McCain wants to repeal DCs gun laws.

[afroloq]

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., and Jon Tester, D-Mont., today teamed up to introduce the Second Amendment Enforcement Act—legislation designed to secure gun rights for law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia.

The legislation follows the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that Washington, D.C.’s, decades-old ban on firearms was unconstitutional.

Both McCain and Tester supported the 2008 ruling. Prior to the Court’s decision, the senators signed a bipartisan friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to support gun rights.

The City of Washington, D.C., however, still has several rules restricting gun rights for law-abiding citizens.

McCain’s and Tester’s Second Amendment Enforcement Act would:
• Repeal the District of Columbia’s restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.
• Repeal the city’s current gun storage law, so that legal firearms in private homes don’t have to be “unloaded and either disassembled or secured.” The new legislation would also prohibit landlords from banning legal guns from rented homes or offices.
• Repeal the city’s complicated firearms registration system.
• Amend federal law to allow residents of the District of Columbia to legally to purchase guns and ammunition from licensed dealers in nearby Maryland and Virginia (there are no traditional gun shops in D.C. city limits).
• Ensure law-abiding residents the right to transport firearms for lawful purposes, while authorizing D.C.’s City Council to implement regulations governing licensed carry and the prohibition of firearms in sensitive public places.

If it becomes federal law, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act would trump the District of Columbia’s own gun laws because the entire city is an enclave of the federal government.

“Some may ask why a Senator from Arizona and a Senator from Montana would introduce legislation that impacts the District of Columbia. It’s simple – we believe that residents across this country should be able to exercise their constitutional right to have access firearms to protect themselves,” McCain said. “I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation that will not only restore District residents’ rights, but also ensure that no resident in any state, territory or the District is prevented from exercising his or her Second Amendment right.”

link (http://www.keci.com/McCain--Tester-team-up-to-secure-gun-rights-in-nat/6908842)


O sure John...just allow guns here in the District post 9/11...ok.

Maybe it's just me, but knowing how bad crime is here, this doesn't seem like a bright idea. If Kal Penn can get robbed at gunpoint, just imagine....LOL

[Mister Mets]

I'm with McCain and Tester here.

These types of restrictions keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, rather than those intending to rob people at gunpoint.

[afroloq]

I still find it interesting that in an election year, McCain wants to bring this up when he needs to worry about that crazy assed immigration bill in his own backyard as well as his 'inaction' during the presidential election to deal with the financial crisis.

[Ben]

That Congress has any say in DC's laws is fucking ridiculous. DC residents don't even have any voting representation in the very body that has such power over them!

[afroloq]

That Congress has any say in DC's laws is fucking ridiculous. DC residents don't even have any voting representation in the very body that has such power over them!

yeah, that too and still pay taxes...

[Ben]

yeah, that too and still pay taxes...Exactly! Makes no sense! I was hoping with a Democratic (and black) president and a Democratic Congress, we'd get some movement on DC statehood or a voting equivalent, but NOTHING! It's a fucking crime. And no one outside the DC area seems to know anything about it or give a shit.

Citizens of the United States are paying federal taxes without any voting representation in the legislature! Wasn't that one of our main gripes when we fought for independence?!

[Ray G.]

DC's gun laws are ridiculously harsh.

[Ray G.]

I still find it interesting that in an election year, McCain wants to bring this up when he needs to worry about that crazy assed immigration bill in his own backyard as well as his 'inaction' during the presidential election to deal with the financial crisis.

First up, he doesn't have any authority to deal with the immigration bill. That'll be dealt with by the courts.

Second, what does the financial crisis two years ago have to do with anything? What exactly should he have done then?

If your point is "I don't like McCain", that doesn't really make a point for or against his actions here.

[OzMan]

I really don't know too much about the issue at hand, never having really heard about the DC population complaining about gun laws...I do know that DC deserves to have at least one representative in the legislature even though they are considered a district.

I think one of the main reasons Washington still doesn't have representation today is to keep it away from the party system and make it a neutral ground without any preference to either side.

If that's the case, should the person representing Washington DC be required to be an Independent?

The Gun situation seems to be an age old law from the days when people could simply walk up to the White House door and say hi.

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with people owning guns, but when your dealing with the capitol where all the our nations leaders are held sometimes all at one time, giving "anyone" the freedom to go around with a gun would definitely be a security risk that would be hard to control.

That being said, people should have the rights to have them in their homes, just not on the streets even with a permit.

[Ben]

I really don't know too much about the issue at hand, never having really heard about the DC population complaining about gun laws...I do know that DC deserves to have at least one representative in the legislature even though they are considered a district.

I think one of the main reasons Washington still doesn't have representation today is to keep it away from the party system and make it a neutral ground without any preference to either side.

If that's the case, should the person representing Washington DC be required to be an Independent?DC residents already vote 85% Democrat in elections. Why should it be neutral?

They do have a delegate in the House, but she cannot vote on the floor. Insane. They have no representation in the Senate.

[edwardmblake]

On a strange note, if McCain were able to get this passed it would remove the reason why the DC representation bill got shelved two weeks ago. (It would have added one voting member to DC and one to Utah.)

[Alexander Hamilton]

That Congress has any say in DC's laws is fucking ridiculous. DC residents don't even have any voting representation in the very body that has such power over them!

This and Puerto Rico's status in the United States drives me nuts.

[Mylazycat]

DC's gun laws are ridiculously harsh.

What about Marvel's?

[Ben]

This and Puerto Rico's status in the United States drives me nuts.
But Puerto Rican citizens don't pay federal income taxes, do they?

[totalsellout]

First up, he doesn't have any authority to deal with the immigration bill. That'll be dealt with by the courts.


so he can't interfere with a local law in his own state but he can in a completely different district? dc's gun laws should be dealt with by the courts, too. this is ridiculous pandering to the gun lobby by a man i used to really respect.

[Alexander Hamilton]

But Puerto Rican citizens don't pay federal income taxes, do they?

I thought they did but I may have been have a false presumption.

wait... heres what I found on Wiki.


The U.S. Government classifies Puerto Rico as an independent taxation authority by Federal Law 48 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_48_of_the_United_States_Code) § 734 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/48/734.html)
. Puerto Rico residents are required to pay U.S. federal taxes, import/export taxes,[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-78) federal commodity taxes,[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-79) social security taxes etc. The only exemption is federal income taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) since residents pay federal payroll taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax) (Social Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29)[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-80) and Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29)),[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-81) as well as Commonwealth of Puerto Rico income taxes. All federal employees,[83] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-82) plus those who do business with the federal government,[84] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-83) in addition to Puerto Rico-based corporations that intend to send funds to the U.S.,[85] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-84) and some others[86] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#cite_note-85) also pay federal income taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States).

[afroloq]

First up, he doesn't have any authority to deal with the immigration bill. That'll be dealt with by the courts.

Second, what does the financial crisis two years ago have to do with anything? What exactly should he have done then?

If your point is "I don't like McCain", that doesn't really make a point for or against his actions here.

Really? That's going to be an issue he will have to tackle if he intends on being reelected (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/brewer_mccain_i.php)

See this too
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/mccains-tough-stance-on-arizona-immigration-bill/)
And come on Ray, you mean to tell me that people won't remember (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/22/mccain-bailout-meeting/) McCain's reaction to the bailout 2 years ago and how that played a part in his losing the Presidential Election won't play a part on this election?

OK.... (http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/22/mccain-semi-recants-bailout-su)

[mario]

I'm with McCain and Tester here.

These types of restrictions keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, rather than those intending to rob people at gunpoint.

how about keeping guns out of anybody's hands who is not a trained law enforcer or military man?

[Jason California]

how about keeping guns out of anybody's hands who is not a trained law enforcer or military man?

I know I would not like that, and I am not a gun owner.

[mario]

I know I would not like that, and I am not a gun owner.

and why not?

[SidekicksRevenge]

well-regulated

[xyzzy]

I don't see anything wrong at all with requiring that guns be stored properly and being required to register them.

[russw]

so he can't interfere with a local law in his own state but he can in a completely different district? dc's gun laws should be dealt with by the courts, too. this is ridiculous pandering to the gun lobby by a man i used to really respect.

The courts have been involved with this and they ruled as unconstitutional DC current gun ban laws (that was passed by the DC city gov't years ago)

I don't see this as pandering to the gun lobby. DC has a really high crime rate that really escalated after the law banning home ownership was put in place. These guys live there and while the Senators have security details their staff members and loved one do not.

[russw]

how about keeping guns out of anybody's hands who is not a trained law enforcer or military man?

that's the law that have had for years there and crime is off the hook

[SidekicksRevenge]

McCain’s and Tester’s Second Amendment Enforcement Act would:
• Repeal the District of Columbia’s restrictions on semiautomatic firearms.

Ridiculous. I've softened my gun views in my old age, but why in the fuck do you need a semiautomatic weapon if you're not military or law enforcement? If you feel like you have to carry a weapon like that, you have way bigger problems than any gun is going to solve.


• Repeal the city’s current gun storage law, so that legal firearms in private homes don’t have to be “unloaded and either disassembled or secured.” The new legislation would also prohibit landlords from banning legal guns from rented homes or offices.

Fine. If it helps people sleep better at night to keep a loaded gun in the house, let them. So long as they keep it in a place their kids can't get to them.


• Repeal the city’s complicated firearms registration system.

Retarded. If the whole complaint about gun control is that only criminals will have guns, why target the rule there specifically to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Or people with a history of mental illness. Or people with violent arrest records.


• Amend federal law to allow residents of the District of Columbia to legally to purchase guns and ammunition from licensed dealers in nearby Maryland and Virginia (there are no traditional gun shops in D.C. city limits).

Yeah, fine. As long as they have to register the weapon.


• Ensure law-abiding residents the right to transport firearms for lawful purposes, while authorizing D.C.’s City Council to implement regulations governing licensed carry and the prohibition of firearms in sensitive public places.

I'll never get this at all. There isn't a damn thing in my wallet worth killing someone over and there never will be. Carrying the gun outside of your home just seems like inviting more trouble than it prevents.

[xyzzy]

Ridiculous. I've softened my gun views in my old age, but why in the fuck do you need a semiautomatic weapon if you're not military or law enforcement? If you feel like you have to carry a weapon like that, you have way bigger problems than any gun is going to solve.

Semi-automatics aren't assault rifles or anything. I understand a ban on fully automatic weapons, but a semi auto handgun?

[Jason California]

and why not?


Because even if you could guarantee that you could also keep them out of the hands of all criminal, which I don't believe can be done in as open society as the US is, I don't trust them only to be in the hands of the state.

[Brian Defferding]

I'm with McCain and Tester here.

These types of restrictions keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, rather than those intending to rob people at gunpoint.

I agree with McCain on this as well. And I utterly despise McCain.

[Mister Mets]

how about keeping guns out of anybody's hands who is not a trained law enforcer or military man?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.

Frankly, I don't think it's important to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who is not a trained law enforcer or military man. It should be valid to have a gun for protection.

[mario]

Because even if you could guarantee that you could also keep them out of the hands of all criminal, which I don't believe can be done in as open society as the US is, I don't trust them only to be in the hands of the state.

I... this does not compute to me?

so, you don't have trust in your trained servicemen to protect you?
Because that's what it boils down to, right?

[Brother Power the Gong]

DC's lack of representation is just reprehensible.

[Brian Defferding]

I... this does not compute to me?

so, you don't have trust in your trained servicemen to protect you?
Because that's what it boils down to, right?

Unless everyone has their own personal state-employed bodyguard, I don't think any trained servicemen will be there to protect you at all times.

[russw]

I agree with McCain on this as well. And I utterly despise McCain.

this

[russw]

I'll never get this at all. There isn't a damn thing in my wallet worth killing someone over and there never will be. Carrying the gun outside of your home just seems like inviting more trouble than it prevents.

Is there anything in your pants or the pants of the women you care about in your life that's worth protecting?

[mario]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.

Frankly, I don't think it's important to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who is not a trained law enforcer or military man. It should be valid to have a gun for protection.

So, you wouldn't have supported Wyatt Earp in Tombstone either back in the day?

There's a reason why your country has so many gun-related accidents, you know.

[xyzzy]

Is there anything in your pants or the pants of the women you care about in your life that's worth protecting?

Pants?

[RebootedCorpse]

Is there anything in your pants or the pants of the women you care about in your life that's worth protecting?

You pants residents are far more likely to be shot if you own a gun than if you don't.

[mario]

Unless everyone has their own personal state-employed bodyguard, I don't think any trained servicemen will be there to protect you at all times.

and do you feel the need to be protected at all times? How paranoid are you (not a personal question)?

This is what I don't get about those gun carriers: why they think that they'll be the target of a violent crime at any time.

Criminals mostly are not stupid: they'll burgle you at the times that you're most likely not gonna be there.

[Jason California]

I... this does not compute to me?

so, you don't have trust in your trained servicemen to protect you?
Because that's what it boils down to, right?

2 things

They can't be there to fix everything, and one may need to rely on themselves on occasion.

I cannot rely on the state to act benevolently in perpetuity. World history has shown they can become quite repressive. On the chance that this were to happen I would not want them to be the only ones holding guns.

Now you may think that line of thought will create more problems and that is fine, I don't care.

[xyzzy]

2 things

They can't be there to fix everything, and one may need to rely on themselves on occasion.

I cannot rely on the state to act benevolently in perpetuity. World history has shown they can become quite repressive. On the chance that this were to happen I would not want them to be the only ones holding guns.

Now you may think that line of thought will create more problems and that is fine, I don't care.

Dude, if the State decides to turn on citizens, small arms aint gonna stop them.

[Jason California]

and do you feel the need to be protected at all times? How paranoid are you (not a personal question)?

This is what I don't get about those gun carriers: why they think that they'll be the target of a violent crime at any time.


I don't own a gun though. I have been on the receiving end of violent crime in my life. Why would I think it could not happen again?

[Brian Defferding]

So, you wouldn't have supported Wyatt Earp in Tombstone either back in the day?

There's a reason why your country has so many gun-related accidents, you know.

There is also a reason why DC's homicide rate has been far higher than national averages for many years when handguns were banned from the city. DC's violent crime rate is more than twice of that than a more-populous New York City, which allows handgun purchasing and a permit to carry.

[Jason California]

Dude, if the State decides to turn on citizens, small arms aint gonna stop them.

OK, lets roll over in the event it happens.

[GelfXIII]

The courts have been involved with this and they ruled as unconstitutional DC current gun ban laws (that was passed by the DC city gov't years ago)

I don't see this as pandering to the gun lobby. DC has a really high crime rate that really escalated after the law banning home ownership was put in place. These guys live there and while the Senators have security details their staff members and loved one do not.

Actually, there have been any number of gun laws on the DC ballots, and overwhelmingly passed by the residents of the District of Columbia. Passed by popular vote. And these jack-offs want to come along afterwords and slap the hands of the District citizens and say "No! Bad citizens. We know better what laws you should have." It's infuriating, and it's yet another reason why the whole set up for the District should be declared unconstitutional and re-writen from scratch.

[Brother Power the Gong]

Actually, there have been any number of gun laws on the DC ballots, and overwhelmingly passed by the residents of the District of Columbia. Passed by popular vote. And these jack-offs want to come along afterwords and slap the hands of the District citizens and say "No! Bad citizens. We know better what laws you should have." It's infuriating, and it's yet another reason why the whole set up for the District should be declared unconstitutional and re-writen from scratch.

More than gun laws have been overturned by Congress. If the District was overwhelmingly Republican, it would have an appropriate number of House members and two senators representing it.

[xyzzy]

OK, lets roll over in the event it happens.

I plan to. If the entirety of the armed forces goes along with a coup, or whatever, then we've already lost.

[Jason California]

I plan to. If the entirety of the armed forces goes along with a coup, or whatever, then we've already lost.

You got it dude.

[stevapalooza]

We have no idea how many crimes are prevented because an honest person had a gun, so in the gun debate we will always get a lop-sided picture that make legal guns look like nothing but bad news.

[Mister Mets]

So, you wouldn't have supported Wyatt Earp in Tombstone either back in the day?
Wyatt Earp in Tombstone may have had reasons. I don't know if they apply to 21st Century Washington.


There's a reason why your country has so many gun-related accidents, you know.The statistics I found are that the odds of getting killed in a firearm related accident are 1 in 4888 (and I'm sure more than a few suicides are classified as firearm related accidents.) While gun safety is important, I don't think it merits keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.


We have no idea how many crimes are prevented because an honest person had a gun, so in the gun debate we will always get a lop-sided picture that make legal guns look like nothing but bad news.

Plus the possibility that an honest person has a gun (and may use it in self-defense) can also serve as a deterrent.

[mario]

There is also a reason why DC's homicide rate has been far higher than national averages for many years when handguns were banned from the city. DC's violent crime rate is more than twice of that than a more-populous New York City, which allows handgun purchasing and a permit to carry.

isn't DC also one of the most poor and destitute areas?

I bet there is more violent crime in the Bronx than in Greenwich Village too.

[xyzzy]

The statistics I found are that the odds of getting killed in a firearm related accident are 1 in 4888 (and I'm sure more than a few suicides are classified as firearm related accidents.) While gun safety is important, I don't think it merits keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

I don't either. But what's wrong with requiring things like safe storage and registration?

[Brian Defferding]

and do you feel the need to be protected at all times? How paranoid are you (not a personal question)?

This is what I don't get about those gun carriers: why they think that they'll be the target of a violent crime at any time.

Criminals mostly are not stupid: they'll burgle you at the times that you're most likely not gonna be there.

Not paranoid at all, m'self. I just think it's important to remember that guns are the ultimate game-changer for those who are weak and physically inferior to a criminal.

And it adds a level of paranoia to the criminal's mind. If a bank robber were to see a sign that said "Guns are not allowed in the bank," or a mugger lived in a city where handguns were otherwise banned, what would the bank robber and mugger do? They would rob that bank and mug just about any old lady they see at night, maybe even the daytime, because they know they can't fight back properly. Bring two or three other bank robbers with them to commit the crime or have a gang of muggers, we are all sitting ducks.

Now imagine a place where handguns were allowed and conceal/carry permits were put in place. Would the bank robber and the mugger think twice about committing their crime? Of course they would. I think too many have tunnel vision focusing on the "firearm death rate" to see the big picture: how many lives the right for self-defense (which includes guns) also saves, and how it can deter violent crime.

[RebootedCorpse]

(Firing 9mm at a B-52)
Pop! Pop-pop! Pop! Pop!
http://www.hostgrok.com/media/a_bomb.jpg

[Mister Mets]

I don't either. But what's wrong with requiring things like safe storage and registration?
I'm not opposed to that, actually.

[xyzzy]

I'm not opposed to that, actually.

OK, but that's part of what's being repealed here.

[mario]

I don't own a gun though. I have been on the receiving end of violent crime in my life. Why would I think it could not happen again?

Why would you think it will happen again?
You could get hit by a car too. I think chances are more likely than that.

[afroloq]

Not paranoid at all, m'self. I just think it's important to remember that guns are the ultimate game-changer for those who are weak and physically inferior to a criminal.

And it adds a level of paranoia to the criminal's mind. If a bank robber were to see a sign that said "Guns are not allowed in the bank," or a mugger lived in a city where handguns were otherwise banned, what would the bank robber and mugger do? They would rob that bank and mug just about any old lady they see at night, maybe even the daytime, because they know they can't fight back properly. Bring two or three other bank robbers with them to commit the crime or have a gang of muggers, we are all sitting ducks.

Now imagine a place where handguns were allowed and conceal/carry permits were put in place. Would the bank robber and the mugger think twice about committing their crime? Of course they would. I think too many have tunnel vision focusing on the "firearm death rate" to see the big picture: how many lives the right for self-defense (which includes guns) also saves, and how it can deter violent crime.

Happened not 5 miles outside of the District yesterday (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/76-year-old-shop-owner-fires-back-at-gunmen-attempting-to-rob-his-store-042710)

[afroloq]

Why would you think it will happen again?
You could get hit by a car too. I think chances are more likely than that.

Not if he looks both ways before crossing.

[xyzzy]

Why would you think it will happen again?
You could get hit by a car too. I think chances are more likely than that.

To be fair, if there was a small concealable device that I thought reduced the chance that I would get hit by a car, I'd certainly consider carrying one.

[afroloq]

To be fair, if there was a small concealable device that I thought reduced the chance that I would get hit by a car, I'd certainly consider carrying one.

but dude, you have one on either side of your nose...

[Brian Defferding]

Happened not 5 miles outside of the District yesterday (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/local/76-year-old-shop-owner-fires-back-at-gunmen-attempting-to-rob-his-store-042710)

I love stories like this. Way to go old man.

[Jason California]

Why would you think it will happen again?
You could get hit by a car too. I think chances are more likely than that.


You are comparing an accidental occurrence with a deliberate act?

[RebootedCorpse]

I love stories like this. Way to go old man.

Random anecdotes beat logic and statistical analysis every time!

[mario]

Not paranoid at all, m'self. I just think it's important to remember that guns are the ultimate game-changer for those who are weak and physically inferior to a criminal.

And you can prove this? Because there are lots of teens and even kids involved in muggings and robberies. Guns don't level equations.
If you're being hold up at gun point, you're more likely to be shitting your pants than reaching for your gun. Even more if it's your loved one that's being threatened.

[/QUOTE]
And it adds a level of paranoia to the criminal's mind. If a bank robber were to see a sign that said "Guns are not allowed in the bank," or a mugger lived in a city where handguns were otherwise banned, what would the bank robber and mugger do? They would rob that bank and mug just about any old lady they see at night, maybe even the daytime, because they know they can't fight back properly. Bring two or three other bank robbers with them to commit the crime or have a gang of muggers, we are all sitting ducks.
Now imagine a place where handguns were allowed and conceal/carry permits were put in place. Would the bank robber and the mugger think twice about committing their crime? Of course they would. I think too many have tunnel vision focusing on the "firearm death rate" to see the big picture: how many lives the right for self-defense (which includes guns) also saves, and how it can deter violent crime.[/QUOTE]

I think you underestimate a criminals mind: if the intended loot is interesting enough for a criminal he'll try and rob that, no matter what! Have you never seen a crime movie? :)
the amount of weapons will not deter a criminal if he wants something.

Fuck, they even rob police stations! (Or is that just here, I'm forgetting)

Another anecdote: you know Antwerp is the world's diamond capital? A couple years ago they had the biggest heist here. And since then there has been incredible improved security measures. More police, more cameras and -knowing these guys- more hidden guns
Guess what: there have been 2 more heists since. More violently too.

[Brian Defferding]

Random anecdotes beat logic and statistical analysis every time!

Well hey, if you want statistical analysis, I can bring that too if you want.

[afroloq]

Guns don't kill people...mechanical devices used to pull gun triggers as seen on Flash Forward kills people.

[xyzzy]

Well hey, if you want statistical analysis, I can bring that too if you want.

I'd be curious to see it. Everything I've read says that guns in the home are statistically bad for the owner.

[Brian Defferding]

I'd be curious to see it. Everything I've read says that guns in the home are statistically bad for the owner.

What specifically did you read?

[xyzzy]

What specifically did you read?

That a gun in the home is more likely to injure a person who lives in the home (or is a guest) than a burglar (or other home invader). I don't have any source material on hand, but you said that you did, so I'd be interested in seeing it.

[mario]

You are comparing an accidental occurrence with a deliberate act?

chances are chances.

A mugging is also accidental from your point of view tho' , a criminal doesn't care about you.

[russw]

Pants?

Rape?

[Brian Defferding]

That a gun in the home is more likely to injure a person who lives in the home (or is a guest) than a burglar (or other home invader). I don't have any source material on hand, but you said that you did, so I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you go to the Center for Disease Control's website (http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/cdcMapFramework/mapModuleInterface.jsp), there is a statistic generator where you can get the state-by-state rate of accidental firearm death rate for 2000-2006. The crude rate of accidental firearm death rate per capita is 0.25. Keep in mind, this is just "firearms." We are including shotguns and rifles, not just handguns.

Meanwhile, the FBI and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics shows the historical violent crime and murder rate of the country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)

Violent crime and murder have dropped 35-45 percent in each category since 1991. Since 2008, violent crime has been lower than anytime since 1975, and since 1999 murder has been lower than anytime since 1966.

More Americans own more guns than ever, and gun laws gradually have been repealed over the years, and violent crime is at a 30-year low; as well as the murder rate being its lowest since 1965.

Some of the safest large cities in America are those Texas towns with loose gun laws, like El Paso, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas/Forth Worth. One thing to note are the three most violent large cities in the US other than Washington DC - New Orleans, Detroit and Baltimore. One thing I can say right off the bat that is common with all three cities is poverty.

[russw]

Actually, there have been any number of gun laws on the DC ballots, and overwhelmingly passed by the residents of the District of Columbia. Passed by popular vote. And these jack-offs want to come along afterwords and slap the hands of the District citizens and say "No! Bad citizens. We know better what laws you should have." It's infuriating, and it's yet another reason why the whole set up for the District should be declared unconstitutional and re-writen from scratch.

It's the Supreme Court not congress that did the over turning here

[SidekicksRevenge]

Is there anything in your pants or the pants of the women you care about in your life that's worth protecting?

Oh, so it's about keeping the rapists away.

Statistically speaking, there's a much much much higher chance of your gun accidentally hurting someone you care about than there is of being raped by a stranger.

Most rape happens long after you've taken the gun belt off and stowed the knife you hide in your boot just in case.

[RebootedCorpse]

What specifically did you read?

Title: Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Publication Date: November 2009

What does it say?

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

This is a relatively strong research design that looks at the specific risk factor of possessing a gun at the time of assault and is an improvement on previous studies. In addition, methods were used to simulate high levels of misclassification bias (i.e. results were analyzed several ways to allow for possibility of undetected gun possession) and still did not find any overall evidence for gun possession providing protection against assault.


How can I use it?

Use the results of this study to challenge the NRA’s assertion that guns make us safer. The research results highlight the risks of gun ownership and how having more guns correlates with more gun violence.

This research severely undermines the argument by gun pushers that carrying a gun automatically makes a person safer. The NRA is pushing to make it easier to carry concealed loaded guns in public under the premise that gun possession is protective against being shot in an assault.

The statistic generated by this study is particularly relevant to the fight at the federal level to force states with stronger carry concealed weapons permit systems to allow people to carry firearms who come from states with weak systems (known as the Thune Amendment, which recently failed but could be pushed again).

The Supreme Court affirmed in the Heller decision on the Second Amendment that prohibitions on carrying in public are presumptively constitutional. This study provides evidence that restrictions on carrying in public may also be a good public safety strategy.


Citation

Branas et al, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health 99(11)(2009), published online ahead of print, Sep 17, 2009


http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/99/

[Ray G.]

DC residents already vote 85% Democrat in elections. Why should it be neutral?

They do have a delegate in the House, but she cannot vote on the floor. Insane. They have no representation in the Senate.

The best solution to me would seem to be to fold them into another state. Maryland, maybe. That way, they'd get the additional representation of Congressmen per the number of people in the city that are added to Maryland, plus, they'd get a fair say in electing Maryland's two US Senators.

[Ray G.]

so he can't interfere with a local law in his own state but he can in a completely different district? dc's gun laws should be dealt with by the courts, too. this is ridiculous pandering to the gun lobby by a man i used to really respect.

I'm pretty sure this law has already been through the court system.

And I wouldn't say it's pandering. These aren't common-sense limits. This is a wholesale ban, which is pretty against the spirit of the US Constitution. I don't see what he's doing wrong here.

[Ray G.]

Really? That's going to be an issue he will have to tackle if he intends on being reelected (http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/04/brewer_mccain_i.php)

See this too
(http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/mccains-tough-stance-on-arizona-immigration-bill/)
And come on Ray, you mean to tell me that people won't remember (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/22/mccain-bailout-meeting/) McCain's reaction to the bailout 2 years ago and how that played a part in his losing the Presidential Election won't play a part on this election?

OK.... (http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/22/mccain-semi-recants-bailout-su)

Sure, he'll have to deal with it eventually. All of Congress will, unless it gets struck down first (which it will).

(Although he doesn't have a challenge from the Dems, so he won't have to deal with it too much to get re-elected).

I still don't see how this means he can't take on DC's gun laws, unless you're arguing for his resignation.

[Ray G.]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms.

Frankly, I don't think it's important to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who is not a trained law enforcer or military man. It should be valid to have a gun for protection.

Not to mention that a disarmed public is a vulnerable public.

I can't imagine that anyone with any concerns about a police state would want to see a fully disarmed public with power solely in the hands of the police and military. :?

[Ray G.]

OK, but that's part of what's being repealed here.

Then they can reinstate those (which have been upheld in court, right?) once the faulty law is repealed.

[Dreaded Anomaly]

Title: Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Publication Date: November 2009

What does it say?

This is a case-control study that looks at the relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

The most striking finding from the study is that individuals in possession of a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, the adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.5.

The study concludes that: “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault.”

The researchers wrote that possessors of guns may be in more, not less, danger for a number of reasons. Offenders may use surprise to overpower their victims, making it difficult to use a gun for self-defense. If a victim is able to draw a gun, it signals to the offender that he must use maximum force to overpower the victim. In addition, the increased possibility of guns being carried in the community may lead to an escalation in the lethality of weapons brought to an argument.

This is a relatively strong research design that looks at the specific risk factor of possessing a gun at the time of assault and is an improvement on previous studies. In addition, methods were used to simulate high levels of misclassification bias (i.e. results were analyzed several ways to allow for possibility of undetected gun possession) and still did not find any overall evidence for gun possession providing protection against assault.


How can I use it?

Use the results of this study to challenge the NRA’s assertion that guns make us safer. The research results highlight the risks of gun ownership and how having more guns correlates with more gun violence.

This research severely undermines the argument by gun pushers that carrying a gun automatically makes a person safer. The NRA is pushing to make it easier to carry concealed loaded guns in public under the premise that gun possession is protective against being shot in an assault.

The statistic generated by this study is particularly relevant to the fight at the federal level to force states with stronger carry concealed weapons permit systems to allow people to carry firearms who come from states with weak systems (known as the Thune Amendment, which recently failed but could be pushed again).

The Supreme Court affirmed in the Heller decision on the Second Amendment that prohibitions on carrying in public are presumptively constitutional. This study provides evidence that restrictions on carrying in public may also be a good public safety strategy.


Citation

Branas et al, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health 99(11)(2009), published online ahead of print, Sep 17, 2009


http://www.bradycampaign.org/studies/view/99/

This is what I (and others) have been saying for a long time. If you want to be protected against being shot, wear a bullet-proof vest. Owning a gun only "protects" you in the very narrow set of circumstances in which you can get to it, aim it, and fire it to disable your attacker before your attacker can do the same to you.

[afroloq]

Sure, he'll have to deal with it eventually. All of Congress will, unless it gets struck down first (which it will).

(Although he doesn't have a challenge from the Dems, so he won't have to deal with it too much to get re-elected).

I still don't see how this means he can't take on DC's gun laws, unless you're arguing for his resignation.

2 Things.

1. regardless if it gets struck down, he supported Arizona's immigration bill.

2. Just as others stated earlier, how da hell does someone not representing here get the balls to make policy FOR here...just because it's a cool thing to do?

[Mister Mets]

OK, but that's part of what's being repealed here.

I don't mind that stuff coming back in a new, better and clearer law.

[xyzzy]

If you go to the Center for Disease Control's website (http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/cdcMapFramework/mapModuleInterface.jsp), there is a statistic generator where you can get the state-by-state rate of accidental firearm death rate for 2000-2006. The crude rate of accidental firearm death rate per capita is 0.25. Keep in mind, this is just "firearms." We are including shotguns and rifles, not just handguns.

Meanwhile, the FBI and the US Bureau of Justice Statistics shows the historical violent crime and murder rate of the country. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States)

Violent crime and murder have dropped 35-45 percent in each category since 1991. Since 2008, violent crime has been lower than anytime since 1975, and since 1999 murder has been lower than anytime since 1966.

More Americans own more guns than ever, and gun laws gradually have been repealed over the years, and violent crime is at a 30-year low; as well as the murder rate being its lowest since 1965.

Some of the safest large cities in America are those Texas towns with loose gun laws, like El Paso, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas/Forth Worth. One thing to note are the three most violent large cities in the US other than Washington DC - New Orleans, Detroit and Baltimore. One thing I can say right off the bat that is common with all three cities is poverty.

All that is great, but none of it actually addresses what I said.