone carrying a gun with a permit could have killed the guy before he killed so many. The idea that someone who can obtain a gun having almost nobody be able to stop him because they have no weapons is terrifying..

If I knew 10 out of 50 people in a store were carrying a gun then I wouldn't dare think about robbing or going inside and starting shooting. Without the threat of someone being armed people are free to rob , murder, rape, with getting caught by police being the only deterrent.


Want to stop murders like this ? Fix the problem not the symptom. Fix why he felt the need to do this not how he did it .

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Having guns available does not increase violent crime. The whole idea of "gun-related crimes" is just retarded - if people don't have guns, they'll use knives. Or bats. Or pieces of broken glass. Or a steel-toed boot. It's not hard to get a weapon, and the only way to reduce crime is to stop it at its source - make the inner city a nice place to live. Also train the populace to use their weapons so that guns are a deterrent against crime rather than a tool in them.

 

[Rainsford]

Having guns available does not increase violent crime. The whole idea of "gun-related crimes" is just retarded - if people don't have guns, they'll use knives. Or bats. Or pieces of broken glass. Or a steel-toed boot. It's not hard to get a weapon, and the only way to reduce crime is to stop it at its source - make the inner city a nice place to live. Also train the populace to use their weapons so that guns are a deterrent against crime rather than a tool in them.

You're right that an absence of guns doesn't reduce violent crime...but neither does the presence of guns. When you look at all the available stats on gun ownership and violent crime rates, it seems obvious that violent crime and guns aren't even related by correlation. Countries (and states with in the US) that have low gun ownership can have high rates of violent crime or low rates of violent crime. And same goes for places with high rates of gun ownership.

The fact is that both sides seem to be wrong. Guns are neither the cause of, nor the solution to, the problem of violent crime. Both sides will argue for their point of view through anecdote or cherry picking supportive facts. But as a whole, guns don't seem to play much of a part in making the streets safe or dangerous.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

You're right that an absence of guns doesn't reduce violent crime...but neither does the presence of guns. When you look at all the available stats on gun ownership and violent crime rates, it seems obvious that violent crime and guns aren't even related by correlation. Countries (and states with in the US) that have low gun ownership can have high rates of violent crime or low rates of violent crime. And same goes for places with high rates of gun ownership.

The fact is that both sides seem to be wrong. Guns are neither the cause of, nor the solution to, the problem of violent crime. Both sides will argue for their point of view through anecdote or cherry picking supportive facts. But as a whole, guns don't seem to play much of a part in making the streets safe or dangerous.

I agree with you, in part. Guns serve as a deterrent against petty crime, which goes a long way towards making a society more civilized. But you're right - there isn't a clear correlation between guns and violent crime, except that the physically weak can't defend themselves against the strong without them. The problem lies deeper - more schooling, more supportive family structure, and more opportunities are needed to curb crime. Crimes are largely committed because people are not motivated enough to actually earn something, or they believe that they lack the opportunity.

 

[Rainsford]

Or if gun laws had been more lenient then someone carrying a gun with a permit could have killed the guy before he killed so many. The idea that someone who can obtain a gun having almost nobody be able to stop him because they have no weapons is terrifying..

Maybe so, but that's as stupid of a reason to support gun ownership as any other "terrifying scenario" is to BAN guns. We shouldn't make laws for one particular situation we can imagine, laws should be based on all the facts and all the possibilities.

The imaginary counter scenario I always think of to examples like this is that some amped-up, wannabe rambo mistakenly believes something bad is going down, and shoots someone who later turns out to be innocent. The problem with deputizing average citizens to be judge, jury and executioner is that we're relying entirely on the judgment of the average citizen, which I'm not so sure I have that much faith in.

If I knew 10 out of 50 people in a store were carrying a gun then I wouldn't dare think about robbing or going inside and starting shooting. Without the threat of someone being armed people are free to rob , murder, rape, with getting caught by police being the only deterrent.

"Only the police" is still a pretty credible deterrent, I'd say. And putting myself into the shoes of a bad guy, if I thought a bunch of people in the store were armed, I just might shoot them FIRST so I didn't have to worry about them when I robbed the place.

Want to stop murders like this ? Fix the problem not the symptom. Fix why he felt the need to do this not how he did it .

Agreed...but I think that's just as valid an argument against "arming the population" being the solution to crime. My arguments above are NOT arguments to ban guns either, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the idea that arming everyone will prevent crime.

 

[Modelworks]

Maybe so, but that's as stupid of a reason to support gun ownership as any other "terrifying scenario" is to BAN guns. We shouldn't make laws for one particular situation we can imagine, laws should be based on all the facts and all the possibilities.

Gun ownership allows someone to be able to defend themselves when they need to for a number of situations. The problem with things like home invasion, robbery, or mass shooters is it isn't something you can predict and a gun allows someone to be prepared should it happen. They may never use it but it is their if needed. The old analogy of I own a fire extinguisher because I might have a fire, it may never happen but I keep it anyway.

The imaginary counter scenario I always think of to examples like this is that some amped-up, wannabe rambo mistakenly believes something bad is going down, and shoots someone who later turns out to be innocent. The problem with deputizing average citizens to be judge, jury and executioner is that we're relying entirely on the judgment of the average citizen, which I'm not so sure I have that much faith in.

Have you looked at the requirements for carrying a gun ? You don't just go get a permit and start carrying a gun. In NC you have to take a course from a licensed instructor and pass it along with full background and fingerprinting. The people that pass these courses are usually some of the most level headed people you will ever meet.

"Only the police" is still a pretty credible deterrent, I'd say. And putting myself into the shoes of a bad guy, if I thought a bunch of people in the store were armed, I just might shoot them FIRST so I didn't have to worry about them when I robbed the place.

It does little to deter crime. In NC right now we have a serial bank robber, robbed 8 banks so far and nobody has a clue who he is. He has beat and held a gun at several tellers so far. Criminals go for easy money. They do not want to risk dying to make it.

Agreed...but I think that's just as valid an argument against "arming the population" being the solution to crime. My arguments above are NOT arguments to ban guns either, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the idea that arming everyone will prevent crime.

you don't arm everyone. You just keep the rules as they are, where a trained person can carry and aid someone in need. If more people were trained to carry there would be less violent crime because the risk becomes greater to the criminal not knowing if this robbery would get him killed vs a robbery where he might get caught by police if they can identify him, find him, prove he did it. I can promise you that if there was an automatic death penalty for robbing a bank the number of robberies would plummet.

 

[ericlp]

The better people can control their weapons and hit their targets... the more violent crime will go down.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fbi-crime-stats-show-an-armed-public-is-a-safer-public/

One would really half to delve into the statistics to really see if this correlation is true... but it is interesting. You also have to consider the fact that police departments all over the nation have been facing severe budget problems... reducing officer overtime, cutting officers, etc. meaning a lessened police presence. Increase in permits... decrease in violent crime.

Almost always the only time a gun comes out is at a party or where drugs and drinking is going on. So much for hitting targets.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

You have a question? Instead of just typing some gibberish?

Your response to the reason for gun ownership was the most ridiculous response I have ever seen.

You: 1 plus 1 one equals 3.
Guy 1: 1 plus 1 equals 2.
You: How would I know? What relevance does this even have?