Hea, this country was founded on the rights of its people. One of those rights is to own a firearm. Now I’m not saying that it is someones right to shoot someone with that firearm, but that dosent mean I cannot have one. Personally I only own one firearm, and it was brought back from Europe at the end of WWII by my grandfather. No bullets, just a pistol. But if you want to own 30 guns, feel free to do so, just use it in a responsible manner.
Kinoons
Followed later by
I am not an advocate of banning guns and I have been impressed by Lott’s efforts. However, if you’re going to throw out this sort of challenge on the Straight Dope, I simply have to respond.
The year after Australia’s gun ban, the single state of New South Wales suffered a spike of violent crime. That spike was consistent with other individual-year spikes that had been recorded in the last thirty years. (It was also bolstered by two specific instances of multiple-death crimes that would have been aberrant in any year in Australia.) That spike has not settled into an increased upward trend. It has been limited (so far) to that single year in NSW, alone. There is a really impressive web site that spends a lot of time quoting NSW statistics out of context in order to support a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument that the reduction of legal guns has caused Australian crime to skyrocket, but it simply has not happened.
Tom~
Okay, I’ll try to keep this short and sweet. First of all, it’s true that if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns. The last time I was in Tunisia, I saw all kinds of people that had handguns, even though they are expressly outlawed. I can agree with Techchick here, as if you come into my house harboring ill thouhgts you’re in for a big fcukin suprise. The mere fact that people die from bullets/guns/people with guns/whatever is not suprising. People die in car accidents and from getting stabbed and strangled and poisoned etc. If person A wants to kill person B bad enough, they’re gonna kill them if they have a gun or not. But if person A wants to kill person B and person B has some means of defending themselves the outcome might be different.
In a Utopian society I guess guns would be useless. Then again, so would laws.
“And on the eighth day, God Created beer
to prevent the Irish from taking over
the Earth.”
~SNOOGANS~
Let’s take a close look at the Constituition. Or more specifically, the Second Amendment, without which people like freedom would all shrivel up and die. It says “In order to maintain a [bold] well regulated [/bold] militia, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Why does that first part always get ignored? Where does that protect/give (I’m going to leave that debate alone) you the right to own something that has the express purpose of killing me another human being? Please don’t tell me that assault weapons have other uses-- hunting rifles are one thing, but AKs and the like are slightly different. The reason gun control laws don’t work is that they aren’t universal. California might have strict laws, but Nevada has some of the loosest. Not hard to imagine what happens in this situation. I would argue, however, that the real way to solve crime in this country is to make crime unnecessary. By that, I mean to rethink spending more on prisons than on schools, etc. But that’s a whole other thread. To get back to that vague and IMO misinterpreted amendment, what arms exactly do we have the right to bear? I certainly wouldn’t want some nut to be able to buy anthrax at his local armory. The same goes for a whole list of weapons, a list that should, in the advanced society that I hope I live in, include most guns. Where do you draw the line? True, if I wanted to kill you, I could use an ax or hammer or knife or run you over with a car. Of course, these things all have other, “primary” uses. The primary use of a gun is to inflict great bodily harm, which seems awfully barbaric to me.
-Dave
“Violence is the last refuge of the ignorant.” Isaac Asimov
I don’t know where the posted numbers came from or whether they are accurate, but if you accept them as posted, then even proportional to ownership, cars would come out worse. One commonly reported number is 70 million gun owners in the US. Even if it is half that amount, and even if you count every man, woman, and child in the nation as an automobile owner, the ratio 900/35x10^6 is still quite a lot less than 41200/270x10^6.
Clearly the technology can be used to commit horrendous crimes, but it can also be used to allow a 120 lb woman to defend herself from a 250 lb rapist - maybe even without either one of them getting hurt. Given that the vast majority of firearm use is lawful and moral, and sometimes even prevents unlawful and immoral actions, it seems to me like it’s probably a positive thing overall. I don’t think we should let a few bad apples spoil it for everybody else.
–
peas on earth
Anybody who hasn’t read John Lott’s book (“More Gun, Less Crime”) really should. It is an excellent book and quoting bits and pieces just won’t do it justice. If you haven’t read it, I really suggest not attacking it too heavily. It is not like some of the junk heavy pro-NRA members put out. This is a very well written with well accompanied research and reasoning. The statistics in the book mainly come from the FBI and DOJ. If the book has any weakness is that Mr. Lott is a bit obsessed with Texas. Again, read it before you fry it.
Also, violent crime rates have been dropping since 1993.
US Dept. of Justice
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv98.htm
One sample quote (lots more on the site above):
[In order to maintain a [bold] well regulated [/bold] militia, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
This is not the second amendment
I’m curious then as to what amendment that is right above me if it isn’t the second one.
<Blockquote>“Amendment II–
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”</Blockquote>
I copied this directly from the home version of the U.S. Constitution, so enjoy.
I don’t understand why the gun-control debate tends to be so all-or-nothing.
Being a big First Amendment supporter, I have some sympathy for those who see the Second Amendment as equally important (at least in principle) to the maintenance of liberty. The U.S. Government isn’t going to burst into our homes and take us away to camps anytime soon, but both amendments are meant to keep that from EVER becoming possible.
That said, the Second Amendment does include the phrase ``well-regulated’’ and the courts have for generations placed limits on what weapons people can and cannot own. It doesn’t seem unreasonable for society to determine that, for instance, handguns are too dangerous for the average schmoe to own. Perhaps they could be available to people who complete certain weapons training and obtain a license.
My point is that even Second Amendment believers should be willing to accept more reasonable limitations when guns take such a toll.
Up, up and away!
“Do or do not, there is no try” - Yoda
You do to the gun companies the same thing that is starting to happen with tobacco companies-- make them accountable.
Ok Freedom, so I had it slightly off. You still haven’t address this point.
No, you’re not. ``As cautious as humanly possible’’ means unloading your rifle and storing it under lock and key, separate from the ammunition. Your .22 is an accident waiting to happen.
THIS is the reason I’m more concerned about well-meaning people than I am about criminals with guns. My dad’s .22 pistol was out of sight, but that didn’t stop me from getting it out and playing quick-draw dozens of times. I always checked to make sure it was unloaded, but one time I might not have – or another child might never have checked at all. Same with your rifle.
I respect gun-rights supporters, but I cannot fathom why responsible gun owners oppose legislation requiring trigger locks or some other safe-storage method. If you want the rights of the Second Amendment, for God’s sake live up to the responsibilities it imposes.
``As cautious as humanly possible’’ – sheesh.
Up, up and away!
My computer crashed as I was running out during my last post. After it crashed I decided to just leave and do it later. I did not realize that it had posted anything. Sorry about that incomplete post.
Here is my point.
You have the Second Amendment wrong. When dealing with issues like Constitutional law, every word and comma matters. You can not arbitrarily add, subtract or otherwise mix-up the words without changing the meaning. The country went through a long and difficult process to ratify the Constitution. They ratified ONE version. They all read exactly the same. Compare your version to the real version:
yours:
US Constitution:
I am not trying to bust your balls just because you made a typo. I am trying to correct a factual error. This is the second time I have seen the Second Amendment misquoted here on Straight Dope.
Here is a quote from the other gun thread going right now:
This guy puts a lot of value on something that does not even exist!!!
The second Amendment does not exist “in order to” or “for the purposes” forming a militia. You have changed the meaning of the Second Amendment 100%.
Trying making different parts of the Second Amendment into seperate stand alone sentences.
Notice how one part is able to stand alone, while the other part is an incomplete sentence? You have the order of dependency wrong.
The right to bear arms **DOES NOT[/] depend on a well regulated milita.
However…
The security of a free state IS DEPENDENT on the right to bear arms.
Big Daddy…
Do you really support the tobacco lawsuits? Don’t you understand that this is just a retrogressive tax?
Have you ever read Atlas Shrugged? Our government would fall under the term:
LOOTER
The tobacco companies, just like the gun industry, has operated under the law. They have both been regulated by our government.
Do you really support the government suing them when they have complied with government regulations?
Should the government be a defendant also considering that they earn so much money on taxes off each pack?
When do we stop? Should we sue makers of fatty foods for the impact of obesity?
Car makers for the accidental deaths that occur?
Ladder makers for people who have fallen?
BD, you haven’t been paying attention. The tobacco companies done been screwed, son! The gun-makers are already in court! And, coincidence of coincidences, the exact same lawyers are leading the charge!
What would you have them accountable FOR? They’re in the business of providing a legitimate, legal product that is sold – as far as they can know – through legitimate, legal channels. The distribution of firearms in the U.S. is one of the mostly highly-regulated enterprises in the history of mankind. (Come to think of it, the distribution of tobacco products ranks right up there too…)
My personal prediction – distillers and brewers are next on the ABA’s list. You watch and see…
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
T
The difference is that Big Tobacco withheld information to protect themselves. True, people need to take responsibility for themselves. However, I know the risks of climbing a ladder. For years, the tobacco industry suppressed knowledge of the risks of smoking to protect their interests. I can’t think of many business strategies more despicable. But this is getting into unrelated ground. I’m sure this has all been hashed out in a thread here sometime. And perhaps tobacco isn’t completely analagous to guns.
While it is hard, perhaps impossible, to know the intention of the original writers of the Bill of Rights, it is possible to know the historical context. Then, the people were the army. They needed guns to maintain this army/militia. Now that we have had a professional army, this amendment is no longer needed. Are you worried that the government might quarter soldiers in your home?
Suppose I have a hundred guns in my posession. What regs do I have to comply with to sell them to you?
Tunisia??? Now there’s a good comparison. Like the USA in every way, except for their gun laws.
That’s a cliche, all right. And it may also be a cliche that it’s a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, machete, club, slingshot, bare hands, or what have you. But it’s a much less misleading one - although the only people who are misled by ‘guns don’t kill,’ other than impressionable children, are those who say it.
When Congress passes laws that hardly anyone wants except a bunch of corporations, is that what you mean by the citizens having the power? And how are guns going to be useful in dealing with that sort of stuff? Maybe it’s not as simple as that.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/cv98.txt
Read Table 5.
Guns were used in eight percent of all violent crimes in the US in 1998. Knives and other weapons were used in fourteen percent. No weapon at all was used in 68% of violent crimes.
Those of you in favor of tighter gun control: looking at the above numbers, is there not a larger social problem that should be addressed rather than blaming the chosen instrument of the crime?
Furthermore, I’d like to point out that few studies have been done to examine instances of gun use to prevent crime when the gun is shown but not fired. Estimates of such uses range from 800,000 to 2.5 million per year. Source: Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995. Per gun-related death, that means that between 25 and 77 lives are protected by guns every year for every life lost. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/Ofarm.htm - 32,436 firearm deaths in 1997.
If you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one. But appreciate that others wish to own guns lawfully and use them safely and appropriately.