Right to bear arms?

[Rural King]

@ Justadude -

Do Americans due to the geographical, social, cultural, and historical development patterns of the United States have a propensity to prefer gun ownership? Without a doubt.

Is there a desire by a vocal and fairly powerful minority of gun owners to push for access to certain gun types, forms of ammunition, and carry rights beyond those needed for reasonable self-protection and hunting rights? Certainly.

Do most gun owners follow the law, keep their guns safely locked away, and only possess firearms they actually need for self-defense and/or hunting? Absolutely.

I live in an area where the vast majority of individuals own a gun for either home security and/or hunting. So one would think if these folks are more prone to use them improperly then not then there would be stories all the time about accidents, misuse, etc. However, that is not the case. Sure once in awhile accidents or incidents occur - but the vast majority of reports of gun use by law abiding citizens tend to be their legal use in defending themselves in their property in places like Jackson and Memphis were crime can be a serious issue in certain neighborhoods and areas. The other use of guns, the vast majority of reported gun use, is by individuals using them during criminal acts that range from armed robbery and home invasion to criminal on criminal activity. There are also the occasional "heat of the moment incidents" with guns between folks out in the country, but those are actually kind of rare.

The point is that the vast majority to gun use in my area is by people out to harm others, with the majority of gun owners being responsible and safe owners of firearms. I would contend this is the case in most, if not all, areas.

As for your contention that if gun ownership rights were taken away tomorrow that in time guns would become hard to acquire in the subsequent decades, I respectfully disagree. Underground markets would certainly fill the void, as criminals who now obtain their firearms via theft, illegal sales, etc. from the legal domestic market would find a new black market would emerge from overseas suppliers who would develop a network to sell firearms to these criminal elements; whom range from the lone street level hood to organized groups. The market historically shows that where there is a demand for a product (legal or illegal), the market will find a way to provide - look at the drug trade. The access to domestic handguns for criminal activity might diminish as the price went up, but as the price went up the price for exotic foreign made full auto weapons or pistols would come down as the market would entice more arms smuggling as a profitable criminal endeavor. The end result would most likely be criminals will find buying a more lethal foreign weapon is only marginally more cost prohibitive than the domestic alternatives they previously chose. Net result - more heavily armed and dangerous criminals.

There has been a slow arms race between criminals and law enforcement in the US for the last 20 years, and by banning hand-gun ownership from civilians you would not only make civilians easier targets by more heavily armed criminals, but increase the market place for more dangerous weapons in the US to the point where it might become a problem as bad as the drug trade.

Has the gun-ban made DC any safer? By denying homeowners the right to own a gun made them safer from the criminals who still can possess a gun via illegal means? Let’s say the criminal breaking into a home only has a bat or knife, should the homeowner be forced to only protect himself likewise and risk losing to the intruder before the police can arrive? Or would the ability to shoot an intruder with clear intent on harming the homeowner be the preferable means of self-protection for the law abiding citizen?

I believe gun ownership is definitely a right to every law abiding citizen. Should that right be regulated, in particular for handguns, to those who can prove they are responsible and capable of safely securing, maintaining, and using firearms via state mandated education/certification programs and background checks? I would contend that is not an unreasonable standard; and I would argue this would probably be acceptable to the vast majority of gun owners as long as their right to own the firearm for legal self-protection and hunting is upheld. I mean we already mandate hunting licenses and carry permits, so this is not an illogical or unreasonable step to protect a constitutional right while ensuring public safety.

I think we agree on many things as far as responsibility goes, but I think we will just have to disagree on the effects of a gun ban would have on public safety and the supply of firearms within the United States.

[zman9810]

Great discussion- I'll add that as a gun owner I also believe in the right of an individual to own a firearm but within reason. I think there should be more regulation on the sale of guns and ammunition as the VT and countless other shootings show the need for. For anyone to be able to aquire a gun without a thorough background check into their mental condition and criminal background is ridiculous.

The idea of a organized civilian miltia only is much more scary to me than licensed individual citizens owning guns for their personal use. To me that is another cult like inspired disaster waiting to happen. The point was made that if personal ownership of guns was outlawed the demand for guns woud ensure that a replacement black market would ensure that the demand would be met- that is a given as the illegal drug market has made plain. If we can't keep human beings from coming into the country unregulated what makes anyone think that we could keep small weapons out?

[Justadude]

Rural King - Excellent points and well-taken. I can't respond to everything so I'll shamelessly cherry-pick

- The stereotypical scenario of the burglar invading your home at night is no more common than the stereotypical scenario of a gun-crazed lunatic shooting up a shopping mall. Both are extreme rarities and really not what the "gun issue" is all about. The vast majority of gun crime is not random and does not happen in such a way that one can prepare a defense. So IMO, both sides are equally guilty of using extreme rarities as general examples.

- You may be right that the black market would take over seamlessly if the domestic market was shut down. I doubt this to be true, for the same reason that there are more hookers in Amsterdam than in Kansas. But even if it did work out that the nation was suddenly flooded by an uncontrollable wave of black-market guns, it couldn't be any worse than the current system wherein anyone can buy an AK-47 using a family member's Paypal account (as was the case last week with the guy who had 4 machine guns and was making massacre threats). It's perfectly clear that the system is broken, so I say we ought to fix it to the best of our ability rather than accept the status quo.

- Just want to point out that there is no Constitutional "right" to possess a gun for hunting purposes, or for that matter anything other than defensive purposes. Personally I don't believe that the Constitution gives any indication that by "defense" we are supposed to think about self-defense from criminals in the night; IMO it's quite clear that the idea was militia defense against tyranny... but putting that argument aside it's really quite black-and-white that hunting is not Constitutionally protected.

- I think a system like the one in your second-to-last paragraph would be a great start and a compromise that both sides could live with. It would at least provide some raw data for the effects that a rigorous certification process can have on gun crime. Currently gun possession is so unlimited that we don't even have the benefit of being able to really analyze the problem.

zman, the type of "militia" we're talking about is not the sort of cult-like group that causes FBI showdowns. This would be something like a cross between the National Guard and a Volunteer Fire Department -- citizen militia members would be under the supervision of state officers (the key being complete independence from the Feds) responsible for operating training programs, maintaining order and authority over the group, and operating a secure armory. Really not that different from a local police force, but with different responsibilities and probably not paid.

[Raintree21]

The Supreme Court will continue hearing the case on gun rights tomorrow and is expected to deliver a verdict this week or next.

[nowensone]

...

As for your contention that if gun ownership rights were taken away tomorrow that in time guns would become hard to acquire in the subsequent decades, I respectfully disagree. Underground markets would certainly fill the void, as criminals who now obtain their firearms via theft, illegal sales, etc. from the legal domestic market would find a new black market would emerge from overseas suppliers who would develop a network to sell firearms to these criminal elements; whom range from the lone street level hood to organized groups. The market historically shows that where there is a demand for a product (legal or illegal), the market will find a way to provide - look at the drug trade. The access to domestic handguns for criminal activity might diminish as the price went up, but as the price went up the price for exotic foreign made full auto weapons or pistols would come down as the market would entice more arms smuggling as a profitable criminal endeavor. The end result would most likely be criminals will find buying a more lethal foreign weapon is only marginally more cost prohibitive than the domestic alternatives they previously chose. Net result - more heavily armed and dangerous criminals.

There has been a slow arms race between criminals and law enforcement in the US for the last 20 years, and by banning hand-gun ownership from civilians you would not only make civilians easier targets by more heavily armed criminals, but increase the market place for more dangerous weapons in the US to the point where it might become a problem as bad as the drug trade.

...

I believe gun ownership is definitely a right to every law abiding citizen. Should that right be regulated, in particular for handguns, to those who can prove they are responsible and capable of safely securing, maintaining, and using firearms via state mandated education/certification programs and background checks? I would contend that is not an unreasonable standard; and I would argue this would probably be acceptable to the vast majority of gun owners as long as their right to own the firearm for legal self-protection and hunting is upheld. I mean we already mandate hunting licenses and carry permits, so this is not an illogical or unreasonable step to protect a constitutional right while ensuring public safety.

[Raintree21]

For the first time since its ratification in 1791, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Ammendment to the US Constitution. The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia who wrote that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted. The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

The court also said Washington D.C.'s (the reason for this case) requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled was unconstitutional, but left intact the licensing of guns.

[erdogs]

This will be interesting to see if the murder rate in D.C. drops, rises or stays the same in the future.