What you wrote is mere speculation (that more Greenville residents are carrying than anywhere else in the world). What is more likely is that mostly criminals in NJ carry firearms (due to our anti-self defense laws).

The issue is allowing law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, not how many criminals in Greenville (as you claim) or elsewhere do so. If your argument made sense then Vermont and New Hampshire should have insanely high rates of crime instead of having both few or no gun control laws and the lowest crime rates in the U.S. (and lower than almost all EU countries).

In terms of Britain, there are facts on this issue, from no less a source than the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

To wit: "But despite, or because, of this (gun prohibition), violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America's for every major violent crime except murder and rape.

You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England. "

Quote:

If carrying handguns made people safer, Greenville would be the safest places in the world and Canada and England would be more dangerous than the U.S.

I suspect that he might have wished that he hadn't committed some of the crimes that led him to not be able to legally own a firearm.

Nevertheless, his lack of a firearm as a means of defense is a great argument for the Second Amendment. If a world class athlete (6'2", 225# of muscle and able to run the 40 in 4.5 seconds) with a machete cannot defend himself I don't see why some folks try to tell others to rely on their: cell phones, whistles, knives, pepper spray, etc. rather than allow law abiding citizens their right to effective self defense by owning and carrying firearms.

Quote:

I wonder how Sean Taylor felt about the second amendment as he found himself armed with a machete during a gunfight?

As a non legally-trained (but hopefully law-school bound) liberal, I detest the wording of the Second Amendment. However, it's there in the Constitution, and I just don't think there's a valid argument to be made that it doesn't apply to an individual right. I probably hate that part of the Constitution almost as much as Dick Cheney seems to hate most of the other parts, but if we don't uphold the whole document it falls apart.

I am optimistic. I base this optimism on both my own reading of the Second Amendment and the writings of the founders on private firearms ownership. Furthermore, legal scholarship has come to acknowledge this in recent years to the point where even liberal scholars such as Laurence Tribe are in agreement that it is an individual right, like the rest of the enumerated rights. Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html.

As an example: "Professor Levinson published an article in The Yale Law Journal called ?The Embarrassing Second Amendment.? ?The Levinson piece was very much a turning point,? said Mr. Henigan of the Brady Center. ?He was a well-respected scholar, and he was associated with a liberal point of view politically.?"

Basically, even liberal law scholars have come to the conclusion that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. They may not like it (e.g. the "Embarrassing Second Amendment") but one has to give them considerable props for stating the truth despite their bias. In the late 90's my (very liberal) ex-girlfriend was in law school and when I asked her about whether the Second Amendment applied to an individual right she said, "of course it does, but I don't like it." QED.

The possibilities are:
1) The worst thing that could happen with this case is that the Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment is about a collective right; in which case we are back to the status quo (seems unlikely, given that this is the status quo).
2) They make a narrow ruling that applies to the specific case.
3) They rule that the Second Amendment applies to an individual right - a huge win.
4) They rule that not only do Second Amendment rights apply to individuals but they apply to all arms normally held by the infantry (unlikely, but correct).

I'm not seeing a scenario in which Second Amendment supporters lose...

Supreme Court will hear D.C. guns case

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

10 minutes ago



The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the District of Columbia can ban handguns, a case that could produce the most in-depth examination of the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" in nearly 70 years.

The justices' decision to hear the case could make the divisive debate over guns an issue in the 2008 presidential and congressional elections.

The government of Washington, D.C., is asking the court to uphold its 31-year ban on handgun ownership in the face of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the ban as incompatible with the Second Amendment. Tuesday's announcement was widely expected, especially after both the District and the man who challenged the handgun ban asked for the high court review.

The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to own guns or instead merely sets forth the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership.

Gun-control advocates say the Second amendment was intended to insure that states could maintain militias, a response to 18th century fears of an all-powerful national government. Gun rights proponents contend the amendment gives individuals the right to keep guns for private uses, including self-defense.

Alan Gura, a lawyer for Washington residents who challenged the ban, said he was pleased that the justices were considering the case.

"We believe the Supreme Court will acknowledge that, while the use of guns can be regulated, a complete prohibition on all functional firearms is too extreme," Gura said. "It's time to end this unconstitutional disaster. It's time to restore a basic freedom to all Washington residents."

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, noted that 44 state constitutions contain some form of gun rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions. "The American people know this is an individual right the way they know that water quenches their thirst," LaPierre said. "The Second Amendment allows no line to be drawn between individuals and their firearms."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the Supreme Court should "reverse a clearly erroneous decision and make it clear that the Constitution does not prevent communities from having the gun laws they believe are needed to protect public safety."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. That decision supported the collective rights view, but did not squarely answer the question in the view of many constitutional scholars. Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

Washington banned handguns in 1976, saying it was designed to reduce violent crime in the nation's capital.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

The District is making several arguments in defense of the restriction, including claiming that the Second Amendment involves militia service. It also said the ban is constitutional because it limits the choice of firearms, but does not prohibit residents from owning any guns at all. Rifles and shotguns are legal, if kept under lock or disassembled. Businesses may have guns for protection.

Chicago has a similar handgun ban, but few other gun-control laws are as strict as the District's.

Four states ? Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New York ? urged the Supreme Court to take the case because broad application of the appeals court ruling would threaten "all federal and state laws restricting access to firearms."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home ? about a mile from the court ? for protection.

The laws in question in the case do not "merely regulate the possession of firearms," Heller said. Instead, they "amount to a complete prohibition of the possession of all functional firearms within the home."

If the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to have guns, "the laws must yield," he said.

Opponents say the ban plainly has not worked because guns still are readily available, through legal and illegal means. Although the city's homicide rate has declined dramatically since peaking in the early 1990s, Washington still ranks among the nation's highest murder cities, with 169 killings in 2006.

The U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 for Heller in March. Judge Laurence Silberman said reasonable regulations still could be permitted, but said the ban went too far.

The Bush administration, which has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, has yet to weigh in on this case.

Arguments will be heard early next year.

The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.