DC gun ban, your thoughts?

[capitalj]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst It was a ban on handguns, with those who have owned one for 32 years being grandfathered in... and they could not buy a new one. Eventually, that becomes a total ban on handguns.

Your previous post was titled "Supremes Say We Do Have the Right to Own Guns" not "Supremes Say We Do Have the Right to Own Handguns" hence my reply. Too often that distinction is not made.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst If you are referring to machine guns and grenade launchers, I agree.

We agree on machine guns and grenade launchers, but I also support safety measures such as trigger locks.

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst Gov's right to regulate, or even require a license for any gun, was left in place. Course, the right to not regulate or require a license was left in place, too.

It seems to me that the government's right to regulate guns has been weakened.

[fazstp]

Good thing she was able to protect herself against this horse

[aehurst]

Quote: It seems to me that the government's right to regulate guns has been weakened.

Or, the people's rights have been strengthened.

I heard on TV today that 48 states now issue permits for good citizens to carry concealed handguns. It was DC that was out of step with mainstream America.

I have one of those permits, but frankly never carry a weapon unless I'm on the road. At home, the pistols (I have 3) are in a locked safe.

[Emersive]

I think we need to protect our right to bear arms. I am pleased with the supreme court ruling that will likely overturn the DC Gun Ban. I do not own a gun, but I want to maintain the right to own and carry one.

[aehurst]

Quote: I do not own a gun, but I want to maintain the right to own and carry one.

Yup. America is a tough town.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: It seems to me that the government's right to regulate guns has been weakened.

I have never owned a firearm nor shot a pistol, so my only experience with firearms is with shotguns for hunting edible birds and skeet (and my uncle owned that weapon) but my problem with the quote above is that the government's right to regulate guns isn't the point.

Gun regulation simply doesn't work any better than regulating drugs prevents their illicit and widespread use. Whether any government has the right to regulate or not really doesn't matter to the issue at hand which is gun crime. Here in Canada, the government tried a gun registry, spent $2B on it over its first several years of its existence, and didn't influence the rate of gun crime or automatic long gun rampages by one iota. Registering guns simply doesn't influence their illicit distribution.

[connordeve]

I'm Canadian, and I still don't understand America's need to bear arms. Violence breeds violence in my opinion, and the availability of guns only perpetuates the problem as far as I'm concerned.

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian I have never owned a firearm nor shot a pistol, so my only experience with firearms is with shotguns for hunting edible birds and skeet (and my uncle owned that weapon) but my problem with the quote above is that the government's right to regulate guns isn't the point. Gun regulation simply doesn't work any better than regulating drugs prevents their illicit and widespread use. Whether any government has the right to regulate or not really doesn't matter to the issue at hand which is gun crime. Here in Canada, the government tried a gun registry, spent $2B on it over its first several years of its existence, and didn't influence the rate of gun crime or automatic long gun rampages by one iota. Registering guns simply doesn't influence their illicit distribution.

I agree legislation does not prevent crime, communities and socioeconomics do. The bulk of violent crimes happen in impoverished parts of the country more so than anywhere else. These people are oppressed economically and by class. Then they get things like religion crammed down their throat not to worry about anything in their life because there is a higher form of life after this one, and if you just shut up and take it you'll go to ________ (insert your after life here).

If the government can have guns I think citizens should which is my opinion. I own two handguns and 2 rifles and I shoot for fun. It is a hobby, but they are also for protection.

Just have your home broken into twice while you are home like I have and your views on home defense tend to change.

[NovaScotian]

But, TL, consider -- would you actually shoot someone who was breaking in? The penalty for break and enter isn't death. I suppose if you're a really good shot, you might wound, but in a scuffle that isn't certain.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian The penalty for break and enter isn't death.

Getting shot isn't a penalty. It's a risk you take when you commit the crime. If it's too high a risk, don't do it.

When you represent a threat to some one's life, and you do when you break and enter when they are there, then you put your own life at risk. If you get shot, it's your fault.

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Getting shot isn't a penalty. It's a risk you take when you commit the crime. If it's too high a risk, don't do it. When you represent a threat to some one's life, and you do when you break and enter when they are there, then you put your own life at risk. If you get shot, it's your fault.

You miss my point, CWT -- I agree the bad guy has taken what could be a fatal risk -- I was more interested in whether tlarkin thought he could actually kill someone, and what the circs would have to be for that to happen. I guess, I'm saying that even if I owned a legal weapon, I can't imagine shooting someone that wasn't in close proximity to harming my wife or who directly threatened me.

[cwtnospam]

I got your point, but I think you missed mine. If they've broken into your house and you're there, they are in close proximity to harming you and your family. If you wait until their intent becomes any more clear, it may be too late to save anyone.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian I guess, I'm saying that even if I owned a legal weapon, I can't imagine shooting someone that wasn't in close proximity to harming my wife or who directly threatened me.

Given a home intruder, sometimes it is convenient to negotiate from a position of power.... as in, "Leave now and don't come back." Without the firearm, you'd have to add "please" to the beginning of the sentence and a question mark at the end.

In my view, some things are not negotiable, such as the safety of my family.

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by connordeve I'm Canadian, and I still don't understand America's need to bear arms. Violence breeds violence in my opinion, and the availability of guns only perpetuates the problem as far as I'm concerned.

I think you miss the real world point. There is no violence in my home. I am not a violent person. It is only when someone else brings violence to me or my family that I reserve the right to a violent response. That is, the violence is going to occur and the only question is do I have the right to resist that violence in kind. I think the answer to that is "YES!!"

I like guns. I like to shoot guns. I enjoy owning guns (8 of them). Sometimes I like to hunt. Is this the violence to which you refer? Or is it only the self defense part you object to?

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian But, TL, consider -- would you actually shoot someone who was breaking in? The penalty for break and enter isn't death. I suppose if you're a really good shot, you might wound, but in a scuffle that isn't certain.

This is subjective, and a question of morals. I would never do anything I didn't need to, but at the same time I am not going to just give myself up to personal injury or death. I would have to feel threatened to use force.

Like I said, your opinion changes when it happens to you in person and I don't want to be a victim.

[johngpt]

A couple years back, my son's senior high school thesis' hypothesis was 'an armed citizenry makes a safer America.'

I really hadn't thought much about it one way or the other. I've no problem with weapons, edged or firearm. I was surprised that his research strongly supported his hypothesis.

He found data which suggested that in metro areas of states which allow concealed carry, crimes rates decreased.

I wondered whether that decrease was more due to an economic upturn in the US rather than being due to armed citizens. He found data that yes, over all violent crime had decreased across the US, but that decrease was greater in areas of legal carry.

Now that we're in harder economic times, I wonder how the data will change. It'll be interesting to see whether the data will continue to support arming citizens.

[EatsWithFingers]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Getting shot isn't a penalty. It's a risk you take when you commit the crime. If it's too high a risk, don't do it. When you represent a threat to some one's life, and you do when you break and enter when they are there, then you put your own life at risk. If you get shot, it's your fault.

And as a result, the person breaking in is likely to be carrying a gun themselves. This leads to a potential deadly stand-off between two armed individuals.

And who is likely to shoot first? My money would be on the person who has already broken the law.

It's a vicious circle, and there is no easy way out.

And also consider the many (horribly tragic) accidents which occur when a loaded weapon falls into the hands of a child. No more friend to play with, and one huge mental scar on the remainder of everybody else's life...


OK, so the last bit is slightly sensationalist, and unlikely when appropriate safety measures are taken by the gun owners.


Now, I'll admit that, being from the UK, I don't understand the nuances of the situation as much as a US citizen, but I do know this: in the UK, knife crime is escalating at an alarming rate because more and more kids are carrying knives. And why are these kids carrying knives? To protect themselves.

At least with knives, there is a reasonable chance that you'll survive being attacked.

Quote: Originally Posted by johngpt He found data which suggested that in metro areas of states which allow concealed carry, crimes rates decreased.

Is that all crime, all violent crime, or specific violent crimes? Sometimes, reducing one type of crime has the opposite affect on another type, since the other type becomes more appealing to the criminals (i.e. higher return/risk ratio).

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by EatsWithFingers And as a result, the person breaking in is likely to be carrying a gun themselves. This leads to a potential deadly stand-off between two armed individuals. And who is likely to shoot first? My money would be on the person who has already broken the law.

This point is moot in the US, because you're never, in any of our lifetimes, going to get rid of guns here no matter what you do. The person breaking in is already likely to be carrying a gun. The question is, will the victim have one too?

That said, I think that when there is an accident with a gun, the gun owner should face severe penalties. There is no argument that you didn't know, weren't at fault, or it was an accident. If it was your gun, you ARE at fault.

[tlarkin]

Actually most knife wounds to the torso are worse than gun shot wounds. Guns punch nice neat holes through you where knives cut you up in different directions and are surgically harder to repair.

It is of course subjective.

[NovaScotian]

Nothing subjective about it TL -- knife wounds are worse.