no gun rights = no personal safety?

[$tinkle]

sure seems that way in Chicago, NY, & LA for this past year, where each greatly restricts (read: removes) the rights afforded under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Alan Gottlieb, 2nd Amendment Foundation founder
Gottlieb called it "remarkable" that Chicago, New York and Los Angeles have some of the nation's strictest gun laws, but even so, they still lead the nation when it comes to the number of homicides.
(the rest (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200401\NAT2004 0105a.html))

Is it actually a more complex issue, involving proximity and quality of people? Rural areas that have concealed and/or open carry laws have lower mortality rates & lower gun related crimes, but there is also much less convenient access to potential victims.

What say y'ins?

[N8]

"Lies About America"
Doug Hagin - Senior Contributor for HourEleven

Take a look at this number and see if it means anything to you, 2,452,643. Does it ring a bell? No? Well if you are thinking these numbers represent a lotto winner’s purse or the number of times Democratic candidates have attacked President Bush in the last month you are mistaken. No instead this very large number represents the number of times Americans have used firearms to thwart crimes and defend themselves over the past year.

According to the National Self-Defense Survey created by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 the rate of defensive gun uses can be projected to approximately 2.5 million per year, or one defensive use for every 13 seconds.

Do those numbers come as a surprise? Certainly they would to those who buy into the myths put forward by the gun control advocates in our nation.

According to their information guns are the very worst things any American can own.

They love to represent guns as the cause of crimes, tragic accidents and of course suicides. Yet the actual numbers do not bare their representations out at all. Consider some more numbers from the National Self-Defense Survey.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense

Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5 % of those successful gun defenses, the attacker either used or threatened force first. So much for the gun control argument that gun availability for self-defense will not make any difference.

Further in 91.7% of these defensive uses the people protecting themselves neither killed nor wounded their attackers. This surely destroys the oft used argument that gun ownership leads to wild west style shootouts in the streets doesn’t it? Of course the media is incredibly irresponsible in their consistent non-reporting of these defensive uses of firearms. At most these stories will receive only passing mention in the vast majority of media outlets. And that is only if they are mentioned at all.

Yet another popular gun control myth put forward is that a gun will most likely be used against a family member or a loved one. Yet as the survey showed over 70 % of the defensive uses were against a stranger, while those against a family member or loved one was well below 10%.

Another very popular gun control tactic is to insist that alternate self-defense options such as pepper spray or martial arts are preferable to using a gun. Yet in this survey over half of these incidents the intended victim was facing two or more attackers. And in a quarter of them three or more attackers were menacing the victim. Pepper spray or hand to hand combat would not have served the intended victims nearly as well as their guns did. Yet those intent on disarming America insist on selling the lie that guns do not make us safer.

Of course possibly the most maligned laws by gun control advocates are concealed carry laws. In every state, which allows citizens to carry weapons violent crime, has dropped yet the cries of gun grabbers to do away with these laws for safety’s sake continue. The Self-Defense Survey proves most damning to the cries against these laws. Nearly 80% of the defensive gun uses were by citizens with concealed weapons. Further a quarter of the uses occurred away from the defenders home. Where would these innocent citizens have been without these laws?

The evidence from this study makers it very clear just how wrong the gun grabbers of America are. The may argue all day about wanting to reduce violent crimes yet they argue against Americans arming themselves. If they were to get their way there would have been more, many more victims of violent crimes, not fewer in this nation.

[Spud]

That's an interesting question.... but the piece seems like a press release for Gottlieb...CNSNEWS.com "the right news right now" peeeyoooo...

I do like his quote: "Two years ago," Gottlieb noted, "Michigan reformed its concealed carry law, and today, thousands of law-abiding citizens in Michigan are legally armed. Gosh, do you suppose there is any correlation?" :rolleyes:

[BurlyShirley]

I agree.

Since Drugs, Rapes and robberies are also not as high in rural areas, it doesnt take a genius to make the connection.

[RhinofromWA]

RE: 2nd Amendment: "The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force"

2nd Amendment: 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.

Link to source (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)

Right to bare arms.....in a "well regulated militia" shall not be infringed. :think: about it........

Militia defined: ...composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

This is not the same as a mans right to own a gun for personal protection....atleast how I read it.

What does the 2nd amendment and the crimes in heavily regulated areas have to do with anything? I must have missed something?.......

[N8]

Only the police should be authorized to own weapons inside a city. If no one is allowed guns, then obviously there will be less gun crime.

It's simple logic, really.

What???? You mean, criminals don't obey gun laws? :eek:

Well, in that case, we'll just pass more gun laws to make it even harder for criminals to run into legally armed citizens. Maybe we'll even restrict guns to only a small number of police. Great Britian has been working on similar plans, and the results are indeed remarkable. :p

[Spud]

An interesting article refuting Kleck's study - archived on the Second Ammendment Foundation Website...


More on the Issue (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm)

[N8]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
RE: 2nd Amendment:

This is not the same as a mans right to own a gun for personal protection....atleast how I read it.

What does the 2nd amendment and the crimes in heavily regulated areas have to do with anything? I must have missed something?.......

It's Not Just A Gun...
http://members.cox.net/the-macallan/MacsPics1/A3ShortyAK_s.jpg


It's My "HOMELAND DEFENSE RIFLE"

[Westy]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
RE: 2nd Amendment: "The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force"

2nd Amendment: 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.

Link to source (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/)

Right to bare arms.....in a "well regulated militia" shall not be infringed. :think: about it........

Militia defined: ...composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

This is not the same as a mans right to own a gun for personal protection....atleast how I read it.

What does the 2nd amendment and the crimes in heavily regulated areas have to do with anything? I must have missed something?.......


In the days when the constitution was written there were no police forces. The militia acted as a police force. But in the begining of the American revolution the British saw the militia as a threat and tried to remove this threat. IMO the 2nd amendment was written no so much to enable the people to protect themselves from other people, but to protect themselves from the government. This being said our right to bear arms should be in par with what the government has. I should be able to buy a 20mm chain gun with hardened armour piercing rounds or a howitzer if so inclined.

[llkoolkeg]

Why should only those who ignore gun laws be armed? :confused:

Gun control legislation is feel-good happy-crack for ignorant soccer moms and self-hating liberals.

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Westy
In the days when the constitution was written there were no police forces. The militia acted as a police force. But in the begining of the American revolution the British saw the militia as a threat and tried to remove this threat. IMO the 2nd amendment was written no so much to enable the people to protect themselves from other people, but to protect themselves from the government. This being said our right to bear arms should be in par with what the government has. I should be able to buy a 20mm chain gun with hardened armour piercing rounds or a howitzer if so inclined.

Wow way to spin that :D

Ooops office jsut shut down becuase of snow .....YES! SLedding time......er, I mean trying to drive home time!

Rhino "heading out into the great white blizzard of 2004" from WA.

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by Westy
In the days when the constitution was written there were no police forces. The militia acted as a police force. But in the begining of the American revolution the British saw the militia as a threat and tried to remove this threat. IMO the 2nd amendment was written no so much to enable the people to protect themselves from other people, but to protect themselves from the government. This being said our right to bear arms should be in par with what the government has. I should be able to buy a 20mm chain gun with hardened armour piercing rounds or a howitzer if so inclined.
so, it looks like the construct of your argument is essentially:
- a quick history lesson
- a rational for having an amendment to the constitution
- alter the scope of the amendment to reflect the current technological capabilities of our government

this looks like the tortured logic used by the ACLU, trying to frame every argument for changing the constitution as a "living document".

for me, the 2nd amendment comes down to this:
if the the law allows for everyone to sling a gun, the odds of escaping a criminal act unscathed plummet (at least the acts against strangers like car-jacking, home invasions, muggings).

[Spud]

The 2nd amendment provides a clear right to keep and bear arms – that’s in the Bill of Rights end of argument – antigun people need to recognize that. But I also think it’s pretty naïve to believe that the enormous number of privately held guns does anything to enhance public safety (or even freedom)

We can talk about Homeland Defense Rifles and that sort of chest thumping, but what does that mean when we mindlessly accept Ashcroft and his buddies moving us closer to a police state. Yeah, I may live in a country where the second place candidate becomes president, citizens are held without access to the courts, and taxpayers take a $87 billion hit to rebuild a country invaded under a yet to be proved pretext. But I can have an AR-15 with pre-ban mags just in case things got out of hand and I have to cap the guy busting into my car.

[fluff]

Originally posted by N8
"Lies About America"
Doug Hagin - Senior Contributor for HourEleven

Take a look at this number and see if it means anything to you, 2,452,643. This very large number represents the number of times Americans have used firearms to thwart crimes and defend themselves over the past year.

According to the National Self-Defense Survey created by Florida State University criminologists in 1994 the rate of defensive gun uses can be projected to approximately 2.5 million per year, or one defensive use for every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5 % of those successful gun defenses, the attacker either used or threatened force first. So much for the gun control argument that gun availability for self-defense will not make any difference.

Further in 91.7% of these defensive uses the people protecting themselves neither killed nor wounded their attackers. This surely destroys the oft used argument that gun ownership leads to wild west style shootouts in the streets doesn’t it? Of course the media is incredibly irresponsible in their consistent non-reporting of these defensive uses of firearms. At most these stories will receive only passing mention in the vast majority of media outlets. And that is only if they are mentioned at all.

Yet another popular gun control myth put forward is that a gun will most likely be used against a family member or a loved one. Yet as the survey showed over 70 % of the defensive uses were against a stranger, while those against a family member or loved one was well below 10%.


(Reduced in length for clarity)

Some of the most inventive abuse of statistics I have seen for a while... Let's examine it;

15.7% (not a large percentage) so we'll add in the 14.2% - so thats 29.2%. This is the precentage of gun owners surveyed in the National Self-Defense Survey (which probably has a certain aim in mind so quite likely has questions designed to elicit the desired responses).

Now in 83.2% of the 29.2% (we're now at 24.2% if we continue with the aggregated figure but more probably at 13.1% of gun owners...) the attacker used or threatened force first.... So in 16.8% of those cases the defender initiated force - kind of a pre-emptive strike then...

Now possibly the 91.7% is of the smallest figure we have so far but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt even though we could be at 12% by now.

Also 30% of uses were against non-strangers and 10% against loved ones so that's 24,000 plus uses against loved ones and 75,000 ish against non-strangers.

Furthermore we have no way of knowing how many of these 'defensive uses' were really defensive given that the judge of the usage was the user, and people are not generally known for objectivity when it comes to judging their own actions.

Finally we will never know how much of all of this could have been avoided without guns being so common anyway. Sure the report trivialises the use of other methods, but they are a lot more effective when they aren't needed to be used against guns.

Basically statistics can be used to prove many things, the truth being a poor relation to vested interests...

This certainly wouldn't convince me that guns are good. Living in the UK doesn't make me feel like I'm missing out.

[N8]

I have lived in 2 states that have concealled carry laws and I can't ever recall an "old west" style shoot out in the streets involving persons with carry permits.


I'll get rid of my guns when you stick a sign out in your front yard stating that you don't own a gun nor do allow them in your home...

:p

[I Are Baboon]

I want a gun. A friend of mine is going to teach me to shoot. I can't wait. YIPPEE!!! :)

[Spud]

Originally posted by N8
I have lived in 2 states that have concealled carry laws and I can't ever recall an "old west" style shoot out in the streets involving persons with carry permits.


We can play the anecdote game – that’s always fun but not enlightening. Here's two events that happened in my community over the last few years.

Can’t think of any shootouts, but there was the guy with the CCL permit who shot a snowball throwing teen in the back (Oregon 92 or so) and the college student here in Boise (reportedly with a CCL) who decided to “warn” a partygoer by shooting him in the chest and fleeing. He was still explaining to the judge his need to protect himself from a guy throwing beer on him at a kegger during his sentencing for voluntary manslaughter (25 years).

[Atomic Dog]

He was still explaining to the judge his need to protect himself from a guy throwing beer on him at a kegger

Yeah, but it was probably cheap, sh!tty beer. Can you blame him??

[N8]

Lost in all of this is the fact that there were more deaths in Chicago in 2003 than during the total of the war in Iraq.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by N8
Lost in all of this is the fact that there were more deaths in Chicago in 2003 than during the total of the war in Iraq.

You know what else is lost nate? How about the exploding numbers of deer herds without guns? What about the (insert random redneck family name) tradition of hunting wild animals for food? The bleeding hearts, ACLU always bite for culture right?


What bout people like me who just like to kill stuff?

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
How about the exploding numbers of deer herds without guns?

We could reintroduce wolves into rural New Jersey, upstate New York, and Pennsylvania... kill two birds, so to speak.

[Spud]

Originally posted by ohio
We could reintroduce wolves into rural New Jersey, upstate New York, and Pennsylvania... kill two birds, so to speak.

You can't have nature running wild!

quote from what's his face - former governor of Alaska

[Surly]

Now THAT is a great idea! Why stop at wolves--we need Puma's too! And maybe a couple of grizzley's.

You want to take care of the homeless problem?

Large predators...there's a solution I can get behind.

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
We could reintroduce wolves into rural New Jersey, upstate New York, and Pennsylvania... kill two birds, so to speak.

Ok, then how do you propose the farmers protect their livestock from the EXPLODING wolf populations once they happen upon a ton of EASY prey, compared to deer. ie..young cattle, sheep?

Sling shots?

Face it man, people ethically, practically and rightfully use guns in this country every day. No new laws are needed.

[RideND]

Havent you ever seen Babe? He is a pig and protects the sheep from a wolf.

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Ok, then how do you propose the farmers protect their livestock from the EXPLODING wolf populations once they happen upon a ton of EASY prey, compared to deer. ie..young cattle, sheep?

Sling shots?

Face it man, people ethically, practically and rightfully use guns in this country every day. No new laws are needed.

First, I wasn't arguing against gun use. Second, I wasn't serious. Third, there are no livestock in NJ, unless you count preschoolers... in which case we can arm pre-school teachers with assault and long-range fire-arms. How cool would that be?

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
First, I wasn't arguing against gun use. Second, I wasn't serious. Third, there are no livestock in NJ, unless you count preschoolers... in which case we can arm pre-school teachers with assault and long-range fire-arms. How cool would that be?

I think you need to start typing with a more sarcastic tone.

Im just used to arguing against you in most cases anyway, so it just felt natural to post a counterpoint. I think kids should get shooting classes in school:)

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
First, I wasn't arguing against gun use. Second, I wasn't serious. Third, there are no livestock in NJ, unless you count preschoolers... in which case we can arm pre-school teachers with assault and long-range fire-arms. How cool would that be?

Only if you gave them ritalin and vicodin to them first...... no wait that was goats. I get confused sometimes.

[Spud]

Clearly the answer is to shoot livestock! Cut's out the middle man at the meat packing company. Blast the steer, write the rancher a check and enjoy the beef.

Hell, statistically speaking more people are killed by livestock in the US than by large predators. I say open season on livestock!! ;)

[Westy]

Originally posted by Spud
Clearly the answer is to shoot livestock! Cut's out the middle man at the meat packing company. Blast the steer, write the rancher a check and enjoy the beef.

Hell, statistically speaking more people are killed by livestock in the US than by large predators. I say open season on livestock!! ;)

I am sure it is done all over the place but where I grew up farmers used to paint COW on the sides of their livestock to prevent hunters from thinking they were deer. They used to blame it on the people who would come up from NYC, but the one time I went hunting it seemed that if it moved and was not wearing orange, it got shot.

We should really get back to our roots and kinfe hunt the livestock. Shooting a cow isn't that challenging, slitting a cows throat while trying to ride it is down right sporting.

[Westy]

Originally posted by I Are Baboon
I want a gun. A friend of mine is going to teach me to shoot. I can't wait. YIPPEE!!! :)

When I lived in Cinncinati there was a shooting range just a few miles from my apartment. When the weather was to bad to ride in I would light off a few hundred rounds, fun stuff. Now I live in the middle of nowhere and have no where to shoot.:mad: :mad:

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Westy
Now I live in the middle of nowhere and have no where to shoot.:mad: :mad:

Seems to me you have "everwhere" to go shooting, if you live in the middle of nowhere.

[Spud]

Originally posted by Westy

We should really get back to our roots and kinfe hunt the livestock. Shooting a cow isn't that challenging, slitting a cows throat while trying to ride it is down right sporting.

True -dat. Get a long side it with your bike, jump on it's back pull out a 12-inch Bowie Knife (Titanium with a carbon fiber handle).

Bah hah hah.. :fangs:

Uhm sorry, little thread drift going on here...

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think you need to start typing with a more sarcastic tone.


Sorry. I hate smileys. I only use them grudgingly. I rank them right up there with surplus exclamation points.

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by ohio
Sorry. I hate smileys. I only use them grudgingly. I rank them right up there with surplus exclamation points.

:) Take that!!! :)

[Surly]

:stosh: :drool: :eviltongu :oink: :blah: :nono: :nopity: :think: :evil: :dancing: :angry: :monkey: :dead:

If there is no actual smiling, is it still a smiley?

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by N8
Only the police should be authorized to own weapons inside a city. If no one is allowed guns, then obviously there will be less gun crime.

It's simple logic, really.

What???? You mean, criminals don't obey gun laws? :eek:

Well, in that case, we'll just pass more gun laws to make it even harder for criminals to run into legally armed citizens. Maybe we'll even restrict guns to only a small number of police. Great Britian has been working on similar plans, and the results are indeed remarkable. :p reckon the 2nd amendment has full force & effect only where lower municipalities have not acted against it:
Man who shot intruder arrested
January 9, 2004

BY FRANK MAIN Crime Reporter


First, a Chicago man was charged with burglarizing a Wilmette man's home twice. Now the Wilmette homeowner, who shot the intruder, is charged with firearms violations.
the rest (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-wilmette09.html)

[Sideways]

Gimme guns. No permits, no records, nothing. It's not needed.
Plenty of ways to get guns without a permit, record, anything...why should the law stickler be stuck with the BS?

[ohio]

Originally posted by Sideways
no records

Not even a national firearm fingerprint database? Wouldn't effect anyone's ability to get or use guns, but would give law enforcement a decent lead in the case of unlawful use of one...

[Sideways]

Originally posted by ohio
Not even a national firearm fingerprint database? Wouldn't effect anyone's ability to get or use guns, but would give law enforcement a decent lead in the case of unlawful use of one...

Man, it's so easy to get a random gun so super fast there is really no point.

[ohio]

Originally posted by Sideways
Man, it's so easy to get a random gun so super fast there is really no point.

Yes, it won't help solve a crime today. The point is if fingerprinting were implemented now then a couple of years down the road that random gun would be traceable if it were involved in a crime...

I see only value created, at no cost to freedoms, and at a minimal monetary cost on a per gun basis.

The case thrown around everywhere lately is that if our guns were currently fingerprinted, we would have known that John Allen Muhammed was the DC sniper after the first shooting... he was using a gun he purchased himself, legally and under his own name, at a local gun store. It would not have prevented the purchase, but it would have prevented a couple of deaths.

I believe the database would allow for older used guns to be loaded in retroactively, as they moved through gun shops. At the very least, it would force criminals to buy only old guns off the black market, rather than from any available outlet.

[Sideways]

Originally posted by ohio
Yes, it won't help solve a crime today. The point is if fingerprinting were implemented now then a couple of years down the road that random gun would be traceable if it were involved in a crime...

I see only value created, at no cost to freedoms, and at a minimal monetary cost on a per gun basis.

The case thrown around everywhere lately is that if our guns were currently fingerprinted, we would have known that John Allen Muhammed was the DC sniper after the first shooting... he was using a gun he purchased himself, legally and under his own name, at a local gun store. It would not have prevented the purchase, but it would have prevented a couple of deaths.

I believe the database would allow for older used guns to be loaded in retroactively, as they moved through gun shops. At the very least, it would force criminals to buy only old guns off the black market, rather than from any available outlet.

You've got some decent points here....but I'm sure criminals will find a way around even fingerprinting (a slight rebore, perhaps?).
I just don't know how effective any law is that doesn't fully bulldoze 2nd amendment rights.

The overall issue is definitely a complicated issue when you have a possitive respect for guns.