2nd Amendment Ruling

[Jason Harris 31]

However, the murder rate by handguns in the US is tragically high, so it's obvious that guns can lead to murder.

Wow, all that shows is that people predisposed to murder use handguns, how does it show that handguns lead to murder. I would have failed all my logic classes if I had come to conclusions like that. What you basically said was: People use this tool to accomplish this task, therefore, owning this tool causes people to perform said task.

You need to look at the demographics and breakdown who is committing these murders, that will get you to the root cause.

Actually, I think your lapse of logic came in the first part of your response, because you are suggesting that murderers are murderers regardless what tools are available to them, while history (crimes of passion) has clearly shown otherwise.

I guess what I'm saying is regardless of your position on this argument, it's okay to admit that handguns lead to murder. Do they lead to murder by putting thoughts into people? Of course not. Do they lead to a higher murder rate (perhaps the wording I should have chosen) by allowing people who have a murderous impulse to more safely act upon that murderous impulse -- at a rate far greater than any tool short of a bomb? Of course they do.

[Trooper 8]

Actually, I think your lapse of logic came in the first part of your response, because you are suggesting that murderers are murderers regardless what tools are available to them, while history (crimes of passion) has clearly shown otherwise.

I guess what I'm saying is regardless of your position on this argument, it's okay to admit that handguns lead to murder. Do they lead to murder by putting thoughts into people? Of course not. Do they lead to a higher murder rate (perhaps the wording I should have chosen) by allowing people who have a murderous impulse to more safely act upon that murderous impulse -- at a rate far greater than any tool short of a bomb? Of course they do.

Yes, murderers are murderers. You said handguns lead to crime. But if you look at the distribution of handguns you wouldn't see an even distribution in the murder rate, suggesting other factors at work. Because some pissed off domestic abuser shoots his wife because the gun was conveniently available still doesn't mean the gun led to the murder.

[mrusse01 0]

Actually, I think your lapse of logic came in the first part of your response, because you are suggesting that murderers are murderers regardless what tools are available to them, while history (crimes of passion) has clearly shown otherwise.

I guess what I'm saying is regardless of your position on this argument, it's okay to admit that handguns lead to murder. Do they lead to murder by putting thoughts into people? Of course not. Do they lead to a higher murder rate (perhaps the wording I should have chosen) by allowing people who have a murderous impulse to more safely act upon that murderous impulse -- at a rate far greater than any tool short of a bomb? Of course they do.

Yes, murderers are murderers. You said handguns lead to crime. But if you look at the distribution of handguns you wouldn't see an even distribution in the murder rate, suggesting other factors at work. Because some pissed off domestic abuser shoots his wife because the gun was conveniently available still doesn't mean the gun led to the murder.

Yeah, but if the abused wife had gone out and got a gun herself, maybe she would be able to shoot him first instead, right?

If one person has a gun, everybody else needs to have one to protect themselves just in case that first person turns out to be a bad guy. Therefore, every person in America needs to have a gun or else they are risking their lives simply walking around every day. In fact, you'd be an idiot NOT to have a gun on you at all times.

If a murderer is a murderer is a murderer, then the only way you can attempt to dissuade them from killing someone is to let them know that their intended victim may in fact shoot back at them if they try anything funny. Guns don't make people violent, but the threat of guns sure as hell makes violent people NON-violent.

[PiKappaPhi 0]

I practice my second amendment right every day since the great state of Georgia said I could. I am one of the friendlies person you will meet and will go out of my way to help others, but unfortunately in this world not everyone is like that. Thank goodness the Supreme Court got it right. I read then entirety of 157 page opinion and if you read the dissenting opinion I found it to be awful. Chad stated it best! The dissenting judges should not have started with their "feelings" on the matter and tried to reverse engineer a dissenting opinion. Scalia is a very intelligent person and he made short work of alot of the dissenting opinions, especially Justice Stevens.

An armed society is a polite society!

[Jason Harris 31]

Yes, murderers are murderers. You said handguns lead to crime. But if you look at the distribution of handguns you wouldn't see an even distribution in the murder rate, suggesting other factors at work. Because some pissed off domestic abuser shoots his wife because the gun was conveniently available still doesn't mean the gun led to the murder.

I agree with you that I chose the wrong words. Rather than saying handguns lead to murder, I should have said that firearms lead to a higher murder rate.

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Data, firearms were used in 27% of all violent crimes and 67.9% of all murders. Obviously, the murder rate should be above the overall crime rate, because there will be many occasions when the trigger isn't pulled; once the trigger is pulled, however, there are pretty good odds that it will be more than a flesh wound.

If you think about your example with the domestic abuser, it's backwards compared to what often happens, according to articles I've seen. The domestic abuser will generally kill his wife physically -- with his hands, a knife, a blunt object -- because his abuse is about control. It is the wife who often shoots the husband, because it's the safest weapon for her to choice to overcome his larger size. It can be done from 20, 30 or 50 feet away.

Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just people with murderous impulses choosing to use a gun. Certainly, the violence of our culture has to be factored into the equation, given nearly 1/3 of the murders are committed without a gun. But there's a reason people are committing murders with firearms. Not because the gun is speaking to them in tongues, but because it keeps the assailant at a safe distance from their victims.

By the way, I often think people who are pro-gun confuse the intentions of those of us who'd like to see gun control. I can only speak for myself, but I never said I was anti-gun. I want to see a better screening of people who buy guns; I want to see longer sentences for people who use guns in a crime; and I'd like to see people who own guns lock them up better, so we don't read about the tragedies of their children accidentally firing the gun.

[Jason Harris 31]

An armed society is a polite society!

Well, except for the people who commit murders....

[lawryde 0]

If a murderer is a murderer is a murderer, then the only way you can attempt to dissuade them from killing someone is to let them know that their intended victim may in fact shoot back at them if they try anything funny. Guns don't make people violent, but the threat of guns sure as hell makes violent people NON-violent.

Except for the fact that no one ever thinks anything bad is going to happen to them. Even if everyone had a gun some nutjob would think that they were a faster draw than the other person.

An armed society is a polite society!

Or maybe a well educated society where everyone has a job. Crime is a result of socio-economic factors. You push anyone to a certain point they will become a criminal.

[mrusse01 0]

If a murderer is a murderer is a murderer, then the only way you can attempt to dissuade them from killing someone is to let them know that their intended victim may in fact shoot back at them if they try anything funny. Guns don't make people violent, but the threat of guns sure as hell makes violent people NON-violent.

Except for the fact that no one ever thinks anything bad is going to happen to them. Even if everyone had a gun some nutjob would think that they were a faster draw than the other person.

Well that would work out fine because one day someone would pull out their gun and pop that nutjob right between the eyes.

The American government needs help to maintain domestic order, that much is clear, I mean look at the absurd violent crime rates throughout the country. Regardless of your stance on gun control, everyone agrees that there is a problem with violent hand-gun related homicides throughout the nation. Now you can make it easier for people to get guns so they can defend themselves, or you can make it more difficult for people to get guns so they stop shooting each other. Obviously it's impossible (and un-American) to prevent people from owning guns, so you are only left with arming everybody. Kind of a shame the Founding Fathers couldn't have predicted this social arms race 250 years ago and just made the 'right to bear arms' applicable to members of an organized militia or something like that, but it is what it is I guess.

[lawryde 0]

If a murderer is a murderer is a murderer, then the only way you can attempt to dissuade them from killing someone is to let them know that their intended victim may in fact shoot back at them if they try anything funny. Guns don't make people violent, but the threat of guns sure as hell makes violent people NON-violent.

Except for the fact that no one ever thinks anything bad is going to happen to them. Even if everyone had a gun some nutjob would think that they were a faster draw than the other person.

Well that would work out fine because one day someone would pull out their gun and pop that nutjob right between the eyes.

The American government needs help to maintain domestic order, that much is clear, I mean look at the absurd violent crime rates throughout the country. Regardless of your stance on gun control, everyone agrees that there is a problem with violent hand-gun related homicides throughout the nation. Now you can make it easier for people to get guns so they can defend themselves, or you can make it more difficult for people to get guns so they stop shooting each other. Obviously it's impossible (and un-American) to prevent people from owning guns, so you are only left with arming everybody. Kind of a shame the Founding Fathers couldn't have predicted this social arms race 250 years ago and just made the 'right to bear arms' applicable to members of an organized militia or something like that, but it is what it is I guess.

I guess you failed to read the second comment I made. Maybe instead of giving everyone a gun, we should work to solve the root cause of crime. Better jobs, better schools, improved police, fire and medical service to people. I guess that might take some effort on everyone's part. LOCK AND LOAD!

[Trooper 8]

Guns don't make people violent, but the threat of guns sure as hell makes violent people NON-violent.

Couldn't agree more.

[Trooper 8]

By the way, I often think people who are pro-gun confuse the intentions of those of us who'd like to see gun control. I can only speak for myself, but I never said I was anti-gun. I want to see a better screening of people who buy guns; I want to see longer sentences for people who use guns in a crime; and I'd like to see people who own guns lock them up better, so we don't read about the tragedies of their children accidentally firing the gun.

How much screening can you do? There's a federal check to buy a gun, you aren't going to catch everyone who may possibly commit a crime through background checks.

As for sentencing, pro-gun people are right there with you. All three guys involved in the most recent Philly police officer killing should still have been in prison. They were let out early.

As for locking them up, how are you going to enforce it? Mine are all in a safe and my self-defense handgun in a dedicated safe under the bed with a fingertip combination pad. Not everyone has common sense. Do you want random house checks? If they are found negligent they will be prosecuted. Obviously too late to avert the tragedy however.

[Trooper 8]

I guess you failed to read the second comment I made. Maybe instead of giving everyone a gun, we should work to solve the root cause of crime. Better jobs, better schools, improved police, fire and medical service to people. I guess that might take some effort on everyone's part. LOCK AND LOAD!

And while you solve those problems overnight, I'll trust that the police, who have no duty to prevent crime, will protect me...

[Jason Harris 31]

How much screening can you do? There's a federal check to buy a gun, you aren't going to catch everyone who may possibly commit a crime through background checks.

As for sentencing, pro-gun people are right there with you. All three guys involved in the most recent Philly police officer killing should still have been in prison. They were let out early.

As for locking them up, how are you going to enforce it? Mine are all in a safe and my self-defense handgun in a dedicated safe under the bed with a fingertip combination pad. Not everyone has common sense. Do you want random house checks? If they are found negligent they will be prosecuted. Obviously too late to avert the tragedy however.

1) I've read articles of people buying guns at gun shows with virtually no screening, because the guy selling the guns has little reason to police himself. We have to close that loophole.

2) Not only would I like to see longer sentences for committing a crime with a gun, but I'd like to see this country have more moral backbone when it comes to sentencing someone to death when they commit murder. I don't care what weapon they used. Take someone's life and we should have the moral conviction that we can apply the most severe punishment to that.

3) I don't think it can be enforced, but I'd like to see people make the effort to keep firearms away from those who aren't ready to use them safely.

[Trooper 8]

1) I've read articles of people buying guns at gun shows with virtually no screening, because the guy selling the guns has little reason to police himself. We have to close that loophole.

2) Not only would I like to see longer sentences for committing a crime with a gun, but I'd like to see this country have more moral backbone when it comes to sentencing someone to death when they commit murder. I don't care what weapon they used. Take someone's life and we should have the moral conviction that we can apply the most severe punishment to that.

3) I don't think it can be enforced, but I'd like to see people make the effort to keep firearms away from those who aren't ready to use them safely.

1) If you buy a firearm from a dealer, you go through a background check. Period. Gun show or gun store. If you sell between private parties, there is no check for a long gun, gun show or in your living room. What people term "loophole" is in fact the same law that applies everywhere. If you sell a handgun between private parties, you need to go to an FFL and have the background check performed on the buyer, whether the actual sale takes place at a gun show or in your living room.

2) We're in total agreement

3) I understand what you are saying, but in America we strive to maintain the line between liberty and safety. As someone once said (often mistakenly attributed to Ben Franklin), "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's never going to be perfect, and I'd rather err on the side of liberty than on that of perceived safety.

[Jason Harris 31]

I believe you when you say the law requires background checks on all gun transactions, but I know I've read articles over the years that specifically stated some sellers will skirt the law at gun shows. I don't know how they do it, because I've never been to one, but I know the articles have said that it happens.

I'll agree about the Liberty vs. Safety argument, for now, but there has to be a point for any of us when we admit our society is out of control. Whether it's one Columbine a day or ten, I don't know. I just hope we never have to reach that breaking point.

[Chadd 916]

I believe you when you say the law requires background checks on all gun transactions, but I know I've read articles over the years that specifically stated some sellers will skirt the law at gun shows. I don't know how they do it, because I've never been to one, but I know the articles have said that it happens.

So what's the solution, passing a law that requires people to not break the law?

[Jason Harris 31]

No, just enforcement.

[Trooper 8]

No, just enforcement.

If you get caught doing this, you get prosecuted! The gun show loophole is a myth. You can perform an illegal transaction anywhere. If a dealer sells guns without doing a check, they are going to get caught.

[Monty22 833]

I believe you when you say the law requires background checks on all gun transactions, but I know I've read articles over the years that specifically stated some sellers will skirt the law at gun shows. I don't know how they do it, because I've never been to one, but I know the articles have said that it happens.

I'll agree about the Liberty vs. Safety argument, for now, but there has to be a point for any of us when we admit our society is out of control. Whether it's one Columbine a day or ten, I don't know. I just hope we never have to reach that breaking point.

Oh, so then it must be true. I've rarely read an article concerning firearms in newspapers that wasn't full of inaccuracies and flat out lies.

I'm not going to say there has never been a dealer breaking the law, but I am certain it is a minute number. The "gunshow loophole" is a catch phrase used by folks like the Bradys that really means banning individual sales.

[Spreedizzle 1]

Now if you'll excuse me......I'm going to go and exercise my 2nd amendment right and pull the trigger on large weapons. What better way to celebrate your countries independence then exercising the rights that so many others in the world do not have. ;)

[Jason Harris 31]

I believe you when you say the law requires background checks on all gun transactions, but I know I've read articles over the years that specifically stated some sellers will skirt the law at gun shows. I don't know how they do it, because I've never been to one, but I know the articles have said that it happens.

I'll agree about the Liberty vs. Safety argument, for now, but there has to be a point for any of us when we admit our society is out of control. Whether it's one Columbine a day or ten, I don't know. I just hope we never have to reach that breaking point.

Oh, so then it must be true.

No, but when they quote names, dates, places, etc. of those involved, it tends to add more credence to the stories.

[Monty22 833]

And the BATF has never overstepped it's bounds/jurisdiction/the law.....

[Rylake 0]

I think the thing that you guys aren't quite understanding is that the rest of the world kind of scratches their head at the gun culture of the US. I know that to me, I can see the difference as soon as I cross the border (I live in Toronto). Gun culture permeates through the entire society. I understand that people take their "freedom" pretty seriously in the states, but in this case I think it is a detriment to an otherwise great nation.

It must seem stange that americans have a exponetially higher chance of being shot than in any other industrialized nation on the planet.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, but if americans as a whole beleive it to be an integral part of their culture, then so be it.

[Jason Harris 31]

And the BATF has never overstepped it's bounds/jurisdiction/the law.....

They're separate issues.

[gxc999 7]

I think the thing that you guys aren't quite understanding is that the rest of the world kind of scratches their head at the gun culture of the US. I know that to me, I can see the difference as soon as I cross the border (I live in Toronto). Gun culture permeates through the entire society. I understand that people take their "freedom" pretty seriously in the states, but in this case I think it is a detriment to an otherwise great nation.

It must seem stange that americans have a exponetially higher chance of being shot than in any other industrialized nation on the planet.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, but if americans as a whole beleive it to be an integral part of their culture, then so be it.

I saw something some time ago, the gist of which was "average white males not engaging in criminal/drug related behavior are barely more likely to ever encounter gun violence in the US than any of the so called low crime European nations." If you really think about it, that makes perfect sense (except it doesn't take the victim/offender sentencing dyad into consideration or that America is still a country made up of radically different social groups, while few "low crime European nations" share that trait). Who fights loudest for gun rights at all costs? White dudes! Of course I'm a white dude and I fall dead in the middle. No assault weapons etc, but I don't think normal guns among sane citizens are a bad thing.