Supreme Court Overturns DC Handgun Ban

D

dmaul1114

Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062600615.html

1st time they've made such a ruling on 2nd amendment grounds.

I don't care that much one way or the other about the ruling really. I don't like guns being everywhere, but the fact is they are everywhere and bans do no good as it's far too late. Criminals can still easily get a gun, as can any person who wants to keep one in their house.

That said, I never bought the hadngun for protection argument. In DC they could still have rifles and shotguns in their homes. Easier to hit someone with a shot gun if they're breaking into your home....

In public, having a gun is more likely to lead to someone getting pissed off, drunk etc. and pulling it out and shooting someone (vs. just having a fist fight) than they are to encounter a situtation where they can use it to save themselves. Think of a robbery, the person already has their gun on you, you're probably just going to get shot or beat up if you try to pull your gun on them.

Not to mention I couldn't live with shooting someone who was robbing me since they're just going to take my shit and leave, they don't deserve to die for that--and I just got robbed at gun point this spring so that's coming from someone who's been through the experience.

So I guess I have no problems with gun bans, but I have no problem with it being overturned as they're impractical and do no good anyway. If you want to get a way from guns you just have to move to country that isn't so engrained in a gun culture.
 
A glorious day for lovers of the constitution everywhere. And now the argument that the 2nd amendment only applies to government sponsored militias is forever destroyed.

I'll reiterate my simple stance here:

In a world full of bad people with guns, I'd rather good people have them than not have them, so I'd rather have one than not have one.

But then again I believe it's ultimately not just an individual's right, but their responsibility, to protect themselves, their family, and their property. If you feel perfectly adequate in facing unknown threats with just fists, you are one ballsy bastard - and that's your right.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']A glorious day for lovers of the constitution everywhere. And now the argument that the 2nd amendment only applies to government sponsored militias is forever destroyed.[/quote]

Unless it's later overturned anyway :p.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Unless it's later overturned anyway :p.[/QUOTE]

It's much more difficult once a precedent has been set. Will be even harder to get the court to even hear similar cases now, rather than just rejecting them on the basis of this ruling.

But like I said, I don't really care. These laws just can't be effective in a country where guns are so widespread and ingrained in the culture. It's too easy for people, especially criminals, to get illegal guns.

I don't like everyone having guns, but that's just life in the good ole US of A.

I choose not to carry one, but if other's want to so be it. There's better ways to protect yourself IMO. Stay out of the ghetto, especially stay out of sketchy bars/clubs (bars full of thugs, white trash bars etc.), stay out of strange areas at night, stay away from drugs etc. etc.

Random crime happens--like I said I got robbed recently. But to be fair, I do live in the ghetto currently do to being a poor grad student going to school in an expensive metropolitan area! But again, having a gun wouldn't have helped there. I just lost a few bucks, my cell phone etc. Not worth risking pulling a gun on someone who already has a gun pointed at you.
 
One on hand I'm happy about individual rights triumphing over nanny-stateism.

On the other hand I'm shocked and a bit concerned that I agree with a Scalia-written decision.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's much more difficult once a precedent has been set. Will be even harder to get the court to even hear similar cases now, rather than just rejecting them on the basis of this ruling.[/quote]

I know, but it's not impossible. The Supreme Court has changed its mind many many times (well not really changing its mind, but a later court ruled differently from a former one). I was just saying it because of his "forever" comment.

I don't so much have a problem with people owning guns as I do with people that so fervently argue for the right to have guns with shitty arguments like the "if somebody had a gun" shit. Guns don't automatically make you safer and more people having guns isn't a solution to crime.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
I don't so much have a problem with people owning guns as I do with people that so fervently argue for the right to have guns with shitty arguments like the "if somebody had a gun" shit. Guns don't automatically make you safer and more people having guns isn't a solution to crime.[/QUOTE]

Agreed 100%. I have little problem with it. I grew up in a house full of guns (albeit no handguns) as my family was big into hunting.

I just hate all the safety arguments. As I said above, common sense will keep you safer than carrying a gun outside the house IMO. Basically just stay away from places where you feel you need a gun to be safe!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I just hate all the safety arguments. As I said above, common sense will keep you safer than carrying a gun outside the house IMO. Basically just stay away from places where you feel you need a gun to be safe![/QUOTE]

I want to make it clear I am not arguing for gun rights using safety arguments. Although, I think it goes without saying that there is nothing wrong with attempting to even the playing field, so to speak. That is not an argument though, it's a bonus.

There are countless situations in which guns can save lives without ever taking one. It really should be pretty obvious. And it doesn't have to be situations in which you yourself are directly in danger.

But I digress, those aren't even the main arguments for gun rights. The main argument for gun rights (As the founding fathers saw it) is to further enforce the fact that governments should fear the people, not the other way around.

Even if every house had a gun in it, hidden, and never used, but was there nonetheless.... That's huge. That was the main purpose behind the second amendment, imo. That was the intent. To simply reinforce the fact, always, that the government works for the people, should fear the people, and is answerable to the people - and it should never be possible for tyranny again.

The idea is, a populace with power never needs to fear it's government. Conversely, an unarmed populace can literally, overnight, be forced into any number of undesirable conditions. The most they could do is stand in front of tanks and be run over.

I know it's cliche, but the first amendment does not mean shit without the means to defend it.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I want to make it clear I am not arguing for gun rights using safety arguments. Although, I think it goes without saying that there is nothing wrong with attempting to even the playing field, so to speak. That is not an argument though, it's a bonus.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying you make that argument, just that many guns rights people do. I agree with you otherwise, it's in the constitution so it's just one of the warts of the US I have to accept if I'm going to choose to live here.

I disagree about leveling the field, as I said above I think concealed weapons in public do more harm that good overall. Sure there's the rare case where you can save yourself, or someone else. But honestly most of the time you won't have a chance to use it to save yourself and I don't like the idea of armed citizens going around playing cops and interrupting other crimes in progress anyway. They're not trained and more likely to escalate the situation and get someone hurt or killed IMO. Not to mention all the other negatives that come when someone is strapping and get drunk, pissed off etc. and decides to pull it out.

Just not a good idea. But there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
 
[quote name='Autumn Star']Sorry to post a link, but I think this video sums it up pretty well.[/QUOTE]

Good video. Thanks.

Edit: Loved the last quote: "When someone gets into your house, which would you rather have? Handgun or telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there. And they'll take a picture of your dead body. The first line of defense, is you".
 
[quote name='Autumn Star']Sorry to post a link, but I think this video sums it up pretty well.[/quote]

I don't like Stossel. He can interview a guy who thinks people should have guns fine, sure, but he lied with his statistics. Not only was that chart fucked up (looks like the bottom repeated 2002, 1995, 2002 or something, but with accurate numbers for the right years anyway), but it was comparing two really different numbers so you can't see shit to compare. In reality the DC murder trend followed the same trend as the US overall - rising when it rose and falling when it fell. And now the murder rate is lower than it was 20 years ago (which you can see clearly on the chart anyway), all during the gun ban (I only looked at the past 20 years, so maybe in the 10 before that the trend was all out of wack, but I doubt it, the numbers on the chart in the show didn't show that it did anyway).

So to say it was ineffective at slowing the murder rate more so than the national trend is accurate enough, but Stossel's idea that the murder rate went up more than the national rate after the ban (intended to put forth the view that gun bans actually increase murder rates) is not true in the statistics.

I don't really think the handgun ban was a good idea and it probably didn't really help anything (after all you could just to go another state and buy a gun anyway, so it's not like it was even all that hard to get one), but you don't have to lie to say that, he could've just went with the other shit he said.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Edit: Loved the last quote: "When someone gets into your house, which would you rather have? Handgun or telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there. And they'll take a picture of your dead body. The first line of defense, is you".[/QUOTE]

I have no problems with people keeping guns in their house (as long as they're kept out of the reach of children).

Doesn't have to be handguns though--a shot gun is more effective in that scenario and can't be snuck around in public so easily. I'll never be a believer that concealed handguns in public are a good idea.

SpazX is dead on with the stats. There's no evidence that the hand gun ban increased the murder rate. It simply had no real effect on it one way or the other.
 
Wah?! Legal in DC? CML for a handgun.

For seriously though, If I were living in DC, I'd be glad this passed. Getting robbed most likely isn't on the top of people's to-do lists.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']
For seriously though, If I were living in DC, I'd be glad this passed. Getting robbed most likely isn't on the top of people's to-do lists.[/QUOTE]

Having a gun is useless in a robbery. By the time you know you're being robbed the guy already has a gun on you. Plus it's silly to try to resist vs. just giving up your belongings. Again, I was robbed at gun point in March, so I know what it's like. You have no time to react once you see the gun, you just give up your shit and they go on their way.

Now, unless you meant someone breaking into your house--but that's a burglary not getting robbed. People outside of criminology mix up the terms all the time. Having a gun around the house is ok in my book, granted that you keep out of the reach of kids.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Having a gun is useless in a robbery. By the time you know you're being robbed the guy already has a gun on you. Plus it's silly to try to resist vs. just giving up your belongings. Again, I was robbed at gun point in March, so I know what it's like. You have no time to react once you see the gun, you just give up your shit and they go on their way.

Now, unless you meant someone breaking into your house--but that's a burglary not getting robbed. People outside of criminology mix up the terms all the time. Having a gun around the house is ok in my book, granted that you keep out of the reach of kids.[/quote]

How much did the robbery set you back?

...

I don't like to agree with dmaul on anything, but he is pretty much right.

If a person has a gun pulled on you and is standing more than 3 feet away from you, you can't outdraw the person and your kung fu won't work.

If a person has a gun jammed into your back and slurs any words, a little Krav Maga gives you a modest chance of survival.
 
I've never been robbed, but I'd think whoever has the gun out first wins. If I was being robbed at gun point I'm not sure I would take the risk of getting shot to pull out my own gun, I'd rather just give up my shit. I guess you could shoot the guy when he's running away or something.
 
Of course if someone pulls a gun on you first, you are pretty much screwed until they leave.

But it's actually pretty common to actually see someone being robbed at gunpoint. And if the robber doesn't see you, and you have a gun, there are things you can do.

I had a friend that was in a 7-11 bathroom once when he heard it was being robbed. He stayed inside the bathroom until it was over, of course. But he later said he wished he had been packing that day.

Guns actually DO defuse a lot of situations. It's impossible to know how many, because people don't generally report it unless a shot was fired. But talking to my friend's brother, who is a local Seargant on the police force, he says he encourages people get their concealed carry permit. He says he has seen countless cases of the mere presence of a gun defusing situations. Bad people only pull guns out when they are certain they are the only one with a gun.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']How much did the robbery set you back?
[/quote]

$4 in cash, my cell phone ($200 to replace), wallet, jacket. Probably around $250 total. Also charged a couple hundred bucks to my credit card in the hour or so we were dealing with police until I called and cancelled them. But that was part of how they got caught--they were on video in McDonalds, CVS and one other place using my card.


My roommate (who got robbed at the same time as it happened outside our condo building when we were coming home around 12:30 on a Thursday night) had it a lot worse.

They took whole purse, so she lost more cash, an ipod etc. Also had her car keys and they came back a few days later and stole her car. They found it undamaged the next day, but they'd took her GPS and some other shit out of the car. That was the other part of how they caught them--the car was left at a high school where one of the guys was going to night school.

We should be able to get some cash back through the county victim fund thing.


[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course if someone pulls a gun on you first, you are pretty much screwed until they leave.

But it's actually pretty common to actually see someone being robbed at gunpoint. And if the robber doesn't see you, and you have a gun, there are things you can do.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's not common at all for there to be other witnesses to robberies. That's why cops generally have a hard time solving them. I worked with the local PD on some projects aimed at robberies (tons around my university and the surrounding areas). The vast majority happen late at night in isolated places with no one around.

There was no one around at all when my roomate and I got robbed. They followed us into our parking lot in their car, scoped it out and ran out and robbed us when they were sure there was no one around.


I had a friend that was in a 7-11 bathroom once when he heard it was being robbed. He stayed inside the bathroom until it was over, of course. But he later said he wished he had been packing that day.
Click to expand...

He did the right thing. The robber just took the cash and left without hurting anyone it sounds like. If he came out with the gun, at best he shot someone doing a hold up that didn't harm anyone, and at worse it starts a shoot out with multiple people being hit.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
He did the right thing. The robber just took the cash and left without hurting anyone it sounds like. If he came out with the gun, at best he shot someone doing a hold up that didn't harm anyone, and at worse it starts a shoot out with multiple people being hit.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. I see your point. But when you witness something like that, it makes you angry. And you want to feel like you can dish out justice, knowing the culprit will likely go uncaught.

It does make me wonder, sometimes, if robbing convenient stores became a very dangerous thing to do, how much less it would happen.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']In a world full of bad people with guns, I'd rather good people have them than not have them, so I'd rather have one than not have one.[/quote]

Agreed. HotShotX and I both have a concealed carry license (our state doesn't allow open carry).
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Maybe. I see your point. But when you witness something like that, it makes you angry. And you want to feel like you can dish out justice, knowing the culprit will likely go uncaught.

It does make me wonder, sometimes, if robbing convenient stores became a very dangerous thing to do, how much less it would happen.[/quote]

It depends.

If the typical convenience store robber robs 50 stores over his "career" in the current environment, there would be a significant drop in convenience store robberies if said robber was killed during his tenth robbery in the Deathwish III environment.

If the typical convenience store robber robs 10 stores over his "career" in the current environment, there would not be ANY drop in convenience store robberies if said robber was killed during his tenth robbery in the Deathwish III environment.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Maybe. I see your point. But when you witness something like that, it makes you angry. And you want to feel like you can dish out justice, knowing the culprit will likely go uncaught.
[/QUOTE]

Being angry doesn't make taking the law into your own hands ok. Plus, someone doing robberies without using violence (just threats) doesn't deserve to die IMO.

Now I don't lose any sleep if somone blows away someone robbing a store, but I'm not going to tout the fact that people should pack heat so they can shoot people during robberies in progress either. Best to just give them what they want and call the cops.

And armed robberies get solved at a pretty decent rate. The people get confident after a few and get sloppy.

Or they're just stupid and do dumb shit to get caught early on--like the people that robbed me.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It does make me wonder, sometimes, if robbing convenient stores became a very dangerous thing to do, how much less it would happen.[/quote]

I dunno, the better strategy is just to not have much money in the registers (like the signs always say at 7-11 :p). Even if the person working the store had a gun, they still would have the same problem as in the robbery on the street - the robber already has the gun out and pointed at you. So unless every convenience store has a second person who is armed that problem isn't solved.

And then if you add a second armed person to the equation, you don't necessarily know how that will work out - they may run (with or without the money) and therefore they either leave without the money and aren't caught, or leave with the money and aren't caught (the same outcome as if you didn't have anybody else there anyway), or they may just start shooting. Like dmaul was saying you might just end up adding lost lives to lost property. If they already have a gun on the cashier or whatever at the convenience store are you willing to sacrifice their life so that the robber can't get the money in the register?

I understand that you want to protect the property of the store and you don't want to just let somebody get away with robbing the place, but I think that the robber getting away with some money is way way way more preferable than somebody getting killed, so I'm not sure if it's the best idea to startle the guy with a gun who is probably pretty uneasy as it is.

If only there was some kind of like auto-turret that could stun robbers as they left stores so they could be arrested...

But then it might cost more for that than the store would ever be robbed of...so it would have to be a reasonably cheap automated stun turret. And it would have to be pretty foolproof or it might accidentally stun some dude that just walked out after buying shit...
 
Scenarios

Scenario 1: A robber initiates a robbery against me while I'm walking out of work.

Response: If you don't mind, sir, could we step back inside. If I get shot on company property, I can sue them for enough money that I won't have to work again.

Scenario 2: A robber initiates a robbery against me while I'm walking down a public street.

Response: Thank God you're here! I've been paying for life insurance for YEARS! Hello Easy Street for my survivors.

Scenario 3: A robber initiates a robbery against me while I'm walking down a public street and aims at older child.

Response: Here's your money. Godspeed.

Scenario 4: A robber initiates a robbery against me while I'm walking down a public street and aims at younger child.

Response: Not to sound like a complete dick, but that one still doesn't sleep through the night.

Scenario 5: A robber initiates a robbery against me while I'm walking down a public street and aims at wife.

Response: Where did you learn how to rob people? You're holding the gun all wrong!
 
I think it's scary that I agree with the freak judges the SC has, and I think it's scary that four of the judges didn't agree with having people own guns.

[quote name='dmaul1114']
He did the right thing. The robber just took the cash and left without hurting anyone it sounds like. If he came out with the gun, at best he shot someone doing a hold up that didn't harm anyone, and at worse it starts a shoot out with multiple people being hit.[/quote]

Actually at best would be he blew the fuckers brains out and they went splattering all over the wall.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']
Actually at best would be he blew the fuckers brains out and they went splattering all over the wall.[/QUOTE]

What can I say, I'm not a cold heated fuck. I don't agree with killing murderers, must less someone that just robbed a store with out harming anyone physically.
 
[quote name='SpazX'] I guess you could shoot the guy when he's running away or something.[/quote]

You could...but that'd be murder.

A victory for freedom and personal liberty eh? What about the freedom to live in a society free from gun wielding drunks? Or the liberty to life?

More guns = more gun usage.
More gun usage = more people shot with guns.

There really isn't anything simpler than that.

Dmaul the "BUT GUNS ARE FOR SAFETY!!" Argument pisses me off. I too am a fellow robbery victim who would rather see the perps walk away scot free than be put to death without due process. This is easy for me to say though, b/c they were caught and I got my money back too. Oh yeah, they did time and guess what!? EVERYBODY LIVED!!!

For anyone bringin the "BUT THE CONSTITUTION!!!" argument, know that it starts with "An organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

This (in logic class) is called and "IF-THEN" statement. IF the "IF" goes away, then so does the "THEN".

Here is an example of an IF-THEN law:

"IF we're in a drought, THEN you can only wash you're car on M, W, and Fri."

This means when the draught ends, so does the carwashing restriction.

ERGO (still with me??) when the necessity of a militia ends, so does the right to bear arms.

Also notice how every conservative justice voted directly down party lines, without regard to how many lives have been/would be saved.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You could...but that'd be murder.
For anyone bringin the "BUT THE CONSTITUTION!!!" argument, know that it starts with "An organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

This (in logic class) is called and "IF-THEN" statement. IF the "IF" goes away, then so does the "THEN".

Here is an example of an IF-THEN law:

"IF we're in a drought, THEN you can only wash you're car on M, W, and Fri."

This means when the draught ends, so does the carwashing restriction.

ERGO (still with me??) when the necessity of a militia ends, so does the right to bear arms.

Also notice how every conservative justice voted directly down party lines, without regard to how many lives have been/would be saved.[/quote]

Well, the Second Amendment is quite poorly and ambiguously written:

"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."

I do not see it really as an if-then statement... I read it more like the following:
Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. Therefore people should maintain the right to own firearms.
(The first part is stated as a fact that is used to justify the second part)

But in the end, no one cares about our interpretations... the Supreme Court's is the one that matters.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']You could...but that'd be murder.

A victory for freedom and personal liberty eh? What about the freedom to live in a society free from gun wielding drunks? Or the liberty to life?

More guns = more gun usage.
More gun usage = more people shot with guns.

There really isn't anything simpler than that.

Dmaul the "BUT GUNS ARE FOR SAFETY!!" Argument pisses me off. I too am a fellow robbery victim who would rather see the perps walk away scot free than be put to death without due process. This is easy for me to say though, b/c they were caught and I got my money back too. Oh yeah, they did time and guess what!? EVERYBODY LIVED!!!

For anyone bringin the "BUT THE CONSTITUTION!!!" argument, know that it starts with "An organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Also notice how every conservative justice voted directly down party lines, without regard to how many lives have been/would be saved.[/QUOTE]

Why do you want your rights taken away from you? :whistle2:|
Don't like 'em, don't exercise them, but don't insist on fucking it up for others.


Oh, and you should read this before screaming "GUNZ R BAD!": http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Or at least the quote in the middle of page 5, if you skip the rest.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']What can I say, I'm not a cold heated fuck. I don't agree with killing murderers, must less someone that just robbed a store with out harming anyone physically.[/quote]

I'm not even for the death penalty, but you rob my house I have the right to blow your head off, I have that right but I don't own a gun. There have been a few times I thought someone was breaking in, and I grab two things, a flashlight and an either or ten inch chef knife. You enter my house I have the right to defend myself.

There have been several times when video was released of people robbing gas stations and such and the owner would pull out a gun, one guy pulled out a shotgun, that stops the robbery.

And the Supreme Court could have, wrongfully, ruled that guns need to be banned in this country, that would do NOTHING to stop crime. You ban booze, then you make more crime, since the war on drugs drug related crimes have gone up. It's stupid to think that banning guns would mean there would be no shootings.
 
[quote name='BigT']

"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."

I read it more like the following:
Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. Therefore people should maintain the right to own firearms.[/quote]

That's exactly what it seemed the Supreme Court ruled. There is a reason why this is right behind freedom of speech, this is the way to make sure all the other amendments are enforced. The government tries to take away your rights then you start a "militia" and take over the government.

Plus what the hell does "well regulated militia" mean? Who regulates it? The government? What part? The whole thing is out dated and I say it's time we start over, get your guns and meet me in DC!
 
The supreme court researched the gun laws at the time (there really weren't any) and the prescience set by the state laws at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, that's how they came to their conclusion.

After this ruling, anyone trying to say the 2nd amendment is contingent on militias, is just being a sore loser. The most ironic part of the group of folks that always tried to make that argument (the far left), is that even though the point of a militia was to keep the government in check, they want the militia regulated by the government. Wha?!

The argument can no longer be made that 2nd amendment = militias. You have to accept, now, that it means private ownership. It's time to move on to wishing you could change the constitution instead of trying to twist it's words.

Ultimately a militia can be defined in a number of ways:

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

It's widely accepted that in the late 1700's, number 3 was most often a militia. And "able bodied" basically meant owning a gun. Even if we formed militias on the fly today, what good would those be in it that were not armed?

I'm with liquid 2 though; if you don't like guns, don't own one. But leave those of us alone that do.

Edit: Oh and the supreme court almost ALWAYS rules along party lines, when haven't they? That's how the oven got much cooler for child rapists this week too (likely can't blame that on 5 conservative votes).
 
Ironically there are still no gun shops in DC and DC residents can't buy guns in MD or VA because they'd have to register them in DC and there's no gun shop to register the guns at. The city can keep gun shops out by zoning BS. I wonder how long before the next lawsuit against the city...
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']I'm not even for the death penalty, but you rob my house I have the right to blow your head off, I have that right but I don't own a gun. There have been a few times I thought someone was breaking in, and I grab two things, a flashlight and an either or ten inch chef knife. You enter my house I have the right to defend myself.[/quote]

Sure, for a home invasion that's fine. You have a right to protect yourself. I'd prefer people fire a warning shot if they have a chance rather than blowing the person away--but protecting the family 100% comes first.

There have been several times when video was released of people robbing gas stations and such and the owner would pull out a gun, one guy pulled out a shotgun, that stops the robbery.
Click to expand...

That one we'll have to disagree on. In a store robbery, or a street robbery, it's best to just give them what they want.

1. No need to risk getting yourself or some other bystander/victim hurt over property.

2. Robberies seldom ever involve violence as long as the victims just hand over there stuff.

3. And in that case I don't thin the criminal deserves to die--it's not reasonable to assume you have to shoot the person to save yourself as robberies almost never involve the robber shooting someone who complied.


And the Supreme Court could have, wrongfully, ruled that guns need to be banned in this country, that would do NOTHING to stop crime. You ban booze, then you make more crime, since the war on drugs drug related crimes have gone up. It's stupid to think that banning guns would mean there would be no shootings.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I have no problem with their decision as gun bans don't work to stop crime. I'd also say with 100% confidence that having guns around doesn't do anything to stop crime either. People have a right to them, but they shouldn't be touting safety and crime prevention as the reasons they need that right as there's little evidence that is the case.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Agreed. I have no problem with their decision as gun bans don't work to stop crime. I'd also say with 100% confidence that having guns around doesn't do anything to stop crime either. People have a right to them, but they shouldn't be touting safety and crime prevention as the reasons they need that right as there's little evidence that is the case.[/QUOTE]

I really like this statement of yours, good summary. I want to thank you for having a good intelligent discussion on this stuff. It's refreshing.

However, I obviously disagree a little on saying having guns around just flat out doesn't stop crime, since I personally know cases it has, and cops that tell me it does. I feel very strongly that having a gun around CAN (but may not always) give me an edge at defending myself, which is part of why I do.

I think of it much like an airbag in car. Is it guaranteed to save your life? Hell no. Can they sometimes make things worse or get you killed? Yes. Do I personally think the risk for greater safety outweighs the chance it could get me killed? Yes.

But if you are speaking generally, as far as nationwide crime statistics go, you are probably right. Overall, crime statistics would likely not change at all if you increase or decrease gun ownership to a great degree.

Oh and don't feel so bad for pieces of shit getting killed while committing crimes, just try hard to think of it as post-birth abortion. Just getting rid of undesirables ;) ;) ;)
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
That one we'll have to disagree on. In a store robbery, or a street robbery, it's best to just give them what they want.[/quote]

You live in a dream world. I saw a video on the news last year where the guy at the store gave in to the robber and the robber shot him anyways.

And you even admitted for home invasions this is fine, that's what the SC case was on, that's why it's sad only 5 judges agreed.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']You live in a dream world. I saw a video on the news last year where the guy at the store gave in to the robber and the robber shot him anyways.[/quote]

It's not a dream world, that simply doesn't happen that often. In 2006 there were 447,403 robberies and 17,034 murders/nonnegligent manslaughters. Even if every single murder happened during a robbery (which, of course, it didn't) a little less than 4% of the robberies ended in murder. And you don't know the circumstances of those that did either.

It takes one mindset to threaten someone to get money, it takes a completely different one to kill someone. Gun arguments aside, in almost every instance that you're getting robbed you'll be fine if you give them what they want.
 
[quote name='SpazX']It takes one mindset to threaten someone to get money, it takes a completely different one to kill someone. Gun arguments aside, in almost every instance that you're getting robbed you'll be fine if you give them what they want.[/quote]

That's not a chance that some of us are willing to take. Especially not when it comes to those we're supposed to protect. Furthermore, giving in to the demands of common criminals sends the wrong message.

The principle is similar to the bully stealing lunch money scenario. Do you tell your kid to keep handing his money over day after day or to give the bully a double leg followed by some ground & pound?
 
[quote name='SpazX'] Even if every single murder happened during a robbery (which, of course, it didn't) a little less than 4% of the robberies ended in murder. And you don't know the circumstances of those that did either.

It takes one mindset to threaten someone to get money, it takes a completely different one to kill someone. Gun arguments aside, in almost every instance that you're getting robbed you'll be fine if you give them what they want.[/quote]

Let's also not pretend that the economy isn't getting worse and times aren't getting more desperate.
 
[quote name='CannibalCrowley']That's not a chance that some of us are willing to take. Especially not when it comes to those we're supposed to protect.[/quote]

Let me be as clear about this as possible. I'm talking about a robbery where a life-threatening weapon is involved. Someone can easily end your life if they so choose. What you're protecting is yourself and the shit on your person. So you would rather risk your life to keep somebody from taking your stuff? Your stuff is worth more than your life?

[quote name='CannibalCrowley']The principle is similar to the bully stealing lunch money scenario. Do you tell your kid to keep handing his money over day after day or to give the bully a double leg followed by some ground & pound?[/quote]

Does the bully have a gun pointed at you?

If you were getting robbed daily I'd say move ASAP and try to avoid where you're getting robbed in the meantime. Life and death situations coupled with irregularity makes the bully analogy fail horribly.
 
I really don't think anyone has the balls to try and take out someone robbing them at gunpoint, even if they have a gun on them. It is just way too risky.

But, like I've said, this is just one of many many possible scenarios that happen with a gun. We can list tons of other scenarios in which a gun CAN defuse a potentially bad situation, often without taking life.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
But if you are speaking generally, as far as nationwide crime statistics go, you are probably right. Overall, crime statistics would likely not change at all if you increase or decrease gun ownership to a great degree.
[/quote]

Yes that's what I'm talking about. Or even citywide. Sure a gun can help in some cases, but it's more than offset by the increase in other shooting from having guns around--person with a concealed weapon permit (or a regular gun permit) gets pissed at someone and shoots them as they have a gun on them in the heat of the moment. So it more or less balances out.
[/QUOTE]

[quote name='bigdaddy']You live in a dream world. I saw a video on the news last year where the guy at the store gave in to the robber and the robber shot him anyways.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not living in a dream world. I study crime. Yes there are an extreme minority of cases where the robber shoots the guy anyway, despite the person not resisting. But that's the very rare exception.

People latch on to the rare, heinous crimes and support draconian responses. Most crime is just simple, mundane shit. Give up your property, an no one gets hurt. Try to pull a gun, and someone is most likely going to get hurt. So I don't see the benefit of guns in that case.


[quote name='CannibalCrowley']That's not a chance that some of us are willing to take. Especially not when it comes to those we're supposed to protect. Furthermore, giving in to the demands of common criminals sends the wrong message.

The principle is similar to the bully stealing lunch money scenario. Do you tell your kid to keep handing his money over day after day or to give the bully a double leg followed by some ground & pound?[/QUOTE]

That's just stupid. In the vast majority of robberies a gun will be on you before you have any idea what's going on. Trying to resist is just going to make things worse.

And of course we don't just do nothing about it. You give them what they want and you call the cops. The clearance rate for armed robberies is pretty high. The majority of these guys eventually get caught.

[quote name='thrustbucket']
But, like I've said, this is just one of many many possible scenarios that happen with a gun. We can list tons of other scenarios in which a gun CAN defuse a potentially bad situation, often without taking life.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I just don't think there are enough of them to justify people carryign concealed weapons in public. Again, the situations where a life is saved will be at least off set by the situations where it escalates a situation. A dumbass trying to resist an armed robbery. An argument in a bar than ends with a shooting instead of a fist fight. and so on.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The supreme court researched the gun laws at the time (there really weren't any) and the prescience set by the state laws at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, that's how they came to their conclusion.

After this ruling, anyone trying to say the 2nd amendment is contingent on militias, is just being a sore loser. The most ironic part of the group of folks that always tried to make that argument (the far left), is that even though the point of a militia was to keep the government in check, they want the militia regulated by the government. Wha?![/QUOTE]

C'mon now. The conflict of state and federal rights are a huge part of this country's character. You honestly can't come up with any plausible scenario where the states might be in some kind of conflict with the federal government?

[quote name='thrustbucket']The argument can no longer be made that 2nd amendment = militias. You have to accept, now, that it means private ownership. It's time to move on to wishing you could change the constitution instead of trying to twist it's words.

Ultimately a militia can be defined in a number of ways:

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

It's widely accepted that in the late 1700's, number 3 was most often a militia. And "able bodied" basically meant owning a gun. Even if we formed militias on the fly today, what good would those be in it that were not armed?[/QUOTE]

I'm more than willing to accept that the current ruling is definitive for the time being (at least as much as those who want Roe V Wade overturned accept that, anyway), but I have to say, that's some pretty hefty interpretation right there. ("Able bodied" meant owning a gun? Really?) That's fine -- the Amendment practically begs for it -- but let's put to rest this whole "we're just doing what the Constitution says" baloney. There are plenty of people who value the document and believe that the whole first half of the Second Amendment wasn't just put in there for shits and giggles, even if the current Supreme Court does.

Now I'm a big believer in the idea that "the people shouldn't be afraid of the government; the government should be afraid of the people" ... but the fact of the matter is, in a conflict between the citizens and the government, this:

glock17.jpg


ain't gonna do jack against this:

LAND_M1A1_Baghdad_Currum_Ago_lg.jpg


So what's the limit? Is there a limit at all? What, precisely, do people get to own and why? No scenarios where "half the army would totally changes sides, so then we'd have tanks too!" -- for one, that moots the need for firearms in the first place, and for two, I'm not asking out of snark. If the primary reason for the Second Amendment is, in fact, defense from a tyrannical government, we need to accept that it guarantees the citizenry the right to fight back effectively. And to be effective against a modern army. . .
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']The supreme court researched the gun laws at the time (there really weren't any) and the prescience set by the state laws at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, that's how they came to their conclusion.[/quote]

You mean the minority did. The majority did no such thing, well, not honestly anyway. In traditional Scalia fashion, he found what he was looking for to support his own political ideas.

After this ruling, anyone trying to say the 2nd amendment is contingent on militias, is just being a sore loser. The most ironic part of the group of folks that always tried to make that argument (the far left), is that even though the point of a militia was to keep the government in check, they want the militia regulated by the government. Wha?!
Click to expand...
It's called the National Guard.

The argument can no longer be made that 2nd amendment = militias. You have to accept, now, that it means private ownership. It's time to move on to wishing you could change the constitution instead of trying to twist it's words.
Click to expand...
If you ever, ***EVER*** argue originalism, precedent, strict constructionism, separation of powers, states' rights, and/or the 10th amendment ever again, I'm laughing you out of the room. We both know you have no legal insight outside of a meager, sub-layman level of understanding. Knowing why you can't ever even think about suggesting the above reasonings will take you far in understanding....

.. why you're full of it.

This was never a question of ownership. That's being suggested by talking heads that are trying to drum up support for something that most people agree with anyway.. but where's the money in that?

However (and the real issue here is that), the same reasoning brought forth by the majority is the same reasoning these same justices argued against specifically in Lawrence, Carhart, et al. \In a world full of depraved insipid serpents, Scalia is king. Everyone else just does what they're told (Roberts and Alito) or are too damn simplistic (Thomas) to get it.

Oh, and I don't care about guns one way or the other. If it's not > M60, I'm not interested in owning.

So what's the limit? Is there a limit at all? What, precisely, do people get to own and why? No scenarios where "half the army would totally changes sides, so then we'd have tanks too!" -- for one, that moots the need for firearms in the first place, and for two, I'm not asking out of snark. If the primary reason for the Second Amendment is, in fact, defense from a tyrannical government, we need to accept that it guarantees the citizenry the right to fight back effectively. And to be effective against a modern army. . .
Click to expand...
Cut its budget by 95%? How absolutely hilarious would that be, a pro-2nd-at-all-costs court debating the finer points of whether the 2nd guarantees that any ragtag band of idiots should be able to roll it at any time? You're totally right in your question in a totally hilarious and awesome way.
 
LAND_M1A1_Baghdad_Currum_Ago_lg.jpg


That ain't gonna do jack without this:

0945.jpg


Once the tank runs out of fuel, somebody has to go outside of the tank to attach a hose.

The fuel tanker won't be as armored as the tank.

Also, the person outside of the tank probably won't be able to handle a rifle round to the knee and still be able to refuel the tank.

...

Before we get into a long drawn out discussion of a war between the government and the people, there are many variables to consider.

An unarmed populace gives an "evil" government army a huge advantage over a "good" people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top