User: The Chess Unit

Sorry, I've been a little busy- I'll reply soon.

bubbaboy00, we've already talked about 9/11, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc., and you ignore that terrorists and criminals can easily become teachers, pilots, etc. and have easy access to arms. In turn, giving arms for emergency situations mandates significant background checks, along with surveillance to prevent arms from being leaked to malicious sources. A lack of such measures would cause many more catastrophe's than just the one on 9/11, and taking such security measures essentially constitutes a secret police force. 9/11 would have been prevented had national airport security been competent: effectively screening for weapons and eliminating such things is a much better method than hoping for a victory in an in-flight gun battle.

Unregulated use of guns is unconstitutional (you ignored my "well-regulated" argument) and unsafe.

After all, you say:

"Killing someone in self defence is morally acceptable, but killing someone over a spilled drink or a lost traveler is not self defense!"

You assume we can automatically determine who will use guns legitimately, when you're only arming criminals and making everyone live in a state of fear (like my nuclear war example in my first post here). A police force enforces the law, as the name force suggests. We give them arms and cop cars to catch criminals and prevent crime. By doing so, they eliminate the need for people to self-defend themselves. Even though a police officer cannot stand in front of your house and directly defend you, people still don't attack you because they take on the high risk of being caught. Allowing easy gun access to criminals only makes their job harder (as I've said before) and motivates criminals to commit crimes knowing it is easier for them to carry out illegal tasks and harder for them to get caught.

You continually ignore my statistics regarding how gun control has decreased crime in European nations, how too many criminal guns come from licensed dealers, and the comparatively high US crime rate, to name some. Plus the bit about constitutionality. How can you expect people or the government to support gun deregulation if it's shown to increase crime and fear? You can't ignore these aspects.

Hitler said the same thing about the Jews...

You arbitrarily choose which people are "useful" based on their benefit to you, an industrialized, urbanized American- it's your fault that you demand so many resources, and are willing to massacre others to get it. All races deserve to live regardless of a different lifestyle- if you want less people, have less babies.

First of all, it's better that you cite your statistics. I'm not assuming that they are from shady sources, but I or anyone else reading this does not know this. Even legitimately gathered statistics can often conflict.

Anyway, about constitutionality. You put this quote up yourself: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the WHOLE people, except for a few public officers." Like I said before, a militia is a group of citizens that arises in a time of need to combat an enemy. You as an individual may be part of a militia, but you are not a militia on your own. You say:

The "collective rights" interpretation is a product of the mid-twentieth century, invented by gun control advocates and trumped by activist judges to justify their gun laws, which would otherwise be struck down in court in a heartbeat."

But did you actually say the interpretation is false? No. All you said is that it is used by gun control advocates. Just because something is used as an argument does not make it false.

However, you say the National Guard interpretation is a warping of the second amendment. Remember, the amendment calls for a ＷＥＬＬ－ＲＥＧＵＬＡＴＥＤ militia. The state does have some control over these civilian militias then, and therefore well-regulating the flow of arms to a militia, or consolidating them, is Constitutional. Remember that the US had a very small national army at the time of the Constitutional Convention (in fact, militia men accounted for a significant bulk of the Revolutionary army)- localized enforcement was the only option.Even if you don't believe the "militia" has become the National Guard, the states still have control over localized, un-federalized militias. Our founding fathers intentionally put in the words "well-regulated." Besides, they lived centuries before us. They probably would have been horrified at the integration of schools, or women's suffrage, so they don't automatically stand for what is right. The Constitution does not change (as in wording, etc.), but US lawmaking (based on the Constitution) changes over time (for example, adding prohibitions on fraud versus just a prohibition on physical stealing). Remember that the Constitution nor the Bill or Rights are law itself; but rather, guidelines for making laws.

Here's why I want to know where you're stats come from. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), a report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale."

The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

From Dan Noyes, Center for Investigative Reporting:

"Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street."

So even if a gun finally ends up being sold illegally, too many guns end up coming from licensed arms dealers. The guns have to come from somewhere, and FFL's are an easy candy store to get them from. Even if you argue that the black market could produce guns illegally, it's not so simple. It's not so easy to "bootleg" guns and copy advanced designs, get equipment, and get started without getting caught when you could just rob the local store. Why do robbers steal from banks rather than make counterfeit money on their own?

Another reason I want sources is due to crime reporting in New York and DC. The DC ban of certain guns in 1976 has actually saved 47 lives per year according to the New England Journal of Medicine. That's over 1,000 people over more than 20 years. As for the Sullivan Act of 1911, it was corruptly enforced and is not a good example for the abilities of gun control.

Compare this to Europe, where more gun control (compared to the US) has also resulted in more police restrictions (such as an officer can only retrieve a gun in dire situations). As a result, the crime rate has fallen, such as in Britain, about 27% in 2002 after the handgun ban in 1997 (British Crime Survey). This goes back to my argument about gun control simultaneously decreasing the need for a powerful, abusive police.

First of all, I'm not saying that we must completely ban guns from America. Of course there are legitimate uses by the right people, but what I am arguing for is a much more proactive role from the government.

First, it would be a mistake to say that guns save some lives and take others. Like I've said before, for the more guns out there, the more we need to defend ourselves with stronger means. The US still has one of the highest crime rates compared to other first world countries, along with our higher gun ownership (as I've said before). The fact that more people have to use guns defensively is only further indicator of the astronomically higher crime rate the US has as a result of private gun ownership. Right to conceal cannot yet be attributed to reducing crime because so little permits are issued.

Of course cities will have more crime than rural areas. There are more people, and more crime targets. There are no gangs, banks, or markets for narcotics in rural areas. It's a comparison of apples and oranges. It's not a great payoff to hold up Farmer Bob for his three pigs and a goat.

It's impossible to catch all criminals, a task only made harder by their possession of easily obtained guns through lenient background checks and straw purchases. If it was so easy to nab criminals, we wouldn't have this whole gun debate in the first place.

On top of that, you can't assume the Second Amendment to automatically support full gun rights based on the second half of the statement. It only grants right to arms to militias, or armies of civilians (not individual citizens), which no longer exist and are generally believed to now exist as the National Guard. The random individual who goes to the store to buy a gun is not a militia.