Do you support the second amendment?

[whyeyeman]

As someone who lives in a country where guns are near impossible to acquire legally, and all forms of self defense are pretty much illegal, I support the right to keep and bear arms. When we banned hand guns in my country, violent crimes went up by a fairly significant margin.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As someone who lives in a country where guns are near impossible to acquire legally, and all forms of self defense are pretty much illegal, I support the right to keep and bear arms. When we banned hand guns in my country, violent crimes went up by a fairly significant margin.

And what country is that?

 

[Theo520]

Hoodies are not as useful in the commission of a crime as a gun. So its effect on crime overall is not comparable.

Yes, so if there was a causal correlation, it should show up.

The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

or

Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

As I recall, overall suicide rates have also not shown a demonstrative drop with their gun bans.

 

[whyeyeman]

The United Kingdom

 

[starshiptrooper]

Bonus Question: Consider, how much gun crime do we see committed in America with fully automatic rifles?

Why do you think it’s so low?

Not much, but then again you do not see much crime committed with long guns either in most years. On average, more people are murdered yearly with bludgeons than all long guns which includes shotguns, .22 rifles, and semi-automatic rifles.

Long guns are inconvenient to carry around, difficult to conceal, draw plenty of attention, and are far more expensive than a handgun. In short, they are suboptimal for the vast majority of criminal activity.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Hoodies are not as useful in the commission of a crime as a gun. So its effect on crime overall is not comparable.

Yes, so if there was a causal correlation, it should show up.

The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Not a controlled scientific experiment. There were many other things changing during that time period. A true controlled experiment varies only one thing at a time.

or

Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

Same comment about controlled experiments.

As I recall, overall suicide rates have also not shown a demonstrative drop with their gun bans.

Social conditions also have an effect on the suicide rate.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Bonus Question: Consider, how much gun crime do we see committed in America with fully automatic rifles?

Why do you think it’s so low?

Long guns are inconvenient to carry around, difficult to conceal, draw plenty of attention, and are far more expensive than a handgun. In short, they are suboptimal for the vast majority of criminal activity.

I wish you were right about the “far more expensive” part.

You can pick up Ruger’s or S&W’s basic AR for around $500. Your average Glock runs $350.
Almost the same price range.

But to the chagrin of most replying (probably including you), I’d require a permit on anything that runs a semi-automatic action on a caliber greater than .22lr.

These things just shouldn’t be so easy to own.

 

[Theo520]

I’m glad to see that you at least agreed that reducing the availability of guns reduces the occurrence of gun crime.

Now all you need to see is that someone with murder on their mind is less likely to carry it out when the methods required to complete it are substantially more “involved” than merely pulling a trigger.

Fortunately, most would consider this “common sense”, even as some outliers may not.

Fact is, the more difficult something becomes, the less people are likely to do it.

And banning hoodies would reduce ‘hoodie crime’. I recall many locations wanted to do this after the Trayvon incident. But at least banning hoodies actually does help police, since you’re better able to see or record the face and hair on CCTV etc.

Why not man up and shift your focus to reducing the overall crime rates, stop playing games with statistics.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’m glad to see that you at least agreed that reducing the availability of guns reduces the occurrence of gun crime.

Now all you need to see is that someone with murder on their mind is less likely to carry it out when the methods required to complete it are substantially more “involved” than merely pulling a trigger.

Fortunately, most would consider this “common sense”, even as some outliers may not.

Fact is, the more difficult something becomes, the less people are likely to do it.

And banning hoodies would reduce ‘hoodie crime’. I recall many locations wanted to do this after the Trayvon incident. But at least banning hoodies actually does help police, since you’re better able to see or record the face and hair on CCTV etc.

Why not man up and shift your focus to reducing the overall crime rates, stop playing games with statistics.

I’d rather “man up” and prevent the crime that kills people first. Ya know, prioritize.

 

[Theo520]

Not a controlled scientific experiment. There were many other things changing during that time period. A true controlled experiment varies only one thing at a time.

Same comment about controlled experiments.

Social conditions also have an effect on the suicide rate.

Net, you are acknowledging there is not supporting evidence in two major OECD countries that took significant measures to ban guns, controlled or otherwise.

People should be ashamed to keep pushing a narrative that doesn’t have a modicum of real data supporting it.

 

[Vonsalza]

People should be ashamed to keep pushing a narrative that doesn’t have a modicum of real data supporting it.

I agree. Particularly the one where giving the civil populace access to particular weapons somehow prevents or best addresses “tyranny”.

 

[starshiptrooper]

wish you were right about the “far more expensive” part.

You can pick up Ruger’s or S&W’s basic AR for around $500. Your average Glock runs $350.

Almost the same price range.

Yet they are used infrequently to commit crime. With guns, you get what you pay for. A $500 AR is not something I would trust my life too.

But to the chagrin of most replying (probably including you), I’d require a permit on anything that runs a semi-automatic action on a caliber greater than .22lr.

These things just shouldn’t be so easy to own.

The 2nd Amendment is my “permit”.

 

[Vonsalza]

The 2nd Amendment is my “permit”.

As it pertains to automatics, ordinance, much military equipment and a host of other things, I’m afraid the courts disagree with you.

As we covered above, SCOTUS ultimately determines what “arms” one can bear. It appears to be limited.

 

[Theo520]

I agree. Particularly the one where giving the civil populace access to particular weapons somehow prevents or best addresses “tyranny”.

That was an excellent non-sequitur, bravo!

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I agree. Particularly the one where giving the civil populace access to particular weapons somehow prevents or best addresses “tyranny”.

That was an excellent non-sequitur, bravo!

I just turned your own rationale and standard upon yourself.

Stung a little, didn’t it?

 

[Theo520]

I just turned your own rationale and standard upon yourself.

Stung a little, didn’t it?

Uhhh, no.
you just tried to change the subject to something that had nothing to do with the post you quoted. Pretending there is a link doesn’t make it so.

Nobody here said guns are the best way to address “tyranny”. I expect most think the ballot box is the best and first resort. Guns might be your last resort, like that thing you might keep in the car to cut your seatbelt and break the window.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Miller v. United States clearly acknowledges that one the reasons the people have the right to bear arms is to act as a militia. The arms to be carried by the militia are those in common use. Therefore at the very least semi-automatic rifles, the weapon used by the average infantryman, are protected.

The Courts also determined that slaves could be owned too. Using the state as your ultimate metric for determining rights means that you are going to have a bad time.

At the end of the day however, the 2nd Amendment only protects my inherent right of self-defense against anyone who wants to take my rights away. It does not give me permission. So how do you plan on making me get your little permit?

 

[Vonsalza]

Nobody here said guns are the best way to address “tyranny”. I expect most think the ballot box is the best and first resort. Guns might be your last resort, like that thing you might keep in the car to cut your seatbelt and break the window.

For reference, here’s the common troupe:

It protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and it lists as the primary purpose the necessity of the citizen militia to protect a free state from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.

 

[Vonsalza]

Miller v. United States clearly acknowledges that one the reasons the people have the right to bear arms is to act as a militia. The arms to be carried by the militia are those in common use. Therefore at the very least semi-automatic rifles, the weapon used by the average infantryman, are protected.

So the courts have specifically cited that the unrestricted ownership of semi autos is protected?

Specific line in specific ruling or I call BS.

 

[Theo520]

For reference, here’s the common troupe:

JonNC:

It protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and it lists as the primary purpose the necessity of the citizen militia to protect a free state from tyranny, both foreign and domestic.

Sorry, you quoted the primary purpose of the constitution right, it wasn’t an elaboration on potential tyranny.

The founders agreed with me, that the ballot box was the primary method of controlling tyranny.