Of course you are wrong. The 2nd amendment is a collective right and unless your reason for owning a gun is as part of a militia or its equivalent(National Guard for instance) then the courts have for the most part held that you have no constitutional guaranteed right of ownership.

Also the 9th and 10th amendments have a strong STATES RIGHTS component.



Haven't come across a lot of people liberal or conservative "who love the increase in armed violence."



Obviously there are some differences in place and circumstances but there is a pretty good body of evidence that everything being roughly equal murder tends to go down when there are less guns available. In the case of the concealable kind that would seem to be obvious.



People are being raped, robbed, and murdered often by people who have easy access to guns, particularly handguns. It's hard to pull a handgun out of your purse when the rapist has one pointed right at your head. I think the statistics are that a handgun in the home is something like 7 times as likely to be used against a resident as against an intruder.

It's your job to PROVE I'm wrong. I can PROVE I'm right.

See:Statement by Solicitor General Theodore Olson

Still scared of the TRUTH? See:Attorney General's view



Where are these areas where "Less guns are available"? Do you mean Maryland, where the snipers started killing people? How did they get their rifles if there were "less guns available"? LOGICAL PROOF: Show me an area where CARS are less available? What kinda crap is this? There are areas where TRAFFIC is less, not where cars are unavailable. Same with guns. There are areas where HONEST PEOPLE can't purchase guns LEGALLY. However MURDERERS can usually STEAL them and ILLEGALLY TRANSPORT them to wherever they want to KILL someone.
By the way, how do you then explain the MURDERS with baseball bats, knives, scissors, telephone cords, lead pipes, pointy sticks, eyebrow pencils, ALMOST EVERYTHING?

I'm going to both PHYSICALLY and LOGICALLY tear up your last WRONG paragraph.



YES! You're absolutely CORRECT here! SAY THIS SENTENCE OUT LOUD! People are being raped, robbed, and murdered often by people who have easy access to guns! Doesn't that tell you something? Maybe we should give the VICTIMS easy access to guns as well!
People are being raped, robbed, and murdered with baseball bats, knives, scissors, telephone cords, lead pipes, pointy sticks, eyebrow pencils, almost everything.

The victims are free to defend themselves with anything. EXCEPT A GUN. Those are for criminals and police ONLY.



Think about this. You are reasoning that someone who is GOING to rape, rob, or murder you might do what? Rape, rob, or murder you if you try to stop him? THEY ARE ALREADY GOING TO DO SO! Usually, I've found that to STOP someone who is going to do something to you, you have to defend yourself. SUBMITTING usually ends up with the VICTIM violated. Yeah, this man is definately going to kill me. I better not put up a fight, or else he's going to what? Kill me.



Actually this is a false statistic from the Violence Policy Center. The actual statistic they quoted is that a handgun is 43 times more likely to be used on a resident than on an intruder.

FUNNY. Did you know that they included SUICIDES in the statistic. A person who used a GUN to kill THEMSELVES. A person who willingly takes their own life is now supporting a statistic used by the VPC to explain how a pistol is bad. If these people would have drowned themselves in a 5 gallon bucket, would the VPC be on a rampage trying to ban buckets?

I will quote the REVISED statistic without SUICIDES in a later post because I cannot PROVE it here. But, it is out there and I will find it. What I will NOT do, is throw out a FALSE STATISTIC to support my argument. When you argue the TRUTH, you can afford not to LIE.

I will ask people to do one thing if they believe that guns are bad. ADVERTISE IT! Put a sign in your front yard. THIS HOUSE IS GUN FREE! If you truly believe that world will be a better place if all guns are outlawed. Put a sign that says, "THIS HOUSE IS GUN FREE" out in your front yard.

YOU KNOW THE TRUTH. YOU ARE JUST AFRAID OF IT.

I appreciate your passion LFTHNDTHRDS but there's no need to be so abrasive
Yikes!

Carry on

Believe it or not... I actually agree that the people of this country should be allowed to keep and bear arms. I've been shooting at target ranges since my youth, and can often be found, (in season, of course), hunting with my friends.

That on one hand... This on the other. The government not only has the right, but the responsibility to regulate weapon ownership for the public safety. I'm all for background checks which deny felons ownership, mandatory safety classes, and even for the banning of certain weapons. The right to own guns does not extend to you the right to own any kind of gun you want. I remember when they were legislating the banning of automatic assault rifles, the argument the NRA used... 'They're useful for hunting'. Being a hunter, myself, I would like to suggest that if you need a machine gun to take out a deer, you need to find yourself a new hobby.

There is one other regulation I feel should be placed on gun-owners... If you fail to lock away your weapon and it is stolen, you should never be allowed to own another again. In this case, you've already provided a criminal with a gun, and you shouldn't be given an oppotunity to do so again. With the ownership of a deadly weapon comes a heavy responsibility... One that must be taken with the utmost seriousness.

Perhaps you are unaware that the attorney general's opinion does not enjoy the same standing as a judge. He has simply rendered his NRA inspired political position. The way I look at is the NRA bought and payed for this administration and now they're calling in their chips.

You in no way challenged my Constitutional point.



Can baseball bats, knives, scissors, telephone cords, lead pipes, pointy sticks, eyebrow pencils kill somebody at 30 feet? It might be interesting to statistically compare the causes of death.


Yeah, it tells me handguns particularly are real easy for criminals to get and we need to dry up the supply so they won't have as large a pool to draw on. Home defense with a rifle or shotgun makes more sense. The concealable handgun is the weapon of choice for the criminal.



Wow, 43 times; that REALLY makes my case. Okay factor out the suicides. Something tells me we're going to end up back at my 7 or thereabouts of resident killings versus intruder. Still a very significant differential. Anyway I will be looking forward to the results of your research.




No I am reasoning that if we make handguns inaccessible like a lot of civilized countries do that the chance that the criminal will have access to a handgun to threaten his victim will go down precipitously. I'm sure you subscribe to the cliche that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. But the evidence in societies where they are restricted or outlawed their use in crime is considerably less. It would be interesting to check how many gun crimes start with the gun in the legal owners possession and end up in the criminals hands. Where do you think they get a lot of their illegal weapons?

Just to be clear where I'm coming from. I think there ought to be a federal law outlawing the general ownership of concealable weapons(mainly handguns) and semi-automatic rifles, except for special circumstances. I think the rest should be registered like cars. That should take care of people's legitimate hunting, target shooting and home defense needs.

As far as I know there is no Constitutional impediment.


Jaime, I didn't find his phrasing offensive at all. Maybe I'm used to more heated chat sites but since he didn't use the ad hominem (jerk for instance or worse) why not let him go with his feelings? I enjoy that kind of passion.

Dingo,
Look at some of the statistics on crime in 'civilized' countries that have banned handgun ownership. And I don't mean from the NRA or VPC and Handgun Control, inc.
In my research, Japan is about the only industrialized country that armed crime does not compare.
Not so with places like England and Australia.

From www.law.umkc.edu



Read also several state constitutions regarding private ownership of firearms.

Oh, I'm not trying to be inflammatory, and I enjoy a heated debate. (After all, it's what this site is about is it not?) I think Dingo has some relevant points. Unfortunately I believe they are just regurgitated figures, spouted from the anti-gun populace, with no real effort towards proving a point. Dingo is against guns (which is absolutely his right) and he is going to say the things anti-gunners are supposed to say. (No offence intended)

I, however, will do my utmost to provide actual proof.



Well here it is:

The actual study was conducted by two men named Arthur L. Kellerman, MD,MPH; and Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH. and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 329, No. 15, on October 7 1993.

In the past 10 years, the Authors have now admitted to studying the worst area of an inner-city(with huge violence problems) and totalling up the colllective number of TOTAL DEATHS (murders, SUICIDES, and fatal accidents.)

1) Eliminating suicides brings the ratio of TOTAL DEATHS:justifiable homicide to 2.3:1.

2) The authors themselves revised their own numbers to 2.7:1.

3) Those figures excluded LAWFUL SELF-DEFENCE which would have put it about 1:1.

4) NOW FOR THE WHOPPER! The majority of gun usage "against yourself" was by the victims spouse! NOT AN INTRUDER! The majority of gun usage "against yourself" was by an abused female comitting MURDER against her SPOUSE. Therefore the "against yourself".
Eliminate the planned 1st degree MURDER. (Which, since it was planned, could easily have been planned with, you guessed it, a knife, baseball bat, telephone cord, etc. etc.) and you have to be at a reverse since we're now starting at about 1:1 and 1st degree murders are the majority.

5) WHOA! I'm not done yet! READY? These are just the DEATHS! Add in the times a firearm is used to DETER a crime without killing someone and you are at a 65:1 ratio that a firearm in the home will SAVE YOUR LIFE.

None of this stops the the anti-gun crowd from quoting the original, now admittedly skewed, 10 year old false statistic to further their misguided beliefs.

I can offer somewhere to check MY statistics:STATISTICS



Dry up the supply? That's a helluva task considering that there are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms ALREADY OWNED in the U.S. How do you propose to "dry up the supply"? Gun control laws will not "dry up the supply" of black market or stolen guns. They will merely prevent LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from purchasing or carrying them to protect themselves. Hence my next bit of FACTUAL PROOF contradicting Dingo's offered remarks.



REALLY?

What about:Great Britain's current predicament?

ORMore on Britain's fabulous gun control

I could go on plastering study after study about Australia's rapid increase in gun crime, or Canada's, or many other country's.

I could also go on by plastering study after study of countries such as Isreal, or Switzerland with high gun ownership and low crime rates.

As a matter of fact, let's just stay with our.... ....UNCIVILIZED, BARBARIC, NEANDERTHAL country, and look at some of the states and cities.

Wanna do some research of you own? Check out the states with the strongest gun control laws. Now find the states with the highest murder rates per 100,000 people. Interesting isn't it.

Here's a few:

Murder rates by State per 100,000 people for 1999.

New York 14.2
District of Columbia 80.6
California 12.7
Illinois 11.3
Maryland 11.7
North Dakota 1.1
Maine 1.2
Idaho 1.8
Iowa 2.0

Can you tell me which states have strict gun control laws and which ones do not? (By the way the 80.6 for D.C.,where all handguns are banned, is not a typo).

I will offer one consolation, I will not debate the need for SOME gun control laws. I am not arguing for comlplete unguided usage laws. Since I am a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN I have no problem with going through an extensive background check. I agree that criminals should not have easy access to firearms. I also would not mind a waiting period. I do not need a pistol RIGHT NOW! and wouldn't mind waiting 5 days. Also, since these are dangerous TOOLS, I wouldn't mind having to take a safety course. As a matter of fact why doesn't EVERYONE take one? But, WHY oh WHY do people want to BAN the ownership and carrying of a pistol by LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?

Sorry, I'm with the liberals on this one . This guns don't kill people, people kill people is nonesence. People kill people with guns.

CP

And pipes, knives, axes, hammers, cars, skillets, icepicks, scissors, chains................

Nonsense indeed.
Ban'em all

Dontreadonme - never fear - thank you to Mike's diligence for bringing to our attention A matter of utmost importance..., ...or a funny website. You decide.

I'm sorry, but this argument always gets my goat. Truthfully, this defence would not make a passing grade in Logic 101.

Pipes are designed for uses like plumbing, knives for all kinds of things, axes for chopping wood, hammers... etc. These objects are not comparable to guns, because a gun has no other purpose than to kill. I can kill a person with almost any object imaginable. The reason we don't ban or control these items is because to use the object in such a way is an aberration of usage, not the primary usage.

Also, if handguns were banned, I mean banned across the whole country, there would be some residual gun ownership of handguns by criminals, but it would drop off in time. Programs that pay people for guns turned in (anonymously) have been successful in some places, as well.

And it's stupid to pull a gun out when someone is pointing a gun at you. LFTHNDTHRDS, I reckon you have never been in this situation. I have. It's extremely uncomfortable and scary. I surrendered my wallet (as my Tae Kwon Do sensei always taught) and the guy walked away. If I had tried grabbing for a gun, a simple armed robbery would have ended in certain death, probably for me unless I was very, very, very lucky. Now, if the guy says, "I'm going to kill you," I would defend myself. But I wouldn't waste valuable time trying to pull my concealed gun out. I would go right for HIS gun. Smarter move, more likely to succeed.

Yes, in the hands of a criminal, who is not a law abiding citizen, it is used to kill, or at least intimidate.

However, in the hands of millions of men and women across the country, it is used for defense.
You may place your trust in 911, but my living in a semi rural area has taught me about police response time.
You may place your trust in the cop on the beat, but with many departments understaffed and overworked, not only may I be able to defend my family, but I may also be in a position to help others. (granted, I am well trained, and an expert shot, unlike many gun owners unfortunately).

Now, with a gun pointed at the back of my head, I will certainly not reach for mine. But, barring that scenario, I refuse to be a victim.
Now, my logic doesn't mesh with your logic, and I respect your opinion, but I don't think it is feasible to ban all handguns and expect only some residual ownership by criminals.
I cannot support surrendering my right to defend my self, family and home. And I cannot support registration after seeing what has happened and is currently happening in other countries.
But I could support requiring training and licensing of gun owners.

DTOM said:


I understand that, but that was not my point. No matter what you use it for, a gun physically has no function but to kill. My argument about logic was not based on ideology (what we believe guns are to be used for, ie: defense, target, hunting, etc), it was based on the fact that a gun serves a single purpose by design, and that is to kill. Therefore, while there are indeed strong and coherent arguments for gun ownership, that is simply not one of them.

I live and have lived in mostly VERY rural areas, often there is no 911. I understand you. I also think banning all guns is not feasible. Just my fantasy. I agree with you more than not on this issue. In the real world, in the actual US, I don't think guns can or will be banned. Gun control however, makes sense. A law-abiding citizen shouldn't be worried about a waiting period or a background check, in fact they should welcome those measures. After all, I know that most gun owners are not excited about the prospect of shooting someone!

I think, though, that you may have misunderstood my point about the line of logic which equates guns with other objects which can be used as weapons, but are not weapons by design. In the abstract, almost anything can be a weapon. By contrast, a gun can only NOT be a weapon in the abstract. See?

Emerson case reversed

Second Amendment is a collective right

Cases supporting the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No gun laws are better than weakly enforced gun laws. If you're going to take away handguns and perhaps semi-automatic rifles don't fool around. History gives some good lessons:

http://www.potowmack.org/addressi.html



Some appalling statistics.




The Case for Gun Control. Some Issues to Peruse.

Ease of illegal weapon access, foreign comparisons and why playing the Swiss card is a fraud

A little note. When the founding fathers wrote the second amendment if their intent was to make gun ownership a strictly individual right why didn't they just spell it out thus:



Why did they have to throw in that doggone "Militia"?

Because the people were the militia? (it was literally every able bodied man)

From the New Oxford Dictionary of English:



Militia doesn't mean enlisted soldiers - the militia came from the general population. The militia brought their own weapons when they came to the scene of battle. It was assumed everyone would bring his own weapon. Therefore, they first had to own those weapons in order to bring them. I don't think you would have found many households at that time in which there was not a weapon of some kind.

The gun control lobby will say to this, that today we have a standing army, and the national guard in place of the militia.
Having read the Federalist papers (yeah I know, propaganda...) and other writings of the times, I have to conclude that most of the founding fathers believed firearms ownership to be an inherent right of free people.
I will look through my things and try and post relevant quotes.

As I understand it, there were two bodies of soldiers that were used in the Revolutionary War. There was a standing army that had sworn to stay with Washington for a stated period of time - one year/six months, etc.

The militia were in addition to that standing army. For instance the army that camped at Valley Forge was a standing army - sworn to stay for a certain period of time.

The militia gathered to reinforce and supplement the army at specific locations and at varying times.

"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."

Basheva - "the people were the militia? (it was literally every able bodied man)"

I'll go along with the program.

"A well regulated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

As the uninformed one here a simple question to the constitutional experts:

Do the "unregulated people" get to bear arms too?

You want some second amendment history???

I wrote this a few months ago to post on another site...

Some second amendment history,

I would like to pass on a few bits of information that I have here that might put legitimacy to firearms supporters positions. Even though there seems to be a consensus among the media elites that the "right to bear arms" does not, indeed, mean we have such a right to bear arms, there is PLENTY of evidence to prove that the founders and early American politicians DID assume that the individual had a right to bear arms and that firearms are NOT now a national plague.

To start off with here are a few quotes from some nay sayers.

"There is no individual right to bear arms in the bill of rights" -U.S.A. Today 12/28/98

"There is no Constitutional guarantee for private ownership of firearms.' -AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN 4/3/00

"There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to use, a handgun."-Michael Gartner, former Pres. of NBC News, U.S.A. Today 11/16/92

"The individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a "well regulated militia". Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." - ACLU policy statement #47, 1996

Of course we all have heard this nonsense before and the list of anti-gun statements and positions could fill up the entire internet. However, these ideas are the basis for the anti-gun crusaders, the basis that they claim legitimacy by. With this as a ground work they then launch in to the typical leftist appeal to the public's "feelings". They put up grossly distorted "statistics" concerning firearms deaths in which they include suicide statistics as if the gun caused the person to end his life. For instance, consider that Japan, Hungary and Scandinavia have suicide rates two and three times higher than the United States per capita yet these same countries have very stringent gun control laws. Their suicides rarely use guns because of the low level of firearm availability substituting other means for the task such as Posion, hanging and asphyxiation. Therefore, it is plain that a suicide will occur by any means as it is not the means but the person using the means causing the statistic. Mental health is the culprit for suicide, not firearms.

Also, the supposed overwhelming costs of treating gun victims in the Country's health care industry is greatly exaggerated. In an article published in the JMAG in the June 1995 issue, estimates appeared that show health care industry costs for such treatment amounts to about $1.5 billion. That adds up to only 0.2 percent of total annual health care expenditures nation wide. You may have seen crazy numbers like $20 to $30 billion is incurred for gun shot victims but this number assumes a very high lifetime earning rate loss for the victims of gun violence, most of whom are criminals. Such high lifetime earning estimates assumes that these criminals will suddenly slap their heads, realize the error of their ways and jump into a high paying job market out of the clear blue sky.

The work of Prof. Gary Kleck and Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research has shown that between 25 and 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost to guns so medical costs saved by guns in the hands of citizens who use them legally and for protection are 15 times greater than costs incurred by the criminal use of firearms.

Now, what are some of the ways we can prove that firearms ownership by each and every American IS what the founders had in mind? We can go back to their writings to each other, in newspapers and statements at the beginning of the country. The founders spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about the rights of man in the early days and this thinking influenced the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the various commentaries on jurisprudence then and these ideas and principles DIRECTLY affect the the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

A book called Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws was a hugh influence on the founders and this is what it said on arms ownership: "The right of the citizens that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense." and " This is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain violence of oppression" and again "To vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the citizens are entitled ... to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense." So, it is clear that the founders had in mind that self-preservation and defense was a natural right to be protected by the Laws and the Constitution. James Wilson was one of only 6 founders who signed the Declaration and the Constitution, he was a great Jurist and was one of the first members of the Supreme Court, appointed by George Washington. He spoke on the floor of the Constitutional Convention 168 times and was one of the most active politicians of his day. Mr. Wilson taught his laws students that the rights secured by the Constitution did not create new rights, but simply reaffirmed old ones. He said that our documents were just... "to aquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights to... which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator" Thomas Jefferson also viewed our constitution and principles similarly, saying: "Government is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us." John Adams stated that; "Rights are antecedent to all earthly government; Rights ... cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights are derived from the great Legislator of the universe."

So, what did some of the founder say about firearms specifically now that we have the principles of self-preservation established. Here are a few quotes:

-"The right ... of bearing arms... is declared to be inherent in the people." Fisher Ames, one of the framers of the 2nd Amendment in the first congress

-"The great object is that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience that, necessary as it is to have arms, ... it is still far from being the case?" Patrick Henry

-"And what country can preserve its liberties if its rules are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson

-"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them" Richard Henry Lee

-"The advantage of being armed is an advantage which the Americans posses over the people of almost every other nation ... the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison

_"A free people ought ... to be armed." George Washington

And now, what is the militia? Try these quotes:

-"The militia are the people at large." Tench Coxe Atty Gen. of Penn. and Asst. Sec of Treasury under Washington

-"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." George Mason

-"The militia is composed of free citizens." Samuel Adams

-"A militia... are in fact the people themselves." Richard Henry Lee

The first federal law passed concerning just who a militia member might be, the Militia Act of 1792, states that the "militia of the United States" consists of every adult male in the country. Under that act each adult male was required by the law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition. In fact, the current law still states, "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 and under 45 years of age." (United States code, title 10 par., 311(a) )

Lastly you can check most of the early states and see that they went even further in delineating that firearms must be owned by individuals of the states. I will refrain from citing these sources here ads it is a ton of stuff to read!!

In closing, for you fellows who maybe did not have a few facts, quotes or other info to add to your arsenal about guns in America, I hope this helped. I can supply all sources that I stated here if anyone is interested. The following was not just my "opinion" but can be backed up with source material.

Thanks for clarifying things. You obviously don't agree with most of the posters but agree with me that under this very clear and unarguable interpretation of the Second Amendment ex-cons have the same constitutional right to own guns as the rest of us.

Cousin Scarface agrees with you too. I'm sending him a copy of your very thoughtful tutorial.

If you take the amendment as is, "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," there is on the other hand, no limitation placed on what is meant by "arms." Why should there be a law, then, outlawing me from owning an RPG, an M-60, a tank, a nuclear missile? If you are willing to interpret the words to allow a limitation of what constitutes "arms," why is it less logical to extend that limitation to all guns but rifles, for example?

Perhaps it's because people didn't have those options at the time? So maybe we should outlaw all guns except flintlocks and muskets.

As Dingo is saying about convicts, I would say about the definition of arms. Since a definition is not given, tell me how it is constitutional to ban the personal ownership of nuclear weapons.

Good thought Quarkhead. Actually I made the same general point earlier, particularly using the tank example and some wise guy said he couldn't fit it in his driveway.

As I've already stated my own choice of a limitation would be to allow registered guns that were nonconcealable and not automatic or semi-automatic. A bolt action 30 odd 6 or a good shot gun should give you plenty of home defense.

I also would be more liberal about restoring the right to own a gun to fellows like my cousin Scarface who is 6 years out of the big house and making an honest living selling tips at the local race track.

Constitution aside, you are saying that citizens should NOT have the right of self defense with a firearm outside of their home.

Am I correct?

I disagree.

I did not buy guns to kill someone. One reason I have a gun is so I have a form of self-defense against an armed intruder. Another reason is so that I can understand how to use a gun and not be totally ignorant of it.

There is a difference in using a gun for self-defense versus for killing. Using a gun to simply kill other people is wrong. And those who do should be prosecuted under the full extent of the law. But, those who own guns for self-defense should not be denied the right to gun ownership simply because a few use it to kill others.

Of course you could take your rifle anywhere you like that the law allows. Perhaps we could have special circumstance exceptions if there was a demonstrable need for a handgun.

Just out of curiosity how many circumstances are you personally aware of that REQUIRED a handgun as opposed to mace, a rifle or simply a little forethought. Going for your handgun when the other fellow has the drop on you might be the last move you ever make, as Quarkhead has suggested.

Maybe I'm missing something here. How do you propose to defend yourself against an intruder without shooting to kill?

What would you say kills more people, guns or skillets, come on.

CP

Other than shooting sports you mean. Many people own guns specifically designed for competitive marksmanship purposes. Some countries with extreme gun laws require their Olympic shooting teams to practice outside their own country.


I like how most people only paint this picture of some guy behind you with a gun already pointed at your head, as if no other scenario is possible. The other fellow may have the drop on me with a knife, but I know how to block and parry long enough to reach for my gun.

By shooting to wound. Several parts of the body can be hit with causing a mortal wound, yet still incapacitate a criminal.

How would some killer get a gun if they weren't sold to people other than cops or the military?

CP

Dirty cops, shady arms deals and foreign nations with no regard for our weapons or contraband laws

Gun control would minmize deaths by quite a lot though.

CP

Please tell us how.

Well, if guns are not permitted to the public, there will be less people with guns and killlers won't have as much acess to guns which means there will be less deaths.

CP

And you would get rid of the estimated 300,000,000 guns in America, by snapping you fingers?

you're not listening. I said it would reduce gun related deaths.

CP

Look, this isn't that hard to understand. I'm not talking about what YOU might use a gun for. You might use it as a paperweight, I don't care. My point has naught to do with gun control. It is just that this argument (ban guns, why not cars etc) is a logical fallacy. You may buy a gun for defense, or as DTOM states:



target shooting, etc. The fact however, remains that guns were invented and are designed for a single purpose, and that is to kill. As I've said before, I am a gun owner. I am not trying to get rid of every gun. Might be nice, but I know that it's not going to happen, not in our lifetimes. It's just that this particular line of argument is not logically consistent. A skillet is designed for cooking. However, I can kill you with it. Not its intended use. A gun is designed to kill. I could use it as a paperweight. Not its intended use. See what I mean?

I feel like you guys are taking this personally, but look: as I have said, there are some good arguments for the right to bear arms. This is just not one of them. That's all. That's it. That's all I'm saying. Heavens, I'm not even trying to change your mind about your stance on this issue. Just that you would make a more sound argument for gun rights by leaving out this line of reasoning.

I agree somewhat quarkhead. But, to split hairs, guns were not designed to kill. Guns were designed to propell small objects (bullets) at high velocities. Merely a tool that uses a chemical reaction to release energy that performs work, as opposed to a slingshot, bow-and-arrow, catapult, etc. that uses mechanical advantage to propell and object.
I will agree that due to the increased effeciency of the chemical reaction of firearms, they are much more dangerous, therefore, much easier to kill people with.
But, as with any tool, it is in HOW WE USE IT. No object is inherently good, or inherently evil.
If guns were designed to kill people, it could be argued that collectors, olympic shooters, movie stars, everyone that fires a gun without the intent of causing injury, are MISUSING their firearms. Whereas, since criminals are killing people, they are using theirs correctly.

I think this is kinda backwards.

Well said man..

I dont know about you but I am currently practicing using one of my tools as a "tack driver"..

ok ok couldnt resist..hehe

GBYA

Aahz

If its me with the knife and I know you have a gun that 's gonna be my first object of interest. If you can position yourself to parry, which suggests you are in control, why not run?



This sounds like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood movie heroics. I've never heard of a cop who shot to wound. You shoot for the body mass.

Ah yes, I remember reading this a while back...

Number of physicians in the U.S.: 700,000. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000. Accidental deaths per physician: 0.171

Number of gun owners in U.S.: 80 million. Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups): 1,500. Accidental deaths per gun owner: 0.0000188

Statistically, doctors are 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

...while I have no real good sources for this, you'd be sure to find it by searching for "gun deaths malpractice medical" at google. I read it on the internet, and the internet doesn't lie.

I even found one place that claims the stats are from the U.S. Dept. of Health, but they seem to be a bit biased.

Mike

Mike, how many people have been mugged by surgical forceps?

Surgeons are dealing with death threatening accidents or sicknesses that they didn't cause. The surgical procedures are often complicated and error prone. The gun-killer combination whether deliberate or accidental is a simple point of origin horror with no decent purpose.

It's apples and oranges.

Quarkhead,

Your argument is flawed.

Basically you are saying: eliminate guns because technology has changed, or, Get rid of guns because other “arms” are more powerful, or the constitution is not clear enough about arms of mass destruction so the easier solution is to get rid of ALL “arms”.

All of this vagary you intend to use to eliminate our rights.

Now the flaw.

The constitution says arms. O.K., to you that is vague. However, they HAD cannons, land mines, grenades and other large “arms” during the era. Those were NOT under consideration as quotes from the founders show. They DID have weapons of mass destruction of the day and these “arms” were NOT what was considered. Why can I say that? Because arms in that era were defined as rifles and pistols. Cannons were called either filed pieces, ordnance or just plain cannons. When you said gun back then it was immediately thought you were talking about a rifle or pistol. As a matter of fact firearm was almost exclusively defined as a rifle in the 1700’s in the nomenclature of the time.

So, they did NOT necessarily mean individuals could own cannons or other larger weapons we lump together as “arms” today because the word ARMS was not a catch all phrase as it is today. It was expected that the armies and states would own the larger and expensive “arms”. So, your claim that a nuke would be covered under the constitution is incorrect and ignores what words MEANT during the day.

Nice try at obfuscation, though. You even had a few going for it.

Then we get to the RIGHT to self defense, you so obviously IGNORED! Might want to address that one before you continue to argue against guns.

Once we can prove that you are against a natural RIGHT of man we can put your fallacious argument in context and evaluate it properly. We will see your thoughts revealed from the curtain you are trying to hide behind.

Excuse me for butting in.



I wasn't aware rifling had been developed backed then. Flintlock muskets were the long guns if I recall.

It might help if you defined "arms" in the modern sense. Would machine guns count and if not why not? They're portable. Where do you draw the line and what's your criteria?

Also what does the RIGHT to self-defense mean in constitutional terms. I'm big on defending myself but I'm not aware the constitution ever addressed the matter in personal terms one way or the other except with regard to your rights in a legal proceding.

Dingo,

Most military arms were smooth bore. But Rifled arms were created in about 1775. I used the word rifle to associate what we use to what they used. That is why they said ARMS and not guns, or muskets or rifles or even pistols. Because Arms MEANT rifles, pistols and muskets to them.

Yours...’’ Would machine guns count?’’

Actually, they WOULD count!! Because the founders meant MILITARY arms. That would mean that a machine gun WOULD qualify as you certainly would not want to create an army today with single shot rifles in their hands to face the enemy with!

And, by the way, that enemy was the GOVERNMENT. The US GOVERNMENT to many of the founders. They meant arms to be a threat to the POWER of federal government as mush as they meant arms to be used to shoot a burglar.

Here was the argument. If you are beholden to someone else to keep you safe in your home then you are really shackled to that other person for safety. Therefore you are truly NOT free or liberated because you are dependent upon someone else for that safety. By extension that someone else or outside agency is the government. So, if you MUST rely on the government for your very safety you are a slave to that government and cannot really have liberty.

But, on the other hand, if you are able to take up arms at a moments notice you ARE free to keep your home safe. And by extension put down a tyrannical government when it begins to encroach upon that freedom.

That was their argument. And you can see that the first thing EVERY tyranny does is get rid of personally owned firearms which tends to prove the founders correct.

Yours...’’Where do you draw the line and what's your criteria?’’

I think machine guns would be fine. Many people in the Netherlands have them and people do not go about using them for crimes! My criteria would end with that though. I would NOT include a right to cannons, nukes, bombs or other items of mass destruction because THOSE items would be in the arsenal of the militia of the states or the national army just as in the parallel I made above between the long arms of the 1700’s and the cannons (weapons of mass destruction of the times) their armies used back then.

Yours...’’Also what does the RIGHT to self-defense mean in constitutional terms.’’

The very opening of the constitution mirrors much of what the Declaration of Independence said...We the people (all of our citizens) ...establish justice (based on the ideals of rights already arrived at by the founders)...provide for the common defense (militia and army) ... secure the blessings of liberty (based on the definition of liberty which also invokes the natural rights).

The natural rights agreed upon in the Declaration simply CANNOT be divorced from the constitution just because the constitution itself did not go into a long drawn out philosophical discussion of them!

However, these natural rights WERE discussed ad infinitum by the founders and the natural rights agenda was the one that won the debate. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin and so many others engaged in this debate to beat down monarchy supporters. These men created our national direction and base philosophy.

So, their ideas and writings MUST be investigated BEFORE the constitution itself is evaluated.

-What did words and phrases MEAN back then?(as compared to what they might mean today)
-What were the ideals that the founders relied upon to base their philosophy?(because they certainly would not use the constitution as a platform to discuss overarching philosophical questions, it was a governing document not a philosophy class!)
-What did the state constitutions have in them? (compared to what the federal constitution has in it)
-What were the writings that influenced the founders? (Locke, Hume, Adam Smith etc)
-What did they disagree on? (slavery, how much control should the federal gov’t have?)

All these things MUST be determined BEFORE you can evaluate what the constitution “says”. It cannot be simply taken at face value alone. It is NOT a “living document”. A living document would imply that it can be forever revised to what terms we use today! The founders had VERY specific meanings and ideas. Besides, if it is forever altering it is not REALLY law is it? If it can change depending of perception there is little reason to use it in the first place. Why not do away with it and have referendums all the time to determine the national mood?

ColWTH:

Jeez, man, calm down. Perhaps you ought to read my posts a little more carefully.

You:



You may note that I never used the words eliminate guns, except within the context of an ideal. I clearly stated that it was, further, an ideal I had no expectation of becoming reality. Don't put words in my mouth. Some words I did use included: the fact that I own a rifle, and enjoy target shooting. The opinion that there were some good arguments for gun ownership. THOSE are some of the contents of my posts.

You:



You know what? I didn't know that. Had you managed to present your post with a little more politeness I would have thanked you for educating me on the subject. Oh well.

And finally,




I've got to tell you something, brother. I am not an anti-gun person. As I have stated clearly, it is MY PERSONAL OPINION that IDEALLY, guns would be eliminated. I am not now, nor have I ever been, proselytizing for the elimination of gun rights, OR self-defence rights.

The way you present your argument only further polarizes any sides in a debate. Tone it down a little, man. I respect your views. You seem angry. By the way, I have Venetian blinds, but no curtains.

Quarkhead,

I read your post as stated. It STILL reads as your idea to rid the country of guns.

Now, I accept that you say you do not expect to rid the country of guns on a realistic level but that your personal “ideal” is to be rid of guns. Fine.

But what led me to believe you wanted them to be taken away was the fact that you ignored the natural rights argument and went off on reasons the constitution is too vague and used that as a semi argument to be rid of them.

It was a natural assumption for me to make to think you wanted our rights and guns taken away. If my assumption was wrong, then so be it. But, further, you claim communism as a panacea for the world’s ills, apparently, and that ideology mandates the elimination of not only personal rights but personally owned firearms. If you are NOT for the elimination of personal rights OR the elimination of personally owned firearms, how could you POSSIBLY claim to be a communist!!??

You must see my dilemma? You also must imagine why I would be prone to begin by strongly contesting your points!

And I find it interesting that you seem to equate “niceness” with validity, too! Do you contend that my information is automatically discounted because I did not fit your nicety standards?

I am strident. I am serious. And, yes, I do get angry when I feel that my rights and the ideals of the founders are being abrogated. And I see NO reason to apologize for that. Also, debate does not require agreement or “being nice”. It requires as clear a statement of your position as possible. But it also requires enough passion to incite reply, in my opinion.

And I need ONLY respect your RIGHT to state your opinion. I absolutely DO NOT have to respect your opinion, nor you mine. This would be one of those curtains you hide behind. One that allows you never to make a judgment of another because everyone is the “same”. Well, everyone is NOT the same. And every opinion does NOT carry equal validity.

Lastly, I am NOT your brother.(O.K. that last part WAS a bit mean! Ha,ha.)

QH, I'm not taking anything personally, just wanted to clarify (not necessarily to you, but to others reading this) that there are more purposes to owning a gun than simply to kill someone.


Of course I intend to shoot at an intruder. I'm not going to just wave my gun in front of him. (As an aside, have people noticed in the old Superman episodes that Superman will just stand there and let bullets bounce off his chest? But, when the bad guys throw guns at him, he'll have to duck? Perhaps the bad guys should just simply throw guns at him instead of shooting bullets.)

I guess I didn't make the distinction clear. I'm differentiating between self-defense and murder.
To elaborate, there's a difference between shooting a person who breaks into my house versus me breaking into someone else's house and shooting a person. In the former case, I would not be prosecuted under any laws. It is my right to defend my family with any means at my disposal. In the latter case, I would be prosecuted under the law.

If someone did break into my home, I would hope that I wouldn't have to use the gun (it would leave holes in my house). But, it's reassuring to know that I have that option.


I agree.

militia as defined by the US code, subtitle A, part 1, chapter 13, section 311:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( the classes of the militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia

(source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/)

we are ALL members of the militia, mostly the un-organized militia.

"a well regulated militia, being nessecay to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
2nd amendment, US constitution.

that smilie is supposed to be a B in perenthesis by the way

ColWTH:


Actually, that's not what I said. I did in fact find your information educational. It has prompted me to study up on it, because I supremely enjoy seeking out new knowledge. What I said was, had you posted less abrasively, I would have actually THANKED you for the information.

ColWTH:


I have said elsewhere, and sorry if you didn't see it, I am spiritually a Communist. Politically, I am more of a Socialist, I suppose, though I am not fond of labelling myself and towing any strict party lines. By the way, Communism, if you study it as an ideology, does NOT mandate the elimination of personal rights. That is, however, grist for another mill.

ColWTH:


I agree. I should have stated that more clearly.

And will you stop with the curtains already? Do you have a fetish about the Wizard of Oz or something? And thanks for once again informing me of my own beliefs, how kind of you! I think the term you were looking for, and just couldn't quite wrap your lips around, is moral relativism. I suggest you take a philosophy class or read some books, because you are, sadly, misunderstanding it and, more sadly, simplifying it.

ColWTH:



OK, sister, then. I assumed you were male. Hooah, sister!

OTSENG:


I understand. I agree, there are more purposes, etc. My point was being made merely on the level of design function, not what people may or may not choose to do with their guns. I also agree with LFTHNDTHRDS, that no object is inherently good or evil, and I should say that in my reasoning, morality of guns never came into play.