Judge Richard Bork, a conservative in his judicial pronouncements, said the the second ammendment guaranteed the "right of states to form militias, not for individual to bear arms".
I want to share some statistics. Source: Time (international edition) Jan 24, 2011 p29.
In one year 31,224 people die of gun related violence.
12,632 die of homicide by the use of a gun.
100,000 are shot in the USA every year in murders, assaults, suiicides, and police action.
683 children kill themselves every year by guns.
3,067 children and teenagers are killed every year.
17,352 people kill themselves every year with a weapon.
351 are shot in police intervention.
With such statistics it is time for some serious thought.
The right of self defence which is usually cited as the reason for having the right to bear arms is hardly relevant as only 1% of gun related deaths happen in self defence. George Bush made a firm commitment to ban assault weapons. However in 2004 he let the issue just fade away. Even Denmocrats, who have traditionally been way of the gun culture, do not want to bait the NRA by coming out openly for gun control. After every outrage there is public anger, but soon it is back to normal. Even in the recent memorial speech at Tucson, President Barack Obama did not even mention gun control. In fact it was the Democrats who let the Brady Bill fall by the wayside.
Unfortunately even rational well intentioned changes in the law to regulate the sale of guns is presented as if tyranny is in the offing and only a guin stands between dictatorship and liberty. Unfortunately even the Representaive from Arizona did not advocate firm measures to control guns.
The background checks are ineffective as gun dealwers do not have the means to conduct a background check. At least. to begin with small weapons which can be carried on the person, concealed weapons, may be regulated to start with. Nobody is calling for draconial laws, but restrictions on the sale of guns is needed.
I heard President Obama and hence I am not placing my argument in any context that may suggest a partisan position.
I do wonder. If the second ammendment is what Richard Bork says it is, then what part of the constution would allow government to regulate gun ownership at all?
In the US, all rights that have not explicitly been transferred by a constitution to the state, remain with the individual. (Similarly all rights not explicitly transferred by the federal constitution to the federal government remain with the states.)
The way I read the second amendment is that it allows government to regulate ownership of weapons so that it is guaranteed that free citizens can still form a "well regulated" (means "well equipped" in 1800 English) militia.
But if as you say the second amendment merely talks about states' rights, it wouldn't affect individuals at all and ownership of all types of weapons would be legal because there would be nothing in the constitution granting the government any power to interfere with individual weapon ownership.
For example, nuclear weapons are not necessary to form a militia and hence government can prohibit ownership of those. But hand guns are certainly militia weapons.
Compare this to Europe where many more die per year in wars. Perhaps European countries shouldn't be allowed to have armies.
OTOH American gun ownership seems to be pretty safe. The number you quote is less of a tenth of the average number of deaths per year caused by European wars over the last 100 years.
Good point. But to add an addendum - the statement about militias in the second amendment is a pre-amble. In other words, just an example of why the founders felt the need to put in the constitution the right to carry arms, not the sole justification of it.
Europe? Stay right here in the US. There are almost 200k deaths each year from medical malpractice. By Bahu's logic, we should outlaw doctors. That would save 200k a year, right?
People like Bahu think just taking guns away from legal citizens will just make theses numbers go away. Do you think that banning guns from lawful citizens will stop the criminals (ya know people who break the law) from obtaining guns?
With such statistics it is time for some serious thought."
[In 2005] There were 6, 420,000 auto accidents.
42,636 people were killed.
About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -
- one death every 13 minutes."
~http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.htmlI guess cars should be next...imagine how many lives we could save!!
There are almost 200k deaths each year from medical malpractice. By Bahu's logic, we should outlaw doctors. That would save 200k a year, right?
How many lives are saved by doctors? How many lives are saved by guns?
Is the number of lives saved by doctors - (deaths from malpractice - deaths from malpractice in cases where the patient would have died without medical care anyway) greater or smaller than the number of lives saved by guns - (the number of lives taken by guns - the number of lives taken by guns in self defence saving a life at the same time)?
I would guess maybe the doctors are more useful than the guns.
About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States
Cars also save lives (doctors could save very few lives without ambulances) and make our lives a lot easier (guns are less of a factor in a good life).
But the point remains. It would be useful to find a way to reduce the number of deaths caused by car accidents than to support gun control, if this is about lives.
However, there are more people driving than people shooting, I hope, and the number of cars used to kill someone is therefor much smaller than the number of guns used to kill someone, considering how many people run around and use the equipment in question. While more people die in car accidents than get shot in Ireland, I still think that while walking home when there are hundreds of people driving cars outside my company's building alone is perfectly safe, I would think twice about walking home when there are hundreds of people shooting guns outside the building. The fact that very few people die due to gun fire would not take away my caution in that situation.
As I said, people use cars for the convenience. Everybody wants to buy a car because they "need it" to get to work and otherwise.
If I lived in a country where guns have the same status as a tool of convenience, I would move.
There are well over 250 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S., including nearly 100 million handguns and tens of millions of “assault weapons”—the types of firearms that gun control supporters have tried the hardest to get banned—and the number of firearms typically rises about 4 million per year.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007
There are 308, 745, 538 people in the US http://www.census.gov/
That's roughly 8 out of 10 Americans..... (though this is likely a little less if accounting for people who own more than one gun)
As far as how many lives guns save. Millions. Think of all the wars, from Independence Civil, World Wars, right on through the Iraq war....and the guns police carry and use to protect and serve. It isn't easily measured granted, but there's never been a war won without them.
In which you have not seriously engaged, of course.
Whenever I want to enjoy a little totally-biased, strawman-laden, association-substituted-for-causation, agenda-substituted-for-rational-thought, non-sequitor-substituted-for-logic article, I just scan for a post by Bahu and I'm always rewarded.
I don't mean to pick on you (much), Bahu. But I'm not the first to point out that there's lies, damned lies and statistics.
I would recommend you read Unintended Consequences by John Ross. You'd learn a lot (maybe).
well regulated maeans just what it state: regulations as in rules, Even if we apply the restricted meaning of well equipped there is the whole question of state jurisdiction over arms. The fact that the arms were to be borne in the structure of a well regulated militia suggets that a body of armed citizens were envisioned to prevent the English from reconquering the 13 colonies as was attempted in 1812. The fact that the states choose not to "regulate" does not mean that the constitution gives people the right to carry weapons. In fact there have been attempts to regulate the sale of hand guns but to no avail.
I am not sure I get you on this.
The debate is only on regulating the sale of guns. No one is talking of taking back the Second Ammendment. In fact quite a few Eastern states have rules that restrict the sale of hand guns.
I think the case of accidental deaths in road accidents and deliberate killing by the use of weapons cannot be compared. And in the case of traffic, to use your example, there are rules and regulations. A licence can be got only after a test. Even that minimal level of testing in not there for a purchaser of hand guns.
Is there any other way by which we move form the particular and the finite to alarger universe of generalisation.
Matter of perspective. If you have a gash in your leg and are suffering from Gangrene, I would agree. If you are camping in Yellowstone and a grizzly attacks - a doctor is useless. But a gun sure comes in handy.
As in all things, the tool (doctor or gun) is not the issue - it is the brains behind it. A gun is more valuable than an incompetent doctor, and an incompetent doctor is more useful than a gun - it all depends upon the circumstances. Those who wish to ban guns are merely ignorant of what the problem is, and are too stupid to learn.
You do not read or comprehend very well.
And to that last point, I will merely point out Federal Supremacy. At least TRY to learn about that which you pontificate.
Well regulated militia has to be interpretted in the context of the original intent of the framers of the document. That statute cannot be made to carry the burden of lax, unregulated, promiscuous, ill defined approach to gguns. In fact there are restrictions on guns. In most public places carrying concealed weapons is unlawful. What is required is a set of rules that firmly establish the parameters of gun ownership. Further, there is no 'positive law" that permits guns to be owned and transported. It is only custom that that given such "rights".
The Constitution is not a 'custom'. The Second Amendment is not a 'statute'. Your understanding of the Constitution and its Amendments is, based on this post anyway, nil. A 'positive law' is not needed.
BAHU writes:
In saying this, it's clear that Bork holds the revisionist view that emerged back in the 60s.
As I read it, the Second Amendment itself refutes what Bork said.
"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."
So there it is. The law of the land, the Second Amendment itself, protects a private citizen's right to keep and bear arms (guns).
Stephen P. Halbrook has researched and written a book on just this...The Founders' Second Amendment...in it he argues that based on the Founder's statements found in newspapers, debates and letters, the Second Amendment was designed to protect the individual's right to bear arms.
Yup. It doesn't read 'the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. Whoever Richard Bork is, whether he is 'conservative in his judicial pronouncements' or not, on this he's plainly wrong and inventing language which isn't in the Amendment. And I ain't even a judge.
I nvever said it was, so what is the point.
Yes you did:
The Second amendment:
Besides not knowing what the hell you are talking about, you apparently do not know what you are writing either.
Interesting article and interesting comments but I noticed very little has been said about one particular thing this article failed to comment on. How many of these deaths were done by people who legally purchased a gun? By the same notion how will more regulations bring down these numbers? It's not that I am against making laws stiffer to avoid idiots like the AZ killer getting their hands on guns legally but it should be obvious to anyone with any amount of sense that a criminal will get his/her hands on a weapon regardless of the laws because after all they don't exactly do it the legal way anyways.
I do agree that we need to improve and update our gun regulations, perhaps something more standard as oppose to having 50 plus different twist to the same concept based on individual states. But when you are gonna throw numbers like these around you need to be more specific about who's the one doing the shooting as it is unfair for people who legally purchase guns and only use them either for personal entertainment (such as sports and just because they like guns) or for defense to somehow be included as part of those responsible for the deaths of innocent people due to ignorance, stupidity or mistake of the shooters.
We had to leave you something.
Ditto DrGuys # 18. I'm glad we left you somethning CharlesCS becasue you raise some very good points to the mix.
Just laws that regulate gun owernship are a good thing and not contrary to the Second Amendment. No problem there.
The second part of your statement goes directly to the crux of the matter and any amount of common sense is what Liberals who would if they could take away private gun ownership severely lack.
IMO we need to enforce the hundreds of gun laws on currently on the books.The government is great at making new laws, but it sucks at enforcing them. The following data is a bit dated, but one gets the idea:
A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in 1994 found that within three years of their release:
• at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense
• at least 21.6% had been arrested for committing a new violent offense
• these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides, 2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes.
* Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal records.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.
I'd say those figures speak volumes for gun ownership. Here's the website (all citations are listed there) check it out it's an eye opener:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
And if we banned guns more people would die of homicide by use of weapons other than a gun.
A figure acquired by adding up too many completely unrelated statistics. I will be addressing them individually.
By "child" do you mean "under 18"? because without a gun those 17 year olds would suicide in another method.
A select few of those are actual children who die in an accident due to parents leaving a gun unsupervised. This is as criminally negligent than parents leaving their child in the car alone (where s/he dies), leaving the child with unsupervised access to cleaning detergents or medicine (which s/he consumes and dies), and so on and so forth. Much more children are saved by their parents using a gun to defend them from an attack by a wild animal or worse, a human monster.
And more would die without the self defense capability of guns. When armed men break into a house looking for victims, guns for all equalize the chances. Without it, the attackers have the advantage.
Also, note how it is "killed" and not "killed with a gun"... Did you make a typo or are you including all cases where a child or teen is killed regardless of the weapon or if one even existed? (unarmed slaying, car accidents, and animal attacks are all things that result in a child being killed without a weapon or a gun being involved.)
Knives are a weapon too. This is a falsely inflated statistic as it includes all weapon suicides, not just gun suicides. And banning guns will not in any way shape or form decrease suicide quantity, only change their method.
Saving countless others, the police is here to protect you. When an armed criminal is spraying bullets and is shot by the police, it saves lives.
Serious thought is always called for, too bad you haven't done it.
And if someone believes that I have a bridge to sell them.
Finally. You make a (well, more than one) critically wrong assumption. You assume that making guns illegal will prevent criminals from getting guns. They are criminals, they break the law, they will have guns regardless. In countries where guns have been illegal for a long time, only the mafia have guns. Law abiding citizens are left facing guns unarmed and unprotected.
You also seem to utterly fail to understand that guns do not in any way cause violence. Guns have no "mind control beams" or "mind alteration drugs" in them that cause you to become violent. Criminals use guns, and honest citizens use guns, the old use guns, and the young use guns, the healthy and the infirm. Guns act as a great equalizer... If a 20 year old man who is very healthy and athletic attacks a woman half his weight who lacks any form of martial arts training, a gun will let her defend herself. If said man would attack a 90 year old woman living alone with the intent to murder her and loot her home, a gun will let her defend herself.
Guns are actually the true source of all freedom and equality in our society. Modern weapons are absolutely necessary to overcome large numbers of soldiers and training since youth. Longbowmen were taken from their families at age 5 and trained their entire life to shoot an arrow. Knights were trained since they could walk in the art of the sword. Martial arts take a lifetime to master... And all of the above are hugely affected by your gender and athletic conditions... In a conflict with lower tech weapons, only those who have dedicated their entire lives to mastering the slaughter of other humans stood a (reasonable) chance of victory in an altercation. With a gun, minimal training is required and any person regardless of health, age, gender and build can use it for self defense. Both self defense against a criminal, and self defense against totalitarian government.
This is a very good point. My answer to this is that the staistics that I gave were colected from Time and I think the Congressional office has some more details when the Brady Bill was discussed. I wish this particular aspect is taken up for further investigation.
I think, judging from the reactions I have received it is unlikely that popular pressure or political will will place restrictions on gun control. I feel that the judicial route will some day be taken by advocates of gun control.
Private ownership of weapons is a given. It cannot be really contested and US courts ususally admit the right of self defence, of course, with the caveat of appropriate force. My issue is trhe sale of automatic, weapons with extended clips that are being sold across the counter.
The right of self defence is not being questioned here. You will admit that less than 1% of those killed by guns are actually killed in self defence. And these are difficult questions as you recognise. Unlike someothers who believe they can duck the issue by being brazen about it.
Misunderstanding. I do not want to make guns illegal. Just contol access.
Those have been used to successfully defend against lynch mobs. Would you leave a defenseless minority, whether it is jewish, black, or gay to defend themselves against a mob out to lynch them?
And how many of the violent mass murders we see occur with a full auto assault rifle using an extended clip? Practically none.
And what of famous killers like jack the ripper? You don't need a gun to be a serial killer and rack up a large body count.
And what about when trying to act as a militia against an invading force or a despotic government?
Also, the right to own guns HAS been contested and suppressed numerous times and across wide areas of the united states.
In england, an 80 year old man defended himself from two 20 year old robbers by threatening them with a fake replica gun and calling the police. He was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 2 years in prison for "threatening a person with a gun-like object".
And what of dealing with an eventual attempted coup by a would be dictator?
I am not saying that those who advocate gun control do so because they wish to personally seize power. However, they would leave us defenseless for when someone does attempt to do so. Or an invasion from a foreign power.
You would think that someone of your political disposition will laud such armaments. Have you not heard of the lynchings of african americans by the KKK back in the day? the rounding up of japanese americans for the japanese internment camps? the trail of tears, where native americans were rounded up and forced to march for days into reservations, many of which died in the process? What of the "communist witch hunts" back in the day that democrats warn us against? You Freedom and America haters are always very quick to point out the spotty parts of the USA's past (and invent new ones or embellish older ones with false accounts)... yet suddenly all those things do not exist and could never happen again when the idea of defending yourself from the government comes up.
If one day the government decides I or others need a number tattooed on my arm and a trip to an internment camp because of my race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I will have the legal right, neigh, an obligation set forth in the Constitution to protect myself and others.
Those things are unlikely today, but there HAVE been coup attempts in many democratic nations, even the united states had its shared of attempted coups. And the united states military might (relative to others) is dwindling. We had wars before, and eventually we might face combat on native soil.
Will the government have the foresight to rearm the populace when it sees that enemies are close to breaching our borders?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Hitler never did invade switzerland, he invaded every other neutral country in his path but he knew better than to invade a nation where every male was required to own and main a government issued fully automatic handgun and ammunition.
The right to self defense is exactly what is at stake here.
Even if the citizen's has the right to bear arms, we still have the whole issue of defining the "well regulated militia" that the IInd Ammendment spoke of.
I am not sure if Switzerland's neutrality was not violated by Hitler due to the presence of an armed citizeny. He is not known to have been sensitive about human blood anyway.
England and Wales have less than 1/6 the population of the US, yet they had 130,000 Knife Attacks per year. Yea, guns are the only thing that kills. Why not an article on the number of KNIFE ATTACKS (not accidental or suicidal shootings as you clumped all the numbers for the US as) in the "safest" nation on earth?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
