Posted on 12/03/2004 7:40:44 PM PST by RKBA Democrat
Dunblane, Scotland. March 13, 1996. A man walks into a school with a number of handguns and opens fire. Sixteen kindergarten children and a teacher are slaughtered. Britain reacts with such revulsion that Parliament enacts a nationwide ban on privately owned handguns.
Littleton, Colorado. April 20, 1999. Two students at Columbine High School enter with a number of weapons including a modified semi-automatic handgun. The pair opens fire, killing twelve fellow students and a teacher. In the aftermath, the most significant change enacted is the placement of metal detectors at many U.S. schools. Private handguns remain plentiful in America.
The United States permits private gun ownership through its constitution. Handgun owners say the U.S. Constitution’s second amendment clearly protects them and their weapons. It states "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." Attorney Stephen Halbrook, who has defended gun ownership rights before the U.S. Supreme Court, says the constitution’s second amendment was drafted in reaction to events just before the War of Independence. "With the growing dissention of the colonists against British rule, the British seized firearms of all kinds – handguns and long guns – particularly in 1774 to 1775. And that was one of the reasons leading to the American Revolution," he says.
Contentious arguments have ensued over the years regarding the second amendment, with gun opponents asserting that the framers of the constitution meant the right to collective self-protection, not the right of an individual to amass an arsenal of weapons. Yale University law professor Daniel Kahan says the arguments both for and against handguns reflect fervently held beliefs. "The people who support more gun control believe that when people can have more ready access to handguns, there is going to be more violent crime and there are going to be more gun accidents." Mr. Kahan adds "The opposing position is that when ordinary citizens have ready access to guns, they are able to more effectively defend themselves. They’re less likely to be threatened in the first place."
In the U.S. state of Virginia, a group called the Virginia Citizens Defense League is aggressively pushing for greater rights to carry handguns openly. Its president, Philip Van Cleave, insists they are the best means for keeping crime at bay. "The handgun is a portable means of defense, much more portable than a rifle or a shotgun. And therefore, it can go with you virtually everywhere discreetly or not discreetly."
But statistics from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation show that handguns overwhelmingly are an instrument of murder, not a tool of self defense. In 2003 the FBI recorded 7,700 handgun murders nationwide, but only 163 are considered "justifiable homicide" or self-defense. These killings compare to less than 850 murders attributed to rifles and shotguns in 2003.
Underpinning the pro-handgun movement are a huge U.S. firearms industry and many gun rights groups. Mary Leigh Bleck, with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says Capitol Hill and statehouses nationwide are their focus. "We have a very strong and powerful gun lobby," she says, adding "And they were very effective to kill any legislation that is brought before a state or our Congress."
In 2002, Fortune magazine named the National Rifle Association the most powerful lobby group in Washington. The Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics says the NRA and similar groups have spent at least $75 million over the past 15 years promoting their positions. By comparison, anti-gun forces spent only $4.1 million in the same period. The lobbying also spills over into presidential politics. The NRA strongly backed President Bush’s recent re-election campaign after his administration showed considerable support for the second amendment and opposition to tighter gun controls.
Then there is the impact of mass culture. First, Wild West books and movies portrayed handguns as equalizers or tools of justice. Then came spy movies showing James Bond types in tuxedos brandishing guns. Most recent are the "rap" music videos equating handguns with power and status. Author Richard Slotkin says this media saturation has had a notable effect. "It prepared us to accept guns in some sense as a normal part of life. So that if even in principle people are opposed to handguns, we at least understand the mystique in the handgun."
Observers say many Americans’ support for handguns and other firearms reflects the U.S. tradition of strong individual rights over those of the state, while other countries’ banning of such weapons indicates the opposite.
I agree, this has also happened in Canada.
Nor do they ever distinguish between incidents of violence with illegal firearms vs legal. To outlaw handguns would not do a thing to decrease the number of illegal weapons which are used in most incidents of violence.
You should know that the FBI statistics show that aproximately 3 million people a year save themselves with the use of a handgun or other type of firearm. The firing of the weapon doesn't usually have to occur, the mere presence of it is enough to make the perp(s) get the hell out of Dodge. These jerks who write these articles know these facts but of course they are not interested in facts.
The whole problem with handguns is that not enough people have one on their person at all times.
Were that not the case, the two little twits at Columbine and the sack-of-schumer at Dunblane would have been riddled with bullets the instant they pulled out a gun and pointed it at someone else.
In the vast majority of cases in which a handgun is used in self defense, it is not fired.
In the majority of cases in which it is fired, no one is hit.
In the majority of cases in which the perpetrator is hit, he is not killed.
In only a teeny tiny fraction of the cases in which a handgun is used defensively is the perpetrator killed.
However, in all of the cases mentioned, the handgun was used "sucessfully" for self defense.
I love my guns......If I ever need them...they are my peacemakers.....
With Total gun control and near total confiscation of all firearms in the UK and Australia GUNCRIME Rates have soared and have only showed an increasing trend every year since the enactment of these laws.
Conversely, every state, since 1986,(beginning with Florida) that has had CCW provisions added to it's law books has seen a STEADY Decrease in Crime in general an especially Violent crimes. Period.
worse
In 2003 the FBI recorded 7,700 handgun murders nationwide, but only 163 are considered "justifiable homicide" or self-defense."
That number is 163 too high (murder is unlawful killing and can never be "justifiable homicide").
If the police make an intial self-defense finding, there's no crime and FBI never hears about it.
What this represents are those cases where police/coroner made a inital judgement of murder (where the FBI gets its murder figures) but either the Grand Jury did not returnt an indictement, or the trial jury found not guilty on the person involved.
IMHO, the "Militia" which must be regulated (controlled) which is so important to the security of a "free State" Is none other than the standing Federal Army, or for that matter, any of the State armies which existed under the Articles of Confederation, and which did not completely vanish per se until after the Civil War.
Reading the Federalist Papers provides greater insight in the discussion of whether or not to have a standing Federal Army under the Constitution, and if so, how large to make it. While the framers understood the ramifications of having a standing, professional, army for defence, they also were fearful of this becoming the instrument of the Government's own demise. Hence, the security of a free state depended on regulating the Army, and the preponderance of arms in individual hands, even in the absence of maritial training, was considered sufficient to keep military ambitions in check.
Thus, the individual right was included in the Bill of Rights, and in many State Constitutions as well.
Yeah, I start teaching my sociology course in January. The left leaning textbook I have to use makes several examples in exactly the same manner. The stats do not differentiate between homicides that are justifiable or excusable: Like Cop kills bad guy or private citizen kills bad guy. They also do not make distinctions about bad guys killing other bad guys. Subtle and not so subtle bias. More of the agenda I have to fight. ~sigh~
I happen to teach with a guy with whom I also served in the military. He was in a different outfit. I was in the 9th Infantry Division as an infantry officer and he was in the Ranger Battalion, but I knew him as a superior nco. Now we teach in the same inner city high school. There are a number of former military folks there, too. Right after Colombine, we had an informal meeting and agreed that it would NOT happen at our school. I don't know the percentage of folks who keep a gun in their car (I don't, unless I'm going to the range after school) but that really doesn't matter.
It's the TRAINING and experience that counts as well as a willingness to act. For example, my school is full of confined spaces and blind corners. A couple of psycho punks not schooled in movement and probably high anyway is going to be pretty easy to find, fix, fight and finish. That's the four "F's" of Infantry combat. All that is required is for both of us to get close enough to a target to lay hands on him. Ever see an army Ranger execute a rear strangle takedown? It's extremely impressive, especially if you understand that the move differs from training as to the real thing which will probably snap the guys neck in a second. There's lots of possibilities.
As soon as the "CODE RED" sounds, well first realistically speaking my kids ain't stupid, they'll be out of my portable and over the fence in a flash! I won't be able to stop them, and wouldn't anyway. My buddy is only two portables away. His kids will bolt too. We meet, move out, find the threat and take them out. Probably be done by the time the first units even arrive and start to muddle around outside the school.
The cops at Colombine were disgraceful in their inaction. Heck a single FIRE TEAM of my old infantry rifle platoon could've killed those punks and not even fired more than two shots for each man. Simple movement to contact. Any freshly scrubbed 2LT can do it. Heck, I got out as a very senior captain. Almost a major.
Remember the good old days when VOA was a pro-american voice of reason?
This is a profound misunderstanding. The US Constitution does no such thing. What is it does do is PREVENT the general government (some may argue this extends to the States) from infringing upon our Creator-endowed rights to keep and bear arms, among which are handguns.
This is not an unimportant distinction, but a vital one. The general govenment has been expressly deauthorized to "infringe" our (the people's) right to arms--handguns, swords, long guns, ... every implemnent of the soldier is our birthright, so that we may keep militias "well-regulated" (i.e. not a threat to our freedom--one aspect of a properly functioning militia is that it is NOT a threat to the people it has been formed to protect).
In the final analysis no mere piece of paper can "hold the iron" (cf. Ten Bears speeach in The Outlaw Josey Wales). When the paper instrument fails, then it is "the right of the people to alter or abolish it [government], and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." (DOI, para 2). Such a task is improbable if not impossible for a people without arms and men/women trained in mind and body to jealeously safeguard their liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.