SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

out of a population of roughly 7.5 million thats a pretty high rate of killings Subman

Nice attitude you have to people being killed

Subman thats quite a claim can you back it up? Sounds like an opinion to me. :hmm:

Hmmm, must be all those assault rifles?:hmm:

UK murder rate is running at 2.03 per 100,000

Swiss murder rate is running at 2.94 per 100,000

Oh this is a good one:

Even higher than the US Subman!

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/W...87704000&ty=st

But you're missing the point once again - The UK, when it had guns or not, had a murder rate that was a fraction of the rest of the world. This is normal for you guys. And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point! Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p

Talking with children again.

-S

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point!

Point is Subman our murder rate is less that Switzerland's and having 300 people killed by guns compared to around 160 a year would seem to bear out that more guns = more people being shot dead.

Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p

Actually it fell by 1% from 2005/2006 compared to 2006/2007.

Even when it was rising it was still lower than the US.

Firearms offences fell by IIRC by around 14%, thats for the third year running I might add.

Talking with children again.

-S

Returning to type I see can't win the argument so lets start mud slinging.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Point is Subman our murder rate is less that Switzerland's and having 300 people killed by guns compared to around 160 a year would seem to bear out that more guns = more people being shot dead.

Actually it fell by 1% from 2005/2006 compared to 2006/2007.

Even when it was rising it was still lower than the US.

Firearms offences fell by IIRC by around 14%, thats for the third year running I might add.

Returning to type I see can't win the argument so lets start mud slinging.

No - any rational mind would see that the Swiss have similar rates to you, and that your irrational mind blames their higher rates on an inanimate object - this is actually a sickness, but that's best left for another thread.

There is no mud slinging - just that you are obviously inexperienced in the world. Trying to explain something to someone of your age is like hitting ones head against the wall - you just won't get it no matter how many times I explain till you hit your 30's+.

-S

[August]

You guys can't compare the murder rates in two different countries as an argument for or against gun ownership. There are too many variables that can effect the numbers.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

You guys can't compare the murder rates in two different countries as an argument for or against gun ownership. There are too many variables that can effect the numbers.

Thank you August. Some sense in here for once.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

For Immediate Release


Contact: Senator Karen S. Johnson (602-926-3160)
Contact: Alan Korwin (Bloomfield Press – 602-996-4020)

Senator Karen Johnson Praises Lifting of D.C. Gun Ban

Senator Karen S. Johnson applauds the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling today which overturned the D.C. gun ban. Last winter, Johnson signed on to an amicus brief of women state legislators who supported overturning the ban and restoring Second Amendment rights to the residents of the District of Columbia. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought before the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. “This is fundamental,” said Johnson. “Everyone has the right to own a handgun and to defend themselves in their home. The D.C. ban was unconstitutional.”

In addition to lifting the ban on possessing handguns, the court decision overturns the requirement that guns kept in the home be unloaded or inoperable at all times, even in cases of self-defense, and rejects every argument posed by the District of Columbia in favor of the ban. “What a fabulous victory!” says Johnson. “This decision spells the death of city bans on handgun owenrship all over the country.”

Many cities besides the District of Columbia ban possession and ownership of handguns – Chicago and New York among them. “I understand that gun rights activists in Illinois are already preparing a legal campaign to overturn the ban in Chicago and other Illinois cities. More power to them! These bans do more harm than good,” said Johnson. “Violent crime typically goes down when people are allowed to defend themselves. Criminals aren’t stupid. They are less likely to commit a violent crime if they think someone can stand up to them. Statistics bear that out.”

The Heller case is expected to be analyzed for decades for its implications and ramifications. “This case will have a far-reaching impact on gun laws throughout the country,” predicted Johnson. “We are waiting for an analysis from our expert, Alan Korwin, of Bloomfield Press, who is preparing a book on the Heller case,” said Johnson. Korwin announced yesterday he would have an initial review of the case ready for release today. “Typically news reports on gun issues have errors, spin, and editorial mixed in with fact and should be taken with at least a grain of skepticism until detailed analysis is available,” said Korwin, who is a national spokesman on gun issues and specializes in publishing books on gun laws and Second Amendment rights. He expects to provide that detailed analysis within a few weeks.

[SUBMAN1]

This is also interesting:

Justice Scalia wrote:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo-
lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in-
terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

-S