DC gun ban

[John B.]

The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.

Three questions:

1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
bear include handguns?

2. If the handgun ban is rescinded, wil the rate of murder and violent
crime in DC go up or down? That is, if any adult resident of DC can
walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, and walk
out, will that raise or lower the murder rate?

3. In an average year, what percent of DC's violent crime victims are
decent, innocent law-abiding folks, who would avoid being victimized
if they owned handguns?

I submit these questions in the hope of starting a thoughtful and
civilized discussion.

 

[HarryNadds]

On Feb 11, 10:17

 

[John B.]

On Feb 11, 11:22

 

[Galen Hekhuis]

How about unlicensed, virtually unlimited open carry in DC? That
would mean you could walk into a gun store in DC, buy a six-gun and
holster, strap it on, and go walking legally with a loaded handgun
hanging off your waist. If you put the gun in your pocket or
something, then you would need a permit for concealed carry, the
permits would be a "shall issue" type instead of the type that
requires you establish some sort of "need" before a permit is issued.
Commission of a crime in possession of a firearm would be punished
hideously, however. I'm not talking about busting some guy growing
dope and finding a .22 in the closet, but armed robbery or even armed
speeding would be severely punished. Brandishing or threatening with
a firearm would mean harsh criminal charges. Furthermore, being
caught with a stolen firearm would also result in having the
proverbial book thrown at the perp. I can imagine lots of law
abiding gun owners voluntarily registering their weapons with
various gun clubs, police organizations, (not federally mandated,
centralized locations), whatever to provide evidence should their
firearms ever be stolen or should they ever be in a situation where
they would need to provide "proof of ownership." With the "lo-jack"
type of electronics being used in cars becoming so small, it is not
difficult to imagine such stuff being installed in the stocks or
handgrips of firearms. What criminal would want to risk that the
stolen weapon he carries, far from being untraceable, might be giving
the police minute by minute updates as to his exact whereabouts? How
about if it was real easy to keep and bear arms in DC but if there
were hell to pay for the commission of a crime with one?
--
Galen Hekhuis ghekhuis@earthlink.net
I may have mispoken

 

[Bama Brian]

John B. wrote:
> The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
> Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.
>
> Three questions:
>
> 1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
> bear include handguns?

The 2nd Amendment does not define arms. But the Founding Fathers did,
the military currently does, and the law currently does. Handguns were
known at the time of the FF's and were both privately owned and were a
part of military arms. Handguns are still privately owned and are still
a part of military arms. Therefore, handguns are arms.

Here's what Tench Coxe had to say: "The militia of these free
commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with
any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the
militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn
our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to
disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of
the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power
of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands
of the people."

Don't know who Tench Coxe was? Here's Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest
reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a
last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

>
> 2. If the handgun ban is rescinded, wil the rate of murder and violent
> crime in DC go up or down? That is, if any adult resident of DC can
> walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, and walk
> out, will that raise or lower the murder rate?

First, "any adult resident" won't be able to do that.

Only those that pass the FBI check system will. That is, only the
law-abiding without criminal records. Therefore, this will not increase
the rate of criminal homicides at all. If anything, it will decrease
the rate. Just as it has done in every other state where liberalizing
the ability to "keep and bear" has gone into effect.

> 3. In an average year, what percent of DC's violent crime victims are
> decent, innocent law-abiding folks, who would avoid being victimized
> if they owned handguns?

Let me toss an HCI/VPC thought at you: "If it saves just one life...".

Note that since DC has not had the opportunity to measure such an event
for decades now - decades during which crime has only risen. It is
certainly worth the citizen's lives to find out if liberalizing the
ownership of firearms works as well for them as it has in every other
state that has tried it.

> I submit these questions in the hope of starting a thoughtful and
> civilized discussion.

Let's hope it can stay that way.

--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

 

[PolicySpy]

> The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
> Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.

> Three questions:
> 1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
> bear include handguns?
>

The Constitution associates militia with The People and gives the people the
right to bear arms and furthermore says that the right to bear arms should
not be infringed...

Now who would it be that would infringe on the People's right to bear arms ?

Well see...in the Constitution the militia (or a militia) is associated with
the People while the Army is associated with the Commander-in-Chief.

So a militia is a supporting unit and the People have the right to be a
supporting unit. Now words like "militia" and "army" have definition and
practice and had definition and practice at the time of the Consititution.

So a militia is a supporting unit and does not have artillery while an army
is a primary unit and does have artillery. So the People do not have the
right to keep and bear artillery but only the right to keep and bear arms.
(Note that the National Guards are recognizable as army because they have
artillery, because they have salary and uniform, because they can be called
by the Commander-in-Chief, and because they do not control their firearms
but leave then in a central location.)

Now arms are firearms that can be carried and used by one person...


> 2. If the handgun ban is rescinded, wil the rate of murder and violent
> crime in DC go up or down? That is, if any adult resident of DC can
> walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, and walk
> out, will that raise or lower the murder rate?
>

Most guns are kept in the house...but crime or simply just street culture
can be a problem.

> 3. In an average year, what percent of DC's violent crime victims are
> decent, innocent law-abiding folks, who would avoid being victimized
> if they owned handguns?
>

The gun in the house is a confidence builder and is there for a worst case
happening.

And consider the knock on the door at 10 PM...it is very easy and reasonble
to go to the door with a handgun in pocket or held back in hand.

> I submit these questions in the hope of starting a thoughtful and
> civilized discussion.
>

 

[PolicySpy]

>> The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
>> Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.
>
>> Three questions:
>> 1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
>> bear include handguns?
>>
>
> The Constitution associates militia with The People and gives the people
> the right to bear arms and furthermore says that the right to bear arms
> should not be infringed...
>
> Now who would it be that would infringe on the People's right to bear arms
> ?
>
> Well see...in the Constitution the militia (or a militia) is associated
> with the People while the Army is associated with the Commander-in-Chief.
>
> So a militia is a supporting unit and the People have the right to be a
> supporting unit. Now words like "militia" and "army" have definition and
> practice and had definition and practice at the time of the Consititution.
>
> So a militia is a supporting unit and does not have artillery while an
> army is a primary unit and does have artillery. So the People do not have
> the right to keep and bear artillery but only the right to keep and bear
> arms. (Note that the National Guards are recognizable as army because they
> have artillery, because they have salary and uniform, because they can be
> called by the Commander-in-Chief, and because they do not control their
> firearms but leave then in a central location.)
>

Oh, but that's a well regulated militia in the Constitution...

So we could say that's were they don't allow the People to have
artillery...and we could say that militia means participation in a community
with community standards and thus not criminal.

> Now arms are firearms that can be carried and used by one person...
>
>
>> 2. If the handgun ban is rescinded, wil the rate of murder and violent
>> crime in DC go up or down? That is, if any adult resident of DC can
>> walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, and walk
>> out, will that raise or lower the murder rate?
>>
>
> Most guns are kept in the house...but crime or simply just street culture
> can be a problem.
>
>> 3. In an average year, what percent of DC's violent crime victims are
>> decent, innocent law-abiding folks, who would avoid being victimized
>> if they owned handguns?
>>
>
> The gun in the house is a confidence builder and is there for a worst case
> happening.
>
> And consider the knock on the door at 10 PM...it is very easy and
> reasonble to go to the door with a handgun in pocket or held back in hand.
>

 

[HarryNadds]

On Feb 11, 10:50

 

[Jerry Okamura]

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0d7204-c09c-466d-bba4-03aaa8b9164e@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 11:22 am, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 10:17 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
> > Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.
>
> > Three questions:
>
> > 1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
> > bear include handguns?
>
> > 2. If the handgun ban is rescinded, wil the rate of murder and violent
> > crime in DC go up or down? That is, if any adult resident of DC can
> > walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, and walk
> > out, will that raise or lower the murder rate?
>
> > 3. In an average year, what percent of DC's violent crime victims are
> > decent, innocent law-abiding folks, who would avoid being victimized
> > if they owned handguns?
>
> > I submit these questions in the hope of starting a thoughtful and
> > civilized discussion.
>
> Guns have been banned in D.C for years.How's that been working for
> them?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I'd say it's been working a lot better than if they weren't
banned. Do you think more guns on the street will lead to fewer people
being shot?

Well, I would think that depends on how many people have guns. Think of it
this way. Is someone more likely to use a gun to commit a crime "if" they
beleived the person they are going to commit the crime on, may be also
armed?

 

[Patriot Games]

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f7d056f-950b-4b9c-a953-919622041b48@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
> Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.
> Three questions:
> 1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
> bear include handguns?

They were intentionally NOT specific. The 2nd Amen is NOT about firearms,
its about RIGHTS.

> 2. If the handgun ban is rescinded, wil the rate of murder and violent
> crime in DC go up or down? That is, if any adult resident of DC can
> walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, and walk
> out, will that raise or lower the murder rate?

That's a stupid question. If the Supreme Court rules against the DC gun ban
then gun banning will be banned AND DC (and a few other places) will have to
enact whatever laws they want. They will probably model their law after
Maryland's firearms laws.

No, not any adult resident anywhere in America can walk in a gunshop and buy
a gun.

The murder rate in DC will VERY likely decrease. Every single place ON
EARTH that banned guns saw crime go UP and every single place ON EARTH that
allows citizens to be armed for self defense saw murder GO DOWN.

> 3. In an average year, what percent of DC's violent crime victims are
> decent, innocent law-abiding folks, who would avoid being victimized
> if they owned handguns?

Nobody knows.

> I submit these questions in the hope of starting a thoughtful and
> civilized discussion.

Yet you didn't even bother to educate yourself on the basics of firearms
laws.

 

[Patriot Games]

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0d7204-c09c-466d-bba4-03aaa8b9164e@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 11, 11:22 am, HarryNadds <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 11, 10:17 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Guns have been banned in D.C for years.How's that been working for
>> them?
>Well, I'd say it's been working a lot better than if they weren't
>banned. Do you think more guns on the street will lead to fewer people
>being shot?

Why would you be interested in the number of criminals getting shot?

Please explain why you are NOT interested in the number of law-abiding
citizens who were not killed because they legally defended themselves with a
gun.

 

[robw]

Have you ever been in D.C.?


"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:47b225d6$0$7024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0f7d056f-950b-4b9c-a953-919622041b48@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
> > Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.
> > Three questions:
> > 1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
> > bear include handguns?
>
> They were intentionally NOT specific. The 2nd Amen is NOT about firearms,
> its about RIGHTS.
>
> > 2. If the handgun ban is rescinded, wil the rate of murder and violent
> > crime in DC go up or down? That is, if any adult resident of DC can
> > walk into a gun shop, pick up a Glock and a box of shells, and walk
> > out, will that raise or lower the murder rate?
>
> That's a stupid question. If the Supreme Court rules against the DC gun
ban
> then gun banning will be banned AND DC (and a few other places) will have
to
> enact whatever laws they want. They will probably model their law after
> Maryland's firearms laws.
>
> No, not any adult resident anywhere in America can walk in a gunshop and
buy
> a gun.
>
> The murder rate in DC will VERY likely decrease. Every single place ON
> EARTH that banned guns saw crime go UP and every single place ON EARTH
that
> allows citizens to be armed for self defense saw murder GO DOWN.
>
> > 3. In an average year, what percent of DC's violent crime victims are
> > decent, innocent law-abiding folks, who would avoid being victimized
> > if they owned handguns?
>
> Nobody knows.
>
> > I submit these questions in the hope of starting a thoughtful and
> > civilized discussion.
>
> Yet you didn't even bother to educate yourself on the basics of firearms
> laws.
>

 

[Bama Brian]

PolicySpy wrote:
>> The Supreme Court will rule this year on whether to overturn
>> Washington DC's handgun ownership ban.
>
>> Three questions:
>> 1. Where does the 2nd Amendment say that the arms we have the right to
>> bear include handguns?
>>
>
> The Constitution associates militia with The People and gives the people the
> right to bear arms and furthermore says that the right to bear arms should
> not be infringed...
>
> Now who would it be that would infringe on the People's right to bear arms ?
>
> Well see...in the Constitution the militia (or a militia) is associated with
> the People while the Army is associated with the Commander-in-Chief.
>
> So a militia is a supporting unit and the People have the right to be a
> supporting unit. Now words like "militia" and "army" have definition and
> practice and had definition and practice at the time of the Consititution.
>
> So a militia is a supporting unit and does not have artillery while an army
> is a primary unit and does have artillery. So the People do not have the
> right to keep and bear artillery but only the right to keep and bear arms.

That's absolutely wrong. Privately owned crew-served weapons were
common throughout the 1800's, up to and including ships of war. Even
today, private owners can own such. But buying an F-22 Raptor and then
trying to keep it flying is a terribly expensive proposition, even for
billionaires.

> (Note that the National Guards are recognizable as army because they have
> artillery, because they have salary and uniform, because they can be called
> by the Commander-in-Chief, and because they do not control their firearms
> but leave then in a central location.)
>
> Now arms are firearms that can be carried and used by one person...

Again, wrong. Arms are what the army has - and what "We, the People..."
should be keeping, although most people don't want to be bothered.

But if you'd like to become acquainted with heavy weapons, you might
want to stop by Knob Creek some year.

<SNIP>

--
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, 1863 - 1952

Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

 

[parsifal222@gmail.com]

On 11 f

 

[parsifal222@gmail.com]

On 13 f

 

[Bert Hyman]

parsifal222@gmail.com () wrote in
news:ea102b71-2cd5-4ee0-94a3-bc9ab0e6ead1@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> When someone knock at my door after 10PM, I know it's for a reason -
> and a good one

How's that work?

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

 

[Bert Hyman]

parsifal222@gmail.com () wrote in
news:f3830142-4b48-43aa-b7a1-f77fe63be581@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

> How many saved their lives by "legally defending themselves"? I'd
> say: not that many.

Based on what, exactly?

"ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF
SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN" Kleck & Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology (Northwestern) Guns and Violence Symposium, vol. 86, no.
1, 1995: 150.

"The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2
are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that
rely on Rs' firsthand accounts of their own experiences
(person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first
two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there
are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs [Defensive Gun Use] of all
types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9
million of the incidents involving use of handguns."

"THE ILLEGITIMACY OF ONE-SIDED SPECULATION: GETTING THE DEFENSIVE GUN
USE ESTIMATE DOWN" Kleck & Gertz, Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology (Northwestern) 87 (1997): 1446.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com

 

[Patriot Games]

"robw" <noddy093@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aaednXbudeAPri_anZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Have you ever been in D.C.?

Yep.

The last time was a couple of years ago to officially relinquish my
previously awarded (future) spot at Arlington. It was not that meaningful
to me and the families of today's heroes most certainly deserve it.

You do realize, I hope, that to me you barely even register as a life form.

 

[John B.]

On Feb 12, 7:02

 

[John B.]

On Feb 11, 3:08