Sunday, December 9, 2012

The Gun Debate

Hello again everyone! I apologize for my long absence from blogging. After the holiday season is finished, I will be able to concentrate on this enterprise more fully, so come January 2nd, expect at least tri-weekly posts! 

Anyway, today, I would like to talk about a very pressing issue in our country that has not been given the media attention it deserves, especially in the past year or two. As the title of this post suggests, the topic that I am referring to is the ongoing discussion in our country about what role guns should play in our society. Recently, I had a very lively debate with a classmate of mine about the right of individual Americans to bear arms. The debate was multi-faceted and cannot be transcribed here. However, our disagreement boiled down to a few, salient points. The first point was how to read and interpret the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Beyond the legal technicalities, we argued over the effectiveness of guns at preventing robberies, murders, and other violent crime. And lastly, in a more general sense, if gun ownership should be controlled, to what extent? Are automatic weapons an 'automatic' (no clever wordplay intended) no-no? How about high caliber ammunition? Perhaps you should only be allowed to own a gun if you go through a training course. Perhaps not. 

All of these questions have been grappled with for decades. Our Founding Fathers thought a great deal before writing the Second Amendment, and paid incredibly close attention to detail regarding the exact wording. The American revolutionaries of yore desired to have a unified, powerful government, but at the same time recognized the right of the people to rebel, and to rebel violently if need be, if this government began to behave corruptly, unjustly, or unconstitutionally. Nevertheless, constitutional legal scholars and experts have debated the this issue for years and years, regarding how to interpret this illusive amendment. 

Before we go any further, we must understand what the Second Amendment actually says. Here it is, in its pure, unadulterated form: 
"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." 

There it is. In 2008, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in the case District of Columbia v. Heller.

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts had not yet definitively stated what specific right the Second Amendment protects. There have been many opposing theories, however the court clarified the Second Amendment and now hold that it protects an individual's right to possess a firearm regardless of service in a militia, and to use that weapon for self-defense within the home, or other safety concerns. This right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

In this case, the Court ruled that the District of Columbia's proposed ban on handguns was a violation of every Americans' right to 'keep and bear arms.' The District of Columbia was also not allowed to force citizen's to lock their gun when not in use. 

While this ruling may seem like it permits everyone to own any gun at any time, it's not so simple. In 1994, under President Bill Clinton, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed. This made the buying or possession of assault (semi-automatic or automatic) weapons illegal. This law expired in 2004. A study done by the United States Department of Justice showed that this bill was not effective in halting crime because in cases of violent crime, people are not likely to be using bulky assault rifles. However, there have been several other very important bills regulating gun possession and usage in America. In 1990, the Gun Free School Zone Act was passed, prohibiting anyone from carrying a gun 1,000 feet of any elementary, middle, or high school. In 31 states today, you are allowed to carry a gun in public without a permit. The Brady Bill, passed in 1993, instituted federal background checks on all those want to purchase a firearm. 

Bottom Line: If you are over the age of 21, are not a convicted felon, have no past criminal history, are mentally stable, and buy from a federally licensed dealer, you can own a gun! At informal gun shows, it is notoriously easy to walk away with a piece of metal that can instantaneously kill a human being. 

While yes, most people keep guns for protection, and in cases of emergency, much of the time, gun ownership results in tragedy. In 2010, there were 8,775 murders from gun violence. Firearms were one of the top ten causes of death in the United States in 2010. Every year, over 200,000 people are hospitalized for non-fatal gun injuries.

Shocking Fact: In a paper done by Dr. Kellerman and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, a homeowner's gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member, friend, or acquaintance than it is to kill a malicious intruder. 

Over the years, school shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech, as well as the recent attempted assassination of Rep. Gabby Giffords by a mentally deranged man have reignited this controversy. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, two high school students, were able to two 9 mm guns and 2 twelve-gauge shotguns, as well as a rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. With these tools of destruction, they killed 12 and injured 21 in this disaster. 

How can we make sure this kind of disaster never happens again? Some say the answer is to control guns and gun possession. Others say that gun control advocates often ignore the Second Amendment. 

I have raised the issue. Now it's time for you, as a microcosm of the American people, to respond. What do you think should be the right approach? Are guns dangerous weapons that should be kept out of the hands of all except the military? Or are they a God-given right that government should leave alone? Or somewhere in the middle... Respond in the comments. 

75 comments:

  1. Michael-

    What a great post! I am so excited to hear what our class has to say about this topic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Because I know how much you hate my gun metaphor I will refrain from using it here. Anyway, I am glad you brought up the Virginia Tech incident. Don't you think that if some of those college kids were armed, that they could have possibly stopped the murderer before he began killing dozens of innocent lives? Also recent statistics show that cars kill more people than guns, yet I do not recall hearing a news broadcast about people wanting to ban cars. Remember no background check is needed to get a car and it is a lot easier to get your hands on a car than a gun. And lastly, if guns become criminal to own, then only criminals will have guns and I'm sure you know what will happen from there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phillip, in the Viginia Tech incident, if many of the kids inside of the school, were allowed to posess guns during schools hours, and if they were to keep them with themselves at all times.....the problems would be endless. There would be countless shootings in firsts of anger, and guns would be pulled not only on kids in the school, but on teachers as well, creating an incredibly unstable environment. Yes cars do kill more people than guns do, but than again, cars are much more widely owned than guns are. Also, cars help us function much easier in our lives, whiile most of what guns do is just provide problems for us. As Michael said, in in forth four times, a gun is actually used to kill someone with ill will....the other times the people who are killed do not deserve it. And If guns were to be more restricted, only people who have legitimate requests for one, and who are known to be trustworthy would be able to acquire one.

      Delete
    2. Razi, are you telling me that kids would otherwise not be able to harm or kill a friend/teacher if guns were banned? People were killing people long before guns were even invented. And if you want proof of killings that didn't occur with a gun check out the link at the bottom.
      And with your last statement, making it harder for people to obtain their God given right(a gun) just means that there will be more criminals out there with guns to harm the lives of innocent people and that just wouldn't be fair. Remember "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal."

      http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/12/04/murder_stories_not_involving_guns

      Delete
    3. Razi, Phillip and Michael-
      Freakanomics, a best-selling book that cleverly discusses many social issues, discusses this very issue. According to modern data, swimming pools are in fact more dangerous than guns. Since you argue that guns are so dangerous and cause so many deaths, could you also, by the same reasoning, argue that people should not have swimming pools?

      Here is an excerpt from the swimming pool chapter:
      Consider the parents of an eight-year-old girl named, say, Molly. Her two best friends, Amy and Imani, each live nearby. Molly’s parents know that Amy’s parents keep a gun in their house, so they have forbidden Molly to play there. Instead, Molly spends a lot of time at Imani’s house, which has a swimming pool in the backyard. Molly’s parents feel good about having made such a smart choice to protect their daughter.

      But according to the data, their choice isn’t smart at all. In a given year, there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential pools in the United States. (In a country with 6 million pools, this means that roughly 550 children under the age of ten drown each year.) Meanwhile, there is 1 child killed by a gun for every 1 million-plus guns. (In a country with an estimated 200 million guns, this means that roughly 175 children under ten die each year from guns.) The likelihood of death by pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.

      Delete
    4. Ms. Keller,

      Freakonomics is a fascinating book, and the author, Steven Levitt, is a brilliant social economist. The plain truth is that swimming pools are more dangerous than guns. However, does that make guns not dangerous? Not at all. Tell that to the people that were killed at Columbine, those that were killed by the Einsatzgruppen (Nazi killing squad responsible for the killing of over 1 million Jews), and the families of gang members that die every year in gunfights.

      What it comes down to is that guns and swimming pools are not the problems. People are. If people only educated their children on how to swim, how to use a pool properly, and to never go in the pool without adult supervision, child swimming pool deaths would go down dramatically. If everyone followed these guidelines http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/359.pdf, there would a drastic reduce in deaths.

      Regarding swimming pools, it is relatively easy to teach your child to never go in the water without an adult. However, it is incredibly hard to teach a child how to properly load, aim, and shoot a gun. Adults often leave their guns unlocked and with their safety's off, increasing the risk of tragedy.

      My point is that swimming pool deaths are very easy to halt- just follow the guidelines I referred to. Guns are much harder to teach to children. War is an alien concept to most kids. How could adults knowingly inflict pain on one another? It's something that I still don't fully understand.

      And to Phil: I appreciate the old Sam Colt joke, but it's simply untrue. We are equal because God made us in His image, and not because we are all able to equip ourselves with tools of harm. That idea is incredibly offensive to God, and to man, that we can only become equals once we both have the capability of blowing the heck out of each other.

      Delete
    5. Michael-

      You wrote that "If people only educated their children on how to swim, how to use a pool properly, and to never go in the pool without adult supervision, child swimming pool deaths would go down dramatically. "- I think that many gun rights advocates would argue that the same principle applies to guns- if you teach people/your children how to use a gun correctly it is safe to have in the house.

      Delete
    6. Ms. Keller,

      It is simply much harder to teach your children how to use a gun then it is to teach them to never go in the pool without mommy or daddy. Teaching a child how to load, aim, and shoot a lethal weapon is hard work. Guns are generally heavy, and hard to control by children with small hands and fingers. Teaching them how to use a pool properly, and how to swim is infinitely easier than how to use a gun.

      Delete
  3. "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."

    Could someone clarify for me how the first part of the amendment relates to the second? "A well regulated Militia (i.e. the American Armed Forces,) being necessary to the security of a free state" (which the Army is.) This is one part. The second part is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So basically this is saying that people totally not connected to any Militia, and who are not vital to securing a free State are allowed to own guns? Other then for hunting, why would someone want to own a gun? And after all the facts of gun-dangers that Michael correctly stated in his post, it is unclear to me what the drive would be to posses a firearm, and what the benefit to possessing one is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Josh-
      Is self defense/protection not a good enough reason to own a gun?

      Delete
    2. As you will see in a comment posted below, no, self defense is not a sufficient reason because the amount of defense that you can actually use your gun for is limited. That may have sounded confusing, so I'll rephrase. What you can do with your gun, in a situation where one would THINK self defense applies, is very limited, so much so that the gun is basically useless.

      Delete
  4. A Post from Joey:

    Americans should have the right to bear arms, but there should be some serious precautions. I think that there should be a series of new laws that increase the requirements to own a gun and make receiving a license extremely difficult. One thing I mentioned was a psychiatric analysis, and follow ups every few months once a person owns a gun. This could discourage reckless people from purchasing guns, and make sure that only very responsible people own guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Something is still unclear to me: If cars kill more people than guns, why are there no regulations to get a car such as "a psychiatric analysis, and follow ups every few months" such as the one Joey mentioned?

      Delete
    2. Because the main purpose of cars is transportation, not violence. Also because an angry person will not try to kill people with his car. Cars are not used as intentional murder weapons nearly as much as guns are.

      Delete
    3. But the point is being avoided that they kill MORE people than guns. And one can argue that for every day law abiding citizens, guns are bought and used for self protection(which is the reason why most citizens buy one). And you can, once again, kill someone with a car quite easily. And what about the link that I posted above which gave numerous stories about how someone killed someone without the use of a gun? Where are the regulations for things like wrenches and such?

      Delete
    4. Phil, we actually do take driving in this country very seriously. You must past tests in order to get a license, and if you repeatedly break the rules of the road, you can have your license revoked. Also, drinking while driving is strictly forbidden, even though many, many people do this every year.

      There are way more cars on the road than guns. That makes it incredibly likely statistically that there will be more crashes, accidents, etc. because of the abundance of cars. If everyone had a gun, I think it's fair to presume that a similar situation would occur.

      We don't let kids drive cars. We also don't let people who are drunk drive cars, but we do let normal people, because after getting a license, driving isn't so hard. The reason why there are so many accidents is pure statistics.

      Guns should not be given to regular people in excess because simply put, normal people are not soldiers. Your average american does not know how to shoot, aim, or even hold a gun properly. They have not spent time in the military learning marksmanship. All they know about guns they learned from movies, where violence is glorified. We let people drive cars because they have passed a test. Why shouldn't we force all gun-owners to take classes in marksmanship, gun care, and gun safety? As I said, if you have a gun in your house, you are 44 more times likely to kill a loved one than an intruder. Those are bad odds Phil.

      Delete
    5. First off it is simply untrue that your "average American" doesn't know how to shoot, aim or hold a gun properly. It is also crazy to think that in order to have all of the above qualities that one must have had military training. I can just as easily say that your average American can't drive a car properly as he hasn't had NASCAR training/experience or F1 training/experience. And perhaps the biggest thing that is bothering me is as follows. A criminal who wants to gain possession of a gun does not walk in to his local gun shop and simply ask for a 1911. Instead he obtains it illegally i.e. on the streets and poof, he is off to cause as much harm to an innocent person as he wants, free of regulations and background checks. Yet, people are trying to make it hard for your law abiding citizen to purchase and carry a gun, which can ultimately save that person who otherwise would have been killed by the criminal, considering no one there at the time had a gun.

      Delete
    6. Michael and Phillip-

      You both raise very interesting points. Michael- what are your thoughts on places like Israel (where many people own guns)? Some sociologists believe that if more people own guns, violence would actually drop (b/c regular people could stop violence fairly easily). Phillip- What are your thoughts on the Trayvon Martin case/Stand Your Ground law? Michael- I'd love to hear your thoughts too.

      Delete
    7. "One thing I mentioned was a psychiatric analysis, and follow ups every few months once a person owns a gun."

      Joey, though this is a very nice idea and would work in a Utopian society where we all would have unlimited resources and time, in the real world the scenario you describe would be VERY challenging, if not impossible. Thousands, if not tens of thousands of people would have to schedule visits, find a psychologist, and pay for that psychologist. One would have to ask that after all these added costs, "Is it really worth it to own a gun?"

      Delete
    8. Josh- I agree wholeheartedly. While it would be a fabulous idea to routinely check on all gun owners, it's simply implausible.

      Ms. Keller- You raise a fascinating issue regarding Israel, and comparing that to the American case. There is however, a key difference. In Israel, all able-bodied men and women (except for, ironically, ultra-orthodox Jews) have to go to the army. That means that all adults in Israel have had basic marksmanship training, and many have had very advanced training. Therefore, they are a lot less likely to make elementary mistakes, which end up killing Americans. Thus, it is unfair to to say that since people own guns in Israel, we should too.

      Delete
    9. Ms Keller-

      The Trayvon Martin case what started this whole discussion between Michael and I. It is a very sensitive issue, so I therefore am withholding my opinion to be placed on the internet. If you are interested in my opinion on the case, I have no problem discussing it with you privately. I do however talk about the Stand Your Ground Law below

      Delete
    10. Josh, that's part of what I'm saying. If all those barriers stood in between a person and having a gun, would it really be worth it? It could scare off people with criminal intent as well as the type of reckless people who would more likely shoot a family member than a robber. Obviously you are right, and it is not an easy thing to do. It all depends on how much of a priority it is. The government spends a LOT of money on various things, some of that money could be used for this purpose depending on how important it is to people. It was just an idea. It is not totally plausible of course, but then again, it is definitely possible.

      Delete
    11. If we go by the logic of, "lets make so many barriers so that people won't want to obtain a gun" then why don't we just outlaw guns altogether? If we go to so much trouble as to instigate VERY costly laws in order to deter one from getting a gun, why don't we just ban guns and save all the trouble?

      Delete
  5. It is not crazy at all to think that someone won't be proficient in marksmanship without learning how through a course. You avoided the question. We make people take tests to be able to drive. Why can't we do that to prospective gun owners?

    You say background checks are stupid because criminals can just get guns on the street. That's like saying drug laws are stupid because you can get drugs on the street. Of course black-markets exist. But does that mean we should refuse to pass laws because there's a possibility you could get it illegally?

    As I said before, most 'law-abiding citizens' who own guns are not properly trained. They leave their guns with the safety's off, which is incredibly harmful to their children. They are not military personell, so they don't know how to react in a stressful situation. If an intruder came into your house, would you really take your gun and pull the trigger? Odds are, you would get scared and miss, shoot your own family, or get shot first. It's highly unlikely you could go Rambo-style and shoot any intruders in your house. There was one case where a man heard a noise, and thought it was a thief in his house. He took his gun and shot what he thought was the thief. It was his wife, and she died.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Josh's comments connecting the first and second amendments are very insightful. Last night, I was watching Bob Costas (sports reporter for either ESPN or NBC?) interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN about gun control. This is all in response to the recent NFL controversies with the murder-suicide of one NFL player and other gun incidents in the league. The interesting part of the discussion came when some of the law professors and politicians - then interviewed by Anderson Cooper - started to discuss the right to bear arms in terms of our Bill of Rights.

    The American Revolution is often described as a rag-tag army replete with inexperienced and untrained, but armed men, fighting the most powerful army in the world. Inspired by Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, colonial Patriots, armed themselves to fight for life, liberty, and property. They collected arms and built a militia out of every day citizens.

    I personally do not justify the right to bear arms today in terms of our need to potentially protect ourselves from tyranny. However, one of the big arguments put out by the pro-gun lobby is just this. Reasonable or unreasonable? You can debate.

    Of course, the other idea is that we all have the right to defend "life, liberty, and property." Self-defense is also a basic right protected by our laws.

    Anti-gun activists cite the many reasons that I see as I skim over the really interesting strand of comments above. Does owning a gun make you more likely to commit a crime of passion -or- worse yet, make it more likely that you or an innocent child or family member become a victim of gum violence? Back to the Bob Costas interview, he was discussing that - in light of recent events - at least eight NFL players have voluntarily turned in their guns out of fear that they would hurt someone else or be hurt by a gun.

    I like that you all our debating this at such a high level . . . you could have been interviewed by Anderson Cooper or Piers Morgan yourselves . . . I did want to pipe in because I heard that this really interesting conversation was going on . . . Keep it going!

    ReplyDelete
  7. One question to all the anti- gun people,
    If someone comes into your house presumably armed should you have the right to shoot him?
    (Note: if anti- gun laws are being used on law abiding citizens like you and everyone around you then you will be at a disadvantage preventing the robber from taking your possessions or life, also it is foolish to believe that we can control criminals from getting guns as they have been doing it under all of our noses since they have been doing this swine the of guns.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am not going to respond to anyone. This is what I believe. Guns are needed to for citizens to protect themselves and it is very obvious why. If you ban guns, citizens will be defenseless and criminals will get their hands on guns whether they are illegal or not and will just put regular citizens in great danger. There are many things that are more dangerous than guns. Cars. Drunk drivers, in specificthey go on the road and kill innocent people. Getting a gun is very complicated and not anyone can get a gun. however, basically any random person can get a drivers license if they can drive in a straight line for 5 minutes. any teen can get it. And this person has a much better chance of killing or injuring someone than a gun killing the wrong person or someone by accident. And I'm gonna end with this. If Guns Kill People Then Pencils Misspell Words Cars Make People Drunk And Spoons Make Rosie O'Donnell Fat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ben, i dont know this firsthand, but im pretty sure that its a bit harder than just driving for 5 minutes. also, as michael said earlier, there are waaaaaaay more cars than guns. also, there are many more chances to get hit by a car than to get shot. think about how many times you cross the street in either a car or while youre walking. each time, there is a chance that you will get hit

      Delete
  9. Dr. Rogers, thank you for your fascinating insight. It's great that you brought up the recent suicide of an NFl player, and that 8 players voluntarily turned in their guns because of the incredibly high risk inherent in owning such a lethal tool without experience.

    To Louis: You claim that banning guns is useless because criminals can get them easily, while law-abiding citizens cannot. If this is so, then why don't we legalize marijuana? It's something criminals can easily get. Why not legalize prostitution? That's also something readily available to anyone who knows the right people. But those are ludicrous suggestions. We have laws, even though we know that not 100% of the populace will follow them all the time. Does that make them useless? In my opinion, not at all.

    To Ben: You also claim that criminals can get their hands on guns regardless of legality. If so, why not legalize drugs?

    Also, your final analogy is logically inconsistent. You can always erase a mistake made by a pencil. You can take away a drunk person's right to drive, and Rosie can always go on a diet. However, when a person uses a gun to kill other human beings, they are gone forever, never to come back. Your analogy is superficially cute and witty, but ultimately false. All these things like spelling mistakes, drunk drivers, and overweight people can be stopped or changed. The people that are gunned down in drive-bys, robberies, and accidents will never get a second chance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guns have killed fewer people than drunk drivers ever have. You may be able to take theirnliscnes away, but they may have already killed the lives of innocent people. I think that introducers should be shot upon entrance because you do not know what they are going to do. I don't know if I would call it killing the life of an innocent person when this person is trying to harm you as we'll and don't give me stats because you never know what this person is trying to do. It is life and death and the gemara says just as Phil said that you are allowed to wake up early to kill someone if you know they are going to kill you because in life and death you choose life. You say guns kill people. The people who control them use them to kill criminals. Drivers kill people when drunk and that certainly isn't innocent. But hey the Knicks won so I don't feel like fighting

      Delete
  10. To all of the gun rights believers: What are your thoughts on where the gun/s should be kept? Under lock and key? In your bed stand? Under your pillow (James Bond style)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was waiting for someone to ask this question! In order to gain access to your firearm in your room in the event of an intruder, there are many types of products that keep the gun locked and will only be opened upon a code. Here is a link to a few safety devices for firearms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1lPReo50uY

      Delete
    2. Phil- If you leave your gun under lock and key, and it must be opened with a code, you lose the element of surprise. The 'murderous intruder' will be able to fire first if he sees you suspiciously futzing around with a code. Thus, safety devices completely destroy the effectiveness of owning a firearm.

      Delete
    3. That is simply not true. If you leave your gun in a quick access box like the one in the video then it will take at most three seconds to get possession of your firearm. That, my friend, is very quick.

      Delete
    4. 3 seconds is the difference between life and death.

      Delete
    5. If you hear a man attempting to get into your house, you immediately draw your weapon and prepare to defend you and your family. Any intruder is (dare I say) smart enough to not go into the owners room, which gives the owner plenty of time to get his weapon WHICH IS IN A LOCKBOX ON HIS NIGHSTAND!

      Delete
    6. Like I said, most Americans are not proficient at handling dangerous weapons, such as the military-grade assault weapons that you want to keep legal. Most Americans also don't have the psychological and mental training necessary to be able to remain calm in a tense situation like a robbery. They will most likely do something wild and erratic because their brain cannot think straight.

      Because of these circumstances, a gun-owner is more likely to miss, hit a family member by accident, or simply get overpowered. The odds are success are so low and the odds of tragedy are much higher.

      Delete
  11. One question to all the anti- gun people,
    If someone comes into your house presumably armed should you have the right to shoot him?
    (Note: if anti- gun laws are being used on law abiding citizens like you and everyone around you then you will be at a disadvantage preventing the robber from taking your possessions or life, also it is foolish to believe that we can control criminals from getting guns as they have been doing it under all of our noses since they have been doing this swine the of guns.)

    Dear Louis, as a matter of fact, I am not entirely sure why you would want to have a gun to protect yourself. According to most state, (and I believe federal) law, if you injure the attempted robber or even fire a warning shot you will get arrested for attempted murder. That is a 20 year prison sentence, and once in that situation it is VERY challenging to argue self defense. Even if the attacker is armed they wil have had to have posed a significant and APPARENT threat to your life or another's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only do you have the right to shoot him, but we live in a stand our ground state. If you are interested in the actual text for the law here is the link. P.S. it even says in the Gemarah that you have a absolute right to kill someone before he kills you(I discussed this today with a teacher).

      http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.005.000..HTM

      Delete
    2. Phillip-

      Most robbers are not murderers. And you believe that you should be able to kill someone who is robbing your house (not trying to physically harm you)?

      Delete
    3. When an intruder breaks into your house with a gun and makes an attempt to use it on you, the shooting and possible killing of him is 100% justifiable by law. And by the way, most gun owners haven't actually fired a shot at an intruder; they used it more as a psychological weapon. This is not to say that people haven't shot intruders. It was only a few years ago where a man in Lakewood NJ had intruders break into his house. The man took out his gun and shot them which is perfectly legal in this context.

      Delete
    4. Mrs. Keller-
      Just because they might not intend to hurt anyone you dont know that. Also when people are caught breaking into houses they react and sometimes kill the owner of the house. So really since you have no idea what their intent is it is totally right to kill them.

      Delete
    5. Actually Moshe, most people who break into houses would run away in the scenario you described. Even though they may get spooked, the psychological deterrent of killing another human being would force them to run away. A standard robber is not prepared for a confrontation and takes all precautions as to not have one, (i.e. going at night, wearing dark clothes, going at a time when the occupant is out of the house or asleep)

      Delete
    6. Phil- not all intruders have guns. If you pulled out your gun every time you thought there was an intruder in your house, there would be tragedy. As I mentioned, a year or two ago, a man heard a noise in his basement and thought it was an intruder. He shot the 'intruder' and it turned out to be his wife. Your philosophy about killing all intruders leads people to paranoia, which leads people to constantly using powerful weapons in times of stress and desperation, when their brains are not thinking properly. This only maximizes tragedy.

      Also, you did not respond to my above analogy to legalizing drugs, prostitution, etc. I think it's a worthwhile point to meditate on.

      Delete
    7. First off, I don't see your logic as to why you wouldn't draw your weapon every time you thought an intruder was in your house. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE GUN! And the reason I didn't respond to the above analogy was that I feel it doesn't relate at all to the topic at hand.

      Delete
    8. You know what happens when you take your gun out every time you hear an intruder? One of those times, you end up killing your wife, your kids, or your friend. It's 40 times more likely that will happen, and that's what tragically did happen in some cases! Why don't you understand that THE RISKS OF KILLING YOUR FAMILY FAR OUTWAY THE POSSIBILITY OF KILLING AN INTRUDER (for the record, you were the one who started writing in caps). It's not a risk I, as a human being who cares about my family, am willing to take.

      Also, my analogy was totally on point and refuted one of your major claims. You and all other commenters have been saying that guns can be acquired by criminals illegally, so why ban them. Well, in that case, why ban drugs? Why ban prostitution? I've been saying this over and over again, and you haven't responded to this very legitimate argument. Your response is to keep repeating this argument that I have refuted!

      Delete
    9. But remember, statistics have shown that when a homeowner draws his gun, he rarely shoots it; he just uses it as a psychological deterrent(therefore no one is hurt). And in regard to your analogy. We know that criminals can obtain guns illegally. This is very dangerous to society and considering that the police cannot be everywhere at once, I believe that citizens should have access and the ability to obtain a firearm in order to stop a criminal from committing and act of violence.

      Delete
    10. We also know that criminals can obtain drugs illegally. According to your logic, we should legalize drugs.

      You say that citizens should have the ability to stop people from committing crimes by having their own guns. I agree with that premise. The only problem is that when you legalize all guns, and all ammunition, there is a much bigger risk of danger, if everyone in the country owned a gun. If Joe and Sam both have guns, and one day Sam's wife divorces him and marries Joe, Sam could very well pull out a gun in a fit of anger and kill them both.

      My point is, guns were created to do harm to others. That is the raison d'etre of guns' existence, namely, to kill, threaten, and maim. Why would it be a good idea to let everyone get this tool of destruction? Not everyone is a 'law abiding' citizen. How can we tell who is and who isn't, if according to you, we should be giving guns to whoever desires one?

      Especially in the light of such tragedies as Gabby Giffords' shooting (she did survive, thank God), the shooting in a Aurora, Colorado movie theater this summer, Columbine, the shooting in Tolouse, France of a Rabbi and his children, how can we still be saying that guns should be not only legal, but easy to get?

      Delete
    11. I disagree. Drugs are dangerous unless used to cure a disease. Guns, yes they do kill people, but its not fair for regular citizens to be left defenseless. Drugs are good if used to cure diseases. Guns are good if they kill criminals. If someone comes into your living by smashing a window, you don't know exactly what they might do. Sure statistics show that he doesn't have a weapon, but what happens if that one time he does shoot someone. Life is very precious and people who break into people's houses are a threat to anyone in the home and deserve to be shot.

      Delete
    12. Do you believe that drugs are more dangerous than guns? It's a challenging question. In The way I see it, drugs can be used for medication and recreation. Even when guns are used recreationally for hunting, you are killing animals. Even when you kill an intruder, while yes, you may be doing the right thing, it's always tragic to kill a human being. You doing drugs doesn't harm anyone else. You using (or misusing) a gun can definitely cause harm. But I'm not so sure on this one, so if you've got any good proofs, post 'em!

      Delete
    13. I believe that if misused, they are equally dangerous. However, if we use drugs for medicine and guns for saving innocent lives then there is nothing wrong with both. I know we mentioned that getting a gun should be harder. In a place like New York, they just don't give a gun to anyone. The process is quite long ( long enough where people sometimes get guns in PA because it is much easier even though if you are a citizen in NY that is illegal). Certain states need to make it as hard as NY. I know in PA an ID and a few other small things will get you it and its cheap. States should be in charge of gun rights, however, it shouldn't be as easy as it is in PA to get a gun. However, if someone has a background check, they certainly have a right to defend themselves because like I said before, you don't know what the person is going to do to you and you have a right to defen yourself according to the Torah. However, it should be in the most peaceful way possible so if the criminal puts a gun up, I believe the citizen has a right to fire and save a life or lives. You may be killing someone which is unfortunate, but it is more unfortunate that the criminal put himself in that position.

      Delete
    14. Ben-

      I think you make a very good point. What types of criminals are you referring to?

      Delete
  12. I think that an american citizen deserves the right to own a gun. I think it is important to know that guns are not killing people, illegal guns are killing people. A criminal will always be able to get a gun no matter what laws you pass against it. With the right education of firearms and criminal background checks i dont think there is any reason guns should not be allowed. Criminals dont care about laws prohibiting guns. there will always be guns out there. Citizens also have the right to protect themselves, there family, and their property. Guns have saved numerous lives before and will continue to do so

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eitan, you make a good point that all Americans deserve to own guns, as it suggests in the second amendment. However, you also said that criminals will always be able to get guns, so gun control laws are useless. Criminals are also able to get drugs, commit incest and bigamy, and cheat in business behind the back of the law. Does that mean we should legalize drugs, incest, bigamy, and cheating in business, since many criminals don't get caught?

      Delete
    2. i think that the gun law should stay the way it is. the only thing that should change is who can buy guns, i think it needs to be harder to buy a gun. With that i still think there should be guns and we should not be like england where nobody has guns, because even if criminals cant get guns (which is not going to happen), but if we could find away to stop them from getting guns then what happens if 2 guys with knives trap a single man in an ally, he deserves to have a chance to live if he follows the rules to be able to own a gun.

      Delete
    3. I agree. It's not fair that criminals can get guns illegally while regular Americans cannot, which leaves them defenseless in robberies and they become victims of violent crime. It's also a good idea to make it harder to buy a gun, by doing background checks, putting a cap on military-style assault weapons, and just making sure the wrong people don't get dangerous weapons.

      Delete
  13. To anyone anti-gun,

    Could anyone post some facts, some cold, hard numbers that show that having a gun is really effective? For instance, could someone post the number of times that, in a gun state, people have successfully defended themselves against a legitimate intruder who was possessing a weapon, with their own firearm?

    ReplyDelete
  14. to all the anit gun people less guns does not = less violence or murder in fact it is counter productive.
    A recent study shown at harvard showed that 9 european countries with sringent gun laws and the least guns (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000) have roughly 3 times violence/ murder than the nine nations that have the highest gun ownership (15,000 or more guns per 100,000 people) there it is cold, hard facts.

    Josh - I dont know that much about the case you are talking about but what I do know is that most states allow you to fire at an intruder (for example the state that you live in Pennsylvania). Living in the U.S. the constitution allows us to us lethal harm to DEFEND ourselve.
    TO all the anti guns because they can kill people by accident people- no one who supports guns supports being irisponsible with them!!!! Accidental deaths are a trajedy and I do not think that owning a gun should not be taken seriously.
    Micheal- drugs and guns are completely different, drugs are used for personal benefit and dont directly result in death to others, For the average American citizen that buys a gun he buys it to protect him/her self from intruders. with that in mind her is something that you might agree with
    Alchohol results in thousands of deaths via drunk driving and even more injuries. befor you iligalize guns iligalize alchohol.

    Noah- It is extreemly hard to get a gun liscense to walk around in public with a "gun tucked into your belt". Almost all guns that are exposed to the public are carried by the law enforcement or criminals. Also fires result in over 2,500 deaths a year while guns result in what 500-600, yet still, I can by a box of matches and carry them around in PUBLIC knowingly endangering the lives of everyone around me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louish: You made several really good points! Let me address them one at a time.

      First off, you quoted an interesting study that European countries with strict gun laws had more violence and murders. While this is intriguing, I don't think we can compare these two situations. Europe as a whole is facing a slew of problems economic, social, and foreign. Islamic fundamentalism and terror attacks are growing. Xenophobia (fear of other countries and cultures) is also on the rise, which leads to violence. Economic problems in Greece and the U.K. also caused massive riots that are totally not on par with U.S. reactions. Thus, it's unfair in my opinion to compare them.

      Secondly, in your response to Josh you very rightly say that 'accidental deaths are a tragedy,' and we should work to prevent them. The only way to prevent accidents is to crack down on illegal sales and gun shows, conduct thorough background checks, and make people take mandatory classes, just like is routinely done for driving. Do you think these suggestions would help, or is it still infringing on your 'right to bear arms?'

      Delete
    2. Louis-

      The study you mention is very interesting- which European countries are involved?

      Delete
    3. the right to bear arms allows citizens to posess in their own house a firearm. Now the death of a family membere is no doubt tragic it is the resopnsibility of the owner of the gun to ensure that tha gun is not misuesed and cept safe.I agree that classes, background checks, etc. should be inplace for gun owners but only if they have a liscenced gun permit and are carrying it in public. I dont know if you realize this but the state of New Jersey already has strict gun laws were it does not allow peoople under the age of 21 to buy a gun, additionally it tracks all guns with permits(that are being exposed to the public) constantsly and it still requires a heck of a lot of time to get in addition to background checks.

      Europe- Europe has possibly the most relatable countries in the world to the U.S. note that there are many countries for example Germany that are not suffering from constant terorist attacks or riots.

      Delete
    4. Louis-

      You make a great point about the laws in New Jersey. However, you said that the only requirement is being over 21 and getting a background check. Do you think they should force people to take classes in order to get a gun and/or a permit?

      Also, in all honesty, I'm not sure I agree that ' Europe has the most relatable countries in the world to the U.S.' Europe has had change a lot in the past 100 years, since it as a continent is not the focus of the world anymore- the U.S. and Asia are it now. Germany is the one big country in Europe that does have a stable economy, and powerful resources. I don't think it's fair to say that Germany's situation is representative of Greece's, England's, Netherland's, France's, etc. where as I said, Islamic terror is on the rise, Xenophobia is on the rise, and people are taking desperate measures. In March of this year in France, a gunmen from a radical Islamist group tragically killed a beloved Rabbi and his children in Tolouse, France. Hashem Yimkom Damam. We cannot let that happen again.

      Delete
    5. mrs. keller: example
      Norway- highest rate of gun ownership in western Europe yet has the lowest murder rate
      Holland- lowest gun ownership but murders are at its highest
      Sweden, Denmark- low gun ownership but still in the top of murders

      Delete
    6. "A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified."

      -If you wish Louis, I can send you the link for the webpage that posted this. I think the facts speak for themselves. Just doing some quick math: 9/743=.012. So, about .012% of the 743 murders were justified in court, and only NINE out of SEVEN HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE people didn't walk away with a prison sentence.

      Also, its funny how Norway was mentioned in the study you chose, as Norway is the country with the highest gun possession and the lowest murder rate. It is interesting that Norway is chosen because Norway was also the home to, just this past year, a mass murder that tragically killed seventy-seven people and wounded hundreds. The murderer, Anders Breivik, obtained his two weapons legally, and proceeded to kill 69 people and set off a bomb in Oslo that killed 8. Do you believe someone like this should have the right to be able to obtain weaponry like he did? Anders literally showed a hunting license and a gun registration, obtained his firearms, and went on his way. I think it is ironic that the country with the lowest number of murders was also home to one of the worst, if not the worst, mass murders of the twenty-first century.

      Delete
  15. aditionally the gun ban in D.C., UNITED STATES! produced extremely high murder rates compared to other cities

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Michigan, guns are legal. Detroit is the most violent city in the entire United States.

      Delete
  16. josh- guns are legal almost everywere in the U.S. what you see in detroit is probably high gun control among citizens but criminals can still easly obtain high powerd fire arms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and yes I would like the link

      Delete
    2. http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

      so what im saying is that you brought something that showed a gun ban resulting in high murder rates, and i brought something that showed no gun ban resulting in even higher murder rates

      Delete
    3. Louis-

      For the record, every year, there are about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides, according to the FBI. Compare that to the nearly 32,000 firearm deaths. That means that only 0.00625 % of all gun-related deaths are legal. This proves that although we would like to think most Americans are law abiding citizens who want guns for protection, that's only true 0.00625% of the time, in terms of causing firearm deaths. The overwhelming majority of other times, guns are used illegally.

      The homicide rate in the United States is 6.9 times higher than that of 22 other high-income, populated countries combined! That's not something to be proud of.

      Delete
  17. you showed a terrorist incedents that unfortunantly happen often, for example 9/11 was a terorist incident that resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 people yet we did not ban planes from flying across the U.S. Rather we learned from our mistakes and errors on 9/11 and developed new methods to protect ourselves. So to with the nowrway case it was a tragic act of terrorism that shouldnt have happened. law enforcement agencies around the would will learn from experiences like this but the answer is not to ban all planes or guns or matches. remember it is still the people not the weopondry that control the outcome of a conflict nives are not guns yet they were used to take control of a plane that resullted in thousands of deaths

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And look at what happened as a result of 9/11!!! Multi-billion dollar safety implications at airports, the TSA introduced, which thousands if not hundreds of thousands people opposed, body scanners, which are still a huge issue now a days, and overall a sense of paranoia and unnecessary fright when getting on an airplane! I don't think America can afford, especially in our weakened economical state, to implement another plan like the post-9/11 one on to guns. America just can't take that much of an economical/psychological beating.

      Delete
  18. i am taking this one at a time ,
    to clarify my statement about detroit, the problem there is not about legal guns possing a threat to the public, the problem there is that you have gags, corrupt courts, and people that grow up in the environment that anything they can get there hands on they will use violently wether they obtain it legally or in most cases not. The good people in detroit only remain safe because they have guns to again protect themselves from the harsh environment outside their doors. If it was hard to obtain guns in Detroit then there would be an obvios surplus in crimes and violence as the numurous criminals would have nothing at all to prevent them from simply walking through the front door of your or someone elses house. Another example of a country that does not put crazy restrictions on guns is switzerland which still is not threatened on a day to day basis by terorism and crimes

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorry to enter the conversation so late, but I just saw an interesting discussion on current law on gun rights:
    http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/gun-control-compromise/50c607d878c90a2e38000042

    ReplyDelete