Trayvon Martin

[southsider2k5]

There are no limits on gun ownership in the constitution.

 

Arguably you should be able to buy a nuclear weapon.

 

And gun rights is probably one of my bigger hypocritical issues, so I usually just use it as a tradeoff. Let me have my drug rights and you can have your gun rights.

 

Where is that found in the constitution?

[iamshack]

Where is that found in the constitution?

I don't think they even contemplated that would ever be taken away...so why guarantee it?

[Texsox]

Though only one is a constitutional guarantee. It is interesting to see the contrasts between this debate and the one when any requirements are placed on voting.

 

It'a an interesting point. Are you suggesting that a constitutional guaranteed right have lesser or greater requirements? I could see it being easier to argue they should have lesser, but I don't believe that is desirable.

[Soxbadger]

Where is that found in the constitution?

 

Article 9 and 10

 

9. Rule of construction of Constitution

 

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

 

10. Rights of the States under Constitution

 

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.

 

So the Constitution never delegates the right for the govt to control what people eat or drink, thus it is a right that was reserved to the people.

 

Also under 9, you can not argue that merely because it was left out, that it means the US govt has the power to restrict it.

 

Its the same way you have to dissect the 2nd Amendment:

 

Right to keep and bear arms

 

2. 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.

 

You have to remove the first part of the clause because todays understanding has nothing to do with militias.

[Texsox]

Of course this whole conversation was started by a post pointing out that honest people having more guns present leads to more people getting killed and no change in the crime rate.

 

I'd say an equally easy bottom line is that more guns = more dead people and no change in crime. Because that's what the statistics say.

 

Again, without understanding the methods used to arrive at those numbers all we know is increased gun ownership has stopped increases in crimes and there are more dead criminals. We may have also created criminals in the process.

[Balta1701]

Again, without understanding the methods used to arrive at those numbers all we know is increased gun ownership has stopped increases in crimes and there are more dead criminals. We may have also created criminals in the process.

So, your excuse, literally, is that it was too much trouble for you to read the study before commenting on it? I guess I should have suspected since you added that bit about not knowing how they classified whether robberies happened. Considering they outline these in that study I linked, and you haven't bothered because you know intrinsically that it must be wrong, I'll drop it here.

[Texsox]

So, your excuse, literally, is that it was too much trouble for you to read the study before commenting on it? I guess I should have suspected since you added that bit about not knowing how they classified whether robberies happened. Considering they outline these in that study I linked, and you haven't bothered because you know intrinsically that it must be wrong, I'll drop it here.

 

They did not say if someone was killed while committing a crime if that crime was added or not. Other posters went on about other crime stats. If I missed it, I wlould love for you to show it to me.

[Texsox]

I understand you want less guns. Since the criminals will not give up theirs, you want the law abiding people to give up theirs. I disagree.

[Balta1701]

They did not say if someone was killed while committing a crime if that crime was added or not. Other posters went on about other crime stats. If I missed it, I wlould love for you to show it to me.

Their data shows a small increase in justifiable homicides associated with the laws and then a large increase in homicides that the states in question judged to be non-justified. Even if they assume that the states are doing things like charging with manslaughter in the case of a possibly justified homicide,t hey still show a significant increase in outright murder.

 

If your hypothesis is true and this is solely a consequence of people having guns when crimes are committed against them, then that means stand your ground laws would make the victim more likely to die in the event of a robbery/assault.

 

They tested 24 different types of crimes to see if any showed a significant decrease in occurrence associated with the passage of expanded castle doctrine laws. There was effectively none (1 showed a 10% decrease, but out of a population of 24 categories that is within error).

[Balta1701]

I understand you want less guns. Since the criminals will not give up theirs, you want the law abiding people to give up theirs. I disagree.

And you're so comfortable with the idea of hundreds of extra dead bodies associated directly with the Castle Doctrine that you simply sit there and deny that it's possible.

[Texsox]

You want less guns. The only people who will give them up are honest people who do not want to break the law. That is a simple fact. That will make it safer for criminals, I whole heartily agree.

 

And now that criminals have no worries about someone carrying a gun, that will make everyone safer? All we have to do is hand over our possessions to criminals and no one gets hurt. And that is really the world you want to live in? Where people have to bow down, run and hide, from some kid who wants to rob them?

[Texsox]

And you're so comfortable with the idea of hundreds of extra dead bodies associated directly with the Castle Doctrine that you simply sit there and deny that it's possible.

 

Damn right it is possible, and desirable. You enter my house to rip me off or harm my family, then damn straight I want to see a body pile up. There was a case yesterday where a dad caught some perv molesting his 4 year old daughter and killed the guy. Yeah, add that body to the count and I'm fine. But you want the world to be safe for those guys and more dangerous for honest people.

[Texsox]

And thank you Balta, guns and balanced budgets are the only time I can be a good Republican in a discussion.

[Balta1701]

Damn right it is possible, and desirable. You enter my house to rip me off or harm my family, then damn straight I want to see a body pile up. There was a case yesterday where a dad caught some perv molesting his 4 year old daughter and killed the guy. Yeah, add that body to the count and I'm fine. But you want the world to be safe for those guys and more dangerous for honest people.

And you want to walk down the streets carrying skittles, damn right the bodies need to pile up.

[Balta1701]

Damn right it is possible, and desirable. You enter my house to rip me off or harm my family, then damn straight I want to see a body pile up. There was a case yesterday where a dad caught some perv molesting his 4 year old daughter and killed the guy. Yeah, add that body to the count and I'm fine. But you want the world to be safe for those guys and more dangerous for honest people.

The other thing that really drives me nuts about this is that it is again, not what this data says. This data says quite clearly that the more rights people have to use guns, the more dead bodies there are...and that those dead bodies aren't made up for by a decrease in any other crime.

 

So I want to walk down the street with my family, you want to have a gun, you're putting my family in harm's way by doing so, and I have zero recourse.

[Jenksismyhero]

The other thing that really drives me nuts about this is that it is again, not what this data says. This data says quite clearly that the more rights people have to use guns, the more dead bodies there are...and that those dead bodies aren't made up for by a decrease in any other crime.

 

So I want to walk down the street with my family, you want to have a gun, you're putting my family in harm's way by doing so, and I have zero recourse.

 

Carry a gun and it evens out.

[Jenksismyhero]

Damn right it is possible, and desirable. You enter my house to rip me off or harm my family, then damn straight I want to see a body pile up. There was a case yesterday where a dad caught some perv molesting his 4 year old daughter and killed the guy. Yeah, add that body to the count and I'm fine. But you want the world to be safe for those guys and more dangerous for honest people.

 

In Balta's world he should have called the cops and run away. That would have been the safe thing to do.

[Soxbadger]

Oh come on, its not about "safe" in that circumstance, its about whether as a society we allow regular people to take justice into their own hands.

 

As much as I would love to say that people should be allowed to be vigilantes, it just isnt in society's best interest to have people acting like Judge Dredd.

[Jenksismyhero]

I would like it on the books that anyone who steps into their home and witnesses their 4 year old being molested by someone has the full, federal and state constitutionally protected right to take a shotgun and blow the guys head off. Hell, make it a mandate that that person is also guaranteed a town parade in his/her honor. That is not vigilante justice. If the Guardian Angels here in town wanted to arm themselves and start shooting any would-be criminal at CTA stations then you might have a point.

 

It just sickens me so much that you guys are concerned with the well being of criminals. Yes, every once and a while there's an unfortunate situation, and hopefully the justice system will work out IF Martin was actually innocent. But that sort of unfortunate result happens all the time and we're ok with it. Police shoot innocent people daily. Why is that ok but private citizens making the same mistake, probably less frequently, such a huge deal?

Edited June 13, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I would like it on the books that anyone who steps into their home and witnesses their 4 year old being molested by someone has the full, federal and state constitutionally protected right to take a shotgun and blow the guys head off. Hell, make it a mandate that that person is also guaranteed a town parade in his/her honor. That is not vigilante justice. If the Guardian Angels here in town wanted to arm themselves and start shooting any would-be criminal at CTA stations then you might have a point.

 

It just sickens me so much that you guys are concerned with the well being of criminals. Yes, every once and a while there's an unfortunate situation, and hopefully the justice system will work out IF Martin was actually innocent. But that sort of unfortunate result happens all the time and we're ok with it. Police shoot innocent people daily. Why is that ok but private citizens making the same mistake, probably less frequently, such a huge deal?

I'm pretty sure that you have the right to shoot an intruder in your home and I haven't here challenged that right, and I don't really plan to.

 

However...yeah, that is "vigilante justice" by it's very definition.

 

And furthermore, not it's not "once in a while". The data I posted yesterday says it's more like "twice a day, on average".

[Soxbadger]

I would like it on the books that anyone who steps into their home and witnesses their 4 year old being molested by someone has the full, federal and state constitutionally protected right to take a shotgun and blow the guys head off. Hell, make it a mandate that that person is also guaranteed a town parade in his/her honor. That is not vigilante justice. If the Guardian Angels here in town wanted to arm themselves and start shooting any would-be criminal at CTA stations then you might have a point.

 

It just sickens me so much that you guys are concerned with the well being of criminals. Yes, every once and a while there's an unfortunate situation, and hopefully the justice system will work out IF Martin was actually innocent. But that sort of unfortunate result happens all the time and we're ok with it. Police shoot innocent people daily. Why is that ok but private citizens making the same mistake, probably less frequently, such a huge deal?

 

Once again, fundamental difference in belief.

 

You believe that people should have the right to kill someone as judge, jury and executioner. I believe that all Americans, regardless of how heinous they are deserve a trial and are innocent until proven guilty.

 

That is important to me, innocent until proven guilty.

 

Why am I concerned with the well being of criminals?

 

Its simple, if you protect the worst of society, if you give the worst rights, then you ensure everyone gets rights.

 

Police shooting innocent people isnt okay, its not okay at all. But they are acting within their legal rights and humans are imperfect, so mistakes will happen.

 

The entire point is that even the police, with all of their training, make mistakes, so its likely that non-trained civilians will also make mistakes.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm pretty sure that you have the right to shoot an intruder in your home and I haven't here challenged that right, and I don't really plan to.

 

However...yeah, that is "vigilante justice" by it's very definition.

 

And furthermore, not it's not "once in a while". The data I posted yesterday says it's more like "twice a day, on average".

 

No, that's the total number of people dead, including the felony criminal. That's not 2 innocent people a day die because someone decides they need to shoot their gun without provocation.

 

You're concerned with criminals being shot. I'm not. So that skews the data right away.

[Balta1701]

No, that's the total number of people dead, including the felony criminal. That's not 2 innocent people a day die because someone decides they need to shoot their gun without provocation.

 

You're concerned with criminals being shot. I'm not. So that skews the data right away.

Well, it basically is 2 additional cases where the states with SYG laws wind up filing the case as a murder, not as a justifiable homicide or as a lesser offense (only about 10% of the increase was taken up by justifiable homicides). So yeah, according to those states, yes. Lots more murders. But that doesn't concern people because guns make them "Feel" safer.

[Soxbadger]

Im concerned with people being shot, a criminal presupposes that they are actually guilty.

 

As I said, innocent until proven guilty. You either believe in it fundamentally or you do not.

[Jenksismyhero]

Once again, fundamental difference in belief.

 

You believe that people should have the right to kill someone as judge, jury and executioner. I believe that all Americans, regardless of how heinous they are deserve a trial and are innocent until proven guilty.

 

That is important to me, innocent until proven guilty.

 

Why am I concerned with the well being of criminals?

 

Its simple, if you protect the worst of society, if you give the worst rights, then you ensure everyone gets rights.

 

Police shooting innocent people isnt okay, its not okay at all. But they are acting within their legal rights and humans are imperfect, so mistakes will happen.

 

The entire point is that even the police, with all of their training, make mistakes, so its likely that non-trained civilians will also make mistakes.

 

There's no question of guilt there. None. Why waste the time/money and resources on that?

 

As to the bolded, that's the point. They ARE acting within their legal right and they still make mistakes. So what's the big deal? Make them take mandatory training classes. I'm fine with that. You say that like it would make a difference in your opinion. I could mandate 100 hours of gun safety classes a year and you still wouldn't like the idea of people being able to use a gun to protect themselves. They could be MORE safety conscious than police (who btw, understand they're on the benefit side of the law there) and you still wouldn't be ok with it.

 

I fail to see why the designation of being a cop or a private citizen has any relevance to the main moral issue here. Being a cop is a man made construct: Here, you're a cop. You're still human, you're still prone to mistakes, you're still just as likely to make a bad decision as the most highly trained private citizen. Yet for some reason the badge means it's an acceptable loss, but being a private citizen it's not. Makes no sense to me.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Jenksismybitch