Historic Day At The Supreme Court
In the three days since oral arguments were held in District of Columbia v. Heller, I've had the chance to reflect on the day's events and develop some perspective.
I was in the courtroom on Tuesday, and counted myself fortunate to have had a ringside seat to history. It was probably the most extensive discussion ever by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the nature and scope of the Second Amendment, and whether and to what extent elected representatives have the power to pass the reasonable gun control laws they believe are necessary to keep their communities safe.
In the cold morning air outside before the white marble steps of the Court building, Brady activists were respectfully carrying signs and speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by - school children, government workers, and tourists - and encountered little opposition from the National Rifle Association or other gun groups.
Meanwhile, inside the courtroom, I watched the lawyers present their cases and I was constantly aware of how critically and immediately the Justices' decision will affect the gun laws that protect you and your family every day, including the Brady Law, the federal machine gun ban, plus many strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and others.
What I saw on Tuesday were nine Justices struggling to come to terms with opposing approaches to the Second Amendment.
While we believe that legal precedent, historical records, and a contextual reading of all the words in the Second Amendment make it clear that the "right" of the people to "keep and bear arms" must be related to service in a "well regulated militia" (see our amicus brief), a majority of the Justices seemed to be leaning against this view. At the very least, they were interested in exploring the idea that the Amendment protects some private, individual right to own guns unrelated to service in a well regulated militia.
What still stands out to me three days after the argument, however, is that there was broad support from all sides for all current and proposed regulations concerning guns, short of a near-total ban on all guns. It was intriguing to watch the Justices search for an "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment that would also allow most existing gun control laws.
For example, Justice Breyer wanted to know what sorts of gun control laws would survive under a "reasonableness" standard vis-à-vis some new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Questions from Justices Breyer, Stevens and Ginsburg managed to extract concessions from Mr. Heller's attorney, Alan Gura, toward the end of his argument.
Machine gun bans? Reasonable, Gura conceded. Plastic gun bans? Reasonable. Licensing? "We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing," Gura said. Requirements to demonstrate competency with a gun? Reasonable. Background checks? Reasonable "of course," Gura said. Gun bans by college campuses? Mr. Gura said that "Might be doable."
In a matter of about 10 minutes, Mr. Heller's own attorney ended up endorsing (or at least not opposing) key portions of the Brady Campaign's legislative and policy agenda.
After looking over the oral argument transcript, we have good reason to be hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold action by elected officials at all levels to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect their communities.
Regardless of whether the District wins or loses, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns. Their ruling this summer will determine what happens next as we work to reduce and prevent gun violence in this country.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
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
Kelli, forget it. There is no way the Supreme Court is going to hold that a hand gun ban is anything but unconstitutional. They have already made it pretty clear what they think of the anti-rights faction's interpretation of the Second Amentment. The latest Gallup Poll says 73% of the population agrees that their exists an individual right to own firearms.
We told you.
People have a God given right to be able to protect themselves and their families, certainly in their own homes. Rifles and shotguns are not the ideal choice in such close quarters. They are unwieldy.
Generally speaking, a rifle is the worst choice. Ever hear of 'over-penetration'? That's when the bullet goes through the bad guy, through the wall behind him, through poor Uncle Ned reading the paper in the next room, through the wall behind him, through the cat, and into the brand new flat-screen. That's pretty much guaranteed to happen with most rifles.
So, the good citizens of Washington DC will be safer with handguns in their homes, than they are with long arms. Especially long arms with trigger locks.
Not all handgun data is as positive as what Msorgy reports. The BJS found that most gun crime is committed with handguns. "Of all firearm-related crime reported ... 86% involved handguns." Moreover, according to the NCIC "stolen gun file," of approx. 2 million reports of stolen guns in the mid-1990s, 60% were handguns. Other studies on gun theft have noted that such crimes were more likely in states without sufficient laws that required "safe storage" & where there were large numbers of gun owners & (relatively) high-crime rates.
While the SC is scrutinizing handguns, consider how these have changed. In 1950, the revolver was the most common type. Now, semi-automatic handguns are considered the norm. From 1899-1993, about 223 million guns became available in the U.S. ~ including over 79 million rifles, 77 million handguns & 66 million shotguns, and "the number of new handguns added to those available has exceeded the number of new shotguns and rifles in recent years," www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/guic.txtt).
Kids & guns? Researchers found that juvenile inmates preferred "large caliber, high quality handguns" and that 55% owned a semi-auto. handgun. The AMA found that between 36% and 50% of 11th grade males believed they could easily get a gun. "[T]he rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15" was found to be almost 12 times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention).
"Other studies on gun theft have noted..."
Which other studies do you refer to?
"such crimes were more likely in states without sufficient laws"
Sufficient to do what?
"where there were large numbers of gun owners & (relatively) high-crime rates."
Are you making an attempt at a correlation here?
That statement could have many different meanings based on the location of "where'.
Washington DC, for instance, has relatively high crime rates, but a very low rate of legal ownership of handguns. Therefore one could conclude that the reported rate of theft might be artificially low.
If one knew which "other studies" you were referring to, one might be able to make a more informed judgement on this subject.
"Researchers found that juvenile inmates preferred "large caliber, high quality handguns" ...".
I have little doubt of that, but I highy doubt they would have preferred their victims to have been armed with those same caliber and quality handguns.
"...and that 55% owned a semi-auto. handgun. "
Really? That seems rather incredible since nearly every state has laws against selling handguns to minors, laws against minors purchasing handguns, and laws against possession of a handgun by a minor.
It seems that has direct implications on your statement regarding "sufficient laws".
If a law against purchase, and a law against possession is not sufficient to keep criminals from committing crimes with firearms, exactly what law would be?
"such crimes were more likely in states without sufficient laws"
You mean like Chicago, DC, and New Jersey?
Contrary to your opinion about the availability of self-loading pistols prior to 1950, the Colt Government Model (AKA the 1911) was available from 1911, the year it was adopted by the military. The Luger pistol was available from about 1898, and so was the broom-handle Mauser pistol.
As to any assertion that you might make about the rate of fire from self-loading pistols, they are not really any faster than a revolver. The record rate of fire, from a handgun, was set by Ed McGivern, using a revolver. Why can a revolver be fired faster than a self-loader? The answer is the self-loader requires a minimum time for the slide to open with recoil, then pick up a cartridge from the magazine and cycle closed, chambering the round. A revolver only needs sufficent time for the projectile to clear the cylinder, and the inertia of the spinning cylinder helps with the trigger pull for successive shots.
And here it is, folks. While Paul and his ilk are pestering the law-abiding with their frivolous legislation, our judicial system is hard at work making sure felons are getting off easy...
http://blogs.bet.com/music/soundOff/?p=210#comment-6077
Also, take a look at the comments. Now this is not meant to be prejudicial in anyway, but when you have a whole culture which accepts that type of behavior, maybe we should start looking at changing THAT thought pattern instead of focusing on implements. And before the anti’s claim that I am racist, I am pointing to the “urban culture” not a specific race.
Where is Jesse Jackson when you REALLY need someone to relate to the urban populace? Probably protecting in front of some mom and pop gun shop i'd imagine.
You know, I shouldn't be, but I'm dumbstruck at the responses to that article. Convicted felon commits multiple federal crimes and tax evasion (avoiding the registration of machine guns and suppressors) and gets a slap on the wrist? I hope that judge comes down on him hard and doesn't accept any of that B.S. from the plea bargain.
Oh Where, Oh Where did ReasonIsMy Religion go?
I am still waiting for Reason to rebut my FBI/DOJ study posting.
Michael
"Reasoned Discourse(tm)"
New Gallup poll says 73% of Americans believe there is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms!
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105721/Public-Believes-Americans-Right-Own-Guns.aspx
Michael
"Will of the People(tm)"
"Trained Sheep"
solitude-
How does your example (from wsbtv) have any relation or bearing on MY inherent (and soon-to-be clarified) individual right to self-protection?
Your example, while tragic, represents what, something like under 1% of per capita deaths (accidental deaths caused by firearms) in the US? So my inherent right to protect myself and my family should be infringed upon because of a statistical anomoly?
I'd like to see you argue that same logic as it pertains to medical malpractice.
A 92-year old woman, shot dead by police for "self defense". What big men three police officers must've felt like taking out that frail, little old lady! OR maybe, as has been stated here many times over, having a gun has dangerous side effects.
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/10374909/detail.html
Just to stem the "drug deal" argument before it even gets started, here's a couple more. Seems quite clear, even from these few examples, this all ~ALL!~ would've been avoided had they not fired their weapon "in self-defense".
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/01/im-not-murderer-they-make-me-out-be
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184992,00.html
Though I was only able to view the first link...
"As I’m walking through the hall, someone comes busting through my door.”
He said intruders were pushing through the bottom panels of the four-panel door, he said. The lighting in the house was dim. Frederick said he didn’t hear anyone say “police” or see identification.
“I was like, 'Oh, God, if I don’t shoot, then he’s going to kill me’ …"
"On Jan. 14, three days before the police shooting, Frederick said, someone kicked in a rear portion of the fence around his home and broke into his garage.
“They ransacked my place like they were looking for something. But they didn’t take anything,” he said."
"Hours before the encounter with police, Frederick said he purchased three dead-bolt locks for his garage and home. He said he was worried he would be victimized again."
...and can only base my opinion on what I see in that article, it looks an awful lot like a justified case of self-defense to me.
People who break through your door in the nighttime are not a protected species, regardless of what their shirt proclaims. It is truly a sad case, but the police should have done a better job of gathering intelligence BEFORE they broke through the door.
Tell me honestly ed, faced with the same situtaion and fearing for your life, what would you have done different?
So what is the frequency of these events? Or is this as irrelevant as you claimed mike101's article was/is? I am assuming it happens often, and that you have proof of such, based on your claim of side effects...
You know, the more I read that first line, the more I get the impression that you are wholly against self defense. Am I wrong? What would you do if folks busted down your door without knocking? Would you protect yourself?
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I sincerely hope you're not blaming a woman trying to protect herself, a woman who we have reason to believe may very well not have heard the police given her age and physical health, and our lack of definitive facts one way or another.
Interesting reply, snaky...why do you continue to use the scenario, "..a woman...", "...a woman..."...not to pick scabs, as it has already been established you're thoughts on women voting. But really?
Me? As mikey loves to announce given the opportunity...Let's keep this in perspective here. I'm not Dirty Harry, or something, I'm not packing a Magnum. Have you ~seen~ the size of those bullets? They make me question my manhood - I'm a bit jealous, actually! They're HUGE!
Then again, I'm thinking an air-gun and fast trigger would've taken out a 92-year old woman! So, I ask again, your point....?
And they don't understand why we feel the need to be armed.
This one is too close to home.
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=6043617
4 16 year-old "children" beat a commuter so badly, he had a heart attack, and died. This happened at 13th and Market in Philadelphia, in the subway/suburban rail concourse in CENTER CITY, at 2;30 PM, in front of a large number of witnesses. This didn't happen in the hood.
I pass through here several times a month. The victim was the manager of the Starbucks, in the Marriott Hotel, at 12th & Market. Whenever I'm in town, I stop there for a Cappucino. Hell, I've probably seen the manager a hundred times.
And this relevant to the discussion...how? (Excluding your poor taste in finer coffees, of course!)
*crickets*...figures...point proven!
I know that in some locations, people have give given up on using public transportation, simply because public transportation has been taken over by the gangs and hoodlums. People believe they are putting their lives at risk riding public transportation. The problem is there are not sufficient police to put an officer on every bus, every light rail car, and every bus and light rail car. I cannot blame people for avoiding public transportation, because a good rule of self defense is to avoid places where there might be trouble.
BTW: I believe toodles is angry, because I do know more about the shooting sports than he/she does. His/her insults are inconsequential, just like his/her arguments.
The "Safe Homes Initiative" -
"Officers will go door to door asking residents for permission to search their homes."
"If weapons are recovered, they will be tested and destroyed if they are not found to be linked to any other crimes.A police spokeswoman said that if evidence of other crimes is found during voluntary searches, amnesty will be granted for that crime as well."
There is zero logic in this, as the ones with anything to hide damn sure aren't going to allow a voluntary search. Every time I read a story like this, demonstrating the government's refusal to embrace reality, I laugh like a little girl, and weep for "the children".
http://www.nbc4.com/news/15688264/detail.html?taf=dc
This same "feel good" BS was tried in Philly. It went nowhere, and accomplished zilch. These folks are not going to let cops into their homes. No way, no how. They did a little better when they launched the "Groceries for Guns" campaign. At least that netted some of the junk guns I mentioned previously, in exchange for vouchers that could be used at the grocery store.
However, it was nowhere near as successful as the well publicized "No Snitching" campaign, launched by the gangbangers when Philly cops tried to get people to disclose the names of people who owned guns. The purpose of this being to terrorize the law abiding folk in the hood into keeping their mouths shut. It worked.
I am now convinced that the Anti's really have not yet made the correlation between crime and who commits crime. You would think it would be easy, you know, since the word "criminal" is very similar to the word "crime."
"Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the "safe homes initiative" is aimed at residents who want to cooperate with police."
Oh, I get it, the safe homes initiative is aimed at LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, you know, those who are willing to cooperate with police.
One of these days the Anti's will realize that in order to combat crime, you have to actually target the CRIMINAL.
If you've got nothing to hide, what's the harm? They've already said they would allow amnesty for anything else they find. I don't see why the uproar.
At least it's a step in the right direction.
Aargh! Two post attempts, both which seem to have cut off the important parts. Hoping the third try is the charm: I am seeing a lot about "compromise." I was a big believer in compromise, which is why I supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The 1994 AWB specifically exempted over 650 hunting rifles and shotguns, and most gun control advocates often invoked that feature to promote the ban and said that they would not ban popular hunting guns. That sounded like compromise to me. But most gun control advocates then turned around and supported the 2003 attempt to REVOKE the exemption list of 650 hunting rifles and shotguns and to specifically ban guns on that list (HR2038 Rep. Carolyn McCarthy D-NY, Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003). Would at least one of the gun control advocates who want to me to compromise please tell me why they think I would fall for that line again? (Details and links documenting the 1994 hunting rifle and shotgun exemption and the 2003 attempt to revoke it are available upon request.)
I hear you on the posting problems; I see one sentence in my post below and almost 500 words in the Word document I typed it in, so something doesn't like it very much. I think more posts and more stress on the server is going to be the only way to get noticed, since Huffington Post seems to be ignoring folks complaints (or aren't getting enough of them).
You know Paul, your article started so well. And then you had to go and say this.
I am seeing a lot about "compromise." I was a big believer in compromise, which is why I supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The 1994 AWB specifically exempted over 650 hunting rifles and shotguns, and most gun control advocates often invoked that feature to promote the ban and said that they would not ban popular hunting guns. That sounded like compromise to me.
I am seeing a lot about "compromise." I was a big believer in compromise, which is why I supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The 1994 AWB specifically exempted over 650 hunting rifles and shotguns, and most gun control advocates often invoked that feature to promote the ban and said that they would not ban popular hunting guns. That sounded like compromise to me.
The compromise time has come and gone. We the honest gun owners have allow gun control long enough we have given all that we are going to. The worthless gun regulation has proven to be a failure. Mainly because the courts have revolving door, and none of the regulation to stop criminal is being enforced. The honest gun owner in being hurt, Criminals walk free.
The supreme said it is and individual right. Sorry little Bill of Rights haters we tried it your way. It did not work. Now we do it our way. As for as the London poster, Put a muzzle on Rebecca Peters. And mind your own business.
Are you certain you're in the right place, melodyl? After all, a society where one gunowner tells everyone else what rights they can or cannot have ~ or what concerns they should or should not have with respect to safety & violence ~ is considered more of a dictatorship. Is that what you are wanting?
This coming from someone who's stated that it's an admirable thing for D.C. to pass legislation that contradicts federal law? Curious.
I beg your pardon? Where did she tell you what rights you can have? I believe it's you who are trying to tell us what rights we can't have.
Oh my Dearie Dearie,
Oh my Kelli, I would never attempt to aid in taking any Right away from any American. Quite the opposite. I would attempt to help you see the Horrors of the Raciest VPC, or the Brady Hate Group. Further the contempt both have for the founding fathers and the bill of rights.
Talk about Hitler calling Stalin a Communist.........
So, Kel, you telling me that I don't have the right to self protection just because you "feel safer" when people aren't carrying firearms (legally)? Since when does a self-perceived "feeling" trump a constitutional right?
Do you actually believe the drivel that eminates from your mouth or are you just THAT conditioned into believing that "everything gun" is bad?
I "feel" safer when motorists drive at least 10mph slower than the posted speed limit on the highway. Does my personal feelings about safe speed trump the law which governs legal speed limits?
Basically Kelli, your side has created a society that is nothing but victims that you are owed something. Well reality is coming Kelli. Face it Kelli the Brady Campaign in reality is just and elitist group, that only cares about its next grant or donation. You need an evil group to justify and fund your existence. It all about the Money and Control.
So, Reason, we're still waiting to hear your suggestions as to how to deal with the problem. Something a bit more substancial than "hammer out a compromise", if you please. We tried that already-Next.
HuffPost's Pick
Mike, shootergal, MSOrgy, et al:
Pardon me while I sleep and/or commute. ;-)
Please note that I used to read the 2nd Amendment differently (i.e., if you're NOT in a "well-ordered militia", etc. I have come to accept it is indeed an individual right. And I get the 14th Amendment tie-in re States curtailing rights protected nationally.)
And I DO get re suicides that bridges are as available as guns. And Antartica does not have gun regulation. Not worth the quibbles.
And yes, I agree that the demographic problem is to a large extent drugs/gangs/turf. Not that such was an issue in Columbine or any other school shooting, or the average "going postal" incident unique to the U.S.
And yes, I get the "prohibition didn't work for booze" argument.
(The response to both would be to legalize all drugs -- but that doesn't mean without regulation. Driving a car is potentially lethal, but we regulate that.)
So now what?
Again, my objective is to reduce gun-related mayhem in this country -- not to torch the 2nd Amendment. If we don't share that objective, why bother each other further looking for common ground?
I "get" all the arguments on both sides -- and please don't try to paint me in the "ban guns" camp -- but between the two camps, a problem persists that begs for address and redress.
BOTH sides have already done what they consider more than enough compromising.
Time to think outside the box.
Floater ideas...
Feel free to add your own -- not just demur your side has compromised enough:
1) More handgun buyback programs.
2) More background checks and "cooling off" periods.
3) Closing gun "trade show" loopholes.
4) Registering BULLETS. (Gotta like Chris Rock's idea -- make each bullet cost $1k. You'll think twice about puttin a cap in someone's ass.)
5) Considering most firearms rights types are serious about their guns, perhaps there's a way to disincentivize "Saturday night specials," either through economics at the manufacturer end or the storefront.
Question:
If I stipulate that the 2nd Amendment is NOT technology-specific, then where in your view is the line drawn? Field canon? Clip size? Semi-automatics? Automatics? Bazookas? Can I put a 50 cal turret on my family car?
Re links:
Mine was from the CDC database. The other party got their data FROM the CDC, perhaps. Not versa visa.
Still waiting for your link re FBI says guns prevent xyz.
Why are all of your proposals focused on the implements themselves instead of a long range goal (and more appropriate goal) of addressing the behavior which is at the root of ALL forms of crime? It is this specific illogical thought pettern that baffles me.
It is power and control issues which are the root cause of most rapes. Not the gun which forces victim compliance, and certainly not the genitalia.
It is a deteoriation of self image which is the cause of anorexia or bulimea, not a love/hate relationship of twinkies which leads to binging and purging.
Likewise for "cutters." It is not the availability to razorblades which causes people to cut themselves.
It is opportunism coupled with socio-economic struggle and feeling of "have-not" (among other things) which causes theft and burglary, not the weapon or the getaway car.
I can go on and on.....
What good is regulation when we have not sufficiently reached out to curb the REASON for violent crime? Certainly a person as astute as yourself would not take the position that an implement turns an otherwise "law-abiding" person into a criminal, would you?
But that is what you imply when you focus on regulation of implements. Does regulating bullets solve the problem of an inner city bastard child not having a solid male object as a role model? Does it put food on the table and pay the bills?
I respect your intellectual thoughts, but in the end, they are no more relevant to solving the true root of crime than solitude's personal attacks.
Kudos, Reason!
I agree with HuffPo on this pick ~ your's is an excellent comment & well worth the read! You and others in gun control advocacy here, have added much depth & intriguing viewpoints to this discussion. And I should add ~ before I forget & the question arises (as I'm sure it eventually will ... ) ~ on the issue of DC not having achieved 'statehood,' Congress has given DC the right to enact its own laws & legislation on matters, & this includes on guns. I truly don't believe that the District's handgun law was unconstitutional (despite Heller's contention ... it may have been very strict; but it was within their power to regulate & pass such laws concerning guns), & I hope DC prevails this summer.
K
"4) Registering BULLETS. (Gotta like Chris Rock's idea -- make each bullet cost $1k. You'll think twice about puttin a cap in someone's ass.)
5) Considering most firearms rights types are serious about their guns, perhaps there's a way to disincentivize "Saturday night specials," either through economics at the manufacturer end or the storefront."
Hum, allow me to be presumptuous for a minute....you are not racist are you? Because your advocation of #4 and #5 seem only to target a specific socio-economic cross-section of society. Are you really taking the position that only people who can afford expensive guns and ammunition have a right to self defense?
My objections to handgun buyback programs are:
1. It encourages criminals to steal firearms, so they can fence them at the buybacks. After all, the buybacks are 'no questions asked'.
2. It is an easy way to dispose of crime weapons. Again, it is a 'no questions asked' program.
I have doubts about additional background checks and 'cooling off' periiods. The reasons are:
1. It serves no useful purpose, to make a person wait, when they already own several firearms. It also serves no useful purpose to make the purchaser wait, when they already have a concealed handgun license.
2. It may prevent someone, who is receiving death threats, from purchasing a firearm in time to prevent an attempt on their life.
3. The so-called 'gun show loop-hole' is a bogus argument. Why? If if a person is regularly selling firearms, the qualify as a dealer, and must comply with Federal Firearms License requirements. Besides, less than 1% of firearms, used in crime, were purchased at gun shows. Most firearms used in crime are stolen.
4. Registering bullets does not work. If the bullets are marked on the base, the hot powder gases will burn the markings. This is especially true for lead bullets. If the markings are on the side of the bullet, the markings will be destroyed by the rifling and the travel down the bore. If the cases are marked, it is a simple matter for a criminal to salt the crime scene with cases found at a shooting range, such a police range. Making ammunition cost $1k, will mean people do not practice. Hence, they are not familiar with their firearm.
5. Banning lower priced handguns, would only serve to disarm the poor, making them vulnerable to the depradations of the criminals. Personally, I prefer high-quality firearms, but some cannot afford Glocks, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Browning, Ruger, Berreta, Heckler & Koch, Sig Sauer, or Colt.
Personally, I don't care how big a gun, a law-abiding citizen has. Likewise, I have no objection to big magazines (20 and 30 shot or even belt-fed) possession by law-abiding citizen. A point to be made: A person can carry 3 ten cartridge magazines or 1 30 shot magazine, it doesn't make any real difference in rate of fire. The only difference is in logistics, it is easier to keep track of one magazine than three.
HuffPost's Pick
reason:
Let's get this straight. I was talking about defensive gun uses and was quoting a study by Kleck and Gertz "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun*" that was published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law in 1995.
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
As far as the Federal government, here is a link to the Department of Justice that shows an average of 83,000 crime victims (from 1987-92) used a firearm to defend themselves or their property.
"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft."
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt
Also, please note the statistics about the injuries sustained by those defending themselves with a firearm verses those who did not use a firearm...
"Self-defense with firearms
*38% of the victims defending themselves with a firearm attacked
the offender, and the others threatened the offender with the
weapon.
*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
About three-fourths of the victims who used firearms for
self-defense did so during a crime of violence, 1987-92 "
As you can see, the number of victims who were hurt by their attacker while defending themselves with a firearm was much less than those who did not use a firearm for self-defense. also, 3/4 of the victims were defending themselves from violent driminals. So, it is likely that, had they not defended themselves with a firearm, more of them would have been hurt (instead of only 20%) or killed as in the case of those who did not use a firearm to defend themselves (50%).
If you look at the chart
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html
you will see a range of anywhere from 761,000 to over 3,000,000 DGUs for the years surveyed. The DOJ/FBI stats are at the low end with 83,000 as already stated.
Michael
This has been lightly touched on, but it's worth mentioning on it's own.
Reason has been bugging me to come up with some kind of "compromise" to reduce the homicide rate in this country, which Reason is trying to blame on guns. As I stated, we have compromised enough.
If you want to reduce homicides in the US, eliminate the drug trade/gang activity in this country, since that is what most homicides stem from. Good luck.
Further restricting the gun ownership of law abiding people has been tried for 40 years. It has failed miserably.
I completely agree with you, but that would entail legalization (or at least decriminalization) of drug use and I just don't think our country is ready for that step. There are too many agencies making too much money off of The War On Drugs(tm).
The LEAST we could do is double the size of urban police forces with the money wasted on anti-gun legislation. Our streets aren't safe because there are inadequately staffed police forces policing them.
"The LEAST we could do is double the size of urban police forces with the money wasted on anti-gun legislation. Our streets aren't safe because there are inadequately staffed police forces policing them."
Excellant idea. The anti-rights crowd won't buy it though. It might work.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
