Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

A simple question that will progressively get more complicated as we go:Is it fundamentally a better idea or a worse idea to allow citizens the right to bear arms?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Answer: it's a better idea.And there's numerous reasons for this.One, guns are here to stay. Obviously it'd be better if there were no guns at all (although we still find ways to kill each other, because we did before the invention of the gun). So, with that presupposition, it's safe to say that we will never rid the world of the gun. I hope that is a point that everyone will agree on.Two, America has passed a gazillion gun laws. So many in fact, that your local police officer is unaware of the amount of laws out there concerning guns. There's local laws, state laws, and federal laws. Most cops (myself included) couldn't tell you the first thing about federal gun laws unless we make it a priority to study them all. Now, even with all these laws, criminals are always going to find themselves in possession of a gun, if they so desire. Why? Because they are criminals to begin with and could care less about the law anyhow. They will buy a stolen gun off the black market, steal a gun themselves, have their "girlfriend" legally purchase a gun in her name and then he takes possession, ect, ect, ect.Three, a few states, mine included, have already passed CCW permit laws. Thus far we haven't had a problem. The police unions actually did NOT want these permits passed in fear of an increase in road rage incidents and the like but thus far we've not seen it all. Plus, there's still a ton of regulation with the law such as you cannot carry into a bar, school, library, ect. Basically it ensures protection in your home and vehicle or if you're just out and about.Do I think the average citizen should be allowed to carry a fully auto MP-40??? No. Or park an M1 Abram tank in their back yard?? Again, no. But simple protection that a person desires to protect himself, family, and property should absolutely be allowed in any free society.

From the US perspective, at one time it was essential. On the edge of an untamed continent personal arms were necessary for personal protection and to form a citizens' militia in times of strife. The founding fathers also knew, having just rebelled, the power of an armed populous in the cause of freedom and keeping a government, even one of, by and for the people, honest.Today personal protection is arguable either way.
A citizens' militia is no longer necessary since there are considerable police forces available to keep the equivalent of "them injuns and redcoats" away.
If this government becomes (more?) abusive there are plenty of state-level forces (National Guard, Police, etc.) to form a considerable force of resistance. And having been in the Officer Corps of the standing national armed forces I can attest to the profound seriousness of an officer's oath to the Constitution instead of to the President, the Nation or even the People.But there is the Second Amendment. Repeal of this is not a political feasibility at this time nor in the forseable future.Whether it is "fundamentally better" or not is a subjective political issue that has already been decided by this society. Subject to change in the far future, maybe.Edited by AZPaul3, : Clearity? Maybe.

I've made the same argument. One has to be realistic when viewing the debate. If you pass a law preventing guns from being legally purchased, how would that stop a criminal when a criminal, by definition, is someone who breaks the law?It appears at first glance that you and I are aligned in this topic.Thanks for your input!

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Is this a question about what is good social policy? Or is this a question about the second amendment.And shouldn't this discussion have been opened at the Politicus Maximus forum?Yes, I know that there are few members at PM. But why would anybody bother to join if there is no debating going on? Don't you need some contentious topics to get things rolling?

Along the same lines is the necessity to shirk off the tyranny of an own oppressive government. After what the government did in Waco and Ruby Ridge, killing innocent people for no good reason, there seems good reason to always be neither trustful or mistrustful of the government, but always alert. A police force is little consolation for most people. I agree that there needs to be a police force, but I feel sorry for anyone reliant on them. It's a false sense of security. You have the inalienable right to defend yourself from harm. If a firearm best facilitates that need, then so be it. It should be the individual's right to decide that themselves. If others feel that it is more dangerous to possess a firearm in their home, they should be afforded the right to abstain.The issue is people legislating for me that I take exception to. Who's to say they would side with either the citizenry or the government? You should never really rely on other people, IMO. No one cares more about your personal rights than you. Agreed, completely. I work for the Department of Homeland Security, which means I work for the government. I am in essence a part of the government of the United States. I believe in the necessity of government, but sometimes they go astray. Who could have foreseen what happened in Nazi Germany could have transpired so quickly? That could happen anywhere at any time. Indeed it is subjective. But that's why we're discussing it now!

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Both. Perhaps, but the lackluster debut prevents people from even visiting it. I haven't been in PM for months. I just haven't thought about it.I think perhaps we can drum up some interest for a few pages and then take the debate over there. That might be a good way to get the ball rolling, because I do essentially agree with you.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I have replied in more detail on the other forum.

I thought I said that. Anyway, I can agree. I take it you've never been somewhere where the police are the enemy of the people. Some time ago, after a minor accident, I told my Bulgarian visitor we where waiting for the police. He became ashen and apoplectic. Later he was shocked to find we had not been arrested and beaten.But I agree with the further point you made: And so they may. Isn't that what Constitutional Republics do? Yours does it every day of the week. That's what it's supposed to do.To paraphrase Churchill, our government is the worst form of government except for all the rest. If you find something better let me know. Who knows? But trying to go it alone, me against the go'ment, all by myself, is rather stupid don't you think? Besides, in my view, in this country, before things got to that point, other "organs of society" would have effectively intervened. No details available, thank you.

Be advised that for all participants interested in this thread, it has been moved to Politicus Maximus, a subsidiary of EvC incorporated; all rights reserved, copywrite 2009. http://www.politicusmaximus.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg...

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Are those good examples to support your point? In both those cases the innocent people had an arsenal of weapons. Though I may agree the government was wrong in how they handled the situation, it does seem that the situation began due to law enforcements knowledge of a huge arsenal of weapons.Do you possibly have examples where the government did similar actions on people without any guns? I cannot think of any here in Canada; any situations that are comparable all had guns.

For the Waco siege, the precipitating event was based on suspected child abuse. That was used to gather whether or not they had illegal arms, which they didn't. The ATF investigator stated during the trial, however, "I know based on my training and experience that an AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle practically identical to the M-16 rifle.... I have been involved in many cases where defendents, following a relatively simple process, convert AR-15 semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic rifles of the nature of the M-16. ... Often times templates, milling machines, lathes and instruction guides are used by the converter." -- David AguileraBasically he just preemptively assumed they would eventually convert them in to illegal arms with no evidence whatsoever. Last I heard you can't charge people with a crime because they potentially could violate a law. Last I heard you have to actually commit it or there is sufficient evidence that someone has taken steps (intent) to commit an actual crime.As for Ruby Ridge, they entrapped Weaver for a sawed-off shotgun to use as probable cause. They thought he was a White Supremacist and spied on him and his family's home. They noticed he was frequently armed (not an uncommon or illegal thing in the high mountains). They eventually surrounded the house and ended up unlawfully killing Weaver's dog, his son, and his wife who was at the time carrying his other son who was an infant. In any event, the courts ruled in favor of the Weaver family.The point is that the government overstepped its boundaries big time and killed a lot of people for no good reason. I'm not siding with or agreeing with the wacko's in Wacko, but the law was skirted and men, women, and children died at the hands of federal agents. Sure, but what is the point if this thread is specifically about gun laws versus gun ownership rights? That would invalidate the premise of the thread.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

I disagree. A weapons ban is not actually intended to work the impossible and magically whisk away all firearms within a nation's borders.A ban is intended to make it more difficult to acquire those firearms. A black market will always exist for nearly any commodity that's been banned; but a gun ban can significantly reduce the numbers of firearms and ammunition in the streets vs. even controlled firearm access.Remember, guns are not their movie counterparts. They are machines, and like all machines they do break. Currently it's easy to get a gun repaired or to buy a new one. If all legitimate sources for new guns or repairs were banned, it would be significantly more difficult to repair or replace a damaged gun. Ammunition is an even more substantial issue - ammo does not exactly grow on trees. A gun is of little use without bullets, and where bullets are compeltely illegal, there are fewer ways to get them - meaning fewer bullets to wind up in people's bodies.This is because the US seeks a policy of gun control, rather than a ban as the OP is implying. Controlling gun use while retaining perfectly legal and legitimate means of acquiring firearms and ammunition is far less effective on reducing the numbers of illegally available guns than an outright ban.Remember, black market guns and ammunition were once legal guns and ammunition, typically stolen from a legitimate owner or purchased under a false identity to begin their journey on the black market. If those legitimate sources no longer exist, it will be significantly more difficult to find a current gun owner to steal from, and nobody's "girlfriend" will be legally buying anything either.In effect, a ban as opposed to limited control limits the supply of guns and ammunition to whatever already exists in a nation's borders and what can be illegally imported. The current tactic of control allows for a continuous supply of legal guns and ammunition that can be "acquired" by the criminal element with ease. Indeed, the sorts of people who actually seek permits are not generally the ones you need to worry about. It's the individuals who carry without any sort of permit who are more likely to open fire. The real question is whether firearms actually make one safer.And all of the evidence points to "no, they do not." Rather, gun ownership escalates any situation involving firearms. If an armed intruder is in your home, you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun as well - because the intruder knows that if he doesn't fire first, you might. Most intruders are not looking to add a murder charge to whatever their original purpose was.In fact, gun ownership increases several other unpleasant statistics as well. Children can't consider Daddy's gun a toy, for instance, when Daddy doesn't have a gun. Obviously Daddy shouldn't be leaving his gun where a child can get it - but the fact is, it happens,a nd it wouldn't happen if guns were banned.In 2001, 401 children died due to gun accidents. Those kids would be alive today if their parents didn't own guns.The homicide rate per capita in the US is 0.042802 per 1,000 people. We're number 24 among nations. In teh UK, where personal gun ownership is banned, the homicide rate is 0.0140633 per 1,000 people - they're number 46. The Netherlands are 0.0111538 per 1,000 people, and they're number 51. Japan is number 60, with 0.00499933 per 1,000 people. Source, 1998-2000 data.Japan has some of the most stringent gun control policies in the world.

quote:

---

In principle, the possession of firearms and swords is prohibited (Article 3). Possession is allowed as an exception only if approval is obtained from the Prefectural Public Safety Commission in the case of vendors of hunting guns and so on (Artice 4, etc.). Furthermore, possession of pistol parts is prohibited except in certain cases, such as ownership by persons with pistol licenses (Article 3-3).
The possession of model pistols and imitation guns for the purpose of sale is also prohibited in principle (Article 22-2 and 22-3).

---

From the Japanese gun ban lawcomplete ban on private ownership of handguns and cartridge ammunition.In teh Netherlands, only sporting weapons are licensed. There are no weapon shops in the Netherlands itself.It is undeniably true that fewer people die as a result of homicide in nations where private ownership of guns is banned. The criminal element and the black market for firearms continues to exist, of course, but without legitimate sources of firearms and ammunition to prey on, supplies are limited and there are fewer guns in the hands of criminals, which is the entire point of gun control.In the case of a home invasion without guns, it is entirely possible that an invader will be armed with a knife instead of a firearm, and you could be left defenseless. However, the mortality rate from a stab wound is significantly less than that of a gunshot wound - it is better, statistically, to have no guns and risk being stabbed, than to have guns and risk being shot.Guns make us feel safer, because they give us the power to stand up and defend ourselves in case of a threat. But as with many things, that sense of safety is ill-founded, based on emotion instead of fact.

The usual counterargument is to point to Switzerland where almost every man has an assault rifle at home and who are #56 on that list. I'm not saying that the trend you note doesn't exist, just that you need to look at more than a handful of data points to discern it and there are outliers which are frequently used to raise doubt about the trend.If you look at murders with firearms however you find that Switzerland has a count about 4 times higher than the UK although their population is only about 12% that of the uk.TTFN,WK

Or that the intruder is going to get shot. People shouldn't be expected to acquiesce from tyranny in their home. Then that is the parents fault and responsible gun owners should be penalized because someone else's daddy is a moron. 44,122 people were killed in car crashes in a single year in the US. If there were no cars, nobody would be in car crashes. 3,046 people were killed from accidental falls. If there were no stairs, nobody would have fallen down them and died.That's tantamount to what you are saying. I trust you understand why it is asinine and vacuous. According to Reuters, behind Yemen and the US, Switzerland and Finland have more gun owners per capita than any nation on earth. Switzerland is also ranked the 7th in the world as the safest country in relation to murder. Comparing murder to handguns is silly, since one has nothing to do with the other. SourceSaudi Arabia has some of the most lax gun laws in the world, and they are ranked 2nd as the safest country from homicide, higher than even Japan.Murder and gun ownership don't parallel one another. There are social factors that determine violence and murder. Clearly not true, as I've evidenced. In fact, the District of Columbia got less violent once the SCOTUS struck down an unconstitutional anti-gun ban. I apologize for being so blunt, but this is easily one of the dumbest justifications for stricter gun control I've ever heard. Maybe even the dumbest. If a citizen was allowed to own a gun in their own home, they could defend themselves against another gun or a knife!And why are you comparing knife wounds to gunshot wounds anyhow, as if we choose either one? You know that knives and guns don't kill, right, but rather the crazy bastards who wield them menacingly?

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston