One week after 12 people were shot and killed at a showing of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado, the California Department of Justice announced it expects state residents will buy over 700,000 pistols, rifles and shotguns in 2012.
According to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, that means firearm sales this year will nearly double from five years ago, when 370,628 weapons were sold.
Gun sales in Colorado jumped significantly in the days after the shooting. The Huffington Post quotes sources as saying that in addition to a surge in California sales, Florida, Washington, Oregon, and Georgia also reported increases in gun purchases.
According to the Chronicle, our state "doesn't record the personal history of those who purchase guns, nor their reasons for buying them, so it's hard to pinpoint a reason for the increase."
Sales typically increase in large numbers after incidents like 9/11 and the Colorado shooting. One gun store owner quoted by the Chronicle spoke about new customers drawn to arming themselves after personally feeling the effects of crime.
"The police aren't there to save you," argued the owner. "They're there to clean up the mess and make a report after the fact. There aren't enough police to protect civilians - there just isn't."
Meanwhile, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is asking President Obama and Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to move beyond rhetoric and provide some concrete solutions for gun control. Their website urges you to sign a petition drive now underway.
What do you think? Do the increasing numbers of gun sales concern you? Are heavily-publicized incidents of gun violence the result of too many firearms in circulation? Or was Aurora an isolated incident, and the majority of gun owners responsible citizens simply exercising their constitutional right to bear arms?
Tell us in your comments. Then take the poll below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Scroll to: Initially, Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights
Example: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227
“Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.” My father is one of those 400,000. When gun bans were enacted in cities like Washington DC, crime actually went up! Did you know that Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and Finland, all of whom have a higher gun ownership rate than America, all have lower crime rates than America? In fact, their crime rates are among the lowest in the Western World. Britain, Australia and Canada, increased gun control in the late 1990s which led to increased crime.. States in the U.S. that have enacted concealed-carry laws have lower crime rates. How about we blast the media for not printing all of the stories where people saved themselves, a loved one or a stranger by using a gun? Why do you only hear about the lunatics? The media loves plastering all of these criminals faces everywhere which makes them hero’s in their minds. They glorify these horrible acts giving them more face time then any victim. Let’s hold the media & the criminals responsible for their actions and not penalize millions of law abiding gun owners.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Thanks!
According to the government sponsored British Crime Survey, between 1997-02 violent crime fell 22%; domestic burglary fell 39% and vehicle crime fell 26%. Source: Preface, page i, Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 http://snipurl.com/24lr4xm Your source, JustFacts.com, takes donations through PayPal. Australia: Search for the Attorney-General of Australia's letter to Charlton Heston/NRA: "…firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997… Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign." Canada...?
The point missed by gun advocates is that the 2nd amendment of the Constitution is worded as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The point missed by gun advocates is that they totally ignore the first half of the amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." as if it does not exist or has no bearing upon the right to bearing arms. The point missed is that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with the ownership of gun for self-defense as gun advocates are claiming because it is not stated that way in the Constitution. That is the point.
The New York Times - Appeals Court Says Gun Ban Violates 2nd Amendment http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/washington/09cnd-gun.html?_r=2&hp
In 1996, the most comprehensive "gun control" study of all time was published by John Lott www.johnrlott.com/ Professor Gary Kleck is a life long (self-avowed) liberal democrat, author of Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America www.gunscholar.org: The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars: Featuring experts -- liberals, moderates, and conservatives -- whose research has led them to be skeptical of gun control More reading: Cato report: www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities www.gunsandcrime.org www.learnaboutguns.com www.thegunzone.com I also have many, many links to articles, journals & reports from all sorts of news sources if any one would like them.
In terms of the Supreme Court rulings: Anyone interested should read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinon in District of Columbia v. Heller. Also keep in mind the court's majority is the same one that stopped the vote count in Florida in 2000, thereby selecting George W. Bush our 43rd POTUS.
“Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, plain and simple”– Diane Feinstein
Undoubtedly guns take far more lives than any other implements. It is a shame that guns cannot be totally eliminated from society. I think that if guns had never been invented, there would be hundreds of millions of more people who would live longer lives world wide throughout history. It is such an efficient people killer. But reality is what it is and we are stuck with this very efficient people killing machine. For that is undeniably its primary intent, to kill human beings like you and I. It is true that the Supreme Court did rule in favor of the NRA but it was not a unanimous vote and there were Justices who had strong dissenting views on this matter. So legally it is the law of the land. But that does not make it right.
People that believe removing guns from honest citizens will reduce crime are kidding themselves. The best example is when Australia banned guns from private citizens to ‘reduce crime’. The results were: Armed Robberies are UP 69% Assaults Involving Guns are UP 28% Gun Murders are UP 19% Home Invasions – a crime for which Australia didn’t even have laws before the gun ban because it never happened – are UP 21% http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/cold-hard-facts-on-gun-bans-the-cost-of-liberty-can-be-measured-in-the-loss-of-life_08032012
Even the left leaning Snopes had to do some very fancy footwork just to dodge the numbers but couldn't demonstrate they were wrong or provide alternative numbers. I can find the atty gen of Australia refuting NRA numbers but not providing any of his own. Do you have them? Supposedly the AIC was chartered to keep track of the results of the ban but all I could find was: "In 1997, the prime minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The AIC have published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[28][33]" Well, since guns were illegal it is a safe bet the gun crimes committed were with illegally-held guns. duh. The AIC site does not make it easy to find any reports. Wonder why.
My weapon of choice is the crossbow pistol. Stealthy, silent and lethal. I only use it for target practice. I personally don't prefer guns for two reasons: they are loud and you cannot tell they are loaded by looking at them.
Attorney-General for Australia, The Hon Nicola Roxon MP M1.2 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 7300 Fax: (02) 6273 4102 email: attorney@ag.gov.au
Now if you look at the definition for the word "Militia" it does not refer to the military. According to Dictionary.com and Merriam Webster, Militia is defined as; "a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency ", "a body of citizens organized for military service". Now most people know that our government may call upon the American people in a time of emergency to fight in the military. In the definition of Militia it does not say that there is a body of soldiers organized for military service, but rather a body of "citizens". So through definition the "people" recognized in the 2nd Amendment are civilians, not the military. The right given to the people to keep and bear refers to all of the American people not just the military.
I doubt that this is even the intent of a single person of the millions of firearms that are owned today in America. I don't think this reasoning is valid or has a reasonable expectation. People primarily buy guns to kill another person or for self defense. Other lesser uses are for target practice and hunting. No one excepts a National Guard solder has a gun that could be used in a well regulated Militia and these weapons are government issue and their use strictly controlled by the government.
In my reasoning I never stated that firearms were for the sole purpose of serving in a Militia. I simply stated that Militia does not mean "military". That Militia refers to civilians. And in the second part of the Amendment where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I just wanted to point out that it says "the people" to keep and bear arms not the military. My only purpose in my post was to thoroughly define the words in the Constitution. So even though in your opinion you don't feel that civilians should be band from having guns, according to the Second Amendment it is a civilian right to keep and bear arms. I said nothing about the purpose a certain individual may have concerning the firearm and its use.