Where to go from here? (Possible debate, gun control)

[Gumbo4x4]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So what does that really mean? A well regulated militia is not the same thing as Joe Bubba marching around a fast food restaurant with his AK-47.

Militias don't have constitutional rights. People do.

Having said that, I am not a fan of open carry, particularly of long guns, except in certain circumstances.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But stricter gun laws do seem to reduce gun violence in other countries.

I've not seen any proof of that, ever. Adding strict gun laws in a nation that didn't HAVE a gun problem to begin with is hardly proof that said laws "work" universally.

I mean, the definition of DUI is pretty much the same in the US & UK. And despite that, only one of the 2 has a problem with DUI (and on that subject, you're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver in the US than you are to be murdered).

 

[SirDuff]

I've not seen any proof of that, ever. Adding strict gun laws in a nation that didn't HAVE a gun problem to begin with is hardly proof that said laws "work" universally.

Which is what I was trying to get at with my comment about countries that are able to pass strict gun laws being different (not better or worse) than countries that don't/cannot. Not sure that you can extrapolate what happens in one country (assuming that we can even agree on that) to what will happen in others.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

This is an interesting article from the Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Homicide Trends in the U.S, 1980-2008

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so - with or without a gun. Accidents happen when driving a car, playing baseball, swimming, walking through your own backyard. There will always be unfortunate casualties - with or without guns. Freedom is the result of unfortunate casualties. Whether it be the ability to live in a free nation or the freedom to bear arms.



People who feel guns are rarely a form of protection are not taking into consideration of the reason why. Criminals do not seek out gun owners or businesses who allow conceal carry to target. They seek out schools, churches or other places where people are vulnerable when they want to pull off a mass attack. Thats why you "rarely" hear of them being used for protection. When you are protected, you are far less likely to actually have to use the protection.

The thing about using a gun for protection is this - most of the time, you can do so successfully without actually killing your attacker. In fact, most of the time, you don't even need to fire a shot.


BTW, I've also seen statistics refuting that recent Harvard study. Most indicate "justifiable homicides" are a much more significant percentage of homicides than that one study indicates.

 

[ZachnElli]

But many, many gun deaths are not from people who are criminal most of the time, It is that split second things when an argument over texting in a movie theatre turns into someone being shot to death, the "self defense" that goes way over the top, or a perceived threat which is not even there being dealt with with deadly force, etc. .

I don't know where you live, but I live in Omaha where we have ALOT of gun crime and most of our gun crime is criminals killing/shooting other criminals or innocent people. It is not law abiding conceal & carry owners shooting people. That does happen, but not nearly as much, and the only cases I've seen have been home invasions. The shooting in the theater over a text message made news because it's RARE. The vast majority of gun crimes are illegally obtained guns used to commit another crime, it is not "from people who are not criminal most of the time." Did you see that 12 year old on the national news this week wanted for first degree murder in a shooting death? That was here. A 12, 15 and a 17 year old all had guns. Do you think they bothered with the ccw class? Do you think they obtained their guns legally? They shot and killed one man and shot another man during a drug deal. Other than the ages of the kids involved, this is pretty common here, and it barely gets any news. We also lost a police officer in May, that was a straw purchase gun, the gun was purchased by a woman in Georgia for a gang member here in Omaha. Any new laws and many current laws are just punishing law abiding citizens just trying to protect themselves and their families.

 

[Domo]

Just in case anyone is interested, the statistics I am quoting are (all directly related to firearms; per 100,000 population per year):

UK - Homicide rates - 0.05; Suicide rates - 0.17; Unintentional rates - 0.01

USA - Homicide rates - 3.55; Suicide rates - 6.70; Unintentional rates - 0.16

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Why keep posting facts, you're just wasting your time. The uninformed just keep taking info from govt officials who bend the numbers to make it look like they did domething good.

Meh, it's a discussion - on a Disney board. Gumbo does a pretty good job, without being insulting, of presenting his views. I, for one, like hearing what he has to say.

I don't think one has to be completely on one "side" or the other, either, to have a discussion - many people probably fall somewhere in the middle. So a discussion is good.

The thing about using a gun for protection is this - most of the time, you can do so successfully without actually killing your attacker. In fact, most of the time, you don't even need to fire a shot. BTW, I've also seen statistics refuting that recent Harvard study. Most indicate "justifiable homicides" are a much more significant percentage of homicides than that one study indicates.

Which?

 

[Planogirl]

Militias don't have constitutional rights. People do.

Having said that, I am not a fan of open carry, particularly of long guns, except in certain circumstances.

But a militia is mentioned. I think that this would be clearer if our founding fathers hadn't found it necessary to include that phrase.

 

[Domo]

Meh, it's a discussion - on a Disney board.

Mmhm. I have an opinion and others have their opinions; it is unlikely I am going to change everyone's minds so I should probably pipe down

 

[Christine]

But a militia is mentioned. I think that this would be clearer if our founding fathers hadn't found it necessary to include that phrase.

That was their world at the time. They had just spend a long time trying to get out from under an oppressive government. Many citizens were in untamed areas and needed to organized for protection. It doesn't surprise me that a new country would write up something like that with regard to militias.

 

[Planogirl]

That was their world at the time. They had just spend a long time trying to get out from under an oppressive government. Many citizens were in untamed areas and needed to organized for protection. It doesn't surprise me that a new country would write up something like that with regard to militias.

In that context it definitely made sense for our founding fathers to phrase it in that manner. I do often wonder what they would say about our nation now. Things have changed so radically and I'm sure in ways that they never pictured.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But a militia is mentioned. I think that this would be clearer if our founding fathers hadn't found it necessary to include that phrase.

Ambiguity has a long tradition in our government, eh?

I liken it to this example: "With the likelihood of thunderstorms, the right of the people to keep & bear umbrellas shall not be infringed". Now, does mean we're only permitted to carry umbrellas in thunderstorms? What about light rain? What about a forecast of rain? What about a sunny day?

Also, one need only look at the 1st Amendment and how it's interpreted to see the 2nd as an individual right, not a collective one.

 

[Planogirl]

Ambiguity has a long tradition in our government, eh?

I liken it to this example: "With the likelihood of thunderstorms, the right of the people to keep & bear umbrellas shall not be infringed". Now, does mean we're only permitted to carry umbrellas in thunderstorms? What about light rain? What about a forecast of rain? What about a sunny day?

Also, one need only look at the 1st Amendment and how it's interpreted to see the 2nd as an individual right, not a collective one.

Just watch out for horses. I had to search for it but this is supposedly a law in Alabama:
"It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses."

Umbrellas aside, it's also the responsibility of the government to promote the general welfare. Are they doing so with such high crime rates compared to so many other nations? But can anything really be done?

This is interesting to mull over but I will personally avoid any business where people who carry long arms frequent. I'm not saying to ban anything but I don't feel comfortable around them.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Mmhm. I have an opinion and others have their opinions; it is unlikely I am going to change everyone's minds so I should probably pipe down

Nope, we want to hear your thoughts, too, Domo.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Meh, it's a discussion - on a Disney board. Gumbo does a pretty good job, without being insulting, of presenting his views. I, for one, like hearing what he has to say.

I don't think one has to be completely on one "side" or the other, either, to have a discussion - many people probably fall somewhere in the middle. So a discussion is good.


Which?

The study PP listed earlier showing criminal homicides & suicides in comparison to "justifiable" homicides.

That one indicates justifiable homicides are a tiny fraction of all homicides. I've seen stats that are all over the map on this one - some indicating that the opposote is true, many somewhere in the middle.

The problem is that many homicides are not properly classified. And there's little consistency between agencies. So when I see a stat indicating justifiable homicides are as much as 2/3 of all homicides and another indicating they're less than 2%, I get the feeling the real number is neither.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Nope, we want to hear your thoughts, too, Domo.

I agree - ditto for PP who "bowed out".

 

[Domo]

Nope, we want to hear your thoughts, too, Domo.

That's very kind of you, but as many of you might have coined, most of my thoughts involve bacon

 

[gottaluvPluto]

Just in case anyone is interested, the statistics I am quoting are (all directly related to firearms; per 100,000 population per year):

UK - Homicide rates - 0.05; Suicide rates - 0.17; Unintentional rates - 0.01

USA - Homicide rates - 3.55; Suicide rates - 6.70; Unintentional rates - 0.16

Can you give a link to where you got this information? One thing I have learned in life is that anyone can sway information to their way of thinking. So I always look at how they obtained the information, the exact information that was collected, how each country decides what information gets put in processes.

 

[Domo]

Can you give a link to where you got this information? One thing I have learned in life is that anyone can sway information to their way of thinking. So I always look at how they obtained the information, the exact information that was collected, how each country decides what information gets put in processes.

I'll look it up for you. I think it was the University of Sydney? Mind you, I've seen a LOT of statistics all very similar to these so I guess it's a case of take your pick

As I said though, I'll look it up for you.