The Obama Gun Effect

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

If you eliminate guns like Britain and France, then you will have crime committed with knifes and other weapons. France and Britain have their problems with crime. And, the criminals still often obtain guns to commit the crime. The law abiding person did not have a gun to stand any chance in defense.

first, crime levels are lower in those countries than the us, but more important, and the focus of the issue, murders are much lower and so are accidental deaths by guns. the argument that people require guns to be protected is shown to be hollow when the citizens of countries that have strict laws on gun possession do not face as high a risk of being killed.

But, they still have their areas of high crime. They still have their murders. They still have their rapes. They still have their robberies and other crimes. They just use fewer guns (obtained illegally) and more knifes and other weapons.

these countries have lower incidence of crime, have lower incidence of murder. more guns do not rid society of criminals, nor do more guns reduce the risk of being murdered...in fact it increases the risk.

And, as to Greece: people are being killed there. It is not just property destruction.

you’re wrong, the only loss of life is the teen who was killed by the police.

Yes. Absolutely. If drug cartel thugs and mercernaries are executing persons in broad daylight and terrorizing my neighborhood, I want to have a chance to defend myself. I need a gun to do that. I need my neighbors to have guns to join me to defend ourselves.

that is not happening in the usa, we are being protected by our police. the easy access to guns by these criminals is not helping the situation in mexico, it is aggravating the crisis.

Have I been a victim of an insecure border? yes. Duh.

really? how have you been a ‘victim” of illegal immigration, and how does this relate to gun laws?

Have I been a victim of the drug trade? yes. I have had friends suffer destroyed lives. I, myself, have not partaken.

people who choose to take drugs aren’t “victims”. and how does this relate to gun laws?

Have I been a victim of gangs? No, because I was carrying a handgun with me on the one time in my life when I almost got mugged in Chicago.

how are you certain it was a gang, and your risk of being murdered increased with your use of a gun.

Have I been a victim of the drug cartels of Central America, Mexico, and their branches in the USA? The entire nation has suffered from it. Do a search for news about they are growing their crops in our national parks in harmful ways. Would you really act like this is not a problem in our nation?

how have you been a ‘victim”, as people who injest drugs and their friends/family are not victims at all. second, those groups who plant weed in forest land aren’t typically drug cartels they are individuals. last, how does this have anything to do with gun laws?

I do not think that the US military and police have the capacity to stop these problems unless the people of America get involved with them. Besides, we have too many politicians that don't want to offend Hispanics and other groups by adopting national policies and procedures that would secure the border and deal with the across border crime problems.

Texas has a huge problem with drugs coming across the Mexico border. You also have a lot of girls who were brought across for your enjoyment in the adult entertainment industry. It is all really quite sick.

are you saying that people should become vigilantes to stop human trafficking? otherwise, how does this have anything to do with gun laws?

The second amendment assures the individual right to own and bear arms. Read the SCOTUS decision if you like. It is a settled matter

the 2nd amendment says nothing about “protection”. the supreme court decision does not say that guns cannot be regulated.

And, lastly, Mavdog: I am not saying that requiring all sales/transfers of firearms to be done under the license of a FFL (licensed gun dealer) is a bad idea. Those companies would love that. They could charge a fee to watch Joe Bob sell his shotgun to Jim Bob.

I'm just saying that people won't actually go to the store to do it.

And, you also said that if a person sold a gun to someone without going through a licensed gun dealer and that gun was used in a crime, then the seller of the gun would be liable.

You may not realize that most states and cities have no registration requirements. No one knows who owns what guns in the first place. You can't trace that information very well.

Even the FBI background checks do not result in a permanent record. Congress specifically banned the FBI from keeping the records...

no registration exists outside of a few isolated places like Chicago and Washington DC. And, it hasn't helped them there...

make mandatory checks for all gun sales, and make all guns sales of record, and law abiding citizens will follow the law.

those who do not do the checks and record the sales will be criminals.

it’s really pretty clear, and all it takes is enacting the laws.

our society, and our country, will be much better off with laws that control the process of gun ownership and set out clear obligations of those who wish to own guns.

[wmbwinn]

Every single one of your "cherry picked" responses ignores the issues of defense. You are doggedly sticking to the issues of crime.

What of the Ghandi quote? You are ignoring the issue of the defense of the citizenry in a state/nation. You are ignoring the issue that citizens in India, Britain, France, and Greece have no way to defend themselves. Britain has not seen an incident yet, but France, Greece, and India have.

Going back to the issues of crime, it is of no value whatsoever to tell me that Britain and some other nations have a lower crime rate than the USA. That is not a function of the prescence/abscence of guns. The crime rate (as you yourself stated earlier) has nothing to do with the prescence/abscence of guns.

And, it is meaningless to say that a nation with no guns has a lower murder rate by gun. It is also meaningless to say a nation with no guns has fewer accidental deaths.

[Mavdog]

what??? as I said above, "more important, and the focus of the issue, murders are much lower and so are accidental deaths by guns. the argument that people require guns to be protected is shown to be hollow when the citizens of countries that have strict laws on gun possession do not face as high a risk of being killed."

guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.....

[Dirkadirkastan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QusfyaV3CFo

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

...

The NRA is all in favor of harsher punishment for crimes committed with guns.
....

Really?

Can you show me something to support this assertion? any instance of this?

[wmbwinn]

To McSluggo: I will post several links to you to educate you on the stance of the NRA. The NRA is in support of stronger penalties when guns are used to commit crimes. I find it incredible that you thought that was untrue or bizarre.

I don't have time to teach you everything so go study the NRA website yourself. It is easy to search it. The NRA is in favor of background checks. The NRA is in favor of improving the database of criminal information and psychiatric information that the FBI has access to in order to do the background check more effectively.

Here is a research article. I'm not going to try to copy/paste it because I don't know how to include the pie charts and other visual media. I am still a HTML rookie.

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117

note that the link takes you to the NRA webpage. They don't link to stuff they don't support.

To Mavdog: You're whole arguement appears to be that if there are no guns, then we'll all be better off because there won't be accidental deaths with guns, there won't be murder with guns, and there won't be crime with guns with a higher death rate associated with those guns.

You should read the link also.
1)criminals are afraid of armed citizens
2)criminals are more likely to not carry any weapon in areas where the citizens are likely armed
3)criminals carry guns more often in places like Chicago, California, Washington DC, and Massachusetts because they know they won't find honest citizens there who are armed
4)criminals will not use guns in crime if they know ahead of time that they are going to be severely punished.

[wmbwinn]

To Mavdog:
More guns, less crime

Mavdog, stop boring me with your opinions and show me some research fact to support your position. Or go after the research articles I have posted. Look at the webpage linked references.

+++++++++++++++

Gun Ownership at All-Time High, Violent Crime Near 30-Year Low

Over the last two decades, many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels. Numbers of privately-owned guns and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs. Every step of the way, "gun control" groups predicted violent crime would increase. Instead, violent crime decreased dramatically.

Less "Gun Control": The Brady Act’s handgun waiting period expired in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check System. Some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods or purchase permit requirements. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired in 2004. Since 1987, 30 states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of Right-to-Carry (RTC) laws; there are now 40 RTC states. All states have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 47 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and Congress and 33 states have prohibited frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.1 Studies by or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.2

More Guns: The number of new guns rises by about 4.5 million every year.3 There are 250+ million privately-owned firearms in the United States.4

Less Violent Crime: Since 1991, the nation’s total violent crime rate is down 38 percent. (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.) Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low; increased slightly in 2005 and 2006; and decreased to nearly the 2004 level in 2007. Every year since 2002, the violent crime rate has been lower than anytime since 1974. Every year since 1999, the murder rate has been lower than anytime since 1966. States with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.5

Notes:

1. For fact sheets and gun law information, visit www.nraila.org/Issues/.
2. Roth, Koper, et al., Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, March 13, 1997, www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=406797; Reedy and Koper, "Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes: a comparison of gun assaults involving semiautomatic pistols and revolvers," Injury Prevention 2003, http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/2/151; Koper et al., Report to the National Institute of Justice, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, June 2004, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/jl..._aw_final.pdf; Wm. J. Krouse, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "Semiautomatic Assault Weapons Ban," Dec. 16, 2004; Library of Congress, Report for Congress: Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998, LL98-3, 97-2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Service, "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws," Morbidity and Mortaility Weekly Report, Oct. 3, 2003, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm; National Research Council, "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review," National Academies Press, 2005 , http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/index.html.

3. BATFE, Annual Firearm Manufacturers and Export Reports, www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm.

4. BATFE estimated 215 million guns in 1999 (Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, Nov. 2000, p. ix , www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/1999/index.htm). The National Academy of Sciences estimated 258 million (National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review, National Academies Press, 2005). The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports 72 million approved new and used firearm transactions by firearm dealers through the National Instant Check System between 1999-2007 ("Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2007," http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/ht...bcft07st01.htm).

5. FBI http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_04.html Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/. RTC comparison based on data in the FBI table

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=206&issue=007

[wmbwinn]

Along with a steady increase in the U.S. population and a larger increase in the number of privately owned firearms in the United States, the annual number and per capita rate of accidental deaths involving firearms have decreased steadily for decades.

The U.S. population is at an all-time high of about 300 million, and rises about one percent per year. The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high of 250+ million, and rises about two percent per year.

The annual number of accidental deaths involving firearms has been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, the number has decreased 75 percent, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has more than quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 86 percent since 1975. Today, the odds are a million to one against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.

The fatal firearm accident per capita rate has decreased 92 percent since 1904. (Since 1991, the firearm murder rate has decreased 44 percent, and the firearm suicide rate has decreased 32 percent.)

Firearms are involved in 0.7% of accidental deaths nationally. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (37.6%), poisoning (19.6%), falls (16.3%), suffocation (4.9%), drowning (3.0%), fires (2.7%), environmental factors (2.0%), medical mistakes (1.9%), and bicycles and tricycles (0.8%). Among children, the figures are motor vehicles (42.4%), suffocation (18.7%), drowning (15.5%), fires (8.8%), bicycles and tricycles (2.3%), poisoning (1.8%), environmental factors (1.7%), falls (1.6%), firearms (1.4%), and medical mistakes (0.9%).

Voluntary firearms safety training, not government intrusion, has decreased firearms accidents. NRA firearm safety programs are conducted by more than 55,000 NRA Certified Instructors nationwide. Youngsters learn firearm safety in NRA programs offered through civic groups such as the Boy Scouts, Jaycees, the American Legion, and schools. NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe program teaches children pre-K through 6th grade that if they see a firearm without supervision, they should “STOP! Don’t Touch. Leave The Area. Tell An Adult.” Since 1988, the program has been used by 26,000 schools, civic groups, and law enforcement agencies to reach more than 21 million children.

For more information, visit www.nrahq.org/education/index.asp, www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/, and www.nraila.org/Issues/ (click “accident statistics”).

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=242&issue=009

Ah, Mavdog: more guns, fewer accidents...

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog, for your education on the SCOTUS decision:

it also talks about what can and cannot be regulated....

++++++++++

District of Columbia v. Heller

Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Decision

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed, in a 5-4 decision, the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia (re-cast as District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court), that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, private, individually-held right, to keep arms and to bear arms, without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia. The Court held that the Second Amendment does not (as the District argued) protect a right to possess arms only while in service in a militia or (as others have argued) a “state’s right” to maintain a militia. (No dissenting justice endorsed the “state’s right” theory, putting an end to it once and for all, one can only hope.)

The decision struck down the District’s bans on handguns and on having any gun in operable condition as violations of the Second Amendment, and prohibited the District from denying plaintiff Dick Heller a permit to carry a firearm within his home on “arbitrary and capricious” grounds. Highlights of the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, follow:

On the Meaning of “the Right of the People”

T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology . . . . All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. . . . In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . . Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is ‘primarily collective in nature.’”

On the Meaning of “Arms”

“The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. . . . The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. . . . Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

On the Meaning of “Keep Arms”

“[Samuel Johnson’s 18th century dictionary] defined ‘keep’ as, most relevantly, ‘[t]o retain; not to lose,’ and ‘[t]o have in custody.’ Webster defined it as ‘[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.’ No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of ‘keep Arms.’ Thus, the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to ‘have weapons’ . . . . [T]here is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of ‘keep arms.’

On the Meaning of “Bear Arms”

“At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’ When used with ‘arms,’ however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose-confrontation. . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to ‘bear arms in defense of themselves and the state’ or ‘bear arms in defense of himself and the state.’ It is clear from those formulations that ‘bear arms’ did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. . . .

“[T]he meaning of ‘bear arms’ that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby ‘bear arms’ connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving ‘bear Arms’ its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war-an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. Worse still, the phrase ‘keep and bear Arms’ would be incoherent. The word ‘Arms’ would have two different meanings at once: ‘weapons’ (as the object of ‘keep’) and (as the object of ‘bear’) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying ‘He filled and kicked the bucket’ to mean ‘He filled the bucket and died.’ Grotesque.

“If ‘bear arms’ means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (‘for the purpose of self defense’ or ‘to make war against the King’). But if ‘bear arms’ means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add ‘for the purpose of killing game.’ The right ‘to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game’ is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that ‘to bear arms’ is not limited to military use.

On the Meaning of the Amendment’s “Keep and Bear” Clause in its Entirety

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’ As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.’

On the Meaning of “Well Regulated Militia”

“In United States v. Miller, we explained that ‘the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.’ That definition comports with founding-era sources. . . . Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that ‘[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses.’ Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that ‘militia’ means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. . . . Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them. Finally, the adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

On the Meaning of “Security of a Free State”

“The phrase ‘security of a free state’ meant ‘security of a free polity,’ not security of each of the several States. Joseph Story wrote in his treatise on the Constitution that ‘the word ‘state’ is used in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it means the people composing a particular nation or community.’

On the Relationship between the “Militia” and “Keep and Bear” Clauses

“Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights. It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right-unlike some other English rights-was codified in a written Constitution. Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a ‘subsidiary interest’ of the right to keep and bear arms is profoundly mistaken.

On the Court’s Decision in United States v. Miller (1939)

“The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were ‘bear[ing] arms’ not ‘for . . . military purposes’ but for ‘nonmilitary use.’Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection. . . . This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia’). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did ‘not turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns, it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,’ but the words of the opinion prove otherwise.

On Arms the Second Amendment Protects

“We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s ‘ordinary military equipment’ language must be read in tandem with what comes after: ‘[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.’ The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense. . . . Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. . . .

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

On Restrictions Permissible Under the Second Amendment

“[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’

On D.C.’s Gun Bans

“[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” would fail constitutional muster. . . . It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid. . . .

“We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self defense. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: ‘Except for law enforcement personnel . . . , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.’ The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders. . . .

SecondAmendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. . . .[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=235&issue=010

[wmbwinn]

Ah, the awful gunshow loophole...

++++++++++++++

Gun shows are large, public events that for many decades have been held in convention centers and banquet halls, attended by gun enthusiasts, hunters, target shooters, law enforcement and military personnel, and their families. Under federal law, firearm dealers—persons engaged in the business of selling firearms for profit on a regular basis—are required to conduct background checks on anyone to whom they sell any firearm, regardless of where the sale takes place. Federal law also provides that a person who is not a dealer may sell a firearm from his personal collection without conducting a check.

Though Congress specifically has applied the background check requirement to dealers only, and specifically exempted from the dealer licensing requirement persons who occasionally sell guns from their personal collections, gun prohibition activists call this a “loophole.” Gun prohibitionists also falsely claim that many criminals get guns from gun shows; the most recent federal study puts the figure at only 0.7 percent.

After many months of claiming they wanted a bill that required sales of guns at gun shows, by non-dealers, to be subject to the background check requirement, anti-gun members of Congress voted against such a bill, because it did not contain other provisions designed to put gun shows out of business. Some of the most relevant facts in the debate over gun show legislation include:

The Myth of “Unlicensed Dealers”
• Under current federal law, it is illegal to “engage in the business” of “dealing in firearms” without a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.1 “Engaged in the business” means buying and selling firearms as a regular business with the objective of profit.2 Violations carry a five year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.3
• A licensed dealer may do business temporarily at a gun show, just as he could at his permanent licensed premises. Every legal requirement applies equally at both types of location, including background checks and record keeping on all transactions.
• People who “engage in the business” without a license can be arrested and convicted of a federal felony—whether they “engage in business” at a gun show, or out of a home, office, or vehicle.
Gun Shows Are Not a Source of “Crime Guns”
• A 2006 FBI study of criminals who attacked law enforcement officers found that within their sample, “None of the [attackers’] rifles, shotguns, or handguns … were obtained from gun shows or related activities.” Ninety-seven percent of guns in the study were obtained illegally, and the assailants interviewed had nothing but contempt for gun laws. As one offender put it, “[T]he 8,000 new gun laws would have made absolutely [no difference], whatsoever, about me getting a gun. … I never went into a gun store or to a gun show or to a pawn shop or anyplace else where firearms are legally bought and sold.”4
• A Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on “Firearms Use by Offenders” found that fewer than 1% of U.S. “crime guns” came from gun shows, with repeat offenders even less likely than first-timers to buy guns from any retail source. This 2001 study was based on interviews with 18,000 state prison inmates and is the largest such study ever conducted by the government.5
• Previous federal studies have found few criminals using gun shows. A 2000 BJS study, “Federal Firearms Offenders, 1992-98,” found only 1.7% of federal prison inmates obtained their gun from a gun show.6 Similarly, a 1997 National Institute of Justice study reported less than 2% of criminals’ guns come from gun shows.7

Gun Shows and Terrorism
Anti-gun organizations have tried to claim that terrorists buy guns at gun shows. Yet the cases they point to don’t prove their point.
• One suspect followed to gun shows was later found “unloading shipments of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers” in Beirut. These arms, of course, are not available at U.S. gun shows.
• Another gun buyer “was arrested in an investigation of the September 11 attacks.” But the probe never linked him to the attacks, and there was no indication that he ever shipped guns overseas.
• Another case involved an Irish man convicted for using a “straw buyer” at a Florida show to purchase guns from a licensed dealer, for shipment back to Ireland. But in this case, the system worked—the smuggler was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison.
• A glance at any TV or newspaper coverage of the Middle East shows that terrorists have no shortage of access to firearms, and far more powerful weapons, without resorting to highly regulated markets in the United States.

Gun Show Legislation Overreaches
Many legislators have proposed to restrict gun show sales, but their proposals would simply create a bureaucratic nightmare—shutting down the shows while leaving criminal markets untouched. Among other problems, various gun show bills (such as H.R. 96 in the 110th Congress) would:
• Create gun owner registration. “Special firearms event operators” would have to submit names of all “vendors” to the U.S. Justice Department both before and after the show—whether or not any of the vendors sold a gun. A private citizen who enters a gun show hoping to sell or trade a firearm, but who does not find a buyer and leaves with his own gun, would be on file with the Justice Department forever as a “special firearms event vendor.”
• Require registration of gun shows. This bureaucratic requirement would allow an anti-gun administration to harass event organizers for paperwork violations. It would also allow government agents to harass gun owners who gather for purposes other than selling guns.
• Allow harassment of show organizers and vendors. H.R. 96, for instance, allows inspection, at a gun show, of a show promoter’s or dealer’s entire business records—including records of transactions that occurred at other shows or at a dealer’s licensed place of business. These inspections are time consuming for licensees and highly intrusive; conducting business at a gun show while simultaneously undergoing a compliance inspection would be impossible.
• Turn casual conversations into “gun show sales.” A person could still agree to sell a gun to a neighbor in a conversation over the backyard fence; but if the same conversation took place at a gun show, the background check requirement would forever apply to that gun. This unworkable and unenforceable system would even apply to a gun that a seller and buyer talk about at a gun show, but don’t have with them.
• Fail to provide for true instant checks. The biggest controversy during the 1999 debate on gun show legislation was how long a “delay period” should be allowed for investigation of a questionable background check. The Lautenberg amendment allowed three business days—the same as current law for dealers at their regular places of business. That delay would, of course, be impractical for a weekend gun show.

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A).
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C). The term does not include occasional sales by hobbyists or collectors.
18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1).
Anthony J. Pinizzotto, et al., Violent Encounters: A Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers 53 (Aug. 2006).
Caroline Wolf Harlow, Firearm Use by Offenders 6 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nov. 2001).
John Scalia, Federal Firearm Offenders, 1992-98 10 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2000).
Pamela K. Lattimore, et al., Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities: Trends, Context and Policy Implications 99 (Dec. 1997).

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...=247&issue=014

[wmbwinn]

Rudy Giulliani, speaking to the NRA, definitely hits repeatedly on the point that the NRA has ALWAYS supported STRICT, HARSH penalties for crime committed with a gun.

I'll bold the areas of greatest interest on that one point, but the whole presentation by Giulliani is great.

Remember that Rudy did not make NYC a safer city by passing anti gun laws. Rudy made NYC safer by enforcing the law and cracking down using the laws that already existed...

++++++++++++++++

Remarks by Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at NRA's "Celebration of American Values" Conference in Washington, DC -- 9/21/07


Friday, September 28, 2007


MR. GIULIANI: Thank you very much, Wayne. It's nice to be here in England. Oh, America. Sometimes on a presidential campaign you got to be reminded of exactly where you are, but it's really, really exciting. It's exciting to go all over the country, and then it was very exciting to see Margaret Thatcher, who's one of my heroes, in England.

And it's a great pleasure to be here. I thank you, Wayne, for your introduction. Thank you, Chris, for inviting me, and thanks to all the dedicated members who are here for the NRA Celebration of American Values. And I'm very happy to be here in front of the NRA, also, because there are a lot of things that you and I have in common. There are probably a few things we disagree about, but there are many more things that we have in common.

I ask people to take a look at our 12 commitments that we've made to the American people. Take a good look at them. If you agree with most of them -- I don't expect you to agree with all of them; nobody ever does agree with every single thing about a candidate. I was a very big supporter of and I worked for Ronald Reagan, and I remember his 80 percent -- my 80 percent friend is now my 20 percent enemy. And if you look at these and you agree with most of these, then I would ask you to support me. If you disagree with most of these, I would ask you to vote against me because I'm actually going to do them. I'm actually going to get it accomplished because that's really been my record, has been a record of getting results and doing the things that I promised to do -- not every single one of them, but most of them.

And I believe there are several very important things that we have in common: a commitment to keeping America strong and secure; a commitment to preserving and protecting the Constitution of the United States the way it's written and based on what it means, not based on somebody's social agenda or political biases or prejudices, left, right, middle, in between -- it's about what somebody else wrote and what they meant it to mean, and a judge is an interpreter of the law, not a creator of the law; and a commitment to protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens; and a real commitment to putting criminals in prison, which is where they belong and where they can't do damage to the rest of society.
I believe that public safety is the most fundamental right that people have, and I believe that that is one of the social values that we have, which is reducing crime and having a safe society. Because, after all, if you don't have a reasonable degree of safety, you can't exercise your other rights: the right of free speech, the right to select the people that govern you, the right to be secure in your home against unreasonable searches and seizures, even your right to bear arms is all based on a reasonable degree of safety that you have to have.

I worked for Ronald Reagan as associate attorney general. I remember his motto of peace through strength. I believe in that as kind of a foundation for foreign policy, and I believe in that as part of a foundation for domestic policy.

I was in Mississippi earlier with -- I think your prior speaker was Haley Barbour. Is that right? I was in Mississippi with Governor Barbour, who's a good friend of mine, and he reminded me of something. I don't know if he reminded you of it. But he -- all this question about socially conservative values -- he said to me that probably the single most important socially conservative value is crime control and public safety.
So I think it -- I believe -- and I'm sure you do -- that law enforcement should focus on enforcing the laws that exist on the books, as opposed to just passing new laws or new extension of laws. I found, as United States attorney, and then later as the mayor, that in most cases the failures were in enforcing the laws that presently existed, and the more effectively we enforced those laws, the more we were able to bring down crime.

We also believe in protecting the rights of every law-abiding citizen, and we believe in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. And we believe in putting criminals behind bars when they commit crimes with guns or in any other way. And that's part of the philosophy -- that's part of the philosophy I used in New York City to take a city that was the crime capital of America and make into the safest large city in the country.

Now -- when I became mayor of New York City, New York City was averaging about 2,000 murders a year. That was something like five, six, seven, eight murders a day sometimes; 11,000 major crimes a week. We were overwhelmed with crime. We were on the front cover of Time magazine as "The Rotting of the Big Apple." That's the way we were featured on the front cover of Time magazine.

And I remember making a trip to London, like a trip I made a couple of days ago, and I was giving a lecture in London to a group of lawyers about securities law. After half the audience fell asleep, I asked them for questions. And the second or third man put up his hand, and he said to me: "I just got this brochure from my travel agent, because I'm traveling to New York next week. And it's 10 tips on how not to be the victim of a crime in New York City." And I said, "Boy, this is really encouraging. This is going to encourage a lot of people to come to New York."

And do you know what the final tip was, number 10? Don't make eye contact. Can you imagine being told, as an encouragement to come to a city, don't look at the people there, because if you do, you might provoke a crime?

And why did we have that kind of situation in New York? Why was it the crime capital of America? Why was crime out of control? Why were murders out of control? Why were people being told not to make eye contact? And why did Time magazine have us on the front cover of Time magazine as the rotting of the Big Apple?

Partially because of the policy choices that were made, the left wing policy choices that were made over a long period of time. For 30 years, because they -- it isn't that they didn't try to reduce crime. Why did they not succeed in reducing crime? Because of their excessive adherence to their left wing ideology, where the only thing you don't do is blame criminals for the crime that they committed. You blame everybody else and everything else, and you point the finger of responsibility at parents, schools, other institutions, guns, anything else that you can find.

The major change that we made was we said, everything else can contribute to crime, but what actually causes crime? People, their behavior, their unwillingness to discipline themselves, their unwillingness of society to discipline them. So we tried a different approach, We tried the approach of first and foremost holding people accountable for the crimes that they commit.

And the results speak for themselves. We cut murder by 66 percent; we cut shootings by 74 percent. And we transformed New York City from the crime capital of America into the safest large city in the United States, safer than most small cities.

And if I'm elected president, I'll follow that same philosophies. I'll work to make sure that if somebody commits a crime, they go to prison. If somebody commits a crime with a gun, they'll go to prison for even more time and for mandatory sentences. No plea bargains, no exceptions -- you go to jail. That's the way to reduce crime.

We need to have zero tolerance for crime committed with a gun. After all, it's people that commit crimes, not guns. (Applause.) They must be -- you remember Project Exile in the 1990s in Richmond, Virginia. Within two years, the gun carry rate among suspects in Richmond was cut in half, and 350 armed felons were taken off the streets. All of this helped Richmond's murder rate fall by 62 percent.

The NRA was an early supporter of Project Exile, and the program's success led to the establishment of the national Project Safe Neighborhood. So that's the kind of success that I think we should build on, by providing funding to state prosecutors so they can screen out gun cases and refer the serious ones to federal court. The funding can be used to hire more state prosecutors and to provide uniform screening of gun cases at a local level.
You should know that during the Clinton administration, federal gun prosecutions sank to record lows, a 44 percent drop in federal referrals between 1992 and 1998. Enforcement has improved under the Bush administration; I believe it will improve much, much more under a Giuliani administration, because I think this is an area where I really have experience, which is law enforcement.
In order to accomplish that, though, I'm going to need to get elected. And to get elected, I need your support. It is very, very important that we reach out to everyone and talk to them about the things that are necessary to have a safe America. We need to strengthen the mandatory minimum sentences for armed career criminals, and if you're a violent offender that's out on bail and you're found with a gun, it should be very, very clear that you go to jail. The bottom line is we need to step up enforcement against gun crimes and leave law-abiding citizens alone.
Probably more than most, I realize it's the allocation of time and the priorities in the law enforcement system that determines if you reduce crime if you don't. The law enforcement system is not without end; it's not without limited resources. So the choices you make and what you focus on are going to determine whether you reduce crime or not. The time spent focusing on law-abiding, legal gun owners is time taken away from arresting and prosecuting and disabling the criminals who use guns. It's an -- very often, it's a trade-off.

I would say that my thinking on this as we go forward -- because you're entitled to know -- my thinking, if I should become president, as we go forward, is shaped not only by my experiences as a United States attorney fighting crime, a mayor fighting crime; by September 11, which puts a whole different emphasis on the thing America has to do to protect itself -- even, I think, a renewed emphasis on the Second Amendment; and the Parker decision, which I thought helped to crystallize and explain my thinking maybe better than I could ever do it.

The Parker decision, which I'm sure you're all familiar with, was decided right here in the D.C. Circuit by Judge Larry Silberman. It struck down the laws in the District of Columbia that effectively made it illegal inside the District to own an operable handgun for self- defense in your own home.

I read the Parker decision. It seemed to me an excellent example of strict constructionism, where a judge was struggling to find out the meaning of the words in the Constitution, not necessarily what he would like it to mean. I don't know what Judge Silberman would have liked the words of the Second Amendment to mean, and Judge Silberman didn't care about what he liked it to mean. What Judge Silberman cared about is what the people who wrote those words meant. What did they mean when they wrote the Second Amendment? What did they intend when they wrote the Second Amendment? Not what would I like it to intend or what would you like it to intend. That when we appoint a strict constructionist judge, that's what we're appointing. We're appointing someone to interpret what somebody else meant, not to make it up as he or she goes along. And Judge Silberman is a strict constructionist judge.

Another reason the Parker decision should be upheld is to underscore the castle doctrine. A person's home is their castle. People have a right to protect themselves in their homes. It's a right that I believe they should have, but whether I believe they should have or they shouldn't have, the Framers of our Constitution have given it to them. And it has to be respected. After all, the Second Amendment is a freedom that is every bit as important as the other freedoms in the first 10 amendments.

Just think of the language of it. The language of it is "the people shall be secure."
(Cellphone rings.) Let's see now. This is my wife calling, I think.

Hello, dear.

I'm talking -- I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello?

I love you, and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished. Okay?

Okay. Have a safe trip. Bye-bye. Talk to you later, dear. I love you.

It's a lot better that way. Well, this is -- I mean, this is one of the great blessings of the modern age, being always available. Or maybe it isn't; I'm not sure.

But the Parker decision offers an excellent example. Judge Silberman examined the notion of, you know, what does the language of the Second Amendment mean? And what he found is pretty evident. What he found was the words about people -- "the people" -- those words are used in the Bill of Rights, I believe, at least four other times: the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment. And some courts for some reason have decided that in the Second Amendment it means something different than in the other four, it means the right of the militia to bear arms.

But it doesn't say "the militia"; it says "the people." Why would you read the Second Amendment any differently than the other four? That is a perfect example - that is a perfect example of strict constructionist interpretation. It is quite clear that when the Framers of our Constitution gave people the right to have and to bear arms, they meant exactly the same thing as they meant when they gave people the right of free speech, the right of freedom of religion, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. When they said the rights not otherwise committed to the federal government and the states are reserved for the people, it's the people. It means a personal right, an individual right.

Now, I believe that's a correct interpretation. I believe that's what the law should be. But even if I didn't, that's what the Constitution says. And when you become president of the United States, you put your hand down, you take the oath of office and you pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution that exists. And you should know I understand that the right to bear arms is just as important a right in that Constitution as the right of free speech and the other rights.

And the one thing you can be sure about with me is, I will tell you what I really believe. It's not going to change unless something dramatic has happened to make it change, and then I'll explain to you why. And I think there's a certain value in knowing what you agree with and what you disagree with somebody about and then being able to trust how they're going to move forward.

There's one last thing I would like to talk to you about, because I know it's not exactly the agenda of this meeting, but it's something that really concerns me. And it's the direction of our politics.

Yesterday there was a critical vote in front of the United States Senate. It was vote on whether to condemn MoveOn.org or not for the horrible ad they ran against General Petraeus. Now, why is that ad so horrible? The ad is horrible because they've stepped beyond a new line, or they've moved to a new low, or, as my former senator, Senator Moynihan, described New York City about the time that I became mayor -- they're defining deviancy down.

And the new low they went to was -- look, MoveOn.org has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the politics of personal destruction -- which happens to be a Clinton phrase, by the way -- but MoveOn.org has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars in the politics of personal destruction now for some time. And their politics of personal destruction are always focused only against Republican candidates, so they are a major fundraising source of the Democratic Party.

And, look, frankly, our politics of personal destruction have definitely defined deviancy down. They go way beyond what they should. But, you know, we're in politics, and you sort of accept that as part of the price of being in politics nowadays. It's not a good thing, it's not helpful, but it's part of the price of it.

But in the past, we have not used those tactics against commanding generals in a time of war. It's unthinkable that we would do that. General Petraeus -- you may agree with -- which I do -- or you may disagree with him, but you have absolutely no right to impugn his integrity and expect us to take you seriously. And that's precisely -- (applause) -- and that is precisely what MoveOn.org did when they compared his name -- they did a pun on his name that said General Petraeus is "General Betray Us," using language that evoked treason, by the way, and traitorous conduct about an American general that I think all objective, honest observers would say has far exceeded expectations for what he's been able to achieve in Iraq over the last four or five months.

Whether you agree with the war in Iraq or you don't, whether you agree with the surge or you don't, Democrats even came back from Iraq and said that he's having more success than anybody thought. So to attack the man's integrity and honesty and decency is, in my view, indecent. It passed a line that we should not allow American political organizations to pass.

And yesterday, 24 Democrats, not all Democrats, 24 Democrats decided to side with moveon.org and against General Petraeus. And I think they defined for us the left wing of the left wing of the Democratic Party by voting that way. And you can be sure that in the coming months, and should I run for president, I will certainly remind the American people of that. Because you don't get to cast votes like that and not be accountable for the vote.

We are at war right now, whether some people want to recognize it or not. The confidence our troops have and the confidence we have in the man that is commanding those troops and is putting his life at risk to save his country and to help his country and to keep his troops safe, the kind of confidence we have in him and the kind of way in which we conduct ourselves with regard to that tells something about whether we can be commander in chief of the United States. And I intend to remind the American people of that.

Thank you very, very much. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Mr. Mayor, our audience members submitted a few questions.

And question number one is, while mayor, you initiated New York City's lawsuit against American firearms manufacturers, do you still believe that the American gun companies should be held liable for the unforeseeable criminal misuse of their products?

MR. GIULIANI: I did initiate that lawsuit back in 2000. Since then, I think that lawsuit has taken several turns and several twists that I don't agree with. I also think that there have been subsequent intervening events, September 11th, which cast somewhat of a different light on the Second Amendment and Second Amendment rights.

Doesn't change the fundamental rights, but maybe it highlights the necessity for them more. And I've also had a chance to read and analyze the Parker decision, which obviously hadn't taken place then.

So I think that lawsuit has gone in a direction that I probably don't agree with at this point, although at the time -- and there were several other things like that. I mean, at the time what I was doing, during the time that I was mayor, is taking advantage of every law and every interpretation of every law that I could think of to reduce crime in New York City. And to say that I was excessive in doing that, do not feel singled out. I was excessive in every way that I could think of in order to reduce crime. I enforced the gun laws that existed, strongly, and the interpretations that existed, strongly, but I also enforced the laws very strictly against all other things. It was part of the broken windows theory. Some people call it excessive; I thought it was intense. But the reality is, I was trying to achieve a result, which is to reduce crime in New York.

That is not necessarily what is needed now. It certainly isn't the interpretation that I think is the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment. So I would say that I didn't anticipate that the lawsuit would go in some of the directions that it's going with. And you've also had an intervening factor, the Tiahrt amendment, which I think is a sensible one, a sensible division. It gives law enforcement the ability to get information. Law enforcement is comfortable with it. So I would say that at this point it's probably going in a direction where if I were sitting on the court, I probably wouldn't agree with.

MODERATOR: Question number two. If elected president, will you appoint judges that respect the individual right to keep and bear arms?

MR. GIULIANI: I'll appoint judges that interpret the Constitution strictly. I will not ask judges for a litmus test, because I think that's wrong; and frankly, I don't think judges know the answer to how they'll decide individual cases. I believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
I think Judge Silberman's decision -- and this is the reason I was really impressed with it -- not only did it crystallize my thinking on the Second Amendment, it probably even improved my thinking on the Second Amendment. And the thing that I found the most illustrative of the reasoning is the fact that I don't know what Judge Silberman's view -- personal view is on firearms.

I don't know on what side of the line he is on firearms. All that I know is he tried to figure out what other people meant and then applied it. That's what I'm looking for in a judge.

Maybe the easiest way to describe the kind of judges that I would appoint is I would have appointed John Roberts to the court. He's a former colleague of mine. He's a man that I respect very much, and he's someone that I would put in the category of being a strict constructionist judge. I would have appointed Sam Alito, who was also a colleague of mine as the U.S. attorney in the adjoining district. I certainly would have appointed Nino Scalia. I've known Nino for 30 years. Those are the kinds of judges that I would seek to appoint. Justice Thomas. You never know when you appoint a judge exactly what you're getting. You can't. So you got to work really, really hard to find judges who you believe are going to interpret the Constitution and not create it, and those are the kinds of judges that I would appoint.

And I believe those judges would agree with me that the Second Amendment is a personal right, and whether you'd like it to be or you wouldn't like it to be, you've got to respect that. And I hope I'll be successful in finding judges like that. I think I will be. I think President Bush, one of the real legacies that he leaves is his excellent appointments to the Supreme Court. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Question three: What is the most important action the federal government can undertake to reduce the level of violent crime in the United States?

MR. GIULIANI: The most important action the federal government can take to reduce crime in the United States is to strictly enforce the laws that exist and for the -- and to cooperate with the state and local governments in handling the cases in all the different districts that exist in the United States that complement state and local law enforcement.

The reality is that law enforcement in this country is, by and large, state and local law enforcement. The federal government is not the chief law enforcer in the country. I'll give you one example of this -- and I've been on both sides of this, right? I've spent the majority of my career in the United States Department of Justice; more time in the United States Department of Justice than anywhere. And then I was mayor of the largest city on the country with the largest police department in the country. So I've worked on the local side, I've worked on the federal side, I've worked on the international side.

Here's the difference in terms of impact on reducing crime. There are right now approximately 12,000 FBI agents. There are 800,000 uniformed police officers. So where do you think you have the impact in reducing crime, at the federal level or at the state and local level? Where do you think the emphasis has to be put to have first preventers, meaning people who are going to prevent the next terrorist act? You've got to understand and respect state and local law enforcement and the primary role that they play in keeping us safe. And you've got to give them the support they need to enforce the laws that presently exist.

If we pass no new laws of any kind and we just enforce the ones that were there effectively with Comstat programs like I had in New York and broken windows theory and sufficient and well-trained enough police officers, we could see the kinds of reduction in crime in the next decade that we've had in the last. If we go in the other direction, however, you'll see crime starting to increase again.

So there are a lot of things you can do about crime, but if you'd ask the one most significant thing that you can do about crime, to continue to reduce it and even increase those reductions in crime, the single-most important thing to do is enforce the law strictly, apply the broken windows theory, and you'll see major crime deductions -- reductions in this country.

MODERATOR: And the final question, Mr. Mayor: What is your position on waiting periods?

MR. GIULIANI: What's my position on waiting periods? My position is the law should be less the way it is now, given the level of crime in this country. I think the emphasis and the energy should be spent on enforcing the laws that presently exist, and if changes in the law are necessary later, that'll respond to other social conditions.

I think the single-most important thing that the next president has to do is to organize an effort in the Department of Justice and with state and local law enforcement to work in a cooperative way to enforce the laws that presently exist. After we do that and we see the impact of that, then we can take a look at whether new laws are necessary. They may or may not be.
And I'll leave with you one final thought on the bigger picture. The election in 2008 is going to be a defining election. I know every presidential candidate since the beginning of the republic has probably said the next presidential election is the most important presidential election.

And probably every presidential candidate who said that is probably right, because it's always the next one that's the most important. And what you and I should be doing is looking toward the future.

Who is going to be the best president overall to lead this country? Who is going to be the best president overall to lead this country and keep it on offense against Islamic terrorists and not have a slip back to the Clinton era of playing defense against Islamic terrorists? That decision may be the single most important of all for us, because it may have to do with how we deal with the Islamic terrorists' war against us, and that may be the single defining issue.

The second most important issue is, how is someone going to deal with the direction in which our government is going to go? If it's a Democrat, we're going in the direction of bigger government, more new laws, more new regulations, socialized medicine, much more government control of your life. If you are like me, you're going to find a president that by and large moves us in the direction of more private choice, more private decision-making, solutions in the private sector, respect for the differences we have that's reflected in the amendments that we talked about.

And as I said at the beginning, you never get a candidate you agree with 100 percent. I'm not even sure I agree with myself 100 percent. I think I do, but not always. You have to look at the overall candidate. And then, I think, depending on the views that you have, you have to figure out who's electable, who can win. Because if we make a mistake about that, this country is going to go very much in a direction that I think you and I disagree with.

So thank you very much. Thank you for your consideration. I would love to have your support in the future. Mostly I'd like us to respect each other, because I think we have very, very legitimate and similar views, even though there may be some differences here and there. And thank you very, very much for your contribution to many things: safety, but also to the personal freedoms that after all is the thing that we're fighting for and, in some cases, some of us unfortunately are dying for. And hasn't that always been the way?

Thank you very much, and God bless you.

http://www.nraila.org//News/Read/Speeches.aspx?ID=45

[wmbwinn]

And, for Mavdog's obsession with the relationship to an armed citizenry and crime rates...

++++++++++++

Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries

Do other countries all have more restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime rates than the U.S.? How do U.S. and other countries` crime trends compare? What societal factors affect crime rates?

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")

Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)

U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:
England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/okslip.html, http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...nt071800c.html, and http://www.nraila.org/research/19990...ights-030.html.

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see http://www.nraila.org/research/20000...Guns-001.shtml.

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and http://www.nraila.org/research/20010...trol-001.shtml.

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120700.shtml

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

Foreign Country Cultures, Law Enforcement Policies, and Criminal Justice Systems
While America is quite different from certain countries in terms of firearms laws, we are just as different from those countries in other respects which have a much greater influence on crime rates. Attorney David Kopel explains, "There is little evidence that foreign gun statutes, with at best a mixed record in their own countries, would succeed in the United States. Contrary to the claims of the American gun-control movement, gun control does not deserve credit for the low crime rates in Britain, Japan, or other nations. Despite strict and sometimes draconian gun controls in other nations, guns remain readily available on the criminal black market. . . . The experiences of (England, Japan, Canada, and the United States) point to social control as far more important than gun control. Gun control (in foreign countries) validates other authoritarian features of the society. Exaltation of the police and submission to authority are values, which, when internally adopted by the citizenry, keep people out of trouble with the law. The most important effect of gun control in Japan and the Commonwealth is that it reinforces the message that citizens must be obedient to the government." (The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy: Should America adopt the gun controls of other democracies?, Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1992, pp. 431.)

Kopel notes that crime is also suppressed in some foreign countries by law enforcement and criminal justice policies that would run afoul of civil rights protections in the U.S. Constitution and which the American people would not accept. "Foreign gun control comes along with searches and seizures, and with many other restrictions on civil liberties too intrusive for America," Kopel observes. "Foreign gun control . . . postulates an authoritarian philosophy of government and society fundamentally at odds with the individualist and egalitarian American ethos. In the United States, the people give the law to government, not, as in almost every other country, the other way around." Following are details for two countries which anti-gun activists often compare to the U.S.:

Britain -- Parliament increasingly has given the police power to stop and search vehicles as well as pedestrians. Police may arrest any person they "reasonably" suspect supports an illegal organization. The grand jury, an ancient common law institution, was abolished in 1933. Civil jury trials have been abolished in all cases except libel, and criminal jury trials are rare. . . . While America has the Miranda rules, Britain allows police to interrogate suspects who have asked that interrogation stop, and allows the police to keep defense lawyers away from suspects under interrogation for limited periods. Britain allows evidence which has been derived from a coerced confession to be used in court. Wiretaps do not need judicial approval and it is unlawful in a British court to point out the fact that a police wiretap was illegal." (Kopel, 1992, pp. 101-102.)

Recently, London law enforcement authorities began installing cameras overlooking selected intersections in the city`s business district, to observe passers-by on the sidewalks. The British Home Office has introduced "`Anti-Social Behaviour Orders` -- special court orders intended to deal with people who cannot be proven to have committed a crime, but whom the police want to restrict anyway. Behaviour Orders can, among other things, prohibit a person from visiting a particular street or premises, set a curfew or lead to a person`s eviction from his home. Violation of a Behaviour Order can carry a prison sentence of up to five years. Prime Minister Tony Blair is now proposing that the government be allowed to confine people proactively, based on fears of their potential danger to society." (Kopel, et al., 2001, p. 27.)

"The British government frequently bans books on national security grounds. In addition, England`s libel laws tend to favor those who bring suit against a free press. Prior restraint of speech in the United States is allowed only in the most urgent of circumstances. In England, the government may apply for a prior restraint of speech ex parte, asking a court to censor a newspaper without the newspaper even having notice or the opportunity to present an argument. . . . Free speech in Great Britain is also constrained by the Official Secrets Act, which outlaws the unauthorized receipt of information from any government agency, and allows the government to forbid publication of any `secret` it pleases. . . . The act was expanded in 1920 and again in 1989 -- times when gun controls were also expanded." (Kopel, 1991, pp. 99-102.)

Japan -- Citizens have fewer protections of the right to privacy, and fewer rights for criminal suspects, than in America. Every person is the subject of a police dossier. Japanese police routinely search citizens at will and twice a year pay "home visits" to citizens` residences. Suspect confession rate is 95% and trial conviction rate is more than 99.9%. The Tokyo Bar Assn. has said that the Japanese police routinely engage in torture or illegal treatment. Even in cases where suspects claimed to have been tortured and their bodies bore the physical traces to back their claims, courts have still accepted their confessions. Amnesty International calls Japan`s police custody system "a flagrant violation of United Nations human rights principles." Suspects can be held and interrogated for 28 days without being brought before a judge, compared with no more than two days in many other nations. They aren`t allowed legal counsel during interrogation, when in custody may be visited by only criminal defense lawyers, are not allowed to read confessions before they sign them, and have no right to trial by jury. (Kopel, 1991, pp. 23-26.)

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSh...ead.aspx?ID=78

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

2)criminals are more likely to not carry any weapon in areas where the citizens are likely armed

I'm having a hard time understanding this one. If citizens are likely armed, criminals are as a result likely not armed, you say. I'm not sure you understand how the world works...

3)criminals carry guns more often in places like Chicago, California, Washington DC, and Massachusetts because they know they won't find honest citizens there who are armed

Well, that's one possible explanation. Among several much more likely explanations.

)criminals will not use guns in crime if they know ahead of time that they are going to be severely punished.

If only it were that simple.

You seem to find a lot of pie in your sky.

[wmbwinn]

Chum, you should hang out with Mavdog. Neither of you produce any research or documentation of your positions. You just provide your opinion and ignore all the data I gave you to show you that you are dead wrong.

[chumdawg]

Data is one thing. Your interpretation of the data is obviously quite another. This is what I pointed out to you in my post above. You seem to think that the data you offer support your assertions, when that is not at all the case.

I mean, come on...if honest citizens are armed, then criminals likely aren't? Gimme a break.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

To Mavdog:
More guns, less crime

Mavdog, stop boring me with your opinions and show me some research fact to support your position. Or go after the research articles I have posted. Look at the webpage linked references.

first, you seem to be uinder the illusion that I have advocated a position that fewer guns equals less crime. you are totally wrong in that, as I have not made that assertion at all. in fact, I have said repeatedly that the issue is NOT guns and crime, the issue is guns and murders, guns and accidental deaths. I have shown that the societies who have the highest murder rates and deaths by fuirearms are the countries who have the highest incidence of gun ownership per person.

second, your insisting that there is a direct effect of higher gun ownership and less crime is not supported at all by research. as the amount of guns owned in the usa has increased every year, that would (according to your assertion) result in the crime rate going down every year.

newsflash: crime has not decreased every year, it has ebbed and flowed. there is no direct correlation of gun ownership to crime, which (again) is not the point...the point is the rate of murders (high in the usa) and the rate of death by guns (high in the usa) is related to the amount of guns in a society (high in the usa).

and as far as the nra supporting background checks, they do NOT support mandated checks for private sellers of firearms, only requirements for commercial enterprises to be obligated to do a background check. that is a ludicrous position as it leaves a huge number of sales out of a system that could prevent the wrong people from easily obtaining a firearm.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Data is one thing. Your interpretation of the data is obviously quite another. This is what I pointed out to you in my post above. You seem to think that the data you offer support your assertions, when that is not at all the case.

I mean, come on...if honest citizens are armed, then criminals likely aren't? Gimme a break.

you obviously never read the linked article. The point is that criminals in prison who were interviewed said that they would not use a weapon to try to commit a crime in a situation where they had reason to believe that the victim was or might be armed.

go back and read the linked article. The data presented is there to back me up on all the conclusions. Besides, if you are going to stay on the one point only and ignore all the others, then I assume that at least you understood the other points.

[wmbwinn]

the highest murder rates and deaths by fuirearms are the countries who have the highest incidence of gun ownership per person.

The above is Mavdog saying the same thing again although we have run around this same tree repeatedly...

Countries with cars have automobile accidents. We don't advocate getting rid of cars. Cars have a benefit that is greater than the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year that occur in motor vehicle accidents.

If we accept hundreds of thousands of deaths each year with no debate about the value of automobiles, then why can't we discuss a cost/benefit issue with firearms?

Repeatedly saying that countries with guns have deaths with guns is just driving me nuts.

[wmbwinn]

and as far as the nra supporting background checks, they do NOT support mandated checks for private sellers of firearms, only requirements for commercial enterprises to be obligated to do a background check. that is a ludicrous position as it leaves a huge number of sales out of a system that could prevent the wrong people from easily obtaining a firearm.

The above is Mavdog again.

Read the article on the gunshow loophole. Note how few gun sales there are based on the FBI and ATF records and estimates which are from one private individual to another. Note how few guns gained in that fashion end up being used for terror or crime.

You are right that the NRA does not support forcing private individuals to go to a FFL (gun dealer with a license) to oversee a sale.

But, when the seller is selling online such as on an auction (which is probably where a high percentage of private owner to private buyer transactions take place), the seller has to ship that gun to a FFL and that FFL transfers the gun to the buyer by going through a background check. That particular issue occurs because it is absolutely illegal to ship a gun through the mail or by UPS/Fed Ex unless that gun is being shipped to a FFL.

Again, you are talking about a tiny percentage of sales not going through a background check. And, the records show that those weapons are not being used in crime or terror.

Now, I personally don't mind a law that forces all sales to go through a FFL and background check. I just don't think that such a law will pass and I don't think that such a law will be heavily obeyed. Jim Bob and Joe Bob are still going to sell each other their guns in rural America.

And, we haven't even discussed giving guns as gifts. Giving a gun as a gift is already illegal. The background check paperwork specifically states that it is illegal to buy a gun with a plan to pass it on to someone else. But... people give gifts of guns all the time. A few hundred thousand guns are under the Christmas tree right now. Maybe a few million...

And, again, the FBI background checks are not recorded for a record. The US Congress passed a law many years ago that the background check records could not be maintained as a system of record keeping or "registration". So... no one knows who owns what guns...

Not saying that I agree with such things. Just pointing them out...

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The above is Mavdog saying the same thing again although we have run around this same tree repeatedly...

Countries with cars have automobile accidents. We don't advocate getting rid of cars. Cars have a benefit that is greater than the hundreds of thousands of deaths each year that occur in motor vehicle accidents.

If we accept hundreds of thousands of deaths each year with no debate about the value of automobiles, then why can't we discuss a cost/benefit issue with firearms?

Repeatedly saying that countries with guns have deaths with guns is just driving me nuts.

so reality is "driving [you] nuts"? too bad.

nothing like comparing apples and oranges as if they are the same...

tell me, what other use is there for a firearm other than hurling a projectile thru the air that will inflict harm on either a person, an animal, or a target?

well? there isn't.

fewer guns in a society results in fewer murders.

criminals in prison who were interviewed said that they would not use a weapon to try to commit a crime in a situation where they had reason to believe that the victim was or might be armed.

yeah, I can't think of a more credible group of people to seek an honest answer from than convicted criminals.....I bet they gave this straightforward answer right after telling the interviewer about the fact that they were innocent.

[wmbwinn]

Obviously, Mavdog didn't read the research article either. If you are just now discussing the method of the survey because I told you that they interviewed prisoners, then you didn't read the article either.

typical.

Just keep assuming that your logic and view of the world is correct. Ignore the research.

[wmbwinn]

guns are used for defense of life and property and freedom. That is what the second amendment is about as defined by the SCOTUS and a multitude of documents/statements by those "founding fathers" (dead white men).

Yes, they hurl projectiles at persons, targets, etc. So did the bow and arrow and many other devices.

Yes, they are intended to kill and destroy.

And, the Constitution gives us the right to maintain that capability for our defense of life and property and our freedom.

You may never understand that.

And, although you can argue about causation, every linked article I posted showed an association of less crime in areas with more guns (other than old Japan but with a new trend to make Japan like the rest of the world) and more crime in areas with less guns.

There is just no good evidence that gun control or elimination has any good outcome. And, your opinion is just your opinion.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

you obviously never read the linked article. The point is that criminals in prison who were interviewed said that they would not use a weapon to try to commit a crime in a situation where they had reason to believe that the victim was or might be armed.

Which linked article? You have posted so many, that I can't even imagine which one you mean.

Yet...you say the point is that criminals in prison say they would have done it differently had they known their victim was, or might be, armed. THAT, you say, is the point? Well...what the hell exactly is the point, that you are claiming? The only even close to reasonable scenario I can dream of is that the criminals in question were injured severely by gunshots from their would-be victims. In that case, I'm sure they would like to take it back. Otherwise, I can't imagine how your point has any relevance whatsoever.

I understand what you are getting at. You are trying to say that if the criminal knows that the shopowner is armed and is willing to use it, the criminal will be less likely to commit his crime. You think this is a panacea that will prevent crime.

I say that this is not the way the world works, and that you are failingly idealistic.

[wmbwinn]

Chumdawg:

Which linked article? You have posted so many, that I can't even imagine which one you mean.

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=117

please, read the article. I think it is an excellent research attempt.

There is no such thing as perfect research, especially when based on interviews or polls. But, consider it. I know Mavdog won't consider it, but you might.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

fewer guns in a society results in fewer murders.

Many of the worst civilations of history as to a history of murder did not even have guns. They weren't even invented yet.

As you said earlier (and keep forgetting), guns are not to be equated to the prescence or abscence of crime.

But as I keep saying, criminals will use weapons. Lawful citizens wishing to protect themselves should be armed.

And, there is still the other issue of the defense of the state and the society. That is another reason to be armed. Look at the history of Switzerland. Hitler bypassed that little nation because taking that nation would be horribly expensive in death to Germans. Everyone (perhaps not Mavdog) knows that all men serve in the military in Switzerland by law. All men take their military weapons home for life. All men check back in to the military occasionally to show their weapons to be in good repair. All men check back in with the military at scheduled times to re-demonstrate their ability to use that weapon effectively and correctly and to take care of it. No one wants to fight Switzerland. Imagine if the US was like that...

And, then imagine what crime would look like if all of America was like Switzerland... want to break into a house in Switzerland? Want to break into an ex-US Marine's house when he has his military weapon in his house?

[Mavdog]

your response to the direct link between guns and the level of murders in a society seems to be "people kill each other anyway". that isn't borne by the facts, which is in societies with fewer guns there are fewer murders.

your mention of switzerland and hitler is not accurate. germany did not invade switzerland because of the need to use its banking system. it was switzerland's financial staus, not its military ability, that protected it from invasion.

in fact, there are close to twice a many guns per capita in the usa than there is in switzerland. guess what? there is close to twice as many murders per capita in the usa than in switzerland as well.

yes, more guns equate to more murders, more senseless loss of life.

guns need to be regulated, and the scotus opinion says that is legal.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your response to the direct link between guns and the level of murders in a society seems to be "people kill each other anyway". that isn't borne by the facts, which is in societies with fewer guns there are fewer murders.

your mention of switzerland and hitler is not accurate. germany did not invade switzerland because of the need to use its banking system. it was switzerland's financial staus, not its military ability, that protected it from invasion.

in fact, there are close to twice a many guns per capita in the usa than there is in switzerland. guess what? there is close to twice as many murders per capita in the usa than in switzerland as well.

yes, more guns equate to more murders, more senseless loss of life.

guns need to be regulated, and the scotus opinion says that is legal.

Hitler very specifically said that he did not invade Switzerland because:
1)it would be too expensive in loss of life
2)it was a small country that he thought he could surround and starve into submission

You can't rewrite history.

The SCOTUS opinion says that guns can be regulated. It also says that such regulations cannot eliminate the guns. It ruled that the laws of Washington DC were unconstitutional because the regulations removed the reasonable ownership and use of the weapons. So, you can't regulate them into non existence. That is what the SCOTUS decision said.

And, it said a lot of other things as well. It said definitively that the Second Amendment protected the right of the private individual to own and bear and use firearms. The right can be regulated but it cannot be regulated into non existence of the ability to own, bear, and use the weapons.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

your response to the direct link between guns and the level of murders in a society seems to be "people kill each other anyway". that isn't borne by the facts, which is in societies with fewer guns there are fewer murders.

your mention of switzerland and hitler is not accurate. germany did not invade switzerland because of the need to use its banking system. it was switzerland's financial staus, not its military ability, that protected it from invasion.

in fact, there are close to twice a many guns per capita in the usa than there is in switzerland. guess what? there is close to twice as many murders per capita in the usa than in switzerland as well.

yes, more guns equate to more murders, more senseless loss of life.

guns need to be regulated, and the scotus opinion says that is legal.

You are re-writing your earlier positions. Earlier, you accurately said that in countries without guns, that there are fewer murders performed with guns. That is a "Oh, Duh" statement but it is accurate.

Now, you are saying that countries with fewer guns have fewer murders.

Let us back up to the over riding idea that we agree on which is that crime and murder happen in the prescence and abscence of firearms. The guns have nothing to do with the underlying crime rate. The guns do increase the lethality of crime.

And, let us review the obvious fact that each country is unique and different. Switzerland has no Dallas, Texas and no Chicago, Illinois, and no LA, California. Switzerland does not have our racial inequality and strife.

Switzerland may have fewer guns per capita but the guns they do have are military issue (fully automatic at this point in history) and the men have military training. I just think you would have to be mentally retarded to start a career in crime in Switzerland.

So, be careful with the conclusions. I try to be careful with my conclusions as well. That is why I listed the research and supportive documents and then admitted some of their shortcomings.

Join me in the field of greater objectivity if you will.

Or just screaming your opinion if it makes you feel good.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Hitler very specifically said that he did not invade Switzerland because:
1)it would be too expensive in loss of life
2)it was a small country that he thought he could surround and starve into submission

You can't rewrite history.

than why do you attempt to "rewrite history"?

"Eugen Bircher, a Swiss colonel at the time, probably made a correct assessment of the situation when saying that the Germans would have been able to advance towards the Swiss capital Berne with a single tank regiment easily. (Edgar Bonjour, Neutralität, Bd. IV, 1970, p. 379 quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report,"

"Some historians say, that financial services, especially buying gold from Germany in exchange for convertible currency (Germany's national currency was no longer accepted as a means of payment in the international markets) was also an important factor"

Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland – Second World War

yep, just as I said.

Or just screaming your opinion if it makes you feel good

let's see, is it a fact or opinion that societies which have the highest rates of gun ownership also have the highest murder rates?

it is fact.

is it fact or opinion that societies that have the higher rates of gun ownership also have the higher rates of accidental death?

it is fact.

case closed. facts that support the opinions.

[alexamenos]

fwiw...

this page has quite a few pertinent facts. Whether they're reliable or not I don't know but assuming they are reliable....

I looked at assaults per capita, murders per capita, and murders with guns per capita across the spectrum, then narrowed things down to US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the data was available for these countries (not for india and france) and all five have assaults per 1000 in the 7-8 range.

so...

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.043 0.028 90
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

The glaringly obvious conclusion is that the difference in murder rates in the US versus the other five countries stems from gun fire -- basically...if 28 person per million are murder from guns during the year in the us and if the us has about 26-30 more murders per million per year then it doesn't take a brain seargant to figure out the problem, right? Thus, by taking guns out of the mix you reduce the murder rate to 15 per million, or 0.015 per thousand in which case the murder rate in the US is comparable to UK, Aus, Can, and NZ....Right?

If we reduce the number of guns down to the number in Can, Aus or NZ, we ought to expect comparable gun related murder rates and we can expect stats to look something like this:

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.019 0.003 30
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

Right?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

than why do you attempt to "rewrite history"?

"Eugen Bircher, a Swiss colonel at the time, probably made a correct assessment of the situation when saying that the Germans would have been able to advance towards the Swiss capital Berne with a single tank regiment easily. (Edgar Bonjour, Neutralität, Bd. IV, 1970, p. 379 quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report,"

"Some historians say, that financial services, especially buying gold from Germany in exchange for convertible currency (Germany's national currency was no longer accepted as a means of payment in the international markets) was also an important factor"

Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland – Second World War

yep, just as I said.

Your source is hardly comprehensive. From the same url you provided:

The Commission's mandate covers the gold trading and foreign currency transactions conducted by the Swiss National Bank and by private commercial banks. The objects of the investigation are all assets moved to Switzerland including insurable values and cultural assets, both of the victims of the Nazi regime as well as of its perpetrators and collaborators. The relations of Swiss industrial and commercial companies with the National-Socialist economy – especially regarding their involvement in "aryanization measures" and the exploitation of forced labourers – are also examined. Another key topic is Swiss refuge policy in connection with Switzerland's economic and financial relations with the Axis powers and the Allies. The study also includes the post-war period including government measures for the return of unlawfully acquired assets (Washington Accord 1946, Resolution the reporting of dormant accounts 1962).

As stated above, the report you're citing as a rebutal to wmbwinn was done under a mandate of examining the financial system. I did a quick search on the word "military" on that site, and I couldn't find it. So this is a very well focused report, which mentions nothing of the military of Germany or it's strategies.

So perhaps you'll concede there were other reasons beyond the banking system?

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htm

The Nazis could have eventually have conquered Switzerland, but at a fearful price. The Wehrmacht expected 200,000 German casualties; it would have taken a very long time to remove the Swiss military from the Alpine “Reduit” to which they planned to make a stand. And by the time the Swiss were defeated, every bridge and train track and everything else of value to the conquerors would have been destroyed.

The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade—in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks—was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people.

That is just one of several sources where you can find information on German military matters. Hitler was absolutely concerned with the high number of German casualties, and wmbwinn is absolutely correct in his statement of such.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

fwiw...

this page has quite a few pertinent facts. Whether they're reliable or not I don't know but assuming they are reliable....

I looked at assaults per capita, murders per capita, and murders with guns per capita across the spectrum, then narrowed things down to US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the data was available for these countries (not for india and france) and all five have assaults per 1000 in the 7-8 range.

so...

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.043 0.028 90
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

The glaringly obvious conclusion is that the difference in murder rates in the US versus the other five countries stems from gun fire -- basically...if 28 person per million are murder from guns during the year in the us and if the us has about 26-30 more murders per million per year then it doesn't take a brain seargant to figure out the problem, right? Thus, by taking guns out of the mix you reduce the murder rate to 15 per million, or 0.015 per thousand in which case the murder rate in the US is comparable to UK, Aus, Can, and NZ....Right?

If we reduce the number of guns down to the number in Can, Aus or NZ, we ought to expect comparable gun related murder rates and we can expect stats to look something like this:

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.019 0.003 30
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

Right?

seems to be valid

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

fwiw...

this page has quite a few pertinent facts. Whether they're reliable or not I don't know but assuming they are reliable....

I looked at assaults per capita, murders per capita, and murders with guns per capita across the spectrum, then narrowed things down to US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia because the data was available for these countries (not for india and france) and all five have assaults per 1000 in the 7-8 range.

so...

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.043 0.028 90
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

The glaringly obvious conclusion is that the difference in murder rates in the US versus the other five countries stems from gun fire -- basically...if 28 person per million are murder from guns during the year in the us and if the us has about 26-30 more murders per million per year then it doesn't take a brain seargant to figure out the problem, right? Thus, by taking guns out of the mix you reduce the murder rate to 15 per million, or 0.015 per thousand in which case the murder rate in the US is comparable to UK, Aus, Can, and NZ....Right?

If we reduce the number of guns down to the number in Can, Aus or NZ, we ought to expect comparable gun related murder rates and we can expect stats to look something like this:

country, assaults per 1000, murder per 1000, murder by gun per 1000, guns per 100 residents

US 7.6 0.019 0.003 30
UK 7.5 0.014 0.001 ~5
Aus 7.0 0.015 0.003 31
Can 7.1 0.015 0.005 32
NZ 7.5 0.011 0.002 26

Right?

I appreciate an analytical mind. But, all you have done is prove the "Oh, Duh" statement of Mavdog: Crime committed with guns is more lethal.

I have never argued contrary to that idea. Yes, Yes, Yes. Guns produce more lethal outcomes when crime is committed with guns.

Still doesn't deal with the issue.

The issues are:
The criminal has a gun. I need a gun to defend myself.

The nation/society needs a militia of armed citizens for its own safety as a state/society (Switzerland as Exhibit A).

Now, we can talk about having a UK style seizure and destruction of weapons (that is what happened there) and a ban on almost all types of guns.

But, that leaves the UK in the same boat as Greece, India, and France: the innocent civilians/citizens cannot defend themselves when all hell breaks loose. Greek citizens can't protect their property against an anarchal riot. The citizens of India suffer 500 deaths and injured persons at the hands of a dozen militants with small arms and grenades and are powerless to defend themselves. And, French citizens could do nothing to defend themselves against the Islamic riots that broke out earlier.

That stuff doesn't happen in Switzerland and Texas because the citizens there would just shoot the idiots themselves...

So, that brings us back to the question. What is the cost/benefit consideration of an armed citizenry?

What is the cost/benefit of the automobile industry (cost is hundreds of thousands of annual deaths)? Shall we just kill the automobile industry since it is about to go bancrupt anyway?

Now, if you want solutions, then here are the ideas I stand behind:
1)as the guns cannot be removed from the hands of the criminally minded anyway and as the US Second Amendment prevents a UK style seizure of guns anyway, then the answer is not in gun control (if gun control is defined as elimination of guns).
2)We continue to seek the ideals of giving guns to the good guys and preventing their possession to the bad guys. But, this is a pipe dream although we all support trying.
3)We do what Rudy Giuliani did in NYC. We
a)increase the punishment
b)assign the punishment in court if guilty
c)prevent the correctional facilities from letting them go early or reducing the penalty.

Rudy's plan worked in NYC. If it works there, then why not expand it across the nation? Do we really have to keep debating ideas when we have good evidence and history about what works?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Your source is hardly comprehensive. From the same url you provided:



As stated above, the report you're citing as a rebutal to wmbwinn was done under a mandate of examining the financial system. I did a quick search on the word "military" on that site, and I couldn't find it. So this is a very well focused report, which mentions nothing of the military of Germany or it's strategies.

So perhaps you'll concede there were other reasons beyond the banking system?

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htm


That is just one of several sources where you can find information on German military matters. Hitler was absolutely concerned with the high number of German casualties, and wmbwinn is absolutely correct in his statement of such.

I'm willing to accept that Germany had an interest in Switzerland's banking services. That does not change the fact that there were other pressing considerations which were the extreme loss of German life trying to conquer the whole armed/trained people of Switzerland.

Hitler is well quoted on this issue. It is established history.

The idea of a trained/armed militia consisting of all citizens is quite valuable to the issues of civil crime control/deterrence and the issues of nation/society protection.

That is what the second amendment is all about.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Your source is hardly comprehensive. From the same url you provided:

uh what?

As stated above, the report you're citing as a rebutal to wmbwinn was done under a mandate of examining the financial system. I did a quick search on the word "military" on that site, and I couldn't find it. So this is a very well focused report, which mentions nothing of the military of Germany or it's strategies.

So perhaps you'll concede there were other reasons beyond the banking system?

no, there are 25 seperate studies. you must have not looked very deeply.

were there more than just the financial system? sure, there is the fact that switzerland doesn't really possess any natural resources that would help the german war effort. it also was neutral, so it didn't present any threat to germany.

but its role as a financial conduit was most contributory in its protection.

That is just one of several sources where you can find information on German military matters. Hitler was absolutely concerned with the high number of German casualties, and wmbwinn is absolutely correct in his statement of such.

nope, in fact the crux of the swiss defensive theory was titled "reduit concept", which in essence meant that the swiss army woud rapidly withdraw to the mountains rather than confront and try to stop a german invasion. the swiss army would engage in guerilla tactics from the mountains, launcing small concentrated actions.

iow they wouldn't use this supposed mass numbers of firearms to stop a german assault, hence there would not be a "high number of casualties" suffered by the germans during an invasion.

nice try tho...

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

let's see, is it a fact or opinion that societies which have the highest rates of gun ownership also have the highest murder rates?

it is fact.

is it fact or opinion that societies that have the higher rates of gun ownership also have the higher rates of accidental death?

it is fact.

case closed. facts that support the opinions.

The above was never debated. Those are so obviously true. I keep calling them your "Oh, Duh" comments because they are so obviously true...

Can you now move past these to the considerations of why we keep guns regardless of the "oh, Duh" statements?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Mavdog:


The above was never debated. Those are so obviously true. I keep calling them your "Oh, Duh" comments because they are so obviously true...

Can you now move past these to the considerations of why we keep guns regardless of the "oh, Duh" statements?

how anyone would simply accept an extraordinary rate of murders and violence in a society as a "oh duh" is beyond me....

yeah, I know why people keep guns. it's a strange desire of power, infatuation and perceived "protection", not to mention machoism.

not sufficient to trump the collateral death and violence they produce imo.

[wmbwinn]

It is annoying to see partial quotes of a link used in an arguement, especially when the author of the report feels that neither the banking or the military were the primary deterrents to a German invasion of Switzerland. The author of much linked paper says that the primary reason that Germany did not invade Switzerland was due to the Alpine railway connecting Italy to Germany. It would have been easy for the Swiss to destroy that railway.

Anyway, here is the full quote under the heading of why Germany did not invade Switzerland. I will remind all that this is just one source of information. Note that the author readily concedes that "traditionalists feel the military was the primary deterrent".

++++++++++++++++

Why did Hitler not attack Switzerland?
During World War II, Switzerland was not actually attacked. Occasional incidents were absolutely insignificant in view of the dimensions of the Second World War. Incidents proceeded more frequently from British and American bombers than from Germany or Italy. Nevertheless German troops were regarded as a really serious threat. Unlike for other nations (for example Sweden), this threat was real, insofar as Hitler did have plans to incorporate all German-speaking regions into his empire (including 70% of Switzerland) and to integrate the rest of Switzerland (french and italian speaking areas) into France and Italy respectively. (see Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 87)

The plans for the attack were ready in the drawers of the German army. (final report, p. 84) German broadcast propaganda went "Die Schweiz, das kleine Stachelschwein, nehmen wir auf dem Rückweg ein" ["We'll take Switzerland, the small porcupine, on our way back home!"] (quoted after oral family tradition, consistent with lots of independent other oral sources published in the internet). - and this was taken quite seriously. Nevertheless the attack was never carried out. Why this?

Switzerland demonstrated military readiness with the general mobilization in 1939 and border occupation by 430,000 troops (20 % of the employed persons). However, their equipment was not very up to date. Eugen Bircher, a Swiss colonel at the time, probably made a correct assessment of the situation when saying that the Germans would have been able to advance towards the Swiss capital Berne with a single tank regiment easily. (Edgar Bonjour, Neutralität, Bd. IV, 1970, p. 379 quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, German edition, p. 92. Note that the english edition of the final report, p. 89f does not give the important adverb "easily")
This assessment was shared (but not declared publicly) by a broad majority of leading Swiss Army officers. As a consequence Switzerland's commander in chief General Henri Guisan developped his famous "Reduit Concept" in summer 1940, according to which the Swiss Army would have retreated into the alps relatively soon if attacked, but would have kept up resistance based on some sort of guerilla tactics from there.
Consequently the term "Grenzbesetzung" [occupation of the borders] was replaced by "Aktivdienst" [active (military) service, the term "active" was meant as a counterpoint to 3-week military repetition courses that Swiss soldiers have to attend annually.] After the (international) debate on Switzerland's refugee politics and looted jewish assets in the 1990's there is now a new (internal) debate about the Reduit Concept among members of the so-called Aktivdienstgeneration [generation of people that were called to active military service]. It seems, that they are becoming aware only today, how soon General Guisan would have retreated Swiss troops from the borders into the Reduit, trying to prevent useless bloodshed on terrain, where the aggressor could use his tanks and aircraft, but leaving the majority of the population under occupation. The main strategy, however, was deterrence rather than fighting - and this worked out better than a sober external observer would have estimated. Of course, General Guisan did not communicate his detailed plans publicly in 1940 ...

Integrating the German speaking regions (74%) of Switzerland into the Third Reich - as Adolf Hitler did with Austria in 1938 and planned with Switzerland - would have led to civil disobedience and massive "internal" criticism within the Reich, thereby absorbing too many forces of secret police and armed forces and it might even have strengthened the internal resistance in Germany against the Nazi regime. The Swiss concept of Spiritual Defense also had a deterring effect insofar as due to this movement the Swiss population was not at all "demoralized and ready for capitulation", as Adolf Hitler tried to get his victims by massive propaganda.

Switzerland's alpine railways were of central importance for transports between Germany and Italy . In case of an attack on Switzerland, the Swiss Army would have destroyed important bridges and tunnels, and would have paralyzed the connection for years. The Swiss compromise offer to Germany and Italy was, that Switzerland would allow transports between Germany and Italy in sealed box cars without checking the contents - in exchange for the supply of vital raw materials and goods. This obviously was more attractive to Germany than a destroyed railway line. On the other hand, exporting industry products (chemicals, pharmceutics, machinery and electrical equipment) was far more vital for Switzerland as a small country than importing was for Germany and Italy - big nations having together 25 times the Swiss population and being able to use industrial resources all over occupied Europe.

Some historians say, that financial services, especially buying gold from Germany in exchange for convertible currency (Germany's national currency was no longer accepted as a means of payment in the international markets) was also an important factor. The Independent Commission of Experts showed that the Chairman of the Swiss National Bank (SNB) did not use this argument during the Second World War. "It was only after the war ... that the SNB directors claimed that their gold transactions and positive relations with Germany had prevented Germany from seriously considering the option of military operations against Switzerland. ... One might just as well claim that with its «business as usual» approach, the SNB had effectively prevented Switzerland from using the convertibility of its currency as a trump card in the economic negotiations with Germany, thus neutralising the dissuasive potential." (Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 247f)

The defense of Switzerland was thus based only on three columns (army, Spiritual Defense and alpine transit), but all of them were quite weak. So it was ever more important to combine them in a most effective way. The international debate on Switzerland's role in World War II has split public opinion into two camps: Swiss traditionalists defend the glorious role of the Swiss Army while leftist critics point to anything that has been done wrong according to moral standards. A sober look at the real balance of power between Germany and Austria vs. tiny Switzerland and the fact that France and Great Britain were not able to prevent Germany from occupying France in 1940 shows that Switzerland's Army (even backed up by Spiritual Defense) had absolutely no chance to withstand an attack and defend its borders.

Therefore an attempt to rely on military deterrence alone would inevitably have ended in being defeated - and thus practically all Swiss citizens of Jewish origin as well as some 100,000 military and some 60,000 civilian refugees admitted by Switzerland would have faced deportation to the concentration and death camps of the Nazis.

I estimate that alpine transportation was the key "joker" of Switzerland. Jokers have no effect, however, if not played out. An alpine transit railway with severe restrictions for use would have been of limited interest for Nazi Germany just as a destroyed one, and it would not have served as an argument to prevent a Nazi attack on Switzerland. Under acute threat it was obviously very difficult to estimate, how many concessions would convince Adolf Hitler to renounce on an attack. Given the weak negotiating position thus no other choice remained for Switzerland than to permit rather too many of the often criticized transports than too few.

+++++++++++++++

Now, if you read the earlier aspects of the much quoted source, then we can list all the things that are reasoned to have prevented Germany from sacking Switzerland:

1)Spiritual Defense (a fierce determination to not surrender)
2)Military might and the 'every man' militia
3)banking. apparently in this article, it was Switzerland who needed Germany and Italy for economy as much if not more than Germany needed Switzerland. Apparently, this lead to much censorship in Switzerland of not writing against Nazism.
4)Alpine railway

Now, the reason this author minimizes the military issue of deterrence is because the Swiss military leaders knew they could not win. There was a strategy to retreat to a defensible position and fight in a guerilla fashion. BUT, HITLER DID NOT KNOW THIS. So, a military deterrence or concern for loss still existed.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

how anyone would simply accept an extraordinary rate of murders and violence in a society as a "oh duh" is beyond me....

yeah, I know why people keep guns. it's a strange desire of power, infatuation and perceived "protection", not to mention machoism.

not sufficient to trump the collateral death and violence they produce imo.

why do we keep cars which result in many more deaths? Because they have a value.

The "strange desire of power, infatuation and perceived protection, not to mention machoism" statement is weak.

I have stated in much detail why they provide a benefit.
And, you are arguing from an impossible ideal. It is not possible to remove guns here. The second amendment prevents it. The sheer number of them in existence and our problems with law enforcement and our border problems prevents us from having any hope of preventing guns from reaching criminals.

So, we should move on to discussing real solutions. Go read Rudy's presentation to the NRA again.

[wmbwinn]

Mavdog:

but its role as a financial conduit was most contributory in its protection

Your conclusion does not exist in the quoted article. The author's conclusion is that Hitler did not invade Switzerland because of the Alpine Railway.

Your statement is just another example of an unfounded opinion of yours not found in the research or documents.

The author's words are these:

I estimate that alpine transportation was the key "joker" of Switzerland. Jokers have no effect, however, if not played out. An alpine transit railway with severe restrictions for use would have been of limited interest for Nazi Germany just as a destroyed one, and it would not have served as an argument to prevent a Nazi attack on Switzerland. Under acute threat it was obviously very difficult to estimate, how many concessions would convince Adolf Hitler to renounce on an attack. Given the weak negotiating position thus no other choice remained for Switzerland than to permit rather too many of the often criticized transports than too few.