I meant current as in over 10 000 americans a year killed by guns. In britain i believe that to be under a hundred.
(the figures comes from the movie “Bowling for Columbine”)
What should we do? Pop open the case with the constitution in it and go after it with correction fluid?
It is not the fault of the legal system that some people fail to understand that the literal words on that page have been effectively modified by various court decisions and laws passed by either the federal congress or state legislatures(depending on the section/clause/ammendment). The effective wording of the 2nd ammendment is different than the original wording. This is a simple fact of US law. The constitution is a living document, ammended, adjudicated, etc. through the various legislative/judicial processes. It might be better if we published an “updated” version, taking into account the various clarifications/modifications made by legislation or decisions over the years, but such a document would almost certainly be unusable by the common man and legal experts already know they need to look at decisions and other laws to determine specifics.
minty: My point was that courts are not bound by original intent, and in fact, have “updated” laws contrary to the original intent because changes in either technology or society make the original law either unenforcable or inapplicable. Personally I’d rather see them just strike down the law and force legislatures to make a new one if it is needed, but legislating from the bench does happen. I apologize if I confused these practices with the common uses of “strict constructionalist” or other terms. I don’t work with these terms often enough to track their common use definitions.
Enjoy,
Steven
The murder rate in the U.S. has always been higher than that of Britain. We have a higher non-gun murder rate, too. Do you think that’s due to gun ownership as well?
You also must consider, as this article does, that muder isn’t the only sort of crime out there:
Lordy, we’re getting way the hell off topic now. I move that this thread be killed out of mercy.
Mtgman:
Hm i must admit that i have no perfect undertanding of the US legislative system.
But what i learned in school was that you have the constitution, and then ju have actual rulings of courts, ultimately the Supreme Court that “interprets” the constitution.
So when you say that an “updated” version of the constitution would alienate the common man, you mean that is because you’d have to reprint the whole thing with the later rulings that are for the moment in effect in setting up prejudicates?
Did i get that right?
Max Torque:
I see no source for these figures in the text you cite. Even if they are correct (which they of course very well may be), I would suspect they are as statistics go, seriously thwarted. You know picking out a very suitable time span for your purposes and so on.
But for the hell of it: The article seems to argue that other crimes are higher in Britain, such as burglary and assault in the home. So then given a choice of to bad things: would you rather (1) have your house broken into, with possible assault, or (2) be shot to death?
RandySears wrote:
Emphasis mine. There in itself is part of the problem. There is no “gun-craze”. What you have is a significant portion of the population of this country that has been around and used firearms their entire lives, and treat a firearm as just another tool in the drawer like a hammer or a flashlight (albeit with a large dose of safety respect).
What you have is a “save the children” craze started by anti-gun elites who’ve manipulated the media to have you believe that children in this country are dying at phenomenal rates due to firearms. Rosie O’Donnell firmly believes that no one except the police or military should own a firearm, except for her children’s bodyguards. Then-President Clinton, during one of his speeches about gun control, mentioned that 13 children a day are killed by firearms. A news item by a local news station mentioned that 10 children a day are killed by firearms. Dr. Phil on his show the other day mentioned that five children a day are killed by firearms. Why does the number keep going down? Because the stats are refuted by the CDC in plain black and white. But if you tell a lie often enough, people begin to think it’s true.
As an aside, Yo! minty, UncleBeer, what crawled up y’alls backsides? Did I miss a post or something in the pit between you two? Do you guys need to give back the “opposite sides but respectful debater” award or what?!?!
Here is a bbc article on crime statistics that says that the UK citizen in 2001 ran the lowest risk of becoming a crime victim since the studies began in 1981.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1619107.stm
Statistics, Schmatistics. You still have 10 000 of your fellow citizens dying each year by guns-crimes.
BF:
So you are saying my figure of 10 000+ a year is false? I’d like to see that backed by some figures of your own.
Furthermore I assume you percieve the battle for your freedom being fought by on the one side Dr. Phil and the anti-gun elite (emphasis mine), and on the other side, yourself, the weapons industry lobby, and the NRA?
No, I and I think most of the pro-gun side do not dispute the 10K number. According to the CDC
As for whos’s what, I’m an NRA member. My money goes to support a gun organization that has supported firearms safety, hunting, and history for 137 years. The firearms industry does not influence my opinion, other than producing a product that I want to use and can afford to purchase. I’ve posted this in a way-back GD thread and think it will be relevant for your information.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1999/11/02/60II/main68650.shtml
Sorry this went kinda long…
BF:
So what is the point in arguing about whether it’s 5 or 10 children kills a day, when you’ll admit to 28 000 person kills in a year? The first point is only a (striking) illustration of the second.
For sure it may be so that the weapons industry is not lobbying the NRA. They don’t have to, as you kindly pointed out. But i believe it to be a fact that both the NRA and the gun industry is taking equal part in lobbying efforts, as the anti-gun elite you were talking about.
The NRA, as i understand it, do stage rallies in denver, right after the columbine shootings, as well as supporting “firearms safety, hunting, and history”.
Emphasis mine. I forgot I was going to add this to my previous post. A perfect example of the point many of us pro-gun types try to make. Here’s this elected official giving his opinion with no clue. I’m sure the thousands of subscribers to Handgunner magazine will refute the “hunt deer with a revolver” statement, since that’s what a significant number of them do. I’m so sure some gang-banger in Chicago want’s to carry around this four and a half pound, 5 shot revolver that retails for $1000 when he can get a three pound Tec-9 with a 30 round magazine for half that price on the black market.
RandySpears wrote:
Thank you for emphasizing my point on disinformation. The Denver convention in Colorado had been planned months in advance. It’s the NRA’s annual meeting to elect officers, etc. Thousands of dollars was spent and would have been lost by the local hoteliers, etc., if the NRA flat-out cancelled. As it was they scaled back the convention from a week to a couple of days in respect for that tragedy.
As for the statistics, you can see I’m not trying to hide anything. If you read them with any thought at all, it would immediately strike you that over 16K of the deaths are by suicide. And of course some perspective is required, as 28K is less than .01 percent of the total population. In that link to the CDC, you’ll see that death by firearm related causes is a distant 14th in the list of things you could die from in the US. And accidental deaths by firearms in the US for children under 14 is around 800, which comes out to around 2 a day. Rough stuff, especially if you’re the parent of that deceased child. But, that’s a smaller number than those who drown in swimming pools every year.
If that’s true, then that’s some seriously fucked up shit right there.
I’m so very greatful that I don’t live in your country
I’m sure Tony Martin feels differently.
Let’s not forget: If the NRA did cancel that rally entirely, anti-gun groups all over the country would be screaming that the NRA felt guilty about it because they were responsible for things like this happening, etc.
No matter what the NRA did about that situation, they were going to look bad.
**
Yes, that’s what I’m referring to.
**
Because it’s socialist dreck.
If the Constitution could be arbitrarily rewritten, it would be entirely meaningless - if you had any knowledge of the history and purpose of it, you’d understand why that’d defeat the entire purpose.
And there’s no “gun craze”, as others have pointed out - there’s a media craze. Remember how last summer (or was it the summer before) was “summer of the shark”? The media made it sound like we had a huge shark epidemic that was killing gazillions - and the reality is that shark attacks were actually DOWN by a few percentage points that year.
The media can skew perspective on issues to stir up hysteria - they can make us think that meterorites falling out of the sky and blowing up orphanages is a huge problem if they want to.
Holy crap, this is so intellectually dishonest I almost can’t believe it.
Have you looked at the methodology of the British Crime Survey, the study cited in the article you linked? Let’s take a peek at a relevant section from the “Crime in England and Wales 2001-2002” report from the UK Home Office (PDF), which partially relies upon the BCS for its results:
In other words, they do not include muder when calculating their “drop in crime”. How convenient. If you want an accurate portrayal of the crime rate, you have to include “crimes reported to police”, which the above-linked PDF shows (in chapter 6) as being on the rise.
Yes, there were more than 10,000 firearm homicides in the U.S. last year (10,417, to be precise, according to the CDC). The U.S. also has a population almost 6 times as large, has more metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million, and has more ethnic and linguistic diversity among its population than Britain. You’re surprised our murder rate is higher?
As to the NRA convention, sure it was rubbing your noses in it. The convention in a way was rubbing columbine’s nose in it. Still you cant construe it as anything but in the baddest of taste celebrating the glory of owning your very own semi-automatic at that time.
SenorBeef:
Then, it’s your position is that, in the Natural State no one could stop you from carrying arms. My response would be: In that Natural State no one could stop a better shooter than you (or someone with a better gun) from killing you and raping your family.
Fortunately in more civilized times, most nations (the overwhelming majority of democratic states even - just to counter the pro-arms bull about only repressive states wanting to regulate arms ownership) have laws regulating shooting and raping of humans, as well as gun-use.
Then again, in the real natural state no guns existed, there simply was no issue.
As to the constitution being “arbitralily” rewritten, i was merely suggesting that it would be a good thing if the american public could even consider counciously rewriting the more out-of-date parts of the constitution.
I am aware of the history and purpose of the american constitution. I take this to mean the “purpose” of the constitution at the time, and not some “godly” purpose for the americans as a chosen people. But you didn’t mean that anyway, right?
The purpose as i percieve it was to lay down the foundation for a new form of government, after independence was won from the Brits. I don’t believe the purpose was an eternally valid document, applying to all societies in all times. If it seems so it is because of the popular rethorics of that time, and because american debate often encourage this popular myth.
Even if this was the purpose of the country founding fathers, they were wrong. There can exist no such document. Nor any such men that writes one.
Tony Martin went to jail for the despicable and illegal actions he took. I don’t know a single person who wasn’t appalled by Mr. Martin’s actions. The fact that according to the post I quoted, this could be legal anywhere in the US, and that some posters would find his actions laudable, is frankly disgusting.
I reiterate that you couldn’t pay me enough to live there.
Well Max Torque, none of those crimes [murder, fraud, drug use] were among those your pro-gun website “facts” claimed to be on an alarming rise in the UK (as a concequence of their gun control policy).
I think we can safely say that “fraud” is pretty unrelated to gun-control. I would say “drug use” is pretty unrelated as well, unless depriving citizens of their guns makes them turn drug-addicts. Murder finally: the original argument of your quoted site was that while there were less gun-murders these other crimes alledgedly, blabla.
Which according to that survey is total bull.
So the US population is 6 times higher than the UKs? How interesting then that gun-murders in the US are more than 100 times higher than in the UK.