With 5% of the world's population, Americans now possess ~1/2 of the world's guns

[Lithium381]

This "fact," taken in isolation, is both inaccurate and misleading IMO.

New Orleans, Detroit and St Louis, for example, have the highest murder rates in the US, and none of these is a city with stringent gun control laws (Detroit was, until 2001, and it had very high murder rates both before and after the laws were rescinded). New York, which has tight gun control regulations, is one of the safest large cities in the United States, with a murder rate just over 1/10 that of New Orleans. Omaha has 80% more murders per capita than NY.

The reason I think this is misleading is you are implying causation (e.g., that gun control makes cities more dangerous), which is just as false a logical inference as presuming that gun control necessarily makes things safer. I will say that if we could somehow start all over and there were no guns in the hands of civilians (whether or not one thinks that would be a good idea), it is all but certain our streets would be safer, at least in terms of our murder rates. Obviously that is not a workable option, however.

I'm not sure i would go as far as to say that 'gun contorl makes cities more dangerous' i just don't think they're neccessarily safer if you don't remove the CAUSE of the violence. . . . be that lack of education or drugs or both . . .

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

after gun bans in UK and Australia, their violent crime rates went up, and murder stayed the same. after gun bans in chicago and DC, did that solve the problem? How is that working out for new york?

Although Singapore has a gun ban and I felt perfectly safe tehre walking down the street at 2am . . . . then again they have the death penalty if you smuggle in drugs which probably helps.

if the US were able to protect its border from drugs / guns comming in we'd likely see a drop in violence. . . but it's easier to not address the real issue, just continue on with our political agendas . . .

This post is a good example of how people let their prejudices guide their opinion, rather than facts. New York is a very safe city. I note you live in the Bay Area - New York's murder rate is essentially the same as San Francisco, and its violent crime rate is lower. Its murder rate is less than 1/4 that of Oakland.

Chicago's murder rate dropped dramatically after the city enacted its strict gun laws in the early 1980s. While it went back up in the late '80s (as did the country's), in aggregate the murder rate was markedly lower in the years in which the handgun ban was in place (not that I necessarily think one thing caused the other - you are the one making that inference). It is certainly true that DC's murder rate went up after handguns were banned there, but again, the idea that the ban caused the increase is glib and misleading when you fail to consider the other factors in play.

 

[Lithium381]

Gun Control isn't about the guns, it's about control.
Stopping gun violence isn't about stopping the violence, it's about stopping the guns.



It's an agenda thing. as someone else mentioned, outside of crime riddled areas (such as Detroit, Chicago and Oakland) the US rates fit the rest of the world. If you look at the reasons for such bad areas, it's typically the fault of drugs or lack of education. I'm not attempting to say that banning guns in those areas caused more gun deaths, but it probably didn't help the overall violent crime rate as much as people thought it would . .

 

[xj0hnx]

This "fact," taken in isolation, is both inaccurate and misleading IMO.

New Orleans, Detroit and St Louis, for example, have the highest murder rates in the US, and none of these is a city with stringent gun control laws (Detroit was, until 2001, and it had very high murder rates both before and after the laws were rescinded). New York, which has tight gun control regulations, is one of the safest large cities in the United States, with a murder rate just over 1/10 that of New Orleans. Omaha has 80% more murders per capita than NY.

Yea New York, after Ghouliani's police state became safer, imagine that.

The reason I think this is misleading is you are implying causation (e.g., that gun control makes cities more dangerous), which is just as false a logical inference as presuming that gun control necessarily makes things safer.

Nope, just restating that gun control doesn't stop violent crime. You can cherry pick a couple cities out of the hundreds, so lets, Chicago, Los Angeles, DC?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Yea New York, after Ghouliani's police state became safer, imagine that.

Nope, just restating that gun control doesn't stop violent crime. You can cherry pick a couple cities out of the hundreds, so lets, Chicago, Los Angeles, DC?

I'm not sure what you're implying about New York. Personally (and I say this as a person whose father and sister live in NY and who has lived there), I think Giuliani (who you are calling "Ghouliani" for reasons unknown to me) gets a lot of undeserved credit for reducing the crime rate in NY when in fact violent crime nationally has declined greatly since he took office. Freakonomics makes the controversial argument that this may be as much a function of the effects of Roe v. Wade as of any law enforcement initiative by Giuliani or anyone else. I do appreciate his efforts to go after quality-of-life offenders in NY, because when I was a kid that place seemed to be overrun by squeegee guys and aggressive panhandlers, neither of which are an issue anymore.

I am not saying gun control per se makes cities safer, but I also don't agree it makes them more dangerous. The most dangerous cities in the US, as defined either by violent crime rate or murder rate, don't have gun control. If they did I very much doubt it would materially affect their overall dangerousness (as demonstrated by Detroit). Accordingly I agree with you that gun control is far from being a panacea to eliminate violent crime. Still, given the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation I would not oppose some restrictions on new guns entering the marketplace, since eventually this might do some good.

 

[xj0hnx]

Still, given the hundreds of millions of guns in circulation I would not oppose some restrictions on new guns entering the marketplace, since eventually this might do some good.

That's fine, now figure out a way to do it without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

That's fine, now figure out a way to do it without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Personally, I think the Supreme Court's analysis in Heller was wrong and politically motivated, and that the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individuals in the first place. I am not anti-gun, but I think it would be possible to impose significant new restrictions on guns without violating the Constitution. I do not believe, either ethically or legally, that there is an individual "right" to possess any particular kind of weapon. (Interestingly, a careful reading of Heller shows its intrinsic weakness - while Scalia writes that the Second Amendment applies to individuals in the interest of maintaining a "well-regulated militia," he also says it is appropriate to restrict ownership of certain types of weapons, such as explosives and automatic weapons - how does this follow from the idea of individuals having the "right" to own guns for purposes of participation in a militia?)

That being said, Heller is the land of the law at the moment, and because the GOP controls the House and has taken such a broad view of the applicability of the filibuster rule in recent years in the Senate, I would be very surprised to see any meaningful gun restrictions passed in the near future.

 

[xj0hnx]

Personally, I think the Supreme Court's analysis in Heller was wrong and politically motivated, and that the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to individuals in the first place.

Pretty much stopped reading right there. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Pretty much stopped reading right there. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Context is key:

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 entire argument that the Second Amendment applied to individuals didn't even arise until the 1970s, and when it did, none other than Warren Burger called the argument a "fraud." Burger wrote, of this argument, that it was:

"...one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militias - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

If you're interested in the history on this I highly recommend this article from the Harvard Law Review - http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_Heller-HLRev.pdf

My own view is that the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Amendment is judicial activism at its finest, cloaked in "originalism."

 

[BoberFett]

If the people doesn't mean individuals, are the 1st and 5th Amendments not individual rights either?

 

[sigurros81]

Context is key:



The entire argument that the Second Amendment applied to individuals didn't even arise until the 1970s, and when it did, none other than Warren Burger called the argument a "fraud." Burger wrote, of this argument, that it was:



If you're interested in the history on this I highly recommend this article from the Harvard Law Review - http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_Heller-HLRev.pdf

My own view is that the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Amendment is judicial activism at its finest, cloaked in "originalism."

That's pretty much it. I think a lot of people misinterpret the rational behind the Second Amendment.

 

[spidey07]

That's pretty much it. I think a lot of people misinterpret the rational behind the Second Amendment.

Except that all of the founding father communication refute this liberal notion that it is a "new" idea. This has been the liberals latest talking point for a while now, that it's all some evil plan by the NRA and that our founding and 2nd amendment never meant for "people" to own arms.

Hell, just look at some of Jefferson's writings. The rationale for the 2nd, and what it meant, why it's there cannot be contested and twisted the way the liberal wants. History refutes their notion and talking point, squashes it.

 

[momeNt]

Go through an extended power outage longer than 24 hours.

You'll be glad to have capable firearms. Nothing for you here criminal. Move along thieve.

Ain't nothing for you here but death. Move on.

Penis mightier. All you have to do is whip out your cell phone and begin dialing the cops, thief gone.

 

[OrByte]

Context is key:



The entire argument that the Second Amendment applied to individuals didn't even arise until the 1970s, and when it did, none other than Warren Burger called the argument a "fraud." Burger wrote, of this argument, that it was:



If you're interested in the history on this I highly recommend this article from the Harvard Law Review - http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Siegel_Heller-HLRev.pdf

My own view is that the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Amendment is judicial activism at its finest, cloaked in "originalism."

take all the gun threads and post this response.

thanks you!

 

[xj0hnx]

Context is key:



The entire argument that the Second Amendment applied to individuals didn't even arise until the 1970s, and when it did, none other than Warren Burger called the argument a "fraud." Burger wrote, of this argument, that it was:

Who gives a fuck what Warren Burger thought of it in the 1970's?

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

Warren Burger? LOL

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

When folks try to say "they meant this and that when they wrote the constitution", they have a funny look on their face when I pull up those founding father's own writings about what they "meant".

They bestowed upon the people the right to bear arms for the express purpose of defending themselves, mainly from the gubbermint. A cursory reading of history proves their wisdom on this. I'll say it again, gun control is not about your safety and security. It's about dismantling this country, one freedom at a time.

 

[momeNt]

A. We've done away with state militias, we have a national army now.
B. Having people keep and bear arms isn't necessary for a national army much less a militia - basic training and advanced training takes care of that.

With A and B in mind, why do we need arms when a well regulated militia is no longer necessary? Or at the very least keeping arms is no longer necessary to a well regulated militia?

200 year old document folks, they couldn't get it all right, time to repeal 2nd amendment and put in its place this.

A well regulated national army, being necessary to the security of a free union, the right of the people enlisted in protecting the peace and security of this free nation to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This allows both peace officers and soldiers to keep and bear arms and nobody else, while still accomplishing the main goal of the 2nd amendment.

 

[OrByte]

When folks try to say "they meant this and that when they wrote the constitution", they have a funny look on their face when I pull up those founding father's own writings about what they "meant".

They bestowed upon the people the right to bear arms for the express purpose of defending themselves, mainly from the gubbermint. A cursory reading of history proves their wisdom on this. I'll say it again, gun control is not about your safety and security. It's about dismantling this country, one freedom at a time.

Personally I just LOVE reading the quotes from the founding fathers. Because clearly guns were such an important part of their life and in the society that existed then

which is a completely different society that exists today.

So it is...quaint...that people cling to this idea that guns are such an integral part of their rights and their livelihood. And you are free as a bird to feel that way and love on your guns and sleep with them, put them under your pillow and in the glove compartment...do whatever it is you want to do with your guns.

Just understand..there are people that are smarter than you, and they are tasked with the job of determining whether you gun nuts need to have access to firearms or materials that don't need to be on public streets.

Simply put, you can have guns. No one is taking away that right. Unfortunately some guns (and related material) just should not be suitable for public consumption.

why is that a hard concept to understand?

Instead of railing like idiots about starting a new revolution or the 'American People' will raise up..if you try to take away our freedums!!

be a part of a fracking solution to come up with sensible gun legislation.

 

[spidey07]

Here's my sensible gun legislation.

NO new gun legislation, none. You shall not infringe.

 

[Lithium381]

Here's my sensible gun legislation.

NO new gun legislation, none. You shall not infringe.

I have a reasonable one: make it illegal to commit murder with a gun. Boom. Problem solved. I can't see how anyone would argue with that being the most level headed legislation that would not infringe on the 2nd amendment, while keeping the populace safe!

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

So it is...quaint...that people cling to this idea that guns are such an integral part of their rights and their livelihood. And you are free as a bird to feel that way and love on your guns and sleep with them, put them under your pillow and in the glove compartment...do whatever it is you want to do with your guns.

Just understand..there are people that are smarter than you, and they are tasked with the job of determining whether you gun nuts need to have access to firearms or materials that don't need to be on public streets.

Simply put, you can have guns. No one is taking away that right. Unfortunately some guns (and related material) just should not be suitable for public consumption.

why is that a hard concept to understand?

Instead of railing like idiots about starting a new revolution or the 'American People' will raise up..if you try to take away our freedums!!

be a part of a fracking solution to come up with sensible gun legislation.

Wow. Gun nut? I own 2 guns. That makes me a nut? Do you own 2 tv's? Does that make you a tv nut?

Just another example of how faux liberals/authoritarians try to use buzzwords and empty arguments to promote the idiocy of the left.

Sensible gun legislation would be to do away with the '68 NRA-supported Gun Control Act. That was one of the most ill-conceived pieces of crap ever to come out of there.

And I just loved your drivel of "there are people that are smarter than you, and they are tasked with the job of determining whether you gun nuts need to have access to firearms".

HARDLY! People that are dumber than a bag of hammers are occupying those seats on Capitol Hill right now. But what can you expect out of the left? It feeds on the weak minded.

 

[momeNt]

I fear for the day we get rid of guns.

I would so much rather be killed by a gun than by a knife.

The Ct. rampage would have been absolutely brutal if he went in there with a katana, the kids at least received a quick death for the most part.

Please ask yourself this, did kings not go to war because all they had was swords and arrows? No they did, and the battlefields were something we could not fathom today, do you not think humans would be able to return to that level of barbarity?

 

[sigurros81]

I'd be all for massive gun control if it actually will help curb homicides in this country, looking within our own country, our murder rate has gone down overall while gun ownership has gone up, so there goes that causality argument. And when comparing the homicide rates of the United States with other westernized/developed nations, the differences are marginal and debatable, and yield no conclusive support that gun control would actually work.

While I have zero need for an assault style rifle, probably ever, I do see the issue in banning such weapons because IT IS taking away a responsible individual's right to own such weapons. America was built on the foundation of freedom, let's keep it that way.

 

[sigurros81]

I fear for the day we get rid of guns.

I would so much rather be killed by a gun than by a knife.

The Ct. rampage would have been absolutely brutal if he went in there with a katana, the kids at least received a quick death for the most part.

Please ask yourself this, did kings not go to war because all they had was swords and arrows? No they did, and the battlefields were something we could not fathom today, do you not think humans would be able to return to that level of barbarity?

That's neither here nor there but good try.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I fear for the day we get rid of guns.

I would so much rather be killed by a gun than by a knife.

The Ct. rampage would have been absolutely brutal if he went in there with a katana, the kids at least received a quick death for the most part.

Please ask yourself this, did kings not go to war because all they had was swords and arrows? No they did, and the battlefields were something we could not fathom today, do you not think humans would be able to return to that level of barbarity?