Gun control

[Gannicus]

What use is a gun ban in US cities when a few miles away in a different area the laws no longer apply?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/29/us/where-50000-guns-in-chicago-came-from.html?_r=0



Most countries that banned guns didn't have a lot of gun murder to begin with so of course you're not going to see a massive change if any in the murder rate. The U.S. is different in this regard where the majority of homicides are gun murders.

As for that article a lot of information is left out, murder was rising anyway in the UK even before the ban and a few freak incidents in the 2000's made the increase look a lot bigger, 58 people died of suffocation in the back of a lorry trying to get into the UK in 2000, the London bombings in 2005 in which 52 died and that big spike in the murder rate in 2003 was the 218 victims of serial killer Harold Shipman.

He chose a convenient year to show an increase in Ireland's murder rate, the early 70s. That was just the start of what would become a 3 decade long conflict in Northern Ireland, in 1972 N.Ireland's murder rate was around 25, the murder rate in the US in 1972 was 8. Violence often spilled into The Republic of Ireland which probably explains the increase in murders. Nothing to do with any gun ban.

I really can't speak to murder rates in Europe. If there's a serious flaw with the analysis, such as the cherry picking of time periods, then we'll have to look to other analyses. For example, if data from work place accidents that do not involve firearms are included in the same analysis that does include murder by firearms the entire analysis has to be disregarded. Or the London bombings, and so on.

But the data from US experience has confirmed by reams of studies and they all point to the same conclusion, that gun bans do not reduce homicide rates. Whether the US experience is relevant to Europeans is for Europeans to decide and if the UK and France wish to ban the private ownership of guns that's fine with me.

My point is that we know from empirical evidence that gun bans don't reduce homicide rates in the US. And in fact the empirical evidence tells us that gun bans often result in increased homicide rates.

Here's a useful table of data for consideration:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

No one here is suggesting that the United States does not have a "violence problem", so to speak. We do, a serious violence problem. But it should be obvious to everyone here, all well intended caftards, that the root causes of our violence problem is multifaceted - economic, sociological, health and so on. The vast majority of the murder rampages you outside the US read about are committed by men with serious mental health problems, but solutions to dealing with mentally ill individuals obtaining firearms are elusive. We did, however, enact legislation in 2014 in California (in response to the murder rampage by a lunatic near Santa Barbara) that creates a "gun violence restraining order" for mentally ill individuals who are deemed by a court to be a risk to himself or others. We shall see how that works out, but I'm very optimistic that it will work extremely well and it is my hope that other states adopt similar legislation. It's not a panacea, as there is no single solution to anything in life, but it's an important step forward in dealing with the problem of mentally ill individuals possessing firearms.

 

[Raptori]

Just remind me never to wind you up mate, don't fancy arguing with a fecking Ninja!

Lol will do

 

[langster]

Lol will do

If only I had a gun.....

 

[Gannicus]

You refer to your constitution as some equivalent of the koran, handed down by god and it can never be changed.

It was written by men who thought it was right at the time, and it can and should be changed if men, and maybe this time even women too, think it should be.

Here in the US we have a written constitution, which is not the case in the UK. It's the central document of our structure of governance, which provides for things like an executive branch which is separate from the legislative branch and which states that Congress shall make no law which abridges the right to free speech and which creates a federal judicial branch.

The Constitution not only CAN be "changed" (amended), but it HAS been changed several dozen times. As everyone here knows, the Constitution was changed when an amendment was passed to abolish slavery and then later to guarantee women the right to vote. The 14th Amendment was a substantial change to the Constitution as well.

So it's not accurate to suggest that the Constitution has never been or that I have ever suggested that it "can never be changed".

Whenever the people of the United States deem it appropriate to repeal or supersede the 2nd Amendment, they will do so, as they have done so in the past.

The key point some caftards don't understand about the 2nd Amendment is that it in no way precludes states from enacting all kinds of "time, place and manner" restrictions on what kinds of weapons may be privately owned and where they may be used. All it precludes is a total gun ban and a ban on the use of a gun (not nuclear or chemical weapon, bomb or semiautomatic weapon) in one's own home for self-defense. The landmark case as it applies to the states comes from a dispute in the City of Chicago -- which had had a de facto complete ban of gun ownership...while at the same time having the among the highest homicide rate in the US -- and the court correctly applied the incorporation doctrine to the 2nd Amendment, as it had so for the 1st and other amendments, per the 14th Amendment.

By the way, without the 14th Amendment we'd be fekked. The Founders did good work to get things started, but they made a hash of things when it came to the Bill of Rights and how our "rights" were to be respected by the individual states. But that's another discussion for another thread.

 

[gooDevil]

Guns purchased over the counter and used by a motley crew of armed civilians? Be interested in some examples if you've got any?

Perhaps my use of the word democratic is throwing you off, I simply mean movements of the people, in this case to overthrow a fascist regime. Most of those governments get labeled as socialist by our respective governments, but are served by elected officials. If Britain weren't an ally we'd say it was socialist here in the States, doesn't mean it's not democratic.

 

[Raptori]

If only I had a gun.....

 

[711]

Here in the US we have a written constitution.....

Yes, thank you. I think most people are aware of the gist of that, if not in the detail you clearly describe. My point was that it renders your earlier references to the constitution irrelevant, as that constitution could indeed be changed.

 

[Gannicus]

Yes, thank you. I think most people are aware of the gist of that, if not in the detail you clearly describe. My point was that it renders your earlier references to the constitution irrelevant, as that constitution could indeed be changed.

But it's obvious that a number of posters here don't fully appreciate what a "written constitution" actually means.

We simply cannot, for example, enforce a law that requires newspapers to run only stories that praise Obama. Such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional because it would clearly contradict any plausible interpretation of the words "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." Through the incorporation doctrine (14th Amendment) that the same prohibition applies to states. Neither Congress nor the State of Iowa or any other state may enforce a law that requires a newspaper to run particular a story or point of view because our Constitution prohibits such a restraint on free speech.

Far from being irrelevant, the Constitution guides nearly every decision made by governmental bodies. Does Entity XYZ have the legal authority to do ABC? We have to look to the Constitution every single time. In some cases we come across a gray area and the courts have to deal with it, which is actually not very often.

In the Heller and McDonald cases, the courts looked at the language of the 2nd Amendment, historical practice by the states and it came to its decision. It's fair game to disagree with the court's opinions in those two cases, and there was a spirited dissent in each case, but the decisions are the decisions.

As for amending the Constitution, we have a process for that. If and when the American people have had enough of guns and want them banned outright we can amend the Constitution by repealing or superseding the 2nd Amendment with anything we want.

My guess is that only about 20% of the American people would want to seek a complete ban of the private ownership of firearms. If you have a problem with that, that's fine with me, but your criticism should be directed at the American people for their views on the private ownership of firearms, not with the Constitution.

 

[senorgregster]

But it's obvious that a number of posters here don't fully appreciate what a "written constitution" actually means.

We simply cannot, for example, enforce a law that requires newspapers to run only stories that praise Obama. Such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional because it would clearly contradict any plausible interpretation of the words "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech..." Through the incorporation doctrine (14th Amendment) that the same prohibition applies to states. Neither Congress nor the State of Iowa or any other state may enforce a law that requires a newspaper to run particular a story or point of view because our Constitution prohibits such a restraint on free speech.

Far from being irrelevant, the Constitution guides nearly every decision made by governmental bodies. Does Entity XYZ have the legal authority to do ABC? We have to look to the Constitution every single time. In some cases we come across a gray area and the courts have to deal with it, which is actually not very often.

In the Heller and McDonald cases, the courts looked at the language of the 2nd Amendment, historical practice by the states and it came to its decision. It's fair game to disagree with the court's opinions in those two cases, and there was a spirited dissent in each case, but the decisions are the decisions.

As for amending the Constitution, we have a process for that. If and when the American people have had enough of guns and want them banned outright we can amend the Constitution by repealing or superseding the 2nd Amendment with anything we want.

My guess is that only about 20% of the American people would want to seek a complete ban of the private ownership of firearms. If you have a problem with that, that's fine with me, but your criticism should be directed at the American people for their views on the private ownership of firearms, not with the Constitution.

That's a pretty damn good description. Where does the 20% come from though? I'd be interested in a real number and how it compares to other countries.

 

[Gannicus]

That's a pretty damn good description. Where does the 20% come from though? I'd be interested in a real number and how it compares to other countries.

A quick check on the latest Gallup Poll says this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

As support for stricter laws regulating the sale of guns has dwindled, the percentage of Americans who say handguns should be banned has remained low. About one in four Americans say handgun possession should be banned for everyone except the police and "other authorized persons" such as security or the military. A near-record high of 73% of Americans now say that handguns should not be banned.

Taking the highest number possible from this data, one can conclude that only 27% of Americans say that "handguns should be banned".

 

[senorgregster]

A quick check on the latest Gallup Poll says this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

As support for stricter laws regulating the sale of guns has dwindled, the percentage of Americans who say handguns should be banned has remained low. About one in four Americans say handgun possession should be banned for everyone except the police and "other authorized persons" such as security or the military. A near-record high of 73% of Americans now say that handguns should not be banned.

Taking the highest number possible from this data, one can conclude that only 27% of Americans say that "handguns should be banned".

That's depressing reading. At least there is support for tighter controls. Question is, just what do they want to restrict?

 

[Gannicus]

That's depressing reading. At least there is support for tighter controls. Question is, just what do they want to restrict?

My hunch is that most Americans support a ban on semiautomatic weapons and oppose laws that allow individuals to be brought into a WalMart. But each state gets to decide that for itself -- Idaho allows it whereas California does not. I personally think California has the more sound law, from a genuine public safety perspective.

I would be very apprehensive about ever going into a retail establishment knowing that there's a possibility that a shopper has bought her gun with her. Even if I knew she was a responsible gun owner -- and most actually are -- the possibility of an accidental firing is real or some crazed fukk could steal the gun and then we'd be fukked. Why such permissive laws exist boggle the mind.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

When I was 14, I was at home alone, playing Pro Evo in my bedroom on the third floor of our house. Someone rang the doorbell. I didn't want to quit my game, so I leaned out of the window and looked down to see who it was. Some guy had parked his car next to our house and was standing on the pavement. I guessed he was a friend of my older sister—a couple of her friends had just learned to drive and they often came over to pick her up—so I ignored him and and started playing again. Couldn't be bothered going down two flights of stairs just to tell him she was out, he could call her if he was that bothered.

I went back to playing. A few minutes later, I heard a couple of loud bangs followed by a crash. Paused the game and wondered what the hell was going on. Went downstairs, and stopped near the top of the final flight, down just far enough that I could see the front door. The door's window was broken, and it stood wide open. The guy stood a couple of paces into the hall, a brick in his hand.

I said "what's going on?" or something like that.

He said "Errr... someone just robbed your house. I'll get him, he went this way!" then turned around and ran out of the door.

I followed, and the car I had seen earlier drove past, I walked to the pavement and watched it drive away—too far by that point to see the licence plate. I rang my family to let them know someone had broken into the house, then rang the police. Apparently the car was stolen but then returned later that day, the owner contacted the police after noticing that the mileage had jumped during the day. I was the only witness, but couldn't identify the guy particularly well because he had been silhouetted. He had stolen several plasma tvs that day, the police said they thought he had a device that could sense when one was within a certain distance from him—we didn't even have a tv like that so he'd have been disappointed by our house!

I wasn't even remotely scared at any moment of this, because there was no reason to be. I was a karate black belt, with lots of experience sparring with fully grown men who had trained for decades, and I had given myself the higher ground by stopping on the stairs. The only thing I regret is not picking up my digital camera and recording a video of what happened.

If the guy had had a gun, it could've been a completely different story.

Well, exactly. Someone tries to rob your home, is discovered and legs it. That's the closest that the small minority of people who get burgled will come to any confrontation. At no point did you need a gun. I reckon 99% of people won't ever get as close to needing a gun as you did and you didn't need one!

Meanwhile, in America, fecking hundreds of thousands of people from that 99% are storing lethal weapons in their home. Putting their own family at risk. Mental.

 

[Balu]

Well, exactly. Someone tries to rob your home, is discovered and legs it. That's the closest that the small minority of people who get burgled will come to any confrontation. At no point did you need a gun. I reckon 99% of people won't ever get as close to needing a gun as you did and you didn't need one!

Meanwhile, in America, fecking hundreds of thousands of people from that 99% are storing lethal weapons in their home. Putting their own family at risk. Mental.

I've been in a similar situation as Raptori, well without being a karate black belt or anything like that. I just happened to be in my flat, listening to music in a dark room with headphones, when a burglar decided to come in. I saw a flashlight, then dropped my headphones to make a noise and heard him run away. Called the police, told the insurance the next day what happened and they covered the damage on my front door. That was it.

The last thing I'd want to have in that situation is a gun. Honestly, I'd rather help him carry my stuff outside than live with the burden of having shot someone. It's just not worth it. Besides all the risks with accidents, I really don't get why so many people in the US believe, that shooting someone is a good idea in a situation like that. Police officers and soldiers regularly struggle with the aftermath of killing someone and they are way better prepared to deal with it than a normal person. It can mess up your life a lot more than being forced to buy a few new things or live without them if you can't afford it.

There's also a much bigger chance that the situation escalates and I'll get hurt if I confront the burglar with a gun, especially if it's likely that he has one as well. Let him leave ffs. The chance that he actually wants to hurt someone is basically non existent, unless you threaten him of course.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I don't own anything that's worth risking my life for and I don't think I own anything that's worth taking a criminal's life.

 

[711]

Putting their own family at risk indeed Pogue.

Guns, the cure for a disease you haven't really got that kills more than the disease would even if you had it.

 

[Ramshock]

People who are pro guns and waffle on about the constitution like it was handed down by Jesus himself need to realize that when the rights to bear arms was included it was a vastly different time than it is now. There were no regulated militia to protect the citizens in those days so you had no police. Whilst some would argue thats hardly and improvement on those times it still negates the need for a private citizen to have anything more than a handgun for personal protection and a shotgun/rifle if a hunter. There is no need for semi and fully automatic weapons nor open carry and theres no need for accidental deaths. They even have technology for guns that can only be operated by the owner but again this was rejected by the NRA and its minions because feck you thats why.

 

[Gannicus]

People who are pro guns and waffle on about the constitution like it was handed down by Jesus himself need to realize that when the rights to bear arms was included it was a vastly different time than it is now. There were no regulated militia to protect the citizens in those days so you had no police. Whilst some would argue thats hardly and improvement on those times it still negates the need for a private citizen to have anything more than a handgun for personal protection and a shotgun/rifle if a hunter. There is no need for semi and fully automatic weapons nor open carry and theres no need for accidental deaths. They even have technology for guns that can only be operated by the owner but again this was rejected by the NRA and its minions because feck you thats why.

Can you just stop with this Jesus shit? Unlike the New Testament, Americans have every right and power to amend the Constitution.

Americans can't cherry pick which parts of the Constitution they want to enforce and not enforce, although there is admittedly a vast disagreement on the breadth of our rights (Democrats generally want to restrain the right to free speech, Republicans generally want to expand it). There is an orderly process provided in the Constitution itself for amending the Constitution and we've done that on a variety of provisions over the years.

Here's the language of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment in no way states that the right to keep and bear arms was (or is) contingent on being a member of a militia (or in today's terms, a member of the military). If the Framers meant to say that (what you think they meant) they would have written it that way. Any freshman English major can see that the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. The operative clause of the 2nd Amendment begins with stating "the right of the people...". Not some people, but "the people". The drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights used the words "the people" in two other instances: relating to the right of assembly and petition and the search and seizure clause. Those two clauses are universally understood to be individual rights. The 2nd Amendment also guarantees an "individual" right, not a collective right (which exists nowhere in the Constitution anyway). Our constitutional rights as Americans are not contingent on being a member of a group of any kind. Individuals do enjoy certain privileges if they are member of a particular group, such as the military of law enforcement, but the Constitution does not grant privileges; with respect to rights it only recognizes the rights of individuals (which is why I support a 14th Amendment reading of the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation).

It's not that Americans think the Constitution was handed down by Jesus himself when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. Americans happen to think, or at least a majority of them do so, that keeping a gun in the house is a good idea. I disagree with most Americans; in fact having a gun in your house does little for guaranteeing your safety (although the data over time clearly show that gun control jurisdictions have higher homicide rates), but that's a choice every individual gets to make for himself or herself, not the government.

 

[711]

Theology's just so complicated.

 

[senorgregster]

I've been in a similar situation as Raptori, well without being a karate black belt or anything like that. I just happened to be in my flat, listening to music in a dark room with headphones, when a burglar decided to come in. I saw a flashlight, then dropped my headphones to make a noise and heard him run away. Called the police, told the insurance the next day what happened and they covered the damage on my front door. That was it.

The last thing I'd want to have in that situation is a gun. Honestly, I'd rather help him carry my stuff outside than live with the burden of having shot someone. It's just not worth it. Besides all the risks with accidents, I really don't get why so many people in the US believe, that shooting someone is a good idea in a situation like that. Police officers and soldiers regularly struggle with the aftermath of killing someone and they are way better prepared to deal with it than a normal person. It can mess up your life a lot more than being forced to buy a few new things or live without them if you can't afford it.

There's also a much bigger chance that the situation escalates and I'll get hurt if I confront the burglar with a gun, especially if it's likely that he has one as well. Let him leave ffs. The chance that he actually wants to hurt someone is basically non existent, unless you threaten him of course.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, but I don't own anything that's worth risking my life for and I don't think I own anything that's worth taking a criminal's life.

I agree wholeheartedly on the shooting someone. Also I would not want to live in the house again due to the memories. I think there's also something to be said about an arms race, albeit on a small scale. If robbers fear an owner may have a gun they will bring a gun themselves.

 

[peterstorey]

Can you just stop with this Jesus shit? Unlike the New Testament, Americans have every right and power to amend the Constitution.

Here's the language of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Forget the lexical analysis just strike that antiquated amendment out.

 

[RexHamilton]

Here's the language of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The 2nd Amendment in no way states that the right to keep and bear arms was (or is) contingent on being a member of a militia (or in today's terms, a member of the military). If the Framers meant to say that (what you think they meant) they would have written it that way. Any freshman English major can see that the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment. The operative clause of the 2nd Amendment begins with stating "the right of the people...". Not some people, but "the people". The drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights used the words "the people" in two other instances: relating to the right of assembly and petition and the search and seizure clause. Those two clauses are universally understood to be individual rights. The 2nd Amendment also guarantees an "individual" right, not a collective right (which exists nowhere in the Constitution anyway). Our constitutional rights as Americans are not contingent on being a member of a group of any kind. Individuals do enjoy certain privileges if they are member of a particular group, such as the military of law enforcement, but the Constitution does not grant privileges; with respect to rights it only recognizes the rights of individuals (which is why I support a 14th Amendment reading of the right to marry regardless of sexual orientation).

I agree with you in that the wording of the 2nd amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to members of a militia but applies to each individual. However, I think the prefatory clause should should still be taken into account when arguing whether or not the amendment should be amended. It is clear that, under the 2nd amendment, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect the free state. However, that is no longer an issue. It doesn't state that people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect from home invasions from people who want to steal your goods. It was a law to protect your right to own a gun so as to serve your country should your sovereignty be under threat again.

Now if people would like to argue that you would still like to hold onto your guns in the US comes under attack and every man, woman (and child apparently) needs to take to the streets to protect your country then fine, you are allowed by your constitution to keep and bear arms.

However, I think you'll agree that that scenario is unlikely. Your handguns and semi-automatic weapons would be fairly useless against any potential foreign attack. So the law is out-dated and is no protecting rights that it was not written to protect.

I know you, personally, agree that there should be stricter gun control and you don't own a gun. I know you are only pointing out to people on here that Americans are protected by the constitution if they want to own a gun. I know you say that the majority want to keep the 2nd amendment in it's current form. But all I'm saying is, the second amendment in it's current form is an out-dated law which the gun-nuts are piggy backing and if anyone challenges it they are arguing that the anti-gun lobby are trying to take their constitutional rights away and this gains them support as Americans take their constitutional rights more seriously than practically everyone else in the world.


EDIT: @peterstorey just summarised my whole post as was typing this!

 

[Gannicus]

I agree with you in that the wording of the 2nd amendment does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to members of a militia but applies to each individual. However, I think the prefatory clause should should still be taken into account when arguing whether or not the amendment should be amended. It is clear that, under the 2nd amendment, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect the free state. However, that is no longer an issue. It doesn't state that people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect from home invasions from people who want to steal your goods. It was a law to protect your right to own a gun so as to serve your country should your sovereignty be under threat again.

Now if people would like to argue that you would still like to hold onto your guns in the US comes under attack and every man, woman (and child apparently) needs to take to the streets to protect your country then fine, you are allowed by your constitution to keep and bear arms.

However, I think you'll agree that that scenario is unlikely. Your handguns and semi-automatic weapons would be fairly useless against any potential foreign attack. So the law is out-dated and is no protecting rights that it was not written to protect.

I know you, personally, agree that there should be stricter gun control and you don't own a gun. I know you are only pointing out to people on here that Americans are protected by the constitution if they want to own a gun. I know you say that the majority want to keep the 2nd amendment in it's current form. But all I'm saying is, the second amendment in it's current form is an out-dated law which the gun-nuts are piggy backing and if anyone challenges it they are arguing that the anti-gun lobby are trying to take their constitutional rights away and this gains them support as Americans take their constitutional rights more seriously than practically everyone else in the world.


EDIT: @peterstorey just summarised my whole post as was typing this!

Two points.

It's reasonable to argue that the second amendment should be repealed. It's an argument with good intentions.

My second point, however, is that any fair reading of the language of the existing second amendment precludes the interpretation you are suggesting. There is no evidence that the Framers believed that the sole purpose of this right was to allow the people to overthrow a despotic government. It was certainly one rationale, but not the only rationale. Another rationale was self-protection.

It was simply assumed that the right to keep amd bear arms was essential to the well being of the republic, a core part of republican values. I don't have Story's Commentaries on the Constitution handy, but I distinctly recall Story discussing this point extensively.

 

[Wibble]

Well done gun owners

http://www.care2.com/causes/grand-canyons-lone-wolf-has-likely-been-killed.html

 

[peterstorey]

It was simply assumed that the right to keep amd bear arms was essential to the well being of the republican, a core part of republican values. I don't have Story's Commentaries on the Constitution handy, but I distinctly recall Story discussing this point extensively.

He was writing 200 years ago, who cares what he thinks except historians?

 

[RexHamilton]

Two points.

It's reasonable to argue that the second amendment should be repealed. It's argument with good intentions.

My second point, however, is that any fair reading of the language of the existing second amendment precludes the interpretation you are suggesting. There is no evidence that the Framers believed that the sole purpose of this right was to allow the people to overthrow a despotic government. It was certainly one rationale, but not the only rationale. Another rationale was self-protection.

It was simply assumed that the right to keep amd bear arms was essential to the well being of the republican, a core part of republican values. I don't have Story's Commentaries on the Constitution handy, but I distinctly recall Story discussing this point extensively.

The only rationale mentioned is protecting the state though.

You could say that the Framers believed that everyone should have the right to bear arms so they could shoot anyone who insulted them in the same way you could argue that it was for self protection.Self protection isn't mentioned in the 2nd amendment, protection of the state is. As that is no longer an issue, it probably should be amended or repealed.

 

[Eyepopper]

Well done gun owners

http://www.care2.com/causes/grand-canyons-lone-wolf-has-likely-been-killed.html

Must have made quite a mess if all gun owners were responsible for shooting that.

I wonder what farmers or those who depend on farming or wildlife in these areas think of efforts to reintroduce wolves.

People love the convenience of being able to wander into their local supermarket and pick up a pack of burgers for $2, a carton of milk or slice pan for .75c, I dont see many refuse to on the grounds that the areas where the these products are produced are the natural habitat of animals who have not only been run out of town long ago but who have also had their natural habitat destroyed meaining their population will never recover.

I also don't know many who refuse to own a domestic cat (or who can be arsed to go to the trouble of putting a bell on one) on the grounds that they kill in the region of 200-300 small animals each per annum and, are in large part, responsible for decimating the population of many species or wild birds and small mammals in many areas all over the world.

"If we extrapolate the results of this study across the country, we find that cats are likely killing more than 4 billion animals per year, including at least 500 million birds," says George Fenwick, president of the American Bird Conservancy.

"Cat predation is one of the reasons why one in three American bird species are in decline."

"I think it will be impossible to deny the ongoing slaughter of wildlife by outdoor cats given the videotape documentation and the scientific credibility that this study brings," adds Michael Hutchins, executive director and CEO of the Wildlife Society.

"There is a huge environmental price that we are paying every single day that we turn our backs on our native wildlife in favor of protecting non-native predatory cats at all costs, while ignoring the inconvenient truth about the mortality they inflict."

Well done cat owners.

 

[Eyepopper]

Also the number of ground nesting birds and animals killed by combine harvesters each year is many multiples of those killed by hunters.

 

[Gannicus]

He was writing 200 years ago, who cares what he thinks except historians?

The question of what the Framers intended by the language of the second amendment was raised, so it seemed reasonable to inquire as to what jurists in the decades after the founding era thought the Framers believed. My apologies if answering a straightforward question offends you.

 

[Gannicus]

The only rationale mentioned is protecting the state though.

You could say that the Framers believed that everyone should have the right to bear arms so they could shoot anyone who insulted them in the same way you could argue that it was for self protection.Self protection isn't mentioned in the 2nd amendment, protection of the state is. As that is no longer an issue, it probably should be amended or repealed.

This is a serious post, in contrast to some of the other nonsense spewed here, and I'll do my best to reply without turning this into a legal brief.

The Framers looked to Hobbes, Locke and Blackstone as they deliberated on a new Constitution. In very general terms, Hobbes -- who is generally regarded as the father of modern political philosophy (Strauss claims it was Machiavelli) -- propounded the a priori belief that every individual had a right of self-preservation. Of course, he also developed a theory of sovereignty the Americans rejected, but the American Framers agreed that above all else, a man had a right to preserve his life, to ensure his liberty and pursue his happiness.

Of course, the Framers also protected slavery, to their eternal shame.

Madison argued against the need for a Bill of Rights (won't explain why here) but to guarantee ratification a Bill of Rights had to whipped up, which he did. There was unanimous consent among the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (the antecedents of today's Republican and Democrats) that the right to bear arms was essential not just resisting a tyrannical government but to one's identity as a free man. Keep in mind what life was like back then...almost no organized police force of any kind and Indians on the frontier. If an intruder entered your property it was up to you to deal with it. There was no alarm system that would automatically alert the cops, no SWAT teams, no 911 and not even pepper spray.

Whether you bunked in a boarding house, tilled your farm or whatever, it was up to you to defend yourself. If you didn't have a gun you were completely fukked.

The Framers were guilty of many things! but they were not oblivious to everyday reality.

In the enumeration of individual rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms appears in the second amendment, which was no accident.

If I switch to another tab on my iPad i will lose this draft post, but I believe it was Justice Story who described the right to keep and bear arms as the "palladium of [our] liberties".

 

[Rado_N]

This is a serious post, in contrast to some of the other nonsense spewed here, and I'll do my best to reply without turning this into a legal brief.

The Framers looked to Hobbes, Locke and Blackstone as they deliberated on a new Constitution. In very general terms, Hobbes -- who is generally regarded as the father of modern political philosophy (Strauss claims it was Machiavelli) -- propounded the a priori belief that every individual had a right of self-preservation. Of course, he also developed a theory of sovereignty the Americans rejected, but the American Framers agreed that above all else, a man had a right to preserve his life, to ensure his liberty and pursue his happiness.

Of course, the Framers also protected slavery, to their eternal shame.

Madison argued against the need for a Bill of Rights (won't explain why here) but to guarantee ratification a Bill of Rights had to whipped up, which he did. There was unanimous consent among the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (the antecedents of today's Republican and Democrats) that the right to bear arms was essential not just resisting a tyrannical government but to one's identity as a free man. Keep in mind what life was like back then...almost no organized police force of any kind and Indians on the frontier. If an intruder entered your property it was up to you to deal with it. There was no alarm system that would automatically alert the cops, no SWAT teams, no 911 and not even pepper spray.

Whether you bunked in a boarding house, tilled your farm or whatever, it was up to you to defend yourself. If you didn't have a gun you were completely fukked.

The Framers were guilty of many things! but they were not oblivious to everyday reality.

In the enumeration of individual rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms appears in the second amendment, which was no accident.

If I switch to another tab on my iPad i will lose this draft post, but I believe it was Justice Story who described the right to keep and bear arms as the "palladium of [our] liberties".

So yea, it's antiquated.

 

[peterstorey]

The question of what the Framers intended by the language of the second amendment was raised, so it seemed reasonable to inquire as to what jurists in the decades after the founding era thought the Framers believed. My apologies if answering a straightforward question offends you.

Your focus on the academic/irrelevant to the detriment of the pragmatic/necessary is what surprises me.

 

[RexHamilton]

This is a serious post, in contrast to some of the other nonsense spewed here, and I'll do my best to reply without turning this into a legal brief.

The Framers looked to Hobbes, Locke and Blackstone as they deliberated on a new Constitution. In very general terms, Hobbes -- who is generally regarded as the father of modern political philosophy (Strauss claims it was Machiavelli) -- propounded the a priori belief that every individual had a right of self-preservation. Of course, he also developed a theory of sovereignty the Americans rejected, but the American Framers agreed that above all else, a man had a right to preserve his life, to ensure his liberty and pursue his happiness.

Of course, the Framers also protected slavery, to their eternal shame.

Madison argued against the need for a Bill of Rights (won't explain why here) but to guarantee ratification a Bill of Rights had to whipped up, which he did. There was unanimous consent among the Federalists and Anti-Federalists (the antecedents of today's Republican and Democrats) that the right to bear arms was essential not just resisting a tyrannical government but to one's identity as a free man. Keep in mind what life was like back then...almost no organized police force of any kind and Indians on the frontier. If an intruder entered your property it was up to you to deal with it. There was no alarm system that would automatically alert the cops, no SWAT teams, no 911 and not even pepper spray.

Whether you bunked in a boarding house, tilled your farm or whatever, it was up to you to defend yourself. If you didn't have a gun you were completely fukked.

The Framers were guilty of many things! but they were not oblivious to everyday reality.

In the enumeration of individual rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms appears in the second amendment, which was no accident.

If I switch to another tab on my iPad i will lose this draft post, but I believe it was Justice Story who described the right to keep and bear arms as the "palladium of [our] liberties".

Thanks for your reply. I see where you're coming from and I don't disagree. The Framers probably did see the need for everyone to have a gun to protect themselves. But as I said, the first part of the amendment is there for a reason. It doesn't state that you should have a gun to protect yourself from intruders in your home, only to defend the state and as I said, that's no longer an issue. Plus, as @Rado_N has just said, even if it did, all those reasons you gave are now outdated.

You do have alarm systems. You do have 911, SWAT teams etc. So it is an antiquated law. The Framer's everyday reality is no longer the everyday reality of the American people.

People in the States take a document that was written over 200 years ago way to literally and seriously. Undoubtedly it is a great constitution, written by great men and many of the freedoms it afforded people were way ahead of their time. But it is important to realise it was written over 200 years ago and should be amended and updated as needs be. I am aware that this is done from time to time. Here in Ireland we have changed our a number of times too. One that sticks out was the divorce referendum. There was a huge furore when a referendum was proposed on the issue. However the uproar was because of people's own religious beliefs, not because we held our constitution as some sacred document that shouldn't be changed because the people who wrote it were great people.

Common sense should prevail. None of the reasons for each citizen to have a gun at the time when the constitution was written are still relevant. There is a pro-gun community who see the anti-gun lobby as a bunch of people looking to take away one of their fundemental rights. They don't see a bunch of people concerned for the safety of their children in schools, cinemas, shopping centres, which is what the anti-gun lobby is generally made up of.

I have still yet to hear one, just one, really convincing argument for why every adult in the US can own a gun.

 

[Gannicus]

Thanks for your reply. I see where you're coming from and I don't disagree. The Framers probably did see the need for everyone to have a gun to protect themselves. But as I said, the first part of the amendment is there for a reason. It doesn't state that you should have a gun to protect yourself from intruders in your home, only to defend the state and as I said, that's no longer an issue. Plus, as @Rado_N has just said, even if it did, all those reasons you gave are now outdated.

You do have alarm systems. You do have 911, SWAT teams etc. So it is an antiquated law. The Framer's everyday reality is no longer the everyday reality of the American people.

People in the States take a document that was written over 200 years ago way to literally and seriously. Undoubtedly it is a great constitution, written by great men and many of the freedoms it afforded people were way ahead of their time. But it is important to realise it was written over 200 years ago and should be amended and updated as needs be. I am aware that this is done from time to time. Here in Ireland we have changed our a number of times too. One that sticks out was the divorce referendum. There was a huge furore when a referendum was proposed on the issue. However the uproar was because of people's own religious beliefs, not because we held our constitution as some sacred document that shouldn't be changed because the people who wrote it were great people.

Common sense should prevail. None of the reasons for each citizen to have a gun at the time when the constitution was written are still relevant. There is a pro-gun community who see the anti-gun lobby as a bunch of people looking to take away one of their fundemental rights. They don't see a bunch of people concerned for the safety of their children in schools, cinemas, shopping centres, which is what the anti-gun lobby is generally made up of.

I have still yet to hear one, just one, really convincing argument for why every adult in the US can own a gun.

An outstanding post. Let me tackle each point one by one.

The Framers absolutely did not see the need for "everyone" to have a gun. Slaves and women, for example, were typically prohibited from keeping and bearing arms. White men, particularly those of privilege, were expected to be armed although I imagine there were some notable exceptions. I can easily see Ben Franklin not being armed. But it is indisputable that every man -- white men, to be sure -- was viewed as having an inalienable right to be armed, regardless of whether he was an active member of the military.

The prefatory clause of the sentence does not in any way expand or restrict the scope of the operative clause. If the Madison (who did most of the drafting) meant that, he would have written the language to that effect. It would have been a snap to write something like "The right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "2nd Amendment is antiquated" argument is, however, well within reason and men of good will can disagree on this point. But before anyone decides that repealing the 2nd Amendment is a great idea it should be acknowledged that it does not prohibit the government from banning the private ownership of heavy weaponry of all kinds and it doesn't prohibit the government from enforcing all kinds of "time, place and manner" requirements. For example, a state may (and I think most have) banned the private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Most states (surely all) have bans on bringing guns of any kind into sporting arenas. Prohibitions on felons and mentally ill individuals are still perfectly constitutional.

All that states (and local jurisdictions) cannot do is to enforce a law which prohibits the possession of a small firearm in your own home.

But even though there is a presumptive right (not extended to felons and the mentally ill) to own a gun and possess it in your home, you cannot do whatever you want with that gun. You can't even lawfully gun down your cat. You can shoot at objects, such as flying disks; and of course you can shoot at an assailant under a restricted set of circumstances. You cannot (can't remember the name of the doctrine) shoot at any burglar; there must be a demonstrable mortal threat to you before you can shoot at him.

A reasonable objection might be that even the possession of a firearm in your own home should be banned and thus the 2nd Amendment is an unacceptable barrier to the enforcement of such a law. Problem is, most Americans don't agree with that assessment. And even if we could squeak out a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, there is the practical problem of what to do with all the small firearms that (I'm guessing) at least 100m Americans have in their possession currently have? Do we confiscate all those guns, rifles and shotguns? If you want to see a lot of pissed off people, just try peeling their guns off their cold, dead fingers.

We amended the Constitution to prohibit the manufacture and consumption of alcohol, which turned out to be a really bad idea and we had to repeal the repeal just a few years later.

But if experience told us that a total gun ban would solve our homicide problems it would make sense to proceed. But the overwhelming body of data tells us that even in jurisdictions outside of the United States which have banned guns see a greater incidence of homicides than jurisdictions that do not.

Intuition -- "common sense" -- tells us that banning guns would make the homicide problem go away, but empirical evidence does not.

Not "every adult" may lawfully own a gun, not by any stretch of the imagination. At the risk of extreme simplification individuals who have been previously convicted of a felony or a long list misdemeanors or who have been determined by a legal authority to be mentally incompetent cannot lawfully own or possession of a firearm of any kind. There are additional prohibitions, such as former juvenile delinquents under the age of 30 and persons adjudicated to be addicted to narcotics and so on, but they are too numerous to list here. With the possible exception of states like Idaho and Wyoming (just guessing) anyone who wishes to purchase a gun is subject to a background check first. We have laws against straw purchases and the shipment of certain weapons under most circumstances. And of course, guns must be registered. California, where I live and probably the most pro "gun control" state in the US, goes well beyond these basic requirements for the ownership of firearms.

In short, the 2nd Amendment allows jurisdictions to do almost everything you would want them to do. Not everything, but almost everything. That may be why no more than 27% of Americans support a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Gannicus]

So yea, it's antiquated.

Perhaps, but quite a few people find themselves in a serious confrontation every day and I do not pretend to know better than they do what's best for them.

Having been heavily influenced by the teachings of Master Po and Kwai Chang Cain, my response would be "take everything you want, but don't hurt anyone", but that doesn't work for everyone.

 

[RexHamilton]

An outstanding post. Let me tackle each point one by one.

The Framers absolutely did not see the need for "everyone" to have a gun. Slaves and women, for example, were typically prohibited from keeping and bearing arms. White men, particularly those of privilege, were expected to be armed although I imagine there were some notable exceptions. I can easily see Ben Franklin not being armed. But it is indisputable that every man -- white men, to be sure -- was viewed as having an inalienable right to be armed, regardless of whether he was an active member of the military.

The prefatory clause of the sentence does not in any way expand or restrict the scope of the operative clause. If the Madison (who did most of the drafting) meant that, he would have written the language to that effect. It would have been a snap to write something like "The right of members of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "2nd Amendment is antiquated" argument is, however, well within reason and men of good will can disagree on this point. But before anyone decides that repealing the 2nd Amendment is a great idea it should be acknowledged that it does not prohibit the government from banning the private ownership of heavy weaponry of all kinds and it doesn't prohibit the government from enforcing all kinds of "time, place and manner" requirements. For example, a state may (and I think most have) banned the private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Most states (surely all) have bans on bringing guns of any kind into sporting arenas. Prohibitions on felons and mentally ill individuals are still perfectly constitutional.

All that states (and local jurisdictions) cannot do is to enforce a law which prohibits the possession of a small firearm in your own home.

But even though there is a presumptive right (not extended to felons and the mentally ill) to own a gun and possess it in your home, you cannot do whatever you want with that gun. You can't even lawfully gun down your cat. You can shoot at objects, such as flying disks; and of course you can shoot at an assailant under a restricted set of circumstances. You cannot (can't remember the name of the doctrine) shoot at any burglar; there must be a demonstrable mortal threat to you before you can shoot at him.

A reasonable objection might be that even the possession of a firearm in your own home should be banned and thus the 2nd Amendment is an unacceptable barrier to the enforcement of such a law. Problem is, most Americans don't agree with that assessment. And even if we could squeak out a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, there is the practical problem of what to do with all the small firearms that (I'm guessing) at least 100m Americans have in their possession currently have? Do we confiscate all those guns, rifles and shotguns? If you want to see a lot of pissed off people, just try peeling their guns off their cold, dead fingers.

We amended the Constitution to prohibit the manufacture and consumption of alcohol, which turned out to be a really bad idea and we had to repeal the repeal just a few years later.

But if experience told us that a total gun ban would solve our homicide problems it would make sense to proceed. But the overwhelming body of data tells us that even in jurisdictions outside of the United States which have banned guns see a greater incidence of homicides than jurisdictions that do not.

Intuition -- "common sense" -- tells us that banning guns would make the homicide problem go away, but empirical evidence does not.

Not "every adult" may lawfully own a gun, not by any stretch of the imagination. At the risk of extreme simplification individuals who have been previously convicted of a felony or a long list misdemeanors or who have been determined by a legal authority to be mentally incompetent cannot lawfully own or possession of a firearm of any kind. There are additional prohibitions, such as former juvenile delinquents under the age of 30 and persons adjudicated to be addicted to narcotics and so on, but they are too numerous to list here. With the possible exception of states like Idaho and Wyoming (just guessing) anyone who wishes to purchase a gun is subject to a background check first. We have laws against straw purchases and the shipment of certain weapons under most circumstances. And of course, guns must be registered. California, where I live and probably the most pro "gun control" state in the US, goes well beyond these basic requirements for the ownership of firearms.

In short, the 2nd Amendment allows jurisdictions to do almost everything you would want them to do. Not everything, but almost everything. That may be why no more than 27% of Americans support a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

Again, thanks for the detailed reply. I'm in bed and working in the morning so I'll reply properly tomorrow. Can you also address my final point of my previous post though. I'm just looking for one reason why every sane adult, who has no prior convictions, should be able to own a gun. It is a deadly weapon. Even a small handgun can contain 6-8 bullets. Even the most responsible owner could have a lapse at some time or another where they will leave it where others can get their hands on it. I've heard arguments before saying well you can kill a person with a knife and that's true. I'm not saying outlawing guns will end homocides or anything of the sort. People of that inclination will find a way. I'd just rather it wasn't so easy for them and give the police or the general public a chance at stopping them.

 

[RexHamilton]

Perhaps, but quite a few people find themselves in a serious confrontation every day and I do not pretend to know better than they do what's best for them.

Having been heavily influenced by the teachings of Master Po and Kwai Chang Cain, my response would be "take everything you want, but don't hurt anyone", but that doesn't work for everyone.

I'm from a country where guns are banned and it is rare that people find themselves in serious confrontations. Well serious enough that they fear for their lives to the point that they would fire a gun to protect themselves. Houses get burgled, cars get stolen but it's a very rare thing for a person to be fearing for their lives in one of these situations.

 

[Pimpmofo]

The "2nd Amendment is antiquated" argument is, however, well within reason and men of good will can disagree on this point. But before anyone decides that repealing the 2nd Amendment is a great idea it should be acknowledged that it does not prohibit the government from banning the private ownership of heavy weaponry of all kinds and it doesn't prohibit the government from enforcing all kinds of "time, place and manner" requirements. For example, a state may (and I think most have) banned the private ownership of semiautomatic weapons. Most states (surely all) have bans on bringing guns of any kind into sporting arenas. Prohibitions on felons and mentally ill individuals are still perfectly constitutional.

Actually, very few have banned semi autos. I don't know exactly how many (30+) but a lot allow full auto but they are extremely expensive to buy and own and the laws on them are extremely strict. They are not common at all.

A reasonable objection might be that even the possession of a firearm in your own home should be banned and thus the 2nd Amendment is an unacceptable barrier to the enforcement of such a law. Problem is, most Americans don't agree with that assessment. And even if we could squeak out a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, there is the practical problem of what to do with all the small firearms that (I'm guessing) at least 100m Americans have in their possession currently have? Do we confiscate all those guns, rifles and shotguns? If you want to see a lot of pissed off people, just try peeling their guns off their cold, dead fingers.

I've seen estimates of over 100m people owning guns and of myself and the people I know that own guns, its not just one. I can sell or buy guns in a private sale and there is no requirement for me to keep any record of it. If guns were banned, I could just say I sold them all and I don't know who bought them. In most states though, guns are not registered. During the background check the gun is recorded but the NICS is required to destroy any record they have of the gun I bought within 24 hours I think. I'm not positive about that time frame though so don't quote me on that.

Not "every adult" may lawfully own a gun, not by any stretch of the imagination. At the risk of extreme simplification individuals who have been previously convicted of a felony or a long list misdemeanors or who have been determined by a legal authority to be mentally incompetent cannot lawfully own or possession of a firearm of any kind. There are additional prohibitions, such as former juvenile delinquents under the age of 30 and persons adjudicated to be addicted to narcotics and so on, but they are too numerous to list here. With the possible exception of states like Idaho and Wyoming (just guessing) anyone who wishes to purchase a gun is subject to a background check first. We have laws against straw purchases and the shipment of certain weapons under most circumstances. And of course, guns must be registered. California, where I live and probably the most pro "gun control" state in the US, goes well beyond these basic requirements for the ownership of firearms.

Every state has to do background checks. Its federal law, not state. In some states, like Wyoming, a concealed carry permit (CCP) relieves the need for a background check. The same paperwork has to be filled out and every FFL(gun dealer) has to keep these papers for 20 years (don't quote me on that time frame either but I think its correct). The reason behind that is the CCP background check is a lot 'deeper' and more strict. It takes three months to pass that check.
Very few states have any kind of gun registration. Its mainly the New England states and the west coast.

I would agree with you that California is the most pro gun control state. New York is the only one that would give you a contest. The city of Chicago is also very strict. Good job helping to get some regulation on them in your state, now get the rest of us to follow.

Here's a link to the 4473 form. Its the form people have to fill out that begins the background check. Its federal, not state.
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

 

[Pimpmofo]

(can't remember the name of the doctrine)

Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law maybe?

 

[Gannicus]

Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law maybe?

I don't think do, though they're closely related and is something of a mishmash of the two. It derives from the common law and it more or less says you are entitled to use proportional force. You can't, for example, shoot someone for trashing your property or screaming insults at you but you can shoot them if they threaten your life. But if you're prosecuted for manslaughter the burden is on you to demonstrate that you indeed faced lethal force or the threat of great bodily injury, which Stand Your Ground also speaks to. I'll have to look it up.

 

[Gannicus]

Actually, very few have banned semi autos. I don't know exactly how many (30+) but a lot allow full auto but they are extremely expensive to buy and own and the laws on them are extremely strict. They are not common at all.

I've seen estimates of over 100m people owning guns and of myself and the people I know that own guns, its not just one. I can sell or buy guns in a private sale and there is no requirement for me to keep any record of it. If guns were banned, I could just say I sold them all and I don't know who bought them. In most states though, guns are not registered. During the background check the gun is recorded but the NICS is required to destroy any record they have of the gun I bought within 24 hours I think. I'm not positive about that time frame though so don't quote me on that.

Every state has to do background checks. Its federal law, not state. In some states, like Wyoming, a concealed carry permit (CCP) relieves the need for a background check. The same paperwork has to be filled out and every FFL(gun dealer) has to keep these papers for 20 years (don't quote me on that time frame either but I think its correct). The reason behind that is the CCP background check is a lot 'deeper' and more strict. It takes three months to pass that check.
Very few states have any kind of gun registration. Its mainly the New England states and the west coast.

I would agree with you that California is the most pro gun control state. New York is the only one that would give you a contest. The city of Chicago is also very strict. Good job helping to get some regulation on them in your state, now get the rest of us to follow.

Here's a link to the 4473 form. Its the form people have to fill out that begins the background check. Its federal, not state.
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

We've got lots of very small states with de minimus gun laws. But the most populous states, with the exception of Texas, are fairly strong gun control states. It may be coincidence, but those states also have higher crime rates. I would imagine because of the higher population density, but that's just a hunch.

And that's the curious thing...the more strict the gun control laws, the higher the higher the crime rate. I won't suggest causation, but what I do suggest is that "strong" gun control do laws do not result in lower crime rates.