False Sense of Security?

[Jordan Joab]

The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.

Any burglar with a 1/4 brain will rob your house while you are not there. If a burglar does break in he might bring his own firearm and maybe a friend in case of trouble.

No. Your handgun will not hit that F-22 flying 20,000ft above you when you decide to rebel against the Government.

Yes, you might be able to fend off a criminal on the street but chances are said criminal will come from behind you.

Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

Finally, I can only imagine the following scenario: "S***! Some students came in today with guns and started shooting people" "Alright, enyone outside this classroom is fair target."

Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?



Jordan Joab.

[drankin]

The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.

Any burglar with a 1/4 brain will rob your house while you are not there. If a burglar does break in he might bring his own firearm and maybe a friend in case of trouble.

No. Your handgun will not hit that F-22 flying 20,000ft above you when you decide to rebel against the Government.

Yes, you might be able to fend off a criminal on the street but chances are said criminal will come from behind you.

Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

Finally, I can only imagine the following scenario: "S***! Some students came in today with guns and started shooting people" "Alright, enyone outside this classroom is fair target."

Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?



Jordan Joab.

This question is hardly worth answering so I'll respond with an equally absurd question.

If I'm about to be mugged how would NOT having a gun make me safer?

[WarPhalange]

Here's a better question:

If I'm mugged how would a gun make me safer?

If you think you can pull out your gun and shoot the bad guy when he's already pulled a gun or knife on you, then you watch too many movies.

[drankin]

Here's a better question:

If I'm mugged how would a gun make me safer?

If you think you can pull out your gun and shoot the bad guy when he's already pulled a gun or knife on you, then you watch too many movies.

Here you go, http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Just enter a state in the search engine.

Thousands of accounts of people defending themselves with guns in all sorts of situations. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Hypothetical situation arguments a waste of time.

[Jordan Joab]

Allow me to clarify my position where it comes to firearms.

I believe Americans have the right to have a rifle, shotgun, longgun, carbine, etc at home to protect themselves and their property (still a false sense of security). However, when it comes to handguns, I believe only law enforcement should be allowed to carry them.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of an increased number of handguns out on the street. It is dangerous. It is ridiculous to think that having more people armed with handguns will create a safer, more secure society. If the previous was truly the case, why not give every country on Earth nuclear weapons? I'm sure wars will cease to exist!:biggrin:



Jordan.

[drankin]

Allow me to clarify my position where it comes to firearms.

I believe Americans have the right to have a rifle, shotgun, longgun, carbine, etc at home to protect themselves and their property (still a false sense of security). However, when it comes to handguns, I believe only law enforcement should be allowed to carry them.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of an increased number of handguns out on the street. It is dangerous. It is ridiculous to think that having more people armed with handguns will create a safer, more secure society. If the previous was truly the case, why not give every country on Earth nuclear weapons? I'm sure wars will cease to exist!:biggrin:



Jordan.

Concern for our society starts with concern for the individual. It does not make sense that individual should have to carry a rifle for personal defense. Though a more visual deterent against personal attack. (I've never heard of someone carrying a rifle getting mugged :smile:). It's not very practical. A handgun, like I carry myself, is adequate.

It's the same old tired argument. Create laws that restrict the law abiding citizen from having guns (handguns or otherwise), then only the criminals will have them rendering the law abiding citizen to a legal and lethal disadvantage.

[WarPhalange]

Here you go, http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Just enter a state in the search engine.

Thousands of accounts of people defending themselves with guns in all sorts of situations. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Hypothetical situation arguments a waste of time.

That's a logical fallacy, because you aren't showing the other side. The people that die while trying to protect themselves instead of just giving up their wallet, and the people who get shot with their own guns.

[Ivan Seeking]

Allow me to clarify my position where it comes to firearms.

I believe Americans have the right to have a rifle, shotgun, longgun, carbine, etc at home to protect themselves and their property (still a false sense of security). However, when it comes to handguns, I believe only law enforcement should be allowed to carry them.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of an increased number of handguns out on the street. It is dangerous. It is ridiculous to think that having more people armed with handguns will create a safer, more secure society. If the previous was truly the case, why not give every country on Earth nuclear weapons? I'm sure wars will cease to exist!:biggrin:



Jordan.

Actually, when it comes to nuclear bombs, mutually assured destruction did work. The real threats here are the people who either want the world to end, or people who are too stupid to realize that using a nuke will absolutely lead to their own destruction. But when you point your gun at someone, they know that they are about to die, so unless they want to die at that particular moment, you have the advantage.

As for handguns, they are much easier to store and to use in a pinch: Rifles and shotguns require the use of two hands. Hand guns can be operated with one hand. Handguns can be stored in drawer by the bed or kept in an easily accessable, secret location, whereas long-barrel guns are generally more difficult to hide or store. Most handguns have a clip that can be switched in a few seconds. Rifles and shotguns require that each shell be loaded individually when needed. Also many States require that all shotguns be plugged so that they can only hold three rounds.

Do you really think that laws will stop crooks from carrying guns when by definition they don't follow the law? Also, it is easy to make a gun. Laws will do nothing but create a black market for illegally produced guns.

[Ivan Seeking]

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

[Evo]

Here you go, http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Just enter a state in the search engine.

Thousands of accounts of people defending themselves with guns in all sorts of situations. I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. Hypothetical situation arguments a waste of time.A website like this is too silly to even be considered.

You realize that this has no meaning because there is nothing to measure against, right?

Shall we start a website listing people that had their own guns turned on them or that injured themselves or other innocent bystanders with their own guns, what, no one is going to brag about that?

Just last month there was a guy on the news because he tried to pull a gun on an intruder in his home and the intruder wrestled with the homeowner and the homeowner suffered broken ribs, a broken arm, and was shot in the shoulder with his own gun before the intruder got away, apparently unharmed. :rofl: They were making fun of the gun owner on the morning news, a reporter stopped him as he was returning home and asked him how he was, he said "I was shot". Ok, it wasn't funny that they repeated that sound clip a hundred times.

If you pull a gun on someone and you wait to see what they'll do, you've put yourself at risk. Ask yourself, do you intend to kill the first person you come across with that gun?

[Jordan Joab]

But who honestly believes that an increase in the number of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns will deter or reduce violent crimes? Ridiculous.

I can see the following scenarios taking place:

A) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Criminals realize the risk is higher and get even more violent.

B) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Criminals target areas where handgun ownership is lower or non-existent. More pressure to re-direct law enforcement services to those areas.

C) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. Increased number of legal handguns might increase the number of illegal weapons.

D) More responsible citizens carrying handguns. These citizens feel empowered to resolve matters or disputes out of their area of responsibility. i.e disputes at work, on the street, on the bus, on the subway, home, etc.



Jordan Joab.

[Ivan Seeking]

But who honestly believes that an increase in the number of law-abiding citizens carrying handguns will deter or reduce violent crimes? Ridiculous.

I just posted evidence to that effect.

Frankly, what is silly is thinking that having a weapon does not make one safer; provided that they know how to use it properly. And as for those who are reckless with guns, even a single match costs many lives if used carelessly. Should we make matches illegal? How about cars? A car can be a much more lethal weapon than a gun.

[drankin]

That's a logical fallacy, because you aren't showing the other side. The people that die while trying to protect themselves instead of just giving up their wallet, and the people who get shot with their own guns.

It should certainly be up to the indidual who is being robbed to make the determination as to either hand over his wallet or to risk a shootout (possibly shooting himself :rolleyes:). If someone has the drop on me, I may hand my wallet over, though he may take it and shoot me anyway but anything can happen in a particular situation. It's my call as to what to do if someone is pointing a gun, waving a knife, a bat, or is in some other way is threatening my life.

[Ivan Seeking]

It should certainly be up to the indidual who is being robbed to make the determination as to either hand over his wallet or to risk a shootout (possibly shooting himself :rolleyes:). If someone has the drop on me, I may hand my wallet over, though he may take it and shoot me anyway but anything can happen in a particular situation. It's my call as to what to do if someone is pointing a gun, waving a knife, a bat, or is in some other way is threatening my life.

There are times when a having a gun is useless and only a fool would try to use it. There are other times when a few seconds of warning means the difference between life and death. And if the guy walking up behind the guy mugging you has a gun, then you still have a potential advantage through the actions of others.

Speaking generally, you can't take my guns just because some people are idiots.

[Evo]

And as for those who are reckless with guns, even a single match costs many lives if used carelessly. Should we make matches illegal? How about cars? A car can be a much more lethal weapon than a gun.Ivan, how many people intend to set fire to people? Or run over someone with a car in the bedroom? Many household items can be lethal, but they serve real purposes other than killing or harming people.

Hand guns are made to kill people.Too many people buy guns out of fear and are afraid to use them or don't know how to use them. An intruder in your home with a gun won't hesitate to use it on you if he sees you have a gun. Where a typical homeowner with a gun will just stand there like a deer in headlights.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, how many people intend to set fire to people?

How many fires are set intentionally? I would guess a very large number of them.

Or run over someone with a car in the bedroom? Many household items can be lethal, but they serve real purposes other than killing or harming people.

I am thinking more of someone driving onto a campus and running down students, as opposed to using a gun, as we have seen recently. Do you really think that someone that sick won't find some other mode of operation? Are you suggesting that the mentally ill are only dangerous because they have guns?

Hand guns are made to kill people.Too many people buy guns out of fear and are afraid to use them or don't know how to use them.

How many?

An intruder in your home with a gun won't hesitate to use it on you if he sees you have a gun. Where a typical homeowner with a gun will just stand there like a deer in headlights.

An intruder comes into my home and he is likely dead.

[WarPhalange]

It should certainly be up to the indidual who is being robbed to make the determination as to either hand over his wallet or to risk a shootout (possibly shooting himself :rolleyes:).

*slaps forehead*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080703/ap_on_re_us/officer_shot

Please tell me you were just joking and really understood what I was coming at.

If someone has the drop on me, I may hand my wallet over, though he may take it and shoot me anyway but anything can happen in a particular situation. It's my call as to what to do if someone is pointing a gun, waving a knife, a bat, or is in some other way is threatening my life.

Murder vs. mugging carries totally different sentencing.

[Ivan Seeking]

I can also say that a couple of times I have gone for my gun. Luckily I have never had to use one to shoot a person, but I was SURE glad to have them when I thought that I may need them.

There was NO hesitation.

[Cyrus]

Before this gets to page 1-billion, Id like to point out this glaring error Jordan Joab.

The point of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect yourself on the streets. The right to own a gun is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

This entire handguns this, protecting yourself in a crime that, is nothing more than BLA BLA BLA..... It misses the point.

Could we possibly, for once, argue about what the 2nd amendment is really about?

.........Jeeeeeeeeeezus.

[Evo]

How many fires are set intentionally? I would guess a very large number of them. Not in comparison to the number of matches sold, it would almost be too tiny to measure. My point is, matches are not normally purchased with the intent of using them as a weapon.

I am thinking more of someone driving onto a campus and running down students, as opposed to using a gun, as we have seen recently. Do you really think that someone that sick won't find some other mode of operation? Are you suggesting that the mentally ill are only dangerous because they have guns? And what percentage of the car owning population is this? Like I said just about anythong can be used to kill somone, a piano string, pantyhose, a plastic dry cleaning bag, the point is that they are not "intended' as lethal weapons.

Hand guns are made to kill people.Too many people buy guns out of fear and are afraid to use them or don't know how to use them.How many?I'd say look at the number of handguns that are owned and the number of owners that are proficient at shooting ranges with those guns would be a good measurement. I'd say the average person that buys a hand gun to keep at home for protection would not be able to shoot someone. That's a HUGE mistake. If you buy something made to kill people, you'd better be ready to kill the first person you aim it at. Most people don't even think that far ahead.

An intruder comes into my home and he is likely dead.That's the "only" attitude you should have if you buy a handgun. Kill first, think later. And just hope you didn't shoot the wrong person.

[rootX]

Does anyone have statistics showing relationship between guns owned by public and crime rates in that country?

Personally, I think there is a correlations between people owing a gun and number of crimes per something ..in that country.
[Canada vs US?]

ahh found some!

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

[humanino]

"More Guns, Less Crime" does not show numbers, it states, I don't buy it.

Show the probability that you die of shotgun, if you have a gun at home and if you don't. I don't have reference. As far as remember, the difference was not because people who have gun live in dangerous areas. The difference was substantial and due to another member of the family using it against you.

Hey, I just state, it is no less valid than Ivan's link.

How many years ago was your constitution written ?

I know myself. I sometimes go crazily mad. I do things I can regret later. I could kill somebody out of anger if I had a gun. Or out of alcohol. Or out of an accident. Or out of stupidity (like Joe Horn).

Some arguments are just out of date.

[Evo]

Before this gets to page 1-billion, Id like to point out this glaring error Jordan Joab.

The point of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect yourself on the streets. The right to own a gun is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

This entire handguns this, protecting yourself in a crime that, is nothing more than BLA BLA BLA..... It misses the point.

Could we possibly, for once, argue about what the 2nd amendment is really about?

.........Jeeeeeeeeeezus.Most people don't know that Cyrus. Most people can't even remember the first sentence of the Preamble, you expect them to know what the 2nd amendment says?

Heck, I bet a lot of people don't even know that there is a preamble. :rolleyes:

[Cyrus]

In all seriousness, I would like to see every american given a FULL, MILITARY GRADE assault rifle with a grenade launcher attachment on it. And you keep this locked in a gun safe in your house for that day the sh!t hits the fan. And if you EVER take it out for ANY REASON other than to shoot it at the range to stay proficient, your are in a WORLD of trouble. And you are REQUIRED to be able to shoot x-targets at some determined range while you have the gun each year. Meaning, it cant collect dust.


I really am getting fed up with people playing police man with the 2nd ammendment. The framers didnt give a damn about you protecting your house against a robber.

[Cyrus]

No. Your handgun will not hit that F-22 flying 20,000ft above you when you decide to rebel against the Government.

A handgun was not designed to take down stealth fighters, theres no point to this statement.

Yes, you might be able to fend off a criminal on the street but chances are said criminal will come from behind you.

So what?

Wouldn't a higher supply of legal guns create a higher supply of illegal guns?

Finally, I can only imagine the following scenario: "S***! Some students came in today with guns and started shooting people" "Alright, enyone outside this classroom is fair target."

Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?



Jordan Joab.

All of this really means nothing, and has nothing to do with the spirit of the second amendment. I fail to see you making any point here other than ranting.

It says the right to bear arms. Not the right to bear arms, 'except hand guns'.

[Jordan Joab]

Before this gets to page 1-billion, Id like to point out this glaring error Jordan Joab.

The point of the 2nd amendment is NOT to protect yourself on the streets. The right to own a gun is to overthrow a tyrannical government.

This entire handguns this, protecting yourself in a crime that, is nothing more than BLA BLA BLA..... It misses the point.

Could we possibly, for once, argue about what the 2nd amendment is really about?

.........Jeeeeeeeeeezus.


Cyrus, I am glad you brought this up. Yes, I understand the point of the 2nd Amendment is to the right to own firearms to overthrow tyrannical governments. However, this decision by the Court has nothing to do with protection against oppressing governments.

Protecting against tyrannical governments is not an individual right but a collective right. State-regulated militias accomplished this effectively. Once you break it down to the individual level it gets messy.

Are you telling me that citizens with handguns will effectively fight a theoretically tyrannical U.S. Government? Maybe back in 1861 this made sense. Not in 2008.

This whole "individuals have rights to possess firearms" line of thinking is not being used as a means to protect citizens from their governments.



Jordan.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is a central component of the right

[Jordan Joab]

In all seriousness, I would like to see every american given a FULL, MILITARY GRADE assault rifle with a grenade launcher attachment on it. And you keep this locked in a gun safe in your house for that day the sh!t hits the fan. And if you EVER take it out for ANY REASON other than to shoot it at the range to stay proficient, your are in a WORLD of trouble. And you are REQUIRED to be able to shoot x-targets at some determined range while you have the gun each year. Meaning, it cant collect dust.


I really am getting fed up with people playing police man with the 2nd ammendment. The framers didnt give a damn about you protecting your house against a robber.

Let's also give Americans an F-16 fighter jet, a Javelin, military-grade comms, surface-to-air missiles, and a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead to keep things fair when fighting that tyrannical government.



Jordan.

Edit: but I am going off-topic. Private handguns foster a paranoid society.

[Gokul43201]

I personally don't care for guns and I think recreational hunting is a form of barbarism, but most data I've come across only indicates that attempting to control gun ownership does not reduce crime rates or homicide rates[1,2,3].
Does anyone have statistics showing relationship between guns owned by public and crime rates in that country? I'd like to see this too, though I anticipate that it could easily be deceptively misleading.

Personally, I think there is a correlations between people owing a gun and number of crimes per something ..in that country.
[Canada vs US?]It is also possible that both gun ownership and crime rates are causally related to some other more basic underlying social system, creating the illusion that they are causally related to each other.

ahh found some!

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htmThat is not the data you were looking for, but it definitely is interesting (and quite unexpected, given the other numbers I've seen). That table shows only the rate of firearm deaths, not the rate of all homicides+suicides. The impression I have is that in countries where there are stricter gun ownership controls, people find other ways to commit crimes if a gun is not available.

"More Guns, Less Crime" does not show numbers, it states, I don't buy it.

Show the probability that you die of shotgun, if you have a gun at home and if you don't. I don't have reference. As far as remember, the difference was not because people who have gun live in dangerous areas. The difference was substantial and due to another member of the family using it against you. I recall something like this as well, but the thing is that accidental deaths are much fewer than homicides. While reducing gun ownership reduces accidental gun deaths, that is not a sufficiently big number that the rate of homicides+accidental deaths decreases noticeably. Furthermore, if the rate of homicides increases even slightly, any benefit from decreasing accidental deaths is wiped out.

Hey, I just state, it is no less valid than Ivan's link.

How many years ago was your constitution written ?

I know myself. I sometimes go crazily mad. I do things I can regret later. I could kill somebody out of anger if I had a gun. Or out of alcohol. Or out of an accident. Or out of stupidity (like Joe Horn).In the case of Joe Horn (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=243064), I think the problem is more with the legality of being allowed to shoot someone for no good reason rather than the issue of gun ownership itself. I doubt that Mr. Horn would turn in his shotgun if gun ownership was made illegal.

And that's another big problem with suddenly imposing stricter gun control - there appears to be no good way to implement and enforce it, at least over the short term. That was the main problem in Australia. They banned gun ownership, and only about 10% of the estimated number of guns in the country were returned to the authorities. And those were largely from licensed gun dealerships. And after this ban, crime rates in Australia didn't get any better.

[1] UN International Crime Victims Survey, 2000 (http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/)

[2] Article by Dr. Gary Mauser, Simon Fraser University (http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch5.htm)

[3] Guns and Crime (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/index.html) - Australia (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html)

[Cyrus]

Are you telling me that citizens with handguns will effectively fight a theoretically tyrannical U.S. Government? Maybe back in 1861 this made sense. Not in 2008.

Yes, im telling you that. Because its not that simple. If there were a war within the US, people in the military would leave, it would not be us vs. Uncle Sam in the sense your thinking about it. Guess what, Iraqis and Afghani's are reeking all sorts of hell with home made road side bombs and cheap russian Ak-47s against big bad uncle sam and his apache gun ships and armored humvees. Right?

The question is if a handgun serves as a tactical advantage? Do you see police using rifles or handguns? For certain cases its probably better to have a handgun. Im not a gun-nut, so I can only assume in urban areas a handgun is good. Do you mean to tell me that a war wouldnt include urban senarios? Dont most US soldiers carry hand guns as their secondary weapon?

[JasonRox]

An intruder comes into my home and he is likely dead.

I'm sure the criminal will shoot you in your sleep.

[Cyrus]

Let's also give Americans an F-16 fighter jet, a Javelin, military-grade comms, surface-to-air missiles, and a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead to keep things fair when fighting that tyrannical government.



Jordan.

Edit: but I am going off-topic. Private handguns foster a paranoid society.

If you can afford a 16 million dollar jet, fine by me. In fact, some mega-rich aviation nuts do own supersonic fighter jets that they fly for fun. Better duck and cover, he might bomb you! ............:rolleyes:


Again, you missed the point of what I was saying. Why do you assume that becuase someone owns an F-16, they are allowed to use it however they please?

Lots of people own and have guns, all around you. Do you walk around in constant fear of being shot? No...............

[Jordan Joab]

Yes, im telling you that. Because its not that simple. If there were a war within the US, people in the military would leave, it would not be us vs. Uncle Sam in the sense your thinking about it. Guess what, Iraqis and Afghani's are reeking all sorts of hell with home made road side bombs and cheap russian Ak-47s against big bad uncle sam and his apache gun ships and armored humvees. Right?

No my friend. You assume all military personnel would leave. If we are talking about fighting a domestic tyrannical government then that government has troops and loyalists that will fight you. Foreign tyrannical government? We have our armed forces. What you just described is anarchy; in that case your measly handgun will only take you so far.

The question is if a handgun serves as a tactical advantage? Do you see police using rifles or handguns? For certain cases its probably better to have a handgun. Im not a gun-nut, so I can only assume in urban areas a handgun is good. Do you mean to tell me that a war wouldnt include urban senarios? Dont most US soldiers carry hand guns as their secondary weapon?

Handguns offer a tactical advantage: concealment. Law enforcement agencies use both rifles and handguns (SWAT). Military personnel, cops, federals militias, etc. with handguns is acceptable to me. Private citizens with private handguns is not.

I live in NYC. I can't even imagine what would happen if more New Yorkers carried handguns in the subway, buses, public places, etc.



Jordan.

[Cyrus]

No my friend. You assume all military personnel would leave. If we are talking about fighting a domestic tyrannical government then that government has troops and loyalists that will fight you. Foreign tyrannical government? We have our armed forces. What you just described is anarchy; in that case your measly handgun will only take you so far.

You seem to be mixing two things up, well sort of. Were a foreign country to invade us today, it would be the job of the miltary to fight them - nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If the military did a bad job and failed, then you could get your gun in your basement and take action.

I disagree with you, strongly, that 'the government has troops and loyalists that will fight you'. This makes no sense, and I dont think its true either. Its not anarchy, its called a civil war. People in the military would likely leave and take sides with whoever they want to fight for. Obviously, this is a hypothetical. It could be a split in two, three, ten. Who knows. But the point is, to say that the us military will just stay together is too much of a stretch.


Handguns offer a tactical advantage: concealment. Law enforcement agencies use both rifles and handguns (SWAT). Military personnel, cops, federals militias, etc. with handguns is acceptable to me. Private citizens with private handguns is not.

I live in NYC. I can't even imagine what would happen if more New Yorkers carried handguns in the subway, buses, public places, etc.



Jordan.

Ok, so if Im trying to fight a government, shouldnt I have a gun that is concealed?

[Jordan Joab]

If you can afford a 16 million dollar jet, fine by me. In fact, some mega-rich aviation nuts do own supersonic fighter jets that they fly for fun. Better duck and cover, he might bomb you! ............:rolleyes:

Except those particular planes are stripped off their armament systems. Also, these nuts would have to buy bombs and ammunition from... guess who... the Goverment! Not to mention they would need special equipment and personnel to arm the aircraft.

Again, you missed the point of what I was saying. Why do you assume that becuase someone owns an F-16, they are allowed to use it however they please?

And why do you assume that private handguns will be used legally all the time?

Lots of people own and have guns, all around you. Do you walk around in constant fear of being shot? No...............

Situationally, yes. I think every American by law should live 1 year in NYC.




Jordan.

[Cyrus]

Except those particular planes are stripped off their armament systems. Also, these nuts would have to buy bombs and ammunition from... guess who... the Goverment! Not to mention they would need special equipment and personnel to arm the aircraft.

Who says it has to be the US government? There is this concept called 'arms dealers' that sell quite illegal weapons around the world for the right price. You think if someone really wanted to, they couldnt rig up something? On an old soviet airplane thats made all around the world.....................come on now.



And why do you assume that private handguns will be used legally all the time?

What do I care what they are used for illegally? Thats not the POINT! Sheesh. Lots of things are used illegally all the time...........................and????????

Situationally, yes. I think every American by law should live 1 year in NYC.


Jordan.

I live in DC, im not impressed. I've had a gun to my head before, that does not mean im against guns. Can you say the same?

[Gokul43201]

Cyrus, the point of this thread is not to debate the Second Amendment, but rather to debate whether handgun ownership really makes us safer.

I think we're going somewhat off-topic by discussing possible scenarios for 21st century militias overthrowing the US Government.

[Cyrus]

cyrus, the point of this thread is not to debate the Second Amendment, but rather to debate whether handgun ownership really makes us safer.

Right, and im saying thats a fundamentally WRONG question. Having a handgun isnt to make you safe or not. Its completely irrelevant.

No where does it say in the 2nd amendment, 'have guns that keep your family safe'.

[Gokul43201]

Right, and im saying thats a fundamentally WRONG question. Having a handgun isnt to make you safe or not. Its completely irrelevant.But it is exactly what gun rights advocates argue for. And whether or not it was intended to make you safer, if it does make you safer, that's an argument in favor of it.

[Jordan Joab]

You seem to be mixing two things up, well sort of. Were a foreign country to invade us today, it would be the job of the miltary to fight them - nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If the military did a bad job and failed, then you could get your gun in your basement and take action.

I disagree with you, strongly, that 'the government has troops and loyalists that will fight you'. This makes no sense, and I dont think its true either. Its not anarchy, its called a civil war. People in the military would likely leave and take sides with whoever they want to fight for. Obviously, this is a hypothetical. It could be a split in two, three, ten. Who knows. But the point is, to say that the us military will just stay together is too much of a stretch.

Except the Court's decision has nothing to do with fighting evil governments. The Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns, for personal protection.

Once again, I am against private handguns. If you want to own grenade launchers, automatic rifles, shotguns, an aircraft carrier, etc. to protect your home and fight evil governments by all means knock yourself out.

Ok, so if Im trying to fight a government, shouldnt I have a gun that is concealed?

Yes, you can have a concealed gun to defeat that evil goverment. Except, and I repeat myself again, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns for personal/private use.

The keyword here is handgun. I'm not going to expect that every law-abiding citizen will keep their private handgun at home. Many people will carry it in their cars, in the subway, on buses, at the airport, theaters, etc.

This is not about fighting governments. This is about allowing American citizens to carry personal handguns for personal use. This is wrong and dangerous.



Jordan.

[Cyrus]

But it is exactly what gun rights advocates argue for. And whether or not it was intended to make you safer, if it does make you safer, that's an argument in favor of it.

I think the problem is people who like guns want to make the 2nd amendment into some psudo Im-a-police-man right. I dont think anyone should have any form of guns on the streets. If they think otherwise, then they can please show me where the constitution says you can walk around acting as Mr. Police man.

[Cyrus]

Except the Court's decision has nothing to do with fighting evil governments. The Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns, for personal protection.

Thats BS, IMO. The point of guns isnt for personal protection, and I dont agree with that part of the court.

Once again, I am against private handguns. If you want to own grenade launchers, automatic rifles, shotguns, an aircraft carrier, etc. to protect your home and fight evil governments by all means knock yourself out.

No, I think handguns go right in there with anything and everything. The key is, you cant WALK AROUND with it.

Yes, you can have a concealed gun to defeat that evil goverment. Except, and I repeat myself again, the Supreme Court decided that Americans have the right to own firearms, including handguns for personal/private use.

The keyword here is handgun. I'm not going to expect that every law-abiding citizen will keep their private handgun at home. Many people will carry it in their cars, in the subway, on buses, at the airport, theaters, etc.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I think there should be a SEVERE penalty for having it outside your house if your not going to a shooting range.

There needs to be a change of view in this country about guns. People should have whatever kind of gun they want. But they also need to have it branded in the back of their mind that if they ever decide to take it out of the house for reasons not specified in the constitution, they could face serious consequence: like fines in the thousands of dollars or years in jail, lose the right to have their gun, or all three.

[Jordan Joab]

Thats BS, IMO. The point of guns isnt for personal protection, and I dont agree with that part of the court.



No, I think handguns go right in there with anything and everything. The key is, you cant WALK AROUND with it.



I think we agree more than we disagree. I think there should be a SEVERE penalty for having it outside your house if your not going to a shooting range.

And that's exactly the problem. The Supreme Court concluded that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. This means individuals can walk to a gun shop, pass the necessary background checks, and take their brand new handgun home. Alright, can the Supreme Court guarantee me that these handguns will stay home? And where exactly does this right end?

Can individuals carry their handguns to work? In their cars? In the subway? Just at home?

Do handguns truly make us safer? Why not a "taser" or pepper spray? Am I to trust the "good" judgment and common sense of people in stressful situations?

This is where it gets dangerous but it seems few people are actually concerned about this issue. Perhaps I'm wrong.



Jordan.

[Gokul43201]

I think the problem is people who like guns want to make the 2nd amendment into some psudo Im-a-police-man right. I dont think anyone should have any form of guns on the streets. If they think otherwise, then they can please show me where the constitution says you can walk around acting as Mr. Police man.It's not there in the Second Amendment, but early case law show some places where the individual right (as opposed to the collective militia) was asserted as being a natural interpretation of the SA. The most commonly cited precedent is Bliss v. Commonwealth.Cite as Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Littell 90 (Ky. 1822)

BLISS v. COMMONWEALTH.

1. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, must be preserved entire.
2. Not merely all legislative acts, which purport to take it away; but all which diminish or impair it, as it existed when the constitution was formed, are void.
3. The act to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms, is unconstitutional and void.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/bliss_v_commonwealth.txt

[B. Elliott]

I was raised with both sides of my family owning handguns and rifles.We've been about as pro-firearm the same amount that we've been pro-knives, or pro-any sharp thing. Pistols are a form of self defense. We have three pistols scattered throughout the house in case something happens... weather it involves an intruder, assault on a family member on our property, wild animals, ect. My mother knows how to shoot a firearm well for those reasons. As does my sister, grandmother, grandfathers. My grandfather actually taught me gun safety and how to fire one at a young age, approximately nine years old. My grandfather hunts deer and turkey for food. He has done this since he was a young child growing up in the mountains on north Georgia when it was one of the only sources of food. A necessity to survive..

People can try to dissect the Second Amendment of The Constitution as much as they like. It cannot be worded any clearer than it already is. I will continue to carry a firearm to protect myself, family member and friends, against the possibility of an assailant taking away their life. I never show my pistol unless I intend to use it. If I draw it, someone is getting killed.


* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and

* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14





http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm




In 1985, the National Institute for Justice reported that:

* 60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one weapon in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.

* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.

* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.

http://hematite.com/dragon/reasons2own.html


It's important to remember that gun ownership is the one human right which can ensure that other human rights will not be violated.
http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

[Cyrus]

And that's exactly the problem. The Supreme Court concluded that the D.C. handgun ban was unconstitutional. This means individuals can walk to a gun shop, pass the necessary background checks, and take their brand new handgun home. Alright, can the Supreme Court guarantee me that these handguns will stay home? And where exactly does this right end?

Can individuals carry their handguns to work? In their cars? In the subway? Just at home?

Do handguns truly make us safer? Why not a "taser" or pepper spray? Am I to trust the "good" judgment and common sense of people in stressful situations?

This is where it gets dangerous but it seems few people are actually concerned about this issue. Perhaps I'm wrong.



Jordan.


No, no. They were absolutely RIGHT to give people in DC the right to have guns. As a native washingtonian, let me tell you this. If you think people in DC dont have handguns, illegally, then your NUTS. What people do, illegally, with their guns means nothing to me, because they are going to do it anyways. They are breaking the law, plain and SIMPLE. The answer is a combination of what we are both saying here. YES, you can buy a handgun. NO, you cant walk around town with it. In fact, you cant go ANYWHERE with it unless its to a shooting range and back. Thats the way it SHOULD be, in my opinion, and the laws in owning a gun should reflect that.

[Cyrus]

It's not there in the Second Amendment, but early case law show some places where the individual right (as opposed to the collective militia) was asserted as being a natural interpretation of the SA. The most commonly cited precedent is Bliss v. Commonwealth.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/bliss_v_commonwealth.txt

Well, I think the 'themselves' should mean 'within their own home'.

[B. Elliott]

Well, I think the 'themselves' should mean 'within their own home'.

That's where my opinion differs. I have a carry license and believe that more people (pending a background check and completing a gun safety course) should carry. Though I do fully agree with the limitations placed upon the carry permit (which varies per state) such as not being allowed to carry in a place which sells alcohol or while under the influence, on school grounds, in federal buildings, public parks, civic centers, ect.

http://www.townofsmyrna.org/police/Handgunpermits.htm

[Gokul43201]

People can try to dissect the Second Amendment of The Constitution as much as they like. It cannot be worded any clearer than it already is. Well, here's how it is worded: 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 problem with it is that it comes with a prefatory clause - and it's the only amendment in the Bill of Rights with such a clause.

In addition to the problems with interpreting the role of the prefatory clause, there are concerns about its validity in the present context.

Imagine we had a Bill saying: The price of oil being no more than a few cents per gallon, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well, what happens now?

[B. Elliott]

Well, here's how it is worded: 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 problem with it is that it comes with a prefatory clause - and it's the only amendment in the Bill of Rights with such a clause.

In addition to the problems with interpreting the role of the prefatory clause, there are concerns about its validity in the present context.

Imagine we had a Bill saying: The price of oil being no more than a few cents per gallon, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Well, what happens now?

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?

[Cyrus]

That's where my opinion differs. I have a carry license and believe that more people (pending a background check and completing a gun safety course) should carry. Though I do fully agree with the limitations placed upon the carry permit (which varies per state) such as not being allowed to carry in a place which sells alcohol or while under the influence, on school grounds, in federal buildings, public parks, civic centers, ect.

http://www.townofsmyrna.org/police/Handgunpermits.htm

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I dont think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun thats NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

[B. Elliott]

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I dont think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun thats NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

It's important to remember that gun ownership is the one human right which can ensure that other human rights will not be violated.
http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

[Cyrus]

http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/a/whyownagun_2.htm

I dont follow how that quote differs from what I'm saying though.

[Jordan Joab]

No, no. They were absolutely RIGHT to give people in DC the right to have guns. As a native washingtonian, let me tell you this. If you think people in DC dont have handguns, illegally, then your NUTS. What people do, illegally, with their guns means nothing to me, because they are going to do it anyways. They are breaking the law, plain and SIMPLE. The answer is a combination of what we are both saying here. YES, you can buy a handgun. NO, you cant walk around town with it. In fact, you cant go ANYWHERE with it unless its to a shooting range and back. Thats the way it SHOULD be, in my opinion, and the laws in owning a gun should reflect that.

That's the problem. Not only do I have to worry about criminals with illegal guns but about private citizens with legal handguns. We can give private citizens the right to carry a "taser" or pepper spray for personal protection. Inner cities + handguns simply do not mix.

An individual that buys a handgun is not simply thinking about protecting his/her home. That person wants to protect him/herself everywhere, anywhere he/she goes. What happens when this law-abiding citizen is in a stressful situation? Can you trust this person to make the right decision? I believe Ivan Seeking mentioned he came close using his firearm in a few occasions. What if more people find themselves in those situations and make the wrong decision?

I believe many of these legal handguns carried by law-abiding citizens will make it out onto the streets and end up being used incorrectly. I guarantee you prejudice, fear, anger, etc. will make many people reach the wrong decision when dealing with regular day-to-day situations in big cities (crowded buses/subway, road rage, car crashes, etc).



Jordan.

[Cyrus]

That's the problem. Not only do I have to worry about criminals with illegal guns but about private citizens with legal handguns. We can give private citizens the right to carry a "taser" or pepper spray for personal protection. Inner cities + handguns simply do not mix.

I will dissect what you said. For the bold part, yes. But this is very important. They can buy all the hand guns they want (In the cyrus system). But they cant use them for personal protection. Meaning, it stays in the house for that day the government comes to take away your liberty.

If someone breaks into your house, you gotta use that baseball bat or taser. Sorry, cant use the handgun.

An individual that buys a handgun is not simply thinking about protecting his/her home. That person wants to protect him/herself everywhere, anywhere he/she goes. What happens when this law-abiding citizen is in a stressful situation? Can you trust this person to make the right decision? I believe Ivan Seeking mentioned he came close using his firearm in a few occasions. What if more people find themselves in those situations and make the wrong decision?

They go to jail. Lots of people also get stressed and drink and drive and kill people. Were not going to outlaw alcohol or cars out of fear. Lets not do the same to guns. This is not a rational argument.

[Gokul43201]

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?Even if one accepts that, it's still only a small part of the prefatory clause that you've covered.

[B. Elliott]

Even if one accepts that, it's still only a small part of the prefatory clause that you've covered.

It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

[Jordan Joab]

I will dissect what you said. For the bold part, yes. But this is very important. They can buy all the hand guns they want (In the cyrus system). But they cant use them for personal protection. Meaning, it stays in the house for that day the government comes to take away your liberty

You see? I agree 100% with the Cyrus system. The problem is the Cyrus system is not in effect. The Supreme Court system is. This is exactly where our new:wink: 2nd Amendment just kicked in. Now, individuals can use that handgun for personal protection.

If someone breaks into your house, you gotta use that baseeball bat or taser. Sorry, cant use the handgun.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. I say, if this where to happen, use that shotgun you got under your bed.

They go to jail. Lots of people also get stressed and drink and drive and kill people. Were not going to outlaw alcohol or car out of fear. Lets not do the same to guns. This is not a rational argument.

Alcohol and cars were not made to kill people. Handguns were. This topic is going circles.

I simply want to know, how does granting law-abiding citizens the right to purchase and own handguns make us safer and more secure?



Jordan.

[WarPhalange]

Well, what if I claim to be my own personal milita?

Then you get shot by a SWAT team like in Waco.

[B. Elliott]

Then you get shot by a SWAT team like in Waco.

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita. My lawyer would have field day with that.

[Cyrus]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.

But you have to admit that you quote the constution which gives you the right to have a gun to protect your liberty, yet you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. An ENTIRELY different reason. A robber is not trying to take your liberty, he wants your money.

[Gokul43201]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/


The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do.What's with the non-sequitur?

[B. Elliott]

But you have to admit that you quote the constution which gives you the right to have a gun to protect your liberty, yet you own a gun to protect yourself and your family. An ENTIRELY different reason. A robber is not trying to take your liberty, he wants your money.

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.

“The evidence of the natural rights of expatriation, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical”

- Thomas Jefferson.

[B. Elliott]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm


If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

[Cyrus]

The key is, you never know what the robbers intent is when approaches you with a gun. If approaches with a weapon which can be used to kill, I will not assume anything except that he intends to use it.



- Thomas Jefferson.

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesnt have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but thats besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it cant be with a gun whose purpose of you having it was to protect your liberty from the government.

[B. Elliott]

What's with the non-sequitur?

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.

[B. Elliott]

Sure, I know 100% that a robber is not trying to take away your liberty. He cant, he doesnt have that power. Only the government can do that to you.

Now he could kill you, in which case having liberty is trivial, but thats besides the point.

You have the right to protect yourself, but it cant be with a gun whos purpose of you having was to protect your liberty from the government.

If he is in the position to kill me, he is in the position to take away my life which the Constitution states I have a right to. The US government allows me to own a firearm to protect my life.

[Gokul43201]

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/declare.htm


If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

[B. Elliott]

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.

[Gokul43201]

What do you mean? I'm not familiar with that term.Actually it is worse than a non-sequitur (which is a statement unconnected to the previous statement). If anything, the annotation you quoted weakens, rather than strengthens your argument.

[Gokul43201]

If a cop stops me, chances are I have broken the law.Correct. So, the legislature has the right to curb your pursuit of happiness.

[B. Elliott]

If someone threatens my pursuit of happiness, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

Make sure you say to the cop that busts you for getting high before you blow his head off with your bazooka.

There's no need to distort the wording in an extreme unrealistic manner. I have the utmost respect for police officers (which quite a few of my friends happen to be) and understand they're role which is to serve and protect.

[Gokul43201]

Incidentally, what would you do with an intruder that does not threaten to kill you?

[B. Elliott]

Correct. So, the legislature has the right to curb your pursuit of happiness.

Yes, but the legislature is not trying to take away my life, which I will defend at all costs.

[B. Elliott]

Incidentally, what would you do with an intruder that does not threaten to kill you?

Then I cannot use deadly force.

[Gokul43201]

Yes, but the legislature is not trying to take away my life, which I will defend at all costs.But you quoted the Declaration, which gives you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why do you now get to single out only life from this list, and disregard the other guarantees?

[Jordan Joab]

If someone threatens my life, I have the right to protect it. At all costs.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns find themselves in stressful situations that don't necessarily threaten their lives yet they still erroneously conclude they are about to be killed?

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns are under stress/duress and decide that their handgun is the best option to resolve the matter?

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns start killing each other because they mistakenly believe another law-abiding citizen carrying a legal handgun might be a criminal?

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death? No, I don't think people are out to shoot other people but considering the ridiculous reasons why human beings have killed other human beings I don't think giving individuals access to handguns is a great idea.


Jordan.

[B. Elliott]

But you quoted the Declaration, which gives you the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why do you now get to single out only life from this list, and disregard the other guarantees?

Because one has to use common sense. I'm not going to shoot someone because they made my unhappy, but I will shoot someone if they threaten my life. Happiness is personal idea, thought, opinion. Live is universal.

[Gokul43201]

There's no need to distort the wording in an extreme unrealistic manner.But I didn't. I took your own words and switched out one of the guarantees of the Declaration with another one. It should hold just as much weight as your original argument.

I have the utmost respect for police officers (which quite a few of my friends happen to be) and understand they're role which is to serve and protect.So now your argument for who you will shoot has to do with who you respect, rather than who takes away the rights given to you in the Declaration?

[B. Elliott]

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns find themselves in stressful situations that don't necessarily threaten their lives yet they still erroneously conclude they are about to be killed?

Then it was a bad decision and they risk being put in jail for making a bad decision.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns are under stress/duress and decide that their handgun is the best option to resolve the matter?


Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

What happens when law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns start killing each other because they mistakenly believe another law-abiding citizen carrying a legal handgun might be a criminal?

Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death? No, I don't think people are out to shoot other people but considering the ridiculous reasons why human beings have killed other human beings I don't think giving individuals access to handguns is a great idea.

Jordan.

There is a big difference between being prepared and being 'paranoid'. I have life insurance because I am prepared. I don't have life insurance because I am paranoid.

[B. Elliott]

But I didn't. I took your own words and switched out one of the guarantees of the Declaration with another one. It should hold just as much weight as your original argument.

Exactly. You switch out one of my rights. It is my decision on how to protect my rights.

So now your argument for who you will shoot has to do with who you respect, rather than who takes away the rights given to you in the Declaration?


Yes. I can choose to shoot someone who makes me unhappy if I feel like it. I can choose to shoot someone for looking at m e the wrong way if I choose too. The problem is, that I will then go to jail and then subsequently have my given rights stripped away from me.

[Gokul43201]

Are we so paranoid that we need to start carrying handguns to "protect" ourselves when in reality we are simply increasing our risk of death? There can be no question of starting, since the practice of carrying personal arms for protection has been around for a long time. So you ought to rephrase that question.

[Gokul43201]

Exactly. You switch out one of my rights. It is my decision on how to protect my rights.But when you make a logical argument, it needs to retain internal consistency. That is a pre-requisite for logic. I was pointing out the absurdity of your using the Declaration as the basis for making your case.

Anyway, you're missing the point that the Declaration of Independence doesn't really give you any rights. Your rights come from the Constitution and the Courts. Maybe I just didn't make the point clearly.

[Jordan Joab]

Then it was a bad decision and they risk being put in jail for making a bad decision.



Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.



Then they are arrested and will possibly serve jail time which will be determined by a jury.

And assuming more individuals obtain handguns, don't you think the chances of people making lethal bad decisions increases?


There is a big difference between being prepared and being 'paranoid'. I have life insurance because I am prepared. I don't have life insurance because I am paranoid.

I'm sure carrying a handgun is being prepared. That is, until the handgun owner makes a bad decision. I still don't get how more guns on the street make me safer.


Jordan.

[B. Elliott]

But when you make a logical argument, it needs to retain internal consistency. That is a pre-requisite for logic. I was pointing out the absurdity of your using the Declaration as the basis for making your case.

Anyway, you're missing the point that the Declaration of Independence doesn't really give you any rights. Your rights come from the Constitution and the Courts. Maybe I just didn't make the point clearly.

How is it not really giving me any rights?

[B. Elliott]

And assuming more individuals obtain handguns, don't you think the chances of people making lethal bad decisions increases?

Naturally so. Just as more people start driving, there will be more auto related fatalities. As more airplanes are built, there will be more crashes.


I'm sure carrying a handgun is being prepared. That is, until the handgun owner makes a bad decision. I still don't get how more guns on the street make me safer.

Jordan.

And many car owners make the bad decision to drive while intoxicated and end up killing someone. At that point their license is stripped away from them. When a handgun owner makes a bad decision, he is then putting his own rights at risk.

That is why I am a strong supporter of handgun safety courses. Everyone who intends to carry a handgun needs to attend a course. It teaches both when and how to properly use a firearm. Just as people should take a driving test before they are allowed to operate a vehicle.

[WarPhalange]

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me

Really?

for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita. My lawyer would have field day with that.

Yeah, but you'd be dead.

[B. Elliott]

Really?

My entire response, if you will...

I would like to see a SWAT team shoot me for possessing a firearm because I could be called to form a milita.

So again, a big yes.

Yeah, but you'd be dead.

When you don't separate my response into two sentences, it makes much more sense.

[drankin]

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed. Whether we can carry them on the street or not, at this point, is determined by the state you live in. I currently exercise that right in Washington state and in the state I'm vacationing in right now, Alaska.

People have posted that they don't believe that I am safer for carrying my handgun on the streets. I'm not convinced.

If someone doesn't think they are safer with a handgun in their possession, noone is demanding that they get one! In most states you can legally if you want to, provided you meet the requirements.

There is no evidence that allowing those who have gone through the requirements of their state to be permitted to carry a firearm has caused the community to be LESS safe. NONE. But, as I've posted earlier, there IS evidence that individuals have been able to defend themselves with their guns because they ARE permitted to carry.

If you don't believe that the requirements to carry in public are "safe" enough, then push to increase the requirements. That is certainly fair in our society. But individuals should not be denied the opportunity to satisfy those requirements and be permitted, IMO.

[B. Elliott]

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed. Whether we can carry them on the street or not, at this point, is determined by the state you live in. I currently exercise that right in Washington state and in the state I'm vacationing in right now, Alaska.

People have posted that they don't believe that I am safer for carrying my handgun on the streets. I'm not convinced.

If someone doesn't think they are safer with a handgun in their possession, noone is demanding that they get one! In most states you can legally if you want to, provided you meet the requirements.

There is no evidence that allowing those who have gone through the requirements of their state to be permitted to carry a firearm has caused the community to be LESS safe. NONE. But, as I've posted earlier, there IS evidence that individuals have been able to defend themselves with their guns because they ARE permitted to carry.

If you don't believe that the requirements to carry in public are "safe" enough, then push to increase the requirements. That is certainly fair in our society. But individuals should not be denied the opportunity to satisfy those requirements and be permitted, IMO.

I fully agree. I also wish those who choose not to carry a firearm would quit trying to have the Constitution reconstructed and therefore my gun-carrying right stripped from me. It is a futile attempt. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they can leave the country.

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Supreme Court basically told us that Americans have a right to own a handgun. How exactly does handgun ownership makes an individual and his/her property safer? This is simply the equivalent of a child covering him/herself with a bedsheet to ward off the evil monsters.
....
Please enlightment me, how does gun ownership make a person safer?

There have been examples that I see as appropriate in other threads on the same topic. Among them... Defense of your self, your family, your property, and your community during situations of civil disorder such as the Katrina aftermath and the LA riots where the ability of the government to protect you is significantly hindered. Another... People who live in out of the way places where law enforcement is not near at hand (which I believe Ivan does though I may be mistaken) may require means of defending themselves until the sheriff can arrive. In the case of Mr. Horn, had he the presence of mind, he could have just fired a warning shot letting the bandits know it would be a bad idea to come back and possibly even scaring them enough to drop the property they were attempting to abscond with. Theives, especially petty theives, tend to return repeatedly to any area that seems easy to steal from.

I don't own guns and have never even fired a real gun. I have been reluctant to even get myself an armed permit for the purpose of my job, to make more money. But I see sense in the arguement for use in the situations I have mentioned above. Whether I would avail myself of the 'right' I am unsure.

My opinion is that the 2nd amendment was made to keep a well armed populace in case of government tyranny. That should be the *only* reason we have guns. In fact, I dont think people should even be allowed to use these guns within their own homes as self protection, because again the point of having the guns is not for self protection. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government. ANY use of a gun thats NOT for overthrowing the government should be illegal.

The problem is that, while this may be part of the intention, it does not state this anywhere in the constitution. The militia is actually outlined as a part of national defense in times of invasion, rebellion, and civil unrest. All men of age and in possession of arms may be called to duty for this purpose. I'm sure it would be easy to argue the legality of being "called to duty by necessity" aswell (such as the examples of katrina and the LA riots I mention above). Even the Militia Act of 1903 recognizes both organized and unorganized militia.
The 2nd amendment does not outright state that it is to give the people the ability to defend against their government if necessary but I agree that it was, in part, meant to prevent such a necessity by decentralizing the military power effectively giving the people said ability. A sort of built in safeguard.


And to everyone arguing that those weapons granted citizens are not capable of overthrowing the government you may be right. But what of our ability to defend ourselves from the government if needs be? Without guns the military would more or less be able to walk right in and take control. Citizens with guns make this far more tricky and difficult. The government isn't going to send crack squads in to take out every person holed up somewhere with a gun. Neither are they going to just carpet bomb the cities with such people in them. What would be the point in taking over just to blow apart all of your infrastructure, kill off a bunch of citizens, and burden yourself with a population of vagrant survivors? And maybe they would take out one city to try to make an example but I am fairly certain that while a great number of people (perhaps even myself included) would be cowed by such an act there will be a small yet significant number of people (mostly those with the guns) who will literally be up in arms over such a display.
And maybe they could win, or at least hol off until a regime change. Guerrillas won the Spanish Civil War against a military take over didn't they?

[Gokul43201]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Let me repeat that: "The significance of the militia", was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.''

Since this is no longer true. There is no longer a need for individual gun ownership. And since the SA justifies the right by stating the need, there is no longer a valid justification for a right to bear arms. Given that, your conclusion, that:The government allows me to have a gun, therefore I do....is at the very least, poorly constructed.

How is it not really giving me any rights?The Declaration is not legally binding in any way. If it were, slaves would have been able to sue for rights a long time ago. The Declaration of Independence is merely a symbolic document that mostly went unnoticed from the time of the signing to nearly a century later, when Lincoln said it was something the country ought to strive to follow.

We all have the right to own firearms, including handguns in our home. This was always assumed and now affirmed. Blind assumption is useless.

I fully agree. I also wish those who choose not to carry a firearm would quit trying to have the Constitution reconstructed and therefore my gun-carrying right stripped from me. It is a futile attempt. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they can leave the country.I'm sorry you are unable to see the problems with the construction of the Second Amendment, and choose to think it obviously gives you a right to carry arms. That is just patently false. It is far from obvious and has been debated endlessly by legal and Constitutional experts as well as the courts. Your own link to the caselaw annotation on the Second Amendment starts with the following sentence.
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.
So stop the dishonesty.

Incidentally, the first people that disagreed with the Constitution, were the framers of the Bill of Rights - Madison, Jefferson, Henry, Mason and others. They are the first people you'd have "leave the country".

[B. Elliott]

Let me repeat that: "The significance of the militia", was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.''

Since this is no longer true. There is no longer a need for individual gun ownership. And since the SA justifies the right by stating the need, there is no longer a valid justification for a right to bear arms. Given that, your conclusion, that:...is at the very least, poorly constructed.

This is still 100% true. What do you call the draft?

Whether you believe the Constitution should be changed or not, does not matter one bit. It still applies and I will continue to posses a firearm.

Sorry, Gokul.

[B. Elliott]

As soon as people with the same opinions as you are allowed to change the Constitution, this country will begin to fall apart. Interpret is as you will, I have possessed a firearm nearly my entire life, my father has possessed a firearm his entire life, the same as my grandfather, great-great grandfather, and his father before him.

And that will not change as long as i'm able to protect that right.

[Gokul43201]

This is still 100% true. What do you call the draft?The draft does not produce a militia that serve the state with their own personal firearms. Are you even being serious here? And by the way, it's odd that you bring up the draft, which is possibly the most blatant violation of your right to life and liberty.

Whether you believe the Constitution should be changed or not, does not matter one bit. It still applies and I will continue to posses a firearm.This is not about changing the Constitution. This is about interpreting it correctly. I've shown you, from your own link, that there is no consensus among the Courts on exactly what rights the SA gives you. Your choosing to portray this issue as unequivocal is either completely misguided or simply dishonest.

Sorry, Gokul.You can say that after you've said your sorries to Jefferson and Madison and Henry.

[Gokul43201]

As soon as people with the same opinions as you are allowed to change the Constitution, this country will begin to fall apart. Interpret is as you will, I have possessed a firearm nearly my entire life, my father has possessed a firearm his entire life, the same as my grandfather, great-great grandfather, and his father before him.When you decide to abandon rationality for mindless slogan pounding, there is no longer a meaningful debate to be had.

[B. Elliott]

When you decide to abandon rationality for mindless slogan pounding, there is no longer a meaningful debate to be had.

I'm not abandoning any rationality. It is not illegal for me to possess a firearm, so I do.

How is that hard to comprehend?

[B. Elliott]

Actually, I haven't fired my .38 in quite some time. Or my 30-30. I think i'll go in the back yard and shoot off a few rounds for fun.

I love the fact that I can do that.

[phyzmatix]

Has a conclusion been reached as to whether or not more people arming themselves make the streets a safer place? Or whether arming oneself serves any purpose at all when it comes to increasing personal safety or decreasing the risk of personal injury during an attack by a criminal(s)?

I fail to see how this debate on the legality of owning/carrying firearms is at all relevant to whether or not carrying a firearm is to your advantage in a potentially dangerous, criminal situation.

Just because it's your right (?) to do so, doesn't mean you'll necessarily be any safer in your house or on the streets because of it, except possibly in a case of civil war or unrest where you can see the **** coming a mile away...

[Cyrus]

I fully agree. I also wish those who choose not to carry a firearm would quit trying to have the Constitution reconstructed and therefore my gun-carrying right stripped from me. It is a futile attempt. If they do not agree with the Constitution, they can leave the country.

I dont see this as any reconstruction of the constitution. Its actually sticking to what the constitution says. I see gun users as over-abusing the purpose of the 2nd amendment to carry guns around town for personal protection. No where does the constitution say you can bear arms for personal protection.

[sketchtrack]

Sometimes the criminals intend to kill their victims. A guy that lived in my town was killed a year ago in his home. The robbers kicked his door in , proceeded to beat his wife nearly to death with baseball bats, and then shot the guy several times, took all his money and left. They also never were caught. If he had a gun, maybe he would be alive today, and maybe his wife wouldn't be crippled for life.

Other incidents happen like that close to home sometimes as well, usually it involves criminals high on meth or something.

If guns are made illegal, then criminals will still get them, and they wont be registered, so there will be no tracing them. If they are legal, then those who get them legally will be registered and if they use them they will be traceable.

A person I knew was killed a year ago being stabbed to death. It started out because two illegal aliens at the age of 16 asked someone to buy them alcahol. They refused to, and so the kids stabbed him and ran. Another person chased after the kids, and the kids stopped and turned and stabbed him in the heart killing him. i'd like to see someone try to stab me when I have a gun on me.

[Evo]

Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 2.97
England & Wales - 0.12

% homicides with firearms

US - 39%
England & Wales - 8%

[sketchtrack]

I think it is fair to say that those statistics don't have any significant meaning since the murder rate is so much lower there for non firearm murders than here also. That just goes to show that it is a different place with different criminal activity. I wonder if they have the mexican mafia there?

Maybe they don't have the gang problem we have here. In my opinion, the fact that there are more criminals killing people with guns here is all the more reason that non criminals should have the right to own one to so that they can protect themselves.

[Hurkyl]

It's obvious
What precisely is obvious?


You cannot dispute the facts.
Tangential gripe: facts don't 'speak for themselves'. Facts, by themselves, don't prove anything -- you need a (valid) argument based on those facts to prove something! The validity of said argument is, of course, a candidate for dispute. (As well as the veracity of an assertion claimed as fact)

[Evo]

What precisely is obvious?The lower murder rate in England for one.

I'm trying to get overall crime statistics also.

[Evo]

Here's a good example, immediately after the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act went into effect violent crime drops 58%. It's something to think about. Fewer guns, less violent crime?

1994
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. (ATF's Brady Law web site.)

From 1993 to 2005 (last year in the study) the violent crime rate was down 58% from 50 to 21 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:YofmY_ffKVEJ:www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv05.pdf+National+Crime+Victimization+Survey&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

One of my best friends was murdered with a gun, bullet through the head, he had a gun. I witnessed a drive by shooting (murder), wouldn't have mattered how many guns the guy was carrying, he was shot in the back.

Another dear friend was a bounty hunter for several years, talk about guns, he quit after his wife got pregnant and became a well to do Corporate Headhunter. Loves his guns though.

My gripe is that a large majority of people IMO are not too bright and have no business owning a gun. I don't have problems with people that know what they're doing, I'd count those in the minority. I am an excellent shot and enjoy shooting at the firing range. I just don't feel safe with the average person carrying hand guns, mkay?

Sorry, I made the mistake of Downloading v9.0 of Acrobat reader and it is really hosed up or I would have better files to link to.

[Jordan Joab]

I think it is fair to say that those statistics don't have any significant meaning since the murder rate is so much lower there for non firearm murders than here also. That just goes to show that it is a different place with different criminal activity. I wonder if they have the mexican mafia there?

Maybe they don't have the gang problem we have here. In my opinion, the fact that there are more criminals killing people with guns here is all the more reason that non criminals should have the right to own one to so that they can protect themselves.

Don't you think that if the number of individuals with legal handguns increases it will also increase the number of criminals carrying illegal handguns? After all, if criminals realize more non-criminals are armed they'll simply become more violent or focus even more on weak non-criminals like the elderly, children, and teenagers.

It is absurd to think that just because more citizens carry handguns crime will be deterred or reduced. If anything, these criminals will be more willing to kill you first and take your possessions after.

And let's not forget how more individuals with legal handguns on the streets increases the chances of more "accidental" deaths due to prejudice, fear, stress, anger, paranoia, etc.



Jordan.

[Gokul43201]

Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57
I posted the link to this data in my first post in the thread, but I don't imagine many people followed all the links, so let me just paste the relevant data here:
Year Homicide per Mil pop
1967 7.3
1968 7.4
1969 6.8
1970 7.0
1971 8.3
1972 8.3
1973 8.0
1974 10.7
1975 9.0
1976 9.9
1977 8.5
1978 9.6
1979 11.1
1980 11.1
1981 10.1
1982 11.2
1983 9.7
1984 10.8
1985 10.7
1986 11.2
1987 11.9
1988 10.9
1989 10.3
1990 10.9
1991 12.2
1992 11.4
1993 11.0
1994 12.3
1995 12.8
1996 11.2
1997 11.7
1998 12.5
1999 13.2
2000 15.5

For more recent years, see: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

For reference, UK's gun control laws were enacted between 1988 and 1997. Also note that the UK introduced the National Crime Recording Standard in Apr 2002.

And to show that a comparison of national crime rates across countries at a single point in time can be anything from misleading to unilluminating, consider this excerpt from the UN data (also linked in my first post):An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%).

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/key2000i/

The lack of any change in homicide rates following gun control legislation is even more apparent in Australia, where the gun buy back program was implemented in 1997.

See: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi359t.html

[sketchtrack]

Don't you think that if the number of individuals with legal handguns increases it will also increase the number of criminals carrying illegal handguns? After all, if criminals realize more non-criminals are armed they'll simply become more violent or focus even more on weak non-criminals like the elderly, children, and teenagers.

It is absurd to think that just because more citizens carry handguns crime will be deterred or reduced. If anything, these criminals will be more willing to kill you first and take your possessions after.

And let's not forget how more individuals with legal handguns on the streets increases the chances of more "accidental" deaths due to prejudice, fear, stress, anger, paranoia, etc.



Jordan.

A criminal cannot get a firearm legally, so absolutely no. You can't get firearm unless you pass the background check, and if you have any even minor thing on it, then you can't get one.

I also seriously doubt that the average thug or meth addict is staying up to date on percentages of people with legal handguns.

Also I wouldn't want to be in the position of hoping that the guy kicking in my door or sneaking up behind me in a alley isn't planning on killing me. I would rather that my life is in my hands rather than at the mercy of a random criminal.

[sketchtrack]

Unfortunately the UN site has a zip file for the data, so I'm using wikipedia which has the data posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

It's obvious when you compare the US which has no gun control and the England, which bans guns, you can see how much lower the murder rate is.

You cannot dispute the facts.

Overall homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 7.52
England & Wales - 1.57

Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop

US - 2.97
England & Wales - 0.12

% homicides with firearms

US - 39%
England & Wales - 8%

How about comparing Oakland California to Los Gatos California, I bet there will be big differences in statistics, but it has little or nothing to do with laws.

In Los Gatos, I feel safe and would never think to have a need for personal protection, but if I was walking around in Oakland, I would feel a lot safer with one.

[Evo]

Your study doesn't adjust for the differences in what is reported and what is considered an assualt or violent crime, making it rather meaningless.

Overall crime statistic comparisons are difficult to conduct, as the definition of crimes significant enough to be published in annual reports varies across countries. Thus an agency in a foreign country may include crimes in its annual reports which the United States omits. Some countries such as Canada, however, have similar definitions of what constitutes a violent crime, and nearly all countries had the same definition of the characteristics that constitutes a homicide. Overall the total crime rate of the United States is similar to that of other highly developed countries. Reported property crime in the US is actually lower than in Germany or Canada, yet the homicide rate in the United States is substantially higher. There were 17,034 murders in the United States in 2006[29] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[30] Interestingly enough, the overall violent crime rate in the United States was roughly half that of Canada, despite its homicide rate being 189.5% higher; note from the references, however, that the US violent crime rate includes only Aggravated Assault, whereas the Canadian violent crime rate includes all categories of assault, including the much-more-numerous Simple Assault (i.e., assault not using a weapon and not resulting in serious bodily harm).[6][31] According to a recent study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, where crime figures were adjusted for international comparison, the United States had a lower overall burglary rate than Scotland, England, Canada, the Netherlands, and Australia. The other two countries included in the study, Sweden and Switzerland, had only slightly lower burglary rates.[28]

“ "Due to the difficulties of comparing national crime trends between countries some of the data included in this report may be adjusted or estimated. This is because of differences in measuring crimes and definitions of crime type. The report does however state clearly which pieces of data have been adjusted and why."-David P. Farrington, Patrick A. Langan, Michael Tonry (Bureau of Justice Statistics), 2004[28] ”

Despite the overall crime rate of the United States being seemingly in line with that of other industrialized countries, its homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. Comparing just homicide rates by themselves, however, may not be representative of the overall crime rate of a country. Only the homicide rate of Northern Ireland in the early 1990s compares to that of the United States today. In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, compared to 1.9 in Canada and 1.0 in Germany.[31] This means that the homicide rate in the United States was nearly three times as high as in Canada and slightly more than five times as high as in Germany.[6][32] Most industrialized countries had homicide rates below the 2.5 mark. Overall the homicide rate in the United States was similar to that of some lesser developed Eastern European countries.[33][34][35]

Country Ireland[36] Norway[36] Germany[31] United Kingdom[36] France[36] Canada[6] United States[7] Russia[36] Venezuela[36] Jamaica[36] South Africa[36] Colombia[36]
Homicide rate 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.9 5.5 20.15 31.61 32.41 49.60 61.78
Year 2000 2000 2004 2000 2004 2004 2004 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000

Where there is a marked disparity between the incidence of crime in the US and all other comparable developed countries is in the per capita rate of murder committed with firearms. The most recent data show that the proportion of Americans killed by firearms is more than three and a half times greater than the next country of comparable development (Portugal.)[37] The proportion of Americans killed by firearms per year is more than seven and a half times greater than the comparable proportion of residents in the 10 developed countries with the next highest rates of firearm homicides.[38]

SOURCES: US Bureau of Justice Statistics (2004),[7] Bundeskriminalamt, BKA (2004),[31] Canada Statistics (2004),[6] Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2000)[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[sketchtrack]

[
One of my best friends was murdered with a gun, bullet through the head, he had a gun. I witnessed a drive by shooting (murder), wouldn't have mattered how many guns the guy was carrying, he was shot in the back.

Another dear friend was a bounty hunter for several years, talk about guns, he quit after his wife got pregnant and became a well to do Corporate Headhunter. Loves his guns though.



Sure there are instances where it wouldn't have mattered if you had a weapon or not, but there are also instances where having one can save your life. So at very least you can say without doubt that there is more potential for safety carrying a firearm than not.

[Jordan Joab]

A criminal cannot get a firearm legally, so absolutely no. You can't get firearm unless you pass the background check, and if you have any even minor thing on it, then you can't get one.

I also seriously doubt that the average thug or meth addict is staying up to date on percentages of people with legal handguns.

Also I wouldn't want to be in the position of hoping that the guy kicking in my door or sneaking up behind me in a alley isn't planning on killing me. I would rather that my life is in my hands rather than at the mercy of a random criminal.

Criminals obtain guns illegally. Criminals do update themselves by word of mouth and perception; if they notice more victims are armed and fighting back I'm sure these criminals become more violent. This is not the point of the thread.

Does an increase of legal handguns makes us more likely to fall victim to handgun-related violence and/or accidents?

Are we as a society comfortable with the idea of a bigger number of legal handguns in our cities? I'm not.

How about comparing Oakland California to Los Gatos California, I bet there will be big differences in statistics, but it has little or nothing to do with laws.

In Los Gatos, I feel safe and would never think to have a need for personal protection, but if I was walking around in Oakland, I would feel a lot safer with one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland%2C_California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Gatos,_California

Has little to do with laws and more to do with poverty, arguably the root of the majority of crimes in the U.S.



Jordan.

[Evo]

Sure there are instances where it wouldn't have mattered if you had a weapon or not, but there are also instances where having one can save your life. So at very least you can say without doubt that there is more potential for safety carrying a firearm than not.Buit it can also be argued that the more average citizens have guns, the more criminals feel the need to carry guns, making the potential for an act of random violence higher.

[WarPhalange]

That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?

But what data you can look at is how many people get shot in a spur of the moment action, i.e. someone got really mad and shot the other person, either in a bar or road rage incident, etc.

[Gokul43201]

Your study doesn't adjust for the differences in what is reported and what is considered an assualt or violent crime, making it rather meaningless.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_StatesWho is this addressed to, which study are you talking about? And please elaborate on your objection - it isn't particularly clear to me.

[Gokul43201]

That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?Actually, it could be a very sensible reason. Some people would prefer to lose their wallet once a month to the alternative of saving their wallet but risking a shoot-out once a year.

[sketchtrack]

That's a bit of a silly reason. Not carrying a gun so that getting mugged is a smoother operation?

But what data you can look at is how many people get shot in a spur of the moment action, i.e. someone got really mad and shot the other person, either in a bar or road rage incident, etc.

I know, if everyone thought that way, you could just go around asking people to give them your money or there will be trouble. Criminals would be living the good life and business would be good. They would have never had it easier. People would be moving here from all over the world just to get some of the action while getting would be good. LOL Ok maybe not that extreme. But then say criminals were getting shot down half the time they tried to mug someone, criminals would be laying low. If they start being more violent, that means more risk, and harder to do business.

There are always going to be those kids going crazy and killing a bunch of people and themselves. There are those guys that kill there cheating wives, and there are those guys who have a mental breakdown and go nuts.

Still, those guys are people who you need to protect yourselves from as well. I find it hard to imagine that it is having a gun that triggers that persons attitude, but it does serve him a good tool of destruction. Still who is to say that the kid wouldn't just stab someone, what is to say the guy wouldn't just poison his wife, and what is to say the crazy dude wouldn't just set a house on fire.

There is though like you say spur of the moment things where if a person hadn't been armed they would have attacked the other person some other way maybe not resulting in a death. Those statistics would be worth looking at like you said, but it would still have to be a huge result to warrant changing the constitution.

[Cyrus]

Sometimes the criminals intend to kill their victims. A g