The drug comparison is not a fair one. If someone has an illegal joint, and I have a legal joint, those two things are not affected by one another. I am not more vulnerable to the user of an illegal joint if I am deprived of the ability to use a joint. However, if someone has an illegal gun, not having a legal gun can cause me great harm.

I am also not necessarily for the war on drugs, but that's another discussion altogether.

Same thing with the Ozone layer argument; I'm not saying that because there are some, we should have more, I'm saying that because there are some illegal guns, restricting my right to protect myself against them isn't the answer.

 

And it's a supportable view as there are several factors at play - an increased incidence of violent behavior as the result of the increase in population size and an increase in frequency as the result of population density. I have not seen the stats with humans, but in this case I think it's safe for me to assume that human behavior is pretty much typical of the rest of the animal kingdom. As individuals are compelled to live in closer proximity to one another in greater and greater numbers, violence is going to increase as the result of stress (crowding).

All that said, I don't recall the era of the "Red Scare" with its constant barage of propoganda, bomb shelters, and civil defense drills being all that relaxing or imparting a feeling of safety and well-being.

 

Gun control legislation has proven to be as ineffective as drug control legislation. Both guns and drugs are readily available on the street corners of York, Pa every day of the week .... and in your hometown also. If there is a demand for a product and a profit can be made selling it, you cannot legislate it out of existence in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

 

That in fact is true. Australia outlawed the ownership of handguns ~11 years ago, and yes that legislation has had a great impact on thenumber of gun deaths. What's even more interesting is th fact that is considered to be VERY conservative and a good friend to the US administration.

We visited Australia ~1 year after the ban took place and no one seemed to be even a little concerned about it. Even the hunters that we met. As one of them said, "Hunting with a pistol makes no sense".

Disclaimer: Long guns are NOT outlawed in Australia and they do have a very strong hunting culture that seems to survive quite well on rifles and shotguns alone.

 

[QUOTE=Chris Stack,Apr 17 2007, 12:39 PM] Two answers: 1.) I am not trying to eliminate guns, I want to eliminate crime.

 

[QUOTE=S1997,Apr 17 2007, 02:23 PM]I really don't see how limiting access to handguns and assault rifles and gatlin guns violates the second ammendment.

 

'Protect' is interpretable in a narrower sense and in a broader sense. Your proof situation is about protection in a narrower sense. It's just more specific -- it's not absolute. The Department of Public Safety, the Coast Guard, the Armed Forces, the Border Patrol, the FBI, the University Police, the Sheriff's Department, ..., and even HmelandSecurity -- are all there to protect the country and its citizens in a broader sense. We are not alone, even if police officers cannot be sued when citizens are attacked. Even though most of police work is done after a crime has been committed, they do function to protect by deterring crime. That's all the protection that most of us need -- most of the time.

The laws are there to protect us, too. But most law enforcement in not really enforcement at all. It involves just trusting citizens to obey the laws.

 

Understand, but given that they are "adequate" "most of the time," I'd at least like the OPTION to be able to protect myself the rest of the time. My current state (IL) will not guarantee my protection for me, nor allow me to provide protection for myself.

 

Ok, so you don't like the guarantees and want to cut the odds even further. But you know, even if you have a handgun in every pocket, and stashed weapons all over your house, your car, your office, or your outhouse, you'll never guarantee that you can protect yourself 100% against untrained handgun wielders running amok!

I have a concealed handgun license and have several hunting rifles, but I don't carry them to class with me. If global warming pushes all of us millions of people together to live on a single mountain range, then I might just be joining you in carrying my piece... (cf. dean, above)

 

Clearly in life there are no guarantees, but in the instance I find myself in a situation with an armed bad guy, my odds are pretty stacked against me. I'd like at least the opportunity to even them up a little. Besides, the mentality that I can't be trusted to carry a weapon (even though I've been qualified to do so by the military AND proven myself to be pretty good at it) without proving myself to be untrustworthy pisses me off.