Guns and Gun Control

[mgdzkm433]

You won't convince me and I won't convince you. So I don't see a point in further aguing over it.

I don't think anyone is arguing over anything, I think we are just having a healthy debate. I'm not out to convince people my ideas are right (I know they are ). I think we are just talking over certain ideas and situations. I just wanted to mention that because I'd hate anyone to take this too personally or to heart. I don't think anyone wants to upset you.

But it would not have been a problem if the kid would not have had a gun in the first place! Where did he get it from? It certainly did not drop from a truck! I think that is the problem.

It would have still been a problem if there had not been a gun. The outcome might be a little different but we'd still have an angry child in society--that will always be a problem. Where did he get it from, it sure could have been 'dropped from a truck!'. The black market maybe? It will always exist. People are not trustworthy--no matter WHAT they do. Even if we were to have an all out ban on guns--SOMEONE would be illegally selling them in the US. Look at how easy it is to buy drugs--they're illegal--but you can find someone so easily to buy from. The same would happen with guns (and it already DOES happen with guns). If someone--including a child--wants to commit murder, they'll do it by any means they can. The gun isn't the problem, the person BEHIND the gun is the problem.

[Jeff OTMG]

I am so happy to see such a spirited dicussion!! To bad more aren't joining in, but at least they are reading.

I will use this opportunity to respond and to add some references that I mistakenly left out. I do not expect anyone to accept what I say as true that is not a logical derivation or supported by a reference.

Regarding the reference of a wolf with a gun and a flock of unarmed sheep that was used against me when I used it to explain the difference in a Democracy and a Republic, that is actually the example of a dictatorship.

I would say that he would get his gun the same place that he would get his drugs. Cocaine is not produced here, but there does not seem to be much of a shortage and there sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of illegal guns in England since their complete ban a few years ago, reference the link to the story about why bobbies carry guns above. Easier and much more effective if the killer would just poison everyone rather than trying to shoot them all. Shooting takes skill, poisoning doesn't.

I mentioned a court decision where police were not liable for not protecting the individual, but failed to give references:
Link to the latest occurrance in Boston: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/loc...ob04052001.htm
Court ruling:
“. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

I also left out references to the reports debunking Kellerman I find conflicting dates of 1986 and 1988, not 1986 as I posted above. http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.html http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm http://users.erols.com/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

For a bibliography on both sides of the gun control issue: http://www.pitt.edu/~upjecon/BERGER/...trol1_bib.html

[Jeff OTMG]

A new report out says gun control studies for the last 20 years which supported gun control were done with a political agenda in mind and not the objective study that they claimed to me at all: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/184457.shtml

[AKA_Monet]

Originally posted by Jeff OTMG:
A new report out says gun control studies for the last 20 years which supported gun control were done with a political agenda in mind and not the objective study that they claimed to me at all: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/184457.shtml

You know Jeff-- If you want some ideas from other ethnic groups, in particular African Americans, then email me. I really would deter from you discussion and debate that you have going on in here...

At any rate, I think just like the bumper sticker says: Gun control is holding with two hands instead of one... Violence incited with guns is very ugly and painful to see. However, it sure does beat the crap out what it use to be like when folks have to kill each other--swords and arrows... You do have to wonder though, why are a lot of Americans "arming" themselves with heavy artillery?

[newbie]

Ooh, Lil_G--my project includes choosing one of the four systems! Personally...I like retribution and rehabiliation combined--donno if that makes sense though!

I'll email you about that more.

[Billy Optimist]

Originally posted by AKA_Monet:
You know Jeff-- If you want some ideas from other ethnic groups, in particular African Americans, then email me. I really would deter from you discussion and debate that you have going on in here...

At any rate, I think just like the bumper sticker says: Gun control is holding with two hands instead of one... Violence incited with guns is very ugly and painful to see. However, it sure does beat the crap out what it use to be like when folks have to kill each other--swords and arrows... You do have to wonder though, why are a lot of Americans "arming" themselves with heavy artillery?

I'd rather see swords. You have to train for a good while to learn how sword fight well enough to kill someone. At least we would have discepled killers...and not every one would have accesses. Only people willing and able to learn how.
Why are people arming themselves?? Well, I like to be optimistic, as the name implies. They're going to be legioniers (sp.) when I reinstate the Roman Empire. All Hail Billius Maximus!

[DBPM04]

I was actually the chair for the silent march against gun violence in my city a year ago. It is a grass root organization ran out of New York. I am for gun control. After doing research and discovering that my state had the 2nd highest percentage of people under the age of 20 killed (Utah was top I believe) I decided to take action...if anyone is interested in what we did or how to get involved...reply and I will email you!



------------------
Smile Pep Charm Style that's what we have...but most of all you'll love our laugh (whooaa)

[Jeff OTMG]

AKA Monet, thank you so much for responding, you bring up a couple of excellent points I would like to address. You are absolutely correct that violence with guns is very ugly, but so is violence without gun, in fact more so. A gunshot victim is 'clean' (with the notable exception of a head wound though a series of blows from a baseball bat has much the same effect) compared with someone dying in a violent auto accident or being beaten and kicked to death. Gunshot deaths are much quicker and cleaner than someone bleeding out from a stab wound or arrow. Guns do offer a measure of protection not available to someone with a sword or bow and arrow. The old, weak, or infirmed find a firearm the great equalizer, they would be unable to successfully defend themselves with older weapons. The firearm also gives the advantage of being able to maintain a 'stand off' distance while defending oneself, older type weapons require the 'up close and personal' approach which most people are not trained for nor are they willing to train for. I know of one gentleman who is unable to afford to live in a nice area, he lives alone, he is blind and confined to a wheelchair. His choice of a defensive weapon is a .44 mag revolver which is loaded with blanks. Harmless to people in the surrounding apts., but quite lethal at contact distance out to a couple of feet. As far as the 'heavy artillery' comment goes that has a very specific meaning and not an at issue here as they fall under control of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA '34) and are considered destructive devices. Legal to own, but not suitable for personal self defense as they are all crew served weapons. If you mean to refer to a handgun I have no problem understanding why Americans are arming themselves. I have been the intended victim of two violent encounters both of which were stopped by the introduction of my personal defense firearm. Fortunately I have not had to shoot anyone, but I have accounted for two of the estimated 2.5 million unreported self defense uses of a firearm to thwart a crime that occurs every year. So yes, I understand completely why some people choose to go armed.

I would happily discuss the problem of guns as it relates to the black community. I apologize in advance for not using the term African Americans if 'black' is offensive, as I have a personal aversion to the term African American as I find it to be generally grossly inacurate. I know, work, have worked with, and met a number of black people and African Americans. Only a couple of the African Americans that I have met were black, both born in Nigeria and now American citizens, and one person who was classifed as 'colored' under apartheid in South Africa. Besides them every true African American I have ever met is white, largely from South Africa or Egypt. Gun control is horrible racist. The very term 'Saturday Night Special' is an extract from a 'niggertown Saturday night'. An excellent article, The Racist Roots of Gun Control', was published in the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy in 1995. It can be found here if you are interested: http://www.ggnra.org/cramer/racism.htm
The idea is that since blacks were not citizens and could not vote they were not protected by the Second Amendment to own firearms either.

Homicide, in general, is a serious problem plaguing the black community. The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics shows that the homicide victimization rates of whites has been in steady decline for the last 20 years. Over the same 20 years the black rate has been 4 to 8 times that of whites and has been in decline for the last 6 years. Blacks were also 7 times more likely to COMMIT murder than whites in 1999 and 10 times more likely than whites in 1991-1993. The drug related murder rate for blacks was more than double that for whites. I was unaware of this information until I came from Austin, Tx (low black population) and began working in Indianapolis, In (20%+ black). In Austin we had fewer than 50 murders, in Indy it was about 190 in 1999 (most of them black), yet both areas have about the same population. Yes, Indy is a little bigger, but not 4 times bigger. This info is all contained on the govt website here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

[Jeff OTMG]

newbie, good choice, but I think prevention has the best chance of success. I say this because rehabilitation means that the problem has already occurred and the best way for all of us is to keep the problem from ever happening.

[Jeff OTMG]

DBPM04, I would really like to be able to review the study you mention. If you have a link to it that would be great. If it is as you remember it proves that gun control has little effect on deaths of people under age 20 because New York has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation compared with Utah which has some of the lightest gun control laws.

I see that you are in Illinois. If you are in Chicago around Mothers Day I believe that what is left of the Million Mom March organization may try to hold another rally that weekend. I was in D.C. last year for the counter protest, but plan on being in Chicago this year. Our group in Chicago last year required police protection, as did our group in D.C., to protect us from the 'Mean Mommies'. The hint is to see which way the police face during the rally, that is where they perceive the threat to come from.

[moe.ron]

"The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies -- the militias -- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapons he or she desires."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

That is pretty much what I believe.

[moe.ron]

"The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies -- the militias -- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapons he or she desires."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

[newbie]

Jeff, I'm almost finished w/my Sociology project, and basically--I kinda verved off...it's mostly cold-hard-retribution now. I have a little bit of rehabilitation mixed in (community service and entering into programs) but mostly I'm punishing future criminals hard! The project called for us to develop our own prison system--forget about the constituton--just create one based on your knowledge of "how men behave."

I belive in strict gun control. I wish I could only find the links to my school newspaper online--there were 2 brilliant articles on why gun control is the only method which will keep our communities safe! Apparently, those two articles have not been added online though.

You might want to visit www.debateinfo.com/values/crime.html. I used that site in my argument for retribution. It has a debate between the four systems.

[This message has been edited by newbie (edited April 11, 2001).]

[AKA_Monet]

Hey Jeff--

That's why your need to email me, 'cuz although some of your reference statements are printed, it does not mean they are the truth as to who and what to call us... And it is irregardless of what, some of your "friends" may have told you. So, if you want to really know the truth, email me in private because if I post what the deal is, it will detract from the "flow of reasonings"on this board...

Other than that, gun violence in my community is utterly atrocious even though we are seeing a minute decline from the late 90's. However, the decline is still smaller compared to that observed in other communities.

Why are you interested on folks "take" on gun control?

[This message has been edited by AKA_Monet (edited April 11, 2001).]

[Jeff OTMG]

Arya, I agree with art of what Burger said. The Second Amendment does not permit individuals unlimited access. That was shown in U.S. v. Miller (1939) (link to the decision in a previous post regarding the defintion of 'militia' in the Second Amendment) and is why individuals are not allowed to own weapons of 'mass destruction', like nuclear weapons. Rights are not unlimited, they are limited when they begin to infringe on the rights of others, hence it is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech to yell 'Fire' in a theater or to use the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble to incite people to riot. The first part of Burger's statement shows a SEVERE lack of knowledge of U.S. Code, U.S. History, and background and intent of the intent of the founding fathers. He also seems to think that that the U.S. Constitution 'grants' rights to the people, rather than restricting the power of a central govt to restrict individual rights as it was intended. I do not believe Burger to be that stupid and the quote is probably a statement from him as a 'hopeful' opinion. His statement was also made prior to the 1990 Supreme Court ruling that the term 'people' are 'individuals' when it is used in the preamble to the Constitution as well as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. They determined that each amendment spoke of an individual right. Here is the link to U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=494&invol=259
Basically it says you can't define the word 'people' one way throughout the entire Constitution and then make a single exception and claim that 'the people' means a 'group' only in the Second Amendment. This is referred to as the 'individual' interpretation as opposed to the 'collective' interpretation. Burger was wrong, but in fairness to him researching the Second Amendment and its intent was not his specialty.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 12, 2001).]