Guns, Guns Guns

Annachie wrote:
First off. Alice is an exception to just about everything when it comes to law and order.

Accepted. Though it would be more accurate to extend that exception to every town from Ceduna, through Port Augusta, and then north through to Darwin. Though Darwin isn't nearly as bad.
My point, however, remains. A lack of firearms, legal or otherwise, has no effect on the willingness of criminals to inflict harm. The issue is both cultural and political.

Annachie wrote:Firstly, you'll find that NZ banned similar weapons in 1992, along with tightening of their gun laws in general.

Incorrect. It is still perfectly legal, and reasonably easy, to acquire a license for semi-automatic rifles. Here is a link.
http://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firear ... d-firearms

And a quote:
"Semi-automatic rifles and shotguns on this list are often produced/offered for sale in "sporting configuration" (Arms Act 1983 - section 2 [Interpretation]) or military-style semi-automatic (MSSA).

Applications to import firearms are considered on a case by case basis – discuss your proposed importation with your local police arms office. You must be clear about the category of semi-automatic firearm you are importing. A special reason is required to import MSSA rifles and shotguns. The target pistols are for use at police approved pistol clubs only."
A Special reason in this instance can mean being a primary producer (Cattle/Sheep Farmer) or a member of a shooting club.

Secondly, and somewhat annoyingly, NZ crime stats are difficult to find. Homicides are down 30% or so from 1991, but they don't differentiate between gun and non-gun ones so grain of salt there.
Thirdly, Mass shootings in Australia before 1996, about 1 a year. (Mass shooting being 5 or more in one incident) Since, 1 (about 4 months ago)
Fourthly, the deaths from guns (Including suicides and accidents) has more than halved since 1996.

I suggest you look at this page, from the Australian Institute of Criminology.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Specifically, these two graphs
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/research/homicide/homiciderate2.png
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2006/fig013.png

As you can see, not only the homicide rate started to dip a year before the gun buyback, but the mean had been steadily dropping anyway. In addition, as shown in the second chart, the amount of homicides involving a firearm has at no point reached 50% since World War 1. It has not been over 40% in my lifetime. And it is now below 20%. If access to a firearm was a determining factor in whether or not murder was going to be committed, that rate should be holding roughly steady while the total homicide rate went down.

Can we at least agree that murder is bad?

BTW, gcomeau, how are you posting those graphs? I can't seem to figure it out.

Invictus wrote:BTW, gcomeau, how are you posting those graphs? I can't seem to figure it out.

Its the Img button at the top.

Click the button paste the url exit the []

Ends up looking like this in the pre-submit window. With {} replacing []
{img}http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/research/homicide/homiciderate2.png{/img}

That said just I don't like embedded links or images, I can't easily see where I am being led or what source is being used without going there. And the images are wasted bandwidth if I am not interested in following links them. (also a waste of electricity in a very small way we want to be environmentally friendly right )

Personal quirk.

Have fun,
T2M

Ah! Cheers T2M!

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:And that citizenry being armed came coupled with just a few other requirements. It was absolutely NOT "Hey, if we just hand guns out to everyone tyranny is defeated forever because guns are tyranny repellent! Hooray!". That first half of the 2nd amendment used to actually be paid attention to contrary to modern mental gymnastics used to try to pretend it doesn't exist as anything other than decoration.

So please don't appeal to the intentions of the founders when trying to defend a position in favor of unrestricted rights to bear arms that comes coupled with essentially *zero* discipline or organization or responsibility being imposed upon those bearing them. That has nothing to do with what the Founders had in mind.

Not quite. The 2nd Amendment is not a right parceled out by a sovereign government to its dependent population. Not in the slightest.

The 2nd Amendment is a prohibition issued by a sovereign people to the agents of government it appoints to represent them in very specific ways.

The difference lies in where sovereignty is recognized to come from.

That may be an interesting point to debate, but has no bearing on the point I was making.

Regardless of where it came from the content remains what it is. If you want to say it was a prohibition issued by the people then fine, but that prohibition was still not an unrestricted right to bear arms with no associated responsibilities. It was explicitly tied directly to the necessity of a *well regulated* militia requiring said armed citizens to comprise it.


BECAUSE A --> Need B.


But now people want to pretend the first half of the statement either doesn't exist, or was put there for artistic effect or something, and any attempts at regulation they don't personally approve of are infringing on their Constitutional rights which is, to be blunt, a giant load of bullshit when the reference to the necessity of regulation is right there in the freaking amendment.

Pretending that the only thing the 2nd does is say "we can have guns, period dot" is not how the amendment was written, it's not how it was understood for it's first almost 200 years or so of existence, and no it is demonstrably not what the Founders had in mind. The Founders made it abundantly clear what they had in mind both in the text of the amendment itself and when the early Congress, with a bunch of said founders on it, laid it out in explicit terms in the Militia Acts, loading rather heavy regulations and responsibilities onto said gun owning citizens as the 2nd had made clear was their intention from the beginning.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Not quite. The 2nd Amendment is not a right parceled out by a sovereign government to its dependent population. Not in the slightest.

The 2nd Amendment is a prohibition issued by a sovereign people to the agents of government it appoints to represent them in very specific ways.

The difference lies in where sovereignty is recognized to come from.

That may be an interesting point to debate, but has no bearing on the point I was making.

Regardless of where it came from the content remains what it is. If you want to say it was a prohibition issued by the people then fine, but that prohibition was still not an unrestricted right to bear arms with no associated responsibilities. It was explicitly tied directly to the necessity of a *well regulated* militia requiring said armed citizens to comprise it.


BECAUSE A --> Need B.


But now people want to pretend the first half of the statement either doesn't exist, or was put there for artistic effect or something, and any attempts at regulation they don't personally approve of are infringing on their Constitutional rights which is, to be blunt, a giant load of bullshit when the reference to the necessity of regulation is right there in the freaking amendment.

Pretending that the only thing the 2nd does is say "we can have guns, period dot" is not how the amendment was written, it's not how it was understood for it's first almost 200 years or so of existence, and no it is demonstrably not what the Founders had in mind. The Founders made it abundantly clear what they had in mind both in the text of the amendment itself and when the early Congress, with a bunch of said founders on it, laid it out in explicit terms in the Militia Acts, loading rather heavy regulations and responsibilities onto said gun owning citizens as the 2nd had made clear was their intention from the beginning.

There are two separate issues that you conflate. The right to own and bear arms is absolute. The Constitution documents that we did not cede this right back to the government.

What we do with those guns can be regulated. I believe I stated this in that portion of my post you did not include in your response.

So, again, yes it does say that we "can have guns, period-exclamation mark!". What we do with those guns is subject to regulation and civil action. The absolute right to bear arms does not bestow a right to shoot people indiscriminately or engage in target practice in a crowded public city park. The second part of the 2nd Amendment does support this view. That part, however, does not contradict our absolute right to actually own and bear guns.

Just my two cents worth, but I wonder if the concept of the "unorganised militia" didn't have an effect on the interpretation of the second amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't every male US citizen between 17 and 45 technically part of the unorganised militia?

Invictus wrote:Just my two cents worth, but I wonder if the concept of the "unorganised militia" didn't have an effect on the interpretation of the second amendment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't every male US citizen between 17 and 45 technically part of the unorganised militia?

That would be view of the Founders. In the argument over Federalism, both sides believed that the militia included everyone. Ok, all adult males.

PeterZ wrote:The problem with gun deaths are those that are either untrained in their use, negligent in their use or willfully criminal in their use. Removing all guns effectively makes criminals more leathal and law abiding citizens less safe. Case in point are the recent Muslim killing sprees. Oklahoma, the killer killed one and wounded another before a private gun owner shot him and stopped his killing. Oh, thankfully the killer was armed with a knife. Paris the gun armed killers took 17 before the were stopped by police. It is legal to own guns in France but the permit process is arduous. Had someone at Charlie Hebdo had a gun like was the case in Oklahoma, might lives have been saved? They might well have been.

Two policemen were among the initial dead in the Paris attack (and they were presumably armed, as they'd been stationed at the paper specifically because of threats). Frankly, even if everyone had guns, their utility is questionable if the attackers have the advantages of surprise and firepower.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:The problem with gun deaths are those that are either untrained in their use, negligent in their use or willfully criminal in their use. Removing all guns effectively makes criminals more leathal and law abiding citizens less safe. Case in point are the recent Muslim killing sprees. Oklahoma, the killer killed one and wounded another before a private gun owner shot him and stopped his killing. Oh, thankfully the killer was armed with a knife. Paris the gun armed killers took 17 before the were stopped by police. It is legal to own guns in France but the permit process is arduous. Had someone at Charlie Hebdo had a gun like was the case in Oklahoma, might lives have been saved? They might well have been.

Two policemen were among the initial dead in the Paris attack (and they were presumably armed, as they'd been stationed at the paper specifically because of threats). Frankly, even if everyone had guns, their utility is questionable if the attackers have the advantages of surprise and firepower.

Agreed. The utility is indeed questionable depending on the circumstances. What isn't questionable, are those policemen on their bikes that weren't armed. They wouldn't have been able to do a damn thing even if the assailants were less powerfully armed. Those policemen were smart to flee immediately.

So having a weapon doesn't guarantee being able to successfully defend one's self against an opponent intent on causing harm. Not having a weapon deceases the average person's chances of defending himself/herself to near 0. When one's life is on the line, I would like any advantage I can beg, borrow or steal.