Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban Act

[Danoff]

No, the need is not for the weapons, the need is for a well regulated militia which ensures the freedom of the states, so for that purpose the right to bear arms will not be infringed upon. What text gave you the impression that it was just an example?

The DC vs Heller majority opinion. Among other sections, this section:

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

...and after loooots of background and meticulous support (which I suggest that folks read)... this:

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.

Do not construe that "entirely sensible" bit to mean that it's a reasonable conclusion that one might come up with. If you read the supporting material, it means that it was a sensible course of action for the drafters of the constitution to include the clause.

 

[Keef]

Somewhere, somebody out there is thinking of the name Benjamin Franklin.

Let's not forget, his acts of treason with the British were committed before the Constitution was written.

With the British? Surely you mean against the British, in favor of the colonies, which is what he did. He made public in the colonies letters that were written by a governor of Massachusetts who was arguing against colonial rights.

I think you're thinking of Benedict Arnold.

If I am not mistaken, I think that if you enter this country and take up dual citizenship, then this may get tossed out the door. You could get tried for treason.

All I know is the clause I provided is the legal definition of treason in the US. If there's another definition you'll have to find it for us. If an enemy spy were a citizen or something along those lines then they wouldn't be committing treason anyway since they're an enemy agent.

 

[Tornado]

With the British? Surely you mean against the British, in favor of the colonies, which is what he did. He made public in the colonies letters that were written by a governor of Massachusetts who was arguing against colonial rights.

I think you're thinking of Benedict Arnold.

 

[Nicksfix]

I think you're thinking of Benedict Arnold.

All I know is the clause I provided is the legal definition of treason in the US. If there's another definition you'll have to find it for us.

on my behalf, bad typo. That's what happens when you try to multitask.

I'll look for that link.

EDIT : I was thinking of Adam Gadahn. I was thinking he took up dual citizenship in this country and committed crimes against the U.S.. Turns out, he was an American born citizen who got indicted for treason.

A former resident of Orange County, Calif., has become the first person to be charged with treason against the United States since the World War II era, the U.S. Department of Justice announced on Wednesday.

Adam Gadahn, 28 - also known as Azzam al-Amriki or Azzam the American - "gave al Qaeda aid and comfort ... with intent to betray the United States," according to the treason count in the indictment, which was returned by a federal grand jury in Santa Ana, Calif.

"By aligning himself with al Qaeda, by moving overseas to be closer to al Qaeda's base and leadership, and by joining in advocating al Qaeda's terrorist agenda, an agenda that includes the overthrow of the United States government and the murder of American citizens, Adam Gadahn has committed treason against the United States of America," said U.S. Attorney Debra Wong Yang of the central district of California.

Story

 

[ProjectVRD]

I wasn't aware we had a problem, much less one that was beyond repair.

The problem, as usual, is people not guns.

Really? Because without a gun that guy who killed the cinema audience would not have been able to do what he did. The key factor to the death toll being so high was not the man, but the gun.

No gun, no massacre.

 

[BobK]

Really? Because without a gun that guy who killed the cinema audience would not have been able to do what he did. The key factor to the death toll being so high was not the man, but the gun.

No gun, no massacre.

No psychopath, no massacre. I don't believe his weapon pulled its own trigger.


This bears repeating:

 

[Danoff]

Really? Because without a gun that guy who killed the cinema audience would not have been able to do what he did. The key factor to the death toll being so high was not the man, but the gun.

No gun, no massacre.

That guy broke all kinds of laws (not the least of which was murder) including owning lots of illegal weapons and armor. So it would seem that passing stricter gun laws would not have removed his gun. What they would do is disarm the public and make it easier for psychopath to shoot people.

 

[Zenith]

Really? Because without a gun that guy who killed the cinema audience would not have been able to do what he did. The key factor to the death toll being so high was not the man, but the gun.

No gun, no massacre.

No gun, no massacre unless he decides to use any of the many objects that can be used as weapons. Home made bombs, knives, blunt objects, poison, etc..

How do you envision the government stopping James Holmes from acquiring a gun?

Assault Weapon Ban? Background Checks?

Cute.

 

[Keef]

No gun, no massacre.

I'd have used a knife myself. I'd have used a knife and a hand towel, and I'd have started in the rear of the theater, sneaking up behind people, covering their mouths, and cutting their throats during loud action sequences. Sort of like all our military personnel are trained to do. This guy may have been a psychopath but surely you realize that all of our military personnel are trained specifically to kill people quickly and efficiently, right? They could do with a length of twine and a napkin what this guy did with an AR and multiple other guns because they've been trained to do that.

They day I see a gun floating through the air blasting people of its own accord is the day I'll believe that guns kill people. People kill people.

 

[Nicksfix]

Really? Because without a gun that guy who killed the cinema audience would not have been able to do what he did. The key factor to the death toll being so high was not the man, but the gun.

No gun, no massacre.

Have you read the news story on this ? Completely read it ? Understand it ?

This heinous act, as I've stated earlier in this thread was premeditated. Nothing, but nothing was going to thwart this mans intentions. Not even the fact that he had illegally obtained the gun he used. Black market guns are a dime a dozen. If you've got the cash in hand, your set, you can now be an illegal gun owner ... yeah, it's that easy.

You do know that a gun is an inanimate object right ? It can not aim itself or fire itself without the use of (here it comes, drum roll) ..................... the use of human hands ! Quit blaming guns !

No human idiocracies, no massacres.

 

[ProjectVRD]

Yup, and I have already stated clearly you cannot prevent a psychopath due to the many biological reasons. However, if the American government did it's job decades ago and stopped guns being made available to the public (inside the US and for export) then the situation could have been resolved before it began.

At the end of the day, a psycho with a knife or a stick could not kill all those people in the cinema that lost their lives, and there is no denying that. Europe knows this, Japan knows this... the big question is why can't Americans acknowledge this?

I am not trying to get Americans to bite, there was a program on the BBC and it was only the Americans who put the blame on the man only, while arguing more guns were needed. Everywhere else saw both as a problem, while only one could have been prevented, but now it is out of control. Considering our gun crime in our many nations are a small fraction combined against what America has... we have a good point.

At the end of the day, the extreme majority of guns in the world are American. And most crimes are done by American made guns... simple, America did not regulate guns properly.

 

[Zenith]

Once again, incorrect.

You're not trying to prevent gun crime, you're trying to prevent violent crime. People being robbed, assaulted, killed. The UK and Chicago have demonstrated what happens when you disarm a populace.

You make the mistake of thinking that the government saying that something is illegal would stop people like James Holmes and Anders Breivik from obtaining firearms. It doesn't. More gun control doesn't mean less guns, it means more illegal guns. Ask anyone who's ever smoked weed in this country. An item in high demand will be easy to obtain by legal means or not.

We've had this discussion several times. The arguments you make are well covered and have been thoroughly proven wrong. Saying that gun control can stop crime is laughable and the idea that it could work in America because it "worked" for Europe and Japan is just naive. The places might as well be different planets when it comes to crime and guns.

If you'd like statistics, I've posted those too. Gun control doesn't work in theory or in practice.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The fact is this: Gun control is ineffective, unrealistic, and an infringement on human rights.

 

[Danoff]

Yup, and I have already stated clearly you cannot prevent a psychopath due to the many biological reasons. However, if the American government did it's job decades ago and stopped guns being made available to the public (inside the US and for export) then the situation could have been resolved before it began.

The bombs in his apartment weren't readily available or legal, didn't stop him. The US government did their job on that one and resolved it before it began right? Somehow he made bombs anyway. And who's to say he wasn't considering bombing the theater instead of shooting.

At the end of the day, a psycho with a knife or a stick could not kill all those people in the cinema that lost their lives, and there is no denying that. Europe knows this, Japan knows this... the big question is why can't Americans acknowledge this?

Honestly I'd rather put up with the occasional nut job that kills a dozen people than have violent crime statistics skyrocket due to lack of legal gun ownership.

 

[Zenith]

The UK has more cricket bat violence than the US. Silly UK, why won't they acknowledge that the cricket bat shares the blame for the crime? Cricket bat control and restriction measures should be instituted. This will lower the amount of violent crime.

 

[Azuremen]

You make the mistake of thinking that the government saying that something is illegal would stop people like James Holmes and Anders Breivik from obtaining firearms. It doesn't. More gun control doesn't mean less guns, it means more illegal guns. Ask anyone who's ever smoked weed in this country. An item in high demand will be easy to obtain by legal means or not.

Honestly it is so easy to obtain marijuana that I often forget it is illegal.

 

[AndersonG22]

Yup, and I have already stated clearly you cannot prevent a psychopath due to the many biological reasons. However, if the American government did it's job decades ago and stopped guns being made available to the public (inside the US and for export) then the situation could have been resolved before it began.

At the end of the day, a psycho with a knife or a stick could not kill all those people in the cinema that lost their lives, and there is no denying that. Europe knows this, Japan knows this... the big question is why can't Americans acknowledge this?

I am not trying to get Americans to bite, there was a program on the BBC and it was only the Americans who put the blame on the man only, while arguing more guns were needed. Everywhere else saw both as a problem, while only one could have been prevented, but now it is out of control. Considering our gun crime in our many nations are a small fraction combined against what America has... we have a good point.

At the end of the day, the extreme majority of guns in the world are American. And most crimes are done by American made guns... simple, America did not regulate guns properly.

Check out this study, science doesn't back up the "ban guns" stance.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

[Danoff]

Interesting excerpt from that study:

Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records, approximately 90 percent of “adult murderers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”

Guns don't kill people...

Also worth noting that if you have a felony (which it says the vast majority of murders do), you're not allowed to have a gun in the first place!

Edit:

Ooooh, also good:

Thus the term “acquaintance homicide” does not refer solely to murders between ordinary acquaintances. Rather it encompasses, for example: drug dealers killed by competitors or customers, gang members killed by members of the same or rival gangs, and women killed by stalkers or abusers who have brutalized them on earlier occasions, all individuals for whom federal and state laws already prohibit gun possession

 

[Nicksfix]

.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

The fact is this: Gun control is ineffective, unrealistic, and an infringement on human rights.

Sweet link ... thanks. 👍

Armed citizens do in fact reduce the crime rate. From the provided link.

* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[13] http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[14] http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#[22]

Check out this study, science doesn't back up the "ban guns" stance.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Another nice link. 👍

The UK has more cricket bat violence than the US. Silly UK, why won't they acknowledge that the cricket bat shares the blame for the crime? Cricket bat control and restriction measures should be instituted. This will lower the amount of violent crime.

Cricket bats ?!?!?! ...

Love it 👍

 

[ProjectVRD]

One question... I don't think any American should be talking about what happens in the UK when weapons are banned, because it has been done here several times and came with an armistice with knife owners allowing them to hand them in with no prosecution. Knife crime drops after this. Also, when speaking about UK knife crime... always compare with American knife crime.

Second, with regards to that survey... please, please do the amazing thing of showing s the numbers of gun crime, instead of this so called myth that guns prevent crime. I can't wait to see how much gun crime takes place in America. Let us know.



Oh, and PS. If you wanna talk figures I will happily give you one. Murder rates are four times higher PER person in America than the UK, where most murders are through use of a gun. UK - 1.2 per 100,000 people. America - 4.2 per 100,000.

For the record, that is worse than all the Western European members of the EU who all have zero tolerance on guns. Our system works, yours doesn't. America has a gun problem, it has one of the highest murder rates in the western world.

Enjoy finding the knife crime figures.

 

[Danoff]

Oh, and PS. If you wanna talk figures I will happily give you one. Murder rates are four times higher PER person in America than the UK, where most murders are through use of a gun. UK - 1.2 per 100,000 people. America - 4.2 per 100,000.

As was pointed out, it's violent crime rather than murder that you should be concerned about, and London vs New York showed a doubling of violent crime in the UK compared to the US.

I don't care about "gun crime" vs. "knife crime" or even murder. I care about violent crime of any kind.

 

[Dennisch]

I'd rather have a gun to defend myself than a knife, or as is now my case, a baseball bat.

 

[Zenith]

One question... I don't think any American should be talking about what happens in the UK when weapons are banned.

This is wrong, but fine, go ahead and ask one of GTP's resident Limeys such as Famine.

Knife crime drops after this. Also, when speaking about UK knife crime... always compare with American knife crime.

You advocate comparing apples to oranges. Where are the UK drug cartels? Where is the UK equivalent of Chicago? There is none. You cannot compare one aspect of two different nations. The US and UK have different crime rates because they have different societies.

So let's compare UK homicide to UK homicide.

Second, with regards to that survey... please, please do the amazing thing of showing s the numbers of gun crime, instead of this so called myth that guns prevent crime. I can't wait to see how much gun crime takes place in America. Let us know.

Myth? Right...

You also obviously did not look over the Harvard study. I recommend you do so before continuing to make arguments that have already been disproven.

Consider this:

If a criminal is in a country like the UK where guns are banned, he knows that he can break into and house or assault any person without fear of them being able to respond. If he has a firearm, he has a complete monopoly on the power. Even over most law enforcement.

If he is in an area with a high amount of firearm ownership, he's going to think twice before he tries anything. He knows that people can defend themselves. Guns are both a deterrent and a response to violent crime.

If you actually read the Harvard study or justthefacts page, you'd know this. Gun ownership goes up, violent crime goes down.

Oh, and PS. If you wanna talk figures I will happily give you one. Murder rates are four times higher PER person in America than the UK, where most murders are through use of a gun. UK - 1.2 per 100,000 people. America - 4.2 per 100,000.

Apples to oranges again.

Statistics are nothing without context. Why is the murder rate of the US higher? Is it because guns are legal or because we have a massive gang problem and share a border with a country that is currently engaged in a drug war?

Also your statistics are misleading. I believe that the UK has a far higher violent crime rate than the US.

EU who all have zero tolerance on guns. Our system works, yours doesn't. America has a gun problem, it has one of the highest murder rates in the western world.

Yes it would certainly seem that way to somebody who has a poor ability to interpret statistical information.

We've given you a university study and a web page of facts with context. We haven't even delved into the aspect of the Second Amendment or human rights. You've given two utterly meaningless numbers and some attitude.

Here is an example of your system at work:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/gun-rampage-taxi-driver-kills-12-1989456.html

Banning guns certainly did help, eh?

Enjoy finding the knife crime figures.

Judging by the fact that you seem to have completely ignored the posted evidence that debunks every single one of your points, I'd say that the only reason you don't post the figures yourself is because you choose not to educate yourself on the argument you're participating in.

I'll say this again. Every argument you've made or are going to make has been thoroughly debunked in the Harvard Survey and on the JustTheFacts web page. We've provided you the tools to educate yourself. If you choose ignore reality, go ahead. It doesn't make your argument less wrong.

 

[GTsail]

Check out this study, science doesn't back up the "ban guns" stance.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Interesting study that you found.

It makes Luxembourg sound like a very dangerous place!

The Luxembourg murder rate just doesn't seem correct. Page 652 of the study (page 4 of the attachment above) says:

that Harvard study
....For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002

Table 1: European Murder Rates (rates given are per 100,000 people)

National Murder Rate
-------- -----------
Russia--------20.54
Luxembourg---9.01
Hungary-------2.22

Since Luxembourg has a population of about 500k, then this would mean 45 murders during 2002. This seems a bit high. I found data from the Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends from 2002 that says that there were 4 intentional homicides in Luxembourg during 2002 and that none of them were done with a firearm. I looked at more recent United Nation Surveys on Crime Trends from 2011, linked here: UN Survey on Crime , and the more recent UN Survey says that Luxembourg had one homicide in 2006, two homicides in 2007 and three homicides in 2008 (where firearms were used). In total, the UN Survey says that there were seven homicides in 2006, seven homicides in 2007, and twelve homicides in 2008 (so quite a few murders are being done without a firearm).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Dennisch]

And in 2004 it seemed to drop to 0.4... Clickie

 

[Keef]

The Luxembourg murder rate just doesn't seem correct.

And in 2004 it seemed to drop to 0.4... Clickie

The Harvard report's homicide data came from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics...page 3.

And their source was the National Central Bureau - Interpol Ottawa. I couldn't find an article citing Luxemburg 2002 on their website.

Blame Canada.

Anyways, have y'all considered the fact that homicide is different from murder? GTSail, you state the fact that the murder rate was lower than the homicide rate. Yeah, it should be. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. You cannot compare homicides to murders because they are two different things. A homicide is any instance of a person killing another person whereas a murder is an instance of a person killing another person with malice aforethought.

Don't say we're arguing semantics because semantics is the study of meaning and meaning comes in handy occasionally.

EDIT: For clarification, the CCJS report cites homicide, not murder, whereas the Harvard report which sourced that exact information called it murder. The Harvard report has the correct data from their source but the wrong title. They should have said homicide, not murder.

 

[GTsail]

The Harvard report's homicide data came from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics...page 3.....

Thanks for the link Keef👍

Last night, I tried to link thru to the Canadian Study, but couldn't get anything to open properly.

I see that the Harvard Study has copied the 2002 data for Luxembourg from Table 1 from the Canadian Study.

So the Luxembourg Murder/Homicide Rate of 9.01 for 2002 is from the Canadian Study (sourced to the Ottawa Interpol, as you say).

Blame Canada is RIGHT!

I've compared Table 1 from the Harvard Study to the UN Survey Crime data that I mentioned and I get the following table:

Comparison of data from Table 1 from the Harvard Study to UN data
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Homicide Rate            Homicide Rate
Nation           per H. Study              per UN Survey
---------	   --------------         ------------------
Russia            20.54                         18.9 (from 2004)
Luxembourg        9.01                           0.9 (from 2002)
Hungary           2.22                           2.3 (from 2003)
Finland           1.98                           2.8 (from 2004)
Sweden            1.87                           0.9 (from 2001)
Poland            1.79                           1.7 (from 2003)
France            1.65                           1.6 (from 2003)
Denmark           1.21                           1.2 (from 2003)
Greece            1.12                           1.1 (from 2003)
Switzerland       0.99                           1.0 (from 2003)
Germany           0.93                           1.0 (from 2003)
Norway            0.81                           0.8 (from 2001)
Austria	          0.80                           0.8 (from 2002)

As you can see from my Comparison Table, except for the Luxembourg data, the other Country's data matches up pretty well (some match exactly), except for Finland and Sweden which are a bit off (the Russian data is from 2004 because I haven't found the 2002 data).

So I guess that I'm disappointed that this Harvard Study based some of its discussion points on questionable data, based upon only one year. Maybe if they had looked at a second year for the Luxembourg data, they might have noticed that the murder/homicide rate was an outlier, and maybe it should be questioned.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Nicksfix]

Enjoy finding the knife crime figures.

I could care less about knife crimes in the U.S. They are minimal at best compared to gun crimes here. Secondly .... who brings a knife to a gunfight ?

ProjectVRD, please relay your thoughts on what the back of this woman's T-Shirt says. Thanks in advance.