States with strong gun laws&low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related deaths

[lindisfarne]

A recent study shows Alabama ranks second nationally in gun deaths per capita, trailing only Louisiana. The five states topping the list were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi and Nevada, according to the Violence Policy Center.

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20090614/NEWS02/906140311

Alabama's culture, history and wide expanses of rural areas add up to mean a lot of people in the state own firearms, said the owner of a local gun store. The study backed up his assertion, showing that 57.2 percent of Alabama households own guns.

"Alabama is rural," said Alan Daniels Jr. of Collectors and Shooters LLC. "Every one of the top states, except Nevada, are agrarian, agricultural, wooded and heavily focused on hunting and outdoor sports."

The study found that high gun ownership coupled with what it called weak gun laws makes for a dangerous combination. In states that fit that definition, gun death rates far exceed the national rate of 10.32 per 100,000 residents, according to data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
...

Conversely, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related deaths, the study found. Last in the nation was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. Each of those states has significantly lower gun ownership and single-digit gun deaths per 100,000 residents.

States with "strong" gun laws were described as those that add significant state regulation in addition to federal law -- like restricting access to particularly hazardous firearms, such as assault weapons. The laws also included requirements for minimum safety standards for firearms, and either requiring a permit to purchase a firearm, restrictive concealed carry laws, or both.

[grantcart]

1. hold it, let me get my supplies

:popcorn:

all right let the gun fetish crowd in.

[noiretextatique]

3. just saw a post about churches in southern california

advocating for worshipers to carry guns :eyes:
this should be good :popcorn:

[lindisfarne]

6. I like the popcorn. Nice effect.

:popcorn:

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. Extra butter on mine, and easy on the salt.

Thanks.

[Buck Laser]

2. Oh,crap! You just started a shitstorm.

[konnichi wa]

4. No, the shitstorm was started by the 'gun fetish' guy.

He hates the Bill of Rights.

[grantcart]

12. exactly right

simply by noting the extra ordinary high homicide and suicide rates in the US by use of guns and suggesting that such rates indicate that something needs to be done with our "A well regulated Militia" in order that some of those deaths should be reduced.

Those of us that would like to see the 8 children who die every day from guns reduced have a hatred of Constitutional process in total and not just those that apply to "A well regulated Militia".

[distantearlywarning]

28. I think we should ban stairs and automobiles too.

Just think of all the children who could be saved if there were no stairs or cars!

[grantcart]

29. well the intellectual timbre of your response is not

surprising and is, in general, quite representative of those that express an exagerated affection for their firearms.


No one has said anything about banning guns.


Now the fact is that on a given day 8 children will die from gunshot wounds.


We have many laws that have increased the safety of both stairs and automobiles to reduce possible injury.


Local building codes, for example, require that handrails that are appropriate for children to grasp be installed everytime a stair is built. Lighting is also a building requirement.


The car industry has spent hundreds of millions to reduce its rate of fatalities, especially of children. Many of these improvements have been incorporated into law, including very specific laws about requiring children seats.


Now, and this really is parsing it down to the Neandrathal level, are you stating that there is no possible solution that would decrease the level of accidental, homicidal and suicides by the use of guns besides banning them?


Is it your position that every single possible solution, including requiring gun safety's or gun safes, or whatever it might be, are all in violation of the 2nd ammendment and there is no possible human way to reduce the number of deaths, except for banning them and destroying our entire constitutional form of government?

[kimmylavin]

31. Great, great post.

Sense, reason, and logic - its why I come to DU. :)

[Indy Lurker]

47. who are you calling children

for your 8 kids a day?

Kids like 19 year old Jesus E. Zambrano

An accused murderer who was the target of an interstate manhunt.

This time he was the shooter, next time he may be the victim.

Zambrano allegedly accompanied Pedro Sanchez, 30, a parolee from the Illinois Department of Corrections, to a third-floor apartment on the 1000 block of Lois Place in Joliet around 12:50 a.m. May 22.

The two men confronted and shot Gooch, who was visiting a woman with whom Sanchez had been romantically involved, Joliet Deputy Police Chief Pat Kerr said.

A 19 year old and a 30 year old parolee. Neither one can legally own a handgun in Illinois.

Illinois does not allow open or concealed carry of firearms.

Illinois requires a FOID card (Firearms owner ID) for all gun sales public or private.

Illinois require a gunlock with every sale.

Illinois has safe storage laws.

Unfortunately, criminals willing to commit murder don't follow gun laws.

[grantcart]

55. 409 yearly deaths for children under the age of 14

http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

and absolutely nothing can be done that will not also destroy the constitution of the US.


Even voluntary programs are an assault on well ordered malitias.

[NickB79]

57. So which is it, 8 children per day or 1.1 children per day?

8 children per day is almost 3000 per year.

BTW, your link is broken.

[Bill McBlueState]

76. I hope it's 1.1 dead kids per day

That's a number we can all be happy with.

[Euromutt]

114. Motor vehicle traffic kills 5 kids a day

That's 14 and under. Throw in the teenagers and the number really skyrockets.

Yet, for some reason, we can live with that.

[grantcart]

86. 8 children was in the report I read, CDC has it closer to 7 under the age of 18

The poster then pointed out a killer who was 19 that he was quite pleased was killed so I lowered it to 14 and lower giving the 400 number.


CDC actually has a neat search engine that you can put in your own parameters and it will give you statistics.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

The larger point was that he said that we should ban stairs and cars because they also kill children and I pointed out because of the rist to children both stairs and cars face significant regulation to try and increase safety. I never mentioned banning guns at all.

[Statistical]

103. Guns DO have significant regulations. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Then someone's math is way off.

[SteveM]

143. A statistical deflation of Biblical proportions! (nt)

[kevinbgoode]

49. Haha...I think perhaps we should advocate the strict constructionist

approach that the wingnuts claim must be applied to everything BUT the Second Amendment. Meaning, we have to look at the Founder's intent - and since, at the time, bearing "arms" consisted of limited styles and technology, then THAT is what they intended. Anything above that level of firearm technology is an "activist interpretation."

[lindisfarne]

60. Nice point. I will use it in the future. n/t

[X_Digger]

61. Those "limited arms" included CANON

You _sure_ you want to go with that?

[Vickers]

63. By your reasoning, the 1st Amendment should not apply to the internets.

Or even TYPEWRITERS.

:eyes:

[lindisfarne]

82. Not true. First amendment talks about freedom of the press.

Nothing in the first amendment defines or restricts how the press can distribute speech.

"The freedom of press clause makes it clear that the First Amendment is meant to protect not only freedom to speak, but also freedom to publish and distribute speech."
http://civilliberty.about.com

[Statistical]

104. EXACTLY.

Just like the 2nd protects the right to bear ARMS. Nothing defines or limits that definition to current arms.

[Statistical]

78. 1st doesn't apply to electronic media?

1st doesn't apply to electronic media?
4th doesn't protect against wiretaps?
5th doesn't prevent DNA taken without warrant to be used against you in trial?

Or maybe the more logical concept is that the BofR applies to concepts not items.

The concept of free speech (in all forms even those that hadn't been though of).
The concept that govt needs a warrant.
The concept that you can't be forced to testify against yourself.
And yes the concept that people have a right to keep and bear arms.


You don't find it dangerous at all that any court using your "logic" to strip the 2nd of its meaning could strip all of the amendments of their meanings?

[grantcart]

87. The original intent was to form armed maliltia to protect the state

Written by Mason he used a slightly longer form for the Virginia Declaration of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.<30[br />

but it is all water over the bridge and regardless of the intent or the logic we are destined to be a country awash in tens of millions of fire arms. Many of the owners are incredibly disciplined and responsible but it still leaves a very large number, albeit a minority that are just as careless with their guns as they are drinking and driving.

[kevinbgoode]

90. Exactly. Everyone is a "law-abiding" citizen...until they decide to break the law.

I just never see any statistics which point out whether a crime involving a firearm was legally owned or not. Don't they keep those?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

107. To be fair.

There are approx. 250 millions guns in the US. If a significant portion of those owners were careless then we would have far more than 1000 accidental deaths each year. That number has been declining for quite some time. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is clear and has been ruled so by the Supreme Court.

David

[grantcart]

115. To be "fair" the 2nd ammendment is not "clear" on the issue you advance.

In the study of historical documents there is very specific discipline called Literary Criticism which applies objective rules to documents.

The question is are we doing exegesis (getting meaning out of the text) or eisogesis (reading meaning into the text).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism#History_of_the_Book


The first step is to compare the language and the means of expression to similar writings by the same people in the same situatio.

For example, the first ammendment states,

Congress shall make no law . . .(religion, speech, press, assembly, etc.)


This is writing that is clear. If the drafters of the Bill of Rights wanted to use this language for individual gun ownership.

As has been well documented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution the origins of the second ammendment were related to defense of the state not establishing an individual right.

Now there are a number of positions that you can take with some intellectual honesty:

1) That while the 2nd Ammendment did not explicitly speak of individual rights it was implied.

2) That while the 2nd Ammendment did not explicitly speak of individual rights it is a logical extension of the principle.

3) That while the 2nd Ammendment did not explicitly speak of individual rights the right to proscribe is not given anywhere and that the continued use of the individual right is so well established that any abridgement of it would require a constitutional ammendment to take the right away.

4) Etc., etc.



Really #3 is your strongest position although you could make a case for #2. Option #1 is really people reading in their preference to the text.

In any case the statement that the 2nd ammendment is a clear statement of individual rights of gun ownership simply isn't intellectually honest and speaks to the intense emotional position that many gun activists have on the issue. Vote on the Supreme Court don't indicate the actual truth of a situation, just ask Dredd Scott, which most ironically included this passage;


I]n no part of the country except Maine did the African race, in point of fact, participate equally with the whites in the exercise of civil and political rights....More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding states regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another state. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it .... would give to persons of the Negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to ... keep and carry arms wherever they went


In fact, your closing statement disproves itself:

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is clear and has been ruled so by the Supreme Court

The ruling of the Supreme Court in "District of Columbia v. Heller" established that the second ammendment was an individual right.


It also proves that it is not clear

1) The decision was decided 5-4 (along the same voting lines of Bush vs Gore)

2) The Supreme Court took over 200 years to finally come to the conclusion that it was an individual right.

3) The court of appeals reversed it 2-1 and the full appeals ruled 6-4

4) The core holding of the majority is actually not based on the 2nd ammendment argument but on the right to 'self defense'.

5) All of the Democratic leaning judges Justice Stevens, Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented.

You can have your guns.

You can point out that America is awash in hundreds of millions of guns and only tens of thousands of people die each year of gunshot wounds.

You can rightfully point out that the very large majority of gun owners are both responsible and law abiding.

You can make the point that enforcement of current laws should be undertaken before any new ones are even considered.

You can spew outrage when legislators try and find ways to curb deaths -- 30,896 in 2006.

You can believe that the 2nd Ammendment speaks to you in coded reference in a way that reaffirms your own personal opinion.


But let's make it clear, you cannot call the intent of the 2nd Ammendent to have individuals own 21st century weapons clear and have people who do not share your near religious regard for the personal ownership of guns respect your intellectual honesty.

[X_Digger]

116. For other prefatory clauses and their usage..

.. see the Rhode Island constitution..

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty"

That statement hasn't been interpreted to mean that a freedom of the press only applies to matters pertaining to the security of freedom in a state, just that the prefatory clause established the reason for the declarative clause.

[grantcart]

118. Again making the point that the 2nd ammendment is not "clear"

When it came to the first ammenment the writers did not use prefatory clauses but declarative statement: Congress shall not.


When it came to the second ammendment they had the option of using a clear declarative statement.


The prefatory clause found in the Virginia Constitution makes it clear that it is not an individual right that is being established but a premise for securing the common security:

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.<30>

The context of the debate on the 2nd ammendment had to do with resisting a coup by the military in order to maintain the constitution. It was not an attempt to establish a right for recreation and self defense or for hunting.

You can argue that the 2nd ammendment implied that, is logical to assume that, has grown to include that.

You can argue that the right is established in the constitution beyond the 2nd ammendment and confirmed by American tradition, I would even agree with that,

You simply cannot try to trump a discussion of the 2nd ammendment by making a categorical statement that it is an individual right and that the language is clear. If it was clear it wouldn't have taken 220 years for the Supreme Court to issue a 5-4 decision along highly partisan political lines.

[X_Digger]

120. "it wouldn't have taken 220 years"...

You're assuming that the question has been rolling around that long. Debate in congress surrounding the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments would lead one to believe that the individual interpretation wasn't even in question.

The reason that the question wasn't being asked then, is that it was a given until it wasn't.

Read Halbrook, Stephen P., Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876, Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998

February 28 1866, Senator James Nye of Nevada:

"In the enumeration of natural and personal rights to be protected, the framers of the Constitution apparently specified everything they could think of — "life," "liberty," "property," "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," "freedom in the exercise of religion," "security of person," &c.; and then, lest something essential in the specifications should have been overlooked, it was provided in the ninth amendment that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights should not be construed to deny or disparage other rights not enumerated." ... All these rights are established by the fundamental law.

Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they {blacks} have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

134. Only one of the liberal justices didn't agree the 2nd was an individual right.

I actually agree with all three of these points.

1) That while the 2nd Ammendment did not explicitly speak of individual rights it was implied.

2) That while the 2nd Ammendment did not explicitly speak of individual rights it is a logical extension of the principle.

3) That while the 2nd Ammendment did not explicitly speak of individual rights the right to proscribe is not given anywhere and that the continued use of the individual right is so well established that any abridgement of it would require a constitutional ammendment to take the right away.

I am glad the you are willing to admit that one can honestly hold these positions. I have personally argued the specifics with Nadine Strossen. I will have to agree that I am a big fan of the Constitution. I appreciate the input sorry I didn't respond sooner.

David

[beevul]

135. No. You sir, are wrong.

"The original intent was to form armed maliltia to protect the state"

The original intent, was to enumerate a list of restrictions on the government, to prevent government from misconstruing or abusing its powers.

They called it "The Bill of Rights":


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/


Read it and try again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. I agree, John Hancock owned warships armed with cannon.

That would be a *great* draw for America's Cup Racing:

"Now with sports, here's Dave."

"Thanks, Bob. In America's Cup preliminaries today off Newport, Rhode Island, Constellation 4 defeated John Bull, with 26 dead and 65 injured..."

[gorfle]

137. Heller put that one down.

Meaning, we have to look at the Founder's intent - and since, at the time, bearing "arms" consisted of limited styles and technology, then THAT is what they intended.

Firstly, Heller rightly put down the notion that the Constitution only applies to 18th century technology. Clearly the right to be secure from unreasonable searches applies even in your car, which didn't exist in the 18th century. Clearly the right to free speech includes modern printing presses, telephones, and computers. Heller states that the second amendment applies to firearms commonly in use at any given time.

Secondly, the Founders' intent was to have an citizenry armed with military-grade weaponry such that the citizenry could either serve in place of or at least counter federal infantry forces. Given that intent, logically the citizenry should continue to be armed with whatever contemporary infantry-grade small arms come available.

[SteveM]

145. "Strict constructionist?" You a right-winger? I'm not...

The founders were well aware of rifles (not muskets), the early technologies of "repeaters," and other advances in firearms -- that is why the rifle (mainly in the hands of militia and special corps within the "regulars") was utilized heavily during the Revolutionary War, much to the chagrin of the British who were mainly equipped with short-range muskets. But glad to see you have responded on your printing press. Now, use your straw to mop up the (l)ink on your keyboard.

[Israfel4]

130. In a nutshell..........

"Is it your position that every single possible solution, including requiring gun safety's or gun safes, or whatever it might be, are all in violation of the 2nd ammendment and there is no possible human way to reduce the number of deaths, except for banning them and destroying our entire constitutional form of government?"


Yes. The ONLY way to stop the number of deaths from firearms is to ban and confiscate ALL firearms. People are people, they do stupid things, can't stop/prevent stupid. Is it fair for the responsible firearm owners? Nope.

Have you seen the Handgun Control Inc/Brady "5 year" plan??? Granted it was written in 1993 I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't changed at all.

http://www.bradybusters.com/dnn/Portals/0/data/pages/brady%205%20yr%20plan%20from%201993.htm

[grantcart]

132. Then why do other countries, like Switzerland and Canada that have

high gun ownership do not have the same rates of fatalities? "People are people". Evidently not all people are the same


Switzerland 27% gun ownership and only .58 (per 100k) homicide by gun


United States 39% gun ownership and 5.70 homicide by gun.


Canda 29% and only .76 homicide by gun


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

[Israfel4]

142. IMO I would attribute that to

the education, economic, justice system, and family traditions. Our justice system is a joke. Our prisons/jails are filled with so many NON-violent offenders that the violent ones get out much to early or given a slap on the wrist. There are already laws on the books stating mandatory sentences for criminals being caught in possession or even using a firearm to commit a crime. But, IMO, since we, the USA, are concentrating on the "drug" problem the other "offenders" are getting the benefits. If more people were better educated they'd be less likely to commit crimes, and if the economy were better there would be more jobs available.

The most important part for me is "family". Without a good strong family background the education won't succeed which will help improve the economy and keep a person out of trouble.....for the most part.

[gorfle]

131. Of course not.

Now, and this really is parsing it down to the Neandrathal level, are you stating that there is no possible solution that would decrease the level of accidental, homicidal and suicides by the use of guns besides banning them?

I think you will find that all firearm owners are open to solutions that would decrease the level of accidental, homicidal and suicides by the use of guns - provided you can preserve the original intent of the second amendment which is to have a citizenry armed with military-grade weaponry capable of replacing or at least countering the military-grade weaponry of the federal infantry.

[grantcart]

133. Living a couple of miles from camp Pendleton and seeing their

tanks, artillery and hellicopters I think that we are going to need a serious upgrade in weaponry.

But you are 100% correct in the reason for having the malitia in the first place.

[gorfle]

138. On tanks, artillery, and helicopters

It is generally accepted that the second amendment applies to "small arms", that is, arms that are man portable and discriminate, even though in the founder's day there were privately owned artillery pieces and naval ships.

The second amendment is not generally held to refer to crew-served weaponry, nor indiscriminate weapons such as explosives or nuclear weapons.

[-..__...]

51. "Fuzzy math"?

Define "children" and explain where the figure "8" a day comes from?

Here's the unbiased link and data to guide you...

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

[madinmaryland]

5. How long before this gets dumped in the Gungeon.

:popcorn:

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. 5,4,3,2....

pass the popcorn

:popcorn:

[madinmaryland]

33. It's still in GD.

:wtf:

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. i see... slow I take it

[Indy Lurker]

52. It won't go to the Gungeon

Until there are a few posts that support gun rights.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. I wonder why that is.

[aikoaiko]

7. Interesting table. something to think about.

http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart09.htm

[lindisfarne]

11. Just glancing - the top 25 seem to pattern well with the red states politically. Not surprising.n/t

[fascisthunter]

10. we've known this for years

[texasleo]

13. Black areas are more violent...

Could also be a conclusion, no?
With the possible exception of Alaska. Although, the hunting-related deaths in Alaska would account for the difference.

Liberals should be careful with these studies.

[lindisfarne]

14. More religious states as well. Esp. with more evangelicals. Higher avg. temp. too. n/t

[rucky]

16. Most of the deaths are hunting-related.

cause is key, here

[damntexdem]

18. If it's hunting-related, are they less dead?

Sure cause is key: more guns and weaker regulations cause more deaths.

[rucky]

20. I suspect one of those two factors are spurious

it would be helpful to find out which one, so we could reduce gun deaths without pissing off responsible gun owners.

I have a feeling that even if we loosen gun laws in, say, New York, ownership would not increase that much. Guns are simply a bigger part of the culture in the South, and the looser laws reflect the high level of ownership.

And if the main cause of death is accidental, then we know that restricting ownership would be less effective than training and education.

[Pavulon]

72. Like in canada and switzerland?

still have guns, minimal gun violence. I guess their guns are just the kind that dont randomly shoot people?

[iverglas]

125. nah.

I guess their guns are just the kind that dont randomly shoot people?

Our guns, here in Canada, are mainly not the kind that people acquire and possess IN ORDER TO shoot people.

You know.

Handguns.

And of course you know that access to handguns in Switzerland (other than the military weapons kept by members of the militia and subject to rather strict oversight) is fairly heavily regulated.

(You guys do need to get up to date on this stuff, you know. Switzerland just isn't the free-fire zone you imagine, particularly since changes in the last decade or so.)

The prevalence of firearms in Swiss households is similar to the situation in Canada: about 1/4 of households have firearms (a majority of those weapons being military issue). Considerably lower than in the US.


Wouldn't it be nice if people would get a clue before posting nonsense?

[rucky]

15. And places with more cars have more auto-related deaths.

and grass is green

[lindisfarne]

62. But there would be more car deaths if we didn't regulate them: licenses, testing. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

108. Firearms are far more heavily regulated than cars.

[damntexdem]

17. Well, duh. It ain't perfect, but it works.

Despite what the NRA claims.

[marmar]

19. The Gun-shaped Bat Signal must not be as strong today.....

I would have expected this thread to be overrun by the DU Gun Lobby by now.

[patriotvoice]

23. We get tired of the same old canards, VPC in this case,

that must be debunked time and time again. It's like firemen rushing to the same house over and over and over and over again.that

[SteveM]

146. It's called "whack-a-mole." You can easily bash 'em, but they keep sprouting! (nt)

[patriotvoice]

21. CDC says "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws on violent outcomes"

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Also, you should check out who backs the Violence Policy Center before you put too much faith in their reports.

[derby378]

112. That statement is from a 2003 report

The VPC study cited in the OP claims to use CDC data from 2006, but they haven't revealed the raw data or the methodology used.

[kenny blankenship]

22. But but but "an armed society is a polite society"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. The VPC is the KKK of the anti gun bigots

and should be treated accordingly

[struggle4progress]

25. Since the KKK has always been a murderous institution, the comparison seems idiotic

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. The VPC is a hardover over group of anti gun bigots...their intent is to murder rights with the

the inevitable fallout of additional deaths.

[madinmaryland]

34. No wonder you guys have such a bizarre reputation..

"anti gun bigots" - :wtf: Isn't a bigot one who debases a race of people. The last time I checked, gun owners are not a race, but a very diversied group.

"intent is to murder rights" - Isn't that referring to people who murdered Civil rights workers, pro-choice doctors, etc.

You, my friend, have made one of the most incredibly stupid posts on DU in recent years. Maybe you need to pull you head out of your gun barrel and get some help.

[struggle4progress]

38. Ku Klux Klan, hate groups attacking churches across U.S. (Frost Illustrated June 2009)

By Tony Brown Faire
Special to the NNPA from the Dallas Examiner

(NNPA)— ... Within 24 hours of Obama’s election, Nov. 5, 2008, Benjamin Haskell, Michael F. Jacques Jr. and Thomas Gleason Jr., all of whom are white, set fire to the Macedonia Church of God In Christ, which is located in Springfield, Mass. According to the Boston Globe, Haskell was asked by an associate why they set fire to the church. Haskell replied, “Because it was a black church.”

A CNN report stated that on the day of the election of President Obama, a 55-year-old man by the name of Don Black, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard, stated that more than 2,000 people joined his website. Statistics suggest KKK and other hate groups are gaining strength because of the election of President Barack Obama.

In the state of Texas, there have been many reported hate crimes that have occurred within the past 12 months and many more that might go unreported out of fear of the Klan or other hate groups retaliating. An alarming amount of black churches have been targeted in Texas by the Klan and other hate groups.

In May 2008, Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church in the Marshall area had “White KKK Power” painted on its walls. Also in June of 2008, Center Hill Free Will Baptist Church of Nesbitt, Texas had KKK propaganda painted on its walls. The church is 107 years old. There have been at least four churches targeted in Texas within the last year by racial violence and intimidation ...

http://www.frostillustrated.com/full.php?sid=5860

[struggle4progress]

39. Oregon Men Sentenced for ‘KKK’ Hate Crime (Willamette Weekly June 2009)

Oregon Men Sentenced for ‘KKK’ Hate Crime
12:52 PM June 16th, 2009 by James Pitkin

Two Medford men were sentenced to prison today after pleading guilty to burning a cross and the letters “KKK” into the lawn of a black family.

Federal prosecutors say that on May 26, 2008, Gary Moss and Devan Klausegger poured flammable liquid onto the family’s front yard and ignited it with a small explosive. According to a news release (PDF), a neighbor put out the fire with a garden hose before it lit the house with the family inside.

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken sentenced Moss, 37, to nearly three-and-a-half years in federal prison for depriving the victims of their civil rights under the Fair Housing Act. Klausegger, 30, got four years and three months for the same charge ...

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/06/16/oregon-men-sentenced-for-kkk-hate-crime/

[struggle4progress]

40. Black family targeted with hateful graffiti (KATU June 2009)

Story Updated: Jun 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM PDT
By Adam Ghassemi KATU News and KATU.com Staff
Video

CLARK COUNTY, Wash. – A black Clark County family discovered KKK references, swastikas and racial slurs spray painted around their home and in their neighborhood Saturday morning.

“When I seen it on my driveway with an arrow pointing towards our house with the n-word, I kind of got really offended because I took it really personal,” said Holli Scott, whose family is the only black one in the neighborhood, located near the intersection of Northeast 44th Avenue and Northeast 39th Street.

The name of her 16-year-old daughter, Shamerica, was also spray painted in the middle of the street with a reference to a racial slur.

Scott believes the hateful graffiti was done in retaliation after the family went to her daughter’s principal at Fort Vancouver High School to report a letter from another student that contained racist language ... http://www.katu.com/news/local/48731037.html

[struggle4progress]

41. 2 more arrested in Yorktown hate crime (WAVY June 2009)

Updated: Tuesday, 09 Jun 2009, 11:41 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 04 Jun 2009, 4:42 PM EDT

* Katie Collett

YORKTOWN, Va. - Two more have been arrested in connection with a beating at the waterfront in Yorktown last month that police say was an apparent hate crime.

Police arrested Jeffrey Reed and Norris Domanque bringing the total number of suspects to five. Robert Williams, Kayla Harris, and Paul Harris were already arrested for the attack.

The police report says the gang who allegedly attacked made reference to the KKK. The report also says the man who was badly beaten was heterosexual, but the two men he was with were homosexual and another friend was Asian ... http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/local_wavy_york_county_hate_crime_at_yorktown_waterfront_20090603

[struggle4progress]

42. Murder and Miracles in Philadelphia, Mississippi

Published: May 27th, 2009 19:35 EST
Murder and Miracles in Philadelphia, Mississippi
By George Curry (Former Featured Editor)

... The Mississippi soil is soaked in the blood of civil rights activists. Three of the most famous - James Chaney, a 21-year old African-American from Meridian, Miss.; Andrew Goodman, 20, a White Jewish student from New York and Michael Schwerner, 24, another White also from New York - were murdered 45 years ago near Philadelphia. Their story inspired the movie, "Mississippi Burning" ...

All three were participating in Freedom Summer, a Bob Moses-inspired project to bring college-aged students to the Magnolia state in 1964 to dramatize social, economic and political injustice. They had traveled 36 miles from Meridian to Philadelphia, Miss. to investigate the recent burning of Mount Zion United Methodist Church, which had hosted many civil rights activities in the area before it was destroyed by fire.

Before the trio left Meridian on June 21, 1964, a description of their blue, Ford station wagon and its license plate number had been given to the White supremacist Citizens Council and the Ku Klux Klan. With Cheney behind the wheel, Neshoba County Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price, a member of the KKK, flicked on his flashing lights and pulled the vehicle over. Chaney was arrested for allegedly driving 35 miles over the speed limit and his two companions were held for further investigation. They were taken to the county jail in Philadelphia. Cheney was fined $20 and all three were released late that night and ordered to leave the county. Prior to letting them go, however, Deputy Sheriff Price notified his fellow Klansmen, who plotted to murder the men. Price followed the three civil rights workers to the edge of town, pulled them over again, and detained them until KKK members arrived ...

http://thesop.org/index.php?article=16417

[struggle4progress]

43. State Police Investigating Vandalism (WDTV June 2009)

WDTV News
Story Created: Jun 9, 2009 at 12:56 PM EDT
Story Updated: Jun 9, 2009 at 1:05 PM EDT

State police in Morgantown are looking for the vandals who damaged park property and wrote racial slurs on several things.

Police say someone broke into Scott's Run park late Sunday or early Monday and spray painted a swastika and a star on the bathroom wall. They also wrote "KKK" and racial slurs in chalk on the basketball courts, tore down a fence, destroyed a table and stole a radio ...

http://www.wdtv.com/news/local/47317247.html

[struggle4progress]

44. Holocaust Museum shooter's letters to Marine Corps General show longstanding ties to far right

... Letter #3

The third letter is dated November 18, 1975. Von Brunn refers to meeting with David Duke, seemingly the same meeting referred to in his August letter. Again, von Brunn advocates that the Klan take a more violent approach. He also alludes to his belief that Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, General George Patton and Senator Joseph McCarthy were all victims of a Jewish conspiracy.

"David Duke, KKK, is a fine young man. Apparently, he is doing well with the movement. But, as you know, my advice to him was to form a strike-force. The Enemy will allow him so much rope - no more. When he becomes bothersome he will meet the same fate as Forrestal, Patton, McCarthy and the rest of the Patriots" ...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/17/743592/-Holocaust-Museum-shooters-letters-to-Marine-Corps-General-show-longstanding-ties-to-far-right

[struggle4progress]

45. The plot to kill Barack Obama (Guardian June 2009)

When police arrested two young white racists here in Bells, Tennessee, did they foil a deadly plan? Ed Pilkington reports

... At about 8.30pm, the owners of the house, Clark and Judy Cowart, were watching television when an officer from the local sheriff's department arrived bearing alarming news. Lt Richard Stitts had come to tell them their 20-year-old grandson, Daniel, who lived with them, was in trouble. The police had received information that he and a friend called Paul were heavily armed and planning to rob and murder people in the area ...

About an hour later, a small grey Honda pulled up to the house carrying Daniel Cowart and his 18-year-old friend Paul Schlesselman. A dozen police officers were waiting for them, guns drawn. The two were surrounded, thrown to the ground and handcuffed. As the sheriff, Troy Klyce, walked around the car, he uttered an involuntary, "What the hell!" The bonnet and side panels were covered in slogans scrawled in chalk, including the numbers 14 and 88, a swastika and WWHD which, it seems, stood for What Would Hitler Do? The bumper had its own adornment: "Honk if you love Hitler."

The two men were taken to the county jail where, the next day, in the presence of FBI agents, they began to reveal their intentions. Cowart went first, saying they planned "to go from state to state on a killing spree. Paul had mentioned a total of 88 people and beheading 14 of them." In Schlesselman's account, their aim was "to kill 88 people and kill 14 blacks": either way, the numbers are symbolic among white supremacists. The eighth letter of the alphabet is H, so 88 translates as HH, "Heil Hitler"; 14 refers to the number of words in a message, legendary among the faithful, left by the white supremacist leader David Lane when he was jailed for murder: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" ...

It is not clear exactly when, why or how Cowart began to fall under the influence of white supremacists. Clark Cowart told the court that his grandson had always been "super-courteous to us. He was very respectful", but he noted that Daniel did spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet in communication with one particular group. That was a neo-Nazi skinhead outfit called the Supreme White Alliance. It was formed about a year ago in Kentucky by Steven Edwards, son of Ron Edwards, the imperial wizard of the Imperial Klans of America, a prominent branch of the Ku Klux Klan. In April last year, Daniel attended a party celebrating Hitler's birthday, where they ate a pink cake marked SWA. On the group's private members' website, Cowart describes himself as "easy going and easy to get along with, as long as you are White!" ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/06/barack-obama-racism-assassination

[struggle4progress]

46. VPC published some statistics. Most of us can tell the difference between that and threats

[Snazzy]

95. +999

edit to add--thanks for your info packed posts. You did the same thing on the "bullet fee" meme yesterday (Iran, not gun control). Didn't want to kick that thread again to say thanks, but it was interesting to see the possible source based on links not speculation.

:toast:

[distantearlywarning]

26. Correlational evidence.

There's research out there showing that people (esp. men) from southern states are more violent in general, and are more likely to retaliate physically during an altercation. I bet if you had a table of knife deaths you would see a similar pattern.

Higher temperatures also increase crime rates - southern states are hotter in general, as is Nevada.

[old mark]

30. High temp and humidity, fundamentalist religion, Republican politics,

lower income.

Maybe the AC wasn't working that day.

Oh, yeah....lots of alcohol consumption.

mark

[quickesst]

32. Both sides of the gun issue....

...are saddled with screaming monkeys on their backs. On the back of the gun control advocates is the monkey screaming "take all the guns away, our way or hit the highway." On the back of the gun ownership advocates sits the monkey who is afraid the monkey on the back of the other side is on it's way to take all his guns, and the sane middle cannot stand and look each other in the eye for the heavy weight of the screaming monkeys on their respective backsides. I would venture a guess that if each side of this issue could rid themselves, or at least educate their monkees, a reasonable compromise on the gun debate could be reached. Until then, enjoy the popcorn. Thanks.
quickesst

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Actually most gun control advocates are exactly that, gun control advocates

not gun confiscation advocates

If you want to have a (insert gun here) I want you to be certified in the use of such a weapon, as well as the use of deadly force, preferably taught by the local police. Shit like this includes follow through of ammo and penetration.

Apparently making people take this course and be safe and be a licensed owner is too much for the other side.

And some guns should be registered... just because of their potential damage...

But after that... knock yourself silly, if you are sane, and an adult.

Kids should always handle weapons under the supervision of a licensed adult. Oh and before you say it, some teens are very mature to be given the equivalent of a learner's license if they want to go after rabbits and squirrels and even larger game with their parents. As to that.. you kill it, you eat it.

And most gun control advocates are of the license category, aka control. There are a few toys that don't belong in the streets, but hey, whatever...

And I expect the usual suspects to tell me I have no fucking clue since they are truly in such blind love with their toys that even a simple LICENSE scares the living shit out of them.

to them, buzz off, I am not in the mood. And we will never see eye to eye on this.

[lindisfarne]

58. Exactly. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. And most gun owners are responsible and never hurt anyone.

[grantcart]

88. Yes they are unfortunately they also form a protective bubble around

the minority that are not.


The best solution is that the gun community establish the kind of training and certification along the lines of getting a driver's license.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

106. Never seen that protective bubble, I'll look around for it though.

[Snazzy]

96. the NRA worked to frame it just that way of course

reasonableness is surrender, don't give inch on anything, zealots painting any and all opponents as the zealots, etc. Lot of pissing going on in our big tent if you ask me. Reasonableness or rational thought on all things policy I would have considered core democratic virtues. Nowadays not so sure.

Like you say, I'm exactly here: "And I expect the usual suspects to tell me I have no fucking clue since they are truly in such blind love with their toys that even a simple LICENSE scares the living shit out of them.

to them, buzz off, I am not in the mood. And we will never see eye to eye on this."

Though I think I want my tent back.

[Euromutt]

111. In principle, I agree with you

The problem with the gun control movement, as with any political movement, is that the most fanatical members are the most active, and therefore set the agenda. Many of your suggestions are perfectly reasonable on their face (and I say that as a gun owner, and a NRA member, albeit a reluctant one). The problem comes when implementing such rules are left to the discretion of the executive.

If you want to have a (insert gun here) I want you to be certified in the use of such a weapon, as well as the use of deadly force, preferably taught by the local police.

So far, so good. But what happens if the local police chief decides he doesn't like private citizens owning guns? What's to stop him from preventing private citizens from owning firearms by the simple expedient of not holding the classes you describe? Or holding them at inconvenient times (say, at times when many applicants need to be at work) and places so that as few people as possible can actually attend them?

The history of licensing schemes in the U.S. alone is replete with abuses, from police chiefs deciding that certain people--e.g. blacks, recent immigrants, etc.--could by definition never demonstrate sufficient need to be issued a firearms permit, to elected county sheriffs only issuing concealed carry permits to contributors to the campaign fund, and of course, there's New York City, where you have to be a celebrity (Bill Cosby, Robert de Niro, Howard Stern), exceedingly rich (Donald Trump, John Catsimatidis) or politically influential (Sen. Chuck Schumer, Arthur Sulzberger Jr.) to be issued a concealed carry permit.

This is one important reason why the NRA opposes licensing schemes; it's not so much the license per se that scares them, but the suspicion that opportunity they allow will lead to it being exploited to create a de facto gun ban by restricting the issuance of licenses. And frankly, the historical evidence indicates they've got a point. The history of gun control laws is full of example of not unreasonable conditions rendered unreasonable by making it impossible to meet those conditions. And for that, I'm afraid, you have the aforementioned gun control activists to blame.

And in the interim, the NRA is the biggest provider of firearms training in the U.S. Hell, they have a special category of instructors who provide training to law enforcement agencies. So it's not like they're hampering the promotion of firearms safety.

[The Green Manalishi]

140. no,

While I agree with you, the problem is that at least twice legally registered weapons were *later* declared to be illegal and confiscated.

In my ideal universe the right to own or carry nearly anything is combined with stringent background checks, training and certification.
I'll support registration and licensing, preferably gradated licensing for different types of firearms, as soon as the right to own and carry for anyone who does pass the requirements is an irrevocable absolute. First incorporate the second and and canonize Heller, then reasonable minds can talk about 'well regulated'. As soon as there is room for any sort of arbitrary restriction of rights (as in not based STRICTLY on competence and non felon status) then the 'haves' get permits and the 'have nots' get screwed. Rights shouldn't work that way.

As a history buff, I'd be willing to undergo quite a bit of certification and training to have the sorts of weapons I find fascinating.

But, for example, here in California, the legislature declared an entire type of legally owned weapons to be illegal and used the state registration rolls to send letters telling everyone who had them to turn them in or be a felon; while such things must have made the gun control advocates tumescent with joy in the short term this action poisoned the well as far as getting enthusiasts to ever agree to the actually quite sane things you mention; the onus is, in my opinion, on those who would restrict to overcome our justly rooted suspicion of the control advocates.

[iverglas]

124. and just to add

"Gun ownership advocate" is not the opposite of "gun control advocate", as framed by the person you replied to. Just as "pro-abortion" is not the opposite of "anti-abortion".

Pro-choice and anti-choice -- or abortion access advocate and abortion access opponent, if you like) ... gun control advocate and gun control opponent.

Obviously there are nuances that would result in things like heavily regulated firearms access advocate and loosely regulated firearms access advocate.

But yup. Gun confiscation advocate really doesn't come into it. Fond as some people are of saying that if you want to ban possession of one particular kind of firearm, that makes you one.

[ProgressiveSuperhawk]

37. I pray for a day guns are gone

I pray for a day guns are gone so our cities will be cleaned up of gun and gang violence. Now is our time to do it, we have a Democratic President and Democrats controlling Congress, we need to push them to get guns off our streets, like they do in Europe, they don't allow the gun violence in Europe like we do here.

[Indy Lurker]

48. Do you believe

gang violence will be gone when guns are gone?

Or will guns be gone when gang violence is gone?

[-..__...]

50. Take it up with these guys if you don't like it.

Oh wait!... they left the Nirvana of Europeon laws and rules (and rulers), to escape the type of governmental control
you hold so dear.

[Tim01]

121. Kalashnikitty kicks ass!! nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Because if there were no guns there would be no violence, what a fantasy.

[SteveM]

147. Yeah, never heard of any wars before the invention of guns (nt)

[Pavulon]

71. Like in switzerland? As safe as tokyo, plenty of guns, canada too. I pray for the assholes to go

away. normal people are not out there shooting each other for crack rock. They dont have nearly the rates of violent crime in geneva we do here. Lots of guns, funny how that works.

[grantcart]

89. while the Swiss, who have a high rate of gun ownership due to universal

military reserve, have very few gun homicides, they almost match the very high rate of gun suicide that the US has.



Beyond the gangs, guns make it too easy for people in a family fight or depressed to exercise a fatal option.

[armyowalgreens]

101. I've spoken about your "point" before in another thread...

As someone who has suffered from suicidal depression...

"There are different types of suicidal people. Some literally want to die. Some simply want to stop the suffering and have last minute "epiphanies". And still others simply want attention.

People who shoot themselves are determined to die. People who cut their wrists and then call 9/11 aren't as determined.

The ones who truly want to kill themselves will find a way. They can swallow massive amounts of pills. They can jump from high places. They can suffocate themselves. There are plenty of methods that people can use.

Take away guns, and people will find other methods."

When I almost attempted suicide, I had the ways and means without being anywhere near a gun.

[Pavulon]

122. SO does laundry detergent in japan..

suicide is common there without guns. The rate of murder and violent crime in switzerland is a tiny fraction of us death. You should post numbers on this topic with suicide info from japan and switzerland.

[Statistical]

75. Like the UK with a violent crime rate double the US? Or maybe Australia with rape rate 10x as high?

Both countries have buglary rate nearly 50% higher than US and more burglaries occur when residence is occupied.

For some strange reasons burglars in the US tend to break into homes when unoccupied.

Might have to do with combination of high gun ownership, most likely location for guns is in the home, and most states allow lethal self defense in a burglary. It tends to be rather dangerous for criminals to break into occupied American homes especially in high ownership areas.

[lindisfarne]

83. Links to official stats?? n/t

[Statistical]

102. Really? You can't google yourself. I will dig em up when I get a break.

It is pretty common knowledge the UK & Australia have had higher violent crime rate than the US for sometime now.

[proteus_lives]

91. Yeah, because Europe is a peaceful utopia.

:eyes:

[EndersDame]

92. Because if they are illegal the Gang members will respect the law

[armyowalgreens]

100. I believe Canada has a higher ratio of guns to people than the US

But their gun related violence is DRASTICALLY lower than the USs.

Guns aren't the problem. It's Americans. We are assholes.

[iverglas]

117. you, like so many people who rely on misrepresentations of Michael Moore's words

believe wrong.

Will this canard never die?

There is a far, far lower rate of firearms ownership in Canada than in the US. About 1/4 of Canadian households have firearms. The vast majority of those are long arms, owned for rural/hunting purposes.

There are far, far fewer firearms per capita in Canada than in the US. A probably high estimate would be 10 million firearms in a population of 33 million. If the rates were similar, there would be about 90 million firearms in the US. The figure in the US is actually well more than double that.


What the US has that Canada does not have is a HIGH RATE OF HANDGUN POSSESSION. That is the single most striking difference between the two countries (apart from the legislative/regulatory framework) in terms of firearms.

[konnichi wa]

109. Why not pray for free dildoes while you're at it?

:eyes:

[X_Digger]

53. And we should believe a rehashed

VPC press release any more than an NRA release why?

Be interesting to see the figures in a raw form in any case.

[doc03]

54. You say firearm-related deaths are down

in states that have stricter gun laws and lower gun ownership. Are they counting suicides and accidental deaths from firearms? If that was the case of course there would be more, there are more guns. I would say a lot more people in NY die from elevator accidents than in Alabama. How do the states compare if you just take all the violent deaths by any means? Do they use more knives or other weapons in NY and MA? Anyway it all comes down to one point the people in Alabama didn't have their Constitutional rights taken from them. If you give up your freedoms for security you get neither.

[benEzra]

56. Umm, Alabama is not a particularly pro-gun state by national norms.

The Brady Campaign rates Alabama's gun laws 19th strictest in the nation, thanks to a patchwork of gun-control laws originally intended to keep guns out of the hands of citizens with the "wrong" color skin.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=al

Much of New England (excluding Massachusetts) is generally more pro-gun than Alabama is, as is most of the Pacific Northwest, and most of the West excluding California. And I would point out that according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the state with the lowest murder rate in the nation is gun-friendly New Hampshire. Hunting is bigger in Alabama, yes, but nationally less than 1 in 5 gun owners hunts, and hunting and gun ownership are not tightly correlated.

FWIW, the bit about "assault weapons" being "particularly hazardous firearms" is a howler, considering that only 3% of U.S. murders involve any type of rifle at all, despite the fact that more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table 20, Murder, By State and Type of Weapon

Look closely at the "Rifles" column, which includes both "assault weapons" AND full-power hunting style rifles.

[lindisfarne]

59. How is having to register a gun onerous? Or having to demonstrate safety knowledge? Car owners have

to do both. I know plenty of gun owners who see no problem with registration and knowledge requirements. They're just not as loopy as NRA members.

(Forget the argument that the 2nd amendment somehow allows gun ownership and prohibits all possible regulation. It doesn't.)

[-..__...]

64. And what would be the reason or useful pupose...

to embrace firearms registration?

[lindisfarne]

84. It is a regulation. As in: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security

the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

How can you possibly have a "well regulated militia" without regulations?

We want to be sure to follow the 2nd amendment - you cannot forget the first 4 words! It would violate the Constitution!!!

[NickB79]

93. "Well-regulated" had a far different meaning in the 1700's

All it meant was well-disciplined or well-trained, not regulated by government oversight:

"Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".<84> On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper 29:

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.<29>

Some scholars, such as Saul Cornell, have contended that modern militia movements are not what could be considered "well regulated", since they often lack fixed leadership and may have unstructured training regimes.<85>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

[Snazzy]

97. Hamilton was a victim of gun violence

:hide:

[burrfoot]

141. I'm not sure

if that was sarcastic....but I think it's worth remembering that the guy wasn't shot for his wallet, he agreed to and participated in a duel.

[Statistical]

105. Couple points

1) Well regulated had nothing to do with regulations.

2) Even if it did just having regulations for the purpose of having regulations is stupid.

The question is what would registration of firearms accomplish.

Would you be for a regulation that requires all cars have their front right tire removed when not in use just because you can.

You can't answer the question about why have this specific regulation with the answer "it is regulation".

[gorfle]

139. On well regulated militias.

First of all, in 18th century vernacular, "well regulated" means "well equipped and trained".

Second of all, the militias our founders intended to serve as a replacement or counter to federal infantry forces ceased to exist with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903. The Dick Act federalized the state militias, creating the Organized Militia (the National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia).

This means that the state militias, which were intended to serve as a counter to federal infantry and limit federal power, now became reserve troops and server to bolster, not limit, federal military power.

It also means that in fact every able-boded man aged 17-45 not already in the National Guard is in the (unorganized) militia.

[Pavulon]

68. Maybe we should make people prove they are not to stupid to vote..

hmm. maybe just dont let poor people have them. Half gun death is suicide, then poor people shooting each other (how much gun crime in Greenwich ct?). How many NFA 20,000 machine guns show up? None.

Maybe my approach would work? maybe you people should work on root cause, the game is up on this ruse.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Who said the 2nd Amendment prohibits all possible regulations?

[beevul]

136. I grow tired of pointing this out...

But I will, yet again:

"How is having to register a gun onerous? Or having to demonstrate safety knowledge? Car owners have to do both."


Sorry, but not quite.


Car OWNERS have to do no such thing.


An unlicensed adult, in most places in America, may own as many cars as he or she wishes, without ever licensing or registering them, or him/her self.

One needs to license him/her self and the car IF and ONLY IF one wishes to drive it off of private property.

Same goes for safety knowledge.



Now then, do you really want everyone who has taken gun safety classes and has a registered firearm to be able to carry it in public just about everywhere they go, like a car?

[Tim01]

73. We have chainsaw assaults in my area. Seriously.

That is because we have a lot of tree workers, so there are lots of chainsaws around.

Chainsaws are available, and there exist violent people.=Chainsaw violence.

Guns available= gun violence.
Knives available = knife violence.
Cars= car violence.
Fire extinguisher= fire extinguisher violence.(not making this up)
Deer leg= deer leg violence.(not making this up)
Table =table leg violence.
chain=chain violence
box cutter= box cutter violence
screw driver=screw driver violence
bottle= bottle violence

It's a long list.

[havocmom]

74. Plenty of guns in Montana too, but it's drunks driving cars that kill the most

I think drunk control would be worthwhile.

[Tim01]

119. Alcohol kills between 2 and 10 times as many people as guns.(true) So,

All alcohol should have bottles with serial numbers and each bottle should be registered. And all alcohol should contain harmless markers which can be traced to a manufacturer. If a drunk person does something dumb the alcohol manufacturer should be punished .:sarcasm:

[BlooInBloo]

77. He doesn't care much for you...

[Froward69]

79. um...

How many or rather what is the murder rate using knives, baseball bats or any other weapon resulting in death?

I still contend human on human violence is a constant. Regardless of the tool used to Mame or kill. until those stats are depicted alongside deaths or violence from firearms the argument is lopsided propaganda to me.

OK Flame on.

[krispos42]

80. Surprise surprise

I bet they also had lower firearm-suicide rates as well.


And I'll be they had far fewer skiiing fatalities in Florida than in Colorado.


And far fewer shark attacks in Minneapolis than in Miami.








And "assault weapons" are not "particularly hazardous".

[defendandprotect]

81. A gun in every home - an accident in every home--!!!

[Euromutt]

113. Is that wishful thinking?

See, there's between 35 and 50 million households in the United States that contain one or more firearms, but the number of unintentional shootings (fatal and nonfatal) is something in the order of 16,000 annually. So at current rates, it would take well over 2,000 years for every household that currently contains a firearm to suffer an accident in which someone was injured or killed.

[SteveM]

148. Ah, the same ol' gun-control mantras come spewing out...

You should be aware that accidental childhood gun-deaths in the home rank below electrocution, falls and drowning. And the gun-death category has been falling faster than all other listed causes (National Safety Council) for years. BTW, over the last 12+ years, the number of firearms in civilian hands has gone up approximately 100,000,000 while deaths due to firearms has been in overall decline during that same time.

"More guns = more crimes" doesn't fly. Toto has pulled the curtain away on that one.

[lindisfarne]

85. 2nd amendment calls for regulations: "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."
:patriot:

[NickB79]

94. You are mistaken, as I pointed out in post #93. nt

[X_Digger]

110. Prefatory clause..

See Rhode Island's constitution-

"The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty"

It was a fairly common construction to have a prefatory clause, and that doesn't limit the declaratory clause.

Here's a modern example- "Pizza being necessary to late night study sessions, the right of the people to keep and bear tomatoes and dough shall not be infringed."

That doesn't mean that tomatoes must be used only for pizza, just why it's important that they be protected.

The constitution and amendments aren't a strict list of what rights people have, it's a warning to the government as to what rights it cannot infringe. (It's not a "the people can" list, it's a "the government can't" list.) That's an important distinction that causes people to get hung up on commas, language, etc. Regarding 'interpretation' re commas, 'militia', 'well-regulated', You might as well argue about the intent of a stop sign based on the position of the bolts holding it up.

[slackmaster]

127. Utter nonsense

Well-regulated in 18th century English meant in proper working order, like a well-regulated clock.

[Indy Lurker]

98. it shows a correlation at best

and it does so with soft descriptions like "strong gun laws"

It's still trying to link an object, a gun, with a behavior, murder / suicide.

(There are also accidental deaths, but they account for less than 5% of firearm deaths.)

This kind of logic never seems to be based on sound science, or really gain any traction.

It runs along the lines of blaming videogames for violence.

or blaming drunk driving on the availability of cars or alcohol.

Or obesity on the availability of fast food.


The simple truth is that we have a more murderous society than Europe. Even with all the firearms that are available, and firearm deaths, we still have more knife murder per capita than most European countries. It has little to do with the chosen tool.


By contrast, Japan, which has extremely strict gun laws, has far more suicides than the US. Again, its the culture, not the tools.

[armyowalgreens]

99. I fail to see any evidence of causation...

This really proves nothing.

Many of those states with high gun violence are on top of the list when it comes to poverty.

Poverty can directly be attributed to higher rates of violence. There is causation between the two.


However, I see no evidence from that article that actually makes a causation connection between stronger gun laws and lower crime. Or vice versa.

[iverglas]

123. another factor

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/541400/

Firearm suicide and homicide rates associated with level of Background Checks at Time of Firearm Purchase

States that perform local-level background checks for firearms purchases are more effective in reducing firearm suicide and homicide rates than states that rely only on a federal-level background check, according to a new study by researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

... Local-level background checks were found to be associated with a 27 percent-lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent-lower homicide rate in adults aged 21 years or older.

The retrospective study observed the association between the Department of Justice classification of agencies conducting firearm background checks for each state from 2002 to 2004, and firearm suicide and homicide rates for the same years from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

... States that performed state-level or local-level checks were found to have substantially lower rates of firearm suicides, at 8.45 and 5.74 per 100,000, respectively. A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks.

[slackmaster]

126. "gun deaths per capita" is not a very meaningful statistic IMO

There are several states with lower rates of "gun deaths" and much more stringent gun laws, yet higher murder rates. For example, California.

The VPC cherry-picks data to fit their radical gun ban agenda. For real crime statistics by state, go to http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html

[Euromutt]

128. Let me share some wisdom from Ted Goertzel of Brown University

"When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis."
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

[slackmaster]

144. That is a very astute observation indeed

Most people have a very poor understanding of statistical analysis.