Another devistating crime in the US!!!

[Novdid]

Originally posted by Fat Tone
Here's a question:

Just exactly what would it take to convince the majority of Americans that widespread gun ownership (or "right to bear arms" etc) is a bad thing?

T.

Very well put.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by Fat Tone
Here's a question:

Just exactly what would it take to convince the majority of Americans that widespread gun ownership (or "right to bear arms" etc) is a bad thing?

T.

A revolution?

BTW, the Federal Constitutional "right to bear arms" applies ONLY to a militia to defend the state and not to the individual and it comes with an implication that guns should be controlled.

[Joel]

Unbias statics that show that it is a bad thing.

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%
(3)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

The only ones causing the main problems are those that don't abid by the laws, any laws, including gun control laws. Stricter gun control laws only effect those that abid by the law in the first place. What we need is better enforcement of the laws we already have and tougher penalties upon those that use guns illegally. Not more laws that do nothing but waste more taxpayer dollars. We already have enough of that going on.

Joel

[GT98]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
A revolution?

BTW, the Federal Constitutional "right to bear arms" applies ONLY to a militia to defend the state and not to the individual and it comes with an implication that guns should be controlled.

Hmm here is it word for word off the Constitution:

Amendment II

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.

I don't see anything there with out twisting it out of context that it implies that arms are to controlled or what not. Also look at what was going on at the time of writing (1791) and the world is alot different then it is today. I have no problems with gun control as long as its reasonable. Also the culture of the avg US citizen is one of Don't trust the government, and keeping firearms is part of that checks and balances in our minds.

[MultimediaMan]

Brian E. : The Courts are starting to disagree with you. The "collective right" school of thought if fast fading in the U.S. Court system as far as the 2nd. Amendment is concerned.

The real quandry is this: if they do go out and say that it is an individual right (As done via Dicta in The Dredd Scott Case, and much more recently, in Ramirez), nearly all gun control laws on the books would be unconstitutional overnight.

[Joel]

BTW, the Federal Constitutional "right to bear arms" applies ONLY to a militia to defend the state and not to the individual and it comes with an implication that guns should be controlled.

CONSTITUTION

* In the Bill of Rights, the second amendment to the Constitution reads:

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.

* Gun control proponents have argued that the use of the word "people" in this Amendment, refers not to the civilian population of the United States, but to the State National Guard Units. (54)

* Gun rights proponents have argued that the use of the word "Militia" in this Amendment, refers not to the State National Guard Units, but to the citizens of the United States. (54)

* James Madison was responsible for proposing the Second Amendment and was one of three authors of the Federalist papers. The Federalist Papers were published in newspapers to explain, argue for, and support ratification of the Constitution. (55)(56)

* In Federalist Paper 46, James Madison argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (56)

* Quotes from Thomas Jefferson, the author of The Declaration of Independence:

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. (57)(58)(59)

Plus the Constitution starts off with these simple words. "We the people..." basically meaning "we" the individual citizens thus referred to as "the people". So for us "the people" does indicate the individual citizen.

Joel

[Sasq]

I usually don't post in these things.

As far as gun control and disarming the US population, don't think it’s going to happen in the foreseeable future. The cat is well and truly out of the bag, and its had kittens.

I’m not across the US laws – and I know they go state by state, the only thing I could suggest would be better enforcement and education. For example in my home state in Australia, to get a gun license (apart from criminal checks) you must go through a 10 week (2 nights a week) education program at the local community college before you are issued with a permit to buy a firearm (rifle), hand guns except in special circumstances are kept on the firing range in the vault (you must also be a member of the range for 6 months before you can purchase a weapon).

I realize the hand gun bit would never happen in America, but better education/checks couldn’t hurt.

-- the education was mostly concerning gun safety, storage, which end is the dangerous end (with some rifles both, still got bruises from one )

[Dr Mordrid]

In the US states that have concealed carry laws DO require classes in operation and the law itself. Before this can even happen in most states (remember the US is a Federation where the states rule over things not ordained as Federal in the constitution) a purchase permit is required with its own background and criminal checks before you can even BUY the handgun. To get a first hunting license in Michigan a certified safety class is also required.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

Joel

"

Plus the Constitution starts off with these simple words. "We the people..." basically meaning "we" the individual citizens thus referred to as "the people". So for us "the people" does indicate the individual citizen."

Your interpretation of "the people" jarred on my sensibilities, so I looked it up in my electronic Oxford. In this context, it stated:
"2 (prec. by the; treated as pl.) a the mass of people in a country etc. not having special rank or position. b these considered as an electorate (the people will reject it)"

Then, as so often, I thought of the common language that divides us, so I dug out my Merriam-Webster. It states:
"1. pl human beings not individually known ... 3. the mass of persons in a community.

Neither in Oxford or Webster could I find reference to the "individual citizen". I therefore suggest that your interpretation is not what was intended by your founding fathers. People is always plural in both dictionaries.

GT98
"I don't see anything there with out twisting it out of context that it implies that arms are to controlled or what not."

Surely a "well-regulated militia" implies that the users who bear arms within that militia have their arms under control?????

One other point that seems to be lacking in this debate is that many seem to believe that arms control is the same as an arms ban. Nothing could be farther fom the truth. Take Switzerland, for example. Every household with an active and fit man between the ages of 19 and 50 (and most others, besides) has at least one firearm and ammunition (militia obligation). Many of the same people have collections of guns. Arms control is strict, although anyone, even foreigners, can obtain a gun permit to carry a visible gun (it is more difficult to obtain a permit for a handgun or other concealed weapon).

Armed crime is low (beyond the odd attempted hold-up of a bank or post-office with a toy pistol or suchlike). Deaths resulting from gunshot wounds are extremely low, even suicides (as it happens, a work colleague shot himself with his military sidearm for marital reasons, but this really exceptional). Practically every gunshot (other than hunting rifls and shotguns) fired in the country is reported in the national newspapers, it is that rare. This is the effect of a well-regulated and well-applied set of gun controls, but let anyone use a gun illegally and he will need a hacksaw to go out, for several years. This even applies to cops in the course of their duty. Of course, the definition of what is legal is carefully defined.

[MultimediaMan]

BrianE. : The U.S. courts have ruled, many times over, that the people are constituted of individuals. I suggest you look in a dictionary of legal terms: U.S. Legal Language is quite specific.

The Militia was to be "every able-bodied man", but there was no codified "Militia" until the National Guard was formed. And Militia as taken in context with the meaning of the amendment in the year it was formed most definitely meant "individual".

[Joel]

Every household with an active and fit man between the ages of 19 and 50 (and most others, besides) has at least one firearm and ammunition (militia obligation). Many of the same people have collections of guns.

Armed crime is low (beyond the odd attempted hold-up of a bank or post-office with a toy pistol or suchlike).

And the point you are trying to prove. We have also stated that in places where the law abiding citizens are more likely to have a firearm the less likely of higher crime rates. You have just shown the same thing. The arguement here is as someone else stated, reasonable gun control measures. Unfortunately in the US the hard line liberal view of gun control is an arms ban, which of course would only effect the law abiding citizen.

Joel

[Fat Tone]

I don't agree that it would only affect law-abiding citizens. Where do you think the illegal arms come from? Admittedly the problem is a massive one as you are starting from a point of massive illegal ownership, but removing privately owned weapons, having amnesties etc must have some positive effect.

T.

[Brian Ellis]

"And Militia as taken in context with the meaning of the amendment in the year it was formed most definitely meant "individual"."

In both dictionaries, again, the word 'militia' is given as a force, not an individual. However, in this case, and both dictionaries agree, there is a word for the individual and that is 'militiaman'. This word is not used in the second amendment, so I suggest that the interpretation of the plurality to the individual is not what was intended.

No one argues that a people are (note the plurality) constituted of indivividuals: this is evident. But what applies to the plurality does not necessarily apply to the individual. If it did, the need for corporations, which give limited liability to their owners, would not exist. There are many instances in law that apply to bodies and not to individuals.

[GT98]

Originally posted by Fat Tone
I don't agree that it would only affect law-abiding citizens. Where do you think the illegal arms come from? Admittedly the problem is a massive one as you are starting from a point of massive illegal ownership, but removing privately owned weapons, having amnesties etc must have some positive effect.

T.

As for illegal arms...they already have been out on the market and there is nothing really that can be done to put the genie back into the bottle. Amnesties have limited effect..just place yourself in the shoes of a criminal...if they banned firearms ownership in the US and forced you to turn in your weapons, that would want me, the criminal, to hold onto them longer since it gives me a better advangate over someone who is now unarmed.

[GT98]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
"And Militia as taken in context with the meaning of the amendment in the year it was formed most definitely meant "individual"."

In both dictionaries, again, the word 'militia' is given as a force, not an individual. However, in this case, and both dictionaries agree, there is a word for the individual and that is 'militiaman'. This word is not used in the second amendment, so I suggest that the interpretation of the plurality to the individual is not what was intended.

No one argues that a people are (note the plurality) constituted of indivividuals: this is evident. But what applies to the plurality does not necessarily apply to the individual. If it did, the need for corporations, which give limited liability to their owners, would not exist. There are many instances in law that apply to bodies and not to individuals.

The only thing your doing now is spilting hairs to support your argument that guns are evil and no one should own them. I personally dont own any firearms, but I agree that it should be legal to own them.