tjspiel

That is fine and I'm sure you trust your own analysis. To me though you're just a random individual on BF making some claims I have not heard elsewhere, - at least not from a reputable source.

There's plenty of the original words. The author adds some useful context and I'm sure their own biases.

tjspiel

Just curious and it may be a bit of trivia that no one here knows the answer to.

The 2nd Amendment in the US was not created out of a vacuum. It was influenced by a passage in the English Bill of Rights. Given that, it seems curious that both England and Canada have much stricter gun laws while presumably their citizens where granted the same rights to bear arms.

Was the statement in the English Bill of Rights superseded by something else or just interpreted in a different way?

myrridin

Fair enough, however as I said the raw data is available from the justice department web site. If you like I can even send you the R scripts I used (assuming I can find them) if you would like to examine my analysis... Just don't have an interest in properly documenting it.

I don't doubt the book has original words or ideas, I was just saying that I prefer the original writings from the actual authors when deciding what they may have meant. I have actually purchased that book just not sure when I will get around to reading it... Long list of books...

myrridin

At least one additional factor effected the differences in the US... Lunatic George's abuses... It is one of the reason that the primary stated purposes of the 2nd was to make it easier for citizens to over through a tyranny.

There are in fact a number of practises that the British government is allowed under there system that would be unheard of in the U.S. Among them are vast differences in unreasonable search and seizures laws... Again thanks to crazy George's treatment of the colonists...

Another thought, I can't remember the specific author at the moment, but I also remember the historic british precedent that allowed the government to disallow swords and bows to commoners was one of the background facts used to justify the 2nd in the early discussions of what would need to be elucidated and what was simply understood.

Lets not forget that the freedoms of the Magna Carta applied only to the Nobility--not the commoners. Indeed most of the basis for the crown granting rights and priviledges to the commoner were a means to curtail the power of the nobility... Another pesky consequence of the various nobile rebellions...

gtd

OK -- quit hitting people. Good shoot.

Jamoni

^
This.

Also, let's look at this from a practical rather than political point of view.
1. Do you have any way of knowing whether a stranger is a weak victim or a deadly killer? NO. Any person you see on the street may have the capability and willingness to kill you if you attempt to harm them. They may have a gun, or a knife, or Tuberculosis or HIV or simply the world's toughest right hook.
2. Given that, how should we act in our interactions with others? AS POLITELY AS POSSIBLE WHILE MAINTAINING OUR OWN SAFETY.
In other words, this bicyclist had several opportunities to de-escalate and instead chose to escalate. He was rude and aggressive, and died because of it. He had responsibility for his own safety and chose to fight rather than master his anger.
Whether he died from a gunshot, or a knife wound, or by being dragged by an SUV, or from being punched by a ninja, he died because he chose to attack.
Don't choose to attack.

Igo

If I didn't have anywhere to go I would have shot him too.

SuperGregNo1

"Going down after one punch" is life threatening. If you're carrying a firearm, the last thing in the world you want is to play fisticuffs with someone. One punch and you're down, now they have your gun. If you don't have a gun, you can still easily be killed in a fistfight (all it takes is a few kicks to the head/neck after you go down) but you really don't have a choice but to fight with your hands.

Stranger escalating force to striking blows = shot dead.

Igo

To be fair, I have to agree with that too.

lawrencehare

A couple of years back here in DC there as a confrontation with a pedestrian and a car - when the pedestrian walked in front of the car the driver gunned the engine and ran him down.

No one died in that incident - but it was close, the pedestrian was badly hurt though. The court cases and legal arguments went on forever.

when

Not possible - the driver had put the vehicle in park to check on the welfare of the cyclist that had run into his vehicle. Presumably, he then rolled down the window to speak to the cyclist. The cyclist then began assaulting the driver by punching him repeatedly in the head.

In order to drive away, the driver would have had to remove the vehicle from Park (which in a lot of cars requires you to push on the brake too), push the bicyclist back out the window, roll up the window, and drive away. The driver was also probably trying to lean way over to the right to get away from the cyclist, a position in which it is impossible to reach the window switch and extremely awkward to reach the shifter and brake and accelerator and steering wheel at the same time.

OTOH, the gun on your hip is always in the same spot. Choosing the gun was clearly the simpler, safer, faster, and more effective response to an attack in which you are in fear of death or serious injury.