Poll about Guns

[StrangeSox]

What we need is more AK-47's in this country. Countries with AK-47's have no problems.

 

Places with unarmed civilians and armed criminals do tend to have problems.

 

How many crimes are committed with AK-47's in this country? How many crimes are committed with any automatic weapons in this country (which are legal to own and are not the same as 'assault rifles')?

 

Empty argument. I did a few research articles on this in college. Looking at other first world countries like the US, there is a consistent theme where the removal of guns does not stop violence, and in fact often it increases. There are also plenty of single-country examples (i.e. Switzerland) where a well-armed public keeps crime rates lower. And in the US, communities that have high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower crime levels than those with lower rates of ownership.

 

Its really very simple. When you restrict guns via laws in the US, you only end up taking guns out of the hands legal and law-abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly are not the problem. The criminals, by nature, don't care about those laws and get the guns anyway.

 

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Empty argument. I did a few research articles on this in college. Looking at other first world countries like the US, there is a consistent theme where the removal of guns does not stop violence, and in fact often it increases. There are also plenty of single-country examples (i.e. Switzerland) where a well-armed public keeps crime rates lower. And in the US, communities that have high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower crime levels than those with lower rates of ownership.

 

Its really very simple. When you restrict guns via laws in the US, you only end up taking guns out of the hands legal and law-abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly are not the problem. The criminals, by nature, don't care about those laws and get the guns anyway.

Correct.

 

We have close to zero ability to restrict criminals' access to guns. Criminals will find a way regardless of the law, pretty much by definition. Therefore that particular argument is basically irrelevant.

Edited January 16, 2009 by lostfan

[GoSox05]

Empty argument. I did a few research articles on this in college. Looking at other first world countries like the US, there is a consistent theme where the removal of guns does not stop violence, and in fact often it increases. There are also plenty of single-country examples (i.e. Switzerland) where a well-armed public keeps crime rates lower. And in the US, communities that have high rates of gun ownership tend to have lower crime levels than those with lower rates of ownership.

 

Its really very simple. When you restrict guns via laws in the US, you only end up taking guns out of the hands legal and law-abiding gun owners, who overwhelmingly are not the problem. The criminals, by nature, don't care about those laws and get the guns anyway.

 

I was just messing around with the whole AK-47 thing. Are AK-47's legal in this country?

 

I'm in favor of having guns. I just think that at times people become obsessed with them.

Edited January 16, 2009 by GoSox05

[StrangeSox]

I was just messing around with the whole AK-47 thing. Are AK-47's legal in this country?

 

Yes, sort of. Citizens can own fully-automatic weapons, but there's a lot of red tape and I think they had to be manufactured prior to 1984 (or maybe 1986?).

 

edit: here's the wikipedia on the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Weapons manufactured and registered prior to May 19th, 1986 are grandfathered in. Before this, machine guns were heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (and pretty effectively, so I don't know why the Hughes amendment to the FOPA was necessary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

 

 

There are also AK-47 "look-alike" semi-automatic rifles. These (and US military look-alikes) are usually the "assault rifles" you hear about on the news and in the bans. Functionally, these are little different than a regular hunting rifle and just about anyone can own one (subject to local firearms restrictions, felony convictions, etc.)

 

I'm in favor of having guns. I just think that at times people become obsessed with them.

 

Oh absolutely some people do -- it gets borderline creepy. But is the gun nut all that different from the Coca-Cola or sports memorabilia collector?

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[HuskyCaucasian]

I think we've been over this before... "literally" is a bad word because everyone defines the 2nd amendment as something different. THe problem lies in the wording. Some say the wording implies militias have the right to bear arms... others saying it says all people... including militias ... can bears arms.

 

I, for one, think it meant we were supposed to arm bears.

 

Via Wikipedia:

There are two versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences. The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“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.”

 

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“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.”

 

Both versions are commonly used in official government publications. The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

 

Since there are slight differences, it can be argued both ways.

 

Personally, i think it was meant more for the militias. Remember, at the time.. and technically still are... a union of individual states. So, state militias were very important back then... not so much now.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[GoSox05]

Yes, sort of. Citizens can own fully-automatic weapons, but there's a lot of red tape and I think they had to be manufactured prior to 1984 (or maybe 1986?).

 

There are also AK-47 "look-alike" semi-automatic rifles. These (and US military look-alikes) are usually the "assault rifles" you hear about on the news and in the bans. Functionally, these are little different than a regular hunting rifle and just about anyone can own one (subject to local firearms restrictions, felony convictions, etc.)

 

 

 

Oh absolutely some people do -- it gets borderline creepy. But is the gun nut all that different from the Coca-Cola or sports memorabilia collector?

 

 

There not that much diffferent. I like collecting things and I could see guns be a fun thing to collect. One of my best friends is a gun "nut". I totally trust him with guns.

 

I just mentioned the Ak-47 because it seems to have a lot symbolism attached to it.

[EvilMonkey]

And if you ban guns because they 'kill people' (kinda like tose evilSUV's that are always reported as being involved in crashes, never the driver did it, always the SUV), then what's next, banning knives because people stab each other with them? Dont laugh, they are trying to do it in England, which has one of the more restrictive gun laws around, yet has violent crimes increasing at a double digit rate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411652/posts

[HuskyCaucasian]

NO infringement? No. That would be chaos. Certain people shouldn't have guns for obvious reasons, for one.

the problem is, technically, the 2nd amendment says I have the right to forify my house with machine gun turrents at every corner and have an AK-47 in the dinning room window if I so choose and you cant stop me.

 

Of course, we DO stop people from doing that.

[EvilMonkey]

There not that much diffferent. I like collecting things and I could see guns be a fun thing to collect. One of my best friends is a gun "nut". I totally trust him with guns.

 

I just mentioned the Ak-47 because it seems to have a lot symbolism attached to it.

They are loud. Very loud.

[StrangeSox]

the problem is, technically, the 2nd amendment says I have the right to forify my house with machine gun turrents at every corner and have an AK-47 in the dinning room window if I so choose and you cant stop me.

 

Of course, we DO stop people from doing that.

 

There are die-hard libertarians out there who feel they have every right to do just that. Libertarians' #1 motto is "no initiation of force" but they want to reserve the right to defend themselves by any means necessary. For some, this means that restricting nuclear and chemical weapons is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.\

 

There not that much diffferent. I like collecting things and I could see guns be a fun thing to collect. One of my best friends is a gun "nut". I totally trust him with guns.

 

I like guns as machines or tools (I'm an engineer and like pretty much any machine or tool). I'll never get the "chicks with guns" fetish, though.

 

I just mentioned the Ak-47 because it seems to have a lot symbolism attached to it.

 

Highly effective, well-designed, cheap gun that was associated with the Russians and now with insurgents/ terrorists/ etc. around the world.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

the problem is, technically, the 2nd amendment says I have the right to forify my house with machine gun turrents at every corner and have an AK-47 in the dinning room window if I so choose and you cant stop me.

 

Of course, we DO stop people from doing that.

If I was to use this logic (not saying that you subscribe to it) and apply it to the first amendment then I could say ANYTHING, inciting violence and all that fun stuff. The SCOTUS shot that down though.

[bmags]

I don't think I'll ever own a gun, if I do it'll be for sport like a 10 or 12 gauge, but, I think cities should have the right to have stringent gun laws because of their higher population problems and I think there should be restrictions on who should get guns, like bearsox. I don't want him with a gun.

[lostfan]

I don't think I'll ever own a gun, if I do it'll be for sport like a 10 or 12 gauge, but, I think cities should have the right to have stringent gun laws because of their higher population problems and I think there should be restrictions on who should get guns, like bearsox. I don't want him with a gun.

That's the first time I can ever recall you saying anything that strongly in favor of gun control.

[bmags]

That's the first time I can ever recall you saying anything that strongly in favor of gun control.

 

It annoys me how people use gun statistics. "Check out Tassaloosa Wyoming! Everyone has a gun and they haven't had a crime in 14 years!" Tassalloosa, town of 400.

 

I mean, I'm saying what we have now is fine. I think violent felons give up their right to own a weapon to society, at least for a number of years. I think background checks and all that jazz are reasonable. But, until you can guarantee people their safety, you can't take away their means to protect themselves. s***, even still I have a hard time saying in a place like Chicago concealed carry is reasonable, honestly.

Edited January 16, 2009 by bmags

[lostfan]

It annoys me how people use gun statistics. "Check out Tassaloosa Wyoming! Everyone has a gun and they haven't had a crime in 14 years!" Tassalloosa, town of 400.

 

I mean, I'm saying what we have now is fine. I think violent felons give up their right to own a weapon to society, at least for a number of years. I think background checks and all that jazz are reasonable. But, until you can guarantee people their safety, you can't take away their means to protect themselves.

No I agree with you I'm just saying that you probably get drowned in the "GUN GUN GUN" crowd on fans.

 

I think Chicago's laws are a little over the top though.

[bmags]

It's no point taking on that shrieking banshee. It's fun watching peanut try though.

[StrangeSox]

It annoys me how people use gun statistics. "Check out Tassaloosa Wyoming! Everyone has a gun and they haven't had a crime in 14 years!" Tassalloosa, town of 400.

 

I mean, I'm saying what we have now is fine. I think violent felons give up their right to own a weapon to society, at least for a number of years. I think background checks and all that jazz are reasonable. But, until you can guarantee people their safety, you can't take away their means to protect themselves. s***, even still I have a hard time saying in a place like Chicago concealed carry is reasonable, honestly.

 

I disagree completely. In Chicago, no law-abiding citizen can have a gun, but that doesn't stop thousands of criminals. There are other large cities with concealed carry without a problem (39 states have shall-issue policies).

 

You can never guarantee every individual their safety. Police cannot be everywhere all the time. More importantly, they are not legally required to protect the individual (this is mainly to prevent people from being able to sue if the police can't stop every single crime, I believe).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[Balta1701]

And if you ban guns because they 'kill people' (kinda like tose evilSUV's that are always reported as being involved in crashes, never the driver did it, always the SUV), then what's next, banning knives because people stab each other with them? Dont laugh, they are trying to do it in England, which has one of the more restrictive gun laws around, yet has violent crimes increasing at a double digit rate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1411652/posts

Again, I don't have the answer...but I have to question your data here. First and foremost, looking at the rate of increase doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the actual rate of occurrence. Secondly, a lot of the data out there disagrees with the claim that the UK violent crime, murder, or whatever rates are increasing at double-digits per year...depending on exactly which method of surveying it you use.

[StrangeSox]

Again, I don't have the answer...but I have to question your data here. First and foremost, looking at the rate of increase doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the actual rate of occurrence. Secondly, a lot of the data out there disagrees with the claim that the UK violent crime, murder, or whatever rates are increasing at double-digits per year...depending on exactly which method of surveying it you use.

 

First, I don't know how they can say "levels of violent crime has [sic] remained stable according to BCS interviews in 2006/07 compared with 2005/06" directly below a graph that indicates a 5% increase in violent crime. Second, even if violent crime is remaining stable, it certainly doesn't make a case for gun bans.

 

Also, official reports have been called into question:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/c...icle2328368.ece

 

By any measure, gun bans do not reduce violent crimes.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Chicago's handgun ban does far more bad than good, and doesn't serve its intended purpose. Now too, with the latest SCOTUS decision, I'd guess that ban will be stricken some time soon.

 

[clyons]

I'm sort of a contrarian on this issue. I was raised a hunter and a sportsman and support the second amendment and the individual right to bear arms, but I'm anti-handgun and militantly anti-assault weapons. That said, I think its reasonable that you should be able to keep just about anything short of a nuclear or chemical weapon as protection in your home. On the street, whether on your person or within access in your car, is a completely different story and, imo, should be totally illegal. I know reasonable people who feel safer having one handy while in a "bad neighborhood," but I've heard too many stories about folks like that that have bad endings.

[Balta1701]

Chicago's handgun ban does far more bad than good, and doesn't serve its intended purpose. Now too, with the latest SCOTUS decision, I'd guess that ban will be stricken some time soon.

Depends on a number of things. First of all, the DC Handgun ban was an interesting case in that DC is run by the federal government, so the court could specifically say that the DC government is bound by the 4th amendment in a way that the other districts aren't. In addition, right now is likely the most conservative court we'll see for the next decade, so the moment there's a retirement or death, the calculus could change. Can't recall who was the swing vote on that one, but it's entirely plausible that we could within 8 years wind up with the most polarized court in my lifetime, with Bush's appointees, Thomas, and Scalia being hard, hard right and Obama's appointees and Clinton's appointees being the opposite.

[StrangeSox]

I'm sort of a contrarian on this issue. I was raised a hunter and a sportsman and support the second amendment and the individual right to bear arms, but I'm anti-handgun and militantly anti-assault weapons. That said, I think its reasonable that you should be able to keep just about anything short of a nuclear or chemical weapon as protection in your home. On the street, whether on your person or within access in your car, is a completely different story and, imo, should be totally illegal. I know reasonable people who feel safer having one handy while in a "bad neighborhood," but I've heard too many stories about folks like that that have bad endings.

 

FWIW, "assault weapons" are classified almost entirely on cosmetic features. Many assault weapons are just look-alikes of military assault rifles that have the same functionality as a typical hunting rifle, and possibly even less stopping power (9mm AR-15 vs. a .308 rifle, for example).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

 

I'm curious as to why you think concealed carry (or even open carry) should be totally illegal. It doesn't lead to higher gun crimes or accidents.

 

Depends on a number of things. First of all, the DC Handgun ban was an interesting case in that DC is run by the federal government, so the court could specifically say that the DC government is bound by the 4th amendment in a way that the other districts aren't. In addition, right now is likely the most conservative court we'll see for the next decade, so the moment there's a retirement or death, the calculus could change. Can't recall who was the swing vote on that one, but it's entirely plausible that we could within 8 years wind up with the most polarized court in my lifetime, with Bush's appointees, Thomas, and Scalia being hard, hard right and Obama's appointees and Clinton's appointees being the opposite.

 

You're correct in that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated to the states, but I know of no reason (and I'm definitely not a legal scholar) why it couldn't be.

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

You're correct in that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been incorporated to the states, but I know of no reason (and I'm definitely not a legal scholar) why it couldn't be.

There is zero question that 2A applies to the states. The only question is to what extent the states or localities are allowed to restrict the right.

 

[StrangeSox]

There is zero question that 2A applies to the states. The only question is to what extent the states or localities are allowed to restrict the right.

 

Admittedly my info comes from wikipedia (I have not read the sourced decisions), but their article clearly states that the 2nd hasn't been held as incorporated.

 

It does seem like they're saying "We haven't made it official ever, but if and when it comes down to it, we probably will."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation...s)#Amendment_II

Amendment II

 

Right to keep and bear arms

 

* This provision has not been held to be incorporated against the states. See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, these cases predate the Supreme Court's modern incorporation criteria, so it is an open question whether the Second Amendment will be incorporated.[13] The court has ruled that the second amendment codifies a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry firearms, which is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence,[14] and some commentators suggest that incorporation is likely,[15] or that incorporation can hardly be escaped if the inferior courts take the Supreme Court's incorporation jurisprudence seriously as law—as they are required to do.[16]

 

Regarding the Second Amendment and the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller said:

 

With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.[17]

 

Since Heller, federal cases have been filed requesting the Second Amendment be made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Two such cases are McDonald v. Chicago and Guy Montag Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority.

 

The issue is also currently pending in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Nordyke v. King

Edited January 16, 2009 by StrangeSox