Talk:Gun politics/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've revised the page so that it contains a very brief and hopefully not too controversial statement of the debate. As the sections get filled in, we'll have to watch them carefully for bias.

I'm not sure about the title [/Balance of Power] for that page. The page is supposed to discuss the role of privately owned guns in aiding people in (for better or worse) fighting against an existing government. Such a page should cover the widely held view among the "Founding Fathers" of the United States that widespread ownership of guns was important for the maintenance of a good government, as well as covering the widely held modern view that rebels with guns are a bad thing.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what to call that page.

Libdemplus here, first please forgive me if I'm not correctly following the editing protocols, I have just found wikipedia, I know I have much to learn.

Your title "Balance of Power" is, in my opinion, exactly the correct idea and the most educational point of view I can imagine fo dealing with the issue as you have described it. I assume you will include sections relating to world-wide and historical events that will provide context for both the Founders views back then as well as modern consequences of various experiments in gun related laws in various nations?

Everyone should remember those wise words: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

What do you suppose happens when any government manages to find itself in a situation where it has the absolute monopoly on power within it's own borders?

Contents

Talk

I moved the bit on "why progressives should stop pushing for more gun control laws" to go under "Argument of a Pro-Gun Person", because it has (obvious) pro-gun bias.

Am I wrong to think that the Gun Lobby is mostly an American thing? We in Australia do have a pro-gun lobby, the "Shooters Party", but it seems to me to be a pretty minor and fringe force in Australian politics, not at all like the NRA in the US. I think in Europe its a pretty similar situation; there may be some pro-gun lobbies, but I've never heard of any. And I think most non-Western countries have pretty tough gun laws as well.

Finally, I don't think anyone claims the NRA members murder people more often than non-NRA members, but I would not be suprised if they murder people with guns (as opposed to by other means) more often. And having guns easily available in the community I'm sure increases the incidence of crimes committed using guns -- a lot of guns used in crime are stolen or diverted from legitimate users, so if there were less legitimate gun owners there would be less illegitimate guns also. -- Simon J Kissane

Simon, as far as accusations slung at NRA members, yes, I have seen countless examples of accusations against the NRA, NRA members, gun-owners in general. Which is probably why my wife and I had nothing to do with the NRA untill a few years ago, we had accepted the popular media accusations without checking the facts. There have been published political cartoons protraying NRA members as blood-thirsty baby-killers. The popular TV show "Boston Public" had an episode where the "Hero" teacher stated that NRA members are all in-bred child-molestors... I forget the rest of his statement, but it got worse from there. In the popular movie series "Lethal Weapon" there are many posters in the background accusing the NRA of many horriffic crimes and of training babies to become mass murders. There is even a poster showing a baby with an M16 machinegun in his lap... These posters all had the NRA in black and a red circle/ through it. Yes, the gun-haters do accuse NRA members of being murders. Libdemplus 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Actually, Simon, it would be astounding to discover that NRA members murder people with guns more often than non-NRA members. The demographics of murders (the vast majority of which have prior criminal records) and NRA members are wildly different. The vast majority of serious criminological research supports exactly the opposite conclusion from your other hypothesis, too: having guns easily available in a community has no correlation with crime in that community, and in fact, laws which have liberalized concealed carry have been shown to significantly reduce crime.

Let me make a meta-comment about this page: it's going to be very hard to write this page in a way that is satisfactory to all parties. One big difference between pro-gun people and anti-gun people is that pro-gun people tend to be much more involved with the issue, and to therefore have all the facts and figures at their quick disposal. So they won't stand for saying things like "I'm sure X, Y, and Z are the case." when the author isn't really sure in the sense of being able to cite research, but is really speaking colloquially for "I bet X, Y, and Z are the case."

On the other hand, being involved in the issue, the pro-gun people who have all the facts and figures at their disposal will tend to present them in a very pro-gun light. This makes for bias, too, of course, and the Wikipedia is no place for political agendas.

It seems as if at least some mention should be made here of the Brady bill.

And of other recent gun policy changes. For example, academic research by John Lott shows a decrease in crime in states which have enacted liberalized laws for concealed carry -- this has been a major trend since the 1990s. All of this should be covered on the Gun Politics page as we flesh it out.

I think the opening statement is wrong. Guns aren't controversial anywhere other than the USA. They're simply regarded as bad. There is no equivalent to the NRA anywhere else (except maybe in Switzerland?). And certainly, nobody outside the USA campaigns to be allowed to use assault rifles or any such things. As an example, I was given the impression that bombs are more of a problem (or a sensation anyways) in Germany than guns.

I was under the impression that in Israel, nearly everyone served a year or two at least in the armed forces and kept a weapon at home from then on, both for self-defense and national defense. Not sure if these are handguns or assault rifles. Was I mistaken? As for Switzerland, I've heard gun advocates claim that one reason Hitler didn't invade Switzerland is because of widespread firearm ownership by individuals. Wesley

. 128.193.88.60 --Revision need to be neutral and agreed upon. As this page was. Please stop reverting it to your personal opinion. --rmhermen

Are there no gun politics in Australia? I thought I heard that they just recently (in the last few years) passed a law outright banning guns in at least one or two provinces, with an attendant spike in violent crime. Wesley

A question like "Should some types of weapons be more heavily regulated or banned then others?" isn't NPOV. A neutral version of this question would be "Does the government have the lawful authority and moral right to regulate weapons". The original question presupposes this.


but then does the government have the moral authority to ban drugs? or explosives? surely not. Could the gun lobby please add to their campaign my right to smoke a spliff? I'm a Brit, so this issue I know nothing about. I'll leave it to someone else to debate with you -- Tarquin 00:32 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)
I think the best way to resolve this would be to include both questions - Something like:
Does the government have the right to regulate weapons?
If so, should it do so?
If so, should some types of weapons be more heavily regulated than others, or even banned?
Andre Engels 07:50 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)


AN interesting (though admittedly not NPOV) question is if the Government has no right to limit weapons (or restrict them to people with legitimate purposes) then do they have the right to limit weapons of other governments? It seems to me that the NRA should be campaigning for the right of Saddam Hussain to keep his weapons as much as that of militia groups in the woods. -- Chris Q 07:57 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

Removed from article:

Some advocates maintain that the "militia" meant the entire armed populace, and thus that it was intended to guarantee personal, individual possession of

arms. Other advocates maintain that only bearing arms was only intended for a government- sanctioned militia, such as the modern National Guard.

128, usually we copy disputed text to the talk page -- rather than just deleting it. That makes it easier to resolve the dispute. --Ed Poor

(Ed, it was coming, we were editing at the same time).

Ed Poor: Some advocates maintain that the "militia" meant the entire armed populace, and thus that it was intended to guarantee personal, individual possession of arms. Other advocates maintain that only bearing arms was only intended for a government-sanctioned militia, such as the modern National Guard.

The disagreement today isn't over what militia meant back then, but what militia means today. There is overwhelming tradition, writing, and evidence that in the 1500's through 1700's the militia was simply the armed body of the populus. Where the two sides currently fail to see eye-to-eye is on who is the militia in the 20th (and 21st) century. Is the still the populus, or is it now the National Guard?

I thought the disagreement was over what militia meant back then, because gun control advocates argue that "the Second Amendment was never intended to give gun rights to individuals" and that laws making it next to impossible for sane, law-abiding people to carry concealed pistols in, say, New York City are Constitutional. Others, like me, argue that the Second Amendment was intended to guarantee individual gun possession and that restrictive gun control laws are un-Constitutional.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the Wikipedia should endorse my view. I'm just saying that the views of both sides should be represented, as well as their arguments. --Ed Poor

I do not believe the above correctly characterizes the current state of the dispute. I believe that the following is the current state of the debate regarding "the militia".
1: Both sides agree that the 2nd amendment mentions the "militia".
2: Both sides agree that at one time, the militia was the common body of the population.
3: The two sides disagree over who the militia is today. "gun control" advocates say the current militia is the National Guard. "gun rights" advocates say the current militia remains the populus.
4: The two sides disagree over whether the militia clause is even relevant, i.e. whether "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is a dependant clause on the "well regulated militia" part.
If you have evidence that the "mainstream gun control" movement (to coin a phrase) believes that the populus was *never* the militia, I'd be a little surprised.


A quick search on "militia" at handguncontrol.org turned up this 2nd amendment analysis: http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issuebriefs/second.asp. It argues that the second amendment never applied to the populace at large, and that at the time, the militia referred to state militias that were well regulated. Wesley
Interesting Wesley, but confusing. Nonetheless, you appear to have found something that claims that the militia wasn't the population. They seem to be playing with words, because they say the militia was "able-bodied white males between the ages of 18 and 45" who were "ordinary citizens" responsible for "supplying their own firearms". They all but say who the militia was, then they turn and say this wasn't the "populus at large". True, sure, women and blacks and children and such weren't part of the militia, but it certainly wasn't a narrowly defined group.
I'm trying really hard not to examine the logic of their claims, but just read their claims on the face - They do say plainly that "Today's equivalent of a "well-regulated" militia - the National Guard", and I am saying that this is the key part that should be presented here.

I don't think that The two sides disagree over who the militia is today but over (a) whether individuals had the right to bear arms, apart from a government-controlled organization; and (b) whether they still should have that right. Anti-gun groups generally deny A, while pro-gun groups generally assert it. If you've seen other arguments from Gun Control, Inc., Million Mom March, etc., please let us know. Otherwise, I think I should revert the deletion. --Ed Poor

No, I don't think that is the shade of disagreement, although I'm struggling to put into words the specifics.

To clarify, here are some of the aspects of the debate that I'm NOT discussing:

(A) whether 2nd amendment is a individual or collective right. (B) whether the "right to bear" clause depends on the "militia" clause. (C) who is the "militia" today?

I'm trying to narrow in on this question: "Who do gun-control advocates claim were members of the militia at the time the 2nd amendment was written".

From bradycampaign.org: ...each of the states had its own "militia" ... comprised of ordinary citizens ... supplying their own firearms ...

Now I'm going to paraphrase how I parse what bradycampaign.org is saying "The second amendment protects the right of the state militia, not of the individual. At one time the militia was made up of "ordinary citizens", but today the militia is the national guard. Therefore there is no individual right to own firearms."

To restate, I still don't see the gun control groups saying that the believe that militia weren't (a long time ago) made up of "ordinary folk" with their personal weapons.

I remember reading an interesting proposal on guns on some blog that I think is worthy here. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to put it...)

Seeing as the second amendment wants people to have guns for a militia (vastly simplified so don't kill me over not quoting verbatim :p), I propose the following:

-A total ban on ALL handguns except for police and military use. -A total lifting of restrictions on ALL long-arms. Weapons that fall into this category are rifles, shotguns, automatic rifles, et cetera.

Reasoning? Most of the gun crimes in the US are committed with handguns. No good reason NOT to ban them from civilian use.

Whereas, you would expect a militia to have long arms to be effective. I'm fairly certain that none of the men at Bunker Hill were blazing away at the British with pistols.

This has the added bonus that long arms are MUCH more difficult to conceal, thus it would presumably be harder to commit a crime with one.

Frankly, I suspect this is the kind of proposal that neither side of the argument will like... but in my opinion it comes closest to the original meaning. --James

Gun control argument

  • The Second Amendment did not give the right for individuals to bear arms, except as part of a "militia", meaning a government-controlled body.
  • Laws that prevent individuals from bearing arms today are valid, because they are not taking away Constitutional rights.

Gun rights argument

  • The Second Amendment gave the right for individuals to bear arms, because the people who wrote the Bill of Rights used the word "militia" to mean "any citizen"
  • Laws that prevent individuals from bearing arms today are unconstitutional, because they are taking away Constitutional rights rights.

I have never heard anyone on either side of the controversy say, "Well, the militia meant the general populace back then, so from the 1790s well into the 19th century individuals did indeed have the Constitutional right to bear arms without having to belong to any kind of government group. But times have changed, so I don't think people should have that right any more." And there's a very good reason no one ever makes that argument: because if the Constitution _orginally_ guaranteed a right, then that right can't be taken away except by an amendment. --Ed Poor


Is the above meant as a proposal for what the two sides intended? Should I show proposed edits?

Yes, it's a proposal. I have summarized the controversy in the body of the article. Please, let's not try to suppress the fact that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is disputed. Rather, I suggest we focus on refining the nature and details of that dispute. --Ed Poor

Quick change of subject, getting back to Simon's idea:

having guns easily available in the community I'm sure increases the incidence of crimes committed using guns

Let's insert into the article the gun control argument Simon is mentioning. We could also present opposing arguments, if any. Also, comments from sociologists or the FBI or anyone else who studies crime statistics would be useful.

One of the issues addressed in More Guns, Less Crime is whether possession of guns by law-abiding people increases or decreases gun crime. While it is fairly obvious that illegal gun ownership helps career criminals prey on innocent unarmed citizens, it would be useful to find out through research whether the converse is true. --Ed Poor

"Most countries which successfully pass gun control laws do not consider their citizens sovereign. This may be a root in the different attitudes of European and U.S. citizens on gun-control."

Please cite countries in Europe that do not consider their citizens sovereign. For instance, the French Constitution says "National sovereignty belongs to the people".

Not monolithic, either side

First, let me introduce myself, I'm a life-long Liberal Democrat (very liberal) who used to fully support pretty much any types of gun-control laws anyone suggested, even bans. I can't express how embarrassing that fact is to me today...

Anyway, I would like to point out an important fundamental flaw I see in the "logic" or search for logic as expressed by various parties here.

When anyone assumes there is some sort of monolithic set of details and positions that all or even most gun-rights advocates or even anti-gun-rights people adhere to or commonly agree with within their sides, then they are making a huge mistake. No such consensus exists, on either side.

From my experiance slowly changing from being a gun-control proponent to a gun-rights advocate I have seen that the real differences come from the varying levels of factual versus fictional knowlege about the entire issue that various people have learned. Fictional information relating to firearms is easy to come by, in fact, it's virtually impossible to avoid, but factual information takes effort and integrity to locate and learn. Most people don't take the time to think about what they are being told, let alone actually checking out the information against reality. Most people don't care about most issues beyond what they have been told to "feel" about the issue.

If you put 100 people from either side in a room together to write down their answers to 100 gun related questions you can be sure you will end up with 200 substantially different sets of answers. To be sure, the two sides will have more answers in common with their own side, but you will also find large areas of random cross-over answers.

Which is why the NRA, yes, even today under Wayne LaPiere, is still seen as the most moderate of the significant gun-rights groups. Which is what one would expect with over 4 million members and growing.

Those gun-rights advocates who have higher standards for liberty would tend to form their own groups to advocate a no-compromise stance against those who wish to utterly outlaw all firearms. Those who have lower standards for liberty are not likely to join any gun-rights advocacy group at all. Mostly, if they joined any group it would simply be a sporting organisation with no political advocacy function.

And another surprising thing I have learned, you can't predict if any given individual owns guns based on their desired gun laws and view of the entire issue of gun-rights versus gun-controls. I have met countless NRA members who stridently support the right of gun ownership and yet theu themselves not only don't own any guns, they say they have no interest in guns beyond the civil-rights aspect of the issue.

I also know that countless gun-control fanatics not only have guns, but plenty of them have carry permits and do carry guns for self-defense, all the while they are advocating making gun ownership illegal.

Not all Liberal Democrats have remained ignorant on the gun issue, most, yes, but not all.

libdemplus

Libdemplus, welcome to the Wikipedia. I hope you'll stay and make contributions as fits your interests and abilities. You may wish to choose a user name for yourself and sign in so that your edits can be more readily recognized.
Gun politics and gun control are controversial issues anywhere, and particularly so here at Wikipedia since there are participants in the project from around the world.
I did edit your most recent changes somewhat, partly in an effort to make them clearer, and partly to reflect the NPOV policy. In any case, your edits were helpful, both with regard to the overall advocacy landscape (NRA and the others) and also in correcting the obvious error on the HCI link. My firsthand knowledge of the advocacy landscape is out of date, so I'll defer to your judgement on the relative positions of the various groups. If NRA is currently the milktoast with the other groups rather more strident, that's fine, and you can update the article to reflect that.
You should be aware that this article is watched closely because of its controversial nature. Therefore, changes you make may be edited or reverted rather more quickly than is the case elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Best wishes, and welcome to the project. Kat 03:35, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

=

Thanks Kat,

I'm still confused about the editing style and methods, any advice here would help.

Yes, I saw the NPOV changes, I certainly have no objection to anyone correcting my obvious POV wordings, nor my grammar/spelling errors. As long as these edits are fair and don't alter the facts or leave out facts I consider important to the issue, you wont see me complaining.

Now, I have spotted a clear POV wording in some writings from others when refering to "rights".

"Rights", by definition, (at least "Constitutional Rights" and the sorts of rights that the USA Founders wrote about) cannot, are not, and never were "granted to" or "given to" or "created" or any other wording that implies that the source of rights is somehow the government or any sort of "collective".

The First Amendment does NOT say: "We the Congress grant to you the people the right to freedom of speech..."

The Second Amendment does NOT say: "We the Congress grant to you the people the right to bear arms..."

The whole point of the USA Constitution was to define strict limitations on the powers that We The People "granted to" the government. The powers of the government are limited to those specifically listed and spelled-out in the Constitution. Anything the government does that is not specifically granted to it by We The People is a violation of the Constitution.

All rights are inherant in the individual person as a birthright of being human. The proper function of government is to protect and defend the ability of individuals to freely exercise their individual rights up to the point where a specific case of such exercise harms the rights of another individual to exercise their rights.

If something is "granted" by a government or any sort of collective, then it is properly called a "privilige". Rights cannot be "granted" by government. Rights can only be respected and protected by governments or disdained and suppressed by governments.

The First Amendment says it well: "Congress shall pass no law... abridging the freedom..."

Our Founders chose certain inherant individual rights, including the right to keep and bear firearms, that they knew from history were so vitally important to freedom and to the fight to stave off tyrants, that they chose to set them into writing in the "Bill of Rights."

NO place in the US Constitution does anything suggest that rights are somehow "granted" by the government to the people. The US Constitution is consistant on the point that all rights belong to the people regardless of wether they are listed or not.

Libdemplus

==

Ok, ok, I get it. You're in a room full of constitutional scholars, no need to shout and beat us over the head.
Now, what wording in particular are you objecting to? I read through the article twice and it doesn't speak of rights being granted; the word "grant" doesn't even appear.

Kat 19:08, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

====================

constitutional scholars?

Kat, I had been under the impression that people here are from all over the world and of many backgrounds. As such I gave a fairly short exlainiation of the point, but one that should assist even those unfamiliar with the USA Founders intentions. I didn't intend to insult anyone's intelligence, nor do I now.

A good example of the wording I am objecting to is above under the headings "Gun Control/Rigths Argument". For instance: "The Second Amendment gave the right..." and another example: "...that right can't be taken away except by an amendment"

Each of those statements assume and require that rights are somehow created by and granted from government to the people. This clearly violates the whole point of the USA Constitution. Not even an Amendment can take away a right, at worst it could help government to suppress a right. A good, er, terrible example of this was 18th Amendment which banned alcohol and deeply violated the rights of the people. The people, as usual, defied enmasse this violation and the nation suffered tragically for that violation of our rights. In fact, we are still paying the price for that.

Just read the Declaration of Independance. (from memory) "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they a endowed by their creator with cetain inaliebnable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that whenever any form of government becomes harmful to those rights the people have the right to alter or abolish that government..."

Just FYI, I'm an Atheist, however, I see nothing wrong with the idea expressed above. As far as I'm concerned, my "creator" was my parents. My rights were "endowed" to me by them as their were by their parents...

As history has proven time and time again, it's exceedingly difficult to "alter or abolish" a harmful government when the people have been made utterly helpless by gun-control laws.

Just ask any of the 140 million+ dis-armed civilians that were slaughtered by their governments or neighboring governments in the 20th century alone.

Libdemplus

=============

Ah, I thought you were speaking of the article rather than this talk page. Yes, some of the wording here on the talk page is questionable. But it is the article that matters, and there is no reference to rights being given by the constitution there. Instead, the article speaks of rights being guaranteed, even as you do. Kat 20:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

========

Looks like my learning-curve issue again...

Now, to the point about the NRA being framed as "extremeist" and about the LaPiere factor. I can't state absolutely that no actual gun-rights group has ever called some detail of some NRA policy as "too extreme", however, I can state...

In the 6 years since I switched sides and became a gun-rights advocate, 3 years now an NRA member, I have read/heard much from many gun-rigths and anti-gun-rights groups.

In contrast, all of the anti-gun-rights groups take every opportunity to demonise the NRA with any and all acusations of extremism and even criminal and/or moral complicity in virtually every act of violence that in any manner involved a firearm. Even while kids were still dying at Columbine, the gun-control groups were given exclusive TV news air-time where they all claimed that the NRA is directly to blame for the actions of the killers, even before anyone really knew who they were or how they obtained those guns. The supposedly "fair" media has no limit to it's overt bias on the issue.

Interesting thing I hae been able to piece-togtether about Wayne LaPiere. It seems that the way he came to run the policy for the NRA was that he was much more moderate in his views than the former leadership and he managed to form a coalition-style take-over (by compromises of course) of the NRA and has managed to use certain election rules changes to stave off a guy named Neil Knox who wants to regain policy control. If Neil Knox does manage to gain control, then the NRA would be much more in-line with the bulk of the gun-rights groups policies. If the ant-gun people think the NRA is "extremeist" now, they are going to have to invent a new word for it then.

Libdemplus 20:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)======

Hmm, I was a member at the time LaPierre became executive vice president, and I sure seem to recall that he brought a more hardline view to the NRA. This was quite some time ago now, 15 years. A number of longtime members quit afterwards. LaPierre does some to have become more moderate with the passing of years. I would guess that this is because of the success of the NRA lobbying effort. The series of legislative successes and overall public mood has made the possibility of a government "gun grab" far less likely than it seemed in 1990. Kat 23:06, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well, my direct knowlege of the NRA is in two time periods. First, as the people who gave the hunters safety lessons to all of us kids back in the 1960'sand early 70's, next nothing but media demonisation for 30+ years, then right after Columbine with the anti-gun-rights people dancing in the blood all over TV and blaming the killings on the NRA, my wife and I finally decided to investigate the NRA for ourselves rather than continuing to blindly accept the media and politician claims about the NRA as fact. The more we investigated, the more we learned that the media was lying in almost everything they said about the NRA. Eventually we joined.

As far as LaPiere is concerned, his positions are clearly more moderate than any other gun-rights groups I have read about. The struggle currently underway in the NRA for his job and the future political policies of the NRA is a rather murky tale. What I have gathered from both going to one national NRA convention and from one local meeting and from loads of reading from other sourcesis obviouslty still an imperfect picture of the history of LaPiere. I will need to do more research on him. FYI, my wife and I find his policies too moderate by miles.

But, better LaPiere than that liar Michael Moore! Libdemplus 20:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)======

=

Kat, I have added some more info to the gun politics page in a few spots. I have tried to be NPOV, but I wont complain if you tidy up my additions. I will check back wednesday, got to go home now. Libdemplus 20:38, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)======

Thank you for your edits. At your invitations, I have tidied up the article somewhat. I hope you approve of the changes. Warm regards, Kat 02:20, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I saw, I have no objection. By the way, I would be quite happy if someone else would add to/correct for POV the Arthur Kellerman page from the other side of the issue, assuming there is anyone left who defends his "study" any more. I freely admit my article was highly POV, but then, so was Kellerman's "study" and the way that "study was exploited by the media/politicians/gun-control people.

I think it's very important, even vital, part of the whole issue to openly display the tactics used in this political struggle. There should be accurate and complete pages on the "works" of Kellerman, Michael Bellesiles, Michael Moore (Bowling for Columbine), ... There should also be a section on how various groups have wildly mis-used statistics and even flatly invented false statistics to push their agenda.

No discussion of the gun ownership issue would be complete without dealing with the tactics being used in the struggle, with detailed examples of the most outrageous tactics and most often media-reported claims.

Libdemplus 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)======

I left comments on your user page and at Talk:Arthur Kellermann. If you wish to add pages on these people, it is your job to come up with both sides of the story. Otherwise, they will be stubbed or deleted. Kat 18:18, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Kat, the two points I added of disagreement between gun control advocates and gun rights advocates are rather central to both the issue and the debate between the sides.

Each side has arguments on both of those points that they use at every opportunity to support their positions. Leaving out the debate over the real world results of gun control laws ignores the very core of the issue for most people in the USA and probably the world as well.

Most people don't really care what the Second Amendment means, nor anything else relating to gun laws nor gun owners, all they want is for "something" to be done that actually reduces violent crime rates. The gun control advocates claim that all gun control laws and gun bans are extremely effective in reducing violent crime rates and very effective at preventing criminals from obtaining guns. Gun rights advocates claim that gun control laws have not reduced violent crime rates and in fact often lead to more violent crime and all too often to government-sponsored exterminations and that such laws have no effect on the availbility of guns to criminals.

What most people want to know factually is: Do gun control laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns? Do gun control laws reduce violent crime rates?

If you have some other wording of those two points you would prefer, fine, but in my experiance they are the central points of difference that most people really care about with the issue of gun laws.

Fewer people would also ask: Do privately owned guns prevent violent crimes?

Libdemplus 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the United States at least, not all pro-gun advocates dispute the assertion that gun laws can reduce violent crime. The central issue for many seems to be, is that reduction in violent crime worth giving up the right to self defense (both collective and individual) codified in the constitution? Chadloder 17:34, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

Chadloder, hi there!

"pro-gun" and "gun rights advocate" not equal. "dispute" stopped by ignorance. "assertion" correct term. "can reduce" possible theory versus observable fact. "collective... self defense" what's that? "worth giving up" to decide, you got to know both sides of the equasion, few bother.

Accurate terminology is vital when dealing with anything related to firearms, especially when discussing the laws and politics. Look up the term "newspeak" and how the intentional, systematic mis-use of terminology is used to manipulate the thinking of the general public. (Like the TV news does constantly on the firearms issue.)

Yes, there are some shooting-sports groups who could thus be called "pro-gun", who still see no harm in virtually any gun control laws, as long as ->their<- guns are not confiscated. (some would not complain even then) And yes, it's probably true that most gun owners in the USA ->assume<- that gun control laws do provide some beneift somehow. Afterall, that's what the TV news and popular media in general have been telling everyone to believe for decades. Only a very few people bother to make the effort to check the facts to find out if what they are being told is factually true or just Politically Correct fiction, the rest of the public just accept anything they are told often enough.

However, those people cannot be remotely called "gun-rights-advocates".

IF it's possible that some sort of gun-control laws ->might<- be able to reduce violent crime rates is simply not the point. The question is ->have<- any existing gun control laws or gun bans anywhere in the world at any point in history ->factually<- caused a measureable decrease in violent crime rates.

With 20-25,000 USA gun control laws, only one has shown some factual, measureable ablity to reduce violent crime rates. If a convicted felon is caught with or trying to obtain a gun and convicted, they get 5 to 25 years. Part of "The Gun Control Act of 1968". Since this law is virtually never enforced, it really provides no functional beneift. Where it is strictly enforced, it provides clear and measureable benefits.

I've spent several years trying to locate any other such examples and as yet, I have found none. Not in the USA, not in any nation, not at any point in history.

Libdemplus 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

On 23 Nov, Meelar added: "The official position of the U.S. from 1934 until 2002 was that the Second Amendment protected a collective right..." Calling that "the official position of the US" strikes me as overly strong. That interpretation was never sanctioned by the Supreme Court. I don't believe that any law of Congress ever used that wording. (Some members might have, but Congress is a fractious entity. Only the law counts.) I don't even know that any Executive Branch administration worded their position so strongly. Choosing not to challenge a gun control law may have made that the de facto position, but not an official position. If we can source stronger wording here on the Talk page, I'll be okay with reverting. Rossami 04:04, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey, it's Meelar. Anyway, as far as I knew, it was the position adopted by the executive branch; since Congress and the courts had never taken a position, I felt the phrasing was acceptable. "De Facto" is good, but gives up a little accuracy. I'll try to dig up the link. 1:47, 25 Nov 2003

re: Summary Section
Recently, there has been a lot of added content to the Summary section. I like the content, but it's rapidly becoming more than a summary. Can we move some of the detail down into the other paragraphs? Rossami 02:25, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I gave a couple blank links to Sullivan Act: may issue and shall issue, if anyone wants to fill them in. I could not find articles on these topics, and without siding for or against anyone, they are valid topics of the debate. — dino