NationStates Jolt Archive

Fuelled by this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570417) where an 8 year old shot himself with an UZI out of control.

What is your take on the age limit?

Personally, I'd go with 14-16. People younger than that can have hard time acting responsibly, handling a weapon with the responsibility it requires and understanding the consequence of pulling the trigger.

edit:
A clarification

The point of the poll is not to question people about gun ownership but the actual age limit of pulling the trigger, similarly as there might be a legal drinking age, age of consent, age limit to see a movie or, indeed, age limit to driving a car - Consider this Firing a Gun Age poll.

If I'd be arsed to I'd dig an article up in the google about the ferocity of underage soldiers to back up my view about how a kid can't understand the possible consequences of firing a gun at someone else, accidentally or intentionally.

edit 2:
A further clarification

If you think age limit for buying a gun is enough and would like to leave the responsibility for its further use to the buyer, like letting a child fire the gun, vote for the Laissez Faire option.



edit 3:
Another incident involving an 8 year old, guns and mayhem

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/11/08/20081108kidmurder1108.html

An 8-year-old boy faces double-murder charges in the shooting death of his father and another man while residents in the bucolic community of St. Johns try to make sense of the chilling crime.

"This is precedent-setting. We're going to charge an 8-year-old with two counts of homicide," Police Chief Roy Melnick said.

[http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/11262/76/

8-Year-Old Boy Suspected of 2 Murders in Arizona

Two people have been killed in a small Arizona town and police say the suspect is an 8-year-old boy.

The shooting happened in St. Johns, Arizona Wednesday and police suspect the child of commiting the murders.

Police were called to the house and found one victim just outside the front door of the house and another man inside in an upstairs room.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iG_nB7rdOr3TiaL5ph3YDR5qNNTAD94BUSSO0

Police say the boy confessed to planning and carrying out the shooting deaths of 29-year-old Vincent Romero and a co-worker who rented a room from him. The men were found dead inside Romero's home northeast of Phoenix last week.

I would say no, because that takes us down a slippery slope. Already, you can't buy handguns until you're over 21 in most places.

For me to even consider it, I would have to have a "clear and present danger" clause attached to it. Otherwise, we'll have children (and adults) convicted of criminal negligence for defending themselves.

212. Then no one can have one. :)

Personally, I'd go with 16. People younger than that can have hard time acting responsibly, handling a weapon with the responsibility it requires and understanding the consequence of pulling the trigger.

have you ever met a 16 year old?

also where is the British option

How about a knife use age limit too? Actually they already have something like that in the school system. As a toddler, they gave us paste (which as far as I know, was edible and digestible), cardboard paper (also edible), crayons (not edible, but not like that stopped me), and those tiny, super-dull, extra-safe scissors. It wasn't until the later grades that we finally got our (unofficial) scissors, pens and pencils, and real paper licenses.

But the problem is making it official, making it law. I think gun safety should be taught at any age for the same reason you teach your kids not to stick their fingers in the light socket. You don't just hide the sockets and hope they never get curious lest they hurt themselves. Same with guns.

Gun ownership, gun shooting, all that needs a license currently, and as far as I know 6 year olds can't get one.

You'll notice this doesn't stop them from obtaining one should they really want it. Kind of like sex education works - no matter what, you can't stop the kids from fucking. They'll do it, if they really want to. Thankfully, more people fuck irresponsibly instead of handle guns irresponsibly, so all we have to deal with is an AIDS epidemic, overpopulation and degradation of basic ethics.

Put that way, some kid shooting himself or shooting someone else now and then doesn't seem quite so bad.

There already is a limit, and it's 18.

There already is a limit, and it's 18.
You're not allowed to fire a gun until you're 18?

That's s'posed to be the point of the poll anyways, not gun ownership. :)

18, with additional tests, repeated at a couple years intervals.

Same as drivers' licenses. I understand that some people will want guns for whatever reasons. Same as some people want cars. Both are highly likely to kill bystanders when handled without training and care, so both ought to require a license.

You're not allowed to fire a gun until you're 18?
You're not allowed to own or carry one.


Additionally limiting use would be ridiculous and would never work. It's the responsibility of the person giving you the gun. And it will be that way in any case. We don't need more laws that don't work.

You're not allowed to own or carry one.


Additionally limiting use would be ridiculous and would never work. It's the responsibility of the person giving you the gun. And it will be that way in any case. We don't need more laws that don't work.
Does in your view, for example, the driver's license work or not?

But the problem is making it official, making it law. I think gun safety should be taught at any age for the same reason you teach your kids not to stick their fingers in the light socket. You don't just hide the sockets and hope they never get curious lest they hurt themselves. Same with guns.

That's bollocks. You don't teach kids how to drive a car safely until they've reached a certain age, and that's for a good reason. That doesn't mean you hide the car from them, you just don't let them drive.
You also don't let the operate a chainsaw, and you do keep them away from things that could hurt them (child safety catches for cupboard doors, safety gates for stairs, etc.)
So claiming that you need to teach them how to handle a gun from a young age is just ridiculous. All they need to know is to stay away from them.

Does in your view, for example, the driver's license work or not?
Not entirely. A lot of 14-16 kids driving in some places.

But it doesn't work outside the road at all. Off the road, in most states, it's not even needed. And where it is, it's a law that can't possibly work.

You can't enforce how people should use guns in the field.

That's bollocks. You don't teach kids how to drive a car safely until they've reached a certain age, and that's for a good reason.

I said "gun safety," not "how to shoot a gun safely." There is a difference. And I sure hope you teach kids car safety, even though they won't be driving until a certain age.

You also don't let the operate a chainsaw, and you do keep them away from things that could hurt them (child safety catches for cupboard doors, safety gates for stairs, etc.)

I guess I'm one of those fucked up children (probably from a broken home, with heroin!) who had to actually learn how to not only walk and negotiate level obstacles, but stairs as well. And my family had cupboards and shit that didn't have 'child safety catches,' which are of course nothing more than locks that can only be opened by children.

So claiming that you need to teach them how to handle a gun from a young age is just ridiculous. All they need to know is to stay away from them.

Yeah, I guess all kids need to know is to stay away from any cupboard, all stairs, most doors, the outdoors, guns, cars. For that matter why don't you place steel security hatches over all electrical outputs? They could hurt themselves, and so complete ignorance and complete avoidance is the solution?

Not entirely. A lot of 14-16 kids driving in some places.

But it doesn't work outside the road at all. Off the road, in most states, it's not even needed. And where it is, it's a law that can't possibly work.

You can't enforce how people should use guns in the field.

You can't enforce how people pay their taxes either. You can only punish those you catch disobeying the law, and hope the punishment will deterr others.

I guess I'm one of those fucked up children (probably from a broken home, with heroin!) who had to actually learn how to not only walk and negotiate level obstacles, but stairs as well. And my family had cupboards and shit that didn't have 'child safety catches,' which are of course nothing more than locks that can only be opened by children.
Yeah, I guess all kids need to know is to stay away from any cupboard, all stairs, most doors, the outdoors, guns, cars. For that matter why don't you place steel security hatches over all electrical outputs? They could hurt themselves, and so complete ignorance and complete avoidance is the solution?

So, which bit about "teach them what they can actually comprehend, based on their age" didn't you understand, then?

You can't enforce how people should use guns in the field.
I agree with this in principle...

However, I think you can modify the culture with socially minded legislation.

Consider eg. driver's license or alchol laws. You don't see 8 year olds driving cars intoxicated, now do you? :tongue:

Furthermore, in case firing a gun would be illegal, an accident involving the gun and a minor in "field conditions" would put the parent at a great risk and that risk would act to suppress underage gun use.

It's just my opinion though.

You can't enforce how people pay their taxes either. You can only punish those you catch disobeying the law, and hope the punishment will deterr others.
First of all, you can. Most countries don't have people file some stupid tax reports, they just take the taxes out of the salary.

Second, you can. You have the records on how much people should pay, and basically make them duplicate your work, to be punished if they don't come to the same result as you.

Third, you can, because due to the above you easily catch the evaders.



This is not the case with guns. You can't station cops in every acre of every forest to watch that people don't let their kids fire a gun.

So, which bit about "teach them what they can actually comprehend, based on their age" didn't you understand, then?

^^ This.

I know some 10 yr olds that would be responsible around guns.

I also know some 30 yr old whom I would NEVER let near a gun... even if MY life depended on it... no because my life depends on them never getting near a gun.

First of all, you can. Most countries don't have people file some stupid tax reports, they just take the taxes out of the salary.

Second, you can. You have the records on how much people should pay, and basically make them duplicate your work, to be punished if they don't come to the same result as you.

Third, you can, because due to the above you easily catch the evaders.



This is not the case with guns. You can't station cops in every acre of every forest to watch that people don't let their kids fire a gun.

That only works if you know where they get their salaries from and if the employer complies with tax laws.
It doesn't work for people who are self-employed, people who work in the country illegally, etc.
Also, every country I know of will ask people to hand in their tax declaration, to determine how much tax they will get back (for kids, mortgages, business expenses, etc).

Nowhere near total control anywhere, I'm afraid.

This is not the case with guns. You can't station cops in every acre of every forest to watch that people don't let their kids fire a gun.

you don't have cops stationed outside every place that sells liquor to catch drunk drivers.
You don't have cops stationed on every street to catch speeders.
and you certainly don't have cops stationed at every bank and ATM to catch robbers.

yet cops still manages to catch alot of em anyway.

That only works if you know where they get their salaries from and if the employer complies with tax laws.
It doesn't work for people who are self-employed, people who work in the country illegally, etc.
The illegals don't file tax declarations at all.
The former are in a different category altogether, close to businesspeople in this regard.

Also, every country I know of will ask people to hand in their tax declaration, to determine how much tax they will get back (for kids, mortgages, business expenses, etc).
But note: you ask to get back, not to pay.
Filing your tax declaration to pay it is a quirk of a few countries only.
Furthermore, it's especially ridiculous since the income tax you pay is maybe 10-20% of the overall tax you have subtracted from your income automatically, at the employer, or paid by the retailer when shopping.

Ban guns.

Ban guns.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Forum/GunBan.jpg

The illegals don't file tax declarations at all.
The former are in a different category altogether, close to businesspeople in this regard.

And not paying taxes at all is not tax fraud in your book, then?


But note: you ask to get back, not to pay.
Filing your tax declaration to pay it is a quirk of a few countries only.
Furthermore, it's especially ridiculous since the income tax you pay is maybe 10-20% of the overall tax you have subtracted from your income automatically, at the employer, or paid by the retailer when shopping.

Yes, and making false claims and getting back too much money is tax fraud.

Income tax in Ireland is 21%, and the lowest throughout Europe. In Germany, you can end up in tax bands that will make you pay up to 55% of your income.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Forum/GunBan.jpg

How many shootings do you get in the UK where handguns are banned? Exactly.

you don't have cops stationed outside every place that sells liquor to catch drunk drivers.
You don't have cops stationed on every street to catch speeders.
and you certainly don't have cops stationed at every bank and ATM to catch robbers.
yet cops still manages to catch alot of em anyway.
Because driving is done on public roads.

Shooting, be it plinking or hunting, is almost always done away from settlements, so you won't catch anyone except for people not aware of the law.

Shooting, be it plinking or hunting, is almost always done away from settlements

Except for violent crime.

How many shootings do you get in the UK where handguns are banned? Exactly.

59, exactly, in 2006/2007.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm)

And not paying taxes at all is not tax fraud in your book, then?
Of course it is. But these people officially don't exist anyway.


Yes, and making false claims and getting back too much money is tax fraud.
Income tax in Ireland is 21%, and the lowest throughout Europe. In Germany, you can end up in tax bands that will make you pay up to 55% of your income.
What does it have to do with declarations? Not sure of the other systems, but in US, income tax paid by individual is just a small fraction of overall taxation.


Except for violent crime.
So you propose that minors using guns for crime should be tried for breaking age limits, rather than for the crime?

Because driving is done on public roads.

Shooting, be it plinking or hunting, is almost always done away from settlements, so you won't catch anyone except for people not aware of the law.

one does not hunt in public places like the woods or forests?
and there are shooting ranges within alot of those 'settlements' and some Gun Nuts don't even care how far away from other people they are.

Of course it is. But these people officially don't exist anyway.



What does it have to do with declarations? Not sure of the other systems, but in US, income tax paid by individual is just a small fraction of overall taxation.


Does that mean they can commit tax fraud or crimes?

And you were the one stating that income tax is only 10-20%, which is incorrect. I've got no idea what you where trying to prove by that.

I would say a modest age limit of early teens (13+) before allowing the use of a firearm. The exception could be of course for those on farms and ranches.

To pruchase a handgun by business means, you have to be 21 by federal and state laws.*
To purchase and/or own handgun through a private non-transferrable sale, you must be 18.*
*U.S. law.

How many shootings do you get in the UK where handguns are banned? Exactly.

Not a lot, but your violent crime rate is huge compared to the United States. However, the point still stands that every year in the UK people are assaulted and/or killed with handguns, so the ban is not 100% effective.

59, exactly, in 2006/2007.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF05.htm)

Not that many considering the amount in the US.

Not that many considering the amount in the US.This is the United Kingdom firearm crime rate versus the United States firearm crime rate, right?
Hm.
I wonder why we have more crime.
Proportions, perhaps?
Considering that the United States does happen to have (estimated July 2008) 242,880,728 more people than the United Kingdom.
Link. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/uk.html) Link. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html)

Not a lot, but your violent crime rate is huge compared to the United States. However, the point still stands that every year in the UK people are assaulted and/or killed with handguns, so the ban is not 100% effective.

That and the fact a lot of them are just using knives now instead.

This is the United Kingdom firearm crime rate versus the United States firearm crime rate, right?
Hm.
I wonder why we have more crime.
Proportions, perhaps?

Look at the per capita rates. The US 'wins' hands down.

Look at the per capita rates. The US 'wins' hands down.We have more people. Of course we have more crime.

We have more people. Of course we have more crime.

Per capita crimes rates mean the number of offenses per member of population. It evens out differences in population. The US still has more gun crime.

one does not hunt in public places like the woods or forests?
Public roads are not the same as public lands. For one, on public lands you usually don't need a driving license, and sure as hell forests aren't patrolled.


Does that mean they can commit tax fraud or crimes? They can't *not* commit tax evasion, but it's just one of the crimes they necessarily commit by being illegal immigrants.


And you were the one stating that income tax is only 10-20%, which is incorrect. I've got no idea what you where trying to prove by that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

The income tax is just 15% for most people, and that's on income over 8k.

We have more people. Of course we have more crime.

Per capita means per person. You have more gun crime per person.

Per capita crimes rates mean the number of offenses per member of population. It evens out differences in population. The US still has more gun crime.
I notice you're talking about *gun* crime. Why? Does it matter to you if you're killed by a handgun or a knife? Would you really prefer the latter?

And as for overall violent crime rate, UK is much worse. It's just that knives are used instead, and the regular people have no right to defend themselves.

I notice you're talking about *gun* crime. Why? Does it matter to you if you're killed by a handgun or a knife? Would you really prefer the latter?

And as for overall violent crime rate, UK is much worse. It's just that knives are used instead, and the regular people have no right to defend themselves.

Is it worse? Do you have figures supporting that?

Edit: And I do have every right to defend myself if attacked. I also have the ability, something I trained for, not bought in a store. Something I believe will result in my using if far more responsibly.

As an avid shooter I feel it should be a right of all people to own a gun, but not without limitations.

Shooting should have no age limit provided that a parent or guardian is there to ensure safety if they are under 18.

All guns should be available for purchase at age 18 except for modern military weapons [Assault rifles, smgs, ect], but only after taking a course on gun safety. Fully automatic guns should be banned without a permit.


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0308.pdf
Wow, so the UK's handgun crime rate has actually gone up. I guess you can't stop determined people.

Per capita crimes rates mean the number of offenses per member of population. It evens out differences in population. The US still has more gun crime.I know, the US is supposedly around three to four times higher.
Check this out. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece)

I know, the US is supposedly around three to four times higher.
Check this out. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece)

Don't quote the sun if you want to be taken seriously.

Is it worse? Do you have figures supporting that?

Actually, I do.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf

It does not give a composite of all of the UK, but it lists the lowest prevalence being 425 violent crimes per 10,000, in Whales, which for comparison purposes, is 4,250 violent crimes per 100,000 (which is the basis the US uses).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

For the same year in the US (2003), we had 475.8 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

It is of note that, for some reason, the UK records it September to September instead of using calendar years.

As an avid shooter I feel it should be a right of all people to own a gun, but not without limitations.

Shooting should have no age limit provided that a parent or guardian is there to ensure safety if they are under 18.

All guns should be available for purchase at age 18 except for modern military weapons [Assault rifles, smgs, ect], but only after taking a course on gun safety. Fully automatic guns should be banned without a permit.



Wow, so the UK's handgun crime rate has actually gone up. I guess you can't stop determined people.


Handgun offences were down by 11 per cent to
4,175 in 2006/07.

From your source. Page 35.

Don't quote the sun if you want to be taken seriously.Hm. OK.
Sorry, didn't know they were a discredited source.

Hm. OK.
Sorry, didn't know they were a discredited source.

They're like Fox, but even more sensationalist and they don't even pretend their readers are intelligent.

They're like Fox, but even more sensationalist and they don't even pretend their readers are intelligent.Thanks for letting me know, because I honestly didn't.
And now I feel just a little stupid. :)

Thanks for letting me know, because I honestly didn't.
And now I feel just a little stupid. :)

A hint, if a news source has boobies anywhere on their website then you shouldn't use them as a source here.

Unless the topic is boobies, then it's all good.

A hint, if a news source has boobies anywhere on their website then you shouldn't use them as a source here.

Unless the topic is boobies, then it's all good.Aw, fine. :(


:D

A hint, if a news source has boobies anywhere on their website then you shouldn't use them as a source here.

Unless the topic is boobies, then it's all good.

But topics about boobies will probably get you banned... :D

sure as hell forests aren't patrolled.
Really? one should tell that to the Park and Forest Rangers then. :p

Actually, I do.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf

It does not give a composite of all of the UK, but it lists the lowest prevalence being 425 violent crimes per 10,000, in Whales, which for comparison purposes, is 4,250 violent crimes per 100,000 (which is the basis the US uses).

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

For the same year in the US (2003), we had 475.8 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

It is of note that, for some reason, the UK records it September to September instead of using calendar years.

I'll accept your figures, even though I find it hard to believe our violent crime rate is between 10-20 times higher than it is in the US.

I would like to point you to page 11 in your source on the UKs' crime statistics. The one with the graph showing the decline in violent crime since the handgun ban was intrduced in 1997.

But topics about boobies will probably get you banned... :D

BOOBIES (http://www.darwinsgalapagos.com/gallery/MaskedBoobies.jpg)!!!

BOOBIES (http://www.darwinsgalapagos.com/gallery/MaskedBoobies.jpg)!!!

OMG! Teh Boobies! Dirtyness! :p

Thanks for letting me know, because I honestly didn't.
And now I feel just a little stupid. :)

It's OK. I don't know much about American newspapers other than The New York Times is apparently very reliable. Oh, and the Weekly World News. :tongue:

I'll accept your figures, even though I find it hard to believe our violent crime rate is between 10-20 times higher than it is in the US.

I was surprised too. I wanted to see the disparity, and I expected it to be much smaller - and in the other direction.

I would like to point you to page 11 in your source on the UKs' crime statistics. The one with the graph showing the decline in violent crime since the handgun ban was intrduced in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

Wikipedia says (for what that's worth), that when the ban on handguns was introduced in 1997, there were only about 57,000 legal handguns in the UK - or only 0.1% of the population. It wasn't a huge change for the UK.

However, between 35-50% of households in the US have at least one gun (depending on who you ask). It would be a massive change.

It's OK. I don't know much about American newspapers other than The New York Times is apparently very reliable. Oh, and the Weekly World News. :tongue:I'll work harder to make my sources more reliabe, then. :p

I was surprised too. I wanted to see the disparity, and I expected it to be much smaller - and in the other direction.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

Wikipedia says (for what that's worth), that when the ban on handguns was introduced in 1997, there were only about 57,000 legal handguns in the UK - or only 0.1% of the population. It wasn't a huge change for the UK.

However, between 35-50% of households in the US have at least one gun (depending on who you ask). It would be a massive change.

It doesn't need to be done all at once. The only way I could see it happening would be increasingly restrictive gun laws over the course of a century or so. This would give time to change the American mindset and reduce the number of firearms in circulation through natural wastage.

It doesn't need to be done all at once. The only way I could see it happening would be increasingly restrictive gun laws over the course of a century or so. This would give time to change the American mindset and reduce the number of firearms in circulation through natural wastage.

But the guns are not the problem. You just said the problem yourself - a culture or mindset that glorifies guns and gun violence. We don't need our number of firearms reduced. We need more respect for the firearms we have.

Do people still remember this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6662213.stm)?
Illinois baby obtains gun permit
Bubba Ludwig may only be 10 months old, but he has already successfully obtained a gun licence in the US state of Illinois.

Is this the kind of absurdity those desiring the loosest gun control are willing to accept?

But the guns are not the problem. You just said the problem yourself - a culture or mindset that glorifies guns and gun violence. We don't need our number of firearms reduced. We need more respect for the firearms we have.

I'm heading for a total ban here. Changing mindsets is the only way the 2nd amendment will be consigned to the bin of history. Reducing the number of weapons in circulation just helps with the ban when it comes in.

I'm heading for a total ban here. Changing mindsets is the only way the 2nd amendment will be consigned to the bin of history. Reducing the number of weapons in circulation just helps with the ban when it comes in.

Then you and I are at an impasse. I don't want a ban. I want to have my own gun and be capable of using it if I need it.

Then you and I are at an impasse. I don't want a ban. I want to have my own gun and be capable of using it if I need it.

Oh I knew that already. I have no fear of guns, I just don't see the point in private ownership.

I'm heading for a total ban here. Changing mindsets is the only way the 2nd amendment will be consigned to the bin of history. Reducing the number of weapons in circulation just helps with the ban when it comes in.
The 2nd amendment is worded two different ways.
One for the Federal government, and another for the state governments.
Which one do you want repealed?

The 2nd amendment is worded two different ways.
One for the Federal government, and another for the state governments.
Which one do you want repealed?

Both.

Both.You want to get rid of the National Guard?

change my vote to 12 from 16. i have no problem with a dad taking his to a range and letting him pop off a few rounds. 16 year old no ownership but un supervised use if a job mandates it(farm work).

You want to get rid of the National Guard?

False Dilema.

Try again.

I'm heading for a total ban here. Changing mindsets is the only way the 2nd amendment will be consigned to the bin of history.
So, you want to ban the freedoms-granting amendments to the constitution. Well...

Suppose you got your way, and banned guns, fast driving, gambling, all fun in life. So, what are people supposed to live for, then?

So, you want to ban the freedoms-granting amendments to the constitution. Well...

Suppose you got your way, and banned guns, fast driving, gambling, all fun in life. So, what are people supposed to live for, then?

Slippery slope/Strawman.

Try again.

change my vote to 12 from 16. i have no problem with a dad taking his to a range and letting him pop off a few rounds. 16 year old no ownership but un supervised use if a job mandates it(farm work).
I can agree with that thinking.

12 supervised, 16 alone.

However, I'm still keeping my vote at 14-16 bracket, because my orignal intent was unsupervised shooting.

I can agree with that thinking.

12 supervised, 16 alone.

However, I'm still keeping my vote at 14-16 bracket, because my orignal intent was unsupervised shooting.

then my original vote is good. unsupervised is what I thought. but you referred to it as pull the trigger so i figured supervised would be restricted as well.

Oh I knew that already. I have no fear of guns, I just don't see the point in private ownership.

But there a great many points to owning a gun:

Protection from intruders
Protection from animals
Starting a fire
Helping to keep the repression of the government in check
Practicing marksmanship
Hunting
Putting a suffering animal down (not sure if they still do it that way, but they used to)

But there a great many points to owning a gun:

Protection from intruders

Statistics show that using a gun to protect yourself from intruders makes it more likely for you to suffer injuries.

Protection from animals

Because wild animal attacks are a common problem.

Starting a fire

What?

Helping to keep the repression of the government in check

Tell you what. When you need to revolt, let me know how your hunting rifle fares againsts tanks and F-16s.

Practicing marksmanship
Hunting

Both of these are irrelevent. They are not something you need to do, and thus are a poor arguement for continued private ownership of guns.

Putting a suffering animal down (not sure if they still do it that way, but they used to)

And a private individual has no need to do this. Even if one comes across the rare situation were you do need to, there are other means.

All your reasons are bullocks.

But there a great many points to owning a gun:

Protection from intruders
Protection from animals
Starting a fire
Helping to keep the repression of the government in check
Practicing marksmanship
Hunting
Putting a suffering animal down (not sure if they still do it that way, but they used to)

You can use a baseball bat etc.
See above.
Matches, even 2 sticks FFS.
Lolwut?
Got me on the marksmanship, unless you want to use a BB or paintgun.
Don't need a handgun for that, you can have a rifle or shotgun that's kept locked in the loft until hunting season.
Lethal injection.

But there a great many points to owning a gun:

Protection from intruders

I'm not afraid of intruders

Protection from animals

I live in a city, in the UK. The scariest animals we have in this country are slighly miffed voles.

Starting a fire

Oh we invented matches years ago, you guys should look into the technology.

Helping to keep the repression of the government in check

*Looks around* Yep the democratic process is still in place and I've never owned a gun.

Practicing marksmanship

A nice hobby. But given that the point of good marksmanship is using a gun, it seems a little circular to be using it as an arguement against banning guns.

Hunting

I'd prefer a rifle to a 9mm but thats just me.

Putting a suffering animal down (not sure if they still do it that way, but they used to)

I'd call a vet personally, I don't think I know enough about animals to make the decision about whether it can be saved or not.

How many shootings do you get in the UK where handguns are banned? Exactly.

You do realize that The U.K. and The U.S. are culturally different, yes?

What works in one will not necessarily work in the other.

Statistics show that using a gun to protect yourself from intruders makes it more likely for you to suffer injuries.

However, the continued threat of guns in the home is one of the things that helps keep the number of home invasions down.

Because wild animal attacks are a common problem.

Actually, they are, especially if you live in the country. My grandmother has twice shot bears that were invading her property. Now that had to be a funny sight - little old woman about 5 foot nothing shooting a bear.

What?

Theoretically possible. Gunpowder is explosive and all that.

Tell you what. When you need to revolt, let me know how your hunting rifle fares againsts tanks and F-16s.

Approximately as well as the revolutionaries fared against the superior trained and armed British forces. Oh wait-

Both of these are irrelevent. They are not something you need to do, and thus are a poor arguement for continued private ownership of guns.

Some of us like the taste of deer meat. As far as I know, there are no deer farms in the United States, or anywhere that I know of. In addition, since man has become a necessary predator in the environment, our no longer hunting would be detrimental to the ecosystem.

And a private individual has no need to do this. Even if one comes across the rare situation were you do need to, there are other means.

I suspect that many farmers and ranchers have had to put animals down over the years. I doubt that anyone here will argue that.

All your reasons are bullocks.

Granted, the Fire one and overthrowing the government one were a little tongue-in-cheek, but that doesn't mean that reasons do not exist for having firearms.

You do realize that The U.K. and The U.S. are culturally different, yes?

What works in one will not necessarily work in the other.

So it was tried? When?

False Dilema.

Try again.You try again.
The Second Amendment is worded as to provide the people a means to maintain a state militia.
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.

The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States.

You try again.
The Second Amendment is worded as to provide the people a means to maintain a state militia.

EDIT: Gauntleted fist edited his post, apparently they are.

EDIT: Gauntleted fist edited his post, apparently they are.Yes, I looked it up, just to make sure.

You try again.
The Second Amendment is worded as to provide the people a means to maintain a state militia.

So without the 2nd amendment there can't be a national guard? You can't pass a bill requiring one?

As I said, false dilema, try again.

So without the 2nd amendment there can't be a national guard? You can't pass a bill requiring one?

As I said, false dilemma, try again.No, in fact, there cannot. The weapons used by the National Guard are restricted to military personnel. These weapons would be illegal to use without the Second Amendment by militia personnel.
Any bill passed would have to be specifically for the right of National Guardsmen to use aforementioned military-class weapons.
Without the Second Amendment, there is no (Federal) provision to provide for a militia.

If Iskip apoint I have no disagreement with you there

However, the continued threat of guns in the home is one of the things that helps keep the number of home invasions down. [citation needed]



Theoretically possible. Gunpowder is explosive and all that.The Mythbusters testedi t. It's unreliabe but it can be done. You need topack cloth tightly enough into the bullet casing with the gunpowder still inside. I'd go with matches personally



Approximately as well as the revolutionaries fared against the superior trained and armed British forces. Oh wait-Yeah, because the technology of the 1700s and the technology of now is equal. Oh wait!

No, in fact, there cannot. The weapons used by the National Guard are restricted to military personnel. These weapons would be illegal to use without the Second Amendment by militia personnel.
Any bill passed would have to be specifically for the right of National Guardsmen to use aforementioned military-class weapons.
Without the Second Amendment, there is no (Federal) provision to provide for a militia.

And you can't make one?

First thing first, without the Constitution there's no United States of America to speak of, so it's utterly irrelevant whether there is National Guard or not.

I live in Upstate NY. The real upstate not Long Island. In the country, its pretty standard to allow a kid a bee bee gun at 10-11, if all goes well and responsibly then a .22 at 12-13 then shotguns/rifles in the 14-15 year old range. YMMV.

Wait, the title says age limit...
Not, shooting age, etc.
So, a limit for owning a gun I would say would be having to take a test (don't ask how) for anyone ages 40 and up.
As for what age someone should be allowed to use a gun, I believe 16.

First thing first, without the Constitution there's no United States of America to speak of, so it's utterly irrelevant whether there is National Guard or not.

What's that got to do with anything?

First thing first, without the Constitution there's no United States of America to speak of, so it's utterly irrelevant whether there is National Guard or not. This isn't about the Constitution in general. Just the Second Amendment.
I believe.

And you can't make one?I'm not sure.
Hm.
It might actually be a lot easier than I originally thought.

So it was tried? When?

I'm not saying it was, I'm simply polinting out the flaw in your statement of: "well it works in the U.K."

This isn't about the Constitution in general. Just the Second Amendment.
I believe.

I'm not sure.
Hm.
It might actually be a lot easier than I originally thought.

I would take exactly as many votes as would be required to repeal to 2nd amendment. You could probably do it at the same time.

This isn't about the Constitution in general. Just the Second Amendment.
I believe.

I'm not sure.
Hm.
It might actually be a lot easier than I originally thought.

I would take exactly as many votes as would be required to repeal to 2nd amendment. You could probably do it at the same time.

And where exactly is the need to repeal the 2nd amendment?

[citation needed]

http://www.mindspring.com/~robertcjones/khs/kennesaw20th/kennesaw20th.htm

Kennesaw, GA. The city passed a mandatory ownership law for all heads of household in the city. In the subsequent years, burglaries dropped 80% in the city.

http://www.mindspring.com/~robertcjones/khs/kennesaw20th/kennesaw20th2006_files/image021.gif

Yeah, because the technology of the 1700s and the technology of now is equal. Oh wait!

True, the technology today is better, but you have to remember that during WW2 that one of the lead Japanese generals concluded that a land invasion of the U.S. (even assuming a total naval defeat) would be hopeless, as there would "be a gun behind every blade of grass."

In WW2, they had fighter planes, tanks, battleships, artillery too. Certainly they're not as good as today's, but still better than the 1700's by a large margin.

Yeah, because the technology of the 1700s and the technology of now is equal. Oh wait!

Modern military equipment is not indestructible. Point of fact, for about $300 I could equip myself to take out an M1 Abrams.

And where exactly is the need to repeal the 2nd amendment?

Where is the need to keep it?

I realise that as I'm the one advocating the change to the status quo I should be putting forward arguments but if you can't be arsed to read the rest of the thread why should I bother.

But there a great many points to owning a gun:

Protection from intruders
Protection from animals
Starting a fire
Helping to keep the repression of the government in check
Practicing marksmanship
Hunting
Putting a suffering animal down (not sure if they still do it that way, but they used to)

Christopher Titus: I want a gun, Dad.
Ken Titus: You don't need a gun, son. The men in our family have penises.

Modern military equipment is not indestructible. Point of fact, for about $300 I could equip myself to take out an M1 Abrams.

Really, and how much would it cost to equip yourself to take out a B2?

And on topic: 16.

Christopher Titus: I want a gun, Dad.
Ken Titus: You don't need a gun, son. The men in our family have penises.

There should be a "Penis comparison" fallacy.

*heads off to Wikipedia to write one*

Where is the need to keep it?

I realise that as I'm the one advocating the change to the status quo I should be putting forward arguments but if you can't be arsed to read the rest of the thread why should I bother.

I have read the rest of the thread, and have seen nothing put forth that is a need.

And on topic: 16.

This is page 7, what's a topic?

Really, and how much would it cost to equip yourself to take out a B2?

About $1,000, give or take.

This is page 7, what's a topic?Page eight, my friend.

Really, and how much would it cost to equip yourself to take out a B2?

Not worried about a B2.

No, in fact, there cannot. The weapons used by the National Guard are restricted to military personnel. These weapons would be illegal to use without the Second Amendment by militia personnel.
Any bill passed would have to be specifically for the right of National Guardsmen to use aforementioned military-class weapons.
Without the Second Amendment, there is no (Federal) provision to provide for a militia.

Why wouldn't State authority be sufficient to own such weapons? National Guard units are commanded exclusively by their State Governors or were until recent laws passed post 9/11 giving The President the power to remove this authority from Governors under national emergency events.

I have read the rest of the thread, and have seen nothing put forth that is a need.

I do apoligise, I been following 2 gun threads this evening. I would say that this constitutes a need.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14140988&postcount=75

About $1,000, give or take.

With what?

Why wouldn't State authority be sufficient to own such weapons? National Guard units are commanded exclusively by their State Governors or were until recent laws passed post 9/11 giving The President the power to remove this authority from Governors under national emergency events.The National Guard is commanded by the president when called to actually serve the several states.

With what?

Shoulder mounted launcher - wait until it's just after takeoff or on approach to landing.

Alternatively, you can sneak onto the base and plant a small bomb inside its main disc brakes out of sight, set to detonate when the landing gear is reextended for landing. (this option would cost you about $50-$100, but is less reliable)

Not worried about a B2.

Why not? I thought one of the major tenents of the 2nd amendment was the ability to defend yourself against your own government. Your government has B2s.

Shoulder mounted launcher - wait until it's just after takeoff or on approach to landing.

Alternatively, you can sneak onto the base and plant a small bomb inside its main disc brakes out of sight, set to detonate when the landing gear is reextended for landing. (this option would cost you about $50-$100, but is less reliable)

So you'd be braking the law, operating outside the protections 2nd amendment in order to take down the plane?

Why not? I thought one of the major tenents of the 2nd amendment was the ability to defend yourself against your own government. Your government has B2s.Whoever told you that is wrong.

So you'd be braking the law, operating outside the protections 2nd amendment in order to take down the plane?

Well, if we're down to having to take down planes, probably the law isn't that important to us anymore.

After all, I'm quite sure taking down a B2 operated by the government in any method or fashion would be considered breaking the law.

Shoulder mounted launcher - wait until it's just after takeoff or on approach to landing.

Alternatively, you can sneak onto the base and plant a small bomb inside its main disc brakes out of sight, set to detonate when the landing gear is reextended for landing. (this option would cost you about $50-$100, but is less reliable)

Alternatively, you could sneak onto the base with a baseball bat and trash the instrument panels and stealth systems, but that wouldn't make it plausible.

Whoever told you that is wrong.

James Madison?
Patrick Henry?

I do apoligise, I been following 2 gun threads this evening. I would say that this constitutes a need.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14140988&postcount=75

I would say that is a need to make gun safety courses mandatory

Why not? I thought one of the major tenents of the 2nd amendment was the ability to defend yourself against your own government. Your government has B2s.

The B2 is not an antipersonnel weapon

Well, if we're down to having to take down planes, probably the law isn't that important to us anymore.

After all, I'm quite sure taking down a B2 operated by the government in any method or fashion would be considered breaking the law.

So what does the 2nd amendment matter in terms of defending yourself in respect of government tyranny?

James Madison?
Patrick Henry?In the Third and Sixth federal circuit courts interpretation, the Second Amendment is for the states' right to maintain a militia. The end.
"The end" refers to the legal definition of the Second Amendment.
Doesn't mean we can't keep discussing it. :p

In the Third and Sixth federal circuit courts interpretation, the Second Amendment is for the states' right to maintain a militia. The end.

No, not the end, they do not have the final say in interpretation of the Constitution.

The B2 is not an antipersonnel weapon

Really?

/rips of wiki/

*
o 80× 500 lb class bombs (Mk-82) mounted on Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA)
o 36× 750 lb CBU class bombs on BRA
o 16× 2000 lb class weapons (Mk-84, JDAM-84, JDAM-102) mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)
o 16× B61 or B83 nuclear weapons on RLA

Later avionics and equipment improvements allow B-2A to carry JSOW and GBU-28s as well. The Spirit is also designated as a delivery aircraft for the AGM-158 JASSM when the missile enters service.

I'd say all these munitions kill people pretty effectively.

In the Third and Sixth federal circuit courts interpretation, the Second Amendment is for the states' right to maintain a militia. The end.
"The end" refers to the legal definition of the Second Amendment.
Doesn't mean we can't keep discussing it. :p

What does SCOTUS say?

No, not the end, they do not have the final say in interpretation of the Constitution.They do so long as it does not come before the federal Supreme Court.

Really?

/rips of wiki/

*
o 80× 500 lb class bombs (Mk-82) mounted on Bomb Rack Assembly (BRA)
o 36× 750 lb CBU class bombs on BRA
o 16× 2000 lb class weapons (Mk-84, JDAM-84, JDAM-102) mounted on Rotary Launcher Assembly (RLA)
o 16× B61 or B83 nuclear weapons on RLA

Later avionics and equipment improvements allow B-2A to carry JSOW and GBU-28s as well. The Spirit is also designated as a delivery aircraft for the AGM-158 JASSM when the missile enters service.


I'd say all these munitions kill people pretty effectively.

An ICBM kills people too, doesn't make it an antipersonnel weapon



edit: Now if you had said an AH-64 Apache I would have taken your question seriously.

So what does the 2nd amendment matter in terms of defending yourself in respect of government tyranny?

We already have the means to defend ourselves in the ground. The B2 is not an effective antipersonnel weapon. I'd be more worried about the A10 or the Apache attack helicopter.

However, with guns, it would be us with guns and them with guns. Without us having guns, it's them with guns, and us with bats, crowbars, and knives.

In addition, if you wanted to have any sort of revolution, it's a simple fact that you would have to seize heavier equipment at some point. With proper guns and ammunition, it would be possible to seize heavier equipment provided you planned your attack carefully. However, lacking guns, this would be almost doomed to fail.

Don't ever bring a knife to a gun fight.

I'd say all these munitions kill people pretty effectively.

True, but also fairly inefficiently.

What does SCOTUS say?Nothing definitive.

What does SCOTUS say?
SCOTUS has not said anything about it yet.
No, not the end, they do not have the final say in interpretation of the Constitution.They do so long as it does not come before the federal Supreme Court.

Which means they do not have final say. Thank you.

Which means they do not have final say. Thank you.You have me. :)

An ICBM kills people too, doesn't make it an antipersonnel weapon



edit: Now if you had said an AH-64 Apache I would have taken your question seriously.

Apaches have been know to be downed by faily small arms. Iraqi insurgents took a couple down near Najaf if I remember rightly.

I wasn't going to give you that easy a win. ;)

Apaches have been know to be downed by faily small arms. Iraqi insurgents took a couple down near Najaf if I remember rightly.

I wasn't going to give you that easy a win. ;)

OK, here's my answer:

I would do my best to provoke the commanders into launching the B2 on a rainy day and let the weather do the work for me. (The B2 sheds panels when they get wet.)

A person should be able to own a gun when they demonstrate a conscious awareness of their power, through successfully passing a firearms safety course of some sort.

Beyond that there should be no limits to a person's right to bear arms.

If we went with that sort of program, a responsible fifteen year old would be permitted to own a firearm or two (as they should) however the world would still be protected from seventy year old nut jobs who wanna play cops and robbers for real.

Nothing definitive.

How do you mean? In Heller they affirmed the right of the individual to bear arms unconnected with a militia.

How do you mean? In Heller they affirmed the right of the individual to bear arms unconnected with a militia.Citation, please?
The reason I'm asking is because I've never heard of this.

OK, here's my answer:

I would do my best to provoke the commanders into launching the B2 on a rainy day and let the weather do the work for me. (The B2 sheds panels when they get wet.)

Seriously? $2 billion per plane and they fall apart when they get wet?

This isn't about the Constitution in general. Just the Second Amendment.
I believe.
Once you start taking down the amendments - the First is already on the way out, the Second in half the states - it's not long before the rest of the Constitution gets gradually scrapped.

Citation, please?
The reason I'm asking is because I've never heard of this.

LOL it was international news a few months ago,http://www.southcarolinacriminaldefenseblog.com/2008/06/heller_scotus_strikes_down_dc.html

Citation, please?
The reason I'm asking is because I've never heard of this.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-290#opinion1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Less reading in the wiki.

Seriously? $2 billion per plane and they fall apart when they get wet?
SRSLY.

Being expensive doesn't make a thing durable.

Ferrari FXX is expensive as hell (and lots faster than the Bugatti for that), but it's not 1/100th as durable as the cheap old Toyota Hilux.

Once you start taking down the amendments - the First is already on the way out, the Second in half the states - it's not long before the rest of the Constitution gets gradually scrapped.

Good?

A document is only useful as long as it is relevent. It should be changed from time to time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-290#opinion1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Less reading in the wiki.Thanks.
Now I'll go be properly ashamed of not keeping up with the news. :(

\ the First is already on the way out, the
Well the first has been assaulted many times in the history of the United States (alien and sedition acts of 1798, McCarthy and the Internal Security Act, Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, etc.) however it has always bounced back and been pulled out of the gutters, as I expect will be the case after the FISA PATRIOT crowd wises up. At least I hope, otherwise I will be exercising my right to break the Social Contract.

SRSLY.

Being expensive doesn't make a thing durable.

Ferrari FXX is expensive as hell (and lots faster than the Bugatti for that), but it's not 1/100th as durable as the cheap old Toyota Hilux.

Yeah but this is a plane. It's supposed to be able to fly through clouds and shit. I'd ask for your money back.

This is page 7, what's a topic?

In the good old days page 20 was the breaking point. Aaah... *Remembers*

:tongue:

Set the age to when people have enough maturity to not abuse them (sixty-two, I believe).

In the good old days page 20 was the breaking point. Aaah... *Remembers*

:tongue:

That was when we had 5 or 6 pages of active topics though.

These days I'm just glad I'm not talking to myself in here.

Set the age to when people have enough maturity to not abuse them (sixty-two, I believe).

I already discussed the maturity issue, and I would say I know some immature sixty two year olds.

Seriously? $2 billion per plane and they fall apart when they get wet?

Yup, it wouldn't be bad enough to actually take them down (in fact it "just" meesses up their stealthiness), but once again it isn't an antipersonnel weapon so I would not be concerned about them.

I already discussed the maturity issue, and I would say I know some immature sixty two year olds.

Then the new age is sixty-four.

Yeah but this is a plane. It's supposed to be able to fly through clouds and shit. I'd ask for your money back.

It can fly through clouds, it has to get very wet for the problem to surface.

Then the new age is sixty-four.

However if you will care to note, I cited nutty seventy year olds.

PWNED

However if you will care to note, I cited nutty seventy year olds.

PWNED

Okay, that's it! New age is a hundred and twenty!

(unless Jeanne Calment or Shigechiyo Izumi had some problems...)

Good?
A document is only useful as long as it is relevent. It should be changed from time to time.
It's the foundation of the US. And it's still relevant. Guns haven't changed much since then, neither did people. The Constitution is as relevant as it was back then.


Yeah but this is a plane. It's supposed to be able to fly through clouds and shit. I'd ask for your money back.
It's military equipment - no moneyback!

These machines were built to conduct just a single mission in their lifetime, deliver nuclear bombs to USSR, beyond the A-35 ABM system. It was known their airbases would be gone by the time they'd get back. They were never meant to be durable.

Okay, that's it! New age is a hundred and twenty!

(unless Jeanne Calment or Shigechiyo Izumi had some problems...)

Ah, screw it, the only person who can have a gun is Moses.

That was when we had 5 or 6 pages of active topics though.

These days I'm just glad I'm not talking to myself in here.

Damn us oldies eh? :p

Yup, it wouldn't be bad enough to actually take them down (in fact it "just" meesses up their stealthiness), but once again it isn't an antipersonnel weapon so I would not be concerned about them.

CBU bombs.

Cluster munitions or cluster bombs are air-dropped or ground-launched munitions that eject a number of smaller submunitions: a cluster of bomblets. The most common types are intended to kill enemy personnel and destroy vehicles.

CBU bombs.

Cluster munitions or cluster bombs are air-dropped or ground-launched munitions that eject a number of smaller submunitions: a cluster of bomblets. The most common types are intended to kill enemy personnel and destroy vehicles.

And not something which can be used against guerillas, so again, not concerned.

It's the foundation of the US. And it's still relevant. Guns haven't changed much since then, neither did people. The Constitution is as relevant as it was back then.



It's military equipment - no moneyback!

These machines were built to conduct just a single mission in their lifetime, deliver nuclear bombs to USSR, beyond the A-35 ABM system. It was known their airbases would be gone by the time they'd get back. They were never meant to be durable.

But the Constitution doesn't mention guns, it mentions arms and arms have changed considerably since the 2nd amendment was written.

And not something which can be used against guerillas, so again, not concerned.

Why?

But the Constitution doesn't mention guns, it mentions arms and arms have changed considerably since the 2nd amendment was written.
Not all that much, really. They're still held by people and used by people against objects, animals, and people.

However, the legislation was always keeping the gun progress from reaching the people's hands, leaving them with essentially what they had 200 years ago.
And there's no need or reason or sensible explanation for taking away even the last little fractions of power still left in the hands of the people.

Not all that much, really. They're still held by people and used by people against objects, animals, and people.

However, the legislation was always keeping the gun progress from reaching the people's hands, leaving them with essentially what they had 200 years ago.
And there's no need or reason or sensible explanation for taking away even the last little fractions of power still left in the hands of the people.

That last little fraction is nothing more than a comfort blanket though, it means nothing. As I said earlier tonight, 30,000+ people are killed with guns each year in the US and I think this is far more important than any false sense of security.

That last little fraction is nothing more than a comfort blanket though, it means nothing. As I said earlier tonight, 30,000+ people are killed with guns each year in the US and I think this is far more important than any false sense of security.
People being killed with knives is no better than being killed with guns. If anything, death from a knife is much more painful, and knives can't be tracked at all.

Furthermore, the sense of security is true - as statistics in another thread show, gun ownership by law-abiding citizens (as opposed by criminals only as in prohibitionists countries) greatly reduces the rate of violent crime, particularly assault (mugging). It allows a country so diverse, immigrant-full and unregulated as US to be safer and feel safer than much more stable, homogenous and oppressive countries with gun prohibition.

That last little fraction is nothing more than a comfort blanket though, it means nothing. As I said earlier tonight, 30,000+ people are killed with guns each year in the US and I think this is far more important than any false sense of security.

Of the deaths in 2005 by firearm:

789 were unintentional (accidents)
12,352 homicides
17,002 suicides
330 Legal firearm interventions
221 undetermined

Now, which of these groups do you think will actually be reduced by removal of firearms? Accidents probably - as the guns won't be available to screw up with.

We have no evidence that homicides will decrease as a result of lack of gun ownership. It's perfectly feasible that it will just switch to knives or beating instead. Repeat - there is no evidence of correlation between number of firearms and homicide rate overall.

Suicides - well, that's a sticky subject. Suicides might decrease - due to the fact that it will be more likely for people attempting suicide to fail and wind up injured instead of killed. There's also whether the person has the right to choose to end their own lives - but that's another discussion.

Legal firearm interventions - this refers to police killing a suspect, or a citizen acting in a legal way killing a perpetrator. Since we are not advocating removing guns from the police (yet), this number may not fluctuate much even with the removal of guns. Even if it does, it may simply correlate with a higher amount in the homicide column.

221 undetermined - well, that's anyone's guess. They were shot, but we don't know why.

That last little fraction is nothing more than a comfort blanket though, it means nothing. As I said earlier tonight, 30,000+ people are killed with guns each year in the US and I think this is far more important than any false sense of security.

A false sense of security? I open my paper this morning, and right on the front page a hiker scared off a mountain lion who was stalking and then approaching him with his gun.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/264313
Most studies show that guns are used between one and two million times per year to in legal self defense.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

So I'd say they offer a fairly real sense of security.

People being killed with knives is no better than being killed with guns. If anything, death from a knife is much more painful, and knives can't be tracked at all.

Furthermore, the sense of security is true - as statistics in another thread show, gun ownership by law-abiding citizens (as opposed by criminals only as in prohibitionists countries) greatly reduces the rate of violent crime, particularly assault (mugging). It allows a country so diverse, immigrant-full and unregulated as US to be safer and feel safer than much more stable, homogenous and oppressive countries with gun prohibition.

Like Japan?

Of the deaths in 2005 by firearm:

789 were unintentional (accidents)
12,352 homicides
17,002 suicides
330 Legal firearm interventions
221 undetermined

Now, which of these groups do you think will actually be reduced by removal of firearms? Accidents probably - as the guns won't be available to screw up with.

We have no evidence that homicides will decrease as a result of lack of gun ownership. It's perfectly feasible that it will just switch to knives or beating instead. Repeat - there is no evidence of correlation between number of firearms and homicide rate overall.

Suicides - well, that's a sticky subject. Suicides might decrease - due to the fact that it will be more likely for people attempting suicide to fail and wind up injured instead of killed. There's also whether the person has the right to choose to end their own lives - but that's another discussion.

Legal firearm interventions - this refers to police killing a suspect, or a citizen acting in a legal way killing a perpetrator. Since we are not advocating removing guns from the police (yet), this number may not fluctuate much even with the removal of guns. Even if it does, it may simply correlate with a higher amount in the homicide column.

221 undetermined - well, that's anyone's guess. They were shot, but we don't know why.

That you have 4 times as many undetermined as we (the UK) have confirmed homicides with firearms scares me.

A false sense of security? I open my paper this morning, and right on the front page a hiker scared off a mountain lion who was stalking and then approaching him with his gun.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/264313
Most studies show that guns are used between one and two million times per year to in legal self defense.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

So I'd say they offer a fairly real sense of security.

I was refering to the meagre protection that firearms offer from tyranny of the state.

Although, a hiker goes into a mountain lions habitat and gets a bit scared so they kill the lion? I say fuck the hiker and feel sorry for the lion.

I was refering to the meagre protection that firearms offer from tyranny of the state.

Although, a hiker goes into a mountain lions habitat and gets a bit scared so they kill the lion? I say fuck the hiker and feel sorry for the lion.

So when it comes down to Man vs Animal, you prefer the man to die?

So when it comes down to Man vs Animal, you prefer the man to die?

If the man has willingly gone onto the animals territory then I say he should take his chances. Please remember that the man has gone there for recreation, the animal is hunting to survive.

We have no evidence that homicides will decrease as a result of lack of gun ownership. It's perfectly feasible that it will just switch to knives or beating instead. Repeat - there is no evidence of correlation between number of firearms and homicide rate overall.
Oh really? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) I guess the rankings of the US vs... say the UK or Japan on this list of murders per capita are not proof at all...

Oh really? (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) I guess the rankings of the US vs... say the UK or Japan on this list of murders per capita are not proof at all...

And yet, Switzerland has the highest gun ownership of any nation (that I'm aware of) in the western world, and yet has one of the lowest murder rates.

Why is that exactly, if it's the guns?

And yet, Switzerland has the highest gun ownership of any nation (that I'm aware of) in the western world, and yet has one of the lowest murder rates.

Why is that exactly, if it's the guns?

Exception that proves the rule?

And yet, Switzerland has the highest gun ownership of any nation (that I'm aware of) in the western world, and yet has one of the lowest murder rates.

Why is that exactly, if it's the guns? Who the hell can explain Switzerland? Maybe it's the same thing that kept them out of two world wars that raged all around them. Maybe the Swiss have more sense than the rest of us.

But picking out a small annomolly such as the Swiss doesn't change the overall trend. Less guns = less murders, especially among the 'first world nations'.

Just pointing out the evidence you claimed didn't exist.

Exception that proves the rule?

or that it's not the guns, but the attitude the people towards their guns.

Guns should not be owned by people younger than 18 because they haven't lived long enough to make decisions for themselves. In the Middle East, children as young as 6 fire AK-47s and other weapons and look what's going on there. Does anybody really want more violence than there already is? Not me.

But picking out a small annomolly such as the Swiss doesn't change the overall trend.
But picking out the sole country on the planet that has no similar ones doesn't either.
And US is such a country, more unique than any other.


Oh really? I guess the rankings of the US [...]
US has one the highest gun per capita rates in the world, yet ranks only 24 - way below a lot of countries, 20 of which are gun-prohibition. And it's a lot below them, 15 times behind the "leader".

Guns should not be owned by people younger than 18 because they haven't lived long enough to make decisions for themselves. In the Middle East, children as young as 6 fire AK-47s and other weapons and look what's going on there. Does anybody really want more violence than there already is? Not me.

except the question isn't about ownership but use.

or that it's not the guns, but the attitude the people towards their guns.

True, but no guns seems to help though.

A false sense of security? I open my paper this morning, and right on the front page a hiker scared off a mountain lion who was stalking and then approaching him with his gun.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/264313
Most studies show that guns are used between one and two million times per year to in legal self defense.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

So I'd say they offer a fairly real sense of security.

Did you even read the sources you cited?

The mountain lion article indicates the mountain lion was stalking the hiker's dog (if it was stalking at all) AND this happened in the wild part of a National Forest.

Your own highly biased source about the defensive use of firearms makes clear the numbers are hotly disputed and not consistent from study to study.

You'll find the Kleck study in particular is more than a bit disputed. See, e.g., link (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=160787), link (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Search/Abstracts.aspx?id=204874&library=Publications_FullText_Lib&query=%26lt%3BRecordset%26gt%3B%26lt%3BLibrary%20name%3D%26quot%3BPublications_Lib%26quot%3B%26gt%3B %26lt%3BField%20name%3D%26quot%3BDOC_BODY%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3BQuery%26gt%3B%26lt%3B%21%5BCDATA% 5BKleck%5D%5D%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Query%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Field%26gt%3B%26lt%3BField%20name%3D%26quot%3Bis_full_text%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3BQuery%26gt%3B%26 lt%3B%21%5BCDATA%5BY%5D%5D%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Query%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Field%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Library%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Recordset%26gt%3B), link (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Search/Abstracts.aspx?id=160785&library=Publications_Lib&query=%26lt%3BRecordset%26gt%3B%26lt%3BLibrary%20name%3D%26quot%3BPublications_Lib%26quot%3B%26gt%3B %26lt%3BField%20name%3D%26quot%3BDOC_BODY%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3BQuery%26gt%3B%26lt%3B%21%5BCDATA% 5BKleck%5D%5D%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Query%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Field%26gt%3B%26lt%3BField%20name%3D%26quot%3Bis_full_text%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3BQuery%26gt%3B%26 lt%3B%21%5BCDATA%5BN%5D%5D%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Query%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Field%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Library%26gt%3B%26lt%3B/Recordset%26gt%3B)

EDIT: Before anyone freaks out, I'm for reasonable, responsible gun ownership. I just don't like bullshit from either side of the debate.

But the Constitution doesn't mention guns, it mentions arms and arms have changed considerably since the 2nd amendment was written.

Meh. The internet, the telephone, television -- none of these things existed when the First and Fourth Amendment were written. Do they not apply to these things?

Did you even read the sources you cited?

The mountain lion article indicates the mountain lion was stalking the hiker's dog (if it was stalking at all)
Yes, and the hiker was with his dog. It was stalking it, if you read the article. The Forest Service thought enough of it to find and kill the mountain lion.
AND this happened in the wild part of a National Forest.
So? This somehow means guns give less of a sense of security?

Your own highly biased source about the defensive use of firearms makes clear the numbers are hotly disputed and not consistent from study to study.

You'll find the Kleck study in particular is more than a bit disputed.

What about the 13 other studies?
EDIT: Just so I dont look stupid, I know they are inconsistent. But almost all of them put the number at at least one million. My point still stands.

True, but no guns seems to help though.so for Drunk Driving, what should we do. take away the Alcohol? tried that. perhaps we should take away the cars. :p

changing the attitude towards guns would be the harder thing to do, but it will last longer than simply removing it

You are all missing the point.. If an 8 year old.. shot himself with an uzzi that means that he had the means to get it some where.. we should have tighter constrictions on guns.. clean records.. if you have a misdeameanor then no.. felony HELL NO.. then the family itself shoudl be invistagated.. if you have any medical conditons or what not.. then no.. we cant keep giving guns to people who have been in jail or have kids who have mental problems or who are obviously psychotic or depressive.. its stupid for htis poll when people at 8, 10, 12 and 19 are getting guns when we have the the 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a hand gun law.. sometimes i think that people should just be able to have weapons if they are in law enforcement like they do in my home of puerto rico

Meh. The internet, the telephone, television -- none of these things existed when the First and Fourth Amendment were written. Do they not apply to these things?

In the 1st and 4th we look at the wording and judge them to include modern inventions and yet in the 2nd most people want to restrict the freedoms it offers to technology similar to that exsisting at the time. I think this is a tad hypocritical.

Yes, and the hiker was with his dog. It was stalking it, if you read the article. The Forest Service thought enough of it to find and kill the mountain lion.

So? This somehow means guns give less of a sense of security?

Only the lead sentence implies their was any stalking the Forest Service spokesman is quoted as saying: "It's possible that the lion saw the dog as prey."

The Forest Service press release (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/documents/Madera102608.pdf) said "possibly stalking."

Regardless my main point was this was in a wilderness area within a fucking National Forest. Where you might expect to encounter wild animals. It has diddly squat to do with whether guns generally provide security.


What about the 13 other studies?

What about them? They vary wildly in their results. They all have numerous flaws. AND, if you check your source, you are relying on Kleck's overview of these other studies, not on the studies themselves.

so for Drunk Driving, what should we do. take away the Alcohol? tried that. perhaps we should take away the cars. :p

changing the attitude towards guns would be the harder thing to do, but it will last longer than simply removing it

I think it was this thread where I said that I don't advocate an instant ban on guns for the US. I think a process over a century of so would do the trick, progressively tougher gun laws along side a campaign to change American mentality is the only way it would ever actually work.

I've been handling firearms since I was big enough to hold one (I was about 5 when I started shooting). There should be no age limit, merely a responsibility limit. Of course that would disqualify quite a few adult gun owners.

I think it was this thread where I said that I don't advocate an instant ban on guns for the US. I think a process over a century of so would do the trick, progressively tougher gun laws along side a campaign to change American mentality is the only way it would ever actually work.

the theory of getting rid of cars or Alcohol can be done gradually to.

Instead of phasing out the gun, howabout a progressive changing of the attitude towards the gun. Get the focus away from using the gun as an answer to the problem and downplay it's usefulness.

the theory of getting rid of cars or Alcohol can be done gradually to.

Instead of phasing out the gun, howabout a progressive changing of the attitude towards the gun. Get the focus away from using the gun as an answer to the problem and downplay it's usefulness.

That's kind of the point. If no one thinks guns are needed anymore then what would be the problem in removing them from society?

Only the lead sentence implies their was any stalking the Forest Service spokesman is quoted as saying: "It's possible that the lion saw the dog as prey."

The Forest Service press release (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/coronado/documents/Madera102608.pdf) said "possibly stalking."

Regardless my main point was this was in a wilderness area within a fucking National Forest. Where you might expect to encounter wild animals. It has diddly squat to do with whether guns generally provide security.



What about them? They vary wildly in their results. They all have numerous flaws. AND, if you check your source, you are relying on Kleck's overview of these other studies, not on the studies themselves.

Maybe you didn't read my post. Someone said that guns provide a false sense of security; I interpreted this on a personal level, and he has since informed me that he was talking about on a national/millita level.
far more important than any false sense of security.
A false sense of security? I open my


Regardless of whether or not he should have been there, the gun protected him. It's possible that it was stalking the dog; but when it attacked, it would have likely hurt him too. That's all another thread, as it is irrelevant to my point. My point still stands that the gun gave him a real SENSE of security, and I would say real security. But I never even attempted to go that far.

Find me any study in the world that doesn't show the numbers of those studies. My point was that firearms are used by citizens to legally protect themselves frequently, and because of that they provide a real sense of security.

I think you think I am trying to prove something very different than what I am trying to prove. That is a confusing sentence.

You can't enforce how people should use guns in the field.

Why not? Granted you can't observe every instance of guns being used, but you can enforce the law anytime you catch someone violating it and thereby deter other violations.

The 2nd amendment is worded two different ways.
One for the Federal government, and another for the state governments.
Which one do you want repealed?

Both.

No, in fact, there cannot. The weapons used by the National Guard are restricted to military personnel. These weapons would be illegal to use without the Second Amendment by militia personnel.
Any bill passed would have to be specifically for the right of National Guardsmen to use aforementioned military-class weapons.
Without the Second Amendment, there is no (Federal) provision to provide for a militia.

In the Third and Sixth federal circuit courts interpretation, the Second Amendment is for the states' right to maintain a militia. The end.
"The end" refers to the legal definition of the Second Amendment.
Doesn't mean we can't keep discussing it. :p

What does SCOTUS say?

Nothing definitive.

I'm glad somebody brought up District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html), 554 U.S. ___ (2008) before I was forced to slash my wrists.

I'm heading for a total ban here. Changing mindsets is the only way the 2nd amendment will be consigned to the bin of history. Reducing the number of weapons in circulation just helps with the ban when it comes in.

In the 1st and 4th we look at the wording and judge them to include modern inventions and yet in the 2nd most people want to restrict the freedoms it offers to technology similar to that exsisting at the time. I think this is a tad hypocritical.

Unless I am drastically misreading you, it is you that are making the hypocritical argument that the 2nd Amendment has been superceded by technology.

If you are referring to the idea that "bearing arms" doesn't mean that we all get to own tactical nukes, there are reasonable limitations on all of the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech isn't absolute, either.

Find me any study in the world that doesn't show the numbers of those studies. My point was that firearms are used by citizens to legally protect themselves frequently, and because of that they provide a real sense of security.

Um. Your own source cites the National Crime Victimization Survey, which varies by year, but in 1993 estimated 108,000 defensive gun uses. (Note that is the same year as the Kleck study). That is one-tenth of the number you are using.

Similiar (but lower) Department of Justice numbers (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr) for the 1987-1992 period:

During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.

Unless I am drastically misreading you, it is you that are making the hypocritical argument that the 2nd Amendment has been superceded by technology.

If you are referring to the idea that "bearing arms" doesn't mean that we all get to own tactical nukes, there are reasonable limitations on all of the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech isn't absolute, either.

My point is that the 2nd amendment seems to be the only one that is interpreted to not include new technology.

An example, the internet, the most effective way to reach millions of people around the world with an idea yet discovered, is invented and free speech is determined to exsist on it.

Nuclear weapons, the best way to ensure freedom from governmental tyranny yet discovered, is invented and the 2nd amendment is determined not to apply to them.

Through history it is ideas that have resulted in people being killed and yet it is the technology that is restricted. That seems hypocritical to me.

Um. Your own source cites the National Crime Victimization Survey, which varies by year, but in 1993 estimated 108,000 defensive gun uses. (Note that is the same year as the Kleck study). That is one-tenth of the number you are using.

Similiar (but lower) Department of Justice numbers (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr) for the 1987-1992 period:

During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.
EDIT: For the justice Department study [/edit]
Those are violent crimes, though. Home Invasion, while non violent, would still violate a sense of security.

As to the National Crime Victimization Survey,
"Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over"
It wasn't actually a study of defensive gun uses.

If you are referring to the idea that "bearing arms" doesn't mean that we all get to own tactical nukes, there are reasonable limitations on all of the Bill of Rights.

But the limits on the others are not immediately affected by modern technology in the way the limits on the Second Amendment are.

Any protection of the right to keep and bear arms involves something of a tension being conflicting ends: there is a danger to public security inherent in having individuals own weaponry, and while various concerns for individual rights may override that danger, they can only do so to a point.

With changes to technology, however, the nature of that danger to public security changes significantly--and a justified protection of individual rights in the eighteenth century may constitute a substantial overreach in light of the technological realities of the twenty-first.

Those are violent crimes, though. Home Invasion, while non violent, would still violate a sense of security.

He wasn't talking Home invasion, he was talking theft of property and use of deadly force to defend oneself from such is illegal in the US.

He wasn't talking Home invasion, he was talking theft of property and use of deadly force to defend oneself from such is illegal in the US.

I'm afraid I don't understand your post. Who is he?

Um. Your own source cites the National Crime Victimization Survey, which varies by year, but in 1993 estimated 108,000 defensive gun uses. (Note that is the same year as the Kleck study). That is one-tenth of the number you are using.

Similiar (but lower) Department of Justice numbers (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/hvfsdaft.pr) for the 1987-1992 period:

During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.

EDIT: For the justice Department study [/edit]
Those are violent crimes, though. Home Invasion, while non violent, would still violate a sense of security.

Um. Read the bolded part of what I quoted. :rolleyes:

As to the National Crime Victimization Survey,
"Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over"
It wasn't actually a study of defensive gun uses.

And Kleck is a biased asshole whose own studies have ridiculous flaws. The NCVS is a well designed study of crime in general in the U.S. conducted by the by the U.S. Census Bureau (under the U.S. Department of Commerce) on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (under the U.S. Department of Justice). It is one of the (if not the) best source of data regarding crime in the United States.

Um. Read the bolded part of what I quoted. :rolleyes:

True. I concede that one study shows significantly lower numbers; this does not prove anything. Why does the DOJ have a significantly higher number the very next year, for 1994?

representing 1.5 million defensive users.
According to these results, guns are used far more
often to defend against crime than to perpetrate
crime.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt


And Kleck is a biased asshole whose own studies have ridiculous flaws. The NCVS is a well designed study of crime in general in the U.S. conducted by the by the U.S. Census Bureau (under the U.S. Department of Commerce) on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (under the U.S. Department of Justice). It is one of the (if not the) best source of data regarding crime in the United States.

Fact still stands it wasn't designed to measure the amount of times citizens defend themselves with guns.

My point is that the 2nd amendment seems to be the only one that is interpreted to not include new technology.

An example, the internet, the most effective way to reach millions of people around the world with an idea yet discovered, is invented and free speech is determined to exsist on it.

Nuclear weapons, the best way to ensure freedom from governmental tyranny yet discovered, is invented and the 2nd amendment is determined not to apply to them.

Through history it is ideas that have resulted in people being killed and yet it is the technology that is restricted. That seems hypocritical to me.

Um. Few argue that the 2nd Amendment is limited to muskets. Instead, it protects a right to modern firearms. But that is different from saying it protects a right to any weapon for any purpose. From Heller:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

....

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons [United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939),] permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I'm afraid I don't understand your post. Who is he?I was refering to DOJ statistics for defense of "theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft" that cat-tribe quoted in post #199, and you misrepresented as "home Invasion" in post #201.

So I guess 'he' could either be Cat-Tribe or the Department of Justice, however you wanna interpret things...;)

True. I concede that one study shows significantly lower numbers; this does not prove anything. Why does the DOJ have a significantly higher number the very next year, for 1994?



http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt


First, you challenged me to provide one study. I provided studies from 1993 and from 1987-1992.

As for the DOJ study you cite, you skipped this part:

Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.

And:

Some troubling comparisons. If the DGU numbers are in the right ballpark, millions of attempted assaults, thefts, and break-ins were foiled by armed citizens during the 12-month period. According to these results, guns are used far more often to defend against crime than to perpetrate crime. (Firearms were used by perpetrators in 1.07 million incidents of violent crime in 1994, according to NCVS data.)

Thus, it is of considerable interest and importance to check the reasonableness of the NSPOF estimates before embracing them. Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use, our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high.

For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that
the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed!

NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.[14]

The evidence of bias in the DGU estimates is even stronger when one recalls that the DGU estimates are calculated using only the most recently reported DGU incidents of NSPOF respondents; as noted, about half of the respondents who reported a DGU indicated two or more in the preceding year. Although there are no details on the circumstances of those additional DGUs, presumably they are similar to the most recent case and provide evidence for additional millions of violent crimes foiled and perpetrators shot.

False positives. Regardless of which estimates one believes, only a small fraction of adults have used guns defensively in 1994. The only question is whether that fraction is 1 in 1,800 (as one would conclude from the NCVS) or 1 in 100 (as indicated by the NSPOF estimate based on Kleck and Gertz's criteria).

Any estimate of the incidence of a rare event based on screening the general population is likely to have a positive bias. The reason can best be explained by use of an epidemiological framework.[15] Screening tests are always subject to error, whether the "test" is a medical
examination for cancer or an interview question for DGUs. The errors are either "false negatives" or "false positives." If the latter tend to outnumber the former, the population prevalence will be exaggerated.

The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias--regardless of whether the one true positive tells the truth.

Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question for any of a number of reasons:

o They may want to impress the interviewer by their heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.

o They may be genuinely confused due to substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories.

o They may actually have used a gun defensively within the last couple of years but falsely report it as occurring in the previous year--a phenomenon known as "telescoping."

Of course, it is easy to imagine the reasons why that rare respondent who actually did use a gun defensively within the time frame may have decided not to report it to the interviewer. But again, the arithmetic dictates that the false positives will likely predominate.

In line with the theory that many DGU reports are exaggerated or falsified, we note that in some of these reports, the respondents' answers to the followup items are not consistent with respondents' reported DGUs. For example, of the 19 NSPOF respondents meeting the more restrictive Kleck and Gertz DGU criteria (exhibit 7), 6 indicated that the circumstance of the DGU was rape, robbery, or attack--but then responded "no" to a subsequent question: "Did the perpetrator threaten, attack, or injure you?"

The key explanation for the difference between the 108,000 NCVS estimate for the annual number of DGUs and the several million from the surveys discussed earlier is that NCVS avoids the false-positive problem by limiting DGU questions to persons who first reported that they were crime victims. Most NCVS respondents never have a chance to answer the DGU question, falsely or otherwise.

Um. Few argue that the 2nd Amendment is limited to muskets. Instead, it protects a right to modern firearms. But that is different from saying it protects a right to any weapon for any purpose. From Heller:

*snip*

You'll have to excuse the snip, it was too long to quote.

The opinions you've quoted seem to support the idea that, prima facie, any weapons bearable are covered by the 2nd amendment.

I'd love to see that tested by someone with a Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)).

First, you challenged me to provide one study. I provided studies from 1993 and from 1987-1992.

That was a hyperbole on my part. I noticed you have long since stopped trying to disprove my point, instead focusing on an exaggeration of mine in an attempt to save face instead of just admitting you misread my first post.

As for the DOJ study you cite, you skipped this part:

Evidence suggests that this survey and others
like it overestimate the frequency with which
firearms were used by private citizens to defend
against criminal attack.
SNIP


No, I didn't. The number from the study was actually 3.1 million.

A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is
shown in the column of exhibit 7 that reflects the
application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz
to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses.
Respondents were excluded on the basis of the most
recent DGU description for any of the following
reasons: the respondent did not see a perpetrator;
the respondent could not state a specific crime
that was involved in the incident; or the
respondent did not actually display the gun or
mention it to the perpetrator.

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF
respondents (0.8 percent of the sample),
representing 1.5 million defensive users. This
estimate is directly comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last
column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is
smaller, it is statistically plausible that the


And from earlier in the study
(National Survey of Private Ownership of
Firearms--NSPOF) indicate that just 35 percent
(plus or minus 1.3 percent) of households own guns.
This estimate may be somewhat off the mark but not
by much. Conventional wisdom appears out of date.

You'll have to excuse the snip, it was too long to quote.

The opinions you've quoted seem to support the idea that, prima facie, any weapons bearable are covered by the 2nd amendment.

I'd love to see that tested by someone with a Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)).

First of all, it is a single opinion: the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller.

Second, you clearly didn't read it very carefully as it explains at length why the Second Amendment doesn't extend to all weapons.

You'll have to excuse the snip, it was too long to quote.

The opinions you've quoted seem to support the idea that, prima facie, any weapons bearable are covered by the 2nd amendment.

I'd love to see that tested by someone with a Davy Crockett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)).You didn't read well enough, weapons produced or designed for warfare are not protected.

You need a gun too if Bush was your president. He might claim your state/city,while not realizing it is in the US, has WMDs and send the army.

First of all, it is a single opinion: the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller.

Second, you clearly didn't read it very carefully as it explains at length why the Second Amendment doesn't extend to all weapons.

You right, I mis-read. For that read, read the first thing that interested me, got bored and posted.

The line:

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

is also interesting however, it seems to support my arguement that modern advancement in weapons have scared the courts into limiting what arms are legal and even useful as part of an armed militia.

That was a hyperbole on my part. I noticed you have long since stopped trying to disprove my point, instead focusing on an exaggeration of mine in an attempt to save face instead of just admitting you misread my first post.

No, I didn't. The number from the study was actually 3.1 million.

And from earlier in the study

Give me a fuckin' break. I was never trying to "disprove" your overall point that guns can provide security. Of course they can. They can also pose a danger.

My dispute was with your misuse of one anecdote and a biased account of inaccurate and disputed studies.

You ignore the whole section of the study that explains why not just it, but other studies like it, are unreliable regarding DGUs. The study concludes (in relevant part):

The NSPOF does not provide much evidence on whether consumers who buy guns for protection against crime get their money's worth. The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of DGUs each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly--or perhaps both--but the DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.


The study also discusses why, regardless of the estimates, DGUs aren't useful statistics:

Unclear benefits and costs from gun uses. Even if one were clever enough to design a questionnaire that would weed out error, a problem in interpreting the result would remain. Should the number of DGUs serve as a measure of the public benefit of private gun possession, even in principle? When it comes to DGUs, is more better? That is doubtful, for two kinds of reasons:

o First, people who draw their guns to defend themselves against perceived threats are not necessarily innocent victims; they may have started fights themselves or they may simply be mistaken about whether the other persons really intended to harm them. Survey interviewers must take the respondent's word for what happened and why; a competent police investigation of the same incident would interview all parties before reaching a
conclusion.

o Second and more generally, the number of DGUs tells us little about the most important effects on crime of widespread gun ownership. When a high
percentage of homes, vehicles, and even purses contain guns, that presumably has an important effect on the behavior of predatory criminals. Some may be deterred or diverted to other types of crime. Others may change tactics, acquiring a gun themselves or in some other way seeking to preempt gun use by the intended victim.[16] Such consequences presumably have an important effect on criminal victimization rates but are in no way
reflected in the DGU count.

Thanks for bringing to light this study, as it clearly undermines your point about DGU statistics. :wink:

You didn't read well enough, weapons produced or designed for warfare are not protected.

That's not what it says, either.

"Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.... We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."

That is to say, they limit the scope of "ordinary military equipment", but they certainly do not exclude all such equipment. Recall that they read the Second Amendment to be concerned with militias, even as they interpret it to signify an individual rather than a collective right.

it seems to support my arguement that modern advancement in weapons have scared the courts into limiting what arms are legal and even useful as part of an armed militia.

How does it do so?

The court argued in Heller--as best I can tell from TCT's quoted portions--that the right protected by the Second Amendment only applies "those weapons... typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes", to weapons "in common use at the time."

The divergence comes not from recent court limitations of Second Amendment rights, but from technological developments that make such kinds of weaponry essentially useless against modern militaries.

is also interesting however, it seems to support my arguement that modern advancement in weapons have scared the courts into limiting what arms are legal and even useful as part of an armed militia.

Now you raise an interesting point related to a significant logical flaw in the majority opinion.

It claims the 2nd Amendment is limited to "commonly used" and "lawful" weapons as opposed to "dangerous and unusual" weapons. But saying that only "lawful" weapons are lawful is circular. And what is "commonly used" is also heavily influenced (if not determined) by what is lawful. To take the example used by the majority, machine-guns are "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" precisely because they are illegal.

I certainly agree with the majority that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right, but the logical shenanigans that Scalia engages in to justify popular limits on the 2nd Amendment are far from persuasive.

How does it do so?

The court argued in Heller--as best I can tell from TCT's quoted portions--that the right protected by the Second Amendment only applies "those weapons... typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes", to weapons "in common use at the time."

The divergence comes not from recent court limitations of Second Amendment rights, but from technological developments that make such kinds of weaponry essentially useless against modern militaries.

The divergence hasn't come from recent limitations as far as I can see, but from historical rulings:

From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

It seems to me that as soon as the government wasn't happy with military parity between the army and the weapons held by the populous the restrictions began.

Give me a fuckin' break. I was never trying to "disprove" your overall point that guns can provide security. Of course they can. They can also pose a danger.


Then we agree. I really don't care about the specifics of the studies; they all point to a large number of people using guns in self defense. Even at 100,000 uses, that still is about one every five minutes.

No limit as long as the person has shown that they know how to use it, clean it and the proper safe storage of it.

No limit as long as the person has shown that they know how to use it, clean it and the proper safe storage of it.

What about "use it responsibly"?

I think it was this thread where I said that I don't advocate an instant ban on guns for the US. I think a process over a century of so would do the trick, progressively tougher gun laws along side a campaign to change American mentality is the only way it would ever actually work.

I have to agree with you there; I just don't agree that it is something which should be done.

I'm glad somebody brought up District of Columbia v. Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html), 554 U.S. ___ (2008) before I was forced to slash my wrists.
I forgot about that :(

If you are referring to the idea that "bearing arms" doesn't mean that we all get to own tactical nukes, there are reasonable limitations on all of the Bill of Rights. The right to free speech isn't absolute, either.

:D

What about "use it responsibly"?

Nah, silly leftist propaganda.

i don't really see age limits as accomplishing anything more possitive then banning anything. as long as people have to make their own, and learn how to make their own to do that, in order to have one, i think that pretty much takes care of the age question too, as i don't think anyone comes out of the womb knowing already how to make them.

i don't really see age limits as accomplishing anything more possitive then banning anything.
Do you think driver's license, age of consent or age limit for alcohol consumption accomplish something positive?

If you do, why wouldn't a similar system with guns - eg. shooting license with compulsory handling & written test - accomplish something positive?

Do you think driver's license, age of consent or age limit for alcohol consumption accomplish something positive?

nope. but having to build your own car, or still, might.

nope. but having to build your own car, or still, might.
It would just mean similar trading conditions like now, except without any safety codes that need to be followed from seatbelts and hygiene to age limits.

It would just mean similar trading conditions like now, except without any safety codes that need to be followed from seatbelts and hygiene to age limits.

yup. i didn't say you had to be allowed to build more then three though, or even more then one.

just that possession isn't the most sensible end to attempt to tackle this from.
not as long as nothing is done about sources of mass quantity supply.

I'd say that 8 years old is young enough and then only with adult supervision because when handled improperly a gun can be dangerous. It's probably best to cover the basics with a bolt action rifle before moving onto more complex weapons and hunting.

I'd say that 8 years old is young enough and then only with adult supervision because when handled improperly a gun can be dangerous. It's probably best to cover the basics with a bolt action rifle before moving onto more complex weapons and hunting.
8 year old regardless of weapon?

Or should it be a sliding scale, from air weapons onward?

8 year old regardless of weapon?

Or should it be a sliding scale, from air weapons onward?
I learned to shoot at 8 with my dad's .22.

my dad gave me a .22 when i was 12. the most useless object i've ever owned, besides a jock strap and a pair of fuzzy jym socks (the latter two items weren't his idea either, the damd principal threatened to throw him in jail if he didn't. neither of us ever believed america to be a free country since then. or at least i know i didn't). don't remember whatever became of any of those things either. i just remember flunking p.e. all four years of highschool.

i just remember flunking p.e. all four years of highschool.
Fatass.

Older than 118. After that, you can load up with Armalites boys!

what stupid parent allowed such a young child to hold a hand gun. On the bright side however the child will not be able to take after the parents

Fuelled by this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570417) where an 8 year old shot himself with an UZI out of control.

What is your take on the age limit?

Personally, I'd go with 14-16. People younger than that can have hard time acting responsibly, handling a weapon with the responsibility it requires and understanding the consequence of pulling the trigger.

edit:
A clarification

The point of the poll is not to question people about gun ownership but the actual age limit of pulling the trigger, similarly as there might be a legal drinking age, age of consent, age limit to see a movie or, indeed, age limit to driving a car - Consider this Firing a Gun Age poll.

If I'd be arsed to I'd dig an article up in the google about the ferocity of underage soldiers to back up my view about how a kid can't understand the possible consequences of firing a gun at someone else, accidentally or intentionally.

edit 2:
A further clarification

If you think age limit for buying a gun is enough and would like to leave the responsibility for its further use to the buyer, like letting a child fire the gun, vote for the Laissez Faire option.

Of course there should you silly person. Next question?

I would take exactly as many votes as would be required to repeal to 2nd amendment. You could probably do it at the same time.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment quite a few votes. To amend the constitution requires the amendment be proposed, either by 2/3 majorities in both the US House and Senate or by 2/3 of state legislatures calling for a convention. After that it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states either through their legislatures or through special conventions.

Why wouldn't State authority be sufficient to own such weapons? National Guard units are commanded exclusively by their State Governors or were until recent laws passed post 9/11 giving The President the power to remove this authority from Governors under national emergency events.

There was a lot of last minute dealing with that law (the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008) but as it stands now the President can take a state's National Guard troops against the will of the state during a Congressionally sanctioned emergency or in times of war. While I disagree with that provision it's to prevent things like when Minnesota refused to send their troops to Desert Storm. However, when on duty withing their own state the Governors remain the commanders in chief of their respective National Guards. Thus when I return home from Iraq I'll return to normal state duty, by which I mean Jennifer Granholm will be my commander in chief and I'll fall under the Michigan Code of Military Justice (obviously, state military law) rather than the Uniform Code of Military Justice (federal military law) and the President will have no authority over me until Congress or my state gives him such.

There should be no limit on the age of firing a weapon. A weapon is a tool...therefore if were to make it 18 years of age to fire a weapon, we should also put age bans on hammers, screwdrivers, and rulers, to be equal and fair to the tool industry, and to the kids of coarse. We already have enough gun bans as it is. I can't even hunt a deer with a rifle in my damn county, you need to use a shotgun. As many other things are, it is up to the parents on when they see fit that their child is ready, or if that child will never hold a weapon their entire childhood.

There should be no limit on the age of firing a weapon. A weapon is a tool...therefore if were to make it 18 years of age to fire a weapon, we should also put age bans on hammers, screwdrivers, and rulers, to be equal and fair to the tool industry, and to the kids of coarse. We already have enough gun bans as it is. I can't even hunt a deer with a rifle in my damn county, you need to use a shotgun. As many other things are, it is up to the parents on when they see fit that their child is ready, or if that child will never hold a weapon their entire childhood.

So you see nowt wrong in letting 8 year olds drive cars, lorries, trains etc..? I mean they are also tools yeah.

Of course there should you silly person. Next question?
What would that limit be?

So you see nowt wrong in letting 8 year olds drive cars, lorries, trains etc..? I mean they are also tools yeah.

No... those are vehicles and allowing eight year olds to drive trains would be up to the companies that own the rails.

Seriously, history and statistics have proved that efforts of increased gun control increase violence and move the gun industry further towards criminal markets. We should try to enforce whatever regulations we have already (possibly think about reducing them as well). One notable failure of gun control could be seen in Washington D.C.

That's kind of the point. If no one thinks guns are needed anymore then what would be the problem in removing them from society?

downplaying it's usefulness and removing the "guns are the answer" reasoning is not saying guns are not needed and thus can be removed.

What would that limit be?

Well I don't rightly know, but a sensible idea would to be to treat it like drinking, and driving, and going to war. Not until you are adult.

No... those are vehicles and allowing eight year olds to drive trains would be up to the companies that own the rails.

Seriously, history and statistics have proved that efforts of increased gun control increase violence and move the gun industry further towards criminal markets. We should try to enforce whatever regulations we have already (possibly think about reducing them as well). One notable failure of gun control could be seen in Washington D.C.

So a vehicle is not a tool, but a gun is?

So you see nowt wrong in letting 8 year olds drive cars, lorries, trains etc..? I mean they are also tools yeah.

on private property then it is fine. the license is for use of the public roads.
Gun Ranges are private property and with parental supervision it seems perfectly fine.

Aye, "never, unless you're in a police firearms squad or the military".

This is an irrelevant law. Even if kids are not allowed to own guns, parents can still "technically" own them and then give them to their kids. I don't think there is an age limit for shooting a gun and I don't think there should be.

And by the way, my brother's 7 year old daughter is a great shot with a .38