Gun control

SR_Crewchief wrote: Nice out of context yourself. That's Article 1 Section 8 where the base power of congress are initially defined. It does nothing to define what "militia" means. Generally at the time (circa 1791) militia ment all able bodied men in the community gathering for the common protection of the community. From this basis the National Guard eventually evolved as a more permenent organization.

Not out of context at all.  I was specifically discussing US v. Miller, which specifically references that specific provision of the Constitution.  Doesn't get much more contextual than that.

SR_Crewchief wrote: And you've specifically overlooked the Second Amendment. Which 3 basic purposes: 1) Insure the rights of the people to form militia's 2) Insure the rights of the people to possess firearms (happens to neatly support the first purpose without defining firearms by type, much less defining it being solely for the purpose of an armed militia) 3) Insures that first two purposes are not to be overridden. (this one has been severly trampled on)

I certainly did not "overlook" the Second Amendment - I was specifically discussing the legal interpretation thereof.  And the three purposes you describe are again your opinion - I am not aware that there is law to support that interpretation.  I don't even believe that matches up nicely with the Federalist Papers.The Second Amendment, perhaps more than any other provision of the Constitution, is consistently a victim of "wishful interpretation".  I am not saying you are doing this, Crewchief, but it certainly is common - the NRA has made a career of it. 

Canada seems fine without guns.

-me

[/QUOTE

You would think so, but in the provinces bordering the prairie states of the US, the rate of gun violence is actually higher in Canada.

TRAVELER wrote: My statistics are accurate, according to the USJD ... ... ...

Im am not saying that your stats are false.  I am saying that they are incorrectly applied, and incompletely presented.

Correlation is not causation.  You note that gun violence went down in the 90s - maybe it was due to the Brady Bill?  Maybe due to the AWB?  Maybe because the economy was good?  Maybe because miniskirts were in?  You always have to consider outside variables.

You note that states with tight gun laws have high gun crime.  Why do you think that the laws cause the crime?  Maybe places with gun crime are more motivated to enact gun laws?  The causation arrow doesn't always lead where you think.

Then, of course, there is counter-evidence.  You don't mention Scandinavia and Japan, for instance, where there are tight gun laws and very little crime - gun or otherwise.  You don't mention parts of Africa and the Middle East (and other parts of the world), where there are few gun laws and lots of crime.  Heck, you didn't even note the obvious comparison - Canada.

Like I said: statistics-abuse.

My statistics are accurate, according to the USJD ... ... ...

Those statistics are extremely selective, Traveler, misleadingly so.  You need to present opposing numbers as well (of which there are plenty).  What you are posting is so out of context as to be meaningless.  Not only that, but the stats that you do post don't even necessarily lead to the conclusions you ascribe to them.  Bad, bad statistics usage.

There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that increasing gun ownership will reduce crime.

My statistics are accurate, according to the USJD, counties that issue gun permits freely realized an average 8% reduction in murder, a 5% reduction in rape, and a 6% reduction in assault.

Also according to the USJD, in 1998 the rate of muggings in the UK was 40% higher than the US, assault rates were 100% higher.

In the 80's and 90's, when the US saw a moderate reduction in violent crime, the crime rate in the UK increased by 196%!

Which city in the US has the highest murder rate, and the largest amount of firearms related crime? None other than Washington DC, which has outlawed handgun ownership for two decades.

Other cities with high numbers, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. All cities which strictly regulate gun ownership.

What major city in the US has the lowest violent crime rate? That would be El Paso, Texas, where obtaining a permit to carry a gun is about as difficult as getting a driver's license.

Before questioning my statistics, do a search yourself, the info is out there for anyone with eyes to see.

As to rights vs. privileges - I use car driving as a comparison of the system I envision, not because of any legal similarities.  And the 2d amendment says you get to have a gun (generally speaking) - it doesn't say that there cannot be restrictions.  Even rights are subject to moderation.