- BIG NEWS:
- Tibet
- |
- Crime
- |
- Barack Obama
- |
- Afghanistan
- |
|
||
The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right
In June, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, D.C. v. Heller. For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right to organize militias, like the National Guard. In a long-awaited victory for the gun rights movement, the Court reversed course and held that the Second Amendment protected an individual's right to own guns for personal self-defense.
So far, the victory hasn't turned out exactly as the gun rights folks had hoped.
As many legal scholars predicted, the Supeme Court's decision led to a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges to gun control. Every person charged with a gun crime saw the Supreme Court's decision as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.
To date, the lower federal courts have ruled in over 60 different cases on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws. There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.
Since Heller, its Gun Control 60, Individual Right 0.
Before the Supreme Court's decision, none of the numerous challenges to gun control laws raised in recent months would have had any hope of winning. Now, with a revolutionary ruling recognizing a renewed individual right to keep and bear arms, they still have no hope of winning.
About the only real change from Heller is that gun owners have to pay higher legal fees to find out they lose.
The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court's decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."
What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories.
"I would have preferred that that not have been there," says Robert Levy about this laundry list of Second Amendment exceptions. Levy, executive director of the CATO Institute, which funded the Heller litigation, believes that paragraph in Scalia's opinion "created more confusion than light."
But to a die-hard gun rights advocate, the problem is exactly the opposite: the paragraph shed too much light. It revealed that the Supreme Court believes that almost all gun control measures on the books today are perfectly lawful--a message that hasn't been lost on the lower courts.
Hardliners in the gun rights community cannot help but be disappointed with their long-awaited triumph.
Loading comments…
Most Popular on HuffingtonPost
IgkBydK6cwn9oZoW1mrb03Vdcm6uSoL0WUfoxxvdlJfGxlBhhjXA%2Bzf8%2B4VkQFIig8uRkBy3UlfLHt4HQEGC2CCDMJETsLfS
h3ctyo92vo01yZXBJf98%2B%2F2HFqgLmvL4uiJp15cGB1YyMB4XCHh92w%3D%3D
1 of 2
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Gun laws: Because you have all these rules and you think they'll save you.
The Founding Fathers fully believed in the indviduals rights to keep and bear arms for self defense.
Also, Patrick Henry and George Mason believed that all of the people were the Militia.
America's belief that the 2nd Amendment, individuals owning guns, was based on England's Declaration of Rights of 1689 which guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms, expounded on by William Blackstone.
If you look at the Pennsylvania State Constitution, it clearly outlines that the individual has the right to own firearms for self defense.
When Vermont was ratifying the constitution, they were the first state to add a declaration of rights, or a bill of rights, which included the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.
All of the founding fathers believed that this was a natural right, to defend ones self, with weapons.
Liberal Senator Hubert Humphrey believed that the 2nd Amendment was for the individuals to keep and bear arms.
Lastly, Thomas Jefferson, while an Ambassador to France in 1785, wrote to his 15 year old nephew, stating that the firearm should be the constant companion of every man.
I am a liberal, and love Obama, but the one thing that concerns me about the Obama Administration is the strict stance, belief of the 2nd Amendment, and what they will do to limit guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.
The numbers have proven time and time again, that when law abiding citizens have firearms, crime goes way down.
Hey Jade. The gun free paradise of Chicago has a homicide rate of over 500 this year. Let's see you torture those numbers. Don't forget to multiply their actual population by 10.
Make that 3.5.
There is more to guns and ammo than the Second Amendment arguments.
* The blockbuster movie “Titanic”grossed $376 million in 9 weeks. The hunting and shooting sports generate that much every 4 days.
*The entire motion picture industry gross revenue from theater admissions is about $5 billion,annually. The firearms and ammunition industry and related activities generate that much in two months.
*More than 25 million Americans participated in shotgun, handgun and rifle target shooting activities in a 1996 study. That’s more than three times as many people who played racquetball during the same period, more than twice as many as take part in water skiing,and is about the same number of people that played golf.
* Hunting and target shooting activity employ annually more people than Chrysler, Phillip Morris,United Parcel Service and Ford combined and nobody is asking for a bail-out.
* In 1937 during the Great Depression and at the urging of organized sportsmen, State wildlife agencies, and the firearms and ammunition industries, Congress extended the life of an existing 10 percent tax on ammunition and firearms used for sport hunting, and earmarked the proceeds to be distributed to the States for wildlife restoration. The result was called the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. The measure was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937. These taxes are currently 11 percent and raise in excess of $180 million dollars annually for wildlife management and habitat acquisition and improvement programs.
http://www.nodc.us/nvdemshistory.htm
Exactly, and as the anti-gun groups manage to reduce firearm ownership, that money will start disappearing and the habitats will suffer.
The response will be to either raise taxes on firearms and ammunition some more, hence reducing purchases more, in a domino effect, and/or to raise taxes and fees elsewhere.
The facts are otherwise.
Hunting has been declining for several decades; it is down 40% since 1987. Taget shooting has declined 11% over the same period.
Moreover, rifle and shotgun production (US) are down 23% and 21% respectively during the period 1983-2001. During that same period, handgun production (US) is down 64%. Pretending hunting and shooting sports employs more people than the US auto industry is just silly.
Nobody is asking for a bailout? What a ridiculous comment.. The gun industry does nothing but ask for bailouts. What other industry demands that its products not be regulated, not be subject to litigation, and demand that illegal activities not be tracked?
"Moreover, rifle and shotgun production (US) are down 23% and 21% respectively during the period 1983-2001. During that same period, handgun production (US) is down 64%."
Right. And 8 year old stats on production are relevant today how?
Of course this is coming from the same person that claimed Chicago had a population of 9.7 million in order to skew statistics.
BTW, most of NVJCC's "facts" come from a 2004 paper from Saami.Org--a front group for the NSSF. What is interesting about Saami is that none of its "facts" are documented or referenced.
What is even more interesting is that most of Saami's members are foreign-owned firearm manufacturers. So when they talk about the hunting and shooting industry employing more people than the US auto industry--they're certainly not talking about just the US hunting and shooting industry.
Saami also plays fast and loose with the facts; remember the line about the movie "Titanic" only making $300M in 9 weeks? What Saami neglects to mention is that 10 years after the release of the movie, "Titanic" had grossed about $1.3B in worldwide box office receipts. And that doesn't count home video receipts which certainly will far exceed that number.
And that's just one movie.
Saami also misstates the motion picture industry revenues. According to Dun&Bradstreet, the US motion picture industry has annual revenues of over $60B--not $5B--in 2004. OTOH, Businesswire puts the US hunting and shooting annual revenues at $2B--and falling
"What other industry demands that its products not be regulated, not be subject to litigation, and demand that illegal activities not be tracked?"
A grossly inaccurate representation of reality.
"Pretending hunting and shooting sports employs more people than the US auto industry is just silly."
Re-read what was written: "Hunting and target shooting activity employ annually more people than Chrysler, Phillip Morris,United Parcel Service and Ford combined"
Misstating what was said is not very nice.
" What other industry demands that its products not be regulated, not be subject to litigation, and demand that illegal activities not be tracked?"
Actually, guns are the most regulated consumer product in the US.
What other consumer product has to contain a certain number of US made parts before it can be sold? What other consumer product must you submit to a background check for? What other consumer product is banned from government buildings, university campuses, and shopping malls? What other consumer product is subjected to an extra 11% in federal taxes on top of sales tax? None.
Guns are also held to higher manufacturing standards than any other consumer product. That's why you rarely hear about a gun recall, but every month there is an automotive recall of some sort.
As for litigation, until I can sue car companies for car accidents, you can't sue gun companies for gun accidents.
I've asked the question of the gun control nuts about how many lives they believe private ownership of guns saves.
It seems that none of them even bothered to think about it, so please permit me to answer it for them, which hopefully will lead them to the light about what this debate is really all about::
"... surveys imply that private firearms may be used in self-defense up to two and a half million times each year, with 400,000 of these defenders believing that using the gun 'almost certainly' saved a life", Professor John Lott
(This is 6,849 acts of self defense and 1,096 lives per DAY)
http://christianparty.net/gunstudy.htm
Professor Lott didn't engage in a philosophical discussion of the Second Amendment. He merely took a statisticians look at the facts and drew conclusions that our Founding Fathers knew without such a study. We now have the benefit of their forethought, as well as the statistical proof that they were smarter than any of us today, as evidence by our very miserable performance in TIMSS.
John Lott?
The fraud and sockpuppet?
The 2.5M figure has been debunked--even the study's author has backed off that number.
"The 2.5M figure has been debunked--even the study's author has backed off that number."
Even if the number were half that, the annual number of defensive uses of firearms would still be statistically significant. Of course that concept doesn't fit your need.
You forgot to use "mouthbreather", "quisling", and some of your other signature epithets.
Kind of like the study that was debunked about people 24% more likely to have their own gun used against them.
Hello JadeGold
The FBI puts the number at 80,000. Deal with that one.
Lott isn't so bad, compared to a certain habitual liar we all know and love.
You're too late Jade. Accurate figures for Chicago's population and crime rate have already been posted.
And the number of 108,000 by the NCVS? You gonna to write that off as gun lobby propaganda too?
We need to put the Second Amendment in the proper context, as our Founding Fathers envisioned it. The primary beneficiaries of the right to own firearms are women, yet the primary victims of the right to own firearms are Blacks who constitute more than 90% of firearm deaths. You can't grasp why the Second Amendment worked so well for so long unless you grasp these important distinctions.
For the century or two that the Second Amendment WAS very effective and very respected in this nation, Blacks and women didn't own guns. Do you think the loss of respect for private ownership of guns, the rapid increase in crime rates, the inability of our courts to battle crime at the same time it gave us the highest incarceration rate in the world, bar none, might have been partly due to giving them these rights?
"For the century or two that the Second Amendment WAS very effective and very respected in this nation, Blacks and women didn't own guns."
Ummm, yes they did, in most jurisdictions. Certainly there were attempts in the Jim Crow South, New York City, etc. to deny non-WASPS the right to own a gun (and some of those laws are still on the books), but until 1950's neo-Victorianism, gun ownership by women was more common, and middle-class African-Americans own plenty of guns and have since the end of slavery.
FWIW, our crime rates have trended DOWN since the 1980's, not up. And about 80% of what violent crime we do have can probably be traced directly or indirectly to our singularly irrational approach to the drug issue. You would think that the lessons of alcohol Prohibition would have been better learned.
Just prohibit self defense in any shape or form.
Sounds like you've never been to New Jersey, where that is pretty much the case.
Wow! Now that's an interesting concept!
Under a system where self defense is prohibitted:
...a woman who struggles against a rapist would then be charged with assault (assuming the rapist is somehow caught....doubtful he would be). And she would incriminate herself by admitting to the police that she tried to get him to stop.
...a parent could not legally interfere with the kidknapping or rape of her child.
...there is added motivation for a violent assailant to murder his victim(s). Dead people can't identify him in court (again, assuming he is caught), and the victim can't defend herself anyway.
...violent crime would likely skyrocket. Who is gonna stop it? Police? They are good, but they only go to where they are called.
...even the most responsible and law-abiding citizen is faced with becoming a criminal, if they want to live.
No. Lets not go that route.
To all you anti weapons peoples of this great land. If the weapons of the private citizens of America are consficated by the government who then will protect us from that government? I wait for an answer. Who will protect you from the anarcy that will cover our land?
I hate to be a nit-pick, but what you're insinuating is the exact opposite of anarchy. Also, if the US people (via laws etc) didn't give the government so much power to begin with, this would be less of a problem. Nevertheless, I believe strongly that the Founding Fathers NEVER intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to Average Joe Who Thinks Guns Are Cool, but rather the right of forming armed militias. Then again, who knows?
Militias were formed by average joes. Averages joes who had arms.
The 2nd applies to everyone. The militia phrase does not give conditions for possessing arms. It gives a reason not to infringe the people's possession of arms.
"I believe strongly that the Founding Fathers NEVER intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to Average Joe Who Thinks Guns Are Cool, but rather the right of forming armed militias."
1st, it's got nothing to do with thinking guns are cool.
What many anti-gun people fail to realize, is that the right to private gun ownership already existed long before the constitution was written. The English brought it with them in 1607.
The militia clause, or preamble if you prefer, is cited as the reason for providing a constitutional guarantee that this previously existing right, cannot be taken away.
"Then again, who knows?"
The Founders know.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html
There are a ton of quotes regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms, easily found on the internet. Poke around a bit. And despite what the author of this blog says, the courts have almost always held that this is indeed an individual right. Other posters go into this in more detail further down the blog.
By that logic, without being a nit-pick, school busses would never have been allowed.
According to the NHTSA, each school bus is exactly 369 times more dangerous to children than each privately owned firearm.
Just think of all the children we'd save if we simply amended the Constitution to ban school busses. What a brilliant idea. We'd save so much gas that gas prices would go down, the "stock market" would recover, we'd all be rich again, and we could quit beating up on Iraqi civilians for their oil );
"who then will protect us from that government? "
Those of us he didn't obey the confiscation. It will be done begrudgingly though. If the people of this country didn't care enough to fight before it got that far, I don't think they're worth fighting for.
I wish two things: First, that all you folks who are so concerned about the Second Amendment (and rightly so) were as concerned about the rights detailed in the First Amendment, and second, that you all would learn to spell.
1. We are.
2. Learn the difference between a mispelling and a typo, if you care about that more than content.
We are concerned about the First Amendment as well.
That's why you see many pro-gun people also fighting against the ridiculous idea of the "Fairness Doctrine".
"...For over 70 years, the federal courts had read that amendment to protect only a state's right..."
First of all, government — at any level, shape, form or function has delegated powers: NOT rights. Your statement completely illustrates that established law and structure completely depends on the actual support of those elected and/or appointed to apply and enforce that law and structure. No support for the original intent, the law becomes arbitrary and essentially meaningless.
One poster mentions that the Iraqis' had weapons under Hussein and that those weapons did not help them at all. I disagree. Hussein had completely abandoned the structure of the Iraqi constitution in favor of the application of complete unrestrained power. The results were horrendous. Yet, the Kurds and others were still able to make Hussein's police and military walk with care in many parts of the country.
Looking at the larger picture of government and its' relation to the people, it has been proven time and time again that when government's application of power is for only the control of the people and it's own survival, the social structure begins to decay, with generally predictable results.
Lo, the meek shall inherit the earth!
What bothers me in that statement is the line of thought that you are so nervous about your government doing unruly things that you MUST use guns. There appears to be little to no trust in that the government, while perhaps not always effective or efficient, is at least honest.
"There appears to be little to no trust in that the government, while perhaps not always effective or efficient, is at least honest."
Which was the way the founding fathers felt about government.
The Founders viewed governent as necessary, but potentially dangerous if unrestrained. They had just fought (and won) a civil war over unrestrained British power in the colonies, and didn't want to repeat that. That's why they built so many checks and balances into the system.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. " --George Washington
An armed populace is the check and balance of last resort. The Federalist Papers, No. 46 (Madison) touches on that topic.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
The government is honest?
Why are we in Iraq, again? WMD? Where?
Why were we in Viet Nam?
Most of us are not really worried about being taken over by a tyrannical governent at the moment, but who knows what the world will be like in 20 or 50 or 100 years?
Most of us own guns for sporting purposes, and/or as a means of self defense.
Its not just about the government. I beg you to read this gentleman's blog, he lives in Argentina where they had a complete economic collapse. He points out the most valuable things to have are food and guns/ammo. By the way Argentina was the wealthiest nation in South America when this happened in 2001.
http://ferfal.blogspot.com/
I support a ten-amendment Bill of Rights; I also recognize the war on law-abiding firearms owners as an expression of the bourgeoisie's hatred and contempt for the working class -- a schism that has fragmented the U.S. Left since the Vietnam Era.
Thus a prediction:
When the Left -- bourgeoisie and working-class alike -- finally awakens to the extent the President and the Democrats in general have betrayed the hope for change, Obama will demonstrate once again his truly peerless grasp of Machiavellian governance.
Using the Second Amendment escape-clause cited above, the President will unleash Attorney General Eric Holder and the anti-gunowner faction in Congress to impose national restrictions similar to the laws of New York City: no handguns for civilians; rifles and shotguns only for "legitimate purpose" (and then only by police permission); and -- worst of all -- the criminalization of mental health care so that (as in NYC today) even one outpatient visit to a psychiatrist, psychologist or psychological counselor terminates your Second Amendment rights forever: no exceptions, no appeal.
Which will (again) fragment the U.S. Left, but it will placate its largest faction: the pacifist zealots who want to impose mandatory defenseless (and thus statutory victimhood) on all the rest of us. The resultant fragmentation will prohibit (as in years past) the emergence of a third party, and though many (former) firearms owners will desert to the Republicans (also as before), the pacifists will remain faithful to Obama and give him victory in 2012.
"the pacifist zealots who want to impose mandatory defenseless (and thus statutory victimhood) on all the rest of us."
Are you sure you're not talking about NJ? We've had statutory victimhood imposed on us for years. We aren't even allowed to own pepper spray here.
But hey! We got an A- from the Brady Campaign!
NJ also: exactly the same. I'm an expatriate Brooklyn-born Manhattanite who worked for several years in Northern Jersey. I desperately miss the City -- everywhere else in the U.S. is wretchedly nyekulturniy by comparison --but as a former Civil Rights activist, former investigative reporter, former Back-to-the-Land-Movement participant and a present-day social-issues activist, my life has been gravely threatened at least a half-dozen times, and I won't live anywhere that unreasonably restricts my right to keep and bear arms.
Oops -- that should have been "mandatory defenselessness." Sorry; my error.
"..........terminates your Second Amendment rights forever: no exceptions, no appeal."
You just described the objective of the Gonzales (Bush's buddy)/ Lautenberg Bill. It, coupled with Bush's warrantless wiretapping, constitutes the biggest threat to your freedoms and 2nd Amendment rights in modern times. Now tell me again about the evil intent of the "Left."
Perhaps I didn't make myself adequately clear. The problem is not the U.S. "Left" per se but rather the bourgeois values of its dominant faction, chiefly its eagerness to collaborate with anyone (even theocrats and fascists) who promises to advance its agenda of compulsory pacifism, of which forcible disarmament is a significant part. Hand in hand with its opposition to Second Amendment rights is its implacable hostility to the working class, a hostility demonstrated by reflexive anti-unionism and haughty indifference to anything it imagines a working-class issue: for example the obliteration (by outsourcing) of U.S. manufacturing jobs, from which this alleged “Left,” as stock holders, has hugely profited. Meanwhile its bourgeois psychological characteristics -- rigid conformity enforced by venomous anti-intellectuality -- blinds it to the glaring contradictions implicit in its values even as it prohibits the evolution of a radical analysis.
Note too how forcible disarmament is disempowerment of the working class: the gains made by organized labor, particularly in the late 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century, would not have been possible had the union rank-and-file lacked the means of self-defense against the thugs and goon-squads employed by the ruling class.
Apropos (Democrat) Lautenberg, I assume you are talking about the measure that in 2007 was known as S-1237, which I wrote about in some depth: precisely why I won’t believe for even a second the Democrats have abandoned their plans for forcibly disarming the nation.
"bourgeoisie's hatred and contempt for the working class" Really? Who specifically do you define as "burgeoise" and "working class"? How about a small business owner who's spouse works in City government, with four kids? Sounds pretty "working class" to me. Pacificist zealot? You throw out a lot of labels, with no specifics and it just isn't that simple. My family voted Democrat, my husband owns two guns but we believe in strict gun laws, we're against the war in Iraq and are counting the days until George Bush disappears; hopefully forever. And although I'm not Christian, I'm pretty sure Jesus a pacificist.
Moral of this story; be careful what you ask for, sometimes you get it........................
I'm with you, ma'am, in counting the days (and the hours and minutes too) until the Bush League gives way to Obama Nation. Indeed -- as I have said elsewhere on this site -- I voted for Obama, though after reading some of his more esoteric essays I became profoundly skeptical of him, so much so I describe my vote as the gesture of a shipwreck victim desperately clutching at anything that might be a life preserver.
But apart from the fact Obama is compellingly articulate -- and as I noted has already proven himself the most masterfully Machiavellian politician in U.S. history -- I'm sad to say I don't think there'll be much difference between life under Bush and beneath the deliberate ambiguity of "change we can believe in," though as a former Civil Rights Movement activist I applaud the election of an African-American president.
As to forcible disarmament, it is an obvious objective of the ruling class: when one analyzes the past 45 years of U.S. economic policy, it is all about ensuring capitalism's survival through the looming double-apocalypse of terminal climate change and the end of the petroleum age. Forcible disarmament -- essential to reduce the working class to abject serfdom -- is thus logically an equal part of each party's agenda, though surely less acknowledged by Republicans.
"I'm pretty sure Jesus a pacificist."
Is this the same Jesus who physically rousted the moneychangers from the temple? Is this the same Jesus who told his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords?
You sound like another paranoid gun owner, albeit an intelligent one.
Is it "paranoid" to fear nationwide expansion of the same forcible disarmament scheme I have already seen imposed on NYC and NJ? Or attempted by the Washington state legislature in 1994? (The Wash. state Democrats imposed permanent prohibition of firearms ownership by anyone who was or had been in any sort of psychological therapy -- in-patient or outpatient, including grief counseling self-improvement work -- for more than 14 days; the measure was item-vetoed by then-Gov. Mike Lowry, himself a Democrat, after mental health professionals vehemently protested its criminalization of condition and treatment. Significantly; the Second Amendment advocacy organizations refused to join the protest, fearing -- probably correctly -- they would be accused of supporting "guns for crazies." ) Note the same NY-NJ package of restrictions has also been imposed (albeit to varying degrees) on Massachusetts, Maryland, California, Michigan and Illinois. To fear the national imposition of NYC/NJ-type forcible disarmament is therefore no more “paranoid” than fearing rabid animals will spread rabies.
I take it that you have never been the victim of a violent crime, and that you don't know anyone who has. That's a good thing, and I wish you continued good luck.
However, violent crimes occur frequently. Insisting on maintaining our natural, and legal right to have the ability to protect ourselves and our families is not an indication that we are paranoid. It's an indication that we are cautious, and that we have taken on that responsibility. Neither the government, nor your local police are legally responsible for the protection of individuals (so sayeth the Supreme Court), so who is, if not we ourselves?
"...another paranoid gun owner..."
And you sound like someone paranoid that the millions upon millions of responsible gunowners who have hurt no one are somehow a threat to you.
(This continues my earlier post…)
Professor Winkler conflates three different populations under the rubric of "gun owner": Gun criminals, criminal defense lawyers, and law-abiding gun owners.
The remaining population consists of the millions of Americans who legally own firearms. They do not commit gun crimes and their accident rate is extremely low (about 500 accidental shootings a year for around 100 million guns. Swimming pools have an death rate about 101 times higher than do legally owned guns.) People with concealed carry permits tend to be hyper law abiding. For example, the state of Florida has issued more than 3 million concealed carry permits with a revocation rate of less than 0.01%. (The most common reason for revocation is the inadvertent carry of a weapon into an airport terminal.)
The outrage to be seen in some of the comments to this post comes from people such as myself, who are gun owners, but are also law-abiding homeowners, voters, blood donors, charity and political volunteers, etc.. We get very tired of hearing ourselves characterized as criminal monsters, psychopaths, and potential mass murderers by people who know nothing of us, and who know nothing about guns, shooting, criminology, or of real and overall beneficial social effects of firearm ownership in the United States.
Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide. Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.
Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime (source).It certainly didn't protect the Iraqi people against political tyranny.
http://www.guninformation.org/
These studies are flawed because they count "families" of drug dealers and gang bangers who don't legally own guns. You skew the study to go with your argument. It can't be done with law abiding citizens so they had to include illegal gun owners.
You bring up Saddam Hussein how about Hitler first thing he did was disarm the citizens, oh and Stalin he took the guns away from citizens too. How safe were these countries? I think 50 million people died between these two dictators.
Both 'studies' produced by the long discredited Kellerman. You're more likely to be shot if you're a renter according to his methodology.
BTW, it's not '2.7 times' if you understand anything about numbers. A 2.7 absolute ratio is statistically insignificant in the field.
Of course it doesn't explain why suicide rates are higher in non-firearm common countries.
But it's OK. I'm sure you're a true believer.
You should try to find an unbiased source to support your assertions (I know you can't), like government agencies. Citing anything from guninformation would be like my citing a study from Smith and Wesson, if they did studies. Or perhaps you don't want to be taken seriously
Forty years of gun control, yet crime in the US has increased 313% (per 100,000 inhabitants) over that time period.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
" Keeping a gun in the home makes it ................4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide."
I'd love to see their research methodology. For decades, Japan had the highest suicide rate in the world. For decades, guns have been outlawed in Japan. Don't try to turn a mental health issue into a gun control issue.
Getting your firearms/statistical information from the New England Journal of Medicine is akin to getting medical advice from the Christian Science Monitor.
That raises the chance of suicide to ~0.05232% if you have a gun in the house. Do you think it might be that, the person makes a gun available to commit suicide (this is then "a gun in the home")?
Have you ever noticed these studies never show what happens when guns are taken away from citizens? If you look at countries where this has happened, you will see a pattern of more crime and more violence. Some countries in Africa where guns have been removed by the gov't from citizens, witnessed same said citizens chopped with machettes and worse.
Look at the big picture.
Visit where guns are in most of the homes and notice how safe you feel.
"Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. "
Studies which have been repeatedly and soundly destroyed as junk science.
So say we all!
I believe you hit the nail on the head, concisely well said.
Professor Winkler conflates three different populations under the rubric of "gun owner": Gun criminals, criminal defense lawyers, and law-abiding gun owners.
The term "Gun criminal" is not redundant. Only 18% of convicted violent criminals use firearms (I can provide research citations.) They come largely from the drug industry (including gangs such as the Crips or Norteños). They will continue to pack illegal guns because a) They do not obey laws, b) unable to settle disputes at law, they resort to violence, c) they can import guns through their drug smuggling channels. Their victims are overwhelmingly other gun criminals. Almost all gun criminals have shown deviant behavior since childhood. They are not simply people pushed over the edge. Far from endorsing such people, the NRA has pushed for draconian punishment for possession of firearms by felons and for crimes involving guns.
It is hard to imagine that I, a layman, have to remind Prof. Winkler that an attorney is required by the ethics of the profession to be a zealous advocate for the client, or that the attorney need only provide a reasonable doubt of guilt in order to prevail. A criminal defense attorney’s citing Heller in an attempt to convince a court to restore the firearms of an admittedly felonious client does not make that anyone's stated policy. To attribute such a sentiment to "gun owners" is a gratuitous libel. The fact that a Klansman writes a bigoted op-ed does not repeal our civil rights legislation.
Illinois Factoids according to the 2007 IL UCR.
The state actually had a pretty good year.
Illinois had a population of 12.83 million w/ a murder rate of 5.9/100K (752) in comparison to 6.2/100K last year.
Chicago had 22.1% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 58.9% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 15.64/100K. A slight drop from last year in both population and murders.
Cook County had 41.2% of the population of Illinois yet accounted for 69.5% of murders w/ a per capita rate of 9.9/100K. It also had population and murder drops.
The Cook County murders in raw number/per capita decreased 9.7 and 9.2% respectively while arrest numbers and rates increased over 6.8% from '06 to '07. 2006 however, had an 18% drop.
If Chicago were to fall into Lake Michigan, the Illinois murder rate would drop to 3.09 .
Were the rest of Cook County to follow suit, the rate would drop to 3.03 .
So Chicago still accounts for 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state with it's "Model Gun Laws". For 2008, however, they broke 500 for the first time if over 4 years w/ no sign of it slowing.
Not that I'm really surprised.
'they broke 500 for the first time if over 4 years w/ no sign of it slowing. "
Right, and Jesse jackson wasted no time in speechifying about " and not a single gun store has been closed", as if that's where these gang kids are getting their guns.
Of course he said this while surrounded by his gun toting entourage.
North Dakota's 2008 crime stats are available now. The state had two murders in 2008. Both were stabbings. N. Dakota ranks 44 out of 50 in the Brady Campaign's gun control rankings.
Yes, and I would guess that North Dakota only had one arrest for a man peeing in public while standing on his head while California probably had a few....what is your point?
Here's what happens when REAL home invaders break into the homes of the unprepared.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2132349.ece
When Mrs. Pettit was strangled, and her two teen aged daughters were tied to their beds and left to burn to death (mercifully, they died from smoke inhalation), the police had been on the scene for 30 minutes.
So much for 911.
This is the police report.
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/death.html
I haven't seen any recent updates about a trial or anything.
I sometimes think of myself as undecided, when it comes to capital punishment. It does seem uncivilized, and perhaps serves our desire for revenge more than it serves as a deterent, because animals who would do something like this probably don't think they'll be caught.
That being said, I'd volunteer off these two insects personally.
Do you mean they were on scene after 30 minutes?
No, they had already been there for 30 minutes when the murders were committed. They were apprehended when they tried to escape, and wrapped the Pettits SUV around a tree.
Earlier, one of them went to the bank with Mrs. Pettit, and tried to force her to withddraw money. The teller became suspicious, and refused to make the transaction. When they left the bank, the teller notified police, and the police went to the Pettit home. This was in the first account I read, back when it happened. I'll see if I can find the story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/nyregion/24slay.html
1st, I spelled the name incorrectly. It's Petit.
I first read the details of this story when a link was posted to a news report on the old Brady Blog, the day after it happened. That report said the police had been on the scene for 30 minutes when the murders were committed. I can't find it now, and all posts have been deleted from the Brady Blog archives.
From the newer reports I'm seeing, this is what happened:
The Police were notified by the bank at around 9am, that Mrs. Petit and her family were being held hostage in their home, immediately after Mrs. Petit and one of the perpetrators left the bank. Police and firefighters arrived at the home a little over a half hour later. By that time the home was on fire, and Mrs. Petit and her two daughters were already dead.
At about 9:50, Dr. Petit escaped from the basement and stumbled into the back yard. At 10:01, the two ex-con home invaders attempted to escape in the Petit's car. They sideswiped a police cruiser, and then rammed into the police roadblock that had been set up down the street.
I apologize for any confusion.
Earlier, Son of Liberty posted something to the effect that, 'If we wanted our right to own guns, we had to assure him that his life would not be taken. It was our responsibility, and we weren't living up to it'.
He was told that if his life was taken, it would far more likely be taken by a repeat criminal, than a lawful gun owner.
Whose responsibility is it to keep repeat offenders incarcerated in order to prevent violent crime, instead of crying about prison overcrowding, and releasing them to commit unspeakable crimes like this?
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=18814434&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=618103&rfi=6
Both of these offenders had lengthy criminal records. If they had been in prison where they belonged, this horrific crime would not have happened.
Also, police WERE on the scene for 26 minutes before the perpetrators attempted to escape. They were setting up a perimeter in preparation for a hostage situation, and waiting for the swat team to arrive. However, five minutes had passed between the 911 call, and the time that police were even dispatched to the scene.
The point is, Mrs. Petit and her two daughters were apparently still alive when the police got there.
http://newsblog.projo.com/2008/01/police-records.html
And people wonder why we insist on maintaining our natural, constitutionally guaranteed, legal right to own firearms in order to protect our families.
There really is evil in the world.
"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away".
Police were also already on the scene at VA Tech, before Cho started his rampage in the academic building, where he killed 30 people.
I get the impression that SonofLiberty1 is rather young. That's a good thing. I'm happy for him. But, the young tend to be idealistic to the extreme, and almost always naive. They see something in print like 'If you have a gun, the criminals will take it and use it on you', and they believe it. Don't believe everything you read, SOL.
Well, at least the kid has some manners, He hasn't resorted to insults or name-calling, like some antigun bloggers we see from time to time.
"There really is evil in the world."
You bet there is, Bill.
CT has some of the most strict gun laws in the US, next to CA, NY, WI, and IL. Very sorry for this doctor and his family.
The 2nd Amendment was meant for the individual to own firearms to protect himself, his family and his country. That is why it is in the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing individual rights.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
