Web Exclusives Comment

Gun law: A second chance for the Second Amendment

While Obama called the day of the most recent massacre his worst day as President, there are multiple other issues distracting him from what is an incredibly difficult conversation to have with America.

Archive This article is from our archive and might not display correctly. Download PDF
Since the tragic Newtown School massacre last year, the debate surrounding the right of Americans to bear arms has been thrust into the spotlight. Developments, such as the recent move to allow schools in South Dakota to train their staff how to defend their pupils using guns, have kept the ball rolling and ensured it has remained front page worthy. While this is an imitation of other states' legislation, it's worth discussing.

The entire gun debate is massive, too large to condense into a 600 word piece, and so here I will focus purely on the decision to allow teachers and school staff to take up arms in order to protect their wards. Is this safe? Is it a step in the wrong direction? Or is it an ad hoc solution, avoiding the constitutional debates and using armed defense as a band aid? If it is, is that OK?

As I'm sure many of you will agree, American gun laws must change. These machines are too readily accesible and not properly controlled. More than 40 per cent of gun sales to go through without a background check in the US, that's four in ten guns which could be held by quite literally anyone.

The size of the American population relative to the UK does not account for its larger murder rate, and poorly controlled guns combined with poor provision of mental health care have led to too many tragedies. But what if this change proves impossible, or just simply not a real priority for Obama's government? Then our friends across the pond must find a way to adapt to the situation, and in this instance fighting fire with fire does, to an extent, appear logical.

Yes, there's a risk that a teacher is no more resilient to mental health issues than any other member of the public but if the victim was one of your own family members, wouldn't you rather there be someone with a weapon between them and the attacker? I know I would.

However, this is all a red herring, dodging the problems. There needs to be central change to both gun law and mental health provision. The two are inextricably linked, and they undeniably result in disproportionate levels of gun crime. Of course, the ideal solution would be to change from the center, tight gun controls, vastly improved medical health care and the changed attitudes of millions. An impossible task? Of course not, but a difficult one certainly.

While Obama called the day of the most recent massacre his worst day as President, there are multiple other issues distracting him from what is an incredibly difficult conversation to have with America. But the constitution is outdated, and eventually someone will have to do something about it.

The order passed by a senate panel this week and the polls of popular opinion show a turning of the tide. All steps in the right direction, yet still limited. Opinions aren't the same as action and the decision of the panel is unlikely to go much further and, disappointingly, it would only ban the sale of 157 kinds of semi-automatic weapons, guns that automatically reload, and large-capacity ammunition magazines carrying more than 10 rounds. Adopted in 1791, it is time for the second amendment to be given a new lease of life.

Until that happens though, people are unlikely to sit back and wait for the next tragedy, hence South Dakota allowing armed teachers. But this is avoiding the real issue. People are cowering in the corner, waiting for Obama to pop on his cape and save the day. Let's all hope he does.

You Might Also Like...

37 Comments

RLEmerysgt Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

LOL, you Brits dont have a clue anymore, after so many years of socialist brainwashing, you are a product of programming, so what does one expect from such docile sheep!

Unfortunatley for the gun banners, the trend of whom is actually responsible for the vast majority of such killings is recognized by the US govt, where over 92% of said killings are committed by career criminals, gang members, suiciders, crazies, w about 50% of the remainder occurring during domestic violence incidents.

So sad how that trend exists in England as well, much less any country as well.

James Alan Fox, a noted anti gun criminologist states in an August 2012 editorial in the Boston Globe; "No Increase in Mass shootings", that based on data extracted from official police reports to the FBI, shows annual incident, offender and victim tallies for gun homicides in which at least four people were murdered. Over the thirty-year time frame, an average of about 20 mass murders have occurred annually in the United States with an average death toll of about 100 per year.

Which agrees with Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

But hey, how can that be, when since you antis enacted the gun free victim disarmament zones where you progressives prefer children be killed freely, killings in said zones have quadrupled, with 60 of the last 61 occurring in said zones. (Gifford was shot in a parking lot).

Based on actual facts, the only place such killings are increasing/migrating to, is in your pet gun free victim disarmament zones where progressives prefer children are killed freely. Since the intellectually challenged antis believe in causality, you implemented the law and the killings increased in that location, so where is all your remorse Ellie & Dakota as all their blood is on your hands.

Lets do a simple comparison between the US and England.

Per FBI UCR & CDC in 1991 24,700 murders, consistent % where firearms used is 67.8% =16,747 murders by illegal use of firearm, 15,383 suicides by firearms, 657 justifiable homicides, 1,463 accidental firearms deaths =34,250 deaths where firearms were used

2011 14,612 murders 67.7% used a firearm = 9,892, 591 justifiable homicides, 835 accidental deaths, 19,766 suicides = 31,084 deaths where a firearm was used.

Since 1991 to 2011, that is a reduction in.....


Totals / Rate


Violent Crime -37.04% / -49.04%

Murder -40.84% / -52.01%

Rape -21.73% / -36.59%

Robbery -48.47% / -58.31%

Aggravated Assault -31.26% /-44.36%
Accidental deaths -41.9% / -52.14%

So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 42% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn't been a 42% increase in violence or suicide?

1991 suicide rate 12.2 per 100k people, if increased by 42% = 17.3 per 100k people

2010 suicide rate 11.9 per 100k people

uh dude, that isnt an increase, its a decrease, and of course if one actually digs into the background information, they see that the baby boomers (born 1947 to 1964) all are reaching that age where suicides are more common, and with the massive increase in military personnel suicides, well, there are many variables the anti's refuse to acknowledge.

Lets do the same for England

Why is it that a country with 1/200th of our firearms, cant get to 1/200th of our murder rates much less their failure to reduce at the same rate as a country, the US that has increased the number of arms in civilian hands by 42% during the same time frame.

1991 725 murders 22 of which were firearms, 754 VCR, 29,423 rapes, 45,323 robbery, aggravated assault 328,463, 10.7 per 100k suicides, 51 mil population 1.734 mil firearms

2011 638 murders 60 of which were firearms, 1,586 VCR, 38,332 rapes, 76,189 robbery, aggravated assault 307,427 suicide 11.8 suicides per 100k, 65 mil population, 1.801 mil firearms

Since 1991 to 2011, that is an increase/reduction in.....


Totals / Rate

Violent Crime 176.47% / 78.67%

Murder w Gun 172% / 114%
Murder -12% / -30.9%

Rape 30.27% / 2.23%

Robbery 68.1% / 32.9%

Aggravated Assault -6.42% /-36.15%
Suicides 10.57% / 10.1%

So explain again how since 1991 there has been a 2.68% increase in firearms in civilian hands there hasn't been only a 2.68% increase in violence or suicide?
1991 suicide rate 10.7 per 100k people, if increased by 2.68% = 10.99 per 100k people

2010 suicide rate 11.8 per 100k people

So much for less guns in civilian hands equals less violence ka ka.

So much for more guns in civilian hands equals more violence ka ka!

We will keep our rights, you get to keep bleeting!

Reply

TSgt B Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Tell you what, my mentally challenged British cousin(s), unless and until you emigrate to the U. S. and complete the process required to become an American citizen, GET STUFFED (as they would say in Australia).

Also, it is most certainly NOT "Obama's government". In our nation, the "government" belongs to We, the People, a phrase you may remember regarding US throwing YOU off of the continent, twice. Wanna try for three? We'll start with Peirs.

RLEermey, WELL SAID, brother.

Reply

Darren Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

The author is an American currently living in Texas

Reply

TC_old Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Not really sure that either of the comments above have understood the article. Tsgt B's comment literally means nothing, and has almost no reference to the article.

RLEermey's comment has missed the point of the article and simply cobbled statistics together to portray the UK as an example of how not to regulate guns.
I suppose it doesnt matter how the UK manages guns, after all it is American children and civilians who suffer the consequences in a country which permits excessive gun use. So maybe we should "get stuffed", apologies for having to much sympathy.


As a side note Ellie and Dakota i hope you are happy with yourselves, RLEermey has identified as you as the culprits of gun crime, with the blood on your hands, at least that is what i think he meant! Not sure among all the terrible punctuation.

Reply

BHirsh Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

You obviously don't understand the concept of fundamental individual rights endowed by the Creator - since they weren't granted by men, they cannot be withdrawn by men.

This First Principle is why Americans are freemen and you are still subjects, and why Americans will not accept ultra vires actions by their government.

"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

The Second Amendment needs no "new lease on life". It exists, and the reason for its existence is immemorial.

Reply

RLEmerysgt Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Didn't miss the point at all. Wet behind the ears college students who dont have a clue shouldn't engage in public comments that prove their idiots and then get upset when someone calls their bluff on their idiotic rant with facts they cant refute!

See, it was bleeding heart progressivesle like Ellie & Dakota that implemented the gun free victim disarmament zones in the US. Since that time, killings have migrated to those soft targets, you know, where everyone who obeys the law, is disarmed, so the psycho bad guys can kill without interruption.

Since progressive sociopaths use the unscientific belief of causality (more guns = more violence bs), we have simply used their language, their terminology to point out that by their logic, implementing the gun free victim disarmament zones was their fault and the resulting killings in said zones are therefore, their fault.

I mean afterall fair is fair. They blame me for all those killings and try to implement gun control to punish me, yet I didn't harm anyone or commit any crime.

Of course then there are hundreds of other facts Brits dont pay attention to over here. Like the LAW, you know, where Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 affirmed the 5th amendment. You know, where the US Supreme court ruled 8-1 that no person was legally held to obey a law requiring them to violate their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination.

That means by law, registration, bans, background checks, licenses etc, etc, anything requiring them to identify themselves doesn't legally apply to the bad guys and cant be used as a charge for prosecution.

Amazing how 85% of the current 22,417 gun control laws in the US dont actually apply to the bad guy, yet more useless as teets on a boar hog to feed suckling piglets legislation will do what to reduce violence, oh, like the previous post shows on the results in England, not one damn thing!

Again we know such intellectual juggernaut as our BOR is beyond you Brits scope of knowledge, then again, much of what this was based on, is your own English Bill of Rights, Magna Carta & Blackthorne, one of the greatest literary law writers in history whose system of law is used quite frequently today wouldn't you agree?

Then we should review how well those laws are enforced anyway.

Like the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms )for refusing to prosecute more than 1% of the 1.83 mil felons, others, and crazies rejected by the background check since 1994.

USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008

In 2010 alone out of 76,000 felons who were caught attempting to buy from a licensed source, only 44 were prosecuted, a .00059% rate, that's less than 1/10th of a percent to you math illiterates!

Is the BATF that incompetent, not really, see the procedure for a rejection is to verify it, and when that occurs, one see's that between 94.2% to 99.8% weren't actually felons, but a paperwork error, on the background check. Hence the massive majority of those rejected, weren't felons, and legally able to buy a firearm, such are the annoying details and facts you antis cant refute.

Oh and geez, who was that prosecuting attorney of BATF agent that stated they didnt have time to prosecute a paperwork felony, as attempting to buy a firearm if you are one of those 10 categories of people who by due process have lost their 2A right, is indeed a felony.

We see that Harris & Keibold (Columbine) & Lanza (SandyHook) were rejected by the background check, yet it wasn't important to follow up on them. Care to explain that logic to the families of the 41 killed and 26 they injured?


Like the BATF for refusing to catch ANY of those lying on their 4473 forms (Cho, Loughner & Holmes were crazy, they lied) or using fake identifications.

cbsnews 2001/03/21 General Accounting Office study

Like the BATF for refusing to do anything about the 95.52% of felons who don't even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, yet more laws will suddenly work, uh how, with a wave of your magic fairy wand & a sprinkle of magic fairy dust perhaps?

DOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001

Like the BATF for refusing to allow civilians access to use the NICS background check for private sales as only licensed dealers are allowed.

Lets not forget that our politicians play a significant role in enabling the crazies to go free. As a result of VA Tech, Pub. L. 110-180 NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was enacted.

The real question and failure, is what have the states actually funded or resourced for this mental health reporting to the NICS?

Going to the actual NICS website, we see as of Dec 2012, there are only 1.83 mil records of people who by due process have lost their 2A rights for being severely mentally ill.

You do realize in the 1970's how the ACLU mainstreamed the mentally ill into society, and people didn't want the half way houses for them in their neighborhoods, and politicians continually cut said funding, does anyone wonder where they went, we dont!

Yet mental health experts agree that on avg. over 23.15 mil US adults (50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners) are severely mentally ill.

http : // www . hrw . org / news / 2006 / 09 / 05 / us-number-mentally-ill-prisons-quadrupled
http : // www . fbi . gov / about-us / cjis / nics / reports / 20130102_nics-index . pdf

Don't forget the NCIC FBI database showing over 1.043 mil open felony warrants in the US today. Uh where's your data showing that 50% of these 1 mil people wanted aren't severely mentally ill eh?

So is that the 80 mil law abiding gun owners fault, BATF fault or the politicians fault, sucker question I know!

But such simple intellectual concepts are lost on those who go bleeeeeet and baaaahhhhh!

Reply

David Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

American attitudes towards guns are actually rather fascinating. Some 25 years ago I wholly expected to live in a country with much tighter gun laws in another 25 years or so, the assumption being that regulations can only go in one direction as society becomes more urban.

A few States have indeed tightened their regulations significantly, but one rather vast trend in the opposite direction that took place was something surprised me to no end. In the late 1980's perhaps half a dozen States issued permits to carry concealed handguns without requiring the applicant to demonstrate a special need to do so. Today some 40 States have this type of licensing scheme for carrying concealed weapons, covering about two thirds of the US population.

Recent polls showing support for many of President Obama's specific gun control proposals also show 70 percent of the US public opposed to a ban on handguns.

Together, these number seem to suggest that the public will eventually likely support a stricter screening process for those wishing to own firearms, but it will not support requiring justification for wanting to own a gun.

Reply

RLEmerysgt Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

It is amazing how people put so much faith in a poll, whose questions and extremely small sample size and area of said sample, are designed to illicit a specific or predetermined response. Such is the science of polling, not really based on facts, really focuing on emotions, LOL.

If all engineerign designs and laws were based only on emotions, this world would be even more screwed up and dangerous than it already is.

Such polls also dont acknowledge that many people simply don't actually understand the details and facts behind such useless laws and regulations (as referenced above), that are the cornerstone of the kneejerk legislative action Obama proposed just so a few emotional cripples can feel good and appear to be doing something, how pathetic!

When the laws, regulations and such actually result in ENFORCEMENT of the existing laws to control the bad guys, then you would see agreement from the pro gun people. As that is not the reality, then you wont see such cooperation as we are infintely tired of giving, when those who want more control give nothing in return.

See, that is how adults reach a compromise, you give something you value up in exchange for something your desire.

The antis have never given anything they value in compromise, so then it is indeed logical that the pro gun people give up as much as the antis have, which is NOTHING.

How can that position by the pro gun people not be reasonable?

Refusing to do something that doesn't work to the antis, is unreasonable, hmmmmm, yeah, right!

Just cant understand how doing something wrong, is better than not doing anything!

I mean we have many examples of people being excluded from doing things during times of emotional distress, a death, your family is involved, as to the resultant errors, failures, and harm that can occur by such REACTIONS that occur without due thought, why doesn't that apply to laws?

So who is the sane one in this situation eh?

Reply

Dakota Bagley-Sweet Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Yes! I'm a bleeding heart progressive! That means things. Clever lad.

Reply

Dave Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

@RLEmerysgt
Polls are useful in showing what is politically possible and/or likely.

Whether the resulting laws are technically sound is another matter. The proposed ban on "assault weapons" would not ban the gun used by Breivik in the Norway massacre, because it had a sporting rather than a military look. Clearly, such a law would be entirely meaningless as a means of controlling crime, yet it is still being discussed.

Of course, public opinion is not frozen in time. In the past, polls showed a slim majority of the US public supporting a ban on handguns, something that is simply no longer the case. Conversely, some measures that are currently unpopular may become acceptable.

Reply

user38223 Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Why do Liberals want to destroy America? Listen to this nonsense:

"But the constitution is outdated, and eventually someone will have to do something about it."

If you want gun control and free healthcare, go live in the Castro regime.

Reply

Dakota Bagley-Sweet Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Do liberals want to destroy America?

Reply

David Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

It is not unusual for the political opposites to feel that the other side is trying to push the society in an unacceptable direction. Hardly a shocking revelation. What's more interesting is to ask the following. When you have a society with a written Constitution, and it takes substantially more than a simple majority to change it, what happens when a particular provision no longer enjoys the support of the majority.

It is a common view that Constitution should reign supreme anyway in such cases, because the whole idea behind it is to protect minorities against the tyranny of the majority. In this case, the 2nd Amendment is no different from any other part of the Constitution, the only question being what limitations on the right to "keep and bear arms" are constitutionally acceptable.

As there are very few relevant Supreme Court precedents, this issue is still very much in flux. What has already been decided by the US Supreme Court, in 2008 and 2010, is that the right to keep a handgun in one's home is constitutionally protected, and that furthermore the right to keep it specifically for self-defense is protected as well. The latter implies that one can't be required to store a handgun unloaded and disassembled, but may keep it loaded and ready to use.

The questions of the constitutionality of licensing, registration, magazine size limits, restrictions on the types of rifles and shotguns, of the right to carry a gun for self-defense outside ones home, etc, etc, are still very much in flux. It seems highly unlikely, however, that even rather strict background checks would ever be found unconstitutional, so there are plenty of gun control regulations that may still be pursued.

Reply

Michael LLoyd Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

It would take a long and extremely bloody war to disarm the Americans, and thats not something a bankrupt government under global pressure is willing to engage in. I have a feeling that 20 years from now Americans will still have their rifles and sidearms.

Reply

Mike the Limey Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

It really WOULD be helpful if our American "cousins" would refrain from using generalisations about what us Brits think about firearms & hurling insults in the same manner as the anti gun lobby.
There's a surprisingly large number of us who are not only quite comfortable around firearms but also fighters for the cause of firearms freedom.
I for one am an NRA (the US one) Life member & member of several other pro gun organisations.
Please DON'T take the drivel in our media, or ramblings of ignorant students to be representative of how firearms are viewed here because neither is anywhere near what people really feel.

Reply

RLEmerysgt Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Mike, where ya been hiding, haven't seen you over on TTAG much lately, might be me just not seeing your posts though. I know there are a few sane rational Brits, but wet behind the ears progressive college students are the same anywhere in the world, so full of themselves and their false morality it is beyond nauseating!

Bleeding heart progressive = doesnt think for themselves, not so clever lassie!

Yeah, as far as consitutionality outside the home, LOL, explain again how our founding fathers made it law that self defense only existed in the home and duty to retreat was a law then in 1791! Oh wait, yeah, duty to retreat was a law created oh what about 50 years ago at the start of the anti gun agenda, yeah, it was!

See that is the sticking point I have posed to leftist lawyers and prosecuting attorney's on multiple times and they just shut up, why is that do you suppose?

But since 49, soon to be 50 states have concealed carry, and with Stand Your Ground Laws in 25 states w 25 others with Castle Doctrine laws w 5 of those pending change to SYG, we see more and more trends to CONSTITUIONALITY of self defense outside the home as it was then and now!

Explain again how something is constitutional that ursurps the right to self defense outside the home?

Explain again how the 10 categories of bad guys that have lost their 2A rights by due process need more laws that dont apply to them and are unenforced to begin with?

Why are more laws consitutional when the govt. refuses to enforce the existing laws? Come on sunshine, lets hear the legal logic of how putting more laws on top of unenforced laws is consitutional, WHEN THE FREAKING LAWS DONT APPLY TO THE BAD GUYS TO BEGIN WITH!

See, the law is supposed to punish the bad guy, but it does not, and laws are supposed to apply to all, hence the circlejerk of stupidity that the antis cant escape from.

Of course we see how in dozens of court rulings that the police are by law, not legally liable to protect the individual civilian.

Your court rulings in England state the same thing, Canada too, heck any country for that matter as the government simply cant guarantee safety of the individual, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others." -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

Of course we see how police each year, fail to solve more than 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year.

Police response times at best are 4 minutes, 15-20 minutes on average.

FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.

http : // www2 . fbi . gov / ucr / cius2008 / offenses / clearances / index . htm

The British and Canadian govt. does an identical study to the Victimization reports, says the same thing!

http : // www . homeoffice . gov . uk / publications / science-research-statistics / research-statistics / crime-research / bcs1011tech1?view=Binary


http : // www . statcan . gc . ca / pub / 85-002-x / 2010002 / article / 11340-eng . htm
http : // www . bjs . gov / index . cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224

But oh wait, we have to remember the 70% of violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

http : // www . uscourts . gov / uscourts / Statistics / FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics / 2008 / tables / D04Mar08 . pdf
http : // bjs . ojp . usdoj . gov / content / pub / pdf / cv08 . pdf

So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

See, therin is another circlejerk of idiocy the antis cant escape from, the police not only have no duty to protect the individual per law, they can't protect the individual, and the same goes for the Brits or any strict gun ban country.

Care to review how many school attacks occurred in gun ban paradise China during the same time frame as the US?

http : // en . wikipedia . org / wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks#Secondary_school_incidents

68 killed 327 injured China summer 1995-2012 = 395 injuries

199 killed 235 injured US summer 1995-2012 = 434 injuries

How is it, that a gun ban country like China, with no guns, can have only a 10% difference in total school injuries, at least that is what has been allowed to be reported to the outside world.

One would think a country with 100% less firearms would have 100% less school killings as they have no firearms, based on anti gun freaks beliefs of no guns equals no violence, hmmmmmmm.

Constitutional, LOL, there is also a little thing called the amendment process, and that requires 2/3rds of the states to change. Our founding fathers were genius in choosing a constitutional republic as it eliminate the emotional knee jerk reactions of the feigned majority.

So sorry David if we don't buy your elequent and polite, but incorrect position.

Reply

Jacobin Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

@Gun lobby drones

The USA has millions fewer guns and millions fewer gun owners today as opposed to 20 years ago.

You don't suppose that, that might have something to do with the decrease in gun deaths?

... Not to mention the demographic impact of Roe vs. Wade. Funny how crime rates began falling around 18 years after that little court ruling.

The only thing the social science points to when it comes to actually cutting crime; is reduced inequality leading to greater mutual trust, respect and empathy.

I humbly suggest that you gentlemen, unlike most of your compatriots, greatly lack those last 3 qualities.

Reply

David Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

@RLEmerysgt
Don't confuse my personal beliefs with my more sober assessment of legislative and legal realities. In this particular discussion I chose to focus on polls, court decision and existing law, i.e., facts. Why? Well, when dealing with people who may have a rather different set of beliefs, I find it more useful to provide them with background information than to push my opinions on them.

For example, knowing that 70 percent of Americans oppose a ban on handguns teaches people that it is not because of intransigence of a particular lobbying group defying the will of the majority that handguns haven't been banned yet. And there are more examples like that one can come up with.

Reply

Dave Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

@Jacobin
//The USA has millions fewer guns and millions fewer gun owners today as opposed to 20 years ago. You don't suppose that, that might have something to do with the decrease in gun deaths?//

The USA has millions more guns today than 20 years ago. As to the percentage of gun-owning households, different polls don't quite agree. The Gallup poll, which is probably not particularly partisan, suggests only moderate changes in the last 20 years. Here are two links: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx and http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Reply

David Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Oops, I managed to sign some of my posts here as "Dave" and some as "David". I am the same person - my apologies to all here.

Reply

Luis Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Funny how these British writers lambast the U.S. Constitution as "outdated", considering they live in a country that has no written constitution. Instead, the law is what the British Parliament says it is.

The overwhelming number of American gun owners use their guns responsibly, mostly for self-defense. In Britain, using a gun for self-defense against criminals, will get you imprisoned. Just ask British farmer Tony Martin.

Reply

Dakota Bagley-Sweet Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

In what way do we not think for ourselves? This article is an opinion piece in a comment section of a University run newspaper. The whole point of it is to be a personal reflection on a topic. Also, I'm an American! Funny how you assume that to question America one must not be one.

Reply

jim Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

dakota, you fucking gaywad! don't you understand what the u.s.a. is about? we want the right to shoot whomever the fuck we want. the only way we can protect ourselves against the government that wants to destroy us is to shoot ourselves out. freedom must always take precedence over tyrannical interests like safety. goddammit you're a faggoty brit.

Reply

SamAdams1776 Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

The blood that ran through the British that made them embrace liberty has long been diluted. For the record, I speak as one serving in the US armed forces: Obama is not Commander-in-chief but Tyrant-in-chief and is no superhero but a threat against liberty.

I am sure the marxist British writer loves this tyrant precisely because Obama himslef is a marxist.

As for addressing the comments on the Second Amendment(2A): The Bill of Rights (BOR), and that includes the 2A, confers no rights; rather it limits the powers of government-it says so in the preamble to the BOR.

Individual rights, or as the great English philosopher John Locke (from the last of those British who understood such things) would call them: natural rights, are inherent. They are inalienable. Among those natural rights are the right to life, liberty and property and of course the ability to defend those things--especially from governments that break their social contract with the people when they are a threat to liberty. Under such conditions the people may depose such governments--governments created by the people in the first place.

The Second Amendment is one of those enumerated rights to ensure an armed population. The foudners in their writings were enthusisaticly supportive of an armed population as one of the most important safeguards.

People will abuse such rights and wreak havok. But it is more important to be free than "safe." In a free society one is inherently NOT safe. You do NOT have a right to be free from harm or danger-no one can guarantee that--ever. One can only gurantee that you have the right to defend with force when force is used against you. That includes unjust force exercised by government. Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan) would certainly disagree. Contary to Locke, government was to be big, powerful and to be obeyed. It should have the monopoly on force. This is perversion.

Every human being ABLE to carry arms should be ABLE to carry arms and of the type of their own chooing to secure their fredom and to mitigate threats to their safety---to MITIGATE.

Governments that have monopolies of force are a danger to their citizen- masters. Unlike the British, we are NOT subjects. We the PEOPLE are meant to control government, not the other way around. Our representatives SHOULD fear US; not the other way around. Gun control should be applied to THEM, not to us.

No one can prevent another attack against a school. But to leave them unarmed against a threat is pure folly. The answer is not to disarm the good, but to arm them.

The idea of disarming the good comes from only two points of view: the first, an innocent point of view but a misguided one--that no one is
to be trusted with arms (unless they are state actors apparently) as they may use them in a heat of passion or go crazy. And while no one is PURELY good; they are good enough. The second view is to disarm the people to ensure the people may not resist the advancing of a political agenda. While there are a few that fall in the first category of gun grabbers, the vast majority of those in government fall into the second category. Recognizing that the use of the words "progressive" or "progressivism", are code words for marxist socialism,
we find in Josh Horowitz's books, "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea," (Josh: we are a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy: democracy amounts to mob rule), he writes:

"Recognize Insurrectionism as a threat to the entire progressive movement. Too many political progressives assume that the gun rights movement can be co-opted or simply ignored. Progressives fail to understand that the Insurrectionist idea is part and parcel of a broader reactionary worldview. Unless progressives recognize that the Insurrectionist premise of the modern gun rights movement is fundamentally hostile to the progressive project and its values,.."

Indeed, we freedom loving Americans ARE hostile to "progressivism," with apologies to Shakepeare: poop by any other name would still smell as bad.

The purpose of the 2A is to ensure the people's ability to throw off tyranny. Unfortunately, the need for this safeguard is approaching all too rapidly. Hopefully this can be corrected at the ballot box before it becomes necessary to appeal to the cartridge box.

SamAdams1776 III
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters!
Si Vis Pacem Parabellum
Foran et Haec olim meminesse juvabit

Reply

jim Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

That was far too long to read, but I'm pretty sure it was idiotic. Sam Adams is decent beer though. Long live the Republic!

Reply

Dakota Bagley-Sweet Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

@SamAdams1776

Bro have you even read the Aeneid?

Reply

jim Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Eugh. To all the British people reading these comments, I'd like to apologize on the behalf of all Americans. Seriously, most of us aren't quite this stupid.

Reply

David Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

I found the article by Olson and Kopel, "All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessors for Civil Liberties in America" to be an interesting read for some of the historical background:
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/slipperyslope.htm

An online version that may be a bit easier on the eyes is here:
http://guncite.com/journals/okslip.html

Reply

RLEmerysgt Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Aw poor Jacobin, fact illiterate we see, here are some facts you cant refute.

The baby boomers, the largest single age sub group of people to walk this earth (born 1947-1964) has passed through our history.

Criminalogists the world over agree that the prime years for criminality are 15-24 yrs old & levels out at 25-34 yrs old then begins a steady decline the older they get, due to a few have some brains and get out, they are killed by violence or drug overdose, are incarcerated, or eventually just get too old to continue.

Amazing how that trend is an identical match to the levels of crime rising in the 1960s' to it highest in 1970's to 1980's, then begins its gradual decline to the lowest point it has been since the early 1960's.

See unlike the progressives, we don't attribute everything to one unsubstantiated claim as you do. Our intellects allow us to see the bigger picture, your agenda doesn't allow you such freedom!

As to less firearms, lol, review of NICS & NSSF data shows at minimum a 61 mil firearms increase from 1998-2012 alone, and since those numbers from NSSF jsut focus on firearms manufactured as sold in the US, that doesn't account for all the SKS, Mosin Nagant's, Markarov's, Star, CZ, Mausers, Enfields, etc, etc, etc, imported over that time frame, so the 61 mil number, is artifically low, so sad, too bad!

Year Total NICS Total firearms
Checks Purchased
1998/99 10,020,963 3,807,966
2000 8,543,037 3,246,354
2001 8,910,191 3,385,873
2002 8,454,322 3,212,642
2003 8,481,588 3,223,003
2004 8,687,671 3,301,315
2005 8,952,945 3,402,119
2006 10,036,933 3,814,035
2007 11,177,335 4,247,387
2008 12,709,023 4,829,429
2009 14,033,824 5,332,853
2010 14,409,616 5,459,240
2011 16,454,951 6,398,854
2012 19,592,303 7,445,075

Totals 160,464,702 61,106,145

Reply

RLEmerysgt Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Well Dave/David, you haven't refuted with any facts to counter the law, poll's or facts we have pointed out so far, hence, don't believe that part of your position.

Dakota, funny how you are too stupid to use facts to substantiate your questioning to give you some credibility at least! Oh thats right, you want the world to run on emotions only, LOL, uh yeah right!

To all the Americans reading these posts, Mike the Limey has already apologized for his countrymens rude behaviour as unfortunately, more than a few Brits are indeed that stupid as to impose their unsubstnatiated beliefs on others.

But dont worry, the days of Imperialistic dictate by the British Empire are long since gone, replaced by oh so many who call the govt. in the morning to ask permission on when and where to take a dump!

We suggest the American Torrey's if they like the UK so much, you should move there!

Reply

SamAdams1776 Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Dakota Bagley-Sweet:

I don't have a twitter account. The latin phrase has an equivalent in English:
"Sometime we'll look back on this and laugh." It is perhaps an overly optomistic view that one day, we will quash these totalitarian attempts to disarm the people and one day, socialism will end in the scrap heap of history where it belongs.

The phrase which originated in the Aeneid was also used in the 1939 film, "Goodbye Mr. Chips," the retiring classics master upon his retirement shortens the quote to: "Haec olim meminesse juvabit, no need to translate."

He was making the statement that his retirement was bittersweet and one day it might be pleasant to look back on--but not now.

A great film and a real tearjerker. And while I have read classics, I have not read the Aeneid. I am not unfamiliar with Latin however and am in fact a lifelong student of Greek; Modern and the Demotic (Koine)


SamAdams1776 III
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters!
Si Vis Pacem Parabellum
Foran et haec olim meminesse juvabit

Reply

SamAdams1776 Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Jim:

Your out of hand dismissal is idiotic.

Here is the bottom line. My right to keep and bear arms is not subject to popular vote. The right is a pre-existing natural right.

Here is the deal. Don't try to take my firearms--ANY of them and well---I won't kill you.
------------------------------------------
We will not disarm.

You cannot convince us.

You cannot intimidate us.

You can try to kill us, if you think you can.

But remember, we'll shoot back.

And we are not going away.

Your move.

SamAdams1776 III
Molon Labe
No Fort Sumters!
Si Vis Pacem Parabellum
Foran et haec olim meminesse juvabit

Reply

Dakota Bagley-Sweet Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Ah, so now the debate has turned to threats. How very articulate of you.

Reply

David Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

While such hyperbole may not be a persuasive way to debate, one should still be able to distinguish strong rhetoric from actual threats.

Reply

A US Citizen Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

"Governments that have monopolies of force are a danger to their citizen- masters. Unlike the British, we are NOT subjects. We the PEOPLE are meant to control government, not the other way around. Our representatives SHOULD fear US; not the other way around. Gun control should be applied to THEM, not to us."

I can't tell if you're being ironic (in which case I congratulate your dedication to your art) or are just an absolute, inexorable fuckwit. What do you think guns are going to do against a nation with the most devestating military potential in human history? You're going to come up against the most heavily-armed, heavily-financed militia in the world with your little revolver that Pops 'gived ya' and expect to change anything?

If your government wanted to, it could destroy the world. You owning a gun makes exactly fuck all difference.

Reply

David Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

//What do you think guns are going to do against a nation with the most devastating military potential in human history?//

I have always found this particular line of reasoning, which is quite common, to be specious. A constitutional right was put into place long ago to serve as one among many checks and balances on the government's power. Clearly, personal arms are not nearly as effective as a check and balance in modern times. Yet, the diminished effectiveness of a particular check and balance is not in itself an argument for ignoring the right - it can only be an argument for abolishing the right, but so long as the Second Amendment is there, it remains in force.

Also, I am not entirely sure just how ineffective some of the civilian arms really are. I read an article in our newspaper once where a guy who served in Afghanistan said that they had an easier time dealing with the AK-47-wielding types than with those who used World War I era bolt action Lee-Enfield rifles that can be accurate to half a kilometer. A deer rifle with an optical sight is basically a sniper weapon, and a few million seriously annoyed deer hunters may be far more of a pain than may appear at first sight.

Which leads me to a thought that would be rather unorthodox for a pro-gun person, but that's where the logic leads. Since it is the accurate long-range rifles that are the most essential tools for fulfilling the checks and balances role of the Second Amendment, one could argue that this role would be essentially undiminished with a ban on handguns, which also happen to be by far the most popular kind of firearm for committing a crime. Now, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the 2nd Amendment also protects the right to self-defense with a handgun, so my point is moot, but then, self-defense is a rather different aspect of the 2nd Amendment than its checks and balance role, which is what you were addressing.

Reply

Rob Posted on Friday 7 Aug 2020

Wow. It seems that here as elsewhere the more a discussion comes to be dominated by right-wing Americans the more the level of discussion drops and the level of vitriol increases. I can't think of any other political group which which feels the need to resort to death threats (e.g. SamAdams) in what is essentially a political debate. Compensating for something?

There's also an overwhelming tendency to argue with a barrage of "facts" with little or no coherent explanation of how they relate to the subject under discussion (e.g. RLEmerysgt). Since I don't care that much about American gun control policy either way I didn't bother to trawl through all your tedious ramblings, but in reference to your statistic that in school shootings:

68 killed 327 injured China summer 1995-2012 = 395 injuries
199 killed 235 injured US summer 1995-2012 = 434 injuries

which you claim demonstrates that China's gun control laws don't work, I'd like to point out that the population of China is four times that of the US and those figures aren't per capita. If that's how you do all your "research" then I'd question your ability to think coherently.

I'd also point out that the firearm-related death rate in the US is extremely high - a fact which you do your best to ignore. In fact it's about the same as the rate in Mexico and Columbia where heavily armed drug cartels have been known to engage in pitched battles so I'm not surprised that you tried to dodge that point with bad statistics.

Generally I, and probably the majority of British citizens, are fairly indifferent to American gun laws. I'm happy that I live in a country in which I can walk down the street feeling pretty confident that people such as you aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons in my vicinity. I feel a passing sympathy for those American liberals who feel the same as me but unfortunately live in a country in which that isn't possible. That is all. There is no liberal ideological crusade being waged against you here. Britain is unlikely, as Michael Lloyd helpfully pointed out, to invade America in an attempt to disarm it. Rest assured that the worst you are likely to elicit is a raised eyebrow and a slight feeling of contempt.

Reply

Leave a comment

Your name from your Google account will be published alongside the comment, and your name, email address and IP address will be stored in our database to help us combat spam. Comments from outside the university require moderator approval to reduce spam, but Nouse accepts no responsibility for reviewing content comments on our site

Disclaimer: this page is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.