Stress-Test

[CaseyB]

So, this is thread #6 in the Off-Topic forum and there have already been posts about Global Warming which somehow spun off into a Discussion of the merits of a Capitalist Society! So far it has been extremely civil (I am not surprised considering this crowd) but I thought I would put up a stress-test thread!

Soon the US Supreme Court is going to be making a decision on a case called Heller vs Washington DC that addresses the fact that firearms are banned within DC. A lower court has ruled that this is unconstitutional since the Second Amendment in out Bill of Rights says:

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 argument against against the right of the people to keep in bear arms is that the Second Amendment is referring to the National Guard and that it doesn't specifically ensure the rights of all citizens to have or carry firearms.

How does everyone else weigh in on the issue of private citizens owning and carrying firearms?

[KungFooMasta]

So what stops somebody outside of DC getting a gun and going into DC and using it? If people around me could be carrying and using guns, I should have the right to protect myself in the same manner.

[warmi]

So what stops somebody outside of DC getting a gun and going into DC and using it? If people around me could be carrying and using guns, I should have the right to protect myself in the same manner.

It is nuts.
Here in IL, I live in a county where it is legal to own so called "assault weapons" like AK-47 or so ( of course , that only applies to semi-autos , fully automatic weapons have been illegal in US since 1930s).

Literally 1 mile from my place across the border, one will be entering so called "crook" county, also known as Chicago metropolitan area where owning an assault weapon will land you in prison ...

Handguns are banned in Chicago ( or rather you need a permit which they stopped issuing in the early 80s) and the only thing you can own is a shotgun or perhaps a hunting rifle which you have to have registered with some local bureaucracy.

Go figure ..

[CaseyB]

of course , that only applies to semi-autos , fully automatic weapons have been illegal in US since 1930s

This is not true. There is no law against a citizen owning a fully automatic weapon, they are know as Class III (along with sounds and flash suppressors) and you can buy them if you follow a series of steps. The steps are just so convoluted that they are prohibitive!

[Devil N]

I'm not an American, so I know I'm a bit of an outsider, but what strikes me most about this discussion is that second amendment you're quoting. It was originally from 1789, and you know... society has somewhat changed since then. Do we still consider a militia to be 'necessary' to the security of a free state? Do we actually even have something you could call a militia nowadays? If the answer to either question is 'no', then how can you use such a law as an argument in such an important social discussion?

I've always found it kind of funny that so many people are still clinging to rules that are so obviously outdated. That doesn't only apply to the US of course; many other countries suffer from similar short-sightedness and lack of common sense, my own included. And what to think of all those devoted religious fanatics? What place do their 'rules' still have in our current society?

[warmi]

I'm not an American, so I know I'm a bit of an outsider, but what strikes me most about this discussion is that second amendment you're quoting. It was originally from 1789, and you know... society has somewhat changed since then. Do we still consider a militia to be 'necessary' to the security of a free state? Do we actually even have something you could call a militia nowadays? If the answer to either question is 'no', then how can you use such a law as an argument in such an important social discussion?

I've always found it kind of funny that so many people are still clinging to rules that are so obviously outdated. That doesn't only apply to the US of course; many other countries suffer from similar short-sightedness and lack of common sense, my own included. And what to think of all those devoted religious fanatics? What place do their 'rules' still have in our current society?

No the militia part is just a sentence (quite a story behind it )
To really educate yourself you need to read commentaries and notes from people who were behind the constitution and there they clearly state that this is about personal freedom and right to self-defense.

Their bottom line is that you cannot be truly free if you are denied the right to defend yourself if you so choose.

Historically, the first thing a oppressive government does is to take away means of self-defense from its subject, and thus the founders have decided that US citizens will have that right guaranteed in the constitution ( or rather enumerated since these rights are consider to be inherent to people )

Personally, I am amazed how people can consider something like a gun or right to use it in self-defense obsolete. I mean this was such an amazing invention which for the first time in history, allowed even a physically most defenseless woman to stand up to a rapist or a bully.

[Kencho]

The problem is that it just escalates into something unmanageably. Example:
I'm not a strong guy, and besides I'm not good enough to use a knife, even to cut a carrot. So I need a feasible way to defend myself from a thug carrying a knife. I buy a handgun. So every fellow citizen has the right to carry a handgun.
Okay, now I'm facing another problem. I might have to defend myself from a group of thugs carrying handguns, and so I need semi-automatic weapons. I buy an AK-47, for instance.
And so on, until we reach limits like grenades or thermonuclear tactical ballistic intercontinental missiles.

And you know what? The number of people in the US dying by firearms is stunning compared to other places. I think it's only surpassed by countries in war, so go figure.

If that were really necessary in the case of an attack on US soil, I'd rather build weapon deposits scattered through the towns and cities, so that people could reach there quickly, and the army or police reaching them guns to defend themselves from someone else than their own neighbors. The ability of getting a firearm is only feeding paranoia and a false sense of security. I know a girl who lost her son just because a street band member confused him with someone else. And you know what? He used a handgun, the one supposed to be used only for self-defense.

[warmi]

And so on, until we reach limits like grenades or thermonuclear tactical ballistic intercontinental missiles.

You could follow the some logic with stones and hammers and it would indeed be true if there were no rules governing a typical society.

In fact, it is true on a global scale for whatever people think , there are NO RULES there. Countries get armed with whatever they can put their hands on ( or alternatively make friends with other countries that do and save themselves a lot of money in the process - i.e Canada)

On the other hand, we live in a society that follows certain rules and it is very unlikely that a bunch of thugs with rocket launchers and tanks will try to rob my place... and if there were such guys out there , they would be taken out by police before they ever had a chance to assemble.
But it is quite possible that a single , armed or not , thug will attempt to do so and I have every right to defend myself because chances are that police will not be able to prevent this in time.

And you know what? The number of people in the US dying by firearms is stunning compared to other places

That is true but that’s not the whole story.
It is rather politically incorrect to point this out but the great majority of these types of crimes are perpetrated by a small subset of certain minority groups.
Why is this happening is a completely different story and has something to do with the past and some stupid policies ( war on drugs) … frankly, it is quite similar to the problem French are facing with their violent Arab minority.
In other words it is a social problem.

If you take a look at crime statistics in US ( FBI site will serve you well) – one can clearly see that for the majority of population ( generally white ) the crime rate is about the same as it is in Europe.

It is hard to believe for people from outside of US ( it was certainly a shock to me when I came to US, again thanks to Hollywood ) but , overall, life in US is very boring, predictable and safe.

[Kencho]

The problem is that yourself gave that thug an easy access to such a weapon. That it's strictly forbidden to kill someone unless for self-defense? Yes, ask the judge if they can resurrect you when condemning the thug that killed you with a gun.

There will always be murders, even by using the bare hands, but heck, don't make things so easy to everyone!

[CaseyB]

I know a girl who lost her son just because a street band member confused him with someone else. And you know what? He used a handgun, the one supposed to be used only for self-defense.

Was this in the US?

The number of people killed in the US in 2001 (the most recent statistics I cold find) by a firearm was 29,573. That comes out to 81 people per day killed by a firearm.

The number of people killed in the US in 1997 by an automobile was 38,862. That comes out to be 106 people per day. That's more than 30% more people killed by a car than a gun in 1997!

[CaseyB]

There will always be murders, even by using the bare hands, but heck, don't make things so easy to everyone!

Laws to "control" guns don't work! Criminals, by the very definition of the word don't obey laws!

[Kencho]

Yes, it was in the US.

And I'm sure the number of deaths by heart attacks are even higher. Does that justify such a number of people dying by firearms? How much of them were in self-defense? Maybe the cons are much more than the pros, and then that should be revisited.

[xavier]

How does everyone else weigh in on the issue of private citizens owning and carrying firearms?

Not only should private citizens be allowed to carry concealed (to extend the question), I feel they should be encouraged to do so.

[jjp]

The number of people killed in the US in 2001 (the most recent statistics I cold find) by a firearm was 29,573. That comes out to 81 people per day killed by a firearm.

The number of people killed in the US in 1997 by an automobile was 38,862. That comes out to be 106 people per day. That's more than 30% more people killed by a car than a gun in 1997!

I don't think it makes any sense to compare these two figures. Using a car is a necessarity for many people.

[CaseyB]

Not only should private citizens be allowed to carry concealed (to extend the question), I feel they should be encouraged to do so.

I completely agree! I have taken all the requisite training, gone through a very thorough background check and have been issued a license by the State of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun. This was almost four years ago (almost time to renew) when the state first passed the law! I was one of the people lobbying for it and I was one of the first to be licensed!

[warmi]

very thorough background check and have been issued a license by the State of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun

Same here ... except I can't carry my Glock because it is illegal in this state

[CaseyB]

And I'm sure the number of deaths by heart attacks are even higher. Does that justify such a number of people dying by firearms? How much of them were in self-defense? Maybe the cons are much more than the pros, and then that should be revisited.

I don't think it makes any sense to compare these two figures. Using a car is a necessarity for many people.

My point is this, people ask how many people are killed each year, senselessly, by firearms, no one stops to ask how many people are saved each year by them. How many woman prevent rape, how many people save their own lives or the lives of others without firing a single shot? Criminal prefer weak victims and if you show that you are not going to be a weak victim then the confrontation is over, they will find another one who is not going to be as much of a challenge.

[CABAListic]

@CaseyB: I think you should use those figures as an argument to improve car safety, not justify guns. I just looked up criminal statistics for Germany of 2006, and the number of registered criminal acts involving gunfire was 4584, of which 1454 cases led to dangerous injuries (including death). So, how many citizens does the US have? 350 million? That's roughly 4.4 times the number as in Germany. But even after multiplying 1454 with 4.4 that would be only 6400 cases of serious injuries due to gunfire.

You are right that criminals don't abide by law, but even so most criminals here in Germany will have as hard a time at getting a weapon as I would. And the ones who do get one are the type I would not want to be messing with even if I had a gun myself. Imagining how all those lesser criminals would be armed wouldn't personally make me feel any safer, quite the contrary.

[jjp]

My point is this, people ask how many people are killed each year, senselessly, by firearms, no one stops to ask how many people are saved each year by them. How many woman prevent rape, how many people save their own lives or the lives of others without firing a single shot? Criminal prefer weak victims and if you show that you are not going to be a weak victim then the confrontation is over, they will find another one who is not going to be as much of a challenge.

Well, what about all the other western countrys with a lot stricter gun control? I mean there isn't any more rape or robbery going on there, it is more the other way round.

[Kencho]

A bit outdated, but it's the first I've found:
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... omrate.svg
I don't think this is really a relief...

[xavier]

Not only should private citizens be allowed to carry concealed (to extend the question), I feel they should be encouraged to do so.

I completely agree! I have taken all the requisite training, gone through a very thorough background check and have been issued a license by the State of Ohio to carry a concealed handgun. This was almost four years ago (almost time to renew) when the state first passed the law! I was one of the people lobbying for it and I was one of the first to be licensed!

Awesome! Thanks for the effort (/me was born and raised, and until 2006 lived in, Cincinnati).

[CaseyB]

Of those 29,573 firearm related deaths in 2001:
16,869 were Suicides
11,348 were Homicides
802 were Accidents
323 were Legal Intervention and
231 were Undetermined

We need to take out Suicide and Legal intervention since they are not relevant to this discussion, so that leaves 12,381 that were either homicides, accidents or something else. That means that 4.4 people in 100,000 were killed with a firearm in 2001, that's only 0.04%.

What percentage of the population of other peoples home countries were killed my firearms? In countries that have stronger gun control?

[xavier]

@CaseyB: I think you should use those figures as an argument to improve car safety, not justify guns. I just looked up criminal statistics for Germany of 2006, and the number of registered criminal acts involving gunfire was 4584, of which 1454 cases led to dangerous injuries (including death). So, how many citizens does the US have? 350 million? That's roughly 4.4 times the number as in Germany. But even after multiplying 1454 with 4.4 that would be only 6400 cases of serious injuries due to gunfire.

You are right that criminals don't abide by law, but even so most criminals here in Germany will have as hard a time at getting a weapon as I would. And the ones who do get one are the type I would not want to be messing with even if I had a gun myself. Imagining how all those lesser criminals would be armed wouldn't personally make me feel any safer, quite the contrary.

The problem is that "gun culture" changes from country to country. We aren't going to eliminate guns from this country, so a more practical approach is needed. Unfortunately, in the meantime, that means somewhat of an "arms race" here in the US.

The vast majority of gun crimes in the US are drug-related -- however, it's not the type of gang activity prevalent in the first part of the 20th century, where there was an unwritten code within the gang community that wanton violence against innocent people was not acceptable. Even so, the majority of gun violence in the US is not random -- it's targeted, or it's otherwise between parties known to each other.

Even with that in mind, and even though I fully support the unrestricted right to carry concealed, I personally don't really feel the need myself to carry a weapon. But I also don't claim the authority to tell someone else who feels the need to carry, that they don't have the right or the need.

[warmi]

It seems Kencho you are missing a larger point.

Yeah it is more dangerous to live in a free society because freedom generally is not equivalent to safety.
In fact it is the opposite.

When we grow up we acquire more freedom but at the same time we are giving up the safety net provided by our parents.

This is generally the same story - it is just a matter of how much freedom you are willing to trade for safety.

Historically people who came to be known as Americans were willing to take more risks in hope that they would find more freedom , be it economically or in more literal sense.
Just mere fact that they risked everything to go to some far away place puts them in a slightly different category and thus it is no surprise that the society they put together is different than what you find in Europe.

Different people make different choices, just accept that.

[CaseyB]

(/me was born and raised, and until 2006 lived in, Cincinnati).

That's cool! I didn't know that!