Got myself a letter printed in the paper!

[TravisM.1]

The newspaper here has what they call an "opinion line", where readers can call in and voice their opinions about issues. Last week, a gun control bill was defeated here in PA, and I assume that was the topic of thisopinion that was called in. The caller says;

Has Mike Fleck (A local representative-TM1) lost his marbles? Why is he against handgun control? These guns are not used for hunting. Come on Mike, lets get with it.

I read it Saturday, and let it stew for a couple days. At first, I was just going to call in to the opinion line myself, but I figured a letter to the editor with factual evidence that is easily cited would be the equivalent of a "nuke from orbit" in this situation. :lol:
Here's my reply, before printing.

Dear Editor,
I am writing in response to the statement made in The Opinion Line of Saturday, November 24, 2007, questioning Mike Fleck’s voting record on handgun control. The caller makes the statement that “These guns aren’t used for hunting”, as if no one should be able to own a firearm that they can’t use to hunt with.
To start with, The Second Amendment of The United States Constitution states that:
“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.” Nowhere does it mention Deer Hunting. Nowhere does it imply that because a gun can’t be used for hunting, that it should be regulated and controlled by the government.
The statement that “these guns aren’t used for hunting” is patently false. There are handguns designed, manufactured and used specifically for hunting, and in the right hands, they can be very effective. However, due to their small size and light weight, many smaller handguns are ideal tools for personal protection and self defense.
Gun control advocates often make the claim that “The Police are our protection, no one needs a handgun to protect themselves”. This is entirely incorrect, also. In the 1981 case “Warren vs. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department", The United States Supreme Court ruled that “Courts have, without exception, concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish Police services, it assumes a duty to the public at large, and not to the individual members of the community”.
Attempts at disarming a populace to decrease crime have failed miserably. In 1976, Washington D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control measures in the nation by banning the ownership of handguns by civilians. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134%, while the national murder rate fell by two percent.
Other countries have experienced similar circumstances. In 1977, Canada introduced legislation banning the citizenry’s use of handguns for self-defense. Subsequently, the number of “Breaking and Entering” crimes rose by 25%, far surpassing the rate for the same crimes in The United States.

In 1997, Great Britain enacted a widespread ban of handguns in response to the “Dunblane Massacre” of 1996. In just two years, handgun use by criminals had risen by 40%. In 2003, six years after the ban was initiated, a spokesperson for the British Association of Chief Police Officers made the statement that “Despite the ban on handguns, their use in crime is still spreading like Cancer”.
Conversely, studies have shown that when citizens are permitted to carry concealed handguns, lower crime rates can be expected. On average, murder rates drop by eight percent; rape is reduced by five percent; and aggravated assaults are lowered by seven percent. Crime, in general, is higher in areas that deny their citizens the ability to carry concealed handguns. This is a far cry from the “Wild West” scenario that many handgun control advocates envision when the concealed carry of handguns is discussed.
In summary, handguns are used as defensive tools in a society where the Police have no obligation to protect the individual citizen. Statistics and research plainly show that firearms restrictions only disarm law-abiding citizens.
Sincerely,
TravisM.1

Whatcha think?

[Spiffy1]

[daedong]

“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.”

At what point would you use your arms? For any uprising to be successful you would need in theory at least 50% of the population to support it. If there is at least 50% of the population that want to oust the Fed government you have a democracy and you can oust them by going to the polls. Your constitution protects your democracy so why would you ever need a militia?

[Big Dog]

Bravo Travis ............

Originally Posted by daedong

“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.”

At what point would you use your arms? For any uprising to be successful you would need in theory at least 50% of the population to support it. If there is at least 50% of the population that want to oust the Fed government you have a democracy and you can oust them by going to the polls. Your constitution protects your democracy so why would you ever need a militia?

Vin,

What does this have to do with gun ownership?

"The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency, law enforcement, or paramilitary service, and those engaged in such activity, without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."

Militia's are not JUST for protection against your own government! It's easily concluded that you CAN'T be protected by law enforcement and the government 100% of the time. Please don't muddle the intent with such dialogue!

[daedong]

Originally Posted by Big Dog

Vin,

What does this have to do with gun ownership?

"The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency, law enforcement, or paramilitary service, and those engaged in such activity, without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service."

Militia's are not JUST for protection against your own government! It's easily concluded that you CAN'T be protected by law enforcement and the government 100% of the time. Please don't muddle the intent with such dialogue!

Just a quick search on the Amendment shows there is much debate about it's interpretation. It seems not all Americans would agree with your interpretation.

[daedong]

"A well regulated Militia"

I have difficulty understanding how individuals could be described as well regulated.

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by daedong

Just a quick search on the Amendment shows there is much debate about it's interpretation. It seems not all Americans would agree with your interpretation.

It was interpretated 200 years without issue. Only recently, and due to ulterior motives from anti-gunners has it come into question. The debate is created, instigated and kept alive by those who want to outlaw guns. There is no debate from a gun owner who is supported by the 2nd Amendment!!!

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by daedong

"A well regulated Militia"

I have difficulty understanding how individuals could be described as well regulated.

Your reading too much into it and regulated DOES NOT mean by a government agency!! It's regulated by cooperative citizens and responsible ownership. As an adult, you shouldn't have to rely on regulation, help and guidance from someone else or some government.

The problem today is so many rely on someone else or the government for the way they live their lives!!

[Doc]

Good post Travis. Hopefully it will open some eyes in your neck of the woods when it's published. If those folks supporting gun control would simply look at the stats for crimes in communities where guns have been outlawed you'd think they would see the light.
Sadly people will have to be robbed, killed and maimed before gun conrol people will see the light. Gun control turns the populace into sheep ready to be butchered by the criminals.

[Big Dog]

Originally Posted by Doc

Good post Travis. Hopefully it will open some eyes in your neck of the woods when it's published. If those folks supporting gun control would simply look at the stats for crimes in communities where guns have been outlawed you'd think they would see the light.
Sadly people will have to be robbed, killed and maimed before gun conrol people will see the light. Gun control turns the populace into sheep ready to be butchered by the criminals.

Frankly (thankfully), PA is a pretty strong gun ownership state. The problem is PA is surrounded by states that have lost site on gun ownership.

[daedong]

Originally Posted by Doc

. Gun control turns the populace into sheep ready to be butchered by the criminals.

Wrong Doc




A safer place after Howard's gun buyback
By Simon Chapman and Philip Alpers
April 28, 2006



Ten years ago today at Port Arthur, Martin Bryant killed 20 helpless innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds in the Broad Arrow Cafe. This lone "pathetic social misfit" (the judge's words) was empowered to chalk up his record final toll of 35 dead, 18 seriously wounded by a type of gun openly advertised and sold by law-abiding firearm dealers as an "assault weapon".
No more. Attitudes to firearms and gun laws changed almost overnight, and now the results are in: Australia's tightened gun controls have been followed by a remarkable reduction in gun deaths.
After a decade of very public gun massacres such as Queen and Hoddle Streets and Strathfield Plaza, an overwhelming majority had had enough of anyone with a grudge gaining easy, mostly legal access to weapons designed expressly to kill a lot of people in a very short time.
Just 12 days after the Port Arthur shootings, John Howard's first major act of leadership in that first year as Prime Minister was to announce nationwide gun law reforms.
The new laws specifically targeted mass shootings, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, the weapon of choice in many such crimes worldwide. In the 1996-97 Australian firearms buyback, 643,726 of the newly prohibited guns were bought by the Government from firearm owners at market value, funded by a small surcharge on the Medicare levy. Tens of thousands of gun owners also voluntarily surrendered additional, non-prohibited firearms without compensation. All up, more than 700,000 guns were removed from the community and destroyed. No other nation had ever attempted anything on this scale.
So, 10 years on, can we see a difference? Resoundingly, yes. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur, Australia experienced 11 mass shootings. In these 11 events alone, 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded. In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Australia. For this reason alone, Australia is a safer place. (In 2002, a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University. Five victims are internationally recognised as a mass shooting.)
But for each Australian killed in a mass shooting in the past 17 years, 80 have died by gunshot in less mediagenic events, many of them in family violence. And it is here, in the day-to-day tragedy of firearm-related homicide and suicide, that Australia's new restrictions, and perhaps equally importantly, changing attitudes to guns and gun owners, can most plausibly claim to have had the most effect.

Even before Port Arthur, gun-related deaths, suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings were slowly dropping. But after the tragedy, the rate of decline accelerated markedly. From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot - an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331.
Particularly in firearm homicide, the gun death that attracts most attention, the downward trend has been more dramatic. In the same two periods, the average annual number of gun homicides fell from 93 to 56. But it was the acceleration in the rate of this decline that proved most remarkable, falling 70 times faster after the new gun laws than before.
Have murderers simply switched their methods of killing? While the annual average number of (all method) homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 population has fallen marginally, but can best be described as steady. This suggests that partially removing a single sub-type of lethal weapon may not reduce a type of crime committed using many possible means. This could change if Howard moves to tighten controls over handguns, which he has flagged.
Guns have a very high lethality index (or as it is sometimes indelicately put, a high completion rate) in both homicides and suicides. Had the gun law reforms not occurred, more Australians contemplating suicide, in particular impulsive young people, might have more easily found a method of instantly ending their lives. Reliable national data on suicide attempts are not available in Australia to examine whether suicide completion rates changed after Port Arthur.
By destroying one-fifth of this country's estimated stock of firearms - the equivalent figure in the United States would be 40 million guns - Australians have chosen to significantly shrink their private arsenal. In 2002-03, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 population was one-fifteenth that of the US.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...?page=fullpage

[Doc]

Originally Posted by daedong

"A well regulated Militia"

I have difficulty understanding how individuals could be described as well regulated.

I know, it can be difficult for some to see, but the answer to that is at the end of that same sentence:

" .... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now some would like to infringe on the rights of all to keep and bear arms, based on where you live. I hope our Supreme Court sets the record straight once and for all.

[Big Dog]

This is re-hash of old discussion and only supported by those who wrote it or want to believe. Search the internet and you'll get tons of returns discrediting (minus the mass killing stats) this information. It's how you juggle the numbers. You can't always believe what ya read!

Originally Posted by daedong

Wrong Doc




A safer place after Howard's gun buyback
By Simon Chapman and Philip Alpers
April 28, 2006



Ten years ago today at Port Arthur, Martin Bryant killed 20 helpless innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds in the Broad Arrow Cafe. This lone "pathetic social misfit" (the judge's words) was empowered to chalk up his record final toll of 35 dead, 18 seriously wounded by a type of gun openly advertised and sold by law-abiding firearm dealers as an "assault weapon".
No more. Attitudes to firearms and gun laws changed almost overnight, and now the results are in: Australia's tightened gun controls have been followed by a remarkable reduction in gun deaths.
After a decade of very public gun massacres such as Queen and Hoddle Streets and Strathfield Plaza, an overwhelming majority had had enough of anyone with a grudge gaining easy, mostly legal access to weapons designed expressly to kill a lot of people in a very short time.
Just 12 days after the Port Arthur shootings, John Howard's first major act of leadership in that first year as Prime Minister was to announce nationwide gun law reforms.
The new laws specifically targeted mass shootings, banning rapid-fire rifles and shotguns, the weapon of choice in many such crimes worldwide. In the 1996-97 Australian firearms buyback, 643,726 of the newly prohibited guns were bought by the Government from firearm owners at market value, funded by a small surcharge on the Medicare levy. Tens of thousands of gun owners also voluntarily surrendered additional, non-prohibited firearms without compensation. All up, more than 700,000 guns were removed from the community and destroyed. No other nation had ever attempted anything on this scale.
So, 10 years on, can we see a difference? Resoundingly, yes. In the decade up to and including Port Arthur, Australia experienced 11 mass shootings. In these 11 events alone, 100 people were shot dead and another 52 wounded. In the 10 years since 1996 and the new gun laws, not one mass shooting has occurred in Australia. For this reason alone, Australia is a safer place. (In 2002, a gunman killed two and wounded four at Monash University. Five victims are internationally recognised as a mass shooting.)
But for each Australian killed in a mass shooting in the past 17 years, 80 have died by gunshot in less mediagenic events, many of them in family violence. And it is here, in the day-to-day tragedy of firearm-related homicide and suicide, that Australia's new restrictions, and perhaps equally importantly, changing attitudes to guns and gun owners, can most plausibly claim to have had the most effect.

Even before Port Arthur, gun-related deaths, suicides, homicides and unintentional shootings were slowly dropping. But after the tragedy, the rate of decline accelerated markedly. From 1979 to 1996, 11,110 Australians died by gunshot - an annual average of 617. In the seven years after new gun laws were announced (1997 to 2003), the yearly average almost halved, to 331.
Particularly in firearm homicide, the gun death that attracts most attention, the downward trend has been more dramatic. In the same two periods, the average annual number of gun homicides fell from 93 to 56. But it was the acceleration in the rate of this decline that proved most remarkable, falling 70 times faster after the new gun laws than before.
Have murderers simply switched their methods of killing? While the annual average number of (all method) homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 population has fallen marginally, but can best be described as steady. This suggests that partially removing a single sub-type of lethal weapon may not reduce a type of crime committed using many possible means. This could change if Howard moves to tighten controls over handguns, which he has flagged.
Guns have a very high lethality index (or as it is sometimes indelicately put, a high completion rate) in both homicides and suicides. Had the gun law reforms not occurred, more Australians contemplating suicide, in particular impulsive young people, might have more easily found a method of instantly ending their lives. Reliable national data on suicide attempts are not available in Australia to examine whether suicide completion rates changed after Port Arthur.
By destroying one-fifth of this country's estimated stock of firearms - the equivalent figure in the United States would be 40 million guns - Australians have chosen to significantly shrink their private arsenal. In 2002-03, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 population was one-fifteenth that of the US.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...?page=fullpage

[TravisM.1]

Originally Posted by daedong

At what point would you use your arms?

Myself?
When it comes to the point between giving them up (confiscation), and using them, I'd have no problems using them. In my opinion (which is just that), some things are worth standing up for, and the right to own weapons falls under that category to me.

Originally Posted by daedong

Just a quick search on the Amendment shows there is much debate about it's interpretation.

Why is it so hard for some to believe that the right to effective weaponry is a "collective" right belonging to the "Militia",
when the other nine Amendments in The Bill of Rights are clearly individual rights? Why would you guarantee the rights to freedom of religion, speech, and press; the right to free assembly, the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, and the rest, without ensuring that those who the Amendments apply to have the ability to keep things that way?

Attitudes to firearms and gun laws changed almost overnight, and now the results are in: Australia's tightened gun controls have been followed by a remarkable reduction in gun deaths.

No kidding, Dick Tracy. If you ban toasters, toaster-related deaths will decrease, too.

However, the same article goes on to say,

While the annual average number of (all method) homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 population has fallen marginally, but can best be described as steady. This suggests that partially removing a single sub-type of lethal weapon may not reduce a type of crime committed using many possible means.

How about some statistics on knife crimes, comparing pre-'97 and post '97 crime rates in Australia?

[Melensdad]

Originally Posted by daedong

"A well regulated Militia"

I have difficulty understanding how individuals could be described as well regulated.

Vin, using the American English of the late 1700's let me please translate this phrase for you.

"A" = "A"
"well" = "properly" or "thoroughly"
"regulated" = "armed"
"Militia" = "able bodied freemen" or "citizens"

In modern American English this phrase would probably be written today more like this: "A properly armed citizenry"
Many people forget that our language is a very fluid language with words that change meanings from decade to decade. Some words retain their basic meanings, others completely change their meanings. We need to remain constantly alert to the changes and fluidity of our English language when we review old texts and when reading old texts we need to "translate" it back to the meanings held at the time the text was written. No student here in America who's reviewed the text of Beowulf in Old English would understand that text without adapting it to a modern translation of the work. Even the works of William Shakespshere have been translated into modern English. We also see contemporary works that are translated from modern American English into Hip-Hop or Ebonics English so it can be understood by members of some sub-cultures within our society.

Hope this helps understand the phrase.

[RedRocker]

Originally Posted by daedong

“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.”

At what point would you use your arms? For any uprising to be successful you would need in theory at least 50% of the population to support it. If there is at least 50% of the population that want to oust the Fed government you have a democracy and you can oust them by going to the polls. Your constitution protects your democracy so why would you ever need a militia?

Where do you get your 50% of the population number?
I'm guessing we would need firearms if our government
decided to suspend voting and go against the constitution
by declairing a police state. That's one scenero.

[Spiffy1]

Originally Posted by RedRocker

Where do you get your 50% of the population number?
I'm guessing we would need firearms if our government
decided to suspend voting and go against the constitution
by declairing a police state. That's one scenero.

Redrocker's description is a rare scenario no doubt, but the second amendment keeps it that way; with powerless citizens, the constitution is worth no more than the paper it's written on.

But for the fact that "the pen is mighter than the sword," thus the first amendment, I'd bet the second would have probably been first.

[TravisM.1]

Originally Posted by Spiffy1

Redrocker's description is a rare scenario no doubt, but the second amendment keeps it that way; with powerless citizens, the constitution is worth no more than the paper it's written on.

But for the fact that "the pen is mighter than the sword," thus the first amendment, I'd bet the second would have probably been first.

I think you meant "Subjects", Spiffy.

[daedong]

I know it can happen any where but you seem to be having more than your share.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...olorado210.xml

[daedong]

Originally Posted by Doc

Sadly people will have to be robbed, killed and maimed before gun conrol people will see the light.

Doc, people are already being robbed, killed and maimed now! Ask the families of those that have been killed in mass shootings like you have seen in the last few weeks what they think about gun control.

I am not going to get into a slinging match over your constitution and how it is interpreted. It was written over 200 years ago, those that drafted it had no idea, not in their wildest dreams, what a modern advanced wealthy nation the USA would be 200 years on. Nor would have they envisaged that modern society would produce so many screwed up mad men committing revenge mass murder. Society has changed significantly to that of 200 years ago, some for the good and some for bad, the fact is it ain't the 1700s.

Personally I do not care two hoots about what the US does regarding guns, I live thousands of miles away and it will never affect me. However, I will give my views on the topic as I believe that less guns make for a safer community and maybe I may change someones view and in turn it may save a life.

Originally Posted by RedRocker

Where do you get your 50% of the population number?
I'm guessing we would need firearms if our government
decided to suspend voting and go against the constitution
by declairing a police state. That's one scenero.

First up your pop guns would have no hope against the US military.

Second if you think for one minute it is of genuine concern I suggest you start lobbying real quick to change your political system.

----

BTW any cutting comments about "subjects" only highlights your ignorance of Australia and its politics.