I saw a reply of Leigh's to an old thread, deliberately provocative, re: RED state freedom vs BLUE state religious control. This referred to the freedom of the citizenry to bear arms. Last year San Francisco CA voted to make any possession of firearms illegal. So, the po-lice are the only persons that may. (now of course as a practical matter this may not mean a whole hell of a lot). But, just as a philosophical point, were the voters of SF right to do this? Is this a clueless advancement of the police state by the ostensibly 'liberal' city of SF?
I have tried several approaches to respond to this thread without entering the political realm, and find it impossible to do so.
This thread is flawed in that it assumes that only the Police will have guns and totally ignores the criminal elements that totally ignore the laws on gun control. "Criminalize guns and only criminals will have guns." After all their possession was illegal for criminals before the laws were written and they ignored the existing laws at the time and now only they and the police carry them. Something seems strange about that logic. In states like Texas crime has declined in certain areas and studies have shown it through fear of citizens being able to defend themselves with legally carried concealed firearms.
Ann Coulter sums it up best in her book How to Talk to a Liberal, you can talk to them but they generally aren't listening.
Caitlyn
Quote from: caitlyn on April 13, 2006, 07:54:25 PM
Ann Coulter sums it up best in her book How to Talk to a Liberal, you can talk to them but they generally aren't listening.
That's a broad generalization. Any time you paint such a large group with one brush you are invariably wrong. It's like saying gay men are pedophiles when in fact scientific studies have shown that most pedophiles are straight heterosexual males. Also quoting someone of this nature doesn't help, instead hurts your argument.
I tend to find it's people like Ann Coulter who are generally closed minded inflexible and often unwilling to take factual information and use it to adjust their beliefs. Instead they immerse themselves in delusions and denials of reality.
It's like the 30% of the US that still think George Bush is a great president in spite of the lies, unethical acts, scandals, and other illegal and unconstitutional acts committed by his administration, his political party, and himself.
I think Anne Coulter is a ravenous publicity hound who will say anything to shock people into talking about her. The grossest form of exhibitionist.
But "gun control" laws are a joke too. Make them all illegal and organized crime has a new market, next to drugs, prostitution and gambling. Even if all US gun manufacturers were shut down, the criminals would get the tools of their trade through smuggling and underground domestic manufacture (it really isn't that hard to make a gun!).
Should everyone be able to buy and carry a firearm? NO! Of course not! Should sane, reasonably intelligent people be able to? Yes. (Yes, we CAN tell the difference!) Should weaker people be able to successfully deter stronger people from doing them harm? You bet! I'm one of them! I think the citizens of San Francisco made a mistake.
helen
The city ordinance is unconstitutional.
The second ammendment, as it is presently defined, allows people to own firearms. Any test of this ordinance in court would be immediately thrown out on that basis. Federal law takes precidenc
The people of SF are trying to make a statement. Unfortunately, all it will do is tie up an already over taxed legal system. All it takes are 2 attorneys both trying to make a name for themselves, will probably file suite and end up turn the debate into a 3-ring circus.
Chaunte
I will admit that with that part about Ann may have been tongue in Cheek, but when I saw the reference to Liberals I couldn't resist throwing Ann in to see what would happen. My apologies too any one I may have offended, but I honestly can't promise not to stir the pot again some time in the future.
In my state of Michigan we have a large body of citizens that have concealed pistol licenses I and spouse included. This group of people has been studied very carefully to determine the affects of the law that allows any upstanding citizen, to apply for and get a concealed pistol license. The studies have shown that the group as a whole, has not created any problems with their guns in the time (I am not real sure when the law was passed but I believe it is four years) that law has been in effect..
The interesting part of this process was that the Police and County clerk all know of my being transsexual and I still received the license with out problem or question.
PS: Good responses.
Caitlyn
Quote from: Bill of Rights
Second Amendment
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.
Just a moment. Does not the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights blatantly say I can have a gun if I wish? "
...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Isn't it quite against the governing laws of this nation to "make any possession of firearms illegal"
Anyway to answer the question I think each house should have a loaded fire arm (and the occupants skilled and knowledgeable on it's use and safety!) :P Lets go one more step and waive the occupants liability for shooting a trespasser into their house. (Not so much fun to rob someone when you get shot now is it?
*chortle*) -- It would never work of course, but details :P
Kimberly,
That's why I worded my response the way I did. "The second ammendment, as it is presently defined, allows people to own firearms."
The entire gun-control / right-to-bear-arms debate is a good one and I can see both sides of the issue. All I was saying is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the ammendment at this time. Some future court may change this position. Until then, however, the interpretation is as it is...
Chaunte
Caitlyn, the thread is by definition in the political realm. I am not trying to be real delicate here. It does not ignore the criminal element - to wit: "now as a practical matter this may not mean a whole hell of a lot." The citizenry should have the ability to defend itself against the criminal element AND AGAINST THE POLICE AS WELL, as in my experience these two are not necessarily actually different, they tend to overlap quite a bit. And my statement the 'po-lice are the only ones that may', means LEGALLY. The people of SF with registered handguns are expected to give it up. (I did neglect to point out there is apparently some difference between handguns and, say, hunting rifles, in the new legislation.)
Btw, and Noto Bene: our house was recently entered and an attempt at 'armed' robbery was made. I was able to foil the attempt with a butter knife, not kidding here (I guessed that the gun was either fake or not loaded), but my roommate was fairly terrorized by this event. So Kimberly I am with you.
Posted at: April 14, 2006, 12:09:37 PM
It is interesting to me that no one has anything to say re: "is this a clueless advancement of a police state?", which I'd hoped the most provocative part of the thread. [This ordinance is obviously unconstitutional, not too unusual these days to see this from either side of the political spectrum.]
Could be that no one else has seen that side of 'the law' at work. Remember that this nation was founded by a violent revolution.
Jan,
I didn't want to get into a discussion about having an armed populace is a good way to keep the government from becoming a police state. If the citizens are able to violently reform the government, the government is much more likely to be reformed through 'diplomatic means.'
BTW, I believe that what the present administration and Congress has done in the name of security is highly unconstitutional. That is why I am voting against every incumbant that has supported the (un)Patriot Act and other such legislation.
Chaunte
yeppir, it's highly unconstitutional and highly UnAmerican. Also the present gang, it's more than a gang, they are extremely organized. They have stolen two elections, they only need to keep it close, they will steal a third. Ad infinitum. And they do know how to keep it close enough. The populace as currently situated, pot to piss in, bread and circuses, does not have enough dissatisfied customers, motivated anywhere near enough to revolt.
It is my view that the status quo will prevail short of revolt. When EG: San Franciscans are this clueless, it would be more than naive of me to imagine anyplace else (not that SF is so special anymore, but it is one place that has alternative press that is not owned by Clear Channel - that's right, you read right, Clear Channel owns The Village Voice and is intent on controlling the media across the board eventually. Any study of history obviously tells us that control of information is the key to absolute control of the populace.) getting the moxie up to make a real stand.
I am enough of an alarmist? I don't even think so.
Posted at: April 14, 2006, 02:50:41 PM
And I do hope your vote counts, Chaunte. I am not confident of that anymore is what I am saying.
Posted at: April 14, 2006, 02:52:44 PM
One more thing, and I am outta here.
How Do You Talk To A Fascist? They have not the slightest intent on listening, unless you have hewed to their line in the first place.
Jan,
I have to believe that my vote counts, as well as everyone else who votes and does not vote. THat is why I continue to live here. To give up on my vote having any clout is to hand the government over to some aparatchek. I refuse to do that.
No surrender!
Chaunte
I live in Europe and I think that non of my neighbors has any piece of firearms, so I really don't understand what is it with you Americans and this obsessions about firearms ???
At least you could have a lot less self wounded or self killed people if you don't have so much guns in almost every home.
The gangs ... you can gave them guns or not they will always found the way to get one when they needed.
That's my opinion, maybe wrong but I would never buy a gun to have it at home where my kids (if I have some) can reached and harmed themself or others.
Michelle
The very fact that (sic) "they will always found the way to get one when they needed" is precisely what I'm on about.
Two boys enterered my house last month: "Don't nobody move! Give me all your mutha-(*&$^@ money!"
"Don't have no money here, son"
I went to the kitchen, to the silverware drawer, the kid followed me in, on top were only the butter knives. I guess I looked scary enough with that, they RAN, but next time, may not be enough ammunition.
"You Americans and your obsession with firearms" ????
Quote"You Americans and your obsession with firearms" ?
yes exactly, I wonder why that doesn't happen here in Europe or Canada (at least much less than in USA)? I live in this town more than 30 years and never heard about something like you said.
It's just because you allowed anybody to have the fire weapons if there would be laws and penalties about walking around with weapon would be everything different but no you need a weapon, but not one better buy three or more so the criminals can steal that wepon and make another crime somewhere else.
Also your picture says it all, have a nice day, hopefully without weapon.
Michelle
I don't know that gun control would be particularly effective in the States after all these years of not having it. In any event, I'm not fond of guns myself, but that's because I've only lived in Canada and the UK, neither of which has a gun culture.
The thing that bugs me is Americans not respecting our culture and bringing their firearms across the border. I used to work at the Canada/US border and we'd arrest at least one American a day trying to carry his or her personal firearm into our country. What's worse is that they were often camping, so the firearms would be accessible to thieves. RCMP caught one guy breaking into a camper that had 5 handguns in it. Although it'd be naive to think that criminals don't have guns up here, they're not as commonly used and I really don't appreciate anyone making them more accessible to criminals.
The prevalence of guns does make me wary of travelling in the US, that's for sure. It's about the last place I'd pick for a camping holiday because of that. I still think about a newspaper article I read about two women who were camping in Oregon and some nutbar shot and killed them in their tent because he thought they were lesbians and felt it his duty to take them out.
But, it is your country. If people carrying guns is what you want, then go for it, as long as they don't bring them across the border. I do think the rationalization about using them to limit government abuse is a bit outdated. The Patriot Act and related legislation did more damage to individual rights and liberties than anything a past government has done in the last 100 years and I didn't see anyone using their firearms to stop that.
Dennis
now I'm really tickled. hee hee hee.
Quote from: Dennis on April 15, 2006, 01:46:17 PM
I do think the rationalization about using them to limit government abuse is a bit outdated. The Patriot Act and related legislation did more damage to individual rights and liberties than anything a past government has done in the last 100 years and I didn't see anyone using their firearms to stop that.
Dennis
i haven't rationalized anything. I am posing some talking points, and trying to see some things. Now, how, "outdated"? I am really trying not to have a failure of imagination here. We have a really, truly abusive government here. I expect these people to cling tenaciously to their power; it is really close to absolute, and absolutely corrupt. (Up in the Great White North, Your Mileage May Vary.) As for the Patriot Act, a truly self-concerned and self-governed populace might have risen up agin it. The State of the Union in the USA looks a lot like Deutschland circa 1930 to me.
Posted at: April 15, 2006, 02:42:03 PM
Quote from: NightAngel on April 15, 2006, 12:52:11 PM
yes exactly, I wonder why that doesn't happen here in Europe or Canada (at least much less than in USA)? ...
Also your picture says it all, have a nice day, hopefully without weapon.
Michelle
I imagine it doesn't happen in Europe because some nations there have had it happen time and time again, and have learned their lesson, for now anyways; this here is a very very young nation by comparison.
A little history lesson I simply must share: right now my house is in Richmond California. Now Richmond is a city because of one thing historically: The US was extremely reluctant to get into the problems of Europe in the 1930's because it became entangled in WWI, a big big mistake. We got one of our big naval bases bombed on December 7 1941. We finally entered the fray.
To do this, a major shipbuilding effort had to be undertaken. The industrialist Henry J. Kaiser got the first contract with the goverments of this country and some others, EG: Great Britain. The builiding commenced in a little town in the Northeast San Francisco Bay Area, called Richmond. Now this effort attracted black people from all over the US to work, the pay was decent, the work was steady. Now Richmond is a pretty big town; it is a port town; port towns can be pretty rough, we are not talking about established classes of people. Unfortunately, due to a whole host of history that most Americans have some idea of, Richmond is the homicide capital of California, that's right not even EG: Compton can touch us.
This insane event happened to me, because I am SO not militant, we LEFT OUR DOOR UNLOCKED on a regular basis. Now because I have a real girly girl as a roommate, we lock it now. Me, I ain't terrorized so easy; I chased the gun-totin' thugs off with a butter knife. I have been in exactly three altercations in my life; two were absolute self-defense, one was with a Neo Nazi (they got those in Europe, too, don't they?)
So your perception of me is cute, yer funny!
[Now this I'm still giggling about: the avatar; the little bar at the bottom can be dragged to the right for the other part of it. Same girl. (the caption underneath it all is a song title; 'will you still love me UNDERNEATH IT ALL. It's subtle. Maybe.) I hadn't even considered that such an image was militant. LOL! That look is a very average example of what is popular in casual wear for young women here, in California at least. (Anybody here wanna tell Michelle who that's a picture of? I wish I looked that good, maybe 20 yrs ago...)]
You are so sweet and innocent Michelle, I feel I just want to protect you!
QuoteI feel I just want to protect you!
Who know's, maybe I will need your protection someday ;) ... look jan c, i don't want to fight with you or someone else, I just told my opinion about that question, that's all.
I just see all that in different light because I live in relatively peaceful country where is no need for firearms.
Michelle
Michelle, I know sweety, I am very playful that way, didn't mean to be rough with the history. I'll be gentle from now on, k? I sometimes wish I did not live in The Wild Wild West as I do, but dem's de breaks.
Peace.
Jan, I didn't say you rationalized anything. It's a common reason given by pro-gun lobbies, the armed rebellion against the state. That, I think is outdated. Firearms are a part of American culture. To try and go back on it now would probably be dangerous.
And it is quite different living in a country where we don't carry guns. I am considering carrying a butter knife from now on though :)
Dennis
The United States has more than once rescued those nations who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves. Unfortunately we have now become the agressor that we once fought against.
My son went hunting the first time at age 4. He saw up close and personal what happens when a shot is fired. If people, adults and kids, experienced the same thing possibly they would realise that this is real, not behind a television or movie screen. Its real blood and the damge isn't something you just shrug off and get up and keep going. Mandatory gun safety classes in schools unless a parent specifically lets their child opt out? But, if an accident does happen later the parents are held legally responsible.
there are rants and raves about locking guns up, using trigger guards, anything to make them inaccessable. One problem! When you need on in an emergency, you need it then not 5 minutes later. I recently went on a long trip and I did no go defenseless. Was I breaking the laws of several states? Sure I was but if it came to it, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
Once again it comes down to personal responsibility,
Leigh
thank you Leigh for that. and right on. Wish I could be as concise as that (too much coffee for one thing).
I support the 2nd amendment 100%. I own and carry firearms. I have used my sidearm to protect the life of more than one person. The police could care less about a T individual in the south. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the police are not there to protect you (thus why many police forces have removed `To protect' from their cars and other items).
I take my responsibility very seriously and have studied the issues. When it was time to carry in public I was required (and would have done so even if it was not required) to go through a 12 hour course given by two police officers.
I can make a one use, single shot firearm out of a few newspapers, a magazine, a rubberband, and a nail. Said setup would even tear up a bullet proof vest in a tight situation.
Criminals are criminals. They break the law. Cops cannot be everywhere, which is a good thing because we are not yet a police state.
There have been situations in which armed citizens have risen up against corrupt, local politicians in the modern era. One that I think should be made into a movie centered around a few returning WWII soldiers to find out that the town was being strong armed for everything, including who could and could not vote. They broke into the armory, seized weapons, and took down the local gov't and then brought in the feds. There was another similar situation even more recent but I am not very familiar with that one at all.
The United States of America will not last forever. We are already sliding from a Representative Republic to a Democracy (mob rule) and from there it is just a quick jump to having a dictator. This will happen, eventually. Unlikely to happen in our lifetimes though.
Firearm stories are sensationalised in the media. Doctors kill more in accidents every year.
Criminals will always find a way to get what they need to continue their chosen career path. Suicidal people will always find a way to kill themselves. Constitutional freedoms should never be curtailed.
Oh and I dislike the overuse of the term Nazi. Once the govt starts rounding up citizens according to race in an effort to allow the United States to fulfill its destiny, we'll talk. Wiki entry on Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi), check out the key elements including environmental protections. I work for an environmental govt agency but I do not subscribe to the National Socialist ideology.
heh. You wouldn't happen to hail from North Carolina, would you, Lost?
Posted at: April 17, 2006, 09:22:54 PM
and, er-rrm, about the facile use of "Nazi" as a sobriquet in Ermerika:
from that very link you just provided:
"Hitler drew parallels between Lebensraum and the American ethnic cleansing and relocation policies towards the Native Americans, which he saw as key to the success of the U.S. Hitler had always admired the Americans for their treatment of the Native Americans, and considered America to be a shining example of what Germany's ambitions should be. Hitler often compared his Lebensraum policies to the Manifest Destiny policy of the United States, in which the ultimate destiny of the American people was to expand west and defeat the Indians."
So let's talk, Lost
When our forefathers wrote the second admendment, they didn't exactly expect "arms" to include cheap and easy to hide handguns (they didn't exist) nor could they forsee "arms" such as AK-47s, tanks and nuclear weapons in the future. If they could, no doubt the second amendment would be much different. I think we should stick with the spirit of the 2nd amendment and limit our arms to rifles.
Ok folks lets not let this get personal.
Remember you may challenge (not attack) the content of a reply to a topic but not the person who made it.
Steph
I'm a little baffled as to what person got attacked here, I rilly am...
Now I did take issue with the content of Lost's post; hell I agree with a lot of her post.
But: Amerikan Nazis, what a stretch, lol. RE: "Get back to me and we'll talk" - I like to talk sometimes, how 'bout you? Wouldn't have started such a thread if I did not want to talk about these CRUCIAL issues.
I'm from North Carolina too, how 'bout that.
Peace and Love and UNDERSTANDING, what's so funny about that.
Posted at: April 18, 2006, 07:11:45 AM
Interesting idea, adherence to the spirit of the Consitution; spirit of an AMENDMENT to the Constitution...
I don't imagine the original drafters of that document imagined quite a range of things that would come to pass 230 yrs down the road. The right-wingers use this argument every time they see change they'd, in Bartleby's riff from Moby Dick, "Prefer Not To"; to wit: A person's right to privacy does not include the right to an abortion, legally.
{They didn't imagine their slaves having the rights of human beings. Et Cetera...}
They may not have imagined drug addicts with little guns in they pockets. I have had one pointed at me more than once.
They may HAVE imagined their republic going so wrong that people might wanna consider armed resistance; Ya think?
Btw I think the San Fran ordinance allows the possession of some types of hunting rifles, however it seems to me that such a solution when a person has entered your house with a, say, little 9mm, IE that solution isn't necessarily 'hand'-y...
Why not just make it illegal for anyone with a felony criminal reccord to have a gun of any kind. Then issue licences to carry fire arms like one has to drive a car just to certify that one has been trained to handle guns safely but not identify what guns are owned, if any. Then make illegal any guns automatic weapons, tanks, and cannons. Any one who wants to own them can join the national guard or armed services, then drop the issue. If you must shoot at people buy a paint gun and join a club.
Quote from: michelleWhy not just make it illegal for anyone with a felony criminal reccord to have a gun of any kind.
It is already illegal in many if not most states for a felon to have a gun of any kind.
Quote from: michelleThen issue licences to carry fire arms like one has to drive a car just to certify that one has been trained to handle guns safely but not identify what guns are owned, if any.
All but three states presently allow permits to carry a concealed weapon, i.e. hand gun, but to license all guns would be the first step towards confiscation. Believe me the gun grabbers would just love to have all guns registered.
Quote from: michelleThen make illegal any guns automatic weapons, tanks, and cannons. Any one who wants to own them can join the national guard or armed services, then drop the issue.
Automatic weapons, tanks and cannons are illegal except by special permit for collectors, and then they have to be rendered inoperative for firing. A TS friend in PA (and former Susan's member) owns a WWII tank.
Quote from: michelleIf you must shoot at people buy a paint gun and join a club.
Paint guns would be pretty ineffective against game for hunters which is the biggest use for guns in this country.
I did not say to licence any guns. Just require safety liciences to own and posses guns to insure that the individual has been trained to care for and handle guns in a legal manner. The guns themselves would not be registered. Any individual who was not licenced could not posses a fire arm. No one would know if an individual actually owned a gun or not. Licences are required for hunting and so are hunter saftey courses.
Guns serial numbers should be registered to keep track of their usage in a crime and legallity of their origins and manufacture. Did they enter the US sales market legally. Individuals have owned pets for thousands of years and there are many laws concerning them. There are also many laws considering educating and rearing children which is the right of every human being. Remember the Madison and the other founding fathers stated that just because a right wasn't listed in the Constitution doesn't mean that we lost that right as human beings. The right to bear arms is right that society has the responsibility to regulate just as we can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater nor do we have the right to libel another individual, so is the right to bear arms. Gun usage can be regulated.
Quote from: michelleThe guns themselves would not be registered.
Quote from: michelleGuns serial numbers should be registered to keep track of their usage in a crime and legallity of their origins and manufacture.
Sorry if I sound nit-picky, but by registering the serial number you have registered the gun.
No problem. My point is that comparing today's administration or people who support the administration Nazis is a stretch and does nothing but water down the word. That is the sort of thing that will come back and bite us. Having a close friend who lost a great deal of her family to the National Socialists in Germany, this issue does strike close to home for me.
For the record, I did not find the invite on this subject as an attack against myself. While I am currently residing in NC, I was not born here. I am one of those "Yankee invaders". ;)
Yes, registering the guns or hunters or whatever creates a national registry. This is something that can be used to round up firearms and their owners anytime the feds feel like it.
As for the founding fathers and not envisioning current weapons. No, maybe not. However, they used the term arms so that the common American citizen who was able to be a part of the citizen militia (which does not include the federalised National Guard) could have upon their person, for personal safety and national security, the type of weapons that would be in common use.
oh hey Lost, I WAS born there. Thought mebbe I recognized one o' my peeps.
Posted at: April 21, 2006, 06:45:25 PM
and I live with a son of concentration camp survivors.
Peace, out.
It does, I must say, strike me as odd, the objection to registering guns. We are required to register cars here in Canada and it hasn't been used as any kind of weapon except against car thieves and hit and run perpetrators. What on earth could a law abiding person in possession of a legally registered car..or gun...have to fear from registration?
Dennis
Step 1: Register all firearms
Step 2: Pass law against the private ownership of firearms
Step 3: Go through the registry to find the people that have the guns in order to take them away.
Step 4: Now only criminals and police/military have guns. Self-defense has effectively been abolished.
h
Why do steps 2, 3, 4 necessarily follow from step 1?
1. Register all cars.
2. Pass law against the private ownership of cars.
3. Go through the registry to find the people that have the cars in order to take them away.
4. Now only criminals and taxi drivers have cars. Self-transportation has effectively been abolished.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
Dennis
QuoteWhy do steps 2, 3, 4 necessarily follow from step 1?
1. Register all cars.
2. Pass law against the private ownership of cars.
3. Go through the registry to find the people that have the cars in order to take them away.
4. Now only criminals and taxi drivers have cars. Self-transportation has effectively been abolished.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
It doesn't follow with cars, but then cars are not used for warfare or self-defense either. The Second Amendment is there most importanly to protect the people from their own government, not foriegn invasion or personal protection. Although those can be valid reasons also.
[
Link (http://www.potowmack.org/emerappd.html)]
Actual shooting revolutions were what the Framers wanted to avoid at all costs. The "devastation and carnage" (Federalist, No. 19) endured by other peoples convinced them that the best way to prevent such disasters in America was not to trust wholly to paper guarantees, but also to rely upon the fact that Americans would continue to keep privately owned firearms. Such arms would act as a quiet but tangible deterrent upon government criminality and despotism and function as a "barrier" (Federalist, No. 46) against governmental acts that might provoke armed rebellion. It was such subtle political considerations— not frontier conditions, hunting pleasures or the Indian threat— that concerned the Framers when they premised the entire American republican form of government upon the understanding contained in the Second Amendment, that the people would always be armed:
"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 private individual right to own and use arms was thereby guaranteed. "Militia" in colonial parlance did not refer to men in uniform but meant every male in the community capable of carrying arms (as noted by contemporary scholar Don Higginbotham). Hamilton himself spoke of "the whole nation" or "the populations at large" as the militia (Federalist, No. 28). "Arms" in this context were those weapons suitable for use in a one-to-one encounter. Indeed, a proposal to limit the language of the amendment to cover only public defense was soundly defeated in the very first session of the U. S. Senate in September 1789.
A disarmed population is forced to resort to the most desperate measures. The storming of the Bastille, which ushered in the 1789 French Revolution, was motivated by the desire to obtain the gunpowder stored there. Cobblestones and uprooted trees were implements of frustrated French revolutionaries in the early 1830s, as vividly described in "Les Miserables." Likewise in 1989 Beijing, the Chinese students having found nonviolence futile, tore up the sidewalks and trees for ammunition and barricades. The point is not that the demonstrators should have confronted the army with weapons but that if all Chinese citizens kept arms, their rulers would hardly have dared to massacre the demonstrators, to say nothing of the continuing purges and executions taking place now.
Once a population is disarmed, any calamity is possible. The contrived Ukrainian "Harvest of Sorrow" famine of 1932-33 was preceded by the confiscation of civilian-owned rifles. Strict registration requirements, introduced in 1926, provided convenient lists of rifle owners and streamlined seizures by the police.
Who would be left to protect us from a rouge government after confiscation? Criminals and violent gangs don't follow the law or register their guns, and they would be the only ones left armed (besides the rogue government). Not exactly who I want protecting my rights.
And ask yourself this about the criminals and gangs. Which neighborhood will gangs stay out of? One where every home may own one or numerous firearms and are willing to shoot back? Or one with "This is a gun-free neighborhood" signs in the front yard?
Sandi (http://vista.powerblogs.com/)
I think it's as likely that a US Government would take guns away from its citizens as it is that a Canadian Government would take cars away from its citizens.
Dennis
Quote from: DennisI think it's as likely that a US Government would take guns away from its citizens as it is that a Canadian Government would take cars away from its citizens.
Why do you insist on switching apples to oranges. The suject is taking away guns and has absolutely no relation to taking away cars. Also Canada already
has taken guns, as have other countries as well as a few states.
New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated.
In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns.
On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation).
Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule.
Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal.
The trick for the gun-grabbers is to take them little by little. This one is to nasty looking, that one is too cheap and available, etc etc.
Reference for the above.
Sandi
No, I agree with you there Jan, it has been used. I just don't see it as likely in the US. Canada and the other countries you listed have never really had guns as a major part of their culture. Gun ownership is fairly uncommon and handguns are especially uncommon.
In the US, you'd be going from a culture where guns are commonly owned to a restricted one. I'm surprised that New York has got away with it, with your constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
Registration has other aspects, like the ability to track where guns that are stolen from law abiding citizens go and assist in forensic aspects. Much like, as I said, when cars are used in or the subject of crimes. That said, the attempt to retroactively register long guns in Canada has been an unmitigated disaster. I don't know that it could even be implemented in a sensible way. I'm just saying that registration per se is not the evil, it's whether or not it's followed up with further actions.
Dennis
There is actually gun registration in the US. When you buy a gun, even a rifle you have to show identification and fill out a form that the government keeps. Law enforcement can trace serial numbers to the original pur>-bleeped-<. Responsible citizens will transfer ownership thru a licenced dealer when selling or buying a firearm privately but there is no penalty for not doing so. There is also no record of the many guns that are old enough to be bought originally before they registered them unless they go thru a dealer at some point. Criminals of course, never register their guns when they steal or buy them privately.
beth
Well dang, see now that'd solve all the problems. Make the criminals register their guns when they steal them ;)
Dennis
Quote from: Dennis on April 23, 2006, 11:58:32 AM
Well dang, see now that'd solve all the problems. Make the criminals register their guns when they steal them
That actually illustrates the futility of firearms registration as a crime prevention tool. By definition, only those who do not misuse them, law abiding citizens, would follow the law and have them registered.
While some might think it unlikely that a US government would outlaw guns I think that the existence of well funded and powerful anti-gun lobbies proves that it isn't outside the realm of possibility. I used to think it was unlikely that a president would ignore the law or reinterpret existing law to eavesdrop on other Americans but, we now know it can happen. Or that our government would arrest and imprison people without cause, legal representation of even notification, but that is happening too. Our president has made public statements that he will ignore the law (anti-torture legislation cosponsored by John McCain is an example) when he deems it to be necessary.
I've learned that we cannot trust a government to look after the people's interests when they are in conflict with the government's interests. Yes, they can and do diverge. We can also not trust our government to come through when disaster strikes, as evidenced by the chaos after hurricane Katrina. When things like that happen, you're on your own. That's why I wish to remain armed.
helen
helen, most of the problems you mentioned above can be solved at the voting booth. if you don't trust your politicans, vote them out of office. besides, your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you from a thug or rouge goverment.
Alexandra, you wrote,
"...your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you..."
I have seen that statement many times and have yet to see credible evidence for it. A potential victim's possesion of a firearm is much more likely to prevent, or stop in its early stages, the crime/assault. Situations such as those are rarely, if ever, reported to the authorities so they are severely underreported.
As far as using firearms against a rogue government is concerned, I'm much less worried about that scenario as I am of having governmental institutions break down and leaving me even more vulnerable than I already am.
So, I'll take my chances.
helen
Posted at: April 25, 2006, 05:43:42 PM
I have to add too, that voting booths can and have been subverted. Look at the 2000 presidential election.
can be Solved - please let's look at the word "solved" - at the voting booth?!?!
just like in 2000? The Supreme Court decided who our president is. What has followed, So eloquently pointed out by Helen, has absolute congruence with this event:
Quote from: HelenW on April 23, 2006, 12:25:58 PM
I used to think it was unlikely that a president would ignore the law or reinterpret existing law to eavesdrop on other Americans but, we now know it can happen. Or that our government would arrest and imprison people without cause, legal representation of even notification, but that is happening too. Our president has made public statements that he will ignore the law (anti-torture legislation cosponsored by John McCain is an example) when he deems it to be necessary.
our government already operates outside the law. Why are we even discussing such niceties as registering guns?
Quote from: Alexandra on April 24, 2006, 11:59:10 PM
besides, your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you from a thug or rouge goverment.
And you found this information where?
Leigh
Quote from: Leigh on April 25, 2006, 10:02:22 PM
And you found this information where?
Leigh
even if found, NB: information is not knowledge et cetera
Quote from: HelenW on April 25, 2006, 04:45:40 PM
"...your gun is far more likely to kill either you, your family/friends or innocent strangers than protect you..."
I have seen that statement many times and have yet to see credible evidence for it.
In the New England Journal of Medicine article "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" by authors Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes, the conclusions of the published article are
"The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance." Here are a few others:
* For every time a gun is used in a "home" in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings. [Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267]
* The presence of a gun in the "home" triples the risk of homicide in the "home". [Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.]
* The presence of a gun in the "home" increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership." N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.]
Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:38:40 AM
Quote from: HelenW on April 25, 2006, 04:45:40 PM
A potential victim's possesion of a firearm is much more likely to prevent, or stop in its early stages, the crime/assault. Situations such as those are rarely, if ever, reported to the authorities so they are severely underreported.
Really? Rarely, if ever reported to authorites? You're telling me homeowners don't call the cops when they stop a crook red handed who broke in their homes? I think not.
Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:44:01 AM
Quote from: jan c on April 25, 2006, 05:14:22 PM
can be Solved - please let's look at the word "solved" - at the voting booth?!?!
sure, in 2006 you'll have a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to toss all the bums out of office, especially the ones that turned a dead heat into a "mandate."
Another factor to consider -- people that didn't vote in an election are not in a position to gripe about the outcome -- doing so would pretty much makes one a hypocrite or does it not? (I'm not attacking you personally but rather, making an often-made point about non-voters who complain.
Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:51:49 AM
Quote from: jan c on April 25, 2006, 10:38:30 PM
even if found, NB: information is not knowledge et cetera
I think readers would appreciate it if you spelled out EXACTLY what you're saying here.
Posted at: April 26, 2006, 01:56:25 AM
******************************
post script: by the way, I support the right for americans to bear arms. Its just the pro-gun kooks that are driving me to the other side with hype and propaganda.
Rushing out the door and wanted to mark the place in this convo in case it grows before I get back. ;)
You would do well to stay away from the Kellerman study as it did not stand up to peer review and Kellerman refused to make all of the data and methods public. This was actually illegal since it was done through a grant but nothing ever came of it. The only ones who still cite it on a regular basis is the Coalition to Ban Handguns crowd (or the Brady whatever it is called this year). I will try to see if the whole story is somewhere on the net (it should be since I posted about it years ago and nothing goes away) as my criminology study stuff has never been unpacked and I have no idea where it is at right at this moment.
Phillip and Cook are two others to stay away from as well. They repeated a study that the pro-gun crowd loved in order to prove it wrong. Upon completion their scaled down version yielded about the same results. To account for this they basically said that gun owners lie. LOL.
Alexandra,
Anyone can play with statistics and show pretty much what they want. That isn't to say that the figures are or are not accurate, but the game playing comes with the presentation that you are buying into. For instance here are some actual numbers.
There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. responsible for 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year for a percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner of 0.0000188.
There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. that cause 120,000 accidental deaths each year. Accidental death per physician is 0.171 percent.
Therefore doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous to the public health than gun owners. Does that show that a need for "doctor control" legislation? No one is clamoring for it, because the exercise (using real figures) is just as ridiculous as are those are for gun control. Hope you get the point.
Quote from: AlexandraQuote from: jan ceven if found, NB: information is not knowledge et cetera
I think readers would appreciate it if you spelled out EXACTLY what you're saying here.
That's an easy one. As quoted by Madeleine L'Engle
Truth is eternal. Knowledge is changeable. It is disastrous to confuse them.
The only reason I am going to buy a gun, is because I am about to loose the right to have one. And that is when I am going to REALLY need one! Because that is not all we are loosing, and surely not all we have lost in the last 6 yrs of Bush Inc.
Taylor
Right on Taylor. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
Not to mention: "Last century over 170 million people were murdered by their own governments, and your government doesn't want you to have a gun. Doesn't that bother you just a little?" ~by Unknown~
"You're telling me homeowners don't call the cops when they stop a crook red handed who broke in their homes?"
They might, then, but if I cock my shotgun and the intruder flees at the sound (I'm certainly not going to try and stop them!) or if a thug approaches me with a knife and I show him or her a .44 magnum causing them to flee as well as soil themselves, calling the police would be a moot point. These are the types of situations that never get reported.
helen
"information is not knowledge" seems rather a given if you think about it.
let me give you an example rather than be abstract and philosophical
you cited:
Quote from: Alexandra on April 26, 2006, 01:59:19 AM
In the New England Journal of Medicine article "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home" by authors Arthur L. Kellermann, Frederick P. Rivara, Norman B. Rushforth, Joyce G. Banton, Donald T. Reay, Jerry T. Francisco, Ana B. Locci, Janice Prodzinski, Bela B. Hackman, and Grant Somes, the conclusions of the published article are
"The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."
Here are a few others: ...
Then we are presented with this information:
Quote from: LostInTime on April 26, 2006, 06:03:45 AM
You would do well to stay away from the Kellerman study as it did not stand up to peer review and Kellerman refused to make all of the data and methods public. This was actually illegal since it was done through a grant but nothing ever came of it. The only ones who still cite it on a regular basis is the Coalition to Ban Handguns crowd (or the Brady whatever it is called this year).
Now, how much do we actually KNOW?
Posted at: April 26, 2006, 05:33:38 PM
Quote from: HelenW on April 26, 2006, 04:48:23 PM
"You're telling me homeowners don't call the cops when they stop a crook red handed who broke in their homes?"
They might, then, but if I cock my shotgun and the intruder flees at the sound (I'm certainly not going to try and stop them!) or if a thug approaches me with a knife and I show him or her a .44 magnum causing them to flee as well as soil themselves, calling the police would be a moot point. These are the types of situations that never get reported.
helen
Or, and again this is a real life experience [this is information and knowledge; I know anyway. Wisdom may or may not be right around the corner], you show them a butter knife and they run away...
yeah we got to talk to Mister Po-Lice-Man and even go look at some dudes they caught that night. My girly roomate woulda felt much better (but I would not have this RIDICULOUS true story) if we had been better equipped.
Now I'm what - supposed to be submissive to a law, when we have a government that is CLEARLY prepared to ignore the rule of law.
So to me we are at a crossroads in our society.
and will you construe this as propaganda? Pro-gun propaganda?
i was pro-butter knife, pro whatever I could get my hands on the quickest. I considered the iron skillet, I am pro-iron skillet too I GUESS... ???
[this is a fun thread y'all!]
Jan, you wrote, "i was pro-butter knife, pro whatever I could get my hands on the quickest. I considered the iron skillet, I am pro-iron skillet too I GUESS...???"
I think the right to self defense is the real issue here. I live in a state that has strict gun control laws. Do I follow them? Yes, of course. Do the criminals? Of course not. If my guns were taken away from me, and they could be - the authorities know who I am, where I live and what guns I own - would the criminals surrender theirs? No! I believe that I have the right to self defense even to the point of deadly force, if necessary.
I refuse to be a passive victim.
I wonder what would have happened if the intruder were not intimidated by your stand? Would the butter knife or skillet have served as well as a shotgun or handgun?
btw - you're right - I AM having a bit of fun with this. ;)
helen
Guns make it to easy to kill. The point of gun control is to beable to take a gun away from a criminal when he or she is found to be in possession of one. Unregistered guns can be taken away from those who would not use them legally. Many guns have to be left with criminals because the officers of the law have no legal way of taking them away from the criminal.
Michelle,
Many guns have to be left with criminals because the officers of the law have no legal way of taking them away from the criminal.
If a person in this country is convicted of a felony, they are no longer allowed to own a gun. This is how the police have a avenue to take them away from them. If they are arrested at the scene of a crime, they are taken away.
I will say aside from a gun a GOOD loud DOG is very effective to keeping a jerk out of my yard and my house! :D
Peace,
Taylor
Quote from: Sandi on April 26, 2006, 07:23:07 AM
Alexandra,
Anyone can play with statistics and show pretty much what they want. That isn't to say that the figures are or are not accurate, but the game playing comes with the presentation that you are buying into. For instance here are some actual numbers.
There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. responsible for 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year for a percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner of 0.0000188.
Here's the thing, figures don't lie. Interpretion of them do. Anti-gun and pro-gun activists may slant them, but a wise person would go back to the figures and make their own interpretation.
Unfortunately for gunowners, many Americans find the 1,500/deaths/year intolerable -- the continued call for further gun control is evidence of this. Another example is the 400/deaths/year for Americans killed by terrorists (since and including, 2001). This is an outrageously low figure compared with DWI-related deaths (approx) 25,000/year, yet we have spent $300 Billion (and counting) and filled up 2500 body bags since 2001 trying to lower this figure.
Posted at: April 27, 2006, 02:05:23 AM
Quote from: HelenW on April 26, 2006, 09:14:34 PM
I live in a state that has strict gun control laws. Do I follow them? Yes, of course. Do the criminals? Of course not.
That argument is rather weak because criminals also drive cars when they don't have drivers licenses, break into buildings that have "no tresspassing" signs and rob banks that are clearly posted with FBI warnings -- do we dump these laws because criminals don't obey these laws too? Gun control laws make us safer in the way that it makes it more risky for criminals (in particular, ex-cons) to be carrying guns in the first place, even if they don't intend to use them. (Guns are often left at the scene of a crime for a reason.)
Alexandra,
You state: DWI-related deaths (approx) 25,000/year
Then you state: the thing, figures don't lie. Interpretion of them do.
Well, I agree with you for the most part, however it is not that simple. DWI figures are completely misleading.
Here are the unaccounted for variables, ( to just list a couple)
1. was the person that was drinking really the one that caused the wreck? ( regardless of who caused a wreck, the one with alcohol in their system is the one found liable). So if they did not cause the wreck, then it is not a related alcohol wreck, it was just a wreck.
2. would the wreck have happened anyway? (In many cases we do not know for sure)
It is rarely a ethical researcher would "mislead" deliberately, but part of the process of research is covering as many variables as possible. The DWI example just happens to be one of the best examples of how data at times cannot be created accurately, even though ill will is not the intent.
I just want to show that it is not always a matter of how it is read, it is also a matter of methodology used.
I like reading your posts, they are informative and provoke thought!
Peace,
Taylor
If gun control laws made us safer then Washington, D.C. should be the safest haven in the country. However, it is not. Most of the country has some form of allowance for concealed carry. Gun control groups shouted that there would be a bloodbath. It has never occured (MOF, in NC the lawyer of the local gun control group had to admit that the bloodbath did not happen and that crime went down).
The point about criminals is that the laws to prohibit ownership and availability will not deter them. However, it will remove the ability of a free law abiding citizen to protect his or her self, family, and country. The NIJ did a study on criminals and the carrying of firearms during crime. One of the interesting things is that their greatest fear was an armed home owner. This probably explains why most home robberies occur when no one is at home. Hot robberies only account for around 13% of total home robberies. The majority of rapes that are reported occur during that 13%.
Furthermore, you have to find a connection between gun control and the reduction of violent crime. The Brady Law should have had some effect but the truth is that it did not have any at all. The JMA reported, "Our analyses provide no evidence that implementation of the Brady Act was associated with a reduction in homicide rates," and "We find no differences in homicide or firearm homicide rates to adult victims in the 32 . . . states directly subject to the Brady Act provisions compared with the remaining control states."
Alexandra, you took the wrong track to argue about the doctors v guns thing. I actually know who first started circulating those figures a few years back. <~smile> The question is how many deaths would occur if there were no doctors? But then the same question could be posed back to you about firearms.
It is impossible to ban firearms from the world. They are here and will never go away, no matter what laws are passed. I can make a single shot, untraceable shotgun from some old newspapers, 3 magazines (Cosmo, GQ, hmmmmmmmmm I know Soldier of Fortune!), a rubberband, a shotgun shell (I can make those too, even the gunpowder), and a nail. (Yes, I am one of those annoying people who have to know how things work. Even had to point out to an assistant manager of a Wally World that their shuffling of products put a combination of items that, when combined, made a nice bomb and they were within inches of each other. He changed the section himself immediately and said thank you.)
And remember the police are not there to protect you:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)
Interesting reading material:
Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/rsarp00.txt)
Female Victims of Violent Crime (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/fvvc.txt)
The 1997 Chances of Lifetime Murder Victimization (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_99/99crime/99cius5.pdf)
Concentrate On 5 Percent Of Criminals (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd062200a.html)
NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS (http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf)
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt)
Victim characteristics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm)
Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98 With Preliminary Data for 1999 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ffo98.txt)
Drugs & Crime Facts (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/contents.htm)
Third-Party Involvement in Violent Crime, 1993-99 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/tpivc99.txt)
Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm)
Report on Injuries in America, 2001 (http://www.nsc.org/library/rept2000.htm)
# There were 5,300 workplace fatalities in 2001 due to unintentional injuries.
# There were 3.9 deaths per 100,000 workers in 2001.
# On the job, 3.9 million American workers suffered disabling injuries in 2001.
OMG!!!!! We need to ban work!!!! Can I start my vacation now? :P
It's Not the Guns (http://www.violentkids.com/articles/violence_article_8.html)
Smith & Wesson Cam (http://www.geocities.com/robert_frenchu/guns_watch.html)
The Reality And Reporting Of Crime (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/oct98b.html)
Quote from: AlexandraHere's the thing, figures don't lie. Interpretion of them do. Anti-gun and pro-gun activists may slant them, but a wise person would go back to the figures and make their own interpretation.
Figures may or may not lie depending on who totaled them, how it was done and in what context. Because of your own bias as well as bias on the other side of the issue, it is in the minds eye of the beholders who is the anti and who is the wise person.
But LostInTime is correct. If gun control laws made us safer, Washington D.C. would be the safest place on the planet.
"Here's the thing, figures don't lie. Interpretion of them do. Anti-gun and pro-gun activists may slant them, but a wise person would go back to the figures and make their own interpretation."
WHAT?! So as to slant them your own way. Right? According to the precise fit of your preconception. Which, just as Sandi has pointed out -
Quote from: Sandi on April 27, 2006, 10:05:05 AM
Figures may or may not lie depending on who totaled them, how it was done and in what context. Because of your own bias as well as bias on the other side of the issue, it is in the minds eye of the beholders who is the anti and who is the wise person.
- may have already been done with the compiling of the INFORMATION. Ultimate trust in the Authority of the Information, IF IT CAN SUIT YOUR PURPOSE. IF not, let's look for another more suitable Authority and work from there to make our point. Ad nauseum...
is that how it works?
seems sho nuff the opposite of WISDOM to me.
Quote from: jan c on April 27, 2006, 08:55:16 PM
seems sho nuff the opposite of WISDOM to me.
No, it doesn't. A wise person looks at the figures and makes her own personal decision -- no third party interfererence.
Of course you're free to disagree and we can just move on.
Posted at: April 28, 2006, 01:48:45 AM
Quote from: taylor on April 27, 2006, 06:26:41 AM
DWI figures are completely misleading.
Not quite so! :)
While yes, sober drivers probably have killed otherwise uninvolved, but DWI drivers, statitics show that one is safer with alchohol out of the mix. Its like the bright colored semitractor stats. Research have shown that red (yellow, orange) trucks are less likely to be involved in accidents than darker colors -- for whatever reason. As a result, fleets painting their trucks red will see a drop in their accident rate.
Posted at: April 28, 2006, 02:00:04 AM
Quote from: Sandi on April 27, 2006, 10:05:05 AM
If gun control laws made us safer, Washington D.C. would be the safest place on the planet.
There might be conditions there atypical of everywhere else. I'm not saying there is one, but I wouldn't close my mind to an explaination.
how is wisdom the product of selective manipulation of data? Please respond to my point. You are obfuscating; you are using pretzel logic. I am being didactic here, I am trying to give you a lesson in logic. (Per our hierarchy:) you are insisting that information NOT ONLY adds up to knowledge, PER SE, it even is equal to wisdom. If you can sift it through the filter of your bias.
A wise person looks at the information*; might add some EXPERIENCE to that information, and might get to actually learn or even know something. Wisdom may or may not be right around the corner. OR: a person might simply wish to endlessly prop up her assumptions with reams of data. (Which may be corrupt. we *do *not *know.) OR: a person may be SO unwilling to examine anything outside of her assumption and have enough emotion invested in it, that all logic will be ignored. Information is not knowledge; knowledge is not wisdom. I can see that we may never get to "wisdom is not truth".
(*figures are ONE kind of information; now I have made the point that not all information is good information. That a person with a bone to pick, and there are both sides of this issue going at it (and you know what? I bet you have assumed that you KNOW which side I am on. You don't even have enough information for that: Remember that I started this thread based on a real-life situation where I may have needed more protection than I had available to protect house home and loved ones. I am not pro-gun. I am the sort of soft, mooshy person that has always eschewed violence or any atmo of it), will tend to bias the information they present in the first place. Alexandra has been able to summon a lot of information for her case. Quite a lot of it tends to obfuscate other's points when they are too distasteful to her premise, which appears to be simply "guns are too dangerous to be in the hands of the average person (outside of Authority)."
Now with that summation in mind, I THINK I may have got some information from this thread. I THINK I may understand, this is CLOSE to knowledge about, what EG Alexandra is doing. I am not necessarily, EVEN, claiming any wisdom.
Posted at: April 28, 2006, 02:05:49 AM
Ultimate trust in the Authority of the Information, IF IT CAN SUIT YOUR PURPOSE. IF not, let's look for another more suitable Authority and work from there to make our point. Ad nauseum...
is that how it works?
>No, it doesn't. A wise person looks at the figures and makes her own personal decision -- no third party interfererence.
Interference? This statement tends to show my point for me about relying on your own filter being the arbiter of your "Wisdom". if you are going to know something about a complex subject, it may be WISE to consult more than 1,2,3,4... parties. A wise person understands that figures do not necessarily allow her to know one single thing.
>Of course you're free to disagree and we can just move on.
To what? more reams of studies and information slanted towards a premise that seems more and more to have been etched in the stone of your mind? Namely that 'guns are to dangerous to be in the hands of an average person outside of Authority, period'.
Posted at: April 28, 2006, 02:00:04 AM
>There might be conditions there atypical of everywhere else. I'm not saying there is one, but I wouldn't close my mind to an explaination.
(You definitely wouldn't close your mind to an explanation that suits you, now would you?)
NOTO BENE: Washington DC, as might be appropriate to the capitol of our land, is absolutely 100% typical of life on the streets, IE: AT STREET LEVEL of every city in America. Street level; it is not the ivory tower; some of us do not get to be perched way above street level looking down at the unwashed masses (that are starting to feel like, some of us, that we may just need a gun), and saying "they need to just let us Authorities handle it".
Violent crime is linked to socio-economic situations. The period of time in which violent crime was decreasing had two factors adding to it: 1) a really good economy and 2) concealed carry laws for law abiding citizens with no felony record nor restraining orders against them.
Gun crime is heavily linked to the drug trade. Typically in areas where you find high drug use (normally areas with a concentration of people such as large, densely populated cities) you will find high crime and gun crime. This is why violence in which firearms are used can be found in only about 11% of all American counties in any given year. Yes there are other areas in which it does occur and since they are so rare, the media pounces on them. In turn the extraneous coverage makes it appear as if some massive epidemic is going on.
If anyone remembers, after the Columbine incident (not the first in this country nor the last) there was a witch hunt against the Goth subculture. Or as the gang unit in that area called it, the gothic movement. "And some of these goths have killed before..."
It is not unusual in that we want to know why these things happen. It is also not unusual that some wish to blame the parents, the guns, the subcultures, the music, the videogames, etc. While in some cases these aspects coming together may have had some influence, the thought of actual personal responsibility has been sent to the dust bin. This is very unfortunate because it leads others to tread the same path while believing it is not their fault that they hurt, maim, and kill.
In attacking studies. There are ways to immediately discount studies. The first one is usually the easiest, is the study peer reviewed? Many places will pay someone to come up with the results they want and keep it in house. Environment groups, right wing groups, etc, etc have done this. The second is to attack the methodology. For example to just examine how many people have died in their home from gunshots while only looking at situations in which shooting was involved will give a skewed picture. Add things like only drug crimes with shootings in the home or discount self defense shootings in the home will give very skewed results. Three is the character of the researcher, when it comes to their research. As I mentioned, Kellerman had previously refused to release needed data so that his research could be reviewed. It was through a government grant and was illegal for him to do so.
jan, again, lets agree to disagree and move on.
Quote from: LostInTime on April 28, 2006, 08:14:29 AM
The first one is usually the easiest, is the study peer reviewed? . . . As I mentioned, Kellerman had previously refused to release needed data so that his research could be reviewed.
Thats true. The proper way to do a study is to adhier to the Scientific Method -- by doing so, enough information is provided so that the study can be replicated elsewhere, by a different group of scientists . . . if the same results are recieved then the original study has been confirmed. Of course, certain studies depend more on peer review than others due to the nature of the topic being studied. The Kellerman thing, if true, is not in compliance with the scientific method.
I'd like to try to put this thread into perspective, for my own purposes at least.
So:
I want to have any and all reasonable means for self-defense that are available. Others think that some of these means are inappropriate. They want to force their belief of the inappropriatness of owning these means into law and deny my judgement that I have the right. They employ numerous tactics to forward their arguments, some of which are stronger than others but which ultimately fall in the face of logic and experience.
Since my ownership of firearms, as a law abiding citizen, does not endanger any other persons in society I can only conclude that those who wish to take the right to bear arms away from me are coming from the same perspective as those who wish to legislate how I should treat my own body. They feel that they know better and I should ignore my own conscience and listen to them.
I think that this is the bedrock of why I have so many problems with the concept of gun control (besides the fact that it's naive and unworkable).
helen
If there were accurate stats that everyone agreed with that proved with out a question that 50% of all gun owners, in their lifetime would shoot someone....it has NOTHING to do with my constitutional right to bare arms, period.
I want and will agrue for the right to bare arms, not because I want to go shoot someone, not because I think guns are absolutely safe, but because I will defend the constitution... because of the dangers involved in not doing so.
Taylor
A study back in the mid 90s showed that most homicides occur between 11pm and 3am. In most cases drugs and/or alcohol (well they said drugs but that included alcohol, I like to note the difference) were in the system of one and/or the other. I used to have a link to the study but it has since been taken down or moved and I have not found another online reference (yet).
A study in '93 out in California came up with the results that most child homicides where the child is 11 or younger are linked to adult suicides. Basically the adult feels that the world is horrible and that they are "saving" their children from it. It was a small sample though and may not be necessarily true across the country.
Yes for some people guns are just another tool, a tool to get rid of unwanted pests or or for protection, or a tool to extend our egos. But guns are also a symbol of violence in United States society and what we willing to do to protect that tool of viiolence. Fear of someone using a gun against us gives us an excuse to buy a gun and do violence towards them.
The right to bear arms is not an excuse to perpetuate violence in our society. Iraq is a society racked by violence, and for a dictatorship it was not gun or explosive free for either side. All the presents of guns did was destroy those who would rather not depend upon them.
I grew up with guns, was trained in their use by a NRA gun token South Dakota National guards men. I took my potshots at gouse and peasants and rabbits with a 22 on the South Dakota praire. But most of this was before I got my glasses and as luck for the creatures nature would have it I could not judge distances and most of them were safe. I was such a bad shot that my stepdad took me in to get glasses. My gun disappeared because he said he had to return it to someone. Except for target shooting at scout camp and poor attempts to hunt peasants with a shot gun that was the end of that.
As a girl in American society I hate to see men with guns, especially men who have something to prove. I also hate to see other women turning to them. If we remember guns are just tools and not ego enhancements then I hope we realize when the time for them has passed as a means to solve interpersonal problems and lock them up until we need them as tools. After all in areas where creatures such as bears and alligators are protected if one shows up on your front porch and you shoot it you can get find or go to jail. If you have a no good dog and take it out back and shoot it, you can go to jail. If someone breaks into your house and shoot them, they can sue you for excessive force.
The law may protect ones right to have a gun now, but the right to use it has become more and more restricted and the consequences for the shooter more and more serious no matter how justified the shooter feels in their use of a gun.
Guns as a male identity enhancement has passed.
Sorry
The whole problem with the country and the anti-gunners comes down to this:
guns are also a symbol of violence
Guns are inanimate objects. The problem is that society wants to move blame off of the individual and hang it on something easier for them to process. It is the refuge of those who do not wish to take a closer look. They find the subject of the reasons of violence so complicated they have to break it down to just the tool being used.
You want a symbol? How about the latino gang that is now invading Raleigh? Cops who are on the take? The drug dealer down the road? Just make it something that screams personal responsibility. I am sick of tired of people making excuses for what they do. You have a choice in almost everything that you do and there are consequences for those actions.
I think the biggest fear from guns is that it just makes it so ridiculously easy to seriously harm or even kill someone.
In a fit of rage or intoxication, the casual use of a firearm can very easily lead to death.
While it's definitely possible to kill with knives or even fists, guns give people the ability to do it very quickly and from range in a way that lets someone distance themselves from the reality of it.
Would it be more 'difficult' (in both a physical and mental sense) to pull a trigger from many yards away, or to go up to someone and harm them with one's hands? Am I unrealistic in thinking that the gruesomeness of it and the necessity of true intent may lower the number of deaths, if only somewhat?
Educating and reforming is vitally important, but I don't think it hurts to limit the amount of deadly force that can be easily obtained.
I believe that the only way to control this is to make people pay for their actions, plain and simple. It should be an automatic mandatory 10 year jail sentence (no parole) for anyone who uses or even carries a gun to commit a crime. Should that gun be fired then the sentence should be 15 years, if someone is wounded by that gun then it should be 20 years, and if that gun kills someone then it is life with no parole, and I mean life. No ifs ands or buts, they choose to carry then they should be willing to do the time.
Steph
Stephanie, I agree wholeheartedly with you. There are too many firearm offenders that are given too lenient of a sentence for the crimes they have committed. Every day in the Boston area there are reports of murder and aggravated assult with a firearm and it turns out the perpetrator has been convicted two or three times before on the same charges. The blame lies entirely on our court system where some judge or parole board feels that this poor soul needs a second chance because that person had a bad experience in their childhood. That's about the biggest load of bull sh*t I've ever heard yet it happens every day time and time again. At the risk of aggravating the anti-death penalty folks, I still say that if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then that sucker should burn.
There are sentences like that for gun related crimes. However, the gun charges are normally taken off the table as part of the bargaining process. If the feds were to handle every single one, they would be flooded beyond capacity with cases. Which I believe also leads to more violence. "Hey I only got 18 months of 3 squares, cable, and a place to sleep. Let's go do it again!"
A study by Rutgers some years ago showed that 50% of violent crime (not just gun crime) was committed by 5% of the criminal population. I believe it was also that study that showed most would commit 15 crimes in their lifetime. The problem is that you never know at one number you stop them at. So, if they could focus on the worst of the lot then we could see another dramatic fall in the crime rate.
Quote from: LostInTime on June 26, 2006, 06:16:31 AM
There are sentences like that for gun related crimes. However, the gun charges are normally taken off the table as part of the bargaining process. If the feds were to handle every single one, they would be flooded beyond capacity with cases. Which I believe also leads to more violence. "Hey I only got 18 months of 3 squares, cable, and a place to sleep. Let's go do it again!"
A study by Rutgers some years ago showed that 50% of violent crime (not just gun crime) was committed by 5% of the criminal population. I believe it was also that study that showed most would commit 15 crimes in their lifetime. The problem is that you never know at one number you stop them at. So, if they could focus on the worst of the lot then we could see another dramatic fall in the crime rate.
Very true, there are always issues to compromise the system if it's not the judges it's the lawyers. I know that the courts are swamped and I know that this is one reason why plea bargains are made and I'm not sure what the solution is. We have the same problem here in Canada (overloaded courts not gun crime). I'm not sure if building more jails and hiring more guards would solve the situation but I'm sure that it would help.
Steph
Stephanie,
I sure can't speak for Canada, but building more jails and prison's in our country is NOT the answer our country has found a way to incorperate prisons as a means of capital gains.
Prisoners equal money ( BIG MONEY)
Homeless people equal (BIG MONEY)
Persons on welfare/poverity equals (BIG MONEY)
People going infront of a judge for divorce, child support, custody issues, traffic violations, civil law suites etc. equal (BIG MONEY)
Peace,
Taylor
I agree whole heartedly Taylor, but it's got to stop somewhere. Why do these prisons have to be 5 star hotels, and don't anyone bother reminding me of human rights. The people who commit these crimes didn't give human rights a second thought. I don't see anything wrong with chain ganges, but then the unions would be up in arms because they would be stealing jobs from the unemployed etc. yada, yada, yada. Geese there is always a reason why these people shouldn't pay for their crimes. Ya know I don't care if big money is made over this, I'm sure that the jobs the construction and staffing of these prisons creates will benefit a lot of other people not just big money. I want the criminals to pay.
Steph