Courts strike down Washington DC handgun ban...

[Intuit]

Without investigating I would assume this was struck down on the basis that it is our constitutional right ot bear arms.

Do you agree with this decision ?  Why or why not ?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7806295

http://news.google.com/nwshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1114266598

[Balthaser]

Correct me if I'm wrong. Back in the old days, the idea of letting ppl own guns were to have themselves protected and fight against the wrong doings of the authorities, corrupted cops for example.

But time has changed. Even you own a gun, you can't fight the corrupted police officers any more. Their fire power just simply outclass yours. No matter what the reason might be, if you dare to raise any threat against a police, you'll get the guarantee of being shot.
Guns are no longer protecting ourselves, instead they make threat to the society.

[Nighteye]

The easier guns become available, the more danger to the average citizen.

[Intuit]

Perhaps it wasn't just to protect yourself from authorities, but also necessary for general offenses including claim-jumping (Native Americans, indentured servants), hunting, protection from wild animals, claim-jumpers, theives and to defend against foreign invasion such as the British, English, Spanish or French.  For many of these reasons proponents maintain that the right to bear arms should still exist.  North America is one of the most geographically diverse, hospitable  and rich continents and the face of the planet and the United States occupies all of the most valuable portions of it.  (minor exception for Niagra and the wet-sand oil fields)

Whether or not to agree with those proponents I don't know.  The "America" I grew up with had guns and an America with guns is the only one I know.  I can't imagine the US without them....

---------------------------
Short-story, personal:
The subject brings up a past memory involving guns.  Guess I was about 16 or 17 (looking like 14).   An acquaintence stayed in a really, really bad part of town and I went down there with him.  He decided to stay there (turned out to be a crack-house -- probably "friends" (suppliers) for his mother's habit) and I left to catch the bus back home.  The next two buses that I could catch were full.    It was getting late and the people who stood there with me eventually caught other buses leaving me all alone.  The next two that I could catch weren't full but they passed me by.  (they've done that in good parts of town before in the middle of the day with a school bag -- prejudice -- wasn't unusual -- taxicab complaints are real)  Getting very cold I stood out there for one to two hours.  I had already rulled-out walking to a better part of town and it was too late to reconsider catching those other buses.  By that time automobile traffic was sparse.  Three people just "appeared" accrossed the street.  Heads constantly swinging left to right (on an empty street) two of them began stepping accrossed the street approaching me while the third stood watching.  All alone, on a dark corner late at night in a really bad and unfamiliar part of town something told me they were up to no good.  Not having any other options, (can't out-run them they're much older, nobody's around and they're quickly approaching,)  making it plainly visible I quickly shifted my right hand already in my coat pocket, pretending to reach for something.  They were only one car-lane away when they came to a dead-stop in the street.  Looking at my right coat pocket they turned-around, walked back to the other person standing by and disappeared back around the dark corner.
---------------------------

Whether they had a gun or not (and they likely did), I was screwed.  Even though I didn't have one, the mear suggestion that I did may have saved my bacon that night.  Needless to say I never allowed myself to be put in that situation again and didn't rely on buses for much longer after that.  Noramlly when they skip over you at most it costs you your time, but it's another matter when it potentially costs you your well-being.

[Reflex]

The easier guns become available, the more danger to the average citizen.

Perhaps in your country.  Not in mine.

[x586]

Statistics show that when people are armed crime goes down. If your a mugger and you know any number of these people walking in the park may have a gun, you are a lot more likely change professions or go to an area where people are a lot less likely to have guns.
I live in the country and I own a pistol, shotgun, rifle and even a bb-gun. I shoot all of them in my backyard at targets. I've never had anything stolen, none of my neighbors houses have been broke into in the 20+ years I've been here. Most of my neighbors have guns too.

I've had a gun of my own since I was about 7 years old, I was taught how to use them responsibly and spent much time using them when I was young(7-20) Knives too. and in all those years I've never shot or stabbed anyone. I respect them, and should the need ever arise I know how to use them as do many others in my area. Because everyone around knows this we have don't gangs and robberies, we have mutual respect for each other and each others property.

Oh yea almost forgot the original question. It is everyones right to bare arms, and those rights can only be taken away from those guilty of a felony. No government office/official has the right to take away our right to bare arms as our constitution supersedes all other laws in the united states.

[Reflex]

Very good ruling btw, I have always felt it was an individual right.  That said, I do feel that the mentally ill should not be able to get their hands on guns, that is a loophole that needs to be closed.

[Intuit]

Recent comments including the shared experience have made up my stance.
We now have a 50/50 split.  

[Nighteye]

The easier guns become available, the more danger to the average citizen.

Perhaps in your country.  Not in mine.

In yours, too:

http://www.amazon.com/Evaluating-Gun-Policy-Effects-Violence/dp/081575311X

Overall crime-rate remains about the same, but the crimes become more violent/lethal with guns. And the police is more apt to use excessive violence out of fear that the criminals may be carrying guns.

Here's some research done on the subject: http://www14.georgetown.edu/explore/data/people/ludwigj/publication-18264.pdf

One of the conclusions is that the net effect of the prevalence of gun ownership is negative.

[Timster]

Very good ruling btw, I have always felt it was an individual right.  That said, I do feel that the mentally ill should not be able to get their hands on guns, that is a loophole that needs to be closed.

The DC gun ban has always been out of step with the rest of the states.  It's about time they they give people in the nation's capitol the same rigths as the rest of the country.

As for the mentally ill, it is illegal for them to purchase firearms.  When you purchase a gun, you have to fill out a BATF Form 4473, and there are questions regarding mental illness on the form.  Unfortunately, if that person doesn't have a police record, it probably won't show up on a background check.

[Reflex]

Nighteye - There are studies that go both ways, it all depends on who you want to believe.  Personally I think its a wash due to the amount of contradictions, and the most law-abiding citizens I know are the ones who legally own guns.  I'd prefer the responsible were armed than only the criminals, which is the alternative.  One thing that isn't made clear in many of the studies is whether or not the increased mortality/violence level is across the board, or just among those committing crimes.  If more criminals are being shot to death, well, to me thats a benefit.

Timster - Due to medical privacy laws there is no way to determine if someone is mentally ill when they purchase a gun, and due to the nature of many such illnesses, the person is not likely to admit it when they go to buy one.  We recently had a lunatic here go buy a gun and shoot up a Jewish center in downtown Seattle. He never should have been able to legally acquire one in the first place.

[Rocky]

The easier guns become available, the more danger to the average citizen.

Perhaps in your country.  Not in mine.

You have never lived in Washington DC then bud.

[woodbutcher007]

For those of you that think that law enforcement is there to protect YOU as an individual well, here is a little information.The US supreme court has issued rulings going back as far as the 1850`s.They said in one of the recent rulings that I am aware of"Law enforcement is under NO obligation constitutional or otherwise to provide protection to the individual UNLESS they are involved in a criminal case and they or their family have been threathened or if they are a participant in the Federal witness protection program".
Leo

[Babar]

You have never lived in Washington DC then bud.

I second that.

[Timster]

The outlying DC area is a pretty rough area indeed, but how many people that live there would legally own a firearm for self protection if they could?  What do you think it would mean to a criminal who would normally not fear breaking into an (unprotected) house if there was a chance the residents were armed?

[Reflex]

You have never lived in Washington DC then bud.

I second that.

This is an indictment of the city management, not the second amendment.  Plenty of other regions have high gun ownership and low crime.  Would you restrict freedom of speech in San Francisco because a large number of people were committing slander?

The laws are already on the books.  Do whatever it takes to enforce them(within legal boundries of course).  Do not penalize the law abiding because the city does not have the will to go after the criminals.

NYC was very similiar in the 70's, Seattle was a mess in the 80's, neither one cleaned up by removing people's rights to own handguns.

[Nighteye]

Nighteye - There are studies that go both ways, it all depends on who you want to believe.

That's also mentioned in both links - there are both factors that increase and decrease crime, and most studies emphasize either one. These account for both effects.

Personally I think its a wash due to the amount of contradictions, and the most law-abiding citizens I know are the ones who legally own guns.  I'd prefer the responsible were armed than only the criminals, which is the alternative.  One thing that isn't made clear in many of the studies is whether or not the increased mortality/violence level is across the board, or just among those committing crimes.  If more criminals are being shot to death, well, to me thats a benefit.

Homicide and gun homicide usually means innocent victims - criminals being shot to death is seldom mentioned in studies. But there are plenty of incidents in the news where innocent people, some suspected of minor crimes, get shot to death by the cops. Preemptively, just in case they might possibly have a gun. And often enough they turn out to have been unarmed...

[Reflex]

The statistics on such most often do not differentiate between whether someone was a criminal or a victim.  And I know that this paticuliar study has come to a conclusion, but there are just as many that will disagree with that conclusion based on the same evidence.

Regardless, the constitution protects our rights, and whether or not you feel it is a good thing, for those of us who believe in the constitution as written this is a major victory.  Furthermore, as FA has frequently mentioned, Canada has some of the highest gun ownership in the world per citizen, yet thier crime rate is a fraction of the US.  Obviously guns themselves are not to blame for what is happening, nor is removing them much of a solution.

[Nighteye]

That constitution was written a long time ago - it was a different world back then. Don't you think its time for an update?

[Fontaine]

Anyways can you walk alone in every part from a city without feeling unsafe? (just wondering?).

I do think it's too late for even trying to get a ban.
There are so many weapons already and imagine how many jobs would be lost?

[Balthaser]

Citizens can protect themselves with better equipments, such as taser guns and pepper sprays. The powder-projectile weapons are just too lethal for civilians.

[Reflex]

That constitution was written a long time ago - it was a different world back then. Don't you think its time for an update?

No, not really.  It was written with universal freedoms in mind, such freedoms don't simply 'dissapear' one day.

[Reflex]

Citizens can protect themselves with better equipments, such as taser guns and pepper sprays. The powder-projectile weapons are just too lethal for civilians.

Why?  Criminals will have guns one way or the other.  Pepper spray won't mean much if the other guy has even a crappy .22 you know.

And let me tell you, tasers hurt but they won't stop everyone.  I was mugged a few years back by two teenagers with a taser, and it hurt like hell but I still fought them off.  Someone high on meth or PCP isn't going to even be slowed down by any of these measures, but a shotgun sure would do the trick nicely.

[Intuit]

Anyways can you walk alone in every part from a city without feeling unsafe? (just wondering?).

I do think it's too late for even trying to get a ban.
There are so many weapons already and imagine how many jobs would be lost?

That is what I was thinking as well, minus the part about the jobs.
There are plenty of people overseas to sell those arms to. (frown)

Just the nature of this country's beginnings made the laws necessary then.
What makes them necessary now is the fact that not everyone lives in a city environment as x586 pointed out.
If someone like him called the police department it may be 20, 30 minutes or longer before somone shows up in many cases.

Criminals get guns because they are the best tool for the job, not because their victims already have them.
Criminals don't get bigger guns to out-class the cops, but because their drug-dealing competition began wearing bullet resistant vests.
Marijuana is illegal too, but I could head downtown right now and get them inside 30 minutes.
Prohibition failed and some sixty years later the War on Drugs failed as well... what makes anyone think that making guns illegal will make them anymore harder to get than drugs are ?  The only people who will be left without them are the law-abiding, average citizen.  When you approach a house out in the "boonies", as we city folk say, you can bet your sweet ass they have at least one gun for protection.
The junkies find a way and so will the gun-nuts.

[Rocky]

That constitution was written a long time ago - it was a different world back then. Don't you think its time for an update?

No, not really.  It was written with universal freedoms in mind, such freedoms don't simply 'dissapear' one day.

You are right.  Not in 'one day'.  But maybe perhaps after 200 years when our country no longer fears invasion and every state has their own standing military along side the national military, maybe times have changed?  I dont think the constitution is black and white, nor do I think its meant to be.  It was a compromised document then, it is still today.