Is there any reasonable argument that the second amendment is actually a good thing?

[DanTex]

I mean, I get it, it's in the bill of rights, and even though it never had anything to do with private gun ownership outside of militia service, I don't get to decide that, Scalia does, and so for now we're stuck with the "individual rights" interpretation as a matter of law.

But the fact that we're stuck with it doesn't actually mean it's a good thing. We lose 30,000 lives to guns, and then there are injuries, trauma, and dollar costs that have been estimated at $100 billion per year. Often people compare guns to cars, which also cause about 30,000 deaths per year, but cars also have enormous benefits. Without cars, society would grind to a halt. Without guns, some people would have to find a new hobby.

The original purpose of the second amendment -- to ensure that states could maintain citizen militias -- has been obsolete for over a century now. A well-regulated militia is not, in fact, necessary to the security of a free state. The security of a free state requires a professional army.

[geckosfeet]

1. We lose 10 times as many lives due to tobacco. And it's legal.

Oh - and about 40k due to passive smoke alone.

Tobacco dead people are just as dead as gun dead people. And it was probably a much more miserable and expensive way to go.

[DanTex]

4. But tobacco is not constitutionally protected, and nobody thinks it should be. (AFAIK)

[SheilaT]

6. And very rarely does the tobacco user

take others with him when he goes. And definitely not dozens at a time. Even with the second-hand smoke problem, which is very real. No one lights up a cigarette, points it in a crowded movie theater, and mows down twenty people.

Guns exist for one reason and one reason only. Every single gun death is preventable. As is every tobacco death, but there's a huge difference between tobacco and guns.

Personally, I'd have no problem with the outlawing of tobacco, but that's just me.

[AlinPA]

29. Good response.

[geckosfeet]

70. Maybe you missed the part about second hand smoke,,,,

It might not be quick, but it's just as deadly.

[SheilaT]

80. No, I didn't. Reread my answer.

I'm as bothered by the tobacco apologists ("They're my lungs. I'm an adult, I can smoke if I want. It's not hurting anyone else&quot as I am by the gun apologists ("It's our constitutional right! *I'm* a responsible gun owner.&quot .

Personally, not only do I think gun ownership needs to be severely restricted and regulated, but I'm sorry that smoking is as acceptable as it still is. Hollywood continues to glamorize smoking. I gather that almost every actor out there smokes, and quite frankly it shows. I have no sympathy for anyone who took up smoking after the 1964 Surgeon General's report.

[geckosfeet]

82. I see. Well, tobacco kills by a different mechanism. And it does not kill right away.

But smoking in a crowded room is the closest you can get to shooting up a theater. It's just a whole lot slower. And completely legal.

But you cannot hold all gun owners responsible for the criminally insane acts of individuals. I don't see that as making any sense. These people are lost and disconnected from society. They need help. Not minimizing or justifying thier actions but they are not right.

Keep them from buying firearms. And make health care easilly available.

[Progressive dog]

108. You realize that guns cause instant death

And that is what they are designed to do. We regulate purchase of cigarettes and where they can be used. We put heavy taxes on them. We run government funded ads against cigarette use. We do none of that for guns.
The defenders of the gun status quo are exactly the people who have shown by their illogical defense of gun laws that they are not rational enough to own the weapons they worship.

[beevul]

116. Nonsense.

"And that is what they are designed to do. We regulate purchase of cigarettes and where they can be used. We put heavy taxes on them. We run government funded ads against cigarette use. We do none of that for guns."

If you really think we don't regulate the purchase of guns or where they can be used, you need to educate yourself about the facts.

[Progressive dog]

118. Yeah, real heavy taxes on devices designed to kill

They have no other use.

[beevul]

120. You said...

You said "We do none of that for guns."


You were wrong.

You can claim that guns are designed to kill, but there are over 300 million of them in America (that's 300,000,000) and they are owned by 80 plus million people (that's 80,000,000+), and there are 30 thousandish deaths by firearm.

That's 30,000.


While that's too many deaths, those numbers show quite empirically, that the overwhelming majority of guns are not being used for the purpose you claim they're designed for, the overwhelming majority of people that own them are not using them for the purpose you claim they're designed for, and that when there is an exception to that, its the exception, rather than the rule.

[Progressive dog]

121. Guns sre designed to kill

It is their only reason to exist. They are designed to shoot a deadly projectile. They were not designed as toys.
Just as autos are designed as transportation, trains are designed as transportation, houses are designed as shelter, guns are designed to kill.
This is not debatable, it is a broadly documented fact. They were designed to replace or supplement other killing devices. Until the gun worshipers showed up, they were a tool used for killing in war and for hunting, not as a toy.
They have no utilitarian use other than killing.

[beevul]

123. And yet...most aren't used for that.

Nor do most people that own them use them for that.

[Progressive dog]

124. So you agree that guns are designed to kill

Now I would argue that every other use of guns is training for their intended use.

[beevul]

127. I agree that they're designed to propel a projectile...

I agree that they're designed to accurately propel a projectile at a target of the users choosing.

I agree that in some cases but not all, doing such a thing is wrong.

"Now I would argue that every other use of guns is training for their intended use."

Of course you would. But then you'd have to go on and explain how people have been doing this "training for their intended use" at the rate of billions of rounds per year, for many decades, yet just aren't engaging in this purported use, other than in a percentage of a percentage of exceptions.

I'm all ears.

[Progressive dog]

133. Guns are designed to kill,

I do believe that the US and other armies practice with their weapons. They expend billions of rounds learning to more efficiently use guns to kill. Hunters expend billions of rounds practicing with their gun. Some state lands near me in NY recently got new signs. The signs ban target practice and promiscuous shooting, they do not ban hunting.

It is expected that gun worshipers will deny what guns are designed for.

[lastlib]

126. I don't notice them being used for doorstops......

...or jackstands or boat motors or lamps or ________________...............

[beevul]

128. You don't notice most of them bsing used...

You don't notice most of them bsing used at all.

Because target shooting and hunting and non-usage generally aren't newsworthy.

[Progressive dog]

135. Oh yeah you do, they make lots of noise

Is target shooting the same as practicing to use the gun for its intended purpose?

[jmowreader]

159. Almost all guns are bought for one of two purposes

One is to kill. Whether it's burglars, deer, elk, rival drug dealers, criminals, enemy soldiers, coyotes, or your psycho ex boyfriend who keeps breaking in, most guns are purchased specifically to kill something.

Many are purchased for use in target shooting sports. This is practice killing.

The Forest Service has a neat use for guns: checking pine cone ripeness. Sounds funny but isn't. After a pine cone falls off a tree it is only viable for a short while. It's not safe to climb trees trying to get cones to test, so they have retired Army snipers who go out and shoot branches out of trees.

But other than that...yeah, guns are for killing.

[hack89]

189. Target shooting is not practice killing

I have been shooting competitively for years - I have never thought about using my guns for killing. I don't hunt and I do not use my rifles for self defense purposes - they are locked up in a safe with the ammo in a separate safe when I am not at the shooting range.

What a stupid statement.

[jmowreader]

192. There are two gun stores less than a mile from my house

If you'd like, we can go to either one and buy a target that is a life-size picture of a human being. They have the optimum points for instant-death-causing shots printed right on them.

If you would like to go a little farther, we'll go to the Black Sheep in Coeur d'Alene or the White Elephant in Spokane and peruse their selections of deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, black bear, mountain goat, mountain lion, coyote and wolf targets. If you give them a week they can get you African game targets. Not sure how you paste an elephant target, but they'll get you one.

How exactly is firing on a target that looks like a gangbanger with an AK or a hot blonde with an MP5 not practice killing?

[hack89]

193. Competitive target shooting uses none of those targets.

we shoot at traditional round bulls eye targets.

[jmowreader]

194. I know. And how many of you are there?

I have a feeling that the number of people who shoot competitive target, plus biathlon athletes, plus all the participants in "practical" shooting sports like IPSC and cowboy action shooting, combined wouldn't come close to the number of deer hunters in Tennessee.

Those are good sports but the people who do them are a very small subset of shooters.

[hack89]

196. So where is the carnage from all these highly trained killers?

you would think that with tens of millions of people practicing to kill people, there would a lot more people actually being killed.

The number of people being killed by guns has steadily fallen for 30 years. And two thirds of those deaths are suicides. And rifles only account for 300 per year.

It is almost as if all those people buying rifles are using them in a safe and responsible manner.

[Alva Goldbook]

169. What a stupid thing to say.

Is that why cops carry guns? To kill people? I didn't know the boys in blue were nothing more than America's version of South American Death Squads.

[Progressive dog]

171. Sure, then explain what they are designed for

you don't get to make claims about stuff that has nothing to do with gun design. It is incredibly stupid to respond to a statement about a tool with a claim about lack of death squads.
I have found that gun lovers respond to everything as if they don't understand what was said.
Let me repeat guns (which are not a person) are designed to kill.
They have no other purpose. In societies that allow gun nuts to be heavily armed, police officers (cops to you) carry guns to equalize the weaponry that inevitably ends up in the hands of criminals.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

186. "Guns sre designed to kill. It is their only reason to exist." Yet millions of Democrats disagree.

See post # 185, below.

[Progressive dog]

187. Guns are designed to kill is fact not opinion

Opinions do not change facts.
Millions of Americans believe the earth is flat. Millions of Americans believe the President is a Muslim.
The number of ignorant people supporting an argument has no bearing on its truth.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

197. You say "Millions of Americans believe the earth is flat." Good luck with your flat-earth meetings.

[Progressive dog]

198. You can read some

[geckosfeet]

134. Yep. Sometines they do. Usually death is caused by blood loss though.

But I think a small percentage of gun owners are not fit. Your brush is a little too broad.

[Progressive dog]

112. Smoking is restricted, regulated, and heavily taxed

Guns are designed to kill, cigarettes are not. Candy cigarettes have been banned, toy guns have not.
Letting a 14 year old smoke would be child abuse but he can shoot and even hunt with a gun.

[geckosfeet]

161. so what? why shouldnt kids learn to shoot. most seem to enjoy it.

[Progressive dog]

162. So kids should be able to do anything they enjoy

Why did that response not surprise me?

[geckosfeet]

163. Because you believe a lot of preconceived notions and stereotypes?

There is nothing wrong with teaching a kid responsibility and safety and how to be aware of their surroundings and their actions.

[Progressive dog]

164. No, I'm just going by what you say

You do not need to hand a child a deadly weapon to teach responsibility or safety.
Sometimes stereotypes are accurate.

[geckosfeet]

165. You don't have to. But it's a good lesson.

[Progressive dog]

166. I'm glad you learned

[Honeycombe8]

167. If guns were outlawed, many of the people would die, anyway.

By other means. Guns are just one way that people kill each other. I read somewhere that more people are killed each year by hammers, knives, and other weapons than they are by guns. Don't know if that's true, but it makes sense. Hammers & such are more accessible than guns, although require more strength to kill someone.

I'm against outlawing tobacco, caffeine, booze, and any number of things that people use to relax, de-stress, or just get hooked on. We don't have to outlaw everything that's bad for us. Besides, "bad" is a relative term.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

185. You say, "Guns exist for one reason and one reason only." Yet millions of Democrats don't agree.

Millions of Democrats own firearms, including many on this board.

When a Gallup poll was taken, here was the response:


http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

[Alva Goldbook]

81. Yes, the 2nd Amendment IS a Good Thing, and the OP is Completely Wrong.

The OP is wrong. The original intention of the 2nd amendment was to allow for the private ownership of arms.

You can see this everywhere if you do a little bit of research into the topic. When this country was founded, each state had their own Constitutions and their own Bill of Rights. So if you look at the Constitutions of the 13 original states, you will find their own "2nd amendment" provisions, with different wording, which makes it clear that it was intended to provide a right of the private ownership of guns.

For instance, the Constitution of my home state of Virginia has such a provision in it's Bill of Rights, in Section 13.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

http://constitution.legis.virginia.gov/

Now, while the baggers may ramble incoherently about tyranny, this was a real concern of the Founders, who had just escaped the tyranny of the British. In Federalist #46, Madison made it very clear that the very purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent a tyrannical federal government, and to guarantee that the people had the means by which they could keep and protect their rights.

Madison said that a time may come when "the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition." Therefore, "Let a regular army...be formed", but if the federal government ever became tyrannical, a militia amounting to millions of citizens "with arms in their hands" and "fighting for their common liberties" "would be able to repel the danger."

Madison said that, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops."

Madison went on to say, "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation" would form "a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

Madison explicitly criticized gun control in "the several kingdoms of Europe", whose "governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." But if they did have arms, "the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Madison concluded by saying, "Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

[jeff47]

84. All you've done is explained why it made sense in 1789.

We're not in 1789 any more.

We have a federal standing army now. It has nuclear weapons. It has conventional weapons well beyond what citizens can obtain due to laws and enormous cost.

There have been no successful revolutions by "normal citizens" against a military backed by tanks. Either an outside country neutralized them (ex. Libya), the military participated in the revolution (bringing their armor), or the military sat out the revolution (ex. Egypt).

If the US Federal government became tyrannical, the 2nd amendment will not enable a successful revolution. Even with an extremely loose interpretation of it.

So now that the original purpose is simply not possible, perhaps you could try to come up with some other reason?

[Alva Goldbook]

92. You've never heard of an armed insurrection?

Why do you think the US lost the Vietnam War?

All the reasons you cite, to me sounds like a damn good reason to cut our defense budget. But regardless, do you really think that any army could overtake 79 million armed people? Why do you think that no one has ever invaded Switzerland? Why do you think Israel allows their citizens to be armed?

In my home state of Virginia, 35% of the population is armed. The military could, in theory, bomb them to smithereens. But do you really think it would be feasible to subjugate them? Do you not think that an armed citizenry has acted as a very strong deterrent against those who would prefer to take this nation in a tyrannical direction?

I should note that my own reasons for owning a gun is different than Madison's. It's strictly for self-protection. On my cul-de-sac, 2 of the 6 houses were broken into, including my next door neighbor. Then someone tried to break into my car. It got to the point where I was talking to the police once or twice a week, asking if I had seen or heard anything. A short time later, a teen was caught a block from me, robbing people on the street at gun point.

I am perfectly aware that my chances of needing to use a gun for self-defense is pretty slim. Not as slim as winning the lotto, but still pretty slim. I will consider myself lucky if I never have to draw my gun on anyone. But I don't want to make the gamble that I'll be lucky forever.

[jeff47]

109. Try actually reading what is written.

Here, I'll just quote myself.

There have been no successful revolutions by "normal citizens" against a military backed by tanks. Either an outside country neutralized them (ex. Libya), the military participated in the revolution (bringing their armor), or the military sat out the revolution (ex. Egypt).

Arming the citizenry doesn't enable revolutions anymore. It did at one time, but modern militaries are far more powerful than an armed citizenry. Thus the original reason for the 2nd amendment is no longer valid. So why should we keep it?

But regardless, do you really think that any army could overtake 79 million armed people?

Yes. Easily.

Why do you think that no one has ever invaded Switzerland?

Why do you think "revolution" and "invasion" mean the same thing?

The military could, in theory, bomb them to smithereens. But do you really think it would be feasible to subjugate them?

Well, if you look at actual history, the answer is a resounding yes.

Do you not think that an armed citizenry has acted as a very strong deterrent against those who would prefer to take this nation in a tyrannical direction?

Given how easily the military could crush such an insurrection, no it hasn't.

I should note that my own reasons for owning a gun is different than Madison's. It's strictly for self-protection. On my cul-de-sac, 2 of the 6 houses were broken into, including my next door neighbor. Then someone tried to break into my car. It got to the point where I was talking to the police once or twice a week, asking if I had seen or heard anything.

So getting a gun stopped all crime in your area? That's an utterly laughable claim.

[Alva Goldbook]

136. Let's take another look at Libya.

Why did the US see it as so important for us to arm the Libyan rebels? The military in Egypt just ended up siding with the people. You don't think that something similar might happen in the United States? Why do you think we have a National Guard set up in each of the 50 states instead of being centralized under the Federal gov't? You still haven't explained what happened in Vietnam.

The purpose of an armed population isn't just to prevent a tyrannical federal gov't, it was designed also to make invasion by a foreign power almost impossible. When you can effectively turn every single citizen into a soldier, it makes it very difficult to subjugate them.

So you don't think an armed citizenry hasn't stopped tyranny. Hmm. Why do you think when business leaders developed The Business Plot, they tried to get WW1 veterans to help them?

Did I claim that gun ownership stopped all crime in my neighborhood? I personally own a gun for self-defense. That means that should I ever be attacked, I have a means to protect and defend my life. That doesn't mean I believe in going all guns-ablazin'. It means that I will not use my gun, and I am legally prohibited to use my gun, unless my life in is immediate danger.

[jeff47]

147. Quick! Divert again!!!!!

Why did the US see it as so important for us to arm the Libyan rebels?

Because once the Europeans had eliminated Libya's tanks, an armed citizenry could fight their revolution.

The military in Egypt just ended up siding with the people.

No, they sat it out. They didn't really choose one side or the other. Making an armed citizenry irrelevant.

You don't think that something similar might happen in the United States?

You really should pay attention to your own argument when you try to defend it.

The reason for your revolution is tyranny of the federal government. That requires the military to participate in the tyranny - if the military nor law enforcement participates, the tyranny disappears the next election.

So your claim is you need a gun to fight the US military. That precludes having the US military fight alongside you.

Why do you think we have a National Guard set up in each of the 50 states instead of being centralized under the Federal gov't?

They are routinely federalized and receive significant federal funding. To call them state-only entities is to ignore what has happened in the last couple decades.

You still haven't explained what happened in Vietnam.

That's because Vietnam wasn't an internal revolution. You know, the thing you're actually trying to talk about.

Again, no revolution has succeeded against a military with tanks. Either:
- the tanks were neutralized by other countries
- the military joined the revolution
- the military didn't pick sides in the revolution
- the revolution was crushed.

The purpose of an armed population isn't just to prevent a tyrannical federal gov't, it was designed also to make invasion by a foreign power almost impossible.

No, it was necessary to protect against invasion in 1789 when we did not have a standing federal army.

We have a standing federal army now. It isn't 1789 anymore.

When you can effectively turn every single citizen into a soldier, it makes it very difficult to subjugate them.

It takes much more than handing out guns to turn citizens into soldiers. Which is why if you want to require militia membership in order to own a gun, you might have a point. But you're handing out guns to anyone who says "I Wanna!!"

So you don't think an armed citizenry hasn't stopped tyranny. Hmm. Why do you think when business leaders developed The Business Plot, they tried to get WW1 veterans to help them?

You know, if it was remotely as effective as you claim, you wouldn't have to resort to conspiracy theories for examples. After all, there's been plenty of attempted revolutions in the time period I'm talking about.

How bout the one in Hungary in the 50s? Oh wait...crushed by tanks. Well, how 'bout the one in China in the 90s? Oh wait...crushed by tanks. How 'bout the ones in Chile or Argentina.? Oh wait....crushed by tanks.

Did I claim that gun ownership stopped all crime in my neighborhood?

Well, you claimed there was tons of crime, then you got a gun, then it was all better. While that's not coming out and saying your gun ended all crime in your neighborhood, it's obvious that you wanted to convey that message.

[Alva Goldbook]

149. You're being intentionally obtuse.

The Libyans were fighting even while they were getting bombed from the sky with Libyan jets. Guess what? They still won.

Oh, so you don't think that a tyrannical gov't could form unless we already had an abusive military. Would you say that the Bush administration didn't come close to this with endless spying, and putting protesters behind barbed wire fences? Did that require the military to carry this out? Do you have zero understanding of how popular movements operate?

Madison made it more than clear that the very purpose of having state and local governments was to block a tyrannical federal gov't. That's why we have state governments in the first place.

Your historical ignorance of this is astounding. We didn't have militias because we didn't have a standing army. Madison and Jefferson both warned that standing armies were inherently dangerous and should be avoided. You can see this in the "2nd amendment" provisions of the Constitutions of the 13 original states. My own home state of Virginia states in section 13 of it's Constitution:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

You again ignore the Vietnam example. Saying it was an "internal revolution". Precisely. But it was also a revolution for their own independence. Everyone was armed. And it made conquering that nation impossible. This is also why everyone in Israel is armed.

Everyone is a member of the militia. I am a member of the Virginia state militia. You are a member of your state militia. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found in the Heller decision that there is an individual right of gun ownership.

Apparently, you've never heard of The Business Plot. How do you think the House Unamerican Activities Committee was created?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Were the people of Hungry armed? Were the Chinese armed? Were the people of Chile or Argentina armed? Were those revolutions not crushed by assistance from the United States?

When did I ever claim that crime in my neighborhood went away after I bought a gun? If you're going to just make up what I say, then how is it possible to have a rational conversation? Is it really that hard to understand that the sole reason why I own a gun is for my own self-protection? Do you really think that wetting yourself is preferable?

[jmg257]

160. You're ignoring the 200 years of history since the 2nd was ratified.

Who cares what Madison and Jefferson thought on this issue - really? The Union didn't have standing armies because we didn't want standing armies; yes there was great fear of those banes of liberty.

But that was then. Since, the PEOPLE decided (a long time ago) that the constitutional well-regulated militia IS NOT necessary for the security of a free state. That they aren't even the best security of a free state.

No. The people identified the numerous down-sides of citizen militia, even well-regulated ones,.

Instead, we decided we MUCH prefer a huge standing army, a kick-ass navy, and a select militia regulated AND armed by the federal govt.

This is what makes the primary purpose of the 2nd obsolete. The people found that they really weren't all that worried about standing armies, or the threat of a tyrannical govt. And that they much prefered the former to citizen militias, and having to fullfill their duty to serve in them.

Yes - we all get a bone being in "the unorganized miltia", but that entity is pretty much useless for securing the state's freedom. Being armed with regards to this class of militia is little more then catering to the selfish wants and needs of inidividuals.

[Alva Goldbook]

170. Tell that to Eisenhower.

The 2nd amendment is not obsolete. Do you think it's an accident that we haven't been invaded since 1812? How many nations can say such a thing? Yes, we have a big bad military, but we didn't always. And yet we haven't once been invaded in the last 200 years. Why do you think that is?

All of us have a duty, as members of our state militia, to protect our country and our fellow countrymen. That's just as true today as it was 200 years ago. It's a universal American value. That is why civilians ran to protect and save people on 9/11. It's why since then, passengers have taken it upon themselves to restrain anyone who causes trouble on a plane. And some of us will even run towards gun fire.

Guns are still used for self-protection. That's their primary purpose. People own guns for the same reason cops carry them. Is self-defense obsolete? Have we eliminated the existence of criminal assaults, rapes, and murders? Do you not think that it's possible for civil order to break down, like say during the LA Riots or in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?

If someone, heaven forbid, approached you and assaulted you while you were walking to your car, what would you do?

[jmg257]

202. What would I do?

It depends. Is the person assaulting me armed? Does s/he have an illegal gun on him/her? Am I carrying in this scenario?

All of which has squat to do with whether we are part of well-regulated militia.

My response may have PLENTY to do with my attacker's level of access to guns, though.

[Alva Goldbook]

203. I own a well-regulated clock. It keeps time perfectly. (end)

[jmg257]

204. That's wonderful. Is it regulated by the state, according to federal guidelines?

Like the constitutional militias were?

Or is it just some bubba clock wound all on its own with no vital role to serve except selfish notions?

[Paladin]

115. An armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against tyranny? Here in the U.S.?

You actually believe that, at this point in time?

I was going to suggest that you review the last couple of decades of American history, but I think you're beyond hope. As if Dick Cheney lost one second of sleep, sweating over the oh-so-awesome threat of a "well regulated" citizenry......

[Alva Goldbook]

140. Dick Cheney never lost any sleep....

...because most of this country's gun owners are Republicans. Our side is unarmed. Strangely, our side always loses. We win elections from time to time, but it's no accident that when it comes to important policies, we always lose. Why do you think that is?

You might have also noticed that the police beat the ever lovin' hell out of the Occupy protesters. How did they react? Mostly, they just bled and cried. Did the police beat the ever loving hell out of the Teabagger protesters? Of course not. Why? What did they bring with them to their protests? GUNS. When the Black Panthers were getting beat up by the cops in the 60's, what did they do to stop it? They armed themselves.

We need to get past this. A gun in your hands creates an equality of force. That is if you have the means to defend yourself, it makes it very difficult to take your rights away. To subjugate you. To turn you into a victim. Perhaps you fear a nutcase with bad intentions with a gun. I DON'T. I could care less if even convicted criminals have guns. Why? Because I have the means to defend myself against them.

Guns cease to be scary things when you are no longer defenseless.

[Paladin]

143. I've owned guns for the last 50 years. They don't scare me.

You sound like a lot of gun activists: you're just horny for the opportunity to use your guns against other persons. In your case, I think that's a really good idea. The sooner the better. Take on one of those convicted criminals, the next time you get the chance, OK? Let us know how that whole Equality Of Force thing works out for you, OK? And if it doesn't work out so well, thanks in advance for improving the gene pool.....

[Alva Goldbook]

168. So in other words, all you have is name calling.

I will be fortunate if I never have to use a gun to defend myself. I hope I never do. I don't want to deal with that emotionally, legally, or financially. However, it would be foolish to think that I will be fortunate forever. As the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Paladin]

188. It sounds like you still have a lot of things to prove to yourself.

The sooner you get past that unfortunate stage, the better. For you, and for everyone with whom you associate.

[tblue]

129. Armed insurrection made us lose Vietnam?

Hanh? When and where was this?

[Alva Goldbook]

137. You're aware, aren't you, that the Vietnamese say that war as a war for independence, right?

Why do you think we lost? Because North Vietnam's military was superior to ours? Of course, not. It's because it is almost impossible to subjugate an entire population armed with guns.

[spanone]

102. nice try.

[Blue4Texas]

154. ... that standing armies, in time of peace,

should be avoided as dangerous to liberty

[brush]

87. This post is not about tabacco.

Check out this link to the best video ever about the need to amend the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/16/new-pro-gun-control-psa-depicts-office-shooter-using-a-musket-guns-have-changed-shouldnt-our-gun-laws/#

An ad might come up first that you can delete.

[Walk away]

156. Tobacco is regulated and highly taxed to offset the cost of illness...

There are very few places where you can smoke indoors. Even private homes in multi-family buildings can prohibit tobacco. People who become ill from tobacco smoke can sue tobacco companies. The NRA has made it impossible to sue arms manufacturers for gun related deaths.

Every day new laws and regulations to control smoking are passed.

So are you advocating we treat guns like tobacco? Should we pass bills to gradually and irrevocably snuff guns out entirely?

[Throd]

2. I have a firearm for self protection.

[femmocrat]

5. From whom?

If you don't mind my asking.

[Throd]

7. I don't have a specific name.

I view my pistol and shotgun the same way I view my fire extinguisher. I hope I never need to use my fire extinguisher either, but it is good to have one for its prescribed use.

[upaloopa]

21. I never get that meme. Fire extinguishers weren't

designed to kill people and having them around doesn't lead to fires but having a gun around increases your chances of being killed by it.

[Throd]

22. Different tools for different purposes.

I know guns were designed to kill people. That is why I own one.

[upaloopa]

24. My point is you stand a better chance of being

the people killed

[Throd]

26. I don't think that is true.

[upaloopa]

28. Obviously

[veganlush]

51. it's true.

the numbers don't lie.

[Pelican]

68. On a broad and general basis perhaps...

In the end it does come down to the individual.

[morningfog]

60. What you "think" doesn't change anything.

[Lizzie Poppet]

69. You can't apply a broadly general statistical probability to a specific individual.

The circumstances influencing the danger firearms possession might present to any given individual vary radically. Thus a generalized correlation like that is basically irrelevant to an individual.

[truebluegreen]

144. Duh.

In general terms, owning a firearm makes a person more likely to die by gun violence.

Generally speaking.

Any statistician knows the fallacy about applying the general to the specific.

That doesn't make the general invalid or untrue.

Stretched to its broadest extent, it is true that in a society that does not permit gun ownership, death by gun is vanishingly rare. A wise person, or even a sane one, might conclude from that that fewer guns = less gun violence.

An NRA fan (e.g. a not sane person) would conclude that the way to stop gun violence is to get more guns. Totally unlike the decades' long campaign to reduce deaths by drunk drivers by lowering the numbers of drunk drivers.

[Lizzie Poppet]

145. No argument.

I have no arguments with the points you raise. My response was purely to what seemed to me to be an application of a general probability to a specific poster, upthread.

[Eleanors38]

25. No, fire extinguishers are designed to put out fires...

guns (a suitable one) are designed to stop a person from assaulting you.

The data for "increased...changes of being killed" are from what study?

If my house catches fire, I'll promise not to shoot at it or the fire.

[upaloopa]

31. I'm on a iPod so I can't get the study but women are four times

More likely to be killed with one gun in the house.
Besides you would just say it is a flawed study

[Eleanors38]

63. Well, post it when you can. nt

[EOTE]

46. A number of studies.

http://www.ydr.com/mike/ci_22960608/mike-argento-guns-more-likely-kill-you-than
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-person-youre-most-likely-to-kill-with-your-gun-is-you/
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

Not only are gun related suicides more common in houses with guns, but overall level of suicides is higher as well. If you own a gun for protection, the chances are a good deal greater it will be used on you or a loved one than it will be to protect them from some thug.

[Alva Goldbook]

93. This is why depressed people shouldn't own guns.

The fact of the matter is that the Justice Dept. found that guns are used 1.5 million times a year for self defense.

So the question is for an individual to decide. Do you get into a lot of fights with your spouse? Do you have a lot of children around? Do you have a poor sense of self-awareness? Do you get drunk or high on a regular basis? Are you a violent drunk? Are you a violent person? Are you a irresponsible person? Do you live in a safe neighborhood? Then you probably shouldn't own a gun.

But if you're a responsible adult, and you have a stable home life, you're well aware of your mental state, you're not prone to violence, and you live in a less than safe neighborhood, then why on earth should you make sure that you have no means to defend yourself?

[EOTE]

98. Or people in general.

It's not just depressed people who are more likely to turn their guns on themselves, if you have a gun in your house, it's far more likely to use it against you or a loved one than it is to be used against an intruder.

I notice that most gun nuts will spend ridiculous sums on guns and not a dime on a decent home security system. Most of the nutters are far more concerned with showing off than they are with protecting their family.

[Alva Goldbook]

94. Precisely.

I own a gun for the same reason I have home insurance and car insurance. I own a gun for the same reason why I own a fire extinguisher and why I wear a seat belt. It's to protect against the worst that can happen.

For those who think that guns are inherently dangerous to have around, then I can see how one would say that if you didn't know how to operate them. But if there was another mechanical device that I told you killed 4 times as many people as guns, and 50% of teenagers will have an accident with this device, would you say that owning a car is inherently more dangerous than owning a gun? I would imagine you'd say no, and over look this because a car his an important utility. Transportation. A gun has an important utility as well. It can be used to protect and defend your own life. What else could be more important than that?

[Robb]

99. How about the six people around you accidentally shot when you jump at shadows?

No, wait, let me guess... your guns are special, magical snowflakes that will never ever hurt anyone that doesn't have it coming, right?

At least bring some new material.

[2ndAmForComputers]

195. Even without any further information, I can tell you it's not improving your survival prospects.

Sorry.

[ZombieHorde]

3. There is a difference between a reasonable argument and a convincing argument.

I define "argument" as "a reason for an opinion."

Most of the actual arguments in the gungeon, both for and against gun control, are reasonable, in my opinion. I don't find most of them to be convincing, but they are reasoned. We can understand why they hold their particular opinion.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

8. Erm, not so fast

To preface the following, I am a very strong supporter of gun control.
BUT, both liberals & conservatives have been trying to have it both ways.
Conservatives are in fact getting their dream setup: a nice big fat military AND unrestricted gun ownership.
Liberals get neither a smaller military nor restrictions on gun ownership.

I mention them together because the two are intimately related.
The Second Amendment is, to me (I ain't no Constitutional lawyer; I'm just using logic and some historical context) intimately related to the following obscure little thing that everyone now ignores but wasn't meant to be:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy

Notice the sunset clause for an army. Notice there isn't one for a navy.
Armies were supposed to be raised as needed, and then disbanded. Militias were meant to be the defense of the country, and all the way up to World War I the only exception was the Civil War. All of the other wars fought up until that one featured a majority, and sometimes were entirely fought, by state militias or federalized militias.
All the way up to the Korean War, armies were mostly disbanded once the war was over. After Korea, the Cold War was in full swing, and it was only after that war that we had a large, permanent standing army.

The last formally declared war was World War Two. Coincidence? No.

If you want to restrict the President's warmaking powers, the Second Amendment helps. A lot.
What we have to understand is that the Second Amendment does allow for Congress to set standards for gun ownership, since of course the militias exist under the discipline of Congress. That being the case, they can even mandate that you own some weapon. But of course if they can mandate ownership they can also restrict it, something the NRA seems to forget.
My point here is that the Second Amendment can be a very useful hammer in preventing stuff like Iraq, where Bush got his way because he had a large, permanent standing army under his control that he could set in motion, and once he did that, when he went before Congress for authorization he was presenting them with a fait accompli. Disband that large, permanent standing army and you take away the President's power to dictate where and when we go to war.

[DanTex]

12. I don't entirely disagree.

You're right about the intent of the second, which was to avoid standing armies. But I don't think the militia model is really workable today.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

17. Understand you'd still have the Navy, the Marines (part of the Navy),

and the Air Force - by default if nothing else. All of that would allow power projection as needed. The National Guard can be federalized at any time, but the problem any President would face is that federalizing them to use in a war would of course bump up against popular resistance unless there's overwhelming consensus for that war. Which is as it should be, I think.

[DanTex]

23. You may be right. Something to think about at least.

[tblue37]

77. But for Iraq, Bush did use the National Guard as though they were regular Army,

didn't he? So he had it both ways.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

78. Yeah, but that came later in the war, when they were having trouble replacing the ones who...

were rotating out. And it did increase opposition to the war, which proves the point.

[jeff47]

86. No. National Guard units were present the entire war. (nt)

[jeff47]

85. Perhaps you should move back to reality.

If you want to restrict the President's warmaking powers, the Second Amendment helps. A lot.

Uh...didn't you just say this:

The last formally declared war was World War Two. Coincidence? No.

Boy, that 2nd amendment is really restricting the President's warmaking powers! After all, nothing happened in Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again.

Oh wait. Those were all wars. Fought with the 2nd amendment in place.

My point here is that the Second Amendment can be a very useful hammer in preventing stuff like Iraq, where Bush got his way because he had a large, permanent standing army under his control that he could set in motion, and once he did that, when he went before Congress for authorization he was presenting them with a fait accompli. Disband that large, permanent standing army and you take away the President's power to dictate where and when we go to war.

You are arguing that politicians will say "Oh, Billy Bob and his friends have some guns, so we don't need the 101st Airborne anymore"

That will not happen.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

106. You need to reread my post, this time with comprehension. n/t

[jeff47]

111. No, I comprehended it. You apparently need to take your own advice.

Though since you believe politicians will disband the army, I'm not sure that's going to happen.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

152. Happened after every war until Korea.

That's within the living memory of this country.

[Mojorabbit]

91. Interesting post. I have never considered that angle. nt

[NightWatcher]

9. When are gun threads going back to the gungeon?

[Fuddnik]

10. When you can pry them from their cold. dead, hands!

[Rex]

11. When people stop committing mass murders with guns?

At least for a few months. Until then, it looks like it will stay pinned at the top of GD by skinner.

[Lizzie Poppet]

71. Should have happened long ago.

Terrible decision...

[Bucky]

13. Yes. It has to do with the right of people to protect their homes.

Any argument that begins with the assumption that we can make a world without guns is not a serious argument. What we're trying to do is reduce the total number of guns circulating in community. That doesn't impinge on the Bill of Rights but it does reduce the total number of needless gun deaths.

Attempting to turn a public safety discussion into a philosophical discussion in which ideas matter and facts do not is what gun proponents specialize in. Do not try to compete with them, because you will lose to the pros and then they will probably shoot you.

[tblue]

132. Your last sentence

obliterates any merit in the rest of your post. Gun owners shooting people is the one and only problem, and scaring people with that threat is not the way to win hearts and minds. Makes me even more opposed, if gun owners as freaking paranoid and trigger-happy as you say. You've convinced me there's something seriously wrong with people that attached to something that deadly, since fear of losing it will make them shoot other people, as you say. Sick! They need help.

[upaloopa]

14. The original intent is out dated but the

supremes changed the meaning of it.
Originally it was for the purpose of setting up militias. One of the purposes of militias was to hunt and capture run away slaves.

[Eleanors38]

45. The bulk of scholarly opinion does not agree with your view...

The Second protects the peoples' right to keep and bear arms. The Feds made it clear, through the "militia clause," that they have an interest in this right, since they are charged with calling up the militia, as per the Articles. Whether or not the militia is "outdated," the essential individual right remains, and is not dependent on the Fed's militia interest in that right.

What ever constituted "militia" in the South, the use of such to hunt and capture slaves was made a lot easier by keeping guns away from slaves. Here is an example where slaves escaped plantations, and were defeated by local "militia."

"The Stono Rebellion, in 1739, was the largest slave revolt in colonial America. Slaves along the Stono River in South Carolina, some of whom had served as soldiers in Africa before being sold into slavery, planned their actions carefully.

After seizing weapons, the slaves, in military formation and flying flags, tried to march south to Florida. The local militia located and attacked them, killing many."

http://afroamhistory.about.com/b/2012/01/09/slave-rebellions.htm

Arms don't guarantee you will live or die, be freed from slavery or remain in slavery, but the first stop of the Stono slaves was the local equivalent of the "gun shop." Jim Crow-era Southern states enacted laws to keep blacks from obtaining arms, and they were enforced with questionable success until -- voila! -- the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-1960s. But the 1968 Gun Control Act was an attempt to once again disarm blacks:

"Even gun control advocate Robert Sherrill claimed: 'The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks.'"[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special

And so it continues. But fortunately, the earlier Civil Rights Acts, knocked the slats from under Jim Crow laws in the Southern states. Unfortunately, ol' Jim Crow flew north and found a warm place to shit.

A brief submitted in the Heller decision sums up the history of racist gun-control legislation. It was submitted, in a true irony, by
http://www.georgiacarry.org/

[Paladin]

15. Damn good question, DanTex. Thanks. (nt)

[The Straight Story]

16. Hmmm. What percent of gun owners use them in crimes? (nt)

[morningfog]

61. No, what percent of crimes use guns?

[The Straight Story]

64. So in other words, you don't want to answer

if .3% of gun owners use them in crimes that is different than saying 60% of crimes involved guns (60% of what total? 100 crimes in a city, 60 with guns, and 100,000 gun owners in same town leaves a lot to be desired).

40-60 million people own guns. What percent of them use them in a crime?

[morningfog]

75. Still the wrong question. I gave you the better quesiton.

Yours is irrelevant to the OP or policy, really.

[The Straight Story]

83. Irrelevant to policy?

Really?

If less than 1% of people do X you are fine using that to ban/restrict/etc certain things?


Who uses guns more than anyone else to harm anyone? The government or ordinary people? Cops and the military or me and you?

Fine. Go on trusting a few people over the rest of us because a tiny tiny minority of the rest of us use guns in a negative way.

But take some time to see who is really using weapons to harm people the world over and ask yourself if you want them to be the only ones to have them.

Maybe you do. Maybe you don't trust your fellow DU'ers and such as much as you trust people like bush, rand paul, etc who work for the government and can have weapons and decide how to use them (which they have....).

but me, I won't be sucked in to believing that the only good people have an employer called the government which somehow makes them magically better than the rest of us.

[davidn3600]

18. A professional, standing army is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid

They actually wanted something somewhat to what the Swiss have today. Everyone owns a gun and everyone is part of the militia. All able men are trained to use firearms and respond to a crisis.

They did not like the idea of a BIG standing army on the federal level.

They also looked at history and noticed a trend...especially with ancient Rome. When Rome was first founded, they had what we would call today a militia-like system. There was no central army. When Rome entered the imperial period, they did centralize and organize on the national level. And it was extremely successful...for awhile. They have an extremely powerful military that no other civilization could come close to matching. The problem though was it became extremely expensive. The empire was getting way too large to manage. And it started to fall apart.

You can't say that the same thing isn't happening to us. Our military is the best in the world. No one can match out power and strength. But it is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE! It's gotten so expensive that we are now discussing cutting our social and domestic programs to continue funding our war machines and maintain our empire and global influence. Meanwhile our own infrastructure and social institutions are beginning to crumble.

And that is why many of the founders didn't like the idea of a large standing army.

"I think the truth must now be obvious that our people are too happy at home to enter into regular service, and that we cannot be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing this all must be marshaled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class."

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
-Thomas Jefferson

[DanTex]

20. That is true. But times have changed, I think.

I don't think that, in today's world of tanks and stealth bombers, that a citizen militia is going to be very effective.

But you are right that the cost of maintaining a standing army is one of the reasons that the founders didn't like the idea. A lot of the taxation without representation was due to the need to support the British army. And it is true that our military is currently using up far too many resources.

[Eleanors38]

53. Dan, consider what your statement's consequences have had for our past, and for...

our future:


"I don't think that, in today's world of tanks and stealth bombers, that a citizen militia is going to be very effective."

Don't we have enough examples of that kind of military hubris? Cuba, Algeria (France), Iraq, Afghanistan 1 (Russians) Afghanistan 2 (U.S.), and that armed conflict Vietnam (France then the U.S.), to mention a few? This is the precise reason we jumped in big-time, but left from the rooftops. Your outlook will no doubt inform the next conflict we get stuck in, unless it is some state like Panama or Granada.

God, how soon we forget.

[freshwest]

90. I believe these militias were the only thing the Founders had in mind:

Last edited Thu Apr 25, 2013, 02:01 AM - Edit history (1)

State defense forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Forces

Washington State Guard



The Washington State Guard (WSG) is an all-volunteer state defense force for the U.S. state of Washington. It is the third element of the military forces in the Washington Military Department: the Washington Army National Guard, the Washington Air National Guard and State Guard. While the Army and Air Guard, forming part of the Washington National Guard, can be mobilized to federal service, the WSG is only utilized within Washington and is never deployed out of state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Washington_State_Guard&printable=yes



Washington State Guard

The Washington State Guard (WSG) is an all-volunteer unit organized under the Military Department of the State of Washington. Its members come from all walks of life. They normally serve without remuneration and meet monthly, or more often as needed, within organized units stationed at strategic locations throughout the State.

The Washington State Guard serves under state jurisdiction and is employedonly within the State of Washington. It is not subject to be called, ordered or assigned as any element of the federal armed forces. However, membership in the Washington State Guard does not exempt an individual from service in the armed forces of the United States.

http://washingtonguard.org/wsg/

I believe it is exactly what a militia is meant to be. Under lawful authority for the good of all citizens and not a bunch of RWNJs stomping around yelling they are against tyranny. At the worst, they'd end up acting like hit squads for a Koch cause, running amuck, attacking their political opponents. After all, they say it all the time....

[XRubicon]

19. I'd like to see the militia called to serve.

We could give them two weeks training and send them off to the current war zone.

[oneshooter]

44. So what you are saying is that

You want to see increased American casualties? That is what your plan would do.

[XRubicon]

58. Well, my read of the constitution says gun owners are part of a well regulated militia

I'd like to see them called to serve. The volunteer force has been run into the ground with 3 and 4 tours of duty in war zones.

I figure two weeks of training (they already know about guns) and send them out to do "militia stuff". They can open carry and have free guns and ammo. It's a win win.

[Igel]

73. Other way 'round.

Having people own guns is a prerequisite to having a well-regulated militia.

If the population doesn't have guns, a militia drawn up from that population isn't going to be well equipped, which is necessary for being well trained. With "equipped and trained" being the same thing as "regulated".

On the other hand, the dependent clause (that so many want to make into the main clause) might well just state the reason for that particular right's being enumerated in a federal constitution that was being ratified by states. The right would inhere in any event, but would just be something left out of the Federal government's purview.

[XRubicon]

76. I like blue cheese dressing on my word salad

[Lizzie Poppet]

146. Your flippant response does nothing to counter that very valid point.

It's pretty damned obvious that the militia is a subset of the people. The language of the 2nd Amendment rather clearly ascribes the RKBA to the larger set, not the subset. Preserving that subset might have been the primary rationale for preserving the RKBA, but it's clear that the right was ascribed to the people.

[XRubicon]

148. Thanks for your opinion

Pardon me for not agreeing.

The reason you are granted the right to bear arms is for the purpose of having a well regulated militia that can be called up because the founders did not want a standing army.

I am replying to you because you seem to be able to communicate in a way I can understand without salad dressing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

191. Likewise.

We definitely disagree, but thank you for doing so civilly.

From everything I've read about the founders, they didn't consider the Constitution and Bill of Rights as granting rights, but instead largely considered those rights to be pre-existing, and intrinsic to the human condition. I happen not to agree with the latter assertion (rights are non-instinctual cognitive concepts, and as such cannot be intrinsic), but I think it's relevant to any discussion of their intent.

[former9thward]

27. Your first paragraph was full of misinformation.

You said Scalia gets to decide the "individual rights" issue. Wrong. All nine justices have said it is a individual right. None has said it is a "collective right" or "right of the states" President Obama said the 2nd was a individual right. No one in the legal community has your view.

[DanTex]

30. LOL. You need to do a little reading.

[former9thward]

34. Other than LOL you have no information.

Which is why you didn't post anything. Name a justice that agrees with you. From the White House:

President Obama believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/when-discussing-second-amendment-keep-first-mind-too

[DanTex]

35. And neither do you. Except for a bunch of historically ignorant claims about the second amendment.

Yes, I get that Obama said that. He also said that social security benefits should be reduced.

[former9thward]

36. What Justice agrees with you?

What constitutional scholar agrees with you? Or is just you leading the band that really knows what it says.

[DanTex]

38. Umm, all of them except for the right-wingers. Did you actually read the Stevens dissent?

No, I didn't think so. You get your info from gun blogs and the right-wing press.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[former9thward]

41. Umm fits you.

I guess you didn't read far enough: From Justice Beyer --- The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1)?The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

[DanTex]

42. So you're going to simply ignore the Stevens dissent?

I guess that's what ideologues do with information that doesn't suit their agenda.

You know that all four non-right-wingers signed it, right? Or didn't that gun blog of yours tell you that. Really, you need a better source of information. Between this debacle and that "Harvard study" you're making a pretty bad showing.

[former9thward]

47. All 4 signed Beyer's dissent also.

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

BTW Stevens has left the court and Beyer wrote the dissent endorsing an individual right in McDonald v. Chicago where all 4 signed on. Try again.

[DanTex]

49. And all 4 very clearly stated that it's about militia participation, and it does not protect

private civilian usage of firearms. Period.

So how's that "Harvard study" doing? Are you going to just let that drop?

[former9thward]

54. So you know more about what the nine justices think than Beyer does.

Ok. Maybe some future president will appoint you to the SC since you have such knowledge. I posted a link. If you think something disproves it post something else. But I am not going to get into the "tag you are it" game about posting links. There are hundreds of studies out there. Some are good for gun ownership, some are bad, some are neutral. All of them start out with different assumptions and study different aspects. You clearly are not an honest broker in this type of conversation -- which is good because people who are not honest are not able to convince anybody of anything.

[DanTex]

56. Well, I simply read what they say.

And when they say it has nothing to do with private civilian gun ownership, I take them at their word.

PS. It's good to see that you are still defending that Harvard "study". Just in case there was anyone left who thought you might be scientifically literate.

[X_Digger]

39. Read the Heller dissent. All nine agree that it's an individual right.

The disagreement was about the amount of permissible infringement.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

[DanTex]

40. Wrong.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

The Stevens dissent very clearly states that 2A is only about militias and has nothing to do with private civilian uses of firearms.

[X_Digger]

43. No, Stevens is talking about the purpose. Are you asserting that he contradicted himself?

Your quote actually supports my interpretation- that the dissent is talking about the amount of permissible infringement.

Stevens states that it is indeed an individual right, but he argues that because the purpose was to ensure the ability to raise a militia, regulation short of preventing a militia would be permissible.

How do you reconcile the first paragraph with the rest of the decision, otherwise?!?

[DanTex]

48. He's says that whether it is an individual right doesn't matter,

because it still doesn't protect gun ownership outside of the scope of militia usage.

Which is fine with me. The point is, it has nothing to do with self-defense, or hunting, or target shooting. It is about participation in a militia.

[X_Digger]

52. Lol, he says it's an individual right, then talks about the level of permissible regulation.

Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

It's time for you to give up on this 'collective rights' nonsense, it's not fooling anyone. Certainly not Justice Stevens.

Why the right was protected tells us nothing about the scope of the right.

If the right were only about militias, why did the framers, the folks *at* the constitutional convention- why did they go to their respective states and write state analogues such as:

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

How do you wrap your brain around that?

[DanTex]

55. ...and he's saying that it has nothing to do with private civilian use of firearms.

He says it in plain English. Using those exact words, in fact.

[X_Digger]

57. Which is about the purpose, yes.

But he starts out *explicitly saying* that it is indeed an individual right.

*sigh*

There are none so blind..

[DanTex]

59. *sigh* A right that has nothing to do with private civilian gun ownership.

Are we out yet?

[X_Digger]

67. An individual right, yes.

Now, going back a couple of posts.. how do you reconcile this 'limited scope' right with the state constitutions?

Why would these same writers go back to their states and protect a right that includes defence of self (sic) if they only intended it for militias?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

141. The paragraph in question....

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

In the second sentence, Stevens is speaking in the abstract, and if you read the entire dissent (and I'm really betting that you haven't), Stevens makes it quite clear that the 2nd Amendment was contemplated as a collective right.

"First and Second Amendments are the same in referring to a collective activity."

"When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people
a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more
than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms."

If you think that Stevens was confirming an individual right to bear arms, you have not even the slightest clue as to what you're talking about.

[X_Digger]

142. I've read it, all of it, thanks.

As well as Miller (both of them), Cruikshank, Presser, Aymotte, as well as the transcripts of the continental congress and the debates around the bill of rights.

A right exercised by individuals (either alone or in concert with others) is still an individual right.

Nice try, though.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

200. Having read it is nice

But being able to understand what you read is pretty much the clincher.

Stevens does not argue that the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and even a cursory review of his non-judicial statements since leaving the bench would make that abundantly clear.

[X_Digger]

201. Ignoring his own words? That takes willful misapprehension. n/t

[Demo_Chris]

32. Short answer: Yes, there are many reasonable arguments in favor of the second amendment.

Let's review your points (in bold) a bit:

I mean, I get it, it's in the bill of rights

This, by any reasonable standard, should more or less end the discussion.

and even though it never had anything to do with private gun ownership outside of militia service,

This is factually incorrect.

I don't get to decide that, Scalia does, and so for now we're stuck with the "individual rights" interpretation as a matter of law.

No, this has been ruled on several times over the years and in every case the meaning has been clear. The first clause in the sentence offers reasoning, the second clause defines the right. The reasoning might or might not be relevant today, that really doesn't matter, but to remove the individual right specified in the amendment would require further amendment.

But the fact that we're stuck with it doesn't actually mean it's a good thing. We lose 30,000 lives to guns, and then there are injuries, trauma, and dollar costs that have been estimated at $100 billion per year. Often people compare guns to cars, which also cause about 30,000 deaths per year, but cars also have enormous benefits. Without cars, society would grind to a halt. Without guns, some people would have to find a new hobby.

You do not think it's a good thing. I am not in a hurry to surrender ANY rights. But I'm a Liberal so that's the way I roll. Your mileage may vary.

The original purpose of the second amendment -- to ensure that states could maintain citizen militias -- has been obsolete for over a century now. A well-regulated militia is not, in fact, necessary to the security of a free state. The security of a free state requires a professional army

The people of the middle east would no doubt disagree. The security of a FREE state requires that citizens retain the right to arm themselves against oppressive government. I will not waste time explaining why and how -- the events of this past week should offer a clue as to just how many problems an armed populace might cause an oppressive regime. If this is not enough I can offer further examples, but if you apply your imagination this wont be necessary.

[DanTex]

33. In other words, "because we're stuck with it".

Also it's weird that so many people who are obsessed with the second amendment are so clueless about what it actually means.

[Demo_Chris]

37. I said a great deal more than that...

And as to your second point, I understand exactly what it means.

However, to save you a whole lot of heartache and grief, YES, we are "stuck" with it. You will never see any meaningful gun control passed in your lifetime. It really doesn't matter if you like it or not. Blunt, but that's how it is.

[jeff47]

89. If only there was some process by which to change the constitution

Oh well, it's never ever been changed, right?

The people of the middle east would no doubt disagree. The security of a FREE state requires that citizens retain the right to arm themselves against oppressive government

There have been no successful revolutions by citizens against a military with a significant number of tanks.

Either:
- Another country neutralized the tanks
- The military joined the revolution, bringing their armor
- The military sat out the revolution
- The revolution was crushed.

If the US federal government became oppressive, the 2nd amendment will not enable a successful revolution. The military out-guns the citizens by far too much. Because we're not living in 1789 anymore.

[Demo_Chris]

95. Some people have the idea that insurection means engaging authority in pitched battles. nt

[jeff47]

110. That would be the only reason you need guns to do so.

That doesn't change the fact that no revolution has succeeded against a modern standing military. Either another country had to help, or the military didn't fight the revolution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. It's an over age Sacred Cow on it's last legs whose usefulness died long ago.

[Eleanors38]

62. I don't know about all that, but I'll keep the .38 by the bed, thank you. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. A glass of warm milk would probably serve you better.

[Eleanors38]

113. I prefer mine cold, ice cream is even better!

[oldhippie]

65. Well, ...

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possilble." - Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey

[tblue37]

79. One of these things is not like the others! (From _Sesame Street_.)

This one contradicts the others.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

[hack89]

72. So why don't you lead the movement to repeal it?

have your grandkids give us an update - it certainly won't happen any time soon.

[OwnedByCats]

74. We're stuck with a lot of things

that can cause death and when you add up the amount of people who die from everything else it makes the gun deaths look like small potatoes. Cancer alone kills more people than guns ever could.

Right now we're in a situation where people want to close the barn door after the horse has already run away. Sure you can tell all the permit/license carrying gun owners to surrender their guns, but do you think criminals will surrender their guns after you strip them from, for the most part, responsible gun owners? Do you honestly think gang members, drug dealers, murderers and armed robbers are going to give theirs up? Not a chance in hell. You'd just be making it easier for them to rob you blind, kill or injure you.

Putting people in a situation where they can't defend themselves against an attacker because we can't seem to control the illegal gun population is unacceptable. I have no problems with common sense gun laws but I have a problem with making people sitting ducks if they should ever be unfortunate enough to become a victim.

When the government can effectively get rid of all the illegal guns, then we can talk about whether it's still a good idea.
to eliminate the 2nd ammendment.

[Zoeisright]

88. No. Not at all.

It was poorly written and it is VERY poorly interpreted. All gun humpers ignore the "well regulated militia" instruction.

[BainsBane]

96. My view is that our energies are better spent

focusing on what's possible. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. Let's focus on trying to get universal background checks and limits on sizes of clips and magazines.

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. Every challange to the Second Amendment strengthens opponents of reasonable gun safety laws

It is not only a question of using our energies where they can best be spend, it goes well beyond that. Those who block any changes to our gun laws mobilize support for their position by pointing to whatever flimsy evidence they can find to argue that the real goal of liberals is to confiscate everyone's guns. They claim that our real agenda is to do away with the Second Amendment and that supposedly common sense gun regulation is actually a plot that ultimately will lead to the public being disarmed.

Any talk about doing away with the second amendment is counter productive to advancing gun safety.

[DeadEyeDyck]

97. yes, i believe i have a right to defend myself.

Remember, the S A is about arms. I.e. means of defence. Not simply guns.

[Iggo]

101. I wish the mods could move this to the gungeon.

[MrScorpio]

103. Damn Skippy! nt

[TimberValley]

104. For hunting and self-defense.

Outdoors hunters should be able to own rifles. Some people should have guns for self-defense.

[Tom Rinaldo]

105. We can't know how our political culture would have evolved without the Second Amendment

It might have gone down a different path and our government might have become more authoritarian in that alternate universe. Who can say? Paranoid leaders do often look to gain whatever advantage they can to entrench their powers. A Richard Nixon type in that alternative Universe could have presented the public with different threats to our freedom of dissent.

Having said that I think the days when an armed public giving government reasons to be wary of over reaching its authority are long gone. The propaganda apparatus in modern America is too strong and pervasive. Armed citizens would more likely become convinced by authoritarian political leaders to become goon squads operating to intimidate opposition to government rather than to oppose that government themselves. Armed civilians might have the potential to terrorize the general public but not the means to effectively challenge government. Governments today in semi advanced or industrialized societies are brought down either by massive public opposition which can only build through non violent organizing, or by coups. Even in a place like Syria it took a non violent public uprising being crushed before elements of the military defected and made an armed rebellion viable.

But the Second Amendment probably has actual symbolic value to those in America who worry about too much power being concentrated in government hands. For some it helps solidify a belief that people can oppose excessive government intrusion into our lives, and that attitude to an extent is self fulfilling even though guns literally do not come into play, and play no real role in protecting our freedoms so to speak.

[OLDMDDEM]

107. 2nd Amendment

If we are allowing guns mainly used during times of war under the second amendment, then those who own them should be okay with being drafted in times of war so as to honor their commitment to the 2nd amendment. Otherwise, get rid of the amendment and simply outlaw guns of war to private citizens.

[CTyankee]

114. IMHO: NO

[hunter]

117. Is the second ammendment a good thing? No. Hand me my black Sharpie marker. I'll take care of it.

I think anyone who owns a gun ought to be required to do a six week military boot camp, adapted to their physical abilities, but mentally and physically challenging in every way. Anyone who drops out, gets kicked out for anger issues, being a racist asshole, whatever... sorry, no gun license and three years before you can try again.

In addition gun owners would be required to do six weeks of national service every other year, not necessarily related to military or police types of duty, but working closely with a diverse sampling of the entire U.S. population -- white, black, young, old, immigrant, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, wealthy, poor, urban, rural, LBGT, etc. These gun owners would also be on call for military service at all times.

Licensing requirements for a very limited variety of hunting rifles and shotguns would not be so strict, but still require training and exams, rather like a driver's license.

Possessing a gun without a license would result in a mandatory one year prison sentence.

[Yo_Mama]

119. I think it is

It's easy to make a list of negative effects, but my family background (one half German terror refugees), husband immigrant from SA country terrorized by its own PTB, have led me to believe that the negative effects of allowing your population to have the right of self defense are less than the negative effects of not doing so.

I'm sorry, I believe that all human history is a back-and-forth between powers of repression and the human instinct for justice. I don't expect that to end in my lifetime. I think right now in this country we are at a crossroads which will end with us either becoming a much more democratic country or an elitist mess.

Also, I am from the south and I am deeply troubled by the basic racism involved in theorizing that "some people" should be disarmed while others who are "better" aren't. I do not think that many of those who favor banning all guns are racists, but I have noticed that racists in the NE are always in favor of stringent gun control.

However the debate is academic - it requires 3/4ths approvals from the states to amend the Constitution, and it's not going to happen.

I do believe that localities should have the freedom to impose higher levels of gun control laws based on their own personal circumstances and voter preferences, but I DO NOT believe that it should ever be done in a way that disadvantages the poor. I think if an executive who earns 400K a year is entitled to have a firearm in his home for protection, than an old black guy living on SS is entitled to do so, and setting up some artificial barriers is unconstitutional.

[NYC Liberal]

122. I support allowing firearm ownership though federal law, not as a "constitutional right"

There are arguments to be made for firearm ownership. Fine. But it should not be treated as a right.

Many protections we enjoy are not enshrined in the constitution: medical privacy rights, workplace safety laws, environmental regulations, etc. Driving is probably more essential for more people than owning a gun is, and yet it is heavily regulated. You must have a license - which can be revoked - and pass practical and written tests. Why shouldn't guns be treated the same way?

[beevul]

150. Apples and oranges.

" You must have a license - which can be revoked - and pass practical and written tests. Why shouldn't guns be treated the same way?"

One only needs the license, to drive on public roads.

One does not need a license to own a car, or to use a vehicle on ones own property.

What you're suggesting, is a license to own, not a license to "use in public".

Or were you suggesting that anyone with a gun "license" be allowed to carry it in any state, like with drivers licensing? Unless you were, you're making an apples to oranges comparison - ownership vs usage in public.

[NYC Liberal]

178. Whatever Analogy you want to make, gun ownership should be

defined as a privilege in federal law, not as a right enshrined in the constitution. That is my position.

I do support letting people own firearms -- as a privilege.

[cynatnite]

125. Yeah, I got one for you...

Years ago, my bastard of an ex-husband regularly beat me...even when I was pregnant. When I got the courage to leave him, I went to my parents.

I filed for divorce and my lawyer urged me to get a restraining order. He violated the restraining order and threatened to kill me and our daughter. It was a worthless piece of paper in my town.

My dad kept his gun loaded at all times after that for several months. If he had come near the house and took a step on the property, I have no doubt my dad would have shot him. I was so damn scared of him by that point, I would have shot him.

So, while I don't think it's as necessary as it used to be, I do believe it still has it's uses. This is most definitely one of them.

[tblue]

130. Shoot him for 'coming near'?

You wanted your dad to shoot your ex for coming near? Be glad your dad didn't shoot him or else he'd prolly be in prison.

[cynatnite]

131. Given how violent he was...YES! n/t

[premium]

139. No he prolly wouldn't be in prison,

if her violent ex came on her dad's property, violating an R.O., and threatening his daughter with violence, then he has every right to shoot him.

[Politicub]

151. As it is written? No.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

153. Since you've answered your own question...

...I'll infer that you trust yourself more than anyone to provide an answer, which would preclude your believing any answers you would get. So let me just ask why you're asking. Hmm?

[Blue4Texas]

155. The right to defend

[Uzair]

157. Of course not. It's bullshit.

Whatever reasons for its existence are completely irrelevant. It has been the cause of millions of senseless deaths. It has been proven to be a bad thing. And you can't compare guns to cars. There is no bullshit "right" to own and drive a car in the constitution. This has allowed lawmakers to pass REASONABLE REGULATIONS on car ownership and operation, without which there would be exceptionally more deaths by car.

The raw number of deaths between guns and cars is an invalid comparison. A more valid one would be a per capita man hours of operation comparison, and when you take that into account car deaths are miniscule.

[Bake]

158. You think it's obsolete.

So repeal it.

Good luck with that.

Bake

[Recursion]

172. Yes: we're an incredibly violent country, which is why people have guns

You're confusing the cause and the effect. We are and have always been a much more violent country than most countries in Europe. We're much more comparable to the other revolutionary republics in the hemisphere than to the European social democracies: Mexico, El Salvador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Cuba all have higher murder rates than the US. Read that again. You probably won't believe it, so I invite you to look at the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Those are our peers. Those are the countries we are like: western hemisphere revolutionary democracies with a history of slavery, high inequality, and diverse populations (all three of those are tied in to each other).

Unlike most of those countries (again, all of whom have a higher murder rate than the US), we have guaranteed our citizens a right to arm themselves in defense against that violence.

EDIT: at first I stupidly had typed "Canada", which does not have a higher murder rate than us and is not a revolutionary democracy with a history of slavery, and also does not have as strong gun laws as, say, Mexico or Brazil.

[DanTex]

173. Canada has a higher homicide rate than the US? LOL. You're slipping...

[Recursion]

174. D'oh

Not sure how that got in there; thanks. The list as edited is right.

Canada has a much lower murder rate than Brazil and Mexico, and much weaker gun control than either.

[DanTex]

175. So now the list contains zero countries that remotely resemble the US.

Canada was the only one.

I've pointed this out before, but our overall violent crime rates are very similar to Canada, Western Europe, Australia, etc. We are nothing like El Salvador and Mexico. Compared to other first-world democracies, we are only exceptional in our homicide rate, not in other categories of violent crime, and this is largely because of the lethality of guns.

On the other hand, while there is tons of evidence that guns increase homicide (and suicide) rates, there is pretty much no evidence at all that guns make people safer.

[Recursion]

176. No, that's who resembles the US.

We are nothing like El Salvador and Mexico.

Except that we are a fairly corrupt pretend-democracy with a very diverse population with lots of racial tension and rule by a rich elite.

Yeah, other than that, nothing like them

Here's one hint: among Mexico, Brazil, the US, and Canada, which countries have and haven't fought a civil war?

[DanTex]

177. So you honestly think we are more similar to El Salvador than Canada or the UK?

Be serious.

[Recursion]

179. Entirely. This isn't some rhetorical trick; I'm totally serious.

And I've been to all of those countries.

Now, we're certainly closer to Canada than Brazil or Mexico are (which is why we only have 1/5th their murder rate), but we're not even close to there. We aren't a social democracy; Canada is. We don't (or at best barely) have a functioning safety net; Canada does. We have a generations-old underclass tied in to centuries of racial oppression; Canada doesn't. Our regulatory system is a creature of corporate rather than democratic interests; Canada's isn't (though with the late Conservative and neoliberal governments theirs have been moving that way, sadly).

In the context of a government of, by, and for the elite rather than the people, the right to bear arms is a net positive. Not to overthrow it, but because when a hurricane does hit if you're in the wrong city you may well end up completely on your own for a while.

[DanTex]

180. You continue to ignore the point that in other categories of violent crime, we much more closely

resemble Canada or Western Europe. We are not more violent than them, just that more of our violence involves guns, which means more people get killed. Without the guns, our homicide rate would not be exceptional.

We also much more closely resemble Canada and Western Europe in pretty much any other statistical category -- life expectancy, per capita GDP, HDI, you name it. Which is why, during the healthcare debate, people would use places like Canada and the UK as points of comparison, rather than El Salvador or Brazil.

Not only are guns not a net positive for society, but as I've pointed out many times, statistically speaking, they are not even a net positive for the people who own them, given that there is no evidence at all that they provide a safety benefit, and in fact the evidence actually indicates that guns increase, rather than decrease risk.

[Recursion]

181. Our life expectancy is closer to Mexico's than Canada's. And our Gini coefficient leaves me no doubt

Mexico officially has an assault rate of 2.4 (vs. 8.1 for the US and 7.2 for Canada) because people don't go to the police and police fudge statistics (sound familiar?). In fact, the official assault rate is often used as a quick judge of how willing people are to deal with law enforcement.

We also much more closely resemble Canada and Western Europe in pretty much any other statistical category -- life expectancy, per capita GDP, HDI, you name it.

Well, no. Our life expectancy is (77.97) is closer to Mexico's (76.19) than Canada's (80.8). (Remember, the western hemisphere Democracies I'm comparing us to are fairly developed countries from a worldwide standpoint.)

Our per-capita GDP actually doesn't match with either the social democracies or our neighbors to the south; it puts us up with petro states like Brunei and Qatar. (Then again in a strict sense we are a petro state also.)

Our Gini coefficient leaves me no doubt which group we belong with



(Pedantic point: it's "Gini", not "GINI". It's the guy's name, not an acronym.)

For those unfamiliar, Gini is a measure of the inequality of an income distribution (well, of any distribution of anything, but it's usually used for income and wealth inequality).

Ours is 45. (Lower is better.) Scandinavian countries are all in the 20s. Canada's is 32. Mexico's is 49.

[DanTex]

183. Mexico has rampant poverty, and per capita GDP of about $16K per year.

Illiteracy runs at about 15%. Their poverty rate is about 40%, versus 16% in the US, and of course, the Mexican poverty line is far lower than the US poverty line.

There is corruption in Mexico far beyond the US or Canada. According to HDI, which is what social scientists use to measure overall well-being, they rank at #65, below Saudi Arabia, which means the are not even classified as "highly developed". Using inequality-adjusted HDI, Mexico is still down near #55, whereas the US is #16, right between Luxembourg and Belgium. Canada is #13. UK is #19. France is #18. Those are our peers.

There are portions of Mexico where there is basically no rule of law, and are controlled by drug gangs. Executives that travel to Mexico need kidnap and ransom insurance. Large numbers of Mexicans are willing to leave their families and risk their lives in order to sneak into the US. But you don't see Americans trying to sneak into Canada because life is so much better there.

People travelling between the US and Canada will hardly notice any difference. And the same is true in UK, France, Australia, Germany, etc. These are first-world democracies, with similar standards of living, and similar social problems, and similar crime rates. Except the US has more guns, and more homicide.

If the argument really rests on whether the US is more similar to Mexico or to Canada, I feel pretty good about my side.

[DanTex]

184. Incidentally, about 100 days of our life expectancy is lost due to guns.

And the other ironic thing about discussing Mexico, is that most of their illegal guns actually get smuggled in from the US. They too are suffering from the lack of adequate gun laws in the US.

[Recursion]

182. That said, there are parts of the US that are like the social democracies

They're just not where I have lived. Consider this comparison of homicide rates by jurisdiction:



There's the America of Fairfax County and San Jose, and also the America of Richmond and Baltimore, and there's really not that much ramp-up between them.

[baldguy]

190. Looks like old data. And you don't list any link, and there are no references.

It seems to come from Wikipedia, which references FBI crime stats from 2005. But the link the author of your chart supplies doesn't go anywhere. The only data I've been able to find on the FBI site only lists crime stats by municipality, and then only for cities over 250k. In any case, the problem isn't nearly as dire as the extremist RW gun nuts would have us believe, and removing guns from the equation would help a great deal. Here's from 2011:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Baltimore, 31.3
Detroit, 48.2
DC, 17.5
Honolulu, 2
San Jose, 4.1

Suffolk County, New York, 0.5 (this is on Long Island)
Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 1.1 (this includes Boston)

Nassau County, Florida, 0.0
Nassau County, New York, 1.8

Fairfax County, Virginia, 1.0

[Uzair]

199. Dude, now you're just grasping at straws

Just admit you like your guns and be done with it.

Mexico and El Salvador.