Guns and Cincinnati (Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson: to live, price, dangerous)

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by RustBeltOptimist

This is actually not true. By a wide margin, the majority of people that become victims to gun violence are usually the ones to also pull the trigger. Guns are much more frequently used in completed or attempted suicides than they are in crime.

Yes, the perpetrator or instigator often times gets shot. Let's get the facts here.

FastStats - Suicide and Self-Inflicted Injury

A person intent upon doing his self or her self in will find one way or another to do it.

Gun Violence | National Institute of Justice

Guns are used way more often when committing a crime than a suicide attempt or suicide.

[mike1003]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

OHKID ...

Where should the lines be drawn for gun ownership?

That's easy.

#1 the active military. Inactive military should have to surrender their weapons.

#2 active members of law enforcement agencies. Inactive members should have to surrender their weapons.

Certain weapons such as sport hunting only weapons should be considered outside of the regulated market. Should still require a permit to own one as they are still deadly at close range, otherwise they would be worthless for hunting.

BU*****T!

MrsM and I can own as many weapons as we want. It is our right. We both own legal purchased weapons and both have our CCW permits

There are no lines drawn for gun ownership other than a background check when making the purchase

[mike1003]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

does the average cincinnatian really need a gun for self defense? yes, all americans should exercise their 2nd amendment right.

would our city / metro / state be better off with more restricted access to guns?no, that would restrict law abiding citizens, not criminals.

what purpose would a gun really have in the everyday life of a cincinnatian?i don't live in cincinnati, but if i did i would need a gun more there than in lebanon, guns are not for "everyday life" just nice to have if ever the victim of a home invasion robbery.

should guns be used as self-defense against bullies?i just use my fists for that, bullies are cowards who only pick on those who don't fight back.

are gun rights even an issue where the average citizen should focus attention?absolutely, i only vote for pro gun candidates.

should the second amendment be repealed, and is it an unfortunate relic of a frontier past?no

where should lines be drawn for gun ownership?felons are not allowed to own guns, enforce this existing law.

i have owned guns for years, most of the people i know here in lebanon also own guns, that is a big reason we do not have a lot of crime, criminals don't know who has a gun and who doesn't, they won't take the chance of breaking into a house and leaving in a body bag.

I was a truck driver in cincinnati during the riots, kept my 9mm on the dash (open carry is legal in ohio), drove down e.mcmillan past the boarded up will's pawn shop and deveroe's, the street thugs knew not to mess with me.

amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mike1003]

Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims | Fox News

For the women out there: http://www.thewellarmedwoman.com/

[WILWRadio]

Originally Posted by mike1003

Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims | Fox News

For the women out there: The Well Armed Woman

Yep. My older sister now packs a hand gun and feels much safer when out and about. No question more women are now choosing to own a firearm.

[hensleya1]

Originally Posted by cgs2000

'...why the federal government is even involved in regulating guns...'

A well-regulated militia....

Militias were on the state level... never on the federal. Nice try, though

[Ohky0815]

Does the average Cincinnatian really need a gun for self defense?
Would our city / metro / state be better off with more restricted access to guns?
What purpose would a gun really have in the everyday life of a Cincinnatian?
Should guns be used as self-defense against bullies?
Are gun rights even an issue where the average citizen should focus attention?
Should the Second Amendment be repealed, and is it an unfortunate relic of a frontier past?
Where should lines be drawn for gun ownership?

I dont feel I need a gun or to be around guns
Norwood (city) would be fine just as it is, Cincinnati needs a few more police strolling around certain areas NOT more guns, OH is ok i guess?
To an everyday person with no gun knowledge it would be VERY scary with all the kids who dont have parents around!
Guns are NEVER the answer for anything.
Gun rights should be known but not preached to
2nd amend should be left alone
Guns should have to have knowledge, license, classes and training.

Answers in bold.

[cgs2000]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

Militias were on the state level... never on the federal. Nice try, though

But the Constitution specifies, permits, and encourages militias (a state institution) as the reason why Americans should have their muskets.

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

Most of what has been said here in favor of limiting the right of persons to have firearms as protected by the second amendment has been specifically addressed and rejected by the US Supreme Court in DC v. Heller. This will not be revisited again by the Supremes in my lifetime, nor most everyone else here. So, stop wasting energy and making conflict over something that isn't going to change.

Originally Posted by cgs2000

But the Constitution specifies, permits, and encourages militias (a state institution) as the reason why Americans should have their muskets.

One of the many specious arguments advanced in D.C. v. Heller and rejected by the Court was this silly notion about the 2nd Amendment right to be limited to bearing arms in connection with the state militias. Instead of barking at the moon, i would seriously suggest that one read the actual case since this is, as so often said, "settled law." Militia or none, U.S. citizens have the right to own and carry guns.

[Chemistry_Guy]

Originally Posted by OHKID

At the very least, the amount of guns in this country needs to be more tightly restricted. We need RFID chips in guns so they can be tracked. We need limits on the number of guns an individual can own. We need very strong limits on the type of guns an individual can own. We need to ensure supplies that are necessary to construct homemade guns are restricted. And most importantly we need to require all people take a psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun to ensure they are fit for gun ownership.

None of these things would make this country one bit safer. Any RFID mechanism could be easily defeated by anyone with criminal intent, and the only people who would be impacted would be the non criminal element. Limiting the "type" of gun has been shown to be amazingly ineffective, as all guns are the "type" where pointing it and pulling the trigger makes a bang and throws a projectile fast enough to put a hole in things. The supplies necessary to make homemade guns are a set of hands, a brain, everything else is freely available in millions of forms. Restricting access to information or types of thought is a very dangerous road that has never been successfully navigated by any government. The final point about psychological evaluation is the only one that makes any sense at all, but it would be much harder to implement, much more expensive, and probably much less effective than the current system of denying firearms purchases to felons and those diagnosed with certain types of mental illness.

Alexander Hamilton had this exact same debate with Thomas Jefferson over 200 years ago. Hamilton maintained that common people could not be expected to behave properly, so their rights should be restricted to save them from themselves, and that it was risky to give too much freedom. Jefferson argued that the masses were fundamentally good, and that the people needed to possess more power than the state in order to remain free. I could go on and on about the relationship between special privileges, autonomy, strict vs loose interpretation, voter requirements, public education, and individual rights, but for the sake a brevity I will say that I value Jefferson's arguments quite a bit more than Hamilton's when it comes to creating a better society, and that I philosophically associate Hamilton with the roots of fascism. The freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights are just important today as they were in the days of the constitutional convention.

Political parties today are amazingly inconsistent. You have one party that favors policies to restrict voter access but to remove restrictions on gun ownership, while the other party claims to want less restrictions on voting but more restrictions on gun ownership. Both approaches are very inconsistent with the philosophies that framed the constitution. Clearly, the philosophic principles have been thrown out the window in favor of chasing votes and capitalizing on the emotion most likely to result in electoral action , fear. I think much of the restrictions on firearms ownership come from the same irrational fear centers in the brain that give rise to the xenophobia and racism associated with vote suppression. Idiots voting have caused far more damage to this country than idiots with guns, but I'm still willing to take my chances with democracy and freedom over fascism every day of the week.