re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243]
Exactly.. so that's less than 2 per year if we use your statistics. Yes.. that's not very significant.
Actually it does. Overall crime WAS decreasing including violent crime decreasing in Australia BEFORE they enacted your gun law. So of COURSE.. a decrease in crime is correlated with that gun law.. because the process that was causing the decrease in Australia was still in place. Actually when you look at the Australian numbers statistically you see that when they enacted their gun laws.. the decrease in crime actually slowed from the rate it was decreasing prior to the law.
So the best you can conclude is that there is no evidence that the gun law.. decreased crime.. and you could possibly conclude that there is evidence that the gun law might have made violent crime worse.
Absolutely not. I am going with the statistical facts based on valid research.
Frankly.. no. There are times when our courts interpret the second correctly.. there are times when the courts.. because of bias or ignorance, interpret the second incorrectly.
But the reality is that the meaning of the second amendment is the same.. just like the other amendments in the bill of rights.
It was designed to make sure that individuals could bear arms.. whether in defense of themselves, their homes , their states or their country. Thus the word militia, which was basically every male citizen (freemen) from 16 to 45 (something like that).
Well.. 229 years ago.. the second amendment did not apply to say Africans who were slaves. Now it applies to black folks as well as white folks, Asians and women.
Back 229.. arms that "can be borne".. or easily carried were firearms, swords, knives etc... the rest was artillery and ordinance. In todays world.. an "
arm" that can be carried could include a portable missile. Or a hand held grenade launcher, or a bomb.. and yet the second amendment doesn;t cover that.. those "arms" as it were (arms in quotes because the modern definition of arms are personal arms.. which don't include such things as hand held stinger missile launchers) without some "infringement" or regulation.
To your first point. That is quite demonising of the lives lost in those 2 per year. Any mass shooting is as bad as the other, with every life lost just as tragic as the last. No matter if there was 2 mass shootings every year or 50 mass shootings every year its an issue which must be addressed. This quite clearly depicts the severity of the issue faced in the US currently.
Next point. Where are your statistics from??
Homicide Rates- 1970- 1.2 per 100,000 contrasted to 1994- 1.9 per 100,000
- The trend line quite clearly shows an increase with some fluctuations between 1989 and 1994. Over a period of 1 year there might have been a slight decline but it then rose dramatically the next year.
Serious Assault- 1973- 20 per 100,000 contrasted to 1994- 118 per 100,000.
- A clear trend of a significant increase formed.
Rape- 1973- 3 per 100,00 contrasted to 1994- 24 per 100,000
- Another increase
Source- Australian Institute of Criminology
How is this showing a decrease??? What sources were you utilising???
Thirdly. Valid Research?? I just highlighted the lack of credibility and validity of your research.
To your next point. So how do you distinguish bias in the court systems, that is completely propelled by personal judgement. In legislation the meaning of Second Amendment was different in 1992, than it was in 2009, that is at least a lack of consistency.
Additionally. Point accepted.
The change to allow individuals of any race or colour was in 1875 (United States v. Cruikshank) that is not modern times. The car, telephone and tractor hadn't even been invented at that point.
