High court strikes down gun ban view story

Comments (10)

1. • jimfrogg55

   Amazing, this is really just amazing.

   It should open the doors to other pro-gun legislation.

   • (0 Kudos received)
2. • adcampbell1

   Supreme Court strikes down the gun ban, is sees the death penalty for child rape unconstitutional, which I agree child rape is just horrible. But the death penalty for this crime is not the death penalty, maybe life and the other inmates will take care of them. Anyway what's up with the Supreme court they seem to be following our constitution?

   • (0 Kudos received)
3. • zheisey

   Just what we need- more people wielding handguns. If we want to stop crime and violence associated with handguns, wouldn't it make sense to limit their use and availability?

   • (0 Kudos received)
4. • bkocik

   @zheisey DC banned gun ownership over 32 years ago. Guess which US city is the murder capital of the world. Go ahead, guess.

   But to answer your question - yes, it makes sense to limit their use and availability, which is what reasonable gun laws are designed to do. An outright ban only guarantees that the only people who will have them are those that disregard the law, and is anything but reasonable.

   And yeah, more people wielding handguns happens to be exactly what we need, because the "more" people that will have them now are the law-abiding citizens that previously weren't allowed to. As it happens, in every single case where gun laws have been loosened and concealed carry permits issued to responsible citizens (not that this ruling will cause DC to start issuing CCWs), crime levels have dropped measurably.

   No reasonable person is a fan of handgun violence, and those of us who support the right of the people to own them are no different. But usually we are able to recognize that gun control which is overly strict has the opposite effect of what's intended. Believe it or not, those of us who are happy about this decision share the same desire as many of those who are not - we want to see less crime, less violence, and fewer innocent people getting killed. The way to do that, though, is not to ban gun ownership. That has never, ever worked.

   • (0 Kudos received)
5. • zheisey

   @bkocik I can certainly appreciate you point that permits issued to law-abiding citizens can, in some cases, lead to a reduction in crime. But saying that crime has decreased in every single case where "gun laws have been loosened and concealed carry permits issued to responsible citizens" is simply untrue.

   The way I see it, more guns does not equate to less crime in general. To be honest, I would feel far more unsafe in a place where I knew anyone could be carrying a concealed weapon than in a place where the law does not allow concealed weapons. That's just my opinion. Do I think that the majority of law-abiding citizens who are granted handgun permits can handle the responsibility that comes with gun ownership- Yes, I do. But, I still believe that giving citizens the right to own, and in some cases completely conceal, handguns is adding fuel to the fire.

   • (0 Kudos received)
6. • IrishMom

   About time.

   • (0 Kudos received)
7. • bkocik

   @zheisey You're right, I stated that too strongly. But though I don't have a reference for you right now (I wish I did), I've seen recently where studies have shown that in the states and municipalities where gun control laws have been relaxed and CCWs have become more readily attainable, crime rates have fallen. There were dozens of examples, and while not a single one of them failed to show a positive impact on the crime rate, I cannot prove that there does not exist a case where the outcome was not the same.

   Your opinion that you'd feel safer in a place that doesn't allow for concealed carry (say, DC, murder capital of the world) as opposed to a place that does not (say, WV, which has a low crime rate altogether) runs contrary to logic in my mind. But you are certainly entitled to your personal preference, and I completely respect that. As for me, I feel much safer where CCW is allowed - which is almost everywhere else besides DC, Wisconsin, Illinois, and much of California and Maryland - than where it isn't. As for the facts, they consistently show that relaxed gun ownership restrictions do not lead to a rise in violent crime. They just plain don't. It doesn't happen.

   Famously, and just one example among many, Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association was a highly vocal and staunch opponent of changes to law in his area that would allow people to obtain concealed carry permits. But after the law was passed, he had this to say: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."

   Opinions and beliefs aside, the facts simply do not support the notion that such laws lead to an increase of violence, and in the majority of cases they appear to actually lead to significant reductions (as they say, criminals prefer an unarmed public, and that is more than just a sound bite, the data actually support it). There's just no getting around it.

   BTW, thanks for calling me out on my error - I apologize for my misstatement. And thanks for the debate. It's refreshing to have this sort of open discourse with someone who disagrees with my stance, but who clearly isn't "just another anti-gun zealot."

   • (0 Kudos received)
8. • zheisey

   @bkocik I appreciate the discourse as well :)

   • (0 Kudos received)
9. • a.d.sullivan.iii

   I find this whole debate humorus.

   As a Military Officer with over 12 years time in service, I was curious what it would take to purchase a weapon in Columbia, SC so I went and did a little field study today. I understand South Carolina to be one of the easier places to purchase weapons. So I went to several gun shops in the area and inquired on a few weapons and how the process worked. What I discovered horrified me.

   If I am a resident of South Carolina, I can just walk in with a drivers license go thru a reasonably quick process and walk out with a weapon. Not too bad.

   As a member of the military, I must have a Drivers License or Other State ID with picture, Proof of current address, a Military ID, and a copy of my military orders stating that I am "permanently stationed" in South Carolina.

   Wow... so on one hand, as an untrained civilian I can just walk in with an ID and get a gun... on the other hand, as a well trained specialist I have to jump thru hoops!

   So on my way back to the base, I figured I'd go and talk to a couple of the guys hanging out on the street. After chatting with them for a while and showing them my military ID (So they wouldn't think I was with the "Po - Po") I asked them if they knew where I could get a gun "kind of cheap." They asked me what kind I'd like. I said that I'd like a 9mm. They asked, "what kind." They said they "could get me a hand gun, or an auto in that..." So I asked, "what kind of auto?" After a little discussion, one of them went into a near by house and came back with a backpack and got in my car. The guy showed me some kind of smaller sub machine gun, but I'm not sure what it was. He also had a few hand guns as well. Getting out of the deal, I told them that I'd have the money next week and asked if they'd be around. They let me know that they'd be in the area, just to look for them.

   Personally I think this is all silly when I know I can just go down the street and purchase a weapon on the black market for between $250 and $1000 cash. There are no backround checks to worry about, and no crap. Just know who to talk to and have the cash available.

   So why bother go to the gun shops? The criminals have the weapons, and they are readily available to them. After all, they get them by all sorts of means, including using violence against people to get them.

   So in my opinion... while the intention behind these gun laws is to keep us safe by "limiting the availability of these weapons..." they only serve to prevent our good law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves. After all we have the police right? And they are always really fast when they are responding to crimes that are in progress right? Didn't seem to help at Columbine, Virginia Tech or the many other masacres though...

   So do you really think we're safer without our citizens having the oportunity to conceal carry? Seems to me it would have only taken one person willing to use it to minimize or stop some of those masacres.

   Hmm... I guess our citizens must honestly "feel safer" going thru their daily lives like sheep, hoping and relying on the protection of the few sheep dogs like myself. We'll "do our best" to keep you all safe from the packs of wolves around ya... "we promise."

   Wake up people.

   • (0 Kudos received)
10. • mel_edw46

    Ther is a diffeence between a handgun and an AK47 ect. While all guns in improper hands, and some cases, proper hands cause death. I am for once happy that the Government has abided by the constitution. The judges who make these absurd laws, such as if you get hurt on your job, workman's comp is allowed to only pay you only 2/3 of your pay if you are in the hospital, not if you have therapy or appointments, especially if your company is at fault, need to step down. I wonder if Scalia carries a gun or does he have a bodygaurd that is paid by tax money. If the government spent more time on real issues such as education, housing (not for millionaires), THE FARMERS and their dilema, all the states with devastating disasters, the mentall ill and all mentally or physically challenged, we would have a better place to live. God Bless America, and our government

    • (0 Kudos received)

Add Your Comment High court strikes down gun ban

Login now to post your comment.