I simply think that obsevation is bogus. Let's look at it on a Macro and Micro scale. Anyone who does not think that our nuclear arsenal is a deterrent is missing the big picture. Out gunning your opponant and assuring mutual destruction is indeed a deterrent. The state of nevada has proven that violent crimes have dropped because of gun ownership and allowing concealed carry. The criminal mind will always take the path of least resistance as opportunity presents itself. I learned very early on that you do not defeat the school bully by being nice and trying to talk your way out of an impending pummeling. You have to fight fire with fire, it is the law of the jungle and the only law that criminals and no do gooders resepct.

Oh yea, we've had a couple of examples here in Finland about the combination of schools and handguns. Can't say I'd like any more of that, thank you very much.

The thing that I find curious is why is it only now that this makes news when this has been going on for quite some time now.

Maybe it's reaching new heights of intensity?

Not really, this kind of thing has been going on there for years. You could fill a couple of dumpsters with all the heads that have been lopped off.

No I think it is suddenly newsworthy, so I ask again, what has changed?

I'm sure you can come up with an answer.

Is this 20 Questions? Just make your case man!

Well a change in administration comes to mind.

Fair enough, and thanks again for taking the time to present a well-considered argument.

I agree with everything but the last sentence. However, in all fairness I should point out that I'm still a young guy, and perhaps I have more confidence in a person's ability to defend themselves than is warranted.
However, I still feel that widespread firearms possesion can benefit the populace in combatting the common criminal by serving as a deterrant.


It's a stretch, but worth considering. Unfortunately data on murder rates per capita is largely unavailable for the "wildest" parts of the wild west, so I can't really make anything of it. They could be higher than today's inner cities, or maybe lower.
It's an interesting thought, but I'd have to leave it at that until I have more detailed information on the period.


You'll have to forgive me for breaking up your argument in this paragraph but I do take some exception to what you state here. The right to join the military wasn't much of a right. At that period in history, people were often forced into military service. This was before the Crimean War, which you may be familiar with if you have read the Charge of the Light Brigade. That war was something of a turning point for the public's perception of the common military man. Before that, the average soldier was regarded as little more than a trained dog or a brute.
Considering that the colonials would have been most familiar with the Empire's military systems, it hardly seems likely that the founding fathers, who took such pains to prevent tyranny from overthrowing a government by the People, for the People, would have included the "right" to serve in the military as a cornerstone of the nation's constitution.

The Second Amendment also includes the terminology "keep and bear arms" and states that the rights detailed within "shall not be infringed". Now, both of us can only specualate as to what the founders' intents really were, but seems like a logical stretch to assume that they intended to preserve the right for the nation to have a military. Especially when you consider how clearly the other powers of the Federal government are ennumerated. And when you consider that the tenth amendment reserves all right and power not expressly granted herein to the states or the people.

It probably should have been clarified better but hindsight is 20/20, yes? The phrase "well-regulated militia" is a constant source of contention as well. Regulated by who? What is well-regulated? The Federal government isn't given the power to define those terms or regulate militias. The tenth amendment tells us that they shouldn't have the power to do so.

I do agree that the Constitution is a living document, and it is valid to amend it change the Second Amendment. However, this is not the type of legislation that has been used thus far. Most current federal gun control legislation is in direct violation of many interpretations of the second amendment and every imaginable interpretation of the tenth. Rather than using Constitutional means, the Federal government has only sidestepped Constitutional law by employing some questionable Supreme Court rulings or offering block grants to states that enact legislation that is unconstitutional for the Federal government to enact itself.


That depends on how you define "best society". To me, the best society is one in which everyone is as free as possible. Of course, there must be some regulation, to control fraud and violations of others' personal freedoms, but I would like to see it as limited as possible.
Limited state control and interference helps to generate incentive in business and in private affairs. Incentive is required for productivity and prosperity. Just look at the extreme contrast of Taiwan and China, or Hong Kong and China, or China's special economic zones and the rest of China. Or the U.S. and Russia. Or South and North Korea.
Those are extreme examples, but what I fear is that liberal measures taken today will expand the power of the government to where it can become such an extreme example. A largely disinterested electorate and a state-monopolized education system can only exacerbate that possibility, and should the day ever come when the state takes one step too far, I want my firearm.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was only attempting to illustrate that violent crime transcends national boundaries, and that even in a society as homogenous and regulated (socially) as Japan, laws do little to reduce the incidence of violent crime. We are in agreement about the social roots of the problem, but we differ in our opinions of how best to prevent and address those problems.

That's a valid concern. I still disagree, though. Given the highly organized nature of law enforcement in America today, I think that it is likely that any criminal mind capable of assembling effective resistance to the police would certainly know that attracting attention using such heavy resistance against law enforcement officials would be a bad idea.
Certainly, there have been exceptions, but such a case is certainly not the rule.
Most violent criminals act alone or in small groups, and are generally poorly educated and come from low-income families.
Gangs are another matter, and I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but I still think that in the face of an armed populace and today's law enforcement methods, they would stand a poor chance of survival in any kind of prolonged engagement.

Other than the psychological background check, that all sounds good to me. None of the other things really infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, since felons forfeit a number of citizenship rights. However, I would only support legislation based on this principle at the state level. It gives people a choice, and it is Constitutional because it does not involve the Federal Government excercising powers not granted to it.

That's a matter of speculation for both of us. A really limited gun control system hasn't been implemented in in modern America yet, so I can only speculate as to the results. And although I may point to countries that have strict, but failing, gun control policies, those nations are not the U.S.
At this point, our best bet is to study the effects of gun control policy by state, and compare results, which is practically another argument entirely. Perhaps for another thread.


Likewise, but I'm not innocent of letting emotions affect discussions. For instance, I do feel very strongly about the right of citizens to keep and bear arms in the context of the Second Amendment (at least, the way I understand it).
But that is no reason we can't have a civil discussion and exchange information and opinions.

I was a little surprised as to the source of the guns, though.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...nce/index.html

Some fun news. Apparently this Allen Stanford, who is the latest Bernie Madoff, may have been laundering drug money for the Mexican cartel:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/st...6907429&page=1

Sometimes you wonder if anything is legit anymore...

I love how CNN implies that you can buy a bazooka at a gun shop.

CNN - always reliable gun information. :D Someone should drag those reporters out and teach them proper!

-S

Well, that can be inferred if that's what you're looking for.

Being well familiar with CNN's normal anti-gun stance I figure the inference is intentional. Notice also how they infer those 6,600 gun shops within 100 miles of the border are involved in running guns to Mexico.

Personally I haven't seen anything showing guns are a deterrent to anyone other then maybe muggers and small time criminals. Also the criminal faction who packs weapons, particularly gang types (and I mean real narco dealing gangs like the hells angels, bloods, cripts, 18th street, surenos, BTK, etc) will be the slightest bit phased by people packing weapons. For one thing these people are organized (several of them are international crime groups), and also the tend to carry bigger weapons then your average civilian (like full auto AK's, sawed off shotguns, full auto tec-9's with 30 round clips, etc). So I doubt they would be at all intimidated by someone carrying a 9mm pistol, or a 6 shooter. Also they have the psychological advantage and they know it. Many of them have killed before, and will not have the slightest qualm or delay in killing again, several of them are borderline to fully sociopathic, then there is the physicial intimidation and serious threat of retaliation if you do put down one of theirs.

Ya there isn't much hard data on anything from the wild west, but there is a general indication that the criminal element didnt care that the civilian populace was armed (broad daylight bank robberies were fairly common at the time, as were train robberies and stage coach robberies etc).

I concede the constitutional points to you as you are obviously more familiar with the document then I am (I am Canadian after all, so I don't know your constitution by rote). My interpretation of the line is that people had the right to keep arms and bear them in times of need (ie militia), since at the time the concern was defending the nation from foreign domination. Carrying guns around in general was a non issue really, in the wilds people carried muskets to hunt and defend themselves from. Not sure about the cities though.

For me the best society is the one that takes in to account the interests of the individual and the whole, and balances the needs of both equally. Basically fairness is the concept im trying to get across. I have issues with most large corporations, for one thing they tend to be highly exploitative of their work force, particularly in third world nations where they take advantage of cheap labor and lax polution laws to make more money. Now I'm certainly not arguing against the rights to free thought, free expression, etc. Just that corporations need to be accountable to the community. So like I said I mean fairness, fair labor laws, fair wages, etc. Not a free ride though, not at all, it must be based on work of course, work hard, get more, don't work hard, don't get much. Anyhow this is getting a bit off point so ill leave that where it is.

Ok back to gangs and military training. They are the biggest concern to law enforcement right now and with good reason. Military training gives tactical training, something which your average police officer doesn't. Add to this the fact that your typical gangster seriously out guns most patrol officers, and this represents a serious threat to patrol officers. It also makes the job of SWAT officers much more dangerous and difficult, as now the suspects are on equal footing with them, they both have CQB training, heavy automatic weapons, body armor, etc, and typically the gang would have the defensive position according them the advantage. Dealing with these groups is dangerous and difficult, especially since many of them have a decentralized hierarchy, so there are no head(s) to attack. Armed civilians won't help things here. If anything they will just serve to confuse law enforcement during an engagement, and would probably result in civilians getting mistakenly shot by police thinking them to be hostile (after all they have no way of knowing who are the "good" people and who aren't in a fire fight).

I think a psychological check would be important, but I readily see your concern. So I would suggest it be done on a pass/fail basis, with only that being recorded, and the interview/examination process being destroyed. The psych checkup would be to make sure the individual doesn't have any forms of mental illness which could represent a threat to public safety if this person were permitted to carry a weapon.

The only issue with doing it at the state level though, is unevenness of application of the law across the states. That unevenness creates gaps which the criminal element tends to exploit.

Yep it is all just speculation in the end, and logic does not always work out the same in the real world. So I agree that studies are necessary, and that they should be specific to the country in question, as one can't easily generalize the results from one country (or even period of time) onto another.

Anyhow its been an interesting discussion. I imagine I will be stopping here, though I will read any reply you make. I think we have carried this as far as it will go with out hammering the same ground. I respect your opinion and emotions behind them. My point was that you did not take the emotional route to side step the debate. Emotional arguments tend to short circuit rational debate and lead to reflexive reactions. My personal emotion is that people do have the right to posses weapons (in a responsible manner), but the thought of everyone going around packing heat (including myself) scares me a bit... scares me that I may have to kill some one (or mistakenly do so), or that I might get mistakenly killed. I just hope that some day we can evolve far enough were we don't even need to think of carrying arms around.