Gun Freedoms and Crime

**jawn_tech** · #1 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 10:48 AM

The subject of guns, freedoms, crime etc. came up in this thread: Who will be your next president?

So just to carry on a fun discussion about gun control, or the lack thereof, or anything along those lines, feel free to chime in.

For example, is there a link between having the 'right to bear arms' and crime in America (or anywhere else for that matter).

activeco · #2 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 11:14 AM

Just like anything else in a society, it depends on the social conditions and average built-up values of an individual.
Built-up values? Yes, coordinated (mostly government-media) efforts can create any mind they wish.
In just a few years they are able to transform a hippie sample into Rambo style destructive machine, with winner-loser mentality.

In a socially stable society, where even 'failed' people can afford a decent life, there is no much tendency towards extreme solutions.
To summarize: Even if we accept the self-armament as a fundamental right, there will be huge difference in consequences between arming people in e.g. Norway vs. Colombia.

kgun · #3 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by activeco

Just like anything else in a society, it depends on the social conditions and To summarize: Even if we accept the self-armament as a fundamental right, there will be huge difference in consequences between arming people in e.g. Norway vs. Colombia.

Don't be so sure. I am 60 years and started duck hunting when I was 16. I went into a store and bought the gun that I still own. Some of my family members don't like it. They don't feel protected at all.

Now it is much stricter here. You need a license to buy a new gun, but older hunters don't need a license on the supposed assumption that they can not go mad. I would have no problem giving away my gun to reduce guns/capita here. Then, when I wanted to go hunting (not so often now), I could go to the police or other authority that keep it. The duck hunting season here is from August 20th to december 23rd.

And 16 years is too low age. I would go for 20+ to buy a gun.

Guns/Per capita = Measure of freedom or ...

Added:
I just talked with my youngest daughter on the phone 2 minutes ago. She said the following:

On the news today. This night a woman was shot on the small island where I live.
Now there is gun amnesty in Norway. You can deliver in guns without being asked how you got it.
She was not so afraid of my gun. Then I know where I can go if ... I keep the gun and ammunision separated.

**jawn_tech** · #4 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 12:24 PM

I don't mean to repeat myself, but since it was the other thread I said it, I'll say it here... My opinion : keep the 2nd amendment (in the US) rights but put tougher restrictions on getting guns (legally) if one has a record of certain crimes. Not just gun crimes, but any history that shows a prone to violence or harrassment cases where possessing a gun could indicate a temptation to use it.

It wouldn't solve the problem of someone getting it underground, but it would reduce more instances of gun crimes. If one doesn't already have one in the gun cabinet, then they wouldn't have the temptation to use it in a moment of fury, for those prone to going to extreme levels.

So for regular "hunting and self defense", sure.

But I do have to wonder about some instances of the self-defense part. A person must really live in a bad neighborhood or in dangerous situations on a regular basis to honestly feel the need to have one for "self defense", imo. Otherwise, I think most cases of "I carry mah six-shooter in mah piggup truck for mah right to protect mah-self" is more of a case of having one just to look tough than it is for "protection". (That was my impersonation of a certain cousin who I've had this debate with before

kgun · #5 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Correction:

Now I see the above story with my own eyes on the news. The woman was not shot. They only state that the death is categorized as suspect.

activeco · #6 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 02:14 PM

A random statistics:
Violence... The story so far » Statistics on Violence and Response - Road to Peace

An interesting study:

Quote:

During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall
firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the
Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher
than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per
100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of
UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally
to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in
HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.
Firearm death rates vary markedly throughout the industrialized world. Further
research to identify risk factors associated with these variations may help improve
prevention efforts.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf

Those having more time or interest can see Gun politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and try to find out the relationship between gun murder rates and gun politics.

cw1865 · #7 (**permalink**) 05-01-2008, 02:35 PM

You may remember from one of my previous posts that I am a proponent of gun control laws. In my opinion there is definitely a correlation between crime and the weapon used to commit that crime. I wonder how many times people have been shot because emotions, possibly exacerbated by alcohol drug consumption, ran high and a gun happened to be around. A nasty domestic squabble can more easily turn deadly.

Notwithstanding, the 2nd Amendment does exist. One of the problems is that it isn't particularly well written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Should the two clauses be read together? or separately. The current state of the law interprets gun ownership to be a personal right recognized by the government, but there are those who focus on the 'well-regulated Militia' aspect of the Amendment and who argue that the right should be construed collectively.

Even aside from the 2nd Amendment, we also must consider that the United States declared its independence on the premise that the people are sovereign and possess a 'right of revolution' (essentially the legal justification for severing ties with Great Britain by force): "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." {emphasis supplied}

(The 'right of revolution' is not a 'willy nilly' - let's have a revolution - right - the Declaration gives an example when the right of revolution could be exercised by the people: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,) {emphasis supplied}

At the end of the day, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when individually a man with a muzzle loaded smooth-bore musket wasn't particularly lethal unless he was arrayed in a line of battle firing a collective volley. It is clear from the American Revolution and the American reliance on state based militia units that the Founding Fathers venerated the self-armed militia to be an effective defense against 'Invasion' - a belief that existed until sometime between the Civil War and WWI. It is also clear that the Founding Fathers were concerned about governments disarming the citizenry inasmuch as the people remained the ultimate check (in a system based on checks and balances of power) on government avarice and despotism.

These are difficult questions because while we recognize the historical importance of gun ownership to 18th and 19th century America, it is clear that firearms have become infinitely more lethal than their predecessors in 1776 and impose an annual toll on society.

Also consider that in 1776 a group of militia could theoretically match the firepower of an English regiment whereas today, even assuming that the citizens were armed to the teeth, the military possesses equipment that is so far superior that the 'minutemen' wouldn't come close to the firepower potential of the military (tanks, fighters, helicopter gunships, etc.)

Just some thoughts on it.

jabo · #8 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 02:27 AM

Rights to bear firearms, gun controls, have they been really helpful?

I mean almost everyone can have a gun of they wanted to illegally or legally. Having a gun is almost as easy as buying at supermarkets. I don't even think that the existing laws about carrying a gun reduces the crime rate in the country. Not all crimes are committed using guns. What I'm trying to say is that whatever law there would be about guns is that there will always be robbers and thieves and rapists and murderers...

Martinscholes · #9 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 09:12 PM

I wonder. Is it possible to view "the right to bear arms" as "the right to live in the past?"

150 years ago, perhaps there was a need to be able to bear arms in case Mexico invaded, or the Indians attacked or the outlaws road into town. But now? Should the right to bear arms be removed?

Or is it the case that after some many years of guns being a part of the fabric of US society that it would be impossible to remove the right to bear arms, even though that might be a 'good' idea?

**jawn_tech** · #10 (**permalink**) 05-02-2008, 10:13 PM

Hmm good point. Voting is considered a right... But not for felons. I have no problem with expanding the list of who shouldn't have a right to bear arms.

There is a definite sport relating to shooting which i think is cool -- like with this dude, Patrick Flanigan -- check out the video...

YouTube - Patrick Flanigan at his BEST

Now that's some impressive shooting

Martinscholes · #11 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martinscholes

I wonder. Is it possible to view "the right to bear arms" as "the right to live in the past?"

150 years ago, perhaps there was a need to be able to bear arms in case Mexico invaded, or the Indians attacked or the outlaws road into town. But now? Should the right to bear arms be removed?

Or is it the case that after some many years of guns being a part of the fabric of US society that it would be impossible to remove the right to bear arms, even though that might be a 'good' idea?

That should be 'rode' not road. Drat.

Clicken · #12 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 01:34 PM

There was, is and always will be criminals and there is no turning back the invention of guns. Since criminals will generally target the least protected, IMO, it is not rational to ban firearms.

Since guns are out-dated as defense against government corruption that leaves the alternative of protection with-in the system and it is the citizens’ responsibility to be involved. Use the privilege or lose it because there are those who have been and are working to take the privilege of citizen involvement away. This will leave the citizens unprotected and subject to abuse/control by the criminals with-in the system.

>>>

cw1865, martinscholes,… the fathers knew exactly what they were saying in that article and it is as relevant today as it was when they wrote it because… In our country today there are groups of people from Mexico who are on a "mission" to take back what they believe is their land. Forget the fact that the US purchased the land that has no meaning to them. They march in our streets waving their flag, chanting "Viva La Mexico".

They are mad, they have no respect for our laws or our people and it is this kind of threat to a states’ security for which that article was written. Don’t let the cunning talk of the elite who are trying to destroy the sovereignty of this nation fool you into thinking we don’t need to protect ourselves and that we should fear guns enough to give up our right to own then. Our generation just might see the day that we are going to need them.

>>>

Quote:

… put tougher restrictions on getting guns (legally) if one has a record of certain crimes. Not just gun crimes, but any history that shows a prone to violence or harrassment cases where possessing a gun could indicate a temptation to use it.

If men can’t brawl and get thrown into jail every once and awhile without losing the right to bear arms then the men might as well wear a dress and learn to knit. <smile>

IMO, the current restrictions for the mentally incompetent and convicted felons are fine. The keyword is convicted. Since harassment is dealt with by issuing restraining orders, it might be worth considering that some one in violation of the order may be subject to loss of gun rights determined by the details of the case, such as when physical abuse or life threats are found to be evident. Good thinking JT!

>>>

Why is it, that society allows alcohol at almost every corner gas station and in many homes but find it just too dangerous for homes to have a gun? Intoxication will cause people to harm others but we have found that prohibition leads to organized crime so we take responsibility for our actions, take our chances and prosecute justly. Oh and educate. LOL, gun class at school,… right after shop class where you learned to make it!... I think I am kidding.

>>>

Quote:

In a socially stable society, where even 'failed' people can afford a decent life, there is no much tendency towards extreme solutions.

Considering that violence is not limited to a certain class of people. I think I understand Activeco to mean, that if the middle class were eliminated then there would be more poor people which would result in more of the poor going to extremes.

This is why I support the officials who have proven, through their voting history, their compliance with the Constitution. Our Republic, supplied by the Constitution, offers a close resemblance of social stability when the articles are adhered to. This is evident by a large middle and upper class. The citizens’ accomplishments are also a testament of the social stability.

The middle class and upper class has proven its generosity and will “teach men to fish” and will generally support each other where as the government has proven its potential for greed and disrespect of the law by political figures to abuse the people. This is why the government was limited by the founding fathers.

Do a search to see how they treat the veterans. That is an example of what citizens can expect if government were in charge of heath care, or any other program. They strip the veteran’s benefits, and they increase their own pay and retirement.

It is the middle class, especially the gifted and talented standing up for the poor, which hinders the tyranny of the inconsiderate elite. This has been openly expressed by individuals who supported and practiced Eugenics and is found with a little research.

Government run socialistic programs take from the ones who have worked, sacrificed and earned, which causes resentment as if citizens had been held at gun point. Then the program gives very little of that amount to the poor, so add that with the frustration of dealing with the government bureaucracy and incompetence found with-in these programs and that is enough to cause someone to take extreme actions!

In a society where justice is for those who can afford it, does it seem unreasonable to think that most crimes would be committed by those who could afford to pay someone else to do the “dirty work” or just buy their way out of trouble? How many crimes would one commit if they were “above the law” and knew they could get away with it?

It is imperative that the candidates we vote into office have proven that they adhere to, and restrain from changing the very foundation which allowed this country to be called the greatest nation on Earth.

Right to Bear Arms
Limited Government

kgun · #13 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clicken

There was, is and always will be criminals and there is no turning back the invention of guns. Since criminals will generally target the least protected, IMO, it is not rational to ban firearms.

And an over cilling of citizen's based on the color of their skin, even by police. Such police men should loose the right to wear guns. Don't think Norway is any better. There is a case going here where a black man were knocked down, severely hurt and left by medical personell. Now they have got a symbolic penalty of NOK 6 000 (little more than USD 1 000) for not carrying him to hospital. Very often it depends on whom you look into the eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clicken

It is imperative that the candidates we vote into office have proven that they adhere to, and restrain from changing the very foundation which allowed this country to be called the greatest nation on Earth.

By whom? I have always heard that small is beautiful

<off topic>
What about Andorra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , San Marino - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Liechtenstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

Andorra: (Catalan: Principat d'Andorra) is a small landlocked country in western Europe, located in the eastern Pyrenees mountains and bordered by Spain and France. Once isolated, it is currently a prosperous country mainly because of tourism and its status as a tax haven (cw1865 - something for you?)

San Marino: It is a landlocked enclave, completely surrounded by Italy.

Liechtenstein: doubly landlocked alpine country in Western Europe, bordered by Switzerland to its west and by Austria to its east.

Landlocked country: is commonly defined as one enclosed or nearly enclosed by land.

Doubly landlocked: A landlocked country surrounded by other landlocked countries may be called a "doubly landlocked" country. A person in such a country has to cross at least two borders to reach a coastline.
</off topic>

Clicken · #14 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgun

... By whom? I have always heard that small is beautiful

...

Hahaha, yes small is beautiful! However,... I said greatest!

**jawn_tech** · #15 (**permalink**) 05-03-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clicken

Why is it, that society allows alcohol at almost every corner gas station

Except here in Pennsylvania. I know this isn't about guns, but just sayin... In PA to buy beer you either have to go to a beer distributor that sells by the case, or take out from a bar or other establishment that must also sell food -- and even then u can carry out only a 12 pack at a time. So if you wanted more, you have to pay and make two trips (or more) to carry it out to your car. To buy wine, liquor, etc., you have to go to a state store, which is owned by the state government. The last politician who wanted to change that, without success, was our former governor Tom Ridge (who later became the first secretary of homeland security).

I know, PA is backwards it seems. Our state maximum speed limit is 65 mph. What are we, Amish?!

(oops, wait... this is Pennsylvania...)

Anyway, how this relates to guns... PA is a highly dem state. Big government, hence the state-owned liquor stores, and even guns used in self-defense stirs up court cases, whereas in Texas they'd gold-plate your gun for you and give you the key to the city. (As we perceive it up here)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clicken

Oh and educate. LOL, gun class at school,… right after shop class where you learned to make it!... I think I am kidding.

We actually did!

Well, not make them. I can't remember, but I actually think it was phys ed class in middle school, and we shot 22's in a makeshift shooting range in the basement. I think around the age of 12 to prepare students who would soon be getting their hunting license. This was a rural school.

I think that's long been removed from the 'curriculum'...