« First « Previous Comments 1,397 - 1,436 of 1,436 Search these comments
U.S. Firearms per Capita and Homicide Rates. No Correlation
A linchpin of the argument of those who favor a disarmed population is the assumption of "More Guns = More Crime". It was succinctly stated as an assumption in a recent paper. (one source is referenced) Psychopathy, Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence:
Carrying guns increases the risk of injury and death...
This is a hotly disputed assumption. There are several papers which dispute the premise. If carrying guns does not increase the risk of injury and death, the pragmatic argument for strict restrictions on gun ownership and use collapses. There is some evidence, if guns are restricted in a draconian manner, homicides with guns may be reduced. Overall homicides are not reduced.
If the substitution of other methods results in the same or more homicides, or if firearms are used to prevent homicides as well as facilitate them, the argument to restrict gun ownership is not viable.
The_Deplorable says
watching Syria, i see where guns went.
Another reason why I should be allowed to own a Gatling gun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXs3vJt129M
Another video where they are using a 50 cal belt to hunt hogs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOt1HLXNRFE
« First « Previous Comments 1,397 - 1,436 of 1,436 Search these comments
"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."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.