First of all, I don’t own a gun, have never owned a gun and never intend to own a gun. I am a pacifist. What sparked this title was the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is going to hear a case about the handgun ban in the District of Columbia. They last heard a case about the Second Amendment nearly 70 years ago. None of the sitting justices have heard a Second Amendment case, so we have no idea which way this will go.
The text of the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This has led to great controversy about the impact the phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” has on the second part of the Amendment. If it simply stated, ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,’ we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I think it’s fairly clear why the Amendment was added. Our country was founded through a violent popular revolution. Had the ordinary citizen not been able to own guns, our history would be quite different. That being said, arms in those days were muzzle-loading muskets over 3 feet long. In addition, hunting was a necessary part of survival; the banning of guns would have left thousands starving.
Fast-forward to today. A handgun can be concealed damn near anywhere. The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill/harm a person. It’s not like you’re going to go after that 10-point stag with a 9mm Glock. One of the prevailing arguments for owning a handgun is self-protection. However, that argument has been solidly squashed. The instances where someone actually used their gun to successfully defend themselves against a home invader or an attacker are quite small. Far more people are killed either accidentally or deliberately with those same handguns purchased to protect them.
That all being said, I’m actually ambivalent about this issue. Some times I feel quite libertarian and want the government to get the hell out of my life. On the other hand, I can quite clearly see the need for government regulation to protect vulnerable populations. In this case, does the need to reduce death and injury by handguns override the “right” of people to possess something designed exclusively for the death of another human being?
Maybe I’m not so ambivalent. Britain seems to have done quite well banning handguns. I don’t see their people suffering greatly from their inability to “defend themselves”. At any rate, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out with a right-wing court.
#1 by Mr. Constitution on September 24, 2010 - 8:32 pm
Im curious to know where you get your numbers to back up your quote " The instances where someone actually used their gun to successfully defend themselves against a home invader or an attacker are quite small."
#2 by Mr. Constitution on September 24, 2010 - 8:37 pm
The National Acadamies Press stated, Quote: "Over the past decade, researchers have attempted to measure the prevalence of defensive gun use in the population. This measurement problem has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.
#3 by Mr. Constitution on September 24, 2010 - 8:38 pm
Orange County Register, "It was the sort of incident that never makes it into the official crime statistics – that is, an incident in which a crime may have been prevented by a firearm.
It happened earlier this month in Irvine. Police were looking for a man suspected of raping an 18-year-old woman in her home. As the cops searched, the fleeing suspect, a 27-year-old L.A. gang member, tried to hide by breaking into another home. Inside, the homeowner, a man who had recently undergone defensive firearms training, heard the commotion, grabbed a handgun and confronted the suspect.
The homeowner didn't shoot the alleged rapist, although legally he almost certainly could have. If someone breaks into your home, and you have a justifiable fear that he might kill or harm you or someone else, you have a right to defend yourself with lethal force."
#4 by Mr. Constitution on September 24, 2010 - 8:39 pm
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
#5 by Mr. Constitution on September 24, 2010 - 8:49 pm
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare — well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
Sourse "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
#6 by Mr. Constitution on September 24, 2010 - 8:52 pm
My wife and I are gun owners with permits to carry concealed weapons. In addition to my wife I have a six year old daughter. There is nothing in this world more valuable than the love and safety of my family, and though I cannot decide (God forbid) if or when they will be taken from me, I will defend them till my own death and if that includes taking the life of someone who would take the life of my wife and child then so be it.
I respect the fact and your opinion that you do not wish to carry a fire arm in your own personnal defence. Do you think that will stop the meth addict from breaking into your home and hurting you or your family? ( taken from the head lines"Waipahu Hawaii meth addict pleads guilty to ax murder"). Do you think a phycotic will listen to your pleas of reason? I know of a man who tried the very same thing and the man had his throat and back slashed with a box cutter even after smashing his attacker in the face with a cast iron skillet to no avail. The attacker was later found to be a meth addict and this was the second attack of this nature. THE SECOND TIME HE HAD DONE THIS TYPE OF CRIME! How safe do you feel now. ( see: I survived for the story )
#7 by Mr. Constitution on September 24, 2010 - 8:56 pm
In todays day in age the Government agencies are under staffed due to budget constraints. They are there to sift through the bloody crime scene and pick up the shells left by the people who don't care about laws, or family, or what is right and just. The people who go through the process of finger printing and following the laws to get a weapons permit to defend themselves and their families are not the people running around holding up banks, corner stores, and homes to get their next crack or meth fix. These crimes don't just happen in bad neighborhoods. These crimes happen in good and bad neighbor hoods, churches, and schools. Day care centers and Walmarts. You may not want to stand up and fight for your rights Sir, but stay out of the way of me exersising mine. If that's the far right, well I'd rather be far right than on the left, naive and in the dark with out a fire arm. I hope you never find yourself in a situation where you wind up wishing that you had a fire arm to save you. As for myself, I won't have to wonder if it would make a difference or not, because I will have one. You can have my weapon when I'm out of ammunition, and then you can pry it from my cold dead fingers.