Let me get this straight, Dave. You started this topic to bitch about Americans and their firearms a week ago and you are just now starting to research the issue? Thanks for playing, make sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts on the way out.
This is one example of where figures or statistics are not necessary. You need only apply logic and common sense to realize that the victim is going to be keenly aware of who the bad guy is. A police officer, showing up during or after the fact will have a lot less real information to go on. Because of this, they will often rely on their instincts and the subject’s profile or stereotype to determine who is who. Most of the time they’ll probably be right, but obviously this can be problematic.
Am I saying that civilians never mistakenly shoot someone? No. Am I saying that the police always mistakenly shoot someone? No. I’m saying that someone who is present during the commission of a crime is always in a better position to end the crime successfully without making mistakes then someone who arrives after the fact and who is relying on second-hand or third-hand information.
And all that is assuming that the victim is still alive and the perpetrator isn’t long gone by the time the police arrive. That’s a big assumption. To much of an assumption for me anyway.
Freedom wrote:
Yes, but:
-
This law did not come into existence until 1916.
-
At no time since the passage of this law has the “unorganized militia” been called into actual service. And:
-
According to http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm#3.50 , being a member of the unorganized militia conveys NO additional rights, only additional responsibilities.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
tracer,
I agree. The right exists for all people in this country.
I see the milita arguement as a red herring. It really has no relevance. Anybody who can read English can tell that the Amendment is recognizing the right of the people to own arms.
That could very well say:
And it would still mean the same thing.
(except we would party more 
)
It is not debating whether or not a milita is neccesary to the security of a free state, nor does it set a prerequisite for there to be a well regulated milita for there to be the right of the people to bear arms.
Is the sentence a little awkward by today’s standards? Yes. No doubt about it.
But can we understand it easily enough? Yes, as long as we don’t bring an agenda to the table.
All you have to do is go through the Bill of Rights and ask yourself why they used people in some Amendments, and then States in others. Are they interchangeble? Or were they smart enough to to be specific in their wording?
The only reason I even address this issue is because people run around with this wacky version of what they THINK the 2nd Amendment says. The funny part is, even with their interpretaion, they still lose the arguement.
voltaire:
I definitely see that point–my thinking was geared more towards the home burglary scenario in which a person first has to indentify whether or not there even IS a bad guy (as opposed to a neighbor, etc.). I see now where you are coming from.
I would add, though, that while I respect your point of view, I do not share your feelings about who to trust with a gun. The police definitely do make mistakes. But, while I am not foolish enough to think that a badge makes someone trustworthy, I DO think that a person who has been trained to tackle life-threatening situations and who is practiced in making decisions of that nature under pressure will be less likely to screw up given equal circumstances. Let’s face it, while an armed civilian might very well be in a position to do some good, they are also in a position to do great harm through inexperience, panic, rage, etc. I am not against gun ownership, but I am extremely wary of vigilantism. I believe that, when possible, situations involving armed conflict ought to be left to those trained to deal with it (the operative words being “when possible” I understand that sometimes a person has no choice but to defend himself and his loved ones).
Diallo
Rodney King
Sure I trust the police. They never make mistakes or abuse their power.
Freedom–
Come on. There is (hopefully) no one in this debate who is not troubled and horrified by police brutality and criminality. However, does that support the notion that–generally speaking–armed citizens are less likely to do unintentional harm than trained law enforcement agents? That is pure cynicism–a cop out 
of major proportions. No, policemen are not necessarily trustworthy human beings simply because they are policemen–but they are trained to deal with dangerous situations in ways that ordinary citizens are not. Like it or not, your honest-abe next door neighbor with the gun collection is just as likely to be a bigoted maniac as any cop. Yes, I’ve known stupid cops. Yes I’m sickened by recent events in the news involving abusive and corrupt cops. But, given my choice in a situation, I’d rather be protected by them than someone who may or may not be the least bit mentally or emotionally prepared for a potentially deadly confrontation.
peace
I know I’m responding to a really old post. I’m sorry, but I had to. I am really thankful to see an oasis of rational intelligence in the desert of human stupidity, where nothing can grow except inappropriate, overextended metaphors.
Anyway, The fact that you don’t want a gun doesn’t mean you have to take them away from everybody else. It does, however, mean that you have the freedom and intelligence to choose not to use them or allow them into space that you control.
The problem here is that we have:
a) a corrupt government looking to consolidate and maximize its power and control over the citizenry,
b) normally rational people with their worst fears whipped into a frenzy by said government, along with news media that report gun violence disproportionately to make it look worse than it is, and
c) people looking for a global solution to a local problem. If there are too many idiots in New York City to allow guns, fine (and that may be true. NYC is FULL of idiots. Many of them are running the place). Ban them there. But don’t lobby for them to be made illegal in Virginia, New Mexico, Texas, etc. You’re not helping anybody except the people in a) who want more power over you, and want you to have no liberty or freedom.
Oh, what’s that? So now you say life sucks?
Well 99% of it’s what you make of it…
So if your life sucks, YOU suck!
Joe_Cool
Actually, “assault-weapon” is also a well-defined military term which has been ignored and redefined by politicians, because it sounds like “assault-rifle” and evokes a specific emotional response.
The definition? “any weapon used in an assault”
That means if I throw a rock at you, I have attacked you with an assault weapon.
For all the debate about what kind of guns we should be or not be allowed to have (no military guns…Hunting guns are ok…etc), I’m surprised. Does anybody know the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”? What does that mean? It means that my rights shall not be infringed. Telling me I can own A and C, but not B is infringing my right to own letters, so to speak. Machine-guns and Armor-piercing ammunition aren’t practical for hunting? You’re damn right.
The 2nd amendment isn’t in place to protect our sport-hunting. It’s in place for two things: to make our nation secure from external attack, and to make our nation secure from INTERNAL attack.
Read what the drafters wrote and discussed about the constitution someday. They did not trust government–not even the one they were forming. They knew that disarmament is the first and most important step toward tyranny. It’s there to protect us from our own government becoming too zealous for power.
Oh, what’s that? So now you say life sucks?
Well 99% of it’s what you make of it…
So if your life sucks, YOU suck!
Joe_Cool
To get back to the OP. When the US deals with other countries we like using napalm. Since the stuff is too expensive and cumbersome for household use I think automatic weapons are a nice compromise.
OK. The op asked and honest question, and I’ll try to give an honest answer, without going political.
What follows is strictly my own opinion, with no basis in logic or law or precedent or statistics; just the accumulated experience of being a member of the American gun-culture since the age of five.
I like guns because they are fun. I love to shoot targets. I like the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment I get from placing rounds in the 10-ring of a target, time after time. It is a physical and mental discilpline, that doesn’t stop when the magazine is empty and I go home from the range.
It is a reminder of my ability, and the concomitant responsiblity I bear as a free citizen in a free country; a responsibility to be not only able to use force, but to use it wisely and judiciously; a responsibility to be safe and considerate of the rights and feelings my fellow citizens, that they may never, ever feel endangered or threatened by me, nor have their life unnecessarily jeapodized, by my hand.
I was introduced to shooting by my father, who divorced my mother when I was five; our shared experiences hiking, camping, canoeing and hunting has given me a love of Nature and the peace and tranquility of cool, clean lakes and rivers and the deep, quiet forests.
I respect Nature, and seek to preserve the wildlife and habitat by culling the weak and sickly from the herd, so that the remaining wildlife will grow strong and pass on the best possible genes. If and when man and nature can live in harmony, and the natural predators can resume their rightful place in the food chain, I will gladly give up hunting with a gun, and substitute my hunting rifles and shotguns for a good camera.
In addition, my father taught me safety and responsibilty in the care and handling of firearms; as he was a machinist, he understood the intrinsic value of good tools, and the need to treat them with care and respect.
He also taught me about our Constitution and Bill of Rights; as a vetern of WWII, he taught me about civic duty and responsibility, and love of country and our fellow citizens, and the need for every able-bodied citizen to render some form of service to our nation; enrolling me in the Boy Scouts where I attained the rank of Eagle Scout, before I enlisted in the U.S. Army, where I attained the rank of Sergeant and served as a gunner on an M-1 Abrams Tank during the Persian Gulf.
While I am not satisfied with America’s reasons for our involvement in the Persian Gulf, I am proud of my service, and honored by the respect and accolades of my fellow soldiers, both superiors and subordinates alike, and my fellow citizens.
There is a fine, if definite, distinction in the above statement; if you don’t, can’t or won’t understand it, the fault is yours, not mine or my fellow soldier’s.
All of that has combined to leave me, one man, one citizen of the United States of America, with the utmost conviction that I have not only the right, but the responsibility to be armed; to be proficient in the use of arms, to understand and respect the heritage of the self-reliant citizen-soldier that founded this country and has seen it grow to be the richest, most powerful nation on this planet.
I stand ready not only to defend myself, but also my family, my neighbors in time of need, my community in times of disaster or strife, and my Nation, should it feel the need to call upon my Service once again.
I swore an Oath of Enlistment to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not abdicate that oath when I took off my uniform.
In my twenty-eight years of living in and around the gun-culture, I have found that I am not exceptional; but rather the norm.
Come visit us; not just once, but several times. Get to know us a bit. We’re not, collectively, the loutish insensitive cretins who cannot see the grief and damage of irresponsible use of firearms that Bill Clinton and the Media have portrayed us to be.
Our hearts, too, go out to the victims of gun violence; we too weep at the tragic, untimely loss of the innocent young lives to violent crimninal predators and mentally unbalanced individuals.
But sacrificing fundamental rights that have been hard fought for and won with the blood of our Fathers, the blood of more people than all the innocent victims of tragic incidents, for the imagined safety and promised panacea of less crime, is not what we believe.
I make no apologies for my hobby, my past or my convictions.
ExTank
“Loyalty, Courage.”
It’s absolutely true that an armed citizen is less likely to shoot the wrong person than is a cop. The simple reason is that the citizen knows who the good guys and bad guys are, and when the cop arrives he has to make a judgement call, when seconds count and chaos is reigning.
Also, police are put into more marginal situations simply because they have guns handy and the authority to use them. If someone screams, a gun shot rings out, and a man comes racing around the corner with his arm extended, the police officer is there to take a shot at him.
The average citizen, on the other hand, only brings out a weapon in situations that are much more cut-and-dried, the typical one being a home assault.
Tank, you are the man! I’m not a sentimental type, but that is a moving post. Nicely done.
Like I said, eloquent.
Now if only we could figure out a way to get guns away from idiots, and leave responsible gunners like Tank alone…
Hmmm, another post?
Peace,
mangeorge
Well I sure don’t love guns, even though a lot of people think I do or should. I grew up on a farm in the midwest, with many guns. Guns on the wall, guns in the pick up truck window, guns strapped to our motorcyles. As well as a hammers and a fencing pliers. Thats all a gun was to me, a tool. Mainly for shooting at stray packs of dogs… (caused by all those city slickers that would dump their dogs out in the country)…shooting cyotes and sometimes for food if the population ( of squirrels , rabbits, pheasants etc…) was getting ridiculously high. But never did I even think of using it in self defence against a human being!
In my extremely peacefull years there, I only experienced one act of violence, while at a church volley ball game. A bunch of drunks came around and started harrasing us, things started to get pretty ugly, punches flew, but we finally got them to leave, even though most of us were 15 year old, and they were early and late 20’s. I was thinking about this the other night, and realized, at least half the cars a pick ups in the parking lot had guns in them, but nobody would have even “thought” of using them to protect us. Thank god! I can only imagine what would have happened if some idiot had.
When I was 25, I moved to L.A… And unfortunatley saw alot more violence. (Allthough not as much as I thought I might)
A few of the acts even involved weapons. Not one incident would have been “helped” by another weapon!
I know alot of people fantasize about being on the “good end” of criminal activity, and like to dream up scenerios where a weapon would help, so they can be heros.
I would never push for outlawing guns, even though I don’t think the constitution guarantees it at all(for all individuals)…Hell its “Grand Fathered” in by this point. But registration, limits on puchases, YOU BET! And those f****n gun shows! …“oh we’ll loose too many sales if we have to do a real background check” …And while I’m at it, why doesnt the NRA just …
…oops , hold on… oooooooommmmmmm…oooooommmmmm…
ok I’m better now.
Let me get this straight, Dave. You started this topic to bitch about Americans and their firearms a week ago and you are just now starting to research the issue? Thanks for playing, make sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts on the way out
aw shucks Uncs,don’t be so sensitive.
You get prizes for bitchin’? Did I do well?
But seriously folks I had absolutely no idea about what this issue means to so many of you.
Until now the only exposure to the real views of US citizens was through our media,then I got connected-last week-hence all the typos.
Extank that was just so beautiful ,do you think that the homicidal lunatics ,robbers ,junkies and other assorted lowlifes think about the points you raised or not?
The Constitution issue is fascinating.Some of us in the UK would like to have a written constitution too(Charter 2000 group).
I imagine that when The Constitution was drafted they had in mind Britain with all its corruption and France with its recent revolution.They must have thought about the abuses of power the executive in those lands had commited ,possibly some had already been victims of the same and decided to leave.
In England although there was the vote it certainly was not democracy as we today see it and in any case the King still had final authority no matter what parliament decided,in France the high ideals the of the revolution were slowly being perverted.
So how to defend the right of citizens?
America found an answer that was appropriate for the time.
Over here we don’t trust the politicians absolutely-no surprises there then-and ,in extremis ,power still remains with the monarchy who can declare a state of emergency using the armed forces and the police to enforce this.
This sounds well dodgy but in fact it works because the monarch is really a constitutional position .As such it is apolitical whereas your president is both constitutional head and political head.
In my view these two roles should be kept separate.
Before you comment on the contradictions between hereditory monarchy and democracy let me add that I myself would prefer a non- executive presidential style solution but the ongoing discussion here is how could this be achieved without bringing bear-pit politics into it.
The thing is;- any rights violations by the state are going to be sanctioned by the politicians hence the need for citizens to defend themselves.
I can’t help but feel that some in the gun community wrap the flag around themselves and use it to justify many things but there wouldn’t be anyone like that here, now would there?
Small point ,I know, but actually most of our rights in the UK were achieved by political means and the power of the unions to defend the rights of the small man.
Much of the Eastern Bloc fell not by force of arms but by ordinary people simply walking away.
Guns have their place but civil protest has shown time and again that guns are not always the most effective way to protect the public.
Hey dave, another small point.
Not only did we NOT have the French Revolution in mind, but our success helped start the French Revolution.
Ooops!
slinks off feeling sheepish(blush)
CasDave, your response still has some misconceptions, which I’ll address in order:
The drafters of the Constitution were not only concerned about Great Britain, but Spain, and The Netherlands as well, as they were the only other colonial powers, besides our allies the French, with the werewithal to mount an expedition to conquer us.
Domestically, they were also concerned about the Indians (I know, un-PC; but that is what they were referred to then) who were succeptible to influence by the British, by way of Canada. Many tribes accepted arms and aid from the British during the French-Indian War, and there was a justifiable fear that the British could (and eventually did during the War of 1812) again use the Indians to wage a guerrilla war against the new nation.
Remember, this was before Manifest destiny and the Westward Expansion the led to the inevitable conflict with the Native Americans.
But mostly, they felt that a Free, Armed Citizenry was the first, last and best defense against Too Much Government.
That we, as a Nation, have lost Faith with and strayed away from this principle of the Empowered Citizenry, saddens me; I sometimes feel that this Nation is no longer the Nation that our Founding Fathers conceived, and that my forefathers left Europe to join, and have fought, bled and died for securing and re-affirming this Principle of the Emancipated Citizen.
Not just the change of landscape or technology, but the principle that we Citizens are the Government, not the Talking Heads we elect to represent us, not the political appointees who shape policy and hold our representatives ears, not the special interests who fill the campaign coffers and pockets of “action committees”, “focus groups” or “polling organizaions”.
As far as the various people who abuse firearms, remember that there are an estimated 65,000,000 gun-owners in America, and it’s also estimated that there are upwards of 150,000,000 firearms in America.
If violence and crime were even *half[/i[ as bad as politicians and The Media portrays it to be, we would be drenched in blood.
But violent crime is declining at about 5-6% annually, and has been since 1994; in addition, the vast majority of states that have “shall-issue” CCW laws have seen an even greater decline, anywhere from 2-10%, depending on locality (my home state of Texas is about 5% over the National Average).
And there haven’t been the “Wild West” shootouts by gun-toting citizens that politicians and The Media have predicted; quite the contrary, only a very few CCW Permits have been revoked, and none for violent felony criminal activity.
As far as the violent criminals are concerned, gun laws mean nothing to them; if they are violent and maladjusted enough to commit murder in the furtherance of their criminal activities, do you honestly believe that they are going to obtain their weapons legally? Sure, maybe the first weapon they obtain may be done legally, and possibly subsequent ones until they are caught and have a felony record!
They now may no longer legally acquire weapons; they must either steal them or use “Straw Man” buyers.
These “Straw Men” are usually gang members without records, who are given money to buy guns for their fellow gang members.
The Clinton Administration, acting upon information provided by the BATF, has estimated that there are only a few (percentage wise) gun stores that cater to this clientele, somewhere on the order of 10-15%, and has proposed an initiative to target these abusers of the Federal Firearms Dealer System.
This proposal has my cautious approval, and, I dare say, the approval and support of the gun-culture, in theory, at least. As this political administration has shown itself all too willing to throw the baby out with the bath water in the furtherance of their political agenda.
We do support taking gun away from criminals; we do support theories on how to prevent criminals from getting or using firearms.
But barring the total disarmament of free citizens alike, there isn’t much more that can be done except the vigoruous enforcement of our *current gun-control laws![/]i
If George W. is elected, I will be far more trusting of him, his having been my state governor going on two terms now. I have seen this man, talked to him, heard and seen his political will in action.
He means what he says, and does what he promises, in good conscience and full faith and trust in the people who elected him to represent him.
The bottom line is that a grossly small percentage of lawful gun owners commit violent crimes with firearms, and the current laws, if vigorously enforced, are sufficient to deter further abuses of the power gun-owners possess.
And tough prosecution of violent criminals, often times repeat offenders, will go even further towards reducing violent criminal activity, without infringing on the law-abiding citizenry’s rights to keep and bear arms and pursue legitimate hobbies and sporting activities.
We in the gun-culture are the vast majority, the people standing in line next to you at the grocery store, filling up our cars at the gas pump, buying stamps at the post office, renting videos at Blockbuster, rooting for our kids to hit the homeruns on the same baseball team as your children. Just like the soldiers I am supporting in the “Mandatory Service” thread:
We Are You!
Like I asked before, come to our clubs; meet us and talk to us. We have mortgages, and car payments. We too worry about taxes and property values, and the price of gasloine.
We, too, are just as concerned about crime, criminals and drugs in our neighborhoods, because our children live and play and go to school alongside your children.
To us, camoflauge is not a fashion statement; it is a tool of the lawful hunter engaging in lawful sporting activities. We too hate the knuckleheads bringing full-auto weaponry into our forests, as we are also out there hunting, and don’t want a spray of bullets flying aroud the space we are also occupying.
We too don’t want .50 caliber bullets fired from military-grade sniper rifles flying dozens of miles to impact randomly in God-knows-where.
We will be the first to contact Game and Wildlife Officials to apprehend these law breakers, and provide whatever aid and assistance the enforcement officials and justice system requires to apprehend and prosecute these law-breakers!
We are not a small minority of law-abiding citizens. WE are the vast majority!
You never here about us because we are not news-worthy to the Mass Media; the amazingly few incidents of mass violence are ratings-grabbers.
Just last week, here in North Carolina, a bar owner used his handgun to defend his premises and clientele against three gun-toting criminals with felony records from robbing his establishment.
One robber was killed, and two other were either wounded or held at gunpoint until the police arrived (the news wasn’t entirely clear, but at least one of the surviving two was wounded).
Not a single bystander/patron was wounded.
This is the overwhelming norm, not the minority of incidents.
Statistic are tricky. British Prime Minister and Statesman Benjamin Disraeli’s famous quote highlights perfectly the potential abuse of statistics:
Any group, from HCI to the NRA, can twist numbers to prove their points. You and anyone else new to this debate are wise and right to not entirely trust any statistic to form an educated opinion concerning gun control, one way or the other.
But just consider this: at HCI’s web-site, there are plenty of scary numbers to support their position.
And yet they cite no studies, no agencies or bureaus that collect and track the very data they claim supports stricter gun control.
And then go to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Ac