Gun Ownership is a Privilege, Not a Right

[casebro]

Being America, the gov can't just seize property, it has to buy it up, at fair market value.

I'm poor, own some cheap old guns. They average $300 each. Lets use that as a cost basis. ( Collectors might own heaps of guns averaging thousands each.) So, 100,000,000 guns $300 each, $30 billion. That is going to cut into your grampa's social security.

I'm sure that if the vast majority of Amuricans wanted to Ban & Seize (BS) guns, they could. But the majority don't. It shows by the lack of any legislation restricting guns ever being passed by direct vote of the people. Not even in Kalifornia.

 

[BobTheCoward]

And I believe that a society that cannot allow its citizens access to the main infantry weapon of its army does not have the right to exist.

I guess that puts us on the opposite extremes of this issue.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Being America, the gov can't just seize property, it has to buy it up, at fair market value.
I'm poor, own some cheap old guns. They average $300 each. Lets use that as a cost basis. ( Collectors might own heaps of guns averaging thousands each.) So, 100,000,000 guns $300 each, $30 billion. That is going to cut into your grampa's social security.

I'm sure that if the vast majority of Amuricans wanted to Ban & Seize (BS) guns, they could. But the majority don't. It shows by the lack of any legislation restricting guns ever being passed by direct vote of the people. Not even in Kalifornia.

The FDR's executive order 6102 and the Kelo SC decision showed that "Fair Market Value" doesn't always mean what you think that it means. It means what the government thinks that it means at the time.

In the case of FDR he paid $20 an ounce for gold and then raised its value with the stroke of a pen to $35 as soon as he had it.

In the case of Kelo the city of New London tried to take back some of the money paid for the property by charging tens of thousands of dollars worth of rent on the individuals property while it was tied up in the courts (5 years worth). This was while the original owners were still living there, paying mortgages and so on.

 

[Bikewer]

I believe that SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd amendment is an "individual right", and not a privilege.
So, in order to change that, you either have to run it up the court system again with a re-drawn court and hope for a different result, or amend the Constitution.

The arguments have gone back and forth on this one for many years. There are those that in tying "keep and bear arms" to the "well-regulated militia" phrase see this as carte blanche for the citizen to possess military weapons.
Back in the 1700s, this was pretty much a muzzle-loading musket, and our founders didn't foresee the ready availability of semi-auto rifles with 30-round magazines.

Currently, however, it is quite legal for civilians to purchase rifles which are very like the ones issued to our military forces; the main difference being the lack of a full-automatic feature. And, you can do that as well, if you're willing to go through the paperwork and pay the appropriate transfer tax and all that. There are quite a few active "full auto" clubs in the country, they tend to have annual or semi-annual "shoots" which are often well-publicized.

That's by the way. The bottom line is that there is a segment of the firearms-oriented public that sees individual ownership as a "bulwark against tyranny". These people take this quite seriously.... I don't know how many there might be but it's a frequent sentiment heard on gun forums.

 

[carlosy]

That's kind of asking to prove a negative.

I was just asking for any evidence that would support or even prove that believe.

There are however several examples where peoples rights were taken away after the guns were.

So there are no examples where it worked as a preventive measure.

 

[zeggman]

So there are no examples where it worked as a preventive measure.

It's not solely for prevention (though I believe it has a deterrent effect), it's also for correction.

The successor to Qaddafi's government, while not as democratic as the United States, is (so far) more democratic than Qaddafi's.

ETA: I acknowledge that revolutions are tricky. One may simply trade a Batista for a Castro, or a Shah for an Ayatollah. One would hope, if it came to that, that the strong Democratic tradition in the United States would help us avoid trading a tyrrany for a dictator, but there are no guarantees.

 

[Bob001]

.....
yet not a SINGLE story can be found on how any one of these people EVER prevented so much as a jay walking
I guess all those criminals with their xray glasses always scope out the scene to make sure their not around.

The NRA compiles news reports of citizens using firearms in self-defense. It is a frequent occurrence.
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

It's also impossible to know how many crimes are deterred or prevented when a potential target of a criminal simply shows that he is armed. (I myself know a woman who ended an attempted break-in just by holding her handgun up so the criminal could see it through her window.) It is perfectly reasonable to debate the merits of particular gun-control proposals. But it is completely ridiculous to claim that privately owned firearms have no value for self-defense.

 

[Magyar]

The bottom line is that there is a segment of the firearms-oriented public that sees individual ownership as a "bulwark against tyranny". These people take this quite seriously.... I don't know how many there might be but it's a frequent sentiment heard on gun forums.

funny how the same group of people are also the ones who believe in black helicopters, UN death camps being setup in the US, the second coming and that Obama was born in Kenya.

And even if one could make a case for the average joe who owns a couple of, even dozen handsguns being a "bulwark against tyranny" (which is a JOKE)
No sane person I know of wants to "take away the guns" Most gun control people I know of want to make reasonable limitations, and actual real standards for gun ownership.
but the above loons, all snug in their delusions, won't even acknowledge that there is a needed discussion.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Nah, not in Michigan. Too many deer in the roadways killing people in cars or on motorcycles.

We definitely need the hunting folks here.

Nobody pays attention to me .

 

[DavidJames]

Owning a gun is not a right - it's a privilege... that few people deserve.

Just because a bunch of guys named gun ownership a right a few hundred years ago doesn't mean it really is a right. Guns were different then.

It's not a right to own Anthrax, for example.

It's time America emerged from the past.

Yeah, I'd like to see things evolve that way. Unfortunately America's attachment to guns is very emotional. I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Nobody pays attention to me .

Good tactic, that. made me go back and search your post, which I'll link here because it's interesting. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8846842&postcount=67

I shall not debate it!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I am actually pretty left leaning (by US standards), but I am sick of the comments regarding "barbaric Americans", etc.

The first time you have a loved one end up as the victim in a home invasion (speaking from personal experience), you will stop being so mother *********** righteous, and decide that protecting your family is more important than anything else.

But is owning a gun more of a protection or a risk (either to your family or to others)?

One thing I always find funny is family people who have guns for home invaders. Never minding any other considerations, if they practice "proper safety" they need to get the key, unlock the gun and ammo, load the gun, and then they can shoot/scare the intruder. Seems unlikely to me.

 

[Bob001]

But is owning a gun more of a protection or a risk (either to your family or to others)?

That's a fair question and can be answered only by asking other questions. How secure is your house? Do you have an alarm system? A big dog? How fast will the police respond? What's the crime rate in your community? Do you have little children? Etc., etc. Firearms properly maintained and stored by a trained, responsible owner don't have to be a risk to anybody, and might save your family's lives. If you are the kind of person who leaves loaded guns lying around like old magazines, then yes, you are threat to yourself and others.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's by the way. The bottom line is that there is a segment of the firearms-oriented public that sees individual ownership as a "bulwark against tyranny". These people take this quite seriously.... I don't know how many there might be but it's a frequent sentiment heard on gun forums.

The Supreme Court certainly didn't take that argument seriously. They argued that the individual right doesn't have to be tied to any such thing, and that individuals can keep guns to protect their homes and selves (although I think the argument that they offer "protection" is going to be undermined by science*).

If the "bulwark against tyranny" argument were true, then the 2nd Amendment would have to guarantee an individual right to own chemical, biological and nuclear arms also. (As I like to point out, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about "guns" or even "firearms" and many of the guns we talk about now were no more foreseeable to the framers of the Constitution than were chemical, biological or nuclear arms.) After all, the potentially tyrannical government has access to such arms.

At any rate, I have no problem with the individual right to own guns. As with all rights, it isn't unlimited. Even free speech rights aren't unlimited, though there are very few cases when a legitimate state interest (usually public safety) outweighs the speech right. With guns I think the legitimate state interest in public safety often outweighs the individual right.

So what's left to debate is not whether or not government can regulate gun ownership, but what kinds of regulations are likely to be the most effective. That's a tougher nut to crack, but it's really where the debate ought be focused.

And as always, I think the debate should also focus on the single largest class of gun deaths: suicide. I don't think the debate should focus on good guys vs. bad guys and fantasies of heroic actions, but on the actual facts.

And the fact is that there are more gun deaths due to suicide than there are due to accidents and homicides combined.

I'm not really sure what laws could best reduce the number of gun deaths (maybe trigger locks on handguns? more money spent on educating gun owners?) but this is where we need to focus our attention.

* For example, "A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)." Source.

 

[Bob001]

....One thing I always find funny is family people who have guns for home invaders. Never minding any other considerations, if they practice "proper safety" they need to get the key, unlock the gun and ammo, load the gun, and then they can shoot/scare the intruder. Seems unlikely to me.

There are gun safes that are designed to be opened by finger pressure in a selected pattern or other speedy means. Inserting a magazine into a pistol and racking the slide takes an instant. The key is to have an alarm system so you know when someone's trying to get into your house (and maybe scare him away), so you have time to call 911 and prepare to defend yourself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's a fair question and can be answered only by asking other questions. How secure is your house? Do you have an alarm system? A big dog? How fast will the police respond? What's the crime rate in your community? Do you have little children? Etc., etc. Firearms properly maintained and stored by a trained, responsible owner don't have to be a risk to anybody, and might save your family's lives. If you are the kind of person who leaves loaded guns lying around like old magazines, then yes, you are threat to yourself and others.

I think the question can be answered by looking at the science (ETA:see the asterisk in my previous post; the ratio of suicides to successful protection acts was 11 to 1), and the answer is pretty clearly that a gun in the home increases not decreases risk of gun violence.

Otherwise, you're playing the same game the abstinence only sex ed promoters play: only count the successes and ignore or explain away non-compliance (irresponsible gun owners).

However, I think the points you make point to a likely solution: make sure gun owners are trained and responsible owners, and take the guns away from the un-trained/irresponsible owners. I suspect the problem is not so black-and-white, though, and there is probably a continuum of how responsible gun owners are.

We'd need to draw some arbitrary lines somewhere and would doubtless end up putting owners who might be very similar on opposite sides of that line.

(Just as we do, for instance, with the legal drinking age. There isn't something magical that happens on someone's 21st birthday that makes them suddenly more responsible than they were the day before, but taken in a whole, that responsibility that comes with some brain development happens somewhere around that age, and people live with the line we've drawn.)

 

[Normal Dude]

Gun laws, mental health care, and a cultural shift would make the USA less barbaric.

Good FSM, and I used to respect your opinion...

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Good FSM, and I used to respect your opinion...

You can still respect it. Emotional things and a bit of distance plus the "they have an obvious problem" factor... I have to agree that as a society in some ways we are a bit barbaric.

 

[Bob001]

I think the question can be answered by looking at the science (ETA:see the asterisk in my previous post; the ratio of suicides to successful protection acts was 11 to 1), and the answer is pretty clearly that a gun in the home increases not decreases risk of gun violence.

I think the numbers can be played different ways. For example, how many of the gun suicides might have used pills, tall buildings etc. to accomplish the same end? What percentage of the guns in bad outcomes were legally purchased, and what percentage were "street" guns (meaning the owner was already a criminal just by having it)? How often did simple possession of a gun discourage a crime? Etc. The gun crime rate in the UK is quite low, but the total rate of assaults, robberies etc. is higher than in the U.S., in part because a UK burglar knows that a homeowner won't be able to defend himself. And serious criminals there still don't have much trouble getting their hands on firearms. I think the issues are much deeper than firearms laws can address.

 

[AlBell]

Nobody pays attention to me .

Your post was a tl:dr.