What's your position on gun rights?

[Saurabh]

Wrong. Availability of firearms is only one of many variables at work here.

It is, as you said, atleast one of the variables. It is NOT helping the situation obviously. If it had USA would be the safest country in the world, clearly it is not.

She should have been carrying one. Women in particular are vulnerable to violent crime because they are generally physically weaker than men. A firearms allows a 100 pound woman to defend herself against a 300 pound man.

There you go, fear mongering again.

How do you even know what happened? I would like to think a female marine is "capable" enough of defending herself against 300 pound man no matter what. And like I said before there is a good chance she had a gun at bare, still it didnt help her, did it?

[jrkarp]

SO basically the whole theory of - guns against tyrants - does NOT have any factual backing. It is all a fear mongering no matter how you spin it.

Considering that this is a country that was created in violence against tyranny, I'd say there's a factual basis for it.

International policies are clearly different than domestic policy. I am sure you understand that difference. It is one thing for an American not to trust a Japanese, it is completely different for an American not to trust an American. I guess you are suggesting the latter should be the case whereby Americans dont trust their fellow countrymen. Ummmmm.

I don't quite understand the point of this statement.

[jrkarp]

It is, as you said, atleast one of the variables. It is NOT helping the situation obviously. If it had USA would be the safest country in the world, clearly it is not.

Yes, it is a variable, but considering how many other variables there are it's impossible to make statements like the ones you make here. I could just as easily claim that things would be worse here if people didn't have the means to defend themselves.

There you go, fear mongering again.

How do you even know what happened? I would like to think a female marine is "capable" enough of defending herself against 300 pound man no matter what. And like I said before there is a good chance she had a gun at bare, still it didnt help her, did it?

Well, you are incorrect, especially in cases where the attacker is also military trained.

She did not have a gun. Had she, she would be alive today.

How is it fearmongering to advocate being prepared to defend oneself?

BTW, I should point out that according to the US DOJ, privately owned firearms are used for defensive purposes against criminals over 500,000 times annually.

[Dadof2]

Ok so all bickering aside what do you guys think needs to happen to reduce the gun crime in the states? If it isn't banning guns then what is it? Stricter punishments?

I just think that it is important to remember this one fact:

People who are currently using guns to commit crimes are in fact criminals. If guns were illegal they would still use guns to commit crimes. Prohibition of anything is impossible. All prohibition accomplishes is to prevent law abiding citizens to partake in that activity which is prohibited by law.

The reasons that the US has so many gun crimes have little to do with the fact that guns are legal. The vast majority of guns that are used in crimes by criminals are guns that were obtained via illegal means. Our problems are rooted in social, moral, and economic causes. Our problem also lies in an increasingly innefective law enforcement system, specifically our prison system.

[jrkarp]

I just think that it is important to remember this one fact:

People who are currently using guns to commit crimes are in fact criminals. If guns were illegal they would still use guns to commit crimes. Prohibition of anything is impossible. All prohibition accomplishes is to prevent law abiding citizens to partake in that activity which is prohibited by law.

The reasons that the US has so many gun crimes have little to do with the fact that guns are legal. The vast majority of guns that are used in crimes by criminals are guns that were obtained via illegal means. Our problems are rooted in social, moral, and economic causes. Our problem also lies in an increasingly innefective law enforcement system, specifically our prison system.

Exactly. However, it is far easier and cheaper to demonize an inanimate object like a firearm than it is to address the real problem.

Remember that evil exists only in the hearts of men. An inanimate object like a gun can be neither good nor evil.

[EasyEJL]

Basically you have answered the whole dogma right there, havent you Easy?

The population of USA - 300 million, the number of firearms in USA - 223 million. Comes to about an arm per person really. Which other country in the world has this ratio? NONE. And which other country in the world is this unsafe? NONE. Okay maybe Zimbabwe, Israel, Middle East etc etc. But surely of all the 1st world country USA is the unsafest, inspite of gun laws. So obviously this hasnt worked, right?

and adding new anti gun laws wont make those 223 million guns suddenly disappear either. So adding new laws that make people who currently comply with laws have a harder time getting a gun still doesn't affect the ability of a criminal getting a gun, so is pointless. you have proved my point here that gun laws will not help at this point. Its a genie that is already out of the bottle.

In countries that don't already have this volume of guns available would I suggest they loosen their gun laws? no. but taking the guns out of the hands of responsible citizens doesn't take them out of the hands of criminals.

Recently of course an American marine killed a female marine and buried her, you seriously think that American female marine was not strong enough to defend herself?? In all probability she would be carrying a gun too.

apparently she wasn't strong enough to defend herself as evidenced by her death. And unless she was an officer she wouldn't have been carrying a pistol with her on her day to day rounds, only officers are issued and allowed to carry handguns.

[Xodus]

That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the
symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
- George Orwell


No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1776


Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed;
as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.
- Noah Webster, 1787


The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people
of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
- Samuel Adams, 1788


What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
- George Mason, 1788


To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
- George Mason, 1788


The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.
The great object is that every man be armed.
- Patrick Henry


And my personal fave:

If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
– James Madison

[Australian made]

Combating the root causes of crime (poverty, lack of education, racism, lack of opportunity) would be the most effective means of combating violent crime.

This i agree with. Every read Freakonomics? Make a valid point about legalising abortions and the crime rates falling dramatically over the next 15-20 years due to kids not being born into unwanted families etc. Sightly off topic but you get what i mean.

[AE14]

Again, if you read the Parker decision, you will find a better summary of the history than I can repeat here. It clearly addresses the prefatory clause and its purpose. Prefatory clauses were very common in 18th century law, and they generally were not intended to make a statement of the entire or exclusive purpose of a law.

Even the most liberal constitutional law scholars (such as Tribe and Dershowitz) concede that the 2nd is an individual right.

all I am saying is read what I wrote in the first paragraph. I do not doubt how the modern world views it, however, in looking at it myself, the wording is a bit inconclusive

[jrkarp]

all I am saying is read what I wrote in the first paragraph. I do not doubt how the modern world views it, however, in looking at it myself, the wording is a bit inconclusive

I did read it and I am familiar with the argument that you make.

Regardless of how the modern world views it, plenty of evidence as to how it was viewed at the time it was written exists and it overwhelmingly points to an individual right.

[AE14]

I did read it and I am familiar with the argument that you make.

Regardless of how the modern world views it, plenty of evidence as to how it was viewed at the time it was written exists and it overwhelmingly points to an individual right.

it truly is a battle of semantics IMO

[EasyEJL]

and short of declaring guns illegal entirely and attempting to round up and collect them all, it wouldn't work out regardless.

And attempting to round them up wouldnt work either

[Xodus]

and short of declaring guns illegal entirely and attempting to round up and collect them all, it wouldn't work out regardless.

And attempting to round them up wouldnt work either

It worked for Hitler.

[EasyEJL]

even in germany at the time the ratio of guns to people was nothing like in the US. it would actually be funny to see an attempt made

[Xodus]

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to
1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. >From 1971
to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in
Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be
destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up
3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with
firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens
turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their
guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically
upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins
and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to
explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and
expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or
hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and
property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the
law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During World War II the Japanese decided not to invade
America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

[MuscleBound1337]

You think the USA is a safer country by allowing ordinary citizens to carry guns?? does it not have higher crime rates then practically every other civilized country on earth?? You guys are ridiculous. The stats don't lie.
Gun Facts

Banning guns is a great idea, perhaps you wouldn't have so many shootings if they were unavailable to a certain degree. Of course they can be obtained illegally but how many people would want to go down that route.

How can you tell me gun control works. The country you're from is a prime example. Australia has not shown a decrease in gun related crimes since they have banned guns, rather violent crime is up significantly. The stats don't lie. Crime up Down Under

NCPA - Policy Report 176 - Myths About Gun Control

[Xodus]

even in germany at the time the ratio of guns to people was nothing like in the US. it would actually be funny to see an attempt made

"Governments will ask you to 'trust them' to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms."


It may not happen today or tomorrow, but over time without vigilance, it certainly will.

[Saurabh]

Yes, it is a variable, but considering how many other variables there are it's impossible to make statements like the ones you make here. I could just as easily claim that things would be worse here if people didn't have the means to defend themselves.

And that argument wont hold water since Gun laws have been around for close to 2 centuries and USA remains one of the most unsafest countries in the world(amongst the Developed Nations of course).

Well, you are incorrect, especially in cases where the attacker is also military trained.She did not have a gun. Had she, she would be alive today.

All speculation. You can say this, I can say that, but in the ultimate end what is true is that a trained Marine who had license to carry firearms was killed. Now you can spin it any which way you like.

How is it fearmongering to advocate being prepared to defend oneself?

Because you are creating a situation where you are distrustful of everyone and anyone. You are scared of "what might happen" and advocate possessing guns to curtail that. Again I repeat, no other country has this issue, what is so bad about Americans that we need to carry weapons in our own Homeland??

[Saurabh]

and adding new anti gun laws wont make those 223 million guns suddenly disappear either.

Fair point that.

While I definitely see your point of view I am disappointed that you think nothing can be done. It sounds kinda very pessimistic. Almost like nothing can be done in this case. If that is true(I beleive it is not) then why are we even having a discussion on this?

In countries that don't already have this volume of guns available would I suggest they loosen their gun laws? no. but taking the guns out of the hands of responsible citizens doesn't take them out of the hands of criminals.

You dont have any argument to make that suggestion in the first place!

Lets compare USA to England. In certain areas of UK even the cops dont carry weapons, simple baton works for them. And guess what crime is quite low. So why would they like to carry the weapon in the first place?

The whole idea of carrying gun is to act as a deterrent to crime.

[EasyEJL]

what is so bad about Americans that we need to carry weapons in our own Homeland??

if there aren't any problems then what is the harm in carrying the gun? they don't go off by themselves. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Find the statistics that show the number of legally purchased firearms that have been used to cause a death. Far more deaths a year from alchohol, tobacco, cars, etc. Even far more deaths a year from doctor malpractice.

Further gun laws will not stop the guns that are obtained illegally.