Correction:
Mac: The highest crime rate in the US belongs to Detroit. Violent crime was at 2,289 out [for every 100,000 people in 2007 (I missed that part)]. That means that you have about a [1 in 43] chance of being victimized. Of course the murder rate was only 46. So you have about a [1 in 2,173] chance of being in a situation where it's kill or be killed. Or are you going to shoot someone that tries to take $60 from your wallet?

And this is in Detroit, a city much more dangerous than Baltimore. The violent crime rate per 100,000 people in Baltimore is only about 70% of that in Detroit (1,631/100,000). So no, your case isn't resting. The fact is that even in the most dangerous places in the US, statistically you're still safe.

I live down the street from Dick Cheney and I do worry that he may wander around the Naval Observatory grounds one night taking target practice.

I will welcome the Bidens to the neighborhood!

All I know is that if I were stuck in the middle of scenic downtown Detroit on any given evening after 11pm or so, the last thing I would want or need in my pocket is a can of mace. Well, maybe it would stop the giant rats. I'd be better off with a can of silly string, at least I could run for my life with a gang of killers caught up in a laughing fit. Things may be different in sunny California.

then how do you account for the quote in my signature?

What is "an establishment of religion" in the 1st amendment?

What is "unreasonable searches and seizures" in the 4th amendment?

What is "just compensation" in the 5th amendment?

What is a "speedy trial" in the 6th amendment?

Are these terms not vague and subject to interpretation.

constitutional "rights" do have limits. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. You can't slander people in the press without facts to back it up, etc. I'm not sure why gun rights people can't agree to a reasonable set of limits

And the "gang of killers" would be chasing you why?

We've already established that rights aren't necessarily absolute.

The challenge, now, comes to addressing this outmoded Constitution.

Perhaps I should stock up on body armor.

Oh, wait... they want to outlaw that, too.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 07 : 47 : 49-----
As a yeoman farmer, I find the notion that a vague document can be outmoded rather ridiculous.

Perhaps it is the processes by which we run the country that are in need of a little hemming.

That's a given.

What I meant was that if there is such a great debate on any aspect of the Constitution or one or more of the Amendments, then isn't this indicative of something being out of step?

This is what the constitutional amendments are for. This is why women and "negroes" can vote.

But change is a difficult process for such a conservative nation.

Got some numbers to support that? Everything I've read has Mexico with lower crime stats then the US in almost ever violent crime category. There are more murders here per 100K, over double 13.04 per 100K to 5.62. But all other major categories are half, or less, then in the US. For example in Mexico the number aggravated assaults per 100K was 186.68 in 2004 in the US it was 310.14. Rape-14.26 in Mex. and 32.99 in the US.

There's always been this argument that the numbers for Mexico are low because the general population doesn't report crime. I don't know how you prove or disprove something that isn't being reported. I do know in all the years, nearly 20, I've been coming down here I've never had a problem. Most of the crime seems to be near the border or in Mexico City.

Crime Rates Mexico

In Merida (the largest city near me) the crime rate was reported to be the lowest of any North American city with a population of more then 1 millon in 2003. Lower then any city of that size in the US or Canada. I've walked the streets of Merida all hours of the day and have never felt any unease, certainly have never seen any violence. Recently there's been an increase in drug gang related violent crimes. But the bottom line is if you're not in the drug trade you're at little risk.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 08 : 54 : 18-----
The 2nd Amendment states-

Doesn't say anything about "limitations on safely using" If I have the right to bear arms and that right can not be infringed on then I want a nuke. I most certainly want to be the first in my neighborhood to get one too. If I can't have that I'll take a M-1 Abrams.

Ask the last 4 Detroit mayors why, over the last 40 years. (you'd have to wait until Mayor Kilpatrick gets out of jail on corruption charges.)

Dude, a well regulated militia wouldn't allow that.

Yeah, we're all pretty pissed about that up here in San Jose, which I believe is somewhere between second and third place in that statistic.

..

I think what goes unspoken is the fact that non-democratic governments historically have this strange tendency to 'permanently silence' their critics, dissidents, minorities and other defenseless rabble to the tune of 55 or so million people in the 20th century alone. To these governments, gun control meant just that - no guns for you, all the guns for us. Best I can tell it is garden variety fear...fear of what is misunderstood...fear of The Other Who Has Stuff That Makes Loud Noises.

I can carry several kilos of powdered, weaponized anthrax in my own two hands. Or are we also assuming they have to be projectile weapons? One can likely put liquid chemical and biological weapons in a tranquilizer gun.

BTW, are you familiar with suitcase nukes? The popular held belief is that they've been around for over 30 years now.
Guns don't kill people, idiots with guns kill people. We're not scared of guns, we're just convinced that people generally don't need them.
-----Added 10/12/2008 at 10 : 12 : 18-----
The insinuation here seems clear: you assume that if you're armed you're safe from government tyranny. Of course when you really walk through that scenario in your mind, it becomes frighteningly clear how useless small arms would be against the military. They were armed at Waco. How'd that work out?

..

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

"The meek will inherit the earth."

It's the Second Amendment, not us. We're simply using the same axiom you use to excuse owning guns.
Do you think criminals can get guns because there are too many gun laws?
The shrapnel in my uncle's abdomen from Vietnam and the reason a family friend has a leg blown off isn't guns, it's bombs. Do you think the Vietcong could have won with only guns? Or should we legalize bombs?
I'm not arguing to take away guns. I'm questioning the logic of having them. There's also a question as to whether or not the Second Amendment, as it was originally intended, is still relevant. Of course at the core is still the simple issue: Barack Obama is the last person gun owners need to be afraid of. He's a centrist. He could be more progressive in Illinois because Chicago is fairly progressive, but as POTUS, he will be a centrist.

I wonder if the Nazis would have thought twice about implementing the extermination of 6 million ARMED Jews, for example. China, USSR also wiped out their political opponents to remain in power (some say they still do).

I'm no gun nut, just leery of the scales of power tipping too far in either direction. I think a thoroughly pacified, unarmed society is a bad idea for both foreign and domestic reasons.

Now you're assuming a great deal. You really think none of the Jewish people in Germany had any kind of weapons? Many of them were veterans from WW1.

I'm not pacified, btw. I'm just trying to be pragmatic about this whole gun issue.

if you live in a city, your view of easy access to guns tends to be different than if you don't. it isn't rocket science. that's probably why the main argument in the thread that tends toward gun control is that it should be a local matter.

i have no problem with one type of controls in chicago and another in a more rural area. in a city, you see, when more people have guns, there can be more shooting because, well, there's more people and so its a statistical inevitability and because there's more people they're arranged in a dense way, so if there's more people with guns and so more possibilities that the aggregate will be populated, the possibility of bullets that do not hit their target increases and because of that density matter, bullets that do not hit their target are not good they don't just disappear somewhere necessarily.

so you can't blame people who live in cities for thinking that fewer rather than more guns available is intuitively a good thing. but not all environments result in that, so local control. why would you would object to that?

Its good to know that you consider 60-70% of American citizens who support reasonable gun control, including an AWB, to be leftists!

I only wish it were true.

BTW, I know you feel so strongly in your opposition to gay marriage....what is the big deal with gays getting married? how does gay marriage affect you? (threadjack)

..

I dont think any Democrats in Congress signed the amicus brief in the Heller case....correction, a few

It was a purely political act predominantly by Republicans who challenge DC's right to home rule at every opportunity. I wonder how many Republican Senators would have signed the brief if the local law in question represented the will of the majority of citizens of their largest city?

How many times must it be said...Obama's position was clear....DC (or any city) should have the right to enact its own laws that can stand a constitutional test. Not to mention again, his vote with Republicans on the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment to protect 2nd amendment rights.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 12 : 02 : 00-----
Here's the bottom line for me.

Some of you guys just cant accept the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans can have honest, thoughtful positions that challenges yours for whatever reasons they may believe is valid...without calling them cowards ("scared of firearms"), ignorant of the Constitution, or leftists.

Are the 50+% of gun owners who support an AWB (according to several national independent polls) the ones who are scared of firearms or ignorant of the Constitution or leftists? Or could it be that they honestly dont see the need (or a right) for a private citizen to own a semi-automatic weapon when their home protection and recreational needs can be met with a handgun or sporting rifle.

(ps KirStang...thank you for being one gun rights advocate who can understand and even support why many Americans see the value of mandatory child safety devices as one component of reasonable gun control that they feel is still needed.).

While most Americans are in agreement that "reasonable" gun controls are needed in a civilized society I think the rub is what is considered "reasonable". I predict that if the Democrats pass another AWB their majorities in both House and Senate will go away rather quickly and don't be surprised if they don't lose the White House too. This is why I don't think we will see any movement on this front until Obama's second term. It could be sooner if the Democrats are able to get amnesty passed for all the illegal aliens because then they need the gun owners vote even less but as of right now they really need the gun owners vote. I may be surprised but that's kinda how I see things unfolding. I'll wait until the prices drop back down a bit before I go out and get that AR15 lower I been wanting to add to the collection.

and some of us just can't stand them being ignorant of the constitution. I've known quite a few 'fudds' (that would be those who consider the 2nd Amendment is about hunting) and urban transplanters who feel that we get our rights handed to us from our benevolent government, which is bassackwards and just totally wrong.

They may be any or all of those things, but the one thing for sure that they are is that they are scared of their fellow law abiding citizens and would rather see them limited in their arms instead of providing the means for their own adequate and equal defense.

value or hindrance?

A well regulated militia? I must of skipped over that part of the amendment and only read "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Interesting.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 06 : 37 : 32-----
Think you guys came in 4th with a couple Canadian cities in there first. I'll look around it's cited in one of the many books I bought when considering my move.

Welll, there you go again...thinly veiled attack on those silly country bumpkins who cling to their guns and their religion for succor. Next thing you know we'll have street gangs and drug cartels operating from the farmlands and forests. Just imagine Al Capone or Tony Montana trotting through The Loop on horseback: say hello to my little horsey!

Do you recall reading anything about cannons being illegal to own?

You think the 2nd Amendment means any arms you can carry in your two arms?

Then can I at least have an few RPG's?

Can point out the post where this was covered a few pages back? Not saying it's not there, simply tried of wading through a bunch of snide comments and insults trying to find the posts that actually contain logic and reason.

Huh? I think you mean that violence is the FIRST refuge of the incompetent. It doesn't make sense the way you said it above.

Violence is the last refuge of the reasonable man. You avoid bad situations first, try to talk it out, then do some manly WillRavel-style Mortal Kombat moves... and if those things fail... use your firearm. Firearms are a the great last resort equalizer.

I don't buy the ubiquitous Ghandi-style puppies-'n-sunshine-hugs speech. That stuff is for people adept at lying to themselves about their human limitations. Only a few self-proclaimed saints on the board here would accept some radical crazy DK-style situation like their family being sodomized and themselves being tortured using CIA methods while wearing the glazed-over Jesus-Save-Us smile.

...

I think these some of "fetishist yeoman farmers" are stocking up on guns for the same reason rational people stock up on milk, bread, and toilet paper before a storm: they're being prepared in case something bad happens and don't want to rely on others to help them. Some of 'em are paranoid idjits. Some of them are looking to make money.

...

IMHO, that is the "higher purpose" of firearm ownership: being able to do for yourself instead of having to rely on government-sponsored Dial-A-Prayer such as "911." Much like buying a fire extinguisher for your home, car, or boat... there is a near-zero chance that you'll ever have to use it, but isn't it better to be prepared?

Crompsie, that quotation refers to those who are incapable of accomplishment without violence. Think dictators vs. great leaders. I admit it doesn't quite fit into the context of the thread here.

And, by the way, even Buddhists resort to violence to protect their families.

Personally, I don't see my owning a firearm as a necessity. This might have to do with the fact that my city is one of the safest of its size categories. I really don't know what I would do if I lived in certain parts of the U.S.

So Christopher Reeves and the drummer to that '80s band I won't mention, and Gorro from Mortal Kombat can carry no guns, a handgun, two long guns in that respective order?

I like the logic.
-----Added 11/12/2008 at 07 : 44 : 41-----
Yeah, fits like DC_Dux at a NRA banquet.

...

Thing is... I like the choice to own a firearm. Choice is important as it represents the ideals of a free society. Smoking or non, car or motorcycle, pants or no pants... you have choices. There are consequences to some choices (such as eating babies or threatening your neighbor with a pitchfork) but the point is that our society generally allows us to first make choices and then deal with the consequences if the choices we make are unwise.

powerclown, there was no attack meant in that post.

i simply posed a problem. i'll boil it down a bit further for you: the nra position makes living in a city less safe. it might make individuals feel safer, but that comes at the cost of increasing the likelihood of damage being done as unintentional consequence. i don't imagine that to the be intent of an absolutist position about gun control law---if it is, that's a Problem (khymer rouge anyone?)---i imagine that most gown owners who oppose controls altogether do so for reasons that are connected to areas of control, that is they want to be strapped to feel safer or to deal with fear---this obtains for the people who do more than target shoot or hunt, but who carry to "manage" situations---all i am saying is that it is this assertion of control within a chaotic situation that creates the problem i am talking about, simply because not all bullets hit their target.

so in a densely populated area, the "right" to assert control using a weapon, which may make the strapped individual feel safer, comes with the correlate of making the rest of us, who are living in cities and going about our lives, feel that we are less safe. in the course of my life, i've come to know maybe a half dozen people who've been shot. of them, 1 knew where the bullet came from.

on a parallel track, i doubt seriously that a hunter in his right mind would pursue a deer---say---into a town and shoot at it on the streets of that town for the same reasons--unintended consequences in a situation of greater population density.

my main point is that folk's positions about this question typically are functions of associations, and those associations are functions of where they live, of their experience. the other point is that given a self-evident divergence in everyday experience within and without a city, you'd think that there'd be no real basis for opposing locally divergent degrees and types of gun control. this seems an issue where local control is appropriate, don't you think?

Disclaimer:

Firearms, especially handguns, are not magical voodoo protection amulets that ward off the evil spirits of "racial minorities" or "The Man" despite what some disturbed individuals choose to believe.

Firearms are pieces of steel, wood, and plastic that do absolutely nothing without human operation.

Individual human responsibility is such a tough pill to swallow.

true, crompsin---but my point is that the exercise of that responsibility in an urban context is different from the exercise of that responsibility in another context---the limits placed around action or, more precisely, agency, are basically different. something that sometimes happens: a little kid who gets shot while watching television in his or her livingroom by a bullet set into motion within an altogether different situation....where does individual responsibility enter that scenario? from a viewpoint that includes the kid, the irresponsible action is putting the bullets into motion---from a viewpoint that includes only the situation that explains the shooting, things can be entirely otherwise. there are limits to this notion of individual responsibility, in other word, limits which come from the assertion of a collective right not to risk getting shot while watching tv in your living room (to stick with the example above)...

that's the problem--individuals do not operate in isolation.

it's a quote from "Foundation" by Isaac Asimov. It makes sense in the context of the book; when the shit hits the fan, the incompetent always resort to violence, while the competent know how to avoid it

You can't smoke in a preschool; you can't drive your motorcycle through a shopping mall; and you can't go to a ball game without your pants on. You see, this is what some of us are getting at: You have rights to certain things, but there are reasonable limits. (And they aren't merely "as long as you don't infringe on others' rights.") You have the right to private property, but you cannot own certain materials that are banned from private ownership (specifically due to risk of public danger). This isn't an infringement on property rights; it's about reasonable restrictions.

They aren't trying to take all the guns away; they're merely limiting the availability of certain firearms. And, as has been mentioned more than once here, most Americans support that.