Decius wrote:

The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

I know a lot of people who explain their gun ownership based on the theory that they are going to defend themselves from some sort of home invasion. I think of this a bit like I think of Ralphie Parker's dreams of fending off Black Bart with his BB gun. In general, your home is not going to be invaded while you are there, and you are not going to defend yourself this way if it does happen. Shooting can be a fun hobby, but you're not John Wayne.

I know a guy that has a gun in each room, and studied martial arts for a decade. I think he has a fairly good chance at busting a cap in a home invader. He's the only one, though.

Decius wrote:

The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

I know a lot of people who explain their gun ownership based on the theory that they are going to defend themselves from some sort of home invasion. I think of this a bit like I think of Ralphie Parker's dreams of fending off Black Bart with his BB gun. In general, your home is not going to be invaded while you are there, and you are not going to defend yourself this way if it does happen. Shooting can be a fun hobby, but you're not John Wayne.

I would agree with that assessment, but the data doesn't back that up. Although it's hard to find credible and objective data, if you Google around, you'll find that the stats show that gun possession in homes that are invaded shows a higher percentage of thwarted attempts (ie, the owner wounds the perpetrator). From my own data points (I have a lot of friends who own guns for some strange reason), I can tell you that if it's a male, then it's likely to go well for the gun owner. If it's a female, it does not. Females, even when trained and very comfortable in using a gun, failed to use it in cases where they needed to protect themselves. Either way, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to own weapons in your home for sport, protection, or collection. Although I do have serious reservations about the TYPES of weapons owned. You can collect WW2 rifles or even historic machine guns, but there's no reason why someone should have an operational M2 or an AK47, both of which I know of several people who possess.

flynn23 wrote:

Decius wrote:

The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

I know a lot of people who explain their gun ownership based on the theory that they are going to defend themselves from some sort of home invasion. I think of this a bit like I think of Ralphie Parker's dreams of fending off Black Bart with his BB gun. In general, your home is not going to be invaded while you are there, and you are not going to defend yourself this way if it does happen. Shooting can be a fun hobby, but you're not John Wayne.

The problem with using shooting DEATHS as a statistic, is that it ONLY takes into account the people that actually died. Death is certainly a final event, however, it would be more accurate to include events where handguns actually saved lives too, for the sake of reality. Unfortunately, most of the episodes where a firearm is presented as a defensive measure and NOT discharged are simply not reported to the police.

My own mother thwarted a would be car jacker in East Hartford, CT in the laty 80's, by drawing her Taurus 9mm from her purse, and my current shooting partner also thwarted a robbery of his persons at Gwinnett Mall in the late 90's by drawing his pistol when he was asked for his wallet. Neither of these incidents were reported to the police, as the suspects fled the scene when they faced armed citizens. Both my Mother and my current shooting partner are both licensed for concealed carry, and I also know for a fact that these two episodes were NOT reported to any authorities. The police don't want to know about crimes that "almost" happened.

I've been a weapons owner since the age of 12, and I've never thought of myself as "John Wayne" or any other TV hero with my weapons. I simply know that it is another tool, like my hammer, screwdrivers, or drill, that performs a job for me if needed.

I carry my weapon every day, to and from the office, and keep it locked in my vehicle. I don't use a trigger lock, barrel lock, or any other foolish "safety" equipment with my weapons. I have taught my entire family how to shoot, handle weapons, and respect them. I don't even let them shoot nerf guns AT each other. It's not a game, it's not a movie, it is a tool that one has to be skilled with, in order to use it when necessary. Practice is simply that skill. I pray every time I handle a weapon, that I will not ever have to kill a human being with it.

dc0de wrote:

The problem with using shooting DEATHS as a statistic, is that it ONLY takes into account the people that actually died. Death is certainly a final event, however, it would be more accurate to include events where handguns actually saved lives too, for the sake of reality. Unfortunately, most of the episodes where a firearm is presented as a defensive measure and NOT discharged are simply not reported to the police.

I agree with that. It's very difficult to find real credible statistics and in many cases, things go unreported or underreported. Obviously you need real data in order to analyze the issue and make appropriate policy, but I get the sense that armed citizens serve as a deterrent. It's just unnerving that many deaths are reported in the household by the homeowners own weapons as well. Something's not right there.

flynn23 wrote:
[snip]... It's just unnerving that many deaths are reported in the household by the homeowners own weapons as well. Something's not right there.

Flyn23;

I agree whole heartedly.

I'm all in favor of training people how to treat, handle, protect, and secure firearms properly. In fact, I'm re-joining the NRA simply to obtain their "Firearms Instructor" Certification, so that I can provide my knowledge to those who need it.

dc0de wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
[snip]... It's just unnerving that many deaths are reported in the household by the homeowners own weapons as well. Something's not right there.

Flyn23;

I agree whole heartedly.

I'm all in favor of training people how to treat, handle, protect, and secure firearms properly. In fact, I'm re-joining the NRA simply to obtain their "Firearms Instructor" Certification, so that I can provide my knowledge to those who need it.

But is that enough? A gun is a tool, yes. But think of how many people injure themselves on a saw? Or how manufacturers HAVE to provide big bold stickers to make sure that you don't bring your toaster into the bath with you! It's one thing to electrocute yourself from stupidity, but another to endanger many others with a tool explicitly designed to kill someone.

I think the idea of "everyone's armed" is a deterrent, but the level of stupidity and the value of life are moving disproportionately to each other.

flynn23 wrote:
But is that enough? A gun is a tool, yes. But think of how many people injure themselves on a saw? Or how manufacturers HAVE to provide big bold stickers to make sure that you don't bring your toaster into the bath with you! It's one thing to electrocute yourself from stupidity, but another to endanger many others with a tool explicitly designed to kill someone.

I think the idea of "everyone's armed" is a deterrent, but the level of stupidity and the value of life are moving disproportionately to each other.

Interesting observation, but isn't that the problem with freedom in general? We have the freedom to do great things and become successful individuals, but that same freedom also allows corruption, ignorance, apathy, carelessness, stupidity, etc. The problem isn't the system, it's the people who make up our society. There's no way to make rights (or our system as a whole) idiot-proof, but on the whole, we could be much better citizens than we are.

The people have to want their society to work, or it won't. No matter how many laws we enact, I don't think a free society can function unless we, as individuals, can handle our own freedom. Children should be raised to become responsible and self-reliant, as well as ethical and moral, adults. We have to expect and demand a certain level of competence and responsibility from ourselves and each other in order for freedom to work.

Unfortunately, I see our society moving in the opposite direction. We expect less from individuals. We expect more from government. We blame everyone and everything but ourselves for our problems. Too many individuals want handouts, and too few want to take control of their own lives. We won't let people (including corporations) fail when they should, and we persecute those who succeed. And, as you mentioned, "the level of stupidity and the value of life are moving disproportionately to each other."

If people aren't taught the responsibilities that go with freedom when they're growing up, how can we expect them to grasp the concept of responsibility as adults? How can we expect people to appreciate the freedoms they have when they think they're entitled to everything? We're becoming a nation of spoiled, irresponsible brats.

We can't be perfect, but we should at least want to be independent and responsible, if nothing else. I don't think the answer is to curb rights and freedoms, but to encourage, expect, and demand more responsibility on behalf of our fellow citizens.

Hmm… I didn't intend for that reply to have such a preachy tone. Oh, well, it's July 4. ;)

flynn23 wrote:
Although I do have serious reservations about the TYPES of weapons owned. You can collect WW2 rifles or even historic machine guns, but there's no reason why someone should have an operational M2 or an AK47, both of which I know of several people who possess.

Is that for you to decide? Let's say you live alone in a rural area, with no immediate neighbors, and four or five armed thugs decide to invade your home. You might be better served by an H&K USP, an StG44, a SIG 510-4, etc. than a six shot revolver in .38 Special. Each of us should be able to decide which weapons are appropriate for our specific circumstances. I live in an apartment, so semi-automatic pistols in .45ACP and short-barreled 12 gauge shotguns make more sense for me, because they're unlikely to penetrate walls, but very likely to stop a criminal in his tracks. While I do own plenty of other military-style and hunting firearms, they wouldn't be good first choices for defense of my apartment, or for defending myself on the street. Were I to buy a house in an isolated area, I might have different requirements, which might include fully automatic fire.

Not that our discussion of self-defense is irrelevant, but people seem to forget that personal self-defense isn't the primary reason that we need the Second Amendment. We have both the First and Second Amendments to ensure that We The People remain in charge of this nation, by remaining in charge of our government. If we, as individual citizens, lose the right to free speech and the right to arm ourselves, all other rights become illusions, and we lose everything.

Stefanie wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
Although I do have serious reservations about the TYPES of weapons owned. You can collect WW2 rifles or even historic machine guns, but there's no reason why someone should have an operational M2 or an AK47, both of which I know of several people who possess.

Is that for you to decide? Let's say you live alone in a rural area, with no immediate neighbors, and four or five armed thugs decide to invade your home. You might be better served by an H&K USP, an StG44, a SIG 510-4, etc. than a six shot revolver in .38 Special. Each of us should be able to decide which weapons are appropriate for our specific circumstances. I live in an apartment, so semi-automatic pistols in .45ACP and short-barreled 12 gauge shotguns make more sense for me, because they're unlikely to penetrate walls, but very likely to stop a criminal in his tracks. While I do own plenty of other military-style and hunting firearms, they wouldn't be good first choices for defense of my apartment, or for defending myself on the street. Were I to buy a house in an isolated area, I might have different requirements, which might include fully automatic fire.

Not that our discussion of self-defense is irrelevant, but people seem to forget that personal self-defense isn't the primary reason that we need the Second Amendment. We have both the First and Second Amendments to ensure that We The People remain in charge of this nation, by remaining in charge of our government. If we, as individual citizens, lose the right to free speech and the right to arm ourselves, all other rights become illusions, and we lose everything.

First let's put aside the idea that the citizens of this country control anything for a second.

Using your logic, when does it end? If I'm really rural and have many material possessions that someone may try to steal, why not get high powered explosives? Why not armor or artillery? Hell, why not small scale nukes? If there's no limit, then there's no limit, and that's the problem I have with this idea. People will always want to own the biggest, baddest, most powerful weapon that can be had (legal or not) because they can. I don't see that fitting into the idea that they just getting the right tool for the job to protect themselves. There's many ways to secure yourself from being raided by a group of thugs and few of them even require a weapon.

I do agree that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the government never got too cocky or too powerful to pull one over on its citizens without reprisal. And to this end, I could even see the need to have serious fire power that might match up with the State's arsenal. It wasn't about protection or providing then, because that was a GIVEN in the 1700's. But if you think that's a check and balance that hasn't already been circumvented for oh, the last 150 years, then I want what you're smoking.

The US has if not the highest, certainly close to the highest, personal ownership of weapons in the world. That doesn't seem to stop the abuse of the people by the folks "voted" as our representatives.

flynn23 wrote:
First let's put aside the idea that the citizens of this country control anything for a second.

Good point.

flynn23 wrote:
Using your logic, when does it end? If there's no limit, then there's no limit, and that's the problem I have with this idea.

I still think fully automatic military-style firearms, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, sound suppressors, all types of blades and clubs, etc. should be legal for individual citizens to own, without special taxes, fees, or registration requirements, but I do not go so far as to advocate "no limits." Unfortunately, at the time the Constitution was written, there was no need for limits, so none were addressed. Even the cannons of the day could do only minimal damage. Because of advances in technology, I think the Second Amendment could afford to be clarified by another amendment. WMD (specifically, CBRN) did not exist (nor were they even conceived of by most) at the time the Constitution was written, and I would favor making a distinction between conventional arms and WMD.

It's certainly not that I trust the government more than I trust the people, but if WMD are going to exist (a point for another debate), it makes more sense to leave the maintenance of those weapons to an authorized government agency. As long as the people still have access to conventional weapons, I can live with that. Besides, I'm not convinced there's a rational scenario in which the people could use WMD against a tyrannical government without destroying themselves in the process (which is not the case with conventional weapons). Very powerful explosive and incendiary weapons (which, though subject to debate, could include anything from shoulder-fired rocket launchers to the MOAB) could also be included in WMD (CBRNE).

The flip side of your question is "Where do the limitations end?" What many refer to as "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions on our rights are often anything but reasonable (D.C. v. Heller). Runaway restrictions could end up being more dangerous than runaway freedoms.

flynn23 wrote:
I don't see that fitting into the idea that they just getting the right tool for the job to protect themselves. There's many ways to secure yourself from being raided by a group of thugs and few of them even require a weapon.

Maybe, but others might disagree with your assessment or your methods of dealing with those situations. That doesn't seem like enough justification to start limiting other citizens' rights.

flynn23 wrote:
I do agree that the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the government never got too cocky or too powerful to pull one over on its citizens without reprisal. And to this end, I could even see the need to have serious fire power that might match up with the State's arsenal. It wasn't about protection or pro... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Stefanie wrote:
The flip side of your question is "Where do the limitations end?" What many refer to as "common sense" and "reasonable" restrictions on our rights are often anything but reasonable (D.C. v. Heller). Runaway restrictions could end up being more dangerous than runaway freedoms.

That's made me reconsider it quite a bit. I'm more on the err on the side of freedom than on the side of restriction. I agree that rights should be extended rather than limited. It's just that we're such a violent society already, and that freedom and provision is not being used as intended. How do you modify the 2nd Amendment to do what it was really put in place to do? Which, to me is, make the government truly accountable for all that it does.

I don't have an answer.

But I feel like given the last 8 years, this should be a serious consideration. I'm not to the point where I think this administration should be guillotined, but I'm pretty damn close given the evidence so far.

flynn23 wrote:
I'm not to the point where I think this administration should be guillotined, but I'm pretty damn close given the evidence so far.

I think you have plenty of company, from the right, left, and center.

Stefanie wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
Although I do have serious reservations about the TYPES of weapons owned. You can collect WW2 rifles or even historic machine guns, but there's no reason why someone should have an operational M2 or an AK47, both of which I know of several people who possess.

Is that for you to decide? Let's say you live alone in a rural area, with no immediate neighbors, and four or five armed thugs decide to invade your home. You might be better served by an H&K USP, an StG44, a SIG 510-4, etc. than a six shot revolver in .38 Special. Each of us should be able to decide which weapons are appropriate for our specific circumstances. I live in an apartment, so semi-automatic pistols in .45ACP and short-barreled 12 gauge shotguns make more sense for me, because they're unlikely to penetrate walls, but very likely to stop a criminal in his tracks. While I do own plenty of other military-style and hunting firearms, they wouldn't be good first choices for defense of my apartment, or for defending myself on the street. Were I to buy a house in an isolated area, I might have different requirements, which might include fully automatic fire.

Not that our discussion of self-defense is irrelevant, but people seem to forget that personal self-defense isn't the primary reason that we need the Second Amendment. We have both the First and Second Amendments to ensure that We The People remain in charge of this nation, by remaining in charge of our government. If we, as individual citizens, lose the right to free speech and the right to arm ourselves, all other rights become illusions, and we lose everything.

Umm... what kind of wall isn't a .45 ACP going to penetrate? Cinder block?

Jello wrote:
Umm... what kind of wall isn't a .45 ACP going to penetrate? Cinder block?

Well, if you're firing stray shots that directly hit the walls, that's a problem with just about any handgun caliber and normal walls. If you hit your intended target (typically, that would be at point blank range), a .45ACP is unlikely (perhaps I should say "less likely") to keep going through other things, as compared to a .357, .44. .50, etc. or any centerfire rifle caliber. A shotgun using birdshot is even better (but it might not stop the intruder).

flynn23 wrote:
I think that it's perfectly acceptable to own weapons in your home for sport, protection, or collection. Although I do have serious reservations about the TYPES of weapons owned. You can collect WW2 rifles or even historic machine guns, but there's no reason why someone should have an operational M2 or an AK47, both of which I know of several people who possess.

I've been meaning to get back to this thread. Its been interesting. I want to interject some thoughts.

1. I think the second amendment consists of a purpose and a means to achieve that purpose.

2. I think the means is a near total ban on federal firearms laws. The 14th amendment extends this ban to the states. Certain exceptions such as the case of felons or in certain locations are probably allowable given an over-riding government interest, but I don't think a ban on certain types of weapons is possible and I'm not sure I buy U.S. v. Miller. You can obviously use a sawed off shotgun in a war. Actual wars in the world today involving actual militias are actually fought with all kinds of fucked up weapons. Actual militias have things like RPGs. I think the second amendment cannot achieve its stated purpose if it allows for the federal regulations on the ownership of RPGs.

3. Self defense in the home is not the purpose, nor is hunting, nor is collecting. But the ownership of weapons for those purposes is a given considering the means employed by this amendment. Similarly, the purpose of the first amendment was not to protect porn videos from federal bans, but it does so anyway, due to the means employed (nearly total prohibition on regulation of speech.)

4. The purpose was to protect the right of the people to form armed militia groups capable of challenging the power of any other contemporary armed force. The original federalist structure of the U.S. Government may have put states in the position of regulating such militia, but the 14th amendment set that power aside.

5. Militia of the sort envisioned by the Constitution are not obsolete from a technical standpoint. Generally, we refer to them as terrorist organizations. The closest modern equivalents are Sunni and Shia insurgent groups in Iraq, and Hezbollah. I think thats really what the founders were thinking. In fact, I recall Nanochick making a very insightful analogy between the founding of this Republic and the present bloodshed in Iraq. Looking at the situation there is the closest thing you can get to understanding the context that the Constitution was written in. I doubt very seriously that you'll see any party to any settlement in Iraq agreeing to lay down their arms. The 2nd amendment is an agreement that the federal government of the US would not disarm the militia. Its the same kind of thing.

6. Almost no one in the US today is comfortable with the idea that armed terrorist organizations can rightfully exist here. The actual purpos... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Decius wrote:
I've been meaning to get back to this thread. Its been interesting. I want to interject some thoughts.

Someone please get a projector and a few beers for Decius. This has the feel of a good old-fashioned con rant. :)

Decius wrote:
I've been meaning to get back to this thread. Its been interesting. I want to interject some thoughts.

snip....

2. I think the means is a near total ban on federal firearms laws. The 14th amendment extends this ban to the states. Certain exceptions such as the case of felons or in certain locations are probably allowable given an over-riding government interest, but I don't think a ban on certain types of weapons is possible and I'm not sure I buy U.S. v. Miller. You can obviously use a sawed off shotgun in a war. Actual wars in the world today involving actual militias are actually fought with all kinds of fucked up weapons. Actual militias have things like RPGs. I think the second amendment cannot achieve its stated purpose if it allows for the federal regulations on the ownership of RPGs.

I'm somewhat in agreement here. If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the means to the people of counteracting against the State by balancing firepower, then you would need adequate firepower to do so. I just don't think that allowing people to own such high powered weaponry is a good idea. It creates an arms race, not just with the State, but within ourselves.

5. Militia of the sort envisioned by the Constitution are not obsolete from a technical standpoint. Generally, we refer to them as terrorist organizations. The closest modern equivalents are Sunni and Shia insurgent groups in Iraq, and Hezbollah. I think thats really what the founders were thinking. In fact, I recall Nanochick making a very insightful analogy between the founding of this Republic and the present bloodshed in Iraq. Looking at the situation there is the closest thing you can get to understanding the context that the Constitution was written in. I doubt very seriously that you'll see any party to any settlement in Iraq agreeing to lay down their arms. The 2nd amendment is an agreement that the federal government of the US would not disarm the militia. Its the same kind of thing.

This is a very profound point and one that has gotten totally lost in the dialog around the WoT. These "fundamentalist radicals" are of the same spirit which formed this country. The entire dynamic of allowing the Executive Branch to designate enemy combatants whether citizen or not basically gives the State power to nullify any organization that it deems annoying. Essentially the system has been circumvented and the US Government has become a monopoly. If there was ever a need to "rise up" and start over fresh, the systemic methods for doing that have been mostly eliminated. One of the things that I always admired the most about the US form of democracy was that it was extremely prescient and comprehensive about keeping itself relevant and driven by the populace. That is no longer the case. It's essentially been gentrified and the people are for the most part, clueless. So ... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

flynn23 wrote:
I think that it's perfectly acceptable to own weapons in your home for sport, protection, or collection. Although I do have serious reservations about the TYPES of weapons owned. You can collect WW2 rifles or even historic machine guns, but there's no reason why someone should have an operational M2 or an AK47, both of which I know of several people who possess.

I've been meaning to get back to this thread. Its been interesting. I want to interject some thoughts.

1. I think the second amendment consists of a purpose and a means to achieve that purpose.

2. I think the means is a near total ban on federal firearms laws. The 14th amendment extends this ban to the states. Certain exceptions such as the case of felons or in certain locations are probably allowable given an over-riding government interest, but I don't think a ban on certain types of weapons is possible and I'm not sure I buy U.S. v. Miller. You can obviously use a sawed off shotgun in a war. Actual wars in the world today involving actual militias are actually fought with all kinds of fucked up weapons. Actual militias have things like RPGs. I think the second amendment cannot achieve its stated purpose if it allows for the federal regulations on the ownership of RPGs.

3. Self defense in the home is not the purpose, nor is hunting, nor is collecting. But the ownership of weapons for those purposes is a given considering the means employed by this amendment. Similarly, the purpose of the first amendment was not to protect porn videos from federal bans, but it does so anyway, due to the means employed (nearly total prohibition on regulation of speech.)

4. The purpose was to protect the right of the people to form armed militia groups capable of challenging the power of any other contemporary armed force. The original federalist structure of the U.S. Government may have put states in the position of regulating such militia, but the 14th amendment set that power aside.

5. Militia of the sort envisioned by the Constitution are not obsolete from a technical standpoint. Generally, we refer to them as terrorist organizations. The closest modern equivalents are Sunni and Shia insurgent groups in Iraq, and Hezbollah. I think thats really what the founders were thinking. In fact, I recall Nanochick making a very insightful analogy between the founding of this Republic and the present bloodshed in Iraq. Looking at the situation there is the closest thing you can get to understanding the context that the Constitution was written in. I doubt very seriously that you'll see any party to any settlement in Iraq agreeing to lay down their arms. The 2nd amendment is an agreement that the federal government of the US would not disarm the militia. Its the same kind of thing.

6. Almost no one in the US today is comfortable with the idea that armed terrorist organizations can rightfully exist here. The actual purpos... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

4. The purpose was to protect the right of the people to form armed militia groups capable of challenging the power of any other contemporary armed force. The original federalist structure of the U.S. Government may have put states in the position of regulating such militia, but the 14th amendment set that power aside.

5. Militia of the sort envisioned by the Constitution are not obsolete from a technical standpoint. Generally, we refer to them as terrorist organizations. The closest modern equivalents are Sunni and Shia insurgent groups in Iraq, and Hezbollah. I think thats really what the founders were thinking. In fact, I recall Nanochick making a very insightful analogy between the founding of this Republic and the present bloodshed in Iraq. Looking at the situation there is the closest thing you can get to understanding the context that the Constitution was written in. I doubt very seriously that you'll see any party to any settlement in Iraq agreeing to lay down their arms. The 2nd amendment is an agreement that the federal government of the US would not disarm the militia. Its the same kind of thing.

6. Almost no one in the US today is comfortable with the idea that armed terrorist organizations can rightfully exist here. The actual purpose of the 2nd amendment is therefore at odds with the interests of the people in this country, and a new amendment ought to be passed, striking it down. If people actually understood what the 2nd amendment meant, a 28th amendment eliminating it would pass readily with broad social consensus.

7. All this nittering about guns for personal defense, as a hobby, etc is tangental to the issue of the 2nd amendment, and people's interest in them should not be used as a justification for continuing to prop up that amendment or twist its interpretation in ridiculous ways. (Furthermore, the concept of guns for personal defense may soon be technically obsolete.) The inherent interest that law abiding people have in being treated like adults and able to legally own guns if they want to exists in all kinds of other contexts that don't happen to be tangent to a constitutional amendment. Examples include the right to drive a car without wearing your seat belt, the right to eat hallucinogenic mushrooms, and the right to buy a beer on Sunday.

The fact that these rights are not tangental to a constitutional amendment does not make them any less or more important than the right to own a handgun, (unless you accept the idea that armed terrorist groups should be allowed in the US and the right to own handguns has to be preserved for the express purpose of protecting the ability of those terrorist groups to operate without constraint). If you're really concerned about handguns strictly for self defense, the basic question is whether government ought to regulate behavior in general that it considers dangerous but which can be eng... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

I know a lot of people who explain their gun ownership based on the theory that they are going to defend themselves from some sort of home invasion. I think of this a bit like I think of Ralphie Parker's dreams of fending off Black Bart with his BB gun. In general, your home is not going to be invaded while you are there, and you are not going to defend yourself this way if it does happen. Shooting can be a fun hobby, but you're not John Wayne.

You might want to ask around, and ask how many gun owners carry while in their own homes?

I know of several people in the Atlanta and Nashville community who answer the door with a pistol in hand, or at least on the hip, and keep one at hand all day.

When I'm at home on the weekends, like right now, my weapon is beside me on the floor, locked and loaded, inside it's shooting bag. I would certainly be able to get my hands on it in less than 5 seconds.

Weapons are there to protect my family. I'm not any TV character, I'm a guy who knows that there are evil people out in this world, who have no respect or values, and would take my life, liberty, children, or anything else that they wanted, if given 1/2 a chance. Home invasions are real. People died in them. I hope they skip my house, and go somewhere else, however, it's just statistical math. If they come in, and can beat my 5 second response time, I'm just as fucked as my neighbors who don't have weapons. However, if I beat them, it's going to be a very different result.

As a direct example, see http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/06/22/invasion_0623.html, where Homeowner wounds would-be burglar.

Had he not been armed, he would have been robbed, AGAIN.

Decius wrote:

The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

I know a lot of people who explain their gun ownership based on the theory that they are going to defend themselves from some sort of home invasion. I think of this a bit like I think of Ralphie Parker's dreams of fending off Black Bart with his BB gun. In general, your home is not going to be invaded while you are there, and you are not going to defend yourself this way if it does happen. Shooting can be a fun hobby, but you're not John Wayne.

Right-To-Carry and crime trends: Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”

(attribution: Lott, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns,” 1996. available for download here: http://www.dr-security.com/reference/lott.pdf)

Decius wrote:

The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.

In Atlanta, a city where approximately a third of households contain guns, a study of 197 home-invasion crimes revealed only three instances (1.5 percent) in which the inhabitants resisted with a gun. Intruders got to the homeowner's gun twice as often as the homeowner did.

I know a lot of people who explain their gun ownership based on the theory that they are going to defend themselves from some sort of home invasion. I think of this a bit like I think of Ralphie Parker's dreams of fending off Black Bart with his BB gun. In general, your home is not going to be invaded while you are there, and you are not going to defend yourself this way if it does happen. Shooting can be a fun hobby, but you're not John Wayne.

A home invasion when you're not there is just called "a burglary".

As far as a home invasion when you are there is concerned, some us actually do go to the door armed when someone knocks/rings that we weren't expecting, so don't write that off so quickly. "Defending" isn't exactly the best word to use... We're probably just going to try to kill anyone who wants to force their way in, knowing they're damn well going to kill us first if they get the chance.

That is the point of being armed at home for self-defense purposes. As someone is kicking in your front door is a bit too late to run to the local gun shop to arm up. Most of those people in your study in Atlanta have probably gotten caught with their pants down because the mere presence of the gun made them feel safe enough to do things many of us don't do, like, go to meet a stranger at the door without it.

I bet those people go to the door with the gun in hand now. Let's see what a study on that scenario reveals.

I am so shocked by this discussion. It is so unbelievably alien to anything, to any mind set or experience I have ever had as a European. I have no idea whether the levels of paranoia on display have any basis in reality but if they do then I'm sorry and I don't mean to be rude and it seems weird on Independance Day but that justs seems like a sick society. You call it freedom to feel the need to answer the door with a gun and constantly have one within 5 seconds of you (I know that's quite personal and I don't mean to be rude and I don't know the realistic threat level but it's really surreal to me, a shocking level of tension and anxiety existing if that knowledge calms you down and makes you feel safe!!!!!!!) It seems a very strange idea of freedom. Like living in a bunker, "no one can get me now!", I'd rather walk in the fresh air, walk by the river, have a little faith, enjoy life rather than live in fear, not seeing enemies in every shadow, where every stranger might be a killer or a rapist, but seeing ordinary people with lives and hopes not threats. Where is the peace of mind when you need an AK47 as a comfort blanket? I love Linus from Snoopy but I'm just so shocked by the views expressed.

This is the worst culture shock I've ever experienced on this site.

Dagmar wrote:
As far as a home invasion when you are there is concerned, some us actually do go to the door armed when someone knocks/rings that we weren't expecting...

Same here.

ubernoir wrote:
This is the worst culture shock I've ever experienced on this site. It is so unbelievably alien to anything, to any mind set or experience I have ever had as a European.

That's understandable... unfortunate (even sad, from my perspective), but understandable. No offense taken.

ubernoir wrote:
I have no idea whether the levels of paranoia on display have any basis in reality...

What appears to you as paranoia is simply a matter of common sense, practicality, and responsible behavior to many of us.

ubernoir wrote:
It seems a very strange idea of freedom. Like living in a bunker, "no one can get me now!", I'd rather walk in the fresh air, walk by the river, have a little faith, enjoy life rather than live in fear, not seeing enemies in every shadow, where every stranger might be a killer or a rapist, but seeing ordinary people with lives and hopes not threats. Where is the peace of mind when you need an AK47 as a comfort blanket?

I can't speak for the others here, but you aren't describing my mindset. I'm not constantly in a state of fear or paranoia. I enjoy going out into the world as much as you, and while I do keep my eyes open, I don't suspect every stranger of having criminal intentions toward me. However, just as I carry my keys and my purse wherever I go, I also carry a weapon (in my case, a handgun), just in case. I've never had to use a handgun or any other weapon for its intended purpose, and I hope I never will.

I can enjoy that "walk by the river" with the same confidence (or "faith") that you have. I don't expect trouble (were that the case, I'd carry a rifle or stay home). I do think most individuals in my country just want to live their lives without causing trouble for each other. Unfortunately, "most" does not mean "all." In the event that I am placed in a dangerous situation by a bad guy(s) while enjoying the fresh air by the river, it's comforting to know that I at least have a fighting chance at making it home alive, rather than being completely at the mercy of the bad guys. The police can't follow me around everywhere, nor would I want them to do so.

ubernoir wrote:
I am so shocked by this discussion. It is so unbelievably alien to anything, to any mind set or experience I have ever had as a European....

It seems a very strange idea of freedom. Like living in a bunker, "no one can get me now!", I'd rather walk in the fresh air, walk by the river, have a little faith, enjoy life rather than live in fear, not seeing enemies in every shadow, where every stranger might be a killer or a rapist, but seeing ordinary people with lives and hopes not threats. Where is the peace of mind when you need an AK47 as a comfort blanket?

If its any consolation I don't think the views on this thread accurately represent a cross section of Americans. Barely 20 percent of us own handguns. A lot of the people on MemeStreams are southerners, and southerners are more likely than people who live in other regions to own a gun, but gun owners are not in the majority even here. Certainly only a very small percentage keep their guns as close at hand as many on this thread seem to.

Crime, in some American cities, is oppressive. I certainly think its oppressive in Atlanta. Its a sad think that I feel less safe in my adopted home town that I do in almost any other city that I travel to, but that is the case. I'm always looking over my shoulder when I ride Marta, while I've recently ridden subways in Barcelona, Munich, New York, and Paris and not been the least bit concerned.

However, I don't own a firearm. I don't think carrying a handgun would make me feel safer. I generally prefer to be aware of by surroundings and avoid situations where one is likely to become a statistic. On the other hand, to the degree that ownership of handguns is a deterrent, the fact that other people carry enables me to benefit from their presence.

I don't think banning or allowing handguns is the solution to the problem. I think its one of those political footballs that gets passed around, like life prison sentences for failure to register as a convicted statutory rapist, that plays off of media sensationalism and makes people think that something is being done when nothing is being done. The problem is more complicated than that. Its a product of official corruption (which these political debates are a part, as are those thin blue line stickers on people's cars), a history of segregation, racism, and slavery that created a caste system which still persists, and suburbia's desertion of urban cores (which is fortunately a dying trend but more slowly here than elsewhere). These problems cannot be repaired with quicky legislation, and few of our leaders have the strength to form a long term vision to change the state of our communities. Most effective solutions are expensive. More police on the street (assuming they aren't corrupt) would have a greater deterrent effect than handgun ownership or any change in sentencing policy, but it costs real money, so it is almost never discussed.

Decius wrote:

ubernoir wrote:
I am so shocked by this discussion. It is so unbelievably alien to anything, to any mind set or experience I have ever had as a European....

It seems a very strange idea of freedom. Like living in a bunker, "no one can get me now!", I'd rather walk in the fresh air, walk by the river, have a little faith, enjoy life rather than live in fear, not seeing enemies in every shadow, where every stranger might be a killer or a rapist, but seeing ordinary people with lives and hopes not threats. Where is the peace of mind when you need an AK47 as a comfort blanket?

If its any consolation I don't think the views on this thread accurately represent a cross section of Americans. Barely 20 percent of us own handguns. A lot of the people on MemeStreams are southerners, and southerners are more likely than people who live in other regions to own a gun, but gun owners are not in the majority even here. Certainly only a very small percentage keep their guns as close at hand as many on this thread seem to.

Crime, in some American cities, is oppressive. I certainly think its oppressive in Atlanta. Its a sad think that I feel less safe in my adopted home town that I do in almost any other city that I travel to, but that is the case. I'm always looking over my shoulder when I ride Marta, while I've recently ridden subways in Barcelona, Munich, New York, and Paris and not been the least bit concerned.

However, I don't own a firearm. I don't think carrying a handgun would make me feel safer. I generally prefer to be aware of by surroundings and avoid situations where one is likely to become a statistic. On the other hand, to the degree that ownership of handguns is a deterrent, the fact that other people carry enables me to benefit from their presence.

I don't think banning or allowing handguns is the solution to the problem. I think its one of those political footballs that gets passed around, like life prison sentences for failure to register as a statutory rapist, that plays off of media sensationalism and makes people think that something is being done when nothing is being done. The problem is more complicated than that. Its a product of official corruption (which these political debates are a part, as are those thin blue line stickers on people's cars), a history of segregation, racism, and slavery that created a caste system which still persists, and suburbia's desertion of urban cores (which is fortunately a dying trend but more slowly here than elsewhere). These problems cannot be repaired with quicky legislation, and few of our leaders have the strength to form a long term vision to change the state of our communities. Most effective solutions are expensive. More police on the street (assuming they aren't corrupt) would have a greater deterrent effect than handgun ownership or any change in sentencing policy, but it costs real money, so it is... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

ubernoir wrote:
You have a higher per capita murder rate which arguably could be connected to gun ownership and we have a government which sometimes treats its citizens like children.

Let me say this. There is a connection, but I'm not sure its direct.

We have a high murder rate and a high rate of gun ownership because we are a more violent society. Banning guns, or allowing them, may, or may not, actually relate to our murder rate. The same might be offered about banning violent movies. I've offered that we shouldn't execute people, because we communicate a message through doing so that killing people is a reasonable way to solve problems in peacetime. But regulations of individuals... well, you can't force people to be something they're not.

Our violence is related to our independence but not directly. We're more violent because of our history. The UK has quite a fine history of violence but most of it was committed overseas. In the US, it happened here. The French-Indian War, the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Spanish American War, and the Civil War.... We had a period of about 100 years in which each generation fought on U.S. soil.

After, our western frontier experience was distinct from Canada's in that they deployed a strong federal police force to secure the frontier, whereas the US left security up to local governments, who were often too poor to keep order... Ultimately, Civil War vets took their guns west after the war and fended for themselves. And particularly in the south, the mutual distrust during a subsequent 100 year apartheid society that followed the 100 years of war provided a culture that was by then used to needing guns for war with a reason to keep them at peace.

I don't think Europe's most recent century of war (from the Franco-Prussian war to WWII) had the same impact because people didn't take the guns home after the battles were over.

Clearly, by the 1970's, these rationales for keeping firearms were gone, and at the same time you saw a rising tide of inner city violence caused by the peak of the suburban abandonment of the city, and thus you saw the sort of gun control laws beginning in the 1980's that this whole debate refers to. The pendellum is, today, swinging the other direction in many respects. Our cities are becoming safer, and the rates of violence are going down, but, like racism, it will take several generations to work some of this history out.

Decius wrote:
Clearly, by the 1970's, these rationales for keeping firearms were gone, and at the same time you saw a rising tide of inner city violence caused by the peak of the suburban abandonment of the city, and thus you saw the sort of gun control laws beginning in the 1980's that this whole debate refers to. The pendellum is, today, swinging the other direction in many respects. Our cities are becoming safer, and the rates of violence are going down, but, like racism, it will take several generations to work some of this history out.

To say that because the "cities are safer", we should give up our Right to Bear Arms, is a bit like saying, "to stop terrorism" we should give up our Liberty.

While we're at it, we should also destroy the entire Bill of Rights... it's just not needed in todays' "advanced" society.

I have one word for that... Bullcrap.

dc0de wrote:
To say that because the "cities are safer", we should give up our Right to Bear Arms, is a bit like saying, "to stop terrorism" we should give up our Liberty.

I did not say that. What I said was that gun control laws where the product of increasing violence in cities in the 1970's. I also said that the pendellum now is swinging in the other direction. I would include the recent Supreme Court decision in that. Cities are becoming safer; people are becoming less concerned about gun control.

I think you should give up your right to bare arms because I don't think home RPGs and C4 are needed in today's advanced society but thats got nothing to do with handguns.

Decius wrote:

dc0de wrote:
To say that because the "cities are safer", we should give up our Right to Bear Arms, is a bit like saying, "to stop terrorism" we should give up our Liberty.

I did not say that. What I said was that gun control laws where the product of increasing violence in cities in the 1970's. I also said that the pendellum now is swinging in the other direction. I would include the recent Supreme Court decision in that. Cities are becoming safer; people are becoming less concerned about gun control.

I think you should give up your right to bare arms because I don't think home RPGs and C4 are needed in today's advanced society but thats got nothing to do with handguns.

Heh... I see what you're saying... :)

I read it completely differently...

ubernoir wrote:
As to which is better I think as I discussed here with Stefanie it is good to have different democracies running different models -- meme variety + selection is a positive force and I think over time the "fittest" model will emerge.

Perhaps there is no single "fittest" model for democracy, and democracy will continue to take different forms for as long as we have different cultures. In some cases, the different models might borrow from each other, but in other cases, I think there will be certain cultural attitudes and values that simply won't translate from one nation to another, or from one time to another.

As for the specific issue of weapons, our nation is certainly divided on the issue, and each state has a different set of laws regulating weapons of various types. But once we leave the political theory regarding whether citizens should be armed as a limitation on government, the issue of self-defense takes on a much more personal tone.

As Decius mentioned, he just tries to "be aware of [his] surroundings and avoid situations where one is likely to become a statistic," and that might work very well for him. I follow that advice myself, but it's not enough to make me feel comfortable, especially at night. For most criminals, women are easier targets than men, and I think we should take more precautions when out alone. Some of my friends are large, intimidating guys, but I can't assemble an entourage of bodyguards every time I leave home.

Plus, being a transsexual woman introduces the variable of hate crimes. I think things are much better now than when I was growing up, but there are still too many stories like Gwen Araujo's and Matthew Shepard's for me to ignore the possibility of a prejudice-based physical attack. Anti-hate crime laws designed to punish criminals after the fact don't do much to help me, but the right to defend myself in the first place certainly does. I don't dread the worst case scenario each time I walk out the door, but I'm not going to let myself become a helpless victim, either. Going armed isn't reflective of paranoia on my part; it's just a normal aspect of my life, given the culture in which I live.

So, Constitutional issues aside, I do have personal reasons for supporting the continued legalization of firearms. There's a Ben-Hur quote that you've probably heard before: "Balthazar is a good man. But until all men are like him, we must keep our swords bright!" If Ubernoir and Decius were my only concerns, I probably wouldn't need to go armed, but then we probably wouldn't need laws regulating weapons, either.

Stefanie wrote:
"Balthazar is a good man. But until all men are like him, we must keep our swords bright!"

what you said reminded me of Hobbs and his book Leviathan
when I was in my late teens I had a very good friend who was an anarchist and I always profoundly disagreed with him (nice bloke and I still see him from time to time)

the law and the state is a social contract -- we pull together as a community and defend each other -- in a sense at some stage in our lives, infancy and or old age we are all vulnerable or because of illness or circumstances we are "weak" thus it is enlightened self-interest, a good meme and moral. But it is a contract we in democratic societies renegotiate with every election and set a new balance. So indeed yes we must keep our swords bright but again although I am not in any way suggesting American society can be disarmed not because I don't think it would be desirable but rather because I don't believe it is a viable option -- I just think Prohibition, in the sense that it would be unenforceable (not that I think Prohibition was seeking a desirable outcome God knows I enjoy a drink too much to think that): anyway I live in a different country with, as Decius has pointed out, a very different history of violence although certainly very violent. Although I'm not sure the state sponsored violence he cites necessarily follows into levels of civil mayhem (other clearly from the question he cites of what happens to returning soldiers and their weapons) and translates into murder rates. (Although I fundamentally agree that with capital punishment we send a strange message when we punish people for killing people by killing people yet I'm not sure that in itself translates into a more or less violent society). I think murder is generally a deeply irrational event, people are driven by anger, jealousy, revenge, fear etc and guns are simply a great facilitator of death. It is a lot more difficult to be up close and personal in order to stab someone. I simply think of the practicality of cooling off periods, the up close and personal element, the physical difficulty of stabbing a human being especially when they are breathing in your face. I think guns facilitate murder because they make it easy. Easier physically and emotionally.

The metaphorical and literal swords in Britain have been abandoned by the general population (I am currently reading Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin cycle set during the Napoleonic era when firearms were legal here and funnily enough a female character in one of the books just answered the door with a gun in her hand, also during this time swords were routinely carried). Our swords have been ceded to the state wherein only the police are permitted within guidelines to use force. I'm not quite sure where these observations take us other than to observe that British soci... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]