And your 100-pound 5-foot female, how does she defend herself against a rapist or attacker armed with a handgun, regardless of their dimensions?
How did you avoid injury or conflict in the Paris Metro incident? Presumably you weren’t armed there?
I think you’d have to agree that the House of Representatives and the Senate passing a bill, and the President signing it into law, would satisfy the Constitutional requirement for “due process of law,” no? And any forfeiture of your precious handgun would certainly be preceded by a proceeding in a court of law, would it not?
The law says that you’re not allowed to have a nuclear weapon in your basement - is this a violation of the 5th Amendment? The law says that if your car is used to transport illegal drugs, the state can seize it - is that an unconstitutional deprivation of property?
In short, the 5th Amendment doesn’t apply to this argument at all.
And before anyone starts harping on the 2nd Amendment, let me be very clear: it should be repealed. It’s an anachronism that has turned the U.S. into a gun-toting nightmare, one that suffers more gun-related death and injury than any other first-world country on earth.
I too would like to hear of a better solution as to how a 5 foot female can better defend herself against a 6’6 -300 pound attacker( and yeah, I know all those 6’6 300 pound would-be rapists all would like gun control and women disarmed and defenseless) , lets hear some other good reliable alternatives from those who want women disarmed.
Another handgun?
In terms of the CDC article: it states what is clearly true - studies on the effectiveness of gun control laws are currently insufficient to answer the question in any definitive way. There are several reasons for this.
-
Murder rates, and gun murder rates have a multifactorial etiology. The state of the economy, the drug war, resources brought to bear on enforcement of laws, etc … all cause a huge variation in murder rates on top of any gun control effect or lack of effect. The drop in murder rates over the periood of increased gun control is more likely due to an improved economy than to gun control laws, for example. The CDC is acknowledging this.
-
Current gun control laws have a great deal of intrastate variation and we have totally pourous state borders. A state gun control law will do little good. The question of whether or not strict gun control laws standardized across the country would reduce violence has not been tested. Which is not evidence that it would work or evidence that it would not.
I just don’t want to light a match around here because with all the straw men about this thread could just go up like that.
Very few kids are killed by the family gun. A few, and I think that anyone with a child who doesn’t store his/her gun locked and/or unloaded is very foolish because it is still a nonzero and avoidable risk. But a very small one.
Very few people are killed by strangers in a home invasion. The whole I need an loaded gun under my pillow to protect myself is silly, IMHO. If you live where crime is that high then that gun is more likely to end up hurting someone in your household … one way or another.
I hesitate to state this without citation in hand, but I seem to recall from past debates that most gun deaths are committed with illegal weapons and are related to the drug trade.
So where do these illegally obtained weapons come from? And are there any steps in that chain of events that are able to be impeded?
Stricter enforcement of current laws would be a good start.
Make it harder to steal the guns.
Make it harder to resell guns in ways that get them into the hands of those who would not be able to get it through a liscensed dealer. Any sale requires compliance with full federal guidelines of background check etc. If you sell without such compliance then a severe penalty is ensured.
Consistency of laws across all states. Not a crazy patchwork quilt of regs.
Just suggestions for discussion.
I actually think this bothers me more than anything else. Dividing the world into “people who can’t be trusted with guns” and “normal people like me.” While I’m not saying that you shouldn’t trust people in general, this mentality that we can separate people into trustworthy and untrustworthy groups runs grossly counter to my understanding of human nature.
The fact that congress passes a law ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT satisfy anyones right to due process. If that was the case we wouldn’t need a court system.
Will there be people who can carry or will the cops need to turn in theirs as well? Armed security guards? Detectives? Or will there be exceptions.
Now who’s talking smack about strawmen a few posts up. I’m pretty sure what **Gus[b/] was referring to is that your suggestion would have no real effect on crime since the only time the police really pat someone down is when a crime has been committed, and the presence of the gun is already a factor influencing sentencing if the person in question is convicted.
In your opinion…
Gun toting nightmare? Uh I have lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods, but last time I checked its not like everyone is walking around strapped. Even in states where unrestricted open carry exists its hardly common.
Perhaps she could use naughty words until he became so embarrassed that he walked away in shame.
Or she could pull her 9mm.
I live in the mountains. I do have a number of guns. Any response from 911 is between 15 to 30 minutes away. I choose to be able to protect myself. The only 4 leg animal I am concerned with is bear but they usually run off when you turn on the lights. Two legged animals are much more dangerous.
I’m not for the general arming of everyone on the street. But in Una’s case, it seems to have saved her.
I don’t have a cite, but I’m pretty sure that the old, “a gun in your house is more likely to be used to kill a family member than a burgler” statistic is false. As I recall, the study that drew this conclusion was very biased. For instance, it counted gun deaths even if the gun in the household didn’t come into play at all. For example, I have a hunting rifle locked up in the basement. A burgler breaks into my house, shoots me, and leaves. This gets counted in the category of “A gun in a house where someone was killed with a gun”.
On the other side of the coin, episodes in which a burglar or potential murder was deterred because of a gun, but no one was killed, are NOT counted. So Una’s experiences, which most definitely count as beneficial uses of firearms, did not make their way into the study.
Not really, the legal requirements to import and or resell guns in this country are already prettysolid.
Amen brother.
It already requires a felony level crime of some sort to do so.
IIRC BATF audits all FFL holders on a pretty regular basis to make sure proper procedures and background checks are done.
As far as the patchwork laws, a broader reaching federal law would almost by design have to be less restrictive or face creating major problems at the state and local levels. Legislators know that and in many cases are hesitant to enact laws that would cripple a pretty large business sector that isn’t doing anything wrong.
This reminds me of an article I read awhile ago…
Pupils die in Japan knife massacre
Sure, that’s just kids… but this sort of thing happens all the time. What is it these laws are trying to prevent? If we banned guns entirely, the black market for them would become that much more profitable. People would still have them. I’m sure the insane lunatics could still kill plenty of people, with or without guns. Why would anyone advocate the creation of laws that will only apply to the portion of the population that are not criminals? It makes no sense.
[Fixed link. – MEB]
In answer to your first question, she either responds in kind, or is just as helpless as before. When it comes down to it, a gun can be an equalizer.
In the Paris Metro, I noticed I was being followed, and tried doubling back and taking odd routes, and found I was still being followed. I stuck to the most crowded areas, and made my way to the front of the trains, and got off at a main station. When I disembarked, I headed straight to the exit where I hoped there would be police, weaving fast through the crowd. At one turn I saw them trotting after me. Finally, by luck, I found two policemen (I think they were police, they were in uniform) standing and talking to a busker, and I approached them. Just then, the people following me rounded the corner, pulled up suddenly, turned around and sprinted back the way they came.
My point was that some of the time, not all, and I don’t know how often, an aware person can be on the lookout for problems, and can take action to avoid conflict. Phoenix was scarier, in that I was alone at night on the street, and there was no crowd and no convenient policeman. I noticed two men pass me, and then, listening to the sound of their footsteps, I heard them break stride, stop, and start walking after me immediately. I picked up my pace and started looking for anything that was open, and any crowds. I was wearing jeans and dug out my keys from my pocket, putting them in my fist to try to make some sort of weapon. I scanned the street for anything - stick, bar, cast-aside AR-15, but saw nothing to use as a weapon. I had nothing. After a few seconds I saw a group of a couple men and women across the street who were laughing and shouting, and I shouted “Hey, there you are!” and ran across to them. When I pulled up, the two men following me had stopped opposite the street, watching me, and I said in a soft voice to the people I yelled at “Sorry, thought you were someone else”, and continued on. The two men started to cross the street after me, and I turned a corner, sprinted for a hundred feet or so, and ducked into the only restaurant that was open. Then called a cab. They came up to the door and looked in, then hung around outside, and left after a minute or so. Once again, being aware and noticing things saved the day, not any weapon.
I do firmly believe that conflict avoidance and behaviour must come first before one goes “reaching for the gun”.
But there are times when I might not have been so lucky. And, of course, there was the time I wasn’t so lucky, because there was no one to help for maybe a mile or more. And that time was 100% preventable if I had been armed, as there was a long, long, buildup to trouble. 
There is a reason guns are called “equalizers”.
A 100 lbs, 5 foot female vs. a 6 foot 6, 300 lb male is inherently unfair. She does not have the size, strength, or mass to make this an equal match.
But if both are carrying handguns they now have an equal chance of causing harm to each other. It levels the playing field. It doesn’t guarantee the little lady will win - but it dramatically increases her odds.
Likewise, for the old, frail, or disabled vs. a young, strong, able-bodied attacker.
Most criminals do not want to get hurt in the doing of a crime. That’s why young, giant muggers like to choose old, small, and frail victims. When the potential victim is suddenly equally capable of causing mayhem the wannabe attacker might think twice about attacking.
And the weapon doesn’t have to be a gun, specifically - but guns take less skills and strength to use properly than, say, a knife. But really, even an improvised weapon will tend to level out the situation.
Well I would like to have a gun in a dangerous situation… but then that is a psychological reaction. The example of the 100lb lady vs the Big man seems unfeasible once both are armed with guns. The 100lb suddenly has a great chance of dying of gun wounds instead of being raped… not that either is a good choice.
Gun control doesnt need to prohibit home guns... especially in rural areas where "defense" of the home is a more probable occurance.Home guns? Rural areas? Please elaborate…
**
I’m not sure what you mean by that. It seems rather rational to want the proper equipment for whatever situation you find yourself in.
I had more cause to draw a weapon in urban areas then I ever did in rural areas. Not counting hunting of course.
Marc
In Brazil a new gun law is about to be enacted… naturally gun factories were out in weight to oppose such measures as were certain conservative groups.
One aspect of the law was that it allows for registered and controlled gun ownership but heavily limits gun "carrying". So if you do buy a legal gun it will stay at home. Home Gun then. One of the stronger exceptions is that in rural areas its more OK to have a gun since the "law" is more distant. Whilst in the city the idea is to keep guns away and avoid a US style escalation of gun violence and crime. If you carry a gun without a specific license your in trouble. Makes it much harder for criminals.
If someone started giving too much romantic attention to my girlfriend and was way bigger than me... I might also "want the proper equipment"... so that is why I said "psychological" reaction. Most human beings arent ready to handle the power and consequences of having and using guns.
For most people in western civilization guns are related to authority. Police and soldiers use guns. Guns are about power too. Power to destroy mostly thou.
http://www.prisonexp.org -> Check out what happened in the Stanford Prison Experiment when young men were suddenly in a situation of “power”. They started becoming regular “nazis”.
I suppose most US pro gun people either feel enebriated by having guns or come from a culture that either values guns as symbols of independence or find them pretty normal. I know people who deal with guns in a daily basis and they seem pretty normal... still they arent necessarily the rule. The problem is when the people with guns are far from normal.
A new brazilian movie actor that comes from the slums said in an interview that when he was serving the military with a rifle in his hand and a uniform he suddenly was a mini dictator. He remember having a busload of similarly poor people file out and submit to frisking at gun point just for kicks. He later thought about how just taking that role of authority had made him drunk with power.
We live in the 21st century... guns should be at best for law enforcement, sports and hunting equipment. Not a daily use item. If you really want to live in a country where everyone carries guns as a sort of equalizer... what kind of society is that ? You might think you are ok carrying guns... but is it ok for all other to be doing the same ?Frankly, Brazil sounds like a real crackpot place.
Concealed Carry laws are flourishing in the USA, and doing very well. Crime is dropping all over.
Instead of this weird ‘drunk with power’ crap, look at the facts and data.
It’ll prove that your anti-gun bias is wrong.
Well, here is part of the trouble in your comparison of peoples.
In the US, the ARMY is not allowed to act as police except in very controlled and special conditions. They are not police.
If the ARMY or the police did this in the Us, there would be law suits and police being fired left and right.
Although it does not always work this way, it is supposed to be that the police are to help the citizens, not search them, demand bribes and steal from them at checkpoints or make improper advances by the bus load.
YMMV apparently to a greater extent then you might realize.
I disagree that an improvised weapon will “level out the situation.” My belief is that improvised weapons are just barely better than nothing at all unless the user is extensively trained, probably two or three times per week for several years.
For a situation like “Una vs the behemoth,” the only realistic option is a firearm.
Regards
Testy