Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
A few - hopefully - not-so-random thoughts...
The Second Amendment speaks to defence of the nation, it does not speak to personal and/or home defence. However, in order to have a militia - "well-regulated" or otherwise - it's a given that the populace be armed.
The problem I have with the "individual constitutional right" argument is that that makes it impossible to legally take a gun from anyone - including someone committing a crime: a armed robber confronted by police can claim that it's his "individual constitutional right" to have a gun. Even if he survives the ensuing shoot-out, his gun can't be removed without breaching that right; when he goes to court - armed - he can't be prevented from entering the court with his weapons, nor sent to prison without them - assuming there wasn't a shoot-out during the sentencing - etc, etc, ...
The confusion inherent in the arguments surrounding the Second Amendment is that the "right" to keep and bear arms is mistaken for the "natural right" to preserve life and limb.
These are not the same thing at all.
The Second Amendment per se is not the issue here - it's the confusion over rights.
Further, due to this confusion, it makes it difficult to remove guns from those law-abiding citizens who subsequently develop mental health problems associated with violence, as police in the US acknowledge.
It should be noted that the ban on those with mental health problems from owning guns is also a problem - not all those with mental health problems are violent: strange as it may seem, the majority are less violent than "normal" people. There are, however, a minority whose mental health problems are associated with violence - it is these who need to be kept away form weapons, not just guns.
Because of the blanket ban, anyone with a mental health problem will remain silent on their condition lest their weapons be taken from them - this failure to seek help is a recipe for disaster for those whose problem is associated with violence.
A further aspect of this is those who take anti-malaria (prior to going on holiday, for example) or other medication associated with mood-swings - such individuals have on occassion committed suicide (with or without the use of guns). Should their doctor first check that they don't have guns and/or should such people have their weapons temporarily removed from them just in case?
Another aspect to the prevalence of gun violence in America is that the higher rate of gun crime is due to the easy access to guns rather than a inherently more violent society (perhaps just a more stressful one!?) - if there weren't guns, this would not necessarily reduce/end violence, just that other means would be used: knives, poison, etc.
I think the main cause of gun violence in the US is - strange as it may seem to some - due to the fact that people in the US rely on guns for home safety rather than secure entry-points.
In the US, statistics show that 85% of home invasions occur through the front door - in Europe this would be unthinkable.
In the US, the attitude appears to be that since no-one in their right mind would break into a house where the home-owner is likely to have a gun, there's little/no need for secure front and back doors or windows.
Also, police response times play a important part in the likelihood of home invasions - slow response times are associated with higher rates of home invasions.
Many think that encouraging businesses to move into run-down neighbourhoods will reduce crime - in fact the opposite needs to happen: communities need to address crime rates in order to encourage businesses to move into the neighbourhood.
They won't come if there're high crime rates.
The lack of community policing - police officers on the street talking to citizens - in favour of police driving past/through neighbourhoods in cars, does little to help reduce crime. With officers visibly on the streets, ne'er-do-wells are less likely to commit crimes.
If there was a concerted effort to improve secure entry-points (to keep would-be intruders out until the police arrive) and reduce police response times, the incidence of home invasions would decrease - thus, in turn, reducing the need for guns for home defence.
Kindest regards,
James
A few - hopefully - not-so-random thoughts...
The Second Amendment speaks to defence of the nation, it does not speak to personal and/or home defence. However, in order to have a militia - "well-regulated" or otherwise - it's a given that the populace be armed.
The problem I have with the "individual constitutional right" argument is that that makes it impossible to legally take a gun from anyone - including someone committing a crime: a armed robber confronted by police can claim that it's his "individual constitutional right" to have a gun. Even if he survives the ensuing shoot-out, his gun can't be removed without breaching that right; when he goes to court - armed - he can't be prevented from entering the court with his weapons, nor sent to prison without them - assuming there wasn't a shoot-out during the sentencing - etc, etc, ...
The confusion inherent in the arguments surrounding the Second Amendment is that the "right" to keep and bear arms is mistaken for the "natural right" to preserve life and limb.
These are not the same thing at all.
The Second Amendment per se is not the issue here - it's the confusion over rights.
Further, due to this confusion, it makes it difficult to remove guns from those law-abiding citizens who subsequently develop mental health problems associated with violence, as police in the US acknowledge.
It should be noted that the ban on those with mental health problems from owning guns is also a problem - not all those with mental health problems are violent: strange as it may seem, the majority are less violent than "normal" people. There are, however, a minority whose mental health problems are associated with violence - it is these who need to be kept away form weapons, not just guns.
Because of the blanket ban, anyone with a mental health problem will remain silent on their condition lest their weapons be taken from them - this failure to seek help is a recipe for disaster for those whose problem is associated with violence.
A further aspect of this is those who take anti-malaria (prior to going on holiday, for example) or other medication associated with mood-swings - such individuals have on occassion committed suicide (with or without the use of guns). Should their doctor first check that they don't have guns and/or should such people have their weapons temporarily removed from them just in case?
Another aspect to the prevalence of gun violence in America is that the higher rate of gun crime is due to the easy access to guns rather than a inherently more violent society (perhaps just a more stressful one!?) - if there weren't guns, this would not necessarily reduce/end violence, just that other means would be used: knives, poison, etc.
I think the main cause of gun violence in the US is - strange as it may seem to some - due to the fact that people in the US rely on guns for home safety rather than secure entry-points.
In the US, statistics show that 85% of home invasions occur through the front door - in Europe this would be unthinkable.
In the US, the attitude appears to be that since no-one in their right mind would break into a house where the home-owner is likely to have a gun, there's little/no need for secure front and back doors or windows.
Also, police response times play a important part in the likelihood of home invasions - slow response times are associated with higher rates of home invasions.
Many think that encouraging businesses to move into run-down neighbourhoods will reduce crime - in fact the opposite needs to happen: communities need to address crime rates in order to encourage businesses to move into the neighbourhood.
They won't come if there're high crime rates.
The lack of community policing - police officers on the street talking to citizens - in favour of police driving past/through neighbourhoods in cars, does little to help reduce crime. With officers visibly on the streets, ne'er-do-wells are less likely to commit crimes.
If there was a concerted effort to improve secure entry-points (to keep would-be intruders out until the police arrive) and reduce police response times, the incidence of home invasions would decrease - thus, in turn, reducing the need for guns for home defence.
Kindest regards,
James