Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 13 of 218 (550406)
03-15-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Flyer75
03-13-2010 7:17 PM


Guns don't make you safer.
Answer: it's a better idea.
I disagree.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Flyer75, posted 03-13-2010 7:17 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2010 1:10 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 1:46 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 23 by Flyer75, posted 03-15-2010 6:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 16 of 218 (550423)
03-15-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Wounded King
03-15-2010 1:10 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
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.
Not to mention the fact that handguns are significantly different from rifles. In the US, the vast majority of deaths from firearms come from handguns, with rifles and shotguns making up a rather small percentage. It's just easier to use a handgun for the commission of a crime than a rifle or shotgun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2010 1:10 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 17 of 218 (550430)
03-15-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
03-15-2010 1:46 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
quote:
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.
Or that the intruder is going to get shot. People shouldn't be expected to acquiesce from tyranny in their home.
Who said they should? But the objective fact is that if you own a handgun, you are more likely to be shot. Emotional idealistic nonsense does not override fact and consequence, Hyro.
People should have the "right" to not wear a seatbelt, too, shouldn;t they? After all, it's their life they're endangering. But when we legally mandate seatbelts, fewer deaths occur. The same is true of firearms. In nations where access to firearms (and handguns in particular) is legally banned, there are fewer homicides. End of story. Your emotional "tyranny in their own home" tripe is nothing but an appeal to emotion - you like to feel safer by having the means to dole out violence in response to a threat, and so you disregard the objective fact you by doing so you're more likely to die as a result. Ownign a handgun does not make you safer,even though it makes you feelmore in control.
quote:
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.
Then that is the parents fault and responsible gun owners should be penalized because someone else's daddy is a moron.
I'm not arguing that, and it's irrelevant. If Daddy didn't have a gun, little Timmy would still have his brain contained within the confines of his cranium, instead of being repurposed as a mural on the living room wall. He should have been trained, and should have been more responsible...but people shouldn't drive drunk or run stop signs or talk on their phones while driving or speed, yet we legally mandate seatbelts because the objective result is fewer deaths. So too with guns - you cannot prevent accidents by placing blame, even when it's well deserved. Putting Daddy in jail for being irresponsible doesn;t put Timmy's brain back in his skull. But preventing Daddy from owning the gun in teh first place ensures that Timmy won't be playing with it.
quote:
In 2001, 401 children died due to gun accidents. Those kids would be alive today if their parents didn't own guns.
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.
Guns have no purpose except to kill. Target practice is even just practice for killing. Stairs and cars have other purposes...like allowing society to function. Privately owned guns serve no good purpose (with the possible exception of hunting rifles, which are rarely used in homicides anyway), since they do not make one safer, and in fact serve only to escalate violence.
quote:
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.
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. Source
Check above in Message 14, where Wounded King had this to say about Switzerland:
quote:
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.
Handguns != rifles. There is a reasonable purpsoe for rifles outside of killing human beings. That is not the case with handguns. It is almost impossible to conceal a rifle for the purpsoe of committing a crime. That's not the case with handguns.
quote:
Japan has some of the most stringent gun control policies in the world.
Saudi 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.
Saudi Arabia also has some of the harshest criminal penalties on Earth.
Murder and gun ownership don't parallel one another. There are social factors that determine violence and murder.
quote:
It is undeniably true that fewer people die as a result of homicide in nations where private ownership of guns is banned.
Clearly not true, as I've evidenced.
No, you haven't.
In fact, the District of Columbia got less violent once the SCOTUS struck down an unconstitutional anti-gun ban.
DC is irrelevant. It's a city. A local municipality. You could drive a few miles, buy a gun legally, and then drive right back. You don't even need a black market to get guns illegally into DC. Are you really trying to compare nations with cities? Clearly, we should see all the effects of full Prohibition if a single county decides to ban alcohol sales within its borders; certainly people won't just drive to the next fucking town and buy their booze.
quote:
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.
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!
You just love to ignore what people say and talk at them, don't you Hyro.
Let me say this very slowly.
Owning a gun DOES. NOT. MAKE. YOU. SAFER.
Owning a gun makes it more likely that you will be shot.
MORE likely, Hyro. Not less. In "defending yourself," you're MORE LIKELY to cause that which you are trying to prevent, that being your own death.
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?
Of course. And if we restrict the crazy bastards to less lethal means of expressing their craziness, then fewer people die as a result.
Let's reiterate these few fact. Stop me where you disagree:
1) You cannot compeltely get rid of guns. A black market will inevitably exist, meaning that the criminals you want to disarm will still have access.
2) the primary supplier of black market arms is, in fact, legitimate weapons sales, whether the arms are stolen (rarely, around 10-15% of them) or purchased legally through a proxy or corrupt legal firearms dealer (the vast majority of the time)
3) If firearms are banned, the legal sellers of firearms will not longer be able to exist.
4) without legal firearms sales, the supply of guns and ammunition will drop to what currently exists (which will be worn down by attrition as guns break or are confiscated, and as ammunition is used or confiscated), and what can be illegally imported from other nations (likely Mexico).
5) With a more limited supply of new guns and ammunition, the black market will be unable to supply as many arms to the criminal element as it currently does.
6) Ergo, a firearm ban will limit the amount of new guns and ammunition available to criminals...meaning even though a firearm ban does not directly deprive the criminal of his weapon, it does so indirectly.
7) The objective of a firearm ban, the reduction in firearms being used in violent crime, is therefore achieved.
8) Fewer firearms being used in violent crime results in fewer deaths.
9) Fewer deaths ethically supercedes any possible argument regarding the "violation of the sanctity of one's home" or "standing up to tyranny in one's own home" or "it makes me feel safer" or "semi-automatics give me a hardon."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 1:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coragyps, posted 03-15-2010 2:42 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-15-2010 4:40 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 21 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 4:51 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 125 of 218 (551431)
03-22-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
03-22-2010 5:33 PM


Re: Guns
The Federal government is already perfectly capable of defining which arms may be borne by the population. Currently fully automatic wepons, armor piercing ammunition, high explosives, and the like are all banned, even though they are "arms." You still don;t have the right to bear a rocket launcher.
A firearms ban is simply a further restriction on what arms may be borne. You could expand the ban on automatic weapons to include all handguns, for instance, and still retain the right to bear hunting rifles, which are arms.
Constitutional Amendments are not fully binary, where "all laws about x are invalidated." Despite your freedom of speech, for isntance, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded area unless there is actually a fire; you cannot threaten the life of a public official; you cannot abuse your right to speech to harass others.
Congress retains the right to regulate interstate commerce...which means they can ban the interstate transportation of firearms without actually legislating against private gun ownership. It would have basically the same effect as a ban without stepping afoul of the Constitution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 5:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:32 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 133 of 218 (551450)
03-22-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
03-22-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Guns
Who granted Congress that power?
That would be the Constitution, ICANT.
quote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"
I suppose you could alternatively say that the Founding Fathers, and the original States in the Union who ratified the original Constitution, granted Congress that power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:32 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 142 of 218 (551661)
03-23-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by petrophysics1
03-23-2010 2:10 PM


Re: Guns
...wow. That was a rather large quantity of highly concentrated stupid.
Federal law supersedes State law.
That's why the Feds can still arrest Californians for pot possession regardless of a prescription.
That's why the Feds were able to force the Southern states to integrate their schools.
Your state can make all the "Exemptions" it wants, but if it were ever challenged, you'd be forced to follow the Federal law, end of story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by petrophysics1, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 4:29 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2010 7:34 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 156 by petrophysics1, posted 03-24-2010 12:47 AM Rahvin has replied
 Message 161 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-24-2010 10:11 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 167 by onifre, posted 03-24-2010 1:18 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 149 of 218 (551692)
03-23-2010 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
03-23-2010 7:34 PM


Re: Guns
The issue of States Rights vs. Federal Rights is nothing new. We've been hashing this over since before we had a Constitution in the first place.
Hi Rahvin,
quote:
Rahvin writes:
Federal law supersedes State law.
A lot of people think that.
Because it's true. Federal law overrules State law.
The fact is that 38 States can change any federal law by amending the Constitution.
Changing the COnstitution isn't the same as changing a Federal law. It simply makes a new law that supercedes the Federal one. It;s all part of our system of checks and balances.
But yes, 38 states together can change the Constitution and thereby overrule any other law of the land.
That doesn't in any way dispute the point that Federal law overrules State law. If your state says that it's perfectly legal to possess a widget, but Federal law says it's illegal, an FBI agent who finds you in possession of a widget can still arrest you, try you in Federal court for Federal crimes, and sentence you to Federal prison. And while your state can make all the annulment laws it wants, it has no power to enforce them or interfere with the duties of a Federal law enforcement officer.
End. Of. Story.
Everybody in Washington are the employees of the States of the United States.
I prefer to think of them as employees of the People, not just the States. More direct that way...and for the most part, we do elect them directly as our own representatives (except for the Persident with that wonky electoral college).
That includes the President and all his men, Congress and all their helpers, and the Supreme Court. Literally everyone who draws a Federal Paycheck.
That means they could fire the entire bunch if they so desired or they can limit everything that they can do.
It's called "Election Day." That's how we decide who gets the big jobs. We also have procedures like "Impeachment" and "recall" if we want to fire them without waiting for the end of a term.
Still doesn't in any way dispute the fact that Federal law overrules State law.
They have let Washington bully them around and it is time to put a stop to it.
Are you mad as hell, ICANT? Are you not going to take it any more?
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps this whole "Constitutional Republic" thing might mean that you, individually, won't always get your way? After all - I had to put up with 8 years of Bush. Certainly you can put up with a few years of someone a little less right-wing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2010 7:34 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 157 of 218 (551740)
03-24-2010 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by petrophysics1
03-24-2010 12:47 AM


Re: Guns
Hi CS
Glad you liked that. Just thought I would post that law.
I could comment on some of the other things you mentioned, but understand I am pretty sure that it is against the law here in Wyoming ( and all other states)to give a legal opinion unless you are a member of the BAR.
I understand that giving legal opinions without being an attorney is something that doesn't bother someone like Rahvin, but for me it's something that maybe illegal and I don't want to do it.
I posted the law, and you can read it for yourself.
You don't need some liberal moron to explain it to you.
Just a word, I really wouldn't want to show up in court someday telling a judge I did/or did not do something I thought was OK because some fool like Rahvin on the internet gave me legal advice. In court you would probably look like an idiot.
So concerning Wyoming law and it's relation to Federal law, contact an attorney who practices law here.
Rahvin,
Send me a copy of your BAR card, and let us all know when you you were allowed to practice law in Wyoming.
By your standard, it's illegal for a Social Studies teacher to go over the separation of powers in the US government unless they have a law degree. Or teach anything else regarding the basic laws and structure of the US government.
This is, obviously, wrong. You're using the wrong orifice to make words again, petro. Try using your mouth, rather than your rectum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by petrophysics1, posted 03-24-2010 12:47 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 168 of 218 (551846)
03-24-2010 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by onifre
03-24-2010 1:18 PM


Re: No more drug raids
That's an executive decision to simply not enforce Federal law in States that have allowed it.
It's not a restriction of Federal law. The law still applies. If Obama isn't re-elected (or hell, even if he just changes his mind one day), we could have the DEA arresting growers in Cali once again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by onifre, posted 03-24-2010 1:18 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by onifre, posted 03-24-2010 5:06 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024