Freedom begets freedom

[kallipolis]

Guns are part of freedom. They are the only thing citizens have that give hope of retaining a free state, and its security. One of the big arguments in favor of the Second Amendment was that the security of a free state requires that the citizens be able to overthrow the government should it "become destructive of these ends".

These words we can agree on.

 

[Kulindahr]

The most critical part of the study requires the study of those who have ACTUALLY been shot, before studying everybody. Its the key statistic they need, so makes common sense to start with that demographic. They then carried out a broader study to compensate for the imbalance in the results, one that inevitably encompasses more criminals than anyone else. When authorities conduct exit polls, they can be pretty accurate no? They are not required to wait for every result in order to make a sound approximation.

No. If you're going to make claims about a certain population, the key thing you need is the entire population. That population's definition is the primary attribute. The phenomenon under study about that population is the secondary. By putting the secondary into the first position, you've lost all ability to address the actual question. You'll have studied something, but it won't be what's claimed.

So whilst i am happy to accept the stats you mention are accurate in their study, i can't view them as showing a credible result. Credible results are shown on a larger scale. Comparing national statistics to international statistics prove the opposite to your Chicago example. Gun crime and murder rates go DOWN with strict regulation or the removal of guns.

All that comparing things in the U.S. to things outside the U.S. tend to do is show that these are not alike.

Are you purposefully trying to insult my intelligence? Just curious.

Firstly, nobody is suggesting that 'the people' means part of the government. The government is part of the people, so no argument to be had there.

Then that settles it. The amendment states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the statement of the right being protected.

The meaning of militia is quite clearly understood to be an organised group, or a representative group 'well regulated' to be called upon to defend the rights of the people in order to secure a free state. The free state refers to your own country, not you as an individual. Thus, it does not suggest that every person be armed.

"The people" refers to individuals. That's all that matters. Mentioning "the militia" serves one function only: it gives a -- not "the", but a reason that the right should be protected.

The purpose is to secure a free state, not to secure your individual right to self defence. Everybody being armed does not constitute 'well regulated'.

George Washington would be surprised at that claim. In letters to Congress from the attempt to defend New York, he mentioned that certain units were not well-regulated, and listed as one item of that, that they could not provide their own weapons -- specifically, he indicates that a well-regulated militia is one that, when summoned, already has its current-technology military gear. In another instance he praises a unit for being well-regulated, one reason being that when some of their members could not provide weapons for themselves, the others provided for them, so that everyone was well-armed.

It was observed that if the militia had all been well-regulated, the British would never had dared land troops, because every person would have had, and brought from home, their current military-grade weapons, and shown up at the landing area to outnumber the invader thirty or forty to one. That's why Patrick Henry said, "THe great goal is that every man be armed": to have a well-regulated militia means that every individual is armed, not with government-issue weapons, but with his own, kept at home.

BTW, that's what "keep" means in there: to have in one's personal possession and available for use without having to ask anyone else.

Surely the public cannot have that choice? If it is illegal to choose a weapon and ammunition with the aim to kill, it must also be illegal to manufacture and sell such to the public, no? If a weapon is more likely to kill when used, surely it shouldn't be sold.

Huh?
That's like saying since the speed limit is 90 kph, it must be illegal to manufacture automobiles that go faster.

There are other uses for an auto than just to drive the speed limit. There are other kinds of ammunition that what is proper for self-defense.

Actually, in terms of facing a criminal, the criminal has a means of making sure the defender's weapon doesn't kill: surrender. That's just another reason why if the criminal dies, it was his choice.

Funnily enough, that is EXACTLY how we do things here in the UK. With one exception, an armed police response unit is called in, if they have to deal with somebody who is considered armed and dangerous, brandishing a firearm or wearing explosives for example. The police go about their crime fighting without firearms, just a baton and pepper-spray. The military carries weapons when they are on duty, but its unworkable to confine them just to base, if they are on duty, they have a right to be equipped for purpose.

Neither police nor soldiers, in pursuit of their duty, have any rights. No representative of the government, acting as such, has rights -- they have only authority, which rests on the rights of the people. That's why no act of government which violates personal rights is moral or valid.

And you have my sympathy, sincerely. But its very odd, the majority of us here do not want the conservative party in power, but we don't fear it, we just don't like it. The main parties here are not sooooo different that we have to really worry about who holds power. Is it really so bad over there?

If these people get power.... Have you read things they intend? Gays could be denied anything -- job, housing, schooling, medical assistance, anything at all, merely for being gay.

When you have candidates who hang around with folks who preach that it should be legal for a crowd who discover someone is gay to take him and stone him to death, without asking cops or courts, candidates who agree with and approve of people who maintain that no abortion should be allowed, and having one should be a felony of the worst kind....

it's time to start cleaning the rifles.

Not true. Its obvious that 'most' people can be trusted. But not everybody can, that's a fact. Choosing to sacrifice 'some' freedom, to prevent the damage that can be created by the few who cannot be trusted is not a bad thing. We haven't lost any sense of freedom or liberty.

And the default position in a free country has to be that people can be trusted until they demonstrate otherwise.

Absolutely untrue. The greatest weapon that people have is WILL. This was regarded by Hitler to be Russia's unaccounted asset, and one of the 3 reasons he believed he lost the war (from the memoirs of his foreign secretary).

How much would that Russian will have counted for without free arms from the U.S.?

When the people are unarmed, a government can send in troops and abuse the people at will -- as has been done more than once to Occupy protestors. When the people are armed, that is not the case.

 

[Kulindahr]

The claim is not about a certain population. It is a comparison between shootings and weapon carrying, to which a statistic can then be applied.
The study needs two pieces of information. 1. How many people carry weapons and how many don't, and 2. How many people have been shot and how many have not. The latter can be satisfactorily understood by subtracting the number of shooting victims from the total population, no need to ask everybody. The former question provides just an accurate reflection by first dividing shooting victims into the 'carrying' and 'not carrying' groups, just the same way that an exit poll is carried out on a fraction of the total. But the study recognised rightfully (otherwise they wouldn't have carried out cross-comparisons to a broader demograhic), that the results would be disingenuous without accounting for the fact that there was a 3rd question in play, i.e. who is a criminal and who is not. Without further study, they would have revealed a much higher statistic of an individuals liklihood of being shot, and a statistic that WOULD be skewed.

So what you're saying is that TRexx was lying about the study. Yay.

The definition of people is a collective of individuals. If the text meant individuals, it should have been noted as "A person", not "The people".

So you're saying that the rights guaranteed to "the people" in the Bill of Rights apply only to very large groups? So the police can search any individual, or any individual's home or property, at will, because "the people" means "a collective of individuals"? That notion is bound to raise some eyebrows.

Oh i see. So Patrick Henry said it, is he like the american Jesus? If, as i suspect, he was an anti-federalist, the statement is hardly a surprise. It doesn't make it the best course of action. And HIS statements have an historical basis which modern day anti-federalists do not have, the US is not a fledgling nation anymore, it is well established. So arguing his specific point from an historical perspective holds little weight to a modern america, as evidenced by the divide on the 2nd amendment debate.

He said it because it was commonly understood as the best course of action. And the only difference in historical basis today is that we're too far removed in terms of comfort to recognize what he did. We even fail to recognize that the right has been key in other places in much more recent times -- and fail to remember that even Gandhi referred to disarming the people as a great sin.

Its not all disimiliar to the split in religion, where fundamentalists insist the literal word overrides the modern contextual view.

And scholars tell both of them that it means what it meant to the original hearers -- nothing more, nothing less.

It may well have been what Patrick Henry envisaged, but that does not mean the Framers held the same view, in fact, James Madison didn't even account for the possibility that States would be under threat from Federal government, or at least didn't consider it a real concern. At the time the constitution was created, it was a very valid concern of anti-federalists to be concerned about tyranny from a newly establishing federal government. The whole concept of the 2nd amendment is to protect the state from foreign or federal aggressors. Perhaps i should really stay out of this debate due to being a little bias as a brit. The concerns that seem to loom over some americans just seems irrational when compared to nations that don't have and certainly as hell didn't in the 1800s, a Bill of Rights protecting people from the authority.

Protection from criminals is also part of it; that was understood as part of why good Englishmen could bear arms. Remember, this is something the colonists didn't invent, it's something they had as Englishmen (if Britain had just let them be Englishmen, and not tried to turn them into chattel, there never would have been a Revolution).

Well-regulated means controlled, not just in good working order. And for the purpose of its intent, its pretty obvious that well regulated doesn't just refer to the weapons, but to the militia also.

Yes, it refers to the militia -- that they elect their own officers who keep them in order and make sure they're trained. What it doesn't refer to is meddling by anyone from outside -- the only time the militia comes under government authority is when it's called up.

As i understand it, once the constitution was ratified, including all its protections for 'the people', the state militia became todays police force. If anyone has a right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment, its the police (militia), separate from federal government, representative of the people, to protect themselves and their fellow citizens. But the pro-gun lobby insists upon their individual rights, using an amendment specifically introduced to stop government tyranny, to argue why they should be allowed to carry deadly weapons for their own defence against their fellow citizens. I thought Kuli, that people should be trusted??? You did say that right?

No -- the police are apart from the militia; that's a totally different entity. For generations it was understood that the function of the police is to be alert, and should there be a need for armed force, then "raise the hue and cry and summon the well-armed citizenry". Police have no right to weapons; that's a privilege the people have granted them.

The state militia always was, and remains, everyone in the population capable of bearing arms. We got that definition from Britain, particularly Scotland, who knew they had an individual right to bear arms long before the snotty Norman offspring calling themselves "English" came and tried to take it away. Resisting state tyranny is an application of that right, but is no limitation on it.

Yes, people are to be trusted until they show they can't be. We have millions who have shown they can't be, so it's a statistical certainty that someone, somewhere, will be attacked every day in the U.S. -- many someones, in fact.
The wise person goes prepared.

I quite like how Susan Sarandan stated, that if pro-gun supporters want to keep and bear arms, they should be given muskets, in recognition that those were the arms of the day, and that they need nothing more to be suitably equipped to defend themselves.

That's a throw-away line from a moron to entertain morons. She's got the "arms of the day" phrase right, but can't get her brain to figure out that it means the arms of TODAY which are the equivalent of the arms of the day back then. That would be the full-on assault rifle capable of variable fire, holding a bayonet, and being used for launching grenades, with infra-red and other such toys.

I you want to be technical, THAT is what the amendment guarantees: the state-of-the-art individual military weapon of the day.

No disagreement, except that from my point of view 'one' has to be in the militia, not just a citizen.

What do they teach in schools over there these days? Being a citizen IS being in the militia -- that's the definition we got from the bonny Isles!

And a serious and professional criminal will take the more preferential option B, why surrender when he can go prepared and be ready to shoot you first?

Economics. A serious and professional criminal will never go where the citizen might even be present, because the moment you have a live person in the equation, the "cost" of doing business shoots up.

Which is why just about every criminal faced with an armed citizen surrenders: it's the ones who haven't thought it through, i.e. the not-so-bright ones, citizens are going to have to deal with.

But that wouldn't be constitutional would it, gays are people, and all people are equal. Thats how it supposed to go anyway.

These are people who don't like the book Animal Farm, for the reason that they want to be the pigs.

And so you feel secure having a gun, even when all that lot can have one too. I'd think you'd stand a better chance of survival without bullets in the equation. But yeah, i know, you think the opposite. What an impasse.

The only impasse will be if those people get power and so many liberals were so opposed to guns that (once again) a small few will be standing guard for the liberty of the many.
I can't understand how having Bush in office didn't generate a host of liberal militias springing into existence. It's like people just want to be sheep, herded and "managed", or they don't really believe that anything can bother their freedom.
I suppose in the interest of "survival" I could just let myself be rounded up and sent to the re-education camps already proposed for gays. Sounds like fun, huh?

Ah yes, you did say it, people should be trusted. You want a gun on the off-chance someone can't be trusted. So how is your individual desire worth precedence over the anti-gun lobby desire to restrict guns, ban types etc in order to protect the community as a whole, on the off-chance that someone can't be trusted. I know which one has greatest consequences.
1 person dying because they DID'NT have a gun is not nearly as grave as a dozen people dying because 1 person DID.

Fallacy -- you're switching groups of people.

Besides that, I'm preparing myself against a known "community" which engages in harm against others. The anti-gun lobby is imposing restrictions on a community known for not harming others. I'm considering that the community of those who harms people will do so again; they're assuming that the community who don't harm people are sudden;y going to start doing so.

You are right, Hitler was probably clueless about all that before forming his opinion. Tho i doubt it. Nevertheless, plenty of other examples. The chinaman who stood in front of that tank was pretty defenceless but for his will. French resistance didn't stop their fight after occupation. The Spartan army were vastly outnumbered but had resolve. Etc Etc Etc.

And when the SS are coming up the walk with knives for slicing throats -- well, you try to stay alive using resolve, and I'll keep us both alive using bullets.

That was inevitable, a time comes when protestors may easily be viewed as insurrectors.

In which case we've already lost liberty.

 

[EastMed]

It appears gun ownership is at an all-time high in the US, and the gun lobby makes its own contribution to the toxic politics of the country.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/infographic-greatest-gun-salesman-america-president-obama

 

[Kulindahr]

Who said anything about very large groups? It is no indicator of size of group, just that it refers to more than 1 person, thus, NOT an individual.
And i'm pretty certain, that in the course of carrying out their duties, if the police want to search an individual or their property, they have the power to do so already. How is that going to raise anyone's eyebrows?

!!!!

If the police had that power, we'd already be in a totalitarian state.
Cops can't search anyone without permission or a warrant. If a cop stops me and wants to search me, my proper response is to get his name, badge number, and supervising officer, then ask if he has probable cause to believe there has been a crime and I was involved. If he says "no", then I file a complaint. It he says "yes", then I ask for the crime and the statute. If he provides these, I write them down; if he does no, I bid him be on his way and file a complaint. If I have written them down, I then tell him no, he may not search me, and I will answer no questions without an attorney present.

That is the proper duty of any citizen of a free state, to make sure the police behave themselves. Unfortunately, schools aren't teaching that, so today's kids are growing up as sheep.

If an officer searches my property without a warrant, I'll have his badge and probably a $250k settlement from the court.

I'm pretty certain that historians would not only (and do) dispute that Mr Henry's view was NOT commonly understood, but that it was practically unheard of.

And yet the pro-gun lobby insist it means something more than being the safeguard of potential federal tyranny.

Mr. Henry's view was common enough it was considered for the text f the Second Amendment to require everyone to be armed. The Quakers and others pointed out that if you require it, it's no longer a right, and that ended that.

The view was held by Henry, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hancock, and a lot of others. But they felt that no sensible American would ever want to not be armed.

Two points to make here. Firstly, the good Englishmen you refer were not merely 'all individuals', they were part of the 'militia', there was never an inherent right for everyone to be armed.

Tell that to the Scots.
And of course there was an inherent right. That was understood in Celtic culture 'way, 'way back, and (oddly enough) in Norman (Northmen, i.e. Norse and Vikings) as well. The Normans learned differently from the Romanized Franks, so their conqueror culture came into conflict with the traditional culture: allowing everyone to be armed makes it hard to enjoy despotism.

Secondly, there was already an established militia prior to the revolution was there not. And that a split developed between them. Some members had a distrust of those in the militia who were loyal to England. They didn't trust the Loyalists, so created militia of their own. As such, the established militia had good reason to view the new militia as insurrectors. Fight ensues, and before you know it, its no longer a quarrel between militia members, but a quarrel between the colonists and the English. The revolution occurred just as much from the distrust shown towards those who were friendly with England, not solely because there was a dislike of the way England was governed and the desire to do things differently in the new land. Move forward 300+ yrs and it becomes irrelevant, there is little difference between the USA and UK now.

That's an interesting revisionist view of history. Very few in the organized militias went Loyalist.

The Revolution occurred not because of a desire to do things differently, but a desire to be treated like Englishmen, with the traditional rights of Englishmen (including to keep and bear arms). The novelty in things was in London, where an imported foreigner sat on a throne he didn't understand and wanted to treat colonial Englishmen as virtual serfs.

Strange, i thought you were of the view that the militia was 'entirely' separate of government. So it is curious that you now view the militia in the 'swiss' sense. As you have a standing army, and one of the greatest in the world, it doesn't seem necessary to have a 'militia' at all. Furthermore, who is this militia that elects its own officers, keeps them in order and trains them? I assumed that individuals decided to elect themselves, arm themselves and train themselves, since that is what you claim every individual to be, a member of the militia. So actually, they are not elected at all, are they? Its simply individuals taking it upon themselves to take up arms for the benefit of themselves. That is about as far away as well regulated militia as you can get, short of banning bullets.

Wow.

Having a standing army is all the more reason to have a well-regulated militia, meaning fully outfitted and well trained and ready to act!

In a particular militia, yes -- people volunteer. They elect their officers, supply themselves with weapons, drill and practice together -- and that is being well-regulated.

So tell me then, what do the militia do? From where i'm standing, there is nothing for them to do at all, not needed. The military looks after the nation, the police look after the population. The 'privilege' you speak of, is given to them by the people, as elected militia. The police are not merely security guards being alert. Where once there was a sheriff riding his horse around the wild west, you now have a police force. The sheriff would have been the elected representative of the militia (tho not necessarily elected), and he would have his posse of townsfolk functioning as the militia to help him do his duty when needs be. Its absurd to suggest that the role of the police is to 'raise the hue and cry' before letting the public deal with whatever is the threat.

Standing army, added to militarized police, equals a huge need for a militia that's not only well-regulated but proven effective. If we had an active militia, the feds wouldn't have gotten away with murdering people at Waco.

And the police decidedly do not "look after the population". First of all, that's an impossibility, unless you have a police force big enough to literally keep an eye on every last individual at every moment; second, there is no requirement under law for them to do so. They don't protect the populace, they react after the populace didn't get protected.

BTW, yu have it backwards with the sheriff and the posse: he leads them so they can do their duty in exercising their rights.

A fair comment, but missing the point. Sarandan is acknowledging that the negative effects of modern weaponry could never have been accounted for, and if they could have been, would likely have led to a more explicit statement of intent within the amendment, that would have seen the same restriction that existed within the english application of the law. The individual rights view has really led to this? That the amendment doesn't just do what it says on the tin, but seemingly allows everybody to arm themselves against their fellow citizens and with the latest available technology? That is a hell of a lot to read in to what was only ever included in the constitution to allay fears of anti-federalists that their rights wouldn't be infringed upon by the new government. The only people misinterpreting the intent of the amendment, are those who insist they need firearms in order to feel secure.

What the amendment says, using the definition of the terms from the day, is that every individual has the right to own and to haul around the latest in individual military weaponry. To "bear arms" meant to carry, for the purpose of use, the best military weapon for an individual that you could get.

Wrong. The government cannot force people to take up arms, nobody is a part of any militia. It is the people's choice to defend the nation, we have a standing army, a territorial army, and in the worst case scenario, a bullish desire within the common man to protect our homeland. That is all that is needed for security because we do not fear our government, we elect it, we can remove it. We need not fear our fellow citizens because we have a police force to protect us. Where they alone cannot fully defend us, we at least have a fighting chance. A 13yr old girl was stabbed unprovoked last week, she managed to get to a phonebox in a park, she was treated for her injuries but sadly died. Had she been shot, she would probably have died at the scene, no chance.

Trusting in a police force is foolishness. If you really believe that, you've accepted being a sheep, not a man.

"Nobody is a part of any militia"? That's not what the British used to believe! How far you have fallen.... The Founders here knew, from British jurisprudence, that "the militia is the whole of the people". That's what the Second Amendment means, and it's also federal law.

I love that "we elect it, we can remove it" mantra about the government. The real power ion government rests with people not only not elected, but totally unknown. And even the elected portion is not immune -- remember that Hitler came to power quite legitimately. The worst tyrants are those the people think they've chosen.

I believe that would stem from the fact that you are not a totalitarian state, my guess. The republicans may not be popular to some, but they're not nazis.

Let's see...

In the interest of "National Security", they already got us to gut the fourth and fifth amendments, do away with habeus corpus, butcher the right to privacy... they want to make it legal to deny gays not just marriage, but housing, education, and employment merely for being gay... and they're not Nazis?

They WANT a totalitarian state, specific a plutocratic theocracy. If they had free reign, only white Christian landowners would be allowed to hold office, and everyone else would be second- or third-class citizens.

First bolded part: What community? You truly sound paranoid.

Huh?

The criminal community. They're effectively a separate society.

Second bolded part: Two years ago, a man suffered a huge financial crisis which resulted in him about to go brankrupt. He took his legally held rifle, shot his wife, his daughter, his horses, and then himself. So don't try telling me that in a nation where guns are far more prominent in availability and type, that 'trusted' people do not cause harm. Guns are too easily abused.

And I could give a list of people who have been killed by gun, knife, and even pitchfork who would all be alive if it weren't for laws to keep them "safe" by keeping their firearms locked up where they're hard to get at.

Available firearms are the right of anyone who wishes self defense. To tell people they aren't allowed to have their firearms is to tell them the criminals are supposed to win. The real killers of the teen girl and her younger siblings in California wasn't the intruder, but the legislators who made it impossible for her to get to the family guns and protect herself and family.

In part, yes. But that is all it is. A small sacrifice for a meaningful purpose. It provides the counterbalance. Whilst it is essential to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of the many, it must also be accepted that the tyranny of a few can damage the rights of a group. So it is important to always allow enough freedom to protect individual rights, but not so much so that it has a demeaning effect on the rights of groups. Allowing freedom of speech to include hate is great for individuals, but sacrificing the right to be hateful means positevly protecting those groups who would otherwise suffer from the unrestricted individual right. Don't you wonder why there exists a need for the 'It gets better' campaign? It exists to fill the void where groups are not protected from the rights of the individual, where government cannot act to positevly reinforce the value of tolerance. Education alone does not work, because people don't care to listen anyway. The individual view is stifling gay rights, so, far from wondering why gay guys are not taking up arms, you should be considering throwing your own away, because your adoption of the individual view is the very view that allows the Phelps family to spread their message of hate and subject young minds to the atmosphere of intolerance which comes from the very same people you believe you need your gun to protect against.

So because of a few, you would reduce people to sheep?

The "individual view" isn't "stifling gay rights", it's what drives them. Without the individual view, society would just keep on doing what it has: oppressing gays. Gays want to be allowed to be individuals; the witches of NOM and other organizations work from your "limited individuality" view: they want a conforming, trained society where individual views and differences are squelched.

The solution to the abuse of freedom is never less freedom.

 

[bankside]

Making, or even just contemplating, some kind of restriction on the arbitrary ownership of firearms does not reduce people to sheep. It is part of a much broader campaign to replace conflicts settled with violence with conflicts settled in the realm of reason.

It does not reduce people to sheep; it elevates them to men instead of beasts. Bears, boars, and squid settle arguments with their claws, tusks, and beaks; we're able to do better.

Kulindahr one of your least convincing arguments is that gun ownership is somehow a control against tyrannical elected power. I'll keep saying this till it sinks in; if you wait long enough to have to shoot your congressman, you've waited too long to act. Pay attention to politics whilst there is still time to lower the stakes. Don't elect any buffoon on "the will of the people" with the presumption you can always shoot him later if he acts up. This mirage of "gun freedom" breeds an odious kind of complacency that by design ends in bloodshed.

All that sensible advice aside, I again return you to the examples of Somalia or Afghanistan or much of Pakistan; widespread gun ownership results not in respect for individual liberty, but dangerous mobs operating under despotic warlords. It's neo-feudalism, with automatic weapons; there is nothing English about that - indeed it was England's innovation to do away with that stupidity.

 

[Kulindahr]

Making, or even just contemplating, some kind of restriction on the arbitrary ownership of firearms does not reduce people to sheep. It is part of a much broader campaign to replace conflicts settled with violence with conflicts settled in the realm of reason.

It does not reduce people to sheep; it elevates them to men instead of beasts. Bears, boars, and squid settle arguments with their claws, tusks, and beaks; we're able to do better.

When you can reason with a wild boar, call me.

Kulindahr one of your least convincing arguments is that gun ownership is somehow a control against tyrannical elected power. I'll keep saying this till it sinks in; if you wait long enough to have to shoot your congressman, you've waited too long to act. Pay attention to politics whilst there is still time to lower the stakes. Don't elect any buffoon on "the will of the people" with the presumption you can always shoot him later if he acts up. This mirage of "gun freedom" breeds an odious kind of complacency that by design ends in bloodshed.

All that sensible advice aside, I again return you to the examples of Somalia or Afghanistan or much of Pakistan; widespread gun ownership results not in respect for individual liberty, but dangerous mobs operating under despotic warlords. It's neo-feudalism, with automatic weapons; there is nothing English about that - indeed it was England's innovation to do away with that stupidity.

This part is so out of touch with the whole conversation I don't know where to start.

Though I'll point out that England, like the Normans, once they had conquered peoples under their heels did change their attitude about firearms. It's much easier to be tyrants when you disarm the peons -- a disarming that Gandhi observed was among the greatest sins of the British Raj in India.

 

[bankside]

Oh and while we're examining the flourishment of peace and stability, let's not overlook the contribution of education. That has played a great role.

Btw kulindahr I wonder if you would change the criminal law to allow two "consenting gentlemen" to settle "questions of honour" with pistols at dawn? Presumably if we aren't infringing on anyone's rights then this is merely a matter of mutual consent.

 

[Rolyo85]

I am also a little worried of the whole "guns equal freedom" argument, and it seems seriously flawed to me. It is, also, not really shared by almost any other country in the Privileged Billion...

 

[bankside]

I honestly find it bewildering, that you say people should be trusted and allowed to hold guns, whilst also saying that people cannot be trusted which is why you need the guns.

This.


Anyway, on a topic about two kinds of liberty, we've yet again been drawn into a discussion about what the US constitution says about guns, which is probably because other constitutions don't say one way or the other.

In the US, because they can, people argue about whether some restrictions on guns are constitutional. In the rest of the world, we argue whether some restrictions on guns are wise. Interesting how that leads to different conclusions.

A constitution does not protect my right to own a gun, it protects the right of every crackpot. But if we all disarm, are we safer? Vaccination is a good analogy. When we all get vaccinated, we eliminate entire species of disease. We've done it with smallpox and polio is next.

Collective action to rid our communities of the potential for violence is not an irrational or immoral solution. It is a wise one.

Oh, and because I enjoy the irony so much, it has been my signature for the last couple of weeks: in the States it is an idea - the power of a few words - that keeps guns streaming into the hands of anybody who would like one. And though Charlatan Heston, in his dotage, was known to make threats of violence, he never actually shot anyone, again relying on the power of speech to defend his cold dead hands and his "rights."

 

[Kulindahr]

Why would you assume i was imagining anything else??? The police are not above the law, so it goes without saying that they need valid reason.

So you agree that unless a person has given cause sufficient for a judge to issue an order, no one should have any restrictions on access to weapons. Good.

Interesting. And yet the pro-gun lobby 'require' the latest technology.

Huh? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

There was never an inherent right. People only ever took up arms for two reasons, one was to attack others, one was to defend against those attackers. The inherent right you talk of is not a right, its basic human instinct to survive and to protect. There wouldn't be a need for ANYONE to take up arms if there wasn't somebody else taking up arms.

If there is no inherent right to keep and bear arms, then there is no right to life, or liberty. That it's an instinct doesn't mean it isn't a right.

Whoever tells someone they may not be armed has designated that someone as less than human, because he has said the someone must be prey for whoever comes along.

I honestly find it bewildering, that you say people should be trusted and allowed to hold guns, whilst also saying that people cannot be trusted which is why you need the guns.
If criminals are the threat to your life, you should be taking the guns off them, not protecting their right to have them at the same time as claiming you need your guns because they've got them too.

You're not really this obtuse, are you? You change the definition of "people" along the way, you miss the whole foundation of justice, you presume criminals have rights, and then . . . Well, you're just misrepresenting the whole picture.

Citizens should be trusted. That's the basis of law!
Criminals have demonstrated that they are out to harm citizens. Since they have, I'm only sensible to exercise my right to self-defense.

Of course we should get guns away from criminals. But there's never actually been a law passed that does that.
Criminals have no right to guns -- they have no right to any instruments of violence.

And it's irrelevant whether they have guns; criminals could all carry bean bags, and it's still my right to carry my weapon of choice and respond as I see fit to an attack on my person.

Fundamentally flawed. You persist on failing to accept the historical fact, that at the time of the constitutions drafting, the english had no such right to keep and bear arms, only the militia did, and only with limits afforded to them by law. And before you start claiming again, that all people were the militia, wrong, the militia was made up of townsfolk who occupied the role of maintaining law and order at a time when there was no police force. The militia included roles such as gatekeepers and nightwatchmen. The law applied to them, not each and every citizen. The reason for that is obvious. Arming everybody does not help control them, and control was needed to maintain law and order and prevent anarchy. No doubt that government of the day were able to abuse their power, but its not relevant today. Times have changed, you either move with it, or move in the wrong direction.

British law of the time define the militia as the whole people. The only restriction on the bearing of arms was for Roman Catholics. The militia was organized by county, and every adult male capable of bearing arms was required to register. The Militia Act created a "select militia", a force provided with uniforms and which was required to train regularly, but that didn't do away with the basic militia.

"Arming everybody does not help control them" -- exactly. That's precisely why everyone should be armed!

And if you think governments can be trusted not to abuse power today, you are really naive.

We are at that point again where i have no idea what particular militia you are referring to. And in regards to the first point, having a standing army in a democratic nation, in the 21st century, dissolves the need for any militia that does not exist like a terratorial army.

"Particular militia", as opposed to "general militia" or "select militia".

Having a standing army is why there needs to be a militia -- again, that's a lesson the British figured out. Why it's been thrown away I don't understand.

If your police were not allowed guns, they wouldn't have. That is far more relevant. Where were you Kuli? You are a part of the militia you say it means, where were you to defend? The reason you have no active militia is because you have a police force, everybody else are just looking out for themselves. If people really cared about police shootings where there need not have been, you'd be calling for the police to be free of firearms. But of course, selfish agenda takes precedence doesn't it.

Guns, hell -- the police at Waco went in with full-bore military equipment, which is supposed to be unconstitutional!

No, we have no active militia because most people are lazy. A police force is irrelevant to a militia, except that the stronger the police force, the stronger and better trained the militia should be, to be able to overcome the police force.

Our police are armed because of a cross in cultures from the "Wild West" and the European tradition of authority privileges. They stay armed because the government spends tens of billions annually to generate violent crime.

Once the argument is settled that everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, we can move on to disarming the cops -- or maybe if we can end the "War on Drugs", it can happen at the same time. Too many issues on the burner dilutes focus. At any rate, I don't know what's "selfish" about wanting our rights honored.

...necessary for the security of a free state. NOT, necessary to defend yourself against other militia that can't be trusted. Use whatever terms you like, it was applicable to one key point. The fact that some individuals of the day envisaged a citizen army, does not change the intent of the amendment. And even if the anti gun lobby decided to concede the point, it has no valid application should the people wish to change it. So anybody taking the Charles Bronson approach about 'prising from cold dead hands', would be the 'few' committing tyranny against the many, to which, a limit on freedoms is the safeguard.

It doesn't say that. A clause giving a reason for something doesn't limit other reasons. Self-defense is part of the security of a free state, anyway.

Over seven-tenths of Americans read the Second Amendment and see an individual right. The Supreme Court has always read it and seen an individual right (which is why Heller said so 9-0).

But seriously. It is not the police i have to distrust. They are ordinary people doing their jobs, subject to the law. They have only the power afforded to them. Its government that rules, it is government to keep an eye on. And in this day and age, its hard for government to get away with corruption, so i'll happily keep one eyelid shut.

I wish I didn't have to fear the police. Most people are smart enough to know that we do have to fear the police, because they have the guns, and can ruin lives whether someone has committed an offense or not. All they have to do is arrest you, and you're forever labeled a criminal, regardless of the outcome.

Wow -- "hard for government to get away with corruption"? Would that it were so!

Study some more english history of the 18th century. The militia were select.

The existence of a select militia did not nullify the general militia.

That is not how it is. The people are choosing, they are not the sheep but the herdsmen. The individuals who abuse their rights become the sheep, forced to follow the set standards.

Let's see... most people don't bother to register to vote, and of those to do, it's not uncommon for less than half to vote, and of those who do, it's generally the case that a majority don't bother to actually understand what they're voting about.

Most people are sheep.

A fantastic stand alone comment. One that 99.99% would agree with.
The question here is. You assume that 'guns for all' is not already the abuse of that freedom, and that the crux point of a well balanced society is one that actually does have a balance, where the rights are not given so fully, that they hold back from the brink for the purpose i have previously told. Protecting the individual is important, but protecting the many from a few, is also important.

To apply a British legal principle from the eighteenth century:

better a hundred idiot allowed their right to arms, than one competent person denied it.

To do it the other way is to truly regard people as sheep.

Gandhi must be doing this : rolling his eyes.

I do wish people would stop using Gandhi to argue their pro-gun POV. Gandhi = Pacifism. He would not have spoke to support the arming of the people, but to acknowledge that tyranny is simply easier when you are armed, and would have been impossible for tyranny of the Raj to exist without weapons.

Gandhi more famously said "we must be the change we wish to see in the world".
He envisaged a world where tools of destruction were replaced with tools of peace. So why people insist on using his quote to make a pro gun point is beyond me.

Um... because he said it was a sin to disarm the people.

It was then. It is now. Now law-abiding citizen anywhere should be denied the possession, bearing, and use of any personal weapon.

 

[Kulindahr]

Collective action to rid our communities of the potential for violence is not an irrational or immoral solution. It is a wise one.

That would be a nice thing to do. Unfortunately, only the NRA has shown itself willing to do that -- the Brady Campaign and their ilk are interested in making criminals more powerful.

 

[Stardreamer]

Ran across this at CATO today, interesting reading:

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens (pdf document)

I particularly like that they acknowledge that guns for self defense will not always work but show that they can and poke holes in a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric too.

 

[Kulindahr]

The rights to life and liberty are not bound by a supposed right to keep and bear arms, which is attested to by the security and freedom in nations which don't have firearms widely circulating in the hands of the general public. Secondly, 'keeping and bearing arms' is not an inherent right, its the extention of the 'supposed' right. Inherent rights are basic rights, the right to self-defence is inherent, the right to self-defence with a weapon is not (even when lawful).

This is like saying that by promulgating a list of things people aren't allowed to talk about, their free speech hasn't been restricted.
The right to do something includes the right to choose the means, or it is no right at all. Otherwise, blacks were equal in the American South before Martin Luther King -- they were free to ride the bus, free to use drinking fountains, they were just told which ones and how. That's the argument you're making about self defense.
It's an argument the St. Petersburg city council would love, to help support their law against saying the word "gay".

The problem here Kuli, is that you cannot identify a criminal just by looking at them or giving them a DNA test. Law abiding citizens should be trusted, yes, but, the law-abider is also a potential 'newbie crook'.

And thus the only police force you can count on to protect you is the one large enough to watch everyone, everywhere, at every moment.

As previous, you cannot defend yourself fully from a criminal, they are not self identifying persons. You only know one, during or after a crime. So the most effective way to defend yourself against them is to minimise the means in which they may cause harm. Allowing guns gives them an edge just as much if not more than any defender.

Allowing guns is the only way to put the defender on an equal footing. It's one of the reasons the Colt pistol was called the "equalizer": being a big, mean, tough guy was no longer much of an advantage.

The militia has never, NEVER, been defined as the 'whole' people in English history. It has only been established to mean the whole people in US history.
Prior to the Militia Act, it was common law for men to keep and bear arms for the defence of the crown, not so much for their own protection however. This 'common law', well established before the Militia Act, never provided the people an absolute right to keep and bear arms.

Law doesn't grant or provide rights; it can either aid their exercise or inhibit it.

It may not have been stated that way as an act of Parliament, but it was the principle the colonists learned from English law.

I will happily concede however, that before being ruled by the crown, people had the right to arm themselves for the defence of their villages and towns, and themselves. This is going way, way, back in history mind you.
The US adopted a constitutional amendment based on the relevance of the day and age, acknowledging that a militia was preferable to a standing army, because the latter was a tool for government tyranny. But an organised militia (in the sense of a police force) were also recognised to infringe on the rights of the people (observed in England). Thus, and as amazing as it appears...

...i concede that the 'militia' as referred to in the 2nd amendment, when attributed to 'the people' in that amendment, refer to, and ONLY to, individuals.

If the people once had the right, then they always had the right, and still have the right -- that's the nature of a right.

Whether a police force counts as militia is debated. In the U.S. it grew out of the night watch militia function when it became permitted to hire someone to take your turn, but it is also a permanent standing force, which is on the side of it not being a militia. But they certainly can be a threat to liberty.

"Militia" can't refer only to individuals; in fact an individual cannot constitute a militia. "The people" means individuals.

What i have learned has been fascinating.

I can reveal that, although the anti-gun lobby (and myself) are likely to win the war, we have to concede that we lost the battle.
The 2nd amendment is rock solid in its stand up to scrutiny over the intent behind its inclusuion. As such, i now have to DEFEND that it refers to the right of all individuals to keep and bear arms.

The reason i say that the anti-gun lobby will win the war, is because there is another point of attack. A potentially weaker point of attack. That is the validity of the statement itself. It was relevant in its origin almost 300yrs ago. It could be argued that 'a well-regulated militia' is NOT necessary for the secutity of a free state. Indeed, the nations exist, with democracy and human rights and diplomacy and such like. And that maybe, where a standing army was regarded as unfavourable to a militia, in a day where government had too much power, that actually, a standing army is no risk to homeland security, and a police force operates as the militia to deal with crime and disorder. Individuals do not need guns, its simply a case of wanting them.

The clause giving a reason why the right must be protected is not essential to the right. Heller acknowledged that the right includes self-defense, and that's a need not likely to go away.

As for a standing army -- the military forces of the U.S. have been used to attack U.S. citizens both abroad and at home in living memory. If the Republicans get their way, the law of the land will encourage that, using the military as a police force within our own borders.

The likelihood that the 2nd amendment will be scrapped altogether, or altered in the future is quite high. As it stands, if 99% of americans wanted to ban guns for personal defence, the constitution prohibits that achievement. As such, the amendment can be argued, in its current form, to hold back progress, since it is applicable to a time in history, where the best policy then, may be second best in hindsight.

So long as the GOP exists in its current form, the amendment protects progress.

Put another way, law and order is harder to implement, arming everybody is a step closer to a bloodbath at some point down the line.

Arming everybody is a step farther from arbitrary government detention.

Possibly because a standing army protecting the country, and a police force (militia) protecting the community, there is no need to have anybody else securing the state. (although nightclub bouncers are very useful for security issues at a very low level )

More likely because we have been happy to relinquish the idea of tackling criminals to a trained force, and we still have fists for personal defence, and we have strict gun laws, and now knife carrying is banned too. I predict that something alcohol based will be enacted into law next, to address drunken violence which is way too common, beakers instead of glasses have been proposed to limit injuries in bar brawls to innocent people caught whenever someone throws one in anger etc.

If Americans are happy with a police force that isn't required to protect them, why are there so many "Neighborhood Watch" organizations in the country?

You have argued that you need guns to protect against the government, the police, and criminals. Yet the threat to your life from ANY of these groups is very very small, even without guns.

When there are Congresscritters seriously wanting to authorize the use of drones within the U.S. to spy on U.S. citizens without warrants, government, police, and criminals are converging to be the same thing.

No, it did. Thats what the law did, change the rights, which in english law were never absolute to begin with.

RIghts don't come from law, so laws can't change rights.

My dear Kuli, why then in your analogy do you depict democracy as two wolves and a lamb?, surely it should be two lambs and a wolf?? (with liberty safeguarded not by arms, but the strength in numbers, the true point that Gandhi was making in his quote about the Raj, not that people should'nt be disarmed, but that the few could only rule the majority because they were unequally equipped and that in a fairer battle, one without arms, remember he was a pacifist, democracy would have brought independence to the people he so wanted, so much quicker )

Because a majority using its vote to oppress a minority is always wolves.

I tried researching this, i couldn't find anything, who said it?

It's taken from "Better a hundred (or thousand) guilty walk free than one innocent man be punished", a legal principle of the time.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ran across this at CATO today, interesting reading:

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance From Citizens (pdf document)

I particularly like that they acknowledge that guns for self defense will not always work but show that they can and poke holes in a lot of the anti-gun rhetoric too.

Good read, though I'm still working my way through it. Here's a piece I was blown away by:

For a very long time, gun control proponents
would insist that having a gun was a
mistake, because many people (especially
women) would not be willing to shoot a
person who was attacking them—and the
criminal would then take away the victim’s
gun and use it on the victim. Oddly enough,
while the authors have recorded a large number
of incidents where someone has their gun
taken away from them, it is usually the other
way around. In 227 incidents, a criminal’s
gun was taken away from him by the victim.
This does not necessarily mean that the victim
shot the criminal, but it does mean that
the victim successfully disarmed the criminal
and then threatened the criminal with
it in order to make him leave, or make him
remain on the scene until the police could arrive.
Often, these were situations where the
victim, at the start of the attack, did not have
a gun.

Those are gutsy people!



Here's another "Whoa!" piecce:

In fact, after Colorado’s 2003 concealed
carry law was enacted, Colorado State University
decided to allow concealed carry,
while the University of Colorado prohibited
firearms. The former observed a rapid decline
in reported crimes, while the latter, under
the gun ban they claimed was for safety,
observed a rapid increase in crime. Crime
at the University of Colorado has risen 35
percent since 2004, while crime at Colorado
State University has dropped 60 percent in
the same time frame.

I still get mad at companies that fire employees for exercising their basic rights. IMHO a contract to restrict your exercise of your rights is invalid.


I recognize a lot of those from the NRA's "Armed Citizen" column, but many are new.

 

[Stardreamer]

Good read, though I'm still working my way through it. Here's a piece I was blown away by:



Those are gutsy people!

Yes I found that quite interesting too particularly after the meme had been pushed over and over here. I think many folks arguing the issue seem to forget that most criminals are not going to be more proficient in handling weapons than the average gun owner.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes I found that quite interesting too particularly after the meme had been pushed over and over here. I think many folks arguing the issue seem to forget that most criminals are not going to be more proficient in handling weapons than the average gun owner.

And far less motivated. I read those and have a hard time imagining myself doing that, but there have been times I've acted as boldly, so who knows?

Maybe I'd just shit my pants. Except if it was night time, I don't wear pants to bed. So while the intruder looked at the shit, I could scoop it and throw it at him, and use the distraction to disarm him.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is not a fair comparison Kuli. Gun restrictions would be applicable to ALL citizens. That is fair. Your comparison starts off-par because it did not treat the population equally.

Gun laws don't treat the population equally, either. Criminals are not required to tell cops they are armed, aren't required to store the guns "properly", or a bunch of other things, because of applications of the Fifth Amendment.

I've heard politicians make counterpoints with an argument that is this pointless. You cannot have a police force watching everyone, everywhere, not to mention if you could, that nobody would want such overkill. So can you come up with a more credible rebuff?

That's the point! The government can't possibly have a police force that can actually protect people, and even if they somehow could, the people would reject it. Ergo, citizens cannot logically count on the police to protect them, and doing so is foolish.

This assumes that the victim attains 'defender' status. In most cases, victims of guns remain unable to defend.

I'm not convinced the latter is so.

Without rights being legally recognised, you don't have them. You can argue that you do, but we don't. Just because it is 'good and moral' to honour the rights we take for granted, its blatant in other parts of the world that rights are only truly rights when they are protected in law.

Then there are no rights, just privileges.

Yes, learned from English law, but adopted the american way, with major point missing, 'that which is within the law'. This point, did not guarantee an ABSOLUTE right. As such, we don't have guns.

As such, you are thralls, not citizens. All your liberties are dependent on the whim of the government.

Rights are limited for good reasons sometimes, not just because government is seeking to terrorise its civilians.
There is no such thing as an absolute right except for those we universally or legally SUPPORT.

Rights are limited only limited in the same way as the old adage, that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. That's why it's not all right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. They are limited only in that there is punishment for misuse.

"Gun control" isn't about that, it's about limiting the rights not of those who violate others' rights, but limiting the rights of those with neither desire nor intent to do so. No law doing that is legitimate.

It is irrelevent, what Heller says, if the amendment is dropped from the constitution on grounds that it is not valid to this day and age.


Perhaps an amendment to define the military role as protector of people, not just nation, and where government are prohibitted from authoriseing military force against its civilians.

They'd just invent a new federal police department, probably an arm of Homeland Security. Then they'd give it the authority to detain citizens without informing anyone, advising them of their rights, without charges, and keep them indefinitely, without the chance for even a trial.
But wait... they're already doing that.

In the name of homeland security, the government regularly ignores the Constitution at will. Clinton did it, Bush did it in spades, Obama is just being another Bush. The U.S. is currently a good demonstration that the law has meaning only so long as the government feels like paying attention to it.

Disagree. The only thing it substantially protects is homeowners material possessions. And electoral reform i say again!!!

Only because most people are cowards. It's too bad we didn't continue an early tradition of most people belonging to a militia, training, and reminding the government that if pushed, we will certainly push back.

You don't live in the United States of Ameristan do you?? What exactly are you in fear of being arbitrarily detained for?

Well, I've been illegitimately detained for "indecent exposure" (no such law here), "vagrancy" (no such law where I was), and also just detained without being told a reason while the cops stood around and gabbed. I sat there on the curb in handcuffs, having done nothing, for half an hour.

Because you have a lot of crime obviously. We used to have neighbourhood watch schemes here too, not so much these days.

A lot of crime, and the cops can't be counted on.

Then how can you argue that most people are sheep, they cannot be both. And are the minority terrorising the majority, not also wolves?

Two different situations: with respect to the government, most people are sheep. The only want to be comfortable. With respect to other people. most citizens are wolves -- they want to gobble up/put down "them".

Amazing. A principle that promotes fair trial and justice, being corrupted to allow the pro-gun lobby to argue why its fair and just to treat a criminal as a lesser human being. "Shoot him, he aint human anymore, he gave up his rights as a human being, its justified." What an absolute insult to that principle.

They have given up their rights. By the act of violating others' rights, they have violated the basic contract; they have cast off any claim to be treated as a human being. If they are engaging in violence, that';s their declaration of how they think relations between humans should be. By responding with violence, we're just honoring their version of the contract.

They are, as Iceland used to have it, "outside the law" -- outlaws -- and no longer covered by its protections, because they've cast those off.

Firstly, whilst you cannot stop a criminal who knows where to aquire a gun from that market, the vast majority of criminals, in countries with gun regulations, do not commit armed crimes. Even when armed crimes are carried out, typically, the worst that happens is a beating. We see it countless times on CrimeWatchUK, couple at home, usually in a rural area with nice big house, subjected to armed (shotguns) attacks in order to commit robbery, loot the safe, steal the antiques whatever. They batter the residents to get them to talk, not because they really want to hurt them, and if there is nothing to tell, they leave, they don't kill the occupants in rage just because they didn't get what they wanted.

You must have strange police, if they don't pursue and catch people who leave witnesses who can identify them. That's the most common reason victims of burglary get shot -- to eliminate witnesses. "Dead men tell no tales."

The article also states that "the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent'. This is not an issue to the anti-gun lobby. Its all the other gun owners that are the issue.

Then they should stop with the laws that only penalize the law-abiding! Storage laws, no-carry laws, and the rest don't affect criminals at all, but they do place a burden on the ethical.

In regards to 'home invasions'. The article states, "It seems a fair bet that such intruders are not planning on leaving witnesses."

The bet is not the odds on favourite AT ALL. We know this from the sheer number of incidents that occur over here, home invaders typically want possessions, not to harm the occupants. It does happen, yes, but its not nearly as common as what the article spuriously suggests.

So a citizen is supposed to wait until an invader shoots first? That's kinda like telling women they should just let a rapist have his way until he attempts penetration.

The article also states, "Many people support gun control regulations because they are convinced that the average citizen is either incapable of using a gun in self defence or will use the gun in a fit of anger over some petty matter."

That was the summing up of the anti-gun view.

Those are what the press and politicians always whine about.

Firstly, whether civilians are capable of using a gun competently is about the least important point. I don't care about it at all. The second point, its not simply about misusing the gun over a 'petty' matter. That demeans the real concern. Its the case that guns can simply be abused which is the issue on that point Petty something, domestic spat or shooting spree, it doesn't matter what the reason is, its the fact that there is opportunity for it.
Furthermore, this completely misses the 'whole' point, that its not guns in citizens hands that is of most concern. Its guns in criminals hands.

But all their proposals for gun laws are directed at the law-abiding, not at criminals. That shows what the real aim is -- and in fact major "gun control" advocates in the U.S. have been caught saying their goal is to ban all guns.

In relation to 'Castle Doctrine' and 'Stand your Ground' laws:

These legalise murder. They allow you the right to disregard the right to life, the most important right of all, by excusing yourselves, on the grounds that you were simply in fear of your life, and that a criminal forfeits his rights.
Criminality is fuelled by poverty and drug addiction. The kind of people, committing the types of crimes, to which most people are using their guns to shoot in self defence, are committing their crimes out of necessity. Its easy to say they have a choice, but unless you have been so desperate to break the law, you couldn't possibly understand how the need to survive can lead to you breaking the law.
What happens in the future, if people suffer from a food shortage? Out of hunger, people break into foodstores or try to rob the fridge of a wealthy homehowner? Is it ok to disregard their LIFE, because they are criminal? Its never ok to abuse a right 'Absolutely', that belongs to everybody, just so you can have an 'absolute' right to self defence.

I've been at that point. But I would never, ever, violate someone's home. Anyone who would has no place in a civilized society. I've known a number of thieves, and most of them held to that. One flat-out said if he broke into someone's home, he deserved to be shot.

I know a guy who is well known in the neighbourhood as being a thief, he threatened to kill me once because i notified my manager when i saw hime enter the store. 1 week later, we approached each other on the street. He asked me if i had a light, i gave him a light and went on my way.
The guy is also a drug addict, and we know that when he is not having withdrawal symptoms, he is not half as much of a dickhead, and is actually quite polite.
I found the article report of the 17yr old BOY capitalised and bolded to reaffirm boy, shot dead after he fired at an adult who disturbed his burglary. Now, its perhaps fair to say that the life of the adult was in danger, he was shot at after all. But, how can you prove that the mans life was under actual threat? Criminals don't want to get caught for their crimes, and this 17yr old was confronted by the adult, the article says. This suggests that there may have been some contact prior to the lad shooting at the man. Its possible that the lad was scared of being arrested, or scared of 'castle doctrine' law, or just scared of the man. He may have shot as a warning or to give him time to get away, the probability that he wanted to kill the man is negligible. Either way, the adult had time to draw his gun and shoot the boy dead. 17yrs old, no chance to learn from his mistakes. Dead. If you had strict gun control, he wouldn't have likely had a gun in the first place to warrant the adult to kill him.
Even more disturbing, was the case of the 20yr old who robbed a store, whilst he had a gun pointed at the cashiers head, demanding the cash and cigarettes, and after pushing the customers to the back of the store, a man shoot him in the head in self defence. Self defence of what? It was considered a justifiable homicide, i'd consider it murder. It was completely unnecessary. It serves to prove how guns do more harm than good. People can act on their own whims, however irrational, at the cost of a life. Its sad.

These illustrate my point: criminals don't care about laws. In the U.S., neither of these criminals was entitled to a gun in the first place!

When confronted with someone who has brought lethal force into play, there's no murder when stopping them. Saying that just says that citizens' lives are deemed worthless, or that their lives are only worth what some random criminal decides they are.

Guns are too easily abused, the gun laws, protecting the right to keep and bear arms can allow for further abuse. And for what, so that typically people can hang on to their property. Get insurance.

Again the argument that people can't be trusted, that citizens are children who need a nanny to watch over them.

Almost lastly, to address the argument that guns lower crime rates. The evidence from research suggest that gun leniency or restriction has very little to no impact on crime rates. So even when the pro-gun lobby can cite cases where crime rates have lowered in areas where guns are less restricted, it does not reflect on the picture as a whole.

What the data actually indicate is that crimes against person are reduced, crimes where no persons are present rise, and there's a very small drop in crime overall. That emerged from Lott's second study. I get a kick out of fellow NRA members who continue to cite the first results.

And finally. The article suggests that up to 2 million crimes are averted per year in the US thanks to law abiding citizens and their guns, which begs the question, just how crooked is the States? It already ranks number 1 for total crime per 100,000 population WITHOUT these unrecorded crime attempts.

Who knows? It's estimated that better than one in four Americans uses marijuana regularly, and that's (idiotically) classed as a crime.

 

[JB3]

I found the article report of the 17yr old BOY capitalised and bolded to reaffirm boy, shot dead after he fired at an adult who disturbed his burglary. Now, its perhaps fair to say that the life of the adult was in danger, he was shot at after all. But, how can you prove that the mans life was under actual threat? Criminals don't want to get caught for their crimes, and this 17yr old was confronted by the adult, the article says. This suggests that there may have been some contact prior to the lad shooting at the man. Its possible that the lad was scared of being arrested, or scared of 'castle doctrine' law, or just scared of the man. He may have shot as a warning or to give him time to get away, the probability that he wanted to kill the man is negligible. Either way, the adult had time to draw his gun and shoot the boy dead. 17yrs old, no chance to learn from his mistakes. Dead. If you had strict gun control, he wouldn't have likely had a gun in the first place to warrant the adult to kill him.
Even more disturbing, was the case of the 20yr old who robbed a store, whilst he had a gun pointed at the cashiers head, demanding the cash and cigarettes, and after pushing the customers to the back of the store, a man shoot him in the head in self defence. Self defence of what? It was considered a justifiable homicide, i'd consider it murder. It was completely unnecessary. It serves to prove how guns do more harm than good. People can act on their own whims, however irrational, at the cost of a life. Its sad.

Are you seriously attempting to say that the self-defense illustrated in these shootings was not justified?

You have a robber that was carrying a loaded gun into a house he was robbing and pointed it at the homeowner, and you're trying to claim that, somehow, the man's life wasn't in danger? You're basically saying the life of the gun-wielding criminal is worth more than the homeowner he was attempting to rob. That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. It defies all logic. Its so bizarrely twisted that I cannot even understand how you arrived at that conclusion.

Same goes for the the second example. If you had a gun pointed at your had, with no guarantee or expectation that the person on the other end of said gun would not fire, you would thank your lucky stars someone was able to put a bullet in his head. The very fact that the thief decided to point that gun at the cashier's head creates an imminent threat to the lives of everyone in that store, and is a justifiable reason for acting in self-defense.

Seriously. Can you try and explain it a bit more? Because the way it was explained above is ludicrous.

 

[Kulindahr]

Mitchymo, that last post shows you're beyond reason. You think that criminals can engage in potentially lethal actions, and that a citizen should be willing to just give up his or her life on the chance that the criminal might be a nice guy (despite holding a gun to someone's head).

And you think that someone who has busted into my house while in possession of a lethal weapon should be regarded as a nice guy (despite the fact that he's already engaged in violence).

These are not positions held by sensible people. Sensible people understand that by attacking, the criminal has not merely surrendered the right to be treated as a human being, he has actively sought to not be treated as a human being. Such a person is an invader, no different than if foreign troops forced their way across the border, weapons out and safeties off. You don't calmly back up and let them have their way, you act to end the threat.

Take guns away from the law-abiding, and all you do is make things easy for the criminal. It's why criminals tend to avoid (like the plague) houses with stickers indicating someone inside is a member of the National Rifle Association, the Fellowship of Police Officers, the United States Marine Corps, and a few others: they know that at least one resident understands that you don't negotiate with barbarians who violate your borders, you act to remove the threat.


You want the government to ask that people gamble their lives on the good behavior of criminals. That's an insult to human dignity, a valuing of human life only statistically, not individually.

Sheep may be safer, but they don't belong to themselves.