D.C. Gun Ban Overturned

[BVS]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

The U.S. cities with the highest crime rates are the very cities with the strictist gun laws. The "difficult issues that cause urban violence" ....well, who wants to address those issues?

And what are the populations of these cities? That can't possibly be a factor could it?

I love how people can manipulate numbers.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar

And what are the populations of these cities? That can't possibly be a factor could it?

I love how people can manipulate numbers.

they don't, at all, take into account what's known as "white flight" that happened in the early 1970s, leaving the cities a hollowed out shell of what they were before the 1968 riots -- this is especially true in WDC.

and what's also true about WDC is the fact that it is very, very easy to get guns in both VA and MD. DC is a very weird city in many aspects and it's home to some of the most entrenched poverty in the country as well as the highest rate of HIV in the nation. somehow, i don't think that the addition of gun stores on the corners of some of these communities is going to help things.

it's wonderful to feel idealistic about guns, and i fully appreciate what's known as "gun culture" -- where people think it's fun to dress up in camoflague and spend the day in the woods trying to gun down Bambi. that's fine with me. i don't care. hunt all you want. but don't confuse that culture with what gun control is after. it's insane for Republicans to demagogue this issue as being one of Democrats coming after grandpa's hunting rifle hanging over the fireplace in a WVA cabin versus taking real, measured steps to restrict just what weapons are available especially in areas already prone to violence. and i don't buy the protection argument, not one bit. the likelihood of a murder happen in your home when you own a gun is dramatically larger than if you are not a gun owner. there's no way around it. we can talk about personal liberties and get misty-eyed, but it's still an illusion. there are a multitude of laws that have been passed regarding individual safety that have, yes, curbed individual freedom to an extent. bike helmet laws, seat belt laws, drinking and driving laws. all these laws do restrict my freedom. why can't i ride a bike without a helmet? why can't i not wear my seat belt? why can't i drink and drive? actions and products are restricted (or rules enforced) for the greater safety of all, as well as keeping an eye on the costs that preventable accidents have on the health care system. some here bitch and moan about having to foot the bill for "irresponsible" people who get HIV -- yet people who show up at the hospital bleeding out from a GSW, well, that's freedom for you!

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

As [an] American citizen, I am glad the U.S. Surpreme Court upheld the right granted by the Socond Amendment.

I am too.

Now, let's get to amending the Constitution legally so that the second amendment is null and void.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

No, both prevailed.

Please explain.

[Irvine511]

i'm going to clarify. i am not against the total banning of guns. i do understand the thought process that equates gun ownership with freedom.

i do, however, think that cities and states need to be able to pass laws that deal with the problems they currently have to deal with, especially as public safety is concerned. and it's quite a slap in the face to pass laws that affect citizens of DC when citizens of DC don't even have Congressional representation. there's more democracy in Kirkuk. and why, you might ask? because DC would guarantee 2 more Democratic senators -- this is a city that went 90% for Kerry in 2004. it is absoultely a Republican perogative to prevent the heavily democratic District from having a voice in Congress. and it's wildly racist, too, imho. at it's peak, the district was 65% african-american (it's about 60% now). could you imagine Republicans tolerating the disenfranchisement of so many white people?

i will feel less safe walking the streets of DC at night.

the bright side, however, is that this decision removes it from the 2008 race. how can McCain demagogue? how can the Republicans say that the Democrats are going to take away your guns now that it's been confirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right?

there's some activist judges for you!

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Please explain.

The founding fathers were clearly strong believers in individual liberty. They had experienced firsthand how overly dominant and tyrannical a government can become. And as others in this thread have stated, the gun ban seems to have had little if any effect on violent crime in DC. I would be surprised if crime rates did not fall. Of course, we'll have to wait a year or two to look at the UCR and other stats. So, in my opinion, we got liberty AND security, the Constitution AND increased personal well-being. Actually, the fact that it was only a 5-4 decision in favor of someone's right to own a gun is quite disappointing.

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

The founding fathers were clearly strong believers in individual liberty. They had experienced firsthand how overly dominant and tyrannical a government can become. And as others in this thread have stated, the gun ban seems to have had little if any effect on violent crime in DC. I would be surprised if crime rates did not fall. Of course, we'll have to wait a year or two to look at the UCR and other stats. So, in my opinion, we got liberty AND security, the Constitution AND increased personal well-being. Actually, the fact that it was only a 5-4 decision in favor of someone's right to own a gun is quite disappointing.

I don't feel like my personal well-being is increased by more access to guns. Many, many people feel the same way as I do. I personally think safety, in this case, should triumph over tradition, which is really the only thing you're talking about when you bring up the founding fathers in this argument. Not liberty: tradition. Liberty comes in things like free speech, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from discrimination. Not the right of anyone on the street to buy a handgun.

At the very least, gun laws need to be greatly tightened. Something neither Bush nor McCain is interested in.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

They had experienced firsthand how overly dominant and tyrannical a government can become.

This just opened my eyes. How bad would Bush have become if it weren't for all those armed citizens?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

I don't feel like my personal well-being is increased by more access to guns. Many, many people feel the same way as I do. I personally think safety, in this case, should triumph over tradition, which is really the only thing you're talking about when you bring up the founding fathers in this argument. Not liberty: tradition. Liberty comes in things like free speech, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from discrimination. Not the right of anyone on the street to buy a handgun.

At the very least, gun laws need to be greatly tightened. Something neither Bush nor McCain is interested in.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

The founding fathers were clearly strong believers in individual liberty. They had experienced firsthand how overly dominant and tyrannical a government can become.

This goes back to what Anitram said:
"The problem is that the US judiciary treats the Constitution as a dead document (as opposed to the living tree doctrine as employed in places like the UK and Canada). Scalia alludes to it in the judgment here by stating that some people feel that the Constitution is outdated (it is)"

I'm not sure how people use this argument with a staight face anymore. That argument worked fine when the government were shooting the same muskets as the common folk, but that's clearly not the case. Your handgun is no match for their tank.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by CherokeeRose

Interestingly enough, the crime rate Kennesaw, Georgia plummeted when the city required all its citizens (minus felons) to carry a gun.

Crime Plunges in Pro-gun Town

"A gun is a tool. No better and no worse than any other tool-or an axe or a saddle or a stove or anything. Think of it always that way. A gun is as good or as bad as the man who carries it. Remember that."

~Shane Jack Schaefer

[Bluer White]

I'm wondering how all these DC gun laws....the same laws being struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional....

are stopping criminals, gang bangers, etc....from getting the handguns they use to raise hell?

Do the DC gun laws keep pistols out of the hands of folks who should not have them, or just out of the hands of folks who respect the laws on the books?

Washington, D.C. is not known as a particularly safe city Why not? They have cracked down on guns

[dazzlingamy]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

"A gun is a tool. No better and no worse than any other tool-or an axe or a saddle or a stove or anything. Think of it always that way. A gun is as good or as bad as the man who carries it. Remember that."

~Shane Jack Schaefer

I'm sorry but that quote is a pretty bullshit quote. So the gun in the hands of a 6 yr old who killed another child, he was a bad kid? Or the people who hear a noise, reach for a gun and shoot first without thinking, their inherently bad? No their not, they're using not a TOOL but an object made for one reason only TO KILL and using it in situations that do not warrent it.

Most people here know how against gun ownership I am. I do believe that no one besides police and farmers (under strict ownership laws) should be able to own and use guns. I also do understand that this is not a viable option in the US with the amount of guns out there, no huge buyback scheme that Australia put in place is going to work.

I just don't know why a lot of people claim to feel safer with a gun. Ok if someone is attacking you, or breaking into your house with a gun, then ok, having a gun to protect yourself is understandable. But what makes the idea that you can shoot and kill someone, or blow half their head off, or shoot them in the stomach and wathc them die a slow painful death, makes you feel SAFE? Why would you want to do that to anyone? I would not like the person who robbed me, or stole something, or broke into my house, or bashed me over the head, I would ot like to be the person responsible for blowing his brains out. Not to say I don't want them punished, but really? killing someone?

i just think the second ammendment is waaaaaay out of date and should be trotted out as an excuse for the right to carry some semi automatic weapon and shoot someone purely for stepping a toe on your property.

[A_Wanderer]

So you oppose the concept of self-defence in principle?

[A stor]

Originally Posted by Utoo

As a resident of DC, I have to say this is the stupidest decision ever.

It's also nice to know that as residents of DC, we have no one in Congress to appeal to....

I agree....being a resident of Baltimore, a stone's trow from D.C. Is just what we need. More hand guns! The murder rate by way of guns is out of control in both cities.

Who goes hunting with a concealed weapon? Criminals that's who. Sure, it will be easier for citizens to protect themselves. But, most of the law abiding don't own a gun. Far too easy for their child to get hold of. And easier access for the criminals. They shouldn't make and distribute them in the first place.

Damn the NRA!

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Washington, D.C. is not known as a particularly safe city Why not? They have cracked down on guns

If this were to be true, that would be a very sad state of affairs for the US wouldn't it? Because in the end it would mean that an American city that isn't armed falls victim to high crime rates due to a lack or armament. Or, to put it differenty, Americans need to be armed because otherwise people will go mad.

Isn't it maybe that Washington has high crime rates because of a multitude of reasons, economic, socio-economic etc., some of them mentioned by Irvine, and that these reasons are in no way sufficiently answered by liberalising the right to own and bear guns?

[dazzlingamy]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

So you oppose the concept of self-defence in principle?

deadly force self defence for sure. I don't believe a gun is the best form of defence because of its entire killing power, compared to other forms. And yes i know a blow to the head can kill someone, but there is a lot more leeway than shooting someone instead.

[A_Wanderer]

Most people can't fight off an attacker, positing a blow the head as a viable means of self defence seems willfully ignorant and excluding killing an attacker (provided it was a proportional response) strikes me as wrong.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by A stor

I agree....being a resident of Baltimore, a stone's trow from D.C. Is just what we need. More hand guns! The murder rate by way of guns is out of control in both cities.

Who goes hunting with a concealed weapon? Criminals that's who. Sure, it will be easier for citizens to protect themselves. But, most of the law abiding don't own a gun. Far too easy for their child to get hold of. And easier access for the criminals. They shouldn't make and distribute them in the first place.

Damn the NRA!

Well yes, because those criminals guys always buy registered weapons and go out to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon before doing something violent.

Is gun crime in America really out of control? Is it worse than any other times in the past?

[ntalwar]

Originally Posted by A stor

I agree....being a resident of Baltimore, a stone's trow from D.C. Is just what we need. More hand guns! The murder rate by way of guns is out of control in both cities.

Who goes hunting with a concealed weapon? Criminals that's who. Sure, it will be easier for citizens to protect themselves. But, most of the law abiding don't own a gun. Far too easy for their child to get hold of. And easier access for the criminals. They shouldn't make and distribute them in the first place.

Damn the NRA!

Guns are legal in New York City btw - you need a license to own a gun or even to walk into a gun shop. In 2007, they had fewer than 500 murders (a 40 year low) compared to 2245 in 1990. So obviously there are larger factors than legality of guns to blame for violent crime. There may even be a deterrent effect, and violent crime could fall.