DC Handgun Ban Overturned

[LuvDuke]

I agree with you 100% on the not basing current law on Wyatt Earp et al.

However, I also agree with the repeal of the ban on handguns in DC, first on the basis of the 2nd Amendment, and secondly on the basis that every person should have a right to protect and defend themselves in their own homes. It isn't the people that are obeying the current law that are the problem in DC - it's the criminals that aren't obeying the laws. I don't see how allowing law abiding citizens to keep a gun in their home is going to result in the crime explosion that DC city officials are now screaming about in response to the court's decision.

Will there be more deaths? Probably, because citizens will now be able to shoot the people that are breaking into their homes and endangering their families.

Let me preface this by saying I'm a gun owner and have had concealed weapons permits in both the state of Texas and the state of Florida. And given the background of the Founding Fathers and their basic distrust of government, I believe there's no magic translation for the 2nd amendment. It means exactly what it says. The militia, or citizen soldier, has a right to bear arms. End of story.

My difference of opinion is that we come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations as to why we need a gun. Our violent crime rate is sky high as compared to those societies in which guns are not so readily available. So gun ownership does have a effect on crime, just not the one we want to think it does.

 

[Andy B]

Let me preface this by saying I'm a gun owner and have had concealed weapons permits in both the state of Texas and the state of Florida. And given the background of the Founding Fathers and their basic distrust of government, I believe there's no magic translation for the 2nd amendment. It means exactly what it says. The militia, or citizen soldier, has a right to bear arms. End of story.

My difference of opinion is that we come up with all sorts of convoluted explanations as to why we need a gun. Our violent crime rate is sky high as compared to those societies in which guns are not so readily available. So gun ownership does have a effect on crime, just not the one we want to think it does.

If you moved to a country in which gun ownership was not common, would you be able to give up your arms to live there?

 

[LuvDuke]

If you moved to a country in which gun ownership was not common, would you be able to give up your arms to live there?

No problem whatsoever.

 

[Andy B]

No problem whatsoever.

So can I divine from that it is for personal protection and not some protectecting the country from invasion or bad government which I have heard put as a reasoning based on the 2nd amendment. Although it has not formed part of the reasoning here.

Also even in countried like the UK which do not have an established gun culture there are guns in criminal hands although associated crime rates are much lower. How would you make that judgement, I would think it could be quite difficult to judge. It would seem irational to say citizens can be armed if ther is only one gun in circulation but where to draw the line I could not guess.

 

[LuvDuke]

So can I divine from that it is for personal protection and not some protectecting the country from invasion or bad government which I have heard put as a reasoning based on the 2nd amendment. Although it has not formed part of the reasoning here.

Of course, it's for personal protection. And I only carry it when I'm on the road. I don't garden with a firearm on my hip.

For crying out loud, this isn't Dodge City.

And while our Founding Fathers may've had the idea of protecting themselves from an overreaching government with a musket, that argument carries no weight today. Frankly, once I'm out of ammo and the government calls in the F-16's, there isn't a hell of a lot I can do about it.

Also even in countried like the UK which do not have an established gun culture there are guns in criminal hands although associated crime rates are much lower. How would you make that judgement, I would think it could be quite difficult to judge. It would seem irational to say citizens can be armed if ther is only one gun in circulation but where to draw the line I could not guess.

IMO, the biggest reason for the rise in violent crime is drugs and that's irrational people committing irrational crimes for irrational reasons. For some of these people, a Sherman tank wouldn't stop them.

I don't know where you draw the line either. There's a saying in this country that "an armed society is a polite society". Baloney. An armed society is a dangerous society and the crime rates between the US and non-gun toting countries shoots that argument right out of the saddle. No pun intended.

 

[Andy B]

I don't know where you draw the line either. There's a saying in this country that "an armed society is a polite society". Baloney. An armed society is a dangerous society and the crime rates between the US and non-gun toting countries shoots that argument right out of the saddle. No pun intended.

The 'armed society is a polite society' has slightly worrying undertones. Be polite or I will shoot!

 

[dolcezena]

Did those countries have a culture of gun ownership like this country has? I don't know the answer to that.

Canada definitely has a "culture of gun ownership," mostly in the sense of sporting & hunting. Handguns, on the other hand (no pun intended) are entirely different.

Not trying to speak for every Canadian, but I think that most of us don't have an issue with owning a gun for sport, hunting, or collectibilty. In fact, my DFi has a rifle collection. It gives me the willies to have it in the house, but it is locked up in a gun safe.

Handguns though, I guess we just don't have the mindset that we have to personally protect our homes. I honestly don't know why that is though. Maybe we just expect the justice system to deal with it. (Not that they always do it well!)

 

[eclectics]

IMO, the biggest reason for the rise in violent crime is drugs and that's irrational people committing irrational crimes for irrational reasons.

ITA. Address the drug problem in this country and watch the crime rate drop. How exactly to address it is another thread, I would imagine.

 

[DancingBear]

I have no problem whatsoever with discussions about changing the Constitution, but if it's going to be done, i.e., if we as a society are going to determine that the Second Amendment is no longer necessary or relevant, then let's change it by following the amendment process rather than simply trying to ignore that the right exists in the Constitution.

Brenda, how do you respond to the argument that if an individual has a Constitutional right to possess a handgun, don't they also have the right to have an AK-47, or a grenade, or whatever?

Also, do you have any objection to licensing and registration requirements? How about requirements for taking safety courses and passing tests like driving?

 

[DancingBear]

The discussions about the ineffectiveness of DC's handgun laws should include some discussion about how a huge source of handguns in our major cities are the states with the least restrictive laws. This Giuliani speech is a bit dated but notes that at the time 92% of confiscated guns came from out of state, and 60% came from VA, FL, GA and the Carolinas. Perhaps if handgun control was federal it would be more effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/rwg/html/97a/ccc.html

Another reference in a New York Daily News article says 12% of handguns used to commit crimes in NYC in the first half of 2005 were bought in VA.

 

[MassJester]

It was the DC legislature that tossed "respect" for the 2nd amendment out the window.

I agree. Legislatures are regularly placing judges in tough positions.

 

[BuckNaked]

Possibly but in that case they should not be in the same sentence.

Forgive me, but what exactly makes you think that you know better what should be in our Constitution than did the founding fathers of this country?

If there were no other guns in society would you still need the gun?

Yes, I would. And whether or not I needed one, I would want to keep the ones I have.

Would you shoot an intruder if you knew they were unarmed and if so how would the law deal with that?

There would be no way for me to know for a fact whether an intruder is armed or not.

Anyone that comes into my home uninvited and without my prior knowledge and consent is a threat to my family, period. They can choose to turn and leave or be shot. Completely their choice.

Are there any statistics which show if shootings by previously legally owned guns is significant. ie a gun turned on its owner, a police gun used, a legal gun owner commiting a crime.

I'm sure there probably are, but those statistics wouldn't change my mind.

 

[BuckNaked]

Brenda, how do you respond to the argument that if an individual has a Constitutional right to possess a handgun, don't they also have the right to have an AK-47, or a grenade, or whatever?

My response regarding the AK-47 is that I don't think it should be illegal to own one. As far as a grenade, that isn't a firearm, so I don't see that it is part of this argument.

Also, do you have any objection to licensing and registration requirements? How about requirements for taking safety courses and passing tests like driving?

I have no problems whatsoever with any of these requirements, and in fact, I'm completely in favor of all of them.

 

[Charade]

there is no way to insure that an intruder would not have a gun. As I said before, they won't care that having a gun is illegal. Making laws against guns will only take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. How hard of a concept is that to grasp?
In your line of thinking a criminal would think "hey I want to rob that gas station. Sure I could go to jail but I don't care. Hey what will I use to rob it. I better use a hammer because I'll go to jail for using a gun"

Criminals have been known to do that. Recently here in Philly, criminals were tossing hot coffee into the faces of the attendants at convenience stores and then robbing them.

 

[sha_lyn]

Criminals have been known to do that. Recently here in Philly, criminals were tossing hot coffee into the faces of the attendants at convenience stores and then robbing them.

So you know that the criminals didn't use a gun because doing so would have been against the law?

 

[Charade]

If you moved to a country in which gun ownership was not common, would you be able to give up your arms to live there?

If it were the law? I would have to. That's why I want the UN and group that wants the US to sign on to a worldwide gun ban treaty to butt out of our laws.

 

[Charade]

So you know that the criminals didn't use a gun because doing so would have been against the law?

I don't know. You'd have to ask them. But I have heard other criminals state they don't use a gun because of the mandatory sentence that comes with using one. Now I think disabling a store attendant with a cup of coffee in the face is a better tactic (not so great for the attendant) than using a gun. It's non-lethal and gets them out of the way for easy access to the cash drawer (cause it's open at the time of the coffee tossing).

 

[sha_lyn]

But I have heard other criminals state they don't use a gun because of the mandatory sentence that comes with using one.

There is a huge difference between mandatory sentencing for committing armed robbery(which I agree with) and handgun bans.

 

[Charade]

There is a huge difference between mandatory sentencing for committing armed robbery(which I agree with) and handgun bans.

I agree. I think you missed my point. I meant that some criminals (who probably couldn't care less about gun OWNERSHIP laws) most likely DO care about laws that hand out mandatory sentences if one is used in the commission of a crime.

 

[basas]

ITA, and I'm glad to see that the court did as well. One of the judges commented that currently in DC, the only people that are effectively barred from having handguns are the law abiding citizens of the city.

And he would be correct. I really don’t understand the city’s gun ban. Do they actually think the criminals who are going to murder/shoot someone are going to listen to a city gun-law? Or maybe…they’ll just cross the river into Virginia and bring a gun back! I wonder… Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens of DC are left without protection against these same criminals. The ban hurts everyone but the criminal and I’m glad to see it turned down.