Maybe I don't know the stats like I thought I did, but the 2,606 for Mexico seemed surprisingly low considering all the numbers thrown around lately regarding Juarez and the like.
Yeah, it was kind of late and I was getting tired while looking at that site. Some of those numbers are weird and it doesn't make much sense. Sorry, I will read more closely before posting stats next time.
This would obviously have made him less dangerous, as he would have had to spend more time reloading. Yeah, and he could have aimed more carefully knowing he didn't have a 50- or 100-round magazine. I, for one, always take my best shot--sadly, I'm all-too-aware of the lamentable fact that bullets don't fly out of my ass on command. Sounds like a good argument for waiting periods between successive handgun purchases. But even without waiting periods, having to buy several guns, bring them to the scene, and switch from one to the other makes pulling off a Tuscon significantly more difficult. Or maybe he was too lazy or poor or stupid to buy them at the time (especially since the paranoid contingent is driving up prices). The spike of gun and gun paraphernalia sales in anticipation of regulation is not an argument against regulation; if anything, it's an argument for implementing them faster. Ultimately, though, regulation has to have a long-term focus. You're not going to stop every incident and you'll never really know how many you've stopped, if any. Limiting the purchase of extended mags takes away one means for increasing the danger of a lunatic's rampage; maybe s/he'll find an alternative, or maybe s/he'll get another hobby. Which makes the purchase more expensive, more likely to be detected, more drawn out--all to say, generally more risky for the same benefit. Even if someone like Loughner is not disposed to rational risk calculus, the risks will eventually manifest themselves in saved lives, given enough Loughners. Granted. Also granted, but convincing negatives will not be forthcoming in your screed, Jeffrey A. Miron. I am seriously waiting for someone to give a good reason why limiting the sale of extended mags is a bad thing. rtsy, stop letting the tank think for you--they aren't really that smart. Gun enthusiasts should be willing to accept these inconveniences if they care about saving lives. So any country that "had few gun controls" is likely to have "virtual band on private ownership"? Oh no, no...no slippery-slope speculation going on here, guys. All it takes is one little regulation, and BOOM...you're turning Japanese. Thank God and Jesus that the good ol' U. S. of-A. has never had any gun control whatsoever! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! That's thirty! Seriously, though, does the CATO Institute pay people to write this crap? Yeah, you already said this, Miron, and it didn't constitute an argument against any particular regulation--much less regulation as a whole--the first time, either. (aside--LOL at the bold text to attract the potheads. You have learned well from your master, Ron Paul.) I agree that a total ban on guns wouldn't eliminate them and very well may have more negative effects than positive ones. But here we are--a few paragraphs away from the end of the article--and we still don't have a single example of a negative effect that will come from limiting extended mags. Perhaps Mr. Miron saved the coup de grâce for his piece's final division--a true master of suspense! Is there anybody here that really wants to argue prohibition vs. no controls whatsoever? Are those our only options, Jeffrey? Is this "Let's Make an Arms Deal"? When you said, "Consider, for example, a ban on extended-capacity ammunition clips," I kinda thought you would...well...consider it. If guns will not work without extended-capacity ammunition clips--making a ban on them effectively a prohibition on all firearms--I will retract my argument and email an apology note to Mr. Miron. Actually, the sad reality is that people read crap like this article and think it's so damn clever that all they have to do is post it on some basketball message board and all those libruls will run crying for their mammas. The collective lack of capacity for critical reasoning in this country is a real tragedy, and one that is only beginning to unfold, I'm afraid.
More attacks on our civil liberties from the sick statists, a nice marriage of prohibition: Drugs and Guns January 18, 2011 8:07 A.M. By Robert VerBruggen Chuck Schumer proposes that when prospective military recruits admit drug use in interviews — as Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner did — they should be reported to the FBI and entered into the database of people who are forbidden to buy guns. As Schumer points out, it is already illegal to sell a gun to a drug user or addict; this policy, therefore, would make existing law more effective. However, there are several reasons to be concerned. The first is that Americans have a Second Amendment right to own handguns, and this right cannot be denied without due process. Schumer’s policy, as outlined in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, contains little in the way of process: The military would report to the FBI, and the individual’s gun rights would be gone. The second is that Schumer has offered no guidelines as to how long these individuals would stay in the database. Federal law doesn’t forbid selling guns to former drug users or addicts (so long as they are non-felons), or even to those convicted of misdemeanor drug offenses, and there’s no reason to deny rights to people for life on the grounds of their smoking pot at 17. There should be a way for these individuals to get their Second Amendment rights back — for example, by passing drug tests. Third, there is no reason to believe that this would prevent violence. Loughner went on his rampage because he was mentally ill, not because he was a drug user; many drugs, pot in particular, do not cause violent behavior in themselves; and the most worrisome participants in the drug trade — dealers, addicts of hard drugs — often have convictions that make them ineligible to own guns anyway. What’s more, this new policy would apply only to drug users who admitted their illegal behavior to government officials, a phenomenon that seems to be rare. One Army official called Loughner’s admission “bizarre,” adding, “I certainly wouldn’t go through the whole process only to say, ‘Hey, I’ve been smoking mar1juana for the past couple of years.’” Fourth, removing the privacy protections from the military’s recruiting interviews will give candidates a reason to be less frank, denying the armed services crucial information. Drugs are illegal, for good or (mostly) ill, and therefore drug users are by definition criminals. This makes them legitimate targets for gun control. But let’s not be under any illusion that policies such as Schumer’s will accomplish anything more than satisfying the urge to Do Something. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257337/drugs-and-guns-robert-verbruggen
Health care not mentioned in the Bill of Rights but now some say it is a right. The right to bear arms is plainly in the Bill of Rights but many of the same people say it isn't a right. INCREDIBLE. <script type='text/javascript' src='http://reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=1627'></script>
OMG you've cracked the case!!! No health care in the Bill of Rights... by gosh darnet... Herp to the derp
PTI, ...The right to keep and bear arms (often referred as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the assertion that people have a personal right to "weapon(s)" for individual use, or a collective right to bear arms in a militia, or both. In other words,...It's all of the above. I'd love to go shooting with you sometime...
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. Doesn't seem to mention personal/individual use anywhere.
The founding fathers were around after your bill of rights was started..I didn't quite remember the history books of the founding fathers 5 years after the fact telling the people, : Hey, hey...wait a minute, put that musket down!... we didn't say you have the right to personal/individual use,...we said you only have the right to keep and bear the use of arms...(which..is..kind..of..the..same..thing..) Fer real?...C'mon...I know if the the liberals could start a country, many would exclude the 2nd admendment, or the 1st....But, this is the country you have...You don't infringe on the bill of rights...don't even think about it...and if anyone wants to do this, then having some kind of personal defense is even more justified. . .
Nice Justice Scalia has interpreted the Second Amendment for us in Heller (with the help of Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts). The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that is not contingent on being a member of the militia. Justice Alito et al. later confirmed that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment in McDonald. This is now settled law. While there can still be reasonable regulations (and I expect there will be quite a few cases as to what is reasonable) we know at the very least that handgun possession in the home will be allowed for the foreseeable future.
Hmmm, "nice" Judge Posner disagrees with your appeal to authority argument, insofar as he chose to actually write about this issue rather than foreclosing the issue from discussion with a hamfisted attempt at condescent. http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/PosnerHeller.pdf I suppose he doesn't share your credentials. Sad face.
Call me crazy, but I prefer having a balance of power between the government and the people. Elections are part of that, and so are gun rights. And anybody who thinks that calling 911 protects you from intruders is naive. We can't afford the number of police that it would take to protect us on that level - and they are not legally required to protect you in your home anyway. The police are just around to clean up after the isht goes down. I've lived in both US and Canada, and I can tell you that while the murder rate is statistically much higher here, Canada has much higher property crime rates. I attribute that to burglars having little fear of homeowners. Can you tell me what portion of the higher murder rate here isn't due to long-standing class issues and poverty? America may be a little less safe due to guns, but in my book the gun laws are part of a free society. As the statists continue to try to take control, I am very reluctant to give up any freedoms that we have left.
it's cool that you can read wikipedia, but others can too, and even follow the links therein. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0035x/85f0035x2001000-eng.pdf
And yet Judge Posner does not actually disagree with my conclusion that this is settled law and that the holding of the Heller case is that at a minimum possession of a handgun in the home for personal protection is an individual right that cannot be infringed upon. He further suggests that the holding would apply to the states through incorporation if a subsequent case came out that way, presumably writing this article before the McDonald decision. It seems that Judge Posner wouldn't actually take issue with anything I said, he just disagrees with the methodology and the outcome of the case. He is certainly welcome to do so. Lord knows I disagree with the methodology and outcome of Supreme Court cases, as I am sure you do as well. Moreover, it seems to me that your biggest problem with my post was that I referred to Justice Scalia as nice. I meant it to be silly/tongue in cheek, not condescending, but I can see how it can be read as such. I actually did find Justice Scalia to be quite nice the one time I met him though.
An educated public being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed.
It is completely irrelevant. The founders could not have possibly imagined Etablets, computers, or Kindle.
