Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Hotwire]

Scenario 1: person pulls a gun on you, for whatever reason, legally or illegally, whatever. You have a gun, too, and are able to defend yourself. Maybe you live, maybe you die; just depends on who's the quicker shot.

Scenario 2: person pulls a gun on you, for whatever reason, legally or illegally, whatever. You don't have a gun on you. R.I.P. you.

In all seriousness: Which scenario sounds better to you?

Well, that settles it. Arm everyone. That will instantly stop all crime. No one will try anything since everyone will be armed. Of course, wouldn't that lead to everyone wanting a bigger gun that the other guy?

 

[Phallic]

From a 2010 article I found, somewhere north of 6 million people have a CCW permit. Not even 2% of the population. Add to it that they're a bit more spread out. Would you honestly feel safe with all of them in one place if the s*** hit the fan? Think about it. Remember the shooting that happened outside the Empire State building? The cops opened fire on the suspect and they hit 9 bystanders. These are trained professionals. People who are put through extensive training. People put through repeated training and qualifications. And they hit 9 bystanders. Now, let's face it, your average CCW holder has probably not gone through anything that extensive or consistent. How well do you think they would handle an actual shoot out?

There was an incident here just a few weeks ago where a would be mass shooter at a mall was stopped by a man with a CCW. Another instance happened at a theater in Houston. They're not reported by the mass media, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You can be fearful of legally armed civilians, but that doesn't erase the fact that an overwhelmingly large majority of these shootings take place where guns aren't allowed (schools, theaters, malls etc.)

I think you over-exaggerate just how much training the average officer gets. While some get very good training, many departments only require their officers to qualify annually and nothing more. I shoot just as well as some officers I know, and I'm by no means the best shot out there. Having taken the qualification course as part of my CCW training - you don't exactly have to be a super-soldier to pass it.

I would feel just fine in a room with people who have a CCW. If people with lawfully carried guns bother you, then you're probably going to hate where it's going - the population of people with CCW permits is increasing rapidly.

 

[Phallic]

Well, that settles it. Arm everyone. That will instantly stop all crime. No one will try anything since everyone will be armed. Of course, wouldn't that lead to everyone wanting a bigger gun that the other guy?

Nobody is advocating to arm everyone - people are advocating allowing law abiding citizens the choice to not be a sheep led to slaughter.

And as time progresses, the country increasingly supports this notion.

 

[Hotwire]

There was an incident here just a few weeks ago where a would be mass shooter at a mall was stopped by a man with a CCW. Another instance happened at a theater in Houston. They're not reported by the mass media, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. You can be fearful of legally armed civilians, but that doesn't erase the fact that an overwhelmingly large majority of these shootings take place where guns aren't allowed (schools, theaters, malls etc.)

I think you over-exaggerate just how much training the average officer gets. While some get very good training, many departments only require their officers to qualify annually and nothing more. I shoot just as well as some officers I know, and I'm by no means the best shot out there. Having taken the qualification course as part of my CCW training - you don't exactly have to be a super-soldier to pass it.

I would feel just fine in a room with people who have a CCW. If people with lawfully carried guns bother you, then you're probably going to hate where it's going - the population of people with CCW permits is increasing rapidly.

It's not the occasional CCW holder that scares me. It's large numbers of them in a panic situation.

 

[Hotwire]

Nobody is advocating to arm everyone - people are advocating allowing law abiding citizens the choice to not be a sheep led to slaughter.

And as time progresses, the country increasingly supports this notion.

Why is anyone not carrying a gun a sheep led to slaughter?

 

[Phallic]

Why is anyone not carrying a gun a sheep led to slaughter?

I was referring specifically to those in a situation where a psychopath is committing a mass shooting.

Sorry for not clarifying.

 

[Grievous]

Scenario 1: person pulls a gun on you, for whatever reason, legally or illegally, whatever. You have a gun, too, and are able to defend yourself. Maybe you live, maybe you die; just depends on who's the quicker shot.

Scenario 2: person pulls a gun on you, for whatever reason, legally or illegally, whatever. You don't have a gun on you. R.I.P. you.

In all seriousness: Which scenario sounds better to you?

I was just making the point that if the gov arms teachers then you will have some people saying ''what makes teachers so special to be armed and I can't be. someone could shoot up my place too.'' I didn't suggest that I don't want guns to be open for buying.

 

[Phallic]

I was just making the point that if the gov arms teachers then you will have some people saying ''what makes teachers so special to be armed and I can't be. someone could shoot up my place too.'' I didn't suggest that I don't want guns to be open for buying.

I never understood the thinking behind gun free zones. What's so wrong with people being allowed to, with training / background checks etc., carry concealed at work?

People claim "what if they snap?" If this were the case, wouldn't the same people frequently "snap" in other places where they can legally carry? What stops an armed security guard or police officer from "snapping?"

 

[Hotwire]

I never understood the thinking behind gun free zones. What's so wrong with people being allowed to, with training / background checks etc., carry concealed at work?

People claim "what if they snap?" If this were the case, wouldn't the same people frequently "snap" in other places where they can legally carry? What stops an armed security guard or police officer from "snapping?"

You know, in Texas there are signs on the doors of the banks asking you to please, not bring your gun into the bank. Maybe, just maybe, a person with a gun, in a bank, would make people a little jumpy. even if it was just in the holster on his hip or under his arm? What's so wrong with having places where there just are no guns. Just yesterday, I was doing my grocery shopping at Walmart and there was a guy there, also getting groceries. Only he had a revolver on his hip. Just felt a bit odd that he felt he needed to carry a gun into Walmart.

 

[Phallic]

You know, in Texas there are signs on the doors of the banks asking you to please, not bring your gun into the bank. Maybe, just maybe, a person with a gun, in a bank, would make people a little jumpy. even if it was just in the holster on his hip or under his arm? What's so wrong with having places where there just are no guns. Just yesterday, I was doing my grocery shopping at Walmart and there was a guy there, also getting groceries. Only he had a revolver on his hip. Just felt a bit odd that he felt he needed to carry a gun into Walmart.

A private business certainly has the right to determine whether they want guns on their property. That said, a concealed firearm shouldn't make anyone jumpy given it's concealed.

The reason why gun free zones are a bad idea is because someone, like Adam Lanza, who wishes to kill people is not going to follow some no gun policy. He certainly didn't in Connecticut. However, because of a no gun policy, he now gets to shoot as many people as he wants without any resistance. Applying that to a workplace, I'm sure that nobody here would be so naive as to believe that a disgruntled employee or whatever psycho is going to think "I was going to shoot this place up, but since no guns are allowed I guess I won't."

Maybe that's the situation you'd prefer, but it isn't for me.

 

[cherokeesam]

Well, that settles it. Arm everyone. That will instantly stop all crime. No one will try anything since everyone will be armed. Of course, wouldn't that lead to everyone wanting a bigger gun that the other guy?

Nobody said that carrying a gun is going to stop crime, least of all me. It won't, period. But it *will* give you the chance to defend yourself, and maybe your loved ones, too. If you *don't* have a way to defend yourself against a guy with a gun, then there's no way you or your loved ones is making it out of the scenario unharmed.

What would you rather do, let *only* outlaws carry guns? That's a great idea....let them have their way with us innocent civilians. Hey, at least the police can spend the next few years trying to track down the guy who murdered you and your family. Maybe they'll even get lucky and find him and put him in jail or something. Will that make you feel better, down there in the cold, cold ground?

 

[Sakuraba]

If you don't want a gun, that's your right. No one is forcibly trying to arm you. However, owning firearms is also a right. Stop trying to infringe upon that.

Not only is President Obama going after certain types of firearms and magazines, he's going after the first amendment as well. We'll see what he means when he talks about addressing violence in entertainment.

Is he the CEO of the federal government or your nanny?

 

[Matt]

There are MANY Constitutional scholars that will argue that the Second Amendment was not designed to protect individuals, their family, their property or anything of the sort but rather the state (as it was a time when the United States military consisted of farmers with muskets).

At any rate, I don't think that the Second Amendment is all that relevant. The fact is, the Constitution wasn't written by deities. It was written by fallible men who knew that they were fallible and thus included a process by which the Constitution could be changed. The fact is, the Framers could not have anticipated a time when a gun would be capable of firing 200 bullets a minute. No civilian ought to have access to that type of weapon.

 

[Grievous]

Nobody said that carrying a gun is going to stop crime, least of all me. It won't, period. But it *will* give you the chance to defend yourself, and maybe your loved ones, too. If you *don't* have a way to defend yourself against a guy with a gun, then there's no way you or your loved ones is making it out of the scenario unharmed.

What would you rather do, let *only* outlaws carry guns? That's a great idea....let them have their way with us innocent civilians. Hey, at least the police can spend the next few years trying to track down the guy who murdered you and your family. Maybe they'll even get lucky and find him and put him in jail or something. Will that make you feel better, down there in the cold, cold ground?

It's a big world out there. I agree carrying a gun would give you something in the event someone holds you and your family at gun point. But if everyone carried a gun with the same thinking. It would get abused. Just think about how many times people get into fights in public over stupid things. I know people with the mindset that they would rather shoot someone then take a beating. Now what if you get someone packing heat that ends up shooting a few more people in the cross fire while trying to take down the bad guy. Point is while you make a good point that carrying a gun will protect you, if everyone had that thinking it would do more harm then good. People should be able to arm themselves in their own home. Now out in public is a different story.

 

[Paradoxium]

They are trying to ban long kitchen knives now.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

They are trying to ban long kitchen knives now.

Heck, they may as well just start sticking everyone in kevlar/bubblewrap suits to keep people safe. Or just make it so that you don't need physical contact with anyone.

 

[Phallic]

It's a big world out there. I agree carrying a gun would give you something in the event someone holds you and your family at gun point. But if everyone carried a gun with the same thinking. It would get abused. Just think about how many times people get into fights in public over stupid things. I know people with the mindset that they would rather shoot someone then take a beating. Now what if you get someone packing heat that ends up shooting a few more people in the cross fire while trying to take down the bad guy. Point is while you make a good point that carrying a gun will protect you, if everyone had that thinking it would do more harm then good. People should be able to arm themselves in their own home. Now out in public is a different story.

You are far more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in public than you are in your own home.

When CCW laws were first introduced, the anti-gun people would scream at the top of their lungs that blood would run in the streets and that people would shoot each other over the smallest things. In Florida among a few other states, they tracked the actual instances of a CCW holder committing a crime. They stopped after a few years due to the fact that there were so few crimes committed by them.

Even if you would rather "shoot" someone than take a beating, the legal repercussions (which should be taught when taking the CCW training courses) are enough to scare anybody away from using their gun except for defense of life or serious bodily harm. Over the past 20 or so years, CCW holders have proven themselves to be a law abiding and responsible group of people. If they haven't started "snapping" and shooting people yet, they probably won't in the future either.

 

[Kelly]

You are far more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in public than you are in your own home.

When CCW laws were first introduced, the anti-gun people would scream at the top of their lungs that blood would run in the streets and that people would shoot each other over the smallest things. In Florida among a few other states, they tracked the actual instances of a CCW holder committing a crime. They stopped after a few years due to the fact that there were so few crimes committed by them.

Even if you would rather "shoot" someone than take a beating, the legal repercussions (which should be taught when taking the CCW training courses) are enough to scare anybody away from using their gun except for defense of life or serious bodily harm. Over the past 20 or so years, CCW holders have proven themselves to be a law abiding and responsible group of people. If they haven't started "snapping" and shooting people yet, they probably won't in the future either.

That is incorrect....

Most victims of crime were engaged in activities at home (26.3 percent), while 22 percent reported being involved in some form of leisure activity away from home when victimized.

 

[Phallic]

That is incorrect....

The study you posted is outdated as it spans from 1987 to 2000.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=44

This is more up to date, spanning from 2004-2008. This study states that 1/3 of all violent crime takes place in or near the victim's home.

This is another study that is more recent (2003) which also shows that most violent crime occurs away from home.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Perhaps the word "far" is an exaggeration. The spirit of my point still stands - that you are more likely to be victim of a violent crime away from home.

 

[wiegeabo]

You are far more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in public than you are in your own home.

When CCW laws were first introduced, the anti-gun people would scream at the top of their lungs that blood would run in the streets and that people would shoot each other over the smallest things. In Florida among a few other states, they tracked the actual instances of a CCW holder committing a crime. They stopped after a few years due to the fact that there were so few crimes committed by them.

Even if you would rather "shoot" someone than take a beating, the legal repercussions (which should be taught when taking the CCW training courses) are enough to scare anybody away from using their gun except for defense of life or serious bodily harm. Over the past 20 or so years, CCW holders have proven themselves to be a law abiding and responsible group of people. If they haven't started "snapping" and shooting people yet, they probably won't in the future either.

When one of the CCW holders finally does snap, you can be guaranteed that the media will be all over it, somehow ignoring the years and thousands upon thousands (millions?) of holders who have never done anything.

Although, when it does happen, I can only hope another CCW holder is the one that stops them. The media will have a stroke trying to figure out how to sensationalize it.

 

[cherokeesam]

The bugaboo about people "snapping" is largely myth, anyway. These mass murderers who've been all over the news the last very few years didn't "snap;" they've been proven to have meticulously mapped out and planned their attacks long in advance.

And I think it's important to note that they deliberately choose peaceful, idyllic, "safe" settings to carry out their attacks. Schools, theaters, shopping malls, Amish schoolhouses, Norwegian youth summer camps.... Mainly because there's very little chance they'll run into anybody around who can return fire, but also because these contain the most symbolic value....i.e., you're not safe anywhere. So, perversely enough, the safest places are the places you're most likely to run into a mass muirderer.

 

[Phallic]

The bugaboo about people "snapping" is largely myth, anyway. These mass murderers who've been all over the news the last very few years didn't "snap;" they've been proven to have meticulously mapped out and planned their attacks long in advance.

And I think it's important to note that they deliberately choose peaceful, idyllic, "safe" settings to carry out their attacks. Schools, theaters, shopping malls, Amish schoolhouses, Norwegian youth summer camps.... Mainly because there's very little chance they'll run into anybody around who can return fire, but also because these contain the most symbolic value....i.e., you're not safe anywhere. So, perversely enough, the safest places are the places you're most likely to run into a mass muirderer.

This is very true. Almost all these mass shootings are planned in advance.

And that, as I'm sure you agree, is why "gun free zones" do nothing to prevent these tragic events from occurring. Unless you have sufficient armed security and metal detector checkpoints i.e. airports, a sign saying "No guns allowed" is worth less than the paper its printed on.

And even then, people still manage to smuggle weapons through airport security.

 

[Phallic]

There are MANY Constitutional scholars that will argue that the Second Amendment was not designed to protect individuals, their family, their property or anything of the sort but rather the state (as it was a time when the United States military consisted of farmers with muskets).

At any rate, I don't think that the Second Amendment is all that relevant. The fact is, the Constitution wasn't written by deities. It was written by fallible men who knew that they were fallible and thus included a process by which the Constitution could be changed. The fact is, the Framers could not have anticipated a time when a gun would be capable of firing 200 bullets a minute. No civilian ought to have access to that type of weapon.

The constitutional scholars who's opinion actually has weight here, the Supreme Court, has argued otherwise. And given the abundance of writings out there by the very people who wrote the constitution - I question the competence of a "constitutional scholar" who is unaware of the true intention of the second amendment. It wasn't hunting or sporting, nor was it even necessarily self defense against criminals. It was to defend against tyranny. The intention was for civilians to be armed with the same firearms that the military used. At the time that was a musket. Today that would be a fully automatic assault rifle. The fact that its extremely difficult to legally purchase such a firearm today is already an infringement on the 2nd amendment. Now perhaps that is a reasonable restriction, but the statement, "Nobody needs this gun for hunting" completely disregards the true intent of the 2nd amendment. The belief that it is irrelevant I personally feel is naive - there will always be power hungry tyrants. While the USA does not seem that it will go that route, to believe it can't happen is a dangerously complacent way of thinking. There are plenty of examples within our own history of our government overstepping their power as is.

Whether you agree or disagree with people being allowed to own machine guns, it's not necessarily my views or your views that matter. If you feel the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant, then you can either deal with it or change it. Trying to circumvent the 2nd amendment with egregious and unreasonably restrictive laws, such as the Feinstein AWB she just proposed, is effectively tantamount to saying "I'm just going to ignore the constitution."

A dangerous proposition no less. You either respect the constitution and change it through the correct channels, or you disregard it. If you're willing to ignore the 2nd amendment, then what happens when people decide they want to disregard the 1st, 4th, 5th, 10th etc. amendments because they feel it will offer them "safety?" Is this the precedent we really want to set?

 

[Sakuraba]

There are MANY Constitutional scholars that will argue that the Second Amendment was not designed to protect individuals, their family, their property or anything of the sort but rather the state (as it was a time when the United States military consisted of farmers with muskets).

At any rate, I don't think that the Second Amendment is all that relevant. The fact is, the Constitution wasn't written by deities. It was written by fallible men who knew that they were fallible and thus included a process by which the Constitution could be changed. The fact is, the Framers could not have anticipated a time when a gun would be capable of firing 200 bullets a minute. No civilian ought to have access to that type of weapon.

That's your belief. You can hold that sacred and instill it into your children, and carry that message to as many people as you can. But please don't try to use the strong arm of government to tell people what products they can and cannot buy. At that point, you become the deity dictating people's lives.

There are many constitutional scholars who would argue differently, because they feel differently, and will twist evidence to their opinion. At the end of the day, the constitution is the constitution, not James Madison's diary.

There are a whole multitude of things that I think are bad for people to consume, like drugs, but it's not my business to tell them what they do with their bodies unless it interferes with my personal freedom. You consuming alcohol in your home isn't my business, but you driving under the influence becomes a public concern. Same thing with someone that owns an AR for recreational use versus a violent felon seeking out any firearm.

Saying a piece of the Bill of Rights is irrelevant is awfully dangerous. What else is irrelevant? Is President Obama seeking a constitutional amendment on this issue or unconstitutional legislation? And considering that this issue isn't just about gun control but now censorship, what in the first amendment is relevant to you on that front?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yeah, the second amendment has been considered a right to personal defense since it was enacted. A major reason the amendment even exists is because the king and nobility in England kept confiscating citizens' weaponry. Which they did in the early days of the American Revolution as well.