I’ve owned guns for years and fired off thousands and thousands of rounds and I have NEVER killed anything with a gun.
I shoot TV’s
quote:
Furthermore, with the standard defensive firing procedure of “2 shots to the chest, 2 shots to the head”, a bullet proof vest is of little value.
I have ccw’s from several states. In each state, the classes I took (which were REQUIRED BY THE STATES in order to get a ccw license), taught the same technique: Keep alternating from chest to head until the threat is stopped. I believe that everyone now uses this technique. I also mix the bullets in my carry guns, alternating between penetrating and quick expanding.
The differences in firearm homicide rates between the US and Canada and the UK are well known and statistics abound. I saw no need to reference what should be common knowledge.
Regarding the need for super large ammo clips at the target range- Now come on, I’m not a gun shooter but how much time does it save you? Let’s say for the sake of argument that you can either shoot 100 rounds in one clip or 5 groups of 20, changing clips every 20 shots. How much money does that cost? And is that savings worth the risk of some nutcase opening fire in a public place with 100 rounds in his weapon?
Militia:
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Militia
“The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, … all men capable of bearing arms;…”
— “Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic”, 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
Organized Militia:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.txt
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia,
See, that’s the problem, Tank. Everyone on my side is a partisan not to be trusted, and everyone on your side is a saint above reproach.
Somehow, I’m not thinking this don’t-cite-partisans thing is not real workable. Debate the assertions on their own merits.
“Well-regulated,” Susanann. You forgot that part.
Didn’t ExTank already address that, minty?
It’s clear you don’t shoot. Loading semi-automatic magazines can be very difficult, and you don’t want to rush doing that because you may damage the round or the magazine. It’s easier to preload and be prepared.
Also, magazines cost money. Five 20 round magazines add up, and can actually be a considerable sum depending upon the weapon being discussed.
But Tank is wrong, Airman. Look up the state and federal militia statutes sometime. They make a clear and unambiguous distinction between the “organized” militia (the National Guard) and the “unorganized” militia (Joe Six-Pack).
The argument that every person is part of the militia is without merit. This from United States vs. Timothy Joe Emerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
And from from the American Bar Association
I’m sorry.
“Well regulated” clearly meant: “well trained and diciplined”.
Back then, regulated did not mean government “control”, as it commonly means today.
It would be a far stretch for anyone to possibly think that the founding fathers thought that it would be easier to “control” any group of people by guaranteeing those same people the right to keep and bear arms. Unarmed people are more easily controlled, not armed citizens.
On the other hand, it is much easier to train and dicipline a citizenry to be ready for action if they already are fully knowledgeable and capable with arms as general citizens.
Hope this helps:
"Meaning of Well-Regulated Militia
This helps us understand the now greatly misunderstood words of the Second Amendment which read: “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Opponents of the individual right to keep and bear arms have greatly misunderstood the initial clause of the Second Amendment.
For many in our time, it is inconceivable to think of anything being well-regulated without a law mandating the regulation and a bureaucracy to conduct the regulation. In the 18th Century, the word regulation did not at all require government involvement. The actions of the American colonists make it plain that a well-regulated militia was well-rehearsed and well-drilled without the control of the government. Indeed, the colonial well-regulated militias shot at the King’s policemen (the King’s soldiers were acting in the capacity we now consider a police function, but there were no police departments then).
When the Reverend Josiah Clark met the British forces at Lexington on April 19, 1775, he was serving as the elected commander of his well-regulated militia. He had well-regulated his men many a Sunday afternoon following church services. The British had made the importation of powder (semi-auto rifles?) illegal and General Gage had sent his men to confiscate colonial stockpiles, along with other war materiel such as muskets and food stores. "
"Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing
the composition of the militia and says, “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to_acquire_the_degree_of_perfection_which_would_entitle_them_to_the_character_of_a_well-regulated_militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”
Note that “well-regulated” clearly refers to how well the militia
functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia or the members of the militia."
"The “people” have the 2nd Amendment right, not the militia.
"U. S. Supreme Court statement: “It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States; …”
http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html
"Regulated means “properly disciplined”
http://www.geocities.com/gunpamphlets/well_regulated.htm
If you think what some judge happens to say in 2001 is more informed, is more knowedgable, and if you think he knows more than what the founding fathers themselves said, you are incredibly naive. If you want to know what the founding fathers meant, read what they said themselves. Do not rely on what some misguided and uninformed person today dreams up what they meant.
Who are you going to believe what Jefferson meant? What someone who does not know history says, or what Thomas Jefferson himself said what he meant?
I dont care what any judge or lawyer says today what he “thinks” or “wishes” what the founding fathers meant, anyone can read for themselves what the founding fathers meant. Read for yourself what they said they meant:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
Noah Webster.
“The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable…The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington.
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…”
John Adams.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country. Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”
James Madison.
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
Richard Henry Lee.
“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson
Bump for Animal Farm.
Well 'Tank, I hate to pick on you (but you’re one of the reasonable posters on your side of the argument, so I think you can handle it), but I’m really sick of seeing this cretin Lott defended so vociferously by those who like his message(s). I am sorry if you aren’t authoritative regarding statistical analyses or research techniques, but neither am I. However, I and others have led SDMB posters quite a few times to easily understood refutations of Lott, written for the layperson. And the material is not that hard to grasp in any case. Once they are moderately informed, any reasonably intelligent person not blinded by an overly emotional attachment to the rubric Guns = Freedom* should be able to see through not only Lott’s hilariously inadequate “research”, but also his credulous notion that making more weapons available to a population, with no other adjustments, decreases the incidents of violent crime.
So do me a favor and stop advertising for that jackass Lott. That’s aggressive ignorance. If you’re going to cite statistical analyses in an argument, you should understand what they’re good for and what they’re not good for; if you understand that, then you also understand why Lott’s a moron******.
Besides, Lott’s deluded thesis is not a necessary item of belief in order to favor, as I do, the continued individual right to possess effective weapons of self and home defense. But let’s not kid ourselves into believing our violent culture can be ameliorated simply by adding more weapons into the mix. That’s just dumb.
*****I agree with that rubric in large part, I just think it fails to convey the full meaning of the concept: parity of means equals the ability to maintain freedom. In other words, it aint the guns which assure your freedom, it’s the ability to effectively deal with would-be oppressors that does it. In terms of crime, that would be the ability to possess tools of self protection (gun ownership); in terms of American government, that would be the ability to translate popular protections into governmental action or abeyance as necessary (open democracy in a constituional framework).
******NOTE: I’m not going to post any refutations of Lott to this thread; I’ve done it before and had them shrugged off by people who want to cite Lott but don’t want to bother understanding his methodological flaws. Besides, Lott’s thesis and the refutations of it are the most easily found items on the web, so if you want 'em, spend the 13 seconds it’ll take to do a Google search.
I admire and respect the Founding Fathers as much as anybody, but there is a world of difference between the 18th and 21st centuries. Jefferson et al certainly did not forsee life in the inner cities, or guys like David Koresh or Columbine. If you think everybody packing heat makes you safer, I ask you to consider how safe you would feel in the Middle East, where it seems everybody packs machine guns. Further, it is clear that the Founding Fathers meant to restrict gun ownership to “well organized militias”, else the often ignored first half of the second amendment would not have been written. No circuit courts have subscribed to the idea that there is an individual right to gun ownership, nor has the Supreme Court.
minty, xeno: I love the ability of some people to selectively disregard that parts of a poster’s commentary that they find inconvenient:
Perhaps not the ringing refutal of Lott you’re looking for, but it is a concession that perhaps Lott and his works are not the be-all/end-all some of us in the pro-rights camp would like to think that they are.
Having said that: I ain’t buying your refutal, xeno. The stuff I’ve read refuting Lott’s work, critiquing it, are asking him to control for factors that are next-to-impossible to quantify. Factors that, as far as I can tell, would take ultra-sophisticated and inordinately complex mathematical models, running for weeks on banks of supercomputers, to even begin to have any reasonable chance of hitting a ballpark figure.
As this would cost millions, if not hundred of millions of dollars in man-hours and computer resources, I’m sure the gun control movement would absolutely love to see the pro rights movement bankrupt themselves in the attempt.
I find it ironic (and the height of hypocrisy) for the gun control movement to claim out of one side of their ass that the gun-crime correlation needs ultra-sophisticated analysis if proving a negative correlation, while claiming, out the other side of their ass, their simplistic mantra, with little substantive evidence other than their intuitive “gut feeling,” that there is a positive correlation.
An honest approach would be to simply say:
Me personally, I would start with effective educational policies, from K-12 to affordable higher education, be it professional or vocational. Make the “American Dream” an achievable reality for just about everyone, and you may just kick some of the contributing economic factors out from underneaththe crime equation.
Next, reinstate truly ethical behavior and behavioral role models. Whether it comes from religion or moral philosophy (I know; the two are often intertwined into what is effectively “one”), ethical behavior in the home, community, state and nation, from housewives to elected officials, will set the example for impressionable youth that grabbing the mostest for the self by any means available is NOT tolerable behavior.
Also: better or more strenuous efforts to truly insure racially blind justice and treatment of racial minorities, including their acces to equal opportunity in areas of education and employment.
I think that these three things*****, taken together and over time, will do a lot more towards reducing violent crime than any gun control legislation short of outright bans and confiscations of firearms.
Then again, England’s social utopia may be developing some frays at the seams. It may very well be, for reasons dealing with neural mechanics and thought processes beyond the control of social engineering and medical science, that there will always be those human beings who simply cannot, or will not, play nice and succeed within the parameters of law-abiding society.
For reasons of greed, power lust, or just sheer anarchy, these people may always seek the path of easy riches and power by any means necessary, including violence.
If humanity does indeed carry these “Wolves” in our fold, then even total bans on firearms and sweeping door-to-door confiscations aren’t going to stop these people from obtaining and using firearms to perpetrate their crimes.
It would take a police state of unprecedented preportions to truly control for these people.
*****[sub]I also think that the elimination of the “conspicuous consumption” aspect of our society would also ease a lot of problems; without movies, TV shows and such showing people flaunting wealth, the rest of society may feel somewhat less economically inadequate, and thus less tempted to take the easier, criminal paths to the acquistion of wealth and Mercedes Benzes.
Bugger me for a lark if I can figure out how to do that, though[/sub]
It takes me twice as long to practice at the range if I have to load my magazines there. Considering that I already posted the going rate for range time at my range as $35 an hour, my typical 2 hour trip to the range with pre-loaded high capacity magazines would take me four hours, and cost me an extra $70 per visit.
Going to the range twice a month would cost me an extra $140 per month or, anually (140 * 12) an extra 1680.
If I spend 30$ on each 20 round magazine for my pistol, instead of using the 10 round magazines, and load all my rounds at home before going to the range, I need to take 20 magazines with me to put in 400 rounds. That’s a total of $600 for magazines, which are reusable every time I go to the range, so in one year I have a net savings of $1080.
High capacity magazines are very cost effective.
I have no problem if you disagree with the founding fathers, or if you think that times have changed from the 18th century to the 21st century , or that you may want what government that they set up to be changed - that is a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to whatever opinion you want.
But dont try to tell anyone that the founding fathers did not mean what they said, or that they did not say what they meant. Dont try to tell people that some guy in a current day circuit court knows more about what Jefferson meant than Jefferson said what he meant.
All of us can go back and read what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton said what they meant.
This is not Animal Farm. Dont try to change what was originally said and think you will get away with it.
“The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment. If they wanted individual firearm ownership to be an individual right, then why did they not omit the first half of the amendment? I have to assume that they were much more careful and meticulous about wording a constitutional amendment than in making these other quotes.
Magazines aren’t inexpensive. I just bought 6 15 round pre-ban magazines for my CZ 75 B 9mm semiautomatic pistol @ $30 each. That was a pretty good deal because the standard price on these pre-ban magazines is $45 each. A post-ban 10 round magazine costs in the range of $20 - $30.
Although I do not have to pay my range by the hour since I have an unlimited use yearly membership, I can attest to the fact that if I do not preload my magazines at home that I spend about 50% of my time at the range loading magazines. It normally takes me about 45 minutes to shoot 100 rounds at the range since I just load while there. If I was paying by the hour, $9/hr for pistol and $18/hr for shotgun/rifle and wanted to shoot 200 rounds I’d definitely want the highest capacity magazines I could find in order to reduce my range time costs.
Jerry