Guns

[c#minor]

I have been looking for a cheap over&under double 12 gauge. I think rifles and shotguns are fine to own. You need them to hunt (other than bow and arrow). But handguns are plain and simple killers. Yes they are fun, i enjoy shooting them even though i can't hit anything, but the loss/gain doesn't add up. If someone has a weapon on thier person, i want see it visible, and it's sure hard to hide shotguns and rifles under a coat.

[Keemun]

I have no problem with guns, I just don't own any.  I haven't hunted since I was younger and went hunting with my father.  I would hunt now except I would now have to go to the trouble of cleaning my own game, which is not worth the fun of shooting it.   I don't have any handguns because we have kids in the house, which means I would need to keep the guns and ammunition securely locked and hidden, rendering them useless in the case of an intruder.  I figure if there is an intruder, I'll make do with whatever knife or blunt object is at hand.   Once there are no kids in the house and I have the money, I would like to buy some guns for target practice or collecting purposes. 

[david johnson]

Yeah, I'm no expert on the American Constitution, but doesn't the Second Amendment mention something about bearing arms only as part of a militia? Not exactly what happens though, is it?

only? no.

dj

[Grazioso]

Yeah, I'm no expert on the American Constitution, but doesn't the Second Amendment mention something about bearing arms only as part of a militia? Not exactly what happens though, is it?

Actually, no it doesn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#Constitution_and_Bill_of_Rights_.281787-1789.29
et al.

My take on this is, no guns, means no harm from them.
Why are we making weapons to defend, and why should we defend ourselves.
No guns no war, disagreements have to be settle by fists, so much better, don't you think.
The reality is that people enjoy to kill each other.
Enjoying the industrial design of guns, I think is macabre.

Forgive my bluntness, but that's naive and childish and bears serious re-examination.

* How would you practically eliminate all guns, considering the millions of them around the world? How are you going to convince all the armies and police forces, the private citizens who legally (and rightfully) own them, and the criminals who scoff at laws to relinquish them?
* No guns, no war? There was plenty of war before guns, and getting a rusty sword in the gut before the advent of modern medicine was a death sentence even if it didn't kill you outright.
* Why should we defend ourselves? That should be self-apparent, unless your life has no meaning to you. The most fundamental and inalienable right is the right to life. Any human society that doesn't respect an individual's right to preserve their life against wanton aggression doesn't deserve to be called a society.
* Most people do NOT enjoy killing each other and coexist peacefully despite the omnipresence of potential weapons.
* A gun is a tool, and tools possess both form and function. The former should be easy to appreciate by anyone with an aesthetic sense. That you see such an appreciation as macabre is of course your prerogative, but to me it's no different than appreciating a fine Japanese sword or the styling of an sports car or the interior design of a building.

No-one would need a gun to "defend themselves" if the criminals didn't have the damn things in the first place.

So when a 250-pound man tries to rape a 90-pound woman at knife-point, she doesn't need a gun to defend herself? Guns are great force equalizers, allowing those who are relatively weak a fair chance at defending themselves. And note that much violent crime does not involve guns but other weapons (stats available online from the US DOJ and FBI and their equivalents in other nations--and don't forget things like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide ). If someone tries to kill me with a weapon other than a gun, I'd still like to have a gun available so I can stop them before they can execute their intent.

But handguns are plain and simple killers.

Then I've been using mine wrong for years as I've never attempted to harm a living thing with mine and hope I never have to. Remember that many handguns are designed not for combat or self-defense but for plinking, competitive or casual target shooting, collecting, or hunting.

Contrary to the prevailing notion that having a gun = finding it irresistible to kill someone, I have never particularly felt the urge, and AFAIK, no one I know who is into guns has done so either.

Ditto and ditto. I'm a peaceful person and have never felt any urge to do physical harm to another, but I do want to a) be able to own an object without justifying it to my government and b) defend myself with it if necessary. I believe in human dignity and freedom, coupled with responsibility and maturity, and that includes being able to own and defend oneself with a firearm if desired.

[Heather Harrison]

Yeah, I'm no expert on the American Constitution, but doesn't the Second Amendment mention something about bearing arms only as part of a militia? Not exactly what happens though, is it?

The Second Amendment is, unfortunately, a bit vague and unclear, and this has caused problems in interpretation.  The "well-regulated militia" clause is the source of the problem.  It depends on how broadly the "militia" is defined.  The Supreme Court is scheduled to interpret the Second Amendment in the current term in the case involving D.C.'s strict gun control laws.  This may serve to settle the issue (in the legal sense only) for some time to come.  We'll have to see how much limitation the court allows on the right to keep and bear arms.

Heather

[Scriptavolant]

Don't own any guns, I've never touched one (well, once and with a little repulsion) and I'm still trying to figure what's their utility.
Maybe there's something interesting in the history of weapons, wars and things like that, but what are guns conceived for? Shooting targets, hunting? Uhm, I don't think a Walther P99 or a Beretta PM12 has been conceived for hunting or for the shooting range. So I don't know, I find guns dangerous and unpleasant. And stinking too 

[cx]

I'm a peaceful person and have never felt any urge to do physical harm to another, but I do want to a) be able to own an object without justifying it to my government

Ditto. And I don't own a gun and don't plan to.

[Scriptavolant]

Ditto. And I don't own a gun and don't plan to.

I wish to better understand this point, since I notice that it's quite common but also quite contradictory to me.
If I lived in a country where, as a normal citizen (not policeman, politician or attorney of some kind) I have to carry weapons in order to defend my life, I would be really concerned and eventually would plan to leave as soon as possible.
I live in the countryside, I could even leave the door open through the night, but I lived - for small periods of time - in infamous districts in Turin and Milan as a student. So did a lot of friends of mine. None of us ever felt the need to carry even a knife or a sling  .

[(poco) Sforzando]

The Second Amendment is, unfortunately, a bit vague and unclear, and this has caused problems in interpretation.  The "well-regulated militia" clause is the source of the problem.  It depends on how broadly the "militia" is defined.  The Supreme Court is scheduled to interpret the Second Amendment in the current term in the case involving D.C.'s strict gun control laws.  This may serve to settle the issue (in the legal sense only) for some time to come.  We'll have to see how much limitation the court allows on the right to keep and bear arms.

Heather

I don't think the amendment is unclear at all. As written, the right to keep and bear arms refers specifically and exclusively to the need for a well-regulated militia. It does not refer to any rights of the citizenry to shoot in self-defense, for hunting, or for any other purpose. Otherwise the first clause could have been left out, and the amendment could have simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Other contemporary documents notwithstanding, the militia clause restricts the meaning of the amendment to the single condition.

What could be argued by the gun lobbyists, however - and I think they'd be on stronger ground - is that private gun ownership is implicitly permitted under the 9th and 10th amendments:

Amendment 9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I do not own a gun myself, and have no intention of changing that.

[longears]

I don't think the amendment is unclear at all. As written, the right to keep and bear arms refers specifically and exclusively to the need for a well-regulated militia. It does not refer to any rights of the citizenry to shoot in self-defense, for hunting, or for any other purpose. Otherwise the first clause could have been left out, and the amendment could have simply read, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Other contemporary documents notwithstanding, the militia clause restricts the meaning of the amendment to the single condition.

What could be argued by the gun lobbyists, however - and I think they'd be on stronger ground - is that private gun ownership is implicitly permitted under the 9th and 10th amendments:

I do not own a gun myself, and have no intention of changing that.

Its not amazing that you can be so wrong--after all, that only requires ignorance.  However it is amazing that you can be so darned confident in the correctness of your uninformed opinion.  I once thought as you, but at least I knew my opinion was uninformed, for I had not studied the matter.  I also had the benefit of some first-rate training in both analytical and legal reasoning, at a great university and a top-ranked law school.  When challenged to back up my opinions by a less well educated fellow whom I thought a boor because of his support for private gun ownership, I researched the matter.  I learned I was wrong...and not just about the historical context of the second amendment recognition of a natural right of free men to bear arms--without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, and upon which all other Constitutionally recognized rights ultimately depend--but I also learned that virtually everything I thought I knew about guns (admittedly little at the time) was equally wrong.

Private argument about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment will soon be rendered moot, however, since SCOTUS has granted cert in the Heller case in which they apparently intend to rule on the individual vs collective right issue. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Its not amazing that you can be so wrong--after all, that only requires ignorance.  However it is amazing that you can be so darned confident in the correctness of your uninformed opinion.  I once thought as you, but at least I knew my opinion was uninformed, for I had not studied the matter.  I also had the benefit of some first-rate training in both analytical and legal reasoning, at a great university and a top-ranked law school.  When challenged to back up my opinions by a less well educated fellow whom I thought a boor because of his support for private gun ownership, I researched the matter.  I learned I was wrong...and not just about the historical context of the second amendment recognition of a natural right of free men to bear arms--without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, and upon which all other Constitutionally recognized rights ultimately depend--but I also learned that virtually everything I thought I knew about guns (admittedly little at the time) was equally wrong.

Private argument about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment will soon be rendered moot, however, since SCOTUS has granted cert in the Heller case in which they apparently intend to rule on the individual vs collective right issue. 

No greater zealot than a convert, then? I don't have the benefit of having studied law, but I was quite clear in simply stating that whatever else "historical context" may have to offer, the language of the 2nd Amendment, taken in and by itself, restricts the right to keep and bear arms to one stated purpose. But I will be frank in stating that whatever SCOTUS may decide and no matter what logical and legal arguments are thrown by the gun-lobbyists, I will always hope for gun control - for the same reasons that Que gives in his last post.

[The new erato]

Cannot see any reason to own a gun except when you are a trained hunter. And even then one shouldn't be allowed to keep the gun at home. More guns = more deaths by shooting. Simple as that. And if your argument are that the bad ones have them; then you have already given up on crime prevention and essentially argues each man to himself. Bad comment on your/our society if that is the case. 

[Florestan]

This is going to be an endless debate. I have just one question: is the criminality rate in societies that allow private gun ownership lower or higher than in societies which don't allow it? I think that an informed answer would somehow settle  the discussion.

[Florestan]

Lower or higher? You forget the third, and IMO most likely option: namely that it has no influence on the crime rate as such.

Q

I left it aside deliberately. 

[Grazioso]

No greater zealot than a convert, then? I don't have the benefit of having studied law, but I was quite clear in simply stating that whatever else "historical context" may have to offer, the language of the 2nd Amendment, taken in and by itself, restricts the right to keep and bear arms to one stated purpose. But I will be frank in stating that whatever SCOTUS may decide and no matter what logical and legal arguments are thrown

Actually, the language doesn't say that. If you'll take the time to investigate the links I provided earlier, as well as other resources on the matter, you'll see that. You'll also likely be surprised at just what the "militia" legally entailed at the time of the framing and now under US law. I'm with Longears: I used to spout off anti-gun rhetoric ("guns are just for killing, only hunters should be allowed guns, the 2nd Amendment only allows a militia to bear arms," etc.) until I decided to act like an adult, investigate the facts, learn about gun safety and use first hand, and think the matter over carefully. I now freely admit I was ignorant and wrong-headed in my earlier anti-gun judgments, on philosophical, legal, and practical grounds.

The general availability of guns increases the usage of guns in crime, private disputes, domestic disputes, fatal accidents and the chance of suicide by its owner.

Indeed I would feel my freedom to be seriously impaired if my fellow citizens were allowed to own guns, because it would make me vulnerable. I couldn't have an argument with my neighbour or someone across the street, without worrying about him popping a gun in my face at some moment or another.

Reliable statistics that prove your assertion, please. Remember that a) you probably shouldn't be arguing with your neighbor in the first place, but rather endeavoring to solve any disagreements calmly and amicably like gentlemen, b) you should worry about the other guy using any weapon against you, not just a gun (he could easily kill you with a knife or a tire iron or his bare hands if he's bigger and stronger than you), and c) even if law-abiding, peaceful citizens were denied the right to keep and bear arms, criminals--who be definition scoff at the law--might well have and use them against you anyway. Bearing the last two points in mind, are you not desirous of having the legal means to defend your life or the lives of your loved ones (the first duty of any man) adequately and effectively?

You worry about being made vulnerable. The thing is, you already are vulnerable but apparently refuse to admit it and act responsibly in light of that fact.

This is going to be an endless debate. I have just one question: is the criminality rate in societies that allow private gun ownership lower or higher than in societies which don't allow it? I think that an informed answer would somehow settle  the discussion.

On the contrary, it wouldn't settle it. Most freedoms entail dangers, and one has to ask, are you willing to sacrifice a freedom (here one viewed by many as fundamental and inalienable) for some potential extra safety?

[Scriptavolant]

Lower or higher? You forget the third, and IMO most likely option: namely that it has no influence on the crime rate as such. It should have an effect on the number of deaths involvings guns, however.

Q

For what concerns deaths by guns there are interesting figures indeed. A recent inquiry by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that deaths involving guns among children (homicides, suicides, accidents) are twelve times higher in the U.S. if related to all other industrialized countries put together.
Said that, we could discuss about what we mean by crime. If someone gets in my yard, and the law allows me to blow his head off with a 357 magnum, does this count as crime in the statistics? But is that acceptable/necessary?

[Florestan]

On the contrary, it wouldn't settle it. Most freedoms entail dangers, and one has to ask, are you willing to sacrifice a freedom (here one viewed by many as fundamental and inalienable) for some potential extra safety?

You make it sound as if the option is between Liberty (cherished and defended by gun-owners) and Tyranny (desired and supported by gun-control partisans).

[The new erato]

Why not the liberty to drive as fast as one wants, or for that matter, on the side of the road of one's own conviction. That is liberty as well. All civilized society limits freedom, that's the essence of civilization (ever wondered what civil means?). Some years ago limitations on smoking were unthinkable, in some further ten years most people in many countries won't even miss it, and will be far better off for never being tempted by this "liberty".

[Grazioso]

Why not the liberty to drive as fast as one wants, or for that matter, on the side of the road of one's own conviction. That is liberty as well. All civilized society limits freedom, that's the essence of civilization (ever wondered what civil means?). Some years ago limitations on

Two reasons: the rights enumerated in the Constitutional Amendments are seen as fundamental and inherent (or God-given) ones that are being formally and legally preserved from governmental subversion or abuse, not rights being granted by the government. The "right" to drive a car does not fall under those rights. Secondly, a gun handled safely and responsibly poses no threat to anyone. (Follow these rules at all times and no one will be hurt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety) On the other hand, driving any way you choose when the vast majority drive at one speed on one side of the road presents immediate lethal danger to all around.

As to what civil means: it means treating your neighbor with respect regardless of the laws

Yes, civilization entails control and regulation. The question is, to what extent are you willing to undermine key freedoms for potential added safety and security? Just as the foundational legal philosophy of the USA does, I prefer to preserve or grant more freedom (coupled with the exercise of due elective restraint and responsibility from citizens) than less freedom, even if that entails added risk.

[Florestan]

the rights enumerated in the Constitutional Amendments are seen as fundamental and inherent (or God-given) ones that are being formally and legally preserved from governmental subversion or abuse,  not rights being granted by the government.

God-given, you say? Did Adam & Eve have the right to own guns, then?

driving any way you choose when the vast majority drive at one speed on one side of the road presents immediate lethal danger to all around.

So if, say, a vast majority would claim for gun control, this would make it ok, right?