High Court Strikes Down Gun Ban

[Azure]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Let's do the math........assuming there's an estimated 300 million people in the US means that over 0.5% of the population or over 6/300 people have to deal with incidents where they have to use a gun each year when threatened at their home.

Obviously higher in some areas of the country such as some major cities and lower in other areas, but an interesting stat.

It most likely is different from state to state, but you make a good point.

The problem is the media is so hell-bent on trying to prove one side of the argument, that they hardly ever look at the other side.

Gotta love the articles written today claiming bloody murder. I find it faintly humorous that people are getting pissed off because the SCOTUS interpreted the constitution exactly how it was written.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Now I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems just a little "odd" when I read stuff like "more guns = less crime" and to back it up they say that 2 million people a year are fending off criminals with firearms.

If more guns = less crime, why are there so many criminals being fended off with guns? And if criminals are afraid of people with guns, how come people with guns are so often preyed upon by criminals? According to the study (and I suppose a calculator), a citizen fends off a criminal with a gun every 13 seconds in the United States. That's an awful lot of crimes being committed in a place with a lot of guns. What percentage of total crimes are foiled by guns? It can't be a very big number. Smaller than 10 I'll bet.

It's a goddamn crime wave down there. The guns don't seem to be stopping it.

I certainly don't agree with the premise of his argument that more guns automatically equal less crime, but he went to extremes to prove that gun bans don't make any difference.

2 million incidents a year, out of 300 million people, and you somehow get an incident every 13 seconds? How come that doesn't sound right?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

I certainly don't agree with the premise of his argument that more guns automatically equal less crime, but he went to extremes to prove that gun bans don't make any difference.

2 million incidents a year, out of 300 million people, and you somehow get an incident every 13 seconds? How come that doesn't sound right?

I don't know if it's correct or not. It's right on the top of the page.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

[worth]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're not a criminal because you accidentally leave your gun and ammo in the same room for 15 min and your kid comes, takes it, and ends up shooting his friend with it. Sheer stupidity, but not a criminal action.

Even with the Canadian Gun Laws, there are only 'guidelines' to follow regarding gun safety in your own home. Nobody is going to 'force' you to lock them up.

But you'll find that most law-abiding people who own guns are very responsible.

This is incorrect. It is illegal to improperly store firearms in Canada. These are not guidelines. These are laws.

Storing Firearms Safely

Unload and lock your firearms!
Store the ammunition separately or lock it up. It can be stored in the same locked container as the firearm.
Non-restricted firearms

• Attach a secure locking device, such as a trigger lock or cable lock (or remove the bolt) so the firearms cannot be fired; or
• Lock the firearms in a container or room that is hard to break into.

An unloaded non-restricted firearm can be kept unlocked:

• temporarily if it is needed to control animal predators in an area where a firearm can lawfully be fired (ammunition must be kept separate or locked up); or
• in a remote wilderness area (ammunition may be kept readily accessible).

Restricted and prohibited firearms

• Attach a secure locking device so the firearms cannot be fired and lock them in a cabinet, container or room that is hard to break into; or
• Lock the firearms in a vault, safe or room that was built or modified specifically to store firearms safely.
• For an automatic firearm, also remove the bolt or bolt carrier (if removable) and lock it in a separate room that is hard to break into.

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets...ransport_e.asp

[Gozer]

Leaving a loaded gun around children is, and should be, a criminal offense.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

This is incorrect. It is illegal to improperly store firearms in Canada. These are not guidelines. These are laws.



http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets...ransport_e.asp

They should probably update the gun safety book, because they only recommend storing them like that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know if it's correct or not. It's right on the top of the page.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

Well I have no idea how they calculated that.

Could be right too. Kleck was bang-on with most of his studies.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by Azure

Gotta love the articles written today claiming bloody murder. I find it faintly humorous that people are getting pissed off because the SCOTUS interpreted the constitution exactly how it was written.

That is not really true, a strict constructionalist (which Scalia supposedly is) and what conservatives bitch and moan about consistently in the US as being needed, would have taken an original intent appraoch to the second amendment. Original intent would have been single shot pistols and muskets. There is not way that the original intent would have been the weaponry of today, they simply would not have been able to imagine it. The minute you expand it to allow the weaponry of today, you get on the slippery slope of abortion and the 14th amendment and judicial activism.....

"by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish." Justice Scalia

He should have thought of those words in relation to guns and not merely abortion, but I guess separate standards are needed for separate issues.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

That is not really true, a strict constructionalist (which Scalia supposedly is) and what conservatives bitch and moan about consistently in the US as being needed, would have taken an original intent appraoch to the second amendment. Original intent would have been single shot pistols and muskets. There is not way that the original intent would have been the weaponry of today, they simply would not have been able to imagine it. The minute you expand it to allow the weaponry of today, you get on the slippery slope of abortion and the 14th amendment and judicial activism.....

"by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish." Justice Scalia

He should have thought of those words in relation to guns and not merely abortion, but I guess separate standards are needed for separate issues.

I don't get what you are saying. My understanding of Roe verses Wade is that the court erred in determining that the point a person becomes human is the moment he/she leaves the birth canal. The mistake was that the Constitution doesn't tell us that or even imply it. Therefore the legislative branch should determine the point we all have human value rather than the judges.

Concerning the second amendment the original intent was that a person should be able to bare arms in self defence. Single shot pistols and musket balls would do little against someone invading you home with a modern weapon.
That's like arguing that the people who enshrined free speech in the Constitution didn't foresee the Internet so the Internet isn't protected in the constitution.

[Calgaryborn]

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I certainly don't agree with the premise of his argument that more guns automatically equal less crime, but he went to extremes to prove that gun bans don't make any difference.

2 million incidents a year, out of 300 million people, and you somehow get an incident every 13 seconds? How come that doesn't sound right?

Well cause your math is off.

JUSt because the percentage is low, doesn't mean the overall number is.

I agree, it's under 1%, but in 300 mill, that's a large number, well lets check the numbers.

60*60*24*365=31,536,000 seconds in a year.

Now an incident occurs 1 out of thirteen of those supposedly.

So 2,425,846 incidents a year.

Pretty close.

EDIT: Coincidently, it is way closer to 15 seconds depend on how close you rounding or the stat of 2 million incidents is.

Still, 4 times a minute... and only 2 seconds less that the 13

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes, that makes us all safer.

Easy to throw some crazy justification like that to sway the emotional or easily intimidated.

What are the chances this guy is going to come upon a child rapist? Unless he's a vigilante of some sort...

And in situations like that, he's probably not going to know until it's too late.

Oh hey! There's a molester!

Real life isn't like that man.

The odds are so much more likely that, that gun will injure his family.

Not saying it will do even that, but the odds are better than him doing us a favor by tagging a rapist.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

What are the chances this guy is going to come upon a child rapist? Unless he's a vigilante of some sort...

Thats some pretty dumb reasoning.

What are the chances that you'll be involved in a car accident? Why wear a seatbelt then?

Personal responsibility includes protecting yourself at all times. Why depend on the police to do that for you?

Just a few months ago I read on article about a rapist that was fatally shot by a civilian after he heard a woman screaming while walking by her house.

And you don't even HAVE to shoot him. Unless the guy is suicidal, and unless he has a gun, you can force him to surrender until the cops show up.

If you're responsible and follow the rules that have been laid out for gun owners, nobody is going to get accidentally shot. You're just throwing out another common misconception to make responsible, law abiding gun owners look bad.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yes, that makes us all safer.

Easy to throw some crazy justification like that to sway the emotional or easily intimidated.

What are the chances this guy is going to come upon a child rapist? Unless he's a vigilante of some sort...

And in situations like that, he's probably not going to know until it's too late.

Oh hey! There's a molester!

Real life isn't like that man.

The odds are so much more likely that, that gun will injure his family.

Not saying it will do even that, but the odds are better than him doing us a favor by tagging a rapist.

It was a political cartoon. I thought it was funny. It wasn't meant to be an air tight political argument.

Listen if you see the risks outweighing the benefits of owning a handgun, don't own one. Thanks to the Supreme Court and the second amendment that is your choice to make and every other Americans.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Thanks to the Supreme Court and the second amendment that is your choice to make and every other Americans.

And thank the sweet spaghetti monster most of us live in Canada.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by driveway

And thank the sweet spaghetti monster most of us live in Canada.

Sometimes we get so involved in American politics its as if it affects us too.

[pepper24]

Quick question.....besides the US which other leading nation or G8 country have similar gun laws and the right to bear arms?

I am guessing most are similar to Canada not the US.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Quick question.....besides the US which other leading nation or G8 country have similar gun laws and the right to bear arms?

I am guessing most are similar to Canada not the US.

How many other nations have the 'right to bear' arms in their constitution?

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by Azure

How many other nations have the 'right to bear' arms in their constitution?

Yeah, wondering how many other countries need an assault rifles to hunt deers?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by pepper24

Yeah, wondering how many other countries need an assault rifles to hunt deers?

Not sure. But I'm sure its fun.