Supreme Court to back right to bear arms

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

If a situation were ever to arise in which my life were being threatened by someone armed with a gun or a knife, I would much rather be drawing handgun than hunched in a corner on hold with 911. That's just me. Waiting for police to come when there is an intruder in my house makes about as much sense to me as sitting back and watching a fire on my stove get bigger until the FD arrives. Again, that's just me.

ditto

word!

[lostinblue 1,989]

Unless your advocating the government completely outlawing all guns and then going door to door to confiscate every gun in America the gun crime will not be effected by outlawing guns. Do you really want a big brother action like that? Never mind that a federal law outlawing guns would without a doubt be against the 2nd amendment. There is an adage that may sound trite but is most definitively true. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

I have one for you: When frogs have wings, they won't bust their a$$es when they hop.

I have never called for outloawing ALL guns. However, I think all HANDGUNS should be illegal. If not that, I think that handgun ownership should at the very least require an FBI name check and mandatory course, like that for a CCL.

Your trying to draw a correlation between legal gun ownership and gun crime. There isn't one. With the exception of a few sensational shooting sprees most gun crimes are committed by people with illegal guns. Outlawing legal ownership will not change gun crimes.

Which is why oversight is required all the way up the chain of supply- an example of sensible law. Its pretty hard making a gun at home out of scrap metal even though I'm sure it could be done... Control the trade, condition the sale, limit the crime.

You cannot keep the drug trade from entering this country. Guns will come in the same way. Control the trade .........only for law abiding people. Tell me how you will keep drugs from entering . You will never control guns as someone will have enough money to get one underground.

[rhymeswithcandi 0]

I still think the majority of US gun crime is related to organised gangs and the drug trade. You see a similar pattern in many densely populated inner cities. DC is a major hub as is nearby Baltimore.

I don't its the threat of being shot that deters those types of criminals in Virginia. I would imagine its because the drug trade doesn't have as significant a presence as it does in DC.

You're probably right. Crime is related to organized gangs. Here's the thing - the largest gang in the US (possibly the world) has it's highest presence in Northern Virginia (Alexandria & area). That same gang is also very present in DC. Two cities, both with a huge gang problem but one with a much higher murder rate. Population is nearly as dense in NoVA as it is in DC (which is the MUCH more highly policed of the two). One big difference between the two cities is gun law. VA has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It's also home to many military bases and therefore many military personnel of all branches live in the area. One can assume, from those 2 factors, that probability is high that a person in NoVA is armed (at least in her own home). What criminal is going to run against odds like that? Not many... stupid ones perhaps but not the ones in your organized gangs. In DC, it is a guarantee (thanks to the gun ban) that residents are either unarmed or have their rifles locked up and are therefore more vulnerable. Those are more attractive pickings to a criminal I'd say. No?

[almaty 19]

i am watching and will monitor the decision..i have always had a gun....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I still think the majority of US gun crime is related to organised gangs and the drug trade. You see a similar pattern in many densely populated inner cities. DC is a major hub as is nearby Baltimore.

I don't its the threat of being shot that deters those types of criminals in Virginia. I would imagine its because the drug trade doesn't have as significant a presence as it does in DC.

You're probably right. Crime is related to organized gangs. Here's the thing - the largest gang in the US (possibly the world) has it's highest presence in Northern Virginia (Alexandria & area). That same gang is also very present in DC. Two cities, both with a huge gang problem but one with a much higher murder rate. Population is nearly as dense in NoVA as it is in DC (which is the MUCH more highly policed of the two). One big difference between the two cities is gun law. VA has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It's also home to many military bases and therefore many military personnel of all branches live in the area. One can assume, from those 2 factors, that probability is high that a person in NoVA is armed (at least in her own home). What criminal is going to run against odds like that? Not many... stupid ones perhaps but not the ones in your organized gangs. In DC, it is a guarantee (thanks to the gun ban) that residents are either unarmed or have their rifles locked up and are therefore more vulnerable. Those are more attractive pickings to a criminal I'd say. No?

Perhaps - but the idea that criminals are wolves travelling around looking for people to rob or kill isn't accurate IMO. That might hold true for the odd opportunist mugger or two - but in general I'd say it has more to do with the makeup of the people living in an area, rather than the deterrent possibility of the people there being armed

What we're talking about I think - in terms of the phenomenon of inner city crime, is of organised groups preying on each other in their own established territories.

[Caladan 19]

That logic would make sense, rhymeswithcandi, if one assumed that criminals were thinking 'I was out for someone to murder, but gee, I won't go near the military base, because I might get shot' as opposed to 'I am engaged in turf wars over drugs and DC is where that's at.' If once place is a contested zone and others aren't, that's what's going to drive the violence.

I mean, seriously, places where there is low gun violence and people own guns are also places where people don't lock their doors. You know why my hometown has a low crime rate? Because it doesn't have any of the problems that lead to a high crime rate. It's not densely populated, the average income is quite high, it's far removed from centers of commerce and drugs.

I mean, it's just a fact that most murder victims are shot by someone they know. The random evil guy out to shoot someone is the exception, not the rule.

[Caladan 19]

AnewKINDofFEELIN, if you really think that banning guns makes a place safer, why is the murder rate in DC the 5th highest in the United States despite the handgun ban?

Because guns are readily available in the states surrounding DC and they can be taken across the border without check.

But somehow, in Virginia (which boarders DC) the murder rate is remarkably lower despite the fact that the gun laws are some of the most lax...

Virginia and DC also have MUCH different demographics.

Not really actually...

Really actually...

If you're referring to race, I'm not getting into that.

But demographics don't factor when you are arguing only that gun bans make safer streets (which is not the case in DC) and that the reason for the high murder rate in DC is proximity to states with readily available guns (which makes no sense when one of those states enjoys a lower murder rate).

I think you misunderstood the argument. A city-wide gun ban is very hard to enforce because it doesn't cut off the supply chain for obtaining weapons, legally or illegally. It's very easy for someone in DC to get a gun in Maryland or Virginia and bring it into DC. One doesn't even need to bother smuggling weapons. So the DC gun ban is a waste of time. But that doesn't say much about whether, e.g., if VA had strict gun laws, whether the ban would be more effective.

As to demographics, it's not race, but the entire make-up of the city. NoVA's significantly wealthier, and more to the point, more equitably so. It's mostly a bedroom community, isn't it? Homeowners and such?

It's not much of a stretch to say that DC is government bureaucrats and poverty. There's no middle class to speak of, and many of the people living there are residents of somewhere else, and so aren't as invested in the city itself. Then there's drugs.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I still think the majority of US gun crime is related to organised gangs and the drug trade. You see a similar pattern in many densely populated inner cities. DC is a major hub as is nearby Baltimore.

I don't its the threat of being shot that deters those types of criminals in Virginia. I would imagine its because the drug trade doesn't have as significant a presence as it does in DC.

You're probably right. Crime is related to organized gangs. Here's the thing - the largest gang in the US (possibly the world) has it's highest presence in Northern Virginia (Alexandria & area). That same gang is also very present in DC. Two cities, both with a huge gang problem but one with a much higher murder rate. Population is nearly as dense in NoVA as it is in DC (which is the MUCH more highly policed of the two). One big difference between the two cities is gun law. VA has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It's also home to many military bases and therefore many military personnel of all branches live in the area. One can assume, from those 2 factors, that probability is high that a person in NoVA is armed (at least in her own home). What criminal is going to run against odds like that? Not many... stupid ones perhaps but not the ones in your organized gangs. In DC, it is a guarantee (thanks to the gun ban) that residents are either unarmed or have their rifles locked up and are therefore more vulnerable. Those are more attractive pickings to a criminal I'd say. No?

Perhaps - but the idea that criminals are wolves travelling around looking for people to rob or kill isn't accurate IMO. That might hold true for the odd opportunist mugger or two - but in general I'd say it has more to do with the makeup of the people living in an area, rather than the deterrent possibility of the people there being armed

What we're talking about I think - in terms of the phenomenon of inner city crime, is of organised groups preying on each other in their own established territories.

So, are you claiming that, except in extremely rare instances, gang members only prey upon other gang members, and are no threat to the rest of society?

[rhymeswithcandi 0]

I think you misunderstood the argument. A city-wide gun ban is very hard to enforce because it doesn't cut off the supply chain for obtaining weapons, legally or illegally. It's very easy for someone in DC to get a gun in Maryland or Virginia and bring it into DC. One doesn't even need to bother smuggling weapons. So the DC gun ban is a waste of time. But that doesn't say much about whether, e.g., if VA had strict gun laws, whether the ban would be more effective.

As to demographics, it's not race, but the entire make-up of the city. NoVA's significantly wealthier, and more to the point, more equitably so. It's mostly a bedroom community, isn't it? Homeowners and such?

It's not much of a stretch to say that DC is government bureaucrats and poverty. There's no middle class to speak of, and many of the people living there are residents of somewhere else, and so aren't as invested in the city itself. Then there's drugs.

We can argue all year about which factors (demographic and otherwise) 'cause the high murder rate in DC. I argue that one factor is that law-abiding citizens are unarmed.

One thing that can't be argued is that despite the gun ban - guns ARE in the hands of criminals in DC. Right? The reasons for those criminals being successful in murdering people is up for debate, I agree.

What isn't up for debate, in my opinion, is that despite high police presence and a gun ban there are still guns in the hands of criminals. Really, all I'm saying (in regard to this Supreme Court case in DC) is that the ban clearly is NOT working so why are they violating the constitutional rights of people living in DC with this ban?? It's bad enough they have no representation.

p.s. I actually do think criminals all deterred when they know the mark might be armed. Everyone in my neighborhood knows that my husband is a Marine and I know they'd never even think about trying to rob us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I still think the majority of US gun crime is related to organised gangs and the drug trade. You see a similar pattern in many densely populated inner cities. DC is a major hub as is nearby Baltimore.

I don't its the threat of being shot that deters those types of criminals in Virginia. I would imagine its because the drug trade doesn't have as significant a presence as it does in DC.

You're probably right. Crime is related to organized gangs. Here's the thing - the largest gang in the US (possibly the world) has it's highest presence in Northern Virginia (Alexandria & area). That same gang is also very present in DC. Two cities, both with a huge gang problem but one with a much higher murder rate. Population is nearly as dense in NoVA as it is in DC (which is the MUCH more highly policed of the two). One big difference between the two cities is gun law. VA has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. It's also home to many military bases and therefore many military personnel of all branches live in the area. One can assume, from those 2 factors, that probability is high that a person in NoVA is armed (at least in her own home). What criminal is going to run against odds like that? Not many... stupid ones perhaps but not the ones in your organized gangs. In DC, it is a guarantee (thanks to the gun ban) that residents are either unarmed or have their rifles locked up and are therefore more vulnerable. Those are more attractive pickings to a criminal I'd say. No?

Perhaps - but the idea that criminals are wolves travelling around looking for people to rob or kill isn't accurate IMO. That might hold true for the odd opportunist mugger or two - but in general I'd say it has more to do with the makeup of the people living in an area, rather than the deterrent possibility of the people there being armed

What we're talking about I think - in terms of the phenomenon of inner city crime, is of organised groups preying on each other in their own established territories.

So, are you claiming that, except in extremely rare instances, gang members only prey upon other gang members, and are no threat to the rest of society?

No - but I am saying there's an obvious reason why the vast majority of gang crime in Los Angeles takes place in South Central and not Beverly Hills.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think you misunderstood the argument. A city-wide gun ban is very hard to enforce because it doesn't cut off the supply chain for obtaining weapons, legally or illegally. It's very easy for someone in DC to get a gun in Maryland or Virginia and bring it into DC. One doesn't even need to bother smuggling weapons. So the DC gun ban is a waste of time. But that doesn't say much about whether, e.g., if VA had strict gun laws, whether the ban would be more effective.

As to demographics, it's not race, but the entire make-up of the city. NoVA's significantly wealthier, and more to the point, more equitably so. It's mostly a bedroom community, isn't it? Homeowners and such?

It's not much of a stretch to say that DC is government bureaucrats and poverty. There's no middle class to speak of, and many of the people living there are residents of somewhere else, and so aren't as invested in the city itself. Then there's drugs.

We can argue all year about which factors (demographic and otherwise) 'cause the high murder rate in DC. I argue that one factor is that law-abiding citizens are unarmed.

One thing that can't be argued is that despite the gun ban - guns ARE in the hands of criminals in DC. Right? The reasons for those criminals being successful in murdering people is up for debate, I agree.

What isn't up for debate, in my opinion, is that despite high police presence and a gun ban there are still guns in the hands of criminals. Really, all I'm saying (in regard to this Supreme Court case in DC) is that the ban clearly is NOT working so why are they violating the constitutional rights of people living in DC with this ban?? It's bad enough they have no representation.

p.s. I actually do think criminals all deterred when they know the mark might be armed. Everyone in my neighborhood knows that my husband is a Marine and I know they'd never even think about trying to rob us.

I think (and this is just my guess) that if they take away the DC ban it will not make an appreciable difference in the crime rate there. Whether firearms are outlawed or legalised does little to address the underlying social issues behind the DC crime rate.

[rhymeswithcandi 0]

I have these debates with my friends/ family in Canada all the time. Most of them are for banning guns. The arguments can go on and on and on... Basically it comes to down being a matter of opinion in their case because I can't force someone to be for using a handgun in self-defense.

But the argument always comes down to this - the 2nd Amendment exists in the United States Constitution and it would take something HUGE to amend an Amendment. It is what it is - like it or not. Just like women can vote and people can freely express themselves... it is what it is. The DC gun-ban is unconstitutional and I am quite confident that the Supreme Court will come to that decision as well.

[SaadBell 0]

We love violence, sad fact, but very true.

[Scott & Lai 12]

We love violence, sad fact, but very true.

It isn't violence that gun-rights supporters love, but the ability to protect themselves against those who do love violence without having to depend on government officials.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Scott & Lai

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We love violence, sad fact, but very true.

It isn't violence that gun-rights supporters love, but the ability to protect themselves against those who do love violence without having to depend on government officials.

So you're saying that all gun-rights supporters hate violence?