Rob's 2nd Amendment Thread

[Bleyseng]

I don't think my friends are at risk at all, they think they are.
"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."
Lots has been written about this but as I understand it the 2nd was written for the continued legality of the local militias that kept the peace and went after escaped slaves. The was no USA military when this was written so having well regulated local militias and a population that had arms was part of the defense of the country. I find the NRA saying that it was to have the right to overthrow the government BS. We have a huge standing army now and the local gun owners wouldn't stand a chance against them so why do they need to own military style guns? They don't as they are crappy for hunting and who needs them in their homes. A handgun or shotgun works fine for defense.

[Hippie]

I keep getting stuck on the "people" and the "infringed" words. Can you tell me why and how you find the right to overthrow the government (a government run amock) is BS? If it is the case, that there is/has been no deterence factor of a totalitarian coup, or whatever in the 240 years of this nation, and now because of the huge standing army, then perhaps we should disarm the standing army and lock up their weapons in civilian controlled facilities. Overseas duty notwithstanding, of course. Adolf Hitler and Stalin seemed to disagree with your point of view, by the way, about seeing to it that there were perhaps a few less armed, potential assasins amongst the workers.

Another thing I can't seem to get past, is you say there is little risk of crime, because of your personal experience, then what's the hubub about needing to take away "assault weapons." Which is it?
Are you sure you are thinking and not just feeling? The two get confused all of the time...Done it myself more than a few times. We're all only human.

Enjoy a movie and tell me what you think? (May contain graphic images)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7vNj2sb_00

This one is kind of fun, but creeps me out, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... FfVeXhtRa0

[Hippie]

PS Here are the homicide safety stats you ordered:

From the U.N. World Health Organization:
Murders per 100,000 citizens

Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote d'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
US Virgin Islands 39.2
Guatemala 38.5
Saint Kits and Nevis 38.2
Zambia 38.0
Uganda 36.3
Malawi 36.0
Lesotho 35.2
Trinidad and Tobago 35.2
Colombia 33.4
South Africa 31.8
Congo 30.8
Central African Republic 29.3
Bahamas 27.4
Puerto Rico 26.2
Saint Lucia 25.2
Dominican Republic 25.0
Tanzania 24.5
Sudan 24.2
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 22.9
Ethiopia 22.5
Guinea 22.5
Dominica 22.1
Burundi 21.7
Democratic Republic of the Congo 21.7
Panama 21.6
Brazil 21.0
Equatorial Guinea 20.7
Guinea-Bissau 20.2
Kenya 20.1
Kyrgyzstan 20.1
Cameroon 19.7
Montserrat 19.7
Greenland 19.2
Angola 19.0
Guyana 18.6
Burkina Faso 18.0
Eritrea 17.8
Namibia 17.2
Rwanda 17.1
Mexico 16.9
Chad 15.8
Ghana 15.7
Ecuador 15.2
North Korea 15.2
Benin 15.1
Sierra Leone 14.9
Mauritania 14.7
Botswana 14.5
Zimbabwe 14.3
Gabon 13.8
Nicaragua 13.6
French Guiana 13.3
Papua New Guinea 13.0
Swaziland 12.9
Bermuda 12.3
Comoros 12.2
Nigeria 12.2
Cape Verde 11.6
Grenada 11.5
Paraguay 11.5
Barbados 11.3
Togo 10.9
Gambia 10.8
Peru 10.8
Myanmar 10.2
Russia 10.2
Liberia 10.1
Costa Rica 10.0
Nauru 9.8
Bolivia 8.9
Mozambique 8.8
Kazakhstan 8.8
Senegal 8.7
Turks and Caicos Islands 8.7
Mongolia 8.7
British Virgin Islands 8.6
Cayman Islands 8.4
Seychelles 8.3
Madagascar 8.1
Indonesia 8.1
Mali 8.1
Pakistan 7.8
Moldova 7.5
Kiribati 7.3
Guadeloupe 7.0
Haiti 6.9
Timor-Leste 6.9
Anguilla 6.8
Antigua and Barbuda 6.8
Lithuania 6.6
Uruguay 5.9
Philippines 5.4
Ukraine 5.2
Estonia 5.2
Cuba 5.0
Belarus 4.9
Thailand 4.8
Suriname 4.6
Laos 4.6
Georgia 4.3
Martinique 4.2
The United States 4.2

[JLT]

PS Here are the homicide safety stats you ordered:

From the U.N. World Health Organization:
Murders per 100,000 citizens

Honduras 91.6
<snip>
The United States 4.2

Where's the rest of the list? There is only one European country on it (Russia) and a very few Asian countries. The rest are, by and large, African and South American countries. The one common denominator seems to be that the higher the standard of living and the lower the rate of poverty and the more efficient the legal system is, the fewer gun deaths there are. That's certainly a telling statistic. But like all statistics, it requires a little nuancing to be significant. To show only the data that seems to support your argument without giving us the rest of the data -- the whole picture -- strikes me as disingenuous.

Which reminds me. Rob, you asked where I got those statistics on the rise of gun deaths. They came from the National Academy of Science's National Research Council, via USA Today. But I should have added that the numbers rose steadily in the 1990's and then leveled off, more or less, in the last decade (still a rise, but much slower). What is significant is that accidental deaths have been dropping over the last decade, which means that deaths by homicide are now taking up more of the pie.

But we've hit on something here, you and I. Impartial analyses of the data are hard to come by. We deserve to have the statistics broken down into meaningful categories -- accidental deaths, deaths by homicide due to crimes of passion, deaths by homicide due to criminal activity, deaths due to law enforcement, and so on -- so that we can pinpoint the trends. That's information we can all use. And that's why the NRA's putting pressure on the CDC to cease their analysis of the data is so distressing. We need somebody to put this data into coherent form that we can all understand. I'd do it, but I'm busy this week.

As for the second amendment argument that citizens were empowered to keep and bear arms as a check on the power of government, I can only say that when I read the amendment, I don't see that. I see that the founders saw the need for citizens to create well-regulated militias (in the absence of a standing army) to provide whatever military power that the government needed, and they needed an armed citizenry to provide that militia. The militia's power was to be directed against those who threatened the nation from without, which was a very real threat for a young, weak nation contesting against older, well-established, and powerful nations (England and Spain) who were at its borders on the north and south. But then, I'm not a constitutional scholar, just a guy who is trying to make sense of it all.

[denjohn]

Fortunately, I don't feel the need to defend a strong opinion on this and until recent consideration could probably be said to be a bit on the control side of center.
But a powerful example, that has much broader implications, that has shifted me more to the 'right' is to imagine you have three movie theaters in your area, one of them bans firearms inside, two allow firearms inside.
If you you are a nutjob who sees a moviehouse as a great place to shoot-up a bunch of folks.....where are you going to go?
It does add considerable credence to the cliché "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

[Bleyseng]

"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."
As for the second amendment argument that citizens were empowered to keep and bear arms as a check on the power of government, I can only say that when I read the amendment I don't see it. On reading all about this amendment it was included at the behest of the Slave States as they had or wanted to legalize their militias that protected the whites from slaves (rebellions) and caught escaped slaves (like the KKK).
The Northern states thought it was a good idea to follow England and have a armed population in case of a war as there wasn't going to be a standing army.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-th ... ve-slavery

Assault weapons or whatever you want to label them aren't hunting or really for personal protection, they are semi-auto guns for rapid fire to kill people. No body needs them, period.

On your statistics, these are murder rates with what weapons, guns? I see Suriname is at 4.6 but here the weapon of choice is a machete or "Hower" in crimes of passion as everyone has one for cutting everything from coconuts to trimming trees. Guns? not too many people can afford a gun here except illegal ones brought over from French Guyana.

[RussellK]

Assault weapons or whatever you want to label them aren't hunting or really for personal protection, they are semi-auto guns for rapid fire to kill people. No body needs them, period.

I'm opposed to determining what law abiding citizens should have based on bias against need. Someone else could make a strong case against the need for a poor mileage, pollution belching, rolling breadbox.
I am in favor of screenings prior to ownership and possibly restrictions on clip capacity and ammo types. I'm on the fence with registration. I think only law abiding citizen will ever be in compliance anyway. I think we'll be disappointed with the results of an outright ban on assault weapons. I think carnage will continue but once we head down this path other guns will be in our sights. We are in a sick society and until we admit it the means may change but not the results.
Nevertheless the bias against guns seems to be growing. Case in point. Recently my wife had to complete a heath survey for one of her doctors. One of the questions was "are there guns in your house" When she asked why that was on the survey she was told it's to determine if the home is a safe environment. They didn't ask how many tables with sharp corners are there, how's the mental state of the spouse or is the stove adequately vented, just if there are guns. How utterly simplistic that seems.

[Amskeptic]

They didn't ask how many tables with sharp corners are there, how's the mental state of the spouse or is the stove adequately vented, just if there are guns. How utterly simplistic that seems.

Well Russell, the insurance companies are here to help.

Actuarial tables show that gun-possessing households are at a 4.5 times greater risk for gun injury or death. What hospital or urgent care facility would not want to know what the gun population is in a given community?

Likewise (and wholly parenthetically), insurance companies are most interested in global warming now that they see payouts increasing along the shores.

Facts n profit. . .
. . . beats ideology n idealism.

[Bleyseng]

But we already had a ban on assault type weapons!!! We have been down this road and it did work. We already have a bias as to what citizens should have vs need - The ban on machine guns and military hardware.
What's wrong with registration? We register to vote, drive a car which again are rights. Taxation of guns and ammo like smokes will help to pay for all the damage guns to citizens.

[Hippie]

[Where’s the rest of the list?]

That was the point. I could add Switzerland as a gun country, low, or England, Australia, low, but basically unchanged since massive gun legislation. The point was to show the cultural connection, and the disconnect between gun ownership and murder rates.

Which reminds me. Rob, you asked where I got those statistics on the rise of gun deaths. They came from the National Academy of Science's National Research Council, via USA Today.

Thank you. They seem legit, but then so does the Harvard Health Study…until you get to the bottom of the page and find it was sponsored by the Joyce Foundation. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... murdermain
• FBI overview: “An estimated 14,748 persons were murdered nationwide in 2010. This was a 4.2 percent decrease from the 2009 estimate, a 14.8 percent decrease from the 2006 figure, and an 8.0 percent decrease from the 2001 estimate.
• In 2010, there were 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, a 4.8 percent decrease from the 2009 rate. Compared with the 2006 rate, the murder rate decreased 17.4 percent, and compared with the 2001 rate, the murder rate decreased 15.0 percent. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
• Nearly 44 percent of murders were reported in the South, the most populous region, with 20.6 percent reported in the West, 19.9 percent reported in the Midwest, and 15.6 percent reported in the Northeast. (See Table 3.)

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.[/i]
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-th ... ve-slavery

Well if we are going to post biased media editorials in lieu of possibly neutral studies, then I can dig some up sponsored by the posted by the NRA that show otherwise. Note that I have avoided this...and will, as much as I can. Bob Schieffer has already discredited himself as a journalist by doing this.
Problem is, if there is no benefit to certain gun laws, then what is the real agenda here?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 01,00.html

But we already had a ban on assault type weapons!!! We have been down this road and it did work.

What did it do for us? Mass killings are pretty difficult to plot on a chart due to their random timing, especially over a period of less than 10 years.

I’m not sure it did anything for other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
Number of incidents listed
Africa/Middle East
83
Americas
118
Asia
126
Europe
100
Oceania/Maritime Southeast Asia
139
Workplace
96
Educational settings
64
Hate crimes
27
Home intruders
79
Familicides - US
111
Familicides - Europe
103
Familicides - Rest of world
139
Vehicular
34
Grenade
28
Other
36
Total 1283

On your statistics, these are murder rates with what weapons, guns?

I dunno. Does a gun make you deader?

Assault weapons or whatever you want to label them aren't hunting or really for personal protection, they are semi-auto guns for rapid fire to kill people. No body needs them, period.

This man would disagree with your expert opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY- ... g&index=50
You still think prohibition works to keep things out of the hands of criminals, apparently. Interesting.

Actuarial tables show that gun-possessing households are at a 4.5 times greater risk for gun injury or death. What hospital or urgent care facility would not want to know what the gun population is in a given community?

Uh…Yeah… And people who own cars are more likely to be in an auto accident.

I'm opposed to determining what law abiding citizens should have based on bias against need. Someone else could make a strong case against the need for a poor mileage, pollution belching, rolling breadbox.

I sort of already made that case, but when no one can counter the logic, they ignore it.

[JLT]

[Where’s the rest of the list?]

That was the point. I could add Switzerland as a gun country, low, or England, Australia, low, but basically unchanged since massive gun legislation. The point was to show the cultural connection, and the disconnect between gun ownership and murder rates.

Ah. Switzerland. It's a sort of special case, because gun ownership is encouraged, in the sense that every male in military service has to have a rifle, and they're allowed to keep them when discharged (the theory being that they may be recalled to active duty at any time, I believe). But a far higher proportion of gun fatalities are suicides than in other parts of the world. Here's a website that may prove illuminating:

http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting ... ws-2012-12

Mass killings are pretty difficult to plot on a chart due to their random timing, especially over a period of less than 10 years.

Agreed. I wouldn't want to defend the thesis that they're getting more frequent, or that that they'll get more frequent still. It's enough that they're there at all and continue to be a fixture. And it might be said that rapid-fire guns and large magazines make these killings more deadly ... at least, that's what some law enforcement people are saying.

On your statistics, these are murder rates with what weapons, guns?

I dunno. Does a gun make you deader?

As a matter of fact, yes. At least, it greatly increases the possibility of the victim being dead instead of injured, as a moment's thought will tell you. There's also the factor of relative strength: a smaller person finds it harder to inflict a fatal injury on a larger person when armed with a knife or a baseball bat, but even a six-year old can kill an NFL linebacker with a pistol. the Colt's revolver wasn't called "the Great Equalizer" for nothing.

Assault weapons or whatever you want to label them aren't hunting or really for personal protection, they are semi-auto guns for rapid fire to kill people. No body needs them, period.

This man would disagree with your expert opinion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuhKCiY- ... g&index=50

It was not stated that the homeowner used a "semi-auto gun for rapid fire." And I would be the last to say that homeowners don't have a right to defend themselves, and that no burglary or assault has ever been prevented by a vigilant gun user. But the reality is that that gun is still far more likely to end up killing an innocent victim than a malefactor.

Actuarial tables show that gun-possessing households are at a 4.5 times greater risk for gun injury or death. What hospital or urgent care facility would not want to know what the gun population is in a given community?

Uh…Yeah… And people who own cars are more likely to be in an auto accident.

We were talking about risks in the home, not on the street. Very few people suffer fatal automobile accidents in their homes. (And if sharp corners and poorly vented stoves were as significant factors as the presence of a gun, I'm sure that the health surveyors would be asking about them, too. I don't know if they ask questions about the mental health of others in the household, but agencies like child protection services certainly do.)

Most of the commentary on this subject has been what we can't do, what we mustn't do. Anybody have some ideas on what we can do? On the other thread, I lightheardedly suggested a tax of a penny a round to subsidize mental health. Okay, that might have been a little extreme. Maybe a penny a box would be better. But the more I thought about it, the less crazy the idea seemed to me. We use gasoline taxes to pay not only for roads but for crosswalks and lights to protect pedestrians, because those of us who use cars have an interest in protecting those who don't from danger from cars. Shouldn't gun users have an interest in protecting those in danger from guns?

[RussellK]

Actuarial tables show that gun-possessing households are at a 4.5 times greater risk for gun injury or death. What hospital or urgent care facility would not want to know what the gun population is in a given community?

Facts n profit. . .
. . . beats ideology n idealism.

That's a lot like saying households with dogs have greater risk of dog bite. Well sure. What would be more useful would be a statistic telling me how many gun owning households are there and how are they doing. We simply don't know that. On my own block in a city with far too many nightly shootings I simply don't know who has one gun, two guns or none. I do know in 25 years there have been 0 gun related injuries or deaths but 1 death from a fall. Interestingly my insurance company has never asked if there is a gun in the house but they want to know if I own a Collie and what are our pipes made of.

[RussellK]

But we already had a ban on assault type weapons!!! We have been down this road and it did work. We already have a bias as to what citizens should have vs need - .

Did it work? The CDC, a pretty good compiler of data, has no strong opinion. l agree there are more gun related deaths today than during the ban. How do we know its the gun at fault and not something else. Like a greater propensity for violence.
Which is why I suggest we may find ourselves disappointed with the results. In my town with nightly shootings and a least one gun related death weekly its not assault weapons being used. I just hope we aren't misdirecting our energy

[Hippie]

Ah. Switzerland. It's a sort of special case, because gun ownership is encouraged, in the sense that every male in military service has to have a rifle, and they're allowed to keep them when discharged (the theory being that they may be recalled to active duty at any time, I believe). But a far higher proportion of gun fatalities are suicides than in other parts of the world. Here's a website that may prove illuminating:
http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting ... ws-2012-12

I don't see the relevance of the reason why there are military style weapons in most the homes, as a special case.
Suicides, as stated, are a matter of convenience. If someone didn't have a gun handy, you might save some lives, but you would probably lose more on the back-end. It's hard to escape one's self once the decision is made, and prohibitions tend to increase crimes and deaths elsewhere. The suicide argument is pretty non-valid, and I'm done responding to that issue. It's been brought up three times now, and it's getting repetitive and non-productive.

On your statistics, these are murder rates with what weapons, guns?

I dunno. Does a gun make you deader?

As a matter of fact, yes. At least, it greatly increases the possibility of the victim being dead instead of injured, as a moment's thought will tell you. There's also the factor of relative strength: a smaller person finds it harder to inflict a fatal injury on a larger person when armed with a knife or a baseball bat, but even a six-year old can kill an NFL linebacker with a pistol. the Colt's revolver wasn't called "the Great Equalizer" for nothing.

Isn't that the point? So my wife has a chance against three guys with machetes in the living room at 3 AM?
Criminals adapt, obviously. The homicide rate is a cultural thing. Dead is dead. There is no real evidence that draconian gun laws for law abiding citizens affect the criminal element's ability to kill, or possess guns, or reduce the death rate. The drug prohibition may have saved a life here, and cost three elsewhere. It’s a disaster, and the more restrictive the laws become, the more this reaction happens. Interestingly, the media and the governments are well aware of this.

It was not stated that the homeowner used a "semi-auto gun for rapid fire." And I would be the last to say that homeowners don't have a right to defend themselves, and that no burglary or assault has ever been prevented by a vigilant gun user. But the reality is that that gun is still far more likely to end up killing an innocent victim than a malefactor.

I’ll admit this was an anecdotal case, but the fact remains that far more lives are saved by the presence of guns in the hands of the potential victims, than are ever discharged. When one type or another gun is banned, the crazies grab something else. Then there is a push to ban that. The cycle repeats until only the outlaws have black market guns (or gangs with machetes…or Super Soakers filled with kerosene in the auditorium…or a Ryder truck through the bus stop when school lets out.) The only disarmed people are you and your family.
You just don’t see it reported on television. It doesn’t make good copy, and it doesn’t forward the medias’ private agenda.
[quote="JLT]We were talking about risks in the home, not on the street. Very few people suffer fatal automobile accidents in their homes...[/quote]
What is the motivation for narrowing the accident discussions to the home? My point remains valid.

Most of the commentary on this subject has been what we can't do, what we mustn't do. Anybody have some ideas on what we can do? On the other thread, I lightheardedly suggested a tax of a penny a round to subsidize mental health. Okay, that might have been a little extreme. Maybe a penny a box would be better. But the more I thought about it, the less crazy the idea seemed to me. We use gasoline taxes to pay not only for roads but for crosswalks and lights to protect pedestrians, because those of us who use cars have an interest in protecting those who don't from danger from cars. Shouldn't gun users have an interest in protecting those in danger from guns?

Let's not make things worse with knee jerk reactions so we can "feel" like we are doing something. It's not worked before. That is my point. I think gun buyers should receive basic safety training, as I stated before, since the parents (if there are two present anymore) do not seem to teach people how to operate and store them safely in their absence, as reliably in previous generations.

[Bleyseng]

Its not a "knee Jerk" reaction, it was a law before and it did help. Bans do to that.

What is interesting is most gun owners talk about their wife needing protection etc from creeps entering the home. An assault rifle is the weapon of choice for her? Does not make any sense to me.

I have yet to meet in 60 years someone personally who had a robber come into their home who was armed with a gun. My neighbor had a group of 3 come in at 3AM, wake them up, beat the shit out of them and force them to hand over what cash was in the house. They just sold their car that night so this group knew they had cash at home. This was about 6 months ago. What would a gun/assault rife do in this case? Nothing as these guys woke them up and them hit them with baseball bats.

I am just sick and tired of the fear, paranoia that the "right", NRA, Foxnews is pushing onto the USA. Scare tactics! If you can't get them to vote for you because you have a good plan, scare the shit out of them so they will follow you with their votes. There is no reason for this paranoia as there isn't a zombie attack in the US, get over your fear as really no one is going to break into your house and rob you at gun point unless you live in Africa.

Now the shootings because of these wacko's is another story.