You're right gun-free 'zones' don't work. When you're one of few states in country that on the whole has liberal gun ownership laws and simply ludicrous gun ownership levels compared to any other developed country, you'd be naive to propose than it would be anything but marginally more difficult for criminals to smuggle legally purchased firearms in from neighbouring states, unless you enforce highly stringent cross border checks.

There are more peaceful countries with more guns per person than the USA. Mind you, they have small, homogenous populations and guns are more a part of their sport culture. No matter the country, the bad guys have guns and can get guns. Always will.

I've lived in both kinds of states. The People's Republic of Mexifornia has stringent gun control laws in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Unless carrying illegally, the citizens there are unarmed sheep. The idea there is to keep people dependent on Big Government. Individual victims are unimportant.

In right-to-carry states (close to 40 states now) crimes shift from invasion (victims at home) and carjacking to theivery when the victim isn't around, though I always enjoy reading about a 90-year-old granny with an S&W permanently recalling some deserving idiot who tried to break into her home.

In the same way, a universal ban on firearms would likely not have any immediate drastic effects on violent crime involving firearms, other factors such as living standards, unemployment levels notwithstanding. A governmental requisitioning of all registered firearms would be far more effective, such the one conducted in Australia which saw 650,000 firearms surrendered in 1997, and a 47% decrease of firearms related deaths in just four years. Again though, with an estimated 50% of US households owning guns with a significant number unregistered, and a potentially far higher average gross amount, the effects would be unlikely to be felt immediately.

My understanding is that crime went up after Australia's gun ban.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html

It only makes sense. If a guy holding a cricket bat doesn't know if I have a gun behind my back, he might not be so quick to attack. Take away that criminal's certainty that he won't be seriously injured and you only embolden him. There's simply no reason to believe that criminals will stop acquiring guns by any means necessary. Gun control punishes only the law-abiding.

Pushing the libertarian approach of the Second Ammendment is skirting around the issue in two ways. Firstly the Second Ammendment talks about the need for a well trained armed militia which is arguable at best in terms of modern necessity and the likely initial motivation for the clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States does not share the liberal view that 'The People' refers to organized militias. It is defined as an individual right.

Secondly where is this connection between the assumption that gun ownership is a supposed human right and the Second Ammendment? That's an separate argument entirely and is very debatable.

Self-defense is a fundamental human right. Firearms are merely a technological extension/expression of this right. People who believe in non-violence to the point they would not resist an attack from someone trying to kill them have the right to not resist and be killed, though most people would call such a thing "suicide by murder." But people do not have the right to hinder or remove others' right to self-defense just because they think disarmament will create "a safer environment". If there was a walled village somewhere that wanted to ban all guns, and all the people living there agreed to it, I don't see anything wrong with that. Unless they were going to be robbed.

The state's role is to provide collective security, it's not simply true that individual freedoms should be protected at any cost and to any extreme case by default, that's a circular argument. How far would you take that absolute argument exactly?

In addition to the right to bear arms--which truly is a right that should apply to every human being save criminals--I believe there are reasonable standards for self-defense that should never be infringed upon. There's no valid reason why any adult citizen of sound mind could not have a firearm to protect the lives of family and to a limited degree, property. Most Americans are unaware it's perfectly legal to own machine guns, and many hobbyists and collectors pay the extra licensing fees and do. We all know a missile launcher for home defense is as impractical as driving a dragster to work; it's not really an issue.

Hard drugs like cocaine? Biological weapons? In my view collective security includes restricting gun ownership to police and trained security personnel. Obviously your view differs but it's not logical to claim that by default without any justification as to why you draw the line exactly where you do.

I understand your point of view. Again, in countries like Japan where people are obedient rule followers, the State can get away with total gun control. However, the downside of that level of obedience is when the Emperor commands, "Go crash your plane into ship." There are certain segments of societies that can and do live without guns. But it only works if it's by choice and there are zero criminals about.

Oh and just out of interest, how likely do you really think that faced with a gun pointing at your face, you'd be able to protect yourself with a loaded and armed firearms conveniently with you at all times (which you of course know how to use) and not tucked away and unarmed in a desk drawer to ensure your 4 year old doesn't get their hands on it?

I think you've answered your own question in a roundabout way. If you think that it's impossible to defend yourself with a nearby firearm, how do YOU expect police and trained security personnel to save you? In America, there's no law that says a cop has to take a bullet for you or is required to give their life to save yours. American law loosely defines police as supposed to "protect society." That doesn't mean anythng to you and me personally. The joke is: 9-1-1 is govt.-sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

The 4-year-old and gun safety issues are aided by the same thing that allows people to move relatively safely in a world of chainsaws, cars and not smoking while pumping gasoline: education.

Regarding your Wild West scenario, most criminals are after cash or other valuables. They don't want to have extended shootouts, and even when they're nutballs like the coward at Virgina Tech, they don't want anyone else being able to shoot back. While no single student with a gun may have been able to take out that nut, the more people that might've had a gun the better the odds would've been of stopping him sooner.

In the USA, guns are used to save lives over 2 millions times a year. Most of those incidents, the gun isn't fired, merely drawn.

Even if you never own a gun, don't you owe it to yourself to learn firearm basics and safety? They are a part of this world.

For those wondering about the relevance of these posts to this sift, B. Hussein Obama is a gun-grabbing leftist. Those that don't trust a citizenry with guns should not be trusted with power.

obviously, this father deserves a medal

never too young to impart the Right to Bear Arms and responsible gun wielding

Some people like the idea of a constitutional scholar as President, which makes your point about the right to bear arms more prescient.

I assume you are of the opinion that the second amendment is as clear as an unmuddied lake; I'm yet to be convinced that second amendment rights are appropriately applied when arguing against more restrictive handgun ownership.

'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.'

Should this line not be tied to its 'Militia' and 'security of a free State' context? If not, why not?

And if you ask me, I'd say Article II Sect.2 defines 'Militia' almost as a civilian force conscripted into service.

'The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.'

"Hey Joe, good to see you joined up with the militia here to fight against the invasion or-what-have-you. Oh and you brought your highly concealable handgun... thats real swell."

Sirex, you just completely sidestepped what I was saying.

1.) You ignored the overall decrease of violent crime in the US since 1998
2.) You addressed number of homicides, not how the gun ban caused no decrease in the homicide rate.
3.) You skipped over how firearm homicides were replaced with other weapons and kept the numbers steady with occasional spikes.
4.) You ignored how there is *no* consensus from the scientific community that tracks these numbers that gun control has any effect. I doubt we're going to prove something like that by citing someone else's data.
5.) Finally, the most important point of all, you didn't address why guns should be banned based on your opinions and not facts.

I never said ban knives and blunt instruments. You inferred that from reading the Australian numbers. I just showed how stabbings and beatings, not only with blunt instruments, but with "hands and feet," increased after the removal of guns. So, now tell me why the government should intervene against the constitution of the United States to ban all firearms without conclusive proof that it will even achieve anything? You may not like the constitution, but then again, you don't like guns either, and your personal opinions don't shape policy.

MINK, you just argued the point of the other side. "If you outlaw guns only the criminals will have them. GOOD because there's less criminals than law abiding people, and they tend to shoot each other, not us." Right. So if you bar a law abiding citizen from owning a gun, how does that prevent a criminal from going outside the law to aquire one and continue using it as before? Does that mean you think that currently lawful citizens decide to commit crimes just because guns make them want to? All of these arguments we've made mean nothing. The constitution is the ultimate authority in the United States. You can't arbitrarily pass laws that are contrary to what it states. Citizens have the right to bear arms. There is no proof that banning guns will prevent crime. Why would you try and remove a fundamental right, in a free country, that is guaranteed to all citizens, without even having evidence to back up your claims? You just can't ban something because you don't like it or fear it.

So then you open the door to deconstruct any other freedoms because the document is "just old." First you avoided the idea of guaranteed freedoms and talked about feelings of safety without guns, or in essence needing overwatch in specific areas of life. Now you say that because the constitution is old, it's contents no longer have merit. This is just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court has defined the 2nd amendment as protecting "from infringement by the federal and state governments the right of the individual to keep and to bear a weapon which is part of the ordinary military equipment or which use could contribute to the common defense."

That is not very ambiguous. Ordinary military equipment does not include weapons of mass destruction by the way. Yes, grenade launchers are legal in the US. Yes, an AR-15 which is quite close to the weapons issued to US troops is legal. Civilian versions are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. One round for each pull of the trigger. What does that matter? Your argument basically follows that since the constitution is old, and guns kill, it's perfectly acceptable to forcibly disarm the population of an entire country without even having actual data to backup claims that it will reduce crime. I just can't agree with that. Look for reports on the results of gun bans and see if you can find a conclusive scientific study that proves a notable increase or decrease in public saftey. What you end up with is spikes in burglaries, assaults, and home invasions. This can't positively be linked to gun bans either since crime was usually on the rise before the bans and no one can seem to agree on the how of it. Crime in the UK doubled in the years following the 1997 ban and is now only in recent years beginning to decrease. Crime continued to rise independent of the gun ban. Your own country saw a drastic rise in home invasions and assaults following the final removal of all guns. Was it related? It's very difficult to tell with many outside factors involved.

Having a decrease in shooting deaths, but an increase in stabbing deaths solves nothing. You take away a gun? No problem, get a knife. Take away knives? No problem... plenty of big rocks and sticks laying around. The idea that passing legislation to ban a weapon will make an area safer is not taking human nature into account. Someone determined to commit a crime will do so with or without the help of a gun. If there was notable scientific data to prove that gun bans created a safer society with actually less violent crime, then that might at least make it appear more justified for a country like Australia that didn't have a guaranteed right to bear arms in the first place. That data just doesn't exist. In fact, in 1996, John Lott from the University of Chicago Law School published 15 years of FBI analysis on over 3,000 countries to find a correlation, if any, between violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. The results showed a major decrease in countries where citizens were more likely to be armed.

The point I've been trying to make over and over again is that none of that even matters anyway. Removing something with good intentions doesn't make it the right decision. This goes beyond just rights to firearms. When you make it acceptable for the government to alter your fundamental rights, for whatever reason, that is like opening Pandora's box. What prevents the same logic that bans a previously guaranteed right from applying to anything else that is deemed a threat? Dramatizing everything by calling people gun nuts, or thinking in terms of extremes, like having shootouts over a fender bender with depleted uranium rounds, is just trivializing an important issue.

In regards to your example of the 3rd amendment, it still has merit today. There are still scenerios where National Guard troops could be deployed within the borders of the United States (although this is increasingly rare). Disaster relief comes to mind as a recent example. This amendment prevents the government from tossing you to the curb to use your home or forcing you to shelter a soldier. Is it likely to be used anytime soon? Probably not, but every citizen is still constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to have a say in soldiers using their property. You seem to view this issue as something almost inconsequential. As if it's just common sense that all guns should be banned regardless of prior laws and in total disregard to individual freedoms because it would secure you peace of mind. I personally consider this to be ignorant of the future consequences involved with allowing the government that kind of control. There is no possible way to enact a complete ban of all personally owned firearms in this country without violating the law.

Your opinion is that you don't need a gun. That is fine. The US constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." To pass legislation banning ownership of a firearm is a violation of this right. It doesn't matter what you feel about the necessity of owning one in your personal daily life. It doesn't matter that you personally see no practical use for it. You imply, willingly or not, that anything you consider dangeous that does not meet your standards for practicality could also be banned. It's not up to the federal government to decide to ignore a constitutional right because of personal feelings. Restricting military hardware such as your extreme example of nukes is an entirely seperate issue from the outright banning of private gun ownership. Yes, motor vehicles are useful and are not banned outright. What we have are traffic laws and violaters are punished. Currently, guns are not outlawed. There are laws governing their use and violaters are punished. The basic point of all this being, you should never remove someone's rights because they are inconvienient to you, or just because you don't understand their necessity.

**EDIT**
I just wanted to add a few things now that I have more time to sit down and write. While it's getting repetitive, it can't be stated enough in this case. Your statement that, "the government has no say in you owning a gun or not, because, well, you just should be able to dangit" is just plain trivializing the issue. It's not an arbitrary statement like "I wants me sum gunz!" It's the 2nd amendment to the contitution, the document this country is founded on. Australia never had a right to bear arms. The United States does. Banning firearms in Australia was not trampling on a guaranteed freedom for the people of that country, even if I personally find it objectionable. Different story in the US.

The paranoia shown in this thread is amazing. From what's been written it sounds like people here are fully prepared to be carjacked or wake up and find someone in their bedroom.

I'm also amazed that the UK is being used as a negative example of what happens when strict gun control is enforced - gun crime was rising even before the recent legislation was passed, so to suggest that its introduction created a dangerous new gun culture is misleading. Even so to put this in perspective, of the 755 recorded murders in 2006/07 barely 7% involved a gun.

In fact, in the Home Office's 2006/07 British Crime Survey, crimes involving firearms decreased pretty much across the board - due to gun control, knives are still by far the most popular weapon. These figures are on page 78 of the survey.

Gun crime in the UK (and I expect the US) is predominately concentrated in a few urban centres and more often than not is linked to some form of inter-gang activity i.e. it's 16-24 year old males from ethnic minorities killing each other. I'd say I'm fairly safe in assuming that the majority of the people who have commented here are white and of European origin, which automatically means the likelihood of you being involved in a gun crime are statistically and comparatively small.

As a non-US citizen the whole debate over an anachronistic right to bear arms mystifies me.

#1, I can't believe this dude killed two people over some stuff. No one is arguing the burglars shouldn't be punished, but that's why we have laws, police, and due process. Do the police screw up sometimes? Ya, but at least they are held (somewhat) accountable. Vigilantes are the last thing we need.

#2 for all the gun toting people who think the SOLUTION to Virgina Tech, Columbine etc is to add MORE guns to the mix, I'm really trying hard to understand you... Let's think about it, a random shooting opens up, people scramble, they're scared, nervous, and shocked... Do you think they're going to react by pulling out their "piece" and nailing the assailant(s) with one clean shot? Come on! And what happens when inevitably someone trying to "do good" accidentally shoots another civilian? "oops?, sorry, my bad, I was trying to get the bad guy..."?

The solution is LESS guns, NOT more.

You wanna hunt? fine... get a license, get dressed up in your orange outfit and hunt... with a hunting rifle. You want to go to a shooting range, fine. That doesn't mean you need to be carrying a gun with you all the time (honey, stop the car, there's a deer!), you certainly do not need it concealed, and certainly do not need a handgun/shotgun/automatic-death-cannon.

The second amendment was written in a time of muskets where the US had no full-time army and the populous would be relied up to defend against/overthrow the government. Well... a lot of good all those guns have done preventing the government from stripping the US citizens of their rights. At this rate, the right to bear arms will soon be the only right remaining.

Gorgon, I do believe anyone who has an interest in the second amendment - right to bear arms - would disagree that the erasing of laws has much to do with personal security. If there's no law against murder, psycho would generally last about ONE murder - cuz retribution for many would be "personal" and that psycho wouldn't live long enough to enact another murder. Now, think about that in a societal aspect; laws against murder enable a stable and functional society because we aren't all running around getting revenge on each other we can commit ourselves to higher functions. The argument you put forth is one against non-utopian anarchy and it's a decent one but the actual evolution of the argument is that without restriction, humankind will eventually settle down and have a society built upon mutual fear/respect. That's actually the base argument that gun enthusiasts have: if everyone has guns and is allowed to carry and use them, criminals won't be so quick to use theirs. Mutual fear/respect is also the base of the argument for the Cold War and nuclear stand-off.
But your last statment is about obediance to law, not enactment of law or restrictions. "Obediance" is not the same thing as law.

Wow, I was a big fan of ROn Paul, but this speech makes it pretty clear. He's politician liar through and through. Say anything to any crowd. What a bozo, he's more of the same Republithug continued policies except that he gives lip services to the Constitution.

If he had any integrity he would realize that abortion is a States right issue, schooling should not be national, and the nonsense of homeschool and private online high schools do not deserve our tax dollars to make some fundie corporation rich at the expense of communities and local public schools. I agree with 2nd amendment, but come on, you really think allowing everyone on an airplane to carry a handgun?? Really?? Is this any bit reasonable in any regard? I mean sure, militias, right to bear arms, promote the hell out of that. But how does that apply to interstate travel in an airplane? The concept is arm populace to prevent tyranny and threats foreign and domestic and protect property and liberties. How do you go from that to interstate travel has the right for every half-wit to carry on board a tool that can potentially bring down the whole plane? Where does that nonsense stop? 18 yr old high school kids have the right to arm themselves in schools? How about criminals in jail? (why is that outlandish?)

"You read the Qur'an"

You're right! I've read it, studied it, scrutinised it, memorised it, translated it. I've looked at the historical context of its revelation/creation. i've studied the Islamic story of its creation and sceptical non-Islamic accounts of its creation. I've studied its themes and topics. I've studied its linguistic and formal structure. I've studied it aesthetic and poetic qualities. I've studied its transmission along ancient trade routes and through modern technology. I've studied its influence on countless people throughout history and I've seen the way that it has shaped civilisations and inspired artists. I've read countless commentaries on it - from classic works of interpretation to modern re-readings.

You on the other hand have never read it. All you've done is read a few verses - badly translated and out of their Qur'anic and historical context - quoted in the works of people who despise all faith - particularly, it seems, Islam. And yet you claim to know the first thing about Islam or the Qur'an! Another group of people do what you do - they're the militant fundamentalist extremists that some of us are working so hard to discredit.

"If Islam is anything that you claim it is, no sane person could use it for these purposes"

Have you read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? How could any sane person use this to justify the claim that any individual has the right to bear arms? Has the right to carry guns in public? That amendment is used to allow the sale of guns in supermarkets to anyone over the age of eighteen. Was that the original intention of the drafters of that amendment? Of course not! The true intention of the drafters has been corrupted in order to provide political and legal cover for gun nuts. The message of Muhammad and the Qur'an has been similarly perverted.

From the perspective of a non-American, this is an issue on which there should be no debate - the more guns there are the more potential there is for people to be killed - period! Fuck the NRA and fuck anyone who thinks the right to bear arms is
is a right which is worth fighting for.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

I love my country. I wouldnt live anywhere else but.. I'd like to comment on the following:

You are not the nation with the best education - Thats Japan. Also the highest stress amongst children.
You are not the nation with most peace - That's still Switzerland - Sig Heil! Erm.. There Neutral.
You are not the most ecologically-aware nation - Um.. what nation truly is? Statistically or not.. all nations are guilty of this in some fashion or another.
You are not the nation with the best social politics - Duh, Bush? But we did get to vote for him.
You are not the nation with the best medicine - But were not the nation with the worst either.
You are not the nation with the lowest crime rates - Yea.. that "Right to bear arms" is a bunch of crap.</sarcasm> But... the larger the population the higher the crime rate. Couple with the fact that Americans have to put more time on the clock at work, and the fact that the divorce rate is so high - kids have no role models, or even anyone at home to raise them. Its a downward spiral in which we can't seem to be rid of.
You are not the nation with less enemies - Well.. of course not our foreign policy management sucks. Plus - it seems were like the Roman Empire trying to 'help' other nations with their terrorist issues.
You are not the most democratic nation - Um what nation truly is? You put down ANY country and you can find fault with it.
You are not the wisest nation - Nope only 200 years old - wisdom comes with time and learning from our mistakes. Problem is right now were too busy making them to be able to learn from them yet. BUT - in 200 years we have done more to change the world then any other place on the planet. Which has been good - and bad.

Not suprising. Remember Alberto Gonzolas' description of the Genevea Conventions as "quaint"?

Here's the 4th Amendment for reference:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is the same group that can parse the 2nd admendment's "Right to bear arms" and somehow ignore the whole part about it being predated on the need for a "well-regulated militia". If every gun owner were required to be in a well-regulated militia (state militia, National Guard, military reserve) we'd have far fewer accidental gun deaths.

Always interesting to watch american gun fetishism... They still don´t get it: With their right to bear arms they think they live in a safer world. But still thousands get shot each year. Compare that to other countries... laughable.

Germany: 83mio people, less than 400 shot to death each year (legal gun posession nearly impossible).
US: 280mio people, >10,000 shot to death each year.

Compare the rates yourselves...

I wouldn´t feel safe on US streets.

...On the other hand what makes me feel really bad: A great part of the world´s most advanced weapon systems are built in Germany (U31 submarine, Leopard 2 tank, ...). We are in no way any better than the rest of the world :-(