2nd Amendment--applicable how?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

it could be argued that easy availability of guns for everyone actually makes it more rather than less likely that any confrontational situation you find yourself in will devolve into a "kill or be killed" scenario--with you just as likely to be on the losing end as the other guy.

It could be so argued, but not sensibly. Follow the logic to its conclusion and you get the odd position that we would all be safer if we disarmed the police, too. After all, their having guns is just going to escalate confrontations with armed criminals, and the officers are "just as likely to be on the losing end" of any such escalation, no? Ergo, cops without guns makes everyone safer?

Or maybe---just maybe---training and responsibility count for something in confrontations, and maybe it's NOT "just as likely" after all?

[Gav]

The cops in the UK are not armed. Despite what you may (or not judgig by what I've read about US news coverage) be aware UK gun crime is not a serious problem. The shooting of police officers in the line of duty is quite rare. There are far more stabbings in the uk and these are normally performed with normal household implements such as kitchen knives and screwdrivers.

[jeff]

Inq's last point could imply that firearms _should_ be restricted only to law enforcement, as they're the only population known to be trained and to have assumed responsibility for dealing with confrontation.

While we mull that over, how about some choices other than "remove them all": personalized key locks so only the gun's legal owner can fire them. Legal provisions to target gun dealers who sell weapons that wind up used in crimes (which today is a repeat performance of a major conduit to firearms used in crimes) by not practicing due diligence on who they are selling to (coupled with weapon registration) Restrictions prohibiting cop-killer armor piercing bullets (the chiefs of police tend to sign up for that one). Restrictions against automatic weapons. Still leaves plenty of room for law abiding citizens to defend their homes and cap Bambi. Don't like these ideas? suggest your own so we can discuss rather than retreat to absolute positions

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

The cops in the UK are not armed. Despite what you may (or not judgig by what I've read about US news coverage) be aware UK gun crime is not a serious problem.

Different country, different culture, different imperatives. There are tens of millions of guns in private hands in the US, and a polite "please turn them in or face prosecution" would not work here, so disarming the police would merely put the fox into the henhouse. ( Even if we could pull off confiscation, only the law-abiding would be affected; the criminal element would not comply, but would simply be "empowered". )

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Inq's last point could imply that firearms _should_ be restricted only to law enforcement, as they're the only population known to be trained and to have assumed responsibility for dealing with confrontation.

Not really. A number of states now have concealed-weapon permit statutes that mandate a specific amount of training; permit holders are also a known quanity therefore. They are not of course as uniformly trained, nor as thoroughly, as police officers; but having been through both my state's CCW training ( two different programs ) and the police academy firearms training course I can say that they are not that disparate...and that on a case-by-case basis many civilian shooters are more diligent and motivated in practice and training than the average police officer---and often better shots as a consequence. And a course at someplace like Gunsite Ranch gives a much more concentrated and intensive training program than even police academies...

While we mull that over, how about some choices other than "remove them all": personalized key locks so only the gun's legal owner can fire them.

Worth discussing, but most ( like that one ) have problems of their own.
( Ever lost your keys, or locked them in your car? Had a lock break? Etc. )

Legal provisions to target gun dealers who sell weapons that wind up used in crimes

Absolutely.

weapon registration

Strongly opposed to that.

Restrictions prohibiting cop-killer armor piercing bullets

There are no such things as iterated. The phrase "cop killer bullet" was a media invention. ( No police officer was ever shot with a Black Talon. )

There are ( body )AP bullets...they're known as rifle rounds.

And BTW...criminals have also been known to wear body armor.

(the chiefs of police tend to sign up for that one).

The chiefs, being political creatures, by and large sign up for EVERY proposed gun-control measure. The rank and file officers---the ones actually on the street instead of behind podiums at news conferences, the ones facing threats rather than lawmakers and reporters---overwhelmingly oppose them.

Restrictions against automatic weapons.

Already have those.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

Nonetheless the problem exists, and any such check is easily beaten by buying guns through intermediaries. There are notorious gun sellers (at least on this coast) whose products have wound up involved in dozens of felonies.

Work with me here: what proposal do you have to reduce gun deaths in this country?

Basically there are some approaches that have been shown to work-at least in the limited areas where they were tried. Simple too, but they cost money. Much more money than waving the magic wand of passing new laws. What's the name of this simple-but-expensive approach? Enforcing exsiting laws. Most crimes involving guns have the gun charges dropped in plea deals.

Richmond VA was having a lot of crime involving guns. the city, state and Federal prosecutors got together and came up with what they dubed 'Operation Exile'. They were using sections of the 1968 Gun Control Act to send those guilty of gun crimes to Federal prisons as far away from Richmond as they could. Gun violence, that is criminal gun violence(your drug dealers), dropped. I actually watched a Congressional Comittee(or Sub-Comittee) on C-Span talking about this. A congressman from Mass. thought that Federal prosecutors shouldn't be wasting their time and money on this. The witnesses were all behind the program becaused it worked. You could see it in their faces. I thought it very ironic that a member of congress was objecting to a branch of the Federal government, the Justice Dept, enforcing Federal law.

Google 'Operation Exile' or 'Project Exile', I forget the exact name. One important aspect of the program was that it was advertised publicly.

The only way I see to reduce criminal activity with guns is to make it a loosing game for the criminals. Other gun violence, I'm not so sure. Censor the media perhaps?

Real availibilty of guns has lessened over the years. Before 1968 people could buy military rifles and pistols through the mail. Before 1938 people could buy automatic weapons through the mail. Lessening availibilty hasn't lessened crime.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I acknowledge that a case can be made for security officers and police requiring guns for their work.

So now you're saying that the safety of police officers is more important than my safety or yours? What if we need to protect ourselves from a police officer (disclaimer: I believe most police officers to be good people, however bad cops do exist, and future for more bad cops also exists, even in very small numbers).

Everyone has a right to protect themselves. We will never eliminate 100% of the guns in the world, and so long as there are guns out there, it is wrong to restrict their use to the elite and to criminals.

[prototoast]

Yeah, but prosecuting people who commit crimes isn't nearly as much of a "feel-good" action as making laws that restric people's freedom.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

I'd like them fine...except they aren't apples. I don't know if you set out to refute my point, but your analogy actually reinforces it.

I was addressing one branch of your analogy(automobiles as apples) in trying to point out that we, as a society, are willing to put up with a great number of deaths for convience sake.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Seriously, you haven't addressed the point. Automobiles, again, were not intended to kill people. How many accidental deaths occur from automobile use--be it necessary or recreational--is not the point. The point is that the intended function of the automobile is not to kill or injure.

But they do. And we put up with it

Originally Posted by lochinvar

What is the intended function for firearms?

Actually the entended function of a firearm is to direct and launch a chemicaly powered mass. The intended use of a firearm is to kill. Being shot, even with a caliber/bullet designed to kill people dosen't mean you will be killed.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Can you fix a sink with a Tec9?

No, but I can kill some one with a pipe wrench.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Bring home the groceries?

No, but I can kill some one with my car

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Balance your checkbook?

No, but I ...on second thought, I don't think I can kill some one with a pen

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Hit a homerun? Cut up a chicken for the pot?

Ball bat, kill people. Knives, kill people.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Do firearms have in fact any other function besides killing things, be they animal or human? I will answer the rhetorical question: No. They do not. Killing is what they were designed to do, and many many man hours of engineering have been put into making them more efficient at that particular task--and no other.

Actually bullets are designed to kill, or, as in the case of military bullets, to wound.

Originally Posted by lochinvar

So you can't compare guns with, say, baseball bats or hammers or kitchen knives or any of the other common comparisons trotted out by the pro-gun advocates, because those objects have other primary functions. Guns have no other primary function, and so the comparison is purely spurious.

Apples remain apples and oranges remain oranges, my friend.

So, it's bad that a thing designed as a weapon functions as it is supposed to while it's alright that other things kill people because they weren't designed to?
Do you believe that we, as a society are so advanced that there is no need for personal protection? The police protect you by arresting somebody who has already victimized somebody else. That's all.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Rogue

What he said.

Nevertheless, The Federalist Papers are the best source for explanation of the intent of the writers of the Constitution.

The federalist papers are the best source for one side of the intent of the writers.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

I do understand your point, but I believe some parts are still needed and apply. I count the first two Amendments as such. The one about boarding soliders I'm not so sure about

I posted the quote not to say get rid of the 2nd Ammendment, but to move on from the pointless arguments about what the founders' intended.

The USA is a very different country, with different problems than when the Ammendment was written. As such, we should be approaching the issue of guns from our current situation and not arguing about the 'original intent.'

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

The federalist papers are the best source for one side of the intent of the writers.

Thank you, that's exactly what I meant.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I posted the quote not to say get rid of the 2nd Ammendment, but to move on from the pointless arguments about what the founders' intended.

The USA is a very different country, with different problems than when the Ammendment was written. As such, we should be approaching the issue of guns from our current situation and not arguing about the 'original intent.'

And if you want to drift away from their original intent, there is a legal way to do it (by ammending the constitution), but so long as that ammendment is there, all of these government gun laws are illegal.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by prototoast

And if you want to drift away from their original intent, there is a legal way to do it (by ammending the constitution), but so long as that ammendment is there, all of these government gun laws are illegal.

Well, there is still debate as to what the original intent was. Organized militia? Personal defense? All of the above? (Reminds me of RoW discussions and when the attack begins...)

And yes, an ammendment to the constitution is a legal way to control guns, if that's what the goal is.

Either way, when looking at the issue of gun control, either for or against, we need to think of the now and the future.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Well, there is still debate as to what the original intent was. Organized militia? Personal defense? All of the above? (Reminds me of RoW discussions and when the attack begins...)

And yes, an ammendment to the constitution is a legal way to control guns, if that's what the goal is.

Either way, when looking at the issue of gun control, either for or against, we need to think of the now and the future.

I was mostly responding to your writing:

"but to move on from the pointless arguments about what the founders' intended."

and though I don't see ambiguity in the founders' intentions, other people do, and so the only way to move on is to change the constitution to remove such ambiguity.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

The federalist papers are the best source for one side of the intent of the writers.

And the other sources that were specificaly written by the authors of the Constitution to argue for the Constitution are?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by prototoast

and though I don't see ambiguity in the founders' intentions, other people do, and so the only way to move on is to change the constitution to remove such ambiguity.

Well, considering that the initial post mentions a long standing debate, and then links to a lengthy examination of the 2nd Ammendment by the Office of the Attorny General, it's safe to say that it is open to some different interpretations.

Adding an Ammendment could clear things up, but really, I think the discussion really lies in 'Does the US currently need gun control? Why? And to what level?' Some people don't think it does, some do. To me, the only relevant (and interesting) arguments are based on the now and the future.

Current control laws are merely election tools used to influence voters while ignoring the issue.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Not really. A number of states now have concealed-weapon permit statutes that mandate a specific amount of training; permit holders are also a known quanity therefore. They are not of course as uniformly trained, nor as thoroughly, as police officers; but having been through both my state's CCW training ( two different programs ) and the police academy firearms training course I can say that they are not that disparate...and that on a case-by-case basis many civilian shooters are more diligent and motivated in practice and training than the average police officer---and often better shots as a consequence. And a course at someplace like Gunsite Ranch gives a much more concentrated and intensive training program than even police academies...

Informative and interesting. And, to your previous post, this population then might be (in addition to the police) a population with the "training and responsibility" you alluded to - in which case it's not "law enforement only" but "law enforcement plus known individuals trained and validated".

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Worth discussing, but most ( like that one ) have problems of their own. ( Ever lost your keys, or locked them in your car? Had a lock break? Etc. )

I believe they're talking about biometric means that recognise the owner. Or it could be baesd on a combination (low-tech). Principle first, design and engineering second.