Supreme Court Says Individuals Have Right to Own Guns, D.C. Handgun Ban Unconstitutional

I disagree with this decision. I don't know why we need handguns

Non-sequitur, I'm afraid. If you are opposed to handgun ownership, you need to amend the Constitution. That's the basis of this decision: the Second Amendment guarantees the right to private firearms ownership.

Kind of like Roe v. Wade except now the shoe's on the other foot, isn't it?

Why do you need a weapon which only has one purpose: to kill human beings?

Your comment describes hand guns in the hands of criminals. Go after the root causes of criminal behavior (drugs, gangs and poverty) and hand gun violence will drop dramatically.

Why do I need a hand gun? To protect me and my family from those that would do us harm in our own home. I favor hand guns over shotguns for this reason: Sawed off shotguns are illegal. Shotgun minimum barrel length is 18" not including stock length. Unless you have a slug in the chamber, scattered buck shot can miss and strike innocent people. Long barreled shotguns are not designed for home defense around corners and furniture.

Whereas my hand gun (a .44 magnum) is easy to handle and has a 1.4" accuracy at 25 yards. It puts me on an equal footing with an armed intruder.

It doesn't sound like you are a gun owner. I don't think you should be telling gun owners what weapons they can or cannot carry for their right of "self-preservation".

Look, I am not going to debate your position. You are more than welcome to believe that handguns make you safe. The facts prove differently. All the information is available to you from the FBI crime statistics database.

That only proves that you haven't done any research. I have commented on data for years, and the facts are hand guns do prevent crimes. Areas of the country with high CCW holders have less hand gun violence. I have studied the data. Perhaps you should.

A good place to start would be here;

http://scogginfamily.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/25/1611046-the-intellectual-argument-about-gun-control

Methinks he argues perfectly from an unsound premise.

When homeowner gun ownership goes up, crime goes down.

Double Demon, do you have a "Gun-Free Zone" in your front yard?

If we got rid of them our society would be much better off.

I believe that would be your opinion DD. How do you support that opinion?

How you go about getting rid of them is up for debate, but the fact remains that if there were no handguns, there would be less homicides.

I respectfully question your claim that less guns = less homicides is a fact. Do you have any evidence to support your statement, DD?

I understand you personal opinion on this matter DD, however what I am most interested in is your legal opinion on the SCOTUS decision.

You are more than welcome to believe that handguns make you safe. The facts prove differently.

No, they don't.

There are no stats on what happens when handguns are banned, it has never happened. It has happened only at the local level, and I do live in a handgun free zone and we don't have any murders where I live, not to speak of anyway. There is the occasional killing here and there, often domestic disputes involving handguns. So, yeah, if there were no handguns, people would have to reach for a knife or a shotgun which is more difficult to kill with.

I have to disagree. While handguns have never been banned at a Federal or State level in the US, they have been banned in several other countries. The United Kingdom and Australia being the 2 most recent examples. So the statistics do indeed exist, I am not sure that they will support your claim though.

Kates, DB & Mauser, G. "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?", Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. (PDF format)

Handguns account for more homicides than any other type of weapon. If we got rid of them our society would be much better off.

I am not talking about laws that only outlaw handguns on the local level, I am talking about a federal law outlawing the possession of handguns, which is now an impossibility given the way the court ruled today.

Are you aware that that sort of law that you are talking about would be unconstitutional? Does following the constitution matter to you?

Even the phrase "keep arms" was related to militia service, back in the late 18th century, so to me it reads that only members of the militia have the right to keep and bear arms, the opposite of Scalia's presumption listed above.

Whatever, keep arms meant at the time when the Bill of Rights was written, it means the right to own firearms now. And seeing as the Constitution is an ever evolving document that is constantly being reinterpreted, that works out just fine.

1.10, Double Demon, we don't call it statistics, we call it the tragic history of authoritarian regimes.

Fortunately, your ridicule is not an effective legal argument.

I think it is really hard for anyone to say that if there were no handguns in the US there would be just as many murders. Whether or not you can actually eliminate them from society is a different question, but I am arguing from the premise that if there were no handguns there would be less murder.

Perhaps, but it is even harder for anyone to say that if there were no handguns in the US there would be less murders. Which is what you are attempting to claim. I understand your premise, I am just trying to understand what information you have to validate that premise.

I will note that the murder rate in all the EU countries, where gun laws are very strict, is much lower than it is in the US. Russia presents the opposite data. So, perhaps gun ownership rates don't have anything to do with murder rates at all. But I stand by my position that if there were no handguns there would be less murder.

Agreed, but please also note that the murder rates in EU countries has always been much lower than the US even before the advent of their current strict gun laws. What reasoning do you have to stand by your position, when in the sentence prior you admit the possibility that gun ownership rate do not correlate with homicide rates?

good luck outrunning that rifle bullet. Plus, if my sole intent is to kill there would be no reason for me to walk up on you with a rifle. I could take you out at 300 meters (assuming a clear line of sight and the right rifle).

However, getting that out of the way I agree that if all hand guns were removed from society as a whole the murder rate would inevitably drop. It is easier to kill someone with a powerful projectile than it is with a knife, spear, or even an arrow. Heck you can't get lucky and kill someone with a pistol far more easily than you could with an bow+arrow.

The fact remains though that that scenario will never exist. Handguns will always exist in society. People will either buy them legally or via a black market/alternate method (you'd be amazed how easy it is to get a gun if you're looking).

Taking away my right to bear arms (and the vast majority of folks who legally own one) will do nothing even remotely significant to reduce the murder rate here in the US.

What would help law enforcement is a valid registry of weapons (who owns them, records of weapon theft, etc) so they have a better idea where the weapons are. Granted, if a military coup were to occur here and our govt were to collapse the govt could then use those records to round up all the guns, but at that point I think my .38 special is outgunned by the squad of guys standing at my door with M16's and a SAW; I've already lost.

Perhaps a complete and through registration process might help enforce better weapons education standards so that people would do a better job of keeping weapons away from kids. I doubt it but it is possible.

I was listening to NPR last night and the LA Chief of Police was on saying he has known people who have left guns out that were accessed by children and other kids were killed - or someone suicidal killed them self. I think both of these are red herrings. In the first instance the family is responsible for leaving the gun out - punishing me (by taking away my weapon and my right to own it) and the tens of thousands of other responsible gun owners simply because of a few irresponsible ones seems crazy to me.

The suicidal person is an entirely different situation. Suicide sucks no doubt about it - however, by taking away handguns I don't believe we would suddenly fix the minds of these people and get them to realize how great life is - they would just find a new way to die.