DEFENSELESSNESS = DANGER

Forums: Guns, Gottagettagun
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Will the Supreme Court Recognize the Truth About Chicago's Handgun Ban?
By John Lott

Published March 01, 2010

In the 2008 “Heller” decision, the Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and gunlock requirements. Unsurprisingly, gun control advocates predicted disaster. They were wrong. What actually happened in our nation’s capital after the Heller decision ought to be remembered tomorrow as the Supreme Court hears a similar constitutional challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.

When the Heller case was decided, Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned: "More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." Knowing that Chicago's gun laws would soon face a similar legal challenge, Mayor Richard Daley was particularly vocal. The day that the Heller decision was handed down, Daley said that he and other mayors across the country were "outraged" by the decision and he predicted more deaths along with Wild West-style shootouts. Daley warned that people "are going to take a gun and they are going to end their lives in a family dispute."

But Armageddon never arrived. Quite the contrary, murders in Washington plummeted by an astounding 25 percent in 2009, dropping from 186 murders in 2008 to 140. That translates to a murder rate that is now down to 23.5 per 100,000 people, Washinton’s lowest since 1967. While other cities have also fared well over the last year, D.C.'s drop was several times greater than that for other similar sized cities. According to preliminary estimates by the FBI, nationwide murders fell by a relatively more modest 10 percent last year and by about 8 percent in other similarly sized cities of half a million to one million people (D.C.'s population count is at about 590,000).

This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has followed how crime rates change after gun bans have been imposed. Around the world, whenever guns are banned, murder rates rise.

Washington’s murder rate soared after its handgun ban went into effect in early 1977 (there is only one year while the ban was in effect that the murder rate fell below the1976 number and that happened many years later -- in 1985). Its murder rate also rose relative to other cities. Washington’s murder rate rose from 12 percent above the average for the 50 most populous cities in 1976 to 35 percent above the average in 1986.

Chicago fared no better after the 7th Circuit Appeals court upheld its ban on new handguns in late 1982. Over the next 19 years following the ban, there were only three years where the murder rate was as low as in 1982. As shown in the forthcoming third edition of my book "More Guns, Less Crime," before the ban, Chicago's murder rate was falling relative to the 9 other largest cities, the 50 largest cities, the five counties that border Cook county, as well as the U.S. as a whole. After the ban Chicago's murder rate rose relative to all these other places. For example, comparing murder rates among the 50 most populous cities, the murder rate went from equaling the average for the other cities in 1982, to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992, to exceeding their average by 68 percent in 2002.

The failures of gun bans in the U.S. are frequently blamed on lax gun restrictions in other states, but the experiences of other countries, even in island nations that have banned handguns and in countries where borders are easy to monitor, do not support this claim. For when handgun bans were enacted in Ireland and Jamaica, in 1972 and 1974, respectively, murder rates doubled over the following decade and take the more recent example in England and Wales, where handguns were banned in 1997: deaths and injuries from gun crime more than doubled over the next seven years.

The benefits of guns are not lost on Chicago's politicians. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that there are two types of people who are allowed to have handguns in Chicago: "The criminals. And the politicians." The politicians use their pull to either "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll." It is just that the politicians don't want to extend those benefits to the citizens they are supposed to represent. This includes Mr. Otis McDonald, the lead plaintiff in the Chicago case. He is a 76-year-old black man living in a neighborhood infested with drug dealers. McDonald's home has been burglarized three times, and he would like to possess a handgun that he can easily access next to his bed.

Chicago's fate will be decided on constitutional issues. The decision ultimately comes down to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states in the same way that the 14th Amendment has been applied to most of the Bill of Rights. It would seem to be a no-brainer, especially since the 14th Amendment was in large part passed to protect newly freed blacks from Southern states passing laws to disarm them. Nevertheless, how one sees guns affecting crime seems to color interpretation of the Constitution. The brief submitted by the city of Chicago to the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasizes the claim that more guns cause more crime. They argue: "a handgun ban and stringent firearms regulation will best address the very serious problem of handgun crime and violence in their communities."

Despite Chicago's ban, criminals still have managed to get their hands on guns. During the first 10 months of last year Chicago police confiscated or recovered 7,234 guns, which is about one gun for every 14 gang members in Chicago and surrounding suburbs and police found just a small fraction of the guns. What the crime data show is that gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, they do not make them safer. Even restrictions on guns, such as laws that mandate that citizens store shotguns and rifles locked and unloaded, defeat the very purpose of guns and often make the guns no more useful than sticks.

John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press). The book's third edition of which will be published in May.

[All emphasis has been added by David.]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,792 • Replies: 31

[+3] - mark noble - 06/21/2010Hi David, Firearms are prohibited in the Uk and the crime rate is second to none. I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves and their property. A friend of mine - An...

@OmSigDAVID,

How would you propose to make sure that children and teenagers can't get ahold of their parents' guns? Before I get attacked, I am merely asking because it is a good question, not because I am anti-gun ownership.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

A Lyn Fei wrote:

How would you propose to make sure that children and teenagers can't get ahold of their parents' guns?
Before I get attacked, I am merely asking because it is a good question, not because I am anti-gun ownership.

U ASSUME that I propose that, Lyn.

I do NOT propose that. Those citizens have as much right to defend their lives as anyone does.
I believe in "equal protection of the laws".

I acquired my first gun, a .38 revolver that I won in a poker game with other kids in Arizona when I was 8.
I took it everywhere, until years later when I upgraded to a .44 special revolver, for better stopping power.

I propose that everyone be educated in optimal gun handling in the public schools,
in the same spirit as when I was informed that I coud not graduate unless I coud prove that I 'd learned to swim in the school pool.

David

4 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Ah, I suppose I did assume that. My apologies. Because you had that experience, I see why you believe the way you do. It seems logical. However, in light of the fact that kids DO bring guns to school and shoot their peers when they are severely depressed, and kids DO use guns to make statements, how would you propose to stop these kids from ruining the rest of their lives and the lives of others? I don't believe educating a child on how to use a gun properly will do anything as far as educating them on the consequences of killing a person goes. Kids don't generally see the "big picture"; they react on emotion and instinct.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Hi David,
Firearms are prohibited in the Uk and the crime rate is second to none. I believe everyone should have the right to defend themselves and their property. A friend of mine - An ex-landowner from Zimbabwe shot dead a man breaking into his vehicle in Durban. The man was reaching inside his jacket when confronted trying to prise open the door. A policewoman was feet away from the event and witnessed my friend draw his weapon and shoot the man dead, after warning him to move aside. It went before the local judge who told the arresting officer to never waste his time again on such a matter. This is how it should be in my eyes - Though I don't approve of murder - I do believe in self-defence.
Best wihes.
Mark...

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I acquired my first gun, a .38 revolver that I won in a poker game with other kids in Arizona when I was 8.

You've heard half of Om's childhood stories. After you hear about him being seduced when he was a teen, you'll have heard it all.

0 Replies

@A Lyn Fei,

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Ah, I suppose I did assume that. My apologies. Because you had that experience,
I see why you believe the way you do.

It was not only ME; almost everyone, including the kids in that poker game were well armed,
and we worked out with our ordnance. In the 5 years and one day that I resided there,
I never saw the police arrive with lights nor sirens.
I never knew of any complaints of any person having bad manners with his guns.
We had no trouble there.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

It seems logical. However, in light of the fact that kids DO bring guns to school and shoot their peers when they are severely depressed, and kids DO use guns to make statements, how would you propose to stop these kids from ruining the rest of their lives and the lives of others?

Y have u chosen to single out this age group?
Have thay had a significantly worse incidence of criminality than other age groups ?
I re-iterate that thay have as much right to defend their lives
from the predatory violence of man or beast as anyone.
Thay have a constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
Thay have as much right to live as anyone.

I brought my gun to school every day, with no ill effects.

Indeed, years later when I was in college, in English class, the professor
had the class render a "show and tell" for public speaking.
I brought an M-1 Carbine and showed how to field strip it.
I got a good grade and I carried it around with me for a while,
between classes; no problems.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I don't believe educating a child on how to use a gun properly will do anything as far as educating them
on the consequences of killing a person goes. Kids don't generally see the "big picture"; they react on emotion and instinct.

Well, in the face of predatory violence, it may be necessary to act swiftly; "he who hesitates is lost."
Admittedly, some people have had bad emotional reactions.
There have been newspaper accounts of NYC Police who defended
their lives from lunatics attacking, with agricultural tools.

I remember reading of such a case wherein the police officer
who did so fell into a depression, a despondency that ended in his suicide.
There have been similar instances with other police.
It was obvious that such dangers existed when he applied for the job.

I do not advocate that people be FORCED, against their wills,
to defensively bear arms. There were such laws in Colonial times.
The same as now it is deemed negligent to fail to wear a seatbelt
in a car, so also it was deemed irresponsible (and illegal)
for the Colonists to attend Church in an unarmed condition.
Thay must have been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

A Lyn Fei wrote:
Ah, I suppose I did assume that. My apologies. Because you had that experience,
I see why you believe the way you do.
It was not only ME; almost everyone, including the kids in that poker game were well armed,
and we worked out with our ordnance. In the 5 years and one day that I resided there,
I never saw the police arrive with lights nor sirens.
I never knew of any complaints of any person having bad manners with his guns.
We had no trouble there.

And I have known of kids who have died because their friend scared them and their knee jerk reaction was to shoot them.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

It seems logical. However, in light of the fact that kids DO bring guns to school and shoot their peers when they are severely depressed, and kids DO use guns to make statements, how would you propose to stop these kids from ruining the rest of their lives and the lives of others?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Y have u chosen to single out this age group?
Have thay had a significantly worse incidence of criminality than other age groups ?
I re-iterate that thay have as much right to defend their lives
from the predatory violence of man or beast as anyone.
Thay have a constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
Thay have as much right to live as anyone.

I am singling out this age group because they DO NOT have the same rights as an adult. It is the adults duty to protect the children. They cannot vote because their brains are no where near fully developed, and again they act on emotion, not logic. In fact, if a child is extremely logical and unemotional, that's considered a mental health issue. [/quote]

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I brought my gun to school every day, with no ill effects.

Indeed, years later when I was in college, in English class, the professor
had the class render a "show and tell" for public speaking.
I brought an M-1 Carbine and showed how to field strip it.
I got a good grade and I carried it around with me for a while,
between classes; no problems.

Times have changed. Even in the last five years, kids are so used to violence that the reality of it doesn't effect them as much as it might have years ago.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I don't believe educating a child on how to use a gun properly will do anything as far as educating them
on the consequences of killing a person goes. Kids don't generally see the "big picture"; they react on emotion and instinct.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, in the face of predatory violence, it may be necessary to act swiftly; "he who hesitates is lost."
Admittedly, some people have had bad emotional reactions.
There have been newspaper accounts of NYC Police who defended
their lives from lunatics attacking, with agricultural tools.

I remember reading of such a case wherein the police officer
who did so fell into a depression, a despondency that ended in his suicide.
There have been similar instances with other police.
It was obvious that such dangers existed when he applied for the job.

I do not advocate that people be FORCED, against their wills,
to defensively bear arms. There were such laws in Colonial times.
The same as now it is deemed negligent to fail to wear a seatbelt
in a car, so also it was deemed irresponsible (and illegal)
for the Colonists to attend Church in an unarmed condition.
Thay must have been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

Here is my biggest point of contention: I currently have never fired any sort of gun. There are a few guns in the house, and occasionally they have come in handy mostly as a personal comfort. However, if everyone was allowed to own a gun, I might expect every visitor at my door to be armed. I lived in the middle of field in the back woods of Upstate New York. If I scream, no one will hear me. So, with the anticipation of everyone having a gun, I would be forced to know how to use the guns in my house.

I don't think there is ANY reason to flood the US with more guns. That being said, I have no problems with gun ownership, those guns being kept in a person's house for safety purposes. I don't think it is right to walk around armed. I realize you avidly disagree due to the differences in our lifestyles and experiences. This is why I love America:
We are free to disagree and law falls in between your ideas and mine.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

A Lyn Fei wrote:
Ah, I suppose I did assume that. My apologies. Because you had that experience,
I see why you believe the way you do.
It was not only ME; almost everyone, including the kids in that poker game were well armed,
and we worked out with our ordnance. In the 5 years and one day that I resided there,
I never saw the police arrive with lights nor sirens.
I never knew of any complaints of any person having bad manners with his guns.
We had no trouble there.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

And I have known of kids who have died because their friend scared them and their knee jerk reaction was to shoot them.

Soldiers have done that too. I advocate training in school to reduce the effect of that, if possible.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

It seems logical. However, in light of the fact that kids DO bring guns to school and shoot their peers when they are severely depressed, and kids DO use guns to make statements, how would you propose to stop these kids from ruining the rest of their lives and the lives of others?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Y have u chosen to single out this age group?
Have thay had a significantly worse incidence of criminality than other age groups ?
I re-iterate that thay have as much right to defend their lives
from the predatory violence of man or beast as anyone.
Thay have a constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
Thay have as much right to live as anyone.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I am singling out this age group because they DO NOT have the same rights as an adult.

Thay have the same Constitutional Rights, insofar as self defense is concerned.
Did u see an age limit in the 2nd Amendment ?
Did u see an age limit in the requirement of "equal protection of the laws"?
Kids have as much right to live as anyone does.
That means that thay have as much right as anyone to emergency equipment
to defend themselves from the predatory violence of man or beast.

Being YOUNG shoud not be a legal death sentence.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

It is the adults duty to protect the children.

Ofen, thay are not around; sometimes, the children were KILLED by the adults. (I can cite to cases in point.)
Therefore, the children needed competent defense FROM the adults.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

They cannot vote because their brains are no where near fully developed, and again they act on emotion, not logic.

AS IF ADULTS DON 'T do that !! ???

A Lyn Fei wrote:

In fact, if a child is extremely logical and unemotional, that's considered a mental health issue.

I was not aware of that; by whom, and how is it identified ?
Are ill effects alleged ?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I brought my gun to school every day, with no ill effects.

Indeed, years later when I was in college, in English class, the professor
had the class render a "show and tell" for public speaking.
I brought an M-1 Carbine and showed how to field strip it.
I got a good grade and I carried it around with me for a while,
between classes; no problems.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Times have changed.

Thay certainly HAVE! The police have lost their minds:
some years ago, I was driving home from court. Traffic was HORRIBLE.

I 'd never seen it that bad in those areas.
There was a HUGE police presence with many, many trucks and police helicopters.
It looked like 100s of police, within a distance of several miles
from my house. I needed sanitary relief; painfully. Eventually,
I got it at home. It took me forever to get home.
This was around 5 or 6 PM.
I then walked a short distance to the police and asked what had happened.
(I had suspected a major plane crash, to justify so much police presence.)
It turned out that around 2 PM, a student was walking with
an unloaded single shot rifle across a college campus.
He was jumped by a student n by a security guard, who stole his rifle
and called the police. The police arrived and arrested him and questioned him, IN custody.
With him in chains, disarmed, the police CONTINUED blocking traffic for miles around the college.
I shoud have complained to the Commissioner, but I did not.

Gross abuse of the citizens for many miles around
and wasted of $1000s maybe millions of $$. INSANITY.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Even in the last five years, kids are so used to violence that the reality of it
doesn't effect them as much as it might have years ago.

That 's GOOD, right ?

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I don't believe educating a child on how to use a gun properly will do anything as far as educating them
on the consequences of killing a person goes. Kids don't generally see the "big picture"; they react on emotion and instinct.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, in the face of predatory violence, it may be necessary to act swiftly; "he who hesitates is lost."
Admittedly, some people have had bad emotional reactions.
There have been newspaper accounts of NYC Police who defended
their lives from lunatics attacking, with agricultural tools.

I remember reading of such a case wherein the police officer
who did so fell into a depression, a despondency that ended in his suicide.
There have been similar instances with other police.
It was obvious that such dangers existed when he applied for the job.

I do not advocate that people be FORCED, against their wills,
to defensively bear arms. There were such laws in Colonial times.
The same as now it is deemed negligent to fail to wear a seatbelt
in a car, so also it was deemed irresponsible (and illegal)
for the Colonists to attend Church in an unarmed condition.
Thay must have been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Here is my biggest point of contention: I currently have never fired any sort of gun.

Its not too late.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

There are a few guns in the house, and occasionally they have come in handy mostly as a personal comfort.

I understand that. I felt that way too.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

However, if everyone was allowed to own a gun, I might expect every visitor at my door to be armed.

Do u think that 's BAD ?
IF so, Y ??

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I lived in the middle of field in the back woods of Upstate New York.
If I scream, no one will hear me. So, with the anticipation of everyone having a gun,
I would be forced to know how to use the guns in my house.

Where 's the problem ? (Please note that criminals will be armed, no matter WHAT the law says.)
Every citizen HAS the Constitutional Right to be armed.
Vermont joined the United States around 1791.
It has never had any gun laws
and it has always been at or near the bottom
of the FBI annual list of the safest States, with the least crime.
Anyone is free to carry weapons openly or concealed; no trouble.

Maybe around ten years ago, Alaska followed in Vermont 's footsteps,
repealing all of Alaska 's anti-gun laws.
Now Arizona has done the same as to both open and concealed guns.

No problems have resulted from this personal freedom.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I don't think there is ANY reason to flood the US with more guns.

Its up to each individual citizen
to fit himself out as he sees fit. He has to take care of himself.
His life may depend on it.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

That being said, I have no problems with gun ownership,
those guns being kept in a person's house for safety purposes.

That 's fine if u never leave home.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I don't think it is right to walk around armed.

Failure to do so can be a death sentence.
In a predatory emergency,
it behooves u to CONTROL the situation.
A predatory emergency is a contest of power between the predator and his victim.
It can be very embarassing to lose that contest.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I realize you avidly disagree due to the differences in our lifestyles and experiences. This is why I love America:
We are free to disagree and law falls in between your ideas and mine.

Well, the Bill of Rights says what it says.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I do NOT propose that. Those citizens have as much right to defend their lives as anyone does.
I believe in "equal protection of the laws".

Well, minors do not have "equal protection of the laws", because they are, by definition, not yet full adult citizens with all of the privileges of reaching the age of majority.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I do NOT propose that. Those citizens have as much right to defend their lives as anyone does.
I believe in "equal protection of the laws".

Pangloss wrote:

Well, minors do not have "equal protection of the laws", because they are, by definition, not yet full adult citizens with all of the privileges of reaching the age of majority.

That is a BROAD and interesting topic,
but its off topic insofar as it is unrelated to DEFENSELESSNESS. Tho thay r not adults, thay ARE citizens.

Maybe I 'll start a new thread about the rights of kids.
Anyway, thay have the same rights to defend their lives and property as anyone else.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

But legally they're not full citizens. They can't vote, they can't enter into any type of binding contract, and they're pretty limited, by law, as to what "property", if any, they can really have the need to defend; they can't own a home.

Do you think children should have the right to vote, or the right to purchase alcohol? Should they be allowed to join the military?

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

But legally they're not full citizens.

The hell, thay 're not: thay are full citizens from the moment of birth.
"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " [All emphasis has been added by David.]

Pangloss wrote:

They can't vote,

Thay were disenfranchized, but thay r still full citizens.

Pangloss wrote:

they can't enter into any type of binding contract,

Yes, thay can.

Pangloss wrote:

and they're pretty limited, by law, as to what "property", if any, they can really have the need to defend;

WHAT law is THAT??? Please explain.

Pangloss wrote:

they can't own a home.

Y not ??
What legal interference do u believe exists with owning a home?

Pangloss wrote:

Do you think children should have the right to vote,

Yes; let me put it another way:
children were screwed out of their natural, moral right to vote.
Any citizen who is held to comply with the law has a moral right
in a democratic republic, to join in creating or amending that law.
If NOT, then he is morally absolved from a duty to comply.
(Whether he is dragged away by bullies in uniform, for failure to comply is another issue.)

Pangloss wrote:

or the right to purchase alcohol?

Yes; that is his own private business.

Pangloss wrote:

Should they be allowed to join the military?

If the military wants them, yes. (I don 't recommend that.)

David

0 Replies

So then, David, logically you must support the right of five year olds to get behind the wheel and drive 65 mph on any road that has that speed limit, right?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

So then, David, logically you must support the right of five year olds to get behind the wheel
and drive 65 mph on any road that has that speed limit, right?

In principle, yes, but there is an alleged problem, to wit:
an ex-driving instructor of my acquaintance has repeatedly told me
that children do not have the eye-hand co-ordination to drive safely.

However, this ex-instructor named Bill is insane (chronic hallucinations)
so I don 't know whether to believe him.
(I do not believe his hallucinations n tried to dissuade him from them.)

In principle, if the 5 year old is able to do so SAFELY,
then his driving is conceptually indistinct from his walking down the street like anyone else.
If the time arrives that automotive mfgrs build crash proof cars
(i.e., that an on-board computer will control the car to prevent collisions)
then my answer is: yes, if he owns the car, or is loaned the car.
If he is unable to drive safely,
then our right to self defense trumps his right to drive.

Years ago, as an experiment on private land at a summer resort
(where Bill had impugned the ability of anyone below teenage to drive)
I allowed children to drive my car slowly, while I observed.

The results were inconclusive, but without ill effect.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
So then, David, logically you must support the right of five year olds to get behind the wheel
and drive 65 mph on any road that has that speed limit, right?
In principle, yes, but there is an alleged problem, to wit:
an ex-driving instructor of my acquaintance has repeatedly told me
that children do not have the eye-hand co-ordination to drive safely.

However, this ex-instructor named Bill is insane (chronic hallucinations)
so I don 't know whether to believe him.
(I do not believe his hallucinations n tried to dissuade him from them.)

In principle, if the 5 year old is able to do so SAFELY,
then his driving is conceptually indistinct from his walking down the street like anyone else.
If the time arrives that automotive mfgrs build crash proof cars
(i.e., that an on-board computer will control the car to prevent collisions)
then my answer is: yes, if he owns the car, or is loaned the car.
If he is unable to drive safely,
then our right to self defense trumps his right to drive.

Years ago, as an experiment on private land at a summer resort
(where Bill had impugned the ability of anyone below teenage to drive)
I allowed children to drive my car slowly, while I observed.

The results were inconclusive, but without ill effect.

David

Children are not allowed to drive because they do not have the hand eye coordination, yet they are expected (by you) to be able to shoot well? The law restricts children because biologically they are not able to carry out tasks in the manner an adult is able. Some children develop more quickly, sure. But the vast majority DON'T have the capacity to make moral, justified, logical decisions on whom to vote for or when to shoot and when not to.

I might point out, also, that Vermont may have no gun laws, but the culture their isn't one that needs gun laws. 1) there are no big cities in VT to be crime hubs 2) the people that own guns are generally hunters 3) I don't typically like to generalize, but I will say that there exists a vast difference in the culture of Vermont and that of ANY other state- the mindset is, let's say, "greener", more liberal, etc.

But I do have a question for you. Have you read the second amendment? Because, when I actually bothered to read the thing word for word I was surprised at how interpretive it really is.

Here it is word for word:
"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. "

To me this can say a number of things: one of which is that in order to protect the States rights outside of the Federal Government, there should be State Militia, or Police, as we have. It does not say, in my interpretation, that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure to many, many people it does and it really doesn't matter because the point of my showing this is that the law should fall somewhere in the middle. It is the same for business law and health care. Why it is ever such a problem to reach compromises between left and right is mind boggling.

1 Reply

Ha. You're questioning a child's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely, but if he's walking around using semi-auto firearms for defense, it's perfectly safe, right?

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Ha. You're questioning a child's ability to operate a motor vehicle safely,
but if he's walking around using semi-auto firearms for defense, it's perfectly safe, right?

I think people woud be safer if we all used revolvers.
Semi-automatics comprise nearly all accidental discharges.
I think that revolvers are what Nature Intended.

(Blessings be unto Sam Colt.)

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Well, I would not trust your average 10 year old to be able to properly fire and handle the recoil of any weapon in public, except maybe a .22 rifle while lying down. I could just imagine kids walking around with .44 magnums and sending bullets everywhere once they start squeezing the trigger...no I think we're better off waiting for the cops to arrive than playing that scenario.

1 Reply

@A Lyn Fei,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
So then, David, logically you must support the right of five year olds to get behind the wheel
and drive 65 mph on any road that has that speed limit, right?
In principle, yes, but there is an alleged problem, to wit:
an ex-driving instructor of my acquaintance has repeatedly told me
that children do not have the eye-hand co-ordination to drive safely.

However, this ex-instructor named Bill is insane (chronic hallucinations)
so I don 't know whether to believe him.
(I do not believe his hallucinations n tried to dissuade him from them.)

In principle, if the 5 year old is able to do so SAFELY,
then his driving is conceptually indistinct from his walking down the street like anyone else.
If the time arrives that automotive mfgrs build crash proof cars
(i.e., that an on-board computer will control the car to prevent collisions)
then my answer is: yes, if he owns the car, or is loaned the car.
If he is unable to drive safely,
then our right to self defense trumps his right to drive.

Years ago, as an experiment on private land at a summer resort
(where Bill had impugned the ability of anyone below teenage to drive)
I allowed children to drive my car slowly, while I observed.

The results were inconclusive, but without ill effect.

David

I 'm getting to like u, Lyn.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Children are not allowed to drive
because they do not have the hand eye coordination,

That was the opinion of my hallucinatory ex-driving instructor, yes.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

yet they are expected (by you) to be able to shoot well?

Yes; thay can be and have been very accurate,
with practice; even trick shots. Annie Oakley was 8,
when she started shooting and became a trick shot.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

The law restricts children because biologically they are not able to carry out tasks in the manner an adult is able.

I must agree that biological development has limited the tasks that thay r able to accomplish.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Some children develop more quickly, sure.
But the vast majority DON'T have the capacity to make moral,
justified, logical decisions on whom to vote for .

I was politically active when I was a kid, joining in Republican campaigns, as conservative as I was able to find.
I felt abused, cheated and screwed out of my natural democratic right to vote.
When I argued with voters (all of whom were adults) I very ofen found
that thay were profoundly ignorant of the available candidates, of the issues and of applicable history.

Quote:

or when to shoot and when not to

I 'm not sure that its best to entangle voting and shooting so closely together, for optimal results.
Anyway, it can be much easier to decide about defensive shooting,
e.g., robbery, burglary, kidnapping etc.
Defensive shooting is usually rendered within a very short distance, around 5 feet, point blank range.
For instance, think of when an elderly couple were jogging in the woods
and the husband was set upon by a cougar.
His wife was beating the cougar with a stick.
It woud have been better if thay 'd been armed with guns.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I might point out, also, that Vermont may have no gun laws, but the culture their isn't one that needs gun laws.
1) there are no big cities in VT to be crime hubs
2) the people that own guns are generally hunters
3) I don't typically like to generalize, but I will say that there exists
a vast difference in the culture of Vermont and that of ANY other
state- the mindset is, let's say, "greener", more liberal, etc.

I think that people r a lot alike.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

But I do have a question for you.
Have you read the second amendment?
Because, when I actually bothered to read the thing word for word
I was surprised at how interpretive it really is.

The first time I read the 2nd Amendment, I was 9 years old.
While the teacher was teaching, I chanced to look in the back of the history book,
whereupon I found the Constitution of the United States.
I thawt: "THIS seems interesting."
It is short and I read it from the Preamble to the last amendment; (not in one sitting).

A Lyn Fei wrote:

Here it is word for word:
"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. "

To me this can say a number of things: one of which is that in order to protect the States rights outside
of the Federal Government, there should be State Militia, or Police, as we have. It does not say, in my interpretation,
that the INDIVIDUAL has the right to keep and bear arms.

In the case of US v. VERDUGO (199O) 11O S.Ct. 1O56
(at P. 1O61) the US Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the State Police
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined
"the people" to mean those people who have a right peaceably to
assemble [1st Amendment] and those who have the right to be free of
unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment] in their persons
houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people
are protected by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e. THE PEOPLE who can speak n worship freely are THE PEOPLE who can keep and bear arms.
The Supreme Court re-affirmed this holding in D.C. v. HELLER 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)

In the 1700s, there were NO police anywhere in the USA,
nor were there any in England, until the following century.
Police were popularly viewed as an instrument of despotism.
Each citizen was expected to defend himself.
Indeed, in Colonial times, it was against the law to go to Church
in an unarmed condition. It was considered irresponsible or indecent.
Apparently, thay 'd been losing too many Christians on the way to Church.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

I'm sure to many, many people it does and it really doesn't matter because the point of my showing this
is that the law should fall somewhere in the middle.

Most respectfully, Lyn, I must dissent from that proposition, about falling in the middle.
Will u hire an accountant whose accuracy falls "somewhere in the middle" ?
Woud u use a surgeon whose known standards of cleanliness on-the-job are "somewhere in the middle"?
I don't think so.

A Lyn Fei wrote:

It is the same for business law and health care.
Why it is ever such a problem to reach compromises between left and right is mind boggling.

Well, one of the reasons can be whether government has relevant jurisdiction or not.
(I don 't choose to discuss health care.)

David

1 Reply

DEFENSELESSNESS = DANGER

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know