Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

[Cometgreen]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Except that can not and will not ever happen. It's a little thing the founding fathers liked to call "Checks and Balances." (Granted, Bush has literally gotten away with murder but I PRAY the U.S. will never see such a stupid and dangerous man take office ever again)

What motivation do they have to follow these checks and balances (much less the Constitution, which all three branches have ignored for more than a hundred years)? Oh no, people will vote against them? What power do those votes have if the government, the only ones with the guns, don't recognize them?

Weapons = power. Take that away from the people, the government has no incentive to listen to us, and it would only be a matter of time for something bad to happen. Our only hope would be in the morality of individuals that are taking orders. The few hundred people that die a year from accidents involving guns is tragic, but it pales in comparison to the millions that have been killed by oppressive governments in the last century alone. Disarming the population is a vital and common step towards a baaaaaad era in one's country.

It's also extra insurance against any kind of foreign invasion. It would be mighty difficult to occupy American states given the amount of guns we have lying around.

[Akashimo]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Cometgreen 1
Malacite 0

Comet got the point I was trying to make ;x

[WovenDarkness]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

A little point - the casull is a type of cartridge, not a firearm.

I'm aware of this and I'll have to explain that a bit. Amongst my group of friends here, we don't refer to the rifle or handgun and "Winchester" or "Remington" etc., etc. They get branded by cartridge. Glock seems to be an exception though..... Revolvers are referred to as "round guns", ....at any rate we have respect for the .454 Casull, hence firearms chambered for it are simply that, .454's. Oddly enough, though none of us has had the opportunity to fire a weapon chambered for the .50BMG, we still respect it. All rifles chambered as such are, like the .454, known as .50BMG.

Having said that, my personal collection, small but growing:


1)Weatherby Vanguard - Chambered in 7mm Reminton Magnum. The deer and elk, and if the DWR permits here, the Moose rifle.

2)BlueMarlin Lever Action .30-30 - Chambered in, you guessed it. .30-30

3)Rock River Arms NM AR-15. Chambered in .223 Remington. My CMP gun

4)Glock 23 (x2) - Both eat .40 S&W.

5)M1 Carbine - Eats .30 Carbine ammo. This is probably my favorite gun. I have yet to shoot it though, which bothers me some.
______________________________

And what kind of ignorant argument was that Woven? Yes, the police are the only ones with guns (and only when on duty) but that doesn't mean they can suddenly tell everyone to do whatever they want.

I freely admit that it was ignorant in the dictionary sense of the word. Remember me asking for clarification? Japan, though it is probably a nice place, reminds me a bit of a borderline police state. I'd rather not live in one.

As far as not being able to "tell everyone to do whatever they want.", I'm guessing that you read that into what I said, as that's not the intent that I wished to put forth. I know that I didn't mention anything like that.

With Japan having such a low crime rate and no guns? Well, I'm glad it works for them. The other can be said as well. Though I don't remember which state it is atm, and don't have much time to look for it due to work, they have the lowest rate of gun crime in the U.S. ....and damn near everybody owns guns. If you'd like, I'll look that information up for you to read asap. That Japan's civilian population is wholey disarmed while having a low crime rate means zero. It's been done here in the US with guns a plenty.


If someone left my home after being ordered to by me(if in Japan) or I'd call the police, what does that tell you about the police. Point number two: Do you suppose that a criminal would leave your home if you told him you were "going" to call the police? Maybe in Japan, but normally not here. In America. Where I live.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

This law wasn't a law for the good of the people, but something for politicans to create to make themselves feel better and scare old people into voting for them. Its pretty much like those laws that they like to make against video game retailers selling M rated titles to minors.

Does either law stop its intended problem?

Nope. The only thing that gun law accomplished was disarming the general public and make them more vulnerable to people who would obtain guns by illegal means anyway. The only thing the law against selling games to minors accomplished was turn retailers into parents, and those kids would have just downloaded GTA games off the internet if they really wanted them.

Do both laws pose the risk of threating our most basic freedoms?

Yes, they do. The moment we're not allowed to defend or express ourselves as widely as before, the more vulnerable we are to a oppressive government. This is what the supreme court and the constitution exist to prevent. IF you think the supreme court is a bunch of bad people for letting good, decent people have guns to protect themselves, you don't understand what your rights actually mean.

I'll probably never personally own a gun. My grandfather was murdered with his own gun by someone he had given shelter to for months. The woman shot him down right in his own home. Lawyers tried the self defense and sucide ploys. Two bullets in the back, two in his left leg and one in the head. He did not assault her, he did not kill himself, she murdered him with his own gun.

Now, would this have happened had he not owned the gun? I'm sure she would have found other means. She was a nutjob. She thought he was going to marry her when all the guy did was offer her a temporary shelter within his home til she got back on her feet.

I lost one of my best friends ot a gun. His father's gun, at that. Things just weren't going right for him. Here he was one quarter away from high school graduation, no college had accepted him, his parents were getting a divorce, everyone on campus picked on him and his girlfriend dumped him. I was so absorbed in my studies, my goals and getting ready for graduation that his usual annoying phonecalls got blown off, I hung up on him. Too bad I didn't know it was the last time I'd talk to him.

That night he went out into town to another campus, parked his car and shot himself with his fathers gun. I didn't know until I had gotten home from work, all I knew was that I didn't get my daily punch in the shoulder from him in the breezeway.

I'll be fully honest, I hate guns. But those were tragedies. I don't blame the guns for the violence. Its not even fair to lay blame on anyone for a suicide. Easier to lay blame for a murder, but it wasn't the gun that killed my grandfather, it was someone he trusted and had shown friendship to.

But I don't think preventing my losses should come at the expense of the personal safety of others. Again, I don't really like guns, but a weapon can ensure the safety of a good person, too.

It would be a great world if we didn't need them, but the world isn't that great. We have people out there that are threats and also people who are doing things to make themselves more poweful, trying to pass it off as "for the good of the people" when it really isn't and could lead to government corruption (well, further corruption).

[Jarre]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

I'll donate gil to anybody here that can come up with the most quotes that America's founding fathers had to say about firearms. On a different topic, I've been meaning to ask Jarre about this seeing as he's a U.K. person. I've heard it told, and I'm looking for clarification on it, that in the U.K., when people break into a home to rob it, they would prefer that the homeowners be there, that way there is more loot to take. I can state that here in the U.S.A., criminals don't generally target homes for robbery when the homeowners are home, due to not wanting to get shot. What's the general rule of thumb over there?

Criminals break in whether you are home or not, what you quote is an urban myth. There are a few sick individuals who pose as gas meter readers etc. who push themselves into a vulnrable persons house and steel money from them. This however is being targeted with special awareness schemes and ID checkers.

Most of the Burglaries are done when the occupants are out. 65% of burglaries are carried out by persons under the age of 18.

[WovenDarkness]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Lots of good stuff.

Much too long to quote. You're absolutely spot on.
______________________________

Criminals break in whether you are home or not, what you quote is an urban myth. There are a few sick individuals who pose as gas meter readers etc. who push themselves into a vulnrable persons house and steel money from them. This however is being targeted with special awareness schemes and ID checkers.

Most of the Burglaries are done when the occupants are out. 65% of burglaries are carried out by persons under the age of 18.

Thanks for the reply. I've been wanting to clarify that for a while now. Do you have a link for statistical data that you used? I'd like to try a comparison between your country and mine. The differences should be pretty cool to look at, regardless of what they turn out to be.

[Luna]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

The government should learn to abide by what it originally stood for, to Protect us from others, not from ourselves.

Since they lack this concept, taking away firearms from law abiding citizens is like throwing a man an arena equipped with nothing and expecting him to fight 5 men armed with artillery. When our government will ever learn, this I do not know.

[Jarre]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Thanks for the reply. I've been wanting to clarify that for a while now. Do you have a link for statistical data that you used? I'd like to try a comparison between your country and mine. The differences should be pretty cool to look at, regardless of what they turn out to be.

The statistics was from a newspaper article in the local rag about 3 weeks ago (as the polcie are trying to justify a £102 rise in their portion of the council tax hich is 12 times over inflation to combat "the rise in crime"being as this is such a rural area. They don't have a website. The other source you could try is UK national crime statistics, but whether you can access them from the US or not is another thing as its a government website.

[Feba]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

nevermind. this should just be locked. No good can come of it.

[Mhurron]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Funny, in Japan it's illegal to own a weapon and yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

And Canada has a higher weapons per capita saturation then the US does and also has a lower crime rate.

[Akashimo]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

But its Canada. Who cares?

[Raydeus]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Guns or not, it isn't the weapons, it's the people and their culture.

If you need a gun under your pillow to feel safe against criminals and foreign invaders, go for it. If you rather have a dagger or a katana instead, go for it. If you don't think you need any of those, go for it.

But whatever you decide you have to take responsability for the consecuences of your decision.

I'm 100 times more worried about the US mentality and how they handle themselves (and the power they have over other nations) than about the amount of weapons they possess.

[Vyuru]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Many things to hit on, please forgive the spelling errors.

Would be interesting to see if murder rates go up due to this in DC. If it does then this will proove a point about the problem the US has.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had heard that when Britain banned guns, gun murder rates, as well as general crime rates, went up.

Whether the above is true or not, the general principle is the same, criminals will strike wherever they think that they can get away with it.

Let's take a look at the last few public gun shootings that I have heard about:

Amish community
Several shopping malls
Several colleges

Now let's think about this, do we really expect anyone to be armed in an Amish community? I don't. Shopping malls? Maybe 1/10 of the mall security have a taser, the rest are unarmed. Colleges? Unless they are policed by state police, I have never seen a college policeman armed.

Now let's take a look at the typical pattern that follows these shooting sprees. From what I normally hear in the news, the shooter goes around killing people until either the police show up after 20-40 minutes typically, at which point the shooter kills himself rather than be captured, possibly after shooting at police. Or else the shooter kills himself with his last bullet before the police arrive. I have yet to hear of a police response that is sooner than 20 minutes after they first recieved the notice that someone was on a shooting spree, telling me that whatever security the place had at present was completely inadequate.

I both like and don't like the safeguards that Feba mentioned. I took a hunter safety course awhile ago in order to get my hunting license. It was a good, very well run course, and I think it would be wise for people to have to pass such a course before being able to purchase a gun. My worry with such a safeguard is that people would make absurd unfullfillable requirements needed to pass such a course. If it was a reasonable requirement for a passing grade, I'd be in favor of it. While I don't think I learned anything new from that course, it seemed to me to be common sense for the most part. I have found however that most of what I would deem common sense, other people wouldn't think of.

And quoting NeoMage:

Exactly. If we outlaw guns, only outlaws would have guns(Who said that?). Alternatively, if everyone had a gun, criminals would be a lot more afraid to pull one because they know that then they would get shot.

I completely agree with the above statement. Although I would say that if criminals thought that if even 1/50 people carried a gun, then there would not be as many public shootings, and possibly less crime. 1/50 isn't alot, but it also means that if you are in a mall, and start shooting, there is a good chance that at least 2 people are going to start shooting back. They are no longer shooting at helpless sheep, or fish in a barrel.

Fixed. Bullet proof vests aren't that hard to come by. Criminals have a pistol, you buy a rifle

Shotgun actually, there's a reason why they were possibly the most feared weapon of WWI in trench warfare.

I also doubt an arms race would begin. If the criminal is going to do something in public, it is most likely going to be done with sawed off shotguns and pistols, which they are already currently using. Rifles and Carbines are far too big and bulky to conceal, and they are the next step up, besides automatic weapons, which are illegal to purchase as I understand it.

I'll have to check that though, it's sticking in my head that there was something funky about the automatic weapon law. I see some people in the thread debating it, but last I heard, while you could buy an assault rifle, the full automatic option on it was disabled somehow and they were converted to semi-automatics. I do not know if they can still fire in bursts of 3 or not though, or if it is just a single shot. I can go out and buy a P90, or M16 or whatever, but they are supposed to be incapable of automatic fire. It might not be accurate to say I can buy a P90/M16 though, the ones that are incapable of automatic fire might be called something else, I don't know.

but requiring it for EVERYONE would be A- too easily exploitable (in the first case) and B- Impossible to constitutionally enforce (in the second case)

If that is the case, why do you feel that requiring everyone to pass a test in order to own a gun is better?

Gun shows are definately a different breed

It really depends on the gun show.

First gun show I went to, it'll sound odd, but I can't begin to describe to you how beautiful it was. The guns there were countless priceless heirlooms, works of art, it was a wonderfull thing to behold. The second gun show I went to, alot of interesting things, not a whole lot I would buy though. Third gunshow I went to though? Completely overpriced rusty old trash, pawned off by old fat stinky wannabe mountain men in fake skins. If you have ever been to something like the Highland Games fairs, and seen the true craftsmen, and then seen the stands run by the "Renaissance" group, you'd understand the difference. And for those clips of gun shows with strobe lights and AA guns everywhere? Utter trash that disgraces the name of a gunshow.

And I think it's a stretch that you need to use LETHAL FORCE against someone for robbery.

Someone breaks into my house, and I am not supposed to use lethal force to protect my wife and children? Now granted, I am single and have no kids, but let's just think about it. A criminal is in your house, you don't know what he's going to do, I don't give a damn about anything at that point. I will protect my family against anything to the best of my abilities. If that means giving my life so that they can get away unharmed, so be it. To my mind, any criminal who breaks into a house had already be prepared to use lethal force if he runs into people, so armed or unarmed, I will be prepared to take him down to the best of my abiliities. If I can do it without killing him, great, but I am not going to pull my blow, or my aim, in order to spare his life.

If you're carrying your gun with you everywhere, you are NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE WITH IT.

It depends on how you do it. You can carry a gun everywhere and still be very responsible with it.

If you leave it in your bag, you're leaving it IN AN AREA THAT ANYONE CAN GET TO EASILY; especially kids.

This though is true, especially moreso if you leave it in your bag, and leave the bag unattended.

If you have your gun locked up, it's not doing you much more good than a panic room would.

And fully agree with this statement as well. Guns should be locked up in a gunsafe when not in use, gun cabinets are far too easy to break into. I also realise that this statement creates a flaw for my earlier statements about the best course of action is to run away (Assuming criminal in the house) and willingness to use lethal force on anyone who breaks into my house. But the fact remains. If I think that the best option would be to run away, I will run away. If however I think that flight is impossible, or I feel that I need to buy time for my family to get away, then I will fight.

In a public place, probably no matter what, I would be inclined to fight anyway. I would never be able to live with myself if, assuming I had a decent chance of reaching the gunman, I ran instead of trying to stop him. By not running and having him focus his attention on me, I can buy others time to get out. Every bullet he shoots at me is one less that he can shoot at other people.

Guns aren't evil-- they're just stupid.

Guns are not evil, nor are they stupid, or actively seeking to kill people.

People kill people. People are stupid. People are both good and evil. A gun is an inanimate weapon incapable of thought or feeling or intention, no more.

Alot of people seem to think that guns are evil. I remember hearing one mother crying that "guns killed my son!" after a subway shooting. The man holding the gun killed her son, not the gun.

There are no good reasons to have them outside of sport

This is true, however there is no good reason for me to not have them outside of sport.

and there are plenty of good sports out there that don't require instruments of death.

Like Fencing! Or Archery!

After about 5 miles of the guy in the next lane threatening him, he reached under his seat and produced a .454 Casull.

I'm sorry, but your friend was stupid. I tend to side with the MP's view of things, don't draw a gun unless you intend to shoot. I'll also point out that it is illegal to carry a loaded gun in a car, might also be illegal to carry a gun in the car and ammunition within reach of the driver, I'm not sure on that point. Your friend had other options.

And while I don't know what kind of a neighborhood you live in Woven, I am probably equally disturbed about what the person did, and the fact that your wife felt that she had to bring a gun to answer the door. You don't have neighbors dropping by every now and again or various church groups? It seems odd to me that your wife thought that she should bring a gun, but I don't know, maybe you live in a bad area of town or something.

Funny, in Japan it's illegal to own a weapon and yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world.

I might be wrong on this, but don't they have a small police station every other block almost?

And while they may have the lowest crime rate in the world, they still have problems. We used to get the Japanese news, and we'd hear reports of some, well, words fail me at describing what kind of man would do this. Basically someone who wanted to commit suicide, but didn't have the nerve to go through with it, so he would kill a bunch of kids with a knife in order to recieve the death penalty. While it's uncommon, I'd say that I'd hear of such an incident for about as many public shootings as I've heard about, maybe a few less. So yes, Japan might have low crime, but they have their own problems.

And I also agree with Akashimo and CometGreen's comments. The right to bear arms isn't solely for self defense, nor is it for hunting.

If you want to be safe from criminals, you'd be far better off investing in a Safe Room. Those can also serve alternate functions, such as storm and bomb shelters.

You're more likely better off just running away.

Oh, and toss in a psyche test; at least require someone to sit down with a shrink for an hour and talk to them to make sure they aren't too likely to go batshit insane and do something to make national news.

If there is anything that I hold in more disdain and distaste than Statistics, it is shrinks, bad, bad, very bad idea.


And oh fudge, was trying to respond in an orderly fasion but I see a few things got out of order, sorry about that.

[Kitalrez]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

Somehow I read this story and all I can think of is Homer Simpson opening his beer by shooting out the top. It's not so much that I think people shouldn't own firearms, just that certain types of people should probably not own certain types of firearms... or any types of firearms, for that matter. I have an EMT buddy who owns about 12 of these. He spends entirely too much time in gunshops browsing. I'm not sure what his wife and kids think... I can say his fraternity brothers are a bit worried about him. On the other hand, I have known people who were ridiculously alcoholic, just plain nuts, and emotionally disturbed. They were all packing, and I've since structured my life to be far, far away from these people today.

There really ought to be some kind of requirements for gun purchase, like a driver's license, alcohol, or cigarettes. I live in Utah, and to get a concealed carry permit here, you just have to show up to a class and pass an exam afterwards. You don't even have to show need for concealment, or even prove that you can shoot, period. That always seemed a bit lax to me. I mean, I don't put someone into a 2 ton vehicle that could plow into a crowd of schoolkids without checking that they actually know how to drive...


I always read Amendment 2 in the context of the colonial period it arose from. When the British banned weapons, they took away rifles from farmers that needed them for hunting. They also gutted local militias on the frontier who were defending the colonial boundaries from hostile Native American tribes and French colonists. There was a pretty definite need for the musket at this time. I'm not sure you can make that argument about the AK-47 or 9 mm today. If you're that bad of a shot, or have to get that close and personal to kill something, I'm definitely not in favor of issuing you a hunting license.

On the idea of having weapons to protect yourself from your government, and give you the option of starting your own insurgency if they step out of line: What the hell are you smoking? Can I get a hit of that? Seriously, ever watch COPS when the SWAT team goes into a hostage situation? Yeah, that guy usually doesn't live long enough to shoot more than one or two. You're not going to overthrow the place with a .45. Even if you have a hundred people with them, the US Army has an Apache helicopter with infrared detection capabilities and a nice row of cannons under the left wing that can easily be tipped with sarin gas. If things get that out of hand, it can take out you and the next 6 city blocks near you. You're a bit outgunned. If you wanted to start an insurgency in this country, you need amonium nitrate in large quantities, ricin, or shaped explosives. Hell, dress like a farmer and drive a pickup as your getaway vehicle and you've got an ironclad cover for planting any one of those. So long as no one actually sees you planting it, you're golden. If anything, firearms actually make it harder to take over a country, because they just call attention to you.

I used to wonder why people didn't rise up in armed insurrection when Bush was pulling his happy horseshit during the last eight years. The solution was simple once I actually started thinking how that would go. People aren't that stupid. Best you can hope for with a bunch of guns is to take over a nuclear installation. We tend to build these in places that could be nuked or bombed long before anyone figures out the launch codes to actually use those.

I dunno, the NRA always just seemed like a raving bunch of village idiots to me, and I guess they always will.

[Vyuru]

Re: Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

When the British banned weapons, they took away rifles from farmers that needed them for hunting. They also gutted local militias on the frontier who were defending the colonial boundaries from hostile Native American tribes and French colonists.

And the fact that the British wanted to remove weapons from the colonists and make it easier to do what they wanted to do with them doesn't factor into that?

Farmers also don't have much need for going out and hunting, since they're growing crops and all. The trappers and actual hunters now, yes, farmers, not so much.

You don't even have to show need for concealment

Why should I? Whether or not I want to carry a concealed weapon is my concern, not someone else's concern.

You're not going to overthrow the place with a .45.

And no one here is talking about doing so.

I used to wonder why people didn't rise up in armed insurrection when Bush was pulling his happy horseshit during the last eight years.

Because maybe he hasn't pulled anything serious enough to rise up in revolt against?

Because he hasn't done anything illegal?

Can't impeach someone either unless they do something illegal, like Clinton.

On the idea of having weapons to protect yourself from your government, and give you the option of starting your own insurgency if they step out of line: What the hell are you smoking? Can I get a hit of that?

And yet, countless dictatorships and monarchies have kept weapons from the general public. If it's as inconsequencial as you say, why are so many governments against it? It is true, disarm the people and it becomes easier to push them around and take away more rights from them.

And also, if one person can steal a tank, you don't think other people can't? If there was a big enough issue at stake, you honestly think that the military will stay together? Need I point out the Civil War where everyone rather quickly took sides?