Sunday, January 23, 2011

What Guns CAN Do, Very Well Indeed

HT Kevin for this:

...Actually, handguns are used millions of times per year in self-defense, without even being fired. When the potential rapist or assailant becomes aware his intended victim has a handgun, he goes away. There's usually no police report.

Most gun uses don't involve killing. They don't even involve discharging a round. And that's before we even talk about the benefit of having a populace that knows how to shoot when a war breaks out.

How many 'prevention' incidents in the US? Between 1.5 million and 2.5 million/year.

15 comments:

commoncents said...

Thanks for posting this! I always love visiting your blog!!

Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

Jim said...

Then why does anybody need a high-capacity clip? I read a quote from an attendee of a recent NRA conference who said (paraphrasing here) "anybody who can't defend himself with ten bullets is incompetent and shouldn't own a gun. I wouldn't want to live next door to them."

Anonymous said...

So Jim you are conceding that NRA advice is correct and should be legally binding?

Cool, unlimited concealed carry for everyone!!! Right Jim?

David

Dad29 said...

It's not a question of "need."

It's a question of rights. Nothing in the 2A says "subject to a maximum of 10 rounds."

Jim said...

"So Jim you are conceding that NRA advice is correct and should be legally binding?"

No.

Nothing in 2A says anything about individual rights either.

Amy said...

Nothing in 2A says anything about individual rights either.


Oh, funny, my copy of the Constitution says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Don't know how you interpret things, my dear, but to me "people" means individuals, noting that "militia" at the time meant any able-bodied person of age.

Jim said...

No, my dear, "people" is used in the preamble and the 2nd Amendment to describe collective rights. Have you ever kissed a "people"?

You are thinking of "persons", as in the 5th Amendment which speaks of individual rights.

Amy said...

No, the word "people" simply refers to a group of indidivudauls. Adding an article before the word does not mean you take away the indiivdiuality.

Using that logic, the First Amendment doesn't protect individual right to free speech, either, since "people" appears in that Amendment, rather than "persons."

So does that mean we don't have an individual right to free speech or free expresson of religion?

Billiam said...

Amy, according to the way the Left is interpretting things these days, no, you don't have a right to any of those because it takes away from their control. Beware ANY, left or right, that want to infringe on our rights for any reason. As vile as those like, say, Ed Schultz, Thom Hartman, Randi Rhodes or Mike Savage can be, if their shows can find sponsors, then let the free speach flow. As to The Second Amendment, the part about the Militia is more of a preamble. The Founders meant the populace when they said the Right of the PEOPLE. If they had intended it to mean the Militia, they would have said so. They were quite plain in their language, much to the chagrin of those like Jim.

Anonymous said...

Heller v. DC

Deal with it, Jim.

Jim said...

Amy said: Using that logic, the First Amendment doesn't protect individual right to free speech, either, since "people" appears in that Amendment, rather than "persons."

Actually the First Amendment doesn't mention people or persons at all as far as free speech is concerned. It only says that Congress shall make no laws prohibiting free speech. It doesn't mention "people" until it gets to the right to peaceably assemble and I would say one "person" can't actually assemble.

Am I jerking you around? Yeah, sort of. My point is that much of what is in the Constitution and BOR can be interpreted differently by different educated people.

In DC v. Heller, Scalia agreed that some restrictions on gun ownership can be allowed, specifically military weapons. And since a restriction is also an "infringement", if the right's of an individual can be infringed, the 2nd Amendment must mean that ONLY the collective people's right cannot be infringed.

So while the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about 10 rounds, Scalia leaves that door open, since another court case could determine that more that 10 rounds constitutes a "military weapon."

And now for the punchline:

Billiam said: They were quite plain in their language.

Oh yeah.

Amy said...

Amy, according to the way the Left is interpretting things these days, no, you don't have a right to any of those because it takes away from their control.

Yeah, I know. But the more you challenge them, the more their hypocrisy and totalitarianism is revealed. I enjoy that.

Heller v. DC

Deal with it, Jim.


Yeah, except that the left loves legal positivism. That is, laws (or the Constitution) mean what *they* say they mean, nothing more or less -- not even precedent.

Jim said...

the more you challenge them, the more their hypocrisy and totalitarianism is revealed.

What a hoot!

That is, laws (or the Constitution) mean what *they* say they mean, nothing more or less -- not even precedent.

That's hilarious!

Dad29 said...

Scalia was wrong.

Full-auto (NFA) should be allowed.

John Foust said...

I thought the funny part was the "there's usually no police report." In other words, the plural of "anecdote" is "data".