Justices may extend gun owner rights nationwide

THe good old gun debate.

Cliff notes to Mel's position:
-Gun ownership is a right
-Gun ownership should entail training and licensing and not just 'how to shoot' lessons but situational training
-People opposed to guns have every right NOT to buy them

Curiously enough, though Don can be somewhat of a smart ass from time to time, that sign of his actually makes an interesting point.

For those against gun ownership why don't they feel 'safe' posting a sign stating their views?

Because it makes them a target.

Hmmm... doesn't that mean that those opposed to gun ownership acknowledge that they indirectly benefit from the perception that their house 'could' have a gun?

However, Cranky does have a point, the statistics don't lie. However, I believe that the statistics can be 'curved' via training.

I mean, imagine what the statistics of driving accidents would look like if we just handed teenagers cars without any licensing and training.

For the most part, that is what we do with guns in this country. Absolutely no SITUATIONAL training whatsoever.

As a former military shooting range official/trainer (with some 'basic' training in urban combat tactics), that just blows my mind.

Anyways, the good old gun debate. Never gets old

Mel...

I just want to walk into a bank carrying a long sword. If I can openly carry a gun, I should be able to carry a 3 foot long meat cleaver.

[Unpopular opinion]

The irony is that a vague article, intended to preserve the autonomy of militias in an age of single-shot muskets, seems for so many people to represent an inviolable right to own any firearm, whereas we can't seem to find freedom from unreasonable searches in the relatively explicit Fourth Amendment.

I am generally pro Bill of Rights, but I don't see the merit of abstracting modern gun rights from the Second Amendment. First of all, even the most crazed of fanatics will concede that the right to bear ALL arms is not protected. At the very least, there is no inviolable right to, say, own a nuclear warhead. We all ought to be able to agree at least that far.

Ultimately, the difference between gun nut and control advocate is setting a line in between pocketknifes and A-Bombs. Some want their handguns on their person at all times, others want automatic rifles.

The rest of us are alarmed that so many people walk around equipped to commit instant murder. This is the same culture that imposes draconian sentences for substance offenders on the premise that these plants are "dangerous".

A gun is a device which, when used as directed, causes injury and death. No other such product is allowed, let alone Constitutionally protected. I sincerely believe that the world would be made a better place by abolishing the devices entirely.

The only justification for owning such weapons is to defend against other wielders of them. Ultimately, allowing citizens to respond to hypothetical attacks with lethal force is likelier to lead to tragedy through error, accident, or reversal. How many guns are stolen from legal owners so they can be used in crime?

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.

Don't see anything about having a right to a gun under the pillow. In fact, the intent is clearly stated, that arms be kept to provide for the common defense, not personal. So I say that the right to bear arms extends to single shot muskets, for registered militia personnel...I believe that refers to the National Guard. Extremist groups to the contrary, I'm not sure any other body qualifies as a "Well-regulated Militia." Certainly not Bo Crockett and his hunting buddies.

Everybody else can use pepper spray.
[/Unpopular opinion]

kuwisdelu said:

I wonder what if we agreed that everyone could own whatever weapons they wanted — but limited to weapons that were invented before 1789.

Click to expand...

Heh. My husband will inheirit a rather large collection of black powder rifles when his father passes. Most of them are percussion, though, and not flint/steel, but antiquey enough for the purpose, I think. Civil War era.

dgiharris said:

THe good old gun debate.

Cliff notes to Mel's position:
-Gun ownership is a right
-Gun ownership should entail training and licensing and not just 'how to shoot' lessons but situational training
-People opposed to guns have every right NOT to buy them

Curiously enough, though Don can be somewhat of a smart ass from time to time, that sign of his actually makes an interesting point.

For those against gun ownership why don't they feel 'safe' posting a sign stating their views?

Because it makes them a target.

Hmmm... doesn't that mean that those opposed to gun ownership acknowledge that they indirectly benefit from the perception that their house 'could' have a gun?

However, Cranky does have a point, the statistics don't lie. However, I believe that the statistics can be 'curved' via training.

I mean, imagine what the statistics of driving accidents would look like if we just handed teenagers cars without any licensing and training.

For the most part, that is what we do with guns in this country. Absolutely no SITUATIONAL training whatsoever.

As a former military shooting range official/trainer (with some 'basic' training in urban combat tactics), that just blows my mind.

Anyways, the good old gun debate. Never gets old

Mel...

Click to expand...

Training *is* important, no doubt about that. In a couple of years, we will be taking our older two to the range to start learning about guns and gun safety. I don't want them living in terrified ignorance of guns -- it's not a good idea. I want them to know how to handle guns and what they are capable of, so that they have a healthy respect for the dangers presented by them. We've already told them some basic gun safety stuff, but still.

I don't want a gun in my house, though, training or not. People have a long history of screwing around with that stuff and killing themselves or their friends, never thinking anyone would come to any harm. I've been overruled on that, and when the older two are teenagers, we'll have a rifle or two in a gun safe. In the garage. There are no plans to use it for home defense, only hunting and target practice.

Don said:

Now who wants to dig out the rates for DC, LA, NYC, and Chicago and compare the relative "politeness" of societies?

Click to expand...

Or we could look at the shooting stats from countries that have strong bans on firearms, countries like, oh, most every western one. I think we know how that would shake out.

And this next comment is aimed at the owner of that sign, not Don (because I suspect you meant it in large part as humorous): I see that kind of behavior as representative of how we've become these days, that it's hard to have an intelligent debate, to hold opposing views, without one party deciding to do whatever they can to destroy the other just to win or prove a point. It's fine to disagree about handgun control, it's NOT fine to actively try and make your neighbor a target for burglars/home invaders.

Thank you, lecture from Daddy is now over.

And just after I hit "submit reply" my wife emailed me a link to this news story, so those who argue for armed militia, you got one coming up:

The story begins:

A Louisiana sheriff plans to arm volunteers with shotguns, riot shields, batons, and a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on a "war wagon," as part of "Operation Exodus," a program to provide security in the event of a terrorist attack or civic unrest. "It's a calling," he says

MarkEsq said:

Or we could look at the shooting stats from countries that have strong bans on firearms, countries like, oh, most every western one. I think we know how that would shake out.

Click to expand...

I think the US has 70 gun-related deaths (not just homicides) per million; Israel is second at about half that. Most of Western Europe is in the 2-10 range.

Almost half the population of Finland owns a fire-arm, but they're GR deaths are about 8 per million; similar for Switzerland.

I think it has less to do with gun-ownership, and more to do with socio-economic conditions and a culture that glorifies violence.

ETA: by gun ownership I mean *legal* gun ownership

Don said:

Cranky, given your high profile here and your blog, is there a huge amount of difference between announcing to the world here that your house is unprotected, and putting a sign in your front yard?

I'm sincere in the question, because I haven't dug through your blog and the rest of the internet to see if there's sufficient information out there to locate you.

I just know I wouldn't recommend telling everyone your house is unprotected if bad guys have the ability to relate your online presence to a physical location. That concerns me. Between our regular moves around the country and my regular trips to gun ranges, I don't have quite the same concern for myself.

Click to expand...

Heh. For one thing, if things go well over the next couple of days, we'll be moving.

And if someone wants to break in and steal my stuff, they can have the stuff. I'll call the cops, and we'll see what happens. But it's just stuff. If they break in for more nefarious reasons, well, let's just say that just because I don't own a gun doesn't mean I don't know how to protect myself. And god help them if they try anything with my kids. Any house is full of weapons, if you're willing to think about it. Which, being the twisted freak I am, I have. I don't need a gun to feel safe in my own home, really, I promise.

I'm one of those for guns, I'm also in a rural area where just about everybody has a gun and crimes are pretty darn low. I think we've had three break ins in the past ten years and a murder fifty years ago. I take that back a son recently went off his rocker and killed his parents and his siblings had to wrestle him to the ground to keep him from killing them too. There have been a few rapes particularly on the college campus.

I see plenty of people riding around in their trucks with a shotgun or rifle mounted in the back window. Somehow we manage not to run around killing each other. I'd say it's more cultural, socio-economic than it is about having a gun. Britian for example may not have guns but they do have knives and stabbings and such have risen at an alarming rate.

I don't think it really matters on the weapon, I think it matters on the mindset. I'll use Detroit for my example. If you took every gun out of Detroit do you think the crime rates would rapidly decline or do you think they would find other ways to go about it? I personally think you might see a retreat, but then as people adjusted to not having guns, they'd skyrocket right back up.

*you being generic*

ETA I'm with Mel. If you're going to have a gun, for everyone's sake, learn how to use it! Respect it, treat it well, learn how to safely use it, clean it, and so forth. Don't just buy a gun and tuck it under your pillow or in the top of your closet and figure it'll be there on your side in the case you actually need it.

indiriverflow said:

[Unpopular opinion]The rest of us are alarmed that so many people walk around equipped to commit instant murder.[/Unpopular opinion]

Click to expand...

<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> I'm curious about this. Please explain.

Don said:

Take guns away from people, and you make the weakest members of your society fodder for the animals that walk on two legs.

Click to expand...

Whihc is why rape and murder is lower in the US than other gun controlled western nations.

No, wait....

Summonere said:

<STYLE type=text/css> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </STYLE> I'm curious about this. Please explain.

Click to expand...

Simple.
If an angry sociopath walks into a restaurant I happen to be in with a baseballl bat I can probably get away. If they have a gun I am pretty likely to get killed. If the angry sociopath is my ex-husband the same thinking applies.

I am not against guns. But I would like to be fairly certain that the people that do have guns know more about them than which end the bang comes out of.

MattW said:

Who knew that local laws could take away constitutional rights...or that loss of liberty would be so fervently defended, and upheld by the courts.

I wonder how many people would be upset if the same thing was done with the 3rd amendment.

Click to expand...

Housing soldiers in our homes?

In my mind guns are for some policemen and farmers overrun by rabbits.

indiriverflow
The rest of us are alarmed that so many people walk around equipped to commit instant murder.

Click to expand...

I'm curious about this. Please explain.

Click to expand...

veinglory said:

Simple.
If an angry sociopath walks into a restaurant I happen to be in with a baseballl bat I can probably get away. If they have a gun I am pretty likely to get killed. If the angry sociopath is my ex-husband the same thinking applies.

Click to expand...

<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> “So many people” didn't appear to differentiate between the hypothetical sociopath in your example and common, decent folks. That's what I'm curious about. Surely there's a difference? Or does the mere possession of arms necessistate painting all who choose to own them with the same broad brush?

Cranky said:

Heh. For one thing, if things go well over the next couple of days, we'll be moving.

And if someone wants to break in and steal my stuff, they can have the stuff. I'll call the cops, and we'll see what happens. But it's just stuff. If they break in for more nefarious reasons, well, let's just say that just because I don't own a gun doesn't mean I don't know how to protect myself. And god help them if they try anything with my kids. Any house is full of weapons, if you're willing to think about it. Which, being the twisted freak I am, I have. I don't need a gun to feel safe in my own home, really, I promise.

Click to expand...

Yes.

By the same logic, it would suggest we should all be walking around with guns everywhere whenever we carry anything — say a wallet — of value with us.

I'm not terribly comfortable with the idea we should all be constantly armed. Maybe some people are. But I'm not comforted by it.

.