Gun Control in the USA

[Vanguard]

There is a benefit to me being a cop...I am under the Dept. of Homeland Security (even though I work for a city), so I can carry a pistol in any state regardless of their laws, into any location (federal buildings require me to check it in at the desk), and even on airplanes (after taking the FAA class and being certified). Even when I retire, I can continue carrying anywhere so long as I qualify each year and stay certified. Two things I never leave home without: cellphone and my gun.

 

[Drew]

I’m sure we can acknowledge that the opposite is also true that saying we should eliminate guns because of a few criminal acts is like saying we should ban automobiles because someone gets killed in a car accident even though he routinely logs over 100K miles a year.

I do not think this is the right comparison.

The car analogy is not appropriate for the simple reason that it is quite clear that the car is an integral element of how our modern world works, guns are not. Take away the car and the economy would arguably be disrupted as millions of people would be unable to engage in business and commerce. Besides, the way our western society has evolved, the car is,

The analogy to cars is one of the many errors of logic used to argue against gun control; cars are far more central and necessary to society than are guns. It can easily be argued that the benefits the automobile confers on society - greasing the wheels of the economy, facilitating social interaction and leisure, etc. - outweigh the downsides of the fatalities. One cannot make such an argument for guns.

In any event, that was not my point anyway. I was arguing against the flaw of anecdotal reasoning.

 

[Sparkey]

Charlie Brooker's BBC series Newswipe. The forensic psychiatrist outlines the guidelines for news reporting of such a tragedy, assuming that your aim is to prevent further ones.

[video=youtube;PezlFNTGWv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PezlFNTGWv4#at=138[/video]

If you don't want to propagate more mass murders...

• Don't start the story with sirens blaring.
  
• Don't have photographs of the killer.
  
• Don't make this 24/7 coverage.
  
• Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.
  
• Not to make the killer some kind of anti-hero.
  
• Do localise this story to the affected community and as boring as possible in every other market.

 

[Drew]

The kind of civilian who wants every fighting chance of keeping a/multiple armed criminal(s) from harming their family.No insult intended,but you clearly have no idea how hard it would be to defend the homestead against this type of threat with a firearm that is limited to 1 round only before reloading.

This is not a good argument. Like so much of the pro-gun stuff, this line of reasoning over-simplifies and is highly selective in what it treats.

Yes, there are circumstances in which such a weapon would save your family

But such circumstances are rare. The problem is this: what happens during the 99.99999 % of the time when it is not needed to defend against multiple armed invaders.

Let me think ? Well, the gun gets taken by the mentally ill 20 year old in the house and used to kill 20 children.

I trust the point is clear: The issue is not whether such a weapon might ever have a legitimate use. The question is how does that legitimate benefit trade-off against the possibilites for other, non-legitimate, uses of such a weapon.

I suggest it is self-evident which way that trade-off goes. Which is why the pro-gun people never bring up this trade-off.

Youve also clearly glossed over much of this conversation and continue to argue the same old points,in the process intentionally ignoring common sense points made.

Please do not speculate, and therefore bear false witness. You, of course, have no way of knowing my "intentions".

I have not addressed all the posts, I agree. But I have other things to do.

 

[Drew]

The only thing youre going to accomplish with semi-auto bans are increased crime rates and the further inability of the populace to defend itself against criminals.

Can you provide evidence to support this assertion in any reasonably global, long term sense?

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country,and the crime rate there is less than exemplary.

Not a valid argument. I believe I have never claimed that adding gun control would immediately reduce crime in all settings. It is entirely plausible that, in some settings at least, the implementation of more gun control might lead to what is only a temporary worsening of the problem.

Some among us simply dont like firearms,and despite the facts and statistics that support the benefit of having them around those few are eager to have them banned just to soothe their own fears.

I suggest that the reality is this: you have no case based on data and you are resorting to speculation about the motives of others.

Again, this is all about proper reasoning. The fact that you can produce some data showing that shows a correlation between increased gun laws and increased crime is not much of a case. There can be all sorts of other reasons to explain this correlation - the increase in crime may have nothing to do with the increased restrictions on guns; it may arise by virtue of other factors (such as worsening poverty, to name just one example).

What is clear, I suggest, is this: many other nations, as prosperous as the USA, have achieved long term, globally lower crime levels than the USA even with heavy restrictions on guns.

 

[Drew]

Good job, Drew. I post a reference to a peer reviewed article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law), Guns and Violence Symposium, (here's the post again: "ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN" by Gary Kleck, Marc Gertz) ---> and even go so far as post one of the peer reviews by an ANTI-GUN fanatic like yourself and you pass right over it.

I have other things to do besides spent hours here. I will indeed return to that material and have a look at it.

Your "anti-gun fanatic" rhetoric is unfortunate and does not help your position. You have precisely zero evidence that I am not looking at this issue in a reasonably open-minded way.

 

[WIP]

The car analogy is not appropriate for the simple reason that it is quite clear that the car is an integral element of how our modern world works, guns are not.

With all due respect I must disagree. The Amish community around here exemplifies this completely and they take it a step further by not using electricity either. We think we are dependent on these things but we are only spoiled by them.

The truth as I see it is that those who argue from your perspective with regard to the automobile analogy are simply unwilling to give up the car. I can understand because I too would fall into this category.

 

[Knotical]

With all due respect I must disagree. The Amish community around here exemplifies this completely and they take it a step further by not using electricity either. We think we are dependent on these things but we are only spoiled by them.

Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the end of "Escape from LA" actually occurred.

 

[Drew]

With all due respect I must disagree. The Amish community around here exemplifies this completely and they take it a step further by not using electricity either. We think we are dependent on these things but we are only spoiled by them.

Well if you really would be happy if your entire society lived like the Amish, then, and only then, would your car analogy work.

But that would mean:

1. No advanced medical technology;
2. No advanced transportation technology;
3. No advanced information processing technology.

I suggest that the automobile is clearly central to how your country (and mine) functions. The car serves all sorts of useful purposes, even if some people die in them.

Guns are different: While the purpose of the car is not to "kill", that is precisely the (prime) function of the gun.

Taking cars out a modern society would confer radical challenges and hardships, at least for a long time. Not so with the gun - society loses very little, if anything, by doing away with them.

 

[WIP]

I'm not sure I've seen that movie but I'm guessing that public transportation no longer existed or existed very little. I've often thought about the chaos that would result if an enemy could somehow destroy the electrical grid all at once. Imagine the carnage suddenly one day we awoke unable to cook or preserve food, heat our homes, get fresh water, dispose of our waste, etc. We are not no longer self-sufficient like people were just 75 years ago.

Okay, back to topic.

 

[Sparkey]

Your excuse that you don't have enough time to deal with the facts presented does no more for your cause than your admission that you can't even think of a solution to the problems faced in America:

Its diffficult for me to believe that you do not understand that the fact that a specific person (me) does not have a solution to a particular problem does not mean there is no solution.

Focusing on the problem (racial issues, poverty, lawlessness, proper mental health treatment, contributing media coverage) and strengthening existing laws specifically to close loopholes in private sales is NOT fanaticism.

I have other things to do besides spent hours here. I will indeed return to that material and have a look at it.

Your "anti-gun fanatic" rhetoric is unfortunate and does not help your position. You have precisely zero evidence that I am not looking at this issue in a reasonably open-minded way.

:dunno Drew??? You called me an "anti-gun fanatic" ? I don't know what to make of that. Perhaps that shoe fits better on you than me.

 

[Drew]

I would thank you for not calling names and resisting the urge to attack the person (me) .....

You and I are through (on this thread). I see no evidence of fair debate practice on your part.

 

[Sparkey]

You and I are through (on this thread). I see no evidence of fair debate practice on your part.

I edited my comment and tried to withdraw it before I saw your objection, I only saw your comment after I edited. Kindly pardon me for getting carried away here. I do respect the fact that you are presenting a good faith effort for your case.

 

[Drew]

The US Constitution grants the citizens the right to own guns.

According to Harvard Law School graduate Jeffrey Toobin, its not that simple. Toobin asserts that there have been times in American history when the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment to the effect that citizens in general do not have the right to own guns.

If you read the text of the 2nd amendment, it certainly seems at least plausible that the intent was to give the right to bear arms to those in some militia.

Unless you are some kind of super-expert on constitutional interpretation who can authoritatively declare that this (earlier) Supreme Court judgment was wrong, I think it is a very open question as to whether the 2nd amendment really confers the right to have guns on regular citizens.

 

[from dust to life]

I'm not sure I've seen that movie but I'm guessing that public transportation no longer existed or existed very little. I've often thought about the chaos that would result if an enemy could somehow destroy the electrical grid all at once. Imagine the carnage suddenly one day we awoke unable to cook or preserve food, heat our homes, get fresh water, dispose of our waste, etc. We are not no longer self-sufficient like people were just 75 years ago.

Okay, back to topic.

I agree, ... Satans plan worked, by destroying small farms, raw milk, it destroyed our immune systems so we are dependent on drugs to keep us alive. It also created a need to preserve our food in refrigerators, and a car to go long distances for it is no longer possible to walk to our nearest Farmers Market to get our fresh fruits, meat and vegetables. Please see the movie documentary; "Farmageddon".

Think about it, man was able to live for 6,000 years without such dependence on oil and electricity, but a 100 years of supposed advancement in technology changed all that where we are like the worst of drug addicts, ... dependent on these things or 'we will die!'.

The oil leaks into our oceans destroying fish, into our ground destroying our vegetation and drinkable water systems, into the air destroying our lungs causing innumerable disease and sickness, and the problem is 'Raw Milk' and citizens who own guns!?! ... Right.

Odon.

 

[WIP]

According to Harvard Law School graduate Jeffrey Toobin, its not that simple. Toobin asserts that there have been times in American history when the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment to the effect that citizens in general do not have the right to own guns.

If you read the text of the 2nd amendment, it certainly seems at least plausible that the intent was to give the right to bear arms to those in some militia.

Unless you are some kind of super-expert on constitutional interpretation who can authoritatively declare that this (earlier) Supreme Court judgment was wrong, I think it is a very open question as to whether the 2nd amendment really confers the right to have guns on regular citizens.

I think you make a fair point here. Is it we citizens that are guaranteed that right or does it guarantee the option to maintain well regulated militias? I found this observation a little interesting. Below are two different versions of the amendment. The first one is the one that Congress approved and presented to the people. The second one in bold print is the version that was actually ratified by the states and appears in our constitution. What's interesting to note is that both are the same except for a few changes in punctuation and capitalization. It's amazing how different the amendment might be interpreted when seeing them both ways. Just remember, the latter is the current active form.

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.
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.

 

[Sparkey]

According to Harvard Law School graduate [and Senior Legal Analyst for the liberal media network] Jeffrey Toobin, its not that simple. Toobin asserts that there have been times in American history when the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd amendment to the effect that citizens in general do not have the right to own guns.

If you read the text of the 2nd amendment, it certainly seems at least plausible that the intent was to give the right to bear arms to those in some militia.

Unless you are some kind of super-expert on constitutional interpretation who can authoritatively declare that this (earlier) Supreme Court judgment was wrong, I think it is a very open question as to whether the 2nd amendment really confers the right to have guns on regular citizens.

Drew, 12 pages ago, in Post #74, I replied to this. Would you not consider the US Supreme Court Chief Justice sufficient authority to rebut and prove Toobin wrong?

• [t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning. "Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."
• The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

1. Operative Clause.

a. "Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people."

Source: FindLaw® For Legal Professionals: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

Do you have you nothing better to do than recycle your old arguments?

 

[Sparkey]

At a minimum, prior to restricting the right of the individual law abiding citizen to own a gun, there should be a cost-benefit analysis of such a restriction. Unfortunately the least restrictive methods of handgun control, registration and licensing, are also the least effective and, at the same time, are expensive. The most restrictive method of control, prohibition of private possession, is constitutionally questionable and may or may not be effective depending on the degree of voluntary cooperation by criminals who can reasonably be expected to want to keep their guns even in the face of legislation against such possession.

 

[Sparkey]

The number of guns in the U.S. (have gone up):

• 1994: 192 million
• 2009: 310 million

Number of firearm-related homicides (have gone down):

• 1993: 17,073
• 2011: 9,903

Source: Anti-Gun Blogger, John Horgan published by Scientific American online More Guns Have Not Produced More Killings

 

[Vanguard]

The number of guns in the U.S. (have gone up):

• 1994: 192 million
• 2009: 310 million

Number of firearm-related homicides (have gone down):

• 1993: 17,073
• 2011: 9,903