The US second Amendment

[maestro15]

I do apologize if a topic like this (which I am pretty sure exists) has already been made. But as Many of you know, the supreme court is in favor of the second amendment which states that "all citizens have the right to bear arms". Furthermore, Chicago (i think) recently lifted its 30 year ban on guns.
Now the second amendment was added during the time people needed it and these days guns hurt more than protect. Its also common scene that to keep a city safe, it must have a ban on guns. Studies have shown that people who have guns are more likely to commit homicide than to protect. SO what do you think? do you think that the second amendment should still be used? Or should it be removed from the constitution?

[Sage]

Its also common scene that to keep a city safe, it must have a ban on guns.

I disagree, I think it's more common sense that banning things doesn't work.

[Shortkid]

I'm against the guns. The killing is just getting out of hand. We need to reign this in.

[Sage]

I'd be more wary of a government that seeks to disarm millions than the millions they are disarming.

[Sith Lord 13]

You ban guns, the only people who are going to have them are people who don't care about the law. I'd much sooner see everyone armed than no one armed. Common sense is that if a gunman going to rob a store knows that everyone else in the store has a gun, he's not gonna hold up the store and if he does try, he's not gonna succeed.

[Sage]

If anything, I'd rather see more responsible people own guns.

[Sith Lord 13]

If anything, I'd rather see more responsible people own guns.

Of course, I agree with that idea more but I was talking of the two possible extremes, which was more preferable.

[Ryhanna]

I think that if you're going to make guns legal, to be carried around by anyone then they should have to undergo a test.
I don't know if that would be a psychological test to make sure they're sane or what not, but it would stop crazies running around shooting people for fun.

[Junky]

Do you honestly expect the criminals to go " Oh shit they passed a law banning guns! I can no longer carry this thing, I'll need to turn it in ASAP!" It only disarms the obedient citizens who use them for self defense. You can't rely on the police to fix everything, when was the last time somebody called 911 and the police showed up BEFORE and PREVENTED an incident or shooting.Laws like this make citizens more of a target than anything else.

Though there should be a ban on automatic weapons/military grade weapons. Thats not really debatable in my opinion

[Awesome]

If anything, I'd rather see more responsible people own guns.

Yes, that would be great.


Do you honestly expect the criminals to go " Oh shit they passed a law banning guns! I can no longer carry this thing, I'll need to turn it in ASAP!" It only disarms the obedient citizens who use them for self defense. You can't rely on the police to fix everything, when was the last time somebody called 911 and the police showed up BEFORE and PREVENTED an incident or shooting.Laws like this make citizens more of a target than anything else.

Though there should be a ban on automatic weapons/military grade weapons. Thats not really debatable in my opinion

They should have a lisence on the gun, then the goverment can find them.

[Peace God]

If what you said about Chicago is true then obviously banning guns doesnt work very well.

[Perseus]

Anything can kill people. And what about people who go hunting with guns? It's pretty convenient for the person to not use a bow or something they don't know how to use. And what if they do ban it, how are they going to get rid of all the guns that people already have?

[Junky]

Even if you kept a record on all the guns, they get stolen, my parents handgun got stolen when they were robbed.

[HillBillyWilly]

I think that telling people that they can't have guns makes the gun ennthusiasts wamnt them more, and when that ban is lifted there will be a rush of gun-related accidents. After that though, it will calm down because owning weapons will no longer be a novelty and while gang-wars and murders will still occur, i think most sensible, responsible gun owners will not have as many gunshot caused accidents per year.

[Sandlapper50]

the second amendment was included in the bill of rights for a reason and under no circumstances should the amendment be removed! banning guns is one of the worst things a government could do to end violence...as the popular pro-2nd amendment slogan goes "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

do there need to be limits, yes, and in many cases there are restrictions. the best thing our government can do would be to enforce those restrictions. but law abiding citizens should always have to right to keep and bear arms!

[Tiberius]

Now the second amendment was added during the time people needed it and these days guns hurt more than protect. Its also common scene that to keep a city safe, it must have a ban on guns. Studies have shown that people who have guns are more likely to commit homicide than to protect. SO what do you think? do you think that the second amendment should still be used? Or should it be removed from the constitution?
What studies and where?

[Severus Snape]

Because the constitution is an outdated document, but the judiciary is dominated by conservatives, relatively speaking. The same goes for the origination clause that grants citizenship to any individual born in the US regardless of their parent's legal status of residency. These are problems the founding fathers could never have imagined but we need our leaders to address them now.

[Junky]

Because the constitution is an outdated document, but the judiciary is dominated by conservatives, relatively speaking. The same goes for the origination clause that grants citizenship to any individual born in the US regardless of their parent's legal status of residency. These are problems the founding fathers could never have imagined but we need our leaders to address them now.

It's not an outdated document. The judges supposed to rule by the law not by political idealogies so it shouldn't matter what party they are affiliated with. The immigration clause is a law that's being abused now in ways unforeseen by the founding fathers. Their were guns and gun control issues in the during their time to so you can't argue that it needs to b changed. Your argument is akin to saying someone was stabbed by q pencil therefore we must ban all pencils.

[solid-snake]

Yes, that would be great.




They should have a lisence on the gun, then the goverment can find them.

not trying to start a flame here but you do know that over 20 percent of gun owners in the us have no permit or lisence to even own their wepon

[Joey15]

everyone in the US should be able to own a gun. Its a right that we have. We are given the right in case the government goes out of control we can take them back over. It sounds oppressed but that is the reason behind the right and we still need it

[chazzrox2]

Maybe the Ammendment should be changed (if you can do that, I'm British therefore wierd) to: "The right to own guns as long as a court and several v important doctorate type officials approve this under a review of personal circumstance."
But that's just for you Americans.

Personally I oppose the ownership of weapons in almost all aspects I.E. Britain's biggest manhunt is drawing to a close after a man shot someone with a shotgun, shotguns are legal in many cases as a farming tool (or w/e) but someone is dead because of this. Some will say he would have died anyway if the man was determined enough, well maybe but atleast he'd have a chance

[Junky]

Guns are just tools, if someone wants to kill you chances are there going to kill you.

[CaliKid24]

place restrictions and regulations, which already exist. but i am pretty sure the people wouldnt allow the government to take away their guns.

[Sith Lord 13]

Maybe the Ammendment should be changed (if you can do that, I'm British therefore wierd) to: "The right to own guns as long as a court and several v important doctorate type officials approve this under a review of personal circumstance."
But that's just for you Americans.

Personally I oppose the ownership of weapons in almost all aspects I.E. Britain's biggest manhunt is drawing to a close after a man shot someone with a shotgun, shotguns are legal in many cases as a farming tool (or w/e) but someone is dead because of this. Some will say he would have died anyway if the man was determined enough, well maybe but atleast he'd have a chance

And if the person who had been shot had a gun, he would have been able to defend himself.

[Sage]

I'd feel safer living in a world where everyone's armed rather than no one.

[chazzrox2]

I'd feel safer living in a world where everyone's armed rather than no one.

Wouldn't that mean everyone is living in fear of everyone else? It's basically the nuclear dettttterrrrrant idea here.... But if one person fires one then we're all screwed. Better no-one has the chance to harm anyone, the problem is if everyone disarms the last one to do so has the best oppurtunity

[The Ninja]

well if you ban guns they'll be like crack they'll be illegal but bad people will get a hold of them where as law abiding citizens are less likely to do something illegal. so if guns aren't illegal bad people and good people will have guns but good people will be able to defend themselves from bad people rather than just bad people having guns and good people not being to defend themselves.

sry if that got repeditive.

p.s. Im not trying to say your a bad person if you do drugs
p.s.s. Im not trying to promote drugs either. plz get me out of the perdicament

[swimmerjeff]

I'd feel safer living in a world where everyone's armed rather than no one.

Exactly! Guns are a good deterrent- especially in school gun crimes, etc. If someone has a sign that says "I am a proud gun owner" outside their home, what are the odds that someone will break in? Not very high. Likewise, if criminals know everyone owns weapons, then they will not be likely to break in. Criminals will get weapons no matter what. Banning weapons simply gives the criminals an advantage over the law-abiding citizens in terms of safety..

Also, contrast the "gun owner" sign to school campuses. In the US, they read "This is a gun-free zone." Any maniac wishing to easily kill some children can storm the building with the knowledge that a weapon is not within campus. Now, imagine you put this sign on your front porch. Criminals will see an easy opportunity, right? This shows that weapons are a good deterrent.

[jimmycouch14]

not trying to start a flame here but you do know that over 20 percent of gun owners in the us have no permit or lisence to even own their wepon

Do you understand the freaking constitution? We do not need a permit to own a gun…. This is the United States of America. We believe in individual freedoms! Also there are laws governing an individual carrying a concealed (loaded) weapon…….

Guess what the criminals don’t listen to those laws just like they don’t care about the other ones either, but you know what? If some body breaks into our house tonight, I’m sure glad my Dad has something to protect us with. And I will have a “Carry permit when I turn 21 also.” I'm feel bad you don’t want to protect your family. We do.

[Amnesiac]

I believe the second amendment is directed towards militias. It doesn't really protect individual gun rights in the context it's written. However, yes, I think you have a right to own a gun, but you don't need an assault rifle. The government should have the power to regulate guns, as they do drugs and the economy.

Does anybody find the irony in conservatives trying to expand gun rights and tighten airport security?

[Junky]

I believe the second amendment is directed towards militias. It doesn't really protect individual gun rights in the context it's written. However, yes, I think you have a right to own a gun, but you don't need an assault rifle. The government should have the power to regulate guns, as they do drugs and the economy.

Does anybody find the irony in conservatives trying to expand gun rights and tighten airport security?
I completely agree with you, you have the right to your 9mm but you don't need an m16 to protect yourself. If you brought a gun to an airport you are in for a world of hurt, my uncle has done it numerous times. (LAPD).

[swimmerjeff]

I believe the second amendment is directed towards militias. It doesn't really protect individual gun rights in the context it's written.

Does anybody find the irony in conservatives trying to expand gun rights and tighten airport security?

The two- militias and right to bear arms- are separated in the BOR by commas for a reason- they go in hand, but the two are guaranteed separately.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And I don't find that ironic at all. Airport security is vital to our national security, whereas guns are vital for personal security. Basically, ensuring security for our citizens.

[jimmycouch14]

I completely agree with you, you have the right to your 9mm but you don't need an m16 to protect yourself. If you brought a gun to an airport you are in for a world of hurt, my uncle has done it numerous times. (LAPD).

You do understand that the M16’s you can buy without a class 3 FFL are semi-automatic don’t you? (So are the 9MM’s) I really don’t think you do! It does not matter what the firearm is. It matters what the individual person is. Once again I will say the criminals do not abide by any laws... so go ahead and ban whatever guns you want to and see if the murders, rapist, child molesters and other scum abide by that law. No they won’t, so that is why I am so glad that our house is protected by firearms. (M16 included.) Now don’t go all ballistic on me, it’s a semi and even if it was not Dad has an FFL.
As far as the airport thing, get real, only a criminal would do that, so if your uncle (LAPD) has had to go into the LA airports it definitely was not for a law abiding person.

[jimmycouch14]

The two- militias and right to bear arms- are separated in the BOR by commas for a reason- they go in hand, but the two are guaranteed separately.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And I don't find that ironic at all. Airport security is vital to our national security, whereas guns are vital for personal security. Basically, ensuring security for our citizens.

Thank God. Someone that actually understands the Bill of Rights.

[ThereforeIam042]

I feel to ban guns is a terrible idea,because not only does it deny us our freedom,it encourages crime,I know some of the people on here have suggested taking tests or registering the guns but if these criminals can smuggle in drugs then they can smuggle in weapons. I think it leaves you with a defenseless populus falling viticm to criminals using untraceable weapons.

[ericboi]

I think in a few years people will be wearing holsters and six shooters like they did 150 years ago in the Old West.

[Amnesiac]

I feel to ban guns is a terrible idea,because not only does it deny us our freedom,it encourages crime,I know some of the people on here have suggested taking tests or registering the guns but if these criminals can smuggle in drugs then they can smuggle in weapons. I think it leaves you with a defenseless populus falling viticm to criminals using untraceable weapons.

Banning guns is not a good idea. Self-defense is an essential thing, especially if you live in the increasingly crime-ridden cities of today's United States. But I still maintain that people need to keep their gun purchases simple and not go overboard with ridiculous military-grade weapons that should only be used in warfare. Buy only what'll protect you, not something that'll make the government question you.

[kingpinnn]

cars kill a lot of people, let's ban them...they have tried banning guns in England an it didn't work...idk what studies you are looking at, but you are wrong.

[notsure101]

Keep it the way it was, dont mess with the constitution

I rather shoot someone then get shot, so good luck with your ban

[Perseus]

You do understand that the M16’s you can buy without a class 3 FFL are semi-automatic don’t you? (So are the 9MM’s) I really don’t think you do! It does not matter what the firearm is. It matters what the individual person is. Once again I will say the criminals do not abide by any laws... so go ahead and ban whatever guns you want to and see if the murders, rapist, child molesters and other scum abide by that law. No they won’t, so that is why I am so glad that our house is protected by firearms. (M16 included.) Now don’t go all ballistic on me, it’s a semi and even if it was not Dad has an FFL.
As far as the airport thing, get real, only a criminal would do that, so if your uncle (LAPD) has had to go into the LA airports it definitely was not for a law abiding person.

There's no need to own an M16. I don't care if it's semi-automatic. Pistols do plenty of damage; why need an assault rifle?

[quartermaster]

There's no need to own an M16. I don't care if it's semi-automatic. Pistols do plenty of damage; why need an assault rifle?

In a free society why would it be necessary to prove that you need an M16? If I like going to the gun range, for instance, and want to shoot my AR-15 there, why couldn't I? Why does need have to be a prerequisite for me to own something? Insofar as I am not agressing against another person with my M16, I should have the right to obtain one.

[Perseus]

In a free society why would it be necessary to prove that you need an M16? If I like going to the gun range, for instance, and want to shoot my AR-15 there, why couldn't I? Why does need have to be a prerequisite for me to own something? Insofar as I am not agressing against another person with my M16, I should have the right to obtain one.

An assault rifle is over the top, as an AR-15. Why do you need to go that far to protect yourself? Sure, a gun range is different, but he was talking about for protection. Two different things.

[kingpinnn]

An assault rifle is over the top, as an AR-15. Why do you need to go that far to protect yourself? Sure, a gun range is different, but he was talking about for protection. Two different things.
it is not that you need one for protection, it is good for the gun range and it make you feel better...i could have a knife in my room that i could use for protection. if i ave a knife, why do i need a gun? i need a gun because the criminal could also have a knife or even a gun. i must match what the criminal has if i want to feel protected. the criminal could have an assault weapon (not to likely compared to a knife) and i want an assault weapon too. as long as i am not harming anyone with my weapons why would someone else care...as Thomas Jefferson said "i do not care what my neighbor is doing as long as what he is doing does not pick my pocket or break my leg" or something to that extent...guns are a kind of deterrent that police are not. remember...police have no legal obligation to protect you. tat means if the police officer drives by your house and hears screaming but does not enter, he is still not held responsible for your injury or even death!
as i said before, a gun is a deterrent that the police can never be. and if i want an assault weapon in my home and i have no criminal weapon or mental instability then why should you care? if i am your neighbor and you are getting assaulted and i hear it...i could run to your house WITH MY ASSAULT WEAPON (which is not only very powerful, but offers a moral boost that a pistol could not do, and just looks plain kick ass!) i rush into your house, and subdue (kill or just freak him out with the awesome look of my mega kick ass assault weapon in my hands) the criminal...you would be kissing my assault weapon while i had the safety on so i dont blow your head off lol
IDC WHO YOU ARE THAT WAS AN AWESOME STORY RIGHT THERE! -Larry the cable guy's voice-

[Junky]

it is not that you need one for protection, it is good for the gun range and it make you feel better...i could have a knife in my room that i could use for protection. if i ave a knife, why do i need a gun? i need a gun because the criminal could also have a knife or even a gun. i must match what the criminal has if i want to feel protected. the criminal could have an assault weapon (not to likely compared to a knife) and i want an assault weapon too. as long as i am not harming anyone with my weapons why would someone else care...as Thomas Jefferson said "i do not care what my neighbor is doing as long as what he is doing does not pick my pocket or break my leg" or something to that extent...guns are a kind of deterrent that police are not. remember...police have no legal obligation to protect you. tat means if the police officer drives by your house and hears screaming but does not enter, he is still not held responsible for your injury or even death!
as i said before, a gun is a deterrent that the police can never be. and if i want an assault weapon in my home and i have no criminal weapon or mental instability then why should you care? if i am your neighbor and you are getting assaulted and i hear it...i could run to your house WITH MY ASSAULT WEAPON (which is not only very powerful, but offers a moral boost that a pistol could not do, and just looks plain kick ass!) i rush into your house, and subdue (kill or just freak him out with the awesome look of my mega kick ass assault weapon in my hands) the criminal...you would be kissing my assault weapon while i had the safety on so i dont blow your head off lol
IDC WHO YOU ARE THAT WAS AN AWESOME STORY RIGHT THERE! -Larry the cable guy's voice-
Yea thats so shoopda woop awesome totally cool man! Until the criminals have assault weapons to... And I'm pretty sure the police have a legal obligation to protect you hence "protect and serve."

[CaptainObvious]

The two- militias and right to bear arms- are separated in the BOR by commas for a reason- they go in hand, but the two are guaranteed separately.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

And I don't find that ironic at all. Airport security is vital to our national security, whereas guns are vital for personal security. Basically, ensuring security for our citizens.

Thank God. Someone that actually understands the Bill of Rights.

Are you two being serious right here? You may prefer that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but textually it is absolutely absurd to argue that it makes more sense. Adding an [and] like that makes the preceding clauses completely irrelevant, and there's no way you can argue that a textual interpretation that makes half of the Amendment irrelevant is reasonable.

The unbiased way to read this clause is:

"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."

The first clause justifies the second. To argue that the two are logically disconnected (as would be implied if you added an and) is a completely revisionist reading of the text of the Bill of Rights. Like I said, you may wish that the two were guaranteed separately, but that is most definitely not supported by the text of the Bill of Rights.

You do understand that the M16’s you can buy without a class 3 FFL are semi-automatic don’t you? (So are the 9MM’s) I really don’t think you do! It does not matter what the firearm is. It matters what the individual person is. Once again I will say the criminals do not abide by any laws... so go ahead and ban whatever guns you want to and see if the murders, rapist, child molesters and other scum abide by that law. No they won’t, so that is why I am so glad that our house is protected by firearms. (M16 included.) Now don’t go all ballistic on me, it’s a semi and even if it was not Dad has an FFL.
As far as the airport thing, get real, only a criminal would do that, so if your uncle (LAPD) has had to go into the LA airports it definitely was not for a law abiding person.

It doesn't matter what a firearm is? Would you support the free sale of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons? Because their free possession is supported by your line of argument.

In a free society why would it be necessary to prove that you need an M16? If I like going to the gun range, for instance, and want to shoot my AR-15 there, why couldn't I? Why does need have to be a prerequisite for me to own something? Insofar as I am not agressing against another person with my M16, I should have the right to obtain one.

Some things have such potential to cause destruction that they are inimical to a free society. Thus, we don't allow people to possess nuclear weapons as no matter how well-behaved and rights-respecting a person may be, the potential for destruction even a single such bomb represents is too much to allow their free possession despite the possible existence of legitimate uses. The same argument can easily apply to things like automatic assault weapons.

as i said before, a gun is a deterrent that the police can never be. and if i want an assault weapon in my home and i have no criminal weapon or mental instability then why should you care? if i am your neighbor and you are getting assaulted and i hear it...i could run to your house WITH MY ASSAULT WEAPON (which is not only very powerful, but offers a moral boost that a pistol could not do, and just looks plain kick ass!) i rush into your house, and subdue (kill or just freak him out with the awesome look of my mega kick ass assault weapon in my hands) the criminal...you would be kissing my assault weapon while i had the safety on so i dont blow your head off lol
IDC WHO YOU ARE THAT WAS AN AWESOME STORY RIGHT THERE! -Larry the cable guy's voice-

I would argue that regular citizens running around doing the job of police is very undesirable. There's a reason why police exist, and that is that law enforcement is a complex, dangerous activity that requires extreme professionalism and regard for the law. Justice should not be enforced by regular citizens, and so I view the argument "yeah but if I had a gun I could do the police's job for them!" as one without much value.

[Jess]

bad idea, people will still use guns to kill others

also people use guns to protect themselves

[Insanity Fair]

You can still kill someone without a gun. Tell me would you rather be shot or strangled with a shoe lace? A quick bullet to the leg or being stabbed repeatedly with a steak knife? Threaten them with your gun or a baseball bat?

There are worse ways to die then being shot. People will get creative. Sometimes it's best to let them have their guns and limit their imagination.

[Amnesiac]

I was just thinking: with home-grown terrorism another threat to security after the 2005 bombings in the UK, does expanding gun rights so much possibly inflate this risk? The guns we fight to sell here in the United States could end up in the hands of some insane terrorists in Wyoming for all we know. But then again, it could just be paranoia and maybe we shouldn't worry about home-grown terrorism?

[Junky]

You can still kill someone without a gun. Tell me would you rather be shot or strangled with a shoe lace? A quick bullet to the leg or being stabbed repeatedly with a steak knife? Threaten them with your gun or a baseball bat?

There are worse ways to die then being shot. People will get creative. Sometimes it's best to let them have their guns and limit their imagination.
While you have a valid point I would like to point out that many criminals have a gun simply because it is easy. It is easier to shoot someone than to stab or beat them to death. (IMHO)

[kingpinnn]

Yea thats so shoopda woop awesome totally cool man! Until the criminals have assault weapons to... And I'm pretty sure the police have a legal obligation to protect you hence "protect and serve."
police have a moral obligation, but not a legal obligation, which has been upheld in many court cases such as 3 woman raped in Washington DC and the police had driven past their home 3 times and heard them screaming and only reported it as suspicious, and no one went in. the court said the police were not at fault and it was ruled that they had no legal obligation to defend the victims.

Are you two being serious right here? You may prefer that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but textually it is absolutely absurd to argue that it makes more sense. Adding an [and] like that makes the preceding clauses completely irrelevant, and there's no way you can argue that a textual interpretation that makes half of the Amendment irrelevant is reasonable.

The unbiased way to read this clause is:

"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."

The first clause justifies the second. To argue that the two are logically disconnected (as would be implied if you added an and) is a completely revisionist reading of the text of the Bill of Rights. Like I said, you may wish that the two were guaranteed separately, but that is most definitely not supported by the text of the Bill of Rights.



It doesn't matter what a firearm is? Would you support the free sale of rocket launchers and nuclear weapons? Because their free possession is supported by your line of argument.



Some things have such potential to cause destruction that they are inimical to a free society. Thus, we don't allow people to possess nuclear weapons as no matter how well-behaved and rights-respecting a person may be, the potential for destruction even a single such bomb represents is too much to allow their free possession despite the possible existence of legitimate uses. The same argument can easily apply to things like automatic assault weapons.



I would argue that regular citizens running around doing the job of police is very undesirable. There's a reason why police exist, and that is that law enforcement is a complex, dangerous activity that requires extreme professionalism and regard for the law. Justice should not be enforced by regular citizens, and so I view the argument "yeah but if I had a gun I could do the police's job for them!" as one without much value.

the police take TIME to get to a home. no matter how close you live to a police station, unless you live inside it, the police take time to get to your home. this allows a window of opportunity for the criminals to get in and get out.




Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest.

-- Thomas Jefferson
you are group 1, i am group 2...i trust the majority of our citizens to make the right choices. i would not give a gun to a criminal or to a mental person, but i would give it to a person that meets the current qualifications to receive one.

for those of you that think the right to bear arms paves the way for people running around with guns or that it allows criminals to get guns easier...here is a article about Texas...the state where you can get as many guns you want any time, and has some of the loosest gun control in the country:




Violent Crimes Drop In Texas Under "Concealed Carry" Gun Law

In 1995, Texans got the right to carry concealed weapons if they obtained permits to do so. Since then, violent crime rates in the state have fallen.

Here are some of the statistics compiled by the Texas Department of Public Safety comparing crimes in 1995 to those in 1999.

* Per 100,000 population, rates for aggravated assault fell from 429.3 to 370.
* Robberies declined from a rate of 179.8 to 146.8.
* The rape rate was down to 38.1 per 100,000 from 45.5.
* And murders fell from 9 per 100,000 to 6.1.

Since carrying a concealed weapon in the Lone Star State was legalized, overall violent crimes have declined from 644.2 per 100,000 to 561.

As a group, Texans with concealed-weapon permits are far less likely to commit crimes than other Texans, says Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "You don't get a concealed carry permit because you want to commit a crime," he points out. You get one "because you fear crimes against you."

Burnett reports that permit-holders in 1999 were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent crimes than those without permits. They were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses. And they were 28 percent less likely to be arrested for murder.

[Junky]

Good info Kingpin rep+!
When i referred to there legal obligation when witnessing a crime or hearing someone call rape ect, they can't be accountable for things they cannot see.

[kingpinnn]

Good info Kingpin rep+!
When i referred to there legal obligation when witnessing a crime or hearing someone call rape ect, they can't be accountable for things they cannot see.

it is not only that...in North Carolina there was a mother with 3 kids and had a restraining order for her ex husband whom was violent and a drunk. 2 cops were outside her home one day for a supervised visit by the father. the father tried to take the kids and beat the mother. the cops just stayed outside deciding it would be easier to not do anything. the judge did not prosecute the police

[Skeln]

Wow...the US court system is really becomming corrupt and crappy.

I find that's it's better for everyone to have the right to own a gun. If you ban it, then those who care for the law will turn them in, and those who don't will keep them and consequently will have an advantage over your average, law abiding citizen. It's just creating an even greater barrier between "good and evil," and that barrier is in terms of strength. Those who are good will be even more defenseless against those who are evil.

Also, in terms of safety, I would prefer a shotgun instead of a AR or any other rifle or pistol. Perhanps while I'm asleep I would prefer a pistol due to easy storage and hiding and quick use, but in other situations the shotgun is probably best. Why? Because it's great for close range, and as long as you don't try shooting at something that's more than 20 yards away you're bound to hit it if you aim in the general direction. And seeing as how most rooms in a home are smaller than 20 yards, it's ideal. Especially considering how an AR would blow your ears out if you used it without something to protect your ears. AR is good for range and power (at 129 yards it can still easily shoot a hole through 1/2 inch steel). Rifle is good, but not perfect. Pistols are great when you want a safety device right next to where you sleep.

[kingpinnn]

why did the posts stop? did i win the debate? :)

[Insanity Fair]

While you have a valid point I would like to point out that many criminals have a gun simply because it is easy. It is easier to shoot someone than to stab or beat them to death. (IMHO)

You imply that a life of crime is easy?

[Amnesiac]

You imply that a life of crime is easy?

I would say for some criminals, especially in drug trafficking, it is.

[huginnmuninn]

not all people should have guns mainly mentally ill people and people who have proven that they cant respect the law such as murderers and rapists but that does not mean nobody should. the majority of people who own guns legally are in no danger to anybody and even those who have a concelled weapons permit are not very likely to ever use that weapon on somebody. and im willing to bet that if you were in a place being robbed by people with guns youd want somebody on your side to also have a gun so that you could be protected. and for those of you critics who are going to say police could have guns yes they could but most places that are being robbed are being robbed because of an absence of police officers.

[CaptainObvious]

why did the posts stop? did i win the debate? :)

I can only debate so many things with so many different people at once. :P

police have a moral obligation, but not a legal obligation, which has been upheld in many court cases such as 3 woman raped in Washington DC and the police had driven past their home 3 times and heard them screaming and only reported it as suspicious, and no one went in. the court said the police were not at fault and it was ruled that they had no legal obligation to defend the victims.

Source please? I suspect that decision was made in context of off duty police. I would be amazed if there was no professional obligation for police to respond to things like that when on duty. Legal obligation, of course, is a different thing. We can't make someone doing their job badly illegal unless what "doing their job badly" entailed would be illegal anyways. Since there is no legal obligation for normal citizens to intervene either, that's the end of that.

the police take TIME to get to a home. no matter how close you live to a police station, unless you live inside it, the police take time to get to your home. this allows a window of opportunity for the criminals to get in and get out.

I'm well aware. So? Police not being perfect at their job is an argument for improving the police, not an argument for devolving their powers into the hands of citizens.

Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1) Those who fear and distrust the people . . . . 2) Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe . . . depository of the public interest.

-- Thomas Jefferson
you are group 1, i am group 2...i trust the majority of our citizens to make the right choices. i would not give a gun to a criminal or to a mental person, but i would give it to a person that meets the current qualifications to receive one.

Arguing by quote like that is a bad way to go. Would you let people possess functional tanks, rocket launchers or cruise missiles? Why not? Because you fear and distrust the people?

No. Because as much as you or I might generally trust people, there are some things that nobody ought to be trusted with unless there is some necessity

for those of you that think the right to bear arms paves the way for people running around with guns or that it allows criminals to get guns easier...here is a article about Texas...the state where you can get as many guns you want any time, and has some of the loosest gun control in the country:




Violent Crimes Drop In Texas Under "Concealed Carry" Gun Law

In 1995, Texans got the right to carry concealed weapons if they obtained permits to do so. Since then, violent crime rates in the state have fallen.

Here are some of the statistics compiled by the Texas Department of Public Safety comparing crimes in 1995 to those in 1999.

* Per 100,000 population, rates for aggravated assault fell from 429.3 to 370.
* Robberies declined from a rate of 179.8 to 146.8.
* The rape rate was down to 38.1 per 100,000 from 45.5.
* And murders fell from 9 per 100,000 to 6.1.

Since carrying a concealed weapon in the Lone Star State was legalized, overall violent crimes have declined from 644.2 per 100,000 to 561.

As a group, Texans with concealed-weapon permits are far less likely to commit crimes than other Texans, says Sterling Burnett of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "You don't get a concealed carry permit because you want to commit a crime," he points out. You get one "because you fear crimes against you."

Burnett reports that permit-holders in 1999 were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent crimes than those without permits. They were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses. And they were 28 percent less likely to be arrested for murder.

That's not a valid comparison. People who get concealed carry permits must meet a list of criteria far more stringent than that required of the average firearms owner. It follows quite logically that such a group is among the least likely to ever commit a crime with their gun. However, that predicts nothing about the average gun owner.

Also, that article does not take into account confounding factors in its analysis. For example, 1995-1999 coincided with some of the fastest economic growth of the 90's, which would do far more to explain the observed drops in crime than a relatively small number of people (compared to the population of the state) getting CCW permits.

So I really don't see what you think this proves. You can't extrapolate from CCW permitholders to all gun owners, in addition to all the statistical problems.

[Insanity Fair]

I would say for some criminals, especially in drug trafficking, it is.

And you know this from personal experience?

[kingpinnn]

I can only debate so many things with so many different people at once. :P
sorry, i guess the thing was lagging didnt see all the other posts. it just showed mine.



Source please? I suspect that decision was made in context of off duty police. I would be amazed if there was no professional obligation for police to respond to things like that when on duty. Legal obligation, of course, is a different thing. We can't make someone doing their job badly illegal unless what "doing their job badly" entailed would be illegal anyways. Since there is no legal obligation for normal citizens to intervene either, that's the end of that.
it was the new york times. one of my examples was of a police officer that was called and was at the house listening to the screaming but did not enter the home. the police only labeled it as reasonable suspicion or something like that, so it was not a priority, which was a huge mistake. and the cope heard the screaming but did not enter.



I'm well aware. So? Police not being perfect at their job is an argument for improving the police, not an argument for devolving their powers into the hands of citizens.
it is an argument for giving people the ability to protect themselves for when the police cannot reach them in time. and no mater how well the police are trained, unless they had a teleporter or something to get to the house in a second then the person in the house should be able to defend himself.




Arguing by quote like that is a bad way to go. Would you let people possess functional tanks, rocket launchers or cruise missiles? Why not? Because you fear and distrust the people?

No. Because as much as you or I might generally trust people, there are some things that nobody ought to be trusted with unless there is some necessity
you are comparing a gun, which is affordable, with a tank, or a rocket launcher which is not affordable or a tank, which is a national security risk in the hands of an individual. a gun in the hands of a common citizen is not a national security risk unless they start to become terrorists and start to organize. but if they did that they would most likely come under the eye of the FBI.

That's not a valid comparison. People who get concealed carry permits must meet a list of criteria far more stringent than that required of the average firearms owner. It follows quite logically that such a group is among the least likely to ever commit a crime with their gun. However, that predicts nothing about the average gun owner.

Also, that article does not take into account confounding factors in its analysis. For example, 1995-1999 coincided with some of the fastest economic growth of the 90's, which would do far more to explain the observed drops in crime than a relatively small number of people (compared to the population of the state) getting CCW permits.

So I really don't see what you think this proves. You can't extrapolate from CCW permitholders to all gun owners, in addition to all the statistical problems.

here is another report on when britian did a ban on hand guns during economic growth: (crime rose)

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

[Church]

I love my second amendment, and we need to keep it.

[CaptainObvious]

it was the new york times. one of my examples was of a police officer that was called and was at the house listening to the screaming but did not enter the home. the police only labeled it as reasonable suspicion or something like that, so it was not a priority, which was a huge mistake. and the cope heard the screaming but did not enter.

When I ask for sourcing on a claim, I'm not asking you to recount the story again. I'm asking for a link to the actual source.


it is an argument for giving people the ability to protect themselves for when the police cannot reach them in time. and no mater how well the police are trained, unless they had a teleporter or something to get to the house in a second then the person in the house should be able to defend himself.

Yes, if the police cannot save a person they ought to be able to do what they can to defend themselves. That does not necessarily mean that they ought to have guns to do that defending.

you are comparing a gun, which is affordable, with a tank, or a rocket launcher which is not affordable or a tank, which is a national security risk in the hands of an individual. a gun in the hands of a common citizen is not a national security risk unless they start to become terrorists and start to organize. but if they did that they would most likely come under the eye of the FBI.

Neither of those points explains the difference. First, it's simply incorrect to think that there are no guns more expensive than rocket launchers. Second, why would that matter? Guns aren't affordable for many people either.

As for national security, how is a tank a national security risk when a gun is not? Neither a person with a tank nor a person with a gun can do much more than kill some people and/or do some property damage.

Unfortunately, every argument you have provided thus far applies just as much to tanks and rocket launchers as it does to guns. So until you provide some actual difference, I'm assuming you support those being legal as well. And if you do not, then your argument is contradictory.

here is another report on when britian did a ban on hand guns during economic growth: (crime rose)

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Stop quoting sources wholesale without linking to them, please. If you're going to use that much of a source, it's only polite to link to it as well.

Anyways, these statistics tell me nothing. I would expect the time right after illegalizing guns to show all kinds of weird trends with regard to gun crime as while guns are illegal there are still large numbers of guns in private hands that could be diverted to illegal use, among other things. I don't expect illegalizing guns while there are many guns in private hands to have almost any effect on gun crime. Gun control is effective because it removes most of the gun supply, legal or illegal. That effect would take time to properly show. Any numbers on what Britain's gun crime is like now?

[kingpinnn]

First event was from a book and I did not save the second site...and I do think that peopl can own a tank provided a xtandard backround check...if I want a tank in my back yard and it is not harming anyone else I should be able to have a tank

[Cynical]

If you ban guns then the next thing you know there are millions of angry people with guns, seems like a bad situation.

[Iceman]

Please do not bump old threds. :locked: