History UsefulNotes / AmericanGunPolitics

1st May '16 10:12:32 AM YT45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


All states have concealed-carry laws, allowing a person to carry a weapon in a concealed holster with a permit. The ease of obtaining these permits varies widely; Alaska, Vermont and Arizona don't require permits ''at all'', but getting a permit does have benefits (can carry in more places, speeds up buying a firearm, and can carry in some other states), while in other states, multiple legal hurdles have to be jumped through to acquire a permit. Many states do not outlaw the carry of an ''un''concealed weapon, or require a permit for such activity, although even carrying a weapon openly and lawfully can result in negative political results and get you a ''lot'' of funny looks depending on where you are. Note that the instruction of law enforcement agencies ''can'' supersede the law: if the Secret Service says that you cannot carry a gun when the President is in the building, regardless of whether or not it's allowed in that particular state, you ''will'' be arrested for failing to comply. In California, unless you are rich, powerful, know the right people or live in a rural county, a concealed carry permit is out of the question, as they are issued at the discretion of politically-appointed municipal police chiefs or county sheriffs in unincorporated areas[[note]] Elected sheriffs mostly tend to be more fair than police chiefs, who toe the party line of the (usually liberal) city government that appointed them[[/note]]. This is the subject of an ongoing court battle, as the "May-Issue" policy essentially deprives you of a right without due process.

to:

All states have concealed-carry laws, allowing a person to carry a weapon in a concealed holster with a permit. The ease of obtaining these permits varies widely; Alaska, Vermont and Arizona don't require permits ''at all'', but getting a permit does have benefits (can carry in more places, speeds up buying a firearm, and can carry in some other states), while in other states, multiple legal hurdles have to be jumped through to acquire a permit. Many states do not outlaw the carry of an ''un''concealed weapon, or require a permit for such activity, although even carrying a weapon openly and lawfully can result in negative political results and get you a ''lot'' of funny looks depending on where you are. Note that the instruction of law enforcement agencies ''can'' supersede the law: if the Secret Service says that you cannot carry a gun when the President is in the building, regardless of whether or not it's allowed in that particular state, you ''will'' be arrested for failing to comply. In California, unless you are rich, powerful, know the right people or live in a rural county, a concealed carry permit is out of the question, as they are issued at the discretion of politically-appointed municipal police chiefs or county sheriffs in unincorporated areas[[note]] Elected sheriffs mostly tend to be more fair than police chiefs, who toe the party line of the (usually liberal) city government that appointed them[[/note]]. This is the subject of an ongoing court battle, as the "May-Issue" policy essentially deprives you of a right without due process.



In some places, you couldn't carry, open or concealed without a permit, but if you have a permit it will allow concealed carry. Until the ''Heller'' decision, Washington D.C. was under a "shall not issue" regime; you could be a security guard (as Heller was) who had a police permit to carry a weapon on duty, but you could not, for love or money, get a permit to have a gun at home. UsefulNotes/NewYorkCity was almost as restrictive, but if you either have (considerable) money or (equally considerable) political connections you could get a permit. Before a federal court decision in December 2012 held that Illinois' blanket ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional, Chicago had been perhaps the most restrictive of all the city refused to even print the registration forms required by city ordinance to allow firearms to be kept in the home, let alone carry permits. That is, unless you had the aforementioned considerable money or political connections (note that Chicago is infamous for its corrupt machine politics, so this isn't special). Since then, Illinois has passed a concealed carry law that allows all legal owners of firearms who complete a 16-hour training course and pass a background check to receive permits. The new law creates a "shall issue" regime, with permits issued by the Illinois State Police (therefore taking all local governments, including Chicago, out of the loop).

to:

In some places, you couldn't carry, open or concealed without a permit, but if you have a permit it will allow concealed carry. Until the ''Heller'' decision, Washington D.C. was under a "shall not issue" regime; you could be a security guard (as Heller was) who had a police permit to carry a weapon on duty, but you could not, for love or money, get a permit to have a gun at home. UsefulNotes/NewYorkCity was almost as restrictive, but if you either have (considerable) money or (equally considerable) political connections you could get a permit.permit, and many of the very same city leaders who impose those restrictions turn around and use those connections for that exact purpose. Before a federal court decision in December 2012 held that Illinois' blanket ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional, Chicago had been perhaps the most restrictive of all the city refused to even print the registration forms required by city ordinance to allow firearms to be kept in the home, let alone carry permits. That is, unless you had the aforementioned considerable money or political connections (note that Chicago is infamous for its corrupt machine politics, so this isn't special). Since then, Illinois has passed a concealed carry law that allows all legal owners of firearms who complete a 16-hour training course and pass a background check to receive permits. The new law creates a "shall issue" regime, with permits issued by the Illinois State Police (therefore taking all local governments, including Chicago, out of the loop).
1st May '16 10:03:20 AM YT45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


All states have concealed-carry laws, allowing a person to carry a weapon in a concealed holster with a permit. The ease of obtaining these permits varies widely; Alaska, Vermont and Arizona don't require permits ''at all'', but getting a permit does have benefits (can carry in more places, speeds up buying a firearm, and can carry in some other states), while in other states, multiple legal hurdles have to be jumped through to acquire a permit. Many states do not outlaw the carry of an ''un''concealed weapon, or require a permit for such activity, although even carrying a weapon openly and lawfully can result in negative political results and get you a ''lot'' of funny looks depending on where you are. Note that the instruction of law enforcement agencies ''can'' supersede the law: if the Secret Service says that you cannot carry a gun when the President is in the building, regardless of whether or not it's allowed in that particular state, you ''will'' be arrested for failing to comply. In California, unless you are rich, powerful, know the right people or live in a rural county, a concealed carry permit is out of the question, as they are issued at the discretion of county sheriffs.

to:

All states have concealed-carry laws, allowing a person to carry a weapon in a concealed holster with a permit. The ease of obtaining these permits varies widely; Alaska, Vermont and Arizona don't require permits ''at all'', but getting a permit does have benefits (can carry in more places, speeds up buying a firearm, and can carry in some other states), while in other states, multiple legal hurdles have to be jumped through to acquire a permit. Many states do not outlaw the carry of an ''un''concealed weapon, or require a permit for such activity, although even carrying a weapon openly and lawfully can result in negative political results and get you a ''lot'' of funny looks depending on where you are. Note that the instruction of law enforcement agencies ''can'' supersede the law: if the Secret Service says that you cannot carry a gun when the President is in the building, regardless of whether or not it's allowed in that particular state, you ''will'' be arrested for failing to comply. In California, unless you are rich, powerful, know the right people or live in a rural county, a concealed carry permit is out of the question, as they are issued at the discretion of politically-appointed municipal police chiefs or county sheriffs.sheriffs in unincorporated areas[[note]] Elected sheriffs mostly tend to be more fair than police chiefs, who toe the party line of the (usually liberal) city government that appointed them[[/note]]. This is the subject of an ongoing court battle, as the "May-Issue" policy essentially deprives you of a right without due process.
1st May '16 9:57:35 AM YT45
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Part of the difference in opinion is due to the usual rural/urban divide in American politics. In rural areas, police presence is much lower, and while crime is generally lower, in the face of a criminal a citizen is less likely to get a timely response from a police officer and more likely to need to take self-defense into his or her own hands. In a heavily urban area, police presence is higher and hence the need for personal lethal self-defense is lower, while the density of people means that even legal guns are more likely to find their way into criminal hands (e.g. through theft) There's also concern about the extent of self-defense laws, which may more or less justify use of an appropriate level of force to defend yourself. The problem is that the definition of "appropriate" can be very broad, even before taking into account the huge amount of variance that occurs across jurisdictions. Consider this: if one person kills with their gun, claiming that the person they killed was trying to kill them, were they justified in killing them even if the judge and jury have no reason to believe that they were? Someone who has appeared on your property and is acting suspiciously (seeming about to torch your house and/or murder you) may just be drunk, tired, or insane - but your killling them could still be provoked by genuine fears.

to:

Part of the difference in opinion is due to the usual rural/urban divide in American politics. In rural areas, police presence is much lower, and while crime is generally lower, in the face of a criminal a citizen is less likely to get a timely response from a police officer and more likely to need to take self-defense into his or her own hands. In a heavily urban area, police presence is higher and hence the need for personal lethal self-defense is lower, while the density of people means that even legal guns are more likely to find their way into criminal hands (e.g. through theft) There's also concern about the extent of self-defense laws, which may more or less justify use of an appropriate level of force to defend yourself. The problem is that the definition of "appropriate" can be very broad, even before taking into account the huge amount of variance that occurs across jurisdictions. Consider this: if one person kills with their gun, claiming that the person they killed was trying to kill them, were they justified in killing them even if the judge and jury have no reason to believe that they were? Someone who has appeared on your property and is acting suspiciously (seeming about to torch your house and/or murder you) may just be drunk, tired, or insane - but your killling killing them could still be provoked by genuine fears.



* [[MoreDakka Machine Gun]]: Any weapon that fires more than one bullet at a time, regardless of what other categories it falls into. This includes fully automatic (constant fire), burst (firing a mechanically regulated set number of rounds) and selective (possessing 2 or more user selected firing modes). Originally phrased as one bullet "[[ExactWords per trigger pull]]", but was [[ObviousRulePatch changed]] after people started making fully-automatic weapons [[LoopholeAbuse with no triggers]]. Does not include crank powered weapons such as the Gatling Gun. Technically legal, and costs $200 to transfer, but no new tax stamps have been issued since 1986, and the ATF will often at least try to prosecute you for owning one regardless of its legality anyway.

to:

* [[MoreDakka Machine Gun]]: Any weapon that fires more than one bullet at a time, regardless of what other categories it falls into. into, or [[YouKeepUsingThatWord whether or not it fits the actual definition]] of [[MisidentifiedWeapons "machine gun." This includes fully automatic (constant fire), burst (firing a mechanically regulated set number of rounds) and selective (possessing 2 or more user selected firing modes). Originally phrased as one bullet "[[ExactWords per trigger pull]]", but was [[ObviousRulePatch changed]] after people started making fully-automatic weapons [[LoopholeAbuse with no triggers]]. Does not include crank powered weapons such as the Gatling Gun. Technically legal, and costs $200 to transfer, but no new tax stamps have been issued since 1986, and the ATF will often at least try to prosecute you for owning one regardless of its legality anyway.



In 1994, the US Congress passed an assault weapons ban, a measure that limited the sale of larger capacity weapons and was somewhat of a porridge of a law. Valid for only 10 years, it lapsed in 2004. In addition to banning some weapons by name (including the TEC-9 pistol, which had come to be associated with street gangs) and [[{{Nerf}} restricting magazine capacities]] to just ten rounds, it introduced a list of features that a weapon could have only a certain number of, including heat shields, bayonet lugs, pistol grips and thumbhole stocks on rifles and magazines outside the grip on pistols. This law is generally considered a joke on both sides, largely for the same reason: it banned things that looked scary (like the heat shields, which are, in fact, safety features for the operator) [[AwesomeButImpractical regardless of actual lethality]]. In addition, most arms makers were able to {{retool}} their lines, trimming off enough listed features to stay in production (such as the deletion of the bayonet lug from Colt's post-'94 AR-15 rifles). This law only applied to semi-automatic weapons, even though the news networks often played footage from the North Hollywood Shootout[[note]]the shooters used fully-automatic AKM rifles[[/note]] while discussing it.

to:

In 1994, the US Congress passed an assault weapons ban, a measure that limited the sale of larger capacity weapons and was somewhat of a porridge of a law. Valid for only 10 years, it lapsed in 2004. In addition to banning some weapons by name (including the TEC-9 pistol, which had come to be associated with street gangs) and [[{{Nerf}} restricting magazine capacities]] to just ten rounds, it introduced a list of features that a weapon could have only a certain number of, including heat shields, bayonet lugs, pistol grips and thumbhole stocks on rifles and magazines outside the grip on pistols. This law is generally considered a joke on both sides, largely for the same reason: it banned things that looked scary (like the heat shields, which are, in fact, safety features for the operator) [[AwesomeButImpractical regardless of actual lethality]]. In addition, most arms makers were able to {{retool}} their lines, trimming off enough listed features to stay in production (such as the deletion of the bayonet lug from Colt's post-'94 AR-15 rifles). This law only applied to semi-automatic weapons, even though the news networks often played footage from the North Hollywood Shootout[[note]]the shooters used fully-automatic AKM rifles[[/note]] rifles smuggled from Mexico, so they were already violating existing gun laws[[/note]] while discussing it.
21st Apr '16 2:46:29 PM DarkPhoenix94
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Many Americans on the ''individual-armament'' side of the debate argue that private gun ownership is essential to guerilla warfare, which is in turn a key way of striking back at unpopular governments; on the whole Americans are still very mindful of the need for military mobilization and guerilla warfare, which makes sense when you think about the UsefulNotes/EnglishCivilWar that was still in living memory when they fought [[UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution another Civil War]] which was still in living memory when they fought [[WarOf1812 ''another'' Civil War]] and [[UsefulNotes/AmericanCivilWar then another just to cap it all off]]. Besides, enough abuses of power are reported daily to inspire some mistrust of a government monopoly on weaponry, especially given the examples of countries where [[PoliceState authoritarian governments]] ''have'' enacted disarmament in the aftermath of Civil Wars or armed rebellions - the prime example cited being post-Civil War RedChina, which upon its victory in 1950 disarmed [[NoMoreEmperors the country's millions of politically-unreliable warlord militiamen and bandits]] due to their bad habits of robbing and killing people [[note]] This meant that when the PRC collectivized agriculture in 1956-7 (i.e. it forced everyone to give up their private property and work for the government) and its subsequent agricultural bungling killed up to 35 million people through artifical famines, no-one rebelled (not that they would've had the will and support to win, even if they ''had'' all been armed). On the other hand, the counterpoint to this is that the Soviet Union managed to collectivize its own rural population, have a famine which killed five million, and prevent any rebellion ''even though the USSR was swimming in guns'' - to the point that the Old Bolshevik leader Kirov was asssassinated by an armed madman as late as 1935, more than two years after the famine [[/note]]. In any case, some feel that private gun ownership would be useful in guerilla warfare in a civil war or foreign occupying power. These arguments are very much theoretical given that the USA is neither on the brink of Civil War nor in any danger of being occupied, and Americans favoring 'gun control' tend to ignore them or consider them irrelevant to their country's contemporary politics.

to:

Many Americans on the ''individual-armament'' side of the debate argue that private gun ownership is essential to guerilla warfare, which is in turn a key way of striking back at unpopular governments; on the whole Americans are still very mindful of the need for military mobilization and guerilla warfare, which makes sense when you think about the UsefulNotes/EnglishCivilWar that was still in living memory (depending how one defines its ending, whether with the Restoration in 1660, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, or the Battle of Culloden in 1745, which effectively ended the Jacobites as a political force) when they fought [[UsefulNotes/TheAmericanRevolution another Civil War]] which was still in living memory when they fought [[WarOf1812 ''another'' Civil War]] and [[UsefulNotes/AmericanCivilWar then another just to cap it all off]]. Besides, enough abuses of power are reported daily to inspire some mistrust of a government monopoly on weaponry, especially given the examples of countries where [[PoliceState authoritarian governments]] ''have'' enacted disarmament in the aftermath of Civil Wars or armed rebellions - the prime example cited being post-Civil War RedChina, which upon its victory in 1950 disarmed [[NoMoreEmperors the country's millions of politically-unreliable warlord militiamen and bandits]] due to their bad habits of robbing and killing people [[note]] This meant that when the PRC collectivized agriculture in 1956-7 (i.e. it forced everyone to give up their private property and work for the government) and its subsequent agricultural bungling killed up to 35 million people through artifical artificial famines, no-one rebelled (not that they would've had the will and support to win, even if they ''had'' all been armed). On the other hand, the counterpoint to this is that the Soviet Union managed to collectivize its own rural population, have a famine which killed five million, and prevent any rebellion ''even though the USSR was swimming in guns'' - to the point that the Old Bolshevik leader Kirov was asssassinated by an armed madman as late as 1935, more than two years after the famine [[/note]]. In any case, some feel that private gun ownership would be useful in guerilla warfare in a civil war or foreign occupying power. These arguments are very much theoretical given that the USA is neither on the brink of Civil War nor in any danger of being occupied, and Americans favoring 'gun control' tend to ignore them or consider them irrelevant to their country's contemporary politics.
6th Oct '15 11:51:18 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The ''militia-armament'' lobby emphasizes, well, the armament of the USA's professional military organisations - at the expense of the average citizen, who is not expected to contribute to fighting a Civil War. They are not concerned with the possibility of Civil War or its outcome, but are focused on the day-to-day management of society. Accordingly they want to restrict the armament of normal people to reduce suicide and murder (particularly mass-murder).

to:

The ''militia-armament'' lobby emphasizes, well, the armament of the USA's professional military organisations - at the expense of the average citizen, who is not expected to contribute to fighting a Civil War. They are not concerned with the possibility of Civil War or its outcome, but are focused on the day-to-day management of society. Accordingly they want to restrict the armament of normal people to reduce suicide and murder (particularly mass-murder).
mass-murder). The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment should be interpreted as guaranteeing a ''collective'' right and therefore the armament of the USA's various law-enforcement and defense organisations (Police, National Guard, Military) but not private citizens - who are internationally notorious for abusing that right to murder loads of people. They support their position with the arguments that:

* Universal Armament enables citizens to kill themselves and/or murder large numbers of people very easily.
* Countries of similar levels of economic development (and government enforcement of laws) have successfully reduced the incidence of suicide and mass-murder by abandoning Universal Armament.



The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment should be interpreted as guaranteeing a ''collective'' right and therefore the armament of the USA's various law-enforcement and defense organisations (Police, National Guard, Military) but not private citizens - who are internationally notorious for abusing that right to murder loads of people. They support their position with the arguments that:

* Universal Armament enables citizens to kill themselves and/or murder large numbers of people very easily.
* Countries of similar levels of economic development (and government enforcement of laws) have successfully reduced the incidence of suicide and mass-murder by abandoning Universal Armament.
6th Oct '15 11:49:29 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The ''individual-armament'' lobby, which is represented by the US's NRA (National Rifle Association, though members have all sorts of firearms) and other organizations, believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an ''individual'' right to bear arms; that is, that the "well-regulated Militia" clause of the Second Amendment is purely explanatory (and/or that the meaning of "well-regulated" has shifted over time; in the late 1700s, "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped") and the government has no right to disarm the people. They support their position with the arguments that an armed citizenry could reduce the incidence of violent crime and allow citizens the theoretical opportunity to defend themselves when not caught by surprise, that most laws designed to reduce firearms(-mass)-murder complicate the lives of people who use guns legally, that it would be relatively easy for criminals to acquire powerful weapons even if the USA tried a European-style disarmament program, and that most firearms-suicide and firearms-crime and firearms(-mass)-murder is committed by criminals who would still be able to acquire firearms rather than insane people who would be unable to get firearms under such laws. Arguments are also made that ''[[BrokenBase some of]]'' the Founding Fathers were distrustful of government (which is TruthInTelevision), which is then used to claim that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that a Civil War could always be initiated if [[ZeroPercentApprovalRating the central government was sufficiently unpopular, even if the army and/or navy were largely loyal to the government]]. Because the Constitution already provides for a national army and navy without the Bill of Rights, the militia clause is most often interpreted to refer to the people themselves rather than the military forces of each individual state or the USA as a whole.

The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment guarantees a ''collective'' right; in other words, that the amendment isn't concerned with individual ownership of weapons, but seeks merely to ensure the presence of an armed militia among the American citizenry in a time when, due to the young nation's underdeveloped transportation system, the regular army would not have been able to reach every place in the country that might come under invasion (i.e. by the British). They then argue that since the government now maintains a large and indisputably well-armed standing military (not to mention each state having a National Guard, which they generally categorize as the modern-day equivalent to a "well-regulated militia), there is no need for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to run around with an assault rifle. They support their position with the arguments that an armed citizenry increases the incidence of violent crime and enables citizens to kill themselves and murder large numbers of people very easily. The disagreement then becomes about how to measure "well-regulated" or why a single piece of the bill of rights guarantees a collective right, while the rest guarantees individual rights. Then there are those who point out that the United States has no authority to maintain a standing army, but that's another matter. (Besides, the government kind of went ahead and invented one anyway. As they used to say in Sparta, "If you can get away with it, it's legal.")

to:

The ''individual-armament'' lobby, which is represented by the US's NRA (National Rifle Association, though members have all sorts of firearms) and other organizations, believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an ''individual'' right to bear arms; that is, that the "well-regulated Militia" clause should not be changed because they favour a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment is purely explanatory (and/or that the constitution according to its meaning of "well-regulated" has shifted over time; in the late 1700s, "well-regulated" when it was last changed concerned firearms ("well-regulated" meant "well-equipped") "well-equipped" at the time). In other words they suppor the armament of individuals, rather than that of professional organisations such as the police, militia, and the government has no right to disarm the people. military. They support butress their position with the arguments that an armed citizenry that:

* Civil War remains a possibility, and given sufficient cultivation of 'American Values' in the country's youth Universal Armament
could reduce the incidence of violent crime and allow citizens the theoretical opportunity to defend themselves when not caught by surprise, ensure that the faction which remains the most laws true to American Values has an advantage in the war.
* Revolution remains a possibility, and given sufficient cultivation of 'American Values' in the country's s youth Universal Armament could ensure a swift victory for the Revolutionary forces against those of a traitorous government.
* Invasion remains a possibility, and Universal Armament could hamper the enemy's supply lines and force them to adopt harsh anti-partisan measures which would reflect badly upon them.
* Laws
designed to reduce firearms(-mass)-murder complicate the lives of people who use guns legally, that it would legally.
* Criminal gangs might still
be relatively easy for criminals able to acquire powerful weapons firearms even if the USA tried a European-style disarmament program, and program.
* The gang culture of the USA could mean
that most firearms-suicide and firearms-crime and firearms(-mass)-murder is committed by criminals who would still be able to acquire firearms rather than even if insane people who would be were unable to get buy firearms under such laws. Arguments are also made and go on mass-murder sprees, mass-murders might still occur during Gang Wars.
* Universal Armament theoretically allows citizens willing to kill or maim potential attackers the opportunity to do so when not caught by surprise or when confronted by attackers unwilling to harm them in a surprise attack.

They make the point
that ''[[BrokenBase some of]]'' the Founding Fathers were distrustful of government (which is TruthInTelevision), which is then used to claim that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that a Civil War or Revolution could always be initiated if [[ZeroPercentApprovalRating the central government was sufficiently unpopular, even if the army and/or navy were largely loyal to the government]]. Because the Constitution already provides for a national army and navy without the Bill of Rights, the militia clause is most often interpreted to refer to the people themselves rather than the military forces of each individual state or the USA as a whole.

The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment guarantees should be interpreted as guaranteeing a ''collective'' right; in other words, that right and therefore the amendment isn't concerned with individual ownership armament of weapons, but seeks merely to ensure the presence of an armed militia among the American citizenry in a time when, due to the young nation's underdeveloped transportation system, the regular army would not have been able to reach every place in the country that might come under invasion (i.e. by the British). They then argue that since the government now maintains a large USA's various law-enforcement and indisputably well-armed standing military (not to mention each state having a defense organisations (Police, National Guard, which they generally categorize as the modern-day equivalent to a "well-regulated militia), there is no need Military) but not private citizens - who are internationally notorious for every Tom, Dick, and Harry abusing that right to run around with an assault rifle. murder loads of people. They support their position with the arguments that an armed citizenry increases the incidence of violent crime and that:

* Universal Armament
enables citizens to kill themselves and and/or murder large numbers of people very easily. The disagreement then becomes about how to measure "well-regulated" or why a single piece easily.
* Countries
of the bill similar levels of rights guarantees a collective right, while the rest guarantees individual rights. Then there are those who point out that the United States has no authority to maintain a standing army, but that's another matter. (Besides, the economic development (and government kind enforcement of went ahead laws) have successfully reduced the incidence of suicide and invented one anyway. As they used to say in Sparta, "If you can get away with it, it's legal.")
mass-murder by abandoning Universal Armament.
22nd Sep '15 11:18:09 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


-->--'''The 1791 ''Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution''[[note]] The first ten ammendments to the USA's constitution constituted ''the bill of rights'' and they were part of an effort to forge a single unified nation out of the newly-independent former colonies. Although the destruction of their nation-states' national sovereignty through the formation of a much closer political union would be deeply unpopular, it was hoped that the bill would keep people from rebelling[[/note]] the central debate in American gun politics hinges on.'''

to:

-->--'''The 1791 ''Second Amendment to the United States' Constitution''[[note]] The first ten ammendments to the USA's constitution constituted ''the bill of rights'' and they were part of an effort to forge a single unified nation out of the newly-independent former colonies. Although the destruction of their nation-states' national sovereignty through the formation of a much closer political union would be deeply unpopular, it was hoped that the bill would keep people from rebelling[[/note]] the central debate in American gun politics hinges on.rebelling[[/note]].'''
13th Aug '15 2:00:20 PM DDRMASTERM
Is there an issue? Send a Message


Part of the difference in opinion is due to the usual rural/urban divide in American politics. In rural areas, police presence is much lower, and while crime is generally lower, in the face of a criminal a citizen is less likely to get a timely response from a police officer and more likely to need to take self-defense into his or her own hands. In a heavily urban area, police presence is higher and hence the need for personal lethal self-defense is lower, while the density of people means that even legal guns are more likely to find their way into criminal hands (e.g. through theft) There's also concern about the extent of self-defense laws, which may more or less justify use of an appropriate level of force to defend yourself. The problem is that the definition of "appropriate" can be very broad, even before taking into account the huge amount of variance that occurs across jurisdictions. Consider this: if one person kills with their gun, claiming that the person they killed was trying to kill them, were they justified in killing them even if the judge and jury have no reason to believe that they were? Someone who has appeared on your property and is acting suspiciously (seeming about to torch your house and/or murder you) may just be drunk, tired, or insane - but your killling them could still provoked by genuine fears.

to:

Part of the difference in opinion is due to the usual rural/urban divide in American politics. In rural areas, police presence is much lower, and while crime is generally lower, in the face of a criminal a citizen is less likely to get a timely response from a police officer and more likely to need to take self-defense into his or her own hands. In a heavily urban area, police presence is higher and hence the need for personal lethal self-defense is lower, while the density of people means that even legal guns are more likely to find their way into criminal hands (e.g. through theft) There's also concern about the extent of self-defense laws, which may more or less justify use of an appropriate level of force to defend yourself. The problem is that the definition of "appropriate" can be very broad, even before taking into account the huge amount of variance that occurs across jurisdictions. Consider this: if one person kills with their gun, claiming that the person they killed was trying to kill them, were they justified in killing them even if the judge and jury have no reason to believe that they were? Someone who has appeared on your property and is acting suspiciously (seeming about to torch your house and/or murder you) may just be drunk, tired, or insane - but your killling them could still be provoked by genuine fears.
9th Aug '15 11:43:29 AM Deblin
Is there an issue? Send a Message


On the other end, data from the NCVS indicates that a firearm is used in the [i]prevention[/i] of a crime a minimum of 100,000 times a year fairly consistently, and most analysts put the actual number at about 250k to 300k when looking at other data and compensating for the NCVS only asking the question in fairly limited circumstances. Surveys at the high end pin this number north of 1 million/year, but are considered less reliable. ("Defensive" use includes everything from actually stopping a mugger by being armed and chasing off a burglar with a claim of being armed.) This is either interpreted as a counter-argument to the extreme anti-gun position or further evidence that Americans are crazy, depending on which side of things you're on and how invested you are in sticking with your camp.



Perhaps the most notable thing about firearms-suicide is just how low survival rates are compared to all other methods (hitting things at speed, cutting off air-supply, bleeding, drug-overdose). The suicide 'success' rate is therefore intimately related with the availability of firearms.

to:

Perhaps the most notable thing about firearms-suicide is just how low survival rates are compared to all other methods (hitting things at speed, cutting off air-supply, bleeding, drug-overdose). The suicide 'success' rate is therefore intimately related with the availability of firearms. \n This is the source of most "waiting period" gun control laws, since clinically a suicide attempt which is prevented (by having to wait a few days between buying and receiving a firearm in this case) often will not make a second attempt.
26th May '15 9:47:42 AM MAI742
Is there an issue? Send a Message


The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment guarantees a ''collective'' right; in other words, that the amendment isn't concerned with individual ownership of weapons, but seeks merely to ensure the presence of an armed militia among the American citizenry in a time when, due to the young nation's underdeveloped transportation system, the regular army would not have been able to reach every place in the country that might come under invasion (i.e. by the British). They then argue that since the government now maintains a large and indisputably well-armed standing military (not to mention each state having a National Guard, which they generally categorize as the modern-day equivalent to a "well-regulated militia), there is no need for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to run around with an assault rifle. They support their position with the arguments that an armed citizenry increases the incidence of violent crime and enables citizens to kill themselves and murder large numbers of people very easily. They support their position by arguing that there is nothing "well-regulated" about an armed population. The disagreement then becomes about how to measure "well-regulated" or why a single piece of the bill of rights guarantees a collective right, while the rest guarantees individual rights. Then there are those who point out that the United States has no authority to maintain a standing army, but that's another matter. (Besides, the government kind of went ahead and invented one anyway. As they used to say in Sparta, "If you can get away with it, it's legal.")

to:

The ''militia-armament'' lobby believes that, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment guarantees a ''collective'' right; in other words, that the amendment isn't concerned with individual ownership of weapons, but seeks merely to ensure the presence of an armed militia among the American citizenry in a time when, due to the young nation's underdeveloped transportation system, the regular army would not have been able to reach every place in the country that might come under invasion (i.e. by the British). They then argue that since the government now maintains a large and indisputably well-armed standing military (not to mention each state having a National Guard, which they generally categorize as the modern-day equivalent to a "well-regulated militia), there is no need for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to run around with an assault rifle. They support their position with the arguments that an armed citizenry increases the incidence of violent crime and enables citizens to kill themselves and murder large numbers of people very easily. They support their position by arguing that there is nothing "well-regulated" about an armed population. The disagreement then becomes about how to measure "well-regulated" or why a single piece of the bill of rights guarantees a collective right, while the rest guarantees individual rights. Then there are those who point out that the United States has no authority to maintain a standing army, but that's another matter. (Besides, the government kind of went ahead and invented one anyway. As they used to say in Sparta, "If you can get away with it, it's legal.")



Part of the difference in opinion is due to the usual rural/urban divide in American politics. In rural areas, police presence is much lower, and while crime is generally lower, in the face of a criminal a citizen is less likely to get a timely response from a police officer and more likely to need to take self-defense into his or her own hands. In a heavily urban area, police presence is higher and hence the need for personal lethal self-defense is lower, while the density of people means that even legal guns are more likely to find their way into criminal hands (e.g. through theft) There's also concern about the extent of self-defense laws, which may more or less justify use of an appropriate level of force to defend yourself. The problem is that the definition of "appropriate" can be very broad, even before taking into account the huge amount of variance that occurs across jurisdictions. Consider this: if one person draws and kills another and the survivor claims that their life was in danger, are they justified in their use of force when the evidence does not necessarily support that view? A man claimed to be an intruder on one's property may actually be lost and looking for directions, or simply drunk, but the shooting itself may be provoked by genuine fear.

to:

Part of the difference in opinion is due to the usual rural/urban divide in American politics. In rural areas, police presence is much lower, and while crime is generally lower, in the face of a criminal a citizen is less likely to get a timely response from a police officer and more likely to need to take self-defense into his or her own hands. In a heavily urban area, police presence is higher and hence the need for personal lethal self-defense is lower, while the density of people means that even legal guns are more likely to find their way into criminal hands (e.g. through theft) There's also concern about the extent of self-defense laws, which may more or less justify use of an appropriate level of force to defend yourself. The problem is that the definition of "appropriate" can be very broad, even before taking into account the huge amount of variance that occurs across jurisdictions. Consider this: if one person draws and kills another and the survivor claims that with their life gun, claiming that the person they killed was in danger, are trying to kill them, were they justified in their use of force when killing them even if the evidence does not necessarily support judge and jury have no reason to believe that view? A man claimed to be an intruder they were? Someone who has appeared on one's your property and is acting suspiciously (seeming about to torch your house and/or murder you) may actually just be lost and looking for directions, or simply drunk, tired, or insane - but the shooting itself may be your killling them could still provoked by genuine fear.
fears.



The practical upshot of this study for US readers is that while a concerted disarmament program would reduce her (firearms)-deaths, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns diminishing returns]] would begin to kick in once firearms-ownership was under about 20% or so (after a a 60% reduction in ownership). Reducing gun-ownership below that level would have less and less effect on the overall number of suicides and murders as ownership approached zero and factors other than ownership (attitudes to criminals & rehabilitation thereof, unemployment, leisure-time, etcetc) became more important in determining the overall murder and suicide rates.

to:

The practical upshot of this study for US readers is that while a concerted disarmament program would reduce her (firearms)-deaths, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns diminishing returns]] would begin to kick in once firearms-ownership was under about 20% or so (after a a 60% reduction in ownership). Reducing gun-ownership below that level would have less and less effect on the overall number of suicides and murders as ownership approached zero and factors other than ownership (attitudes (medical care for the insane and mentally disturbed, attitudes to criminals & rehabilitation thereof, unemployment, leisure-time, etcetc) became more important in determining the overall murder and suicide rates.
This list shows the last 10 events of 123. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=UsefulNotes.AmericanGunPolitics