Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling Expected Tomorrow

[suggs]

DaGip, you could have just said "See Plato's Cave Analogy" -thats where you (perhaps not consciously) got that sweet monkey story from.
Plato's account is more powerful, although its been some years since i read The Republic

You sound rather like a feudal knight - "Isn't it great that i have a right to go around killing peasants wherever i see fit".
And, in a sense, perhaps he did have more freedom than me.
But you have to balance freedom with the general happiness of the populace.
Yet again, the Harm Principle is useful.
Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

[heavycola]

DaGip, you could have just said "See Plato's Cave Analogy" -thats where you (perhaps not consciously) got that sweet monkey story from.
Plato's account is more powerful, although its been some years since i read The Republic

You sound rather like a feudal knight - "Isn't it great that i have a right to go around killing peasants wherever i see fit".
And, in a sense, perhaps he did have more freedom than me.
But you have to balance freedom with the general happiness of the populace.
Yet again, the Harm Principle is useful.
Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

Absolutely. Far more harm than good.

[Curmudgeonx]

YaaaaWooooo!

[Juan_Bottom]

Absolutely. Far more harm than good.

Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

Absolutly not true.

[tzor]

Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

That has to be the worst piece of manue I've seen today. In fact I think that giving every veteran his own piece of land would be a wonderful idea! The more you served the larger your plot of land! Although perhaps just giving them grants for a better college education might also be the a good idea.

In one sense the 2nd admendment is an anachronism. In practice it has never really worked. The idea was based on the Greek city state where people could at a moment notice grab their arms and defend the state. It never really resulted in a nation of battle ready civilians and we have been putting people in boot camp just as much as any other nation.

[Iz Man]

though its rather irrelevant i suppose id rank the 8 amendments (assuming we throw out 9/10 - as they are catchalls rather than specific provisions as important today as follows)

1) I
2) IV
3) V
4) VI
5) VIII
6) VII
7) II
8 ) III

I don't find it necessary to "rank" the amendments; I think they're fine just they way they are.
However, I noticed you have the 3rd sitting at #8.
So strictly for the sake of argument, do you really feel quartering troops in your home without your consent is not "more important" than the right to not have to incriminate yourself? Or the right to a speedy trial?
Just curious.

[Frigidus]

Absolutely. Far more harm than good.

Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

Absolutly not true.

I thought causing harm was the point of guns...

[Juan_Bottom]

Absolutely. Far more harm than good.

Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

Absolutly not true.

I thought causing harm was the point of guns...

No it isn't. I would say defense and sport are a guns main role.
I live just across the Wisconsin-Iowa-Illinois border in Illinois. This is gun country. And honestly, a fair portion of them are family heirlooms that aren't registered.
The last time a murder was comited near here with a gun was '94(2 miles from here). And before that it was '76(about 15 Miles). Both guns were registered. Though the owners didn't do the shooting.
But thousands from my community hunt. My community is better than safe! I can't speak for city folk though. Depends on the gun culture where you go I suppose.
But the second amendment does more good than harm. And I feel that this is just the most obvious and visible example. But I wouldn't expect someone from a nation without the right would understand. (not speaking at you on the last part FRIGIDUS)

[Frigidus]

Absolutely. Far more harm than good.

Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

Absolutly not true.

I thought causing harm was the point of guns...

No it isn't. I would say defense and sport are a guns main role.
I live just across the Wisconsin-Iowa-Illinois border in Illinois. This is gun country. And honestly, a fair portion of them are family heirlooms that aren't registered.
The last time a murder was comited near here with a gun was '94(2 miles from here). And before that it was '76(about 15 Miles). Both guns were registered. Though the owners didn't do the shooting.
But thousands from my community hunt. My community is better than safe! I can't speak for city folk though. Depends on the gun culture where you go I suppose.
But the second amendment does more good than harm. And I feel that this is just the most obvious and visible example. But I wouldn't expect someone from a nation without the right would understand. (not speaking at you on the last part FRIGIDUS)

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

[Juan_Bottom]

Absolutely. Far more harm than good.

Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

Absolutly not true.

I thought causing harm was the point of guns...

No it isn't. I would say defense and sport are a guns main role.
I live just across the Wisconsin-Iowa-Illinois border in Illinois. This is gun country. And honestly, a fair portion of them are family heirlooms that aren't registered.
The last time a murder was comited near here with a gun was '94(2 miles from here). And before that it was '76(about 15 Miles). Both guns were registered. Though the owners didn't do the shooting.
But thousands from my community hunt. My community is better than safe! I can't speak for city folk though. Depends on the gun culture where you go I suppose.
But the second amendment does more good than harm. And I feel that this is just the most obvious and visible example. But I wouldn't expect someone from a nation without the right would understand. (not speaking at you on the last part FRIGIDUS)

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

Myself, I don't have a problem with it. Though I understand it making people a little uneasy. But I know lots of people with AK's and M16's. I even know A guy who owns a working-2006-year-model-#5-off-the-line-TANK BUSTING RIFLE.
I have no idea why he needs it, but he is a gun collector. I guess I don't have any problems, because I've grown up with this. And these people don't go out and murder with them. I can see why it makes people uneasy, but I would still support your right to own an AK-47.

[Neoteny]

Myself, I don't have a problem with it. Though I understand it making people a little uneasy. But I know lots of people with AK's and M16's. I even know A guy who owns a working-2006-year-model-#5-off-the-line-TANK BUSTING RIFLE.
I have no idea why he needs it, but he is a gun collector. I guess I don't have any problems, because I've grown up with this. And these people don't go out and murder with them. I can see why it makes people uneasy, but I would still support your right to own an AK-47.

It would be sweet to play with a tank rifle. But nobody needs to.

[Juan_Bottom]

Myself, I don't have a problem with it. Though I understand it making people a little uneasy. But I know lots of people with AK's and M16's. I even know A guy who owns a working-2006-year-model-#5-off-the-line-TANK BUSTING RIFLE.
I have no idea why he needs it, but he is a gun collector. I guess I don't have any problems, because I've grown up with this. And these people don't go out and murder with them. I can see why it makes people uneasy, but I would still support your right to own an AK-47.

It would be sweet to play with a tank rifle. But nobody needs to.

The second that you see it, you need to. It even had a kick-ass skull painted on the barrel, straight from the manufacturer!
But it was waaaaayyyyyy too heavy to actually play with.

[jonesthecurl]

Myself, I don't have a problem with it. Though I understand it making people a little uneasy. But I know lots of people with AK's and M16's. I even know A guy who owns a working-2006-year-model-#5-off-the-line-TANK BUSTING RIFLE.
I have no idea why he needs it, but he is a gun collector. I guess I don't have any problems, because I've grown up with this. And these people don't go out and murder with them. I can see why it makes people uneasy, but I would still support your right to own an AK-47.

It would be sweet to play with a tank rifle. But nobody needs to.

The second that you see it, you need to. It even had a kick-ass skull painted on the barrel, straight from the manufacturer!
But it was waaaaayyyyyy too heavy to actually play with.

and that's what video games are for.

[heavycola]

Absolutely. Far more harm than good.

Just like the feudal knight, the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, causing far more harm than good.

Absolutly not true.

I thought causing harm was the point of guns...

No it isn't. I would say defense and sport are a guns main role.
I live just across the Wisconsin-Iowa-Illinois border in Illinois. This is gun country. And honestly, a fair portion of them are family heirlooms that aren't registered.
The last time a murder was comited near here with a gun was '94(2 miles from here). And before that it was '76(about 15 Miles). Both guns were registered. Though the owners didn't do the shooting.
But thousands from my community hunt. My community is better than safe! I can't speak for city folk though. Depends on the gun culture where you go I suppose.
But the second amendment does more good than harm. And I feel that this is just the most obvious and visible example. But I wouldn't expect someone from a nation without the right would understand. (not speaking at you on the last part FRIGIDUS)

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

There is a huge distinction between hunting rifles, shotguns etc and concealable handguns. The latter are made for killing other people, as is every US citizen's inalienable right. But i don't see why automatic weapons, or bazookas, or nuclear warheads or B-52 bombers should be considered out of bounds to your average patriot.
It's obvious: depsite the 15,000 or so gun deaths in the US each year (linked in NO WAY to the legal proliferation of handguns, natch), US society will collapse into anarchy if handguns are criminalised.

[suggs]

Look, I know this is a simple point which has been made MANY times before.
But just look at the stats for deaths and injuries caused by guns in Europe and the US.
Perhaps you can't find the stats -well, have a guess: which continent has the (by far) lower rate of gun induced deaths?

Sometimes there are lies, damned lies and statistics that tell the truth.

[DaGip]

Look, I know this is a simple point which has been made MANY times before.
But just look at the stats for deaths and injuries caused by guns in Europe and the US.
Perhaps you can't find the stats -well, have a guess: which continent has the (by far) lower rate of gun induced deaths?

Sometimes there are lies, damned lies and statistics that tell the truth.

Did you check out the stats on people that are killed by silverware? The rate is much lower in China...

[Dancing Mustard]

That's because they can't afford silverware.

[dewey316]

Look, I know this is a simple point which has been made MANY times before.
But just look at the stats for deaths and injuries caused by guns in Europe and the US.
Perhaps you can't find the stats -well, have a guess: which continent has the (by far) lower rate of gun induced deaths?

Sometimes there are lies, damned lies and statistics that tell the truth.

And how does the UK compare with other countries in Europe, lets pick Switzerland for example. How about violent crime rates.

How does the US compare with Canada who has a stricter gun control policy than the US.

The thing that I have learned from watching this argument over many years now, is that in the US, the lower crime areas are places with strick sentencing laws, not places with strict handgun or other firearm laws. In DC for example, there is no manditory sentencing, yet there is a firearms ban. They lead the nation (or at least top 5) year after year for violent crime, and murder. Other places like my home town, have strick manditory sentences and especialy tough juvenile laws, yet we have are a shall issue state for CCW and have what you would probably call very little gun control. The crime rate here is going down.

I honestly see a much larger corrilation for crime, with the punishment for ciminals, than I do with wether or not guns are legal available for those who are not ciminals, who have no domestic violence history, and who are not a mental health history. The goal here is keeping guns away from the bad guys, and preventing crime. I don't see why it is that it always comes up in the argument of legal gun ownership. What we should be focusing on is how to disarm the criminals, and how to keep them from commiting crimes again, and how to deture would be first time criminals.

[suggs]

I suspect violent crime rates are much lower in Europe than in the US (I'm including the UK as part of Europe for the purposes of this discussion, since its illegal to carry guns in most of Europe -note, you can get guns for hunting etc).
However, I don't know that for a fact.
But less people get shot, and thats cos there asre less guns. Rather simple really -surprised you don't understand that.

[Pedronicus]

It's like banging your head against a brick wall, trying to make most Americans understand there is another way.

[Snorri1234]

The thing that I have learned from watching this argument over many years now, is that in the US, the lower crime areas are places with strick sentencing laws,

Actually, they are more often areas where lots of poor people live. Large cities, not enough police and all that.

The thing is that ofcourse crime is influenced by social factors mostly and such a thing as guns illegal or not will not make people stop being criminals, but you shouldn't forget the fact that accesability to firearms does increase that crime. If it is hard for you to get a gun you are less likely to commit violent crimes resulting in death. You will find other means of crime, sure, but I really think that an armed robbery where there are only 2 guns for the criminals will be much safer than one where all the criminals have guns and the people being robbed have them too.

Pointing out Switzerland and claiming that it's safe because they all have guns is rather silly. They have none of the social factors that lead to crime, so there is little crime.
However, when you compare the large and poor urban areas in the UK and the US, you will see that there are less gundeaths in the UK. There is not neccesarily less crime, but there are certainly less people dying from it.

What we should be focusing on is how to disarm the criminals, and how to keep them from commiting crimes again, and how to deture would be first time criminals.

You cannot really disarm the criminals without banning guns. Making it illegal for them to carry guns will do nothing, as they're criminals and usually don't care about the law. But if you ensure that there are less guns in the country, then you will see criminals are less likely to have them. Getting a gun will be harder to do and they will be more expensive, so they will resort to them less, particularly because they don't really need them anymore as they won't encounter other armed people.


Basically, while guns are not the cause of crime, they do influence the rates of crime negatively.

[Pedronicus]

I am sorry if I think that I should have a gun at my home and that I should know how to use one. I don't own my guns to go out and rob banks and kill people. I have my guns so that if someone thinks that they can break into my home while my husband is at work and rape me or beat me or hurt my children. I have my guns for my protection and for hunting (for the record we own one nine mil and a rifle and a .22) do I think that everyone should have one well no I think that you should have to pass back ground checks have permits and be of certain age

BUT I WILL BE DAMNED if someone is going to hurt me or my children in my home and I am proud to be a gun owner!!

I'm demand the right from the British Government that I can own a tank because I wouldn't survive in my car if I was hit by a speeding drunk driver.
I WILL BE DAMNED if some drunk driver is going to hurt me or my girlfriend in my car but I am the proud owner of a brain that allows me understand limited risk and the pointless overkill of trying to stop something that will probably never ever happen.

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm demand the right from the British Government that I can own a tank because I wouldn't survive in my car if I was hit by a speeding drunk driver.
I WILL BE DAMNED if some drunk driver is going to hurt me or my girlfriend in my car but I am the proud owner of a brain that allows me understand limited risk and the pointless overkill of trying to stop something that will probably never ever happen.

You're rather arrogant aren't you?

The thing is that ofcourse crime is influenced by social factors mostly and such a thing as guns illegal or not will not make people stop being criminals, but you shouldn't forget the fact that accesability to firearms does increase that crime.

You talkin' murder?

However, when you compare the large and poor urban areas in the UK and the US, you will see that there are less gundeaths in the UK. There is not neccesarily less crime, but there are certainly less people dying from it.

So are you saying that there are less murders per capita in the U.K. because they don't have guns? Or are you saying that in one country you get shot and in another you get stabbed?

You cannot really disarm the criminals without banning guns. Making it illegal for them to carry guns will do nothing, as they're criminals and usually don't care about the law. But if you ensure that there are less guns in the country, then you will see criminals are less likely to have them. Getting a gun will be harder to do and they will be more expensive, so they will resort to them less, particularly because they don't really need them anymore as they won't encounter other armed people.

Basically, while guns are not the cause of crime, they do influence the rates of crime negatively.

I wouldn't believe that guns do in the way that you are saying they do. I would say that anyone with a gun can feel like a badass. But thats about it. Our culture and laws influence crime more than owning guns ever will. For example: Once you have a felony in my state, your life is over. In face, I had an open felony for two 1/2 years. That's where you havn't been convicted of the crime you're accussed of, but the states attorney's office wants to punish you. I wasn't allowed to WORK, or go to SCHOOL. For two and a half years, I had NO INCOME. It's like they want more criminals or something, It's retarded. I don't wan't to imagine this on a larger scale in a big city.

And true, you'll never disarm criminals, but you'll never disarm citizens either. And as far as American gun culture, there are several places(/states) in my country where you can carry a concealed gun, or are required by local laws to own one. Perfectly safe communities. Guns aren't the problem, criminals are. You have to find a way to fix the enviroments that birthed them.

I don't see a comparison of one country to another being fair either. Canada has more guns per capita that the U.S. and still a much lower rate of crime. It's all about your enviroment.

Where I live, everyone and their mum has a collection, but there are no shooting deaths. There's everything to be said about your enviroment, not your access.

[tzor]

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

The hunting of any animal which in theory could in a wounded state rip you to shreads (bear is a good example, even the back bear is nasty when it's wounded) requires the use of a semi-automatic weapon. Note that semi-automatic hunting rifles tend to have limited size cartridges, so the the advantage is to be able to fire a few rounds quickly at a charging animal.

Automatic rifles have no good purpose in hunting. They are cool for blasting a thing to pices and some people find that as fascinating as hunting. They tend to be more closely regulated, especially in the Untied States where you need a federal permit to do that and only in certain places designed to blow things up with automatic fire.

[Frigidus]

There are, indeed, places where guns used responsibly are fine. I have no problem with hunting rifles, for instance. They cover both home defense and hunting without going overboard. I'm against the possession of automatic and semi-automatic weaponry. The only reason you would need one is to kill a lot of things in a short amount of time.

The hunting of any animal which in theory could in a wounded state rip you to shreads (bear is a good example, even the back bear is nasty when it's wounded) requires the use of a semi-automatic weapon. Note that semi-automatic hunting rifles tend to have limited size cartridges, so the the advantage is to be able to fire a few rounds quickly at a charging animal.

Automatic rifles have no good purpose in hunting. They are cool for blasting a thing to pices and some people find that as fascinating as hunting. They tend to be more closely regulated, especially in the Untied States where you need a federal permit to do that and only in certain places designed to blow things up with automatic fire.

Hunting bears is dangerous business, business that may in desperation call for something of that sort. Yet should we really allow the entire citizenry semi-automatic weapons for the sake of a sport that is dangerous no matter what weapons are used(short of full auto weapons, something 100% unacceptable in the hands of your average person)?