Assault Weapons Must Be Banned
When you watch this video think about those who needlessly died yet again because of America’s obsession with guns. Seven people wounded, two dead. The largest mass shooting in the history of Miami. The National Rifle Association (NRA) should be so proud today. More dead and they and their members are to blame.
The bloodbath in Liberty City was the result of an assault rifle-wielding murderer who unleashed a spree of bullets on people playing an exceedingly dangerous game of street dice. I am quite certain that it was self defense because if one of the dice had hit him, it would have really hurt.
According to the Miami Herald, the teenagers who were slain were Brandon T. Mills, 16, and Derrick ”Termite” Gloster, 18. They “were part of a large crowd of about 50 people who gathered around a street craps game Friday evening.”
The games had been going for hours, witnesses said, first in the parking lot of a three-story dilapidated apartment building known for drug sales. Then it moved across the street, next to Brewton’s grocery store.
There, Kenya Coles, 25, and her sister had gone to pick up spicy potato chips and a soda. As they paid at the counter, Kendra said she noticed a man outside pulling a gun from his waistband.
”Big, like an AK-47,” she said.
Just before 10 p.m., the attacker ambushed the crowd with the weapon. Past a small apartment building and the Pavilion Laundromat, a second burst of gunfire erupted behind the Miracle Fry Conchfritter eatery.
Joan Rutherford, 45, was warming up chicken and rice at her next door apartment. She dove to ground, then ran outside along with more onlookers.
One teen lay on the ground, gasping for air, cash clenched in his fist, Rutherford said. ”His face was totally gone. The aroma of blood was in the air,” she said. “I’ve never been in the service but it was like combat, like Vietnam.”
One of the wounded teens was Andrew Jackson, 16, shot in the buttocks. He lay on his stomach on the sidewalk when his mother came rushing to him.
‘He was just calling out to me, `Mommy! Mommy!’ ” said mother Danielle Coles, 45.
Mayor Manny Diaz has stated publicly that AK-47s are weapons of war and have no place in the city of Miami or any other city. They have no place in a civilized society. This is an epidemic that must end. We have already had a ban on assault weapons and and CNN reports that assault weapon crimes have surged to 29% of all crimes since the ban expired.
The city leaders who gathered included Mayor Manny Diaz, Chief John Timoney, Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones and Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvahlo.
Diaz decried state and federal governments for slashing budgets that provide programs for inner-city youths. Carvahlo, noting some victims hailed from Northwestern High, stressed extra security and counselors would be at the school Monday.
All decried the lack of government restriction on assault rifles increasingly used in Miami murders. ”These are weapons of war. They don’t belong on the streets of Miami or any other city in America,” Diaz said.
Thanks to the NRA and their members for your blind indifference to the violence and death caused by your support of assault weapons, which are weapons of war that are too available in our society and which has yet again taken a terrible toll.
New Post-Election Poll Shows Strong Voter Support for Gun Laws
According to a National Post-Election Omnibus Survey, support for sensible gun laws is strong, not only among those who voted for Obama, but also among McCain voters.
The poll, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland, found that 3 in 4 (76%) voters favor reasonable gun regulations in general, with 4 in 5 (83%) who favor Brady criminal background checks for all gun sales, including 84% of McCain voters and gun owners. The results also highlight that the NRA had little sway over voters. The findings indicate that sensible gun legislation is a unique opportunity for the Obama Administration to build bridges to moderate voters in both parties.
| 2008 ELECTION POLLING – BY THE NUMBERS | |
| 83% | A majority of voters surveyed favor Brady criminal background checks. |
| 67% | A majority of voters indicated that reasonable gun laws should be adopted in the first year of the next Administration. |
Gun Deaths and Injury – The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence
- In 2005, 30,694 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 12,352 were murdered; 17,002 killed themselves; 789 were accidents; 330 died by police intervention, and in 221, the intent was unknown. 6 In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.7
- An additional 71,417 people were shot and survived their injuries — 52,748 people injured in an attack; 3,190 people injured in a suicide attempt; 14,678 people shot accidentally, and 801 people shot in a police intervention.8
- In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73 people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.9 In comparison, firearms were used to murder 11,344 in the United States.10
- In 2006, there were only 154 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.11
Gun Violence – Young Lives Cut Short
- In 2005, nearly 8 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday.12
- In 2005, firearm homicide was the second leading cause of injury death for men and women 10-24 years of age – second only to motor vehicle crashes.13
- In 2005, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.14
- From 1999 through 2005, an average of over 1,000 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.15
- Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not reached their 18th birthdays took someone’s life with a gun.16
Guns in the Home – A Greater Risk to Family and Friends
- For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.17
- The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.18
- The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.19
The Economic Costs of Gun Violence – All Americans Pay a High Price
- A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.20
- The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter.21
- At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by taxpayer dollars.22,23
April 2008 Endnotes: 1. National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago, Public Attitudes towards the Regulation of Firearms, 1, March 2007 (hereafter Public Attitudes). 2. Public Attitudes, Figure 2; Violence Policy Center, A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America, 2, April 2007 (citing Public Attitudes, additional data from NORC). 3. L Hepburn, M Miller, D Hemenway, “The U. S. Gun Stock: Results from the 2004 National Firearms Survey,” Injury Prevention 13 (2007): 15-19 . 4. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on firearms ownership and use. Police Foundation. Washington DC. 1996. 5. US Department of the Treasury. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Commerce in Firearms in the United States, February 2000. http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/020400report.pdf 6. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2005 data, http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html (hereafter Injury Mortality Reports). 7. Combat Area Casualty Figures. Center for Electronic Records. National Archives. 8. WISQARS, Nonfatal Injury Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2006 data, http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html. 9. Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Canadian Crime Statistics, Australian Crime – Facts & Figures 2004, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention – Criminal Statistics 2004, Statistics New Zealand. 10. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports. 11. FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2005, Expanded Homicide Table 14, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html. 12. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports, 2005. 13. WISQARS, Leading Causes of Death Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2005 data, http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html. 14. Ibid. 15. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports, 2005. 16. Supplemental Homicide Data provided to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 17. Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. “Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.”The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267. 18. Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.” N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091. 19. Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. “Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership.” N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472. 20. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Gun Violence: The Real Costs. New York, NY. Oxford University Press; 2000. 21. Lengel A. “The price of urban violence.” The Washington Post. December 28, 1997;B1. 22. Rice M. “Shooting in the dark: estimating the cost of firearm injuries.” Health Affairs. 1993;12:171-185. 23. Wintemute GJ, Wright MA. “Initial and subsequent hospital costs of firearm injuries.” The Journal of Trauma. 1992;34:556-560.
Anyone with information on the shootings can call Miami’s homicide bureau at 305-579-6530 or Miami-Dade CrimeStoppers at 305-471-TIPS.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
I notice that my comments have been removed. Were they offensive? I was merely making inquiries.
Reply: Not at all. Please re-post if you want. I was having issues and deleted part of a revised post and your comments. Maybe too many screens open. Sorry.
Dimensio
January 24, 2009 at 8:12 pm
“For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.17″
It should be noted that Kellerman’s study is inherently flawed. Kellerman only considered “self-defense” incidents where an aggressor was killed, while ignoring incidents where an aggressor was merely wounded or not injured at all. The majority of successful incidents of self-defense where a firearm is employed result in no individual being injured, as the presence of the firearm itself is often sufficient to deter an attack.
I note also that you make mention of criminal background checks; these checks are not controversial. The NRA supported their instatement, and supported legislation passed in 2007 that made these checks more thorough and more efficient. It is not reasonable to criticize the National Rifle Association for their position on an issue that you and they both evidently share.
Reply: My post is not about the background checks and I have no comment on that. They have been successful. My post focuses on the unnecessary havoc that assualt weapons bring on inner cities such as Miami and unnecesarily so.
You and I disagree on this Dimension. We will have to agree to disagree I think on this one because you can argue the two sides of this all you want, but Mayors of large cities want a ban and so does everyone I know. We don’t need them. they are weapons of war.
Dimensio
January 24, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“You and I disagree on this Dimension. We will have to agree to disagree I think on this one because you can argue the two sides of this all you want, but Mayors of large cities want a ban and so does everyone I know.”
The desire for such a ban does not itself demonstrate that such a ban is rational.
” We don’t need them.”
“Need” is irrelevant. You must justify a restriction of their ownership. Reply: No I do not need to justify. One death from a completely unnecessary weapon is enough.
” they are weapons of war.” Reply: The AK-47 used in this crime is a weapon of war.
I am aware of few, if any, militaries that employ the use of semi-automatic firearms when select-fire firearms, from which the semi-automatic firearms were derived, are more readily available and more appropriate for combat.
Firearms were classified as “assault weapons” based solely upon the presence of two or more entirely cosmetic features. Firearms chambered for the same ammunition and featuring the same rate of fire that possessed only one of those cosmetic features were not considered “assault weapons” and thus could be legally manufactured and sold. These firearms are popular hunting and recreational target shooting rifles, demonstrating legitame purpose for their ownership. Additionally, as nearly any firearm that was classified by law as an “assault weapon” is a rifle, and as rifles are less commonly involved in any homicide than any other class of firearm — and, for that matter, less commonly than bare hands and feet — it is difficult to argue that there exists any “epidemic” of homicides resulting from the legal availablity of “assault weapons”, and thus it may be difficult to justify informing literally millions of law-abiding firearms owners that they are in possession of “weapons of war”. Would you propose even allowing them to retain possession of currently legally owned “assault weapons”, or would you recommend government confiscation of such firearms, even though the vast majority of them are not and will never be involved in any violent crime?
I would suggest that it is not the legal availability of “assault weapons” that are directly responsible for violence in inner cities. Cook County, Illinois has instituted a complete “assault weapons ban”, yet the inner cities of Chicago still experience a disproportionate level of violent crime, including homicide. I would therefore suggest that other factors contributing to violent crime be examined and addressed before a ban on some of the most popular civilian target and hunting rifles in the United States is seriously considered.
Reply: Both the police and mayors want them banned. That is good enough for me. if I were a police officer, I would resent having to worry about criminals using the,. They are unnecessary.
You have blamed the National Rifle Association for this incident, yet you have provided no explanation of their culpability. What, specifically, has the National Rifle Association done that has enabled this particular shooting?
Reply : The NRA and its members, as I am sure that you are aware, have enabled situations like these to happen because of the massive lobbying money that they pump into Congress to prevent rational gun control from being enacted, but those efforts were thwarted in District of Colombia v. Heller, at least in part. The NRA can no longer claim that gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.
I will note also that I am able to locate no reference that corroborates the claim, purportedly made by CNN, that “assault weapon crimes have surged to 29% of all crimes since the ban expired”. Such a surge would seem to be impossible, given the low frequency in which any rifle — of which “assault weapons” must be a smaller subset — is used in a crime; how can “assault weapons” be involved in nearly one-third of all crimes when the larger set of which they are a member is involved in less than three percent of all homicide offenses? Considering that many crimes involve no firearms at all, it would seem as though the 29% figure is either a misunderstanding or a fabrication.
Reply: Well, I don’t fabricate. I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and that was something he said. Perhaps I misunderstood, perhaps not. Even if this statistic is too high as you say, I still say that one life is too many and Dimension you never defend that because you cannot defend the indefensible. I’ll accept your apology for calling me a liar.
Dimensio
January 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm
“No I do not need to justify. One death from a completely unnecessary weapon is enough.”
On the contrary. The “death” was caused by the shooter who utilized the firearm. Declaring that the firearms are “unnecessary”, in spite of their demonstrable use for recreational shooting and for hunting, demonstrates only ignorance of reality.
Reply: There is no need for assault weapons for “recreational” shooting. While the death was caused by the shooter, if the AK-47 had been more difficult to ghet, it reduces the possibility of use, as you well know
” Reply: The AK-47 used in this crime is a weapon of war.”
Please identify the specific war or wars in which the specific firearm used in the shooting has been involved.
Reply: This is ridiculous. The AK-47 is a military weapon and you know that,
“Reply: Both the police and mayors want them banned. That is good enough for me.”
Only some police officers wish to see a reinstatement of the “assault weapons ban”. Many others oppose such a reinstatement. Many police officers are themselves owners of such “assault weapons”.
Reply: The conference of mayors and the majority of polce do not want to have to face criminals using them and I don’t blame them. As I have said, one life is too many. You have never refuted that. You can’t.
” if I were a police officer, I would resent having to worry about criminals using the,.”
Given how rarely such firearms are misused, your concern would not be rational.
Reply: That is really no response at all.
” They are unnecessary.”
As I have noted, your assertion is demonstrably false. Additionally, a demonstration of “necessity” is not required for the continued exercise of a right.
Reply: Gun control is Constitutional. There is no need and given the societal benefit of saving lives, that is enough.
“Reply : The NRA and its members, as I am sure that you are aware, have enabled situations like these to happen because of the massive lobbying money that they pump into Congress to prevent rational gun control from being enacted,”
Can you identify the specific “rational gun control” that the NRA has prevented?
Reply: I can, but will do that later. I think this is preposterous though. Anyone living in the US knows that the NRA sponsors political candidates and they they just got socked in the last election.
” but those efforts were thwarted in District of Colombia v. Heller, at least in part. The NRA can no longer claim that gun control laws violate the Second Amendment.”
Please explain how you have derived this conclusion. Are you saying that you agreed with the high court that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that any attempt to prohibit the possession of firearms that are “in common use” — which would include many firearms that may be classified as “assault weapons” — is unconstitutional?
Reply: I agree with the court that gun control laws are constitutional.
“Reply: Well, I don’t fabricate. I was watching Don Lemon on CNN and that was something he said. Perhaps I misunderstood, perhaps not. Even if this statistic is too high as you say, I still say that one life is too many and Dimension you never defend that because you cannot defend the indefensible. I’ll accept your apology for calling me a liar.”
I need apologize for nothing apart from being unclear. I was not accusing you of making the fabrication, I was merely noting that the statistic itself appears to be a fabrication, not that you yourself had fabricated the claim. Additionally, you have yet to demonstrate that an “assault weapons ban” would have prevented any deaths at all; given that the now expired federal ban prohibited the manufacture of firearms possessing two or more listed cosmetic features, while allowing the manufacture of firearms capable of the same rate of fire should they possess only one of the listed features and also allowing the continued ownership and sale of any firearm manufactured prior to the enactment of the ban, I do not understand how a reinstatement of the ban would have prevented any crime, even if I were to accept (and I do not) that it is the legal availability of semi-automatic rifles that inherently cause crime, and not the motives of the criminals who misuse a very small subset of them. I will note also that I could propose a number of restrictions of freedom that could potentially “save lives” that many individuals would find objectionable, such as the suspension of habeus corpus, or the allowance of searches and wiretaps without first securing a warrant.
Reply: Dimensio, we need to agree to disagree and move on.
Dimensio
January 25, 2009 at 1:07 am
thank you
this is good therad
Reply: Thank you for coming.
cep oyunları
January 25, 2009 at 5:59 am
“Reply: This is ridiculous. The AK-47 is a military weapon and you know that,”
The context of what you refer to as an “AK-47″ is not in fact accurate. The semi-automatic AK-47 pattern rifle is not a military rifle; unless it was imported or domestically produced prior to 1968. 99.9% (or more) of AK-47 pattern rifles owned in the United States are semi-automatic, not military, rifles.
Equating the two is common but very careless reporting; it’s about as accurate as saying a Hummer is a military transport vehicle.
Reply: The Hummer was based on a military vehicle. Second, as for the technical aspect of whether the assault weapons used in war are identical to the ones used by citizens misses the point. These sort of automatic weapons that have the capacity to spray hundreds of bullets into unsuspecting people are totally unnecessary.
Grond
January 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm
“Reply: The Hummer was based on a military vehicle. Second, as for the technical aspect of whether the assault weapons used in war are identical to the ones used by citizens misses the point. These sort of automatic weapons that have the capacity to spray hundreds of bullets into unsuspecting people are totally unnecessary.”
Exactly the point. A basic HMMWV (military vehicle) is quite different than a Hummer; 24-volt electrical system, CARC, even a different type of engine. Cosmetically, they look similar but are no where close to the same utility.
Reply: Yawn. But they still drive and are capable of killing people.
The comparison holds true–an AK-47 pattern rifle is no more similar to a Kalashnikov AK-47. Semi-automatic: one pull of the trigger per shot (excepting slamfires). An AK-47 pattern rifle has no more ability to “spray hundreds of bullets” than a pump shotgun.
Regarding the “necessity”–that is purely subjective. There is no necessity to own motorcycles–and they cause thousands of injuries and deaths per year–yet there is very little public outcry to have them banned. Similarly, roller coasters and horror movies are not necessities but are contributors to injuries and deaths.
Reply: There is no necessity of having motorcycles but you are comparing apples and oranges Grond. A motorcycle is not a gun. The argument about roller coasters and horror movies is so attenuated, I’ll not bother.
Have a good day Grond!
Grond
January 25, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“These sort of automatic weapons that have the capacity to spray hundreds of bullets into unsuspecting people are totally unnecessary.”
I think you are missing the point. The type of AK used in Miami is NOT an automatic weapon. It is NOT capable of spraying hundreds of bullets. It is functionally no different than my grandpa’s hunting rifle. Not only that it is less powerful and has less accuracy.
The reason NRA members such as myself are so staunchly against a renewed AWB is not necessarily that I own or want a so-called “assault weapon” myself. However, since we know there is NO functional difference between the weapons to be banned and the weapons we find useful, it will only be a matter of time before you come after those as well. Give an inch and you’ll take a mile.
Reply: If that is the case no one would regulate anything so that is hardly a good argument. Regulations serve a valid purpose and there already was an assault weapon ban and guns were still available. Not such a good argument in retrospect and I think people are getting tired of that as, for example, children die due to careless gun owners who don’t take the proper precautions and others due to murders. I do not want all guns banned. Just assault weapons. I do think that parents who allow children under the age of 18 to have guns should be charged with murder if their child harms individuals with those guns. Fair is fair. You want your kid to have a gun, it is upon to you to supervise because I do not think any child should have access to a gun unsupervised.
RuffRidr
January 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Let me see if I can paraphrase what happened. A group of youths illegally gambling in front of a known location for drug dealing are attacked by another criminal. Florida should pass laws against illegal gambling, dealing drugs, robbery, homicide, firing a firearm in a public area, and while they are at it, there should be a law that prevents gun stores from selling firearms to convicts, selling firearms to underage children, selling firearms without a background check. Wait a minute? all of those things are already illegal. So lets add one more law to the books. If someone is going to commit a crime they have already decided to ignore the law, what will one more regulation do? Just look at recent news from europe, firearms aren’t as available, but attacks with kitchen knifes still do the same damage.
Reply: First because some kids were playing with dice in an area that you don’t approve of, it really doesn’t matter much to you that they died. To you, it’s so what. Just a bunch of criminals. Nice. If that were the case then no laws would ever be passed because there will always be crime. it is about limiting the access. And I am sure the dice the those children would have thrown at the mass murderer is worth the cost in human lives. One life is too many.
Apaul
January 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“i do not want all guns banned. Just assault weapons.”
I’ve already made the argument that there is no functional difference between the so-called “assault weapon” and traditional hunting weapons. If there is no functional difference, then what is your rationale for wanting them banned? Because of cosmetic features? You say you don’t want all guns banned, but it is very hard to believe you when you can’t even explain why you want a particular weapon banned.
Reply: RuffRidr, I am not going to get into the specifics about each gun stock and barrel. You can quibble about all of that until the end of time. All I know is that Americans are tired of gun-related violence and so am I. It is unnecessary and so are assault weapons. I think it is more of a cost benefit to society and I don’t see any benefit while you still have numerous guns to play with.
RuffRidr
January 25, 2009 at 5:32 pm
You do understand that these “assault” rifles are used in only about 2% of all homicides don’t you?
And that your granddaddy’s 30 06 is more powerful?
Reply: That is one too many for me even if I did just accept your statement as a fact (and I don’t). These weapons are unnecessary.
blogo
January 26, 2009 at 7:00 pm
..and do you understand that machine guns are already tightly regulated?
The thing is, when the anti-Bill of Rights group says “military style” they are really talking about modern style rifles.
Reply: There is no anti-bill of rights group? What are you talking about?
blogo
January 26, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Why not ban all shotguns, since they kill more people than ALL rifles? (including assault rifles).
Here it is, from the FBI/DoJ
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html
Reply: You are not getting it blogo. One life is too many. The document to which you refer is unclear at best.
blogo
January 26, 2009 at 8:21 pm
What is unclear about it? Rifles were used in 450 homicides in 2007, shotguns in 455.
You are right, however, you say “one death is too many,” yet you also say you just want to ban assault weapons.
Why not ban shotguns as well since they kill more people than rifles? Why not ban all guns?
Reply: I support a ban on assault weapons. I do not support a ban on all guns. I do, however, support enacting laws to try the owners of guns for murder for each and every person who is killed or maimed from any gun because gun deaths are out of control and such deaths are totally preventable.
The chart is unclear since it lacks the requisite detail.
blogo
January 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Geez, what more detail do you want? It is from the FBI’s Web site.
I am a diehard liberal. I’ve marched with Rev. Jackson, been arrested during my protests for homeless rights and will match my liberal creds against anyone. I just can’t stand how so many supposed liberals like you are so willing to cherry pick the bill of rights.
Reply: Please specify the precise portion of the “bill of Rights” that you think that I am cherry picking. I have not said that I am a liberal, you did.
Note: That I never received any instance of the “Bill of Rights” Blogo was talking about.
blogo
January 26, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I’m a bit behind on this but I looked at the link blogo provided.
Table nine is kind of interesting.
Thanks for providing that link, blogo. I need to spend some more time with it.
I think our 2nd Amendment protects personal firearms, but who the eff needs anything remotely semi-automatic?
Did you finally manage to shake Dimensio (Dementio)?
Reply: I only shook him because he was usurping all of my blogging time. No argument would ever satisfy him. I am certain that he either works for the NRA or a manufacturer. He blogs with all of the same people commenting here . They are all NRA shills. He went to the delete button because it started to feel like harassment because of the long multiple posting that was not always even connected with the topic. Blogo I can deal with, but he is just incessant and it’s really my personal opinion. I do not need to justify that. People are terrified of those damn guns in Miami. I am lucky that I live in a fortress. LOL.
I’ll have to look at the link again. I have to get something to London before opening and I am behind! I just looked at the opening page and it said nothing really. The categories were not defined. You can play with statistics and I know both sides do that. I get that, but to me I just don’t know why recreational hunters or gun enthusiasts need rapid firing weapons or high powered rifles. I understand also that the NRA feels that all guns will be taken away if you chip away here and there, but I don’t know anyone who wants to do that. Again, it’s a fear based argument and I think the sheeple are particularly vulnerable to fear. Yikes. Gotta go!
skyewriter
January 26, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Assault weapons, as you refer to them, must not be banned, and here is why:
The Second Amendment reads, “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.” Though some people mistake the preferatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”) as a justification clause, it is not, and a brief analysis of other writings of the Framers confirms it:
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
—James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.
—Zachariah Johnson, at the Virginia Convention, explaining how the new Constitution could never result in religious persecution or other oppression
[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
— Roger Sherman, during House consideration of a militia bill (1790)
Reply: The Untied States Supreme Court has already ruled that guns can be regulated and that such laws do not infringe on the Constitution. A conservative packed mostly Bush-appointed court ruled that by the way.
Some, as yourself, might argue that since rifles with pistol grips that accept a detachable magazine did not exist when the constitution was written, the constitution does not apply to them. Consider that the muskets of the day were so far superior to swords and cutlasses that our forefathers regarded them as the assault weapons of the day: The most lethal and accurate weapons known to mankind at the time.
But why have a Second Amendment in the first place? It’s not for hunting, and it’s not for sporting purposes. It’s not really even for personal self-defense, even though it’s peripherally referenced. None of these.
The Second Amendment exists to guarantee that we, the people, the regular citizens, should retain the power over the government, not the other way around, and here in the year 2008 it takes more that a bolt-action 30-06 and a pump shotgun to do that.
Reply: What power over the government do you claim to have by having guns? That is not what was intended but the Second Amendment. Are you planning an overthrow? That is most definitely not what was intended.
I am not indifferent to the loss of innocent life in our society, but I know that the leading cause of crime is criminals. My M-4 carbine, SAR-1 (a semi-auto AK-47), and Tommy Gun, all of which are semi-automatic and currently legal for private citizens to own here in Virginia, have killed no one. I am no more likely than you to commit murder.
Those who would restrict basic freedoms to achieve a sense of security deserve neither. Remember, Virginia Tech reaffirmed its desire to have a disarmed campus, stating that “everyone would feel safer”. About a year later Seung-Hui Cho, who broke a number of laws before he even fired a shot, massacred 32 people and no one was able to stop him.
Reply: So you would have gone to grab your gun and had everyone else do the same and then the whole campus could erupt in some wild Bill Hickock and Calamity Jane shootout free for all? No, I don’t think so.
What’s that last phrase of the Second Amendment? “Shall not be infringed,” you say? Exactly what part of that statement do you not understand?
Reply: As I said, a conservative packed United States Supreme Court has already ruled that regulating guns does not infringe on the Second Amendment so most of your argument has no relevance. I do not wish to ban all guns as I have said repeatedly. I do wish to ban assault weapons.
The Supreme Court has ruled. What part of that do you not understand?
conservativelesbian
January 26, 2009 at 11:07 pm
My responses to your responses:
Reply: The Untied States Supreme Court has already ruled that guns can be regulated and that such laws do not infringe on the Constitution. A conservative packed mostly Bush-appointed court ruled that by the way.
My Response:
The Heller vs. DC case did not rule on whether guns could be regulated. Instead, the ruling was narrowly focused on whether or not the government had the power to enforce a de facto gun ban and whether or not the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right or an individual right. The court, as you know, ruled for Heller and the individual right interpretation.
Catherine’s Surreply: From the Heller case:
I think we will have to agree to disagree as to what the court held, but i am a lawyer with 17 years of experience and an accomplished track record, which means that I ain’t changin’ my mind on this one.
Reply: What power over the government do you claim to have by having guns? That is not what was intended but the Second Amendment. Are you planning an overthrow? That is most definitely not what was intended.
My Response: First and foremost, I am not “planning” anything. However, the idea that the citizens could and should overthrow any government that takes away their essential liberties is, indeed, the fundamental idea in the Constitution. This is how the United States of America was formed: The colonists were being taxed without representation and systematically disarmed by the British.
Without the Second Amendment to ensure the citizens retained the power over government, and not vice versa, the rest of the Constitution isn’t worth the paper upon which it is printed. The Second Amendment provides the “teeth”, if you will.
Furthermore, the first step taken by every totalitarian regime is to ban private firearms ownership.
Here are some facts you should know:
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Reply: I would have to do research on each and every one of these, which I do not have time to do. There are two of these that i am very familiar with and I take issue with your conclusion which presupposes that if there were no gun control laws, the people in these cultures would have had an uprising against such suppression. Genocide has taken place in many countries where guns are allowed, as I am sure you are aware. The argument is a non-sequitor.
Reply: So you would have gone to grab your gun and had everyone else do the same and then the whole campus could erupt in some wild Bill Hickock and Calamity Jane shootout free for all? No, I don’t think so.
My Response: The “wild Bill Hickock and Calamity Jane shootout free for all” scenarios just never materialize. Active mass killers, once actually confronted by an armed person, are either killed, surrender, or commit suicide. All it takes is one armed person to stop them.
Reply: You are wrong on that one again. Waco is one of the most famous examples of nutty extremist feeling like they can secede or not pay taxes or do whatever else they want. They hoard guns and then cost the taxpayers millions and it results in Wild Bill and Calamity Jane. Moreover, using your example, if 50 people went and got their guns to stop the campus mass murderer, your comclusion presupposes that they would all be highly organized and select a leader? I think not. Moreover, why pay for police. Let’s just save tax dollars and pass out guns to everyone and form citizens patrols to keep the government on its toes and so that if a mass murderer comes on campus with a gun we can decide which one of us will shoot him. Who needs the police?
Here are a couple of recent examples:
After attacking a missionary training school, the New Life Church in Colorado decided to ask members to volunteer as security during Sunday services. The killer made his appearance, carrying a rifle, killing three in the parking lot, but was shot and disabled by Jeanne Assam. He committed suicide before he could be restrained.
In January, 2002, two staff members and a student were shot and killed by a disgruntled former student. The spree was brought to a halt when the shooter was confronted by two armed students with personal firearms. He was restrained and held by authorities.
When was the last time you heard of a “shootout free for all”, anyway?
Reply: Waco was one and there are many others.
Reply: As I said, a conservative packed United States Supreme Court has already ruled that regulating guns does not infringe on the Second Amendment so most of your argument has no relevance. I do not wish to ban all guns as I have said repeatedly. I do wish to ban assault weapons.
The Supreme Court has ruled. What part of that do you not understand?
My Response: Well, as I’ve mentioned, the Heller decision did not address regulation.
Reply: As I said, we disagree on the interpretation of Heller.
I encourage you to really read the words of our founding fathers to understand the role of the Second Amendment in the protection of our rights.
Reply: This has built in the quantum assumption that (1) I haven’t really read the Second Amendment, which is false, and (2) that i don’t understand it, which is also false. I aced constitutional law.
America is the land of the free, unlike any place in the world. and our founders intended that it remain that way. This can only be done if the citizens remain more powerful than the government, and the Second Amendment is the guarantee.
Reply: I disagree with your premise. It’s that simple and we will have to agree to disagree on this.
conservativelesbian
January 27, 2009 at 8:19 am
One death is one too many? Indeed, I agree with that sentiment.
That’s why we should outlaw swimming pools (a total waste of water), bathtubs (a shower will do), and automobiles (a horse and buggy would work just fine).
All those I mention kill more people every year than guns do. Heck, hands and feet kill more people than guns do. None of those things are necessary.
Ok, maybe hands and feet are….
It amazes me that when confronted by facts, you resort to the “just one death” mantra and fail to acknowledge that the real killer here is the irresponsible behavior of individuals.
Reply: Rant, it is not so much that I resort to a mantra, it is something that I am passionate about. Someone I know died unnecessarily and I have my beliefs. To you it is a mantra, to me it is a fundamental truth that one life is too many.
Your argument about swimming pools, etc, is illogical. Anything on Earth could be dangerous, but guns are inherently dangerous. It i a higher standard for an inherently dangerous object. I do agree that the the person pulls the trigger, which is why I also support prosecuting irresponsible gun owners for Murder in the first degree even for accidental gun deaths because too may gun owners do not take precautions or allow their children to use guns unsupervised which results in deaths.
Whether it’s with a gun or a car, it is the individual behind it that does the damage.
Reply: I don’t think you can compare cars and guns.
“Assault Weapons” are not military firearms, they are merely replicas that cannot “spray fire hundreds of rounds” no better than my varmint rifle.
But, you’ve been told that.
Reply: It only takes one bullet to kill.
Rustmeister
January 27, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Rustmeister:
You should check your sources before posting your personal opinion without backing it with evidence:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0115.pdf
Look at the rates in each age group for Assault (Homicide) totals.
I think you’re wrong– at least in the 1 year to 44 year old demographic.
skyewriter
January 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Apologies, Rustmeister:
“Accidents” are higher in number than Assaults, but the Census bureau doesn’t define accidents by type.
Check out the many distributions on these charts:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html
In table 7, firearms outweigh other types of murders greatly: 9,659 to 4806 for ALL other types of murder, more than twice the number of all others combined.
That might be cause for some reform at the very least in firearm safety measures, stricter licensing, and deeper and more comprehensive back-round checks.
skyewriter
January 27, 2009 at 2:50 pm
You should read what I wrote before calling me on lack of evidence.
The very table you reference proves my point – accidental deaths far outstrip gun deaths. Even if you count every homicide and suicide as a gun death (which it is not), accidents still outnumber them.
The point I was making is the “just one death” argument, when looked at objectively, doesn’t hold water.
Rustmeister
January 27, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Oh, I misspoke when I said hands and feet kill more than guns do. I should replace “guns” with “assault weapons”.
Then I’d be right.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html
Rustmeister
January 27, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Ha! Looks like we were typing at the same time.
The thing about gun death numbers is that we don’t know how many times the “good guys” won the fight.
After all, they do from time to time. Then I could employ a “just one life” argument for gun possession. =)
As to more restrictions, the whole thing is, criminals don’t get their guns from gun shops or gun shows, they get them illegally.
The only people impacted by stiffer regulations are people like me, who follow the laws.
Reply: This statement is false. i can give you a quick example. The two boys who were involved in the Colombine mass murder obtained their guns from dealers and shows. there are many other examples.
Rustmeister
January 27, 2009 at 3:28 pm
How can we prevent folks from getting guns illegally, then?
skyewriter
January 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Good question.
As proven by the Volstead Act, if people want something, they’ll get it, regardless of legality.
So, preventing criminals from getting guns won’t happen. What should happen is once these criminals self-identify, they get put away for long prison terms.
If we needed to free up prison space, we could declare the war on (some) drugs over, and free those non violent offenders whose only crime was having a bit too much weed in their possession.
Reply: The answer is a ban. If they are not manufactured, then criminals will not have access. Putting more people in prisons is never a good answer, but at least we can agree on prosecutions for marijuana.
Rustmeister
January 27, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Rustmeister:
I like you. I do. But I have to ask: do you think these folks who are buying illegal firearms are going to “self-identify”?
I’m wondering if some kind of tracking/gps mechanism might become part of gun manufacturing? It might be a more reliable way to track illegal weapons and could act as a deterrent to their sale/purchase.
I do agree with you about the disproportionate sentencing for marijuana possession.
skyewriter
January 27, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“Reply: This statement is false. i can give you a quick example. The two boys who were involved in the Colombine mass murder obtained their guns from dealers and shows. there are many other examples.”
Actually, they were acquired via a straw purchase, which was already illegal.
Reply: They did obtain weapons, but even if we take your assertion as true, it underscores that guns are far too easily available. I am in favor of no more gun shows, period.
RuffRidr
January 28, 2009 at 11:08 am
“When was the last time you heard of a “shootout free for all”, anyway?
Reply: Waco was one and there are many others. ”
What does that have to do with concealed carry laws? That was a siege of a compound, not something that happened in a public area. Since there are many others, please use an example where multiple concealed carry holders caused a “shootout free for all” when confronting a criminal. That is what you and others say will happen. Bonus points if you can show it happening in a Utah college or university, where students are allowed to exercise their rights.
Reply: The comment was not limited to concealed weapons so I am unsure what you mean there. I was asked if I knew of a free for all and I gave one. There were many of there examples of extreme right wing groups wanting to not pay taxes, hoarding guns and having a free for all. The argument does not hold water.
RuffRidr
January 28, 2009 at 11:14 am
it is as evident as the sun shedding light on the earth that the framers of the consititution intended that the citizens of this nation have right to bear arms. in order to accurately exegete what the framers’ words mean, it is necessary to understand what the point of their message was at the time it was written. anybody, liberal or conservative, who is honest and impartial, and who has a desire to deal with the true problem at hand, cannot deny that the men who wrote and approved the second ammendment intended that in order for a free nation to remain free from an oppressive government the people of that nation must have access to form a militia in the event it becomes necessary for the people to overtake an oppressive government. would a ban on firearms, of any sort, be in direct contradiction of this? absolutely. i am sickened by the way guns have wreaked havoc on our society and caused countless, senseless deaths. but the answer is not banning or regulating the guns. how many people in our society own guns and have never even considered using their weapon to commit a crime? those who commit crimes using a firearm are the minority of the gun owners in the u.s., not the majority. therefore, it is only logical to believe that the problem is with who has the guns, not the fact that they have them. and that population of people who commit crimes with guns are not deterred by regulations, bans, etc. the answer is not to take away constitutionally sound right to bear arms, but to deal with that group of people who are using guns during the commission of a crime. this would end the bickering back and forth over banning certain firearms and that energy could be directed at addressing the real problem, which is what will give us all the end result that is the common goal of both sides of this argument. it does not make sense to blame an inanimate object for what somebody does with it.
Reply: We address energy at banning an inanimate object because it is the device used for killing people and a lot of people get killed with guns. This is an indisputable fact. No one in your group, and yes, I know that you are all in communication, has adequately addressed that even one life is too many. I have heard the old tired argument that it is the person that kills before, but people can’t use guns if they are not available.
I also think your group loses credibility because you insist that guns should not be regulated. As in all things, people who do not concede anything rarely prevail when trying to convince someone of something. I understand that many gun owners are afraid that if certain guns are taken away, then more and more gun regulations will follow, but that is not a reason to have no laws to control the selling and use of guns. Taken to its logical conclusion, only offenders would get prosecuted and there would no regulations for anything. Look at Wall Street. Deregulation has been a disaster.
As for your Second Amendment argument, I could not disagree more as your interpretation sounds like the new Timothy McVeigh version of anarchy. You may be an anarchist Michigan militia person or not, but it certainly sounds like it. I couldn’t disagree with you more about this topic.
I cite below text from the Brady website interpreting the second Amendment:
The concept of a “well regulated Militia” is somewhat foreign to 20th century America, but it is central to the meaning of the Second Amendment.
At the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own “militia” — a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. Most of the adult male population was required by state law to enlist in the militia. The militia was “well regulated” in the sense that its members were subject to various legal requirements. They were, for example, required to report for training several days a year, to supply their own equipment for militia use, including guns and horses, and sometimes to engage in military exercises away from home.
The purpose of the militia was expressed in the Second Amendment — to assure “the security of a free State” — against threats from without (e.g. invasions) and threats from within (e.g. rebellions, riots, etc.).
The “militia” was not, as some gun control opponents have claimed, simply another word for the armed citizenry. It was an organized military force, “well regulated” by the state governments. Noah Webster’s Dictionary of 1828 defines “militia” as: “…the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.”
When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the continued viability of the state militia was a central issue. The new Constitution established a permanent army composed of professional soldiers and controlled by the federal government. The “Anti-Federalists,” who sought changes in the newly proposed Constitution, were fearful of the federal standing army authorized by the Constitution. The use of troops by George III as an instrument of oppression was still fresh in their memories.
The Anti-Federalists saw the state militia as an effective counterpoint to the power of the standing army but they were concerned that the federal government had excessive power over the militia. They argued that the Constitution left the arming of the state militia exclusively to the federal government. During the Virginia ratification debates, Patrick Henry asked: “When this power is given to Congress without limits or boundary, how will your militia be armed?”
The Second Amendment was written in response to this Anti-Federalist concern. The Amendment affirms that the keeping and bearing of arms in a “well regulated Militia” of the states is a “right of the people,” not dependent on the whim of the federal government. The original intent of the Second Amendment, therefore, was to prevent the federal government from passing laws that would disarm the state militia.
The Second Amendment in the Twentieth Century
The Second Amendment has become an anachronism, largely because of drastic changes in the militia it was designed to protect. We no longer have a citizen militia in which a large portion of the population is enrolled for part-time military service and required by the government to maintain private arms for such service. As the nation grew, it became unworkable and unduly expensive for the states to impose military training and service on that many Americans.
The modern “well regulated Militia” is the National Guard — a state-organized military force of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers, like the early state militia. However, unlike the early militia, the National Guard is of more limited membership and depends on government-supplied — not privately owned — arms. Whereas in 1787 federal restrictions on privately owned guns may have interfered with the “well regulated Militia,” this is not the case today. Gun control laws have no effect on the arming of today’s militia, since those laws invariably exempt the National Guard. Therefore, they raise no serious Second Amendment issue.
“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government
from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would
interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia.”
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992)
The Second Amendment in the Courts
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the High Court wrote that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. The Court added that the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment in two cases. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1969), the Court dismissed the appeal of a state court ruling upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control law, finding the appeal failed to present a “substantial federal question.” And in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court upheld the federal law banning felons from possessing guns. The Court found no “constitutionally protected liberties” infringed by the federal law.
In addition, in Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41 (1965) and Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), cases not involving the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has affirmed that today’s militia is the National Guard.
Since Miller was decided, lower federal and state courts have addressed the meaning of the Second Amendment in more than thirty cases. In every case, the courts have decided that the Amendment guarantees a right to be armed only in connection with service in a “well regulated Militia.” The courts unanimously have rejected the NRA’s view that the Second Amendment is about the self-defense or sporting uses of guns. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote, the courts “have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias, rather than individual rights.” United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318 (1988).
The Second Amendment and the Gun Control Debate
The National Rifle Association spends millions of dollars every year to foster its myth that the Second Amendment guarantees a broad, individual right to be armed that precludes virtually every restriction on private ownership of guns. The gun lobby’s efforts have had a profound influence on the gun control debate. Public opinion polls show that, although more than 60% of Americans erroneously believe that the Constitution gives them a right to be armed, only a minority of Americans believe that it should grant that right. It is time for the American people to know the truth about the Second Amendment and for the NRA’s systematic distortion of our Constitution to stop.
As Former Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold put it, “to assert that the Constitution is a barrier to reasonable gun laws, in the face of the unanimous judgment of the federal courts to the contrary, exceeds the limits of principled advocacy. It is time for the NRA and its followers in Congress to stop trying to twist the Second Amendment from a reasoned (if antiquated) empowerment for a militia into a bulletproof personal right for anyone to wield deadly weaponry beyond legislative control.”
February 9: These gun bloggers have pretty much made fun of why I referred to the Brady website. First, I agree with their interpretation of the Second Amendment. Second, if I agree with it and it is written for non-lawyers, why should I not use it, particularly when I am usually told that I get way too technical for non-lawyers on legal issues. : )
Thanks to all for your support.
lauraclark
January 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm