Gun Control in the USA

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The statement was intended to be read comparatively..do I need to spell everything out for you,son? Lose the attitude.

I don't have an attitude, and don't call people older than you "son", please. Comparative language includes words like "relatively." If you want to be understood, please post clearly. Thank you, and sorry if you took it wrong.

Of course there are upset people at having lost family due to such but compare that to the media storm and politicians seeking to use it for more leverage on gun control and it doesnt even register on the radar.

Years ago, when the aforementioned tougher drunk driving laws were being debated and passed, it was a public outcry about the higher number of deaths that occurred due to drunks on the roads seemingly without punitive actions being taken. If the gun debate were properly focused, we wouldn't be talking about bans -- we would be talking about tougher laws regarding use of weapons, and longer jail and/or prison terms, just like the drunk driving campaign that successfully caused a drastic reduction in the number of highway deaths.

 

[Vanguard]

Besides, I am highly skeptical of your implication that guns are more often used "legitimately" than otherwise. This is almost certainly not the case. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Even if very few people go on murderous rampages, the relevant question is this: Do the legitimate uses of guns outweigh their illegitimate uses?

His implication is accurate for the USA. If less than .5% of registered gun owners use their guns to commit a crime, then that means that 95.5% of those guns are being used legitimately, by those same owners. Furthermore, I have all the stats anyone needs, given that I AM A COP and have access to info that none of you do.

Lastly, it's not a question of legal uses vs. illegal uses. It is our RIGHT, guaranteed by our Constitution. Quit focusing on the law abiding citizen and focus on the criminal element and how to deal with them.

End of story.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Besides, I am highly skeptical of your implication that guns are more often used "legitimately" than otherwise. This is almost certainly not the case.

Drew, man, c'mon. Think how many guns are in this country -- approximately 300 million. Then look at the FBI crime stats for an insight into gun violence. According to FBI stats from 2008, there were 5.3 million violent crimes in the country, but only 436,000 were committed with guns. That's 8% of the crimes committed. In addition, there were 989,883 incidents in which gun owners successfully defended themselves with their guns. That was in 2000, in a survey published in Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

How could the number of guns in this country be so high and that stat be so low if your statement was true? It doesn't take much to prove it to yourself, if you'd make the effort.

 

[P31Woman]

: Do the legitimate uses of guns outweigh their illegitimate uses?

This won't fly when you are debating with people who use guns in legit ways EVERY DAY of our LIFE!

 

[phantom309]

I don't have an attitude, and don't call people older than you "son", please. Comparative language includes words like "relatively." If you want to be understood, please post clearly. Thank you, and sorry if you took it wrong.

The misunderstanding isnt on my part.You pop off with an obviously rude comment and then claim to have no attitude..at this point I wonder what rock you currently reside under.Further,if you wish to be addressed respectfully then conduct yourself in proper manner.At the very least,dont launch a snappy comment only to hide behind the excuse that "you took it wrong." Im not going to take 5 hours reviewing and editing a post just to dodge off-color comments from people like yourself in the event they wish to get a bit froggy and start playing internet tough guy.

Years ago, when the aforementioned tougher drunk driving laws were being debated and passed, it was a public outcry about the higher number of deaths that occurred due to drunks on the roads seemingly without punitive actions being taken. If the gun debate were properly focused, we wouldn't be talking about bans -- we would be talking about tougher laws regarding use of weapons, and longer jail and/or prison terms, just like the drunk driving campaign that successfully caused a drastic reduction in the number of highway deaths.

Im well aware of the events in this brief history lesson,but Im obviously referencing current events,and making the point that people are obviously focused on the wrong thing if we truly desire to save lives considering the death tolls and circumstances associated.Also,if youd look through this thread you may find that I dont need your lecture on gun control,as Ive been in defense of the second amendment the entire time.

 

[Mike S]

His implication is accurate for the USA. If less than .5% of registered gun owners use their guns to commit a crime, then that means that 95.5% of those guns are being used legitimately, by those same owners. Furthermore, I have all the stats anyone needs, given that I AM A COP and have access to info that none of you do.

Lastly, it's not a question of legal uses vs. illegal uses. It is our RIGHT, guaranteed by our Constitution. Quit focusing on the law abiding citizen and focus on the criminal element and how to deal with them.

End of story.

Thank you!!! That seems to be lost on the anti-gun crowd, expecially those who harp on "why do you need a gun?" Is that their idea of inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that the exercise of those rights depends on me explaining that I have a need...implying what, exactly? That if I don't have what they consider a need, then I shouldn't get to exercise my rights? Do I have to demonstrate a need before due process applies to me? Or a need before protection from search and siezure applies to me?

The Constitution contains a "Bill of Rights", not a "Bill of Benefits the Government Might Permit You if You Can Demonstrate a Need."

 

[God&DogGirl]

I'll pop in for a second with my thoughts. I don't believe we should control guns but I do think we need to be careful who we allow to have guns. I don't know how and I'm not proposing a solution but if there's a way to keep guns from mentally ill people, that should be the focus. There are laws in place that prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Perhaps we should be more diligent in teaching gun safety. Or we should remind people that they should ALWAYS keep their guns locked up if anyone in the house could potentially harm someone with them. The issue isn't gun control, it's gun safety.

I'm a supporter of the second amendment. Though I don't have a gun I'd get one if I felt I needed one. Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. I'd feel much safer if I were surrounded by responsible gun owners.

 

[Vanguard]

For those that want stricter gun laws or an outright ban on guns, let me ask you this rhetorical question: what kind of car do you drive?

Was your choice in a vehicle a need or a want?

No one needs a 600hp vehicle that goes from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds. Those vehicles, by design, break the speed limit laws far too easily.
No one needs a landbarge of an SUV that is so big the people behind you can't see over, through or around you. The lack of visibility endangers those behind you.
No one needs a vehicle that costs 2-3 times as much as other vehicles. People want them because they are materialistic and like having an emblem that says "I drive a Mercedes, a BMW, etc."
No one needs a $60,000 truck that has a 6" lift kit, 34" Super Swamper tires, Triple chrome light bars loaded with KCs on it, and custom paint. I doubt you'll be taking it "muddin'."
No one needs a vehicle with $10,000 worth of stereo equipment in it.

The same principle applies to guns. People may not NEED them but they WANT them. Our Constitution gives them the right to fulfill that WANT.

 

[phantom309]

Thank you!!! That seems to be lost on the anti-gun crowd, expecially those who harp on "why do you need a gun?" Is that their idea of inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, that the exercise of those rights depends on me explaining that I have a need...implying what, exactly? That if I don't have what they consider a need, then I shouldn't get to exercise my rights? Do I have to demonstrate a need before due process applies to me? Or a need before protection from search and siezure applies to me?

I think this one paragraph reaches directly to the core of the matter altogether.The constitution was constructed and implemented with the goal of protecting and preserving what most of us consider rights,not mere privileges granted by a govt.There exist certain rights that,as the constitution states,should not be infringed upon..no matter what.Those rights should also not be contingent upon whether your peers,neighbors or political figures think you have earned it,need it or are responsible enough to enjoy it.

The Constitution contains a "Bill of Rights", not a "Bill of Benefits the Government Might Permit You if You Can Demonstrate a Need."

Well said.

 

[Dustoftheearth]

His implication is accurate for the USA. If less than .5% of registered gun owners use their guns to commit a crime, then that means that 95.5% of those guns are being used legitimately, by those same owners. Furthermore, I have all the stats anyone needs, given that I AM A COP and have access to info that none of you do.

Lastly, it's not a question of legal uses vs. illegal uses. It is our RIGHT, guaranteed by our Constitution. Quit focusing on the law abiding citizen and focus on the criminal element and how to deal with them.

End of story.

Not being from the US, I know very little about your Constitution.

What I am seeing and hearing, is many claiming that under the Constitution they have a right to have or carry arms, under the second amendment.

Does this right apply to ALL American citizens?
Is there some written clause for qualification to meet in the Constitution, before someone can claim that right?

If not, then surely it is a ‘so called’ right for ALL, or none
If a right for ALL, then how can some hypocritically claim that so called right for themselves, but then want to deny the few crazies etc.. that very same right?

Doesn’t imposing your (the people) own common-sense values, but unwritten in the Constitution leave the door wide open, for the government of the day, to lawfully impose their common-sense values?

 

[Vanguard]

The US Constitution's 2nd Amendment gives Amercian citizens the right to bear arms. Whether or not "to bear' means to own or to carry is subject to interpretation. Ownership is a guaranteed interpretation, but to carry them outside of your property is subjective. Each individual state has laws governing whether or not (or how) a citizen can carry their guns on them or in their cars, outside of their property (homes).

The 2nd applies to ALL American citizens. There is a difference between gun ownership and carrying one. I had a hunting rifle by the time I was 12. I could not carry a pistol on me until I was 21. Use some common sense...you won't give a loaded shotgun to a 4 year old.

There are exclusions that vary state to state. Some who are excluded from gun ownership are convicted felons, convicted domestic violence offenders, the mentally unstable, drug offenders, etc. In short, if you give up being a law abiding citizen, you give up some of your rights. Convicted felons can't vote either.

Those who are restricted after choosing not to be law abiding citizens, are done so in the interest of the public, because those criminals have shown a capacity to disregard the law, public safety, and the property of others. If you want to keep your right to own guns for protection, hunting, sporting, etc., don't break the law!

We have far too many governmental views in this country as is. We need a smaller government, not a bigger one. Big Brother needs to take a step back. Too bad people did not vote for Dr. Ron Paul.

Edit: the problem in the US is not gun ownership, but the lack of gun security by the owners. Lock your guns up and the problem is solved.
(queue The Battle Hymn of the Republic)

 

[Sparkey]

[video=youtube;OyS3CEIbpJo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo[/video]

 

[Drew]

Drew, man, c'mon. Think how many guns are in this country -- approximately 300 million. Then look at the FBI crime stats for an insight into gun violence. According to FBI stats from 2008, there were 5.3 million violent crimes in the country, but only 436,000 were committed with guns. That's 8% of the crimes committed.

Please read my posts more carefully. I simply stated that I am skeptical that when a gun is actually used (discharged, fired, or used to threaten), it is more often used legitimately than illegitimately. I am simply saying that I would bet the farm that more guns are fired in committing a crime of some sort than are fired for (arguably) legitimate reasons (self-defence).

I never made any comment re the fraction of crimes in which a gun was used.

In addition, there were 989,883 incidents in which gun owners successfully defended themselves with their guns. That was in 2000, in a survey published in Journal of Quantitative Criminology

If you can provide evidence that this total is greater than the number of incidents in which a gun was used in a crime of some sort, then you would have made your point.

 

[Drew]

I'll pop in for a second with my thoughts. I don't believe we should control guns....

Why not, if I may ask. Presumably you would agree that we should control access to hand grenades, flame throwers, tanks, and F-15 jet fighters? My point (with these "stretched" comparisons) is that I believe it is very much a debatable point as to whether it is wise to allow general citizens to have guns.

The issue isn't gun control, it's gun safety.

I don't follow the reasoning here. Clearly even if all responsible gun owners locked up their guns, there still could be significant problem with gun violence. Obviously, such measure would lessen the problem. However, I think you are missing the best solution - get rid of all the guns. Why do you need guns? No other advanced prosperous nation in the world has nearly as many guns (relatively speaking) in the hands of its citizens. Yes - I am aware of the Swiss, but I will bet their rate of gun ownership, while high, is less than in the US.

As I continue to point out, we cannot divide humanity into two simple categories: the good (responsible) and the bad (irresponsible) - this simply does not match reality. I suggest the reality is that it is basically impossible to, at the point of gun sale, have any reasonable way to predict whether the purchaser is not presently mentally ill, or will become so in the future. Or that they will not lose their temper in the future at a cheating spouse, etc.

 

[Drew]

Thank you!!! That seems to be lost on the anti-gun crowd, expecially those who harp on "why do you need a gun?" Is that their idea of inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution,...

Not a good argument. The question of "why do you need a gun?" is indeed legitimate. Why do you think the 2nd amendment was established in the first place? Because people enjoy playing with guns? Well, sadly, that may be true to some extent. But the more reasonable explanation was there was a felt need. It would not make sense to confer such a right, with all the possibilities for abuse, if there were not a legitimate need.

The 2nd amendment has been variously interpreted by different Supreme Courts, sometimes to the effect that it does not confer the right of gun ownership on the regular citizen. Either way, though, it was written in a different time and place by people who could not have imagined 21st urban America.

The 2nd amendment is not like the gospel - it is not inerrant, eternal truth. It should be revisited, and possibly revised, as times change. As should all other elements of how we organize and run societies.

If the constitution granted you the right to own slaves, would you appeal to it as some kind of eternal, inalienable right?

 

[Sparkey]

Monday, January 21
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day 2013

No Guns For Negroes, Part 1
[video=youtube;nckgyfGbdnU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU[/video]

"The '68 Gun Control Act was written and in some cases almost copied word for word from the same laws the Nazi's used in 1938 to control undesirable populations in Hitler's Germany. Both documents are based on racial fear.
...
It seems unthinkable today that legislation is still being written to keep minorities in their place, but it is.

No Guns For Negroes, Part 2
[video=youtube;2g7TbxkJuqA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA[/video]

When the right to bear arms is put in the proper perspective historically then people will see that the African-American community having guns to protect themselves, not from crooked cops and police brutality, but from the culture of drugs and gangs because of a war going on due to the narco-economy [Cultural Drug War].

And so until we address "why are these people armed," "why are they shooting," we are not going to be able to create an oasis of redevelopment in the cities of America.

Intercity violence is directly related to the black market for illegal drugs, gangs, and drug-dealers' turf wars.

The Anti-Gun groups seek to enshroud their arguments in the emotional aftermath of murdered children. Looking at the real problem is merely a first-step toward a workable solution.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Not a good argument. The question of "why do you need a gun?" is indeed legitimate. Why do you think the 2nd amendment was established in the first place? Because people enjoy playing with guns? Well, sadly, that may be true to some extent. But the more reasonable explanation was there was a felt need. It would not make sense to confer such a right, with all the possibilities for abuse, if there were not a legitimate need.

The need has been presented to you on numerous occasions throughout several discussions on guns. You don't accept that there is a need. There is. Your denial of that need does not invalidate the arguments that there indeed is a need to own a gun for protection.

The 2nd amendment has been variously interpreted by different Supreme Courts, sometimes to the effect that it does not confer the right of gun ownership on the regular citizen.

That has never been the case. In fact, less than three years ago, SCOTUS again affirmed the rights of the public to gun ownership.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

Either way, though, it was written in a different time and place by people who could not have imagined 21st urban America.

And yet, they also experienced crime, danger in the streets and on the highways, in their workplaces. Do you believe that a people who were building a new country out of the wilderness would not understand those dangers, or that they would not want their descendants to be able to provide the same kind of basic security to their families and communities even though the threat changed?

The 2nd amendment is not like the gospel - it is not inerrant, eternal truth. It should be revisited, and possibly revised, as times change. As should all other elements of how we organize and run societies.

When crime and violence disappear from the landscape, then perhaps changes to the Second Amendment could be considered. Not until then, however, and not likely then at any rate.

If the constitution granted you the right to own slaves, would you appeal to it as some kind of eternal, inalienable right?

It did, at one time. Then it changed. The Second Amendment hasn't changed because life hasn't really changed that much. From highwaymen and thugs, in 233 years we've moved to gangs and thugs. Big difference, huh?

 

[Sparkey]

Please read my posts more carefully. I simply stated that I am skeptical that when a gun is actually used (discharged, fired, or used to threaten), it is more often used legitimately than illegitimately. I am simply saying that I would bet the farm that more guns are fired in committing a crime of some sort than are fired for (arguably) legitimate reasons (self-defence).

I never made any comment re the fraction of crimes in which a gun was used.


If you can provide evidence that this total is greater than the number of incidents in which a gun was used in a crime of some sort, then you would have made your point.

So your definition of "legitimate" seeks to limit firearm use as reported defensive use only? On what basis? What about hunting, shooting at the gun range and etc? Have you ever been to a gun range, Drew? They sweep up the spent brass for economic reasons.

Why are gun-free zones chosen by would-be murderers?

 

[Sparkey]

Why not, if I may ask. Presumably you would agree that we should control access to hand grenades, flame throwers, tanks, and F-15 jet fighters? My point (with these "stretched" comparisons) is that I believe it is very much a debatable point as to whether it is wise to allow general citizens to have guns.


I don't follow the reasoning here. Clearly even if all responsible gun owners locked up their guns, there still could be significant problem with gun violence. Obviously, such measure would lessen the problem. However, I think you are missing the best solution - get rid of all the guns. Why do you need guns? No other advanced prosperous nation in the world has nearly as many guns (relatively speaking) in the hands of its citizens. Yes - I am aware of the Swiss, but I will bet their rate of gun ownership, while high, is less than in the US.

As I continue to point out, we cannot divide humanity into two simple categories: the good (responsible) and the bad (irresponsible) - this simply does not match reality. I suggest the reality is that it is basically impossible to, at the point of gun sale, have any reasonable way to predict whether the purchaser is not presently mentally ill, or will become so in the future. Or that they will not lose their temper in the future at a cheating spouse, etc.

You keep asking and asking, "Why?" "Why do people need guns." Are you still not reading my posts? I know you're too busy to actually consider what others are saying but take a minute and look at the videos I posted about Gun-use, drugs, gangs and race. It answers your questions.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Why are gun-free zones chosen by would-be murderers?

Wouldn't be because there are no guns (other than theirs) in a "gun-free zone," would it?