By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama's Speech or Supreme Court on Gun Rights...which is more important?

Entroper said:
Parokki said:
I find it a bit silly how people think the right to bear arms is inviolable due to the 2nd ammendment. That stuff was written over 200 years ago in a pre-industrial frontier society that had little or no law enforcements, and was under imminent threat of foreign invasion.

There are arguments for and against gun control, but some really smart guys saying this and that 200 years ago is a very bad one.

It doesn't matter when it was written. The Constitution is the supreme document of law, and it supersedes everything else. If we can all agree (two thirds of the house and senate, and three fourths of the states) that part of it is outdated, we can amend the Consititution to fix the outdated section. But without such an Amendment, we must abide by what the Constitution says. All the Supreme Court can do is decide on the precise meaning of the Constitution and whether or not a law is constitutional.


 @dodece

Yes, it can be amended, but as entroper pointed out there is a process for this.  It requires more than just a panel of judges offering their opinions.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
naznatips said:
HappySqurriel said:

So, since we're dealing with happy-magic imaginary land we can just eliminate criminal's desires to do harm or break the law at all ...


Of course you can't, but you can eliminate one of the most deadly and destructive weapons they have available to do so.

As for the protection argument: There is signifficant statistical evidence that shows that owning a gun in no way lowers your chances of being the victim of a violent crime, and signifficantly increases the ratio of gun related deaths in and around the household. As Rath said, trying to use your gun against someone using a gun on you is simply pure stupidity.


 

http://www.sfu.ca/~mauser/papers/saf/GCAW290702.doc.pdf

"If gun control is supposed to reduce violent crime, then eventually this must bedemonstrated to be true, or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. However, mostcriminologists admit (albeit reluctantly) that there is very little empirical support for theclaim that laws designed to reduce general access to firearms reduce criminal violence(eg, Kleck 1997). Frequently, assertions that gun laws work turn out to be bogus. In Canada, the government uses the falling homicide rate as support for their claim that guncontrol laws are working. Unfortunately for this argument, the homicide rate has beenfalling even faster in the United States."

"The drop in the criminal violence is much more dramatic in the US than it is in Canada(Gannon 2001). Over the past decade, the Canadian homicide rate has declined about25%, but the violent crime rate has not changed. In the US during the same time period,both the homicide and the violent crime rates have plummeted by more than 40%. Wecan’t credit gun laws entirely with this success. In both countries, the aging populationhas helped bring down crime rates, and, in the US, long jail sentences for violentcriminals has also been effective."

"..."

"Nevertheless, gun laws have played an important role in reducing crime rates in the US.Since 1986, more than 25 states have passed new laws encouraging responsible citizensto carry concealed handguns. As a result, the numbers of armed Americans in malls andin their cars has grown to almost 3 million men and women. As surprising as it is to themedia, these new laws have caused violent crime rates to drop, including homicide rates.In his scholarly book, More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John Lott shows how violentcrime has fallen faster in those states that have introduced concealed carry laws than inthe rest of the US (Lott 2000). His study is the most comprehensive analysis of Americancrime data ever completed. He shows that criminals are rational enough to fear being shotby armed civilians"

"..."

"The destruction of the confiscated firearms cost Australian taxpayers an estimated $A500 million, and there has been no visible impact on violent crime. Robbery and armedrobbery rates continue to escalate. Armed robbery has increased 166% nationwide --jumping from 30 per 100,000 in 1996 to 50 per 100,000 in 1999 (AIC, 2001). Thehomicide rate has not declined, and the share of firearm homicide involving handguns hasdoubled in the past five years (Mouzos 2001). As in Great Britain and Canada, fewfirearms used in homicide are legally held; in 99/00 only 12 out of 65 (18%) wereidentified as being misused by their legal owner (Mouzos 2001)."


Wow, where to start on that.

First section:

The "falling" crime rates in America vs. Canada: America has 2.5 times the murder rate of Canda even today. While it's great to say America's fall faster, it's hardly fair, as Canada already has one of the lowest crime rates for a developed nation in the world. There is no way to have no crime in a country, so obviously there is a limit to how "fast" it can "fall." Japan's hasn't fallen at all in the last decade. Apparently crime is awful there! (Japan has the lowest homicide rate per capita of any major developed nation)

To put this in terms game nerds can understand: The PS3 had the largest sales increase in 2008 vs. 2007 of any system by a wide margin, but the Wii barely increased at all, as it's still sold out. The Wii is limited by stock issues, but the PS3 had nowhere to go but up.

Second section: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm#Self-defense

But research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

Third section:

This is the best case against gun control, but it's still ignoring all the countries that do have signifficantly less crime than the United States that have gun control. That article points out that most crimes were commited with illegal weapons, but it still reduces the overall rate of crime. Making the acquisition of such weapons more difficult makes it harder for people to acquire them illegally as well. Focusing on one specific aspect of the law instead of the entirity of it is a well-known phrase on this website: Cherry Picking.



The Ghost of RubangB said:
I know the training helps, but that article said 80 people die in the US every single day due to guns, and only 36 are homicides, which means 44 people are dying in the US every single day due to accidents. That's no good. More accidents than murders.

Yes. But most of those deaths are already by people who get guns through illegal processes. (ie no license or training)

I would pissed if this were to happen. Where is my gun control gif........



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

naznatips....you are clearly deluded...Liberals.....especially progressive are out to destroy america. I wouldn't expect anything less from this website, since it's filled with an overwhelming amount of liberals...and progressives. Your not validating your point any better when you say you lean towards McCain. He's not a true conservative.




@ the source....apples and oranges




Around the Network
chriscox1121 said:
naznatips....you are clearly deluded...Liberals.....especially progressive are out to destroy america. I wouldn't expect anything less from this website, since it's filled with an overwhelming amount of liberals...and progressives. Your not validating your point any better when you say you lean towards McCain. He's not a true conservative.

Dude, calm down and take the rant elsewhere. Not long ago there was a thread where the libertarians were out in force, and few liberals even posted.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a liberal, and even if they are, being a liberal does not mean they are out to destroy America.



luinil said:
I heard of this small town. The mayor ran on one thing: Guns. He promised to GIVE a gun and lessons to every resident of his town. WAIT! The funny part is coming still. After that happened crime essentially STOPPED! There were no criminals ballsy enough to take the off chance the person or home he was going to rob didn't have the gun with them.

Source?

Are you suggesting we give everyone a gun and lessons and all crime will stop?



Liberals believe in Keynsian economics not Marxist policies so its not like anything in their philosophy would destroy America.  The main difference is Liberal uses Constitutional ideals only when they are not in conflict with the advancement of social justice.  Conservatives tend to adhere to the constitution even when it stands in the way of social justice.

If Liberals were in power American government would be like Sweeden's government, in which we would have very high taxes and less, but still substantial private land ownership.  

Bush is actually a Liberal under the traditional definition because he has strayed fairly far from the Constitution, limited states rights, and expanded the economic and authoritarian powers of the federal government.

Liberalsim doesn't always accompany an increase in government authority though in administering full social control, if it did, we'd end up like the USSR, while Conservative authoritarianism tends to approach fascism when everyone works hard and competes but ultimately serves government ends.

Libertarianism is the unspoken third route, in which you make the government the people's bitch so it can't create damaging economic and moral situations. 



People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.

When there are more laws, there are more criminals.

- Lao Tzu

Perhaps we should give a gun to everyone. That would be a thoughtful platform if I were to run for local leadership. Heck even if I were to run for President I would encourage state and local authorities to do the same. Let me search for that source. I heard it a while back on the radio. I will edit it in if I can find it.

 edit: found the town. Kennesaw, GA is the town in question. There maybe another town also I don't know. The results are debatable but here is a link.

 



SeriousWB said:
luinil said:
I heard of this small town. The mayor ran on one thing: Guns. He promised to GIVE a gun and lessons to every resident of his town. WAIT! The funny part is coming still. After that happened crime essentially STOPPED! There were no criminals ballsy enough to take the off chance the person or home he was going to rob didn't have the gun with them.

Source?

Are you suggesting we give everyone a gun and lessons and all crime will stop?


What does a bank robber say when upon entering a bank with the intent to rob it when all 40 people in the bank pull out handguns in unison?