Gun Control (v.2)

Well, I know I am happy with the way things turned out in the Senate this week over SB 696. Sure, I would have liked to see it pass intact, but instead, by cowtowing to their Trial Lawyer masters, I think several Democrat Senators just comitted suicide with their careers instead and are going to be scratching their heads come November 2nd on what happened.

 

?

 

If someone has a bomb or has enough leverage to crash the plane, no gun in the world is going to save you.

That's no reason to ban guns on airplanes. Having armed passengers on board means there is a much larger chance of survival if there is an attempted hijacking.

True, the death rate due to guns in Australia isn't zero after the recent - and I mean recent - banning of guns, but oooh look, it's halved the the death rate. Think of what the rate will be in 20 to 30 years time when more guns are removed from the system.

Gosh, it's so darn difficult to educate people about responsible, safe gun ownership! Why, it's much easier to tell them that scratching an attacker with your car keys works just as well!

The gun lobbiests here keep saying "don't infringe on my liberties because the odd few have done the wrong thing". Well, the odd few have done the wrong thing drink driving and that got banned.

But drunk driving doesn't save lives. Guns do.

An activity was deemed as dangerous by the community and it was decided that it should be illegal to continue with it. No-one bleated about having their rights infringed. Same deal here.

What happens if there's an explosion in the number of children who accidentally drown in bathtubs, and a group of people get together to try to ban them? Would you accept that? After all, the Constitution doesn't say anything about a right to cleanliness...

A constitution is only a piece of paper. It can be changed.

Sure, it can be changed, but there's no reason it should be changed.

It's scary though, the fact that Americans deify their Constitution.

Just because we respect the freedoms that thousands of Americans have died to preserve doesn't mean we deify our Constitution.

...I think several Democrat Senators just comitted suicide with their careers instead and are going to be scratching their heads come November 2nd on what happened.

Hopefully...

 

Up for Gustaf-what's-his-face...

(deep sigh)

Can a gun save you in the even of a terrorist attack?

Armed airline passengers would have stopped 9/11. That's a pretty good reason for nationwide concealed carry reform, isn't it?

If somebody bombs you, can a gun save you?

Of course not. But that's no reason not to carry one...there are many, many circumstances where a gun would be useful, and they outnumber (by far) the situations where a gun would be useless.

Besides, here we have very strict gun laws, and the lowest crime rate in the world.

Do you have the lowest crime rate in the world because you have very strict gun laws? Or are you just saying that to make it sound like gun control works?

 

Do you have the lowest crime rate in the world

Well, irrespective of gun control measures, Sweden actually has one of the highest overall crime rates in the world..

There is more detail in the other thread, Fred..


(although not to throw fuel on the fire, it just must be chance that the countries with the strictest gun control laws, also have the highest crime rates... )

 

Just because we respect the freedoms that thousands of Americans have died to preserve doesn't mean we deify our Constitution.

The problem isn't that; it's that you limit your understanding of freedoms to exactly what's enshrined there, 90% of the time.

E_S

 

sigh... being dragged in...

Various and assorted statistics from nationmaster

Overall crimerates

Country Description Amount
1. Finland 102.3 per 1000 people
2. Denmark 93.92 per 1000 people
3. United Kingdom 86.5 per 1000 people
4. United States 84.39 per 1000 people
5. Netherlands 81.26 per 1000 people
6. Canada 77.63 per 1000 people
7. Germany 75.25 per 1000 people
8. France 63.11 per 1000 people
9. Italy 38.22 per 1000 people
10. Portugal 36.03 per 1000 people
11. Spain 23.04 per 1000 people
12. Ireland 20.93 per 1000 people
13. Mexico 13.19 per 1000 people
14. Greece 9.66 per 1000 people

So the US isn't exactly a haven of law (though I question Mexico's rates!!!) - but neither is the UK. In fact, the UK and US at the two opposite polls of gun-control are neck and neck with each other, with a minor advantage to the US (2.5% safer!!! )

There is a very imperfect breakdown of the stats there, with much data missing, however to concentrate on the US and the UK...

Assaults

Country Description Amount
1. United States 7.98 per 1000 people
2. United Kingdom 7.54 per 1000 people

the US and UK vying for top place together again, despite their polar opposite attitudes to gun control.

Murders

2. United States 0.05 per 1000 people
7. United Kingdom 0.01 per 1000 people

US clearly in the lead here... but balance this against America's recent rapid decline in violent crime, and the UK's mild increase.

Murders with firearms

2. United States 0.03 per 1000 people
9. United Kingdom 0 per 1000 people (this means >0.01 per 1000)

Good to see clear, unequivocal evidence that guns deter gun crime

Rapes

2. United States 0.32 per 1000 people
3. United Kingdom 0.14 per 1000 people

Well, again the US and UK are adjacent, but again, a big difference with the US in the lead

Robberies

4. United Kingdom 1.59 per 1000 people
5. United States 1.46 per 1000 people

Again, US and UK very close, but the UK marginally in the lead this time.

Well, all of those are crimes that are frequently mentioned as being situations in which guns would help reduce the crime. Yet the results are far from conclusive either way, and the US tends to come out the worse, but not always. As I said above, trends recently have pointed to an slight increase in the UK's violent crime rate, and a decrease in the US's. The UK's seemed to have 'topped out', though the situation has been confused by several different measures of crime rates released. More on this later...

Fraud

2. United Kingdom 5.34 per 1000 people
7. United States 1.33 per 1000 people

UK clearly in the lead here...

car thefts

2. United Kingdom 5.67 per 1000 people
6. United States 4.09 per 1000 people

UK in lead again....

Burglaries

3. United Kingdom 13.99 per 1000 people
5. United States 7.48 per 1000 people

The UK clearly wins this round...

I think the thing to note is that this second bunch of stats concerns crimes that guns simply would not effect that much (as a deterrent), as, to the best of my knowledge, most burglaries and car thefts happen when the owners are not around (though not all, of course).

I concentrated on printing the US and UK stats for brevity, but the thing that strikes me is that both states fluctu

 

Armed airline passengers would have stopped 9/11. That's a pretty good reason for nationwide concealed carry reform, isn't it?

You don't know that.

Many accounts and reports indicate that the terrorists used mace and pepper spray to affect the passengers on the airline as they cut their way to the cockpit. The use of hostages also is another factor. No matter how many armed passengers there are, if someone has a hostage, they have leverage.

If people had guns on the flight, the terrorists would have planned for that contingency, possibly even bringing their own guns and resulting in a big shootout in a confined area. That's a disaster, too.

Even if all guns were legal and there were reforms in conceal and carry, it is highly unlikely that it will ever effect the airline industry. The only exception I can see being made is allowing pilots to have guns in the cockpit, or Federal Air Marshalls being stationed on flights - which I am in favor of. The airline industry would not risk the loss of business from people afraid to be locked inside a fuselage with hundreds of armed passengers for three hours.

People are worried about others infringing on their Second Amendment rights, but to force commercial land owners to comply and allow people to bring guns inside buildings on their property is infringing on the land owners' rights to make rules on their own property. When you enter someone's house and they ask you to leave your gun at the door, that's a rule that needs to be respected.

The Supreme Court is very clear on this in rulings involving Free Speech on commercial property. You can't say what you want where you want on someone else's property. The Second Amendment doesn't get any more special protection.

 

People are worried about others infringing on their Second Amendment rights, but to force commercial land owners to comply and allow people to bring guns inside buildings on their property is infringing on the land owners' rights to make rules on their own property. When you enter someone's house and they ask you to leave your gun at the door, that's a rule that needs to be respected.

Fully agreed. But I think the laws against carrying weapons aboard aircraft are a violation of Second Amendment rights. So how's this for a compromise? Anyone may control what materials may be carried onto his private property. Thus, airlines are well within their rights to ban firearms from their flights. However, it is not reasonable for the government to make this ban. Rescind laws against carrying guns on flights and allow it to be a matter of airline corproate policy. If you feel that the airlines could not impose significantly deterrent penalties, then I'll even be willing to go for a law providing special criminal penalties for carrying aboard an aircraft substances forbidden by airline regulations. But I cannot see the justification for a federal law prohibiting firearms on aircraft.

The gun lobbiests here keep saying "don't infringe on my liberties because the odd few have done the wrong thing". Well, the odd few have done the wrong thing drink driving and that got banned.

Special_fred already made a good point in response to this statement. I'll throw in a few more. For one, drunk driving never enters the constitution at all. On the other hand, the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Thus, it is preserved as part of our system. Also, drunk driving is inherently dangerous. Sure, a lot of people can do it a couple of times just fine. But there is medical evidence that when the blood has a certain alcohol content, a person's judgment is impaired, and, lucky or not, that person is recklessly endangering everyone around him - motorists, pedestrians, and passengers. On the other hand, there is nothing inherently dangerous about possessing a gun. Provided one knows how to store and handle it properly, it poses no inherent risk to anyone else, and a conscious act is required to bring about harm. That conscious act, unless taken in defense, is illegal. But in the case of drunk driving, the conscious act that brings danger to others is getting behind the wheel of a car.

The problem isn't that; it's that you limit your understanding of freedoms to exactly what's enshrined there, 90% of the time.

Obviously not; the courts seem to have fleshed out a right to "freedom of expression" which isn't definitively Constitutional at all. And most people support freedom of expression.

As to why we're so vehement about the Constitution - it's because we're supposed to be guaranteed those rights as American citizens, and so it's very important for us to protect them vehemently in order to see that we retain them. Most rights aren't taken away outright; they're chipped away a little at a time. The reason I must oppose nearly all gun control measures is that if I do not, I am conceding that the Constitution is not sacrosanct and that the government may legitimately limit or remove freedoms defined within it. That is paving the road to a nightmare.

-Paul

 

So how's this for a compromise? Anyone may control what materials may be carried onto his private property. Thus, airlines are well within their rights to ban firearms from their flights. However, it is not reasonable for the government to make this ban. Rescind laws against carrying guns on flights and allow it to be a matter of airline corproate policy. If you feel that the airlines could not impose significantly deterrent penalties, then I'll even be willing to go for a law providing special criminal penalties for carrying aboard an aircraft substances forbidden by airline regulations. But I cannot see the justification for a federal law prohibiting firearms on aircraft.

Yeah, I agree. I think that makes sense. Even when it comes to deterrents, public or private property, aiming your gun at an unarmed civilian would (or at least should) have significant criminal penalties.

I think that many gun laws that exist are unnecessary. While I can see public safety concerns, I think many of these concerns work themselves out in the private sector.

 

Kudos to Mr44...he just alerted me to the fact that Sweden actually has the 4th highest overall crime rate in the world, and America is pretty far down, at number 11. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?

Armed airline passengers would have stopped 9/11.

You don't know that.

Of course not. There's no way to be 100% certain...however, it's somewhat unrealistic to think that four terrorists (even if they had guns themselves) could kill off all of the passengers and flight crew and proceed to carry out their attack without losing any of their number.

Many accounts and reports indicate that the terrorists used mace and pepper spray to affect the passengers on the airline as they cut their way to the cockpit.

Yeah, you whip out your can of pepper spray and I'll draw my gun. We'll see who walks away from that one...

The use of hostages also is another factor. No matter how many armed passengers there are, if someone has a hostage, they have leverage.

It's somewhat hard to take an armed person hostage (it isn't like in the movies, as a lot of people seem to think).

If people had guns on the flight, the terrorists would have planned for that contingency, possibly even bringing their own guns and resulting in a big shootout in a confined area. That's a disaster, too.

Indeed, but in that case, the odds would be stacked against the terrorists. Even if the shootout caused the plane to crash, killing everyone aboard, the deaths of thousands of people in the WTC would have been averted...

...aiming your gun at an unarmed civilian would (or at least should) have significant criminal penalties.

You won't find any disagreement with that here...

I think that many gun laws that exist are unnecessary.

I think that all gun laws that exist are unnecessary.

 

Many accounts and reports indicate that the terrorists used mace and pepper spray to affect the passengers on the airline as they cut their way to the cockpit.

Yeah, you whip out your can of pepper spray and I'll draw my gun. We'll see who walks away from that one...

My overall point was that you wouldn't be able to aim properly due to your vision being obscured. If you can't aim, you can't shoot. Well, you can, you'll just miss.

 

My overall point was that you wouldn't be able to aim properly due to your vision being obscured. If you can't aim, you can't shoot. Well, you can, you'll just miss.

True. Of course, if terrorists were so well-organized as to be able to simultaneously hit every passenger on the aircraft with pepper spray before a single one could get off a shot, then absolutely nothing could ever have been done for the flight. I'm not saying guns would have saved the day for sure, but I think you dismiss the idea too easily.

-Paul

 

That's no reason to ban guns on airplanes

That is the single most ridiculous thing I've read in my life. Keep in mind we've had 3 incidents EVER of hijacked airplanes on American soil. But aggressive passengers happen almost daily. Since most violent crimes are crimes of passion, meaning someone is emotional at the time and does something really stupid I can only imagine when a passenger gets upset about something and somebody tries restraining him.

If people on any one of the 9/11 flights have had guns they would have stopped it, I think that's almost a given. But box cutters and other things that could be used as weapons are no longer allowed on planes, if these things would have been taken away from the 9/11 hijackers we wouldn't have had a 9/11.

But I'm dumbfounded that anybody would think that having guns on planes would be a good idea. Again, we've had 3 hijack incidents EVER and that was in the course of a single day.

I do think Gun Control is a good option, unfortunately it's too little too late. Our streets are just filled with illegal guns, rarely does a crime happen in which gun controls laws would have stopped it. There are your obvious kids playing with guns that would certainly diminish with gun control laws, but that's it. So I'm not sure what the best resolution is to fix our gun problems.

 

Fred, what's the most important right, in your view, Americans have? Would you list the three most important rights, in order, as you see them?

E_S

 

Being not Fred, I'm still going to answer the question anyway, because I feel like it.

1) Freedom of expression. (I'm using this as a blanket term for first-amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom from legislated religion, and also to cover the court-interpreted freedom of expression that extends free speech protection to things like art.)
2) The right to involvement in our political process.
3) The right to bear arms.

-Paul

 

My overall point was that you wouldn't be able to aim properly due to your vision being obscured. If you can't aim, you can't shoot. Well, you can, you'll just miss.

I understand what you're saying, but you do have to be pretty close to someone for pepper spray to be effective, and if I'm a flight attendant standing by the cockpit with my gun, and I see you coming up the aisle with your can of mace, you'll be face-down in a pool of blood before you can say "Praise Allah!"

Keep in mind we've had 3 incidents EVER of hijacked airplanes on American soil.

That doesn't change the fact that arming everyone aboard the planes would have saved thousands of lives.

But [if] box cutters and other things...would have been taken away from the 9/11 hijackers we wouldn't have had a 9/11.

Does it seem strange to you that airline security failed to disarm those terrorists? Why would you put your life in the hands of incompetent screeners?

But I'm dumbfounded that anybody would think that having guns on planes would be a good idea.

And I direct you here...

Our streets are just filled with illegal guns, rarely does a crime happen in which gun controls laws would have stopped it.

He sees the light!!!

There are your obvious kids playing with guns that would certainly diminish with gun control laws...

No. Most kids can disable trigger locks with unsettling ease, and locking up your most effective means of self-defense only makes it more likely that you will be a victim if someone invades your home. The key is education. Teach your kids about gun safety as soon as they're old enough to walk, and teach them to never handle a gun without you present.

So I'm not sure what the best resolution is to fix our gun problems.

EDUCATION.

Fred, what's the most important right, in your view, Americans have? Would you list the three most important rights, in order, as you see them?

1: The right to keep and bear arms, as it is the one right that protects all others.
2: Freedom of speech and freedom of expression (this includes the right to vote).
3: The right to a trial by jury and the right to a quick and speedy trial (habeas corpus).

 

habeas corpus

Means to "produce the body" in Latin!

(Random trivia.)

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, Fred, and also to darth_paul.

I'm curious, intrigued and perhaps a little concerned neither of you listed the most fundamental and unalienable right of all here;

The right to life.

You even feel having a gun is more important that a person's life, Fred, and I'm surprised that even you would think that.

E_S

 

You even feel having a gun is more important that a person's life, Fred, and I'm surprised that even you would think that.

What protects your right to life? As I've said before, the right to life is useless without the right to defend it.

EDIT: You're welcome!

 

Then how do people all over the planet have a right to live but not a right to a gun?

E_S

 

Does it seem strange to you that airline security failed to disarm those terrorists? Why would you put your life in the hands of incompetent screeners?

I would much rather have my hands in the life of incompetent screeners than my death in the hands of any ole passenger that loses his temper.

Guns on a plane is a bad idea, again, probably the worst idea I've EVER heard. I'm not just saying that, the idea is that bad, it's not only illogical, it's blanketed in false paranoia. A hijacking with box cutters and other medial weapons will never happen again until the american people forget about the events of 9/11.

The reason the hijackings on 9/11 were so effective was because the passengers were caught by surprise. Never had a plane been hijacked on american soil, so the passengers were probably thinking the terrorists would land the plane and attempt to negotiate with the government. Slamming a plane into a building was probably the last thing on their minds. But now that the public is aware of what would happen, I guarantee it will never happen again in the near future.

Let's say a plane were hijacked by the same tactics today. What are the 70 plus passengers going to think now? They'll think "I don't want to die, we need to make a move before they get into the cockpit". 70 passengers are no match for a maximum 10 terrorists with box cutters.

I'm far more worried about bombs getting on a plane and rocket attacks. By putting guns on a plane you're effectively turning a non-issue into an issue.

 

Then how do people all over the planet have a right to live but not a right to a gun?

The way I see it, you have both. You've simply given up your right to keep and bear arms.

I would much rather have my hands in the life of incompetent screeners than my death in the hands of any ole passenger that loses his temper.

This is the gun-grabber's typical paranoid rant. "If you give everyone guns, there will be chaos in the streets! Every little argument will turn into a full-blown shooting!" But guess what? This. Does. Not. Happen. Clicky!

Guns on a plane is a bad idea, again, probably the worst idea I've EVER heard.

Heaven forbid we recognize the right of the people to defend themselves! It's far "safer" for them to trust airport security that failed to detect the hunting knife I accidentally left in my carry-on.

And let's not forget:

"On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the police. When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent person than are civilian shooters." -- CATO Institute Policy Analysis No. 109, TRUST THE PEOPLE: THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL, by David Kopel

...I guarantee it will never happen again in the near future.

Never?

70 passengers are no match for a maximum 10 terrorists with box cutters.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the new FAA-approved secure passenger transport system prototype:

[image=http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/hannibal.jpg]

Happy flying!

 

Heaven forbid we recognize the right of the people to defend themselves! It's far "safer" for them to trust airport security that failed to detect the hunting knife I accidentally left in my carry-on.

I don't believe that statement.

 

This is the gun-grabber's typical paranoid rant. "If you give everyone guns, there will be chaos in the streets! Every little argument will turn into a full-blown shooting!" But guess what? This. Does. Not. Happen. Clicky!

Haha, I seriously laughed out loud reading your post. You're trying to win an argument by posting an OPINION article from keepandbeararms.com??? C'mon, you can do better than that. At least find statistical information or something, at least keep me on my toes.

As a person with a temper myself, I know what the effect would be if I carried around a gun. Would every little argument turn into a shootout? No. But all it takes is one argument where you're outnumbered or a situation where you feel you're in danger and out comes that gun. That's just a natural human reaction to protect themselves. If you say that's the exception then you obviously don't understand how human psychology works.

Look at how many murders happen because of Road Rage, some put the number of roard rage related murders in the hundreds in the United States. Considering the average joe citizen doesn't carry a weapon in their car, that's a lot of shootings.

Heaven forbid we recognize the right of the people to defend themselves! It's far "safer" for them to trust airport security that failed to detect the hunting knife I accidentally left in my carry-on.

IT IS A NON-ISSUE!!! First of all, I question whether they really failed to detect your hunting knife, sounds like you're just using a fake scenario as ammunition. But even if they did fail to detect it, what is some joker and a hunting knife going to do to take down a plane in post 9/11?

But what's to stop 10 terrorists getting on a plane with their legally owned and concealed weapons and taking over a plane? Because a couple people have weapons themselves, they're going to be Rambos and save the day?

"On the whole, citizens are more successful gun users than are the police. When police shoot, they are 5.5 times more likely to hit an innocent person than are civilian shooters." -- CATO Institute Policy Analysis No. 109, TRUST THE PEOPLE: THE CASE AGAINST GUN CONTROL, by David Kopel

That's just common sense, police use their weapon far more often than citizens do. I don't see what this has to do with weapons on a plane anyway.

I never thought I'd be arguing with people about allowing guns on a plane. I'm sure Congress has laughed at this one too.

 

DON'T FEAR DEATH.