Gun Control in the USA

[Sparkey]

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

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. This is the most convoluted argument I've heard. I don't even want to dignify this racial ignorance with an answer. There is a direct link to slavery and gun-control. Additionally there is a link between the natural right for defense (from which both of our countries derive gun rights) and a citizen's constitutionally protected right to defend themselves.

 

[Sparkey]

"Has 'Never Again' become meaningless?"

No Guns for Jews
[video=youtube;4H-qOUmCrIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H-qOUmCrIU[/video]

Self Preservation is a G-d given right as described in the Torah:

Do not stand Idly your brother's blood. - Leviticus 19:16

The L-RD your G-D will go with you to fight your enemies and protect you. - Deuteronomy 20:4​

Contrary to G-d's law, many Jewish politicians and influential Jewish leaders promote gun control measures that take away that right. They believe in man's law. The same laws that denied Jews the ability to arm and defend themselves and their property for thousands of years.

The same laws that make it illegal to follow the commandments in Torah Law that obligates Jews to defend themselves.

November 9th 1938: Kristallnacht (the Night of Broken Glass)

• 91 Jews are murdered
• 25,000 to 35,000 [Jews] are arrested and placed in concentration camps
• 1 Day later, an Amendment prohibiting Jews from possessing weapons is passed

Would History have been rewritten if the SS had confronted thousands of armed Jews during the riots of Kristallnacht?

I'm not going to say that things would have been different if they had been armed, I don't know how things would have been.
But I am going to say that if had been armed, they had a chance.

 

[phantom309]

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.

People have proven this repeatedly throughout the thread,through facts and statistics from the FBI database as well as other sources.All you have to do is look the information up yourself if you doubt any of it.The burden of proof shouldnt be on the law abiding carriers,but those who wish to remove that right.Again,you ask for information that has already been provided and verified,yet your only response seems to be "Im skeptical" or "prove it". Im genuinely curious at this point to see when you will actually read some of it,rather than demand it and claim you dont have time to read it.

I can understand being a skeptic,thats a position we can all work with.However,the proof has been given.Demanding more proof when you refuse to acknowledge what has been given benefits neither side.Ive seen your stance steadily weaken over the course of the thread.You went from claiming that gun bans will solve the problem absolutely and citing other opinions to now being a mere skeptic,which suggests that you have taken a look at the information and just outright refuse to admit that gun ownership has its positive side and does indeed legally help save more lives than it claims criminally.I honestly dont mean this in an overly harsh manner but at this point it really does just look as if you simply refuse to admit whats been proven.

 

[Sparkey]

Fighting the demand curve

Everyone knows that possessing a handgun makes it easier to intimidate, wound, or kill someone. But the implication of this point for social policy has not been so well understood. It is easy to count the bodies of those who have been killed or wounded with guns, but not easy to count the people who have avoided harm because they had access to weapons. Think about uniformed police officers, who carry handguns in plain view not in order to kill people but simply to daunt potential attackers. And it works. Criminals generally do not single out police officers for opportunistic attack. Though officers can expect to draw their guns from time to time, few even in big-city departments will actually fire a shot (except in target practice) in the course of a year. This observation points to an important truth: people who are armed make comparatively unattractive victims. A criminal might not know if any one civilian is armed, but if it becomes known that a larger number of civilians do carry weapons, criminals will become warier.

Which weapons laws are the right kinds can be decided only after considering two related questions. First, what is the connection between civilian possession of firearms and social violence? Second, how can we expect gun-control laws to alter people's behavior? Most recent scholarship raises serious questions about the "weapons increase violence" hypothesis. The second question is emphasized here, because it is routinely overlooked and often mocked when noticed; yet it is crucial. Rational gun control requires understanding not only the relationship between weapons and violence but also the relationship between laws and people's behavior. Some things are very hard to accomplish with laws. The purpose of a law and its likely effects are not always the same thing. Many statutes are notorious for the way in which their unintended effects have swamped their intended ones.

In order to predict who will comply with gun-control laws, we should remember that guns are economic goods that are traded in markets. Consumers' interest in them varies. For religious, moral, aesthetic, or practical reasons, some people would refuse to buy firearms at any price. Other people willingly pay very high prices for them.

Handguns, so often the subject of gun-control laws, are desirable for one purpose -- to allow a person tactically to dominate a hostile transaction with another person. The value of a weapon to a given person is a function of two factors: how much he or she wants to dominate a confrontation if one occurs, and how likely it is that he or she will actually be in a situation calling for a gun.

Dominating a transaction simply means getting what one wants without being hurt. Where people differ is in how likely it is that they will be involved in a situation in which a gun will be valuable. Someone who intends to engage in a transaction involving a gun -- a criminal, for example -- is obviously in the best possible position to predict that likelihood. Criminals should therefore be willing to pay more for a weapon than most other people would. Professors, politicians, and newspaper editors are, as a group, at very low risk of being involved in such transactions, and they thus systematically underrate the value of defensive handguns. (Correlative, perhaps, is their uncritical readiness to accept studies that debunk the utility of firearms for self-defense.) The class of people we wish to deprive of guns, then, is the very class with the most inelastic demand for them -- criminals -- whereas the people most like to comply with gun-control laws don't value guns in the first place.

Source: The False Promise of Gun Control, by Daniel D. Polsby, From the March 1994 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

 

[Sparkey]

Do Guns Drive Up Crime Rates?

• If firearms increased violence and crime, then rates of spousal homicide would have skyrocketed, because the stock of privately owned handguns has increased rapidly since the mid-1960s. But according to an authoritative study of spousal homicide in the American Journal of Public Health, by James Mercy and Linda Saltzman, rates of spousal homicide in the years 1976 to 1985 fell.
• If firearms increased violence and crime, the crime rate should have increased throughout the 1980s, while the national stock of privately owned handguns increased by more than a million units in every year of the decade. It did not. Nor should the rate of violence and crime in Switzerland, New Zealand, and Israel be as low as they are, since the number of firearms per civilian household is comparable to that in the United States. Conversely, gun-controlled Mexico and South Africa should be islands of peace instead of having murder rates more than twice as high as those here. The determinants of crime and law-abidingness are, of course, complex matters, which are not fully understood and certainly not explicable in terms of a country's laws. But gun-control enthusiasts, who have made capital out of the low murder rate in England, which is largely disarmed, simply ignore the counterexamples that don't fit their theory.
• If firearms increased violence and crime, Florida's murder rate should not have been falling since the introduction, seven years ago, of a law that makes it easier for ordinary citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Yet the murder rate has remained the same or fallen every year since the law was enacted, and it is now lower than the national murder rate (which has been rising). As of last November 183,561 permits had been issued, and only seventeen of the permits had been revoked because the holder was involved in a firearms offense. It would be precipitate to claim that the new law has "caused" the murder rate to subside. Yet here is a situation that doesn't fit the hypothesis that weapons increase violence.
• If firearms increased violence and crime, programs of induced scarcity would suppress violence and crime. But -- another anomaly -- they don't. Why not? A theorem, which we could call the futility theorem, explains why gun-control laws must either be ineffectual or in the long term actually provoke more violence and crime. Any theorem depends on both observable fact and assumption. An assumption that can be made with confidence is that the higher the number of victims a criminals assumes to be armed, the higher will be the risk -- the price -- of assaulting them. By definition, gun-control laws should make weapons scarcer and thus more expensive. By our prior reasoning about demand among various types of consumers, after the laws are enacted criminals should be better armed, compared with non criminals, than they were before. Of course, plenty of noncriminals will remain armed. But even if many noncriminals will pay as high a price as criminals will to obtain firearms, a larger number will not.

Source: The False Promise of Gun Control, by Daniel D. Polsby, From the March 1994 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.

 

[Sparkey]

Drew, your opinion about the 2nd Amendment is well known. You believe that individual rights to own guns are not constitutionally protected. Yet you have failed to address the key to reasonable understanding, that the right was more correctly located elsewhere in the 14th Amendment, in a clause that forbids laws that abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Would your zeal to dis-arm America also seek to strike down the 14th Amendment? The 2nd Amendment was "incorporated" through the 14th Amendment's guarantee that the states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 

[phantom309]

Drew, your opinion about the 2nd Amendment is well known. You believe that individual rights to own guns are not constitutionally protected. Yet you have failed to address the key to reasonable understanding, that the right was more correctly located elsewhere in the 14th Amendment, in a clause that forbids laws that abridge "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Would your zeal to dis-arm America also seek to strike down the 14th Amendment? The 2nd Amendment was "incorporated" through the 14th Amendment's guarantee that the states may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

In all honesty,any citizen outside the U.S. shouldnt be interjecting their opinions into domestic affairs up to,and including,the United States Constitution.Ive often wondered why such people,along with other governing bodies (particularly the U.N.),think they know better than us or have it all figured out when clearly their own countries have problems that they havent solved.

 

[farouk]

In all honesty,any citizen outside the U.S. shouldnt be interjecting their opinions into domestic affairs up to,and including,the United States Constitution.Ive often wondered why such people,along with other governing bodies (particularly the U.N.),think they know better than us or have it all figured out when clearly their own countries have problems that they havent solved.

...Like the US invading Iraq, when there weren't any weapons of mass destruction to be found, supposedly the reason for going in?

(Just trying to be logical...)

 

[Mike S]

...Like the US invading Iraq, when there weren't any weapons of mass destruction to be found, supposedly the reason for going in?

(Just trying to be logical...)

In 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution act. It contained 23 "whereas" clauses, only 2 of which referred to weapons of mass destruction.

 

[farouk]

In 2002 Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution act. It contained 23 "whereas" clauses, only 2 of which referred to weapons of mass destruction.

This was still touted as a leading reason to go in. And the Bush Administration resented Prime Minister Chrétien for not buying it. And no WMD were found.

But what I was really commenting on is the idea that citizens of other countries can't supposedly assess issues in relation to the US Constitution (which is often almost uniquely heralded as an expression of universal ethics), while at the same time the prerogative of invading other countries, which have not attacked the US, is supposedly assumed by default.

(Just to clarify.)

 

[GKC]

I haven't read all 24 pages of this thread, so I apologize in advance if this has already been asked, but if more regulations and less access to guns is the answer, then why is the incidence of violence so much greater in Chicago than in almost any other part of the country?

I am a gun owner, and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I don't think bans, restrictions, or legislation is going to solve the problem of violence and evil in this country...if that was possible, then we would have already solved our problems with drug use and drunk driving. We must address the cause of the behavior, and not the tool, or else we are merely treating the symptom and not the disease.

 

[Mike S]

This was still touted as a leading reason to go in. And the Bush Administration resented Prime Minister Chrétien for not buying it. And no WMD were found.

But what I was really commenting on is the idea that citizens of other countries can't supposedly assess issues in relation to the US Constitution (which is often almost uniquely heralded as an expression of universal ethics), while at the same time the prerogative of invading other countries, which have not attacked the US, is supposedly assumed by default.

(Just to clarify.)

I agree with you, in general. But, being the world's policeman is a role as much forced on a country as a country just assuming it. I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, as I did the invasion of Afghanistan, but I didn't support the nation building efforts that followed the removal of the regimes.

Quite frankly, there wasmuch more justification fo rinvading Iraq and removing Hussein from power than using force in the Balkins, Libya, and Syria.

 

[phantom309]

...Like the US invading Iraq, when there weren't any weapons of mass destruction to be found, supposedly the reason for going in?

(Just trying to be logical...)

I somewhat see where youre coming from on this,but were comparing 2 radically different things that in no way correlate.Apples to oranges,as they say.

I think theres enough information available to say that the reason for invading iraq was sketchy at best.But on the other hand Saddam was not exactly a choice ruler,nor a kind one.To be bluntly honest I think the U.S. probably did fudge some facts to roll in and take care of business.Ive also come across some documentaries put together by veterans from the gulf war that claim the munitions were there,complete with court blunders and admissions on the part of military leaders present in the region.They describe finding at least 3 installations if memory serves and being ordered to destroy the installations along with the caches found.Their subsequent assertion after the fact was that they were destroyed and not reported because he did have illegal munitions on hand,some of which had been sold to him by the U.S.In essence,covering our own tracks.I wasnt there,so of course I cant personally verify any of it.But I dont doubt it one bit.

Saddam was also a loose cannon and an international threat.Despite how he came by the arsenal he had under his control he was obviously growing bolder as time went by and Im sure military analysts were more aware of that and why then we will ever be.He needed to go.

Preservation of second amendment rights is entirely different.It was written in for the sheer purpose of keeping the citizens armed in the event that someone similar to Saddam rose to power and began trampling on the rights of the citizens.It gives us the option to put down a threat to america in general.Though I dont see the need for full-scale revolt (just for the nuts that will jump on that statement and twist it around),it also guarantees we have the option of simply keeping the criminals somewhat contained.Im more comfortable knowing I have easy access to a loaded rifle should said criminal decide my home be targeted for robbery,murder or whatever else.

So,no..not very logical.In your haste to debate intrusion of foreign interests into domestic affairs you seem to forget that Saddam also tortured and killed thousands of his own people.Go read through his list of crimes sometime and honestly tell me if you think he should have stayed in power.I dont think that will be very easy.

Now if americans were to start hopping on airplanes and start their own little jihad of sorts in other countries,we would be seen as an international threat,much the same as our friend Hussein was.At that point one cant rightly tell everyone else to butt out of our business and I would expect some serious inquiries and possible U.N action.Such is not the case,and for that reason I rest my case.

The two are in no way linked,and make a very illogical comparison.

 

[farouk]

I somewhat see where youre coming from on this,but were comparing 2 radically different things that in no way correlate.Apples to oranges,as they say.

I think theres enough information available to say that the reason for invading iraq was sketchy at best.But on the other hand Saddam was not exactly a choice ruler,nor a kind one.To be bluntly honest I think the U.S. probably did fudge some facts to roll in and take care of business.Ive also come across some documentaries put together by veterans from the gulf war that claim the munitions were there,complete with court blunders and admissions on the part of military leaders present in the region.They describe finding at least 3 installations if memory serves and being ordered to destroy the installations along with the caches found.Their subsequent assertion after the fact was that they were destroyed and not reported because he did have illegal munitions on hand,some of which had been sold to him by the U.S.In essence,covering our own tracks.I wasnt there,so of course I cant personally verify any of it.But I dont doubt any of it.

Preservation of second amendment rights is entirely different.It was written in for the sheer purpose of keeping the citizens armed in the event that someone similar to Saddam rose to power and began trampling on the rights of the citizens.It gives us the option to put down a threat to america in general.Though I dont see the need for full-scale revolt (just for the nuts that will jump on that statement and twist it around),it also guarantees we have the option of simply keeping the criminals somewhat contained.Im more comfortable knowing I have easy access to a loaded rifle should said criminal decide my home be targeted for robbery,murder or whatever else.

So,no..not very logical.In your haste to debate intrusion of foreign interests into domestic affairs you seem to forget that Saddam also tortured and killed thousands of his own people.Go read through his list of crimes sometime and honestly tell me if you think he should have stayed in power.I dont think that will be very easy.

Now if americans were to start hopping on airplanes and start their own little jihad of sorts in other countries,we would be seen as an international threat,much the same as our friend Hussein was.At that point one cant rightly tell everyone else to butt out of our business and I would expect some serious inquiries and possible U.N action.Such is not the case,and for that reason I rest my case.

The two are in no way linked,and make a very illogical comparison.

Just consider the perception, though.

Ty for taking the trouble of a detailed response.

 

[Sparkey]

I LIKE: :nod
I like the fact that Obama is strengthening existing gun laws to increase background check protocols. Although some may say that stronger background checks will pave the way to government confiscation without reduction of availability to deranged murderers, I think it is warranted. I agree with the appointment of a permanent director to the ATF. Banning armor piercing bullets makes sense to me also as does providing funding for more police officers on the street, first response training programs, and school emergency plans. Federal encouragement (funding is better) for schools to hire "school resource officers" also makes sense.

I QUESTION: :dunno
Other measures look like "I got to be seen as doing something, why not pick measures that conform and agree with my agenda." Such measures would including banning magazine clips that hold more than 10 bullets. That seems a little arbitrary to me. Why not 7 or 12? What about criminals who plan ahead and carry 3 or 4 clips with them?

I DISAGREE:
Pushing for the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban simply ignores the fact that there are more than 200 million guns in circulation in the United States. Buy-back programs won't work. There isn't enough money for that. Plus, the idea will inevitably come that the 10-year 1994 ban needs to be tightened (that will probably wait for news of another tragedy). Will all semi-automatic weapons be banned? Definitions weren't the strong point in Clinton's gun ban. They limited cosmetic items like shoulder extensions, bayonet mounts, threads on the tip of the barrel (used to mount silencers but also used to deflect flash and retard kick).

After the gun-ban expired in 2004 Violent Crime Rates have continued to go down in the US from 684.5 Violent Crimes per 100,000 population in 1995 to 469.0 per 100,000 in 2005 to 386.3 Violent Crimes in 2011. This reduction coincides gun sales going up. The study does not take crack cocaine sales, population density, racial tension or mental health issues into consideration whatsoever. There is no direct causal relationship between availability of guns to violence except in the minds of gun-control advocates.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I agree with you, in general. But, being the world's policeman is a role as much forced on a country as a country just assuming it. I agreed with the invasion of Iraq, as I did the invasion of Afghanistan, but I didn't support the nation building efforts that followed the removal of the regimes.

We were successful in those efforts, just as we were in Germany, and that took 44 years. What we see going on in Iraq now is the result of not nation building. The term doesn't mean enforcing our form of government on the people. It means lessening the blow of war and its aftermath so they can be self-determining.

Quite frankly, there wasmuch more justification fo rinvading Iraq and removing Hussein from power than using force in the Balkins, Libya, and Syria.

Absolutely true.

 

[Sparkey]

The Gun Control That Works: NO GUNS

For good or ill, the more dangerous the world seems, the more attractive the protection of handguns gets.
Can we really advise women who are threatened by an estranged spouse that carrying a restraining order in her purse is the best she can do?
What about people who live in highly populated areas or where the risk of home invasion is high?
The problem with these kinds of 'interventions' is that you have to wait for the law to be violated then wait for an average of 10 minutes for police response.

Once you have guns in circulation, in significant numbers, I suspect that specific controls on things like semi-automatic weapons or large magazines can have only marginal effects. Once lots of other people have guns, it becomes rational for you to want your own too.

 

[Sparkey]

Back in 1911 (when my dad was born) Government wasn't all that big.

Then comes the passage of the 16th Amendment, passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, allowing the Federal government to tax the income of individuals.

Today, they are looking for ways to justify taking (and spending) all that money and the idea of control comes to mind (again). Too bad they inverted the right of it. Controlling government seems the better way. Grrrr....

 

[Sparkey]

Micro Economics and Gun Control

Guns are goods that are traded in markets. Interest in them varies among differing consumer groups. Some people may refuse to buy a firearm at any price. Other people willingly pay very high prices for them.

What is the perceived value of a hand gun? This can be broken down into two factors: how much a person wants to dominate a confrontation should it occur, and how likely it is that he or she will actually be in a situation calling for a gun.

In a dangerous situation, both criminals and law-abiding citizens will want to dominate the confrontation at least to the extent that neither will want to get hurt. Where people differ is in how likely it is that they will be involved in a situation in which a gun will be valuable. Someone who intends to engage in a transaction involving a gun—a criminal, for example—is obviously in the best possible position to predict that likelihood. Criminals should therefore be willing to pay more for a weapon than most other people would.

Canadians who don't live in America should have the least expectation of a violent confrontation within the borders of the United States and they, along with other groups such as politicians, professors, and newspaper editors are, as a group, at very low risk of being involved in such transactions and thus systematically underrate the value of defensive handguns.

The class of people we wish to deprive of guns, then, is the very class with the most inelastic demand for them—criminals—whereas the people most likely to comply with and advocate gun control laws don’t value guns in the first place.

Credit/Accreditation: Daniel D. Polsby. "The False Promise of Gun Control," The Atlantic Magazine, March 1994