Everywhere American cities and states have passed private concealed-carry permit laws, the violent crime rate has gone down because criminals now have to weigh the probability that their victim may be armed and within his rights to shoot and consider if the crime is worth that risk of death that comes from not knowing who's packing.
Yet the safest town in America is in a state with almost no concealed carry; so is the fourth most dangerous--in fact, THEY ARE IN THE SAME STATE, ONLY 70 MILES APART
Now that we're in a recession, let's see just how those statistics hold up. Ever think about whether a lot of those stats correlate with things like the tech bubble and the housing bubble, and other upswings in the economy as well as they do with the passage of those laws?
Fact is, the issue of guns and crime deterrence is a much more complex issue than looking at a few cities and states that have passed private concealed-carry permit laws. There's no easy answer like 'pass private concealed-carry permit laws and crime will go down'. The answer is a lot more nuanced than that.
LMAO Those stats fuckin failed with Orem in third which is allowed Open Carry. You can carry a gun in Utah in the Open and not be arrested for it nor do you need a permit unlike a concealed carry. So now that you castrated your stats please stand down Euro.
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.
Everywhere American cities and states have passed private concealed-carry permit laws, the violent crime rate has gone down because criminals now have to weigh the probability that their victim may be armed and within his rights to shoot and consider if the crime is worth that risk of death that comes from not knowing who's packing.
Yet the safest town in America is in a state with almost no concealed carry; so is the fourth most dangerous--in fact, THEY ARE IN THE SAME STATE, ONLY 70 MILES APART
Now that we're in a recession, let's see just how those statistics hold up. Ever think about whether a lot of those stats correlate with things like the tech bubble and the housing bubble, and other upswings in the economy as well as they do with the passage of those laws?
Fact is, the issue of guns and crime deterrence is a much more complex issue than looking at a few cities and states that have passed private concealed-carry permit laws. There's no easy answer like 'pass private concealed-carry permit laws and crime will go down'. The answer is a lot more nuanced than that.
LMAO Those stats fuckin failed with Orem in third which is allowed Open Carry. You can carry a gun in Utah in the Open and not be arrested for it nor do you need a permit unlike a concealed carry. So now that you castrated your stats please stand down Euro.
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.
Your stats disproved everything you stated since the number three city allows open carry. That means you can carry a firearm in a holster as long as it is visible the State of Utah allows open carry without license. Thus your belief strict gun laws make safer cities was disproved.
Everywhere American cities and states have passed private concealed-carry permit laws, the violent crime rate has gone down because criminals now have to weigh the probability that their victim may be armed and within his rights to shoot and consider if the crime is worth that risk of death that comes from not knowing who's packing.
Yet the safest town in America is in a state with almost no concealed carry; so is the fourth most dangerous--in fact, THEY ARE IN THE SAME STATE, ONLY 70 MILES APART
Now that we're in a recession, let's see just how those statistics hold up. Ever think about whether a lot of those stats correlate with things like the tech bubble and the housing bubble, and other upswings in the economy as well as they do with the passage of those laws?
Fact is,
LMAO Those stats fuckin failed with Orem in third which is allowed Open Carry. You can carry a gun in Utah in the Open and not be arrested for it nor do you need a permit unlike a concealed carry. So now that you castrated your stats please stand down Euro.
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.
Your stats disproved everything you stated since the number three city allows open carry. That means you can carry a firearm in a holster as long as it is visible the State of Utah allows open carry without license. Thus your belief strict gun laws make safer cities was disproved.
My belief was not that "strict gun laws make safer cities was disproved." My belief was that, um, "the issue of guns and crime deterrence is a much more complex issue than looking at a few cities and states that have passed private concealed-carry permit laws. There's no easy answer like 'pass private concealed-carry permit laws and crime will go down'. The answer is a lot more nuanced than that" which is why I bothered to write it in that post you replied to.
I don't understand how a person who read my entire post--you know, that didn't stop the second they read a response less enthusiastic about the issue than 'WOOHOO GUNNNSSS!' and decided on that basis that the person must believe there's an "easy answer" like "strict gun laws make safer cities"--could have missed that...
The National Guards of today are state-commanded, state-funded armies that can be called up to serve under the National Government at any time.
-edit- And in any case, arguing that it only protects militias is moot. What's to stop me and 4 or 5 of my friends getting together, and calling ourselves the Pennsylvania Rifles for Freedom? Or do only government backed programs get the protection of the Bill of Rights?
Mariena, you were asking why it doesn't work similarly here the US as it does in Sweden and other countries in Europe. There are two major causes for this.
First, any kind of regulation is harder in this countries due to size. We have big honkin' borders with countries that don't listen to us about traffic control on a regular basis, and two large oceans on either side of us. Much like Russia or China, a black market has a certain ease of function here because total border control is ext to impossible by sheer force of scale.
Second, this country, both its citizens and government spend a great deal of money on guns and weapons. Frankly, I would argue that they're one of the last real manufacturing sectors in this country earning decent numbers, even with a recession. If we do on't buy these guns, and Europe doesn't, then they're gonna have to sell them to underdeveloped countries and play arms dealer for civil wars in Africa. They do it anyway, but I like the fact that at least some of the arms trafficking in the world is regulated and peaceable.
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.
This clearly states that only Militia has the right to bear arms, so don't use the second amendment as a way to say "Gun Control is unconstitutional".
Edit: Adding my replies.
Standard legal construction is to look all parts of the same amendment so that they fit together and make sense.
You can setup a "Well Regulated Militia" ahead of time, so they won't have to "Throw Rocks".
If the right to bear arms was independent of the militia, your reading the militia part of the second amendment out of the second amendment... That's improper legal analysis.
Why is the militia part in the second amendment if not to regulate who gets the guns?
It says the right of the people, implying all people, the militia was just another point that was touched on by the second amendment, like many amendments have several points. Oh and the militia is not the exact same thing as military, it is like the military only it is a private force rather than run by the government, in that way if you want to make the connection, it reaffirms the right to the people to bear arms. The places that have banned guns tend to have higher crime rates. Think what happened in Washington D.C.
Mariena: There are obviously still criminals with firearms. They'll always get their weapons through other means. So, if you ask me.. Get rid of that second Amendment.
You hit the nail on the head, but you took it in the opposite direction that I would have. Criminals will always have access to guns, illegal or not, so what will making them illegal do?
Making guns illegal will in fact reduce the amount of criminals that have firearms. I have no numbers or articles to back this up, but how many would buy a gun as a civilian only to use it as a tool for criminality, instead of home defense?
It would remove a lot of guns that aren't supposed to be there.. let's say.. in the hands of a ton of civilians, whom are not supposed to have it in the first place. How many stories have you heard of "son grabs handgun from dad and kills people with it"? Heck, an article was posted not a day or two ago where that kid grabbed a 9mm handgun from his parents from an unsecure lockbox. The xbox360 kid. This will probably dramatically reduce those "school shooting dramas" that are in the news every now and then. And of course kids that shoot their parents, ahem. Such people are too incompetent to safely own firearms. It needs to be regulated.
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
On the other hand, I live in Europe, so I don't have anything to say on this and I probably don't even care what you people will do over there.
Note: I did not base this on any news articles .. just common sense and female intuition.
It is regulated, heavily. The famous school shooting cases and the 360kid case you mentioned all involved either illegal access or illegal ownership of the firearms. Those laws were already in place and they were broken anyways. Criminals are going to break the law, no matter how many of them there are.
Alrighty, but still my question is:
And normally I don't like to compare to other people.. but.. We, The Netherlands, do it. Europe does it. Heck, Asia and Australia do it. Why can't the USA do it safely? Why would banning firearms in the rest of the world WORK, while in the USA it would not?
Here is the flaw in your argument, it assumes prohibition prevents the acquiring of said prohibited item. In American History we know the problem with this by looking at the 18th Amendment and it's repeal by the 21st Amendment. If you want European examples, look at Switzerland, they have one of the lowest crime rates in Europe and even in the world and guns are readily available. Also, the Swiss have an example of a true militia.
Brokkr: The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[1] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
That was taken from Wikipedia. If the ordinary citizens didn't have guns to begin with, when an emercency came along, they would be throwing rocks.
For about the past 200 years or so, the "militia" has been more commonly referred to as the "National Guard."
If the Chinese or whoever decided to invade the US, and were marching down your street, I can guarantee you would not go grab your .30-06 and open fire.
I'm not in favor of gun control, but I also don't believe in using the 2nd Amendment to defend gun control.
On militias: Any force of private citizens can band together and call themselves a militia. And if they happen to regulate themselves well, then they'd be well-regulated, wouldn't they? If the government needs oversight on private citizen militias then they wouldn't be militias anymore. They'd be state-managed armies. And in order to have a militia consisting of ordinary citizens, these citizens would need a means of arming themselves. A militia without a means to fight is hardly a practical militia.
And to presume we don't need militias or guns anymore is to take one's own national security for granted. It doesn't hurt to appreciate the security and prosperity most of us have now, but it does not take much to throw a country into chaos. And it's terribly easy for most countries for militaries to overthrow their civilian leadership. Heck, stuff like that is still going on today.
Being prepared for the worst case scenario is not a bad thing, even if said scenario is far off or highly unlikely. Not being prepared, on the other hand, isn't wise. And, frankly, a little presumptuous.
Besides being brutally fucking obvious, what point were you trying to make there? I rather like having the option to inflict death on someone under certain circumstances like, say, someone trying to break into my house and threaten my family, my life, and my property. There are certain cases where a 12 gauge shotgun needs to be used to make a point.
Does this mean that I (or any reasonable non-fucked-up person) am going to walk into my friendly neighborhood Catholic church on Sunday and shoot altar boys simply because I am allowed by law to protect myself and those close to me? No, and the big key here is that an armed populace is a safe populace precisely because it levels the playing field between decent people and violent crazy people (to say nothing of the government---lord knows for awhile there a revolution was a pretty damned plausible option and depending on how the next few years go it still might be one.)
How could you POSSIBLY argue with that? Here was I thinking that I had masterfully chosen a concise sentance that people could accept as true without arguing with me non stop. Guns do equal death. I'm not going to bother to go much further with this because I had a similar horrible conversation last night. This is my opinion, guns are bad. The world would be a better place without them. Gun restrictions should exist if only to keep gun owners and their families safe. I do realise that it is only one part of the problem. And I'm entitled to share my opinion.
The idea that only "guns" are bad is not a new sentiment. Half a millennium ago, it was crossbows that were considered bad--as in immoral, and ban-worthy. The idea was misplaced then and it is now. Getting rid of all the guns and bombs in the world would not stop people from killing each other. They'd figure out new ways to kill people, believe it or not.
Guns kill. Knives kill. Pillows kill. Cars kill. Planes kill. Household chemicals kill. Pills taken by stupid kids kill. People kill.
If someone intends to kill another person, they will find a way to. If someone acts with sufficient foolishness, they can also kill someone. Sometimes people kill indirectly, with negligent business practices and disregard for workers, consumers, or neighbors.
One person might argue that it's easier to stop a maniac with a knife than it is to stop a maniac with a gun. Another might argue that so many shooting incidents could've been cut short if just a single victim or bystander had a gun of their own.
Increasing gun control in the US won't put a dent in America's culture of violence. Nor will half-baked ideas that guns are inherently more immoral than any other cause of death. Targeting the tool instead of the killer will not change the culture that produced the killer--indeed, this sentiment is the first thing that a reformer's opponents will criticize, no matter how well the tool ban is couched in reasonable language.
Personally? The world isn't a nice place. People live and people die. People also kill, all over the world. For many reasons. The capacity to kill, the will to kill, these are part of why humans have survived as long as we have--we are all descendants of people who happened to survive ages of brutal war and murder. And many of our ancestors have killed, often to simply avoid being killed themselves. Sometimes on the battlefield. I hate to be vague, but this is just how people are and always will be. The only way to stop people from killing is to get rid of the people. (Or mind-control all of the people, removing free will from the equation--and, possibly, stop them from being "people.") And since I strongly disagree with that sentiment, I'm of the opinion that one should take the world for what it is.
And just deal with it. Don't think about how people should be, just deal with how people are. Human nature has not changed, we have just learned how to better deal with it. Which is why we have morals, values, ethics. And why we're comparatively, well, civilized, compared to our forebears. Those of us who live in safe and secure homelands with low risk of war or strife reaching our front lawns enjoy the benefits of that "dealing with" human nature. And we also have the benefit of countries and forefathers who've done mighty unpleasant things to secure our borders and prosperity--some of which involve bringing war and death to other people's doorsteps. No successful, civilized, prosperous state in the modern world is completely without the taint of blood on their hands. Because this is how people are.
To presume to know better than thousands of generations of people who survived in the worst possible, most brutal conditions when one has never been tested in those same situations is simply hubris.
I'd rather just take the advice from some decent folk, folks who might even be worshiped by other folks 'cause they were so decent. That is, simply, try to do good.
(And if you're going to spend time trying to rationalize what "good" is, you're missing the point. Society's already beaten it into you, as part of a collective "dealing with human nature" thing. See above.)
I am going to throw my two cents in here. As a responsible gun owner, I.E., guns kept under lock and key, ammo stored else where also under lock and key, I do agree that yes, more should be done. Mandatory background checks on EVERY perchase, be it from a gun shop, show or Wal-Mart, should be done. And if those checks are not done, heavy fines should be laid on the dealers. I was required to pass a background check when I bought my rifle and should I want to buy a pistol when I turn twenty-one I expect to have to pass another. Wyoming may be the least restrictive, but gun ownership is part of our culture. We hunt, we target shoot, and yes, some carry guns for protection. That is not something you can just "take away". Guns are ingrained in the American culture, and most if not all will not give that up without a fight. Look at Prohibition. People would not give up alcohol, what makes you think they would give up gun ownership?
And in any case, arguing that it only protects militias is moot. What's to stop me and 4 or 5 of my friends getting together, and calling ourselves the Pennsylvania Rifles for Freedom? Or do only government backed programs get the protection of the Bill of Rights?
That's the question. The Bill of Rights was written to limit the Federal government. The issue is whether a right was to protect the People, the States, or Both. And if Both, to what degree does the State represent the will of the People and to what extent does 'the People' mean even one lone person with an opinion contrary to the overwhelming majority.
I would say that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect the rights of the States to form militias. However, I'd also say the 2nd Amendment was never meant to be the exclusive font of gun rights. I'd say that it's pretty clear that the right to bear arms is a Fundamental Right in America, just like Marriage and Interstate Travel, and the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear evidence of that fact.
Saying the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right of people to have guns outside forming a militia is like saying the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless they are trying to petition the Government.
Everywhere American cities and states have passed private concealed-carry permit laws, the violent crime rate has gone down because criminals now have to weigh the probability that their victim may be armed and within his rights to shoot and consider if the crime is worth that risk of death that comes from not knowing who's packing.
Yet the safest town in America is in a state with almost no concealed carry; so is the fourth most dangerous--in fact, THEY ARE IN THE SAME STATE, ONLY 70 MILES APART
Now that we're in a recession, let's see just how those statistics hold up. Ever think about whether a lot of those stats correlate with things like the tech bubble and the housing bubble, and other upswings in the economy as well as they do with the passage of those laws?
Fact is,
LMAO Those stats fuckin failed with Orem in third which is allowed Open Carry. You can carry a gun in Utah in the Open and not be arrested for it nor do you need a permit unlike a concealed carry. So now that you castrated your stats please stand down Euro.
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.
Your stats disproved everything you stated since the number three city allows open carry. That means you can carry a firearm in a holster as long as it is visible the State of Utah allows open carry without license. Thus your belief strict gun laws make safer cities was disproved.
My belief was not that "strict gun laws make safer cities was disproved." My belief was that, um, "the issue of guns and crime deterrence is a much more complex issue than looking at a few cities and states that have passed private concealed-carry permit laws. There's no easy answer like 'pass private concealed-carry permit laws and crime will go down'. The answer is a lot more nuanced than that" which is why I bothered to write it in that post you replied to.
I don't understand how a person who read my entire post--you know, that didn't stop the second they read a response less enthusiastic about the issue than 'WOOHOO GUNNNSSS!' and decided on that basis that the person must believe there's an "easy answer" like "strict gun laws make safer cities"--could have missed that...
Whoops my bad I really shouldn't post when I am doing something else. :S
I happened to over hear a conversation a few weeks ago while in a local sporting goods store between several folks freaking out over Obama being elected. One of them, who I believe was the firearms manager, said that some governments overseas (Australia/U.K./or somewhere) had simply taxed ammunition something like 500% in order to choke firearms ownership out. I was wondering if anyone had any idea if this was true. I know that gun sales and ammunition sales are through the roof right now because of the fear of an Obama administration, so I was curious if his guy was talking out of his ass or not.
This is always an interesting debate, but I have to pose another question. Are there any of you out there who are anti-gun ownership that have any background with firearms at all? Same also goes for the reverse, pro gun with no background with firearms. I'm not saying that your opinion doesn't count, I just want to know what kind of perspective you are coming from...
SkinnySlim: I happened to over hear a conversation a few weeks ago while in a local sporting goods store between several folks freaking out over Obama being elected. One of them, who I believe was the firearms manager, said that some governments overseas (Australia/U.K./or somewhere) had simply taxed ammunition something like 500% in order to choke firearms ownership out. I was wondering if anyone had any idea if this was true. I know that gun sales and ammunition sales are through the roof right now because of the fear of an Obama administration, so I was curious if his guy was talking out of his ass or not.
This is always an interesting debate, but I have to pose another question. Are there any of you out there who are anti-gun ownership that have any background with firearms at all? Same also goes for the reverse, pro gun with no background with firearms. I'm not saying that your opinion doesn't count, I just want to know what kind of perspective you are coming from...
Hmm not sure though I do know the Damn Russkies have been charging an arm and a leg for 7.62x54R for a long while. It was about a buck a cartridge last time I purchased from the Russkies. Good quality ammo but highly corrosive though I trusted it more then the self pack I am forced to purchase now because most gun stores are refusing to import Russian Munitions.
Yeah, I have some buddies that have bought some of these $100 russian rifles lately, and they have been complaining about that too. I think most of the price increase is just due to the general cost of metals right now. Hell, a box of .357 mag set me back $55 last week, and two years ago it was in the upper $20's. It's only going to get worse. I've been buying a little bit every pay day to help ease the sticker shock...
SkinnySlim: Yeah, I have some buddies that have bought some of these $100 russian rifles lately, and they have been complaining about that too. I think most of the price increase is just due to the general cost of metals right now. Hell, a box of .357 mag set me back $55 last week, and two years ago it was in the upper $20's. It's only going to get worse. I've been buying a little bit every pay day to help ease the sticker shock...
I hear ya the cheap .44 mags at walmart are going for $35-40 range thats why I bought a .22
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.