Guns or not Guns

[Shantih]

The U.S. murder rate is currently 4.8 and it is dropping. France's murder rate is something like 2 and it is climbing. The overall violent crime rate in the U.S. is around 400, in France it's something like 600. These numbers are per capita. As in 4.8 murders for every 100,000 Americans.

 

I wonder where you're getting your numbers. Care to share your sources?

 

You have to discriminate between different types of crimes as the classification varies from one counrty to another. Murder is easier to compare (although in some countries it will include abortion, euthanasia and other related deaths).

 

According to the UN France is at 1.4 and the US at 5... These numbers are for 2011: link.

 

Please check your facts before making preposterous claims, "something like 2" is nowhere near the truth when we're talking about rates for 100,000 people and the accurate number is 1.4 (the difference may not look like much but it is staggering when you take into account the entire population).

 

I'm done discussing murder rates in France as it is slightly off topic, let me conclude by saying that Americans have at the very least three times the number of guns that we have here in France and that there are more than three times more murders in America.

 

I'm not saying that there is a direct relation between these numbers but that should be food for thought.

[HeyYou]

The U.S. murder rate is currently 4.8 and it is dropping. France's murder rate is something like 2 and it is climbing. The overall violent crime rate in the U.S. is around 400, in France it's something like 600. These numbers are per capita. As in 4.8 murders for every 100,000 Americans.

 

I wonder where you're getting your numbers. Care to share your sources?

 

You have to discriminate between different types of crimes as the classification varies from one counrty to another. Murder is easier to compare (although in some countries it will include abortion, euthanasia and other related deaths).

 

According to the UN France is at 1.4 and the US at 5... These numbers are for 2011: link.

 

Please check your facts before making preposterous claims, "something like 2" is nowhere near the truth when we're talking about rates for 100,000 people and the accurate number is 1.4 (the difference may not look like much but it is staggering when you take into account the entire population).

 

I'm done discussing murder rates in France as it is slightly off topic, let me conclude by saying that Americans have at the very least three times the number of guns that we have here in France and that there are more than three times more murders in America.

 

I'm not saying that there is a direct relation between these numbers but that should be food for thought.

 

We also have the highest percentage of our population in prison...... but, not all of them are in there for gun crimes...... Sure, some of them had a gun on them during the commission of a crime, but, that doesn't imply that they wouldn't have done the crime if they DIDN'T have the gun......

[hoofhearted4]

We also have the highest percentage of our population in prison...... but, not all of them are in there for gun crimes...... Sure, some of them had a gun on them during the commission of a crime, but, that doesn't imply that they wouldn't have done the crime if they DIDN'T have the gun......

 

id be curious to see the break down for reasons ppl are in jail. depends what you include too. if you include small little "correctional facilities" most of them are in jail for unpaid parking tickets and unpaid child support and stuff.

[SilverDNA]

Why not try the FBI data base ? It had some answers to my questions. Unless someone here is getting on this idea an overreacting paranoia. Why look for an eagle in foreign country's when the green is within putting range?

[Syco21]

I wonder where you're getting your numbers. Care to share your sources?

 

You have to discriminate between different types of crimes as the classification varies from one counrty to another. Murder is easier to compare (although in some countries it will include abortion, euthanasia and other related deaths).

 

According to the UN France is at 1.4 and the US at 5... These numbers are for 2011: link.

 

Please check your facts before making preposterous claims, "something like 2" is nowhere near the truth when we're talking about rates for 100,000 people and the accurate number is 1.4 (the difference may not look like much but it is staggering when you take into account the entire population).

 

I'm done discussing murder rates in France as it is slightly off topic, let me conclude by saying that Americans have at the very least three times the number of guns that we have here in France and that there are more than three times more murders in America.

 

I'm not saying that there is a direct relation between these numbers but that should be food for thought.

Umm no, those numbers are not from 2011. They're as old as 2006 and as new as 2010, not a single one of them is from 2011. The French number is from '08, the American number is from '09. They are four and thee years old respectively. As I've stated, French crime rates are rising while ours are dropping.

 

France has 100,000,000 guns? Because we have about 300,000,000. Unless you mean per capita, I think it's going to be slightly higher than three fold. And even then, per capita it's going to be damn near 100,000.

[Syco21]

I missed a statistic in this topic might be any of you can answer me how many people in America died accidentally with a weapon involved and how can this be related to how many people not accidentally died with a weapon involved ?

Maybe your question is worded poorly, or I just don't understand what you are saying. But to respond anyway...

 

Around 700 a year, which is about 0.6% of accidental deaths, or .00024% of all deaths. How non fatal injuries? I don't know. But I think the percentage of fatal injuries resulting from a shooting, accidental or otherwise, is something like 15%.

 

Number of times guns employed in self defense? No one knows, the majority of these events result in no shots fired and so many of them go unreported. Further, to the best of my knowledge, no agency keeps a record of these events.

 

There are nearly as many guns as there are people in this nation.

[Shantih]

Umm no, those numbers are not from 2011. They're as old as 2006 and as new as 2010, not a single one of them is from 2011. The French number is from '08, the American number is from '09. They are four and thee years old respectively. As I've stated, French crime rates are rising while ours are dropping.

 

France has 100,000,000 guns? Because we have about 300,000,000. Unless you mean per capita, I think it's going to be slightly higher than three fold. And even then, per capita it's going to be damn near 100,000.

 

You fail to provide your own "sources" so if you don't have reliable numbers all you're doing is playing a guessing game.

 

Regarding the ratio of guns per capita this is an estimate taking into account numbers from 2007 they may fail to reflect reality accurately as it is highly difficult to assess illegal /undeclared weapons. In all probability there are even more guns in the US. I for one would rather consider a lower ratio than engaging in wild speculations. According to the highest estimate we would have around 3 million guns for a population of 65 million (this is a sensitive topic, official numbers are much lower -the same is true of the US).

 

FYI the murder rates I've mentioned in my previous post are from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. I don't want to rain on your parade but I'm talking about murders because when considering "crime" our terminology is not the same and collecting data for statistical studies require following procedures so we don't end up comparing apples and oranges (hence the usefulness of reports from specialized organizations like the UNODC).

 

Murder rates are not rising in France.

 

We numbered 1,600 murders in 1995 and less than 800 in 2010. These numbers are from official French sources (police and gendarmerie).

 

On this subject in Corsica (French territorial collectivity in the Mediterranean Sea) there are ten times more guns than in mainland France. Interestingly enough Corsica is also the part of France where the number of gun related deaths is the highest.

[MajKrAzAm]

There aren't multiple independent "parts"; it's just a free modifier acting on a related main clause. And on inspection, you changed a well regulated militia to the right to a well regulated militia, so shame on you. This is clearer if you start from the actual text and then change the free modifier into a subordinate clause:

        Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's a cause-and-effect relationship: The subordinate clause modifies the main clause, and conversely the main clause cannot stand without the subordinate clause. If the Framers intended for the right... to keep and bear arms to stand alone, they wouldn't have modified it with a well-regulated militia – or as Chief Justice John Marshall put it in 1803, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.”

The Secondment Amendment’s prefatory clause is a nominative absolute. It is independent of the operative clause and does not qualify the sentence. Whether the Framers envisioned for the operative clause to stand alone or not cannot be inferred from the prefatory clause. Instead the prefatory clause as an absolute phrase is intended to convey some context and information regarding the operative clause. In this regard it is comparable to Art.3 of the Northwest Ordinance. The article encourages schools and education, but we cannot conclude that religion, morality, and knowledge are their only purposes simply because these words are the only ones included in the prefatory clause.

 

You say that if the Framers intended for the operative clause to stand alone, then they wouldn’t have modified it with the prefatory clause. But the operative clause in this case is a command, and nothing in the prefatory modifies it. It would have the same meaning if we were to remove a well-regulated militia…

 

If we read the preamble as a condition on the operative clause: that the right is protected only when it contributes to a militia, or only when a militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Then we would run into greater problems of having to determine whether it is a temporary or permanent right. But this too would seem inconsistent with the text which contains no ‘only when’ or ‘but for’ clause. The Framers may have intended for the right to keep and bear arms as a means towards maintaining a well-regulated militia, and in turn maintaining the security of a free state. But they didn’t simply say “well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state” and leave it at that. The right is broader than your interpretation suggests. It prevents Congress from disarming citizens of their arms even when that bearing does not contribute to a well-regulated militia.

 

And what does it mean to keep and bear arms? It's an idiom meaning to go soldiering. The Oxford English Dictionary in 1888 said as much: “to be engaged in hostilities.” Webster's in 1934 was even plainer: “to serve as a soldier.” The Declaration of Independence attests: “bear arms against their country.” Or from a governor's proclamation in 1776: “bear Arms against the Rebels in this Province.” Or from the Massachusetts Constitution: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.” The term referred to military contexts; it was not used in the context of hunting or self-defense. As historian Garry Wills put it in 1995, “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” Bearing arms means fighting a war. In the context of Federalist 46, it means staging an armed resistance against a Federal action using the standing army. Again, it has nothing to do with such things as hunting or defending your home.

The fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not mean that we should conclude that it is limited to that context. “Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else. It was not exclusively martial. “Hath not every Subject power to keep Arms, as well as Servants in his House for defence of his Person?” The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights reflects this dual usage: it states “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;” Granted this does appear after the Second Amendment, but this usage of the word is not an exception. A significant portion of state constitutional provisions that enshrined a right of citizens to bear arms do explicitly state that they bear arms of themselves and the state. The need to add, “for the common defence” or “for their common defence” in the Massachusetts and Tennessee Constitutions also shows that “bear arms” alone was insufficient to establish a collective or military meaning. The phrase only bears the idiomatic martial meaning of bear arms when it is followed by the preposition “against”, as in the quotes you provide: “bear arms against their country.” “bear Arms against the Rebels in this Province.”

[hoofhearted4]

Number of times guns employed in self defense? No one knows, the majority of these events result in no shots fired and so many of them go unreported. Further, to the best of my knowledge, no agency keeps a record of these events.

 

and think, if those people didnt have guns, its very possible they would just be added to the robbed or (possibly) murdered list.

[Marxist ßastard]

In this regard it is comparable to Art.3 of the Northwest Ordinance.

Well yes, it's the exact same construction:

        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.

        Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

So the Northwest Ordinance provides that schools and education should be encouraged insofar as they promote religion, morality, and knowledge to the public. Under that interpretation, if I founded a school that taught nothing but irrumatio and treason, I shouldn't expect any backing from the government. Likewise, if I say "I'm my own militia!" and buy a nuclear recoilless rifle, I can't say the Second Amendment protects that.

 

Let's not forget that to an 18th-century reader, this would've also been a plausible construction:

        The cake being baked, serve it to guests with appropriate garnishes.

And they wouldn't have taken it to mean "garnish and serve the unbaked cake." Now you propose that in all those sentences, the first clause ought to be chopped off: guns for everyone, absolute government backing for Ye Olde Schule of Irrumatio and Treaſon, burnt cake garnishes – madness! And it would follow that about half of the Second Amendment has no legal meaning whatsoever, the Framers having included it just for kicks. No, I prefer Marshall's ruling that no “clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect.” Let's not ignore parts of the Constitution we don't like.

 

The Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights reflects this dual usage: it states “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;” Granted this does appear after the Second Amendment, but this usage of the word is not an exception. A significant portion of state constitutional provisions that enshrined a right of citizens to bear arms do explicitly state that they bear arms of themselves and the state. The need to add, “for the common defence” or “for their common defence” in the Massachusetts and Tennessee Constitutions also shows that “bear arms” alone was insufficient to establish a collective or military meaning. The phrase only bears the idiomatic martial meaning of bear arms when it is followed by the preposition “against”, as in the quotes you provide: “bear arms against their country.” “bear Arms against the Rebels in this Province.”

The anti-Federalists' minority report reflected the same usage: bear arms, distantly followed by for the purpose of killing game. But let's make three things clear:

• This is a creeping usage which Webster's didn't recognize until after 1934.
• All such examples are just using bear arms and then qualifying it to explicitly show a non-martial context. Nobody would've accepted the non-martial context if bear arms were used without qualification, as in the Second Amendment.
• Wills's note still stands: “One does not bear arms against a rabbit.” Nobody talks like that, and nobody ever did.

So we should default to a martial context.

 

Yet we don't need to – a martial context is already thoughtfully provided by the first clause when it talks about the National Guard. And that's yet another reason why you and hoofhearted4 are wrong in trying to divorce the two clauses, making this into a debate about a well regulated militia and a separate debate about keep and bear arms. It's all one sentence, one thought, one rule, one debate. Treating it as anything else is disingenuous.