Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[Matt34]

I agree. By the same token, only the military and law-enforcement have a valid use for handguns. The best gun strictly for self-defense is a shotgun.Keeping guns unloaded and/or disassembled is not about preventing crime, it is about protecting children from fatal accidents.

This discussion has thus far only been about defense at home. Carrying a weapon (especially concealed) outside the home is an entirely different can of worms, and probably deserves its own thread.

So LEO and military should be the only ones allowed to use pistols for home defense?



I understand what your saying but totally disagree with you.

 

[Halon451]

Halon- you may want to check out this link at snopes.com- http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

The site makes a lot of the cases I was going to make about statistics, particularly around correlation vs. causation, the danger of using 1 year of stats, and the lack of viewing broader trends and other contributing factors. MOST importantly, in the first few years since the ban was incurred, the rates of armed robberies dropped drastically.

Along the lines of crime rates, it's important to note that the stats that you quoted (as snopes point out) are measuring crime in absolute terms, not in rates. The homicide rate for Australia actually dropped in the years immediately following the gun ban. Since the population of Australia was expanding, measuring the absolute # of crimes is not accurate- you have to measure the number of crimes vs. the total population (which was growing pretty quickly).

Also important- Australians never had a constitutional right to own firearms. The buyback affected a very small group of people and didn't even take away all of their guns.

More stats, taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, show the latest crime data from 2005. A few excerpts:


In 2005 the victimisation prevalence rate for household crime was 6.2%, compared to 8.9% in 2002. Comparisons with 2002 for all selected types of household crime showed statistically significant decreases in the prevalence rates for:

* break-in, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 3.3% compared with 4.7% in 2002
* attempted break-in, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 2.6% compared with 3.4% in 2002
* motor vehicle theft, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 1.0% compared with 1.8% in 2002.

The attempted break-in victimisation prevalence rate for Australia decreased to 2.6% in 2005 from 3.4% in 2002. Across the states and territories, decreases occurred in:

* New South Wales (2.7% in 2005 compared with 3.7% in 2002)
* Queensland (2.9% in 2005 compared with 3.8% in 2002)
* Western Australia (3.0% in 2005 compared with 4.4% in 2002)
* Tasmania (2.1% in 2005 compared with 3.3% in 2002).

Here's the link to the data- http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/productsbyCatalogue/669C5A997EAED891CA2568A900139405/

Adam, good post - but I do believe that even the almight Snopes has not fully disavowed the claims, only offered further speculation on the use of statistics, in a manner that could negate or minimize said "cause and correlation" effects of the gun ban. Statistics work that way - numbers are very easy to manipulate for the sake of supplementing a good debate. But, they are merely numbers.

The real meat of this debate is our guaranteed rights under the Constitution to bear arms, and protect ourselves for if, and when we find ourselves in a precarious situation. Dialing '911' is not going to immediately fend off and intruder, but a bullet will stop him cold. It's the "Peace of Mind" factor. Australians, no matter how the numbers are spun, no longer have that, therefore they are more vulnerable.

 

[Halon451]

If you live in MA like me, you have no defense at home other than jumping out a window. Shoot someone who broke into your home and you could be facing jail time. You're supposed to assess the situation and try and find an exit all at 3am in the morning. How stupid is that?

I'd face jail time any day if it meant protecting my family from death or harm.

 

[rnatalli]

I'd face jail time any day if it meant protecting my family from death or harm.

So would I. Beware anyone looking to rip me off

 

[aberkowitz]

Adam, good post - but I do believe that even the almight Snopes has not fully disavowed the claims, only offered further speculation on the use of statistics, in a manner that could negate or minimize said "cause and correlation" effects of the gun ban. Statistics work that way - numbers are very easy to manipulate for the sake of supplementing a good debate. But, they are merely numbers.

The real meat of this debate is our guaranteed rights under the Constitution to bear arms, and protect ourselves for if, and when we find ourselves in a precarious situation. Dialing '911' is not going to immediately fend off and intruder, but a bullet will stop him cold. It's the "Peace of Mind" factor. Australians, no matter how the numbers are spun, no longer have that, therefore they are more vulnerable.

Halon- Australians NEVER had the right to own guns. There is no constitutional protection in that country regarding gun ownership. We can debate as to what the meaning of the second amendment is until we're blue in the face, but that has no bearing on Australia.

Second- I agree that numbers can be spun many ways, but crimes are not measured in absolute numbers. The generally accepted way of reporting crimes is by rates. It's the same way disease is measured. If you looked at the US in 1950 and the US today, I'm sure the annual number of murders has increased by a very large percentage. It's may have even doubled. However, the US population has also doubled in that time. Hence, the general rate of crime stayed the same or most likely fell over time.

In the case of Australia, from 1996 until 2005 the population grew from 17.8 million people to 20.2 million people- that's an increase of 13.5%. From the stats that I showed you published by the Australian government, crime rates have fallen in that period of time. Of course the overall # of crimes has probably grown, but it's growing at a rate slower than population.

This is not statistical manipulation- this is plain fact.

Do I believe that the new gun law had any effect on this? No- I believe there is zero causation between the gun law and crime in Australia. If you look at the breakdown of demographics of crime, you'll find that the only area of crime that went up were crimes against the elderly. When you think about it, that makes sense. Why try to rob a 25 year-old man's home when you can rob a more defenseless 70 year-old woman?

 

[aberkowitz]

I'd face jail time any day if it meant protecting my family from death or harm.

Just a question though- wouldn't it be better for somebody to take your stuff and nobody get hurt than for the alternative of potentially getting in a gun battle with a spouse and kids in the house? You both fire- maybe he gets hit, but how do you explain that to your daughter who just got caught in the head with a ricocheted bullet when she opened her bedroom door to see what happened?

Most of the time isn't the guy breaking in to just steal your stuff?

 

[stratman]

Just a question though- wouldn't it be better for somebody to take your stuff and nobody get hurt than for the alternative of potentially getting in a gun battle with a spouse and kids in the house? You both fire- maybe he gets hit, but how do you explain that to your daughter who just got caught in the head with a ricocheted bullet when she opened her bedroom door to see what happened?

Most of the time isn't the guy breaking in to just steal your stuff?

Not always the case Adam, sometimes they break in and don't just steal your stuff. I won't take that chance, anyone who breaks into the cave goes down with a .40 Glock. I've seen stuff here in Miami that curdles the blood, are you willing to take a chance that the guy breaking in, while there's someone in the house, is afraid to use great violence and harm to get his way, sorry my friend the risk is always to the homeowner's life.

 

[Halon451]

Just a question though- wouldn't it be better for somebody to take your stuff and nobody get hurt than for the alternative of potentially getting in a gun battle with a spouse and kids in the house? You both fire- maybe he gets hit, but how do you explain that to your daughter who just got caught in the head with a ricocheted bullet when she opened her bedroom door to see what happened?

Most of the time isn't the guy breaking in to just steal your stuff?

I agree with Strat exactly - the fact is, I don't know, and I'm not going to bother to stop him and ask. That's why I go to shooting ranges - so I'll be able to hit him on the first shot and end it there.

 

[captiankirk28]

I seen on tv the mayor over where they said that law has been in affect since 1971 i think and he said that their has been a drop in gun violance since than, well that might be true but i cant help but wonder how many good law abiding citizens have died because of it, and those are the people that i care about, the bad guys still have their guns.

 

[aberkowitz]

Not always the case Adam, sometimes they break in and don't just steal your stuff. I won't take that chance, anyone who breaks into the cave goes down with a .40 Glock. I've seen stuff here in Miami that curdles the blood, are you willing to take a chance that the guy breaking in, while there's someone in the house, is afraid to use great violence and harm to get his way, sorry my friend the risk is always to the homeowner's life.

I'm not really disagreeing with that viewpoint- my question was more playing devil's advocate.

However, in my experiences I've found that people who own guns tend to be a little overconfident and arrogant as to their abilities to use them accurately and effectively in a pressure situation. Aside from former/current military and police, very few people can claim that skill. I would be very curious to see the incidences of self-inflicted harm caused by people firing guns when somebody else was breaking into their home.

All of that aside- back to my original point... I don't believe people owning guns has anything to do with the amount of crime that occurs. People who own guns still get robbed and murdered in their homes. I have no problem with people wanting to own guns if it's for their own protection- we have that right in this country. Reducing crime, however, is more about better and more police protection, better education, and cleaning up neighborhoods (a la New York).

 

[aberkowitz]

I seen on tv the mayor over where they said that law has been in affect since 1971 i think and he said that their has been a drop in gun violance since than, well that might be true but i cant help but wonder how many good law abiding citizens have died because of it, and those are the people that i care about, the bad guys still have their guns.

That's an illogical argument- because there are plenty of law-abiding citizens who own guns who have died here. We read about it on the news everyday. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you're invincible. Two guys with guns will often kill one guy with a gun.

 

[Rickster71]

If you don't care enough to learn the real facts about guns, please have the decency to avoid doing things that might eliminate the ability of others to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, and you.

(Just throwing this out there. It's not directed to any one person)

 

[jinjuku]

Just a question though- wouldn't it be better for somebody to take your stuff and nobody get hurt than for the alternative of potentially getting in a gun battle with a spouse and kids in the house? You both fire- maybe he gets hit, but how do you explain that to your daughter who just got caught in the head with a ricocheted bullet when she opened her bedroom door to see what happened?

Most of the time isn't the guy breaking in to just steal your stuff?

Are you SERIOUSLY going to take the time to ascertain a strangers intent of un-authorized entry into your home? Do you give them a questionnaire? Maybe a multiple choice quiz with a number 2 pencil?

OR

Do you ASSUME the WORST and act accordingly?

 

[cbraver]

Just a note, this isn't the wild west. Firearms for protection are great until the professionals get there. It's not a substitute. Just like a fire-extinguisher isn't a substitute for a firefighting team, but it is a good first measure.

The advantage of the shotgun is not having to aim carefully.

Not really, in the short distances at home the spread isn't going to be that wide. You need to aim a shotgun just as much as a centerfire rifle to be effective with it. The thing about shotguns is because they remove so much flesh they have a high stopping/stunning power. Whatever you're choice, a handgun, AR-15, shotgun, etc.. it's a matter of practice and complete understanding of the gun.

Just as a side note, since autos were mentioned. Honestly, in a home protection application I don't think a AR-15 with burst fire or full auto is that crazy. A second-long trigger pull has some serious stopping power with .223 or something. The trouble with a lot of drugs is that they remove some or most of the feeling of pain from the user. Meaning, they have to be dead before they'll stop, and even good shots don't always do that and everyone reacts differently. Some get shot and loose consiousness right away, some can keep going, especially with drug assistance.

Just a question though- wouldn't it be better for somebody to take your stuff and nobody get hurt than for the alternative of potentially getting in a gun battle with a spouse and kids in the house? You both fire- maybe he gets hit, but how do you explain that to your daughter who just got caught in the head with a ricocheted bullet when she opened her bedroom door to see what happened?

Most of the time isn't the guy breaking in to just steal your stuff?

Halon is from South Florida. He has been introduced to the crackhead, people smoking sherms (PCP cigarettes), and other maniacs.

I'd face jail time any day if it meant protecting my family from death or harm.

If it's a clean shot, you wouldn't go to jail, especially in Florida (but even in Illinois that case a few years back cleared the gentlemen who protected his family after a break in ...in a town that banned guns). The police would certainly need to question you, and if it's questionable you might even go to trial, but it's unlikely you'd end up in prison. Like you said though, in the situation the question is life or death... not death or jail or freedom.

 

[aberkowitz]

Are you SERIOUSLY going to take the time to ascertain a strangers intent of un-authorized entry into your home? Do you give them a questionnaire? Maybe a multiple choice quiz with a number 2 pencil?

OR

Do you ASSUME the WORST and act accordingly?

Can't assuming the worst end up with you shooting somebody who you didn't intend to?

Read my follow up post. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate.

 

[aberkowitz]

If you don't care enough to learn the real facts about guns, please have the decency to avoid doing things that might eliminate the ability of others to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, and you.

(Just throwing this out there. It's not directed to any one person)

The decency?? Pretty sure we still lived in a country that allowed dissent, debate, and argument. If people believe that guns are wrong, I hope they fight until they're blue in the face to ban them. I won't be joining their argument, but I will respect them for having an opinion. The greatest characteristic of this country is the ability to disagree.

 

[aberkowitz]

Just a note, this isn't the wild west. Firearms for protection are great until the professionals get there. It's not a substitute. Just like a fire-extinguisher isn't a substitute for a firefighting team, but it is a good first measure.

This is mostly the point that I've been trying to make here. Many people like to talk big about their ability to use guns, but I doubt most people would be as confident when confronted with a killer in their house. Owning a gun is not going to stop somebody from trying to hurt you- you may deter them enough so they run away or so they police can get there.

 

[Matt34]

Can't assuming the worst end up with you shooting somebody who you didn't intend to?

Read my follow up post. All I'm doing is playing devil's advocate.

Of course it can, anything is possible. That is where training and becoming proficient with said firearm comes into play. Someone breaking into my home placed me in a extremely difficult position but will be dealt with extreme prejudice.

 

[Halon451]

The decency?? Pretty sure we still lived in a country that allowed dissent, debate, and argument. If people believe that guns are wrong, I hope they fight until they're blue in the face to ban them. I won't be joining their argument, but I will respect them for having an opinion. The greatest characteristic of this country is the ability to disagree.

Well, I feel that the issue revolves around the elimination of a major part of our Constitution - the one thing in this god-forsaken country that should remain constant and direct. The moment we start dismantling this document, the rest will follow quickly, that much I guarantee - then we won't have to worry about gun control - either we'll be overrun by our enemies, or we'll have fully dissolved into chaos.

Sure I support whole-heartedly anyone's right to protest and/or disagree on anything they like - the Constitution allows them the right, but nowhere does it specifiy that their demands are to be met at all times.

 

[aberkowitz]

Of course it can, anything is possible. That is where training and becoming proficient with said firearm comes into play. Someone breaking into my home placed me in a extremely difficult position but will be dealt with extreme prejudice.

To build on this line of thought then- shouldn't there be mandatory training for somebody to be able to be a gun? From what I understand licensing is only mandatory for certain states/municipalities in this country, and I don't know whether any of them require training. How about a national licensing and training program? You need a license and training to be able to drive a car, why not to own a gun?