PDA

View Full Version : The Second Amendment is an anachronism in need of repeal


FreedomIsNotFree
12-01-2007, 9:42 AM
This comes from The Harvard University school newspaper...The Crimson Staff.



Pulling the Trigger

The Second Amendment is an anachronism in need of repeal

Published On Friday, November 30, 2007 1:15 AM

By THE CRIMSON STAFF


Written in an age in which minutemen rose to dress and fight at a moment’s notice, the Second Amendment was no doubt motivated by a young nation’s concern for its own safety and stability. But now, when the United States is protected by the most powerful security forces on the globe, the Second Amendment is neither relevant nor useful. Rather, it has become an impediment to vital public policy, and it should be repealed and replaced with nuanced federal legislation.

Despite the controversy surrounding the Second Amendment, arguments about its relevancy have not surfaced in the Supreme Court since 1939, when the justices merely touched upon the issue in United States v. Miller. But early this month, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the central consideration is the right of an individual to own a firearm as protected under the Second Amendment. The case specifically addresses private handgun ownership in the District of Columbia. But while legalistic arguments—the phrasing of the amendment itself and the framers’ intent—will be at the center of the debate, no matter what the justices ultimately decide, we believe that a constitutional protection of an individual right to bear arms is detrimental to the country. Instead, the Second Amendment should be replaced with federal statues designed to tightly regulate gun ownership.

The high level of violence in the United States as compared to other developed countries, if not directly related to the culture of gun ownership and distribution, is at least a strong argument that the Second Amendment is preventing aggressive federal gun regulation. According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005, 68 percent of the 14,860 homicides in the United States were gun-related. Given the pervasiveness of gun violence that occurs in this country every year, this sort of uneven gun control is unacceptable, especially when it comes to handguns. Unlike rifles and shotguns, a handgun has little use in hunting: It is a military and police weapon, built expressly to kill another human being. Yet little is done to prevent its distribution: In Virginia, any person over the age of 18 can buy a handgun, and if a handgun is purchased at a gun show, there is no background check required.

Supporters of a constitutionally enshrined individual right to bear arms argue that state gun control laws have “reinterpreted” the right to gun ownership. These limitations on gun ownership, they say, demonstrate that gun ownership itself is not linked to increased violence. But in the wake of the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban in 2004, gun control remains relatively lax in many states, especially when it comes to handguns, which are responsible for many, if not most, gun-related murders. Gun advocates claim the need for handguns in self-defense, but such considerations are moot when weighed against the number of lives that might be saved by making the weapons illegal.

In the context of today’s society, the Second Amendment is outdated. Constitutional debates over its interpretation stand in the way of the implementation of pressing public policy. Instead of wasting time attempting to fix this anachronism, we should repeal this amendment and focus our efforts on legislation that will actually protect the “security of a free state”—a charge explicit in the Second Amendment.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=521013

I have mixed feelings about this article. On one hand, it strikes me as yet another article that does not understand the logic and reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, but on the other hand, at least they recognize, somewhat begrudgenly, that it would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

shark92651
12-01-2007, 9:49 AM
There is nothing new here. The author is expressing the same old, tired argument that only guns used for hunting are acceptable and that banning guns reduces crime. It's almost laughable that the author makes that claim in the same article describing the appeal of the DC gun ban, where murder is 7X the national average WITH a handgun ban.

hoffmang
12-01-2007, 9:52 AM
There is one thing new here. The other side is having to admit that you have repeal the amendment to do what they want. That's a big new change.

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
12-01-2007, 9:57 AM
There is one thing new here. The other side is having to admit that you have repeal the amendment to do what they want. That's a big new change.

-Gene

My point exactly. At least they are being somewhat intellectually honest.

Scarecrow Repair
12-01-2007, 10:05 AM
Send polite emails on one subject only -- mention the Aussie suicide stats changing only how people killed themselves, that the total number didn't change. Mention that DC's murder rate is among the worst in the nation in spite of the strongest gun control laws you can get.

Don't send long letters or mention multiple subjects. That just allows them to "edit for space or clarity". Stick to one simple subject and keep it short. As long as this posting is about right :-)

MedSpec65
12-01-2007, 10:51 AM
Don't any of these prestigious Institutions have access to the many legitimate studies (Including FBI) documenting significant decreases in violent crime following the passage of "Shall Issue" laws in 40 States? They just ignore information like this. Gene is right; they ARE admitting it will take an act of Congress to repeal the 2nd and outlaw civilian ownership, which means they realize their attempts to use the courts and local and State laws to perform an end-run around the 2nd will never amount to much.

bulgron
12-01-2007, 10:54 AM
I'm pretty sure the anti's are already planning their "repeal the 2A" campaign. I've spoken to hard-left people who are arrogant enough to believe they could actually pull that off.

But if they couldn't get the equal rights amendment passed, what makes them think they can get the 2A repealed? shrug

bohoki
12-01-2007, 11:03 AM
well in order for them to want to repeal it is a defacto admission that it means what we all know its meaning to be

so we have that going for us

bulgron
12-01-2007, 11:16 AM
Yes, but if we repealed the 2A, then we could be just like the British and we all know how superior they are to us....

I sometimes think that the people in this country who don't like RKBA are the intellectual descendants of the people who argued hard against separating from the British empire in the first place.

MedSpec65
12-01-2007, 11:17 AM
It would take years and overwhelming public support to repeal ANY of the Amendments to the US Constitution, but repealing one contained in the Bill of Rights is a pretty tall order.

Druac
12-01-2007, 11:24 AM
Me thinks they are worried.:D

There is one thing new here. The other side is having to admit that you have repeal the amendment to do what they want. That's a big new change.

-Gene

aileron
12-01-2007, 11:49 AM
But its a right, its not enumerated in the bill of rights. The 2nd amendment only says the government wont infringe on the right. Acknowledging its existence.

Removing the 2nd, wouldn't do anything, because the right still would exist in nature. The 9th and 10th would still handle their little faux pas.

9th: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It cant be undone without removing the BOR, and accepting that the constitution is VOID. They would have to go through a constitutional congress process and create a new one.

Don't know about you but I think it would spark another war if they tried it. Either that or we would find out how fat and lazy Americans are about their rights.

hoffmang
12-01-2007, 12:19 PM
So, although the USSC may find that there is in fact an individual right to "keep and bear arms", it may also find that that individual right is subject to the strict regulatory control of Congress.

You are assuming that they have the right to "negative" regulation when all they have is "positive" regulation. The word "regulation" in the 1790's meant orderly like a well regulated clock.

I doubt this issue will become an issue beyond some support for things like licensing.

-Gene

aileron
12-01-2007, 12:24 PM
Thanks hoffmang. :D

What he said. :)

Id just like to mention one other thing 10th Amendment, the government is enumerated with 17 powers. Not once are they given a right. Only people have rights. Thats what makes this sooo sticky for the Anti-Gunners. The 2nd doesnt give the government any rights at all. Doesnt hint to it, and the 10th spells out once again, that only powers are given to the government, not rights.

Scarecrow Repair
12-01-2007, 12:47 PM
This in no way holds up to a full reading of the 2A. There is (for your interpretation) the sticky problem of the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A. How can a right that "shall not be infringed" be legislated and regulated?

Because, like so many others, you think you know what "keep", "bear", and "arms" mean, and you think everybody else ought to think the same.

Rob P.
12-01-2007, 12:56 PM
The one thing I noticed is that the article misunderstands the point behind the second amendment.

The amendment is NOT solely for the protection of the US. It's also the citizens sole protection against their own governmental excesses (like repealing amendments to fit a specific or oppressive agenda).

The second amendment keeps us free. Not only from outsiders but it also keeps us free from our own government.

tankerman
12-01-2007, 1:48 PM
The one thing I noticed is that the article misunderstands the point behind the second amendment.

The amendment is NOT solely for the protection of the US. It's also the citizens sole protection against their own governmental excesses (like repealing amendments to fit a specific or oppressive agenda).

The second amendment keeps us free. Not only from outsiders but it also keeps us free from our own government.
I think most liberals DO understand that part. That's why they would like the 2nd repealed . There would then be nothing in the way of their forced social engineering.

bulgron
12-01-2007, 1:57 PM
I think most liberals DO understand that part. That's why they would like the 2nd repealed . There would then be nothing in the way of their forced social engineering.

I think this is true only of the radical far-left, and the liberal political leadership (which I suppose belongs to the radical far-left). Most of the rank and file hasn't studied this issue hard enough to see it as anything other than a public safety issue.

Most of the American liberals that I've educated on the subject have come around to our point of view on the 2A. But people who self-identify as socialists or even communists can't be swayed.

DedEye
12-01-2007, 1:58 PM
Don't lump all liberals in together. Some of us are pro-gun explicitly because we understand the necessity of the 2nd Amendment to our freedom.

Wulf
12-01-2007, 2:12 PM
Ours is a government founded on the principal of the consent of the governed. If the individual lacks the real ability to resist the giving of consent, its not true consent. Ultimately all laws are enforced at the barrel of a gun in our society. Therefore effective resistance at that level must also be possible. Any cap on the individual's ability to resist set lower than that level negates consent and we become a society where the government owns the individual rather than the other way around.

Scarecrow Repair
12-01-2007, 4:33 PM
Most of the American liberals that I've educated on the subject have come around to our point of view on the 2A. But people who self-identify as socialists or even communists can't be swayed.

I know both socialists and communists (NOT Stalinists, they are quick to say) who like guns. Stereotypes suck.

Charliegone
12-01-2007, 5:36 PM
There's a reason it's number 2.....:rolleyes:

spgk380
12-01-2007, 6:15 PM
Actually, I think if you asked them, they would say that they think the second amendment should be repealed because it is ambiguous and leads some people to think that it does protect an individual right. I highly doubt you could get them to admit that it does, despite this article.

I don't understand what their problem is considering Massachusetts as all the gun control they can dream of. It certainly seems that states are already pretty free to enact virtually any gun restrictions they care to.

You have to realize that this article is written by a bunch of college sophomores and juniors, may of which are not even US citizens. Most of them come from big cities, and have never had a job before in their life. The Crimson staff is made up mainly or illogical, hyper-emotional, unscientific humanities majors that can't add 2+2. They live in the middle of Harvard Square in their dorm room and don't have the foggiest idea that the majority of Americans don't have asphalt surrounding all four sides of their home as far as the eye can see.

Their argument is no more valid than to argue that we should deport and/or jail all muslims because the vast majority of terrorism deaths and threats are caused by muslims (thus requiring a repeal of the 1st amendment and 5th amendments). Who knows? Maybe such a thing would save lives too. But I do not believe it is American to sacrifice our freedom in the name of security, otherwise we should just go all the way to a Stalinist police state to be as safe as possible.

1911su16b870
12-01-2007, 7:39 PM
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2007/04/punchy_editoria.html

"In 1864 , a gun toting mob sought to lynch the Editor of The Times for a reason 21st century New York Democrats might approbate: Henry Jarvis Raymond served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

That Abe Lincoln was a bit of a Whig didn't much signify-- what made the mob howl was the rhetoric of Raymond's publishing rivals. Horace Greeley of The New Yorker smiled to see siege laid to the hated Times , but as armed thugs marched up Broadway , Raymond , who had seen battle with General McClellan in Virginia , prepared a stern Editorial reaction.

He put himself the firing line by deploying a Gatling Gun in The New York Times newsroom window and another in the paper's front entrance , "commanding Park Row to the north" The deterrent saved the day and " The Times appeared in full mourning" after he died of apoplexy in 1867."

That and the LA riots proves the Harvard paper is wrong.

Rob454
12-01-2007, 7:58 PM
, tired argument that only guns used for hunting are acceptable and that banning guns reduces crime. .


But since we have Albertsons and Stater bros we dont need to hunt, and if nobody had guns it will reduce crime. I mean if a bad guy broke in my house i can throw my dog at him. or mabey I walk in and 5 guys are gang bangin my wife and her daughter. I can yell at them to stop (well i cant really yell because that may cause them some emotional distress) and throw my dog at them. Or I can most likely talk to them to make them stop. Seems liek common sense left the country a long time ago.

The only people that think like that are the ones who grew up protected and had no violence touch their lives. Most professors I ever met ( and I used to work at a college part time) are nothing but pie in the sky head in the clouds syndrome. When i was in the military I took a college course on Law and justice system. the guy who taught the class was a flamin liberal. We had a difference of opinion and he basically kicked me out of class because I was in the military. I walked out but I also said if it wasnt for me and my cretin ( yes he actually called me that) soldier friends he wouldnt be able to say what he said. I also told him that he should go LIVE in a communist or third ( 3rd) world country for a few years and IF he comes back to let me know how he liked it. The guy disgusted me. The sad thing was there were plenty of brain washed students who agreed with the professor. I went and took a different class with a guy who was a ex cop and a ex lawyer. That guy was great. I enjoyed his class.
Rob

Scarecrow Repair
12-01-2007, 9:04 PM
That and the LA riots proves the Harvard paper is wrong.

The Deacons for Defense and Justice are a much better example. I will bring them up over and over again; thanks Gene! They were blacks who armed themselves for self-defense against not just the KKK, but the local and state cops who stood around waiting for the KKK to finish the beatings so they could arrest the victims for disturbing the peace. The Deacons also patrolled their neighborhoods to stop the KKK night riders. They were active 1964-1969 and were always self-defense, never once did they go on the offensive and hunt down KKK.

It's a much better example than the riots. It shows guns being used by blacks to gain civil rights and for self defense against not just "citizen" KKK, but against corrupt government cops who did not uphold the law. It makes gun grabbers squirm with the uncomfortable truth that the whites of the time, both KKK and northern liberals, were trying to disarm the blacks who dared defend themselves.

ljg17
12-01-2007, 9:29 PM
The problem is, read in context, the 2nd not only guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, it also enumerates the specific authority of the government to strictly regulate that individual right in order to achieve the specific objective of the 2nd Amendment..."A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

Article l enumerates the very specific authority it allocates to the Congress to "well" regulate this individual right in order to fulfill its sworn constitutional responsibility of ensuring the security of the Nation.

So, although the USSC may find that there is in fact an individual right to "keep and bear arms", it may also find that that individual right is subject to the strict regulatory control of Congress.

By analogy, the IV Amendment ensures that an individual right of the people to be "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." However, the IV also enumerates the specific regulatory authority of the government to violate that individual right "...upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

See how it works? What Caesar giveth, Caesar also reserveth the right to strictly regulate and/or take away!

The term regulated doesn't mean regulation like everyone who wants to ban guns thinks. The definition:
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

The above is the "modern" definition, at the time of writing the term would have been much more apt to be interpreted as close to #2#3or#4 above, certainly in context it means a well supplied, and properly functioning militia. The term "well regulated" in no way means controlled or restricted as applied in the 2nd ammendment"

hoffmang
12-01-2007, 9:31 PM
1. If one wants to understand what "well regulated" means, just check the Contra Cost Times: http://origin1.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_7610129?nclick_check=1

2. If anyone tells you that using arms to stop government oppression is antiquated, point them to the 1960's and the Deacons as Scarecrow points out above.

-Gene

berto
12-01-2007, 9:41 PM
More drivel from life experience lacking over-privileged pinheads in ivory towers.

Jarhead4
12-01-2007, 10:57 PM
If anyone wants to take away any of the bill of rights they should take them all. The bill of rights were passed as a group. So if you take one you should take them all. The reason why you have the second amendment is guaranty that you have the first.

TheDM
12-02-2007, 5:14 AM
If anyone wants to take away any of the bill of rights they should take them all. The bill of rights were passed as a group. So if you take one you should take them all. The reason why you have the second amendment is guaranty that you have the first.

+1 On That!

Wulf
12-02-2007, 5:48 AM
I suppose the grand question that's ignored by the article is that...... If you propose your goal to be decreasing crime, and propose as a solution deleting an amendment from the bill of rights, which amendment would give you the most bang for the buck.

I propose that dealing away with the 4th amendment protection from unreasonable searches would be a much stronger tool for law enforcement, than simply making gun owning a privileged enjoyed by the government, the elite, and people who are already criminals, rather than a right for all.

Like wise, removal of the 5th amendment protections against self incrimination, due process, and protection of private property would make the criminals life untenable.

Scratch the 6 amendment right to trail by jury, and you would supercharge the justice system.

Scrap the 8th amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and you could wipe out the repeat offenders.

Paratus et Vigilans
12-02-2007, 6:03 AM
1. If one wants to understand what "well regulated" means, just check the Contra Cost Times: http://origin1.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_7610129?nclick_check=1

2. If anyone tells you that using arms to stop government oppression is antiquated, point them to the 1960's and the Deacons as Scarecrow points out above.

-Gene


I think we will shortly be able to point to the Southwest, in the direction of Caracas, too. :D To second the King of Spain, Senor Chavez should be . . . encouraged . . . to "shut up" on a permanent basis. :eek:

Paratus et Vigilans
12-02-2007, 6:05 AM
More drivel from life experience lacking over-privileged pinheads in ivory towers.


Well said.

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 9:53 AM
I think we will shortly be able to point to the Southwest, in the direction of Caracas, too. :D To second the King of Spain, Senor Chavez should be . . . encouraged . . . to "shut up" on a permanent basis. :eek:

Yeah... We may yet see a little shingle balloting in Caracas. I still have hope for the paper ballots first.

-Gene

Mute
12-02-2007, 4:11 PM
People have their lives disrupted by the media and for celebrities, the paparazzi. Maybe we should repeal the 1st amendment also. :rolleyes: Another Ivy League fascist who only supports the Bill of Rights when it tows the line of their personal ignorance.

BobbyQuickdraw
12-02-2007, 4:32 PM
"The high level of violence in the United States as compared to other developed countries, if not directly related to the culture of gun ownership and distribution, is at least a strong argument that the Second Amendment is preventing aggressive federal gun regulation."

This sentence pretty much proves that the person writing this article has little to nothing to stand on. They admit that the 2nd Amendment is not related to crime, but that somehow the Second Amendment prevents federal regulation.

A Harvard Study (Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide Rates, Kates & Mauser) showed that the more guns there are in a society, the lower the violent crime rate. Suicide by gun is higher in places with more guns, but suicide by other means more than makes up for it in other countries.

So why regulate and be restrictive of something that all studies shown is actually a preventative measure in itself?

bulgron
12-02-2007, 5:55 PM
A Harvard Study (Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide Rates, Kates & Mauser) showed that the more guns there are in a society, the lower the violent crime rate.

Uh, no it didn't. What the study said was that there is no actual correlation between gun ownership rates & murder/suicide rates. Their central thesis was that murder/suicide rates are the result of complex societal and economic factors, and that guns could not be shown to actually play a part in these factors.

They did say, however, that in the United States liberal firearm laws caused violent crime rates to drop faster than in locations without those laws. But the study also notes that this is likely a cultural phenomena unique to the United States, and it also notes that locations without those liberal firearm laws did eventually see their violent crime rates drop proportional to their more gun-bearing neighbors -- it just took longer is all.

Finally, the study says that people who push for firearm laws are attempting to set a public policy that deviates from notions of freedom in a supposedly free society (I'm paraphrasing heavily here), and so the burden of proof should be on the gun-control proponents to show that their proposed laws will do some actual good.

All in all the study was quite favorable from a pro-RKBA perspective, but nevertheless it would be good if we didn't go around claiming that it arrived at a conclusion that the study explicitly rejects.

BobbyQuickdraw
12-02-2007, 9:17 PM
While its true that Kates and Mauser did specifically note that they were not claiming the direct cause of firearms was a crime deterrent, it would be foolish of anyone to look at the numbers and not see some correlation.

At the very least you can say that more guns definitely doesn't mean more crime and that fewer guns definitely does not mean less crime, which is contrary to the anti-gun stance.

So while my initial gross paraphrasing probably muddled the and somewhat misrepresented the study (my error) I did actually read it and agree that it is favorable.

It's one of the studies I often cite as well as the FBI's recent report “Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers.” That report shows that 97% of handguns used in felonious assaults against criminals are obtained through illegal means and that gun control was circumvented.

In relation to the original article of this post, I still don't find much credence in it and find that most people wrongly assume that gun control laws will somehow magically stop law-breakers from breaking laws.

I apologize if my earlier discussed paraphrasing wrongly implied something about the Harvard Study. A google search for the title will provide anyone interested with a pdf version.

hoffmang
12-02-2007, 10:22 PM
BQ,

What Kates and Mauser did point out is that causation may run the opposite way - namely high violent crime rates and high gun crime rates may cause gun control and not vice-versa. Certainly high gun ownership does not correlate with high gun violence however.

-Gene

J_Rock
12-02-2007, 10:35 PM
Making a weapon illegal doesnt mean they cant kill you anymore.


Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1

2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5

3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8

4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.

* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11

* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:

a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12

b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13

c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14

* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15

* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16


6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.

* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18

* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19

1Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
2Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).
3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.
4"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
5"Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
6"Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says," Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
7See BJS study, supra note 6 at iii.
8John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," (2000). This study can be read at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm. The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.
9Ian Henry and Tim Reid, "Crime figures a sham, say police," The Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996).
10Tim Reid, "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," The Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997).
11John Steele, "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent," The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000).
12See supra note (Crime figures a sham...)
13Ibid.
14Ibid.
15See supra note (fiddling).
16Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," NewsMax.com (March 22, 2001).
17The number of people killed by their own government in Europe averages about 400,000 for the last 70 years. This includes Hitler's extermination of Jews, gypsies and other peoples (20,946,000); Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainian kulaks (6,500,000); and more. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (2000), pp. 8 and 80.
1

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

scewper
12-03-2007, 12:16 AM
but such considerations are moot when weighed against the number of lives that might be saved by making the weapons illegal.

They still don't understand that if we make murder illegal, that will save lives too. Wait a minute..

These people are from Harvard???

Glock22Fan
12-03-2007, 8:15 AM
In reference to the article that started this all, I have a question.

Why does anyone listen to any journalist's opinions let alone college journalists? What experience do they have to write from, other than opinion? What gives their argument weight? They have the right to write it, but we have the right to ignore it.

Journalists are not some special class of people, they are simply the ones that got a journalism degree and get to write the news as they see it, which is often far different than the way it really is.

Journalists have power for the same reason that Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan have celebrity status and that movie stars have the power to get their (usually inane) political opinions heard - because the sheeple give it to them.