Would a ban on handguns constitute prohibition?

[Starboard Tack]

Does the right to carry handguns decrease violent crime or does it increase it? I see no evidence that it does either.
Violent crime has always existed and probably always will, and is driven by socio-economic factors, not by individual rights, or lack thereof.

So, what is the point in debating it? Well, the problem is not violent crime, per se, but the tools used to commit the majority of these crimes. Handguns. 75% of firearm homicides are committed with handguns.

Gun-related homicide rates in the United States are twenty to thirty-five times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to us.

Some argue that the answer is to enforce or increase existing legislation.
Others say our 2A rights outweigh any potential saving of lives through restricting those rights.
Others say all guns should be banned.
Some deny the existence of a problem, because they find the thousands of gun deaths statistically insignificant.
I think all reasonable people recognize we have a serious problem. Where we differ is in finding a solution.
There is no easy solution, but there is a well recognized problem and that is the proliferation of handguns. The greater the proliferation, the easier the access, regardless of legislation.

Toters tend to lean strongly libertarian and share a philosophy that individual rights trump the greater good. Ayn Rand would be proud of them. They offer no solutions beyond expansion of RTC, which IMO, is no solution at all, because it ignores the underlying social problem.

I am not a supporter of the Second Amendment, because it has been broadened and distorted from it's original intent, which was to support local militias, and no longer applies. I do believe in an individual's right to own and use firearms for hunting and defense of home and family.
Long guns are quite adequate for those purposes.

So, that leaves the problem of “How to eradicate handguns from our society.”

I know some purists see this as prohibition, but it really isn't any more prohibitive than restrictions imposed by the EPA and other government agencies.

Here are some banned cars
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=29474&pst=1500687

We could argue the merits of each one, but banning a model or type of tool is not the same as PROHIBITION

[nichomachus]

1. It pretty much works in the countries that have tried it

I feel a lot safer in those countries than I do almost anywhere in the US

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Not necessarily

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

[We_Have_A_Problem]

10. No it doesnt.

And your feelings are hardly objective.

[Zoeisright]

12. Yes it does.

And your saying it doesn't means absolutely nothing. On the other hand, THIS is the truth:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politifact-us-has-more-gun-deaths-than-other-large-countries/1145669

Put up or shut up.

[gejohnston]

19. post hoc propter ergo hoc

The difference predate their gun laws, when parts of the US had stricter laws than those countries. When South Carolina banned handguns in 1902 (repealed in 1965), and NYC passed the Sullivan Law in 1911 they had stricter gun laws than Europe (which were closer to Vermont) but UK et al. still had much lower murder rates.

While the facts presented are accurate, but it is not the truth. Not the whole truth anyway.

[DanTex]

42. Yes, the Sullivan Law of 1911! Of course!

LOL. It's always funny the stuff pro-gunners will come up with in order to deny the plainly obvious fact that the US, with it's lax gun laws, has by far the highest rates of gun violence and homicide in the developed world.

Pretty soon we're going to hear about how the indigenous Yanamamo people from the Amazon rainforest have a much higher homicide rate than the US, and they don't have any guns at all!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

44. Do you really think our "lax" gun laws are the problem?

If so, how do you explain the MUCH higher gun violence rates in other nations with much stricter laws?

Comparing violence rates, or any crime rate for that matter, between countries as a means to justify a single type of law is a waste of time. There are no two countries who are identical in every way except for that one law.

England for example is NOTHING like the United States. Just because we speak similar languages doesn't mean we have anything else in common. Our populations are radically different, both in size and racial makeup. Our population densities are not even comparable. Our cultures are so different that I'm stunned people ever make the comparison. I could go on but you should get the point by now at least on that specific example.

If you compare the crime rate in the UK before they banned firearms for the general public to the UK after they did so, you'll discover the rate increased and murderers simply changed weapons.

The US, on the other hand, has been on a very clear downward trend in violence over the past 50 years as our gun laws have become more and more relaxed.

Does one always lead to the other? Of course not. There are many other factors which come into play.

[DanTex]

49. "MUCH higher gun violence rates in other nations with much stricter laws?"

I noticed you didn't name any. And I understand why. It's because if you pick any country that is remotely comparable to the US in terms of economic and social development, you find that the US has far higher gun violence and homicide, and also far higher gun availability. You'd have to pick examples like Russia and Mexico to support your case. And once you do that, it becomes obvious that you are simply cherry-picking.

Beyond that, there have been various statistical studies linking gun prevalence to homicide rates, not just internationally, but also across states and counties in the US.

I agree that there are other factors, obviously gun availability is not the only thing that affects homicide rates. But it is one of the factors.

[gejohnston]

52. what does

economic and social development have to do with anything? Since we have been de industrializing, are we really as economically on par with Europe or closer to Jamaica? What the hell does "social development" mean?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. Let me make sure I understand this...

You can't say the US is the worst in the world, because it very obviously isn't.

You can't say the US is the worst outside of 3rd world banana republics, because it very obviously isn't.

You apply the nebulous standard of "economic and social development" and then accuse ME of cherry-picking?

Arguably Russia far exceeds the social development of the US seeing as how the country was old before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock and Mexico is about the same age as we are.

In order for any comparison between two nations to be valid, you'd have to have two identical nations with the exception of their firearms laws. IDENTICAL. That does not exist. Period. A better method would be to compare one country before and after it instituted higher levels of gun control and see what the outcome is. Of course, there would be other factors coming into play there as well, so it is an imperfect way to judge, but it is far more accurate that comparisons between two nations.

[gejohnston]

47. you only read half of it

by your logic, Europe should have higher rates of murder then, because until after World War One, much of Europe had very lax gun laws including UK. In other words, you missed the entire point.
I doubt the Yanamamo have a murder problem. Our side is hardly that simplistic. Projection perhaps?

[Starboard Tack]

63. Apparently, you don't want to solve the problem. Just deny it's existence.

I came up with a suggestion, distasteful as most of us, including me, may find it. But sometimes the only cure is a bitter medicine.
So, if you don't want us to take that medicine, for the sake of this discussion, use your obviously resourceful mind to come up with options. We're trying to toss ideas around, not just invalidate each other.

[gejohnston]

68. I believe I have

I thought placebos were supposed to be sweet sugar instead of bitter melon. Like I said, where has it worked?
end drug war
pardon all who are/were in for mere possession and use
return to rehabilitation for those who can be rehabilitated, and develop programs that actually work. US military prisons (like the Disciplinary Barracks at Leavenworth are actually better at doing that than civilian prisons). That leaves more than enough room for those who are sociopaths that must be warehoused.
move good paying jobs in back to the US, especially in city centers.
fully fund all public schools, rebuild crumbling ones
close the wealth gap. Violent crime went down from the 1930s-1950s. In the US, there is a correlation between wealth gap and violent crime, hence Louisiana and Texas.
single payer health care, including mental health
raise the minimum wage to adjust for inflation (the $3.10 per hour I made in 1977 after school was about $10.57 in today's money)
Why is someone a "role model" just because he is good at and makes a shit load of money playing a kid's game?

Many of those are in place Europe and other low crime countries. One question worth asking is why do these other countries have higher suicide rates than we do? Violent video games are banned in Germany and Switzerland.

[Starboard Tack]

83. where has it worked? UK

All the rest is well and good and I agree on most. But you are refusing to see handgun ownership and use as the biggest part of the problem.

Forget all your other objections for a moment and explain why total elimination of handguns would not go a long way to solving the problem, regardless of what you may perceive to be a loss of individual rights.

[gejohnston]

95. One problem

the murder rate (or even the use of guns in murder) was rare even when UK had gun laws like Arizona, so I'll give you one half point. It had to do with culture not gun laws. That said, there is more gun murders, including machine guns, in UK now than then.

[Starboard Tack]

118. You're trying to misdirect again.

You don't push the UK thing hard because you know you are on very shaky ground. It kinds confounds you a little, methinks. Good example would be "That said, there is more gun murders, including machine guns, in UK now than then." Not up to your usual standard, that one, was it? No references, No dates. No numbers. Just a rather incoherent statement. I'll put it down to the sun probably being well over the yardarm when you made it.

[gejohnston]

151. not I'm not, simply pointing out a basic fact

that your ideology keeps you stuck with the same logical fallacies. One thing you avoid is if it works so well in UK, why not Jamaica? Both island nations with similar gun laws. In the past, I have posted an article link about how easy (for 200 pounds) you can buy a sub-machine gun on the street. I have to find the article again once I get home.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gun-crime+uk/uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7922755/England-has-worse-crime-rate-than-the-US-says-Civitas-study.html

Gun ownership levels have traditionally been low. This was the case even before the imposition of modern firearm legislation. Hunting with firearms was always a relatively elitist activity, although shooting sports were popular in the late 19th and early 20th Century, especially fullbore rifle events sponsored by the military and NRA to improve the general standard of marksmanship under the auspices of Defence of the Realm.

Gun politics in the United Kingdom generally places its main considerations on how best to ensure public safety and how deaths involving firearms can most effectively be prevented. The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world, and did so even before strict gun control legislation came into force. In England and Wales (the most populous part of the United Kingdom) the rate is below the EU average, about four times lower than that of the United States but on almost the same level as in Canada.<1> Its police officers do not routinely carry a firearm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Starboard Tack]

212. The US and UK are vastly different than Jamaica.

Public safety has a price. It's all about how big a price we want to pay.

[gejohnston]

218. The US and UK are vastly different from each other

When you look at the inequality of wealth, drug trade routes, drug gangs, drug abuse, neglected infrastructure including public schools, lack of quality universal health care, etc. we are closer to Jamaica than UK. Thanks to Reaganomics as Thom Hartmann and others correctly points out. The "free trade" deals that deindustrialized the US makes us closer to third world status. We are no longer the industrial giant like Germany. In fact, you almost have to go to Canada to get something not made in China. Try getting a can opener that works the second time. The best one I have is one I bought in Japan 30 years ago. Public safety does have a price, but in this case, you pay and get nothing in return.

[DanTex]

248. "we are closer to Jamaica than UK"

Well, that pretty much says it all, because if you really think we are more similar to Jamaica than to the UK, then you are prepared to believe just about anything.

There are many ways to measure "development", but the Human Development Index is a pretty common standard, and you will find that the US and the UK are (obviously) much closer to each other than Jamaica. In fact, the US ranks higher than the UK. It is true that the US has high income inequality, but even if you use the inequality-adjusted HDI, we still rank above the UK, and both the US and UK are far above Jamaica (which, by the way, has higher inequality than the US).

And you probably want to read up a bit about international economic statistics. For example, despite Reaganomics, our per-capita GDP is still over 25% higher than Germany and the UK. It is true that, compared to Germany, a larger percent of our GDP comes from services rather than industry (28% versus 22%), but compared to the UK or France, our industry% is actually slightly higher. And, if you look at the GDP decomposition for various other nations, you find that is a larger service sector is a characteristic of first-world nations, so your idea that being "deindustrialized" makes a country third-world is actually closer to the opposite of the truth. On top of that, if you do the math, even though we have less % of GDP from industry compared to Germany, since the US has higher overall GDP per capita, it turns out that the industrial production per capita in the US and Germany are about the same (but the US also produces significantly more services).


Also, it's interesting that you bring up universal health care, because that's another area where international comparisons are useful. You see, unlike most developed nations, the US does not have universal healthcare, instead we have this mess of a private system that leaves a big chunk of people uninsured. Just like our gun laws, the right-wingers like it the way it is, but if you compare the US to other developed nations, you find that the US system provides equal or worse care at much higher cost. Of course, if you wanted to deny this reality, you could pick, say, I dunno, Jamaica, and argue out that, even though Jamaica has universal healthcare, it still lags far behind the US in things like life expectancy and infant mortality. But I'll assume you can figure out the problems with that argument for yourself.

And so it is with guns. Compared with other developed nations, the US has far higher gun availability, and far more homicide and gun violence. You can try and ignore this fact by bringing up countries like Jamaica, but as with health care, reasonable people will quickly understand that you are just grasping at straws.

[gejohnston]

285. As usual, you selectively read

My main point was not economics etc. Again, "developed", how ever you want to define it, is really unimportant. Cultural influences and other factors are far more important. The most important is the level of organized crime and how profitable their businesses are, especially drug demand and trade routes. That is our and Jamaica's major problem. That is why US Virgin Islands has the highest murder rate in the US, regardless of their gun laws and our federal laws. As pointed out several times before, the typical murder victim and murderer fit a specific demographic, the same demographic, 16-24 year old men with criminal records. Guns are less available to them than to me. Our violence is concentrated major metropolitan areas that are hubs for the drug trade.
The Hell's Angels and MS-13 are every bit as organized as the mob.
Our homicide rate by other weapons is higher than Europe's total murder rate.
The first handgun I fired, was a revolver my brother bought in a Hamburg gun shop in the early 1960s. The US submarine he was stationed on just happened to be in port there for a week. IIRC, the biggest hassle was getting it from there to here. Of course, German gun laws changed since then. Did their murder rate drop? Before 1977, were Canadians machine-gunning each other in the street? Canadians needed to register and license handguns since 1934. Machine guns only had to be registered since 1953 until they were banned in 1977.
I am hardly grasping at straws. Since you already poisoned the well with "reasonable people", but you added it to the usual post hoc ergo propter hoc that is the foundation of your argument.

edit to add: the above is the basis of my often used rant that the typical bong owner contributes more to gun violence than the NRA and 99.9 percent of all gun owners combined. On a similar level, a question I have asked a few times and have yet to see an answer to:
I do not use drugs, do not sell drugs, do not sell guns to drug dealers I contribute nothing to gun violence in either US or Mexico. At the same time, many of "gun control advocates" who wring their hands about "gun violence" do financially contribute to the problem. So tell me this, Where does Bill Maher get off on wanting to curtail my rights for a problem that I do not contribute to, but he admittedly does?

[Starboard Tack]

256. I agree in large part, but not wholly

There are gangs in the UK and considerable gang violence. They just don't use guns to settle differences. Sometimes they use knives, bottles, bicycle chains, all kinds of things, but mostly they use fists when words don't suffice. If handguns were the norm, there would be comparable bloodshed to here. But they are not the norm, because the police are not routinely armed and that is an essential key. We cannot expect citizens, lawful or criminal, to forgo their handguns as long as cops carry them.

[gejohnston]

284. there was a time when

street gangs rarely used guns in the US and relied on knives, tire chains etc. If they did, it was a homemade zip gun. That was only about 35 years ago. What changed was not the gun laws but how these gangs made their money and how much they made. Same with the mob. Prior to the Volstead Act, the mob sold a little heroin, had a hand in prostitution, etc. the profit margin was not that much. Like the street gangs, they rarely used guns because they barely afford a cheap pistol let alone a (in today's money) a $2K Thompson sub-machine gun. In other words, the best way to take away their guns is to take away their money. Drug gangs do use guns and they do use automatic weapons.
the people with chains and knives are not organized crime. They are just drunk assholes and petty thieves.

[Starboard Tack]

301. Again I agree with you 100%

But I see no societal benefit in handgun proliferation. Gangs are not responsible for most robberies, muggings, rapes and suicides, all of which are facilitated by handgun use. Why would law abiding citizens adopt the same tools preferred by hoodlums?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

304. Really?

You've had the societal benefit pointed out to you more times than I care to count, and yet you refuse to see it. You claim others are myopic when you are clearly blind.

The law abiding choose those tools because they recognize the effectiveness. Most intelligent people do not disregard a tool simply because a criminal also uses it.

Criminals breathe air, eat food, wear clothing and drive cars. Shall I dispense with THOSE things as well since they are the tools of the lawless?

[gejohnston]

306. Actually

handguns are used in only 20 percent of robberies, muggings, and rapes. Most suicides in the US. Hanging is most common in other countries, which often have higher suicide rates than the US.

Hoodlums drive cars too. Your argument is falling apart.

[Starboard Tack]

319. I think all that strengthens my argument

What you seem to be saying is that suicide is the prime use, in which case, they would only need single shot pistols.
If only 20% of violent crime involves a handgun, why the need to bring one into the equation? How many SD toters get shot with their own gun? Happens to cops all the time. It's one of their greatest fears, despite training to prevent it.

[jmg257]

325. Actually, getting shot with my own gun was never a big issue. Retention holsters are very popular

among LE.

As a civilian, I would like to survive a violent encounter with as least damage as possible. Odds are a funny thing, if only 20% of violent crime involve a handgun, I still don't want to take the chance that I'll only be a victim of the other 80%. Like carrying a duty gun, being armed with a handgun is a great way to increase my odds of surviving violent encounters intact. Of course being the only one armed with a handgun is even better.

[Starboard Tack]

334. OK maybe not one of the greatest fears, but still an issue

Obviously, it depends what kind of duty you pull.
FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.
Many may find that number insignificant. I do not.

[jmg257]

336. It is not good that is for sure. Significant enough, especially if you are a cop.

Which of course is the reason for the retention holster!

[Starboard Tack]

346. And if there were no gun, there would be no need for the retention holster.

[jmg257]

349. Can't argue with that! :)

[PavePusher]

332. Ummm, no.

"Happens to cops all the time." No, it's actually very rare. And one of the contributing factors is that police often are required to go "hands-on" in the performance of their duties, in situations where Citizens would be breaking contact. So the situations are rather different.

Even if criminals confront me with a weapon other than a gun, I still desire to meet them with one of my own. I have no moral or legal obligation to meet a criminal with equal force in defense. I will use the most overwhelming force I can muster in order to reduce chances of injury/harm to myself to a minimum.

[Starboard Tack]

369. Well, rather you than me.

[gejohnston]

337. hardly, it makes it even more absurd

What you seem to be saying is that suicide is the prime use, in which case, they would only need single shot pistols.
no, I am saying your plan is no solution at all. It's very foundation is based on logical fallacies.

handgun, why the need to bring one into the equation? How many SD toters get shot with their own gun?
rarely, regardless of what some Joyce funded shill study may claim. I have read of more cases on the reverse (bad guy getting shot with their own gun.)

Happens to cops all the time
bullshit

Back to "all they need is" or "you don't need": I have a problem anyone making such judgments about people without knowing their situation and on subjects they know little or nothing about.

[jmg257]

307. I think the hoodlums have adopted the tools preferred by law abiding citizens.

You know, stealing them and otherwise acquiring them illegally.

Since law abiding citizens with handguns are NOT a problem, while hoodlums with handguns are, I think the best thing to do is to remove the hoodlums. Actually solves THE problem, while still leaving the law abiding citizens effective means of defense against other hoodlums yet to be removed.

Remember, "Violent crime has always existed and probably always will, and is driven by socio-economic factors, not by individual rights, or lack thereof".

Since eliminating the means to an individual right will have no effect on violent crime rates, while removing the criminals cleary will, it is very reasonable to accept that it is best to go after them, and not just one possible means to violence/tool.

[AtheistCrusader]

186. And what of the more than 100,000 lawful defensive gun uses per year?

To hell with those people, right?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[We_Have_A_Problem]

187. They don't matter....

Just because most people don't misuse firearms doesn't mean they should be allowed to have them. What do you think this is? A free country?

[petronius]

167. "regardless of what you may perceive to be a loss of individual rights"

Well that's the rub, isn't it? I can come up with a whole bunch of effective methods to reduce the crime rate if concern for civil rights and liberties are taken off the table. But discussions with those parameters are pretty useless, actually - I think I saw the phrase 'circle jerk' somewhere down-thread.

The problem with the OP (above the poor analogy and the incorrect definition of "prohibition") is that it redefines the problem to get the desired answer. Violent crime is the problem, not handguns, and handguns aren't "the biggest part of the problem." And the previous poster (gejohnston?) has already identified the best avenues to attack that problem: real reform in our prison, educational and economic systems. Unfortunately, we're moving in the wrong direction in all of those arenas (arenae?)...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. Ideas are excellent.

The fact is:
If the UK murder rate (overall, all means) is X and
The US non-firearm murder rate is Y then
Y is greater than X.

In the US, people are murdered more often with knives, ropes, poison... than they are in the UK with GUNS and knives, ropes, poison...

Apparently, folks in the US are more violent (and more murderous) overall than folks in the UK. While these statistics don't explain why, they do provide a basis for invalidating comparisons of violent crime rates for purposes of discussing gun control.

I suggest moving beyond the nation-based comparisons and confine the discussion to a particular nation.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Amazing isn't it. And they accuse us of obfuscation.

I call it drowning in drivel. Anything to avoid the obvious.

[gejohnston]

96. How so?

I was pointing out the flaws reason. The best he could do was ridicule with drivel instead of reasonable counter argument.

[Starboard Tack]

113. You are very knowledgable and love to spout historical facts and it's entertaining

and often informative, but mostly you blow smoke to misdirect and confuse when you don't like the opposing argument. You need to honestly engage in the topic at hand without dismissing it outright and pontificating about some shit that went down in Sumatra a hundred and fifty years ago or how some pygmy vegetarian tribes kill their children to make ornaments for the tourists. You are an interesting guy, seriously. You just happen to be on the wrong side of this issue.

[gejohnston]

166. thanks for the complement

but the smoke blowing sounds like projection. I have been engaging on the topic at hand, using historical precedent as evidence. Such evidence is as valid on this issue as it is Wall Street deregulation. History repeats itself. There are also reoccurring themes.

[Starboard Tack]

203. Yes, but you are not offering any solutions to the problem.

Citing historical precedent doesn't fix anything.

[gejohnston]

206. You don't think the list I gave earlier

would do squat? I think it would. Those countries that have lower murder rates have all of those things. Why not here? The wealth gap is major cause for a lot of our ills. However, I do think our violent crime rate is dropping in large part because we are becoming less racist. Those are the solutions I offer. You may disagree if they will work or not, but they are the solutions I offer. Why do you think those solutions I offered in the earlier post are not viable?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level

citing historical precedent does show what does and does not work.

[Starboard Tack]

252. The discussion here is not about violence, but handgun violence

I will be happy to discuss violence in our society at another time. I maintain that proliferation of the means of violence will do nothing to reduce that violence. However, eliminating that means, will undoubtedly reduce it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

258. So violence and death are OK with you as long as no gun is involved? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

269. Not at all. Finding ways to reduce them is important to me. How about you?

Or are you more concerned with your personal welfare than society's?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

275. I agree with reducing them

just not at my expense.

To answer your question, I am far more concerned with my personal welfare than society's. After all, what kind of society do we really have if individuals mean nothing?

[Starboard Tack]

311. Individuals mean everything. Society is composed of individuals.

But when individuals or small groups become detrimental to society as a whole because of destructive behavior, then those individuals need to be reined in.

[jmg257]

313. YES!!! Finally! CRIMINALS NEED TO BE REINED IN!!! And we agree with you!

Whole-heartedly. We have the means, we know what works. Let's do it!!!

[Starboard Tack]

321. Do you expect the criminals to hand in their guns while cops and others keep theirs? Dream on!

That's what an elitist police state does. And that is what we are fast approaching.

[jmg257]

326. No, I don't AT ALL. Which of course is a large problem with a ban..Criminals WON'T TURN THEIR'S IN!

So we MUST go after the criminals. And since we MUST go after the criminals, there is no advantage in going after the guns 1st, as plenty of lawful citizens (including cops going after criminals), use them too! And since criminals are THE problem, we will resolve THE problem quite nicely.

[Starboard Tack]

339. That's where we disagree.

We are not solving the problem quite nicely. If we were, there would no longer be a problem. Why do cops here routinely need guns and not in the UK?

[jmg257]

348. We haven't solved it yet - that is the issue. We aren't really trying...whether it be by banning

OR being serious about criminals...we haven't done shit really. If we have, we wouldn't have nearly so many homicides, and hardly any being committed by repeat offenders. Lets try dealing with the criminals 1st, then see if we still need to do more.

[Starboard Tack]

360. How many repeat offenders are out there killing people?

Do you mean repeat homicide offenders? Are we letting them out to kill again?

[jmg257]

365. Oh...I mean repeat homicide victims....those dead people are tough to keep down!

They're the rage in ALL the best video games.

:)

[Starboard Tack]

368. LOL

[We_Have_A_Problem]

315. Absolutely!

Which is EXACTLY what we have been saying!

Target the individuals who are committing the destructive behavior.

Glad to see you finally got it.

So, you'll be joining the NRA then?

[Starboard Tack]

377. Good. Now all we need to agree on is how to rein them in

You, apparently, think this is accomplished by becoming part of the problem and adding more handguns to the mix. I think the opposite.
You can't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

[jmg257]

286. Can you be more specific on how you would actually "eliminate the means"?

I know you are hopping with so many messages to respond to, but when you get a chance, could you respond with an outline of 'a law' that could/might accomplish what you are proposing? I.E. not just "a ban on handguns forthwith", but a specific ban, confiscation, penalities, affect on LE, time period/amnesty, re-embursement, disposal, re:constitutional, etc.

I try this occasionally, and you might find it pretty interesting to have to come up with provisions that would be 'required', could satisfy the people, etc. (I have posted such plans a couple times - 'IF I had to...' - and it is never popular! (but still interesting).

[We_Have_A_Problem]

21. I believe gejohnston was kind enough to...

...point out the problem with your claim.

As you said, your saying means absolutely nothing.

[krispos42]

99. Nobody dies in snowmobile accidents in Florida.

Why? Nobody rides a snowmobile in Florida.

Doesn't mean people don't have fatal accidents involving small engine-powered un-enclosed conveyances capable of moving fast... it just means that none of the fatalities were riding one with skis and tracks.


So is that better, somehow?





Total homicide rate in the US: 5.6 per 100,000/year (2005)
Total homicide rate in France: 1.31 per 100,000/year
Non-gun homicide rate in the US: 1.79 per 100,00/year


Our non-gun homicide rate is 27% higher than France's TOTAL homicide rate.

The problem is us!

[rl6214]

2. "Would a ban on handguns constitute prohibition?"

YES

Use of the term "toter"

Somewhat inflammatory

Banned cars: not protected by any constitutional amendment



"I am not a supporter of the Second Amendment, because it has been broadened and distorted from it's original intent, which was to support local militias, and no longer applies."

Already been debunked, only the hardcore anti-gun zealots would dispute that.



"So, that leaves the problem of “How to eradicate handguns from our society.”

Only a hardcore anti-gun zealot would call for something like this.

[Starboard Tack]

5. How is the word "toter" inflammatory?

Do you find the word "carry" inflammatory?

Handguns are not specifically protected by Constitutional amendment.

I am not a zealot of any kind. I am someone looking for solutions by recognizing problems.

I just listened to former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on "Fresh Air".
I was quoting him when I said "I am not a supporter of the Second Amendment, because it has been broadened and distorted from it's original intent, which was to support local militias, and no longer applies." He holds a tad more credibility than you, who appear to be a pro-gun zealot.

This post is not directed at zealots of either persuasion, but seeks constructive debate.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

8. Yes they are.

You said "Handguns are not specifically protected by Constitutional amendment."

Yes they are. Handguns are a type of arm. Arms are protected. Hence, handguns are protected.

Are you really that dense?

[Starboard Tack]

17. Cite please

[We_Have_A_Problem]

22. Cite to WHAT?

Your original post? Its right here in this thread and you said it.

Cite to prove handguns are a subset of arms? That's rather self-evident.

Cite that arms are protected? See the 2nd Amendment.

WTF do you want cited?

[Starboard Tack]

25. Where does 2A specify handguns?

Especially semi-automatic handguns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. Try to follow along...

The 2nd Amendment states that ARMS are protected. ALL types of arms. At the time this nation was founded, it meant everything from literally sticks and stones to blades to cannon to the modern (for the time) "Assault Rifle" (also known as the Kentucky Long Rifle).

As time and technology progressed, blades fell out of fashion and firearms became the more prevalent weapon. In the future it may be Star Trek-like phasers for all we know, and they will STILL be covered.

The Constitution does not identify everything the PEOPLE may do, it identifies everything GOVERNMENT may do. It is an exhaustive list of government powers but not in any way an exhaustive list of what the people are allowed to do.

Do you really not understand this?

It does not need to specify the subset of handguns because it does specify the much larger set of arms which includes handguns.


Lets apply that thought process to the 1st Amendment....yes, it says speech is protected, but does it specifically say speech on the internet?

[Starboard Tack]

59. Try yelling fire in the theater. See how that works for you.

Your interpretation of 2A is fascinating. I wonder if you have ever read it.
For your education, just in case, here it is as ratified by the states. Try to find anything in there about personal carry of handguns.

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.

Hopefully, our next SCOTUS appointee will be grounded in reality.

[PavePusher]

64. Are you daft?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arms

arms:
noun
1.Usually, arms.weapons, especially firearms.
2.arms, Heraldry. the escutcheon, with its divisions, charges, and tinctures, and the other components forming an achievement that symbolizes and is reserved for a person, family, or corporate body; armorial bearings; coat of arms. verb (used without object)
3.to enter into a state of hostility or of readiness for war.
verb (used with object)
4.to equip with weapons: to arm the troops.
5.to activate (a fuze) so that it willexplode the charge at the time desired.
6.to cover protectively.
7.to provide with whatever will add strength, force, or security; support; fortify: He was armed with statistics and facts.
8.to equip or prepare for any specific purpose or effective use: to arm a security system; to arm oneself with persuasive arguments. EXPAND
9.to prepare for action; make fit; ready.COLLAPSE
Idioms
10.bear arms; a.to carry weapons. b.to serve as a member of the military or of contending forces: His religious convictions kept him from bearing arms, but he served as an ambulance driver with the Red Cross.
11.take up arms, to prepare for war; go to war: to take up arms against the enemy.
12.under arms, ready for battle; trained and equipped: The number of men under arms is no longer the decisive factor in warfare. 13.up in arms, ready to take action; indignant; outraged: There is no need to get up in arms over such a trifle.
Origin: 1200–50 for v.; 1300–50 for noun; (v.) Middle English armen< Anglo-French, Old French armer< Latin armāreto arm, verbal derivative of arma(plural) tools, weapons (not akin to arm1); (noun) Middle English armes(plural) ≪ Latin arma,as above
Related forms
arm·less, adjective
Synonyms 8.outfit.
Antonyms 5.deactivate, disarm.


arms(ɑːmz)

—pl n
1. See also small armsweapons collectively
2. military exploits: prowess in arms
3. the official heraldic symbols of a family, state, etc, including a shield with distinctive devices, and often supports, a crest, or other insignia
4. bear arms
a. to carry weapons
b. to serve in the armed forces
c. to have a coat of arms
5. in arms, under armsarmed and prepared for war
6. lay down one's armsto stop fighting; surrender
7. militarypresent arms
a. a position of salute in which the rifle is brought up to a position vertically in line with the body, muzzle uppermost and trigger guard to the fore
b. the command for this drill
8. take arms, take up armsto prepare to fight
9. to arms!arm yourselves!
10. up in armsindignant; prepared to protest strongly

[PavePusher]

66. P.S. You CAN yell "FIRE!" in a crowded area, if there's actually a fire. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

70. Exactly. Thank you That magic word "IF"

And 2A says you may bear arms as part of a militia for the security of a free state. Nothing about self defense or hunting, which are the most prevalent reasons to own guns today. I don't think too many people are worried about the militia/free state thing today, and those who do care are mostly r/w nutjobs, who are more about owning bigger weapons than handguns.
So the whole 2A/handgun argument is totally bogus and has no bearing on the needs of today.

[Oneka]

78. I don't know about your rights,

but my rights are NEVER, predicated on someone elses version of, "needs".

[Starboard Tack]

112. Why should my rights be any different to yours?

And where does it say that an individual's choice of firearm trumps the needs and laws of society?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

145. Once again, wrong interpretation

The needs of society take a back seat to the rights of the individual in the United States.

It really is that simple.

The question you need to ask yourself is, how does an individuals choice of weapon affect the rights of another? The answer of course is, "It doesn't" and because it does not, then no other person has the right to force someone to not have a handgun.

[Starboard Tack]

202. "The needs of society take a back seat to the rights of the individual in the United States."

In your fantasy world, maybe. Ask the slaves who were owned by the old farts who wrote the Constitution. Things change and will continue to change as we grow up as a nation and enjoy the freedoms already in place in most developed countries. Freedoms like being able to walk down the street without wondering who is carrying a handgun.

[AtheistCrusader]

224. Well there you go. Second time even.

There's your solution: constitutional amendment.

Hop to it. We'll wait.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

279. No, not in my fantasy world, but in reality.

Perhaps you didnt notice but it took a constitutional amendment to end slavery.

Now, if you'd like to start the process to repeal the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th amendments as well as add a new one granting the federal government the authority to restrict handgun ownership, go for it.

[Oneka]

172. They are exactly the same.

It' obvous that you perceive them differently than
I do however.

[rl6214]

103. "And 2A says you may bear arms as part of a militia for the security of a free state"

Ah, you're one of those.

[PavePusher]

107. Please explain, with evidence from grammar, history and context...

how a dependent clause controls the operative clause.

Hint: Don't waste your time, it can't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_clause

[We_Have_A_Problem]

144. No ST, it does not say that....

Not even close.

Once again, the 2nd Amendment does not define what the people may do. It restricts what the government may do.

Try to wrap your head around that would you?

[Starboard Tack]

199. If you have a reading comprehension problem, I can't help you. Sorry.

[beevul]

225. He isn't the one with the problem...

He isn't the one with the problem..."reading comprehension".



THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way our society works, and how the laws and rules which govern it, work.

I suggest fixxing that before you accuse others of having "reading comprehension problems."

[AtheistCrusader]

188. Trouble reading, eh?

Paraphrase:

A well-read electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Does that help you at all?
It does not require that every person be well read. It does not require the people to purchase books. It does not require that they vote. It is not a limitation on the people in any way whatever. It is a limitation on the power of the federal government only, because that is all that is required for a well-read electorate to arise out of the people in times of need.


And there are modern examples of americans forming militias in times of need. It happened in LA during the rodney king riots. It happened in the gulf coast during the aftermath of Katrina. Etc.

[Starboard Tack]

200. Do you honestly expect me to continue a conversation with someone who dismisse the

entire point of my post and tells me to fuck off. Go find someone who cares what you have to say.:dunce: :nuke:

[ManiacJoe]

211. You were not dismissed; you were corrected.

Your opening statement
"And 2A says you may bear arms as part of a militia for the security of a free state."
is blatantly wrong, and everything derived from that statement is useless because of it.

[Starboard Tack]

249. You must have missed his other post.

I don't have conversations with morons who tell me to fuck off.
Regarding 2A, maybe you missed the first part about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. Nothing about the security of and individual.

"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."

Really doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Certainly has nothing to do with toting handguns around for supposed self-defense.

[ManiacJoe]

255. I see the source of your confusion.

The introductory clause is just flowery prose, just as it is in all other laws. The only difference between then and now is that now-a-days our flowery introductions start with "Whereas". Unless the clause explicitly states a limiting condition -- and the 2A does not -- it cannot be reasonably interpreted as such. At best they can be interpreted as partial indicators for why the act/law/amendment was enacted. Think "including but not limited to".

It it helps clarify it for you, you can add the phase "being one of many reasons" after the word "state", as that would not change anything.

[Starboard Tack]

268. I am not confused and 2A is not the topic of the OP

[We_Have_A_Problem]

280. Whether you realize it or not...

...yes it IS.

You cannot discuss banning a certain type of firearm in the US without taking the 2nd Amendment into account.

[Starboard Tack]

310. If you think that, then all we need to do is repeal it, which is a good idea. Thanks

[We_Have_A_Problem]

314. Not JUST the 2nd though my friend

You would not only need to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but to enable your solution, you'd have to repeal the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th as well. Then you would have to add a new amendment granting the federal government the authority to legislate on it. After all that was accomplished, you would have to get the legislation signed into law and then actually confiscate the weapons.

Better get started - you've got a lot of work ahead of you.

Oh yeah - you do realize that conservatively, you can count on 5% of the gun owning population to resist, right? You also realize that 5% outnumbers the entire military (not just the shooting part) as well as every police department in the country by about 50 to 1....right?

[rrneck]

350. Are members of a militia people? nt

[Starboard Tack]

392. Yes and the intent of 2A was that they should carry as part of tha militia.

Seeing we don't have militias today, 2a is redundant and needs to be replaced. Any moron can figure that out.

[rrneck]

399. How is a militia formed?

Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
The term militia (play /mɨˈlɪʃə/)<1> is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens<2> to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

And just as a reminder...

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

The people have the right to be armed, from which a militia would be drawn. Any moron could figure that out.

Wow! That was a real chestnut! It took a whole sentence to debunk.

Now, as for the "need" for a militia. While it's true we don't have a militia, we still have a population that may need to defend itself in an emergency. Now, before you trot out the same old bullshit about pistols against cruise missiles, American citizens have already clashed with the United States military without having to face heavy ordinance. That's because repressive governments use any number of methods of political repression to cow an unruly populace before they even consider the prospect of a pitched battle across the countryside using heavy weapons. Forced disappearances, politically motivated paramilitary organizations, selective police protection, show trials, selective distribution of resources, and selective prosecution have all been used by unscrupulous governments to punish unruly segments of the population or target leaders of movements that may threaten their repressive actions. Those methods don't require a battalion of troops and armor. Just cops and judges and maybe a few criminals in the know who have the right political leanings. If they have to face a crowd of citizens who can rally and pop a cap in their ass they will find their unscrupulous activities much more difficult, thus hampering the unscrupulous activities of the government that might facilitate them.

The citizens of the United States have already had to fight with private security organizations and the military to secure their rights and even a cursory awareness of American history will tell you that. Try reading a book sometime. Now, we may not have much need for a Second Amendment right now. That's good. Why don't you tell us all how we will never need it. Time marches on you know. Before you answer with another glib missive, please note you are a citizen of a nearly bankrupt declining empire in a world what will be populated with seven billion people in about two weeks. It is a world that faces, for the first time in human history, a shortage of resources for which there is no viable replacement as well as environmental changes beyond comprehension. In case you have forgotten, we recently had eight years of a presidential administration backed and staffed by fascists. Those same fascists have already started forming a cadre of ideological devotees willing to do their will without troubling themselves to think too much about the consequences. Income disparity is the highest it has been since the labor unrest that prompted people to take the streets and fight, really fight, the last time. So please, regale us from the security of your fucking sailboat how nobody will ever need to take up arms to defend themselves against institutionalized injustice. Thrill us with your plan to use a the proper "demeanor" to keep desperate criminals, unscrupulous public servants, and megalomaniacal politicians from kicking the living shit out of us when resources run short and people get desperate. You might want to load your fucking flare gun just in case.

[beevul]

402. Bzzt. Wrong .

The intent of 2A was to prevent government from infringing on a right which belongs to the people.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

billofrights.org

That very plainly shows the intent and purpose of the second amendment.

You are, of course, free to try again.

[AtheistCrusader]

219. You began with a blatantly false and dishonest premise.

So no, I don't really expect you to begin any conversation. You didn't come here to do so.

[AtheistCrusader]

229. No, the 2nd says the government may not bar the people from keeping and bearing arms.

The militia is an explanatory clause of WHY, not WHAT is protected or required.

And I have heard comedians say the word 'fire' in a theatre hall. So your premise is totally stupid no matter what end you examine it from.

You can say or yell fire in a theater, what you may not do is incite a panic, which will harm people. Please try and keep up on constitutional case law.

[Oneka]

84. The government

does not prohibit me from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, even if there is no fire. The government does, however, make me accountable for any damages, or injuries, that result, from my actions.


Handgun banning advocates, wish to simply prohibit the right, of ownership, straight away, rather then allowing gun ownership and holding those who abuse that right, accountable for the damages, and injuries, they cause.

The correlation between these two, is no more then a fallacy.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

143. Sure thing

It would work just fine. I can do it anytime I want.

If there is no fire, i'm probably facing charges for one thing or another. If there is a fire though, then I'm doing the right thing.

See, my speech is not subject to prior restraint. I am merely held responsible for the results of said speech.

Now, with regards to the 2nd Amendment, once again, handguns are a subset of arms. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" indicates to you that the government has the explicit authority to ban handguns?

[gejohnston]

31. where does it say it does not?

Are you saying revolvers are protected but not pistols? Do you actually know what semi-automatic means?

[Starboard Tack]

61. It does not specify any kind of weapon. All that is open to interpretation.

All we need is one more sane member of SCOTUS

[gejohnston]

69. Define sane

Only people who agree with you?

[Starboard Tack]

73. Not at all. My wife is one of the sanest people on the planet, but we don't always agree.

Sane people are those of sound mind. In terms of SCOTUS, I would hold them to a higher standard like being in touch with the reality of today, unlike Scalia, Thomas and other Originalists who embrace conservative interpretations of the Constitution.
If you share that mindset, you are probably in the wrong place, my friend.

[gejohnston]

97. hardly

Stevens used US v Miller as the basis of his argument. The problem was that the court basically kicked it back to district court, but Miller was dead. The US argued the case unopposed because Miller's counsel was not there, they filed no brief, and Miller was dead.

The individual right does has precedent before then. It is a product of the Enlightenment, that is why France, like us, considers owning guns a civil right. That one case, Scalia was right. Thomas just votes whatever. I don't buy into genetic fallacies. Stevens did point out that it is an individual right. The only thing Heller was about was if the DC law was reasonable. Individual right was still 9-0. Five under 2d and the other four under the 9th.

[Starboard Tack]

114. Thank you for more fascinating info.

Now, do you want to address the OP and the issue it presents. There is a problem to be solved. Do you recognize it as a problem? If so, any new ideas as to solving it?

[gejohnston]

153. I have

check out post 68. I think those are the best ideas. Do you have any shown to work?

[Starboard Tack]

204. I agree with you on all those ideas.

How long will it take to make all those changes when we can't even a adopt a single payer healthcare system?
At least you are coming up with good ideas rather than insults. I don't believe in bandaid solutions to problems. Like you, I think we should address root causes, but sometimes a tourniquet is needed. The mindset of most handgun toters is a huge part of the problem. Legal or illegal, they believe carrying a handgun is better than not carrying one.

[gejohnston]

207. sometimes they are

but given that vast majority killers and their victims are barred by federal law from possessing or buying under federal law for various reasons, banning mine would no zip. They are not buying theirs at Ace hardware.

[Starboard Tack]

253. Obviously those laws are not working. That's why we are here. To discuss options.

Of course, banning legal handguns would not help. They must all be banned. Sorry, but it is the only thing that makes sense. I could see possible arguments for allowing certain handguns, especially if they were designed to be non-lethal. I think we have the technology to accomplish that. Don't you?

[gejohnston]

254. No, we do not. Even then,

it will be more like Jamaica than UK.

[Iktomiwicasa]

298. "non lethal"?

WTF? What good is a "non lethal" gun? If I have a 300 lb. gorilla bent on doing me bodily harm, merely wounding him is just as likely to make matters worse for me as it is to protect me. Piss on that...if it is to the point that I need to shoot the sumbitch, I'm shooting to kill.

You really aren't a gun owner, are you?

[AtheistCrusader]

221. If something bad happens, it is.

Your tourniquet awaits: constitutional amendment. Nothing else can help you, and you'll never accomplish that at all. Americans don't support your position anywhere near the degree you would need to accomplish it.

Have a nice day.

[rl6214]

104. Obviously only the ones that agree with his ideas on the RKBA

[We_Have_A_Problem]

146. It does not HAVE to

Good fucking lord, are you really that dense?

The 2nd Amendment does not have to define any specific type of weapon any more than the 1st Amendment must define a particular type of speech.

If you applied this same argument to the 1st Amendment, I think even you would see the absurdity of it. Are you really that incapable of understanding?

[AtheistCrusader]

220. Give up your rapid-fire assault computer, the founders couldn't have envisoned it in the 1st amendme

nt.

Oh.. wait.

Your car isn't protected under the 4th amendment from unreasonable search because the founders couldn't have envisoned automobiles... oh wait.

By the way, there were semi-auto weapons as early as 1781. By 1791, the Austrians were using them to kill the french. Meriwether Lewis carried one on a little expedition across the country you might have heard of.

So, not only are you ignorant of what the 2nd means, you are ignorant of the entire purpose and application of the bill of rights, to say nothing of the dissenting opinions in Heller vs District of Columbia, or just basic firearms history, and the history of laws regarding firearms in the United States, at the federal or state level.

Basically, you're out of your league.

[SteveM]

36. Where does 1A specify iPads? Blackberrys? T.V.? Radio? nt

[Starboard Tack]

62. We are not discussing 1A, but try yelling fire in a crowded theater. Nice try.

We are trying to have an intelligent discussion about solving a problem. Do you wish to contribute to the discussion or be a disrupter.

[jmg257]

72. The security of the Second obviously is intended to include handguns.

As the Militia Acts passed shortly after clearly state that some of the arms members of the Militias must supply themselves with were pistols.

As pistols are very much militia-grade weapons today, they are still clearly secured under the militia-related clause of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment, as well as the personal use clause. With that in mind, please do what you can to get laws passed which remove all bans on handguns and their accoutrements, including limits on magazine capacity.

[Starboard Tack]

81. Even Microsoft releases updates occasionally.

Do you agree we have a handgun/murder problem in this country? If so, please feel free to offer solutions. The whole point of the thread is to bring us into the 21st century.

[jmg257]

88. I already replied...criminal problem, yes - handguns not so much.

Let me know when Bill Gates gets 3/4 of the states to approve a change to the Bill of Rights, as suggested by 2/3 of the houses, then we can talk more seriously about bans, gun prohibition and the like.

[Starboard Tack]

116. Good, now you're participating. Do you think it is possible to disarm only the criminals?

I don't think that method has worked so far. Maybe it's time for something new. Any other ideas?
I don't like my idea, but nobody is coming up with anything new.

[rl6214]

132. "I don't like my idea,"

There ya go, now there is something we all agree on.

Problem solved.

[Starboard Tack]

205. Only if you have a better one. We'll be waiting.

[jmg257]

141. I think much more could be done 'within the legal system' to be more effective.

I also believe that a ban as you propose would (& should) require a huge increase in funding and man-power to ensure compliance. (Without such measures, it would neither pass, or work. I don't think the millions & millions of lawful gun owners will want to give up their best means of defense without some hope that the criminals will be disarmed too.)

I figure very similiar measures would have to be put in place if handguns are banned, so why not take advantage of that influx now before severly limiting the right of to arms?

Numerous techniques HAVE proven to work in the past to reduce gun violence...
Greatly increase the risks and work to limit the benefits of illegal possession, use, and dealing of firearms.
- much harsher/mandatory penalties, deal more effectively with gangs, rethink drug policies.
Increase police presence.
Limit paroles.
Youth education & programs
Secure Storage policies
etc.

[Starboard Tack]

208. Thank you.

Let's see how our fellow members respond to your suggestions. I think some may find some of your solutions as repressive as mine. Maybe not.

[AtheistCrusader]

222. I disagree.

We do not need an increased police presence. You could effectively accomplish the same thing by 'draining the swamp' via drug policy reform. (which you correctly called out)

[jmg257]

150. As for your idea, how much of an impact

do you think removing a tool would make on the number of homicides? You already mentioned it will have limited impact per se on the number of violent crimes...is that true?

Isn't it reasonable to think that, since the criminals will still be there, with the same criminal intents & the same benefits of being criminals, that different tools will be substitued by those who can't get handguns? Isn't it reasonable to also think that new/different criminal enterprises will arise to supply banned arms to the large percentage of the criminal element who are quite willing to get/possess handguns illegally?

[Starboard Tack]

209. Good points. Again I look at how it is working in the UK. Not perfectly, but much better than here.

[AtheistCrusader]

223. The UK does not have a constitutionally protected right to individuals owning firearms.

Let alone a whole host of other differences, from drug policy, to geography.

[Straw Man]

385. Then why are UK police arming more and more with each passing year?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6407137/Armed-officers-placed-on-routine-foot-patrol-for-first-time.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23759786-armed-police-to-patrol-britains-streets-to-fight-gun-gangs.do

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/06/armed-officers-police-btp

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11622218

[PavePusher]

108. Feel free to try to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Start soon, it's very hard work.

[Starboard Tack]

117. I'm looking for alternative ideas and possible solutions

Why are you challenging me? My idea is lousy. It probably would never pass. I know that, but nobody is presenting anything better. Come on, anyone.
This is a discussion forum.

[Oneka]

171. If you are really

Interested in solutions, the most effective place to start would be:

End the war on drugs.


Do not attempt to start a war on handguns. The bloody violence that would insue
would not be part of the solution.

[Starboard Tack]

210. I totally agree on ending the war on drugs.

Not so sure about about the "bloody violence" ensuing a ban on handguns. Are we so different from the Brits?

[PavePusher]

290. I'm not sure how you would implement a ban on handguns...

without some "bloody violence". See "prohibition, violence".

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=prohibition%2C+violence&pbx=1&oq=prohibition%2C+violence&aq=f&aqi=g1g-v3&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1311l6178l0l6505l21l14l0l2l2l0l592l3807l0.1.11.1.0.1l14l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=d566e0fbd09c8604&biw=1280&bih=869

And yes, we are quite different from the British, even though they are culturally our closest European cousins. (I lived there for 7 1/2 years, nearly married twice, so I think I have some perspective on the matter.)

[Starboard Tack]

323. How safe did you feel when you lived there?

Did you miss your guns?

[PavePusher]

330. Not very....

and yes.

My house was broken into and burgled several times, as well as my vehicles. Police only showed up twice. Never even got to file a report. Huh.

I was assaulted a few times, as were many of my co-workers. That may be more from being an American USAF person in a foreign country and thus being a more visible target, but it's probably not the only contributing factor.

Fact is, Britain has a rather high violent crime rate. When one of my troops got put in the hospital after being attacked with a bat (hey, look, a lethal weapon on the streets of Britian...) and his companion suffered cracked ribs, I was sure missing my personal defense sidearms.

I frequently carried an auto-opening knife and a collapsing baton, both highly illegal for non-police there. But I'd rather explain how I fended off two attackers, while still upright, then make a statement from a hospital bed or worse.

I miss a great many things about Britain, but I doubt I'll ever go back other than for short visits.

[Starboard Tack]

342. Would you have felt more comfortable with handguns in the mix?

[PavePusher]

352. Access to a more efficient defensive weapon? Heck yes.

Believe it or not, criminals still have guns, and many other lethal weapons, in Britian.

Under what premise should a government forbid the use of defensive weapons, and why in the nine billion names of ghod should the Citizenry allow such a government to flourish?

[Starboard Tack]

361. Did you see any?

Both the government and the citizenry of the UK consider handguns to be offensive, not defensive weapons. That is the position of all parties and persuasions except for a tiny minority of would be cowboys.
Ask British cops if they want to routinely carry a gun. With the exception of N. Ireland, they will say "No!"
So, why, in the billion names of God, would you have needed one? If you had had one, and been caught with it, your time there wouldn't have been half as enjoyable.

[jmg257]

331. I was in Manchester for a few weeks. A LOT of drunken assholes there.

A lot seemingly VERY prone to violence. Not the funnest place to be, especially in the evening.

[Starboard Tack]

343. I know it well. Very prone to violence.

I grew up and went to school there and walked a beat in Liverpool in the sixties. So, I'm very familiar with it and could relate plenty of violent encounters I had to deal with. Never, though, did I or any of my colleagues ever want or feel the need to be armed with guns. If we'd been armed it would have changed the whole equation for the worse.

[jmg257]

344. I could see that. A lot of taunting and yelling and challenging turning to squeezing

off a few rounds and people getting shot. Not good.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

300. Yeah, we are.

The US and the UK are two completely different cultures which share some similarities in their language. I cannot even say that UK English and US English are the same language anymore than Mexican and Spanish are the same language. Sure, one is highly derivative of the other, but they evolved along different paths.

As far as that "bloody violence", perhaps you forgot the American response when a certain General Gage attempted to confiscate the powder and arms belonging to the polite peaceful citizens of Concord and Lexington?

ST, believe it when we tell you that any attempt at confiscation of firearms in the US would result in extreme violence. I will go so far as to say the government will run out of people willing to attempt to confiscate firearms long before those of us who wont give them up run out of bullets.

[Starboard Tack]

324. Bluster! Lot's of bluster.

There may be a few resultant shooting deaths. Not as many as now, I'm sure.

[PavePusher]

333. Please tell us how you think a gun-seizure scenario would play out.

Do you honestly think that millions of Citizens would meekly turn in their sidearms?

P.S. I'd also expect a bull market in garage bench-top lathes and milling machines, and certain metallic alloy commodities. Sounds like a great way to develop a cottage-industry economic recovery. I urge you to advocate it.

[Starboard Tack]

345. Yes, I think they would turn them in, if they became illegal. Why not?

Why would you want to break the law.

[jmg257]

347. I would turn mine in. Being a felon and going to prison aren't worth a few handguns.

Still have a life to live and a family to care for.

[PavePusher]

353. Is the government going to provide for your security?

Hint: They do not do so now...

If they say they are, what guarantee can they provide? What is their liability when (note: not 'if'...) they fail? How will you hold them accountable?

If they do not.... they have no business treating me as a criminal. Note that at that point they will have directly violated TWO Amendments, and arguably seven. What comes next?

P.S. We already had a Revolution with this being one of the very reasons for it. Do you really advocate a replay?

[Starboard Tack]

362. I don't feel the need for security. As you say, they don't provide it now.

Why, do you feel insecure? Is that the real issue, people feeling insecure? Maybe it is.

[PavePusher]

373. There are some 1.5 million violent crimes yearly in the U.S.....

though the rate is dropping.

Still, hardly equates to security, does it?

If I do not provide for my own security, no-one else will, and I will not let you restrict my options. If you do not wish to provide for yourself, that is certainly your choice. I wish you the best of luck with that.

P.S. To directly answer your question, no, I do not feel insecure... because I have taken steps to provide security for myself.

[Starboard Tack]

375. Am I right in thinking you would feel insecure without your handgun(s)?

[PavePusher]

376. Not sure I'd leap straight to "insecure"...

but certainly "less secure".

[Starboard Tack]

379. In what way would you feel less secure?

I can understand if you have been receiving threats against you or your family, but if you feel that way because of potential random threats, then I'm curious as to why you would feel less secure.

[PavePusher]

382. Because I would be less able to deal with any potential problems...

in as efficient and risk-free (to myself) a manner as possible.

If I am unable to carry a firearm, it means I will have to use some kind of melee weapon for defense (if that is allowed...) or hand-to-hand combet. This means the criminal can get closer, the contest becomes one of physical prowess and strength, and my risk goes up in the approx. ratio of the square of the number attacking me. In short, you take away any advantage I have over a criminal and put me at parity at best. Unacceptable.

You seem to beleive that "random threats" don't really happen... but they do. Simply because you or someone close to you has not yet won (err, lost) that lottery does not mean the risk is not very, very real.

It has been best explained here repeatedly as a risk/injury/benefit analysis. My risk of being a crime victim again is non-zero. Even if very, very low, the benefit to being prepared to defend myself is very high if it should become neccesary. Having already been a victim of crime several times, with a total cost of several tens of thousands of dollars and some minor injuries, I have calculated that my modest efforts at preparation are worthwhile due to the risk and cost involved in being unprepared. Since you and others with similar philosophies have repeatedly stated that you will not be there to lend me aid, I have to be prepared myself, or with others who believe as I do. And they can't be guaranteed to be nearby in time of need either. Temporal-spatial impossibility, y'know.

[Starboard Tack]

386. Please show me where I ever said I would not lend aid.

"Since you and others with similar philosophies have repeatedly stated that you will not be there to lend me aid,"
I don't know where you got that idea, but you are dead wrong. I am a strong believer in self-defense and in helping others. It's how I was raised and how I have always lived. I have been in countless confrontations, including having guns pointed at me and other weapons, including a machete, which was the scariest. I never had to use a weapon, not even a baton against anyone, or strike anyone in anger. I have found that a steadfast demeanor combined with sound reasoning is the best weapon against a would be aggressor. Using, or contemplating using a weapon only exacerbates. You cannot defuse a situation by raising the testosterone level.

[oneshooter]

388. Try that against a druggie who needs a fix. And believes that you have his money.

"I have found that a steadfast demeanor combined with sound reasoning is the best weapon against a would be aggressor"

[Starboard Tack]

390. I have, many times. Never a problem. It's all about attitude.

I lived in Alphabet City during the 80's. It was a daily occurrence, along with junkies shooting each other. You'd have had a field day capping their asses.

[beevul]

405. A baton?

Are you LEO or security, where you'd be in possession of one?

[Straw Man]

98. You're doing it again.

You're not a moderator here. You have no right to tell people what they may or may not contribute. If you think it violates the forum rules, report it.

[Starboard Tack]

119. Thank you for your advice, oh Holy One, but I posted this thread and I am tending it.

Part of that tending is trying to keep it on topic and responding to disruptors in the manner I choose. You should really read your own thread while looking in the mirror, as you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of. Pretty funny.

[rl6214]

133. Aaaaaahahahahaha

:rofl:

[SteveM]

178. 2A requires no specificity as to arms any more than 1A is constrained by "press."

This should be very clear to you, by now.

[Straw Man]

384. "Tending it"? Oh, please...

Is there a position called "tender"? How is that different from "moderator"?

You refuse to listen to anyone who disagrees with your premise, and then you pretend to be interested in constructive dialogue. That's rich.

I'm not telling you that you have no right to post your opinions on the topic; I'm telling you that have no right to discourage others from posting theirs. Can you see the difference? I knew that you could.

[Euromutt]

142. I think it's called "drawing a parallel"

Flintlock long gun is to 2nd Amendment as manual printing press is to 1st Amendment; both may have been the predominant form of relevant technology at the time the amendments were adopted, but in neither case is the amendment so worded as to exclude later developments in technology either of weapons or of methods of disseminating information.

I might add that I've personally witnessed Penn Jillette shout "fire" in a crowded theater on two occasions. Admittedly, there actually was a fire on stage at the time, so he wasn't falsely shouting "fire" (not that you specified that). But then again (as I've pointed out more than once in this forum), the phrase was coined in Wendell Holmes' opinion in Schenck v. United States (1919) to argue why the government was justified in prosecuting, convicting and imprisoning Schenck, the plaintiff, under the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing fliers opposing the draft.
Schenck, incidentally, was overturned, along with three other Supreme Court precedents, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), and rightly so.

[Starboard Tack]

278. Thanks. I know what he was trying to do

And if Ipads were being used to kill thousands annually and were designed for that specific purpose, what do think would happen? His post was meant to divert, not to contribute.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

147. I can yell fire in a crowded theater any time I want.

NOTHING prevents me from doing so except my good judgement.

[SteveM]

176. Very poor (but predictable) dodge. Your "press" is inky. Ewww...

Trouble with you, tack, is that you don't know when to cut off your "humor," then try to get serious.

Again, how does the First protect your communications on T.V., radio, the Internet, etc. when it only specifies "arms"...oh, excuse me... the "press?"

[rrneck]

67. *sigh*

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_arms
the U.S. military, small arms refer to handguns or other firearms less than 20 mm in caliber, and including heavy machine guns (typically< 1>.50 caliber or 12.7 mm in U.S. service).< 1>

[Starboard Tack]

76. Must be in the fine print. Nice try.

[rrneck]

91. "SMALL ARMS REFER TO HANDGUNS"

Nice try at a dodge. Everybody can read this you know.

:rofl:

[Starboard Tack]

115. So what? Everyone knows what it meant. This post is about looking for solutions.

There are questions posed regarding a problem in this country and how to solve it. Please address those if you want to participate.

[rrneck]

152. Bullshit. You asked fot a cite and got it.

Try to show some self respect if you can't manage integrity.

[SteveM]

179. Concerning your "look for solutions."....

You don't seem to be serious about that, or credible. Perhaps you should return to your humor, since you don't accept criticism very well.

[Marengo]

86. Is a handgun not an arm? If not, what is it? N/T

[rrneck]

89. Where does it specify 18th century weapons? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

228. Handguns are inclusive of 'arms'.

'Shall not be infringed' doesn't invoke limitations on caliber or capacity.

Again, the 2nd does not tell us what we citizens may do, it tells the government what it MAY NOT do.

[Marengo]

85. Define "Arms" N/T

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Given your prior posts, claiming you are seeking constructive debate is not credible

Retro citations do not help your position anymore than your claims of seeking "solutions"

[Starboard Tack]

65. Why do you say that. I think I'm one of the more flexible members on this issue.

I have changed my mind about lots of things and continue to do so. My consistency is in looking for societal solutions. Your consistency seems to be grounded in libertarian ideals of individual supremacy. Thousands of bodies in the streets and tens of thousands of gunshot trauma victims are irrelevant when compared to your right to defend yourself with the tool of your choice. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. Compared to whom?

I more so than many others have a lesser need of firearms to defend myself since I am both large and well trained. But there are others who's need in much more urgent than my own. Handguns are an effective equalizer for the weaker amongst us upon whom some of the stronger chose to prey. Be it women or GLBTs, your approach would functional disarm them and make them much more vulnerable. Mine is to help make them safer.

You stand quite severely corrected.

[Starboard Tack]

111. I respect your goals, but not your methods and your motives are somewhat suspect.

I detect an element of self interest on your part, which casts a shadow on your credibility. I get the feeling you may have a vested interest in the proliferation of handguns, which unfortunately makes you part of the problem, rather than the solution. So, I doubt we will be looking to you for any constructive solutions to a problem which you do not acknowledge. I think I remember you posting that you taught "gun safety" or something similar in a college environment. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt your sincerity. I just think you are terribly misguided, in the sense that you are so focused on the small picture, that you miss (or dismiss) the big picture. And the big picture is what public policy is all about.

[rl6214]

134. You aren't looking for a solution

You are looking to dictate, period.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

155. What vested interest would I have?

- I do not sell firearms
- I do not sell ammunition
- I do not charge for instruction unless you count the pot luck lunches and its not related to the University.
Where is your implied conflict of interest?

Violence is part of our society, perhaps even our genetics. The weak are preyed upon, and the police and the law are quite clear about you being your primary defense. I am helping to address the social issue from the ground up by making it harder for those who would prey upon others to be successful. That seems to be working both at the individual level and at macro level. That such success upsets the anti rights zealots is just a side benefit.

I clearly acknowledge problems in society and and contributing in a small way to addressing them in several areas, not just teaching self defense methods.In terms of addressing the problem, individual ownership of handguns is clearly not the driver. Pistols do not make people rob, steal, or murder. Work the causal factors if you really want to address the issue, and firearms are not one of them.

Your use of the royal we is amusing...

[Starboard Tack]

180. I take you at your word then. You appear to be an honorable man.

There was no royal we, just we as a group. We (you and I) obviously come from opposite sides as to how to fix the problem, but we do both agree there is a problem. I commend you for helping those more vulnerable to defend themselves. I think we only differ on the use of handguns in order to achieve that balance.
I would support your position if I thought it helped on a macro level. Unfortunately, I think it has the opposite effect.

[SteveM]

182. Concerning the tone of your posts...

Your's is a thinly-veiled attempt to question the integrity and character of those with whom you disagree. This, coupled with your quick-draw use of the term "disruptor" seems to suggest you are once again playing a game. BTW, you seem to have no notion (since you have yet to reveal it) of what the "big picture" is, and what public policy will address it.

[Starboard Tack]

198. The big picture, my friend, is thousands of handgun deaths and billions of dollars annually.

Your solution would be what?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

234. Attack the actual problem.

Not an artificial scapegoat.

The problem is criminal acts, not the tools they use. If you think crime will stop simply because it becomes illegal for the law abiding to own handguns, you're a fool.

[Starboard Tack]

242. The problem is way beyond criminal acts

http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda

Firearms and Suicide

Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
90% of suicides are mentally unstable. That's a lot of mentally unstable people using guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

245. Is it really?

Suicide RATES do not change due to the availability of firearms.

If you take away the gun, they will simply use a different method.

Really ST, you're going to have to try harder than that.

[Starboard Tack]

266. How do you know that? Appears that others would disagree with you.

RI leads in suicide attempts, but not deaths
The method used in suicide attempts can also make a difference, Price said.

He said suicide rates tend to be higher in states with higher gun ownership — not because gun owners are more likely to suffer from depression, but because guns are faster and deadlier than other methods such as drugs, carbon monoxide or hanging. People are more likely to survive an attempted overdose or even a hanging than they are a gun-shot wound.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44983250/ns/health-mental_health/#.TqHMToZwae0


Firearms and Suicide

Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda

[We_Have_A_Problem]

271. Among other reasons....

the fact that the suicide rate in the US has remained at a pretty constant 11.9 per 100K population for about the last 40 years or so - while firearms ownership has been on an ever increasing trend.

Neither of your articles shows a link between firearms availability and suicide.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

276. Excuse me?

YOU opened the thread. YOU have been moving the goalposts ever since you opened it. YOU have steadfastly refused to answer any question presented to you.

And you have the temerity to call ME the troll?

[jmg257]

296. Since you only want to tackle handguns, would eliminating handguns actually reduce

gun-related suicides?

Curious the number of handguns vs the number of long guns in circulation (and a related side-note would be handgun suicide vs long gun suicide, though I don't REALLY care about that). I knew a state trooper who hung himself...turned out that very sadly Gary was just as dead as if he used his Glock.

[Starboard Tack]

303. I think it would eliminate many. Not all.

I claim no perfect solution, but gun suicides are usually more successful than other methods. And when they are not successful, the attendant medical costs can be enormous and chances of a full recovery are slight.

[jmg257]

312. Understood, and agreed it could eliminate some. Never enough to be

a worthwhile justification for wanting to give up handguns, though. The positives greatly outweight this one negative

[Starboard Tack]

320. Not yet, maybe. But I think we will get there eventually.

[PavePusher]

294. Sorry, but suicide is a personnal Right and decision.

If we were only a bit more sophisticated, and less Puritanical, as a society, the tools used for it would not be considered "the problem".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

235. How do you account for the lives saved that might otherwise have been forfeit?

I bring that up since it clearly happens but can not effectively be tracked. Both sides make claims, but valid metrics are just not there.

Are all the lives lost innocent victims or criminal hoist on their own petard? That too should matter in any analysis

[Starboard Tack]

246. Fair enough

But as you say "I bring that up since it clearly happens but can not effectively be tracked."
What about all those lives that would be saved if there were no handguns? How many would not commit suicide by that method? We don't know.
What we do know is that what we're doing right now is not working. So, hypothesizing about what would happen is as pointless as doing nothing.
We have an example in the UK that works. We are not the same society, but pretty close. I say it's worth a try.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

247. You are still far from fair in your proposition and lemmmas

The numbers claimed by the pro gun side of uncounted gun usages is in the stratosphere. The VPC and Brady bunch claim they are a rare event. We know they happen, it has happened to me. Any counting of social cost needs to find a defensible means to take that into account.

The numbers you are bringing up fail to account even for the lives saved by handguns where the incidents are reported. Take the extreme case of a home invasion ending with the shooting death of the perp. Family is safe, bad guy dead. That is one of your thousands of gun deaths, but was it necessarily a bad thing? How do you include lives saved? Your current numbers are as unbalanced as Faux News.

It is not clear that what we are doing is not working. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are not committing crimes with them. There is a small group, often those who are already legally denied possession, who are. Have you considered addressing the underlying problems and not broadly owned tools being abused by a few?

As others have pointed out the UK is far from close to the US. Our societies diverged many years ago and while we speak almost the same language, our cultures are vastly different, whether it be freedom of speech, roles of government, or private property. I am also not sure that the UK works all that well either.

[Starboard Tack]

267. I accept there are justified defensive usages of guns.

Those guns do not need to be handguns. That is my argument.
Are you suggesting that we are inherently a more violent society than the UK or do you think the UK has fewer freedoms?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

273. What do you suggest....

...someone use for justified defense when they cannot use a long arm? Someone who may be wheelchair bound or simply not have the strength to shoulder a long arm...or perhaps may live in such close proximity to neighbors that a rifle which can penetrate the walls of their home is a bad idea?

Your question about the UK v. US is irrational. Violence in the US has no relationship to the freedoms in the UK.

However, yes, the US is a bit more inherently violent. Yes, the UK has demonstrably fewer freedoms.

[jmg257]

289. How about "someone might not be home when they are attacked"?

Hard to conceal a 26"bbl shotgun, or even a 18.5" bbl one.

I'll stick with my handguns when out and about, thanks.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

291. I was putting that aside for the moment

since the OP seems to believe public self defense is unacceptable.

[jmg257]

293. Understood - it was for...group consumption. ;) nt

[Starboard Tack]

305. A stun gun, taser, mace, build a firearm into the wheelchair. Use your imagination.

If you can't use a long gun, your chances of surviving with a handgun are probably minimal, especially if your aggressor gets hold of it.
Why is mi US/UK question irrational?
What fewer freedoms does the UK demonstrably not have?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

317. Sigh...

Stun guns, tasers, mace - none of these are as effective. If they were, I'm positive people would have turned to them instead of firearms for the simple reason of cost and ease of use if nothing else.

You're wrong by the way about chances of survival being reduced with a handgun. For many people, a handgun is a better choice, and it is easier to disarm someone with a long arm than a handgun.

Your question was irrational because it conflated two things which have nothing to do with each other; the more violent culture of the US with fewer freedoms in the UK.

What fewer freedoms? Well for starters, they have none of the protections of the entire Bill of Rights. No right to speech. No right to freedom of the press. No right to be armed, No right to refuse to quarter troops. No protections from search and seizure. No right to not self incriminate. No right to confront their accuser. No right to a speedy trial. No right to a trial by jury. No rights with regard to cruel and unusual punishment. Power flows from the Crown to the subjects, not from the people up. All rights are retained by the state, the people merely have permission.

Now, in practice, some of these things have been given to the people, but in reality, the right to them does not exist. The Crown can disband Parliament at any time and Parliament may rescind any of those freedoms at will.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

287. They need to be hand guns

Handguns are the most effective kind of firearm for self defense. Also remember as someone else pointed out, 80% of violent crime happens outside of the home. You can not conceal a shotgun. For now, handguns are a keeper and the ownership base is broadening. From what I have read and seen the growth is among women and other groups who traditionally are not considered firearms friendly including well off urbanites, GLBT, etc.

As for UK, it is quite different. Social values, legal system, considerably fewer freedoms, much more conformist and accepting of government direction. They also have an acceptance of ruling elites and academics. They expect quite a bit from the government and have nothing resembling direct democracy tools. The US is more anarchistic in many ways. We also tend to be much more skeptical of government and elites. We expect little from government and often get less than that. We also embrace direct democracy. Most of all, we are individualists in many ways. Collectivism has never gotten much traction. It is not about how violent our society is, or the fewer freedoms they have, it is a whole lot more. Live there for a while...its eye opening.

[Starboard Tack]

308. I lived there for more than twenty years and have many friends and family there

I know nobody who would agree with you that UK has fewer freedoms. Brits roll there eyes at the very thought of carrying handguns around. That practice is not considered a freedom. I find the two countries equally free, though their flavors of freedom and individual rights may differ. Healthcare, education and caring for the elderly are all rights in the UK. Rights which we are still fighting for. Handgun carrying and armed police are not considered freedoms in the UK, but repressive and anachronistic.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

318. See, that's one massive difference right there.

The UK considers private arms ownership to be repressive. The US considers it a right. Further, there is nothing in the US which prevents me from obtaining healthcare, education or care for the elderly. I don't know where you got the idea those rights were denied.

Inability to pay is not the same as not having the right.

Just as I have a right to be armed, I have no reason to expect the government to provide me with a gun.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

327. How about constraints on the press and speech? Fairly sizable differences there.

If you have been there as long as you say, surely you realize the differences are much deeper than firearms and that they have their own kind of violence problems

[PavePusher]

295. O.K., I'll start carrying my M-4-gery around.

You will be there to head of the Nervous Nellies, yes?

[Starboard Tack]

309. Go ahead, if you feel you need it. I won't be anywhere near you

[Simo 1939_1940]

383. Wrong yet again, my friend.

The big picture is that the thousands of handgun deaths and billions of dollars annually is at least offset by the lives and money saved via defensive gun use:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x471197#471729

[SteveM]

181. More problems with your post...

"Thousands of bodies in the streets and tens of thousands of gunshot trauma victims are irrelevant when compared to your right to defend yourself with the tool of your choice."

Do you believe this? Or is it sarcasm? Please be more clear.

Concerning "irrelevancy," please show how "tool of your choice" is relevant (or not) to "gunshot trauma victims..." Keep in mind that "tools" are within the context of the Constitution's description of "arms." Thus, poison gas may not be allowed, but firearms are indeed allowed. More importantly, you must show how "gunshot trauma victims" is relevant to the right of self-defense, arms or no.

When you are finished, then I may "tend" to your answer, since I am an "individual."

[Iktomiwicasa]

299. About as "flexible" as a brick.

[SteveM]

33. Neither "handguns" nor "Windows Operating System" are mentioned..

in the Constitution. In the First, only the term "press" is mentioned. Would you like the form of your "free expression" governed by a wooden printing press?

Similarly, the Second mentions "arms," which were taken then (and now) as being firearms capable of being held and fired in one or both hands; in short, weapons suitable for militia and combat. Handguns are most definitely included within such a context.

Stevens is quite wrong about his view of "original intent." This is not meant as disrespect for this juror, but he is wrong, and most scholars of the Second (since we are accumulating "authority") think he is wrong as well. You may wish to read what Alan Dershowitz has to say about "obsolescence" of various amendments.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. You might want to try actually READING Heller...

All 9 agreed the 2nd protected an individual right. Every single one - including Stevens.

The 4 who dissented on the case were addressing the specific law in DC.

[DanTex]

32. LOL. I love when people tell you to read something that they haven't read themselves...

The Stevens dissent very clearly stated that 2A was about militias and not private use of firearms for self-defense, which is the point the OP was making.

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


PS. You know that gun blog that you got your ideas about the Heller case from? It's wrong about lots of other things too...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

37. I love it when people post something they intend....

...to use to support their own argument, and yet do not seem to understand what they posted supports their opponent.

Read it again...carefully...and realize that Stevens is being exquisitely careful in his word choices.

[DanTex]

41. Wow, straight up denial of facts! Bravo!

You don't even try for an explanation, you just go directly with "2+2=5". Gotta love the boldness...

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. Just using your example....

I denied nothing. Steven's dissent is what it is. It does not change the fact that even he agreed it protects an individual right.

[SteveM]

184. You just got check-mated...

Stevens:

"The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia."

In other words, the federal government cannot infringe the right of the people. What Stevens doesn't address is that the federal government is charged with the duty of protecting the right of the people from state restrictions, most esp. through the 14th Amendment.

[rl6214]

105. If you are going to quote me, at least get the quote right

This isn't what I said:
"only the hardcore anti-gun zealots would dispute that" LOL



This is what I said
Only a hardcore anti-gun zealot would call for something like this.

[MineralMan]

4. It's really a silly question, since it's not going to happen.

No national politician would even suggest it in a serious way. If one did, they'd be out of a job pretty quickly. It's simply not in the cards.

[Starboard Tack]

6. Attitudes like yours do little toward solving problems.

We aren't discussing the issue of political survival.

[MineralMan]

7. No doubt.

Neither do silly proposals. Banning handguns just isn't going to happen. Waste of time and energy.

[Starboard Tack]

13. That is your opinion, which many might consider even sillier.

Keeping them is a much bigger waste of human life and cost to society.
10,000 lives and tens of billions of taxpayer dollars seems more wasteful to me.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes, it is my opinion. Almost all of my posts represent my

opinion. Just as yours do. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

[DanTex]

23. Would you say the same thing about, for example, single payer healthcare?

Or how about full GLBT equality in all 50 states?
Or how about a real energy policy to combat global warming?
Or any other issue -- Wall Street regulation, tax and labor policy, etc. -- where right-wing special interests currently make rational and fair policies essentially impossible politically.

I understand the argument that we should maybe be pragmatic, and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, etc. But the suggestion that it's "silly" to venture beyond the ideas that the right-wingers might approve of is pretty much the exact opposite of what progressivism and liberalism is all about.

It's bad enough that the right-wing lobbies have so much power over our government. But let's not start calling progressive ideas "silly" just because teabaggers control congress.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

26. One major difference between those situations and firearms...

Once the government attempts to make firearms ownership illegal in this country, a line will be crossed from which there is no return.

In case you forget your history, the spark that lit the fire of the Revolutionary War was not taxes or onerous regulations, but General Gage's attempt to disarm Concord and Lexington.

Do not kid yourself Dan. There are MANY people of all political leanings in this country who would consider attempted wide scale confiscation or prohibition of firearms to be the absolute last straw and the 2nd Amendment would very rapidly be enforced.

[DanTex]

30. I get that there are many crazies out there.

But I don't see how that relates to my point, which is that we shouldn't be calling ideas "silly" just because they have no chance of getting past the teabaggers in congress.

And really, if we got single payer healthcare, that would upset the crazies just as much as a handgun ban, maybe even more. After all, look at all the talk of tyranny and freedom and death panels that we got during the HCR debate, when single payer wasn't even on the table.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

35. It wouldnt be the crazies Dan...

Yes, many people disagree with single payer healthcare, but that's not anything near the same level.

Once you take away the people's ability to reign in government power, the people are no longer free. Here in the US there are many people who know this. You may not realize it, but do not think that means others share your ignorance.

[DanTex]

40. Really, you don't think people would go crazy over single payer?

Maybe you weren't paying attention to the HCR debate then.

And, yes, it would be the same people. People like Mike Vanderboegh, the guy who incited vandalism of Democratic offices after the HCR vote. He's on to new loony territory now, pushing the conspiracy theory that the ATF is intentionally sending guns into Mexico in order to justify stronger gun control. I'm sure you know all about him, because he's a hero on the gun blogs where you apparently get your information.

Whether you admit it or not, although gun control talk definitely brings out the crazies, the crazies are actually crazy about a lot more than just guns (socialism, Sharia law, the "New World Order", etc.).

[gejohnston]

38. The difference is

the misinformed would chill out after about a year with single payer healthcare. It would take that long for them to figure out how full of shit Beck and Koch were. I do think it would have worked better if the administration would have proposed changing the medicare age to pre-natal, and call it medicare for all. The reason is that they would have associated what was being proposed with what mom and grandma is getting now.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

9. Yes it would

Refer to DC v. Heller.

[ileus]

11. Long guns are quite adequate for those purposes...not even in the home is that true.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Sorry, not sure what you mean

Adequate for what purposes?

[gejohnston]

16. where do I start?

Does the right to carry handguns decrease violent crime or does it increase it?

neither. Neither does gun control. Name one place where it made a difference.

Gun-related homicide rates in the United States are twenty to thirty-five times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to us.

Where do you get your stats? Five to seven times at most, and dropping. Countries that have higher murder rates than us, are in the neighborhood of 4-12 times. US jurisdictions that have the high murder rates are also major drug centers or trade routes, but I will get to that later. They also have very strict gun control laws including Chicago, DC, US Virgin Islands. They also have stricter gun controls than most of Europe or New Zealand. By the way, it is a textbook example of post hoc propter ergo hoc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Some argue that the answer is to enforce or increase existing legislation.

You think? Ending the war on drugs would be a good start. Most murders in the US, Mexico, and Europe for that matter are gang related. Perp and victim both have criminal records,often gangsters killing other gangsters. That is why I bitch about bong owners not facing their contribution to the problem. They fuel and financially support most of US and Mexican gun violence. What pisses me off even more, many of the "gun control advocates" that wring their hands about gun violence are those same people.

I am not a supporter of the Second Amendment, because it has been broadened and distorted from it's original intent, which was to support local militias, and no longer applies. I do believe in an individual's right to own and use firearms for hunting and defense of home and family.
Long guns are quite adequate for those purposes.

Stevens is in the minority not only on the SCOTUS but of Constitutional scholarship in general. So are you. In the historical context of the Enlightenment, he is full of shit.

There is no easy solution, but there is a well recognized problem and that is the proliferation of handguns. The greater the proliferation, the easier the access, regardless of legislation.

Yet murder rates continue to drop.

Toters tend to lean strongly libertarian and share a philosophy that individual rights trump the greater good. Ayn Rand would be proud of them. They offer no solutions beyond expansion of RTC, which IMO, is no solution at all, because it ignores the underlying social problem.

Total bullshit. Individual above corporations and the crown is the very definition of liberalism. Not all libertarians are right wing, there are left wing libertarians.
http://politicalcompass.org/ On their quiz, I scored as more left wing than Ralph Nader and more libertarian than Ron Paul.

They offer no solutions beyond expansion of RTC, which IMO, is no solution at all, because it ignores the underlying social problem.

Project much? You offer no solution that has any evidence of doing as promised. Can you cite one place? It seems to me that your side is ignoring underlying social problems.

We could argue the merits of each one, but banning a model or type of tool is not the same as PROHIBITION

Yes it is prohibition. And in closing, stringing various logical fallacies together is not a valid argument. That is why your side is losing.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Where did I get some stats?

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

Are you also a holocaust denier?

[gejohnston]

34. no I just compared

our murder rates with murder rates of other countries, regardless of means. I failed to find the information in your reference. Are you also a climate science denier?

[SteveM]

185. You ask a poster "are you a holocaust denier?" And claim to be serious. nt

[SteveM]

27. Yes. This has been decided by the Supreme Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

The SCOTUS held clearly that handgun bans were a prohibition because Americans overwhelmingly choose this weapon for the purpose of self-defense:

"In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense."


The operative clause of 2A starts with "...the right of the people..." and is not governed by the "militia clause." The so-called "militia clause" was popularized about the time the Moody Blues was charting, and has little support among those who have written on the subject of the Second Amendment. The federal government has an interest in militia as described in the Articles, and announces that, but as with all of the Amendments, it does NOT imply or specify regulations which are not its purview; in fact, giving the feds authority over the Second based on militia needs or even the existence of the militia would turn on its head the very purpose of the Amendment:

"Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the

"right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule."

Further, note some states have the "peculiar" prefatory clause within their constitutions. Virgina's operative clause begins with "...that the General Assembly shall not pass any law...":

"That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances."


As for the McDonald decision, the 14th Amendment comes into play because of "incorporation." This amendment (1868) was put into place in order to define a U.S. citizen, and to keep states from bridging the "immunities and privileges" of said citizens, most notably blacks, and most notably to defend their right to keep and bear arms.

"In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."


It is a strain for even the casual observer to somehow read the rights in the BOR as enjoying the protection of the government, but to specify that the Second comes under federal control and authority. No precedent for it then; no argument for it now.

[SteveM]

39. Thanks for posting! Keeps us in fighting trim. nt

[jmg257]

43. Who cares what you call it? When it seems at least 50-75% of gun-related homicide

offenders and victims have previous criminal histories, I am much more inclined to start with trying to deal more effectively with them, then I am in removing one of the tools that is chosen by many as the best personal defense against them.

It doesn't seem that a very large percentage of the handguns in the US are being used criminally. And it is unknown how any type of ban/handgun prohibition would affect the numbers that are.

7000 handgun homicides (see above for who commits most of them)? OK - but 1.3 million serious violent crimes annually ain't nothing to sneeze at either. Many people seem to like their odds better when they choose to carry. Why take away that right to choose to carry if it won't matter in the number of violent crimes over all?

Personally, I never understand why so many people think the only place you may be a victim, or have the right to an adequate defense against being a victim, is in your own home...I feel pretty safe at home, if/when I do worry it is when I am out and about...and long guns are SOO hard to conceal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

46. No kidding....

I feel extremely safe in my home, and I don't exactly live in a gated community in the suburbs. Between the dogs, alarm system, and the firearms in the house, I'm really utterly unconcerned when I go to sleep at night.

Outside the house? Different story. I cannot control what happens there and who may be around with an axe to grind. I can't exactly put a 12ga on the motorcycle, so concealed carry of a handgun is about my only choice.

[ileus]

51. You my friend are a rude citizen...

:)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. Yes I am

Yup Yup Yup... ;)

[PavePusher]

48. "banning a model or type of tool is not the same as PROHIBITION"

WTH?! You are literally being so inane it makes my eyes cross.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ban

ban:
verb (used with object)
1.to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
2.Archaic. a.to pronounce an ecclesiastical curse upon. b.to curse; execrate.
noun
3.the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction.
4.informal denunciation or prohibition, as by public opinion: society's ban on racial discrimination.
5.Law. a.a proclamation. b.a public condemnation.
6.Ecclesiastical. a formal condemnation; excommunication.
7.a malediction; curse.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prohibit

prohibit:
verb (used with object)
1.to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law: Smoking is prohibited here.
2.to forbid the action of (a person).
3.to prevent; hinder.
Origin: 1400–50; late Middle English < Latin prohibituspast participle of prohibēreto hold before, hold back, hinder, forbid, equivalent to pro-pro-1+ -hibēre,combining form of habēreto have, hold; see habit
Related forms
pro·hib·it·er, pro·hib·i·tor, noun
un·pro·hib·it·ed, adjective
Synonyms 1.interdict. See forbid.3.obstruct.
Antonyms 1.permit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prohibition

prohibition:
noun
1.the act of prohibiting.
2.the legal prohibitingof the manufacture and sale of alcoholic drinks for common consumption.
3.(often initial capital letter) the period (1920–33) when the Eighteenth Amendment was in forceand alcoholic beverages could not legally be manufactured, transported, or sold in the U.S.
4.a law or decree that forbids.

[PavePusher]

50. What you want to do is remove a tool that has equal utility for beneficial or harmful acts....

while leaving the criminals and reducing greatly the ability of the defenders.

I can't imagine how you see that working out well. Have you read anything about pre-firearms history and conflict at all? Pretty brutal time, with murder rates that make a bloody Chicago weekend look like a Church Social picnic.

[oneshooter]

55. Yes

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

56. Is it prohibition? Irrelevent. However, a ban on such commonplace arms would violate the 2A.

Heller dictates that while some forms of gun control are certainly allowed to exist while not violating 2nd amendment protections, that arms which are commonly possesed (hunting rifles, handguns, shotguns, sporting/tactical rifles, ammo, etc...) are protected under the 2nd Amendment.

[petronius]

57. It would be prohibition, yes, of an entire class of firearms but not of firearms entirely

I think the better question is not would it be prohibition - it clearly would - but would it be 'infringement' (of the 2A)? My answer would be yes.

I also think the more appropriate analogy if you want to stay in the realm of vehicles would be a ban on motorcycles, say - not just exclusions of particular models that fail specific standards. And there is a corollary - don't firearms need to pass certain safety-related tests to be imported and sold? And models that fail those tests are excluded, just like the cars in your example...

[ObamaFTW2012]

58. The fundamental flaw

in your thinking is that you see weapons as the problem, and not the criminals. If we follow your proposal and successfully ban handguns AND manage to confiscate them, then what? Do you think crime will go down? Do you think murders will decrease? I certainly can't argue against the idea that murders-by-firearm will decrease dramatically, but murder itself won't decrease - it will simply shift to murders committed by other means.

There are 300,000,000 people in America. There are, on average, 13,000 murders-by-firearm every year. The majority (I think it's around 70-80%) are committed by 16-24 year old black males involved in drug dealing and/or gang activity. Not coincidentally, that is the same demographic most likely to be murdered with a firearm. More often than not, the murderer and/or victim are prohibited under federal and state laws from buying and possessing firearms and ammunition at the time of the murder.

So, do we trample the rights of 80,000,000 people by banning and confiscating their property - property Constitutionally guaranteed to them - to disarm the people criminals responsible for 13,000 murders every year, despite the fact that it was already illegal for them to touch a firearm? Is that the way liberals are supposed to think?

Should we just ban black people? Or maybe just black males between 16 and 24 years old? It's no less offensive to those who value freedom.

[oneshooter]

60. If you manage to get your ban,then how would you pay for them?

That pesky Fifth Amendment ya know.

And if you get your ban, how far back will it reach? Percussion, rimfire, pinfire, flintlock, wheellock, or matchlock?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. They wouldn't or declare their value to be pennies on the dollar

Typical for anti rights fascists

[ileus]

82. a banned gun ain't worth a dime...so I could see uncle sam giving a nickle each for them.

[Hoyt]

93. I buy a stock, government changes laws and it becomes worthless. Tough, I should have been more

careful if I intended to profit or recoup part of the cost. Life is tough when you invest in the wrong thing -- like a house. You got your enjoyment from your guns -- what else do you want?

Liquidate them and let someone else take the risk. Of course, pay an FFL to check background, and try to sell to someone who wants it for home protection and not a bunch of other bad stuff.

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. "In Prohibition 3.0, there will *be* no black market for guns. You can count on it!"

Presumably because their hearts are pure and their strength is as the strength of ten....

[Starboard Tack]

121. Works very well in the UK

There is a black market, always will be, but tiny. Just not worth it.

[Hoyt]

139. Clearly, most gun owners would sell their guns on "black market"- indicating they're not as lawful

as they claim when trying to expand privileges to carry guns in every corner of society.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

156. You must hate OWS

People have ignored what they consider to be illegal infringements on the rights by the state since the thirteen colonies. Its called civil disobedience.
- People in CA continue to ignore some of the gun laws that are overly restrictive
- People remain encamped near Wall Street

[Hoyt]

192. I'm fine with OWS -- hope none of them are armed. I suspect most don't even own a gun, much less

would waste their time promoting gun expansion and cheering the 3%ers who carry in public.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

227. So protests and civil disobediance is OK as long as you like it

and bad if you don't. OK, we have your measure

[rl6214]

177. Clearly you must have the proof to back this claim up, right?

"Clearly, most gun owners would sell their guns on "black market""

Where's the proof? There must be something I am not finding when I do a google search that you are able to find.

So either you cite the proof or you are showing yourself to be the liar that you are.

[Hoyt]

193. Obviously, there is not proof to a stupid hypothetical posed by the gun obsessed.

But yes, I do believe those obsessed with guns would not turn their guns in if guns were banned. In fact, I'm dang sure of it. Many would give you usual refrain you see on this forum, "who is man enough to take my guns away." Thank god only a small percentage are that in love with the dang things.

[rl6214]

329. So in other words you are lying out your ass again

as usual.

[beevul]

120. You just can't get it right can you.

"I buy a stock, government changes laws and it becomes worthless."

Yes, worthless. But you STILL OWN IT.

And that is where you and your analogy fail.

"Liquidate them and let someone else take the risk"

have you sold YOUR guns yet mister hypocrite?

[Hoyt]

140. Most left to me, yes. I won't cry if few remaining become worthless because it is good for society.

[beevul]

165. Its not a matter of them becoming worthless.

Its a matter of not being able to OWN them.


If by some edict, they were made illegal, ALL of them, "turn them in mister and missus america" fair LEGAL value would still have to be paid for them - which would bankrupt this country entirely.

On edit:

Most but not all?

You sir, are a hypocrite.

"guns for me, but not for thee".

[Hoyt]

189. No guns in public is my position. And I live by that. How about you?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

191. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is MY position, and I live by it.

I'm also willing to kill or die for it. How about you? Are you willing to kill or die for YOUR principles, or would you rather just send other people to do it?

[Hoyt]

194. Why do you guys always leave out the "militia" part?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

226. Because it is not the operant part of the sentence.

Why do you refuse to answer direct questions?

[jmg257]

250. Because, though I am pro gun, I am not sure I am all for every person

between 18 and +/-50 years old in this country having to go out and buy an M16. That of course being the intent of the militia-related purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Now I wouldn't mind 1 or 2 myself, but are all those people having all those automatic rifles what you really want? Oh, and don't forget the unlimited access by eveyone to M1911s & M9s with regular capacity mags!

[oneshooter]

170. Then call the police and have them destroyed.

"I won't cry if few remaining become worthless because it is good for society."

Or are you such a hypocrite that you wants guns for me, but not for you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[friendly_iconoclast]

217. He's a "Feinstein" gun owner- Restrictions are for *those* people, not him. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

216. Set an example, and destroy them now. What are you waiting for?

If you don't, you're no better than the lawmakers that would vote 'dry' while still drinking back during Prohibition.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

158. So if the government decides to take property, there should not be recompense?

at the fair market value prior to declaring that it was to be seized?

Firearms are not investments. The overwhelming majority of owners do not buy and sell them. Not sure where you get this concept, but it is clearly flawed

[Kennah]

74. Given how well the prohibition of alcohol worked ...

[Starboard Tack]

122. That was all alcohol, not just gin.

It'll work, unless you come up with something better. It's up to you, those who are invested in handguns. I don't care. I don't own one or want one. I came up with a solution, bad as it is, and you aren't even trying.

[Kennah]

124. The Volstead Act had exemptions. It wasn't a ban on all alcohol.

[Starboard Tack]

214. Good, what alcohol was excepted? Rubbing alcohol and isopropyl?

Do you have any solutions to the problem?

[Kennah]

215. Wine, whiskey from an M.D., and eventually an effort to allow beer to prevent repeal

What is the problem that we're attempting to solve, because handguns in society isn't a problem in my view.

[Starboard Tack]

257. If you don't recognize the problem

does that mean you are comfortable with the number of handgun deaths, injuries their cost to society?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

260. IF you're going to ask such a loaded question...

Yes, I am comfortable with it - at least from the stand point of recognizing that the gun is not the problem, but the criminal.

Besides, ~10K deaths in a nation of 310million is statistically irrelevant. Really. Its not even a blip on the radar.

[Starboard Tack]

270. Not even a blip on the radar? OK we know where you stand.

Thank you for participating.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

281. Yep - not even a blip on the radar.

~15k deaths per year. Nation of 310+ million. Nope - not enough to even think about having it drive public policy.

[Starboard Tack]

316. Your egocentricity never ceases to amaze me

The irony is that as a toter yourself, you are far more likely to become one of those 15k.
Remember the old adage "Live by the gun, die by the gun."
Many shootings I read about here are between two or more people with guns and one of them often claims self-defense.

[Callisto32]

79. You claim you want constructive discussion. Alright:

Okay, let's start over.

You suggest that prohibiting something is not a prohibition. We can't talk to each other if we aren't using the words the same way.

Please, define "prohibition." Once we have your working definition, maybe we can talk.

[PavePusher]

110. I've quoted the dictionary several times already.

He's ignoring my so assiduously, he's about to sprain something. Well past disingenuous and deep into obstinent denial.

[Starboard Tack]

125. So sorry, it's been a busy thread and I have a life. I tend to respond to typed threads first

and copy and pastes later. You know that I'm not ignorant and the semantic side trips are time and energy wasting, but read my previous thread for my response on prohibition.

[Callisto32]

138. You try to coopt the language and when I try to be civil, and begin with clarification..

you act like you're above it.

You know what Starboard, your thinking is like your name....A ship that never tacks port just ends up running in circles.

[PavePusher]

335. My apologies, you are correct and I was a bit hasty.

Actually, you're coping with answering the flood of responses pretty well, even if we don't agree with most of your "answers". So you've got that going for you... :toast:

[Starboard Tack]

123. You're getting bogged down on the semantics, but here goes

Prohibition for the purpose of this discussion refers to the prohibition similar to the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the "...manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States..."

What I suggest, for lack of other ideas, is the banning, or prohibition (if you like) of handguns only, because of the greater potential good. This is very different to banning all guns and I'm flexible. Show me nonlethal handguns and I'd be excited, along with many others.

People get so offended by certain words and word associations. Intent is far more important.

[rrneck]

164. ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Demand for liquor continued, and the law resulted n the criminalization of producers, suppliers transporters and consumers. The police, courts and prisons were overwhelmed with new cases; organized crime increased in power, and corruption extended among law enforcement officials. The amendment was repealed in 1933 by ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, the only instance in United States history of repeal of a constitutional amendment.

:rofl:

[spin]

80. Banning handguns at this time in this country is a pipe dream ...

Since people who legally have concealed carry license carry handguns, one look at this map will tell you that you lack political support for this idea.



If that isn't convincing this graph might show you that you lack support for your idea.


source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u.s.-record-low-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

Now if you can discover a spell and a magic wand that would make all handguns in the United States instantly disappear, you might be able to get rid of them.



Unfortunately you would have to use your wand and the spell daily as the same people who smuggle tons and tons of marijuana into this nation would be more than happy to supply handguns from foreign nations to the criminal element. If the criminals did obtain handguns, the violence rate caused by these weapons might well increase. A criminal with a handgun would no longer have to worry about an armed citizen if his profession was mugging people on the street.

You might think that if by some miracle such a law was passed, honest citizens would just turn in their handguns, but since in many states there is no registration system in place, the police would have no idea if a person owned a handgun.

Where I live at in Florida, the police probably would not cooperate with such an idea and would refuse or be very reluctant to confiscate handguns. Many officers that I know have firearm collections and have absolutely no problem with civilians carrying a concealed weapon as long as they have a license. You might think that the national guard or the army might block off an area and do house to house searches for handguns, but unless our representative democracy turns into an oppressive dictatorship such actions will never occur. You would have to basically do away with most of the Bill of Rights to accomplish this. You might also face an armed rebellion which even if squashed would result in far more bloodshed than banning and confiscating handguns would accomplish (assuming that banning handguns would actually reduce violence).

Of course you could pass the law and merely make it illegal to own handguns and never try to confiscate them. The problem with this plan is at the next election the party that passed this idea would begin to fade into political history like the Whig Party.

It's great fun to debate this idea but the reality is that banning handguns is as possible as converting the entire United States to solar and wind power in the next decade plus confiscating and replacing all internal combustion vehicles with electric powered transportation.

A far more practical approach to reducing handgun violence is to improve our NICS background check system and to enforce existing laws. While this will not eliminate the problem it could help, and while difficult, is at least politically possible.

[Starboard Tack]

127. I appreciate your input, but didn't find one serious suggestion.

Forecasting doom and gloom is not addressing the problem. You can do better than that. We're looking for constructive ideas. Mine isn't a very good one, I admit. So, do me one better.

[rrneck]

163. Read the last paragraph. nt

[spin]

183. At the end of the post I mentioned these ideas ...

A far more practical approach to reducing handgun violence is to improve our NICS background check system and to enforce existing laws. While this will not eliminate the problem it could help, and while difficult, is at least politically possible.

Interestingly enough these ideas are basically Obama's plan.

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms

President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

***snip***

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1bL4Ixn71

(Note: the entire editorial is well worth reading)

Other ideas that I have involve goals far harder to achieve because many gun owners and the NRA or the gun control organizations would oppose them.

1) I would like to see mandatory firearms training in high schools. This would not involve actual shooting but would involve hands on training on inactivated firearms and show students how to safely handle such weapons including the basics of how to check to see if they are loaded. We live in a nation with 300 million firearms and therefore there is an excellent chance that a student will encounter one of these weapons or someone handling a firearm in the student's lifetime. If the student knows the basics of guns safety, he can determine if the person handling a weapon is knowledgeable or a fool. If he picks up a weapon, he may know that on a semi auto firearm, merely dropping the magazine does not make the weapon safe. He should learn to keep the muzzle of the weapon pointed in a safe direction irregardless of whether it is loaded or not.

(Many would oppose a plan as it might encourage a student's interest in shooting but the same people scream bloody murder when someone in injured or killed in a firearm "accident".)

2) I would like to see a requirement that every individual who wants to purchase a firearm or buy ammunition have a card that shows that he has had firearm safety training. This would be similar to the card that a scuba diver or the log book that sky diver has. The course material could be online and the test could be taken on a computer at a driver's license office. The charge for the test should be extremely reasonable. (Of course, if an individual had taken a gun safety course in high school, he would already have a card.)

3) The NICS background check system could expanded to included ALL private sales. A method would have to be found to keep the cost of such a background check reasonable and no serial numbers of the firearms involved should occur beyond what happens in a NICS background check at a dealer.

(The NRA opposes any NICS checks for private sales including private sales at gun shows.)

4) Enforcement of existing laws should include STIFF penalties for anyone caught illegally carrying a firearm especially if the individual has a history of violent felonies. All too often criminals are caught with firearms and only get a light slap on the wrist. Stronger punishment might well cause violent criminals to stop packing heat wherever they go and would consequently reduce firearm violence involving gang members who encounter other gang members on the street.

5) I would reconsider our War on Drugs which has been a total and absolute failure and has zero chance of ever being "won". Some drugs such as marijuana should be legalized and taxed. This would take much of the profit motive out of drug smuggling and would reduce gang wars over turf or wars between the Mexican drug cartels. Not only would firearm violence drop in our nation but it would also reduce violence in Mexico.

In all fairness, our current tactics to reduce gun violence have not been a total failure as shown in this graph. However, we can always do better although totally eliminating all such violence is impossible.



Surveys have shown that firearms are used for self defense but the results of these surveys vary tremendously.

Gun violence in the United States

Self-protection

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.<62> This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.<62> For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.<62> Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim.<62> Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.<62> In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.<62> During this same time period, 1987 and 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,<63> and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.<62>

The findings of the McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection.<64> The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.<65><66><67><68><69><70><71>

McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, stating that Kleck used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.<62> The former criticism, however, is inaccurate — Kleck's survey with Marc Gertz in fact used the largest sample size of any survey that ever asked respondents about defensive gun use — 4,977 cases, far more than is typical in national surveys.<72> A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.<73> By the Kleck study, however, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies.<62><64><73> Hemenway, however, also argues that the Kleck figure is inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently show that guns are many times more often used for self-defense in burglaries, than there are incidents of bulgaries of properties containing gun owners with awake occupants.<74> Hemenway concludes that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is likely a great overestimate, with the true figure at least 10 times less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Handguns in particular are primarily self defense weapons although they can be used for target shooting or hunting. Perhaps as many as 10 million citizens are licensed to carry concealed handguns. Very few incidents have occurred where licensed civilians have misused their weapons and far more incidents have occurred where a person with a CCW has used his weapon to stop a violent attack often without even having to fire it. Allowing honest, responsible and sane people to own handguns or other types of firearms is not a serious problem. In fact the sales of firearms in our nation has skyrocketed in recent years yet the violent crime rate has fallen.

Crime in the United States

Crime statistics for the United States are published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the Uniform Crime Reports which represents crimes reported to the police. The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the annual National Crime Victimization Survey which captures crimes not reported to the police.

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).<1>...emphasis added

***snip***

The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010.

From 2000-2008, the homicide rate stagnated.<8> While the homicide rate decreased continuously between 1991 and 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000, it remained at 5.4-5.7 until 2009, when it dipped down to 5.0, and continued to drop in 2010 to 4.8.




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

Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 – More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-million-plus-guns-in-2009/

It is interesting to note that the sale of handguns has been increasing at the same time that the violent crime rate as well as crime involving handguns have been dropping. That is why I feel that it makes far more sense to improve and enforce existing laws rather than to ban all or certain firearms.


source: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/02/robert-farago/nssf-long-gun-sales-push-u-s-to-new-firearms-sales-record/

The violent crime rate equation is complicated so therefore it is foolish to say that more guns = less crime. But it should be obvious that more guns does not = more crime.

[Starboard Tack]

230. A lot of interesting stuff, but I see nothing new

The only thing I think would have a positive effect would be to end the war on drugs.
Everything else has been tried. Enforcing existing laws obviously isn't going to work for many reasons. The main one being that criminals will always find a way to circumvent them. So they just become a burden on the law abiding citizens. If handguns are available, then anyone can obtain them. Handguns are bought mainly for self-defense, but are rarely used. You say that legal handguns are rarely misused. I doubt that you would consider suicide to be proper use.
Firearms and Suicide

Although most gun owners reportedly keep a firearm in their home for "protection" or "self defense," 83 percent of gun-related deaths in these homes are the result of a suicide, often by someone other than the gun owner.
Firearms are used in more suicides than homicides.
Death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.
Firearms account for 50 percent of all suicides.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda

Ninety percent of all people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death. How much money should we spend on checking the mental health of those who wish to own a gun and their family members?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

233. Who are you to decide that a person has no right to take their own life?

The availability of a firearm has no effect on overall suicide rates. It has remained quite consistent over time in the US and other nations.

If someone does not have a gun handy, they'll simply use other means.

Using suicide as justification for restricting the rights of those who have done no wrong is a losers approach. It is nothing but an emotional appeal.

[Starboard Tack]

259. 90% who take their own lives have psychiatric problems

Does that make you comfortable? Many of them take others with them.
You are obviously unwilling to sacrifice anything for the good of society. That makes you part of the problem. Your myopia amazes me.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

264. So what? Neither my fault nor problem.

My rights are not dependent upon some 15K people in this country being wired wrong. Honestly, I really couldn't care less about their mental problems when weighed against my rights.

Perhaps you do not see it that way and would willingly give up anything if you were told it was for the benefit of some infinitesimally small section of society. That is your choice and you're free to do so.

The one with the glaring myopia is not me my friend. You appear incapable of even seeing an alternative other than banning firearms ownership, let alone considering it. I have at least considered the validity and effectiveness of your proposals and recognized that they would ultimately cause far more harm than good.

[Starboard Tack]

272. You must feel very proud of yourself

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

277. If the choice is

My rights or the possibility that some mental case might off himself, my rights take precedence every single time.

No amount of emotional bullshit on your part is ever going to change that.


Remember what I told you before about having a mind that is TOO open? Yeah - see this is what happens when one's mind is too open. You can be sold a bill of goods by anyone on the flimsiest of foundations. I'm sorry for you that my convictions are stronger than yours, but that really is your problem, not mine.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. re: "Would a ban on handguns constitute prohibition?"

Would a ban on small words constitute censorship?

[Starboard Tack]

128. Yes indeed. Thank you. Excellent comparison.

Censorship is the suppression of certain words in certain contexts for the benefit of a greater good. This censorship does not prohibit free speech or the free exchange of ideas.

Censorship is used throughout society for many reasons without impinging on 1A rights. My proposal to censor certain weapons would do the same.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

149. re: "...without impinging..."

So you're fine if the government declares words shorter than 4 letters illegal?

What is up with the "throughout society" stuff? This is about government.

[Starboard Tack]

231. Can you demonstrate the likelihood of saving lives by banning small words?

Government allows censorship by rating movies, limiting language by the FCC.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

282. Save lives...

"Can you demonstrate the likelihood of saving lives by banning small words?"

Let's ban:
"GUN FREE ZONE"
"NO GUNS HERE"

I'm rather certain that I can, with a minimum of voir dire, find an expert (or 20) who will attest to that being true.

:) Have a nice day.

[rrneck]

162. What remedy do you offer

those whose right to self defense is impinged?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

169. re: "What remedy do you offer..."

Umm... 911?

[rrneck]

174. Works for me. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

175. I prefer....

...1911. It is far more reliable...

[rrneck]

195. Thanks.

I read too fast up there. Added an extra 1.

:dunce:

[rrneck]

196. Average police response time is seven minutes.

Where I live it's more like a half hour.

Your solution won't work unless cops learn to jump through a rip in the fabric if time.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

197. My 911 reply...

...was a question, not a suggestion. ;)

[rrneck]

201. Oh, OK. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

213. It ultimately just...

...makes basic sense to be prepared for self-defense.
Failing to plan for that is just irresponsible.



BTW - A phone is a poor tool for self-defense. I like the 1911. :)

[Starboard Tack]

232. It wouldn't be impinged. So no remedy would be necessary.

A right to something does not stipulate a means as to how that right may be exercised, but government has the power to restrict how it may be exercised.
Restricting a right does not remove that right.

[rrneck]

240. Sophistry.

Prohibiting handguns eliminates the right to use them.

Regulating something out of existence is political (and intellectual) cowardice.

[Starboard Tack]

261. Correct. " Prohibiting handguns eliminates the right to use them."

Regulating something out of existence is political (and intellectual) courage.
I would also like to regulate the death penalty, nuclear weapons and corporate greed out of existence.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

265. So it is in fact prohibition?

Yet you claim it is not. ON the one hand you claim regulating something is not eliminating it, and on the other you say this. Do you even know what the fuck you're posting?

You cannot merely regulate handgun ownership out of existence. Period. Good luck with regulating nukes and greed out of existence as well. Death penalty? You might have a shot on that one, but it would be more like legislate not regulate.

Perhaps you should spend some quality time with a dictionary so you know what it is you're actually saying.

[rrneck]

297. Imagine the courage

it takes to face a much larger and stronger assailant with your bare hands.

Do you have a firearm free solution to replace the one millions of people have the courage to adopt and take responsibility for? Or does your kind of courage just demand others create a space for your pet ideology and the consequences be damned?

Although to your credit, it takes some sort of courage to propose such selfish and inane ideas under the rubric of some pseudo-superior moral imperative.

On an anonymous internet message board.

Lotsa guts indeed.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

241. Does it have the power?

Sure. Does it have that power legally? No - in most cases.

For example, if one were restricted to practicing one's religion only on the fifth Tuesday of a month and then only in a government approved manner, would not any reasonable person say that the right has been effectively removed?

That's what you're doing here with firearms. The government is very clearly forbidden from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, and yet you ignore that and claim instead that since it doesn't specifically say handguns can be owned, that they can somehow be restricted.

That argument failed in front of the Supreme Court, and it fails here.

[PavePusher]

322. "We are at war with EastAsia."

We have always been at war with EastAsia....

[Hoyt]

92. Good post.

[Starboard Tack]

129. Thank you sir.

I'm trying to make some sense out of all this.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

161. You're trying to validate your feelings. nt

[rrneck]

94. Silliest OP evah!

:rofl:

Please take another hit and post something else!

[Starboard Tack]

130. There are questions pending.

[rrneck]

154. Violent crime was committed

long before the invention of firearms.


http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm

From Sept 1854 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than 15 feet
Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47% 6
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

Remove all handguns and a melee weapon works just as well or better. Cheaper and easier to get - quieter - potentially more terrifying - and most importantly since the victim will be unarmed because of a handgun PROHIBITION the assailant can be assured of a significant advantage in the disparity of force.

There are millions of handguns already in existence. They won't evaporate. A prohibition would make it illegal to own one, thus disarming people who would never fire a shot in anger or turning them into instant criminals.

Prohibition was an abject failure with alcohol and it can't be used for self defense.

Your semantic contortions have been addressed upthread.

If you would eliminate handguns do you have a better self solution?

I was wrong. Your OP wasn't silly. It was incoherent.

The political impossibilities of banning handguns should be obvious.

[Starboard Tack]

236. Fortunately, not all would agree with you about the coherency of my thread

Do you have any solutions to the problem? I never said my solution would be pretty. Who feels good when they have to spank a kid. Now, get out of your feelings and try to come up with something positive for a change.

[rrneck]

243. Fitearm regulation

works about as well as it possibly can right now. NICS checks for private sales would help but only if anonymity can be maintained.

The OP is hackneyed flamebait.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

159. Not serious ones and not from a serious source

[Starboard Tack]

237. I expected more from you

[We_Have_A_Problem]

238. We're still expecting you....

...to answer a few questions. You seem to have a problem with that. Perhaps because you know your position has no merit?

[Starboard Tack]

262. Which questions? I'm trying to answer those that merit an answer

[ProgressiveProfessor]

288. Sorry to disappoint...

You lemmas are unsupported, your citations biased, your prior position well known, and you expect us to take it seriously? That dog don't hunt.

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. So who here that wants to ban handguns will be volunteering for confiscation duty?

I'd say, none. You prohibtionists (and that's precisely what you are, despite your obfuscation) are in no wise different from
chickenhawks like Dick Cheney and Mitt Romney- you're all for someone else doing your dirty work, but never you or yours...

[Starboard Tack]

131. What on earth are you talking about? Chickenhawks? Dick Cheney? Romney?

Try to suppress your anger for a moment and come up with ideas to save your handguns. It's only a discussion. We're not at the "over my dead body" stage yet.
But if you don't have any, it doesn't look like you're alone. So far, what I see mostly is a bunch of grumpy old guys who haven't taken their medication and can't come up with anything positive to say.

[rl6214]

136. So far all I see is you trying to dictate your will

Won't ever happen.

[Starboard Tack]

239. On the contrary. I'm trying to see if anyone else here is looking for solutions.

I have no will to ban anything. I also have no dog in this race. Just looking for solutions to a big social problem. Your saying it won't ever happen implies that you see no problem and think it's ok to have 20-30 thousand deaths a year and spend billions on medical costs for the injured.
I don't expect you to come up with a solution, but someone might. I've presented the best one I could think of, distasteful as it may be.
And, I think it will happen. Eventually. Sanity usually prevails in the end.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

244. Can we agree that the social problem is criminal behavior?

If so, then you can put aside all of your useless tool-based solutions and seek a solution to the real problem.

Preventing the law abiding from legal ownership of firearms of any type as a means to combat crime is akin to trying to cure AIDS by making sex illegal.

[Starboard Tack]

263. "Can we agree that the social problem is criminal behavior?"

No, criminal behavior is a social problem, but not the one under discussion. The problem we are discussing here is handgun related costs to society in terms of death, injury and dollars.
If you do not accept that as a problem then you are in denial.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

292. Since you have already assumed a problem as the thesis...

no wonder the rest of us are not taking you seriously.

As I have pointed out, a more rational and fair approach would be to work up a way to measure net impact to society that includes deaths caused, deaths prevented, $$$ spent, $$$ saved and other factors on both sides of the equation. A formidable task no doubt.

Saying that handgun violence is the problem and to disagree means you are in denial is intellectually dishonest at best.

[Starboard Tack]

302. I am saying that handgun violence is a problem, not THE problem

Do you not consider it a problem? You train and counsel people in their use. Are you sure that, in doing so, you are not, inadvertently exacerbating that problem?

As I have pointed out, a more rational and fair approach would be to work up a way to measure net impact to society that includes deaths caused, deaths prevented, $$$ spent, $$$ saved and other factors on both sides of the equation. A formidable task no doubt.

I agree that your approach is rational, and maybe more rational. But, I think it may be an even more formidable task than ridding ourselves of these tools, or making them less lethal.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

328. But it is THE problem you are claiming is prima facie

I am actually reducing some problems while expanding the base. By training people I help prevent improper use, which is a problem. I also encourage lawful use and ownership which is not a problem but you think is. While meeting the CA requirements we go a lot further in terms of content. Takes two full days and the pot luck lunches are awesome.

We cover things like:

- Firearms technology and history
- Self defense ethics
- Self defense alternatives
- Basic Tactics
- Legal Issues
- CCW process in CA
- Out of state CCW processes
- Home defense strategies
- Weapon Familiarization (pistol/rifle/shotgun)
- Firearms politics

I have a group of additional instructors, do it about 4 times a year.

Our focus is to train women, GLBTs and other "non-traditional" gun owners. Not only does it meet CA requirements it gives them a broad base of knowledge to sort through the heavy anti crap here in CA. I often have quite a waiting list.

[Starboard Tack]

338. I'm sure you are a good person and I'm sure you do a good job

and if your students have already made the leap and purchased a handgun, then people like you are needed. It just saddens me that they feel the need to resort to handguns as a tool of self-defense. It is a horrible indictment of the society we live in and I personally hope that eventually we will outgrow it.
As I have said, I respect your motives and some of your methods, but strongly disagree with your philosophy.

[jmg257]

340. This is a thoughtful sentiment ST - and a good way to put it...

"It just saddens me that they feel the need to resort to handguns as a tool of self-defense. It is a horrible indictment of the society we live in and I personally hope that eventually we will outgrow it."

Here's hoping.

Cheers.

[Starboard Tack]

356. Thank you sir

:toast:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

341. Most of them purchase after taking the class

- That is the way it works in California
- We try to have a large assortment of firearms to try

We try to make this an educational opportunity. Even if they never buy a shotgun they have shot one at targets and know the difference between a pump/break open/semi auto. Same kind of thing with rifles and pistols. Knowledge is always important.

Some go all the way through and decide they cannot or do not want to have firearm. At that point it is an informed choice. One of the key people who help organize things does not own a handgun. She shoots a little while she is here but is key to the pot luck. Makes the best vegetarian lasagna too. Shooting groups are often a vary diverse group, at least mine are.


Again, you are presuming that there is a validated issue where it is not. With a starting position, you are guaranteed to fail. Show that there is a real issue of imbalance and then start to work out solutions.

[Starboard Tack]

357. We are not that dissimilar, except on the issue of handgun use.

Nevertheless, thank you for your input here, which has been thoughtful, informative and civil.

[PavePusher]

355. Please note that you have just admited that the problem is not the guns...

but the people.

The guns are primarily a result of the need for people to defend themselves, not the cause of the problem in and of themselves.

[Starboard Tack]

358. Of course the problem is the people.

The people who think that carrying them around is going to help them defend themselves against potential threats. I truly believe we can come up with less lethal tools that will better accomplish that and at a much lower cost to society.

[beevul]

359. So the police are wrong, in your view?

"Of course the problem is the people. The people who think that carrying them around is going to help them defend themselves against potential threats."

So the police are wrong, in your view?

Thats just...out there...way out there.

[Starboard Tack]

363. The police are wrong in being routinely armed, yes, of course.

Why is that way out there? Because it makes sense? Go to the UK and see it working. You'll be amazed.

[rrneck]

157. Ypu haven't posted amything

that merits a positive response. Mostly it's just incoherent flamebait.

[Glassunion]

102. You would allow guns in the home for self defense but not in public. Why?

Only 18% of violent crime occurs inside the home. The remaining 82% of violent crime occurs out in public.

Speaking of ignoring the underlying social problem... What is the #1 motivation for handgun violence in the US?

[AtheistCrusader]

106. My state constitution also guarantees arms for personal protection, so fuck off.

[LAGC]

109. "...in countries economically and politically similar to us..."

Gun-related homicide rates in the United States are twenty to thirty-five times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to us.

Oh really?

Which countries are so economically and politically similar to us? Which other countries have as big of gap between rich and poor as we do?

[beevul]

126. Oh this will be fun to dismantle.

"Others say our 2A rights outweigh any potential saving of lives through restricting those rights."

No, thats not really it. Nice try though. What people are saying, is second amendment RESTRICTIONS (you DO know the second amendment, like the first amendment, is a restriction on government exercise of power, don't you?) PROHIBIT hand gun bans. See Heller vs DS.


"Toters tend to lean strongly libertarian and share a philosophy that individual rights trump the greater good."


Comical. Simply comical. Toters (of which I am not one) whom I have met or corresponded with, believe in rule of law. Rule of law, starts with government obeying the laws which giovern IT. If government doesn't respect the rule of law, why should anyone else? "Toters" also generally believe, in my experience, that those restrictions on government ARE for the greater good.

"I am not a supporter of the Second Amendment, because it has been broadened and distorted from it's original intent, which was to support local militias, and no longer applies."

You wouldn't know its original intent if it bit you in the ass. But here, I'll show you what it is:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

billofrights.org


Paraphrased, the framers decided at the time of their adopting the constitution, epressed a desire, in order to prevent the newly formed federal government from misconstruing or abusing its powers, that certain declaratory and restrictive clauses be added: to keep confidence in government, and to make sure government always plays nice.

If you read the second amendment as "authorizing" anything at all, you are reading it wrong.

Its original intent was to shackle government, and basically tell it in no uncertain terms, "hands off peoples guns".


"So, that leaves the problem of “How to eradicate handguns from our society.”

Sorry, but we aren't having any.



"We could argue the merits of each one, but banning a model or type of tool is not the same as PROHIBITION"

First, ownership of cars is not something government is expressly forbidden from infringment of.

Second, let me ask you, would a ban on all...sports books...be constitutional?

Why or why not?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

148. by definition, yes. to ban is to prohibit. n/t

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

160. Absolutely!

From my thesaurus:
Prohibit (the verb root of the term prohibition) - To refuse to allow: ban, debar, disallow, enjoin, forbid, inhibit, interdict, outlaw, proscribe, taboo.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

168. re: "...underlying social problem..."

Toters tend to lean strongly libertarian and share a philosophy that individual rights trump the greater good. Ayn Rand would be proud of them. They offer no solutions beyond expansion of RTC, which IMO, is no solution at all, because it ignores the underlying social problem.

Prohibitionists frequently don't care about carry rights and ASSUME that a ban is the answer.

With the current expansion of "shall issue" policies to the overwhelming majority of states, it appears that a good number of democrats support that expansion, at least those democrats who vote.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

173. Would a ban on ....

...paper books constitute prohibition? Knowing you would still have e-books as an option of course. You just would not be allowed to purchase books made of paper and any currently in your possession must be surrendered to government with no compensation.

You ok with that idea? Would you call THAT a prohibition?

[Euromutt]

190. Re: "countries that are economically and politically similar to us"

Has it escaped your notice, in spite of the Occupy Wall Street/99% phenomenon, that the United States has massive income inequality (measured by GINI coefficient) compared to almost all of Europe, Australia and Canada? It doesn't compare too well to Japan and New Zealand, and even the former Soviet Union does better in spite of Putin running Russia primarily for the benefit of his cronies.

So how many countries are there that are federal republics with constituency-based representation with a GINI coefficient in the .45-.49 range and a built-in socio-economic underclass of descendants of slaves who continued to be marginalized well within living memory? An underclass, it might be added, that is disproportionately affected by a policy on illicit drugs that is all stick and no carrot.

You talk about "ignor<ing> the underlying social problem," but by focusing on the "proliferation of handguns," you yourself are doing exactly that: you're fixated on the how of violent crime (particularly homicide) instead of the why.

And honestly, banning--i.e. prohibiting--handguns "is not the same as PROHIBITION"? Doesn't that read as more than a little nonsensical, even to you?

[Starboard Tack]

283. I learned many years ago that "how" is far more important a question than "why"

Little kids, myself included, are always asking why?, or why not?
As we mature, we start to ask the question how?

Maybe that's the difference between us.

[Euromutt]

351. Really. Any *why* is "how" supposedly more important than "why"?

Other than that it's currently convenient to your argument, that is.

Personally, I'm inclined to think that the difference between us is that I'm not a dissembling, supercilious prick.

[Starboard Tack]

366. No, there are other differences between us. I am just a man. You are a snowman.

You just demonstrated why how is more important than why.
You just let yourself be dominated by your motive to insult me. That is how you roll, my friend.
Like a snowman, you will grow and grow, and eventually the sun will come out and you will melt away.
You don't distinguish between reason and purpose, or personality and character.
Hopefully, you will mature with time and acquire some substance.

[Euromutt]

414. You could do with some introspection, mate

I sincerely doubt I've seen any post of yours in recent months that didn't contain some form of insult, albeit usually sufficiently veiled to escape censure by the moderators. If I succumbed to the impulse to insult you back (don't insult my intelligence by pretending you weren't calling me immature), it was because you didn't actually provide any reasoned argument that I could address; thus, returning the insult was the most meaningful thing I could do.

And, interestingly, with this (again) argument-free response, the only thing you manage is to confirm my earlier assessment of you. Though I will give you credit for not being so hypocritical as to go whining to the mods when you get back what you dish out, which is more than I can say for some posters on this forum.

[petronius]

354. I think the little kids are right on this one - 'why' is a much more important question

'How' doesn't matter if there isn't a 'why.'

And leaving the topic entirely, perhaps it's when they start worrying about 'how' rather than 'why' that so many adults lose the sense of wonder and exploration that is so refreshing in little kids...

[Starboard Tack]

367. It isn't the path you take in life, it's how you walk it that counts.

[rrneck]

370. Why is one eay of walking better than another?

See how it works?

[Starboard Tack]

371. It's a Zen thing.

[rrneck]

372. Why is it a zen thing?

Starting to get the picture?

[Starboard Tack]

374. It's how you conduct yourself along whichever path you choose that counts.

Are you getting the picture now?
Now, I'm waiting for that OP you promised a long time ago. Let's all hear your ideas for a better world.

[rrneck]

378. Why would one choose one path over another?

That's the question you failed to answer before.

Sounds like you're tired of having your silly OP ground into hamburger. You do realize you've trotted out a whole bunch of debunked excuses and misinformation we've seen about a thousand times. You're certainly been here long enough to recognize them.

This isn't the "better world" forum. I told you in this thread gun laws are about as good as they're going to get. Must have been posted with one of those questions you dodged.

[Starboard Tack]

380. No reason to choose either path. I thought I made that clear.

I thought it was a very productive OP, in spite of the zealots and disruptors. Pity you didn't decide to join in. You missed the opportunity of some good exchanges. You should get out there a little more. Stop hiding in the corner and sniping. We both know you are capable of an intelligent conversation. But that's all about how you want to travel the path, isn't it?

[rrneck]

381. If there's no reason to choose

then why choose at all?

Here's a (no doubt partial) list of opportunities for discussion that you ignored. I'll overlook the sophistry powered dodges in the interest of efficiency.

350
243
297
240
162
163
89

Everybody can read this you know.

[Starboard Tack]

387. There's always a choice to be made

Even if the choice is to do nothing. I choose to respond to you at times and I do so on my terms. You decide to live with that or not.

[rrneck]

389. So you got nothin'.

Allrighty then.

Just so you know, this isn't a cocktail party where you can toss out a glib missive and wander away. Every word you say is public record. This thread is a narrative of the failure of the OP. Everyone can see it and every evasive word you write reaffirms that fact.

At this rate such sophistry may well attract the attention of conservative pro RKBAers to be bantered about. You are providing grist for the mill of our political opponents. Keep producing it in such quantity and quality and it will be worth scooping up.

[Starboard Tack]

391. Oh no! Now you resort to the politics of fear.

You must be kidding. I think it was a great OP and generated much interest. It wasn't intended for hardliners and agents provocateurs like WeHaveAProblem, AtheistCrusader and you. It was meant for those with agile minds and good intentions, whether they agree with me or not. People like Spin, Progressive Professor and several others.
You need to get over yourself, get off the fence and quit supporting shit you would never engage in.

[rrneck]

400. The only interest it generated

was to debunk the same old tired anti gun tropes we've seen here a million times. If the writer of the OP had an agile mind he might have been able to come up with some fresh content. Unfortunately, the author of that piece of tripe only responded to people when he could offer more tired tripe or accept compliments from those of like mind (which were very few). Your OP got ripped to shreds with very little effort slick and anybody reading this thread will know it.

Just because I don't carry a gun doesn't mean I don't support the right of others to do so. I don't publish a newspaper either but I support a free press. Surely you can figure out the rest of that analogy and apply it to the rest of the Bill of Rights. Then again, maybe not...

[Starboard Tack]

401. I do not support a redundant and exclusive amendment which has been distorted

by the likes of you and your zealous pistolero friends who hang out here in the gungeon. I engage with those whose credentials as bona fide Democrats are not in question and that includes you, as distasteful as your views may be.

Your opinion on my OP is of little concern to me. The same goes for your personal insults. You might want to join in the discussion in future and contribute. It would be better for your karma than exuding negativity all the time.
Stay tuned for more fun.

[rrneck]

403. I agree

with the fun part.

Your Second Amendment errors have been dealt with upthread.

[beevul]

406. Distorted?

Only distorted from what you wish it to be, not from what it really is.

[Simo 1939_1940]

407. "I engage with those whose credentials as bona fide

Democrats are not in question and that includes you, as distasteful as your views may be."

These words would ring with some sincerity if I thought you'd read any books on the subject of gun control by bona fide liberal criminologists who disagreed with your positions. Quite candidly, I doubt that you have or ever will.

[Starboard Tack]

409. Why do I need to read books about this?

Assuming you and the other twenty odd pro-gun zealots on DU read them and you still hold to such foolish views, what would be the point? If I were confused I would ask for help and often do.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

410. I made it a point to study both sides of the argument

before I formed my opinion. I looked at the information from such groups as the Brady Campaign as well as the NRA. I looked at crime data. I looked at all manner of comparative data. I looked at the 2nd Amendment itself.


One thing really jumped out at me. Most of the anti-gun information was either carefully phrased, or entirely based in emotion. There was little to no fact involved. Toss in the fact that I am utterly incapable of reconciling the grammatical and legal meaning of the 2nd Amendment with the way so many anti-gun people present it and I made my decision firmly on the pro-gun side.

I figured if one side was not afraid to give the actual facts and let the chips fall where they may, and the other side had to rely entirely upon emotional anecdotes and obfuscation, the side which did not run from the facts was probably the right one.

[Starboard Tack]

411. I have read no books on the subject

I support neither the NRA nor the Brady bunch. I know stupid when I see it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

412. Based upon your arguments..

...it does not appear your identification of "stupid" is as accurate as you believe.


Thank you for admitting though you have had no desire to educate yourself on the topic. Perhaps you are unaware that many of us have done the exact opposite and have chosen to actually know what we're talking about before we go flapping our gums (or clicking the keys as it were)? That is why you are repeatedly trounced in every discussion in which you have entered.

You have no firm position, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're relying upon an obviously flawed "stupid meter"...

[Starboard Tack]

413. Information may be gleaned from many sources besides books

Especially books written and published by people with an agenda. I am an avid reader of news sources from all over the world. I have no interest in learning how to support a rigid position by reading indoctrinal literature on either side of the argument. I have no firm position because I am trying to find solutions. I am a problem solver. You don't even recognize the problem, in spit of your name. You seem to think the only problem is living in a world where others disagree with you.
Rigid is as rigid does.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

415. So from where did you obtain your information?

Note, I did say that I used many sources in arriving at my conclusion - some from biased sources of course, but others from supposedly unbiased ones. In every case, the results were the same. Pro-gun-control arguments ALWAYS rely upon emotion and misrepresented data. Always. I have yet to find a single exception to this rule.

[Starboard Tack]

416. Depends which information.

I don't get it from the NRA or VPC. I look to more independent, dispassionate sources like the CDC for statistics. I look for in depth news reports and unbiased articles. I don't dismiss books on the subject and if it interested me enough, I might well read one or two. Mostly, I form my opinions from personal life experiences, which have been many and varied. I have had very little contact with handguns and very little interest in them, though I have had fun shooting them from time to time.
I find the discussion far more interesting, because it appears to be so polarized. I belong to neither side, so I don't expect much support in this forum which tends to attract zealots of both stripes.
I grew up on a farm, so there were guns around. Mostly for vermin. But the most important thing I learned from farming was that nothing productive will grow unless you till the soil. So, I like to stir it up occasionally to see where people really stand and maybe we can all grow from that.

You say that your opponents always rely on emotion. I find the same levels of emotion on both sides. Personally, I feel more comfortable around unarmed emotional people than armed emotional people. How about you?

[rrneck]

364. Well at least you finally defined the problem.

You're thinking ass backwards.

[Glassunion]

251. Yes. Especially considering that one word is found in the definition of the other.

A ban on the most popular self defense firearm in the United States would be considered a prohibition.

Not to mention it would expand upon an illegal market.

[Starboard Tack]

393. It would not be prohibition in the vein of alcohol prohibition.

It would be good sense, but maybe you have a better idea. I've been thinking that it might be more feasible to ban lethal ammunition. There seems to be plenty of new ammo available that is designed to stop, rather than kill.

I doubt the illegal market would be expanded. If it got any bigger it would explode.

[oneshooter]

394. Show us this ammo.

"There seems to be plenty of new ammo available that is designed to stop, rather than kill."

[Starboard Tack]

395. I thought you worked in the business. Is it possible you don't know?

You could google "less than lethal ammo"
Here is just one result
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index.php/cName/lessthanlethal-ammo-pistol-ammo

[jmg257]

396. Certainly can't get much more non-lethal then snap caps. Hmmm...no recoil,

No wear on gun parts, never break a firing pin, don't have to clean the pistol. This may catch on!

[friendly_iconoclast]

397. When you pull the trigger, yell "BANG" and then pistol-whip your assailant.

Truly an insight of genius!

[Starboard Tack]

398. Oops, I guess so. I linked to the wrong page.

Had 2 pages open. Should've been this one
http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index.php/cName/lessthanlethal-ammo-12-gauge-ammo

[oneshooter]

404. Would you trst your life, and the lives of your family to this ammo? n/t

[oneshooter]

408. I would like to know how you would wrie this change.

You have advanced an idea. Now how would you word it, in a way that would avoid a legal challenge?
It's your idea, let us know what exactly what changes, and how you would word the changes you want to make.
It's your idea, it is up to you to flesh it out.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas