Guns

[stonesfan129]

This discussion has veered in an odd direction. Would I rather be killed with a knife or a gun, with a handgun or a rifle? I'd rather not be killed by any of them.

Viewed from the perspective of every other developed country in the world, as well as most of the undeveloped ones, the US obsession with firearms is a bizarre outlier. It's true that the vast majority of gun owners in the US never shoot anyone. There is a specific criminal element in the US that abuses guns & is responsible for a significant percentage of the homicides in the US. The criminal element in many other countries does not have easy access to firearms & so are much less likely to use guns. Even though this criminal element might use other means to kill, the frequency with which they do so is much less because killing in other ways is generally more difficult & requires more effort & deliberation.

However, aside from criminal gun violence, the prevalence of guns in the US leads to higher rates of successful suicide, more accidental shootings & a greater incidence of mass shootings. The American public seems to be conditioned to accept this as part of the cost of "freedom" - the freedom to own guns. The Constitution is constantly invoked & even the importance of protecting citizens from "government tyranny". This strikes me as ironic in the extreme as the citizens of the US are continually hoodwinked by their political overseers, who successfully convince them to support them as they embark in an endless succession of foreign wars. It's sort of an elaborate bait & switch - distract them by giving them the freedom to buy endless guns while leading them by the nose in the name of "patriotism".

I always have to laugh when somebody says that the United States looks silly in the eyes of the rest of the world. Our founders wanted people in this country to have arms for the preservation of freedom. I also do not think you have read that book I suggested - John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. The constitution is constantly invoked because that is the entire basis of our society. If we look silly to the rest of the world, then the rest of the world should choose not to live here.

 

[Northstar]

Viewed from the perspective of every other developed country in the world, as well as most of the undeveloped ones, the US obsession with firearms is a bizarre outlier.

You know, I could understand this logic better if the rest of the world was some kind of eutopia while the U.S. was a war zone. However neither of those things are reality, the rest of the "civilized" world is just as terrible as the U.S. even without all the guns.

 

[Exorcet]

The American public seems to be conditioned to accept this as part of the cost of "freedom" - the freedom to own guns.

Why is it conditioning? The government has no business conducting social engineering or telling people how to live their lives. If people don't mind living with a certain level of risk, that is up to them. This goes for everything not just guns. I still can't think of a situation where I was knowing at significant risk of firearms injury anyway. The things that have come closest to killing me so far are genetics, swimming, eating, and crossing the street.

 

[Danoff]

This discussion has veered in an odd direction. Would I rather be killed with a knife or a gun, with a handgun or a rifle? I'd rather not be killed by any of them.

Me too! I guess you didn't understand the point - which was that violent crime is what matters, not the tool used. For some reason those who look at statistics seem to think that gun deaths are worse than knife deaths. I say not so.

However, aside from criminal gun violence,

Which matters more than just plain old violence for some reason...

the prevalence of guns in the US leads to higher rates of successful suicide,

Good. People have the right to commit suicide (despite it being illegal here).

more accidental shootings

Cars cause accidental deaths as well... what's your point?

& a greater incidence of mass shootings.

Citation needed. Please support the notion that the prevalence of guns leads to... a greater incidence of mass shootings. Keep in mind that correlation is not causation. Also please do note when mass shootings occur precisely where guns are forbidden. Also please note when shootings appear to be motivated by things other than the prevalence of guns, such as religion, and note when similar shootings occur for similar motivations in places where guns are forbidden.

The American public seems to be conditioned to accept this as part of the cost of "freedom" - the freedom to own guns.

I don't see a cost.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is a "statistic" (quotation marks as this was posted on facebook once before (and we all know everything on the Internet/facebook is true)) which has some hefty bias to it.

For starters, you're talking about a failure city, nearly as bad as Detroit when it comes to finance, on how to deal with the black-market of firearms.

@stonesfan129 is also ignoring that the quote refers to the "state", Illinois sits about halfway down the table despite that Facebollock's headline figure.

 

[BobK]

... a society awash with guns...

the US obsession with firearms

Have you been watching too much TV or something? Seriously, how do you come up with things like "awash with guns" or "obsession with firearms"?

I for one haven't discussed firearms with anyone outside these forums in ages... that makes me and pretty much everyone I know "obsessed with firearms"? I know more people obsessed with baseball or hockey, for crying out loud.

 

[Biggles]

Yeah, really there's no problem.

I believe it's called "denial".

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, really there's no problem.

I believe it's called "denial".

I didn't say there was no problem. I said there was no cost to gun ownership, violence is a problem.

 

[Lucas]

Our founders wanted people in this country to have arms for the preservation of freedom.

No people belonging to any country is truly free. You only have varying degrees of freedom.

 

[Danoff]

No people belonging to any country is truly free. You only have varying degrees of freedom.

His statement is within the context of the preservation of human rights.

 

[stonesfan129]

No people belonging to any country is truly free. You only have varying degrees of freedom.

This does not change the fact that the ownership of firearms in this country is constitutionally-protected. It was so important that it was the second amendment to our system of laws.

 

[huskeR32]

It was so important that it was the second amendment to our system of laws.

For 217 years, SCOTUS held that 2A only protected the rights of an organized militia to bear arms, and that right did not extend to individual citizens. I'd recommend a reading of Presser v. Illinois for a nice example of this.

It wasn't until D.C. v. Heller in 2008 that the court first explicitly extended 2A to cover individual citizens.

Now, this isn't to say that the "well-regulated militia" view is inherently the correct one just because it was favored first and for a far longer amount of time.

What I would say, though, is that statements like yours, that stand on 2A as if it's a time-honored, crystal-clear enshrinement of the right of every man woman and child to own a gun, are fantastically short-sighted and ignorant of history.

 

[stonesfan129]

For 217 years, SCOTUS held that 2A only protected the rights of an organized militia to bear arms, and that right did not extend to individual citizens. I'd recommend a reading of Presser v. Illinois for a nice example of this.

It wasn't until D.C. v. Heller in 2008 that the court first explicitly extended 2A to cover individual citizens.

Now, this isn't to say that the "well-regulated militia" view is inherently the correct one just because it was favored first and for a far longer amount of time.

What I would say, though, is that statements like yours, that stand on 2A as if it's a time-honored, crystal-clear enshrinement of the right of every man woman and child to own a gun, are fantastically short-sighted and ignorant of history.

So how do you have a "well-regulated militia" unless people are allowed to have weapons?

 

[Danoff]

For 217 years, SCOTUS held that 2A only protected the rights of an organized militia to bear arms, and that right did not extend to individual citizens. I'd recommend a reading of Presser v. Illinois for a nice example of this.

It wasn't until D.C. v. Heller in 2008 that the court first explicitly extended 2A to cover individual citizens.

Now, this isn't to say that the "well-regulated militia" view is inherently the correct one just because it was favored first and for a far longer amount of time.

What I would say, though, is that statements like yours, that stand on 2A as if it's a time-honored, crystal-clear enshrinement of the right of every man woman and child to own a gun, are fantastically short-sighted and ignorant of history.

Can you enlighten me a bit on Presser v. Illinois? Because it doesn't look like it says this. Here's an excerpt:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.

It kinda looks to me like they're saying the people are protected. It also looks like the holding in Presser is that the states can regulate arms, but that they can't prohibit them - which is entirely consistent with and repeated in the majority ruling in DC v Heller. What am I missing?

 

[Formula1269]

This does not change the fact that the ownership of firearms in this country is constitutionally-protected. It was so important that it was the second amendment to our system of laws.

Back then it was probably necessary. Now it's just bizarre. People own guns now not for protection or "freedom" but because it's a laugh to shoot stuff. They sound great, feel great, smell great and require just the right amount of skillz.

 

[Danoff]

Back then it was probably necessary. Now it's just bizarre. People own guns now not for protection, but because it's a laugh to shoot stuff. They sound great, feel great, smell great and require just the right amount of skillz.

I own guns for self defense. As do millions of others. Not because I'm a redneck that likes to shoot beer bottles.

 

[Formula1269]

So how do you have a "well-regulated militia" unless people are allowed to have weapons?

Not like we need a well regulated militia now but if we did then the members of the militia would be issued firearms from the armory, maybe...

 

[Formula1269]

I own guns for self defense. As do millions of others. Not because I'm a redneck that likes to shoot beer bottles.

Self defense from what?

 

[Danoff]

Self defense from what?

Attack

 

[Formula1269]

 

[stonesfan129]

Back then it was probably necessary. Now it's just bizarre. People own guns now not for protection or "freedom" but because it's a laugh to shoot stuff. They sound great, feel great, smell great and require just the right amount of skillz.

How do you know what anyone owns a gun for?

 

[huskeR32]

So how do you have a "well-regulated militia" unless people are allowed to have weapons?

Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29 covers that pretty well. Here's a particularly instructive excerpt:

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it...Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

What percentage of the citizenry do you suppose possess a "tolerable expertness in military movements?"

--

Can you enlighten me a bit on Presser v. Illinois? It kinda looks to me like they're saying the people are protected.

Interesting, I've previously missed that first line of the excerpt you quoted. It adds a bit of confusion to a document that, on the whole, quite obviously frames the entire 2A question as one of military nature. I find this excerpt to be pretty telling:

The inquiry is therefore pertinent, what privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States is abridged by sections 5 and 6 of article 11 of the Military Code of Illinois? The plaintiff in error was not a member of the organized volunteer militia of the state of Illinois, nor did he belong to the troops of the United States or to any organization under the militia law of the United States. On the contrary, the fact that he did not belong to the organized militia or the troops of the United States was an ingredient in the offense for which he was convicted and sentenced. The question is, therefore, had he a right as a citizen of the United States, in disobedience of the state law, to associate with others as a military company, and to drill and parade with arms in the towns and cities of the state? If the plaintiff in error has any such privilege, he must be able to point to the provision of the constitution or statutes of the United States by which it is conferred.

That seems a pretty clear statement that the court did not feel that 2A itself provided that privilege.

In light of that first line in your quote, though, I feel compelled to re-read the entire ruling again, which I haven't done in a few years. At any rate, I feel the ambiguity on display just between your excerpt and mine reinforces the absurdity of claims that the Second has always provided an obvious protection of individual gun ownership.

 

[Danoff]

Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29 covers that pretty well. Here's a particularly instructive excerpt:



What percentage of the citizenry do you suppose possess a "tolerable expertness in military movements?"

Ok well we're getting kinda far flung now. The idea is not that in order to bear arms you need to be well-regulated (skilled). The idea is that in order to be well-regulated (skilled) you need the right to bear arms.

That seems a pretty clear statement that the court did not feel that 2A itself provided that privilege.

In light of that first line in your quote, though, I feel compelled to re-read the entire ruling again, which I haven't done in a few years. At any rate, I feel the ambiguity on display just between your excerpt and mine reinforces the absurdity of claims that the Second has always provided an obvious protection of individual gun ownership.

So the ruling appears (I only briefly skimmed it so I very well may be missing something) to be saying that the 2nd amendment does not prevent the states from regulating arms. So the question is not whether he was allowed to possess firearms (which the ruling even goes so far as to say they cannot ban firearms: "the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms"), it's a question of whether the states can regulate how assemblies occur and where they drill/practice/demonstrate and how. So the answer was that yes the states can regulate that, which is echoed a bit in DC vs. Heller which supports the notion that arms can absolutely be regulated. So far I see nothing but agreement between the two. But this is the first time I've looked at Presser so there may be more there.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Not like we need a well regulated militia now but if we did then the members of the militia would be issued firearms from the armory, maybe...

What world do you live in, cause it's not reality...

You know the thing that strikes me most about your posts, is that you didn't want to post her cause of biased gun nuts, yet you have your bias already before coming here and not only that but wish to be condescending about an explanations given.

Why bother if you can't even have discussion? This isn't twitter or FB where you drop an emoji post cause you can't rack your brain to have actually conversation.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I wonder how many cops would have died if only they'd have been attacked in a state where people could wander along with semi-automatic rifles for defense.

 

[Formula1269]

What world do you live in, cause it's not reality...

Unfortunately it is. Would be a better country really if no one had guns apart from law enforcement and the military. No need for non-professional fighters/ militias in this day and age.

 

[huskeR32]

Ok well we're getting kinda far flung now. The idea is not that in order to bear arms you need to be well-regulated (skilled). The idea is that in order to be well-regulated (skilled) you need the right to bear arms.

I read it as the opposite: the states can restrict gun ownership except in cases of membership of a militia or similar military organization.

Your read on this may very well be the correct one, though. I'll try to find time in the near future to give it a new read with that angle in mind. Thanks for the food for thought.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Unfortunately it is. Would be a better country really if no one had guns apart from law enforcement and the military. No need for non-professional fighters/ militias in this day and age.

Explain how exactly, you saying so cause you have this vision that you think is infallible isn't reason I'm afraid. Also many people who purchase guns actually get training in how to properly use them, many more actually competition shoot and have more skill and accuracy than many in law enforcement. So not sure why you and several others tend to come around and spout without having a clue. Like does it really hurt to educate about a topic before rambling?

 

[Formula1269]

Hmmm, so much material here... To respond or not to respond? Nah, I think I'll leave it and this thread. Just realized you're a Hamilton fan. Good on ya.

 

[ryzno]

I wonder how many cops would have died if only they'd have been attacked in a state where people could wander along with semi-automatic rifles for defense.

I'd say few. Anyone can walk around with a semi if the have the states accepted license/permit.