BREAKING: US supreme Court upholds 2nd amendment individual right to posess a firearm

[Kyuubi Whisker]

Live from Scotusblog:

The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.



Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13
Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
10:14
Tom Goldstein - We'll post the opinion as soon as it is available.
10:14
Tom Goldstein - It is striking that the decision is not clouded by ambiguity created by separate opinions. One opinion on each side.

10:16
Tom Goldstein - Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.

[GsG]

Well it's interesting to see where this goes. I'm near the US capital, where gun rules are strict, but who knows now. I'll continue to watch over this.

[DominusDeus]

Good. I expect the crime rate in DC to start dropping.

[Kyuubi Whisker]

From the syllabus of the opinion:

Held:
1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a
dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS,
SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

[TDM]

So basically the Supreme Court said you could own fire arms for self-defense, but at the most basic level only (no concealed carry)?

[Willaien]

A ban on handguns in Washington DC has been ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling striking down the ban. The justices said individuals had a right to own guns for personal use.

It is the first such case considered by the court in decades and is expected to have effects on gun laws across the US.

Debate over the exact meaning of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has raged for years.

Since 1976, the private possession of handguns had been prohibited in the nation's capital, while rifles and shotguns had been required to be locked away or dismantled.

The DC city council argued that the ban was needed to help keep violence and murder rates down.

But the measure was challenged by a security guard, Dick Heller.

He argued that if he was allowed to have a handgun at work, he also had a constitutional right to have one at home for self-defence.

Yay for rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7474924.stm

[Kyuubi Whisker]

The scope of this case is limited to home possession, it does not appear to relate to concealed carry.

[Sexta Espada]

FUCK YEAH.


Well, that sticks it to the anti-gun people. Now, I wonder if this will spark someone to challenge the states who still have the AWB in place.

[Sexta Espada]

I think CCW is still ok so long as you pass the test. Even with the CCW, you can't carry the pistol with you to some places, well if you're just a civilian anyway. A bar is among those places, and so are school IIRC.

[Nihonjin]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it :facepalm

*edit*
I insulted a whole lot of americans didnt I?

[Darklyre]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it :facepalm

*edit*
I insulted a whole lot of americans didnt I?

There's a difference between a gun ban and a gun ban that works.

DC had a gun ban, and it sure as fuck didn't work. Seriously, a requirement that all guns have a trigger lock or be disassembled? The hell is the point of even having a gun in the first place, then? Plus, it's not like DC could've stopped people from walking outside the city limits and just bringing a gun in.

And before any anti-gun folks say "protection should be left to the police," look up Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police. It states quite clearly that the police are not obligated to protect the individual, only the public at large.

[Cardboard Jewsuke]

It's about time.

[Vom Osten]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it :facepalm

*edit*
I insulted a whole lot of americans didnt I?

So thats why DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country?

[Sexta Espada]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it :facepalm

*edit*
I insulted a whole lot of americans didnt I?
Yeah, it's great for criminals who get to run around doing whatever the hell they want because they know there's no one who's going to shoot them or fight back.

[Vicious-chan]

I'm kinda not sure how to think about the gun law... I mean, personally I like collecting weapons just as a collection, but to have them with people I dunno.. I think only police, and not even all police, should be the only ones who get to carry them in public. Tempted to just ban guns entirely but whatever... I still don't get the law that guns are ok but swords aren't lol.

[beads]

Wait, what did that article say?
The DC city council argued that the ban was needed to help keep violence and murder rates down.
Oh dear god. No one can be that dumb.

[beads]

This will just lead to more gun violence.

[Sexta Espada]

You don't get it do you? Gun bans don't do shit to stop crime, you know why? CRIMINALS DON'T LISTEN TO THE LAW. So guns are banned? That's nice, I'll still carry one, and now the law abiding ones around me won't have a way to fight back.

And there have been studies that have shown that when criminals pick their areas of activity, gun bans are one of the first things they check.

[avraell]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it

Learn to support your point. As several people pointed out above, criminals can still get a hold of guns in practice and it's the law abiding people that get fucked.

[Darklyre]

This will just lead to more gun violence.

This is America. Everything leads to more gun violence.

[Vicious-chan]

That's Texas :\ not the rest of the country.

[beads]

You don't get it do you? Gun bans don't do shit to stop crime, you know why? CRIMINALS DON'T LISTEN TO THE LAW. So guns are banned? That's nice, I'll still carry one, and now the law abiding ones around me won't have a way to fight back.

And there have been studies that have shown that when criminals pick their areas of activity, gun bans are one of the first things they check.

And what about the wannabe criminals? They may want a gun, but because it is too much trouble to get one, they don't bother.

Also, if law abiding people fight back with their own guns, well, isn't that more gun violence?

[avraell]

And what about the wannabe criminals? They may want a gun, but because it is too much trouble to get one, they don't bother.

Fair point, but you also have to go through a LOT of bs to get a concealed carry license, that most gang bangers wouldn't get through.

Also, if law abiding people fight back with their own guns, well, isn't that more gun violence?

No, that's you being retarded and implying people shouldn't defend themselves and get their asses beat, raped, stabbed, and shot.

[beads]

No, that's you being retarded and implying people shouldn't defend themselves and get their asses beat, raped, stabbed, and shot.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. When did I say that? I was just saying that it is more gun violence.

[Tsukiyomi]

Good. Its good to see the supreme court actually have a word on this issue. The founding fathers liberated this country with men and women all over the nation picking up arms and fighting against oppressors. I can't imagine that when John Adams wrote that into the Massachusetts constitution which was later carried into the US constitution that he wasn't trying to protect an individuals right to own a gun for protection. Especially when you consider that his own wife had a gun to protect herself and their children in his absence.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. When did I say that? I was just saying that it is more gun violence.

Its gun violence in the way that a woman kicking her rapist in the balls is assault. Preventing a crime from being committed against you can hardly be considered a crime, especially when the alternative is often death.

If a gun for a law abiding citizen can be the difference between life and death or possible rape then I'm all for it. A criminal if they're really determined will get a gun anyway. As was said there is nothing to stop them from going outside the city, getting a gun then coming back. They don't check every car or package going in and out of DC.

[Deeper Tempest]

With every right comes abuse. It is important for many people in this nation (of America) to defend themselves against big threats like rapists and brutal theives, yet there are desperate, uneducated people who use guns to get what they want. Now that the flood gates have been opened wider for good people, irrational people (as well as bad ones) will take advantage and swarm through the gates.

[Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki]

You don't get it do you? Gun bans don't do shit to stop crime, you know why? CRIMINALS DON'T LISTEN TO THE LAW. So guns are banned? That's nice, I'll still carry one, and now the law abiding ones around me won't have a way to fight back.

And there have been studies that have shown that when criminals pick their areas of activity, gun bans are one of the first things they check.

So in places like Japan, where any form of gun ownership is illegal, violence runs rampant on the streets?

Edit: Not saying that widespread gun ownership leads to violence here, just that you can't just say that allowing more weapons around leads to LESS violence.

[Sexta Espada]

And what about the wannabe criminals? They may want a gun, but because it is too much trouble to get one, they don't bother.

Also, if law abiding people fight back with their own guns, well, isn't that more gun violence?
Not much trouble to get one outside the city. Or, you could take a page out the guerilla's handbook and try to make your own, but results will vary.

And as said, it's not really gun violence as much as self-defense.

[scottlw]

hw can any one be against guns... Without the right to bare arms we would be part of british settlements still.

[Sexta Espada]

So in places like Japan, where any form of gun ownership is illegal, violence runs rampant on the streets?

Edit: Not saying that widespread gun ownership leads to violence here, just that you can't just say that allowing more weapons around leads to LESS violence.

Cultural differences are another big influence. Japan's culture has stricter traditions of respect and such, leading the people to commit less crime, as they have a greater respect for the government. Also, people in Japan have fewer problems, unlike some kid in the ghetto who has trouble in school and has family problems at home.

Although the argument with Japan is really out of place, as I could say Finland is very peaceful, yet we have pretty high amounts of gun ownership. Cultural differences, again. Like with all laws, the culture should be taken into account.

[LucBu]

Yay for rights.
Rights are for responsible people.

[beads]

Good. Its good to see the supreme court actually have a word on this issue. The founding fathers liberated this country with men and women all over the nation picking up arms and fighting against oppressors. I can't imagine that when John Adams wrote that into the Massachusetts constitution which was later carried into the US constitution that he wasn't trying to protect an individuals right to own a gun for protection. Especially when you consider that his own wife had a gun to protect herself and their children in his absence.



Its gun violence in the way that a woman kicking her rapist in the balls is assault. Preventing a crime from being committed against you can hardly be considered a crime, especially when the alternative is often death.

If a gun for a law abiding citizen can be the difference between life and death or possible rape then I'm all for it. A criminal if they're really determined will get a gun anyway. As was said there is nothing to stop them from going outside the city, getting a gun then coming back. They don't check every car or package going in and out of DC.

I didn't say it was a crime, but it is violence.

hw can any one be against guns... Without the right to bare arms we would be part of british settlements still.
That is one of the most outrageous statements I have ever heard.

[Tsukiyomi]

I didn't say it was a crime, but it is violence.

Ok, so whats your point? Sometimes you have to use violence to save your life. Someone pulls a gun on my family then whatever I have to do to save them I'm going to do, I don't care if I have to slit the guys throat.

That is one of the most outrageous statements I have ever heard.

How so? Its pretty true. Without guns America would still be a british colony.

[Jagon Fox]

good for them!

[beads]

Ok, so whats your point? Sometimes you have to use violence to save your life. Someone pulls a gun on my family then whatever I have to do to save them I'm going to do, I don't care if I have to slit the guys throat.



How so? Its pretty true. Without guns America would still be a british colony.

He said the right to bare arms... We made the Constitution after we were a seperate country, therefore it had nothing to do with the revolution.

[Garlock]

It good to hear that those old things written on the Bill of Rights still hold a lot of value to the judges. I am pleased that justice was served and the Bill of rights was upheld in the decision.

[Tsukiyomi]

He said the right to bare arms... We made the Constitution after we were a seperate country, therefore it had nothing to do with the revolution.

I didn't say the constitution had anything to do with the revolution, it was the fact that our people were armed that we were able to fight back, and that's why the constitution protects peoples rights to be armed.

The originally wording of Massachusetts constitution which was the main inspiration for the US constitution was "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. ".

Sounds to me like the idea they had in mind was for the people to be able to have guns to allow control over the government.

[Toby]

Ok, so whats your point? Sometimes you have to use violence to save your life. Someone pulls a gun on my family then whatever I have to do to save them I'm going to do, I don't care if I have to slit the guys throat.

Well, if murder is so serious, then you should care, otherwise it would not be serious. I understand self-defence is a high priority, but taking a life even in that situation is not going to be easily done, nor necessarily the right course of action.

Also, I find it interesting that most people assume that a gun would be used to kill in self-defence. In all likelihood one can either overpower an assailant with the pressure of having a gun turned back at them, or by maiming them somehow. It is not necessary to kill.


How so? Its pretty true. Without guns America would still be a british colony.

Nah, there would not be a United States as we know it, but several states would still form a different United States. Those loyalist states which consigned to the constitution were far from a majority. Besides, they just wanted to keep their rights like under the old English Assize of Arms. It was hardly out of loyalty to English rule. They just wanted their rights to be essentially the same, and reserved themselves against authorities.

[beads]

I was referring to scottlw's statement, which I originally quoted.

[Cardboard Jewsuke]

He said the right to bare arms... We made the Constitution after we were a seperate country, therefore it had nothing to do with the revolution.

Becuase we had the right to firearms under the British colonial rule, (well, they gave tyhe states the states the rights to decide, amny of which gave thier people right to personal arms). Had we not, we would have had far less then the already minimal firearms we had, and most likely lost the war.

Why do you think they gave us the right to bear arms as the second amendment. They had to fight a powerful state militia, and they wanted to protect the people incase we had to do so again. So they gave us the right to protect ourselves.

[Sexta Espada]

Ok, so shoot them in the foot or the hand and that's the end of the story. Foot if they're physically attacking you and in the hand if they're using a weapon.

[Tsukiyomi]

Well, if murder is so serious, then you should care, otherwise it would not be serious. I understand self-defence is a high priority, but taking a life even in that situation is not going to be easily done, nor necessarily the right course of action.

Also, I find it interesting that most people assume that a gun would be used to kill in self-defence. In all likelihood one can either overpower an assailant with the pressure of having a gun turned back at them, or by maiming them somehow. It is not necessary to kill.

A gun doesn't need to be used to kill in order to defend yourself. If you get someone cornered in your home with a gun you can hold them until the cops arrive, or scare them away. I don't see why people always assume that because you have a gun for self defense that you'll be going around killing people. Most criminals will go for an easy target, if you have a gun you are no longer an easy target.

Nah, there would not be a United States as we know it, but several states would still form a different United States. Those loyalist states which consigned to the constitution were far from a majority. Besides, they just wanted to keep their rights like under the old English Assize of Arms. It was hardly out of loyalty to English rule. They just wanted their rights to be essentially the same, and reserved themselves against authorities.

It doesn't matter that they weren't a majority, if none of them had weapons they couldn't have rebelled. Hell, even with guns we barely pulled it off.

[.44]

Congrats. The Supreme Court didn't overstep its bounds and completely go against the Constitution.

[Cardboard Jewsuke]

Congrats. The Supreme Court didn't overstep its bounds and completely go against the Constitution.

Actually, thats kinda the Supreme Court's purpose, bending the constitution and amendments as it chooses.

[Sexta Espada]

Actually, thats kinda the Supreme Court's purpose, bending the constitution and amendments as it chooses.

I thought it was to uphold the Constitution against the new laws put in place. IE a law like the Patriot Act, which breeches freedom of speech, should be struck down by the Supreme Court. It's job is to make sure everybody follows the Constitution, not to change it.

[Xion]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it :facepalm

*edit*
I insulted a whole lot of americans didnt I?

I could say the same thing about "drugs." Oh yee, Hollander. :LOS

[narutosimpson]

i'm happy to hear this right was upheld. I need to defend myself from evangelists and hillbillies and rogue police/state.

[Trov]

My opinion?

About damn time the court did it's job.
I have a right to a .45, a 9mm, and so forth. all to make sure I can not only defend myself from intruders, but defend myself from outside military forces and our own gov't should it ever go too far in crushing the rights of the people.

Oh, and maybe some hunting.

[Aokiji]

Myth:"If we ban guns, only the law abiding will get constricted." Truth: It's stupid to divide people in "Law abiding citizens" and "thugs". If you ban guns, a big part of the population will be stripped of an easy possibility to kill.

Myth:"A big part of the population will be made defenseless to those that do not give a fuck about the law."

1. If someone has you at gunpoint, how high are your chances to reply with your gun? Guns make people feel safe, but it doesn't make you safe.

2. I live in a country with guns banned. If I get threatened, it'll be a knife or something.

[Tsukiyomi]

Myth:"If we ban guns, only the law abiding will get constricted." Truth: It's stupid to divide people in "Law abiding citizens" and "thugs". If you ban guns, a big part of the population will be stripped of an easy possibility to kill.

If someone really wants to kill you they'll find a way, be it by knife or gun or by bringing people to beat you to death. A gun increases your odds of being able to stop them.

Myth:"A big part of the population will be made defenseless to those that do not give a fuck about the law."

1. If someone has you at gunpoint, how high are your chances to reply with your gun? Guns make people feel safe, but it doesn't make you safe.

2. I live in a country with guns banned. If I get threatened, it'll be a knife or something.

Good point, I guess when someone pulls a weapon on you you should just resign yourself to death.

Your logic sucks. What happens if someone pulls a knife on you and you pull a gun, think they'll still try to mug you?

Also a gun makes it a hell of a lot easier for a woman to defend herself from rape or assault by one or more large men.

Thats not to mention if you catch someone in your home its easier and safer to hold them at bay with a gun than by any other means.

[Nihonjin]

Yeah, it's great for criminals who get to run around doing whatever the hell they want because they know there's no one who's going to shoot them or fight back.

Yeah, Europe is such a mess for not allowing people to walk around carrying guns. Especially since we have less gun related deaths than you do.

Learn to support your point. As several people pointed out above, criminals can still get a hold of guns in practice and it's the law abiding people that get fucked.

Its not the criminals I'm worried about, but the random fist fights that accidently turn into deadly shootouts when someone feels threatned, or random children that shoot up their schools, or the 5 year old that found daddy's gun in the drawer. Honestly, there are tons of situations that could end wrong that does not involve die hard criminals that would've never happend if guns were NOT legal.

How many situations do you know of that actually turned for the best because of a citizen carrying a gun? I'm sure theyr'e horribly overshadowed by the ones that turned out bad because of them.

[Aokiji]

If someone really wants to kill you they'll find a way, be it by knife or gun or by bringing people to beat you to death. A gun increases your odds of being able to stop them.



Good point, I guess when someone pulls a weapon on you you should just resign yourself to death.

Your logic sucks. What happens if someone pulls a knife on you and you pull a gun, think they'll still try to mug you?

Also a gun makes it a hell of a lot easier for a woman to defend herself from rape or assault by one or more large men.

Thats not to mention if you catch someone in your home its easier and safer to hold them at bay with a gun than by any other means.

If you really think guns make a society safer, than I have nothing more to say.....

[Tsukiyomi]

Its not the criminals I'm worried about, but the random fist fights that accidently turn into deadly shootouts when someone feels threatned, or random children that shoot up their schools, or the 5 year old that found daddy's gun in the drawer. Honestly, there are tons of situations that could end wrong that does not involve die hard criminals that would've never happend if guns were NOT legal.

Wow, good point. I mean everytime a fight breaks out in all the other places in America where guns are legal it ends with gun violence...oh wait it doesn't. Just because people have guns doesn't mean they're going to go around shooting people at the drop of a hat.

How many situations do you know of that actually turned for the best because of a citizen carrying a gun? I'm sure theyr'e horribly overshadowed by the ones that turned out bad because of them.

You can't say that for sure. Those statistics aren't really kept accurately. Crime prevention with guns isn't documented as much as gun violence because there is more reason to catalog violence.

[Darklyre]

Look, to all the Euros that think that the US should just ban all guns: it's never going to happen. Not legally, not practically, and not realistically. There's no way for the government to actually find all the guns stashed around. We've got a 50% gun possession rate or something absurd over here. You try to take those guns and I can guarantee you thousands of dead ATF officers within a week.

The main reason Americans shoot each other more is simple: we're a violent culture. Modern Europe has essentially turned into a place where violence of any kind is abhorred, whereas the US glorifies the use of violence to achieve one's goals, no matter if the goal is good or bad. Even if you could magically take away all the guns in the US it's not going to change the culture of violence here.

Just look at how Europe and the US treats the issue of self defense. In Europe, self-defense is practically illegal and defending the people is left to the police. In the US the police practically tell you to defend yourself by any means necessary and they'll take care of the paperwork.

[Aokiji]

Look, to all the Euros that think that the US should just ban all guns: it's never going to happen. Not legally, not practically, and not realistically. There's no way for the government to actually find all the guns stashed around. We've got a 50% gun possession rate or something absurd over here. You try to take those guns and I can guarantee you thousands of dead ATF officers within a week.

The main reason Americans shoot each other more is simple: we're a violent culture. Modern Europe has essentially turned into a place where violence of any kind is abhorred, whereas the US glorifies the use of violence to achieve one's goals, no matter if the goal is good or bad. Even if you could magically take away all the guns in the US it's not going to change the culture of violence here.

Just look at how Europe and the US treats the issue of self defense. In Europe, self-defense is practically illegal and defending the people is left to the police. In the US the police practically tell you to defend yourself by any means necessary and they'll take care of the paperwork.

No.

Also, just because that don't get all weapons, doesn't mean the law in in force.

[Sexta Espada]

Yeah, Europe is such a mess for not allowing people to walk around carrying guns. Especially since we have less gun related deaths than you do.
The Balkans is Europe my friend, and there's pretty high crime rates too.

Again, CULTURAL DIFFERENCES. Europe is, although it'll make alot of people mad, alot more peaceful than the US, both internally and externally. Probably because of lessons learned from pretty much constant warfare among the many states from the fall of Rome to April of 1945.



Its not the criminals I'm worried about, but the random fist fights that accidently turn into deadly shootouts when someone feels threatned, or random children that shoot up their schools, or the 5 year old that found daddy's gun in the drawer. Honestly, there are tons of situations that could end wrong that does not involve die hard criminals that would've never happend if guns were NOT legal.
The fistfight thing is BS, although if the person feels threatened (maybe the other guy pulled a knife on him) he would have the right to shoot. The random children who shoot up the schools is from a lack of social work with kids in this country, it's basically a "Oh, it's just a stage/he wants attention" mentality. Well either way, it can have deadly consequences, and there are many signs. Not to mention they could get a gun or make a homemade bomb anyway.

The daddy's gun problem is easily solved: it's called a safety, or in some pistols (.45 M1911 for example) a button must be pushed to enable firing. A child won't figure that out, especially since a 5 year old has no intent to kill anyone.

How many situations do you know of that actually turned for the best because of a citizen carrying a gun? I'm sure theyr'e horribly overshadowed by the ones that turned out bad because of them.

Can you show me any examples of the above you gave me? And it's unfortunate that the people who would benefit the most from this right are denied it.

EDIT: and here's something about how gun ownership helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership

[Raiden]

With the "I'll kill as many people as possible and then myself" trend going on, I can see why people wanted hand guns to be banned. Even so, banning it would be yet another way the basic rights of Americans would be limited. The decision was for the best.

[Karol!]

for freakin ONCE the supreme court did its job to uphold the Constitution. i am very much surprised o.O it still wont make up for Kelo v. City of New London, though. ah well, at least they are just sort of retards instead of complete retards :zaru

guns are handy tools for self-defense, against humans who may want to harm you and wildlife that may want to snack on you. where i live, how the hell else are you going to fight off a bear or a mountain lion??? theyre stronger than you and if you cross paths with one, youre dead :| sorry, but waiting around seven hours for an officer to come out to take care of it seems like way too long to me.

another thing, my state is making huge budget cuts to law enforcement. less cops = less chance that youll get help if you call for it, especially in the more rural areas. where there is no law, you gotta take law into your own hands because no one will help you. it was in a town a few hours from here where a thug broke into an elderly woman's house and threatened to kill her, but the woman was prepared, having a handgun, so she shot the man in the knee so he couldnt chase her or run away so he was immobilized until authorities finally came. if it wasnt for her ownership of a firearm, she would have been killed and the thug would have ran off to rob and possibly kill someone else.

banning guns just keeps the government in complete control, forcing the citizen to rely on law enforcement to save them from harm. well, the USA is a big country and in a lot of places, law enforcement can take hours to get to you, if they even manage to come at all. why trust the government and the police for your own well being when you are fully capable of doing it yourself!?!

to those who think that taking guns will somehow drastically reduce homicides: THERES MORE THAN ONE WAY TO KILL A PERSON. if someone really wanted to kill someone else, they have a lot of options. why else would the game of Clue have so many different weapons? 8D you got candlesticks, rope, lead pipes, knives... why not ban all those, too!?!?! they can be used as weapons, too, as well as a shitload of other crap. hell, lets just ban anything that can kill people, like cars, fat and cholesterol :| it makes just as much sense.

for a similar debate on another forum, someone brought up statistics that over 1/3rd of all gun-related deaths in the US were suicides. if people want to kill themselves, they will still find some other way to do it. another one third was over drugs. the problems are people wanting to commit suicide and drug trafficking, not guns! another statistic they had that over 75% of all gun-related crimes were committed by people who didnt even legally own the firearm they used. ban guns and the people who owned the gun illegally will still own the gun illegally. why rob the responsible gun owners of their rights just because some people who arent following the law anyways are causing trouble!?! it makes no sense!!!

in the past, banning things that were once legal has always proved fruitless. for example, when they tried to ban alcohol in the 1920's. so many people were still acquiring alcohol that the government had no choice but to repeal the ban. want to create more criminals? ban something :| then waste tons of taxpayer dollars to convict these "criminals" e_e

like what others have already said, gun ownership is part of american culture. ban it and itll cause more problems than itll fix e_e

[CrazyMoronX]

It's about time. I might have to get me a gun now.

[Jarl lKarl]

Gun control doesn't stop crime; education and the elimination of abject poverty stops crime.

[SeventhDan]

I don't see why people always assume that because you have a gun for self defense that you'll be going around killing people.

It should be the last resort after all other methods of defense have failed, in fact every effort should be made to retreat and delay the adversary until law enforcement arrives to take the situation. Armed combat in an urban setting should be avoided to the last moment.

Now the New Orleans police chief and his whole department should be arrested at once for violating the Civil Rights of every man, woman and child who suffered from criminals when this corrupt bayu gestapo went around after Katrina taking guns from lawful citizens. That goes for that idiot Mayor and the former Democrat Governess.

[Sexta Espada]

Gun control doesn't stop crime; education and the elimination of abject poverty stops crime.

So if there was a high chance you would get shot for robbing a bank, you would still do it? Education is available to the people who commit the crimes, that obviously doesn't help. Fixing poverty would involve communist style work, which is unpopular at the moment in America. Another part you've left out of this is dysfunctional and one parent families, where a lot of criminals come from. Unless we adopt totalitarian measures, that would never be fixed to the level needed. Gun control is the only viable option.

[Hi Im God]

This thread reads to me...

BREAKING NEWS: Nothing happens 2nd amendment remains unchanged since 1791.

[Nihonjin]

The fistfight thing is BS, although if the person feels threatened (maybe the other guy pulled a knife on him) he would have the right to shoot.

Its not about anyone having "the right" to shoot someone, its about irrational thinking, people tend to try and win the fight by what ever means, especially if they're losing, if you see a beer bottle, bash it on his head, if you see a chair, swing it to his face, if you're carrying a gun...see where I'm going with this? I'm not saying every situation ends up like that, but the fact that it can happen and is actually allowed in some cases is just fucking retarded.

The random children who shoot up the schools is from a lack of social work with kids in this country,

lol, or from the fact you can buy your entire GI Joe gear at your local supermarket. (horribly exaggerated ofcourse)

it's basically a "Oh, it's just a stage/he wants attention" mentality.

We have sick kids over here as well but yet we don't have the crap you americans are experiencing every now and then which is most likely because we can't get our guns & ammo as easily as you all can.

Not to mention they could get a gun or make a homemade bomb anyway.

Getting guns when they're not legal isn't as easy as you think it is nor is making a homemade bomb. ~_~



The daddy's gun problem is easily solved: it's called a safety, or in some pistols (.45 M1911 for example) a button must be pushed to enable firing. A child won't figure that out, especially since a 5 year old has no intent to kill anyone.

And yet accidents occur, which could've all been prevented if the crap wasn't lying there in the first place.

Can you show me any examples of the above you gave me? And it's unfortunate that the people who would benefit the most from this right are denied it.

Some other time, I'm tired as hell. ~_~

EDIT: and here's something about how gun ownership helps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Gun_ownership[/QUOTE]

^

[Sexta Espada]

Its not about anyone having "the right" to shoot someone, its about irrational thinking, people tend to try and win the fight by what ever means, especially if they're losing, if you see a beer bottle, bash it on his head, if you see a chair, swing it to his face, if you're carrying a gun...see where I'm going with this? I'm not saying every situation ends up like that, but the fact that it can happen and is actually allowed in some cases is just fucking retarded.
But how often do you think fist fights happen in America? They aren't at all common, and the place where they're most likely to happen is at a bar. And a bar is a place that's on the no guns allowed list right next to schools.



lol, or from the fact you can buy your entire GI Joe gear at your local supermarket. (horribly exaggerated ofcourse)
But that doesn't incite the urge to kill randomly. It may make them want to be soldiers, but that's a different topic.



We have sick kids over here as well but yet we don't have the crap you americans are experiencing every now and then which is most likely because we can't get our guns & ammo as easily as you all can.
Or maybe you have better methods of treating them. And it's not that easy, you have to be over 18(21 for pistols) or get some contacts.



Getting guns when they're not legal isn't as easy as you think it is nor is making a homemade bomb. ~_~]
Oh really? All you need is some very crude materials and you could make a gun or a homemade bomb. They even used to sell the army manuals teaching you how to do that, but I don't know if they still do, and I'm not telling you what their titles were. And there's also something called the black market here in America. If we can't clamp down on drugs what makes you think we can on guns? You're living in a fantasy world.





And yet accidents occur, which could've all been prevented if the crap wasn't lying there in the first place.
Accidents aren't as nearly as common as you make them out to be.

[InfallibleImam]

The Accessibility of legal firearms has shown to have very little, if not, 0 correlation between gun homicides.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u133/brendan916/GunControlFacts1-1.png

If you are having trouble read [Which is acceptable given the text size] The statement simply refers to the fact that gun ownership has increased since 1970, while gun homicides and suicides have remained relatively stable [arguably though, they have decreased]

It's very funny... the District of Columbia has the strictest gun control laws, yet the worst crime [including gun homicides]

[maximilyan]

appearantly in cities or counties where everyone has a gun the crime rate is extremely low.. so who knows.

[bloody_ninja]

This thread reads to me...

BREAKING NEWS: Nothing happens 2nd amendment remains unchanged since 1791.

That's not true because it was banned in DC.

[Taleran]

I'm glad at this and being a Canadian I wish we had the right to this in our constitution

I also find anyone in favor of gun control a fucking moron, (btw I dislike guns and wouldn't own one but its the right thats important)

[Gecka]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it :facepalm

*edit*
I insulted a whole lot of americans didnt I?

When you wake up tomorrow, you will be in the Sahara Desert with a Desert Eagle Pistol with only a single bullet.

[Taleran]

Banning guns was a good thing, only a fucking retard would argue against it :facepalm

*edit*
I insulted a whole lot of americans didnt I?


You didn't insult anyone, you just made alot of people with common sense point and laugh

[beads]

appearantly in cities or counties where everyone has a gun the crime rate is extremely low.. so who knows.

And in countries where they are banned, gun crime is extremely low.

[Red Viking]

Who cares? The highest court in the land said we can have guns.

It's over.

[Sexta Espada]

And in countries where they are banned, gun crime is extremely low.

The crime rates were already low there. But the bans in America have done little. Look at crime in NYC before the draconian laws and after. Pretty much no difference except under Guiliani, but he basically turned the NYPD into the Gestapo, but that part is another topic.