Talk Elections

How do people feel regarding gun laws? Personally I am incredibly anti-gun. It would frighten me enormously if Britain relaxed gun laws to the extent that the US has. I think this is one of the main reasons the UK has such a miniscule homicide rate. Perhaps people here would start killing eachother however they don't have the means to do it!! :-)

There are other means to kill someone besides guns! Strangulation, stabbing, freak car accidents, freak accidents of other nature, wrapping them up in wet rawhide and when it dries, it'll crush their bones and their flesh will ooze from their bodies. Many ways! But to list anymore would be, ah, demented.

True, but guns can prove fatal from a distance, but stabbing, stangling etc. has to be done when you are close to the victim.  So, guns are easier to get away with in the world of crime, if you know what I mean.

Yeah. You're right, but committing Homicide wth a gun is so 'lacking' in imagination. Here's imagination for you, courtesy of Jonathan Taylor Thomas, from his role in 'Man of the House': paraphrasing: You could wrap us up in wet rawhide, so when it dries, it will crush our bones and our flesh will ooze out of our orafaces like a tube of toothpaste!

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.


--first, Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.  The people want to be able to own firearms.

The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights which is a list of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS sucha s the seond amendment.

Check  out the 5th Circuit case of United States v. Emerson and the District case below it for a detailed history and explanation of the 2d Amendment as an individual right.

'A well regulated Militia', that's right, that's what the second Amendment meant, not that everyone should be able to own one, but be provided one in the Defense of their country in service, only.

I actually think the idea of state militias is kind of out-dated, but that's just me.

Well, Do we as a Nation just throw out the baby with the bath water? Sure, there's a lot of outdated, useless language in the Constitution. But, we need [for STABILITY'S SAKE] preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States of America!

I think the way things stand now regarding firearms isn't too bad.  The only changes I might make would be

*Create a 48 hour "cooling off" period when purchasing a firearm.

*Close the loophole which allows unlicensed individuals to sell firearms from their "personal collection" wthout conducting a criminal background check.

*Hold accountable gun dealers who sell firearms either without conducting a background check or who knowingly sell to individuals who fail a check.

*Require anyone selling a firearm to make a gun lock available free of charge (essentially built into the price of the firearm).

Now that the Republicans have more power I notice they've abandoned their efforts to relax gun laws. Strange, isn't it?

The frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is more friendly to the rights of gun owners than Bush is.

In other words, Republicans only oppose gun control when it suits them.

What?  relax gun laws, Republicans have always said ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE, don't make more.

wakie--gun dealers now have to do background checks and it is illegal not for them to do so.  so if they are not doing this then yes they should be held accountable, as in arrested b/c they are breaking the law.

I don't believe in "gun locks" and definately don't believe int eh government mandating it, maybe make it optional.  But many people don't know how to fire a gun in a hurry with a gun lock on it and could be hurt by an attacker b/c the gun does have a gun lock on it.

Yeah, after 10 years of controlling Congress (with the last 3 with a Republican White House) you would have thought they'd have gotten a lot more of that "contract with America" through.

But still .... no line item veto.  No balanced budget amendment.  No online access to Congressional documents.

Plain and simple, they just walked away from some of there stated agenda items.  Mainly those which sound good but have the potential to hurt them the most politically.

line item veto was sstruck down by the courts, and would take a cA as would the Balanced Budget amendment and the votes for 2/3's not just a simple majority are not there.

Yes, gun dealers have to do checks but individuals selling from their private collections do not.  That loophole allows convicted felons to get their hands on guns.  That definitely needs to be closed.

I'm in favor of stronger punishment for dealers who don't do checks.

Finally I think gun locks are necessary.  If someone doesn't know how to use a gun they really shouldn't operate one, should they?  Just as if someone doesn't know how to use a car they shouldn't operate one of those either.

well your original post said gun dealers, so that is what I addressed.

The example I was referring to was the burglar breaking into the houseor the rapist and the woman reaches for the gun to protect herself but b/c of a gun lock she couldn't operate it and was injured.  There are documented cases on this.

Stronger punishments, don't see a problem with that.  If you break the law you are a criminal, plain and simple.

In fact the NRA is the ones that pushed for the law to give a mandatory sentence of 5 years if a gun was used ina  criminal offense.  So no matter if they pled the crime down they still got 5 years for the crime.

Can't remember the exact name of it now, but Virginia is where it started and has spread to a lot of states from there.

I mentioned private sellers and gun dealers.


Sadly there are also many cases of children finding a gun without a gun lock on it and accidently hurting/killing themself or someone else.  If you want to store your gun without the gun lock on it then that is one thing.  But not being given that opportunity because the dealer "didn't have any in stock" is unacceptable.

Someone who provides a weapon to a convicted felon should be tried as an accessory to any crime that felon then commits.

Bowling for Columbine was an excellent documentary.

Well, now, you have something there, about a possible attacker and women not knowing how to disengage a lock. But, shouldn't their significant other or a male friend take them out to a shooting range and teach them how to use a gun? With or without a lock. That's how we teach our kids how to drive, on the backroads, long before they get behind a wheel of a car with their driving instructors.

I would bear no opposition to criminalizing gun ownership. The only entity, according to the Supreme Court in Presser v. Illinois, with the right to own a firearm is the government. If we criminalize possession, we can establish criminality before the weapon is ever discharged, and can prevent crime before it even happens. Then we have to contend with that most ridiculous of special interests, hunters. These people are willing to place some silly recreation before public safety. We will just have to say emphatically that their right to shoot at an animal takes a backseat to the prevention of crime, and animal population can be just as effectively controlled by selectively sterilizing a percentage of the animal population. It's really that simple, and it frustrates me to no end when certain conservatives could care less when freedom of speech and due process are treated like a poor relation in the name of national security, but unmitigated gun ownership is treated like an uncriticizable necessity.

I agree with most of what you said. But, my friend, I am a HUNTER. We don't do it to control the pet population, we do it for food. Venison, if done right, is delicious, and a gamy alternative to beef and pork and chicken.

By that token, I supposed it would be acceptable for me to kill a spotted owl as long as I made a steak out of it. I also don't believe you get your food from hunting. If you want food, you can look in your freezer.

yeah, and in my freezer you'd find Venison. NOW, your comparison to shooting a 'protected' species to killing a Buck is totally bogus. Deer are not a protected species. Why euthanize or sterilize when people since Biblical Days, [read about Jacob and Esau] have hunted deer. Are you a card carrying member of PETA? I, by the way, would never hunt exotic, or endangered species of any kind. Also, I am from the Upper Penninsula of Michigan. We have laws against shooting deer who's antlers have not grown more than 4 inches from the base of the skull. We have also banned feeding deer in the wild just to fatten them up to shoot them.  We are not barbaric. But, hunting is a way of life here. It does provide for food.

So, do you have to take a 12-inch ruler and measure the antlers?  How exactly do they regulate that?

 Gun Control in the US is more or less a dead issue. The suburban areas where gun control is a popular issue are now Democratic anyways, and Gore himself blames the NRA for his defeat more than any other factor. The issue is now at the point where it will harm the remaining Democrats in the rural areas, while the Dems do not have much left to gain in the suburban areas.

I know, you start a conversation and then someone throws out a completely BOGUS argument and skews the whole debate.  Apples and oranges with spotted owl.

I'm for gun rights. Outside of background checks (and maybe the assault weapons ban), I don't think that there needs to be any additional gun laws.

I am not for handgun bans or anything as drastic as that. I support the 2nd amendment.

Jake

An experienced Hunter should and would be able to tell how long the antlers are. We also have to go to our local DNR office and get it verified and tagged. Also, there are substancial fines levied, and even jail or prison time for willful violation of these regulations. And, if we take a doe in an area that is not designated for Hunters to take a doe out of, that's automatic revoke of license, they can repossess your house, cars, everything. It's become more and more strict. Also, we have a rule of thumb: "Let Them Go and Let Them Grow!"

Here! Here! Well said my Good Lad!

 I live in a suburban area within a big city, and the deer have become pests, not only being a test in terms of minor issues such as eating peoples gardens and flowers, but to the point they in some cases become a road hazard, also a hazard to themselves as well because the potential for starvation is there, and at time sthis does happen.

  While people have the image of suburban and urban areas being hostile to all wildlife, the deer have adapted to humans quite well.

I live in a rural area and I don't have a gun.
I don't need one either.

I have deers around in my suburb, but no one really minds them. Most people have real problems to worry about.

If you don't curb the deer populatio by hunting it grows rampant as in some parts of the US and becomes dangerous in traffic accidents galore.  Let alone wondering all over and into some cities by mistake.

I'm not an expert on this subject but I thought hunters took care of this when they went out huting in the hunting season. We have tons of deers and elks in Sweden, as well as large forests and a rich wildlife, but we don't need our citizens to go around carrying guns. It has never been an issue, so I doubt that argument.

And where I live in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan, deer really do become a nuisance. There have been deaths where deer fly into the windshield and [if it's a Buck] its antlers have gone right through a driver's or passenger's body.

I [being an experienced hunter for 15 years] really think that Deer know when it's hunting season, and they skittatle. Sometimes I feel like Elmer Fudd, trying to "get that Rabbit!"

I find it very interesting that the people who push the strongest for more gun restrictions are the same people who have done everything in their power to undermine law enforcement, and to make it easier for criminals to get away with their crimes.  These are also the people who say we have too many people in prison.

Does anybody truly believe that a person who does not fear the consequences of murdering people will fear the consequences of illegal handgun possession?  Or that such a person will not be able to get an illegal gun, regardless of the law?

There is already a federal law prohibiting those convicted of certain crimes from possessing guns.  If we enforce laws like this, as well as severely punish those who use guns in committing a crime, this will have a much greater effect on crime than passing a law that the liberals will ultimately prevent from being properly enforced anyway.

The reason why many liberals push for gun control is very simple: it has the smallest human toll. To make criminal penalties stronger would have the effect of putting people for long periods of time in dehumanizing places such as prison. Such a result would be undesirable, because nothing crushes the human spirit more than confinement, and people need to keep their hopes up to be rehabilitated. I steadfastly believe that taking guns out of the hands of criminals would be much more beneficial than simply allowing them to commit the crime and then brutalize them.

I agree wholeheartedly. We should enforce the laws we have, not create new ones. All those new proposals do is scare the populace.

Are you sure your not a republican?  you sound more republican each day.

You're very unrealistic.  People don't commit crimes because they have guns.  People seek out guns because they intend to commit crimes, and  even if you are successful in denying them guns, which is almost impossible, they will find another way.

This type of thinking is a perfect example of the unrealistic view many liberals have of human behavior, and why liberalism has been so destructive to our society.

As far as "crushing the spirits" of brutal criminals, that's exactly what we should be doing.  When a person reaches the point of being willing to kill a father in front of his child, or something like that, I don't believe that person can be rehabilitated, and I don't think we should waste more innocent lives trying.  Rehabilitiation is for kids who get caught stealing hubcaps or smashing mailboxes, not for brutal killers.

A seperate thought, more and moe states are passing right to carry and cnceal laws.  well seems interesting and that gun control is nto the road the nation is taking.

Read John Lotts book:

More Guns, less Crime  

lays out the case very well.  He is a professor from Yale.

Not true. I am all for putting people in jails and tough penalties. But I am still sceptical of allowing people to purchase guns freely. The point is obviously not criminals, who will get weapons anyway. Most people who get murdered, are killed by close relatives or family members, husbands killing wives and so on. In these cases the crimes are often rash and passionate and a free access to guns increase the risk of a deadly outcome.

Btw, we are on page three and still talking about the original subject. Is that a record??

Well, I think that the current laws that we have are being adequately enforced. I do support putting more police on the streets in high crime areas, which was part of Clinton's crime bill in 1994. If current gun crimes aren't being adequately prosecuted, then that is the fault of the Attorney General and the Justice Department. The way I see it, it does more harm than good to society to allow guns to be made available for sale if they have no legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Guns that are commonly used for legitimate uses such as target practice or as a hunting weapon should be legal. However, I don't think that a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate use as a weapon other than to kill people.

Nym90, Who is going to go to a dealer and say that their purpose for buying the gun is for anything other than sporting/hunting? So, a retailer would justly assume that a gun/weapons purchase is for none other than sporting/hunting. My cousin was murdered in cold blood, he didn't have a chance. So, no, I do not agree that our laws are being enforced.

Well, I'm not saying that we would just take their word for it when they purchase the gun. Each model of gun needs to be assessed to determine whether or not it has legitimate hunting and sporting value. No one, however, has ever seriously proposed banning any guns which have legitimate hunting value. Shotguns, 30/30 deer rifles, no one will ever make those illegal, obviously, nor is anyone trying to. I think that the NRA loves to use scare tactics about how your guns are going to be taken away, but that's just completely and patently false.
Clinton's crime bill in 1994 proposed banning assault weapons which had no legitimate purpose as a gun other than to kill people. Also, it included several more traditionally conservative ideas such as expanding the death penalty and putting more police on the street. Republicans opposed it though despite this. So if laws aren't being adequately enforced, we should put more police on the streets. It was the Republicans though, and not the Democrats who were opposed to the crime bill in 1994.
It seems to me that the issue of gun control often deals with hyperbole and does not take a hard look at the facts of the specific laws being proposed.

Well the problem is that gun control doesn't work.  Criminals will still find a way to get a gun ont he streets from other criminals.  

Plus Prisons should be hell.  If you are there for life and not getting out forever.  There is no rehabilitation as they know they have nothing to lose by killing another prison or hurting a guard.  

However I do support rehab for certain criminals, but hard to talk so generally about that.

The criminal code says nothing about being beaten to death or sodomized, jravnsbo. If you were confined to a prison for life, one would think that would be bad enough. Adding forcible anal sex and having your eyes bludgeoned out significantly worsens the conditions of the prison. While it might upset me to see these things happen, I become more resolved in my horror when I hear of people like you say that prisoners are deserving of this and those who simply turn a blind eye. I suppose someone like you can never be shown that this is an abomination in the human dignity category, but if you ever get put in Attica, good luck trying to sit down after movie night.

When I said Prison should be hell, I meant tough.  You put words in my tough and took it as what you thought.

Murders that have life sentences should not be allowed to have gym equipment and cable tv, which a lot of FREE americans don't even have.  

I am not for anyone being attacked no matter how bad they are.

I apologize to you for jumping to the conclusion of portraying prison as it actually is. But I will say that gym equipment, television, and education might be better outlets for channeling energy, and might allow people to do things as a substitute for such activities.

ah, but I think that modern sitcoms should not be available to prisoners, nor should any news channel. They are there for a reason, and that is not to stay informed of things going on on the outside. They have been ostracized from civilization. All ties to civilization should be cut, for as long as their sentence deems. I know I sound like an Ultra Conservative here, but prisoners sometimes operate criminal rings from the inside, so ties should be cut.

I am all for rehab for them, as I said.  But they shouldn't get luxuries either.  They are in PRISON for gosh's sake.

A lot come out bigger and stronger than ever and more dangerous.  We do need to do rehab, but you can make prisons so contact is more limited and safer and you should definately isolate the most violent of the violent.

I think the prison system should be standardized across the nation. The Federal Government could lay heavy mandates on the States until they comply. It shouldn't be up to each State how to treat it's prisoners or operate it's prisons. This may sound extremely liberal, because I am proposing federal regulations, which I am against most of the time. And, there should be no country club prisons for anyone. Prison should be Prison, not relaxing on a gulf course.

I just read that JFK was alifelong NRA member, i didn't know that.

I, too, believe that there should be standardized federal regulations for prisons. But I say this so that the excesses of states like Texas can be held to a higher standard of recourse.

excesses, please explain?

For one thing, TX government executes prisoners more often than their Governor changes underwear. That's excessive. It's more expensive to execute someone, [why? I wish I knew] than to keep them in prison. Heck, just tie them up to a post after sentence of death is pronounced, and shoot em'. What? That would cost a lot? Maybe the price of a last cigarette and a couple of bullets!

executions are so expensive because all o the appeals.  That is why VA and TX have both adopted a system of running the state and federal appeals concurrently.  That dramatically reduces the time that prisoners sit and still gives them their full rights and appeals.

Califonria on the other habnd has what like 300 people on death row and it takes FOREVER to execute someone.

Texas-remember that everyone knows they are tough on crime and so some have said they have thought twice b/c they know Texas will carry it out and not p*ss around like California.

Plus if Guilty these killers do not kill again.  Look at the prisoners that killed a few more once they escaped a few years ago.

The moral of the story-don't wait for somebody to tell their side of the story--light 'em up!!!

no I said they get ALL OF THERE APPEALS which is how it should be.

But by dragging their feet no one benefits except the killer.

What about the victims rights and their families?  that is always lost in these type discussions.

I am against the death penalty in all cases.  two wrongs doesn't make a right.

How is it wrong to execute a killer?  What if he escapes and kills again such as the killers in Texas?

So you would spare Timothy Mcveigh, the DC Snipers and Saddam and Possibly Osama Bin LAden?

Yes.  Make them do community service every day and lock them up at night.

well that would be a minority opinion to be sure, but you are welcome to it.

Even Dean after pressure said OBL should get the death penalty, but took some waffling for him first.

I know it is a minority opinion, but that doesn't mean it is wrong.  Opposing the death penalty is a minority opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion.

So can we conclude that an opinion can not be justified by how many people support it????

Kind of wide topic there Gustaf.  That would need to be detailed more.

If something is a "fundamental" right under our Constitution and decisions of the SCT then it receives the highest level of scrutiny called "strict scrutiny" and thent he SCT looks at whether it is right or wrong, not majority rule.  Example the KKK can burn crosses--reprehensible to the VAST majority, but legal under the Constitution.  

However, when not a fundamental right then lesser degrees of scrutiny are used.  PLus this is a democracy and so generally majority rules ( unless you are trying to get a vote in the Senate on a judicial nomineee and then 41 beats 59  -that strange Senate math! :) )

I believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual in all cases, and is offensive to the notions of a civilized society. I believe it unconstitutional for a few main reasons. Firstly, I believe it is offensive to the evolving standars of a fair and free nation (this is what makes it cruel and unusual per se). Secondly, I believe it is inflicted arbitrarily, with little rhyme or reason to the reasoning behind its administration. Thirdly, I believe it has the unwholesome effect of treating people unequally, usually along lines of race and class. This argument can't be too generalized, however. While those things might affect broad differences in the quality of the defense, in many cases the disproportionate rates of punishment can be attributed to disproportionate rates of commissioning a capital crime. But those disproportionate rates can be widely considered to be the final result of social deprivation and want, situations which reap their evil fruit. Also, I believe in many cases the criminal procedure shows little regard to the rules of the law and fails to account for mens rea. For example, in the case of Herrera v. Collins, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law limiting the time for application of a petition of habeas corpus was constitutional. In this case, a man was awaiting his execution. His lawyer discovered what he believed to be exculpatory evidence. However, the deadline had lapsed on his right to an appeal. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the it must show deference to a state law, even if it means executing an innocent person. I think Justice Blackmun best summed up the way in which this is unconscienable in light of the modern definition of cruel and unusual punishment when he said this punishment comes "perilously close to simple murder". How sadly true. Also, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of McKleskey v. Kemp that statistical data showing the death penalty was racially discriminatory did not justify the declaration of a violation of Equal Protection. While I do not believe the data individually justifies the cessation of Warren McKleskey's death sentence, because he did not show his conviction was racially biased, it does allow for the complete cessation of executions in Georgia, the venue of the case, which would thus stop the execution of Warren McKleskey. I suppose I will conclude this with two frightening legislative determinations of the mid-90s. In 1994, the Senate rejected a proposal to allow prisoners to challenge their death sentences on the basis of statistical information showing racial bias. This would have solved the McKleskey crisis without forcing the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Also, in 1995, the Congress passed the Effective Death Penalty Act, a law which would restrict habeas corpus appeals at a certain number. The problem of this law is that it has the problem of allowing for executions like the one in the Herrera case, but it limits habeas corpus, something only authorized in times of war, and especially inapposite in a case not even involving the military. I suppose it can only be said that the death penalty is our national shame, and the deep, dark stain upon our moral conscience.

evolving stands-- well there is a fundamental difference there in interpreting between strict contructionist and liberal expansion.

arbitrarily- its called prosecutorial discretion and depends ont eh case and facts.

disproportionately applied--well again your opinion, but there have been many of all races executed and if you did the crime then you could face this punishment no matter what your race.

prisoners should not be allowed to challenge off of data as you say was rejected by the senate-- that has nothing to do with their individual case.  Plus I doubt if that would apply in many state executions, as most murders are charged as state crimes.

--shame; hardly.  Why do killers get so many advocates?  first they are just that Killers.    What about the victims?  Who speaks for them?  

Plus killers should not get endless appeals.  They should get all their appeals through state and federal system, but unlimited appeals is crazy even if not facing the death sentence.

we are getting off topic here--lets keep this forum for GUNS and I'll create another for the death penalty.

An opinion is not right b/c you have the majority with you or vice versa. I just thought it was a little unnecesary to discuss that. I hate it when people use the argument that "you are not mainstream". One should always produce arguments for one's positions, not hide behind numbers of supporters.

Well when some positions are so out of the normal thoughts of one's society i think they should be pointed out as that way to start.  Then discuss it from there.

But I did think it would be helpful to you to discuss our legal system a bit.

Helpful in what way? I am not really sure about what you are referring to.

If someone is disputing facts (like claiming that the holocaust never occured) I agree that it could be important. Otherwise, it's doubtful. The minority can often be right and trying to make someone look suspicious by claiming that the person is extremist is a doubtful way of arguing, but that's my view (maybe I am alone in thinking that. HELP!) :(

--helpful in your understanding our legal system and how majority rule is the standard and where it is not, such as the example of fundmanetal rights.

------------
Helpful in what way? I am not really sure about what you are referring to.

If someone is disputing facts (like claiming that the holocaust never occured) I agree that it could be important. Otherwise, it's doubtful. The minority can often be right and trying to make someone look suspicious by claiming that the person is extremist is a doubtful way of arguing, but that's my view (maybe I am alone in thinking that. HELP!) :(

Oh, I think we are talking about slightly different things. I am just saying that the majority's position is not a good argument in a debate, to promote one's own view. The legal and political system is something different. I believe that certain rihts and principles should be laid out and be impossible to change for the majority. This is the protection of the minority from the majority and is fundamental in any democracy. Apart from that I have nothing against majority decisions. But if there is something peculiar about your legal system which you think I am unaware of and that is somehow leading me to misconceptions, I would be grateful if you would explain it to me. (Since we have established on another thread that you are such a well-educated lawyer):)

first thank you for the compliment.

Next, well what i was trying to do was show how our legal system takes into account your argument already and let you see that.

See certain things are fundamental rights and it doesn't meatter what the majority thinks, what is right is right and protected even if offensive to a great majority, like flag buring for another example.  A huge majority hate flag buring and all of the States have passed a resolution stating they would favor a constitutional Amendment to protect it, and so ha the House of Rep by over 2/3 margins a number of times.  However in 1989 the SCT ruled it was free speech and thus a protected act.

--as I said majority rule is not the end all argument, but i think where the majority stands should be ONE factor and always made part of the discussion.

I reread your previous post and now I understand better what you were saying. I thought the part about Supreme Court and flag-burning was directed at someone else so I didn't read it thouroughly at first.

Well, I know that not everything is decided by majority decisions and I think that is right, as I state in my post above. I was kind of making another point, but I guess what you are saying has some bearing on that too.  

There is nothing wrong with staking what the majority position is, but it should not be used as a strong argument for a view.

To Mr. Fresh: I find it hard to believe that anyone would think that a view is warranted b/c it is a minority opinion, but if there is I agree with you. I just find it weird that you seemed to be debating something which I thought rather obvious; that the number of people supporting a view does not make it right, whether they are few or many.

I must say, Mr. Fresh, describing abortion as cruel and unusual punishment is way out there. First of all, it is an individual choice, not a government decision, so to classify it as punishment would be illogical. Also, read my theory in the Judges discussion as to why fetuses do not have the citizenship right to protect them from such treatment.

Oh. I didn't get the joke then...(yeah, I'm thick...)

All I have to say, again, is that people should have the right to bear firearms. Gun control is stupid.

Convincing argument...

He is composed of many one-line ultra-conservative un-defended arguments.

Yeah, I've noticed.

And he wants to run for president?  Haha!!
Imagine PD in a debate.

The GOP's answer to Howard Dean... :)

Hey!  That's not nice..

To who? PD or Dean? :)

Dean.  I don't care if your nice to PD.

I suspected that... :)

:)
Nice to see we got that cleaned up, because I would send Howard dean's posse after you... :)

All the way to Sweden? I am shivering! :)

He has meetups in London.  So watch your back...:)

I could handle a draft dodger... :)

Okay, I AM sending Dean after you. That's it.  :)

Bring him on! :)

You don't know what you're asking for..

What's the worse he can do? Tax increases? Believe me, we're used to it in Sweden...

I don't remember that post.

What post? The several jravnsbo-posts about Dean advocating tax increases? :) Or the non-existent ones about Swedish taxes? :)

How can you refer to a post you don't remember???

The post that you puoted me is the one in question.

The "you don't know what you're asking for"-quote? So you don't remember your own posts, that's a little weird... :)

many politicos always deny what they can't remember the first time, standard operating procedure , he he :)

LOL, :)

I'm lost.

ok take my hand :) trying to lead you back to the straight and narrow each day, baby steps!

Just to let you know, I have won every debate I've ever been in. I'm on my high school's debate team. I'm also an elected Student Senate member.

Ha, that's funny.  If I hadn't got sick with the flu and missed a speech, I would have won speaker of the year award in high school speech class.

Why is it funny?

What is stupid about it? The US has about 12,000 gun related murders a year, the UK has less than 70. Doesn't that tell you something? The US only has 5 times Britain's population yet has 170 times more gun related deaths. Gun control works, it's a fact. In the UK we have violent crime just like anywhere, but most of it involves fists rather than guns. Surely that is better? Very few criminals here carry guns, if gun control was relaxed we would have an arms race to see who could get armed up to the hilt first, us or the criminals. No thanks!

Please not that Shotguns and hunting rifles are legal in the U.K, unless they are high velocity weapons(eg. pump action shotgun)

And you didn't do it by saying "ALL DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS ARE MURDERERS!  IF THE WOMAN IS DYING BECAUSE OF HER PREGNANCY SO BE IT!  LET HER DIE!"

There are circumstances were people should be able to own and carry guns. Gamekeepers, farmers and the police of course. I am not against that. I also recognise that some people engage in shooting as a sport, which again is acceptable as long as they're properly licenced. However I don't believe any Tom, Dick or Harry should be able to own one. Why would they want to own one?

You don't know what school he goes to, now do you? :)

I realise that I might not have stated my stance on gun control, and since we have all been requested to make long posts from now on, I will include that here to make my post "pass". :)

I have some sympathy for the idea of the right to bear arms, even though the constitutional amendment is horribly out-dated. It comes down to, as English pointed out, that a lot of lives can be saved by at least moderate gun control. Therefore I believe it should be excercised to some extent, but not too far, and weapons for hunting purposes and so on should obviously be more easily accessed.

So that was another boring, moderate position by me... :(

I have to find some issue where I am extreme...damn, it's so easy to be extreme in Sweden, you are so polarized to begin with.... ;)

It's stupid because the Constitution states that people have a right to bear arms. Don't get me wrong, I hate dirt bags that shoot innocent people, but the liberal stance on gun control is this: "Guns are evil! They are so barbaric! Take them away from everyone forever!"

PD, I'm not sure liberals do say this? I certainly don't. As I said, I wouldn't ban guns completely. Farmers need them to protect livestock from foxes etc. They have a legitimate reason for wanting one. I don't believe your average person in the street has a valid reason for wanting to own or carry one, not in the UK anyway.  To protect yourself and family doesn't wash with me. You can do that without blowing someone's head off!

How do you protect yourself if a criminal comes up to you with a gun ( which they got illegally) and you were prevented from having one?  Or if a rapist breaks into a house to rape a woman and he has a guna nd she does not have access to one?


Read "More Guns, Less crime"  shows that states with right to carry laws ( which is growing) have lower rates of crime than those with more restrictive gun control.

Well, it's a lot easier to protect yourself and your family by blowing someone's head off. Anyway, if someone comes into your house, threatens you and your family, and you approached them with a gun and told them to get out, they'd probably do it. I guarantee you that won't happen if you're holding a bat or knife. Another thing: what if they have a gun? You'd stand a much better chance of fighting back if you also had a gun instead of a bat or knife.

More guns, less crime?! Where on earth did you get that philosophy from? If more guns equaled less crime then the US should have the lowest crime rate in the world! In actual fact it has one of the highest. In Britain, rates of serious crimes such as rape and murder are far, far lower than in the US. Theft and burglary are much higher in Britain, but these crimes rarely involve violence. In the UK if you confront a burglar 99.9% of times they will run away or hurl abuse and attempt to run away :-). Britain has always had a serious problem with petty crime, but serious crimes are still rare. The chances of being approached by a criminal with a gun in the UK are perhaps a million to one. Wouldn't you prefer to be in that situation?

He is a well respected professor at Yale., the author of More guns, less crime.  It drives the liberals nuts as they haven't been able to refute his arguments.

But restricing guns from law abiding citizens does not stop crime as gun control laws make it harder for decent citizens to protect themselves.  Criminals will always find a way to get a gun even with the strictist gun control.

That is true for organized crime or professionals. But most murders or rapes are committed by "amateurs", wives killing their husbands and vice versa. They have a harder time getting their hands on weapons.

An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
 
Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

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

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

 
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
 

Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn't tell the whole story. Don't statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don't understand is that this "acquaintance murder" number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. "Acquaintance" covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won't tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn't this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.

For other types of crimes, I find that both children as well as adults are protected when law-abiding adults are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Finally, after extensively studying the number of accidental shootings, there is no evidence that increasing the number of concealed handguns increases accidental shootings. We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.

Question: Wouldn't allowing concealed weapons increase the incidents of citizens attacking each other in tense situations? For instance, sometimes in traffic jams or accidents people become very hostile—screaming and shoving at one another. If armed, might people shoot each other in the heat of the moment?

Lott: During state legislative hearings on concealed-handgun laws, possibly the most commonly raised concern involved fears that armed citizens would attack each other in the heat of the moment following car accidents. The evidence shows that such fears are unfounded. Despite millions of people licensed to carry concealed handguns and many states having these laws for decades, there has only been one case where a person with a permit used a gun after a traffic accident and even in that one case it was in self-defense.

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won't more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

Question: Aren't you playing into people's fears and prejudices though? Don't politicians pass these shall-issue laws to mollify middle-class white suburbanites anxious about the encroachment of urban minority crime?

Lott: I won't speculate about motives, but the results tell a different story. High crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations have the greatest reductions in violent crime when citizens are legally allowed to carry concealed handguns.

Question: What about other countries? It's often argued that Britain, for instance, has a lower violent crime rate than the USA because guns are much harder to obtain and own.

Lott: The data analyzed in this book is from the USA. Many countries, such as Switzerland, New Zealand, Finland, and Israel have high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates, while other countries have low gun ownership rates and either low or high crime rates. It is difficult to obtain comparable data on crime rates both over time and across countries, and to control for all the other differences across the legal systems and cultures across countries. Even the cross country polling data on gun ownership is difficult to assess, because ownership is underreported in countries where gun ownership is illegal and the same polls are never used across countries.

Question: This is certainly controversial and there are certain to be counter-arguments from those who disagree with you. How will you respond to them?

Lott: Some people do use guns in horrible ways, but other people use guns to prevent horrible things from happening to them. The ultimate question that concerns us all is: Will allowing law-abiding citizens to own guns save lives? While there are many anecdotal stories illustrating both good and bad uses of guns, this question can only be answered by looking at data to find out what the net effect is.

All of chapter seven of the book is devoted to answering objections that people have raised to my analysis. There are of course strong feelings on both sides about the issue of gun ownership and gun control laws. The best we can do is to try to discover and understand the facts. If you agree, or especially if you disagree with my conclusions I hope you'll read the book carefully and develop an informed opinion.

 

http://www.atr.org/maps/05.html

right to carry states map.

We could probably cut down on the number of terrorists attacks on airplanes by requiring passengers to stip naked and subject themselves to body cavity searches prior to entering the plane.

We could probably cut down on the number of cavities by banning all candy and inserting cameras in everyone's bathroom to make sure people brushed their teeth.

We could probably cut down on the number of traffic deaths by requiring everyone to wear a seatbelt.  $*%(( oh' we already do that.

The point is In America we have rights!
Sometimes rights come with a price.  But I don't want to live in a country that where the government controls our actions because they know what's best for us.

Bowling for Columbine has some interesting ideas on why America is so violent.
Moore thinks that the big problem is fear.

Moore is a nut, but that's a whole different discussion.

I think the US is as violent as it is for a number of reasons, and that guns are more the result of this than the cause.

I believe that punishment deters crime, or at the very least, keeps them off the streets for a long time.  Gun control, on the other hand, has never kept, and will never keep, a criminal from getting a gun.

In the US, gun control at this point is like closing the barn door after the horse has left.  There are already so many guns floating around that they can never be controlled.  We can only set severe penalties for their improper use.

I find it interesting that many gun control advocates are also advocates of the "rights" of criminals, and have done all in their power to undermine effective law enforcement and punishment for crime.  They often see criminals as victims of "society."  So if these people want to know why we have so much violence, they may start by looking in the mirror.

Some good points there, but I still think a lot of crimes are committed by people who are not full-time criminals. Also, these crimes are the ones to usually strike at innocents, where as hits, gang-violence and so on, usually affect other criminals.

I do not advocate the rights of criminals, at least not in the sense you are referring to, but I would still want at least moderate gun control.

That was actually Moore's point ;)

I don't see any reason why a gun needs to be legal if it has no legitimate purpose other than for killing.
Gun safety locks and a waiting period to undergo a thorough background check are common-sense proposals that will only deter people from getting and using a gun who shouldn't be getting and using one in the first place. They are no real burden to those who have a legitimate need and purpose for a gun.

Why couldn't NEW guns have a tracking device built in whereby once fired, a global positioning system within  the various regions of the country, would be alerted that that particular firearm had discharged and where it was discharged. This would make it harder for murderers/gangs/mafia to cover their crimes.

That is a very costly and dreamy plan, if you know what I mean.

True enough. But I am a Dreamer. However, what's more costly in the long run? What matters more? Initial costs or long-term gain.

Initial costs. :)

<<<I don't see any reason why a gun needs to be legal if it has no legitimate purpose other than for killing.>>>>

As the bumper sticker says, "The second amendment ain't about duck hunting."

No, the 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms of a WELL-REGULATED militia shall not be infringed.

It is obviously not unconstitutional to ban some weapons, such as nuclear bombs, Sherman tanks, AK-47s, Uzis, etc. So clearly, there is no absolute right to arms.

As for your proposal, CM, I would not feel comfortable having the government have that much knowledge of what its citizens are doing. Not to mention that the GPS chip that was implanted in the gun could be disabled and removed without a tremendous degree of difficulty for someone who knew what they were doing.

Shouldn't it be other way round? Hunting rifles aren't necessary for a militia, but they could probably have good use of Uzis or Sherman tanks... ;)

Lol, good point Gustaf.

The history of the 2d amendment clearly defends the right to bear arms by an individual citizen as a check on a powerful central government thereby allowing the people to defend themselves against oppression.

Next, rights to own sawed offed shot guns and machine guns have been regulated and approved byt eh supreme court.

Yep, that's the purpose, and to me it seems slightly out of date, but thta's just me. If it were to work, people would need tanks and stuf, otherwise they could never rise up against the federal government... ;)

No Nym90, it would not be easy to remove the chip if it was implanted within the stock of the gun. And by the way, What Nym90 fails to understand is that our Big Brother already know what we are doing at all times, so why not allow my proposal? It would be much harder for criminals to use firearms to carry out their horrendous crimes. It would be difficult to rob a bank at knifepoint. Also, a potential murder victim could get away or put up a fight if no firearm were involved.

CM's plan is very, very, very unrealistic and costly.

Prayers go out to "The Nug" as he was hurt by a chain saw today and needed 40 stitches.  A great outdoorsman and activist!

"Cat Scratch Fever"

The guy who'll be governor of Michigan in 2007?

 : )

Yep that's him, hopefully!

After ten long years, the State of Ohio has finally passed a Right to Carry bill. On Thursday, January 8th, Governor Taft signed into law legislation that will allow law-abiding Ohioan’s the right to carry firearms for personal protection. Ohio now becomes the 37th state which to enact such a law.

Is he a descendant of President Taft?

Yes grandson I believe, maybe great grandson.

I believe it was President Taft, son was a US Senator and this one is governor, all of Ohio.  The senator would most likely have been President if not for Ike or at aleast nominee.

Always thought we have 3 major families in politics today.  Tafts of Ohio, Kennedys and Bushes--roosevelts were inteh day with 2 Presidents.

Ted Nugent won't beat Jennifer Granholm in 2006...no way. He's way too far to the right.

The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms, it clearly allows certain weapons to be banned, as no one has challenged bans on nuclear bombs, tanks, etc. So yes, it protects a general right to bear arms, but also clearly allows for regulation of guns. It's a vague amendment, as is much of the Constitution, which was deliberate since the founding fathers wanted to allow some leeway to interpret it as the courts see fit. But it's just wrong to say that the 2nd amendment allows an absolute right to bear arms. That would be like arguing that the first amendment protects my right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. All rights are subject to some reasonable restrictions when the exercise of those rights jeopardize the lives or liberty of others.

And no one as I recall even attempted to strike down the Brady Bill or the assault weapons ban on constitutional terms, either. So if you want to debate the merits of certain guns being legal or illegal, that's fine, but you can't just use the 2nd amendment as a blanket defense.

<<The 2nd amendment clearly does not protect the right to bear ALL arms>>

Yes, but the first amendment obviously protects pornography and all forms of freedom of expression?

Yes, or at least freedom of speech protects pornography as well.

The first amendment also protects legal homosexual relations.

I'll let Condi Rice answer for me...

It was also clear to another Stanford colleague, Russia expert Michael McFaul, who remembers Rice telling him she opposed gun control and even gun registration because Bull Connor could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963. "For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head," McFaul says. "I remember thinking, 'Who are we as white liberals to respond?' "

we agree to disagree.  I can provide you countless sources, in history that argue that it is an indivdual right.

nym- yes i do agree the SCT did limit the right to own weapons used exclusively by the miliatry.  A few cases are out there fromt he 30's and 40's.

bejkuy-we need your support buddy.  We need you to go to the "Atlas fantasy Elections" and then the "Important thread- Registration" and simply post  "I register"  That will allow you to vote in the Atlas elections we are having.  Its kind of fun, you should check it out and our great candidate Supersoulty!  Thanks for your time.

Thatäs an interesting point...

Power to the People!

sorry- but everytime i hear that I think of Chris Farley in Blacksheep! :)

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with deer hunting.

What do you mean?

The intent of the second amendment was not to give Americans hunting rights.  

The intentention was to give people the RIGHT to defend themselves against opression, even government oppression

I would agree with that, but I don't see the direct connection with the posts he quoted, or most of the discussion on this thread.

When the citizenry is armed, it is much more difficult for a tyrant to come to and power.

Hitler, Mao, and Stallin refused to allow their people to keep arms.

I think of the 2nd amendment as a safety valve, put in place by the founding fathers, to keep the government from crossing the line.

yes it is, just like all of the other Bill of rights.

Question to anti-gunners?

Why would the government need to give itself a right?

You you don't hear about governments being oppressed too often.

Yep, I know, I'm not arguing against that at all.

I don't know if I'm a "anti-gunner", I'm more of a moderate there, but I do think that the whole "we can overthrow our government in an armed revolution"-idea is a little out-dated. I feel very sympathetic to the idea of keeping the government in check with armed citizens, but I'm not convinced of it's practicality. They would need tanks and nukes as well in modern days. Also it has to be remembered that a minority can perform armed revolutions, like in Russia, and that is also a problem. I also believe that the state's monopoly on violence is fundamental to ensure law and order and in a country, and that is to an extent infringed by the right to bear arms.

Jravnsbo--

That was my point. The 2nd amendment does provide for the right to bear arms, but not an absolute right, and no one has proposed any gun control measures which would be deemed unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment explicitly states that a WELL REGULATED militia is necesary for the security of a free state. So when talking about gun control, there is really no point in bringing up the 2nd amendment since no one is seriously proposing violating it. Obviously the NRA must agree since they have not pursued any constitutional challenges to the Brady bill or the assault weapons ban.

Likewise, the 1st amendment, as I said, does not provide an absolute right to freedom of speech, as it does not protect lying or speech which is intended to incite violence.

When the Supreme Court heard a case challenging copyright law (I believe it involved the Bono law) last year, it stated that a preamble does not confine what follows.  

The second amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Nowhere does it state that the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  

Furthermore, the founders of this Republic were fairly consistant in their writings.  There is no reason to believe that "the people" of the second amendment are any different than those of the ninth, or the first, or the preamble to the Constitution, etc.

As for the case with criminals, these people were going to commit a crime regardless.  During the DC sniper shootings I wrote an article about gun control (groups.msn.com/UniversityofMiamiCollegeRepublicans) about this fact.  The younger shooter was 17 at the time.  The law states that one has to be 18.  The younger shooter was also supposed to have been deported.  The elder shooter was not supposed to have a gun because he had violated a restraining order, which is a felony.  They were supposed to inform the police that they were going to be transporting guns across the limits of Maryland.  To sum, those that use guns to kill people are not law abidding to begin with.

I would also like to ask all of you out there a question.  Would you rather take your chances stealing from a home that you know has a gun owner in it, or one without a gun owner?  Chances are most will chose the latter, as that presents the least likelihood of getting injured or killed.

Furthermore, this is a security issue as the DC Circuit Court has already ruled that the police are not responsible to protect every member of society as individuals.  Rather, there duty is to protect us as part of a whole, if they fail to protect us, but then get our killer, they have done thier job by protecting society as a whole.  I would also like to point out that a large part of police work is investigative, and that they can't investigate a crime before it happens.

true if crimminals know you can't own a gun they can rob you and you can't protect yourself very well

OR, the criminals get guns and shoot you, but that's just a thought... ;)

OR, the criminals get guns and shoot you, but that's just a thought... ;)

Yes, but many of them in the US already possess guns, many of which they are not supposed to have because it is against the law.  This returns to my premise that criminals who use guns are law breakers even before they use a gun to kill someone.

Here is Kerry's stance on gun control:

Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)

Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill.
(Oct 2003)

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

So, why if he is so against guns, will he not support tougher laws against people that commit crimes with guns??

Well, I finally managed to get through the whole thread.  A lot has been said.  I should just add that I agree with the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not the government.  This includes the second amendment.  John Lott's book is dead on, i've read most of it.  And I enjoyed that quote from Condi Rice, I had never heard it before.

Lol, you actually read through the whole thread and then just posted that? :)

I wouldn't be so ambitious with everything on the forum, you'd never get the time to post anything yourself... ;)

Btw, didn't you use to be an independent?

Well, I didn't post more than that because everything has pretty much already been said.  And yes, I was an independent, but I recently rejoined the Republican Party.  I was a Libertarian, and I still am, but I have become disillusioned with the idea of third parties.

OK, I remembered the name and the green avatar.

Im surprised you remembered, I only have a handful of posts here.

Yes, but you asked a question about the party colours and I remembered the name...I guess I have a good memory for unecessary information. Though it did allow me to have this little conversation with you and get to know you better, so I guess it served a purpose this time. :)

Haha, well, that's true.

And didn't you used to have a Louisiana avatar?

Yes, I did.  I went to Tulane University in New Orleans.  Now I am moving back to my home state.

Where do you live on LI?

Well, I grew up in Levittown/East Meadow in Nassau County, but my parents moved out to Middle Island in Suffolk County while I was away at college.

I'm in Melville, suffolk county.  I have relatives in Levittown.

Another passage I ran across about gun control and black Americans like Condi Rice...

During the Civil Rights struggle it came also to be called "Bombingham," with racist explosives killing not only Rice's friend and three other girls but also shattering the home of black civil rights lawyer Arthur Shores and terrifying the African-American community.

"Rice's father went to police headquarters to demand an investigation," wrote Dale Russakoff in the Washington Post Magazine. "They didn't investigate," Condoleezza Rice has said. "They never investigated."

The police commissioner in Birmingham who would not investigate was Bull Connor, a Democrat who perfectly embodies everything that political party has always stood for. When civil rights protesters arrived, Connor unleashed his dogs and fire hoses on them.

"John Rice," writes Russakoff, "then did what black fathers all over Birmingham were doing -- what Alma Powell remembers her own father doing then, when she happened to be home with her babies during her husband's [Colin Powell's] tour in Vietnam: They got out their shotguns and formed nightly patrols, guarding the streets themselves."

First of all, guns are here to stay. From single shot muskets to whatever the hell the future brings. Too many people enjoy them; too many are paranoid self-protectionist nuts; and how the hell is any government going to take them all away?  

The only problem with the second amendment is the old semantics question. What the hell does 'bear' really mean? Ownership? Use necassary to survival (hunting, self-defense)? Use as you please, and like driving, if someone gets hurt then it's wrong? Full blown wild-west, those still standing make the rules, firepower out the a--, the more bullets flying the better?

All that aside, guns give virtually anyone the power of life and death. We have more disdain for the other driver in this nation than we do for people who have accidents involving guns. Maybe that's because the latter group is armed; or maybe because we want to feel bad drivers are more dangerous to our lives because the alternative is to admit that the wild-west thing could actually occur?

[We won't mention gun murders if you don't mention that negligent driving really doesn't qualify as accidental.]

I'm 100% pro-gun.  Or at least I don't want anyone telling me I can or cannot have guns.  I probably wouldn't bother with actually getting one.  Grew up with them though, in the wilds of Missouri - they're a lot of fun for young boys.

I'm extremely anti-guns, and it is perhaps the issue in which I am the furthest from the Republican position. I don't see why any average person in there right mind needs a gun. Some argue self-defense. Why not stun-guns?

I hate how so much of the Republican agenda is killing court cases in HMO problems, environmental lawsuits, and the attempted bill to restrict gun lawsuits. Thank goodness the bill collapsed today.

I see your point. Criminals are going to get the guns anyway, so to defend against those guns citizens should have the right to a stun gun/tranqulizer gun.  However it is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. The average person doesn't need a gun. However many people do. Some, particularly in alaska and the rocky mountains hunt to provide themselves with food. It is considered entertaining and serves a usefull purpose. Others need guns for different reasons. The logic is "would you attack someone knowing that they don't have a gun, or not knowing whether or not they have a gun." Yes the stun gun idea makes more sense, however it would never work in our society, a society with 10X the number of murders as nations such as Canada, the UK, and Japan have.

Stun guns are not nearly as an effective measure of self defense as a handgun. You'll note that while police carry them around nowadays, they still carry their traditional firearms. The reasons they are not as good a defense as a firearm are numerous. Three deserve note.

First off, you only get a single shot - miss and you're screwed, get attacked by a group and not miss and you're still screwed(and when the guy gets up his buddies are gonna hold you while he does some rather nasty work on your face before slitting your throat). A pistol wins here, as it is normal for them to have at least six rounds - leaving you room for error or extra ammo for groups of attackers.

Second, there's a lack of stopping power - while normally effective, it may not stop your attacker, which you know a bullet to the head would. Once again, a gun wins.

The third is based on the second - fear factor. Stun guns are for the most part non-lethal. Guns usually are. You'll be happy to know that in the vast majority of cases where a gun is used for self-defense, a shot doesn't even need to be fired(and often in the case where it is, nobody is actually hit by a bullet) - the assailant will generally run away. And it is true that criminals are more afraid of armed victims than they are of the police.

Now, as far as tranquilizer guns go, you have the second problem at least. It looks like a gun enough not to have a third, and you can get multiple shots. But, as I said, it lacks stopping power - tranquilizer takes time to take effect, and on large suspects(who may be jacked up on who knows what kind of stimulant, painkiller, or whatever) it may take long enough for them to take your life. Of course, these can be lethal as well - too much tranquilizer will shut down the body.

So, given the above, I'd prefer a handgun for defense. Now, anyone who recognizes the need for self-defense but is just not comfortable with a gun still should get a stun gun or tranquilizer gun - they are inferior means, but they are better than nothing at all.

I'm very pro-gun.

Mao Zedong once said, "Power grows from the barrel of a gun".

Wise words.

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Communists are pro-gun too.

Until they come into power.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.

Guns are tools like any other. They are not inherently good or evil. When used to attack you, a gun is a force of evil. When used to protect, a force of good. It is the user that instills value into the object, not the object itself.

This is true.....but each tool is built for a specific function. Phones are used to communicate. Hammers are used to build things. Cars are used to transport.  All can be used for evil purposes, but all are built for specific not evil functions.   What are guns used for (whether purchased legally or illegally)?

To kill, usually, aside from those built for sporting events. I never argued otherwise. I don't think killing is inherently evil - It's perfectly just to kill in self-defense.

what would you need a gun to defend against that you could not use a knife for. I'm sorry to sound like a total gun control pussy but I really don't see eye to eye with you on this one.

Someone bigger and/or stronger than me - equipped with a gun, knife, baseball bat, pipe, other melee, or even nothing at all - who wishes me harm. In case you haven't noticed, criminals prefer to prey on the weak - they either do so by preying on those of lesser power than they or by ganging up on their victims. A knife, or any melee weapon, is not likely to be an effective defense against such an opponent - what's to stop them from grabbing your wrist, thus preventing you from striking. Further, proficiency with melee weapons is not as easy to achieve as with a gun - takes a lot more training, which the average citizen may not have.

To put this in context, let me give you an example. A 120 lb. woman is walking home, a 200 lb. man confronts her and intends to rape then kill her. She has a knife. Do you really like her chances? Now look at the same situation, but the woman has a gun. How have her chances changed?

EDIT: To further prove my point
()

This is why I don't debate you Dibble :D

Yes guns are probablly better for self-defense against a 300 pound guy. I don't see why you need an assault weapon to do it but I get your point. I still don't think guns are "good". If we lived in a highly civilized world we wouldn't need them.....outside of hunting (which i have absolutely no problem with if you use the animal for food/ect.). It makes sense to me why firearms are necessary for a society in todays world - I'll never argue that they aren't - however murder is never good - and guns are built for the sole purpose of killing (whether self defense, anger, aggression, or greed).

Statistics show that among the developed world the US has one of the highest murder rates. Dibble - this is what fuels gun control advocates. If you can PROVE to them the reason that the US has a higher murder rate than Candada, australia, japan, and most of europe they would most likely back down on their rabid desire to control + regulate firearms. Those statistics have always bothered me. Why is the "greatest nation" less civilized.

 

Remember the thing in Atlanta a few weeks ago where a man took a gun away from the bailiff and killed the judge.

Well, on CNN they had a judge on who said if there were no guns in the courtroom that bailiff could definitely detain them. With guns however, it would be more difficult. Guns don't always work for self-defense. What if the person you are defending yourself against takes the gun away from you.

Guns were created for killing, period. Not self-defense. Killing. I'm against devices that are made for killing. If I'm attacked, I'll instictively fight for my life with all of my natural strength, but without a gun. If I may be killed. So be it. It was my fate and you can't get around that.

"Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.

Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?

His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral." - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

"If all people were righteous no one would need to be brave." - Angesilaus II

Basically, I view guns as an unfortunate necessity. There are evil people in the world, and usually such people can only be deterred with force. Now, I'll admit assault weapons generally are not practical for self-defense(moreso for home defense, or in the possibility that your country is invaded), but I still think that honest citizens should be able to purchase them(it'd be fine if they had to keep them in the house, though, just so long as they could attain them).


Well, of course I've debated this on a number of occassions. Now, I think the reasons for higher crime rates are numerous, but not much to do with guns. For instance, Switzerland hands out machine guns, and they've got the lowest crime rate on the planet. Also, statistics show that when legal gun ownership increases, crime decreases - especially with concealed carry. Kennesaw, Georgia actually requires homeowners to have a handgun(with exceptions) and regardless of increasing population they have maintained a crime rate that is around 1/10 of what it was before the law was enacted. Criminals above all fear an armed victim retaliating, as they do value their own lives, so the statistics are consistent with that logic. Also, gun ownership is at a record high, and has been increasing over the last couple decades, but violent crime has greatly decreased.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

What I'd be more likely to blame the higher crime rate on is differences in economic conditions, demographics, climate(higher temperature is shown to cause increased irritability and aggression, and the crime rate goes accordingly during summer/winter), culture, and various other conditions that are different in different countries.

Now you don't even want cops to have guns?  Yeah, that's a real brilliant move.

Of course I want cops to have guns. Are you some sort of moron. The man said bailiffs in a closed courtroom. You know closed one-on one confrontation. And I didn't say it chief, the experienced courtroom bailiff said it.

Why do you people want guns anyway. Don't give me that self-defense crap. I bet you yearn to kill. You just hope and pray everyday that you'll be able to use your oozy on some jackass who decides to rob you.

The biggest mistake that they made in that courtroom:

most states have laws that the guns in courtrooms can have only 1 bullet in them. Apparently georgia isn't one of those states.

Correct me if I'm wrong on the following. It must be noted that the bailiff was a woman. Nothing against women in the police force and such, but those in a position where large, strong male suspects may need to be detained should be physically strong enough to do so. That was not the case here. Now, the guns in court could be argued either way, but that also needs to be a considered factor in this kind of case before leaping to a universal conclusion.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001765.htm for more opinions on that.

Also, there are devices nowadays that could have been used to prevent such a thing. A proper holster could have prevented it. Or, alternatively, bailiffs could use 'smart guns' which require some sort of magnetic or electronic transmission ring or bracelet that allows only the legal owner of the gun to actually fire it(though some people complain about possible failure of these).

Now, I also want to note I never claimed guns to be a universal defense - nothing is foolproof. I only claim that for self-defense, they are the best method practically available.


Remember, defenders can create weapons of death for defense. Many weapons are developed for that reason - protecting the lives of those the makers value. Now, like any tool, guns can be used by good or evil forces. Remember though, if there were no evil people in the world, guns would be pretty much unnecessary in today's society. Fact is though, there are evil people, and when push comes to shove I'd rather that decent people be able to defend themselves against evil. Your life should be held in higher regard than that of someone who does not value life - so you should do everything you can to fight for it, and that includes using a gun. At least get a stun-gun, and a tazer for if that fails, Rutzay - it's better than your bare hands, and neither were made for killing.

Also, I must remind you that in the majority of cases where a gun is used in self-defense, the gun is not even fired - the criminal will run away. If a shot is fired, it is usual still that the criminal is not harmed - it's a miss or a warning and the criminal will run.

You'd be surprised what a woman can do against a 250 pound man. My mother has worked on a psyche ward for 20 years and has had to take down many large, violent men.

Basically we need stronger more effective procedures for obtaining a gun so these criminals can't get them. Criminal backgrounds along with psychological evaluations. Even the most normal looking person may have some subconscious rage that may force that person to snap and use a gun to release that rage. I know this may prevent regular citizen's from get guns, but the most important thing is that we make it more difficult for criminals.

We also need tougher penalty's for offenders who use guns to commit crimes, and especially for those who sell guns illegally. as a deterent for staying away from guns. We need more cops, stronger undercover units that speciallize in taking guns away from those that obtain illegal weapons and sell them to known offenders.

At least we agree here. The Libertarian Party's position on this is that those who commit crimes with guns and those whose negligence with their guns causes harm should be severely punished.

Oh, and Rutzay, since you refuse to get a gun, I still recommend you get one of these:

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Taser_Products.htm

and one of these

http://www.futuretechsafety.com/Stun_Master.htm

While I have said that these aren't as good as a handgun, they don't generally kill, were not designed to do so, and are a decent means of self-defense for someone like yourself whom refuses to get a gun for any reason.

2002 National Center for Injury Control Report

United States

Homicide with a Firearm:
All races, both sexes

Ages 15-24
Homicide: Ranked 2nd Among Injury's for that group
 Firearm  4,317 82.7%
 Cut/Pierce 425 8.1%

Ages 25-34
Homicide: Ranked 3rd
Firearm-3,465 77.2%
Cut/pierce-499 11.1%

I also found this site. I thought it was pretty interesting.
http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

I think I'll take my chances with nothing but my bare hands or a the baseball bat under my bed.

Your choice. At least you've got a bat. At least for home defese get a dog - criminals don't like dealing with them, even small ones. And do yourself another self-protection favor by avoiding trouble areas and situations in the first place.

We don't have many troubel areas here in Iowa City, but I'll try. I think I'm pretty safe in my dorm room. We watch each other's backs on my floor. I was just kidding about the bat. However, if someone does get into the dorms somehow and into my room, I could always wack them with my laptop.

WHAT!? NO! YOU MUST DO EVERYTHING TO DEFEND YOUR COMPUTER! LIFE IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT IT! ;)

Its spelled Uzi actually...

















... And before you say anything no I don't own an Uzi or a gun for that matter. I just know it from  playing Goldeneye 007.

I like living where I do.  I think we had like one single murder in the entire year of 2004; it's a ridiculously safe neighborhood.

I need to brush up on my gun lingo.