“Wow, did you end up on the wrong forum!”
I certainly hope I did not. I was under the impression that this forum existed to discuss important issues, and was not just an exercise in repeating the “approved” responses in a mindless way.
“People on this FreeRepublic actually fervently believe that the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that guarantees that we keep all the rest of our rights.”
I know a lot of people on this forum believe that. I don’t happen to be one of them. Amazingly enough, not everyone on the “right” does. Anyway, what you fervently believe is neccesary for your “rights” is immaterial to this particular argument. If you believe you have a “right to bear arms” then that stands on its own merits. It doesn’t have to be justified, or defended, or made excuses for.
The point that is being made by the article is that restricting gun ownership has done nothing to allay crime (which it hasn’t). The point I was making is that owning guns seems to be equally ineffective in restricting crime. Therefore, logically, there must be other reason/s for the crime rampant in Washington DC, and presumably other way/s to counter it.
I would suggest it would be more profitable for us to discuss those reason/s and way/s rather than knee-jerk statements about “inalienable rights”, presuming of course, that solving the crime problem is what you want to do.
ping
You're wrong. I can't tell you how many times some mutt has come in to my store off the street and taken one look at the the Glock on my side and left without saying a word.
And upon what, exactly are you basing this supposition. In all states that have implemented CCW laws, crime has either gone down, or the rate of increase has decreased.
Is such measure the determining factor in what rights we have?
Read John Lott’s book “More Guns Less Crime”. It will blow your theories out of the water with cold hard facts about the relationship between gun ownership and crime. But if you don’t believe that’s true, feel free to post a large sign in front of your house or place of business that says this house/business does not believe in private firearms ownership and the owner does not have any firearms on the premises.
Mere ownership does not protect anyone, agreed. However, the concomitant provision of "bearing" arms also comes into play which means actually having them on you and using them for lawful purposes.
The Riddle of Steel. It isn't the quality of the sword, it's the willingness to use it. Give a man an M1 Abrams, but if he doesn't have the guts to use it, a 12 year old girl with a pocket knife could kill him.
The malaise of DC's criminal underground can be easily cured as it has elsewhere. By the LAW ABIDING taking serious steps to ensure their own safety. Like procuring a firearm, learning to use it, and to actually defend themselves from criminal actors.
Do that, and crime WILL drop. Like it has everywhere else it's been put into practice.
Good grief.
Firearms ownership is part and parcel of the original concept of citizenship - hence the second amendment. As Justice Scalia described, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right - just as free speech, the right to assembly, freedom of religion, etc. form the core of the orginal American culture.
As an armed citizen, I am able to defend my home and my family and can also form part of the defense of my neighborhood. It is my responsibility to know the safe and responsible handling of all my firearms and as part of that, I practice regularly and keep my firearms serviceable, maintained, and available.
There has been no crime of any significance in our neighborhood and I will do my best to ensure that this remains this way.
You do not have to have a firearm - it's your choice. In my view, you are neglecting your responsibilities, but there should be more than enough of your fellow citizens that are willing to take up your slack.
There are many respected studies that show that where citizens are armed, crime is reduced because criminals are cowards and only prefer unarmed and helpless victims.
Antigun types are a strange group - they want their felolow citizens to be armed and only the uniformed police and soldiers to be armed. Lots of other countries have that policy but they really aren't democracies, are they? In this country we are all members of our own government, that's the difference.
Two thoughts from a well-educated Freeper:
1. Guns do deter crime - Please read Dr. John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” The mere display of a handgun has saved over 1,000,000 assaults on what would otherwise be victims. Gun control is VICTIM disarmament.
2. Folks like you will never get my guns. If they do, the guns will be warmer than I am.
Blessings
It's no secret that the cause of increased gun violence is the breakdown in families, which results in young males thinking they have to shoot each other to prove their manhood.
It is also clear there is no easy way to force society back into adopting the nuclear-family model.
Until we can accomplish that, the violence will continue, whether with guns or with knives and baseball bats.