Gun Crime

[Ramo]

I'm confused Ramo, are you attributing the high murder rate in the US to the influence of drugs, or to the "war on drugs" itself?

The latter.

[Seneca]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Well, he would have a gun to stop them

Mr. Fun, what he's arguing, and I agree with him here, is that it is explicitly stated that we have the right to bear arms. If you take that away, there is always the possibility that the other Rights can be taken away at some time. By keeping all of the rights in tact, we can keep the whole thing in balance.

.

Gaah!! My least favourite argument, the slippery-slope argument. Almost impossible to argue for or against...

As long as there's a general consensus that having a constitution is a good thing, then changing one part of it won't result in the rest of it being torn up.

[DinoDoc]

Never mind

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Well, he would have a gun to stop them

Mr. Fun, what he's arguing, and I agree with him here, is that it is explicitly stated that we have the right to bear arms. If you take that away, there is always the possibility that the other Rights can be taken away at some time. By keeping all of the rights in tact, we can keep the whole thing in balance.

For the record, I believe that we should limit what guns can be purchased (you NEED a machine gun?). I also believe that trying to get rid of guns would become a major problem if such a law to ban guns was ever passed. It just isn't practical to get rid of an industry and hunt down every gun.

I agree with Seneca -- you are using the slippery slope argument fallacy. Just because one thing happens does not mean that something else that you're claiming can happen, will happen.

And individual citizens do not have the right to bear arms. As I said before, it's defacto, and based on a misperception of the people. So there is no right to bear arms to take away, in the first place.

[nobunaga]

Originally posted by MrFun
...according to consistent Supreme Court rulings over the past 65 years or so, individual Americans do not have the right to bear arms.

Really? Care to name a SINGLE Supreme Court ruling that unambiguously says such a thing?

How do you explain this very recent ruling by a federal court? If the Supreme Court had declared what you claim it did, then how could this federal appeals court unambiguously hold that the Second Amendment is an individual right? See for yourself here:

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm

From the majority opinion:
"We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by nobunaga
If the Supreme Court had declared what you claim it did, then how could this federal appeals court unambiguously hold that the Second Amendment is an individual right?

Thanks for the link. I'm printing out the opinion now.

BTW, my bet is that this case will be the one the finally forces the SCOTUS to settle the issue.

[MrFun]

That new Supreme Court ruling is interesting -- thanks for posting the link to it.

Obviously individual citizens comprise of an organized militia for state defense. But I have a question -- where in this argument of the Supreme Court did they argue explicitly in support for the right to bear arms for individuals who DO NOT belong to any militia??

I have read this case that you posted, but if I overlooked where the Supreme Court argued that individuals who do not belong in any militia have the right to bear arms, let me know.

[chequita guevara]

Just cuz we can keep and bear arms doesn't mean they have to be firearms.

We should all have swords. I've got mine.

[Wraith]

Ah, so that's why there's another gun thread. Somebody's copycatting.

--"I've been doing a little delving"

Little does seem to describe it, yes

In any case, as has been pointed out, your comparison is flawed.

--"However, to allow anyone to own high-powered arms without any checks or safeguards is quite frankly folly,"

This is what's known as a strawman argument. Those numbers were derived from the current status in the US, which includes over 20,000 gun laws on the books. This is hardly "without any checks or safeguards".

--"I'd be very interested to hear how they account for the huge difference in firearms-related crime."

The WoD, as has been mentioned, is a large part of it (again, the Prohibition example). Cultural differences are a part of it as well (the largest group in those gun crime numbers are drug and gang related, and I don't think the UK has the same level of gang problems the US does).

--"What about the whole legal/illegal firearms ratio in America?"

This is an important number, since the majority of guns used in crimes in the US were illegally obtained as it is.

--"But according to consistent Supreme Court rulings over the past 65 years or so, individual Americans do not have the right to bear arms."

Again, bull****, and references please.

--"Guns do more to stop crime than any other weapon."

Aye. Much more difficult statistics to gather, of course, but even on the low end of the estimates they more than balance out the above figures. See Gary Kleck's study for more info (don't think the full text is online, but a summary is).

--"So in every country where individual civilians are not allowed to own firearms there is no freedom?"

Urban Ranger, why are you arguing like you think freedom is a digital, all or nothing, condition?

--"As long as there's a general consensus that having a constitution is a good thing, then changing one part of it won't result in the rest of it being torn up."

Most of the rest of it already has been effectively torn up. Things like the DMCA and SSSCA (whatever it's called now) would never have even been considered if it was still in effect.

--"That new Supreme Court ruling is interesting -- thanks for posting the link to it."

He posted a link to a federal appealate court ruling, not a Supreme Court ruling.

--"where in this argument of the Supreme Court did they argue explicitly in support for the right to bear arms for individuals who DO NOT belong to any militia??"

The definition of milita in the Constitution effectively meant every able-bodied citizen willing to carry a weapon. Militia, even by current US law, is not defined as the National Guard.

Wraith
"If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson."

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Surely the way to stop crime in the US is to issue every man, woman and child with pump-action shotguns, flame-throwers, sarin canisters and tactical nuclear grenades?

[mactbone]

It probably would due to MAD.
(as in everyone has a gun, so noone wants to shoot someone and then be shot...)

"We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller."

Well, there's an opinion that people who are not in militias can have firearms.

BTW, that's the same quote as above, I just highlighted the "not" part.

[nobunaga]

Originally posted by MrFun
That new Supreme Court ruling is interesting -- thanks for posting the link to it.

You're welcome, but it's not a Supreme Court ruling, it's from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

[SIZE=1]
Obviously individual citizens comprise of an organized militia for state defense. But I have a question -- where in this argument of the Supreme Court did they argue explicitly in support for the right to bear arms for individuals who DO NOT belong to any militia??

Are you talking about the Miller case or the Emerson case (the circuit court case)?

I have read this case that you posted, but if I overlooked where the Supreme Court argued that individuals who do not belong in any militia have the right to bear arms, let me know.

Sorry, again I'm confused. Do you mean Miller or Emerson? (The Miller case was ambiguous, I could argue it either way and so have the lower courts depending on their disposition )

BY the way, it is clear from original intent that an individual right was intended. Three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, in their commentaries on the Constitution, write that the 2nd refers to an individual right. If you're interested in that line of argument I'll post links.

[nobunaga]

If anybody is interested, this law journal article documents how Miller has been mis-cited by some courts: http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

[faded glory]

Originally posted by MrFun


I agree with Seneca -- you are using the slippery slope argument fallacy. Just because one thing happens does not mean that something else that you're claiming can happen, will happen.

And individual citizens do not have the right to bear arms. As I said before, it's defacto, and based on a misperception of the people. So there is no right to bear arms to take away, in the first place.

The citizens have the right to keep and bear arms ; and form a well regulated militia

Not the exact words. But there it is. Its pretty clear; bye citizens it means anybody.

[chequita guevara]

It doesn't say "we" have the right to form a militia. It says:

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.