@Supersteve....funny, every liberal out there loves to use foreign countries as their examples...until the examples turn against them...right?

Right on, Gunfighter! No doubt these facts will escape good liberals, though, who are driven by emotion, not logic and facts...

So you claim that you can't compare apples and oranges, then try to compare murder rates in Chicago (pop. 2.7 mil) and Kennesaw (pop. ~30K)? Somehow, they are comparable?

The only issue at hand is the most basic right of the People to defend themselves against deadly force, from whatever source. This is an UNALIENABLE right that is well established in centuries of common law and predates the Magna Carta. How can a free (non-mythical utopia, that is) society exist in which the People are NOT given the right to defend themselves and their families from harm -- and by extension of that right, have access to the tool to do so?

I think some of you are misconstruing the nature of a Constitution -- it is NOT and instrument for government to restrain the People, it is an instrument for the People to restrain the government. The 2nd Amendment is the expression of the unalienable right of the People to defend themselves and their families against deadly force -- it secures the right of the People to have access to the necessary tools to effectuate that defense.

Those advocating that the People should no longer have this right are going against the very foundation of western society that has been built over thousands of years. What makes you think you have that right?

As far as statistics to back up my claim:

The finding of 1.5 million yearly self-defense cases was published in Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," National Institute of Justice Research in Brief (May 1997);

The finding that citizens use their guns to defend themselves 2.5 million times every year was published in "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, " 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995) pp. 173, 185.

The fact that "States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%" was published by
John R. Lott, Jr., "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).

FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, "The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons," Research Report (July 1985): reported that:

3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Do those "back up" my claims?

Actually 2nd just showed us the kinds of specific statistics Krellin and Draug have been asking for. Krellin I don't think you can try to change the topic now- we have moved far away from 'the public massacre' realm.

If we had more gun control it would accomplish two positive things in the situation of gang v gang violence. One, it would make firearms harder to acquire. That is not to say that gangs couldn't still get automatic weapons- just that there would be less opportunity. Second it would allow police and ATF agents to more easily take action against gangs and those supplying them as they could no longer hide behind our lax laws.

I would also like to address the constitutional basis for firearms briefly. MajorM makes a fine point. Our Constitution guarantees we citizens the right to have firearms for the purposes of forming militias to defend our frontiers (in this time we are talking about eastern Georgia, western Tennessee, the outer wilds of Penn) from Native Americans, a tyrannical government, a foreign power, etc.

Most people today who own guns do not form militias to protect average citizens from these kinds of threats. Why? Because these threats either do not exist or have changed to the extent that Militias and guns are no deterrent to them.

No matter how many rounds armor piercing or not, or what type of gun you own, you or even your militia cannot hope to keep our government from using a drone strike or what have you to impose its 'tyrannical power.'

My point is that I think we can all agree that the concept of armed militias is outdated, and that in light of that, the second amendment shouldn't really be looked on as a basis for our modern gun control laws.

Having said that, I will conclude by assuring those who do not like gun control that I am not a proponent of getting rid of all guns. My family owns 320 acres of timber and I have grown up hunting for all manner of game on that land. However, I do not require an automatic or high caliber weapons to accomplish killing an animal for food and sport.

Amen MichiganMan

@Eric -- gun control would do **nothing** to eliminate gang violence. Just as anti-drug laws have not stopped the drug trade, but instad have turned it in to a violent business.

As for armed militia...bury your head in the sand...pretend the US will last forever. I'm sure the citizens of the FORMER soviet Union thought the same....and Libya...and Egypt...and Iraq...yeah, you are right....history is frozen and regimes never change.

It's hillarious that a bunch of whack-job liberals hell-bent on vacating the Constitution and the protections it provides also can't comprehend that the US could become a fundamentally different (and tyranical) nation in short order. Weren't all you libs crying foul when the Patriot Act was passed - worried that the US Government was overstepping it's boundaries and infringing on your rights? lol Now you think if we could just DISARM the populace, everything would be great. Moronic....

First off- Erik with a K please.

I fail to see how the USSR or any of the nations that have been part of the Arab Spring coorilate to simple, rational gun control.

I have never liked the Patriot Act and would very much like it repealed. I do think that we should take steps to make sure our government doesn't become fanatical and tyrannical. However, I think that the best way to accomplish this is not by arming the populace. Enstilling a valueation of education, a spirit of volunteerism, an involvment in government, an intellectual curiosity, and a desire to be informed of the facts and of current events would do far more to ensure that our government does not take advantage of us.

It's unfortunate that so many of those who wish to own guns tend to be exactly the sort of person you wouldn't want anywhere near them...

It will come as a surprise to many here but I am generally pro-american. America has its faults (many, many faults ;) ), but there is also much to admire. By far the greatest of all American traits is their independent spirit and desire to take ownership of their own lives and do what they believe needs to be done. All to often on the other side of the Pond the first instinct is to assume someone else is going to do it.

It seems to me that the desire for gun ownership is a symptom of the American hands on instinct. Is having a population armed to the teeth a good idea? It's blatantly obvious that it's not. But to change the culture to the extent that European style gun control becomes popular will be a sign that the US is losing the very essence of what makes it unique and what makes it great. The world is a better place for having the America we know and love\hate in it, and I for one will feel a deep sense of loss if that America becomes a reflection of Europe.

Everytime krellin talks, this thread goes off course. I respect differing opinions here, such as MichiganMan's, and enjoy engaging in a friendly debate. It's too bad your manner is that of a coked-up grizzly. We're playing chess and you're upturning the table. That doesn't make you right, just an inconceivable tool. Do us a favor and let the big boys play.

@jacob,

can you please address my point about the People's right to self-defense. I feel it is the heart of the debate.

First off- Erik with a K please.

I fail to see how the USSR or any of the nations that have been part of the Arab Spring coorilate to simple, rational gun control.

I have never liked the Patriot Act and would very much like it repealed. I do think that we should take steps to make sure our government doesn't become fanatical and tyrannical. However, I think that the best way to accomplish this is not by arming the populace. Enstilling a valueation of education, a spirit of volunteerism, an involvment in government, an intellectual curiosity, and a desire to be informed of the facts and of current events would do far more to ensure that our government does not take advantage of us.

Sorry I have no idea why that posted again...

First of all, I'm not proposing a ban on guns, just ridiculously strict gun control. I support your right to bear arms (if not for many of the inane reasons being bandied about) and would not seek to take that right away from you. My generalized condemnation of guns expresses only my (legitimate) beliefs and fears concerning their perpetual and unstoppable misuse. But as I stated, my concern is with the disconcerting ratio between crime and crime prevention among gun-owners. To indulge a hypothetical for a moment (which we disagree on), let's assume that you were right and that with stricter gun control, all of a sudden criminals decide to prey on us ordinary, gunless civilians. That's still far less scary to me than supporting a culture of (faux-)vigilantism wherein I'm forced to be scared of both the criminals and trigger-happy do-gooders. Good intentions won't save me any more than your guns will.

You can keep passing gun laws, but their called outlaws for a reason.

@Jacob,

Your fears aren't justification for infringing upon the People's unalienable right of self-defense. Vigilantism is not self-defense, it is after-the-fact "taking the law into your own hands." I do not advocate a circumvention of due process and the justice system. But at the same time, I do not advocate a culture of victimhood.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

What I hear you saying (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you're scared, i.e., you want safety, and you want the rest of us to give up our right to self-defense to assuage your fears. God forbid you're ever in a situation where your life, or the life of your family, is threatened and you're forced to sit there and take it because you're too scared to defend yourself.

Why do gun supporters rely on a law that was passed hundreds of years ago? A democracy should operate for the benefit of today's citizens, if people want to change a law then using an argument that people who died hundreds of years ago wanted something else makes no sense to me. We repeal laws all the time in the UK, slavery
Laws for example.

I accept that the US has a different culture than the UK and trying to move to our gun laws overnight would be crazy, but it is possible to ban guns and enforce the ban. Will there be a black market, of course, but that exists now, and when a ban is mposed there will be fewer legal guns becoming illegal guns ie those bought legally and stolen.

You've still not addressed the core issue at hand here: the unalienable right of self-defense. Don't confuse a Democracy, with a democracy. The United States is a representative democratic Republic, NOT a Democracy. In a Democracy 51% of the population can vote away the rights of the other 49%, in a Rebublic, that cannot happen. The right to self-defense is unalienable. It's legal foundations are unquestioned in common law -- the basis of the American system -- and predates the Magna Carta. Unalienable means that it cannot be taken away. The right to defend ones self and family from deadly force is not a LAW, it is a Right. By contrast, the ability of one to own slaves isn't a Right, as such, it can be prohibited by law. This is not true of Rights. Again, the Constitution is NOT a restriction upon the People, it is a restriction upon the Government.

There go, I am not relying upon a "law that was passed hundreds of years ago," I am relying upon an UNALIENABLE RIGHT that has thousands of years of legal, spiritual, and moral supporting precedent.

This makes no sense to you because you don't even understand the basics of the system that you feel obliged to discuss. The governments primary function is to protect the Rights of it's citizens. As long as one's actions do not infringe upon the Rights of another citizen, there should be no government intervention. My right to defend myself and my family does not infringe upon you.

@ Maniac

"I accept that the US has a different culture than the UK"

Biggest understatement ever. Especially when we are discussing guns and their control.

America was literally built on guns. Yeah, freedom and liberty are nice, but we depend on guns to get and protect that freedom and liberty. We beat the British because nearly everyone had a rifle or musket in their closet and knew how to use it. We tamed a massive frontier with guns dealing with everything from outlaws to hostile Indians to bears. We won two world wars thanks largely to the efforts of John Browning and John Garand. US arms manufacturers and their products continue to defend generation after generation of Americans from thugs, criminals, and other assorted assholes.

Guns, for lack of a better word, are good.

@ MichiganMan I appreciate your respectful inquiring tone. I don't think it takes an especially brave man to defend his family- most people would do that if forced into such a situation. However, I do not think a gun is neccisary or even desirable.

My first point is this- the vast, vast majority of theives flee when discovered. They are their because the assume the house is empty and they wish to make off with valuables without garnering confrontation. Even if they are armed it is a large jump from theft to killing a family in cold blood. So I wouldn't think they are likely to use their gun.

Secondly, the vast majority of people do not have the training to safely keep or use a gun in that situation. It is hard to imagine someone in a desperate situation, like defending one's famliy from a mass murderer, being calm enough to accurately aim and discharge a firearm. This problem is only compounded in an urban area where popuation is dense. Not only might the person miss the assailent, but they stand an excellent chance of injuring someone they did not intend.

Finally, and I believe most importantly guns tend to exasserbate an already bad situation. Where the theif might at first be content to take a few possessions from someone- even if they were discovered. When a gun comes into play the theif seems to me far more likely to, in panic, use his own gun. What could have been a bloodless situation now has resulted in- at best the death of the theif, and at worst the death of innocents.

Take this a step further, what if people carried guns with them more commonly... A bar fight wouldn't end with a broken nose, but with a bullet hole which could also easily claim the life of someone who wasn't even involved in the fight.

These examples, hopefully, illustarte why I support gun control measures, and why I believe that infringing on one's right to defense is superceded by everyone's right to saftey.

You truly are an idiot

@mm - do you imagine that the people of the uk don't want to defend themselves? They appreciate that there is much less of a threat to their safety and security if people don't have easy access to guns.

@ gunfighter - I don't want to diminish the role that guns have played in American history, my point is that today's citizens should be constrained by some laws that people passed centuries ago. Have a debate by all means about what the people of today want, but don't start from a position that people who have since died thought this, Hereford it must be right.

@erik8asandwich,

Please read what I wrote above.

Your points are moot. You're basically playing the "what if" game and tilting the "if's" to suit your political stance. My right to self-defense is well established, and doesn't need "what if's" to be justified.

You examples illustrate your support, but your last sentence illustrates the ignorance with which you seek to apply them. One Right cannot supersede another Right, they both exist in their full form at all times. Moreover, If one has a Right to "safety" then within that Right is the Right to defend ones self and their family. Can you not see that by claiming you're enhancing everyone's right to safety by diminishing everyone's right to self-defense you're actually diminishing the very right that you seek to protect?

Again, a Right cannot be diminished nor removed, it is unalienable.

Gun laws in the US seem crazy to me. Went to shoot some guns in Vegas on hols, and they had a special offer for children! Made me laugh.
The drug gangs in Mexico all get their guns in the USA - guns go one way and drugs the other.
Still there are now so many guns in the US not sure a ban would work. But you could start by stopping machine guns etc - might mean these school shootings kill less people.

@Maniac,

I have no idea, nor do I really care, what the people of the UK think about self-defense. All I can assume is that they didn't think very highly of it as they let their government remove what has historically been a right for many centuries.

@KingJohnII,

Have you heard about Operation Fast & Furious? Speaking about drug gangs in Mexico getting their guns in the US, you really should read about this incident.

@ KingJohnII

"But you could start by stopping machine guns etc"

Unfortunately, it is very hard to get a machine gun, because of the blatantly unconstitutional, reactionary National Firearms Act of 1934. You have to jump through so many hoops to get a machine gun that only the wealthy can realistically afford them.

'America was literally built on guns....' - Yeah, and on some level Ireland gained it's freedom through guns (and bombs) Similarily from Britian.

But what does the gun have to do with US politics or freedom today?

As for the cultural differences? Yes, huge, and any comparable crime stats reflect that.

You can't simply transfer a UK solution and assume it will work in the US.

But similarily there are differences across the US, different states with their own rules and culture is nowhere near homogenous.

@Michigan Man, your ignorance of how things work in other countries doesn't help you see possible solutions. It does nothing but make you and your country look closeminded.

Which actually doesn't reflect well on your culture.

@orathaic,

this is a conversation about gun control and self-defense in the United States. You and you cohorts don't understand how our systems works, yet you feel obliged to come and disparage us and give us your opinion on our system. I was simply answering a question as to the mindset of the people of the UK. To which I replied that I neither know nor do I really care. I can draw assumptions, but those are just that, assumption.

This is a conversation about US gun policy, is it not? As such, why do you feel that it is at all relevant to bring up what goes on in other nations? You have people on your side in this debate that cannot differentiate between a Democracy and a Republic, between Law and Right. And you're quibbling with me and further attempting to disparage me and my culture? You're here discussing the politics of MY country, not the other way around.

Solutions? Why do you think that the US is in need of solutions, and what make you so sure that your solution is the best?