DC Gun Ban

[Suicide_Run]

I think one of the problems may happen if there is a Gun Ban are those people who still have guns or buys guns illegally. They will know that when they try to rob you/house and !@#$%^&*, there will be a much higher chance of you not being able to take out a gun yourself and defend.

 

Just want to know....how many of us in here has a Gun License (that is if where ever you live requires you to get one for buying guns)? And how many of you have actually used a gun for target practice/hunting? And also...how many of us actually owns a gun?

[Bak]

I've used a gun for target practice, although I was awful at it.

[NBVegita]

that's bull!@#$%^&*, the UK changed the way they measure gun crime since they enacted the law. If you stick to one method of measurement, gun violence has clearly decreased.

 

Cite that please.

 

I have a handgun permit in New York state. (which is a pain in the !@#$%^&* to get I might add.)

 

I only own 3 guns personally.

 

I target and hunt.

[Hoch]

Although I always try to avoid discussions on guns

(it is been my experience that those in favour of

gunsare too opinionated) there seems to be some

misunderstandings about gun crime in the 'UK'.

 

Firstly, it is incorrect to refer to UK crime statistics

unless the correlated data explicitly states 'UK'. The

reason for this is that Scotland is devolved and as

such keeps its own crime statistics which do not gen-

erally form part of any statistics compiled by the Home

Office, that is unless otherwise indicated. Therefore,

pay careful attention because more often than not the

data will be for England and Wales (the UK, of course,

comprising of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern

Ireland).

 

Secondly, technically speaking overall gun crime in England

and Wales has fallen (less than 0.5% of all crime recorded

by the police). But the general trend has been upwards.

 

A few years ago Parliament decided to tackle gun crime

with a one size fits all approach. The Criminal Justice Act

2003 inserted section 51A into the Firearms Act 1968.

This has the affect of setting out a minimal term for the

possession of a firearm upon conviction of that offence.

The minimal term is five years. Whilst various exceptional

cir!@#$%^&*stances may apply, the starting point for a judge

is five years. This even so if a defendant pleads guilty at

the earliest opportunity (with most offences you receive

what is called 'credit' for an early plea, usually around a

third reduction).

 

Speaking from personal experience (I have defended two

clients on a charge of a section 5 offence of the 1968 Act)

judges are annoyed by the imposition of this minimal term.

Their annoyance is twofold. Firstly, they must follow what

Parliament has set down. This is not controversial. However,

and secondly, judges are constantly bombarded by the newly

created Ministry of Justice not to hand out lengthy custodial

sentences. Yet in law they bound to do so for this type of

offence. The result has been a substantial increase not only

in the prosecution of firearms possession (high to begin with)

but increases in prison population.

 

Criminal barristers like myself are annoyed because unless

exceptional cir!@#$%^&*stances apply, or there are aggravating

features, a plea in mitigation will get you nowhere. First out

of the gate five years. Nonetheless, I (we) still continue with

the plea because of professional obligation.

 

The inherent and obvious problem is that one size does not

always fit all. Whilst other minimal terms exist with serious

offences, the simple handling of a firearm, indeed quite seri-

ous, could result in a five year sentence (realistically 24 months;

you only serve half your time). In other words, just casually

holding (possession is !@#$%^&*umed) a firearm (unlawfully, i.e.

without permission) will land you five years (2 1/2) in prison.

 

There are ongoing discussions in Parliament about enacting

or amending legislation for knife crime. If this were to happen

the courts would be inundated with cases not to mention the

prison system. Parliament cannot have its cake and eat it

too.

 

-Hoch

[NBVegita]

it is been my experience that those in favour of

gunsare too opinionated

 

I find that much the same for those against guns. As a pro gun civilian I understand the need for safty, control and strict regulations on guns. I also understand the mul!@#$%^&*ude of reasons behind a civilian wanting the ability to bear arms. Most anti-gun debaters I have found seem to come at you with a "Ban all guns so people stop shooting each other" approach or the "If you ban all guns criminals can't get them" approach. Even the facetious arguments proposed seem to lack a degree of common sense in lieu of a rudimentary logic

 

I also find a mul!@#$%^&*ude of contradictions when arguing the subject where people who have implicitly shown a great distrust for the government in previous topics are credulously willing to take away the only means, we as a people and citizens, have at protecting ourselves from said government.

[SeVeR]

Edited March 28, 2008 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

If banning guns can reduce the number of guns that fall into criminal hands by 90%

 

I'll leave it alone that we have no idea just how effective import bans are, but continuing what is your plan for retrieving the hundreds of thousands of illegals guns already held by criminals? You'll take the millions of citizens weapons and have to leave the criminals weapons. Unless you plan to violate our rights again and go house to house searching.

 

Ultimately you're voting, no matter how you want to coat it, to leave the only existing firearms in the United States (excluding government) in the hands of criminals.

 

As for gun shows and legality, I was more stating hand guns vs rifles. !@#$%^&* all you need to get a rifle is proof that you're 21. Again I state that I am not against stricter gun regulations.

 

The more laws you democratically vote for to ensure the freedom and safety of the populace, the more of a democracy you are.

 

You are sorely mistaken. Voting for more governmental laws does not make you more of a democracy. Voting laws to be enacted by the government is merely a democratic process. I implicitly stated the more control you give the government. That does not simply mean the more laws you pass It means the more aspects of a country you take out of the peoples hands and put into the control of the government, the less democratic power you have.

 

Just a simplified example is look what could happen with the democratic party. First off they have "Super delegates", which is the epitomy of non-democratic. Now it's even looking that the "Super delegates", the prominent members of the democratic party, will be able, if they choose, to over throw the caucus/primary outcome voted on by the citizens. The democrats gave their party that control and they didn't even vote on it.

 

The German people were not enslaved, they supported Hitler! How would guns have helped? They would have made things worse!

This paranoia that the government will enslave you is proposterous and typical of conservative Americans.

Do you think the police and the army will let this happen?

 

I do believe that is exactly my point, the military and police were not enslaved.

 

You mean 'more of them would have died in the occupation'.

They would have been killed a bit faster

 

Now thats the spirit!!!

 

If someone threatens you, just roll over and play dead...thats the obvious solution!

 

Boy am I sure glad you didn't have a say in the American Revolution.

 

What do you call the police force?

 

There is a world of difference. Police are a government regulated department, enforcing governmental rules. In the colonies, the british stationed soldiers amidst the colonies to act as police forces.

 

A militia is:

 

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government

 

A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

 

Right now all the trouble in Iraq is because a militia, citizens not trained soldiers, are rebelling against the Iraqi/United States government. As much as I hate to see American lives lost, I love that the Iraqi civilians are doing just what we did to try to establish their independence. The cir!@#$%^&*stances are vastly different, but the concept of a militia is a welcome one.

 

I for one do not have faith enough in any government to childishly give control of the entire country to them. Remember what I stated to you about Israel, if you are a people with no military, thusly no political, influence in a country, you have no control over what happens with that country.

[SeVeR]

You continually speak of the government as if they weren't elected by a majority vote. They are representatives of the people, and thus any laws in our society are laws made by the people! The government controls us, and thus, we control ourselves.

 

I understand that the democratic process isn't perfect in America. But that isn't your argument. You're saying that laws made by a democratic government are there to control us and thus erode democracy. As i've previously explained, this is wrong. The more we as a people make laws for our protection, the more we re-inforce our democracy. If America's government is not democratic enough to give the people enough of a say, then laws aren't the problem, America turning into a fascist state is.

 

It means the more aspects of a country you take out of the peoples hands and put into the control of the government, the less democratic power you have.

The government is in the peoples hands in any proper democracy. Thus, we as a people decide the laws of our society. If it isn't this way, then we have a council of dictators, and my original statement stands that:

 

The more laws you democratically vote for to ensure the freedom and safety of the populace, the more of a democracy you are. The more laws that are enforced by a dictatorship without the consent of the people, the less of a democracy you are.

 

Just a simplified example is look what could happen with the democratic party. First off they have "Super delegates", which is the epitomy of non-democratic. Now it's even looking that the "Super delegates", the prominent members of the democratic party, will be able, if they choose, to over throw the caucus/primary outcome voted on by the citizens. The democrats gave their party that control and they didn't even vote on it.

Yes, one example of an imperfect democracy. And let me add that i am almost positive they'll vote for Hillary.

 

Remember what I stated to you about Israel, if you are a people with no military, thusly no political, influence in a country, you have no control over what happens with that country.

Shoot people until you get what you want? No thankyou. You have a vote, i have a vote, the only people wanting more than one vote are those who claim to be oppressed. They form militias, and un-democratically attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government. What happens when they succeed? They give the country back to the people?

 

In pre-WW2 Germany the military and police agreed with the wishes of the people. My point is that the police and army are just like you and me, they will not follow a leader who wants to turn his own people into slaves. Unless you see the police/army as mindless drones, you can rely on them to agree with the wishes of the people, because they are of course from those people themselves and have family there. This paranoid isolationism and alienation from society is typical of extreme conservatism. They turn any kind of enforcer into a demonic figure with oppressive intentions. Pre-WW2 Germany clearly stands in support of my argument.

 

Now thats the spirit!!!

 

If someone threatens you, just roll over and play dead...thats the obvious solution!

Oh, they can and will fight. I just don't see what good guns would have done them.

 

There is a world of difference. Police are a government regulated department, enforcing governmental rules. In the colonies, the british stationed soldiers amidst the colonies to act as police forces.

 

A militia is:

 

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government

 

A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

So the militia is a weapon against democracy in other words. This small group of individuals will employ no democratic process in deciding what is right or wrong about the government that has been elected by the people. I sure am glad we don't have a militia.

 

You didn't answer my questions.

 

I for one do not have faith enough in any government to childishly give control of the entire country to them.

Again with the council of dictators. WE ELECTED THEM, THEY ARE NOT DICTATORS!....

[Aileron]

SeVeR, 'majority dictatorship' is not democracy and you know it. That logic is how southern states kept slavery until the civil war. The majority of the people voted in favor of slavery - thus they thought they were in control of their government. In reality the government wasn't respecting the rights of everybody.

 

The USSR was like that too. Stalin met every definition of a dictator, yet he and his party got and stayed there by winning elections. How they managed to do it involved several flaws in the democratic process, yet the overall reason is this: The votes of the people had no backing. While people could vote, they held no power.

 

Clearly, the nazi and communist movement gained most of their power by winning a vote. However, all of this is a poor example because we are discussing why the founding fathers put the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights, long before these events took place.

 

But, this pattern was clearly present in the Greek and Roman Empires, as well as relatively contemporary countries such as the Holy Roman Empire, Great Britain, and Switzerland. Some leader would use his government power to create a system by which his supporters get kickbacks at the expense of those who don't support him, thereby creating a system where everyone has to support that leader, who could then name himself emperor and pretty much get away with whatever he wanted to.

 

 

As I wrote, that popular response is militia can overcome the government, and I agree it is a good backup, but unless fatally flawed the system should never come to that. The reason I am giving is that if dictatorships are caused by government kickbacks, one must realize that the ability to live in peace is a big one.

 

SeVeR asked what happens when the militias give vigilante justice. He asked the wrong question. The real question is: "What happens when the Justice system, when having monopolistic control, stops enforcing justice?". Vigilantism is a last resort system for when the primary justice system fails. Without vigilantism, a corrupt government could simply stop offering effective police services to the regions of population compromising the cons!@#$%^&*uents which do not support the current regime.

 

I will mention that gun ownership in urban areas is low - with or without the ban, and prosecution of vigilantes is much harder than simple criminals. To some extent most large cities already have a monopoly in security, and what do they all have? Slums. They all have areas where police do not go, and in those areas the people generally don't like the government, but can't really do much about it.

 

 

Really, the second amendment follows from the first. The first one outlaws the classic tyrant tactic: "If you speak out against me I'll have to killed.". The second amendment defeats: "If you speak out against me, I'll take away all means of defending yourself, take away police security, and then someone else will kill you."

 

'Someone else' doesn't have to be connected with the leader at all...on a large scale, just based on random chance done by simple criminals the tactic would weed out the leader's opposition. Also note that constantly letting criminals out of jail highly speeds up the process. Couple it all together and you can see why John Daily has been mayor of Chicago for three generations even though their crime rates aren't exactly low.

[JDS]

The votes of the people had no backing. While people could vote, they held no power.

 

 

hmm isnt this what happend when bush got elected???

[Aileron]

Not quite. People had the power to vote for whoever they wanted to in that election. Bush won because of how the rules are written.

 

What I'm talking about is when people technically have the right to vote, but don't really have a choice in who they vote for. A one name ballot is the easiest example, but there are a lot of other ways to do it. The more sophisticated methods don't work off the individual voter but rather on the community scale.

 

 

I use the word "backing" to compare it to the good ol'e days when money was backed by gold. Back then the treasury was limited to only print as much money as there was gold in Fort Knox. Nowadays they 'back' money with all sorts of crap, though the concept still holds in a limited sense. If a nation prints money, but doesn't have something physical to back the money, the value of their money devaluates.

 

Voting is similar. You can give the population the right to vote, but if the population doesn't have real physical power, those votes can be easily manipulated and the democracy becomes worthless. And like money, nowadays we have forgotten that and we are attempting to back votes with all sorts of crap.

 

Weapons represent the real physical power, and is comparable to gold in that they are the most basic fundamental manifestation of true power.

[Bak]

a militia sounds a lot like a gang

[Aileron]

There isn't much difference, except in a militia the members generally have full time jobs they do should everything be good.