DC v Heller decided

[das1330]

I live near Chicago. The suburbs of Chicago are known for their gang violence, drive by shootings, and unprovoked murders. Every day there's another sad story on the news of a teenage boy or girl being killed for what seems to be no reason, or was caught in the crossfire of a violent shootout, or was mistaken for another target. A young life brimming with potential for success being killed before his time to the violence of gun use. Every month in Chicago Public schools students hear that a fellow classmate has been killed. And after every one of these shootings a group of parents and fellow gun-ban supporters take to the streets in peaceful protest. Just today there was a protest on the cold blooded assault on an 8 year old boy in his stepfather's car. the kid took several bullets all over his body but somehow managed to survive. Its violence like this that give Chicago and its suburbs a bad name. Check out the History Channel's documentaries on gang violence. Chicago is the channel's favorite subject for its gang documentaries. For decades this has happened, innocent people being shot in cowardly drive-by shootings, where the criminal can easily drive away from the crime.

 

 

 

This sick violence has got to stop. I don't like the fact that I'm sitting here comfortable in my chair in my safe, cozy house when there are families out there who can easily have their children killed in cold blood on any given day. Second amendment my [wagon]. guns are protection from what? OTHER people with guns. If we can get these weapons off the street, then maybe one day a 12 year old girl can ride her bike down the street without being murdered in a drive-by shooting.

 

 

 

Getting weapons away from gang members is a good goal, but just banning guns in general is useless. By definition only legal gun transfers are affected by banning guns, and statistically very few legally purchased weapons are used in crimes (they tend to be stolen or smuggled weapons that are not legal or never were legal). If you can find a way to take guns away from gang members then you will reduce gun related murders, but as the UK's statistics show, banning guns will not reduce homicides; people will just turn to knives and other weapons.

[jackattack]

People use objects and possessions as definitions of their personalities (corporations used a lot of Freudian theories to develop ways to market the changing of a buy-what-you-need into a buy-what-you-want culture) therefore they really don't have a "use", as they see it, for introspection. As a result, there's not much under all of the materialistic "personality"... so in cases where there is no access to possessions, or the means to possessions, they are more willing to let the animalistic urges control them into doing naughty, naughty things.

 

 

 

Not only that, but we are also raised from a very early age to assign some sort of value, usually arbitrary, to everything we see. with this mindset, it's easier to have 'conditional compassion' where it becomes a cost/profit evaluation of who we are willing to be compassionate towards.

 

 

 

And, after all, is killing to keep a possession that much different than killing to take one?

 

 

 

Is that something you just learned in psychology class?

 

 

 

Anyway all gun laws do is take away peoples ability to defend themselves. Where I live the gun laws are so strict that it is probably easier to get a gun illegally than legally. Thats who they should focus on.

[warren211]

^^ its harder to kill people with knives instead of guns, unless your a professional knife murderer *cough*evil mumm ra*cough*

 

 

 

But yeah I'm hoping the Chicago Police can start going all out on gangs. The problem is they're usually outnumbered when they find a gang. Once at new years day (late 90s I think) a group of 300 gang members took to the streets. They didn't kill anyone (thankfully. but they could have raided every street within a 2 mile radius if they wanted to) and not nearly enough cops were on duty. To add to the audacity of the gang, they had their gathering right across from the fire department. Two cops had a video camera and recorded them firing into the air, drinking, and pushing eachother around. Had someone driven their car in the area, they would have been killed. Had the cops been seen, they'd have been killed. had anyone tried to stop them, they would have been killed. The year after, the police department managed to muster several hundred cops to watch the streets and thankfully no violence occured. If we had more manpower we could keep this night vigilante up for most days of the year, forcing gangs to watch their moves. Barack Obama had promised to try to increase numbers in Chicago police department and other gang central cities. I guess only time will show us what will happen.

[hoffman44]

yah, were i live i can go downtown and legally buy a fully automatic assault rifle. -.-

 

 

 

Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

Besides you can run away from a guy with a knife...

[jackattack]

Or you can shoot him. Who wants to get stabbed by some homeless guys aids knife in some dark alley in the tenderloin?

 

 

 

^^ its harder to kill people with knives instead of guns, unless your a professional knife murderer *cough*evil mumm ra*cough*

 

 

 

But yeah I'm hoping the Chicago Police can start going all out on gangs. The problem is they're usually outnumbered when they find a gang. Once at new years day (late 90s I think) a group of 300 gang members took to the streets. They didn't kill anyone (thankfully. but they could have raided every street within a 2 mile radius if they wanted to) and not nearly enough cops were on duty. To add to the audacity of the gang, they had their gathering right across from the fire department. Two cops had a video camera and recorded them firing into the air, drinking, and pushing eachother around. Had someone driven their car in the area, they would have been killed. Had the cops been seen, they'd have been killed. had anyone tried to stop them, they would have been killed. The year after, the police department managed to muster several hundred cops to watch the streets and thankfully no violence occured. If we had more manpower we could keep this night vigilante up for most days of the year, forcing gangs to watch their moves. Barack Obama had promised to try to increase numbers in Chicago police department and other gang central cities. I guess only time will show us what will happen.

 

 

 

They should enforce the laws that are already there. I think the one handgun a month thing is a good idea.

[das1330]

yah, were i live i can go downtown and legally buy a fully automatic assault rifle. -.-

 

 

 

Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

Besides you can run away from a guy with a knife...

 

 

 

Where do you live? In the US there is a waiting period of a few weeks on machine guns, and in Canada (as your signature suggests) Machine guns are banned altogether.

 

 

 

@ warren, while it might be reasonable to think that banning guns would lower the murder rate (as its easier to kill someone with a gun then a knife) statistics from countries like the UK show that after banning almost all guns, the murder rate went up - 20 - 30% in just a few years. Even in countries where there actually is no guns whatsoever for the populace (where even illegal ones are hard to come by) like Japan mass stabbings still kill lots of people. Just a few months ago a 20 somthing guy went on a rampage and stabbed 7 people to death, and critically injured another 17. (source = http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812808,00.html)

[hoffman44]

yah, were i live i can go downtown and legally buy a fully automatic assault rifle. -.-

 

 

 

Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

Besides you can run away from a guy with a knife...

 

 

 

Where do you live? In the US there is a waiting period of a few weeks on machine guns, and in Canada (as your signature suggests) Machine guns are banned altogether.

 

 

 

 

I state right were i currently live in that post. ;)

[das1330]

yah, were i live i can go downtown and legally buy a fully automatic assault rifle. -.-

 

 

 

Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

Besides you can run away from a guy with a knife...

 

 

 

Where do you live? In the US there is a waiting period of a few weeks on machine guns, and in Canada (as your signature suggests) Machine guns are banned altogether.

 

 

 

 

I state right were i currently live in that post. ;)

 

 

 

Then you need to use a regular sized font. Nevertheless, my first post still stands. The law that requires several weeks for a machine gun transfer is a federal law, not a state one.

[Zierro]

And, after all, is killing to keep a possession that much different than killing to take one?

 

 

 

Yes. Big difference. I agree with everything TheKiller said. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but at least two wrongs can prevent a third or fourth or even hundredth wrong.

 

 

 

Sorry, but if someone broke into my house and started attacking my family, then my sense of morality is going to fly out the window. I really don't care if the burglar had a hard life and he's a product of a bad society. Call me self-centered, but all I would care about is my family's welfare. If you want to say that the burglar was exposed to a bad society and that's why he's attacking us, then I can say I'm exposed to the burglar's act of violence and that's why I'm attacking him.

[RichieMcD]

Guns are needed in countries like America as simply, it's to easy for a criminal to gain access to a gun, so the common citizen needs it for protection. This I think is the problem with legalizing guns which aren't for hunting purposes, it becomes easy for the criminal to access guns, and thus the common citizen needs a gun for protection from the criminal.

 

 

 

Here in Ireland and the UK we have a minimal gun problem compared to the USA, I think this is due to the fact that guns other than hunting rifles and shotguns can only be sourced illegally, making it much harder for criminals to posses a gun, and thus the common citizen not having a need for a gun.

[rushrock]

I think it's a riot that it's any other way: The people have a right to bear arms. It's good that they made that decision.

[magekillr]

I addressed that earlier. It was my second post here.

 

 

 

All you did was say that you believe in non-violence and believe that examples are irrelevant. In fact, they are quite relevant, as that just might happen. You gave no reason for believing what you do.

 

 

 

Why would I need a reason? How obvious is it that I do not condone violence to be pressed with violent "solutions".

 

 

 

Is that something you just learned in psychology class?

 

 

 

No, it's called logical reasoning.

 

 

 

Yes. Big difference.

 

 

 

How so? If somebody's robbing me - and it's happened - there are a variety of techniques, schema's, what have you, that, through the application of your human reason, you can use to understand being robbed with compassion. I know this is all probably way over your head - people who think in terms of shooting intruders to their homes being a really hot idea tend to sneer at the mention of compassion as connected to political or legal discourse. Somebody jacks my bike, I can either go 'That's a shame. What a miserable life that person must be leading, and how much better off I am. Poor bastard obviously needed that bike more than I did, even if just to get more drugs. What a damn shame.' or I can choose to get afflicted, to slay, to lash out, to brood on my victimization, etc. etc.

[ember3579]

Gun laws... Whoo, boy... This particular section of the legal books has been giving people migraines for CENTURIES.

 

 

 

The side FOR gun sanctions is worried about the ease of which someone could go buy a random gun from a store and blow someone's brains out, or an accident involving children or "emotionally or mentally challenged".

 

 

 

The side AGAINST gun sanctions is worried about the ease of which someone who has a now-illegal gun could do bad things to someone who followed the law by turning in their firearm(s), as well as the hindrances to things like some sports and hunting.

 

 

 

I'd prefer to have gun laws forbid only the overly destructive weapons (rocket launchers, flame throwers, machine guns, etc.), let people have the lowest ranked weapons (.22 cal weapons, some small arms, most rifles/shotguns) unsanctioned (not very dangerous, and you can't exactly hide a bolt action down your pants-leg ;) ), and the middle-of-the-road artillery (handguns of medium strength and up, strongest rifles/shotguns, automatic equipment, revolvers) requires a license. A training course is available for free for the non-sanctioned weaponry, and the licensed weapons are fairly cheap (USD 50$ sounds good to me) to get certified. However, if you have done any violent crimes, you need to be licensed for ALL firearms to be able to keep them, and some are banned for your use for an amount of time based on your crime. If you commit an appropriate type or number of crimes while you're sanctioned, you are FORBIDDEN from owning another firearm.

[Range_This11]

I think everyone should watch THIS movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/

 

 

 

It just proves to you that no matter what it takes, people will get their hands on guns. Legal or Illegal.

[RichieMcD]

Just thinking about it now, I see no reason why a person would need to own a automatic rifle or assault rifle for protection purposes. They're not used for hunting and a handgun is more than enough for protection purposes, if they're going to outlaw guns, they should really outlaw the unneeded guns at least.

[Zierro]

What a damn shame.' or I can choose to get afflicted, to slay, to lash out, to brood on my victimization, etc. etc.

 

 

 

And what's wrong with that in an already unfair playing field? Maybe you might feel remorseful, but if someone was putting my family in danger and I had to take care of business I wouldn't feel a tad of regret. It just shows that I care more about my family than someone who was trying to hurt us. They made the choice of wronging us, knowing the consequences.

 

 

 

If it came down to it and I robbed a house, I wouldn't be angry if the owner shot at me. I was intruding, and scaring him. Do bees not sting when threatened?

[Mischlings]

I addressed that earlier. It was my second post here.

 

 

 

All you did was say that you believe in non-violence and believe that examples are irrelevant. In fact, they are quite relevant, as that just might happen. You gave no reason for believing what you do.

 

 

 

Why would I need a reason? How obvious is it that I do not condone violence to be pressed with violent "solutions".

 

 

 

Yes. Big difference.

 

 

 

How so? If somebody's robbing me - and it's happened - there are a variety of techniques, schema's, what have you, that, through the application of your human reason, you can use to understand being robbed with compassion. I know this is all probably way over your head - people who think in terms of shooting intruders to their homes being a really hot idea tend to sneer at the mention of compassion as connected to political or legal discourse. Somebody jacks my bike, I can either go 'That's a shame. What a miserable life that person must be leading, and how much better off I am. Poor bastard obviously needed that bike more than I did, even if just to get more drugs. What a damn shame.' or I can choose to get afflicted, to slay, to lash out, to brood on my victimization, etc. etc.

 

 

 

Stop claiming moral superiority, for one.

 

 

 

It's possible to have far too much compassion, as you seem to do. Compassion is not always a positive attribute. If your bike is stolen, the bottom line is that you have one less bike than you did before. It's human nature to want to get it back, lash out, try and find the person who stole it and get it back. It's morally wrong to steal, no matter how or why it happened. You have the right to be angry, to take it up with law enforcement, get it back, etc. etc.

 

 

 

I don't sneer at compassion, I just do not see being possible victim of violence as the time to have compassion on someone. Regardless of why it's happening, someone is about to assault/kill you. If your compassion has destroyed the instinct of self-preservation, I pity you.

[magekillr]

Stop claiming moral superiority, for one.

 

 

 

I never did. If that's your inference, that's your issue.

 

 

 

It's possible to have far too much compassion, as you seem to do. Compassion is not always a positive attribute. If your bike is stolen, the bottom line is that you have one less bike than you did before. It's human nature to want to get it back, lash out, try and find the person who stole it and get it back. It's morally wrong to steal, no matter how or why it happened. You have the right to be angry, to take it up with law enforcement, get it back, etc. etc.

 

 

 

I disagree. You're right, it is intrinsically in our nature as an evolved species to follow those measures; after all we're just another animal. However, where humans differ from the other species that dwell on this planet (such as bees :roll: ) is their ability to reason.

 

 

 

I don't sneer at compassion, I just do not see being possible victim of violence as the time to have compassion on someone.

 

 

 

That's great for you, but it's a level of feelings that I don't wish to have, nor to be consumed by.

 

 

 

someone is about to assault/kill you. If your compassion has destroyed the instinct of self-preservation, I pity you.

 

 

 

I utterly reject your false hypothetical dichotomy. What are you going to do now?

[Zierro]

So then you are saying since the bees don't have the ability to reason they are making the wrong choice? Actually, bees earned themselves the reputation of a bug we don't want to mess with.

 

 

 

Besides, we are reasoning - reasoning that it's okay to defend yourself and others.