: Indeed, I think this clause needs seriously updating, it presupposes the absence of a standing Army, and can't account for modern weapons. But as it stands, you ae saying you have teh right to nuclear weapons.To update it would require a standard such as "no individual has the right to initiate force against another individual, and this includes the threat of force, even if it is only implicit." A nuclear bomb in your house is an implicit threat and an invalid form of self defence - you'd kill yourself in the process of killing the burglar!, if it goes off it kills the city. A gun isnt - only when you actually aim and fire at innocents. I can imagine much debate over what weapons fall where - and I would add that just because its difficult to decide it is no reason to abandon the right to self defence and replace it with the helplessness of the victim.
: Not sure about that- a collective could hold the right denied to individuals quite easilly, or rather some individual rights will requir the consent of the collective- say putting up a Lead plant with fumes, etc.
Placed the other way round as per your second part of the sentence, this does not confer rights upon the collective that are anot also individual/s.
: I think you have to pay for them, and own them, but you have to own and maintain one specific type- such a model could mean teh US doing the same, but people could only buy the right gun for their town militia.
I dont like the sound of that principle - why not do likewise with toothbrushes so as to protect the national dental integrity?
: But you are saying above there, that the reason why people should be allowed to keep them,
No, as ive said for a militia to be possible the already existent RKBA would need to be protected, but the protection is a given, not one that only exists for the purpose of militias. In order for a duck shoot to be possible guns would be required - the amendment merely relates the importance of not infringing upon arms because if so infinged then the militia would not be possible - it looks at a consequence of the loss of RKBA not the reason for its existence. This isnt monkeying around it is the reason for the amendement. Militias are made possible by RKBA, RKBA is not dependant upon militias.
: No, because even according to that Early meaning, and *your* interpretation, it still only exists as a right to bear arms so the state can have militias, without those militias the arms become redunant.
Read above, the right to bear arms is not for the sole purpose of militias its what happens to enable such to exist.
: No, because I think violence would fall down fairly shortly, and I think Guns are lousy for self defence. I thank fuck the British Police force remains largely unarmed still- as things get worse that'll change, but...
Things will get worse because criminals do not obey the law, gun bans are meaningless to them. What do you consider to be better self defence than a gun?
: Which presumes they have got to their gun, what percentage of women are *able* to resist with a gun, and are in a position to do so? Thats the point I was making, most of the time the gun won't be there for you.
Most poeple who carry their gun have it in less than a seconds reach. Why would a woman buy a gun for self defence and then hide it so she cant get to it? Moreover, even if the percentage able to get to their gun was a low as anti self defence proponents would desperately love it to be then it does nothing to form an argument against guns - more an argument for better skills and concealed carry.
: Assuming teh attacker is a thug- most rapes are committed by a known person, most murders are committed by a known person, most burglaries do not involve a victim, most street attacks and muggings are infrequent, and probably a gun wouldn't help with a knife already at your throat.
First lets look at some FBI data; With the broad definition of "acquaintances" used in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, most victims are indeed classified as knowing their killer. But what's not made clear is that acquaintance murder primarily includes drug buyers killing pushers, cabdrivers killed by first-time customers, gang members killing other gang members, prostitutes killed by their clients, and so on. Only one U.S. city, Chicago, reports a precise breakdown on the nature of acquaintance killings, and the statistic gives a very different impression: between 1990 and 1995, just 17% of murder victims were either family members, friends, neighbors or roommates of their killers.
and secondly even when in some cases the chances of getting to your gun are low then that is simply *not* an argument to disarm people. Why make a bad situation worse by adding thugs to the list of untouchables?
and thirdly it is *not* whether you can or cant get to your gun on the occasion it happens - its the criminals perception of his chance of getting shot that matters - and if he knows poeple have guns then whatever his technique the chances of him getting shot are infinitely higher than if all victims are disarmed (5% being alot more than 0%) - even a very small chance is offputting. This potential threat is the silent deterrant.
: I suspect the rampant and increasing poverty would show more of a reason, the link twixt the two is well documented.
As are the dates of gun laws - how convenient.
: No it wouldn't you can still bear arms- just not fire-arms- a sword is an armament.
Guns are arms, swords are arms - both can kill - whats the difference, how can you explain that one in terms of principles?
: Yes, I probably could, but I don't think I stand more chance of being attacked due to my lack of a gun- I prefer to think that bby improving social conditions I can cut violent crime, making guns utterly unecessary.
Youd increase your chances against the assailant, moreover if you, your friends and half the people of your city owned guns then it would become a huge deterrent to a criminal. Much too risky for him.
: Actually one yank I know does say the accident figures for guns are horriifically high. Strangely its very low ovcer here where all handguns are banned even for sporting purposes. (Shotguns are still allowed IIRC).
This is similar to the myth that your guns is more likely to kill you than someone elses. The 1993 study yielding such numbers, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, never actually inquired as to whose gun was used in the killing. Instead, if a household owned a gun and if a person in that household or someone he knew was shot to death while in the home, the gun in the household was blamed. In fact, virtually all the killings in the study were committed with guns brought in by an intruder. No more than 4% of the gun deaths in the study can be attributed to the homeowner's gun.
There is also the question of banning anything dangerous. More young children die each year (in the US) by drowning in a bucket (!) than by accidental gunshot wounds. Garden swimming pools are even worse - lets ban them.
: Erm, yes, of course, but by the same token it doesn't mean that people have the right ot own armanments, reducing the number of homocidally designed items in society, and making their access more difficult will seriously effect opportunity crime, and professionals, well, you wouldn't stop them anyway.
Common fallacies have led you to deny the right to self defence. Reducing the number of guns in a country only reduces the number in lawful hands. its too late to undo the knowledge and the millions made. Moreover 'gun density' is not linked to crime rates. There is no international evidence backing this up. The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans, yet in 1995 Switzerland had a murder rate 40% lower than Germany's (where guns are banned), and New Zealand had one lower than Australia's (where controls are stricter). Finland and Sweden have very different gun ownership rates, but very similar murder rates. Israel, with a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., has a murder rate 40% below Canada's (which has very tight controls). When one studies all countries rather than just a select few, there is no relationship between gun ownership and murder An opportunist thief is different from a habitual robber who would find it 'man in a pub' easy to get a gun - these are not 'professionals'. And at no point does any of it deny the right to self defence, which to mean anything at all has to imply that you can use a tool of defence.
