Discussions
Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Handgun Ban
Posted by markstoneman • 6/26/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Tags: 2nd amendment, guns, supreme court, washington dc
Since we're all over the Supreme Court this week, some of you might be interested in the court's newest decision to strike down the District of Columbia's handgun ban. I'm unhappy, as will be a majority of DC residents. Don't know where it goes from here, though I'm sure it won't be one big free-for-all like Dodge City in Hollywood. Regardless, I'm not going to buy a gun. No thank you.
The decision: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300649.html
Early article on concrete implications for the city: blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_attorney_general_all_guns_m.html?hpid...
Personally, I feel the court is overstepping to say that the right to bear arms is unconnected with membership in a militia, though I know many of you disagree. The fact that it even took a stance on the meaning of the militia part of the 2nd Amendment means that this goes way beyond DC too.
User Comments
-
comment removed by the community.
-
Mark, I agree with you that the parsing of the Amendment was a bit disingenuous--I got an email from an attorney friend this morning asking "do any of the OTHER amendments have preambles?"--but I think the more important issue here is that it was certainly within the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution that we might need those guns for rebellion, or defense against those who are supposed to be defending us. The idea of having all of the nation's guns in the hands of people taking orders (albeit through a chain of command) from George Bush troubles me at least as much as the idea of having them in the hands of violent criminals.-
yea, it seems even the army's safe guard, the soldier's responsibility to disobey illegal orders, is failing.
-
Actually it is very clear to me from the preamble to the amendment and the historical context of the Constitution being drafted in the wake of Shayes' Rebellion that the part about the "well regulated militia" was so that a legally elected government could call upon the citizenry to defend it from both invasion, and from violent overthrow by an unelected armed faction. -
[The idea of having all of the nation's guns in the hands of people taking orders (albeit through a chain of command) from George Bush troubles me at least as much as the idea of having them in the hands of violent criminals.]
Very, very good point.
When guns become outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Most people who (legally) own guns, have never had to fire them, yet their mere presence actually prevent other violent crimes like rape, assault, etc.
Guns for people who want them, no guns for people who don't want them. -
Good heavens. Rights for individuals? Not just for groups?
Revolutionary!
-
I'd rather that people who have guns be required to fire them, preferably on a regular basis, so that they know what the hey they're doing. I think owning a gun should carry a certain responsibility for knowing how to use and store it so that you don't accidentally shoot your neighbor through their kitchen window or your kids don't accidentally shoot themselves. That's just me, though. I'm all about rules.
I may, however, be a little het up about this topic. Perhaps I should leave it alone for a few days. -
legbamel,
Good point. Gun safety classes are offered in many towns: at least here in central Minnesota.
(On a personal note, one of my daughters was such a good shot, that her team went to the nationals in Atlanta: giving me an excellent excuse to tag along.)
In my opinion, the big problem is people with guns, but without the good sense and experience needed to use the things.
And, using a gun - for target practice - can be an excellent form of meditation. (Yet another idea that was not made in America - Kyudo ( www.kyudo.com/ ) has been around for a long time.) -
I wonder how affordable such classes would be in DC, where even target practice would have to be in a special indoor range. It's not like there's room to do so outdoors. New market opportunity, perhaps, but everyone has to wait for whatever legislation DC draws up in the next weeks.
-
-
There were several weird 5-4 decisions this week. This was certainly one of them, and shows how radically right-wing this court has become.
For those who think that it doesn't matter who you vote for (that is for those who actually take the time to study politics and vote), these rulings should be incentive enough. Especially, if you think the conservative court has gone too far. Roe V. Wade overrule is just one vote away.-
"shows how radically right-wing this court has become"
This is a very interesting statement from someone who has expressed equal dismay at the two "left-wing" decisions rendered by the court this week in favor of the protection of criminal defendants. -
Yeah, I really don't think the left-right political divide can substitute for meaningful analysis. This has been an interesting week that defies our current partisan divides.
-
There is no such thing as a left-wing decision the way the court is currently constituted. What you have, at best, is a muted Kennedy decision now and then. With the four conservatives always coming up with some extreme dissent, one way or the other.
With that said, there are any where from one to three judges that will be retiring within the next four years, so these issues are certainly something to worry about. -
Actually, Mark, this court has been that way for a while. There were three rather surprising death penalty rulings during the last term as well.
-
What really struck me about the death penalty case this week and the judges' decisions was the memory of Bush railing about activists judges.
Expanding the use of the death penalty - via the courts - the way Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito wanted - seems awfully activist to me. -
Which is one more reason why I'd like to forget the whole activist rhetoric and learn to accept these decisions when they come down.
-
Mark, what if we'd all quietly accepted Plessy v. Ferguson when it came down?
-
Well sure. Judges can be humans and idiots. But we're not dealing with another legislature here, are we? The court sometimes needs time here.
Edited to add: Another wrong decision whose time has passed: the one that gave corporations personhood. I'm not holding my breath though.
-
-
One good thing about Scalia's decision, which I'm still trying to understand as I do other chores, is that it sees the regulation of guns by local jurisdictions as legitimate. So Scalia's argument seems to be guaranteeing gun rights for individuals, but he has also says regulation is okay. Maybe that will make more regulation possible in this country without people rejecting it out of hand because they see it as a slippery slope to gun bans, since now the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been clarified and outright gun bans are unconstitutional.
-
I hope that turns out to be the case, that gun control laws can be placed and enforced by communities that want them. If that was the aim of the ruling, regardless of the immediate effect, it would make more sense to me.
-
Yeah basically a blanket ban can't be made but restrictions are ok. Mental illness, past record, etc. The bad thing is the NRA is going to see this as a way to fight every single gun control law out there.
I don't have a problem with people owning a handgun for home protection. As long as their is a stringent review and training process.
It is the heavier guns and armor piercing bullets that I have a problem with. There is no reason to have some of the high level assault rifles that were once banned by (I believe) the Brady Bill. -
I'm not sure the NRA would get away with that. As I understood it (and I need to take a closer look), regulation is okay. And now that the NRA no longer has to fear an outright gun ban, maybe they'll have to get over it and maybe just become an organization that promotes safe gun use. But I suppose paranoid traditions---fears of losing the right to bear arms---will die hard. The got the gold prize today. No more reason to fear anti-gun rights candidates.
-
According to CNN the NRA is ready to head to court tomorrow in something like 7 cities and multiple states where they have various bans.
Of course I was eating a sandwich and thinking about how I don't have to work for like 17 days so I might not have been paying attention.
-
-
Hooray! I know you and I don't agree on this issue, Mark, but I for one am glad that those who wish to defend themselves from criminals with guns, by using guns, now have the right to do so.-
What do you wanna bet that visitors to this city are gonna still find themselves at odds with its more restrictive laws (whatever those are in three weeks) and end up in trouble if they're not careful. Would serve them right too. Can't go around visiting other jurisdictions without obeying their laws.
-
Well, yeah
I think it will need some serious ironing out before everything settles in. -
You must be kidding. Even Wyatt Earp had the commonsense to ban guns in Tombstone, in the old wild west. That is all, I need now, in my neighborhood. Everyone packing firearms. I was talking to some older friends of mine this morning about how weird the world has become. Thanks for the added confirmation.
-
Rich, I am totally against owning guns in my city, and I have a different take on the 2nd amendment than Justice Scalia does, but to say that the world is becoming "weird" on this score is to ignore a couple centuries of American political culture.
-
Yeah, well if the thought of your neighbors owning a gun scares you - you might want to move to a place where the PEOPLE are less scary.
I will steal this from someone here on BC - (Was it RC? Ammobob? I can't remember).
Why not post a sign in your window - "This is a gun free home". -
Anok, the argument about moving to a neighborhood that is less scary is as silly as the argument that Rich was making. Just saying.
-
No, it's not silly. If he is scared of his neighbors because they own guns, what does that say about his neighbors?
Law abiding citizens with common sense and decency don't become weirdo monsters simply because thy bought a rifle, or pistol. -
Yeah, I'm not scared that my neighbors will get mad and shoot me. I'm terrified that their kids will find the gun and accidentally do it, or that they'll get drunk and start taking pot shots at that squirrel that's been eating their strawberries. (I live in a very quiet, boring neighborhood, but I heard that the folks who rented the house across the street before we moved in used to have a target on their fence and practice throwing hatchets at it, only occasionally missing and landing in their neighbor's driveway. People are weird and not to be trusted. )
-
Too many assumptions, Anok. Some of us wouldn't feel comfortable with any neighbors owning guns no matter where we lived. I was unhappy when I found out a good friend of mine always carried a pistol in his car (legally, not in DC). Course maybe with the right regulation and training in place I could develop some confidence in the system. Maybe.
Edited to add: Consider too the kind of vigilante rhetoric I'm hearing on the other thread about another Supreme Court decision. www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/death-penalty-and-child-rape Ugh. -
Yes, Mark, I understand your opinion.
However, if a person you claim to call a friend (a trusted one?) owns a gun, and then automatically lose your trust of him or her because they own a gun....it doesn't say much for their character or your trust of them in the first place.
Particularly if they are law abiding, and responsible human beings.
We own guns. Our friends own guns. I trust them a a helluva lot more than the police around here. Particularly with guns. They have been through training, and are expert marksmen who hunt regularly, practice regularly, and employ the highest quality of gun safety possible. -
More assumptions. I didn't say they lost my trust. I said I was unhappy. I find the gun thing uncanny. I don't like it. But apparently I have to live with it.
-
What is there to be unhappy about, Mark? They are responsible, yes? They are kind, yes? They are law abiding, yes? They are not harming anyone, yes? You trust them, yes?
What would make you go all uncomfortable and unhappy, then?
Who would you rather own the guns, criminals, or a trusted friend? -
Gotta run, Anok, but maybe I should try to answer that in a blog post.
-
No problem.
-
-
[wrong placement]
-
This is our take in Chicago, when crazies take over the Supreme Court. There is no sense of the practical effect these well considered decisions have on common people, who are already walking the streets, scared for their lives.
www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story
By the way Mark. I am glad there is a referee to decide on what arguments are silly, and what are not. You know that four Supreme Court Justices voted against this decision. This is not a situation of jurisprudence. This is a case where a few Republican Presidents successful put some nuts on the Supreme Court. The same President who took us to war on false pretenses. Let's not take these guys too seriously. It may hurt our sense of being a human being.-
There are a couple of million people in Chicago, Rich. Kindly do not take the words of one reporter and one politician and attribute them to all of us.
-
-
So I guess my question is who cares what the original concept of right to bear arms means, whether it means for militia or personal use....
The entire basis of our system is that we can revise and edit these things isnt it?
At some point it is going to be come increasingly more obvious that the bad outweighs the good when it comes to everyone having guns. The problem is, will it be too little too late?-
I think we have to care about the intent behind the words as long as those words stand in the Constitution. The only way to change things is through another amendment, which isn't gonna happen in my lifetime.
-
I guess I see things differently. The fine men who wrote the constitution knew they were not perfect, which is why we have the ability to amend things. If one of the items in the constitution is obviously not good for the country then we should take action to amend it regardless of the original intent shouldn't we?
-
Exactly. But amend entails a complicated constitutional process. It can be done. Maybe it should be done. But I don't think there is anywhere near enough support for such an action. So the court has to interpret what it has. It doesn't amend. It interprets, nothing more---even if some conservatives like to talk about "activist judges" when they disapprove of a decision.
-
And then complain when sticking to the framework provided doesn't net the result they desired.
-
what good is taking years interpreting the sentence "kill the next person you see" if everyone who reads it takes action immediately.
Now that's obviously an overexaggeration but you get the point. while they keep arguing more and more people are dying when no matter what the original intent was... it is a bad idea right now, its time to take action. -
opps wrong place -
But there are rules, Nine. And there is no way that such an amendment is going to be ratified, or even sent for ratification without a full constitutional convention. And there's no way in hell that's going to happen because that would scare the pudding out of all parties.
-
-
Is there a common denominator in the recent rulings? My sense is that the Guantanamo decision offended a majority if Republicans and delighted a majority of Democrats. And I'm willing to bet the poles were reversed for many on the current decision. But in both it seems to me that maybe the common denominator relates to individual rights. Will be interesting to see some analysis on this written for non-lawyers when this is all over.
-
I think the common denominator is sticking close to the history and original intent of the Constitution regardless of which side of the ideological/political fence that means landing on.
-
And we regard that as odd... Interesting, eh?
-
Not only odd, Dane, but many people seem to be outraged.
-
-
Thank goodness this was shot down (no pun intended). If this would pass, all it would do would take the guns out of the hands of lawful citizens. If you live in a city like DC, that's the last thing you'd want.-
you bring up an interesting point... its obviously bad now... but think about how much worse it is going to get as time goes on.
You think it will be bad for lawful citizens now, how much harder will it be for them when things get really out of control?
That response seems like a lazy way out... let my children and children's children deal with the mess, I don't want to have to deal with it right now because its too much work and not SOOO bad for me right now. -
@BlueSunshine I live in DC, and I'd prefer that you not speak in my name. (Not sure what you mean by "a city like DC". There is only one DC.)
-
@markstone
Leave it to you to get your panties in a bunch with anything that conflicts with your views. When a city is #18 in violent crimes in the country, I really don't think being a lawful gun owner is a bad idea. -
My objection was not to your opinion. My objection was to your insinuation that DC residents would automatically agree with you. And a change in your tone would be in order.
-
@BlueSunshine Your logic is flawed though, when your city is #18 in violent crimes and growing... why would you continue on the path that got you there? Why not take action to alleviate the problem now before your city becomes #1 in violent crimes and you are too scared to walk outside your house?
-
I don't understand how you can see my "tone" from text.
I'm a very black and white person. You should have the ability to be able to protect yourself, plain and simple.
@Nine
Statistically speaking, putting guns in the hands of lawful citizens decreases crime rates. On the other hand, taking guns away from them lets the real criminals run wild. Take the UK for example where gun violence has sky rocketed. -
If you were walking down the street and someone punched you in the face and neither of you were carrying a weapon would you have the ability to protect yourself?
-
@Nine
Considering I took nine years of martial arts as a kid, I'm over 200 pounds, and I work out on a weekly basis, I'd say so. I don't even own a gun, in fact I don't even like guns at all. But in a world of muggings, car jackings, and gang violence, you can't be the guy without one. It's an awful scenario, but you gotta do what you gotta do. -
Nine, to answer your last question, yes, I would.
However it isn't likely that someone will just up and punch you in the face. It is more likely that a criminal or attacker will stick a gun in your face.
Level playing fields are all most of us ask for. -
@BlueSunshine I am a guy without one, yes its a scary thought but my ethics override my fear.
@anok I don't know where you live or if your state lets you carry a concealed handgun but lets suppose they dont... a criminal puts a gun in your face, what good is the right to arms if you dont have it with you right then and there?
While there will be situations of innocent people being held up without guns to protect themselves I just dont know if its enough argument to counter the amount of good that can be made once guns start seeping out of our society as time goes on.
Its not an easy road, its not a fast road, but isnt it obvious that its a better road to take?
No one likes the idea of innocent people dying but the truth is that both of the alternatives that we are debating involve people dying.
Which one has less in the long run? -
@Nine
Well if ethics take a backseat for personal safety, then that's your call. To me, if I have to protect myself or my loved ones, it's going to be by any means necessary. Unfortunately, when Joe Schmoe is trying to break into your house and he's armed, the only solution you have to the problem is arm yourself.
Sadly, my family has been in the situation where our home had been invaded. My mother was the only one home and she had a BB gun (that looked very real) and it was enough to scare the person off until the police showed up. -
Wait. This ban has been in places for some time has it not?
-
Nine, yes it is legal to carry concealed weapons here and many people do. Many of my friends do (I do not, as I am not licensed to, I'll be working on that).
If you have a license to carry a concealed weapon, but choose not to, then the result of not carrying it is your fault. If you have the choice to carry a concealed weapon, but have not been licensed, that too, is your fault (which is where I am) if the choice has been taken away from you - then what do you have?
I understand the point of view that guns should not play into anything, as they should not exist. But that simply isn't going to happen.
And I have more than myself to protect, at that. -
I grew up in Washington, D.C. -- it's my home town. And I can say this-- the biggest problem with gun violence in the 1980s came from weapons legally purchased in Maryland and Virginia (with their lax gun laws) and illegally brought into the District-- and from my own perspective: every rough situation I have ever been in in my hometown (or for that matter, just about any town I have been in) would have been even worse had there been handguns present.
-
-
300 million people armed with guns...sounds safe to me.-
Popular sovereignty, I trust three million independent gun owners more than I would trust any single individual who thinks they know my state of well fare any better than I do.
-
-
It is no accident that areas (be it cities, or countries) with bans on guns for lawful citizens have higher crime rates - and higher rates of violent crime, then in countries where people are allowed to defend themselves with the same weapons being deployed against them by people who don't give a damn about the law.
This correlation is not a coincidence, folks.-
No, it's certainly not a coincidence, but there are a lot of factors involved that make it virtually impossible to determine whether or not there is a causal relationship. First, cities with high crime rates have more motivation to enact restrictions on weapons, such that many of them may already have higher rates of violent crimes before the limitations. Second, the comparison here to "countries" skews any kind of meaningful comparison, since there is an entire separate framework of law and cultural reference point to consider. Just a couple of quick and obvious considerations; there are many more.
-
DC's situation is crazy complicated, because it is part of a larger metropolitan area with other jurisdictions and laws. The fact that so many guns come into the city from Maryland and Virginia illegally anyway is one argument that proponents of gun ownership call attention to. They say the guns are here already illegally from these and other jurisdictions (many from down south were many DC residents have family), so why not make it legal for law-abiding citizens in order to level the playing field? They have a point, even if I disagree with their ultimate conclusion.
-
@Anok
Have you researched the Canadian stats? What's been required here since the 1930's is handgun licensing and registration. The vast and overwhelming majority of crimes gun committed with handguns in Canada today involve the use of illegally obtained firearms that come from the USA where such registration and licensing are not required. This seems to point to the fact that criminals will acquire and use handguns regardless of registration and licensing requirements.
However, having such a system in place also means that we have the means to compare the guns used in crimes and those who used them to the database and actually track where they came from, including in some cases, who supplied them. From a national security perspective handgun registration and licensing may serve a useful purpose. -
Hair splitting, in my opinion.
First world countries on par with the US that allow - and sometimes encourage - gun ownership have practically zero crime, with very few actual distinction sin the law or framework. (With regards to violent crimes).
It is also no coincidence that restricting the use of firearms for defense in urban areas have little effect, if not a reverse effect on crimes committed with firearms, or other violent crimes.
Because obviously, criminals aren't following the bans, no matter how strict they get
Edited to add - TT I have not read up on Canada's laws. -
The great thing about Scalia's decision is that licensing and regulation will become more possible here too. A golden lining.
-
Yeah, definitely a good idea, if we're going to acknowledge that one of the reasons we're allowed to have guns is in case we have to revolt against our government, to give that government a complete and regularly updated list of where those guns are.
-
Tiffany, was that a hint of sarcasm I detect?
-
> one of the reasons we're allowed to have guns is
> in case we have to revolt against our government,
Tiffany-
1.) A well armed citizenry is no match against the United States-- in either its law enforcement capacity or its military capacity. The idea that the citizenry is going to overthrow the government is a fantasy straight out of the Turner Diaries. The only way an armed American faction is going to overthrow the US government is if the military does it. Does anyone really think a military Junta would be a better custodian of freedom?
2.) The whole point of a "well regulated militia" isn't to overthrow the government that does the regulating of militias-- basic logic. Looking at the historical context of the era during which the US operated under the Articles of Confederation (think "Shayes' Rebellion"), it's clear the point of a "well regulated militia" was to protect against a lawfully elected government being taken down by a private or factional militia and eliminating all opposition-- like we recently saw Hamas do in Gaza this past year. -
Lets take a look at one causal relationship shall we? In almost every case (every case so far as I know, but I'm not up on this year's stats.) When a particular State "liberalizes" its concealed carry laws, the crime rate goes down. You might argue that the one doesn't necessarily cause the other. (Although you'd be arguing against A LOT of circumstantial evidence. But note that despite there being more armed citizens on the street, the crime rate doesn't go up. -
Ian, whether or not it's likely to be effective doesn't have much to do with Constitutional rights--and the "context" in which the amendment was written was that we were about five minutes removed from having fought a war for independence from our previous leadership.
-
Hey Ian. There are a number of instances of armed citizenry overthrowing their government in World History. Assuming you're an American, you live in one now. According to a continuing yearly Gallup poll, roughly half the homes in America report having a gun in the home at the time of the survey. Other surveys suggest that about 80 to 90 million Americans own or have access to firearms.
Most of the founders believed that private gun ownership was first and foremost for security from their own Government should it leave the path of individual liberty. This only make sense, since they used their guns for that purpose.
Which begs the question: Why would the Founders, who fought a "despotic" government for freedom turn immediately around and require that the new government control the means of resistance? -
American history is far more nuanced and and complex than high school history textbooks generally portray it.
Tiffany:
> the "context" in which the amendment was written was
> that we were about five minutes removed from having
> fought a war for independence from our previous leadership.
Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
Shays' Rebellion (1786-1787)
The Constitutional Convention was called in 1787 because of a number of crises that were coming to a head, one of which was that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had almost been overthrown by an armed faction led by a charismatic leader who had been neither elected nor appointed by a representative body. Protecting elected Federal, State, and local governments from intimidation by armed factions and bringing all militias under state regulation (again see the preamble of the Second Amendment was the order of the day.)
Remember also that the Continental Congress that signed and ratified the Declaration of Independence was a representative body either elected or appointed by the duly elected Colonial Governments and that George Washington was appointed to by this Congress to command the Continental Army. This was a revolution, but it was a revolution that insisted on legal accountability.
The founders were actually very interested in rule of law-- so long as it was accountable.
DonLewis:
> Why would the Founders, who fought a "despotic"
> government for freedom turn immediately around and
> require that the new government control the means of
> resistance?
a.) Because "the founders" believed power should come from the rule of law and neither from lethal force nor from poer of personality.
b.) Because they had their own self-interest to protect, for instance: Thomas Jefferson believed in local government in part because he wanted to prevent abolitionists like Alexander Hamilton from using a strong federal government from end the institution of slavery. Jefferson and some of his ilk, were despots in their own right.
Anyway, I already explained the absurdity of a well armed (and unorganized) citizenry defeating the U.S. military-- and also how undesirable that really would be. However bad you think our government might be-- replacing it with either a military junta or a terrorist militia is far worse.
-
-
stoneman... DC will be a much safer place now.
What a victory for AMERICA!!!-
You know the city?
-
Hm. The statement "a victory for AMERICA" is a bit ominous these days, given that we rarely seem to be on the right side of anything.
-
Sorry, as a school teacher in a city with restrictive gun-laws I'm glad that I only have to confiscate the occasional knife or adult magazine that the kid stole from his or her parents and brought to school and not a firearm.
Remember that legally obtained items still end up in the hands of those who should not have them.
-
-
The idea of guns doesn’t bother me because I could make something much worse for ten dollars. And besides the criminal gun is probably an unregistered gun or an unlawful owner anyways.
-
Exactly.
-
Once again though that response is more like: "oh well its bad but the law wont change much since most criminals will still have guns... that's far too much work so lets not even try and let things get worse by taking no action at all"
-
I hear you Nine. Too much cynicism about society and human nature for my taste.
-
We are making the problem WORSE buy forcing citizens to rely on "authority" to take care of problems, and keep us safe though.
That is NEVER what America stood for. We are supposed to be do it yourselfers.
We are supposed to be self reliant.
And no cynicism is necessary here - crime stats are facts, not poor outlooks.
Before guns, there were knives. Guess who used them? That's right, criminals!
before knives there were bows. I'm sure that criminals used those too.
Before that, humans used rocks and sticks, and before that, they used their bare hands.
This is nothing new, guys.
Furthermore, the right to bear and keep arms is ALSO a right because as citizens we have the right t take on our government, if we feel we need to. Nothing invites dictatorships and despotism like an unarmed society. Our founding fathers knew that, hence their inclusion of it.
Maybe they just might have known what they were talking about. -
Well that's not exactly what I'm saying. I believe we have an innate right to arms. But that is a differen matter -
-
In a situation where handguns and owners are required to be licensed and registered at the very least you are in a position to sort wheat from chaff. As the registered and licensed owners are properly trained in handgun safety and as they are eager to preserve their privilege to possess and use firearms, the majority of them are not at all hesitant when it comes to turning in those, who are not registered and licensed and/or who are not using firearms safely. The criminals and those with criminal intent become more "visible and detectable" when packing guns, as they are not registering for and graduating from taking safety upgrading courses and therefore are not being registered as members at hunting and shooting clubs.
-
So, what's wrong with making it harder for crminals to get guns? I don't see how arming every mother, father, and child will make them any safer unless we regulate them getting trained and practicing with their weapons. Wouldn't that be gun control, too? It's not that I don't think anyone should have them, it's just that I think they are inherently unsafe in the hands of the average lazy slob like me or most of the people I know.
-
@Anok: Gotta love it when the Anarchist finds herself in the position of defending the Constitution and the highest court of the land. The decision is consistent with your philosophy of course. Just enjoying the irony of the situation.
@Legbamel: Indeed. -
@legbamel I agree also, I am not saying that no one should have guns persay (I've mostly just been playing devils advocate) but at least that is doing something about the problem while people continue to argue.
-
@legbamel
I really don't know what your contrasting against. I support regestering and licencing. I believe anybody who wants a gun and has a good background should be entitled to do so within certain regulations. Thats far from saying every person on the planet should go get one. I have a handgun and a rifle and it's beyond my comphrension that those could be taken away from me. I have had them along time, I took classes, they make good recreation, and they give me assurance at night that I am empowered to defend my family if need be. And alot of the fuss is more symbolic than anything in terms of violence. -
Legbamel, criminals don't follow laws, ergo any attempt to make it "harder" to obtain a firearm via legal processes is a wasted effort, and only restricts those who are not criminals.
There are already legal requirements for the purchase and use of firearms, legal restrictions, and protocol involved. But the only people paying it any heed are those who are already inclined to ethical and responsible with said firearms.
Mark - yeah, I know it's pretty funny -
Anok, I know that to some degree you're just condensing for the sake of message board presentation, but it's a bit silly to claim that laws intended to make it harder for criminals to get guns have NO effect simply because criminals don't follow laws. Drugs are illegal and bubble gum is not; the fact that drugs are illegal by no means makes them impossible to obtain--in some circles, they're not even difficult to obtain-but they're certain not as readily accessible as bubble gum (nor as cheap).
-
That depends on where you live, Tiffany Drugs are readily available where I live, and they're not that expensive to get, either. (OK, not as cheap as bubblegum, though )
Restrictive laws are already in place, they obviously have made little progress in the use of illegally obtained guns. Creating more laws isn't going to stop the trade -
@Anok... I disagree.
There are certain things that should be difficult and make people prove they are able to own in order to obtain. (I am not even saying just guns.)
-Auto License
-Dr. License
-Motorcycle License
-Pilots License
-Gun License
All of those have an impact on people's safety one way or another. If a criminal wants to steal a car and drive it without a license he can. But does that mean it shouldn't be restricted and hard to get for everyone else?
Lets face it. People are irresponsible idiots, if there is some sort of screening process and aptitude test for anything that can threaten the life of another person I am all for it. -
See, this kind of statement raises a lot of questions in my mind: "they obviously have made little progress in the use of illegally obtained guns."
How is that obvious? Because there are still some illegally obtained guns? Where is the data that makes it clear that, with enough passage of time and enforcement, there is NO net difference? There is a widespread assumption (which I don't know whether or not you're making here) that if there is still gun crime, nothing has been accomplished. People still die of heart attacks, and I would hardly say that means there "obviously" hasn't been any progress in the treatment of heart disease in the past hundred years. -
Exactly Kevin. Could you imagine a world with no licenses? Well, I know Anok can, but these are the United STATES of America, not a loose association of Anarchists.
-
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm (I don't know why this is from 1997, as the rest of the stats go up to 2005)
Offenders
*
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
o a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
o a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
o family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
* During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
* On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
* Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.
www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm (go to the site for details on the highlights, and sources).
* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3
* Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.4
* Anti-gun journal pronounces the failure of the Brady law. One of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not [experience] reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates."5
* Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period.6
* More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well.8
* CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these [firearms] laws."9
* Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent [of criminals] reported obtaining [firearms] from a gun show."10 And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows.11
* A study claiming "guns are three times more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Even using the low figures from the Clinton Justice Department, firearms are used almost 50 times more often to save life than to take life.15 More importantly, however, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie:
* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in the flawed study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home."16
* In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."17
* Gun-free England not such a utopia after all. According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.18 And according to a United Nations study, British citizens are more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States. The 2000 report shows that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.19 -
Maybe next time you could just give us the link and summary. You're gonna kill the thread by pasting so much data into it. Might be breaking copyright too.
-
Kevin - N one is saying that you shouldn't have a license, or training.
What we are saying is that MORE restrictions aren't going to do any good, as the current ones (if you look at the stats) have done very little.
Edit - those ARE the highlights I posted the relevant information to make sure people would see it. Oh, and the federal statistics are not copyrighted -
If laws don't work they need to be changed.
Half of the crap we have on the books doesn't work because it isn't enforced or isn't constructed right.
If people want to have handguns and hunting rifles I am all for it.
I just don't want people to be able to buy guns at gun shows, over the internet, and I think certain types of rifles should be banned.
I'm pretty easy. -
I don't necessarily disagree with you, here. In THIS world I think a gun free for all is a bad idea.
One thing you can't stop though, is a private sale
No matter what laws are on the books.
I would allow the purchase of certain types of guns for collector's purposes though. -
FINE I will allow you to buy your musket to re-enact the Battle of Ticonderoga in your backyard.
Actually if you licensed guns and gave them titles you could restrict private sale. Basically making you have to sign the title of the gun over to the new owner. -
I actually used to own an awesome blunderbuss.
But titles, meh - what good will that do? It's not like signing the title to a car, or home. It's still a private sale, and there are no tests or requirements that would prevent the gun from being sold to just anybody.
Besides that, they can get "stolen" pretty easily, if you know what i mean. -
I suddenly feel like I need to go to walmart and buy a shotgun. I tell you what I'll take a good shotgun over a handgun any day when it comes to home defense.
-
Yup! That is the truth, KevinG.
-
Oopss
edited for sanity -
@ KevinGoodman (from way, way up there), I was responding to Anok. What I meant was, "Wouldn't having more guns around make them easier for criminals to get?" Now, if I rob your house, I get your TV and stereo. If you have a gun and I'm smart enough to rob you when you're not home, I've got your TV, your stereo, and your gun. How is that an improvement?
-
-
@Nine
"Once again though that response is more like: "oh well its bad but the law wont change much since most criminals will still have guns... that's far too much work so lets not even try and let th