- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Guns
FBI Stats: Gun Sales Up, Violent Crime Down
Preliminary crime statistics for 2011 released today by the FBI show a 4 percent decrease in violent crime–a continuation of a long-term downward trend nationwide.
The report highlights that all four violent crime categories–murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault–declined in the country’s four major geographical regions and in all city population groups.
The report also noted that violent crime decreased both in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties.
The continuing decrease in violent crime comes at a time when firearms ownership has increased across America, a fact that utterly contradicts the mantra of anti-gun groups that that more guns equals more crime. “Every gun owner should be armed with this information,” said NSSF President and CEO Steve Sanetti.
According to the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report released today, the nation experienced a 4.0 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes and a 0.8 percent decline in the number of property crimes in 2011 when compared with data from 2010. The report is based on information the FBI gathered from 14,009 law enforcement agencies that submitted six to 12 comparable months of data for both 2010 and 2011.
Violent Crime
- In 2011, all four of the violent crime offense categories—murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault—declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter declined 1.9 percent, while forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault each declined 4.0 percent.
- Violent crime declined in all city groups. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 saw the largest decrease (5.2 percent) in violent crime. Violent crime decreased 6.6 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.7 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
- Within city groups, murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses increased the most (18.3 percent) in cities with populations under 10,000. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 showed the largest decrease of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter offenses (14.4 percent).
- All city groupings experienced a decline in forcible rapes except in cities with 500,000 to 999,999 inhabitants, which had the increase in forcible rapes (0.5 percent). Forcible rape offenses declined 6.8 percent in metropolitan counties and 9.0 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
- Robbery offenses decreased in all city groupings, with the greatest decrease (5.3 percent) in cities with 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants. Robberies decreased 7.5 percent in metropolitan counties and 3.6 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
- Aggravated assaults decreased in all city groups. Cities with 50,000 to 99,999 inhabitants experienced the largest decrease at 5.3 percent. Aggravated assaults declined in both county groups, with a decrease of 6.3 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.2 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
- Violent crime decreased in all four regions (4.9 percent in the Midwest, 4.7 percent in the West, 4.5 percent in the South, and 0.8 percent in the Northeast).
Property Crime
- Nationally, the property crime offense categories of larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft decreased in 2011 when compared with 2010 data. Motor vehicle theft dropped 3.3 percent, and larceny-theft decreased 0.9 percent. However, burglary offenses increased 0.3 percent.
- Property crime increased 0.3 percent in cities with 250,000 to 499,999 inhabitants and increased 0.1 percent in cities with 10,000 to 24,999 in population. Decreases in property crime were reported in all other city groupings. Property crime decreased 1.4 percent in metropolitan counties but increased 2.6 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
- Burglary offenses increased 1.2 percent in cities with 50,000 to 99,999 persons, which is the largest increase reported within city groupings. Burglaries increased 1.0 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
- Larceny-theft offenses decreased in all city groupings except those with populations of 250,000 to 499,999, which had an increase of 0.2 percent, and those with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, which showed virtually no change. Larceny-thefts increased 4.1 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.
- Motor vehicle thefts declined in all population groupings. Cities with 100,000 to 249,999 inhabitants experienced the largest decline at 4.3 percent. Metropolitan counties reported a 6.1 percent decrease in motor vehicle thefts.
- Three of the nation’s regions had decreases in property crime in 2011 when compared with data from 2010. These offenses declined 1.3 percent in the South, 0.8 percent in the West, and 0.4 percent in the Midwest. However, property crimes increased 0.2 percent in the Northeast.
Arson
- Arson offenses, which are not included in property crime totals, decreased 5.0 percent nationwide. Arsons declined in all four regions in 2011, with the Northeast experiencing the largest decrease (12.3 percent).
For definitions of the offenses presented in this release and collected for the accompanying report, please see Offense Definitions from Crime in the United States, 2010.
The complete Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report is available exclusively at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Most police forces in America
Most police forces in America did not exist until a hundred years ago, more or less. Until the 1970s, most of them had little or no formal training.
If the recruitment of poorly trained police improved things over having no police at all, then perhaps having lots of very modestly trained legally-armed private citizens similarly improves things when better trained cops are not around (which is most of the time).
Or, maybe it's just our high imprisonment rate. But would liberal cities and states have allowed that to happen -- if not for the fear that their crime rates would otherwise look bad compared to states with "shall-issue" concealed-handgun permit laws?
You are totally and
You are totally and completely wrong. Look at the crime rates from Census data. Two trends emerge - the most violent states have liberal gun laws and the safest states have liberal gun laws. What does that mean? Gun laws don't predict crime rates.
In the 1970s liberals told us
In the 1970s liberals told us three things:
(1) The root causes of crime are racism, poverty and economic inequality.
(2) Police cannot do much to suppress crime until the root causes of crime are eliminated. (Commenting upon the success of his successor, Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, in suppressing crime in NYC the previous mayor David Dinkins added, "When I said that, I wasn't taking into account the possibility of police using Nazi tactics.")
(3) You can reduce violent crime via stricter gun control.
The statistics show that they were wrong about gun control, but they were right with regard to (1) and (2). There is an amazing correlation between a state's violent crime rate and the percentage of its citizens who are disadvantaged by racism. This correlation is equally strong at the county and city level.
Also, the rate at which muggings occur has been sharply reduced in places in which either the police adopted "Nazi tactics" (e.g. the stop-and-frisk approach of NYC) or where the people are no longer required to depend on police for protection (since, short of using "Nazi tactics", the police cannot do much so long as the root causes of crime yada yada yada).
In the '70s, Liberals WITH A
In the '70s, Liberals WITH A AGENDA told us those things. You are correct in that #3 has been demonstrably a lie. But what makes you think that the remaining claims were correct?
As Professors Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have pointed out in numerous books and editorials, poverty was much deeper and more wide-spread (at least until Obama) during the Great Depression in the thirties. And racism was institutionalized by law in much of the country. Yet crime rates were much lower then than in the nineties when racism had become nominally illegal, affirmative action supposedly addressed the disparity in economic opportunity, and we had massive welfare programs to alleviate poverty.
I think it is obvious that something other than those alleged causes was at work to increase the rates of criminal activity during the past sixty years and, frankly, I'm quite interested in CRW's take on that.
You are so correct! KUDOS!!
You are so correct! KUDOS!!
Mandatory sentencing laws
Mandatory sentencing laws have swept the country from coast to coast. When pattern offenders and violent offenders are required to spend time off the streets, crime goes down.
Racism is not a direct cause of crime. Poverty and economic inequality might be a causal side effect from racism, but racism in isolation is not a cause. If you look at the common characteristics of white offenders, they are identical - poverty and lack of education. Since the majority of offenders are white christians, we cannot dump this on racism. I think you have grossly exaggerated this as a cause. Blacks and hispanics are over-represented among the poor, but structural poverty that goes way beyond racism is the root cause.
By targeting drugs and gang activity in particular, crime has been dramatically reduced. I see this in Michigan where I live. The state police have target specific cities as centers for gang activity, and the long term impact has been nothing but positive.
I agree with #3. Gun control doesn't impact crime. It would take a complete elimination of the gun supply for it to matter, and that could never happen in the US, so it is pointless to focus on that.
My company writes risk assessment software for offenders. It has been surprising to learn what does and does not predict whether someone will re-offend. For example, substance abuse is not predictive because the majority of prison inmates abused substance before coming to prison. Substance abuse is a functional need to be addressed, but the fact that someone abuses substances does not predict if someone will re-offend. Some people continue to insist that talk therapy is essential for youth offenders. The data actually showed that talk therapy with no other treatment does nothing to reduce the risk of re-offending. However, when combined with other programs such as structured day programming, community support, talk therapy amplifies the positive effects of these other programs.
The are many common misconceptions around crime and criminality. I am by no means an expert, but vicariously through my work I have learned that much of what I used to believe was wrong. I see people repeating these same incorrect things over and over.
I still come back to my original point. Gun laws - strict or liberal, have no impact on crime. Shall issue CCW, limited CCW issue... it doesn't matter. Gun ownership is an established constitutional right. Its role in preventing or causing crime is neutral, which is not what anyone on either side of the debate wants to hear. Individuals may stop a crime, but the trends are the same.
Your statement about crime
Your statement about crime going down in part due to mandatory sentencing seems consistent with what I originally wrote (which was "Or maybe it's just the high imprisonment rate."). That makes me curious as to why you replied "You are totally and completely wrong."
Also, as I explained above, your assertion that "shall-issue CCW doesn't matter" is ambiguous. If you're saying that it doesn't matter with respect to the _overall_ crime rate, I have indicated that I do not dispute that.
However, I am NOT convinced shall-issue CCW is irrelevant to the mugging rate against middle-aged middle-class white people specifically. My skepticism comes from two sources: (1) My personal observations living in a high-crime city before and after such a law went into effect, and (2) the common-sense expectation that when mugging victims become permitted to shoot muggers, and an increasing number therefore become prepared and committed to doing just that -- then muggers either change their crime patterns or die.
Have you seen statistics indicating that the mugging victimization rates against middle-aged middle-class white people _specifically_ is unaffected by shall-issue CCW? These would have to be studies comparing each region against itself before and after the CCW law change. (A comparison between regions that did not account for demographic differences would be meaningless.)
As for your statement that racism is NOT a root cause of crime, I just wish you have been around in the 1960s and '70s when so many politicians, sociologists and criminologists _claimed_ that racism was a root cause of crime (along with poverty and economic inequality, granted) -- to hear you tell those people to shut their stupid and ignorant pie holes!
Look at the crime statistics
Look at the crime statistics by age... the data is out there.
I said "mugging rate" not
I said "mugging rate" not crime rate, and I said "middle-class middle-aged white people" not "middle-aged people. "Crime statistics by age" does not provide statistics on what I asked.
They are available by race as
They are available by race as well.. do you need a bunch of links or can you enter in keywords to www.google.com?
Do the stats take into
Do the stats take into account whether the violent crimes involved firearms on the criminal's part? Do they also include violent crime attempts DETERRED by gun owners?
Maybe they don't, predict crime rates (especially if ALL crimes are included, as is usually the case) but if you knew I was likely to be armed, would you break in, or assault me?
These are the violent crime
These are the violent crime rates. The property crime rates are similar, so no... people are not deterred from committing burglary any more or less by rates of gun ownership or gun laws.
The data is there for you to look an analyze yourself. The feds are required to publish it.
That's interesting, because
That's interesting, because in the "pre internet" world, I saw a segment on 60 Minutes where they interviewed prisoners. Almost to a man, they said they would pass on burglarizing a home or assaulting an individual who they thought might be armed. They all also said, that regardless of any gun control laws, they could all get a gun without any problem.
This is why you have to look
This is why you have to look at trends and not individuals. There used to be a poster here at OV, Solar Sanitizer, and he had the tag "anecdotes are not data." He and I were frequently on the opposite sides of a debate, but on this we agreed 100%.
Criminals look for easy victims. However, the data doesn't lie. When you count up the crimes and look at the gun laws, it is glaringly obvious that gun laws don't impact crime rates.
The mistake I keep seeing repeated here is that people look at total number of crimes rather than crime rates. Consequently, California and NY float to the top of the list and they are notorious for their gun control laws. However, the top five states for crime rates all have liberal gun laws, which why it is the rate and not the total that matters. Similarly, the bottom five states tend to have liberal gun laws, which proves my point - gun laws don't affect crime.
*IF* we went to a Swiss-like model where every able bodied male (or adult for that matter) did military service and was required to be armed at all times, things would change. However, this is just as likely as a constitutional amendment that removed all guns everywhere. Both are absurd extremes. The reality of our country today is very clear. The number of guns is not likely to go down, but the number of guns doesn't seem to affect crime positively or negatively.
Again, an armed individual might fend off a criminal, but this is not a trend.
It's really very simple and
It's really very simple and the axiom is not new.
"When no one knows who is armed...everyone is"
And that has no impact on
And that has no impact on crime whatsoever when you look at crime rates across the country:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html
At least it's nowhere near as
At least it's nowhere near as strong a factor as the percentage of citizens who are victimized by the root causes of crime (racism, poverty and economic inequality).
There is really no way to reduce crime short of taking out the criminals, and the number of justifiable homicides is way to small to make a dent in that.
However, the ability and willingness of people to do that has a huge impact on the kinds of crimes people commit and where they commit them.
For example, muggers prefer robbing unarmed middle-aged or older middle-class white people, as these are least likely to fight and likely to have more money and credit cards on them. But where lots of such people carry concealed handguns for shooting muggers, the muggers will shift their activities to other types of crime and to ghetto victims who, though they may have less to steal, are unlikely to be able to legally kill them. This has the salutary effect of bringing middle-class whites and poor blacks closer together as regards to the police policies they demand and support. Middle-class whites no longer demand harsh, punitive police policies quite so vigorously, whereas poor blacks become more accepting of police activities in their neighborhood.
Where do you come up with
Where do you come up with these completely unsupported hypotheses? Please... cite some data or stop with the anular analysis.
This is the problem with the gun debate... both sides shoot from the hip.
It's pure mathematics. The
It's pure mathematics. The more people carry guns and train to shoot muggers, the more likely it is that an undeterred mugger will die. Every time an undeterred mugger is killed, their number is reduced. If any are deterred by that, the number of undeterred muggers decreases further.
Do I need a study to prove that X - Y < X ???
If crime does not go down as a result, it can only be on account of _deterred_ muggers turning either to other types of crime or other types of victims.
Common sense is neither
Common sense is neither common nor wise. Your pseudo analysis is utter and complete unsupported conjecture.
So yes... you need studies to assert things that often don't prove to be true. Your oversimplification of reality is wrong, but all too common.
The crime is going down, but it has nothing to do with muggers deterred by guns. The DATA actually supports very different conclusions regardless of what you think it should say.
I never said the "crime" rate
I never said the "crime" rate going down was due to muggers deterred by guns. I said the rate of middle-class white people being mugged was going down largely because of guns. Why do you keep hearing that and responding as though I said "crime rate"?
Umm... what you are
Umm... what you are describing is a particular crime rate for a specific demographic.
Your conclusion is still unsubstantiated nonsense until you can prove otherwise with real data.
I actually agree with you. I
I actually agree with you. I was just pointing out (or trying to if my editing of my comments wasn't so bad ) that when one side is arguing for abridgement of a Constitutional right and the other is simply defending the status quo, then a failure to demonstrate any positive results from the abridgement is a win for the defending side.
One aspect that the statistical arguments on crime rates overlook is the question of whether self-defense instances increase. I've seen other articles and claims, often by the likes of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, claiming that "the number of justifiable homicides is on the increase." If, indeed, those homicides were justifiable then that would by definition lead to a decrease in the number of criminals available to commit subsequent crimes. I wonder how much of a factor that might be. Just wondering.
If a homicide is justifiable,
If a homicide is justifiable, preventing should be seen as quite undesirable (aside from preventing it by preventing the crime attempt itself).
Gang members have abused the
Gang members have abused the "stand your ground law" to get away with murder. This is definitely an unintended consequence, and far from "justifiable."
How did gang members do that?
How did gang members do that? I mean, if _you_ knew it was murder then why didn't the police and prosecutors?
If gangster A tries to murder gangster B but gangster B shoots back more accurately, killing gangster A -- well, his getting away with it is certainly an unintended consequence of the Stand Your Ground Law, but I still wouldn't call it murder. Unless law-abiding society has some special reason to prefer the death of gangster B over gangster A, I don't see why society wouldn't prefer the death of the criminal who initiates violence.
Either way, I feel that shielding a law-abiding citizen from legal trouble when he kills a mugger is more important that which of two gangsters die.
There are plenty of news
There are plenty of news stories backing this up. This one gets to the point and profiles how the law has been used:
http://www.theledger.com/article/20120602/NEWS/120609852?Title=Stand-Your-Ground-Law-Yields-Shocking-Outcomes
If one person intentionally shoots another, that is murder. The fact that the victim is a gang member makes it no less murder than a white mother of three age 30. The mother's death would be more tragic, but under the law the murderers have committed the same crime.
One of two things will happen with stand your ground. It is either going to be repealed or it is going to get revised. At least in Florida, the law is too vague and general.
The story doesn't say how you
The story doesn't say how you (or the reporter) knew it was murder but the court didn't. It suggests that courts have been using the law as an excuse to not do their duty. Well, courts have always shirked their duty -- that's how you have cops constantly re-arresting people with ten-page rap sheets. (They remind me of the school principles who either refuse to do anything about in-school violence without a zero-tolerance rule, and with a zero-tolerance rule they suspect children for drawing pictures of soldiers.)
Yes, with irresponsible people running the criminal justice system, the law is going to have to be made more specific; but seeing what kind of people are running the system makes it all the plainer how stupid we would be to rely on them as our sole source of protection from muggers.
Of course, even without this law plenty of gangsters have been getting away with murder (merely by intimidating witnesses). Whether a few more get away with murdering other gangsters is much less important than whether law-abiding people can kill shoot without being raked over the coals.
"If one person intentionally shoots another, that is murder." Not so, or every policeman who killed a criminal would be a murderer. Every soldier who killed an enemy in battle would be a murderer. A Secret Service agent who saves President Obama's life by killing a would-be assassin would be a murderer. No, these are not murder. Neither is it murder if one gangster tries to rip off another in a drug deal by shooting him, but the intended gangster victim shoots straighter.
Your counter-argument is
Your counter-argument is conflating self-defense and defense of others with intentional murder. This false comparison does not negate my point. When a person not acting in self-defense or in reasonable defense of others intentionally kills another, this is murder regardless of the person firing the gun or being killed. There are always extenuating circumstances that may reduce the punishment or result in jury nullifiation, but it is still murder.
Soldiers can still be guilty of murder when they intentionally or through negligence (dereliction of duty) kill innocent civilians. The same is true of policemen and secret servicemen. There are very narrow circumstances when killing another human being is justified or legal.
The idea that people do not have to flee criminals sounds good in principle. Very few people disagree with the general idea, ***BUT*** the laws supporting this appear to be too vague and open to abuse.
Just because people can get away with murder through witness intimidation doesn't weaken my point of how gang members have abused stand your ground laws as well.
Florida has experienced the
Florida has experienced the greatest rate of increase for justifiable homicides, but it still in the top ten for violent crime rate. The number of justifiable homicides is too small to truly sway the crime rate.
It is like mass shootings. There are so few of these that even if every single one had been prevented, the overall violent crime rate would have a very small almost imperceptible dip. These events are terrible, but they are nothing compared to the total number of people murdered each year.
A criminal killing another
A criminal killing another criminal contributes to the violent crime rate, but is not very relevant to noncriminals' quality of life. What matters is not the violent crime rate, but only that portion of it in which NON-CRIMINALS are victimized.
Even then, if you want to compare different states, you have to account for the differing rates at which violent criminals contribute to the overall population, i.e. demographics (e.g. markers for the likelihood that a person will turn to crime, such as poverty, literacy, marriage rates).
Sorry... but a murder victim
Sorry... but a murder victim is a murder victim in the eyes of the law. You hair splitting is not relevant to the discussion.
With respect to comparing states, you have made my point exactly. It is not the gun laws, but other social factors that determine the violent crime rate... thanks!
I agree. But I am not
I agree. But I am not concerned about the violent crime rate, nor am I concerned about gangsters being murdered. My priority is crimes that victimize people like me. That's why the overall "crime rate" is irrelevant to the question as to whether people who think as I do should support shall-issue CCW and Stand Your Ground laws.
If the law allows gang
If the law allows gang members to go free then obviously that "gang" member a) is allowed to own a gun and therefore defend himself from others b) the law is written in a manner that allows for it to be used as a defense even during the commission of criminal activity, which should be changed it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of having a stand your ground law.
I shouldn't have to run or make my family or others run and be gunned down because a few gang members want to utilize a law that is written poorly or the police and DA can't do their jobs in properly charging and finding evidence to convict. I've worked as an LEO and investigator gang members are known and don't just carry legal guns around with them.
Regardless of what you
Regardless of what you believe, targeted policing and better sentencing policy are what reduces gang related violence. The gun laws have no impact whatsoever.
Do your own unbiased homework.
This debate is not about personal self-defense, but the overall policy impacts of gun laws. Regardless, the constitutional issue settled regarding gun ownership. This being said, laws which facilitate CCW or impede CCW do not affect the OVERALL crime rate.
Anecdotes and stories of individual protecting themselves with guns are not evidence.
A good
A good study:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
"An honest analysis of the
"An honest analysis of the data shows that there is no statistical correlation between liberalized gun laws and either an increase or decrease in crime. The Brady folks and the NRA both have it wrong."
That's almost correct except for one tiny detail -- the Brady Bunch insist that abrogating that the lack of correlation simply means that stricter gun laws are needed. At the very least, this decrease in violent crime rates during a time of steadily and rapidly increased gun ownership disproves that claim. Since the Brady Bunch wants to abrogate a fundamental human right (the right to own the means of personal defence) and the NRA merely wants to defend that Constitutionally protected right, I'd say that the NRA wins the argument.
I wasn't debating gun rights.
I wasn't debating gun rights. I was discussing the impact of gun laws on crime.
Also, the number of guns has increased, but the number of families with guns actually dipped for a while before trending upward, and it is still lower than 1993:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx
I would think that most of the drop in families with guns could be correlated with a drop in hunting. It would have dropped even further without the recent increase in interest in guns for self-defense.
The correlation of guns and crime in the US is neutral, meaning non-predictive. Some researchers have found some states with more liberalized gun laws to have slightly higher murder rates, but this is not statistically significant enough to matter and is grossly overshadowed by places like DC, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Crime is correlated with other factors other than gun laws.
The false correlations by gun groups about increasing permissiveness in gun laws and decreases in crime is exactly that - false correlation. The Brady bunch have made similar errors as well.
The data says it doesn't matter. SCOTUS has said the right to bear arms is a limited but individual right which can be reasonably regulated, but not restricted arbitrarily, meaning the government can still bar the sale of modern military grade machine guns to civilians, but places like DC cannot prevent individuals from owning handguns in their own homes for self-defense.
I agree that constitutionally, the issue is settled. It would take a constitutional amendment to change things, which has not a snowball's chance in hell of getting enough support to pass. The gun control crowd will continue to push laws that will get overturned, and the gun rights crowd will continue to push liberalized carry laws in the name of self-defense. However, things aren't likely to change too much one way or the other. If the GOP takes full control of the federal government (house, senate and white house), there could be a federal reciprocity law, but that is a big IF.
" ... I agree that
" ... I agree that constitutionally, the issue is settled. It would take a constitutional amendment to change things, which has not a snowball's chance in hell of getting enough support to pass. The gun control crowd will continue to push laws that will get overturned, and the gun rights crowd will continue to push liberalized carry laws in the name of self-defense. ... "
I invite you to take a second look at your language as a means of pointing out how much the gun control crowd's thinking has come to dominate the discussion. The Constitutional issue, which you and I agree is "settled," states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That's a pretty absolute guarantee. If taken literally, it would be hard to imagine any law that could be more "liberalized" than simply recognizing the right as being as absolute as the language of the Constitution. But decade after decade of "compromising" in the name of "common sense" has so lowered the bar that simply "allowing" self-defense carry as a privilege rather than a right, has come to be considered a "liberalization" of the law.
If that steady infringement cannot be justified as actually accomplishing anything, then it's time to lessen the regulation, not "liberalize" the laws. The acceptance of the claim that gun laws reduce crime is a fundamental part of the attitude that removing those laws is somehow liberalization rather than a correction.
No right in the constitution
No right in the constitution is absolute. All rights have limits and responsibilities as well as latitude for variations between individual states. This includes speech, religion, due process, the right to bear arms, etc. Consequently, I have to strongly disagree with you on your interpretation on the "absolute" the right to bear arms. Public safety has been a reasonably accepted limit on private ownership of some weapons. For example, most military weapons above assault weapon grade are not available to civilians. There are a few exceptions such as the Barrett .50 line of sniper rifles, old machine guns, etc, but not many.
What needs to be clarified by the court is the right to carry. There are too many conflicts between states. To date, the court has pretty much left this one alone. However, I think we need the court to speak on the reasonable limits on carrying arms in public and the latitude left to individual states to determine their own limits. Right now there is a great deal of latitude, which the guns rights groups object to. The "right" answer would be a clarifying opinion from SCOTUS.
As a follow-up, many rights are regulated by individual states according to the people of those states, including how to register to vote, permitting laws for guns, limitations on speech, etc. There can and will be variance on how far things can be regulated between states. This includes guns.
SCOTUS tends to expand rather to contract individual rights. It is very unlikely that the current more open interpretation of the second amendment will ever go backward. However, the most recent rulings have dealt primarily with ownership and not the public bearing of arms.
"No right in the constitution
"No right in the constitution is absolute. All rights have limits and responsibilities as well as latitude for variations between individual states. This includes speech, religion, due process, the right to bear arms, etc. Consequently, I have to strongly disagree with you on your interpretation on the "absolute" the right to bear arms. Public safety has been a reasonably accepted limit on private ownership of some weapons."
The argument that limitations placed upon rights has been accepted in no way invalidates the right. Such acceptance merely illustrates how gradual encroachment of any right can come to be accepted by the populace as the bar is lowered.
The rights acknowledged and protected by the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, were seen as fundamental, inviolable rights by the authors of that document. Legitimate limitations would be upon the misuse rather than the exercise of any given right. By that, I mean we have an absolute right to free speech or free press but the misuse of those rights in the form of slander or libel to harm another can be proscribed. The same can be said for the right to keep and bear arms; limiting the right or type of arms which can be owned is a violation of both the letter and spirit of the Constitutional amendment. Laws for bidding the misuse of those arms, i.e., murder or deliberate terrorization, are well within the bounds of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, those who would limit or encroach upon the rights themselves have excused themselves for so long by claiming that "no right is absolute" that the populace has come to accept and believe that specious claim.
"No right in the constitution
"No right in the constitution is absolute. All rights have limits and responsibilities..." What limits do you speak of?
Speech is limited - I can
Speech is limited - I can criminally prosecuted for some things I say, fired from a job, and sued civilly.
Voting is limited - felons and people who fail to follow state law can be legitimately barred from voting.
Due process has limits - the number and type of appeals, etc., can be limited.
Religious freedoms are limited - I cannot randomly decide to turn my house into a church.
I can go on, but the evidence is very clear.
Again, imposition of
Again, imposition of limitations and subsequent acceptance of those limitations through custom do not make those limitations legitimate. At the risk of skirting Godwin's law in order to make the point, the confiscation of Jews' worldly goods and the systematic slaughter of Jews was legal and accepted by a good proportion of a certain country's citizens as lawful and proper near the middle of the Twentieth century. That did not make it morally right, however, and did not erase those rights which were being violated.
There is a well defined
There is a well defined process to overturn any limitation on a right. People believe that you should not be able to threaten the president, or commit libel, etc. It is not just "custom" but an honest acknowledgment that rights have responsibilities and reasonable limits. If you don't agree, start a new amendment.
I don't know how old you are
I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when anyone other than a New York City resident could order military grade weapons, up to and including German Pak38 cannons as well as ammunition mail order. That ended in 1968, not that long ago in the history of our nation. The reason that the Firearm Act of 1934 only taxed rather than banning automatic weapons is because it was generally accepted by all parties that a ban on a type of weapon would be unConstitutional.
Simply because an infringement upon a fundamental right has become so commonplace that the citizenry are inured to that violation does not make it any more right, moral, or proper. Look up the origins and the reasons behind the 2nd Amendment as documented in the Feb. 1982 report of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, "The Right to Keep And Bear Arms," or Stephen Halbrook's excellently researched book, "That Every Man Be Armed." Or simply read the comments by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton on the subject in the Federalist Papers.
The laws regarding the
The laws regarding the ownership and distribution of automatic weapons are very clear, and they have withstood constitutional challenge.
Having been in the Marines, I would cringe if my neighbor could purchase a Mark19 or a SAW... maybe that's just me, but I know the training required for the safe and responsible operation of these weapons. In my experience, a rapid fire semi-automatic is more accurate and better when confronting individual targets. Automatic weapons and bigger are more field of fire weapons or large target weapons appropriate for battlefield use and not much else, meaning for personal self-defense they are meaningless.
There is a general anachronistic aspect to the second amendment that must be accounted for. At the time the Constitution was written, no one could have anticipated a single man weapon that could fire 750+ rounds per minute or a vehicle mounted weapon that could fire in the thousands of rounds per minute. The same principle applies to every right in the constitution. The authors could not have anticipated the internet, digital media, television, public school, electronic voting, etc. SCOTUS has had to re-interpret the intentions of the founding fathers in light of these new contexts. The SAME principle applies to the second amendment - it must be re-interpreted in a modern context and not how it might have applied in 1787.
I have studied constitutional law and the federalists papers. However, I decided not to become a lawyer after working in the legislature and seeing how "the sausage was made." Other than extremists like Robert Bork, no one looks at the raw text of the constitution as the final word because the text is incomplete and too general. Even the most recent rulings such as McDonald required an interpretation of the second amendment and not a strict reading of the text. Convenient quote mining of Jefferson or Madison ignores the modern context in which the second amendment must be interpreted.
With respect to age, I suspect you are older. I was born in the 1960s.
Despite being a gun nut
Despite being a gun nut myself, I think it's obvious that there has to be a reasonable limit somewhere. My rule-of-thumb is that what is NOT reasonable is to forbid private citizens weapons of the type domestic police and politicians' bodyguards are allowed to use.
We have an unjust situation right now in that I cannot buy a new fully-automatic weapon, but Obama's bodyguards are allowed to carry them. I think either people like me should be allowed, or his bodyguards should be have to be satisfied with semi-automatic weapons just like the rest of us.
The only exception I would make for domestic law enforcement is permission to _possess_ banned weapons. (Otherwise, how could they confiscate them?)
Really? You are comparing
Really? You are comparing the protection needs of the president to your own personal needs? C'mon! Are you likely to be attacked by a group of terrorists? Please!!!!
The most likely scenario, depending on where you live, is a mugging or a burglary. The most effective way to prevent a burglary is to have a noisy dog. The most effective way not to get mugged is to avoid secluded places when it's dark. For me personally, no one has tried to mug me since I graduated from college, and I have an over-sized golden retriever who barks loudly and is just as likely to lick a burglar into submission as simply fall at their feet once they were in the house. This being said, I haven't been robbed either.
For defense in the home, a shotgun is probably the most effective. For CCW use, opinions vary, but a well balanced magna ported semiautomatic pistol is probably much more effective than a small automatic.
Wanting to own a machine gun and justifying it are two very different things.
Avoiding secluded places when
Avoiding secluded places when it's dark will certainly reduce my personal danger of being mugged. Similarly, a President can reduce his danger of assassination by resigning his office.
But the President has a right to resist assassination despite not resigning his office, and I have a right to resist mugging even if I go to a secluded place when it's dark.
In fact, telling me that the best way to avoid being mugged is to avoid secluded places after dark is like telling a woman that she can protect herself sufficiently against rape by dressing modestly and not going out alone. A woman has a right not to be raped no matter how she dresses or where she goes, and I have a right not to be mugged regardless where and when I go.
This is aside from the fact that for many places we won't know whether they will be secluded until we get there. The more people avoid places that are _likely_ to be secluded, the more secluded places there will be -- thereby increasing the amount of area to be avoided! Avoiding secluded places because of crime is selfish behavior that makes things worse for everyone. On the other hand, if more people carried guns and did NOT avoid dark, secluded places (figuring that if there's a mugger there they'll just shoot him), the fewer dark, secluded places there will be. Ultimately, we want to decrease the number of places that are unsafe to go, or to be more precise, to decrease the number of unsafe places where people like me are likely to want to go.