US Supreme Court upholds individual right to gun ownership

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
You don't need to know history to know that. Even if the enemy were defeated completely, the French would still have to live surrounded by a bunch of other Frenchmen--which is a far worse fate than any a conquering army might possibly inflict. So, by default, the French come off losers in any war that does not result in their population being wiped out completely. That's why they buckled so quick in WWII; they were each secretly hoping Hitler would send all their insufferable neighbors off to a horrible death in Birkenau so they could eat cheese and watch pretentious films in quiet solitude.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes I did ... in school. These days I read things that are current. What about you?

*blink blink* Do you actually hold this opinion?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think it's risible that middle aged Americans believe they could overthrow their government using regular firearms. If the government can get the army on their side, your toast. If the government can't get the army on their side, no tyranny. Either way, there is no need for guns on the grounds that they can be used to resist tyranny.

Hell, the Confederacy had a large portion of the regular army and all of its best generals and they still got owned by the Federal government, and this was in the days when there weren't attack helicopters, UAVs or cluster bombs.

Seriously, the idea that ordinary Americans could resist an armed tyranny is risible. If you wanted to resist, a general strike would do more than trying to fight the army.

The idea isn't to fight the army, the idea is to do domestic terrorism versus the political, economical, and social leaders.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lorizael


*blink blink* Do you actually hold this opinion?

Pretty much. I can't remember the last time I read a book that was written before I was born. I do go back and review them occasionally.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think it's risible that middle aged Americans believe they could overthrow their government using regular firearms. If the government can get the army on their side, your toast. If the government can't get the army on their side, no tyranny.

The point of an armed populace isn't to defend against full-scale military action. It is to protect against smaller threats like bandits, raiders, and individual robbers. It isn't the government's job to do that. They can't be everywhere. The police are rarely there in time to intervene directly.

It was barely over a century ago that bandit gangs robbed trains and banks and armed forces raided across the US border from Mexico. It was the demonstrated resolve of armed civilians patrolling the border crossings that prompted the government take border security more seriously.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Straybow
The point of an armed populace isn't to defend against full-scale military action. It is to protect against smaller threats like bandits, raiders, and individual robbers. It isn't the government's job to do that.

Just why do we have a police force if this isn't their job?

[Deity Dude]

Forgetting aboout the Constitutional right to bears arms, I have heard it argued here that they are somehow unsafe for society. Well here's a few stats you might find interesting.

Australia passed strict gun control. The outcome:

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Among industrialized nations the highest crime rates were amongst countries with strict gun control.

After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent).

States that will not issue Concealed Weapons Permits have highest crime rates.

States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports

The same FBI study also found

• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.

• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.

• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."

or this study

(FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992)

- The total Violent Crime Rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states (798.3 per 100,000 pop.) than in the
less restrictive states (631.6 per 100,000).

- The Homicide Rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states (10.1 per 100,000) than in the states with less
restrictive CCW laws (6.8 per 100,000).

- The Robbery Rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states (289.7 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (183.1 per 100,000).

- The Aggravated Assault Rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states (455.9 per 100,000) than in the less restrictive states (398.3 per 100,000).

or these interesting facts

- Two-thirds of self-protective firearms uses are with handguns.

- 99.9% of self-defense firearms uses do not result in fatal shootings of criminals,

- Of incarcerated felons surveyed by the Department of Justice, 34% have been driven away, wounded, or captured by armed citizens; 40% have decided against committing crimes for fear their would-be victims were armed.

It seems to me all of these stats have the same conclusion

More legal guns means less crime and more public safety.

[Asher]

The australia numbers are highly biased when presented by pro-gun people. I'm not even going to bother, it's been done to death even on this site.

You can feel free to educate yourself here: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

In the meantime you'll excuse me if I don't even bother discussing bull****.

I also refuse to believe that more guns = less crime. In fact, it's retarded.

Compare Canada's murder rate to that of the US, and tell me more guns = less crime. Aren't stats fun.

How about you use common sense? Have you considered this? Putting lethal weapons in the hands of any citizen who asks for it is not a way to reduce crime.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
In the meantime you'll excuse me if I don't even bother discussing bull****.

I also refuse to believe that more guns = less crime. In fact, it's retarded.

I guess it is tough to argue with facts.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude


I guess it is tough to argue with facts.

Especially when they're invisible like yours.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

[Asher]

Even spotchecking the other absurd points, its like whoever compiled the statistics was completely retarded.

Canadian and US "crime" statistics are not directly comparable for obvious reasons. At a very basic level, In Canada, police press charges and not citizens. This leads to far higher levels of reported crime than in the US to begin with.

Relevant to the gun debate is the level of violent crime.

Compared to Canada, the US has 65% higher robbery rates, over 100% higher (double, for the Americans) aggravated assault rates, and triple the murder rate. So when you quote claims like:

Among industrialized nations the highest crime rates were amongst countries with strict gun control.

It pretty much instantly discredits you. When you also quote oft-discredted Australia statistics with your post, I question whether you know a damn thing about this topic aside from what NRA brochures tell you.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles


Especially when they're invisible like yours.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

You found 1 website that agrees with my facts about Australia but says there are more issues than gun control effecting the statistics. Then posted it 9 times.

Meanwhile you addressed none of the other facts. If Australia was the only example of this relationship, I might agree, but the trend is the same everywhere in the world.

Take where I live, Michigan passed a CCW law and crime rate has gone down, same with Florida, Oregon and other states. If you need stats I'll search the net and dig them up.

I know it is counter-intuitive to gun haters but the facts don't agree with your intuitive theory.

By the way, I am not a gun owner. I don't have to exercisea right to realize that other people should be allowed to.

[Asher]

And here's a question for you. This one is probably a brain teaser for some of you.

If the US "only" has twice the rate of aggravated assaults, but triple the murders...do you think that could be because in Canada assaults are less likely to involve firearms than the US, which are far more deadly? That seems reasonable to me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
You found 1 website that agrees with my facts about Australia but says there are more issues than gun control effecting the statistics. Then posted it 9 times.

Are you ****ing stupid. Seriously. I posted it many times because I want to make sure you read it, which you clearly did not.

Go ahead and read it.

Meanwhile you addressed none of the other facts. If Australia was the only example of this relationship, I might agree, but the trend is the same everywhere in the world.

Take where I live, Michigan passed a CCW alw and crime rate has gone down, same with Florida,Oregon and other states. If you need stats I'll search the net and dig them up.

I know it is counter-intuitive to gun haters but the facts don't agree with your intuitive theory.

The "facts" you present are deliberately and obviously misleading for many reasons. I've shot down your Australia numbers as well as your other claim about strict gun control leading to higher gun rates.

To be completely honest, I'm furious that you think people on Apolyton are as stupid as you are to fall for statistics clearly taken out of context and spun so many times it'd make a Cirque de Soleil performer dizzy.

Do some research. Read the Snopes article, for Christ sakes, and you'll see why the Australia results are ridiculous. Look at the rates of violent crime between the US and Canada and tell me that guns are reducing your crime when your violent crimes rates are double or triple that of Canada.

You're so full of ****. Don't patronize me.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Mr Snuggles
And here's a question for you. This one is probably a brain teaser for some of you.

If the US "only" has twice the rate of aggravated assaults, but triple the murders...do you think that could be because in Canada assaults are less likely to involve firearms than the US, which are far more deadly? That seems reasonable to me.

Here you compare apples and oranges.

The US is far more urbanized. But compare areas of the United States beforeand after a CCW law was passed and EVERY TIME crime rates go down.