Well, not to be cheeky or answer a question with a question, but why shouldn't it be a right? Historically has always been and we have been fine with it. Murders and killings will still happen with or without guns. Knives are also used for killing, so we also outlaw those under Knife Control?
Now, having said that. "Because that is the way we have always done it" is probably one of the most abhorrent expressions and "reasons" I have ever heard. More on this later.
Well, this is where Constitutional interpretation becomes difficult. If there is a ruling on this, being that there are two versions (and the arugument that because of this the 2nd should be thrown out for procedural errors), there then would be a lot of problems and not just with guns. At that point, we would have to revisit every bit of contradictory language in our entire government to see if it would be valid in view of throwing out the Second Amendment due to ambiguous and confusing language. I just don't think it can be done.
How so, you ask? Well we had a decision by the Supreme Court that was based on a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists that supports the notion of "separation of church and state" yet that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. So great importance was ascribed to Jefferson's "opinion" as it was interpreted. In this case then, the same equal weight given should be given to Jefferson's statement which can only be interpreted as being
the correct one Since being ratified by 3/4 of the states and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.
But first:
Now:
We are not a democracy.
Then:
So actually, it is not a Federal issue then, it should go to the States or to the people for a vote on how we handle guns. I am not sure we are ever going to do that though.
Me neither. But then again, my hope is that by keeping my munitions; however small they be or however few in number, that the Federal government or whatever rogue entity might try to threaten the People's existence, they would think twice about going up against a possible 100 million people with small arms. It is almost silly to think about in those terms anyway.
Quote:
In your NSHO, but I disagree. There is no evidence that suggests that fewer guns lowers the crime rate, rather to the contrary.
I searched for "fewer guns fewer murders" and saw the above. The facts do not seem to bear this out. Our murder rates have been in decline since 2007, despite a large number of individuals owning guns.
Right? How the article writer excluded that baffles the hell out of me. I mean, he could have used colours for clarity. :-S
Quote:
I honestly don't know. I was under the impression that private citizens couldn't have guns there. I would wonder what the innocent killing rate is for people cleaning their guns and the dolt left it loaded and it kills someone or himself. There are hunting accidents of course, drive-by shootings where "background" people are killed, but of course that is done with what I would consider to be criminal possession. I suppose easily accidental deaths from mishandling, children or curious folks would certainly go down, but I'd suspect more killings are intentional with intentional, also criminal targets. Innocents get caught in the crossfire in some police shootings as well, but I don't know how common it is - likely not very.
I definitely see guns as a deterrent to crime in some areas. I really don't think a criminal is going to go into a neighborhood where it is known a percentage of homeowners have (or are suspected to have) a gun or guns for personal protection.
This is often what the "gun control" (control, meaning removal) zealots would have folks believe, but the facts as cited in the article and from other sources do not bear this out. The criminal element will still have and continue to get guns, possibly even from the police who would have rounded them up en masse during "buyback programs". They don't all get destroyed due to corruption or greed. I actually don't so much mind criminals killing each other rather than innocent people. When it spills over into bystanders it is definitely a problem.
Necessary evil? I think that is a bit of a straw man.
Interesting timeline. Note the number that did not occur in the U.S.
This is for shootings only, I have not looked at school and other innocent deaths via other means. I find it interesting to note that in several cases the shooters were reported to have been ostracised and/or teased. Not an excuse for it at all, just a fact mentioned in several cases. Speaking of which, several students her in the U.S. have commited suicide because of FaceBook tauntings.
I see the media as tending toward sensationalising this because it sells. Interestingly, IIRC, most of our school shooters are almost exclusively white boys. Mass murderers tend to be white. White people be fucked up.
I looked up interesting statistics in the U.K.:
~ 4/10 youth killings involve knives.
~ 6 people a week are stabbed in Britain
~ There are 60 non fatal knife crimes daily, 22,000 in a year (2012)
~ In killings, 39.5% involved knives
This link supports my assertion that people kill via other means.
Take away guns, people kill with sharp instruments. Unfortunately, more fodder for the "people kill people" argument.
**Spelling