Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[Emma]

Just to juggle some numbers:

Crimes with use of firearms in Germany:
6664 (Bundeskriminalamt) Population: 82 million
Crimes with the use of firearms in TN
15710 (Crime Statistics Unit) Population: 6,2 million

More than two times the number but with a 13th of the population.

Interesting. What's the response from those who claim an armed population reduces crime?

Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.

<snip>

There are cities in Germany. As to the rest of your post, you claim there is less crime in areas where guns are allowed. As he point out above, the entire country of Germany has less gun crime than one state where gun laws are fairly lax (no background checks at gun shows, no required safety training, no waiting period, no permit or registration required to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun) and a good number of residents own weapons.

 

[The Rabbi]

Interesting. What's the response from those who claim an armed population reduces crime?

Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.

<snip>

There are cities in Germany. As to the rest of your post, you claim there is less crime in areas where guns are allowed. As he point out above, the entire country of Germany has less gun crime than one state where gun laws are fairly lax (no background checks at gun shows, no required safety training, no waiting period, no permit or registration required to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun) and a good number of residents own weapons.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Germany and the US do not have the same culture.
South Africa has extreme gun control laws and people get shot up every day.

 

[Emma]

Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.

<snip>

There are cities in Germany. As to the rest of your post, you claim there is less crime in areas where guns are allowed. As he point out above, the entire country of Germany has less gun crime than one state where gun laws are fairly lax (no background checks at gun shows, no required safety training, no waiting period, no permit or registration required to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun) and a good number of residents own weapons.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Germany and the US do not have the same culture.
South Africa has extreme gun control laws and people get shot up every day.

Then perhaps due to our 'culture', we should consider repealing the 2nd?

 

[jillian]

Then perhaps due to our 'culture', we should consider repealing the 2nd?

i've always been of the mind that the 2nd has to be given the same deference as any other amendment. but it's a pity that Heller never really analyzed what that amendment actually means. the issue deserved a better anaysis than Scalia gave it.

i do wonder, though, why we have such a bizarre (to me) gun culture in his country. it's not even that i object to them. it's that i take issue with the "boys with toys" attitude of a lot of the 'from my cold dead hands' crew.

 

[SFC Ollie]

There are cities in Germany. As to the rest of your post, you claim there is less crime in areas where guns are allowed. As he point out above, the entire country of Germany has less gun crime than one state where gun laws are fairly lax (no background checks at gun shows, no required safety training, no waiting period, no permit or registration required to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun) and a good number of residents own weapons.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Germany and the US do not have the same culture.
South Africa has extreme gun control laws and people get shot up every day.

Then perhaps due to our 'culture', we should consider repealing the 2nd?

Over my dead body.

 

[jillian]

Over my dead body.

thanks for proving my point.

 

[Emma]

Just playing the devil's advocate here. Until the 2nd is repealed or amended, we have an absolute individual right to own guns.

 

[jillian]

Just playing the devil's advocate here. Until the 2nd is repealed or amended, we have an absolute individual right to own guns.

absolute?

not really. felons aren't allowed to own guns. neither are the mentall ill or people who have been involved in domestic violence.

and perhaps if scalia had done the type of analysis that the dissent suggested should have been done in Heller, you might have had a more moderate answer.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I took an oath (6 or 7 times) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I take that oath seriously even today. Yes I will fight to keep the second amendment.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Once again, the 2nd amendment does not give us the right to own firearms. It reinforces that right. It assumes that we already had that right before the Constitution was even written.

" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

 

[Missourian]

Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.

<snip>

There are cities in Germany. As to the rest of your post, you claim there is less crime in areas where guns are allowed. As he point out above, the entire country of Germany has less gun crime than one state where gun laws are fairly lax (no background checks at gun shows, no required safety training, no waiting period, no permit or registration required to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun) and a good number of residents own weapons.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Germany and the US do not have the same culture.
South Africa has extreme gun control laws and people get shot up every day.

That was exactly my point, many variables such as culture and socioeconomic factors skew crime statistics, even in a sampling as small as one state.

What my post actually confirms is firearm crime is a symptom of an underlying condition.

We should concentrate our efforts on treating that condition, not bickering over how to alleviate one symptom.

 

[Emma]

Once again, the 2nd amendment does not give us the right to own firearms. It reinforces that right. It assumes that we already had that right before the Constitution was even written.

As it does with all of our rights.

 

[germanguy]

There are cities in Germany. As to the rest of your post, you claim there is less crime in areas where guns are allowed. As he point out above, the entire country of Germany has less gun crime than one state where gun laws are fairly lax (no background checks at gun shows, no required safety training, no waiting period, no permit or registration required to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun) and a good number of residents own weapons.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Germany and the US do not have the same culture.
South Africa has extreme gun control laws and people get shot up every day.

That was exactly my point, many variables such as culture and socioeconomic factors skew crime statistics, even in a sampling as small as one state.

What my post actually confirms is firearm crime is a symptom of an underlying condition.

We should concentrate our efforts on treating that condition, not bickering over how to alleviate one symptom.

I would still say, that accesability and the culture of guns in the US causes more victims than in a country where this is not the case.
I would still say, that the number of guns in circulation causes more dead and injured than necessary in areas where a sensible man would not put guns in circulation.

As crimes will happen, with or without guns, this will not affect the crime rate.
So in case no arms are around, people would have to club each other. But this would at least diminish the number of victims. I think it would be far more difficult to kill 17 people with a knive or with a club than with an AK 47.

But as this might cause at least the death of one retired Sergeant, it will be a nightmare to collect all these weapons.
At least it might be an idea not to idealize the 2nd amendment. I rather doubt, that in that time the drafters had automatic weapons in mind or that private persons will be able to pile up whole arsenals of military firearms like AK 47s or
Therefore, IMHO, one should discuss if it still makes sense to uphold this specific constitutional right or if it should be interpreted in the light of technical progress and social change.
Or to put it otherwise:
When the US Constitution was drafted, pretty much of the US was rural and the predominant weapon was a musket or a rifle. Gunpowder and bullets were an expensive commodity and a standing army was too expensive to have.
Today you have the most modern military force in human history, are a highly industrialized society and weapons are available, which are hundred times more powerful than 1786. So perhaps in this light, one may think about this.

regards
ze germanguy

 

[Missourian]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Germany and the US do not have the same culture.
South Africa has extreme gun control laws and people get shot up every day.

That was exactly my point, many variables such as culture and socioeconomic factors skew crime statistics, even in a sampling as small as one state.

What my post actually confirms is firearm crime is a symptom of an underlying condition.

We should concentrate our efforts on treating that condition, not bickering over how to alleviate one symptom.

I would still say, that accesability and the culture of guns in the US causes more victims than in a country where this is not the case.
I would still say, that the number of guns in circulation causes more dead and injured than necessary in areas where a sensible man would not put guns in circulation.

As crimes will happen, with or without guns, this will not affect the crime rate.
So in case no arms are around, people would have to club each other. But this would at least diminish the number of victims. I think it would be far more difficult to kill 17 people with a knive or with a club than with an AK 47.

But as this might cause at least the death of one retired Sergeant, it will be a nightmare to collect all these weapons. So, really
At least it might be an idea not to idealize the 2nd amendment. I rather doubt, that in that time the drafters had automatic weapons in mind or that private persons will be able to pile up whole arsenals of military firearms like AK 47s or
Therefore, IMHO, one should discuss if it still makes sense to uphold this specific constitutional right or if it should be interpreted in the light of technical progress and social change.
Or to put it otherwise:
When the US Constitution was drafted, pretty much of the US was rural and the predominant weapon was a musket or a rifle. Gunpowder and bullets were an expensive commodity and a standing army was too expensive to have.
Today you have the most modern military force in human history, are a highly industrialized society and weapons are available, which are hundred times more powerful than 1786. So perhaps in this light, one may think about this.

regards
ze germanguy

And drug related crime and drug related deaths are linked to accessibility and circulation of illegal drugs.

But these drugs are outlawed, banned.

Possessing, importing, cultivating and selling these drugs carries extreme penalties.

And yet...somehow that doesn't seem to stem the flow.

And that is what we have been saying for years.

If you make owning guns illegal, you only disarm law abiding citizens.

Criminals, by definition, have no respect for law.

 

[Missourian]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Germany and the US do not have the same culture.
South Africa has extreme gun control laws and people get shot up every day.

That was exactly my point, many variables such as culture and socioeconomic factors skew crime statistics, even in a sampling as small as one state.

What my post actually confirms is firearm crime is a symptom of an underlying condition.

We should concentrate our efforts on treating that condition, not bickering over how to alleviate one symptom.

I would still say, that accesability and the culture of guns in the US causes more victims than in a country where this is not the case.
I would still say, that the number of guns in circulation causes more dead and injured than necessary in areas where a sensible man would not put guns in circulation.

As crimes will happen, with or without guns, this will not affect the crime rate.
So in case no arms are around, people would have to club each other. But this would at least diminish the number of victims. I think it would be far more difficult to kill 17 people with a knive or with a club than with an AK 47.

But as this might cause at least the death of one retired Sergeant, it will be a nightmare to collect all these weapons. So, really
At least it might be an idea not to idealize the 2nd amendment. I rather doubt, that in that time the drafters had automatic weapons in mind or that private persons will be able to pile up whole arsenals of military firearms like AK 47s or
Therefore, IMHO, one should discuss if it still makes sense to uphold this specific constitutional right or if it should be interpreted in the light of technical progress and social change.
Or to put it otherwise:
When the US Constitution was drafted, pretty much of the US was rural and the predominant weapon was a musket or a rifle. Gunpowder and bullets were an expensive commodity and a standing army was too expensive to have.
Today you have the most modern military force in human history, are a highly industrialized society and weapons are available, which are hundred times more powerful than 1786. So perhaps in this light, one may think about this.

regards
ze germanguy

Automatic weapons are very heavily regulated in the U.S., to the point that they have no bearing on gun crime whatsoever.

To own an automatic weapon in the U.S., you must obtain permission from the ATF, obtain a signature from the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax...all in accordance with the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The AK-47 available in the U.S. are NOT military automatic weapons and CANNOT be easily converted to an automatic configuration.

 

[Ryan]

Just to juggle some numbers:

Crimes with use of firearms in Germany:
6664 (Bundeskriminalamt) Population: 82 million
Crimes with the use of firearms in TN
15710 (Crime Statistics Unit) Population: 6,2 million

More than two times the number but with a 13th of the population.

Interesting. What's the response from those who claim an armed population reduces crime?

The US is a violent society, even without consideing the catagory of firearm related crimes the US is violent. I do not know about Germany and do not want to dig into statistics but firearm crime in England is on the rise despite the strong restrictions.

The British Police Officer, once proudly boasting of carrying no firearm is now usually armed whereas the citizens are disarmed. Certainly the changing society, bad economy and the easy travel across boarders are factors. The firearm laws in Britain have become draconian and of course a similiar question to yours above would be to ask where is the proof that a disarmed British population has reduced crime?

 

[Ryan]

That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. We would still have more crime than you do because our culture is different.
Look instead at the number of crimes committed by permit holders and that committed by law enforcement officers. The permit holders commit fewer.

Wasn't there just a shooting by some teenaged kid in Germany? How can that be, given that firearms are practically outlawed??

Never said that your crime rate has something to to with the 2nd amendment.

But I have stressed the point, that in the case of TN the number of guns in circulation is reflected in the number of crimes committed while using a firearm.

To compare both numbers one must, that I agree, take into the equation the socio-structure, income levels and all this stuff.

Also, I would agree, that most of your the legal carriers use their firearms in a responsible way. But this seems to be rather obvious, especially in regions where the social structure is more coherent than i.e. an urban area with high unemployment rates, social tensions etc. If you add widespread ownership of guns to this, you will raise the number of victims.

In a pretty WASP rural area, where everybody knows his neighbor, the risk to become a victim of any crime is far lower.

So, as previously stated, the problem are pretty much not the law-abiding citizens, acting in a responsible way, but the ones you would never entrust a firearm, if you look a little closer.

Also Rabbi, as I have said in my post, the German Police estimates that at minimum 20 million firearms are in circulation in Germany. About 10 million of them are registered at the police.

The problem with the kid running amok recently was, that it was a mentally instable young kid, who had access to his fathers Baretta (he kept it in the Bedroom in the drawer, with ammunition). The gun was registered, the father had the proper license to buy and keep it.
He and his son trained at the local Gun Sports Club, so the kid was very well trained in the use of the gun.

Now, after some dead, we are all aware now, that the combination of the easy access to a firearm and the psychological profile was leading to disaster.

There were since then other cases of teenagers trying to run amok, but they had no access to firearms (in the latest case a Katana was used, but this was stopped easily), which kept the number of victims to some badly injured and no dead.

So I personally believe, that even here people have an too easy access to firearms.
But as there are too many already around, there will be no easy change. Pandora´s box already is open.

Still - what is a large check is, that any citizen is strictly not allowed to carry a weapon in the open. In rural areas you will still see hunters with their guns, but drawing a gun in public on the street is the best way to get you in very serious trouble.

But it should not be forgotten, that the historical background and the culture is different.
Although here in Germany still quite a lot of weapons are around, most Germans would not accept anybody around carrying a gun in the open.
At least, whatever you think about this fact, at least in proportion much less people are killed or injured by firearms in this country than in yours.


regards
ze germanguy

Then perhaps due to our 'culture', we should consider repealing the 2nd?

i've always been of the mind that the 2nd has to be given the same deference as any other amendment. but it's a pity that Heller never really analyzed what that amendment actually means. the issue deserved a better anaysis than Scalia gave it.

i do wonder, though, why we have such a bizarre (to me) gun culture in his country. it's not even that i object to them. it's that i take issue with the "boys with toys" attitude of a lot of the 'from my cold dead hands' crew.

Well, I guess then that formulating legislation based on what Jillian takes issue with should become a State and Federal priority.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then perhaps due to our 'culture', we should consider repealing the 2nd?

i've always been of the mind that the 2nd has to be given the same deference as any other amendment. but it's a pity that Heller never really analyzed what that amendment actually means. the issue deserved a better anaysis than Scalia gave it.

i do wonder, though, why we have such a bizarre (to me) gun culture in his country. it's not even that i object to them. it's that i take issue with the "boys with toys" attitude of a lot of the 'from my cold dead hands' crew.

There has seldom been a better analysis than what Scalia did. The other side's "analysis" would have basically vitiated the amendment entirely.
There is nothing bizarre about the gun culture. There is something bizarre about people who walk around begging to be victims by not allowing themselves the means of self protection.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The US is a violent society, even without consideing the catagory of firearm related crimes the US is violent. I do not know about Germany and do not want to dig into statistics but firearm crime in England is on the rise despite the strong restrictions.

The British Police Officer, once proudly boasting of carrying no firearm is now usually armed whereas the citizens are disarmed. Certainly the changing society, bad economy and the easy travel across boarders are factors. The firearm laws in Britain have become draconian and of course a similiar question to yours above would be to ask where is the proof that a disarmed British population has reduced crime?

Law abiding people who own guns do not commit crimes because they are just that; law abiding.

criminals however commit crimes with or without guns because they are criminals

So at least In America we have a choice other than to wait until the government shows up to stop us from being victimized by a criminal.

Police cannot prevent crime they can only react to it after the fact.

So if it makes me a violent American because i would rather shoot some fucking scumbag who tried to threaten me, my family or my property then God Damn it I am proud to be a violent American.

So you can cower in a corner while some criminal robs your home or beats you to a bloody pulp rapes your wife and daughter and kills your dog and pray the cops get there in time to save you. I'll shoot the motherfucker crack a beer and let the cops clean up the mess.

 

[Diuretic]

Just to juggle some numbers:

Crimes with use of firearms in Germany:
6664 (Bundeskriminalamt) Population: 82 million
Crimes with the use of firearms in TN
15710 (Crime Statistics Unit) Population: 6,2 million

More than two times the number but with a 13th of the population.

Interesting. What's the response from those who claim an armed population reduces crime?

The US is a violent society, even without consideing the catagory of firearm related crimes the US is violent. I do not know about Germany and do not want to dig into statistics but firearm crime in England is on the rise despite the strong restrictions.

The British Police Officer, once proudly boasting of carrying no firearm is now usually armed whereas the citizens are disarmed. Certainly the changing society, bad economy and the easy travel across boarders are factors. The firearm laws in Britain have become draconian and of course a similiar question to yours above would be to ask where is the proof that a disarmed British population has reduced crime?

I think Missourian has put the sword to the idea about crime and firearms. Britain's problem with crime has more to do with a heterogeneous population - like the US - than it has with restrictions on lawful ownership of firearms.