News How can teaching gun safety in schools help prevent gun violence?

[sketchtrack]

The south still has lots of power through politics. I've heard Marines say that if Obama gets elected then there's going to be an overthrow. I know that is all probably B.S., but the possibility is there.

Also there is the instances in which the government doesn't provide good enough protection to depend on. There are areas in Chicago that police don't even go to for any reason because there are snipers in the skyscrapers.

 

[humanino]

[off topic]
I'd like to point here something else that bothers me.

Discussion is not about proving somebody else wrong, but about exchanging ideas. When you say "it's not about the brits so your point is not valid", this is simply mean and not even useful. Even in mathematics, some points in a demonstration can be fixed you know. It is not enough to see that one single sentence in a book contains a typo to reject the whole book. Unless, of course, if you bought the book the find a typo, and not to actually read it.
[/off topic]

 

[Cyrus]

I was trying some humour. The claim is my previous post, that the army has reached so much power that whatever weapons you have, you cannot defend against. That is simply impossible. This level of technology individuals can not afford.

Mmmm, I don't agree with that. Look at Iraq and you will see how they can do heavy damage with meager weapons. Sucka, fool!

This is also why I'd like to see Americans having assault rifles with grenade launchers (military grade), etc.

 

[humanino]

There are areas in Chicago that police don't even go to for any reason because there are snipers in the skyscrapers.

Very interesting. You see, I used to live 200m from a large complex of buildings where the french police has not gone for decades. I have seen more than once somebody die of a shotgun there, and I mean with my very eyes. My feelings from that is you did not read :

In all seriousness I'd like to suggest to you that carrying a gun in an area where there are likely armed gangbangers is probably far more dangerous than going with out. If per chance you are ever making such a decision please leave it at home. It's a lot easier and safer to just be aware of where you are, what you are doing, and who is around you.

 

[sketchtrack]

I read it, and it seams counter intuitive to me. I 'm wondering, are the criminals that seek to harm me will have x ray vision and see the concealed weapon, or will they kidnap me, and frisk me and kill me if I have a gun? Your opinion is only valid if the person in the case is very brave and stupid.

 

[Cyrus]

[off topic]
I'd like to point here something else that bothers me.

Discussion is not about proving somebody else wrong, but about exchanging ideas. When you say "it's not about the brits so your point is not valid", this is simply mean and not even useful. Even in mathematics, some points in a demonstration can be fixed you know. It is not enough to see that one single sentence in a book contains a typo to reject the whole book. Unless, of course, if you bought the book the find a typo, and not to actually read it.
[/off topic]

What you said was fundmentally wrong, thus it was not valid. What do you want me to say that won't offend you? ...come on humanino. Grow thicker skin.

 

[Cyrus]

The south still has lots of power through politics. I've heard Marines say that if Obama gets elected then there's going to be an overthrow. I know that is all probably B.S., but the possibility is there.

Also there is the instances in which the government doesn't provide good enough protection to depend on. There are areas in Chicago that police don't even go to for any reason because there are snipers in the skyscrapers.

Do you have a source for this. I'd like to know more. Snipers in skyscrapers? What the hell is the mayor doing if that's true.

 

[humanino]

Let me give you another example, just so you think about it really.

One of my close friend was a refugee from Rwanda. He knows about wild violence. He survived only because he was left dead on the ground, hiding under the body of his very father in his house. He was very interested in politics, and dreams to become president of his native country. It so happens that this person, despite being very aware of what violence can lead to and how important it may be able to protect the ones you love, was in favor of banning guns. But I guess, despite his remarkable academic accomplishments , he is just a fool.

 

[Cyrus]

Let me give you another example, just so you think about it really.

One of my close friend was a refugee from Rwanda. He knows about wild violence. He survived only because he was left dead on the ground, hiding under the body of his very father in his house. He was very interested in politics, and dreams to become president of his native country. It so happens that this person, despite being very aware of what violence can lead to and how important it may be able to protect the ones you love, was in favor of banning guns. But I guess, despite his remarkable academic accomplishments , he is just a fool.

WHAT!? Whats this got to do with anything?.....

Im glad he feels that way...what's the point of this? If you want me to take you serious, then I hope you have something serious and coherent to say.

This is wayyyyyyyyyyyy out in left field man.

 

[Jordan Joab]

This thread keeps veering off-topic.

Here's the topic:

Do more law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns make us more secure or less secure?

A) Advantages of more citizens carrying legal handguns.
B) Disadvantages of more individuals owning legal handguns.
C) Tasers/pepper spray are a better answer to personal protection concerns. Yes? No?

Please stay on this. Thank you.



Jordan.

 

[humanino]

WHAT!? Whats this got to do with anything?.....

Im glad he feels that way...what's the point of this? If you want me to take you serious, then I hope you have something serious and coherent to say.

This is wayyyyyyyyyyyy out in left field man.

I don't think this is out in left field. I am not sure I should continue, because if you feel my point is unrelated, it will get us nowhere. You are telling me that people need weapons to defend themselves in case of political instabilities. We disagree on that. There does not seem to be any way to convince people one way or another because of the intensity people feel about those questions. But did they really study or consider them seriously ? Are you interested in people's experience, instead of talking about speculative situations and their putative solutions ? So I raise two specific examples, because general arguments do not seem to reach anywhere.

I am taking this example in Europe of violent groups claiming for independence, indicating that other countries actually have problems you are speculating, and do not resort to the extreme solution advocated, namely have everybody armed, although for them, the problem is not speculative. It seems interesting to me, the depth of the cultural gap we have here. In addition, I thought informative to mention this person who has seriously dedicated his entire life to politics because of violence in his childhood he was victim of. I wish I could get in contact with him right now, because I know he would be fond of explaining his position, and he would do it much better than me, I can tell you he is tailor made for politics If there is any situation you can name which would be better suited scenario to back up the claim that we need to be armed to defend ourselves, I'd like to hear it. This wildness reaches unimaginable levels. So how come, how is it possible that somebody who went through this could advocate gun (and weapons in general) ban ? And entire regions of Europe do the same, although they suffered from those local groups for decades.

All right, I just saw Jordan's post. Fine, I do not expect that my points make sense to you. Probably cultural gap, although I hate to come to those conclusions. It may not be a surprise actually, that this second amendment is so deeply rooted in american culture that it simply does not make sense to raise anything contradictory to it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I read it, and it seams counter intuitive to me. I 'm wondering, are the criminals that seek to harm me will have x ray vision and see the concealed weapon, or will they kidnap me, and frisk me and kill me if I have a gun? Your opinion is only valid if the person in the case is very brave and stupid.

I mean it only as a sincere suggestion on safety from one member of this community to another. I'm fairly certain from what I read in the papers and from the people I've talked to that carrying a gun, if they happen to notice (something I am sure they know how to look for), may serve to make you a target. These are people who get in scraps, knife fights, and shoot outs with other gang members, on purpose, knowing full well that one or more of them may be armed.
Again... Just a sincere suggestion. I don't mean to argue your personal choices with you.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think this is out in left field. I am not sure I should continue, because if you feel my point is unrelated, it will get us nowhere. You are telling me that people need weapons to defend themselves in case of political instabilities. We disagree on that. There does not seem to be any way to convince people one way or another because of the intensity people feel about those questions. But did they really study or consider them seriously ? Are you interested in people's experience, instead of talking about speculative situations and their putative solutions ? So I raise two specific examples, because general arguments do not seem to reach anywhere.

Whoa there...your example about a guy in RWANDA is apples and oranges. Do the people of Rwanda have a 2nd amendment for the same reason as the United States?

I am taking this example in Europe of violent groups claiming for independence, indicating that other countries actually have problems you are speculating, and do not resort to the extreme solution advocated, namely have everybody armed, although for them, the problem is not speculative. It seems interesting to me, the depth of the cultural gap we have here. In addition, I thought informative to mention this person who has seriously dedicated his entire life to politics because of violence in his childhood he was victim of. I wish I could get in contact with him right now, because I know he would be fond of explaining his position, and he would do it much better than me, I can tell you he is tailor made for politics If there is any situation you can name which would be better suited scenario to back up the claim that we need to be armed to defend ourselves, I'd like to hear it. This wildness reaches unimaginable levels. So how come, how is it possible that somebody who went through this could advocate gun (and weapons in general) ban ? And entire regions of Europe do the same, although they suffered from those local groups for decades.

I honestly don't think you appreciate what would happen in the USA if the government tried to do anything like your stories to its citizens. The people here would literally get their guns and start shooting at government people. I really don't care if this friend of yours likes guns or not, it means nothing to me nor to the situation. Also, people in the USA have had guns for hundreds of years and they don't run around killing each other in RWANDA. I mean, come on. This analogy is pitiful.

Do you see the swiss running around killing each other?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This thread keeps veering off-topic.

Here's the topic:

Do more law-abiding citizens carrying legal handguns make us more secure or less secure?

A) Advantages of more citizens carrying legal handguns.
B) Disadvantages of more individuals owning legal handguns.
C) Tasers/pepper spray are a better answer to personal protection concerns. Yes? No?

Please stay on this. Thank you.



Jordan.

Did you read my earlier post describing situations that I see as sensible use of arms for protection?

Are you only focusing on people carrying handguns in public? I don't think that's a significant worry personally. Most places you can't unless you have a special permit which are often hard to obtain. Perhaps you live in an area where they aren't so hard to get though?
Aswell it has been my experience that most people don't want guns for carrying in public. I've met many people who own them and only a handful that carry, and they're usually cops or ex cops. My old supervisor was ex Compton PD and kept his gun in a locked case in his car. A friend's father was a vietnam vet and always kept his guns at home except when he had to get to work during the LA riots. In that case he loaded his handgun and placed it in pain sight on the passenger seat of his car, mostly to act as a deterant. The police stopped him at a check point and noted the gun. He told them it was loaded, who he was, where he was going, and they nodded him through.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Did you read my earlier post describing situations that I see as sensible use of arms for protection?

Are you only focusing on people carrying handguns in public? I don't think that's a significant worry personally. Most places you can't unless you have a special permit which are often hard to obtain. Perhaps you live in an area where they aren't so hard to get though?
Aswell it has been my experience that most people don't want guns for carrying in public. I've met many people who own them and only a handful that carry, and they're usually cops or ex cops. My old supervisor was ex Compton PD and kept his gun in a locked case in his car. A friend's father was a vietnam vet and always kept his guns at home except when he had to get to work during the LA riots. In that case he loaded his handgun and placed it in pain sight on the passenger seat of his car, mostly to act as a deterant. The police stopped him at a check point and noted the gun. He told them it was loaded, who he was, where he was going, and they nodded him through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#New_York

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYCCL.pdf

OMG! I thought NYC had a handgun ban! Turns out is a ban on a specific kind of handgun:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html

Man, I wonder how many people I've sat next to on the subway were packing heat. Well, maybe I can relax a bit since I haven't witnessed any gun related violence yet (but plenty of non-gun related violence). Dear Lord, the New York Post would make you believe people were getting shot at every day.

Time to get myself a taser?



Jordan.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#New_York

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYCCL.pdf

OMG! I thought NYC had a handgun ban! Turns out is a ban on a specific kind of handgun:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html

Man, I wonder how many people I've sat next to on the subway were packing heat. Well, maybe I can relax a bit since I haven't witnessed any gun related violence yet (but plenty of non-gun related violence). Dear Lord, the New York Post would make you believe people were getting shot at every day.

I looked through the laws in your NRA link. It seems that it is difficult to get a conceal and carry permit. At least it reads that way but in practice it may not be so hard. So at least you can be assured that people carrying are unlikely doing so legally. Probably not much assurance for you.

Time to get myself a taser?

I forgot to mention tasers and such. I certainly would agree that non-lethal weapons are quite preferable to carrying guns. I think that eventually they will produce much better non-lethal devices for protection but in the mean time those that you and I have access to are not terribly effective. They certainly are better than nothing and work to some degree. Pepper spray and mace are tricky and could wind up hindering you if you're not careful about how you use it. It requires a level of attention to your environment (direction of wind and such) that your average person does not have and will have a hard time considering in the middle of a confrontation. Long range tasers won't always get to skin and be really effective. Same with stunguns which also require close quarters for use which is not always daunting to a criminal. Aswell all of these may be ineffective against persons who are on drugs such as meth or pcp.

There is also the same issue with non-lethal weapons as with lethal, that they can be turned against you or be used by the criminals themselves(and especially in the hands of an assailant they go from non-lethal to potentially crippling or deadly).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/nov/30/ukcrime.ukguns
And that's in the UK where they have fewer violent crimes.

 

[Cyrus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#New_York

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/NYCCL.pdf

OMG! I thought NYC had a handgun ban! Turns out is a ban on a specific kind of handgun:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/21/2008-03-21_gun_paint_company_taunts_mayor_bloomberg.html

Man, I wonder how many people I've sat next to on the subway were packing heat. Well, maybe I can relax a bit since I haven't witnessed any gun related violence yet (but plenty of non-gun related violence). Dear Lord, the New York Post would make you believe people were getting shot at every day.

Time to get myself a taser?



Jordan.

Whats up with your constant sensationalism? You don't live in downtown Baghdad Iraq...

If your really this paranoid, you might want to talk to a psychiatrist.

 

[devil-fire]

I honestly don't think you appreciate what would happen in the USA if the government tried to do anything like your stories to its citizens. The people here would literally get their guns and start shooting at government people. I really don't care if this friend of yours likes guns or not, it means nothing to me nor to the situation. Also, people in the USA have had guns for hundreds of years and they don't run around killing each other in RWANDA. I mean, come on. This analogy is pitiful.

It sounds quite silly to refer to what would happen if the military tried to preform some kind of revolutionary coup. I don't think American soldiers would shoot on American civilians and I don't think American civilians would start an insurgency against the government. Unlike Afghanistan that has had anti-government militias for decades, and unlike Iraq that has had huge divides along ethic lines and a battle hardened disbanded military, the USA has soldiers and hobby militias.

First off, despite the KKK saying they are going to start an armed resistance if a black becomes president, the social structure in the USA is vary stable compared to anywhere in the world with outlaw anti-government militias running around (the KKK might say they are an anti-government militia, but they still have permits for most of their guns). Secondly, if the military in the USA were to try to pull off a coup for whatever reason in the foreseeable future, the anti-government forces of consequence would be defectors, not duck hunters or yuppies with hand guns.

 

[sketchtrack]

I think a cultural gap may be one reason for differences in opinion. If you live in NYC, then you've got thousands of strangers around you all the time, and you don't know, or trust anyone. The mentality in big cities can be kind of dog eat dog as well.

I live in a semi rural area, and there is no subway or anything.

You probably feel it is like every man for himself, and everyone is against you, so if people are aloud guns then there will be more of them with guns, and you will feel further threatened by all of these unknown people who may be packing.

I honestly actually don't even have a permit to carry a gun, and I never have carried a gun in public, I am only worried more about getting robbed in my home because it happens around here kind of a lot.

The point is that I don't think that there is a strong enough fact based argument that we should have a gun ban. If someone who knows what they are doing needs to have personal protection or to protect loved ones, the I think they should not be denied that right, especially because they have already showed that they are such model citizens with such a clean record. Maybe people should have also mental evaluation periodically if they are to have concealed weapons permits.

If you are to argue that guns all together should be confiscated, then I think that goes way to far.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you are to argue that guns all together should be confiscated, then I think that goes way to far.

So does the Supreme Court. Legally, this matter is settled: We have a Constitutional right to own guns.

 

[Gokul43201]

We have a Constitutional right to own guns.

I don't know if that's exactly correct. What the Court said is that we have a right to own arms so long we are not felons and we can demonstrate that we are mentally sound at the time that we are purchasing the arms. The Constitution did not provide for any exceptions (on grounds of felony conviction, mental illness or anything else).

As for the matter being settled, that depends on what the "matter" is. For instance, there is nothing in the SC ruling that prevents DC from regulating exactly when and where you may take your handgun.

Furthermore, I don't understand how it is Constitutional for some states (or even the whole country) to ban assault weapons if the Second Amendment is is to be interpreted as the SC just did. Assault weapons are also arms (and they're actually more useful if you want to form a "well regulated militia" or protect yourself from a gang of thugs).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't know if that's exactly correct. What the Court said is that we have a right to own arms so long we are not felons and we can demonstrate that we are mentally sound at the time that we are purchasing the arms. The Constitution did not provide for any exceptions (on grounds of felony conviction, mental illness or anything else).

I agree. There are limits just as with any right. This will be the point of contention for decades to come - clearly defining those limits. But the interpretation of the Second Ammendment was made clear in that it does apply to individuals.

We have the right to free speach, but we still can't yell fire in a crowded theater [well, unless there IS a fire ].

 

[sketchtrack]

That is the same as all our rights. When you are a felon, then as punishment some of your rights are stripped.

 

[B. Elliott]

Furthermore, I don't understand how it is Constitutional for some states (or even the whole country) to ban assault weapons if the Second Amendment is is to be interpreted as the SC just did. Assault weapons are also arms (and they're actually more useful if you want to form a "well regulated militia" or protect yourself from a gang of thugs).

I believe (I never really looked into it) based upon my experience with firearms, that it comes down to the ability of one to properly maintain control of the firearm, where a typical single-shot or semi-automatic is easier to control where you place the shot. Someone who has a fully automatic weapon, if encountering a stressful situation, may be more prone to shoot off-the-mark shots and run a greater risk of collateral damage.

Again, I'm not 100% sure, but with my experience that's a good reason. I personally have no use for a fully automatic weapon.

 

[B. Elliott]

Also, just add since I didn't cover this in the previous post, almost all semi-automatics (those classified as assault weapons) can be easily converted to fully automatic. That's primarily why you can have a semi-auto pistol, but not a semi-auto AK-47... which can be converted to fully auto.

 

[B. Elliott]

And AGAIN add... that regulations do vary from state to state.

 

[Gokul43201]

I agree. There are limits just as with any right. This will be the point of contention for decades to come - clearly defining those limits.

Yes, but those limits, which are not provided by the Constitution, and clearly violate it, are chosen on the basis of promoting the common good and other more arbitrary ideas like present day social norms that have been promoted by other courts. And the DC handgun ban is also a limitation based on an argument of promoting the common good. And strictly speaking, it doesn't violate the exact words of the Constitution, since you could still buy a sword or nanchak or a taser in DC. Basically, it appears that a wee bit more than half the court felt the DC law would be too much of a limitation - not something they felt comfortable with - while a wee bit less than half didn't think so.

That is the same as all our rights. When you are a felon, then as punishment some of your rights are stripped.

That is usually up to the states. For example, some states refuse felons the right to vote, others believe voting is too fundamental a right to strip from anyone, felon or not. Apparently, no state believes gun ownership is sufficiently fundamental to deny it to felons. Also, when states deny gun ownership to the mentally handicapped the argument is that it is too dangerous to allow it, despite the fact that mentally handicapped people are now denied their Constitutional right to bear arms. It's okay to ignore the Constitution here and there, so long as you are promoting the common good.

Furthermore, I don't understand how it is Constitutional for some states (or even the whole country) to ban assault weapons if the Second Amendment is is to be interpreted as the SC just did. Assault weapons are also arms (and they're actually more useful if you want to form a "well regulated militia" or protect yourself from a gang of thugs).

Okay, I found the answer to my question in Scalia's majority opinion.

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The [DC] handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

So it comes down to what's in vogue. It's okay to deny me my Constitutional rights only if my tastes are completely out of fashion.

I wonder what the court would have ruled if it weren't composed of 7 Republican appointees.

 

[Evo]

Who is this addressed to, which study are you talking about? And please elaborate on your objection - it isn't particularly clear to me.

Sorry, that was in response to sketchtrack's Netherlands study.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, but those limits, which are not provided by the Constitution, and clearly violate it, are chosen on the basis of promoting the common good and other more arbitrary ideas like present day social norms that have been promoted by other courts. And the DC handgun ban is also a limitation based on an argument of promoting the common good. And strictly speaking, it doesn't violate the exact words of the Constitution, since you could still buy a sword or nanchak or a taser in DC. Basically, it appears that a wee bit more than half the court felt the DC law would be too much of a limitation - not something they felt comfortable with - while a wee bit less than half didn't think so.

As I understand it, it was still a ruling on the individual right of ownership, which has never been ruled on before. That is why it is a landmark case. Until now, it could be argued that this right did not apply to individuals.

As for the headcount, a ruling is a ruling, and Starry Decisis still applies. Nothing is written in stone, and other challenges may come, but the reason this ruling was considered to be so important is that it will likely set precident for decades to come. And we won't see it overturned any time soon. It is now the law of the land.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

it doesn't violate the exact words of the Constitution, since you could still buy a sword or nanchak or a taser in DC.

You are saying that as long as we can own any arms, the Constitutional requirement is met?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is usually up to the states. For example, some states refuse felons the right to vote, others believe voting is too fundamental a right to strip from anyone, felon or not. Apparently, no state believes gun ownership is sufficiently fundamental to deny it to felons. Also, when states deny gun ownership to the mentally handicapped the argument is that it is too dangerous to allow it, despite the fact that mentally handicapped people are now denied their Constitutional right to bear arms. It's okay to ignore the Constitution here and there, so long as you are promoting the common good.

It is a matter of recognizing limits. This is essential to any right. If there is sufficient reason to remove a right because someone poses a clear and unique threat to the common good, such as armed felons might, then there may be just cause to limit rights. But for example, if a person is a law abiding citizen, their right to vote cannot be denied. And unless someone is inciting a riot or yelling fire in a crowded thearter, their right to free speach cannot be denied.

 

[Gokul43201]

You are saying that as long as we can own any arms, the Constitutional requirement is met?

That's the only strictly consistent way of interpreting the words of the Second Amendment. Surely, it can not be understood to mean that individuals possesses the right to bear all imaginable forms of arms from pointy toothpicks to assault rifles to nuclear tipped missiles, because then we'd already be in violation of the Constitution for banning many of these. But what the SC did was neither - they decided to make a ruling based on fashion trends.

Most people seem to like handguns, so handguns shall be protected. Not so many people are crazy about assault rifles and few can afford missiles, so I couldn't care if you banned them.

Some might fret it's too bad that tasers aren't the in thing yet.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is a matter of recognizing limits. This is essential to any right. If there is sufficient reason to remove a right because someone poses a clear and unique threat to the common good, such as armed felons might, then there may be just cause to limit rights.

And so long as we don't have an objective means of parametrizing what constitutes a clear and unique threat we will have rulings that are based on gut feelings and the whims of the judges.

 

[turbo]

To see how the law is interpreted in light of the Constitution, it is necessary to revisit the history of the country and make the interpretation based on the perceptions of the founders. You must realize that England forced colonial males of military-service age to bear arms, train, pass muster, and be available for call-up. They were also required to maintain armories with inventories of ball, shot, powder, flints, etc so that they could be pressed into service on very short notice (in lieu of a huge standing army) if the need arose. Many farmers, businessmen, craftsmen, etc were forced to drop their personal affairs and fight on behalf of the crown in Nova Scotia, Hudson Valley, etc during the French and Indian wars.

The Constitution was drawn up in a time in which it was required that men of service age maintain arms. It was drawn up with specific language that did not extend this requirement as a matter of law, but forbade the government from limiting the right of the populace to be suitably armed. After overthrowing one government to form another, the founding fathers did not envision that the government that they crafted must necessarily be permanent and always benevolent. Their intent was clear - the populace had the right to be well-armed and vigilant against tyranny. The SC decision in this case was the correct one, IMO.

 

[Gokul43201]

I believe (I never really looked into it) based upon my experience with firearms, that it comes down to the ability of one to properly maintain control of the firearm, where a typical single-shot or semi-automatic is easier to control where you place the shot. Someone who has a fully automatic weapon, if encountering a stressful situation, may be more prone to shoot off-the-mark shots and run a greater risk of collateral damage.

So, it's just a relative argument. Automatic weapons are more capable of eliminating hostile threats than handguns but also more prone to the risk of collateral damage. Handguns are less capable of eliminating hostile threats than machine guns, but also less likely to cause collateral damage. Toothpicks are less capable than handguns at ensuring your safety, but are virtually incapable of producing collateral damage.

Why do we choose to draw the line between handguns and assault rifles rather than toothpicks and handguns? The Second Amendment provides us with no guidance for making this decision. The courts just go with what seems reasonable to them at the time. If the folks on the court like to have handguns, then they rule accordingly.

Again, I'm not 100% sure, but with my experience that's a good reason. I personally have no use for a fully automatic weapon.

And I, personally, have no use for a handgun, but my neighbor is inseparable from his shoulder slung AR-15. If the three of us were judges, we'd have a hard time agreeing on where to draw that line.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Constitution was drawn up in a time in which it was required that men of service age maintain arms. It was drawn up with specific language that did not extend this requirement as a matter of law, but forbade the government from limiting the right of the populace to be suitably armed. After overthrowing one government to form another, the founding fathers did not envision that the government that they crafted must necessarily be permanent and always benevolent. Their intent was clear - the populace had the right to be well-armed and vigilant against tyranny.

And you don't think a handful of 13-year-old hackers are more capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government than an angry mob waving their pistols at a line of Abrams tanks?

 

[turbo]

And you don't think a handful of 13-year-old hackers are more capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government than an angry mob waving their pistols at a line of Abrams tanks?

Nope. The government is hardened against hacks and can shut down the Internet at will, if necessary. As long as the government cannot jam ham channels and cannot stop the flow of information through other means, they can clamp down pretty hard, but it would be tough for a military force to take and hold huge portions of the country that are populated by hunters, sharpshooters, etc. My favorite rifle is a single-shot .45-70. Accurate as all get-out. This was a round popularized in the late 1800's as the standard military round because it was so accurate and hard-hitting. The US, Iraq, Iran and a lot of other countries have standardized on lighter rounds that are light and fast. An asymmetrical answer to that strategy is to use rounds that are very heavy and deliver a punch that the human body cannot absorb with modern body armor. Our military planners are not idiots, but they have blind spots that scream for attention.

 

[B. Elliott]

So, it's just a relative argument. Automatic weapons are more capable of eliminating hostile threats than handguns but also more prone to the risk of collateral damage. Handguns are less capable of eliminating hostile threats than machine guns, but also less likely to cause collateral damage. Toothpicks are less capable than handguns at ensuring your safety, but are virtually incapable of producing collateral damage.

Why do we choose to draw the line between handguns and assault rifles rather than toothpicks and handguns? The Second Amendment provides us with no guidance for making this decision. The courts just go with what seems reasonable to them at the time. If the folks on the court like to have handguns, then they rule accordingly.

And I, personally, have no use for a handgun, but my neighbor is inseparable from his shoulder slung AR-15. If the three of us were judges, we'd have a hard time agreeing on where to draw that line.

I do see your point and I must say that you did very good job of explaining it. It does come down to how you interpret the wording as even someones fist could also be considered a weapon, or a spoon, or even a soft drink can. Then again there's many other issues that also seem contradictory, such as free speech vs. slander.

For me, it comes down to the simple conclusion that getting rid of some guns will not get rid of all guns. I would rather be caught with than without.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm sure this is getting way off topic, and deep into fantasy, but what would you (turbo, not Elliott) do if your tyrannical government announces that anytime someone takes a shot at government personnel, they will carpet bomb a 100 sq-mi radius around that person?

Modern governments have much more powerful checks to prevent tyranny than arming the mobs with pistols.

 

[Evo]

And so long as we don't have an objective means of parametrizing what constitutes a clear and unique threat we will have rulings that are based on gut feelings and the whims of the judges.

I couldn't agree more. Funny, I was just reading about this as far as interpreting Constitutional Law. It changes due to what is "more popular" as pushed by special interest groups or the media.

 

[B. Elliott]

Or how about free speech vs. freedom of religion?

 

[Gokul43201]

I wonder which SC judges own guns and which ones don't. I'd personally be inclined to give more credibility to the judges that own a gun and agreed with the ban as well as judges that do not own but disagreed. The others (and they may all belong in the "others" category) have a personal stake in the ruling, directly or indirectly. After all, their office building lies smack in the middle of DC.

 

[Cyrus]

To see how the law is interpreted in light of the Constitution, it is necessary to revisit the history of the country and make the interpretation based on the perceptions of the founders. You must realize that England forced colonial males of military-service age to bear arms, train, pass muster, and be available for call-up. They were also required to maintain armories with inventories of ball, shot, powder, flints, etc so that they could be pressed into service on very short notice (in lieu of a huge standing army) if the need arose. Many farmers, businessmen, craftsmen, etc were forced to drop their personal affairs and fight on behalf of the crown in Nova Scotia, Hudson Valley, etc during the French and Indian wars.

The Constitution was drawn up in a time in which it was required that men of service age maintain arms. It was drawn up with specific language that did not extend this requirement as a matter of law, but forbade the government from limiting the right of the populace to be suitably armed. After overthrowing one government to form another, the founding fathers did not envision that the government that they crafted must necessarily be permanent and always benevolent. Their intent was clear - the populace had the right to be well-armed and vigilant against tyranny. The SC decision in this case was the correct one, IMO.

I agree with everything you said, and I'd like to add one point. Notice even you yourself did not mention the use of guns for personal protection. I'm still not seeing where personal protection is entering the picture anywhere.

 

[turbo]

I agree with everything you said, and I'd like to add one point. Notice even you yourself did not mention the use of guns for personal protection. I'm still not seeing where personal protection is entering the picture anywhere.

In the colonies, it was presumed that one would have to have firearms for personal protection - the requirements of the crown were designed to make militias keep additional stocks of shot, ball, powder, flints, etc so that the populace could act as a fast-response military force whenever needed. The founders of the Constitution were not ignorant of this motivation, nor would they have considered that the citizenry must be formally accepted into some sort of local militia in order to have a "right" to own a firearm.

 

[Cyrus]

In the colonies, it was presumed that one would have to have firearms for personal protection - the requirements of the crown were designed to make militias keep additional stocks of shot, ball, powder, flints, etc so that the populace could act as a fast-response military force whenever needed. The founders of the Constitution were not ignorant of this motivation, nor would they have considered that the citizenry must be formally accepted into some sort of local militia in order to have a "right" to own a firearm.

Still agree with you, but from what I am reading it seems like were both saying the same thing. I agrue that we should all have military grade weapons (fully auto M203s) in every house, but that they are ONLY for militia purposes. I.e., NOT personal protection for home invation. This wasnt the intention of the founding fathers for keeping the populace armed, and based on what you are writting it too seems in line with what I argue.

The police have guns to protect you. You have guns to protect your liberty. The two are exclusive.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm sure this is getting way off topic, and deep into fantasy, but what would you (turbo, not Elliott) do if your tyrannical government announces that anytime someone takes a shot at government personnel, they will carpet bomb a 100 sq-mi radius around that person?

Do you think that is at all logical? See my post regarding destruction of infrastructure and the burden of a population of vagrant survivors. Such an action makes no sense.

So it comes down to what's in vogue. It's okay to deny me my Constitutional rights only if my tastes are completely out of fashion.

While perhaps his wording is poor I believe that the idea is that a handgun is the most practical, not fashionable, choice for use by common persons. So assuming that the common person has the right to possesses arms it is not sensible to ban the most practical choice of arms. Of course you may not agree that it's the most practical but my point is that he was not likely referring to "what's in vogue".

 

[Jordan Joab]

While searching which SC Justices own handguns I found the following articles:

Article by Arthur Kellermann on washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702864.html

"Guns Used in Crime" by the U.S. Department of Justice, July 1995
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

"Gun Violence in the U.S." Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention report
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

"Firearms Death by Intent" U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

"CRS Report for Congress" Congressional Research Reports for the People (opencrs.com) January 25, 2007
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20070125.pdf

"Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Feel free to reach your own conclusions.



Jordan.

 

[turbo]

The police have guns to protect you. You have guns to protect your liberty. The two are exclusive.

They are NOT exclusive. Those who would argue for such an exclusion would steal back the right to bear arms under the pretense that it is a collective right granted only for the government (not citizens) to be armed, and only for specific reasons.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's the only strictly consistent way of interpreting the words of the Second Amendment. Surely, it can not be understood to mean that individuals possesses the right to bear all imaginable forms of arms from pointy toothpicks to assault rifles to nuclear tipped missiles, because then we'd already be in violation of the Constitution for banning many of these. But what the SC did was neither - they decided to make a ruling based on fashion trends.

Most people seem to like handguns, so handguns shall be protected. Not so many people are crazy about assault rifles and few can afford missiles, so I couldn't care if you banned them.

Some might fret it's too bad that tasers aren't the in thing yet.

This has to be taken into context from the time. What was the meaning of "arms" when the Constitution was written? Clearly they could not speak to the existence of nuclear weapons, or tasers, or machine guns for that matter. Nor did they exclude any existing weapon of the time. So it is clear that they meant firearms.

Personally, I would like to see machine guns made legal. The violent criminals can get them anyway.

Tsu and I once found ourselves lying on the floor while the police were shooting it out across the stree with people armed with rapid-fire weapons. That wasn't long before we decided to leave LA.

 

[Cyrus]

They are NOT exclusive. Those who would argue for such an exclusion would steal back the right to bear arms under the pretense that it is a collective right granted only for the government (not citizens) to be armed, and only for specific reasons.

I don't follow. By what I stated, no one would be unarmed. They would be armed for the specific reason stated in the constitution.