High court strikes down gun ban

When I went to high school, the boys would all bring their shotguns or rifles to school on opening day of pheasant season, in order to be able to hunt on the way home. The weapons were put in the cloakroom, the cartridges on a shelf there. No one ever made any objections, nor were there ever any accidents.

All our lives - my wife Rita is 63, I 72 - we have lived in houses where several firearms were kept, and all our adult lives (since puberty, i.e.,) we have owned and carried a weapon. We have never had an accident; neither has anyone - except criminals who might otherwise have victimized us - ever avoided our company on account of our weapons (or anything else, for that matter).

Statistics make it thunderously clear that where people are taught as children to deal with any of the implements of society, however dangerous or potentially injurious, there is a low incidence of mishap. More, statistics - especially here in "wild, wild Texas," make it equally clear that where law-abiding and trained citizens legally carry handguns, the rate of violent crime abates precicipitously. That is true everywhere concealed or other carrying of handguns has been legalized.

I might add that I have personally stopped attempts on my life with a handgun, and several times. I have also prevented the death of another person several times - in one instance, a police officer.

The real question therefor remains: what is it that anti-self defense advocates desire? Logically, the answer is obvious. The wonder here is that the Supreme Court decision was 5-4: what on earth where the dissenters thinking of?!

Securely locked doors and windows offer much, much more protection than trying to get someone AFTER they're already in your house. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Secure windows, secure doors, an alarm system -- all of these things prevent criminals from entering your house and keep you much safer than trying to deal with them after they break in.

People seem more concerned with investing hundreds of dollars in buying firearms for home defense then in spending an equal amount in something far less sexy -- window and door locks.

And I have strong doubts about the effectiveness of handguns in "intimidating criminals" or "making them think twice."

My antecdotal evidence from family members tells me that, no, it has absolutely no impact on their decision to try to rob you or not.

I have an uncle who used to be a police officer and he told me that the most heavily armed people he ever saw, drug dealers, all died of gunshot wounds.

Why?

Didn't the fact they they were carrying guns deter other violent criminals? Nope. Didn't they pull their guns out and "scare off" the other violent drug dealers? Nope.

Unlike the "Death Wish" movies what usually happens is that the victims are approached from behind and have a gun pointed at the victims head long before they can react. Once you have a gun pointed at your head from behind (or two guns, they usually work in teams. Safer that way, dontcha know?) it's all over. There is no way you can reach for yours without getting shot before you can even get your hand inside your jacket.

What about car jackers?

Same problem. You can have two guns in the glove compartment and one in the shoulder holster, but the bad guys are pointing a gun at you from both sides of the car before you can react. They're sneaky that way. They don't give a lot of advance warning and give you enough time to pull out a gun. Criminals! No sense of honor or fair play.

I'm kind of agnostic about handguns. If you want to carry one around, go ahead. Fine with me. But I think it's more of a psychological sense of security rather than actual security.

There's a bunch of heavily armed (and dead) drug dealers who seem to support that theory.

The main reason guns were written into the constitution was in case the government became corrupt or was taken over...

BOTH have happened, but the governments power grew too great when lazy americans let it go unchecked.

Now having a gun is no point at all.

Now it's just for crazy hicks that *think* it gives them some power and or are scared of people...

I say BAN THEM, and ALL WEAPONS.

Any uprising or revolt (if need be) will have to come from a nonviolent angle anyway, that's the most effective way, through peace and steadfast resistance. Martin Luther King Jr is a perfect example of this, see what guns did in that case? What if they didn't exist? What if?

Can we think that far into possibility?

Guns don't kill people, stupid people allowed to have guns kill people...

Personally I'm not so much interested in the legality of handguns so much as the psychology of the handgun owners.

The arguement always seems to be that criminals will be too scared to rob you if they think you might have a gun.

The Crips and Bloods KNOW the people they are about to shoot at have guns on them. Lot's of guns. Sometimes freaking machines guns! And they KNOW they aren't afraid to use them if they do shoot. And yet they do it anyway.

Doesn't seem to give them any pause at all.

Now if these criminals aren't afraid (at all!) to attack other violent heavily armed criminals -- they why would they be afraid to rob a 45 year old white man in suburbia?

----

And wouldn't using a stun gun actually be more effective then using a shotgun?

The logic of that being that you will definitely hesitate if you know the weapon you're using will kill someone. None of us are so stone cold that we can blast away without any second guessing.

But a stun gun?

We can pull the trigger on a stun gun without hesitation (always an advantage in a fight) because we know it won't kill the person we're shooting.

So an argument could be made that handguns are less safe because it make people more cautious and hesitant whereas a stungun doesn't.

If someone does break into your home and is only armed with a knife (a rarity in itself) and you have them dead-to-rights with your shotgun and they keep advancing toward you -- can you shoot them?

With a nonlethal self-defense wapon the answer is always yes. With a shotgun or handgun -- there will always be that hesitation in most people. So we go from a 100 percent "yes" with a nonlethal weapon to less than 100 percent with a lethal firearm.

For those who think legal ownership of handguns does nothing to deter crime, and that it is just for crazy inbred hicks you need to read the studies done in states that allow carry concealed. Like Florida and recently Kansas. Crime drops through the floor. It's a fact. Criminals are far less likely to take the chance of getting shot to death over 35 dollars from a gas station or over someone's 42" plasma in their home. Full disclosure: We wear sidearms in tactical holsters at work. Retail Liquor. We have not been robbed once. The gas station 200 yards down from us gets robbed constantly. We claim to be the safest liquor store in town. And most of our customers like knowing they are safe. The research will tell you gun's on law abiding citizens does reduce crime.

I can't seem to devise a way to answer anyone here directly, so I'll resort to this: Folks, as a former professional, "known-threat" bodyguard who still trains private security people, I respect all of the things you say about keeping dogs, had there been a gun in the house the burglars would have used it on you, and the rest of the very valid points made here.

But I have to tell you (I have a civic responsibility and a gentleman's honor to do that) that there is no substitute for a handgun carried on your person where personal security is concerned.

More, each and every one of the argument like these I've heard over many years are not only an evasion of the truth, they are an excuse for failing to do one's part in controlling crime and violence.

When a crime of violence happens, anywhere, it's because we have not done enough to prevent it. "No man is an island unto himself .... each man's death diminishes me . . ."

For one able-bodied and capable of better to delegate to the police and government his responsibility where control of violence is simply irresponsible - like dodging the draft or otherwise failing to do one's duty in time of war.

There's no way out of that.

SCOUS’s decision was in part based on the phrase “the right of the people” in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments, primarily used to protect an individual’s rights.

1st Amendment = “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Individual’s right to peaceably assemble and redress grievances.

2nd Amendment = “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Individual’s right to arm oneself.

4th Amendment = “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,…”. Individual’s right to no searches without a warrant.

All these clearly show how the framers of the Constitution wanted to convey that an individual’s right should be protected in the Bill of Rights.

If the “the right of the people” in the 2nd Amendment were to be interpreted as a group, then both the 1st and 4th Amendments would be challengeable as individual rights.

And - P.S. - for the guy from Texas who used all the foul and heated language, what does this do to strength your (our) argument? Except hand people who fear guns more ammunition for their version of personal attack, that is . . .

Face it - all personal attacks and offensive language accomplish is a demonstration of weakness by the person who resorts to such illogical argument. It proves he has nothing better to say. Out of ammunition, so he throws the gun.

Now I support gun rights, and am heavily in favor of decreasing the regulation of fire arms, and believe this to be a victory for constitutional enthusiast everywhere. I also would like to say that guns are permitted by the bill of rights to protect against the tyrannies of government, but thinking realistically, If a possible 2nd revolution occurred, I'm most definitely sure that the majority of the guns would be illegal anyways. So this legislation has no effect for that scenario.

And - P.P.Ps (I got a lot of mail on this) for a_mor - I know the minority opinion. I've been listening to is for three decades.

It's utter nonsense to any ardent historian of U.S. History (I should think the obvious absurdity of life without firearms during the time of the Constitution would be enough to convince anyone rational concerning the 2nd Amendment's meaning).

More, it's irrelevant today. The civic duty of a citizen to keep, know how to use with skill, and bear arms is now critical to public safety (as statistics concerning licensing of handgun wearing have made thunderously clear). As I said a minute ago, this isn't some niminy-piminy discussion of etiquette; this in a question of civic and social responsibility.

Duty delegated to government is public safety relegated to mere debate. Words and good intentions will discharge my responsibility; LIKE HELL it will!

And "crob," your argument is irrelevant (techically, what is called the fallacy of composition) to the issue.

The argument that handguns are needed for self-defense is weak. While some people, Walks-in-Storms, I'm sure are well-trained in the use and keep of guns, I do NOT share your sentiment for the general public. I don't think the average joe who can purchase a handgun has the training or disipline not to accidently shoot someone.

Besides that, the matter of using deadly force to protect your porperty is absurd. For every case of someone shooting an intruder who has the intent of murder or rape, there are 10 cases of misguided junveniles who B&E to steal for drugs, etc. Are they committing a crime? Yes. Do they deserve to face death for it? No, they are to young to take into account such possible consquences as the occupant owning and willing to use a firearm, they are stupid kids.

The vast majority of violent home intrusions are into the homes of drug dealers, other criminals, etc. who have a lot of money and drugs lieing around and are less likely to call the police.

a_mo, you have no proof of what you state about “For every case of someone shooting an intruder who has the intent of murder or rape, there are 10 cases of misguided junveniles who B&E to steal for drugs, etc.” Blah, blah, blah. I can make up stats too.

If you do have the data, post it, I would like to see it. Otherwise, it’s all BS.

The first thing evil dictators and rulers do when they take over a country is take away everyone's guns. From then on the people depend upon 'the government' to protect them - and we know how that works.

people who want guns taken away from US citizens are short sighted. This is a slippery slope to the further loss of freedom. I don't like guns, don't have one, but will fight to keep the right to own one.

The 'bad guys' always find ways to get them, which means they will be the only people to be armed. not a pretty thought.

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution for one reason, to prevent tyranny from taking over the United States.

The founding fathers were students of history and fully understood that tyranny can be inflicted by the few that have weapons on the many that don’t.

Examples come to mind where the “lords” ruled over the civilians and barbarians pillaged across Europe – Attila the Hun was really a nice guy.

The “right to bear arms” was the only amendment to pass unanimously and the founders all saw it as THE crucial element to protect the 1st Amendment and “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

The high and mighty “law passers” who declare “they know what’s best for us” are telling us specifically when, where and how we may defend ourselves if we are attacked. Those who say “you don’t need guns, we will protect you” need only to be reminded of the Khmer Rouge and The Killing Fields of Cambodia.

China – no, Communist China (this seems to slip the minds of those in the media) is a prime example of what a tyrannical government can do if it’s citizens are not allowed to “bear Arms”. Just ask “Tank Man” from Tiananmen Square…oh yea, you can’t, he was dragged off and shot by his government.

Every time a gun-ban law passed, it moved us closer to empowering the criminals/barbarians and the government (ironically, both can obtain guns very easily) the ability to inflict tyranny upon whomever they wish.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff12...

I dont see the problem of mentaly stable adults carrying a concealed gun. I'm not a gun fanatic but it is a right, just like the freedom of speech. So I think it's a bit ironic when the ones that are not very pro-guns, are infaturated with the 1st Amendment

Question for the pro-handgun supporters:

Please describe the criminal scenario that you envision will happen wherein having a handgun will protect you?

I ask that in all honesty.

Because I think there is a slight disconnect between how real crime works and how it's portrayed in the movies and on TV.

In real life criminals a) catch you unaware and sneak up behind you b) usually attack in groups of at least two or more.

In most real life criminal scenarios there is no opportunity to pull out your gun to either scare them off or shoot it. Even the most street-wise and heavily armed street corner drug dealers and gangbangers usually end up getting (wait for it...) shot by other heavily armed gang members. So can we really say it's an effective crime deterrent?

On TV the scenario is usually some lone woman (at night, of course) walking through a deserted alley when a single evil-do'er starts walking toward her (from a good distance away). So already she has some warning that there is danger. Then the TV scenario will have this scary bad guy shout something like, "C'mere girl cuz I'm gonna rape you!" This is usually shouted from about 500 - 600 yards away.....just enough time for this women to pull out her gun! The lone criminal sees the weapon and runs away.

In real life she would have been grabbed from behind while trying to get into her parked car in the mall parking lot. She never gets to the gun in her purse.

In real life it would have been 4 or 5 guys that grab her coming out of the bar while she and her boyfriend are shitfaced. They brain the boyfriend with a pipe or a blackjack and then drag the girl into a van with a gun to her neck. They grabbed her purse as their throwing her in the van and discover, hey, she's got a gun. They toss it out the window because they already have so many. They keep the cash though.

Criminals are pretty sneaky. So I'm not seeing how having a gun on you actually evens the odds all that much.

And wouldn't a nonleathal weapon on your person be equally effective?

Since stun guns can accomplish the exact same thing as a handgun -- do we still even need handguns anymore?

After two bad decisions the court made a really good one.

What if they let everyone have guns but strictly regulated bullets and made them ULTRA traceable? Sure there are those that load there own but the components could be just as easily regulated.

I like...how roberts was supposed to be all neutral and everything (or so we were told during his confirmation) but has voted with the right every time.....sad that our neutral and blind justice wing is now so much a part of the partisan politics.

Crob80277, why are you trying to present your opinion as a fact on “how real life works.” Your statements are based only on your perception of the world.

“In most real life criminal scenarios there is no opportunity to pull a gun…”, How do you know?? That’s your opinion.

“In real life, she would have been grabbed from behind…” again, how do you know? You claiming this doesn’t make it a fact.

You’re talking down to the American public with authoritative phrases and there is not a single fact in what your saying. You sound like the politicians running for office.

You asked, “Please describe the criminal scenario that you envision will happen wherein having a handgun will protect you?” Ok, I’m in bed at 3:40 am and hear an unfamiliar noise, (see, in my scenarios, I’m a light sleeper) and reach into my nightstand next to my bed to retrieve my gun. My fingerprint gun lock is removed by my fingerprint and I slowly move toward the bedroom door and turn on the stairway light. I call out while hiding behind the doorframe. There’s a shot fired from downstairs and I hear someone running up the stairs. I point the gun around the doorframe and yell “I’ve got a gun”! The assailant stops quickly, turns around and yells “Let’s go, Let’s go!!” My point is that a gun does not have to be fired to protect someone, just like nuclear bombs. Deterrence is the key.

Bottom line, you want to dictate to me and others how we can defend our life, liberty and family. SCOTUS has upheld the right for me and others to defend ourselves with a hand gun as WE see fit, not subject to your permission.

Patsarts: Did you see what the Government did when Katrina hit? MARTIAL LAW.
They took everyone's guns... So those "evil dictators" you speak of... Well they're in that big house in D.C. right this moment.

It's quite unrealistic to think that they (guns) are of any use against a corrupt Government (used in the way the 2nd amendment refrences them).

They are only a deadly waste of time, money and resources. What if every gun produced was instead a tree planted or a well dug? We'd have a much nicer planet no doubt.

Pwdrskir -- I'm not talking down to you and I regret that it came across that way.

But again and again the arguement is "Guns scare criminals away!"

They don't scare away harden gang members who routinely shoot at each other (and worse) knowing full well the people they are fighting are heavily armed --- how do you explain that? Why aren't they less violent with each other since ALL of them have handguns concealed on their person? Why doesn't it work with them in that situation? If they aren't intimidated by a fellow gun-totting gangbanger then does it make realistic sense to make the claim they will be "scared" by middle-aged white folks living in the suburbs?

This is a legitmate question.

Criminals, I think we can both agree, are very stupid and cowardly. Outside of someone breaking into your home at night (wherein LOCKS are more effective than handguns) there are almost ZERO real world situations wherein the criminals won't have thr drop on you. That's just real life. Yes in the "Death Wish" movies it all plays out differently -- but actual criminals aren't going to give you ANY warning that they are going to attack you.

Okay, maybe it's my own opinion but in the grand arguement of using guns to "scare" criminals just doesn't seem to have much basis in reality.

Let's forget the home invasion aspect because the arguement is about conceal and carry (presumably) outside the home.

Realistically how is carrying a concealed weapon outside your home going to make you safer from average everyday run-of-the-mill crime?

You know what one of the first things they do when they set up a police state? They take the guns. If the government continues on it's current path, I want the right to have an AK-47 by my side.

Just for fun I wanted to ask about the need for gun to defend against our own government.

On paper this sounds fantastic, but the reality is that.....well, it hasn't worked out so well for any of the religious cults or right-wing militas so far who tried to fight the government and those guys were really, really armed.

How exactly would our government "take over" since technically they are already in power? It doesn't really make sense because if you're someone like, say, George W. Bush then, shit! You're already President! What exactly would you need to do to "take over" after that?

But let's assume that Bush goes mad (well, madder) and decides (inexplicably) to remain in power forever. And, of course, enslave all citizens. How exactly would he do that?

You'd have to get all the Joint Chiefs, all the Generals and all the enlisted men to go along with such an insane idea...which seems pretty unrealistic (even with a Republican majority!)

But let's suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that dozens of generals and hundreds of military officers and the majority of all enlisted men all decided that, yes, they will obey George W. Bush and will immediately begin....what? Building prisons to put the citizens in, I guess? Okay let's go with that.

So the military starts rolling into your city and randomly shooting citizens and ordering the rest to get into trucks so that they may be shipped to the, uh, holding pen wherein they will sigh loyalty oaths to Commander Bush before being returned to work. (Hey! Can't keep everyone in prison. Someone has to work at Wal-mart and Starbucks or else the entire economy collapses)

But wait!

John Doe has a handgun! No, correction, he has 25 handguns!

The military stops their deadly rampage....and flees the scene! The 2nd Amendment has saved America.

"Wait...is that a fighter jet in the sky?" John wonders.

A hellfire missle fired from a remote-controlled drone levels John Doe's house and, in fact, his entire neighborhood.

The military marches on.

;-)