I've never understood why the right has such a problem with the ninth. Then again, why does the left hate the second and all federal office holders ignore the tenth?
While I have an interest in guns and like having gun rights, I do take issue with the second amendment. My problem is just that it really seems like it was meant that you can defend yourself if there is a war or something, not "Have all the guns you want." I don't really have a problem with people (at least responsible people) from having guns, I just don't think this is really what should be supporting it.
The concept of a militia is outdated and no longer socially relevant. In fact, it's dangerous, and using it for justification for the arms proliferation we have in this nation costs many more lives and property losses than it protects. Gun rights movements also have a high Venn correlation with anti-intellectualism, social regressionism, and religious fervor.
Trayvon Martin is dead because of the second amendment. How many foreign nationals have been repelled by well-organized citizen militias in the past few years?
There were 8,775 murders with firearms in the US in 2010. There were zero successful militia deployments.
Speaking as an Englishman I should warn you that we have been waiting for you to drop your guard. Why only last week were Omnutia and I at musket practice!
The problem I have is that ideology. I like guns, and I plan to buy some for plinking and more serious target shooting. Self defense isn't really that much of a factor, and the main reason I would like a concealed carry permit is for convenience. You don't need to buy a purchase permit if you have a CCW and I don't have to bother with how I'm carrying it in a car if I'm going to a range or something. My problem is with these redneck vigilantes, and the regular joes that insist on having a gun to protect themselves and yet know nothing about them. We have police on patrol for a reason. Now the idea that if we had a few extra responsible citizens with guns around if anything happened is an interesting is alright thought, but these gun-nut rednecks who go out looking for trouble or that assume everyone is out to get them are a danger to us and make responsible gun owners look bad.
I wonder if Jason feels the same way about irresponsible 'journalists' as gun owners feel about irresponsible gun owners. Should freedom of the press be curtailed as a response? Do we really need a privately owned media when we have NPR?
Personally, I think before anyone should buy a gun of any sort, they should have some sort of instant background check (we have the technology to do so) unless they have some valid permit saying "they're okay to have a gun," like a concealed carry permit. Ideally, they should also be required to undergo some sort of gun safety course or have proof of passing such a course, a la the NRA's own safety course, which I hear is quite excellent.
Personally, I think before anyone should buy a gun of any sort, they should have some sort of instant background check (we have the technology to do so) unless they have some valid permit saying "they're okay to have a gun," like a concealed carry permit. Ideally, they should also be required to undergo some sort of gun safety course or have proof of passing such a course, a la the NRA's own safety course, which I hear is quite excellent.
In a lot of states that's how it is. My dad bought a pistol about a month back and he had to go down to the sheriff's office to take a basic safety test, and I think they did a background check as well.
I wonder if Jason feels the same way about irresponsible 'journalists' as gun owners feel about irresponsible gun owners. Should freedom of the press be curtailed as a response? Do we really need a privately owned media when we have NPR?
My fucking god you are ignorant. Talk about a false comparison. Pull your head out of your ass.
Trayvon Martin is dead because of the second amendment. How many foreign nationals have been repelled by well-organized citizen militias in the past few years?
Normally, I'm right on board with you, but this is as foolish as blaming the gun itself, the 911 operator for not telling him more firmly not to persue, or blaming the skittles and iced tea that the young man had.
The second amendment didn't kill Trayvon Martin, a racist, paranoid asshole did. It doesn't matter if he did the deed with a gun, sword, knife, or a goddamn tack hammer, the gun has no agency of it's own, like any other object or law, and thus neither can be blamed for the actions of said racist paranoid asshole.
I'm just saying that's a very shaky path to take - if you're going to blame the second amendment for putting the gun in his hand, why not blame the circumstances that made him suspicious of young black males just walking down the street? Or his parents? Or the fact he was ill-equipped to handle the situation without resorting to violence? Or video games? Or Obama? Or movies, and Rap music?
The blame here is not on the second amendment, the gun, or anything else, it's on Zimmerman, for shooting an unarmed young man for pretty much no reason.
There were 8,775 murders with firearms in the US in 2010. There were zero successful militia deployments.
8,775 murders involving firearms in the US, out of over 300 million citizens and 350 million privately owned firearms, to put it in perspective. You have more firearms than cars or people, both of which kill far more per year.
Also, note some of the other data besides just the number that seems to support your point - State with the highest gun crime? California, also a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Also on the rise? New York and New Jersey. States with fewer gun control laws, for some reason, the rates seem to be dropping, rather than rising. I don't know why, and don't care to speculate.
Your statistics are not quite as clear cut of a case as you make out.
I wouldn't blame it on the Second Amendment, but I have heard a lot of talk about the "Stand Your Ground" law. Can anyone summarize that and help explain why it might be relevant?
I wouldn't blame it on the Second Amendment, but I have heard a lot of talk about the "Stand Your Ground" law. Can anyone summarize that and help explain why it might be relevant?
IIRC it basically grants immunity (as in they can't even be detained) to someone who chooses leathal force over retreat in the face of less than leathal danger if they are somewhere they are "allowed to be".
However, even the guy who dreamt up this horror show of a law, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, eventually said it should not apply to Zimmerman.
I have heard it suggested that part of reason Zimmerman hasn't been arrested (beyond his dad being a retired judge and that police in general don't like being told how to enforce the law by the national press after they've already decided they don't care about a dead black kid) is that the people who support "Stand Your Ground" laws don't want this to be their first test in court; win or loose it makes them look bad.
While I think that the right to arm oneself can't and shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted, I think the 2nd Amendment did more harm than good. Not because that right shouldn't be, but because its enumeration in the Bill of Rights makes it seem too important, too valuable, and easily misleads people into overvaluing it and applying too much significance and importance to it.
I believe that the presence of a gun culture in the U.S. is a detriment to the country, and it is largely fueled by the presence of the 2nd Amendment. The thought in the U.S. is that everybody should be allowed to have a gun unless they demonstrate that they can't be trusted with it. It would be far better if nobody could have a gun unless they demonstrate that they can be trusted with them first.
The Stand Your Ground law does not justify force escalation, at least as far as I can tell. So Zimmerman would have no standing to use lethal force unless Martin was threatening him with lethal force (which he likely was not).
Under normal law, you have a "duty to retreat" when threatened with force, before you can be justified in responding with force. This means that you are not actually justified in using force for self-defense unless you can show that retreat was not possible or dangerous. In common law almost everywhere, the duty to retreat does not apply to your home or your workplace; the Stand Your Ground law extends this exemption to everywhere you have a "right to be", that is, anywhere you are not trespassing.
While I think that the right to arm oneself can't and shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted, I think the 2nd Amendment did more harm than good. Not because that right shouldn't be, but because its enumeration in the Bill of Rights makes it seem too important, too valuable, and easily misleads people into overvaluing it and applying too much significance and importance to it.
You don't understand just how important the gun is to American history. Our country was founded as a frontier nation, it was carved out by the gun, and created through private ownership of guns. It's not it's enumeration in the Bill of Rights that makes it important, it's part of the American identity.
While I think that the right to arm oneself can't and shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted, I think the 2nd Amendment did more harm than good. Not because that right shouldn't be, but because its enumeration in the Bill of Rights makes it seem too important, too valuable, and easily misleads people into overvaluing it and applying too much significance and importance to it.
You don't understand just how important the gun is to American history. Our country was founded as a frontier nation, it was carved out by the gun, and created through private ownership of guns. It's not it's enumeration in the Bill of Rights that makes it important, it's part of the American identity.
It's baffling to non-Americans how zealous gun ownership is. It's quite difficult to think how such a thing could be so ingrained in a culture. From an outsider perspective, it really seems like you guys go nuts about something of little importance. I don't really understand it myself either, but it's just not feasible to pretend it doesn't exist. Guns will be a part of America for a long time, and trying to prohibit them will just cause trouble.
You don't understand just how important the gun is to American history. Our country was founded as a frontier nation, it was carved out by the gun, and created through private ownership of guns. It's not it's enumeration in the Bill of Rights that makes it important, it's part of the American identity.
I think there's a huge misconception over how gun ownership is in america. Most people don't own a gun and don't intend to. Many of those that do really don't know much about them and just own one to make themselves feel safer. Its just the gun nuts and enthusiasts that are vocal about it. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a gun culture, but its what that culture is that's the problem. We've fetishized guns, especially handguns, to be some cool dangerous thing and because of that when people actually come in contact with them it doesn't always end well. If you look at the culture of many enthusiasts it's not nearly as much like that. Its boring as shit to people who aren't into it, just like it is for people who don't know about computers or cars hearing about enthusiasts talk about those. Maybe we need more gun nerd culture so that the masses will get bored with them and move onto something else.
I think there's a huge misconception over how gun ownership is in america. Most people don't own a gun and don't intend to. Many of those that do really don't know much about them and just own one to make themselves feel safer. Its just the gun nuts and enthusiasts that are vocal about it. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a gun culture, but its what that culture is that's the problem. We've fetishized guns, especially handguns, to be some cool dangerous thing and because of that when people actually come in contact with them it doesn't always end well. If you look at the culture of many enthusiasts it's not nearly as much like that. Its boring as shit to people who aren't into it, just like it is for people who don't know about computers or cars hearing about enthusiasts talk about those. Maybe we need more gun nerd culture so that the masses will get bored with them and move onto something else.
I like your broad use of generalizations and stereotypes, especially the part where you say gun owners don't really know much about firearms. It lets me know just how out of touch with reality you are.
I wasn't talking about all gun owners, just one specific type who buy a gun to feel safe and then never bother to practice shooting or learn proper gun safety.
@Churba Firearms were the top accessories used to commit homicide. We don't condone homicide just because there are fewer murders each year than traffic deaths; that's an irrelevant line in the sand. You're not going to see the defense lawyer get up in front of the jury and say, "Hey, this is just one dead guy! Let's put this in perspective compared to car crashes! You should let my client go."
A gun gave Zimmerman (allegedly) the power leverage to kill a person. Assuming he were armed with the same racism and zeal but only a knife, I doubt very much the same outcome would have occurred. It did not give Zimmerman the motive or opportunity, but the second amendment sure did abet Zimmerman when it came to the third leg of the prosecutorial tripod: It provided him with the means to commit murder.
By the way, California has the highest population in the United States. If you really want to examine per capita deaths, Mississippi is by far the worst with 18.3 per 100,000. Then Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana rounding out the top five -- all conservative strongholds with loose gun laws. California doesn't even touch the top 20 per capita.
I'm not trying to argue that it's right, I'm merely stating why Americans feel the way they do.
Yes, but people largely only put value into things as they are expedient. Pretty much every country on this planet is built on conflict, conquest, warfare, and lethal force to a certain degree or another . Yet in the western world only the population of the U.S. exhibits such a fascination and obsession with weapons.
The 2nd Amendment plays a large part in that in my opinion. The 2nd Amendment is part of the highest and most universally revered parts of U.S. law. It not only states that owning a gun for the purpose of defense is expedient, but also necessary (which it states explicitly). It thus also states implicitly that there is constantly something to fear, and people need to be afraid of losing their rights at all times. The 2nd Amendment to a certain degrees instills paranoia into the U.S. citizenry.
Now the 2nd Amendment isn't completely horrible, but people also pick and choose what they really want to take away from it. People scream foul immediately when gun control is a topic, completely ignoring the fact that the amendment speaks about "A well regulated militia".
The way I see it, gun ownership should be handled like driving licenses. Yes, everybody can legally get and drive a car, after they have demonstrated that they are capable of handling a car and shown that they are aware of the responsibilities they have when they do and the danger they represent if they aren't keeping that responsibility in mind. People also have to demonstrate this for several different types of vehicles separately, and if they don't adhere to to the regulations the states make for it they will get fined or even imprisoned.
It seems to me that a large part of the citizenry of the U.S. think that gun-ownership should be less regulated than driving a car, which is absolutely ridiculous considering that a car is a useful tool with which harmful accidents are a side effect, while the explicit purpose of a gun is to harm and kill.
So, therefore, Home Depot is responsible for every person that gets bludgeoned to death with a hammer? It didn't provide him with the means to commit murder, it was the means through which he committed murder. Don't give me that "Gave him the power leverage" business, because that can be applied to literally anything used as a weapon short of your bare hands.
You know what's also bullshit? Saying that because crimes are committed with one object over another, that object is therefore at fault. More murders are committed involving alcohol than firearms, but you don't argue that alcohol should be banned. Or knives, which are also involved in a large number of crimes committed - but I don't see you arguing that knives should be banned, why not? Every other statistic is irrelevant, because people are murdered by people using knives or under the influence of alcohol, and you can't imagine a Defense Lawyer saying "Hey, sure, my client stabbed a guy to death. But more people are killed by guns, so you should let him go!"
Also, You've switched from Murder to Homicide, which covers a far broader range, since for example, a negligent discharge that kills someone is homicide, without being murder. And if you want to go that broadly, then no, firearms do not count as the object most involved in homicide - that's still vehicles. You probably meant "Murder", in which case you'd be correct, but saying they're the most used object in homicides is simply not the case, and not what the statistics you've provided(which deal with murder, not general homicide) show.
If Zimmerman had a knife, I've no doubt the outcome would be similar - messier, but similar. A .45 to the chest or a few stab wounds both make you equally dead, and it's much easier to kill someone with a knife than TV or the movies would have you believe. Hell, it's easier to kill someone in a straight up fistfight than most movies would have you believe. Christ, you can pretty easily kill someone with a slingshot or a 2x4. Guns are not magical killing sticks that enable people to kill when they wouldn't have been able to otherwise.
Fair enough about California. Though you've got your numbers a bit wrong - the data you cited earlier lists DC as the top of the list, with 16 per hundred thousand, followed by Missouri, Maryland, and South Carolina. Mississippi actually comes in at eighth, with four per hundred thousand. If you're citing from a different source, share it, don't just try to make us look foolish by correcting us on numbers you provided.
However, that doesn't explain away the fact that Countries like South Africa have extraordinarily strong gun control laws, and yet, everyone who wants a gun, has one. Shit, I know three blokes personally who own assault rifles, and I don't mean the California "It's black and scary looking" definition, I mean fully automatic, intermediate cartridge rifles.
Oh, and I found something interesting about the FBI statistics provided by the guardian. According to the FBI, "The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body." So, if you're charged with murder, it's in the statistics, irrelevant of if the weight of evidence or any actual court proceedings that prove you innocent. Because Guilty until proven innocent fuck it, you're just guilty is the way it works in the US, right?
EDIT: As a side note, I'd like to see the statistics of Justifiable homicides and crimes prevented by firearms, but they're not nearly as readily available. Ah well.
As if we didn't have enough of a reason to hate good ol' Rush: “From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns. It’s just that simple. Liberals should have their speech controlled and not be allowed to buy guns. I mean if we want to get serious about this, if we want to face this head on, we’re gonna have to openly admit, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns, nor should they be allowed to use computer keyboards or typewriters, word processors or e-mails, and they should have their speech controlled. If we did those three or four things, I can’t tell you what a sane, calm, civil, fun-loving society we would have. Take guns out of the possession, out of the hands of liberals, take their typewriters and their keyboards away from ‘em, don’t let ‘em anywhere near a gun, and control their speech. You would wipe out 90% of the crime, 85 to 95% of the hate, and a hundred percent of the lies from society.”
Comments
Trayvon Martin is dead because of the second amendment. How many foreign nationals have been repelled by well-organized citizen militias in the past few years?
There were 8,775 murders with firearms in the US in 2010. There were zero successful militia deployments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
Also, the National Guard is considered a militia.
The second amendment didn't kill Trayvon Martin, a racist, paranoid asshole did. It doesn't matter if he did the deed with a gun, sword, knife, or a goddamn tack hammer, the gun has no agency of it's own, like any other object or law, and thus neither can be blamed for the actions of said racist paranoid asshole.
I'm just saying that's a very shaky path to take - if you're going to blame the second amendment for putting the gun in his hand, why not blame the circumstances that made him suspicious of young black males just walking down the street? Or his parents? Or the fact he was ill-equipped to handle the situation without resorting to violence? Or video games? Or Obama? Or movies, and Rap music?
The blame here is not on the second amendment, the gun, or anything else, it's on Zimmerman, for shooting an unarmed young man for pretty much no reason. 8,775 murders involving firearms in the US, out of over 300 million citizens and 350 million privately owned firearms, to put it in perspective. You have more firearms than cars or people, both of which kill far more per year.
Also, note some of the other data besides just the number that seems to support your point - State with the highest gun crime? California, also a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Also on the rise? New York and New Jersey. States with fewer gun control laws, for some reason, the rates seem to be dropping, rather than rising. I don't know why, and don't care to speculate.
Your statistics are not quite as clear cut of a case as you make out.
However, even the guy who dreamt up this horror show of a law, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, eventually said it should not apply to Zimmerman.
I have heard it suggested that part of reason Zimmerman hasn't been arrested (beyond his dad being a retired judge and that police in general don't like being told how to enforce the law by the national press after they've already decided they don't care about a dead black kid) is that the people who support "Stand Your Ground" laws don't want this to be their first test in court; win or loose it makes them look bad.
I believe that the presence of a gun culture in the U.S. is a detriment to the country, and it is largely fueled by the presence of the 2nd Amendment. The thought in the U.S. is that everybody should be allowed to have a gun unless they demonstrate that they can't be trusted with it. It would be far better if nobody could have a gun unless they demonstrate that they can be trusted with them first.
Under normal law, you have a "duty to retreat" when threatened with force, before you can be justified in responding with force. This means that you are not actually justified in using force for self-defense unless you can show that retreat was not possible or dangerous. In common law almost everywhere, the duty to retreat does not apply to your home or your workplace; the Stand Your Ground law extends this exemption to everywhere you have a "right to be", that is, anywhere you are not trespassing.
Firearms were the top accessories used to commit homicide. We don't condone homicide just because there are fewer murders each year than traffic deaths; that's an irrelevant line in the sand. You're not going to see the defense lawyer get up in front of the jury and say, "Hey, this is just one dead guy! Let's put this in perspective compared to car crashes! You should let my client go."
A gun gave Zimmerman (allegedly) the power leverage to kill a person. Assuming he were armed with the same racism and zeal but only a knife, I doubt very much the same outcome would have occurred. It did not give Zimmerman the motive or opportunity, but the second amendment sure did abet Zimmerman when it came to the third leg of the prosecutorial tripod: It provided him with the means to commit murder.
By the way, California has the highest population in the United States. If you really want to examine per capita deaths, Mississippi is by far the worst with 18.3 per 100,000. Then Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, and Louisiana rounding out the top five -- all conservative strongholds with loose gun laws. California doesn't even touch the top 20 per capita.
The 2nd Amendment plays a large part in that in my opinion. The 2nd Amendment is part of the highest and most universally revered parts of U.S. law. It not only states that owning a gun for the purpose of defense is expedient, but also necessary (which it states explicitly). It thus also states implicitly that there is constantly something to fear, and people need to be afraid of losing their rights at all times. The 2nd Amendment to a certain degrees instills paranoia into the U.S. citizenry.
Now the 2nd Amendment isn't completely horrible, but people also pick and choose what they really want to take away from it. People scream foul immediately when gun control is a topic, completely ignoring the fact that the amendment speaks about "A well regulated militia".
The way I see it, gun ownership should be handled like driving licenses. Yes, everybody can legally get and drive a car, after they have demonstrated that they are capable of handling a car and shown that they are aware of the responsibilities they have when they do and the danger they represent if they aren't keeping that responsibility in mind. People also have to demonstrate this for several different types of vehicles separately, and if they don't adhere to to the regulations the states make for it they will get fined or even imprisoned.
It seems to me that a large part of the citizenry of the U.S. think that gun-ownership should be less regulated than driving a car, which is absolutely ridiculous considering that a car is a useful tool with which harmful accidents are a side effect, while the explicit purpose of a gun is to harm and kill.
You know what's also bullshit? Saying that because crimes are committed with one object over another, that object is therefore at fault. More murders are committed involving alcohol than firearms, but you don't argue that alcohol should be banned. Or knives, which are also involved in a large number of crimes committed - but I don't see you arguing that knives should be banned, why not? Every other statistic is irrelevant, because people are murdered by people using knives or under the influence of alcohol, and you can't imagine a Defense Lawyer saying "Hey, sure, my client stabbed a guy to death. But more people are killed by guns, so you should let him go!"
Also, You've switched from Murder to Homicide, which covers a far broader range, since for example, a negligent discharge that kills someone is homicide, without being murder. And if you want to go that broadly, then no, firearms do not count as the object most involved in homicide - that's still vehicles. You probably meant "Murder", in which case you'd be correct, but saying they're the most used object in homicides is simply not the case, and not what the statistics you've provided(which deal with murder, not general homicide) show.
If Zimmerman had a knife, I've no doubt the outcome would be similar - messier, but similar. A .45 to the chest or a few stab wounds both make you equally dead, and it's much easier to kill someone with a knife than TV or the movies would have you believe. Hell, it's easier to kill someone in a straight up fistfight than most movies would have you believe. Christ, you can pretty easily kill someone with a slingshot or a 2x4. Guns are not magical killing sticks that enable people to kill when they wouldn't have been able to otherwise.
Fair enough about California. Though you've got your numbers a bit wrong - the data you cited earlier lists DC as the top of the list, with 16 per hundred thousand, followed by Missouri, Maryland, and South Carolina. Mississippi actually comes in at eighth, with four per hundred thousand. If you're citing from a different source, share it, don't just try to make us look foolish by correcting us on numbers you provided.
However, that doesn't explain away the fact that Countries like South Africa have extraordinarily strong gun control laws, and yet, everyone who wants a gun, has one. Shit, I know three blokes personally who own assault rifles, and I don't mean the California "It's black and scary looking" definition, I mean fully automatic, intermediate cartridge rifles.
Oh, and I found something interesting about the FBI statistics provided by the guardian. According to the FBI, "The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body."
So, if you're charged with murder, it's in the statistics, irrelevant of if the weight of evidence or any actual court proceedings that prove you innocent. Because Guilty until proven innocent fuck it, you're just guilty is the way it works in the US, right?
EDIT: As a side note, I'd like to see the statistics of Justifiable homicides and crimes prevented by firearms, but they're not nearly as readily available. Ah well.