January 20, 2005

Horse 280 - Repeal the Second!

I think that BJD has drawn a different inference than I did from this article. Whilst I agree that the article was inexpertly written, I see that point that the writer is trying to establish. In 2003 Chicago took from Washington DC the dubious honour of being "the murder capital of the world". This means to say that Chicago has the greatest number of homicides recorded on the planet.
An interesting parlance needs to be brought to attention here before I continue the point. Murder is a civilian action; what we are witnessing in Iraq currently is mainly the result of a military prescence and as such the definition is blurred somewhat. Also of import is that civilian police in Iraq I'm sure are not able to produce accurate statistics on constitues a civilian case of murder per capita.

Having said that, the case of Chicago should be compared to a like civilian state not ravaged by the sounds of war. Chicago has roughly 9.1 million people or double that of the state of New South Wales, or roughly the same size as the city of London, however Chicago being in the USA has one major thing against it... its laws. The number of murders in a country by inference must go up in accordance with the propensity and the ability to carry them out. The USA has enshrined in law the "right to bear arms", see below.

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. - 2nd Amendment

The NRA (National Rifleman's Association) is one of the largest lobby groups in US politics and may be a contributing factor as to why the law has never been repealed. 451 in Chicago must be compared to 247 in London or 158 in Sydney (assuming Sydney had 9 million people. Between Sep 2003 and Sep 2004 there were 79 cases of murder).
Now I don't know about you, but it seems that if you lived in Chicago, the chance of being murdered is roughly 2.8 times that of living in Sydney. If you then lay this across the entire of the US, for 250 million people approximately 12,500 people would be murdered every year; yet this is the best record in five years. This is something to be pleased about?

Now I'm not suggesting somthing simplistic like "if you remove the guns then you remove the problem"... actually yes I am. Of course the entire problem will not disappear overnight, but the Second Amendment by its very existance has created a culture whereby firearms are reasonably accessable. No longer does the country need to assert its independance, no longer do the wilds need to be tamed either.

The Second Amendment is an archaic, stupid piece of legislation; the sooner it gets removed the better.


Anonymous said...

It is funny that the cities you cite have laws against the carrying of firearms either concealed or otherwise.I live in a southern state where we have laws allowing us to carry firearms(concealed)more violent crimes are diverted by a law abiding citizen who is well armed than crimes committed here

Rollo said...

The city I cited in the singular it is true was in the North yes, but London and Sydney aren't even in the USA.

Can you honestly think of a good reason why the general populace should have access to firearms in the first place?

Murder will still take place without firearms, but the rates in a society without them is statistically lower.

Why in a modern context should the Second Amendment exist? What possible benefit does it serve?

Anonymous said...

I was listening to the news this morning on the way into work and there was a couple in North Carolina who found a man under their bed when they were going to sleep,when confronted he came out,attacked the man subsequently stabbed him and the woman shot him to death before he could finish off her husband.One good reason.In anniston alabama several years ago 3 gunmen walked into a shoney's big boy and were intent on robbing the place.They ordered everyone under the tables and to throw out their articles of value.What they did not count on was a vietnam vet who had the right to carry a firearm who shot two of the men and wounded the third who was found by police crying in the corner in a puddle of his own piss because he "didn't want to die".Two good reasons.I could go on.If firearms were allowed on planes there would be no skyjackings to speak of.Car jackings in places where there are gun bans are rampant,not so in places where it is legal to arm yourself.Out of two murders yesterday in birmingham alabama one was done with a pocket knife,should we ban them also?When Scotland was under english rule there were no weapons allowed to the commoners,there was a reason.Because freedom is too easy to want and too hard to gain without weapons.While I can't know what the situation in Sydney having no measure of information for it,London is now packed with Muslims,therein the problem lies.I was also under the impression that both of these places have bans on guns http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html and by the way when did London and Sydney adopt the US constitution and have to abide by the second amendment

Anonymous said...

http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html also check this link

Anonymous said...

especially this part; The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "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." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.

However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the

Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

Anonymous said...

http://chicago.about.com/cs/governmen1/a/2003_murders.htm and this one especially the part about detroit

Anonymous said...

"The city I cited in the singular" I am decent @ geography and I believe that Chicago and Washington D.C. are in fact 2 different cities,in the plural.

Rollo said...

If you read the data from the SSA they claim that there has been no change in the statistical data since the gun buy back of 2000.

Gun ownership laws in Germany after 1938 were actually less restrictive than in the Weimar republic. The laws in '38 were specifically aimed at disarming Jews which in cultural context was the removal of all freedoms anyway.
This also does not explain in situ like Iraq where gun laws have always been quite permissive, genocide still occurred, so I guess that this theory of yours is debunked.

Australian Institute of Criminology data indicates that the majority (85%) of firearms homicides are committed with illegally-held firearms. I find this in the ABS statistics book for 2005.

At any rate - why does society NEED to carry guns? If the propensity exists for people to kill each other more easily then they will.

Thankfully I live in Australia, I know of nobody who owns a firearm, and second to that I honestly can't recall of a gun crime actually occuring in this district in my life time. People simply don't own them and therefore don't need them to defend themselves against other people who have them (because those people also don't have them either).

In 6 replies you haven't actually addressed the initial question.

And are you American by any chance? If so, then stereotypes are being heavily re-inforced I must say.

Anonymous said...

Your #1 point was that there has been no statistical data since 2000.How can this be?With guns banned things should be safer

Do you think that the Nazis would have had as much success with the holocaust if the the jews had not been disarmed?The Iraqi situ on the other hand,the serbs were not disarmed so they had some ability to fight back,thus the constant battle between the two parties.

Are you a big proponent of ethnic cleansing?

You contend that you only need a handgun to protect yourself against another person with a handgun,you haven't addressed the situations I cited where the assailent had a knife,should elderly women be trained in hand-to-hand combat so they can foil a knife attack.In the old west(america)a gun was known as an equalizer,I contend it can still be so today.I never said that there was a NEED to carry firearms,I only stated that it is and should be a right.

If all guns are banned then how can there be 15% LEGAL firearms homicides.If the citizens had weapons,how many of those might have been thwarted?

I would wager that some of your neighbors have firearms and choose not to tell for fear that they would be turned in by someone such as yourself or their own children even.Hitler used children against their parents as spies.

You choose not to address any of my points and I have addressed your initial question and your initial statement.You have chosen not to address ANY of mine

I am american by birth and southern by the grace of God.I choose not to move elsewhere yet but if I ever plan to move to Australia I will be armed.I hear it is nice there.

Anonymous said...

under your constitution I have the right to point a 4" howitzer at your front door and you can't do anything about it

do terrorists also have the right to bear arms?

Anonymous said...

Since when are there Serbs in Iraq? Belgrade is 1500 miles away from Baghdad and you need to pass through 4 countries to get there.

I'd also like to say that about 3 in 5 murders with firearms are actually killed with their own gun.
Your old lady is more likely to be killed with her own gun than not.

That's security for you.
Criminals don't tell you when they're coming.

Anonymous said...

If you have a 4" howitzer aimed at my door then I want one to aim back at you.

Mr Anonymous:
"If firearms were allowed on planes there would be no skyjackings to speak of."
I think you'll find that it was because of people carrying weapons that someone was able to fly a plane into those two towers in 2001.

Anonymous said...

I believe if you check the planes were taken with weapons no more than boxcutters.(razorknifes)

Anonymous said...

Actually you can't point a gun at anyone or anything under our constitution,but they did just pass a law if you fear for your life you can use deadly force to protect yourself.I f'ed up about the serbs,I meant kurds.

As far as everyone in the world hating us,so what,we have accomplished more in 230 years that the rest of the world ever will.I do fear that our country is going down the toilet.We have started the socialistic path that so many failed countries have gone down. One day I am sure we will falter but until then we will be the world police and let everyone hide behind us while the U.N. gives warnings and false threats to everyone who thinks they want to take us on.If you could go back and ask the founding fathers of Hiroshima if they think the bombing of Pearl Harbor was a good idea.The only thing the arabs understand is death and we intend on giving it to them.

And to quote myself: You choose not to address any of my points and I have addressed your initial question and your initial statement.You have chosen not to address ANY of mine.

I haven't asked many questions but I have made statements,very few of which were addressed.

I know you would LIKE to say that 3 in 5 murders are with their own gun but not true here.

Anonymous said...

If the Jews had weapons, would they honestly been able to fight the strength of the full mechanised and mobilsed German Army?
That's what they were up against.

Hang on. if your old lady was to have a gun, you've just told me that legally she can't point it at anyone.

What does attacking Iraq have to do with your constitutional rights?

Your points have been more than adequately answered. You just want to yell at people. What do you want specifically addressed?

Anonymous said...

Along with the right to carry a weapon you of course have to have common sense,something which you aren't equipped.You have the right to use it if you are threatened or feel threatened,but you can't wave it around just for the hell of it.Would the jews have had a better chance protecting themselves with or without guns,think about it.

Anonymous said...

People thought that you could not defend against tanks with small firebombs,but history shows differently.(malitov cocktail)

Anonymous said...

Apart from minor civil disturbance how can you fight a tank with a Molitov?

A tank can fire a shell from a lot further than you can throw a Molitov.

Do you have a clue? How does arming the population make things safe? You keep on proving how it makes things even more unsafe and undesirable.

Anonymous said...

I have been sent to Australia many times with my job as a reporter for NBC and I can tell you that it's far safer than our country.

I would bet Mr Anonymous that you've never been to Australia. It's a lovely country where gun crimes are less than 5% of what they are here.

I suggest you read statistics before you go making assertions about how great we are, especially when you consider that Australia has never taken part in a war on its own soil.

As a peaceful, stable and rational country, they look outwards and see idiots like you. I wish we were more like them.

Elizabeth Pardew,
Director of Overseas News Collection
NBC - Where News Matter

Anonymous said...

"Would the jews have had a better chance protecting themselves with or without guns,think about it."

Hitler was elected to power by the people with this as a platform.

Any country that elects a government that would deliberately hurt its own citizens is clinically stupid.

Yet you elected George W so I guess it may still happen yet.