So what? Take the guns away, and they'll find a way to kill — including with illegal guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And you don't stop killers by disarming law-abiding citizens. The Left always seems to come up with the most bass-akwards so-called "solutions" to problems.

Really? Does the UK or Canada follow the U.S. Constitution? Does either have the constitutional right to bear arms? No? Than you're comparing apples and oranges. Again.

I am arguing that America would benefit from a gun ban

What part of "unless We, the People, decide to disarm ourselves through a constitutional amendment, it's not gonna happen" did you not understand the first time around? Do you understand that we have the right to bear arms, and you don't? Do you know what it takes to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment? And if one were to pass (which there would never be enough votes for, rendering the point moot), what then? Do we ban knives? Cars that can be driven into crowds? Chemicals that can create exposions? You don't quite seem to "get" that a person bent on killing is not gonna be stopped. The Batman killer was a perfect example. You'll notice how he had his apartment rigged to take the roof off the apartment building. So you can yammer about guns all you want, but guns don't kill people; people kill people. Solution: weed out the psychos BEFORE they kill.

I should've just linked to this article rather than write about my own statistics!

"Using the U.N. data, European nations -- even former eastern bloc countries -- typically have rates well below 1 per 100,000, or far less than one-third the frequency seen in the U.S. The pattern is similar in other advanced industrialized nations, such as Canada, Taiwan, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

One study published in 2011 confirms this finding. The study, published in the Journal of Trauma -- Injury Infection & Critical Care, found that firearm homicide rates were 19.5 times higher in the U.S. than in 23 other "high income" countries studied, using 2003 data. Rates for other types of gun deaths were also higher in the U.S., but by somewhat smaller margins: 5.8 times higher for firearm suicides (even though overall suicide rates were 30 percent lower in the U.S.) and 5.2 times higher for unintentional firearm deaths."

Sure this is why I chose the UK and Canada as my examples. Similar culture and laws. But apparently 90-100 million people isn't a large enough sample for you ;)

"We, the People, are the bosses of our government, michty. So unless We, the People, decide to disarm ourselves through a constitutional amendment, it's not gonna happen. Get it?"

What on earth are you talking about? We are debating whether a gun ban or gun restrictions is a good thing, looking at the data available. I am arguing that America would benefit from a gun ban or tighter gun restrictions. You can choose to act on the data if you want or choose to ignore it - this has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

We, the People, are the bosses of our government, michty. So unless We, the People, decide to disarm ourselves through a constitutional amendment, it's not gonna happen. Get it?

So are the cultures and the laws. You keep wanting to compare apples and elephants, only it doesn't quite work that way.

Lol ok. If this was true, about 50% of homicides in the world would be in India or China. They aren't. The homicide rate is lower in both India and China than it is in America.

If you add the entire population of the EU together it would be greater than the USA. And probably similar in land mass. And the total number of murders across all these countries added together would be half that of the US. Firearm homicides about 1/3.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people. You could argue population density but that is easily disprovable, as I already mentioned.

The trick is weeding out the wackos. (See above article.) Disarming perfectly responsible law-abiding citizens is not gonna stop a wacko on a mission to kill."

Arming your entire population, making gun supply plentiful and guns easily available is only ever going arm a lot of 'wackos'. The easiest way to disarm wackos is not to make guns plentiful and easily available!

"Cars can be used as a deadly weapon. A headcase can aim for a crowded sidewalk and mow an awful lot of people down. Shall we take cars away from perfectly responsible law-abiding drivers, just in case one of them may be a headcase? Or should we find a way to weed out the headcases before they go on their killing sprees?"

Comparing guns to cars is like comparing heroine to fruit. They serve totally different purposes, one is a necessity for most people (the other isn't) and one is designed purely to cause damage (the other isn't). You could make drugs legal and weed out the wackos and crazy people not using them responsibly. But it's much easier to keep them illegal.

"that said, a regression analysis if it were possible would likely reveal access to efficient firearms as at least one of the significant factors. i agree with chris rock:"

It is basically trying to bend the statistics and look for 'excuses'. The fact is and always will be:

Western democracy with guns (USA) = Many homicides
Western democracy without guns (Almost everywhere else) = Fewer homicides.

There are Western democracies with higher income inequality than the US, higher crime and a history of civilian conflict that STILL have lower homicide rates than the USA - because guns are banned.

we used to have those; they were called mental hospitals.

you also left out a lot of relevant differences between the US and UK, such as climate, geography, income inequality and our cultural history of armed civilian conflict.

that said, a regression analysis if it were possible would likely reveal access to efficient firearms as at least one of the significant factors. i agree with chris rock:

http://youtu.be/OuX-nFmL0II

Cars can be used as a deadly weapon. A headcase can aim for a crowded sidewalk and mow an awful lot of people down. Shall we take cars away from perfectly responsible law-abiding drivers, just in case one of them may be a headcase? Or should we find a way to weed out the headcases before they go on their killing sprees?

So there is 8 times higher population density in the UK, but 25 times lower firearm homicides. Wonder why? :)

Chris
"(And that's not to even mention the data-gathering methodology over there, one of which consists of a survey, asking people if they've been attacked lately.)"

I have never quoted any rates that come from a survey, I have only quoted official homicide rates.

"Gosh, a gun ban in the UK, yet folks are still managing to shoot each other. Fancy that. Has it ever occurred to you that that there are more violent crimes in America because there are a gazillion more PEOPLE in America; hence, the opportunity for more crimes to be committed, under a gazillion more circumstances than present themselves in the UK?"

That's why you look at per 100k rates (consistency) and you look at trends (to see differences pre and post gun ban). Statisticians can factor in populations into their statistics (eg. per capita, per 100k)!

You don't think there are rural areas in the USA? And you don't think there are massive urban areas in the UK? Like one big massive urban area in the south-east that makes up about 1/6th of the UK population???

LOL. What I mean, of course, is that there's a big difference between heavily congested, low-income urban areas, where a higher incident of violence is bound to occur, compared to, say, a countryside, where you'll likely find more animals than people. Living conditions, and income levels, and the presece of gangs, etc., have a whole lot to do with the equation. So the idea of comparing the statistics of tiny countries to the entire United States is ridiculous on its face."

This is nonsense but rather than spouting my opinion I'll once again resort to statistics to prove it. Percentage of people living in urban areas in the US = 87%. Percentage in the UK = 92.2%. Pretty comparable I'd say? http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percentage-population-living-cities (I checked to one other source which had USA at 80, UK at 87).

You're picking faults (that are based on your opinion) in the statistics because there is no argument against their results. As I have mentioned many time the statistics I quoted don't just apply to a comparison between the USA and the UK, they apply to a comparison of with USA to every single Western democracy. So you have the size of population of every single Western democracy vs the size of the population of the USA as a sample. Pretty large and expansive.

LD
"But don't assume murder must be based on irrationality because its not normal. If some other person stands in the way of what you want murder will definitely solve that problem. Nothing could be more rational. No emotional or psychological issues necessary, just cold clear logic and rationality. Best, easiest solution? Murder."

I know what you mean but I don't know about calling 'murder' the best solution! Definitely easiest, especially if you're carrying a gun - this is my point...

" So most of us make the rational decision to find less efficient but also less personally life-threatening means to solve our problems"

I think this is an argument for gun control. It will lead people to making this more correct decision, than to take the easy way out (murder someone).

"That's what I meant by your views on killing being skewed. You wrongly equate killing with murder. You think because we're less overtly violent we no longer kill. And you don't appreciate that the decision to murder can be every bit as rational as the decision not to. Which is why you overlook the fact that many murder, not because they're emotionally disturbed, have psychological issues, or are irrational, but rather that they are quite rational and simply don't see personal cost or risk
sufficient to deter them.

You see murder as an aberration and overvalue gun controls because you see murder as largely a crime of opportunity. So having weapons unavailable when emotions peak, psyches shatter, or irrational mistakes are made would prevent harm. Unfortunately, that's not reality. From a personal perspective murder is a very rational solution. It will defiantly and permanently remove whomever's in your way."

Sure if we agree there are two types of murder: (1) rational and (2) irrational. You could even say type (1) is akin to first degree murder and type (2) second degree murder. You are saying I am focusing solely on murder type (2) and you have a point. Let's examine both:

You could argue that murder type (1) will still happen without guns. I'd agree but would argue it would be harder. Guns make it easier for people committing 'rational murder' as well! What is almost certain is murder type (2) will happen less often without guns. There is no real argument there right?

"But it costs society at large. It makes us all less safe, less secure. So we, as a society, try to make murder so personally costly that the rational thing to do is refrain. Most murders really occur because we failed in that effort, not because the perpetrator is irrational. And the simple truth is that while you may think we've evolved and no longer murder, in reality we prevent each other from murdering by threatening to murder anyone who does!"

My argument would be that if we are trying to make the person follow the rational path of restraint, we should make deadly weapons that are extremely efficient at killing not be available to them. By doing this we allow time for their rational factor to kick in (as they have to work out a more complicated method of murder) and may see the light.

And of course crime deterrents is a whole different issue altogether but I would say you can look up a lot of studies that show deterrents are often not very effective at all (because, as I argue and you point out in this last section, the decision to commit a crime is often irrational, so rational deterrents are shown not to work...)

David
"Wouldn't it be much more effective and far less costly to realize and teach that murdering each other is not in everyone's best interests?"

Or take away their deadly weapons that make murdering each other considerably easier ;)

I quote Scalia only to show how little sense he makes.

And how funny it is that even the rightest righty of justices feels there is some distinction between guns and military weapons.

You see murder as an aberration and overvalue gun controls because you see murder as largely a crime of opportunity.

Your psychological analysis is interesting yet baseless as I have made no statements of personal opinion about gun control.

I've merely pointed out the humor in your (and others on the right) being at odds w/ Scalia.

And the fact that he is a conservative hero when he agrees with you. And a "liberal" who wants to pry your guns away from your cold dead body when he doesn't.

You are fighting against his arguments on gun control. Not mine.

But it's very amusing that you project all of this onto me.

And the simple truth is that while you may think we've evolved and no longer murder, in reality we prevent each other from murdering by threatening to murder anyone who does!

This seems like the most costly and least effective way to prevent murder. Wouldn't it be much more effective and far less costly to realize and teach that murdering each other is not in everyone's best interests?

And to use incarceration as a last resort in the statistically few cases where people choose otherwise?

This, not threats, is what many might call the basis of civilization.

-David

And it "common sense" that no one cares if you do. Its also only "common sense" for us to care if you want to disarm us too. Since its "common sense" that if you feel safe what are you worried about?

Apparently you've a problem with the "makes sense" part of "common sense." Which would explain why you've issues with using "common sense" but quote Scalia.

The issue with bringing "common sense" into the discussion is simple. Who's common sense are we talking about?

Yours or mine or someone else's?

That's the problem with just saying something is "common sense". What people typically mean when they say this is, it makes sense to me and you should agree with me.

For instance, I think it's common sense to walk around in America unarmed. I don't feel the need to carry a gun.

-David

Michty,

And I'm saying that's not true. The world for humans is less violent today because we're more organized not rational. Instead of everyone engaging in killing we employ specialists who kill for all of us. Specialists like butchers, farmers, doctors, military, police, exterminators... But make no mistake, we still kill day-to-day. Everyday. All the time. Its just that for most of us in developed nations we do it by proxy. And we're far enough removed from the dirty deed itself that many can believe we're not killers at all.

As I said nothing is more normal than killing. You simply can not survive in our little corner of the galaxy without killing. Now, the subset of killing that is murder is not normal in most modern societies. But don't assume murder must be based on irrationality because its not normal. If some other person stands in the way of what you want murder will definitely solve that problem. Nothing could be more rational. No emotional or psychological issues necessary, just cold clear logic and rationality. Best, easiest solution? Murder.

Again, however, solving your problems that way will inspire other people to murder you. And most societies generally try to ensure that murder is indeed clearly life-threatening to the perpetrators in order to discourage the practice. So most of us make the rational decision to find less efficient but also less personally life-threatening means to solve our problems. But that's only a rational decision if you believe committing murder is more dangerous and therefor more costly than not murdering.

That's what I meant by your views on killing being skewed. You wrongly equate killing with murder. You think because we're less overtly violent we no longer kill. And you don't appreciate that the decision to murder can be every bit as rational as the decision not to. Which is why you overlook the fact that many murder, not because they're emotionally disturbed, have psychological issues, or are irrational, but rather that they are quite rational and simply don't see personal cost or risk sufficient to deter them.

You see murder as an aberration and overvalue gun controls because you see murder as largely a crime of opportunity. So having weapons unavailable when emotions peak, psyches shatter, or irrational mistakes are made would prevent harm. Unfortunately, that's not reality. From a personal perspective murder is a very rational solution. It will defiantly and permanently remove whomever's in your way.

But it costs society at large. It makes us all less safe, less secure. So we, as a society, try to make murder so personally costly that the rational thing to do is refrain. Most murders really occur because we failed in that effort, not because the perpetrator is irrational. And the simple truth is that while you may think we've evolved and no longer murder, in reality we prevent each other from murdering by threatening to murder anyone who does! (And while more "enlightened" societies incarcerate rather than execute, the point is the same; that they will end the perpetrator's life, effectively, if not literally.)

David,

The founders believed in people's inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but they didn't believe in the right to self-defense?! You can live without that? Enjoy liberty without that? Pursue happiness without that?-And on what planet would that be?!

That's the problem with SCOTUS abandoning our justice system to promote a legal system. The twisting of the law, with common sense in abeyance, rationalized by supposed legal technicalities and precedents, with truth and justice irrelevant and "process" a new god.

All of which amounts to rule of law in name only and betrayal of every principle supposedly enshrined in our Constitution.

That four-page Constitution had no reference to citizen rights or the specifics of how government would work because they (mistakenly) assumed we'd employ common sense. Whereas Justices like Scalia make arguments only a lawyer could love because the rest of us do employ common sense.

You seriously believe that if it isn't in the Constitution it isn't a "right?" That that four-page document which contained no "rights" was meant to be exhaustive? You think US citizens had no rights for a quarter-century until the Bill of Rights was ratified? You think indigenous Native peoples, Blacks and women enjoyed Constitutional rights just the same as white men just because nothing in the Constitution said they didn't?

The reason I hate to debate the Constitution with legal professionals and scholars is that the Constitution was DOA. I agree with its basic principles and goals but I'm not foolish enough to think it actually governed.--Unlike the legal community who are trained to accept an alternate reality where the "letter of the law" is paramount-except when it isn't. Where the "original intent" governs-except when it doesn't. Where the government gets its authority from the Constitution-except where it doesn't.

To those of us too honest to be lawyers they're paradoxes. To lawyers they're reasonable positions consistent with the Constitution.

I don't mean to disparage lawyers as people but SCOTUS is bent. Always has been. And the legal system its given us is bent. And so our legal practitioners are trained to be bent as well. Please, don't bother to quote the opinions of Justices to me as if they mean something. Anything can be rationalized, especially when you make the rules up as you go along and are subject to change or ignore them without notice.

I said the right of self-defense was "basically a given no one felt overly compelled to elucidate." And I stand by that, in spite of Scalia likely being unable to credit mere truth and common sense over his pet legal theory of the moment. I'm willing to argue the law based on text, logic, history, and the common beliefs of unlettered cretins such as myself, but spare me the opinions of Justices. They might as well be written on the wind for all the logical consistency and substance they contain.

(London, population 8.1 million.)

Well, unless its has the same living and income conditions as NYC, you're still talking apples-and-oranges comparisons.

BTW, Chris1962 ... I blame you for this! It's a slippery slope from sheep in Wales :)

LOL. I'm becoming concerned for how your mind works, David.

Yes, England has no big cities whatsoever!

(London, population 8.1 million.)

On a more humorous note, Michty, someone sent this to me earlier and I just about fell over laughing.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/?ref=auto

I send this to you as proof that humor is still alive and well here in the U.S.

Even though the state of our political debate these days is that you have to go eat at Chick-fil-A to protect your marriage!

My comment was that if you feel your marriage is threatened by gay people, then your marriage probably has more serious problems. To which someone sent me the above article pointing out a problem I never knew existed. Who knew?

BTW, Chris1962 ... I blame you for this! It's a slippery slope from sheep in Wales :)

-David

LOL. What I mean, of course, is that there's a big difference between heavily congested, low-income urban areas, where a higher incident of violence is bound to occur, compared to, say, a countryside, where you'll likely find more animals than people. Living conditions, and income levels, and the presece of gangs, etc., have a whole lot to do with the equation. So the idea of comparing the statistics of tiny countries to the entire United States is ridiculous on its face.

Uhoh ... sheep in Wales have been brought in. This is not headed in a good direction ...

:)

-David

ROFL! I'd suggest you blow their head off. Oh, but you'd need a gun for that, wouldn't you?

You're comparing two itty-bitty countries, with populations comparable to California and Iowa, to the entire United States. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your "per 100k" argument is? (And that's not to even mention the data-gathering methodology over there, one of which consists of a survey, asking people if they've been attacked lately.)

So yes, 25 times the number of people (per 100k) are shot to death in America than in the UK.

Gosh, a gun ban in the UK, yet folks are still managing to shoot each other. Fancy that. Has it ever occurred to you that that there are more violent crimes in America because there are a gazillion more PEOPLE in America; hence, the opportunity for more crimes to be committed, under a gazillion more circumstances than present themselves in the UK? Instead of your apples-and-oranges comparisons of two tiny countries to all of America, try comparing the crime rates of Wales and some similarly populated state in America, like Iowa. I'm wondering how many sheep have been murdered in Wales simply because someone who couldn't find another human to kill.

David, NY

it seems counterintuitive to me, but that's the sort of fact that should be verifiable, one way or the other. doesn't anyone have solid facts on this one?
It's a good point, nypoet. I couldn't find much but would be interested in seeing.

I agree, as a man who loves statistics, but I doubt these sort of statistics exist about as it is too vague an area. I mentioned a little about this in my last post though (and will mention more below) – I believe humans are very emotional creatures and I don't think placing extremely deadly weapons in our hands will ever be a good thing.

I have always argued that if you became completely irrational and wanted to commit a criminal act of murder (eg. a guy slept with your wife and it sent you over the edge), the main determent of how deadly your act would be is your ability for you to get your hands on a deadly weapon. This is why in America the irrational, in the moment, crazy criminal act you commit is likely to be considerably more deadly than every other Western democracy...

LD (going to quote a big chunk, sorry if this makes the post longer)
"In exactly the same way murder is natural and also instinctive. Like stealing it isn't normal (and for the same reasons) but it isn't necessarily irrational, or even aberrant and it certainly isn't unnatural. Don't confuse abnormal with mental illness. Just because most people do something and you don't doesn't mean you've got psychological issues.
Nothing is more normal or more of a survival trait, than killing. Its the when and the why that matter and they're not at all dependent upon being of unsound mind or irrational.
Because people are capable of altering their environment we've produced places of such safety and security that people, like you, actually think killing is the result of some form of mental defect. Its good that you feel secure enough to think that. But its bad that you're trying to influence policy based on your experiences with your artificial environment, instead of the real world, without appreciating the differences.
Your statistics are lying to you because you're not asking the right questions in the right way and because your preconceptions about what's normal and abnormal are skewed."

I think you placed too much emphasis on the part of my comment where I mentioned 'psychological problems'.

My main point was not too far off what you are arguing - I was saying humans are emotional and being emotional leads to being irrational. Anger, hatred, jealousy, love and fear (etc) are all normal human emotions that lead to humans acting irrationally. I included mental problems as the ultimate conclusion of these - I was not making an argument using people with mental problems alone as a case for gun control. Everyone is capable of acting irrationally everyday. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be human.

I’m not saying killing is a mental defect, I’m saying it is an irrational behavior brought on by emotions leading to irrationality, perhaps even because of the 'survival trait' you note. The thing that stops us from killing today or any day is our rationality. The world is considerably less violent now than it used to be because humans are more rational now (see Steven Pinker for more on this).

So my argument actually aligns with yours - putting the most efficient, deadly weapons in the hands of people capable of acting completely irrationally or based on a ‘survival trait’ that isn’t properly attuned is a dangerous idea. The concept that doing will make you more safer is completely illogical when you consider what you are doing, it’s like:

Let's give many humans capable of acting completely emotionally and irrationally an extremely efficient killing weapon, because we believe it will somehow make them safer!

A lot of very pro gun people take this even further and even seem to believe the logic that carrying a gun creates some magic 'force-field' to prevent murders – in reality it just gives a bunch of people capable of stupid irrational motives like hatred, anger, revenge and jealousy an easy method of killing one another.

So I have absolutely considered human emotions in my view of the statistics. The reality is humans are very flawed, especially emotionally, and placing extremely efficient killing weapons in the hands of flawed people is not a good idea. THIS is why the firearms homicide rate will always be considerably greater than the non-firearms homicide rate in ANY country where firearms are more easily available.

Chris
"The murder rate in England and Wales has fallen from 644 to 619 over the last year to its lowest level for 12 years..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years
THIS is supposed to represent some kind of huge drop??? LOL!"

The population of England and Wales is around 50m. So this rate is around the homicide rates I quoted (England and Wales around 1.45 (0.12 guns) per 100k; America is 4.55 (2.97 guns) per 100k).

So yes, 25 times the number of people (per 100k) are shot to death in America than in the UK. And yes, the number is ridiculously low in England and Wales – when you ban guns murders do tend to become extremely rare ;)

THIS is supposed to represent some kind of huge drop??? LOL!

I don't know where you're getting your facts, or if you're simply stating your opinion in the form of fact, but "taking" and "stealing" are not the same thing. Stealing involves knowledge that the act is wrong/improper/illegal. Babies don't have that knowledge. So you can hardly equate a baby's natural act of "taking" with an adult's act of "stealing." The baby's "taking" generally has to do with exploring the world around him.

You're changing your argument mid-stream LewDan.

First, you argued that we had to defend ourselves from the military. Which isn't really part of the 2nd Amendment but could be construed as a legitimate concern of early colonists.

Now you're changing to ... defend ourselves from each other.

Scalia would have a field day with this one because defending ourselves from each other isn't in the Constitution. And I don't think you could make an argument that this was the Founders' intent.

Another point to Scalia ...

-David

But, as LD logically points out, guns do not have magical mystical powers that induce people to kill..

So, while it MAY be true that gun homicides WILL go down, if guns are banned, one has to look at the OTHER side of the equation..

What about the guns that are used for legitimate self-defense?? POOOF... They vanish..

No matter how the Gun Control crowd tries to sugar coat it with stats and claims of "it won't happen", the simple fact is this..

A gun ban will leave people defenseless against an armed enemy...

NO amount of justification will change that... You simply HAVE to acknowledge that one simple fact...

A gun ban will leave people defenseless against an armed enemy...

Now, for those of you who, for WHATEVER reason, don't use a gun for self-defense, yer fine with that.. Ya'all are a victim waiting for a perp ANYWAYS, so what do you care if you have lots of company...

But TRY to see it from another person's perspective. See it through a person's eyes who USES a gun for self-defense. Who doesn't WANT to be a victim.. Who doesn't WANT their family to be victims... Who doesn't WANT their neighbors and their friends and even strangers on the streets to be victims...

Don't ya'all think you're being kinda selfish to put YOUR needs and YOUR opinions before someone else's??

If you want to make a statement and disarm, fine.. Don't carry a gun. Be proud in your pacifism....

But, fer christ's sake, don't force the rest of us to join you as you jump off a cliff...

You don't want to defend you or yours?? Fine...

But allow those of us who DO want to defend what's ours, the ability to do so....

I bet we can talk to HUNDREDS of shop owners in the UK who lost everything they had to scumbag rioters...

I bet THEY would understand EXACTLY what I am talking about...

There's a "STAT" for you.... There is a "logical" result of a gun ban...

Innocent citizens laid bare, defenseless before a raging mob...

Let's ask THEM how much they like UK's gun ban....

Michale......

Yes and no. Even in the 1700s the Constitution never guaranteed you'd succeed only that you had a right to the means to try if necessary. I believe that's where the "take as many of the sons of bitches with you to STOV'A'KOR..." part comes in.

And that hasn't changed one bit. It just never gets old!

Most killings happen due to human emotions overcoming logic and reason. People with psychological problems are included in this, as they have often become the most emotional and irrational.

A misconception. When a baby sees something it takes it.It has to learn not just take whatever it wants but to respect the property of others. Stealing is natural, human beings do it instinctually. Learning not to steal is unnatural. But its a learned behavior that's become normal since it enhances the chance of survival. (As stealing tends to inspire people to kill you.)

In exactly the same way murder is natural and also instinctive. Like stealing it isn't normal (and for the same reasons) but it isn't necessarily irrational, or even aberrant and it certainly isn't unnatural. Don't confuse abnormal with mental illness. Just because most people do something and you don't doesn't mean you've got psychological issues.

Nothing is more normal or more of a survival trait, than killing. Its the when and the why that matter and they're not at all dependent upon being of unsound mind or irrational.

Because people are capable of altering their environment we've produced places of such safety and security that people, like you, actually think killing is the result of some form of mental defect. Its good that you feel secure enough to think that. But its bad that you're trying to influence policy based on your experiences with your artificial environment, instead of the real world, without appreciating the differences.

Your statistics are lying to you because you're not asking the right questions in the right way and because your preconceptions about what's normal and abnormal are skewed.

I agree. I think the Second Amendment was really about us defending ourselves from a military, foreign or domestic, and is now antiquated.—But! Now, thanks to a much more mobile society and improved weaponry, the right to defend ourselves from each other is highly necessary, while it was just a side effect of the Second Amendment before and basically a given no one felt overly compelled to elucidate.

Absolutely. Thx for the clarification.

it seems counterintuitive to me, but that's the sort of fact that should be verifiable, one way or the other. doesn't anyone have solid facts on this one?

It's a good point, nypoet. I couldn't find much but would be interested in seeing.

Well ... yunno. Not "our" as in liberal, but American.

Short answer, NO amount of weaponry will prevent a determined trained force from taking your house.. The most you could hope for is to take as many of the sons of bitches with you to STOV'A'KOR...

This is pretty much what I suspected. If our military really wanted to take me out, they're going to take me out. Literally, they have skills and weapons and numbers far beyond anything I could acquire.

Why this is interesting and, I also believe important, is because the circumstances today are quite different from when our Constitution was written.

And why a "living Constitution" is important ... Because times change and what made sense back in 1794 might not make the same sense now.

A lot of what this has the potential to invalidate is this argument that we need to protect ourselves from our military.

Acknowledging the facts, if our military really wanted to take us, I'm not sure they'd have much trouble no matter how many automatic weapons we own.

Just more food for thought.

-David

if you commit a gun crime, that MAKES you a criminal. i think what you mean to suggest more precisely is that gun crimes are committed mostly by people without prior criminal records. it seems counterintuitive to me, but that's the sort of fact that should be verifiable, one way or the other. doesn't anyone have solid facts on this one?

I'm with michty6 here. Actually, history, facts, and logic do seem to support the fact that the firearm homicide rate would drop if firearms were banned.

I'm not really arguing for a ban because quite honestly it's not really a big issue for me. I'm ok w/ the 2nd amendment and I'd much rather argue about economics or the Constitution.

But there does seem to be quite a bit of evidence to support the claim.

One of the issues which I keep hearing which doesn't ring true to me is that most gun violence is committed by criminals. I think most gun violence is committed by angry people with access to guns. Angry people with access to knives are not nearly as likely to commit murder because it's much harder. Whereas shooting a gun is easy.

And if this is indeed the case, this again points to the fact that less guns would equal less gun violence.

-David

I disagree. This is why I added the additional paragraph about Japan. Japan has a much lower non-firearms AND firearms HR. This indicates that the people in the US (and also the UK fwiw) are far more prone to committing homicide in general than the Japanese.

The non-firearms to firearms comparison shows many things that disprove this 'cultural' theory:
(1) Restricting firearms drastically reduces the firearms homicide rate and overall HR. This stands true when comparing the USA to every single other Western democracy.
(2) The USA is the only Western democratic country in the world (one exception - Switzerland, where gun rates are high too) to have a higher firearms HR than non-firearms.
(3) There are 9 other countries with a non-firearms HR similar to the USA (between 1 and 2). All 9 have a firearms HR between 5 and 25 times lower. So in countries with a similar non-firearms homicide culture, the firearms homicide culture is considerably lower.

The USA isn't just different than every single Western democracy when you analyse homicides. It is a massive outlier. And the outlying statistic is always firearm homicides!

"Your contention is that firearms, in and of themselves, inspire people to kill other people. That's a view borne of ignorance that is absolutely refuted by the facts. As I've said before, firearms were endemic to rural America for over a hundred years. Nearly every household had them. By your reasoning the firearm homicide rate should have been even higher then than now. It wasn't. Firearms simply have no psychic mind-control powers over people that motivate them to kill."

No I don't argue this at all. Most killings happen due to human emotions overcoming logic and reason. People with psychological problems are included in this, as they have often become the most emotional and irrational.

Putting emotional and irrational people together with a deadly efficient weapon is obviously going to lead to higher homicide.

And I'll think you'll find many people shot each other in the past. There is a reason the end of the 19th Century is referred to as the 'wild west' due to the violence in the period... ;)

WARNING: UNCLOSED ATTRIBUTE :D

Michale.....

Which matters not at all, if YOU happen to be one of those ones who ARE confronted by an armed criminal where you COULD have survived if you were also armed...

"Hay! It took out one of the civilians!!"
"We estimate an 11% collateral casualty rate. Acceptable."
"Yea... Unless you happen to be one of the 11%..."
-BLUE THUNDER

Michale.....

Spoken like a person who has lead a sheltered life.. :D

You're comparing a tool which requires many hours of training and is only available to licensed users to once which requires none of this.

Oh bull carp...

An hour, two tops and ANYONE can know how to drive....

And firearms license require many hours of training AND requires a license..

Firearms and cars are more similar than you would like to believe. Probably because it blows your argument out of the water...

The bottom line is, we don't blame the car when a psycho uses one to kill dozens of people..

So why would any rational person blame the gun???

Michale.....

Michale.....

I disagree.

The Homicide Rate (HR)= Non-firearm HR + Firearm HR

USA: 1.58 + 2.97 = 4.55
UK: 1.33 + 0.12 = 1.45

If you dramatically reduce one component of the Homicide Rate, then the rate is dramatically reduced, as happened in the UK. Especially if you reduce the part that makes up 66% of it's value because the weapon involved is the most efficient legally available weapon for committing homicide.

If you ban automobile traffic you don't necessarily reduce the number of commuters you only reduce the number of commuters using automobiles. Controlling a tool used in an activity does not equate to controlling the activity.

Firstly you're comparing apples and oranges. People need to commute to get to home, work, school etc in order to survive. Nobody needs to commit homicide in order to survive.

Secondly, controlling a tool used in an activity that is not an activity of need absolutely controls the activity. If heroine was sold legally in shops, more people would be heroine addicts. But we don't allow this by controlling the tool of heroine by making it illegal. It works because people don't need heroine every day to survive (in the same way they do need their car or another method of commuting).

The cars comparison is often used in many an analogy in gun debates and it makes absolutely no sense. You're comparing a tool whose sole purpose is to enable to convenient travel to a tool whose sole purpose is to kill (animals or humans usually). You're comparing a tool which requires many hours of training and is only available to licensed users to once which requires none of this.

Again, Michty, faulty logic. If the non-firearm homicide rates are comparable while the US has a significant firearm homicide rate versus the UKs virtually nonexistent one it indicates the people in the US are far more prone to committing homicide not that the unavailability of firearms prevents Brits from committing homicide.

Your contention is that firearms, in and of themselves, inspire people to kill other people. That's a view borne of ignorance that is absolutely refuted by the facts. As I've said before, firearms were endemic to rural America for over a hundred years. Nearly every household had them. By your reasoning the firearm homicide rate should have been even higher then than now. It wasn't. Firearms simply have no psychic mind-control powers over people that motivate them to kill.

Michty,

You are conflating the firearm homicide rate with the homicide rate. Reducing the firearm homicide rate does not automatically reduce the homicide rate.

If you ban automobile traffic you don't necessarily reduce the number of commuters you only reduce the number of commuters using automobiles. Controlling a tool used in an activity does not equate to controlling the activity.

Well the practicalities are obviously a lot more complicated than a simple forum comment. The way the UK went was by having a gun buy-back followed by several gun amnesties giving people the chance to redeem their guns. I believe certain types of guns are allowed on strict permits and storing requirements, but no handguns at all.

Of course you can't guarantee no guns. There are absolutely guns in the UK just now, but they are illegal and 25 times less people get shot and killed than the USA, that's a fact. So you are stopping the supply and demand of guns.

When faced with an armed criminal I'd suggest you do what they say - in fact, assuming the criminal was smart enough to not announce their criminal act in advance, I'd suggest you do this anyway today even if you were carrying a gun. The element of surprise is still with the criminal and the gun in your pocket isn't a magical forcefield against bullets.

What happens to the innocent men and women is probably exactly the same as what happens to them today - except there will be considerably less guns so there will be less innocent men and women being killed.

Let's put your BAN ALL GUNS into practical application..

The US bans all guns...

Are you saying that will guarantee that there will be no guns on the streets, except in the hands of military or LEOs???

No, of course you are not saying that. You CAN'T say that...

So, let me ask you..

What happens to the law abiding citizens when they are faced with armed criminals??

What happens to THEM???

What?? They "HOPE" a cop is close by??? They pray that the criminals "CHANGE" their minds???

What happens to the innocent men and women YOU have disarmed???

Michale.....

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz21upUIIfU

So, which UK media outlet are we supposed to believe??

I thought you only quoted GOVERNMENT sources???

:D

Michale.....

But, as I just mentioned in my post above, the firearm homicide rate makes up 2/3 of the American total homicide rate. So if you manage to reduce 66% of your homicides 'dramatically' your overall homicide rate will also be dramatically reduced...

"If firearms were not available and the non-firearm rates were the same you'd have a point. But the fact that the firearm rates are much higher, do to their availability while the non-firearm rates are comparable shows the overall rates are much higher in the U.S. and generally, not surprisingly, involve the best weapons available. I would surmise that British rates also reflect usage of the best tools available with few slingshot and spear attacks."

I don't understand - much of what you say is exactly my point!

Firearms are not available in the UK and the non-firearm homicide rate is the same as the US. So people aren't finding other ways of committing their homicides, because other such efficient ways don't exist.

If you take guns away from people they stop killing each other because slingshots and spears aren't the 'best weapons' to kill someone (which guns are). This is exactly my point - homicide rates will drop when guns are taken away. This is completely counter to the 'guns keep us safe' argument used by gun proponents - actually every statistic shows guns make you considerably more likely to be murdered.

"But the contention that the U.S. homicide rate attributed to firearms will just magically vanish if handguns aren't available, rather than devolve onto the next best available weapon is unsupported by facts, history, statistics, or logic."

Challenge accepted.

Let's start with logic. Guns are by far the most efficient legal tool available to kill people. To kill a mass group of people they are easily the most efficient legally available tool. So if you take away the most efficient legal tool available to kill a person or a mass group of people then, logically , what do you think happens to homicide rates? Consider the emotionally charged person who just lost his mind and he can get his hand on (a) a high powered gun or (b) and knife - logically, which is going to kill the most people? The logic works because guns are very efficient at killing people.

Fact: well I have already produced firearm homicide ones. How about the fact that 2/3 of murders in America are committed using guns. What do you think happens when you take away an extremely efficient killing weapon that is used in 2/3 of your murders?

History/statistics: the UK murder rate in 2010 was the lowest in 12 years. That is, it is the lowest since the year the gun ban came into effect (1997/98). http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years. So the UK banned guns and the number of murders is now at a record low. So your argument that they will just use other weapons doesn't fit the statistics or history about what happened in the UK :)

I will grant that the firearm homicide rate would decrease dramatically were firearms not available. I simply see no point in trying to reduce the firearm homicide rate rather than the homicide rate as I'm less concerned with how people are killed than I am with the fact that they are being killed.

Sorry Michty you're logic is faulty. If firearms were not available and the non-firearm rates were the same you'd have a point. But the fact that the firearm rates are much higher, do to their availability while the non-firearm rates are comparable shows the overall rates are much higher in the U.S. and generally, not surprisingly, involve the best weapons available. I would surmise that British rates also reflect usage of the best tools available with few slingshot and spear attacks.

But the contention that the U.S. homicide rate attributed to firearms will just magically vanish if handguns aren't available, rather than devolve onto the next best available weapon is unsupported by facts, history, statistics, or logic.

I mean, I have heard of "Smart Weapons" but I don't think we have weapons that are THAT smart....

I asked before and I'll ask again..

When a driver mows down and kills a dozen people, do we blame the car???

Michale.....

As such it is more guidelines which cannot pertain to every issue. Congress can legislate within these guidelines. They do have that power. But obviously there's going to be grey areas in a 4-page document. If you give the power to interpret to Congress as well as the legislative power then you remove a critical check on the power of one branch of government.

David,

SCOTUS also is supposed to be restricted to acting "within the guidelines" established by the Constitution, at least theoretically. And the purpose of legislating is to fill in those grey areas unaddressed by the Constitution specifically, an authority reserved exclusively to Congress.

You seem to be granting SCOTUS the authority to act outside of Constitutional guidelines by calling it "interpreting" the Constitution. A more accurate term would be unconstitutional.

One more thing on the cultural argument to illustrate my point.

Let's take say Japan compared to America. I think it is undeniable that America is a lot closer in culture to Canada/UK than Japan. When you look at the statistics, Japan has considerably lower rates of crime and a considerably lower homicide rate (all kinds) - in fact one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Here all the statistics line up: all rates indicate a cultural reason for the crime/homicide rates being lower in Japan.

On the contrary, when you look at Canada/UK the ONLY significant, ridiculously major difference is the firearm homicide rate.

Nice posts, good points.

If you show a dramatic reduction in firearms homicides in Chicago IL, where handguns are effectively banned, versus, say Austin TX, where concealed carry is considered a constitutional right, then you'd have a point.

Unfortunately this isn't possible unless you put up State/City borders or check points to stop guns coming in. Gun bans in one State/City/area prove nothing - they are pointless when you can just drive out the State/City/area and buy a gun. In fact, in several high profile shootings the perpetrator had to go out of State to get weapons due to regulations in their own State.

In DC pre-Heller, gun crime increased when they passed their regulation against guns. But studies have shown that 98%(!) of guns used in the crimes came from out of State.

The logical conclusion of all inter-State studies is that banning guns in one individual State or area doesn't work. I agree with this premise 100%. I disagree in extrapolating this argument to the Federal level.

The biggest factor in the people being the problem is a culture's respect for human life in general and its concern for the welfare of others in general. The U.S isn't nearly as bad as Somalia or, in many cases, India, but it ain't Britain, or France, or anywhere else. We're not the worst, but we're certainly not the best. And one of the legacies of our being a slave nation is our sometimes problematical respect for human life in general and our concern for the welfare of others in general.

My point is if this were true and Americans had such a lower respect for life/the welfare of others then their non-firearm homicide rates and crime rates would be many times higher than say UK/Canada - they aren't and in fact are quite comparable.

Yet the firearm homicide rate in America is 25 times higher than the UK and 5 times higher than in Canada. So everything is comparable in terms of crime except this one statistic, so it seems to me that arguing it is the people or culture to blame is illogical, when this statistic clearly indicates what the problem is...

Let me also add that I'll grant the Second Amendment doesn't apply to all weapons, tactical nukes have no place even in armed insurrections, or any other battle for that matter. As I sincerely doubt the Founders envisioned us developing insane weapons I've no problem with the Constitution evolving to ban them. Though I still maintain that decision should be one of consensus through our representatives not SOCTUS pretending we've a "living Constitution"—except where we don't.

Yes, and because of that pretty blue bird over there, ALL birds MUST be blue.. ;D

Michale.....

A love child??? :D

Michale.....

Not trying to evade the question, but there are so many factors to consider..

To get to specifics, let's assume a company-sized force wants your house.. Generally speaking, this could be 100 to 300 men.. Let's pick 300...

So, three hundred men want your house.

We'll also assume they don't want to remove it, because then they would just call in artillery and move on...

So, a company of men want your house intact..

Let's further assume that A> you have had some warning and B> that allows you to prepare for a siege and C> with some friends and support of your own...

Guerrilla warfare would be the order of the day. Booby traps, hit and run attacks, misdirections...

Plus, you are fighting for your home and, presumably you will win or you will die.. That's a pretty powerful incentive...

"One man fighting for his home is worth a thousand trained soldiers. The Crusades taught me that."
-Kevin Costner, ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THEIVES

The odds against you are not as bad as you might think.

Now, let's play out a difference scenario. A company of troops pound on your day and say, "Get the frack out, this is our house now."

Pump action shotgun (presumably you are a paranoid SOB and always answer the door with a gun, like I do.. :D) will take care of the initial entry team, likely 4-6 men. You have the element of surprise, as they were expecting a panty-waist homeowner cowering in the corner.. Do NOT discount the element of surprise...

The exterior force will take cover at the sound of fire.. You will have several minutes (more if the guys outside aren't trained) to organize a defense... Your best weapon of choice (availability being the biggest factor) will be a standard issue GAU-5A, mini M-16 with a collapsible stock.. Good cyclic rate of fire, reliable (more or less)... Of course, being the paranoid SOB you are (see above) you will have modified the weapon to shoot full auto.. Keep it to 3-rnd bursts. This will conserve your ammo AND will ensure your full auto mod doesn't jam.. Initial counter assault, you want to splurge on the ammo. Make them think that A> you are more than one person and B> you got ammo to burn...

The next phase will depend on how badly they want your house.. If it's do or die for them, yer fooked... Take as many as you can with you, but prepare to die..

If you are enough of a pain in the ass,and they really don't need your house, they will likely bypass your place, leaving behind a rear guard of 1-2 men to make sure you don't come up THEIR as...

Does that about cover it?? :D

Short answer, NO amount of weaponry will prevent a determined trained force from taking your house.. The most you could hope for is to take as many of the sons of bitches with you to STOV'A'KOR...

We'll discuss Home Invasions next.

Class dismissed.. :D

Michale.....

Where do you see a check on SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution in Citizens United? Your idea of a "check" is nine unelected bureaucrats mandating versus hundreds of elected representatives representing?

Seems less than logical and more than a little biased to me.

My point exactly! Armed insurrections by citizens against a modern military, especially our military, would have much lower odds of success than the American Revolution did. The Second Amendment is a 17th-century solution that isn't relevant to 21st-century problems.

did you mean scalia or alito? they're two different justices. unless they're secretly a voltron style robot, that is...

http://youtu.be/1uS5b8aQ6z8

It's like seeing a blue bird and deduce from that, that ALL birds MUST be blue..."

You are quite correct there may be other reasons. I cannot dispute this, even if every study on homicide rates concludes otherwise.

However, firstly consider that the availability and ease of obtaining firearms and firearms homicide rates are HIGHLY correlated. Secondly, consider that the Western Democratic country with the easiest access to guns (and easiest access to high powered guns) has a firearm homicide rate 2-200 times higher than any other Western Democratic country.

With these in mind (and you can even apply Occum's Razor - I know that you love that so much :)) the logical conclusion is simple: the country with the easiest access to firearms and high-powered firearms will have the highest firearms homicide rate (as is the case) regardless of their people.

As I believe you mentioned LewDan, the Constitution is a 4 page document.

As such it is more guidelines which cannot pertain to every issue. Congress can legislate within these guidelines. They do have that power. But obviously there's going to be grey areas in a 4-page document. If you give the power to interpret to Congress as well as the legislative power then you remove a critical check on the power of one branch of government.

I could also say that this is what the Founders intended ... cue Odo :)

In fact, this is what Scalito has said. The father of Founders' intent seems to think that the Founders did not intend for the 2nd amendment to apply to all weapons.

Your evidence seems to be that you "have no doubt" about what the Founders' intended. Scalito, on the other hand, shows how history supports his case.

If I were to look at this argument strictly from a Founders' intent perspective (which self-admittedly I think is ridiculous), I'd have to give the edge to Scalito.

-David

The fallacy in your argument is that of comparing similar but different peoples. The culture in Britain is very similar to that of the U.S. It is not the same though. The people are not the same. the differences with China are much greater.

If you show a dramatic reduction in firearms homicides in Chicago IL, where handguns are effectively banned, versus, say Austin TX, where concealed carry is considered a constitutional right, then you'd have a point.

The biggest factor in the people being the problem is a culture's respect for human life in general and its concern for the welfare of others in general. The U.S isn't nearly as bad as Somalia or, in many cases, India, but it ain't Britain, or France, or anywhere else. We're not the worst, but we're certainly not the best. And one of the legacies of our being a slave nation is our sometimes problematical respect for human life in general and our concern for the welfare of others in general.

Michale ... Quick question for your expertise.

If our armed forces wanted to take my house, what weapons would I have to buy to prevent this?

-David

Excellent post, I too hope to see more from you.

As to your premise about the constitutionality of gun ownership restrictions -- As Chris has pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution is, effectively, whatever SCOTUS says it is. They can certainly find rationalizations for claiming that restricting semiautos is constitutional.

I, however, think a more honest view is to not focus on the technology available in the 1700's but rather on the intent of the Founders to ensure people the ability to defend themselves, against the government itself is necessary, not to empower disgruntled individuals but to empower disgruntled communities should the government become oppressive.

The idea behind our government is that government governs with the consent of the governed. That it gets its authority from the people. The obvious corollary to that is that consent and authority may also be revoked. Our Constitution defines government as an exercise in paranoia. The single most obvious principle, addressed in a dozen ways in our brief Constitution, is that government can not be trusted.

I've no doubt at all that SCOTUS could find restricting auto and semiauto weapons constitutional. I've also no doubt at all that restricting citizens to weapons which pose little threat to government agents is exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to prohibit.

Gun control, in my view, is simply incompatible with the Second Amendment. I'm not saying modern weapons don't mandate reasonable controls, I'm saying pretending those controls are consistent with the Second Amendment is sophistry.

In view of the danger posed by modern weapons the Second Amendment needs to be revisited, publicly and openly, not by a star-chamber of unelected bureaucrats acting illegally to impose their views on the public.

You are tunnel-visioned fixated on just ONE possible cause...

It's like seeing a blue bird and deduce from that, that ALL birds MUST be blue...

Michale.....

That doesn't mean it's what actually occurred..

Because EVERYONE knows that the spacecraft didn't CRASH...

It landed.. :D

Michale.....

"I am also constrained to point out that the afore mentioned incident happened in China..

So, by YOUR way of thinking, Americans have a problem with guns and the Chinese have a problem with knives... :^/"

Not quite. I quoted statistics which prove my argument - which was that people are not the problem, otherwise you'd expect that the USA would have a 25 times larger non-firearms homicide rate than the UK, as well as 25 times larger firearms homicide rate. Actually the figures are 0.18 and 25.

You're quoting a singular news event. This one event alone doesn't prove China has a knife problem.

I could quote you statistics showing that China too has a lower firearm homicide rate (guns are banned there) but, having lived there, I know better than to quote Chinese statistics given their Governmetn love of secrecy and fudging the numbers ;)

By saying "the people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times", you seem to be suggesting a completely different constitution.

Now I'm back to my standard you're right but I disagree answer. The Court granted itself the authority to interpret the Constitution in Marbury not the Constitution, but in my view the role more in keeping with the Constitution is the Court adjudicating and the Congress interpreting.

In a representative government there's no need, or place, for the court to "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is the law agreed to by The People, and if there's any doubt as to what that law means The People and their representatives are available to answer any questions, instead of unelected bureaucrats, answerable to no one, imposing their personal opinions. That, in my view, was not the intent of the Founders or the nation.

I've said many times, the oligarchy we have today is not the result of the Constitution, its the result of a successful constitutional coup by SCOTUS.

So, by YOUR way of thinking, Americans have a problem with guns and the Chinese have a problem with knives... :^/

Or maybe... JUST maybe... the problem is the people..

Michale.....

Maybe the problem is people...

I'm thinking, since weapons don't plot crimes, or transport themselves, or activate themselves, you might be onto something, there, Michale.

Apparently, in your eyes, it is..

So we'll just have to leave it at that..

Michale....

Pretty similar. As you'd expect from 3 industrialised, democratic nations with an inter-linked history and similar cultural background.

Firearm Homicide Rates:
UK - 0.12
Canada - 0.54
USA - 2.97

So it's just pure coincidence then that when you look at the firearm homicide rate they are now ranked exactly in order of how easy it is to get a gun and the type of gun you can get.

The US has a 0.18 times higher non-firearms homicide rate than the UK; the firearms homicide rate is 25 times higher. But it must be the 'people' not the guns right?

Sorry for the derailment FedWay I'll leave it as this otherwise we'll just repeat the debate all over again...

So America is the problem?

Maybe it's as LewDan says..

Maybe, JUST maybe, it's not weapons that are the problem..

Maybe the problem is people...

Hmmmmmmmmm Let's think on that for a while...

Michale.....

The impetus for a gun ban would have to show a practical advantage or benefit in the here and now, rather than simply give acquiescence to the annals of history...

In other words, to ban a certain weapon, cause would have to be shown that banning said weapon is in the public's best interests. It would not be sufficient to simply said, "because that's how it was in the old days"..

In shorter terms, "that's the way it was" wouldn't fly in a court of law, Heller notwithstanding...

IMNSHO, of course.. :D

Michale.....

That is ridiculous - 12 years with no medals. If ever there was a time for the public to get behind the 'bring back the guns' campaign this is it! ;)

This was explicitly explained in the original blog. Short answer: semi-automatic pistols were in common use in 1903 when the Militia Act was passed, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were not... the reasoning in Heller is not about the weapons themselves, but rather about whether they were common, lawful, used by the militia, and so on... remember that this is a legal question, and legal questions seldom talk about what is really important to the rest of us. :)

I gotta agree with mitchy on that..

Generating almost a hundred comments the first day of a new commentary..

That's good... :D

Michale.....

You should take this as a compliment about how good your article was ;)

It's called policy-based evidence making and it is alive and well here in the US as well....

Oh, I'm not arguing that at all. I haven't seen one straight number come out of this administration yet. Cooking the numbers is a very popular tactic among politicians worldwide, I suspect.

Sure, as I mentioned before bias is openly acknowledged in UK papers and in the UK media. They don't beat around the bush. For example this was the headline of the Daily Mail on election day 2010:

"D-DAY: CAMERON IS OUR ONLY HOPE - MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES"

If you Google 'election day specials 2010 UK newspapers' you can see for yourself, wont let me post the link here...

Most other newspapers are the same, openly backing the candidate they support on election day, with a massive appeal to vote for them. The Daily Mail has backed the Conservative pretty much as long as it's existed, even when other papers switched to Blair in 1997. Funnily enough there are similarities between the re-elections of Blair and Obama - both took their party to the right and won a 2nd term as the other party moved waaay right...

"The stats that show violent crimes increase when guns are banned are all over the world.."

We can debate this till the cows come home. If have mentioned many times now homicide rate is a much better stat to look at compared to 'violent crime' since definitions of 'violent crime' vary massively, homicides less so. Deciding if punching someone in the stomach is a 'violent crime' results in different decisions country by country; shooting someone in the stomach and killing them is a homicide in every country.

I'll take my Government mandated civil servant produced White Paper over any other studies any day of the week. UK Government White Papers are independently produced and consistently disagree with the Government in power.

For example, the HC 447 paper I mentioned advocates for stricter gun controls than already exist in the UK and this paper was mandated in 2010 during a Conservative Government...

Sure, as I mentioned before bias is openly acknowledged in UK papers and in the UK media. They don't beat around the bush. For example here is the front page of the Daily Mail on election day 2010:

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/e15626192.jpg

Most other newspapers are the same, openly backing the candidate they support on election day, with a massive appeal to vote for them. The Daily Mail has backed the Conservative pretty much as long as it's existed, even when other papers switched to Blair in 1997. Funnily enough there are similarities between the re-elections of Blair and Obama - both took their party to the right and won a 2nd term as the other party moved waaay right...

"The stats that show violent crimes increase when guns are banned are all over the world.."

We can debate this till the cows come home. If have mentioned many times now homicide rate is a much better stat to look at compared to 'violent crime' since definitions of 'violent crime' vary massively, homicides less so. Deciding if punching someone in the stomach is a 'violent crime' results in different decisions country by country; shooting someone in the stomach and killing them is a homicide in every country.

I'll take my Government mandated civil servant produced White Paper over any other studies any day of the week. UK Government White Papers are independently produced and consistently disagree with the Government in power.

For example, the HC 447 paper I mentioned advocates for stricter gun controls than already exist in the UK and this paper was mandated in 2010 during a Conservative Government...

Oh, it's not solely limited to across the pond..

It's called policy-based evidence making and it is alive and well here in the US as well....

Michale.....

It is interesting how this argument turned into a discussion about banning guns, isn't it?

As I said above, it's impossible to talk about the legality of a weapons ban w/o talking about the rationale of a weapons ban...

But, in an attempt to get back on track..

How do you respond to the claim that, if it's legal/permissible under the 2nd Amendment to ban semi-auto rifles, then that ban must logically extend to ALL semi-auto weapons..

What I mean is, how would you differentiate between the two so that semi-auto handguns would survive the ban but semi-auto rifles would not?

Liz,

It would be interesting to know how many here have read the Heller decision or have even bookmarked it for future reference.

Heller???? :D

"What gear are you in!!!????"
"Gear?????"
-Dogma

:D

Michale.....

Conversations evolve.

Interesting? I'm afraid typical is the more apt description.

It would be interesting to know how many here have read the Heller decision or have even bookmarked it for future reference.

Buahahahahahaha ....

Hahahahah ... this is some of the irony I was getting at. Well played.

I do believe in a living Constitution, I just don't think that means the courts can just rewrite it on the fly as needed, that's what we have a legislature for. I believe in a living Constitution but I also a representative government is the foundation of this country. The people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times, not the courts.

But that's not what it says in the Constitution ...

The Constitution gives the power to enact laws to Congress. But it does not give the power to interpret or adapt the Constitution to Congress.

Interestingly enough, as Chris has pointed out, it did not originally grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. This was established later in the case Marbury vs. Madison. However, it does seem much more likely that the Constitution could be interpreted to give this power to the Judiciary rather than the Legislative branch.

By saying "the people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times", you seem to be suggesting a completely different constitution.

No?

-David

"We're from the government and we're here to help..."

I'm just sayin'...... :D

Michale.....

I have no problem with including TRAINING as a pre-requisite for Carry or Possession...

Here in Florida, I believe there is a 16-hr course requirement, plus a range session to demonstrate proficiency...

I admit I am not positive, because prior service or LEO (of which I am both) are exempt from the training requirements..

Word of advice: you should learn not to rely on the Daily Mail (a Conservative gun-loving paper) for your statistics.

Do you have anything to call into question their statistics, other than your political bias??? :D

The stats that show violent crimes increase when guns are banned are all over the world..

It would be senseless to point them out to you, as you have tunnel-vision that only allows you to acknowledge those stats that "prove" your point..

The Founders intended a "living Constitution"?!

Odo strikes again!!!! :D

Michale....

BTW, If you'll excuse my mixing metaphors, I've never understood how anyone who calls himself an "originalist" could not appreciate that a four-page Constitution with no delineated citizen rights, in expectation of some later "Bill of Rights" addendum, clearly shows that The Founders intended a "living Constitution"?!

"The British are so proud of the effectiveness of their gun bans."

Yes indeedy.

"They have no right to be...
Violent gun crimes are up 89% since the gun ban was put into place..."

Word of advice: you should learn not to rely on the Daily Mail (a Conservative gun-loving paper) for your statistics. They love to make up numbers, often including 'possession of a gun' as a gun crime which is technically correct since it has been since 1997 lol. They have done it several times before. But obviously you were not to know this.

The official Government statistics (I have included link to official Government website at the end) state:
"Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year."

After the Cumbria shootings of 2010, another Government review was announced which concluded gun regulations in the UK should be tightened even further. You can find this report if you Google: Firearms control (HC 447). From this paper:

"Comparisons between industrialised countries show that there is a correlation between the levels of gun ownership and gun violence. This country has one of the lowest rates of gun death with annual gun homicides in England and Wales at 0.10 per 100,000 population compared, for example, with 0.69 in Canada, 0.93 in Switzerland and 3.52 in the USA."

Link to official data: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940.pdf

I agree with you.

The reason I don't think more gun ownership will reduce crime is that people being people I think it will both help and hurt the situation. In other words it'll be a wash. Lots of other factors also come in to play so absent an actual full-scale long-term trial I wouldn't put heavy quatloos on either proposition!

But as to your position about more trained gun-toting individuals at large in the public being a good thing?--Yeah, couldn't agree with you more.

I was just too lazy to post multiple comments. My only reference to your comment was regarding Scalia and the need to consider the history of the Constitution. (And to deriding interpreting the thinking of "dead people"!)

I do believe in a living Constitution, I just don't think that means the courts can just rewrite it on the fly as needed, that's what we have a legislature for. I believe in a living Constitution but I also a representative government is the foundation of this country. The people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times, not the courts.

And, yeah, we mostly agree. Sorry if I seemed to pick on you!

Yea, that was a killer movie as well..

I have always remarked.. It's ironic..

In two movies (THE SEIGE and CRIMSON TIDE) Denzel played the protagonist, but was also DEAD wrong in his actions...

In THE SEIGE, I was hoping Bruce Willis would head-slam Denzel with an M-16 and say:

"RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, *I* AM THE LAW!!!!!

Oh wait.. Willis DID say that... :D My bust...

Still would have been kewl if Denzel was showed up for the panty-waist his actions made him out to be...

Michale.....

I'm not sure, but I think that was sarcasm.... :D

But it does have more than an ingot of truth behind it..

"An ingot of phinkillium!!"
-Major Nelson, I DREAM OF JEANNIE

(I had to reach WAY back for that little gem!! :D)

The fact is, gun ownership always takes a hit when some scumbag goes apeshit with a gun..

Which is ironic because there is absolutely NO evidence that taking away such ownership would help, or even ADDRESS, the problem...

Michale.....