US Almost Overturned Gun Rights... but didn't
- Thread starter Danoff
- 67 comments
- 5,341 views
- 408
- LizMcQueen
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Guns equalize the ability for individuals to use force against each other. Criminals enjoy an imbalance of ability to exert force. If they can rely on muscles or skill with a weapon to put you at a disadvantage, it makes it easier for them to take advantage of you. If you have exactly the same ability to hurt them that they have to hurt you (via a gun), it makes their job more difficult.
- 10,620
- gtp_jimprower
OH, believe me, My parents lived there for awhile after I was born. Chicago's nice for a visit, but you wouldn't want to live there, even in the suburbs. Then again, you're used to enormous cities, so it may be alright.
But the other thing is that Chicago policy tends to get precedence over the-rest-of-Illinois policy. It's gotten to the point where I can't trust the city (and hence, Springfield as well,) when it comes to any political doings.
- 40,874
And how do you figure that? Obviously the criminals won't care that guns are banned, because if they did they wouldn't be committing crimes with them in the first place. So all you will have managed to do is partially remove the ability of people to protect themselves from criminals.
- 408
- LizMcQueen
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
The city with no guns would still be less safe.
The city in which everyone has a gun would be safe because everyone would be afraid to threaten anyone else due to the fear of being shot themselves.
The city in which no one has a gun would less safe because criminals would resort to things such as knives, spray, and anything else with a sharp end or poison effect. The people, without guns, would have to resort to hand to hand combat in order to defend themselves. This, of course, would result in more injuries and death.
- 5,077
- Panama City, FL
The criminals are generally cowards. They won't let you see that, they're going to pretend to "man up" to whatever they need to do, but given a choice between easy pickings and running up against an armed adversary, it's very clear which way they'd go.
Part of what's going on isn't so much that it's gun crime, though. You have a situation with gang wars, too, where members just go around blasting folks in other gangs, thinking it puts them in their place.
Thinking that gun control removes guns from the hands of criminals is incredibly naive. No, I'll go past that: it's just downright stupid. Anybody running for office that says gun control will fix the crime problem in my area loses my vote automatically, because I know they're stupid and I don't want them in office.
What should be done . . . . . which will scare the bejeezus out of most liberals, is to have compulsory gun ownership and training for every citizen. Starting at about 13 or 14 they get range time with a .22. They move up with age till by the time they're 18, they have to demonstrate proficiency with a handgun and a shotgun, and very good understanding of the laws applicable to their handling and use. (I exclude rifles because they are less of a home defensive type weapon.)
The money put into "control" efforts could conceivably buy every home a Glock, and the supervised range time needed for skilled proficiency. If the government wants our firearms registered, then they can record the serial numbers as they distribute them! Perfect!
Finally, there has never (look at that word: NEVER!!!!) been a successful case of removing guns resulting in reduced gun crime. Anywhere in the world, any time. Not once. EVER. (Following me, here? It doesn't work!)
Part of what's going on isn't so much that it's gun crime, though. You have a situation with gang wars, too, where members just go around blasting folks in other gangs, thinking it puts them in their place.
Thinking that gun control removes guns from the hands of criminals is incredibly naive. No, I'll go past that: it's just downright stupid. Anybody running for office that says gun control will fix the crime problem in my area loses my vote automatically, because I know they're stupid and I don't want them in office.
What should be done . . . . . which will scare the bejeezus out of most liberals, is to have compulsory gun ownership and training for every citizen. Starting at about 13 or 14 they get range time with a .22. They move up with age till by the time they're 18, they have to demonstrate proficiency with a handgun and a shotgun, and very good understanding of the laws applicable to their handling and use. (I exclude rifles because they are less of a home defensive type weapon.)
The money put into "control" efforts could conceivably buy every home a Glock, and the supervised range time needed for skilled proficiency. If the government wants our firearms registered, then they can record the serial numbers as they distribute them! Perfect!
Finally, there has never (look at that word: NEVER!!!!) been a successful case of removing guns resulting in reduced gun crime. Anywhere in the world, any time. Not once. EVER. (Following me, here? It doesn't work!)
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Guns are the great equalizer. Imagine your theoretical 100% gun free city. Picture a 250 lb. 24 year old male boxer trying to (insert crime here) an 18 year old 120 pound female. Whether or not he has a gun, she has next to no chance whatsoever of resisting him. The woman will be easily over powered by the much stronger criminal, and will be powerless to resist.
Now, let's imagine a society which allows concealed carry permits. The 250 pound boxer will try to rape/kill/kidnap..etc the girl, who swiftly pulls her gun from her purse. Either the criminal gets scared and runs away, or * bang bang *, and the girl is OK.
Keef
Premium
- 25,163
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I know, it's mind blowing to think that any of the people put in place specifically to make sure nobody violates the rules of the Constitution are blatantly against the rules of the Constitution. I was trying to figure out the other day how it's even possible for those 4 people to have a seat at the Supreme Court.
I mean, it seems pretty simply to me. The document says we're allowed to keep and bear arms. Sounds pretty straight forward to me, and there's no need to explain it more literally. We can have guns. Simply as pie. To me that doesn't leave any room for any questions to be asked, and yet we have to register this and test that and sign all sorts of papers. I'd much rather be able to go to the gun store, buy a gun, and carry it around with me wherever, besides the rules of any private or government property I enter. I'd also like everyone to be trained in gun safety and use and to carry all the time. I think it would deter many an argument and take crime to a near standstill when you know for a fact that the person standing next to you has the exact same capacity to take your life as you do theirs. That's the ultimate trust. You'd have two choices if you ran into any confrontation, either become friends or walk away, otherwise its pretty much guaranteed somebody will lose their life. That thought should humble the most belligerent of idiots, and if it doesn't we have laws to allow punishment for infringing another person's basic rights.
Last edited:
- 5,230
- Buckeye Nation
We don't have to imagine,that why we have concealed carry permits here in the states.I'm not going to swear on the concealed carry for all 50 states though. (have to do a quick research)
I agree with your scenario,that 250 lb. boxer quickly becomes a coward,or if he thinks he is a tough guy,well,sorry for his misfortune.
- 408
- LizMcQueen
You're right (both), but as I said before, that equalization works inversely too, that skinny girl with a gun can rape/kill/kidnap the boxer but she without a gun would never try it.
Sam, I'm not sure about that. Yes, criminals would resort to things as knives, swords... but I think it's more difficult to commit a crime under these conditions, I mean you need more courage to rob a bank for example, and therefore I think that crime would fall, of course, it never disappear.
Now back to the real world.
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 99
Back to hypothetical land. What if they both had a gun?
The majority of people who legally own firearms are not criminals. Just because you give someone a gun does not make them likely to commit crimes. People who commit crimes have psychological issues that go beyond owning a firearm.
- 6,977
- old-guy64
1. Was it law-abiding citizenry out shooting folks for kicks and giggles?
If you take away the guns of the law abiding citizenry, you take away their only means to protect themselves. Police are great, but 99% of the crimes that get dealt with, get dealt with AFTER they have occured.
Even crimes "in progress" get stopped AFTER THE FACT.
2. If you somehow get the guns away from EVERYONE, when it comes down to violence perpetrated with axe handles, and sticks, are you gonna cut down all the trees?
3. Are you gonna outlaw silverware when people start getting killed with forks?
The 2nd amendment gaurantees the right to keep and bear arms. Maybe he should pass a law requiring the citizenry to be armed.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again--An armed society is a polite society. You take away the only means of protection the law abiders have, you give the bad guys carte blanche to car-jack, invade homes, rob, assault and kill. After all the police are across town....
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
More difficult than what? Knives and swords are now the "new gun" per say. So if no one has a gun, I see no extra courage required to commit a crime with a sword or knife. Plus even if you did need more courage, I'm sure the pile of money in the safe would convince any criminal otherwise.
- 408
- LizMcQueen
I didn't expect someone could do that in real life.
They shoot each other and both die or say goodbye lovingly.
I know
I disagree, most people who commit crimes don't have psychological issues.
but if in the United States, one of the countries with more guns, the rate of murder/rape/theft/kidnapping is equal or higher than other countries without guns, how do you explain this?
It's more difficult to commit a crime with a knife than with a gun, if you fight against someone unarmed, a gun offers you a 100% of victory, a knife, gives you advantage, but the winning percentage is lower.
- 1,778
- brooklyn/ny/us
- mazdarota122
Jim I do believe you wich is why I'd live in the city but it's to cold there I love the house music chicago stepping all it has to offer music wise. Also may I add many places will have crime so their is'nt a such thing as worst I'm just a teen who wants to have safe fun ya know?
- 87,570
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I will direct you now to the three biggest firearm crimes in British history. Hungerford (1987), Dunblane (1996) and Cumbria (2010).
- Hungerford - Michael Robert Ryan; Described as "a loner", "unremarkable", unremembered at his secondary school, placed in remedial classes, gun obsessive and as young as six years old used other children as moving targets for air rifle practice, yet spoiled by his parents as an only child. Educationally subnormal and socially inept, these days he would probably have had a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder. Committed suicide.
- Dunblane - Thomas Watt Hamilton; Alleged paedophile, former scout master, blamed allegations of his intent towards young boys for the collapse of his business 3 years earlier. Sixteen of his 17 victims were 6 or younger. Committed suicide.
- Cumbria - Derrick Bird; Bird lived with his terminally ill mother and had two children by his estranged wife. Under investigation by HMRC for tax evasion. Allegations of a will dispute (Bird killed both his own brother and the lawyer dealing with the will), a grudge against Sellafield (Bird had resigned and been convicted of theft from the plant in 1990) and a "liaison" with a Thai girl which ended abruptly after he'd given her £1,000. Bird is alleged to have sought help from the local NHS trust for his "fragile mental state". Committed suicide.
That's the only three multiple-killings with firearms in the history of Britain, all three perpetrated by people with psychological issues, all three of whom committed suicide (which is itself sufficient, if attempted, to qualify as a serious psychological issue), all three using guns which were legally bought and held - Hungerford before the ban on semi-automatic rifles and multiple-round shotguns, Dunblane before the ban on hand guns and Cumbria with those two (well... three) pieces of legislation in force.
Last edited:
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
Not to answer for Gil, but the simple answer is, population.
No, a gun does not offer you a 100% victory. A knife actually has a better chance of working than a gun, because a knife cannot malfunction. Plus, knives are usually more threatening than a gun. Most people would rather be killed by means of being shot, not stabbed. Stabbing is much more brutal, slower, and more painful.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
I'd advise you to avoid this kind of reasoning. There are compelling statistics on both sides of the debate. I, for example, could cite that London (where handguns are illegal) has a crime rate several times that of New York despite having a similar population and police budget. There are many examples of countries that have worse crime statistics (including violent crimes) than the US despite having strict gun control policies. There are also examples of countries that have better crime statistics than the US while having strict gun control policies.
None of this is the real point. The point is that here in America our constitution dictates a fundamental liberty of self-defense. That is why laws which outlaw many types of firearms are forbidden here. You'll find that other weapons - which do not have good self-defense uses - are still regulated.
- 99
Did you know the rate of handgun related crimes went UP in Britain after their handgun ban?
And nobody in the world with their head on straight commits murders or robs places. Thats the dumbest thing Ive ever heard. There is always an underlying factor that runs deeper than, "oh i have a gun so i can get away with (insert crime here)"
watch this and follow the parts on the side. there are 7 total if you have the time.-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySthtM9y1Y
- 5,077
- Panama City, FL
Let's keep in mind (reminding myself, as well) that the thread isn't about whether we, as Americans, should have guns or not, and what justification we might use for them, nor whether banning them would make life better for us.
The thread is about whether our own Supreme Court understands the one single document which specifies the structure of all that is the United States of America. The Supreme Court exists solely to rule on questions of law and its conformity to the Constitution. Some complainant challenges a law, and the Supreme Court upholds it as conforming to the constitution, or overturns it as not conforming. No law or ordinance in any body of government within this country (federal, state, county, local) can contravene anything in the Constitution.
The fact that 4 of the 9 can, with a straight face, pull an "unless" phrase out of their butts and add it to the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is just damned scary. There is no "unless" or "except Chicago" or anything else in there. It's the simplest possible language specifically to avoid interpretational issues, yet 4 of the people whose only job it is to uphold the supremacy of one single document have tried to rewrite it.
The thread is about whether our own Supreme Court understands the one single document which specifies the structure of all that is the United States of America. The Supreme Court exists solely to rule on questions of law and its conformity to the Constitution. Some complainant challenges a law, and the Supreme Court upholds it as conforming to the constitution, or overturns it as not conforming. No law or ordinance in any body of government within this country (federal, state, county, local) can contravene anything in the Constitution.
The fact that 4 of the 9 can, with a straight face, pull an "unless" phrase out of their butts and add it to the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is just damned scary. There is no "unless" or "except Chicago" or anything else in there. It's the simplest possible language specifically to avoid interpretational issues, yet 4 of the people whose only job it is to uphold the supremacy of one single document have tried to rewrite it.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,295
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
This just shows that the "checks and balances" will soon have no meaning. If all three branches want to disregard the Constitution then that is what will happen.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
It was so perplexing to me that I actually printed out and read through both dissent arguments to this case. Their reasoning was poor and poorer. Most of it had to do with the language in the 14th amendment for incorporation. They picked at that language with some extremely flimsy arguments. In the end, they had to argue the the right to bear arms was either not "fundamental" or not a "liberty". To claim that it isn't fundamental, Justice Stevens even cited the fact that England doesn't have it (wtf). To claim that it wasn't a liberty, he cited th use of handguns to remove the liberties of others (wtf). Both of them are beyond poor. In my opinion, a judge using these arguments should not only be removed from the supreme court - but potentially disbarred.
Keef
Premium
- 25,163
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Right, that's what I've been trying to figure out too. How did those 4 people even get the job? It seems those 4 justices are teetering on the edge of a justified impeachment if they don't interpret the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to which all other laws must conform. And how has it taken this long to denounce bans of self-defense weapons as unconstitutional? Personally, I don't think owning any gun should be illegal.
- 408
- LizMcQueen
ok, I apologize for my comments/off-topic, but if you let me, take a look at these statistics: Rape rate and Homicide rate by country.
Bye
Danoff
Premium
- 34,043
- Mile High City
Check Russia on murder and Canada on Rape. Both have stricter gun control laws (Russia had some of the most strict laws for decades and still had many times higher murder rates). Like I said, I advise you not to go with statistics to support your argument - there are compelling statistics on both sides. Keep in mind my London vs. New York example. You won't win with statistics, and neither will I.
- 3,321
- United States
- GTP_Sam48
Who's to say these criminals used guns? For all we know, they could have used a multitude of life threatening weapons whilst committing such actions.
