Guest Column: Let's Talk About Guns
We have today the first of our guest columnists who will be appearing in this space through the end of August. Today's column comes from ChrisWeigant.com member FedWayGuy, who describes his personal politics as: "I started life as a libertarian Republican, and as the political landscape has continued to move to the right, I now find myself a progressive Democrat. Go figure!"
If you'd like to write a response to this article, or have an idea for a different subject, use the Email Chris page to contact me or send in your submissions. I'm pretty open-minded as to subject matter, so write your column out and send it in! You might be the next to see your article appear here.
-- Chris Weigant
Let's Talk About Guns
Another madman, another massacre, this time in Aurora, Colorado. When will it end? The Supreme Court has guaranteed an individual's right to bear arms -- how does that end? Do we wind up with private armies, owned by rich individuals and corporations? Is that where it ends?
I think it's time to talk about guns.
Let's take a look at what the Supreme Court actually said when it changed long-standing policy in this country and affirmed an individual's right to "bear arms" without belonging to a militia. What did the Supreme Court actually say in the 2008 Heller case that defines our current understanding of the Second Amendment?
The bottom line in this case is that individuals have the right to "possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The NRA seems to believe that this means individuals have the right to own any weapon they want. Luckily, the Supreme Court disagrees, in the Heller decision they also said "this is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" and "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
So, What are these limitations? We don't know; the Roberts Court didn't have to answer this question -- it was not germane to the case. In recent interviews, Justice Scalia has pointed out that there must be limitations, we just don't know what they are yet -- that still needs to be decided. However, Heller left us a lot of clues -- some breadcrumbs to follow -- that may help us figure it out. So let's explore the issue...
Scalia, writing for the majority, said "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'" On the other hand, he also writes "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
So, which is it? Are the "bearable arms" that people can carry only ones "in common use" at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, or something newer? And, if it is the latter, how much newer? This is the issue I'd like to explore, and I'd like to focus on the fact that "No rights are intended to be granted by the Constitution for an unlawful or unjustifiable purpose."
So, what are the lawful purposes for firearms? Well, the basic uses are hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. In 1829, Justice Story said that "the militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers," so we can assume that weapons in "common use" that were needed for warfare would have been lawful at that time, because all adult civilian males were members of the militia.
The Militia Act of 1903 changed all that. The militia came under direct control of the federal and state governments, and it was no longer necessary for civilians to own weapons as part of the militia -- militia members acquired their weapons from the government. Therefore, we can safely assume that weapons needed only for warfare would have ceased to be lawful since that time, even if they were in "common use" by civilians, as militia members didn't need to bring their own weapons. We can also assume that weapons needed only for warfare that were very rare prior to 1903 would also be unlawful, since they would not be in "common use."
This gives us the clues we need. What kinds of weapons are needed only for warfare? Some of them are clear... machine guns, anti-tank weapons, heavy weapons of all kinds, and so on, are clearly on this list. There is no need for them for hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. Even if they are in "common use," they are not necessary, so they are not protected by this ruling. This point is explicitly acknowledged by Scalia in the Heller ruling.
Now let me get controversial. I posit that semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are not protected by this ruling, either. Here's the logic:
- It is clear that semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are not necessary for hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense. There may be a need for rapid-fire rifles or shotguns, but good old-fashioned lever-action rifles or pump-action shotguns should be good enough for anybody. Therefore, it is clear that the need for semi-automatic rifles and shotguns is unjustifiable. Therefore, they would be protected by this ruling only if they were in "common use" before 1903, as they would be weapons needed by civilians serving in the militia.
- The first semi-automatic shotgun (Browning Auto-5) was manufactured in 1902, in Belgium. While it was a good shotgun, and was manufactured for many years, there were very few of them in the US by 1903. Therefore, we can't say that they were in "common use," and that means that they are not covered by this ruling.
- There were very few semi-automatic rifles in production before 1903, and they were produced by Mannlicher, in Germany. These rifles were not in wide use because there was no ammunition suitable for them to use. Therefore, they were certainly not in "common use" in the US before 1903. The wildly-successful Winchester semi-automatic rifles were not developed until 1903, so they don't meet the standard either.
As for semi-automatic pistols... even though I'd love to say they were unlawful, they were in common use before 1903. For example, the Browning M1900 was in common use, and President Teddy Roosevelt actually owned one himself that he kept in his bedside drawer.
So, if you're worried about guns and believe that the Supreme Court was wrong-headed when it found an individual right to "bear arms," it may not be as bad as you think. The Heller ruling by Justice Scalia states specifically that "this is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." In fact, as I have analyzed and presented here, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns may be weapons that could be controlled by the government -- if only we had the will to do so.
-- FedWayGuy
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Nice, logical and well reasoned. I've never seen your name here before, how come? You write clearly and sensibly, and your thoughts would be welcome :)
I agree with Kevin - post more around here.
We discussed guns in great detail and Elizabeth and I actually had some discussion on the Heller comments made by Scalia - I think it is fair to say that most people (certainly I was) are surprised by the limitations he suggested in his opinion.
But this article is even better, examining the comments by logically going through those each in light of existing legislation. Well done.
It is clear that semi-automatic rifles and shotguns are not necessary for hunting, target-shooting, or self-defense.
Unless a criminal is coming at you with a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. One might like to be sporting the same (or better) firepower, under those circumstances.
There may be a need for rapid-fire rifles or shotguns, but good old-fashioned lever-action rifles or pump-action shotguns should be good enough for anybody.
Because the Left says so? How do you plan on getting the bad guys to go along with your decision?
Thanks for the comments. I've been lurking, and couldn't resist Chris's offer to publish a blog.
To Chris1962: disarming the bad guys would certainly be a problem, but not the problem my blog addresses. My point is only that legislating semi-automatic weapons may be legal under the 2d amendment - even as interpreted by the Roberts' Court. We still need the will to pass the law and the means to execute it. Different problem...
disarming the bad guys would certainly be a problem, but not the problem my blog addresses.
It's all part of the same problem. We, the People, gave ourselves the right to arm and protect ourselves. So good luck proposing that law-abiding citizens arm themselves with firepower inferior to the criminals' out there. I don't see the NRA and law-abiding firearms owners sitting still for that one.
I don't see the NRA and law-abiding firearms owners sitting still for that one.
I don't see the NRA sitting still for anything short of a belt-fed machine gun and a bazooka in every home, school, and office, do you? :)
But the majority of law-abiding citizens are reasonable, it seems to me. I think that most people would agree that having a semi-automatic pistol in the home for self-defense (what Heller was all about, after all) should be enough for anybody. It's the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are the real problem, as they are offensive (not defensive) weapons good for nothing but mayhem.
Great commentary... :D
Just one minor point.
You seem to make the distinction between semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic pistols.
From an armorer's point of view no distinction exists..
A semi-automatic weapon has one bullet to one trigger pull.. In that, there is absolutely no difference between the two.
If a ban is put in place for semi-automatic rifles, then a ban MUST be put in place for ALL semi-automatic weapons.
You also have to understand that, based on Scalia's "restriction" comments, there is a distinction between "ordinance" and "firearms"..
Bazookas, landmines, grenades, nuclear missiles... those are all ordinance and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment..
Scalia also makes the point that the "to keep and bear arms" part of the second amendment refers to man-portable weapons. So, while a AK-47 is protected under the 2nd Amendment, a howitzer is not.
My point is only that legislating semi-automatic weapons may be legal under the 2d amendment - even as interpreted by the Roberts' Court. We still need the will to pass the law and the means to execute it. Different problem...
But it's part and parcel to the SAME problem. Banning all semi-automatic weapons would leave
the citizenry utterly defenseless before a well-armed enemy. The very thing that the 2nd Amendment was designed to prevent..
It's well established that gun crimes go up when guns are banned. In the decade since the UK enacted it's gun ban, violent gun-related crimes rose 89%...
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz21upUIIfU
Something else to keep in mind. Since 1950, in EVERY mass shooting in the US (more than 3 people killed in a public place) sans one, EVERY shooting took place in a "gun free zone"...
EVERY shooting except one..
I know it wasn't part of your commentary, but any talk of bans must include logical and rational reasons to support a ban.
Gun bans have been tried. They don't work.
Gun free zones have been tried. They don't work.
Maybe increased intelligence, detection and interdiction should be tried.
I'm just sayin'...
Great commentary...
Michale.....
I think that most people would agree that having a semi-automatic pistol in the home for self-defense (what Heller was all about, after all) should be enough for anybody.
Constitutional rights don't hinge upon upon public opinion polling. So I don't think it matters what most people would or wouldn't agree with.
It's the semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that are the real problem
Only in the hands of a bad guy, who stubbornly refuses to obey murder laws. They're no problem in the hands of a responsible law-abiding citizen, seeking to defend himself against said bad guy.
Only in the hands of a bad guy, who stubbornly refuses to obey murder laws. They're no problem in the hands of a responsible law-abiding citizen, seeking to defend himself against said bad guy.
And THAT's the crux of the issue.
I hate to harp on the ban issue because FWG didn't really go there. But, as I said, you can't talk about how it's "ok" to ban certain weapons w/o delving into the logical and rational reasons why..
And, in this particular case, banning semi-auto rifles will do NOTHING about getting guns out of the hands of criminals..
Oh yea, sure. Ban semi-auto rifles and there will be 5 million of them on the streets instead of 10 million. That's what the pro Gun Control groups will say..
"See!!! There are less guns on the streets!!!"
But what they DON'T tell you is that the 5 million semi-autos that ARE on the streets will ONLY be in the hands of the criminals, the drug dealers, the druggies, the murders, etc etc...
And the citizenry will be utterly defenseless against them..
Getting rid of the guns WON'T solve any problems. That's documented fact...
What could HELP a lot more is surveillance, interdiction, detection and deterrence..
Anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a violent felony. Automatic death penalty.. Fast-Tracked..
"While most states are banning the Death Penalty, my state of Texas is putting in an express lane!"
-Ron White
:D
Michale.....
Well reasoned ... good to see you posting here FedWayGuy!
What's amusing to me is that even Scalia acknowledges that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow people to own ANY weapon.
Scalia ...
Think about that for a second. Scalia ...
"I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms. But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/#ixzz22IcghNXT
I find this funny for two reasons.
1. Gun control is one of the issues that makes Scalia's originalist argument look the most ridiculous. What do I mean by this? He argues that we should consider what the founders intended. The problem? Most of the weapons we're talking about didn't even exist when the Constitution was drafted. This makes it impossible to know what the founders intended.
2. The right is moving to the right of Scalia. This is going to make them look ... umm ... how do I say this tactfully ... completely insane.
Listen to Scalia talk about this using originalist arguments.
When the second amendment was written, there was a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
A head ax ... hahahahahah
Sure ... that's the equivalent of an assault rifle :)
Ridiculous!
-David
David,
A head ax ... hahahahahah
Sure ... that's the equivalent of an assault rifle :)
Ridiculous!
Scalia was referring to weapons of the time that might be considered "horrible"...
He wasn't comparing a head ax to an AK47 in the vernacular of the here and now..
He was saying that a head axe in the 1700s is as "horrible" as an AK in the here and now.
Personally, I don't agree with his line of reasoning.. Probably because I see nothing horrible about an AK-47...
But, even though Scalia is wrong, he wasn't saying what you think he was saying...
Michale.....
"You use these weapons of mass destruction against men and women who uphold the law?!"
"We use these weapons to shop for groceries... dick."
-Demolition Man
:D
Michale....
Oh yea, sure. Ban semi-auto rifles and there will be 5 million of them on the streets instead of 10 million. That's what the pro Gun Control groups will say..
"See!!! There are less guns on the streets!!!"
But what they DON'T tell you is that the 5 million semi-autos that ARE on the streets will ONLY be in the hands of the criminals, the drug dealers, the druggies, the murders, etc etc...
Precisely right. Banning weapons only affects law-abiding citizens, not folks who couldn't give two hoots about obeying the law. And We, the People, gave ourselves the right to protect ourselves against those folks. Taking weapons out of our hands doesn't exactly solve the problem.
My opinion of the Left, in general, is that they're perfectly well-intentioned, but they seem to have a bass-akwards approach to formulating solutions. And solutions can't be reached without first successfully identifying the actual problem: in this case, criminals. Not guns, but the criminals who operate them. If you were to remove every last gun from America, that criminal would have a knife in his hand. The Left doesn't seem to consider that part of the equation, opting instead to myopically focus on the gun, as though guns plot crimes and fire themselves in the commission of crimes.
Good post David. I came to the same conclusions based on Scalia's commentary when Elizabeth and I were discussing this issue in the other thread on gun control.
David: He argues that we should consider what the founders intended. The problem? Most of the weapons we're talking about didn't even exist when the Constitution was drafted. This makes it impossible to know what the founders intended.
The intention was for people to be able to protect themselves, not only in the founders' day but for generations to come. I'm quite sure they were intelligent enough to know that weapons would evolve, just like anything else. They had history to look back upon. They knew that arrows and swords were used until some guy invented the firearm, and then firearms became the preferred weapon. So while the weapon of choice was bound to change across the centures, that doesn't change the original intent, which was the right to protect oneself — back then, and to this day.
Scalia was referring to weapons of the time that might be considered "horrible".
Understood completely, Michale. What I'm saying is that gun control is a perfect example of where an originalist argument fails.
Because the founders couldn't even conceive of weapons like an AK-47.
This is why I believe the Constitution is a living document that must be interpreted for the times.
It's not something that you can pretend to go back and say, well the founders wanted such and such.
What Scalia is really saying when he says this is "I want such and such ..."
He just doesn't have the balls to say it. Instead, he has to put thoughts in the heads of people who died hundreds of years ago.
The intention was for people to be able to protect themselves, not only in the founders' day but for generations to come.
My point is that you have no more knowledge of what they intended than anyone else. You can't figure out the intent of people who are dead. It is a ridiculous argument.
I'm quite sure they were intelligent enough to know that weapons would evolve, just like anything else.
This is all speculation. And even if it's true (which it could possibly be, all I'm saying is there is no way of knowing), given the horrific shootings in which these weapons were used, it's very likely that the founders would have said "enough is enough".
This Scalia's argument. I think it's ridiculous to speculate on what is in the heads of dead people, but perhaps that's just me.
At least you have the cahunas to say "I" though unlike Scalia.
Just say it, Antonin. It's not so hard. I believe people shouldn't have access to military weapons.
Don't hide behind some dead people in funny wigs and tricorn hats.
Ah right ... I understand though ... if you were to say "I believe people shouldn't have access to military weapons ..." you might sound like a liberal. And that's why you hide behind history. Soulless and ball less as the late, great Bill Hicks would have said ...
-David
I don't see the NRA sitting still for anything short of a belt-fed machine gun and a bazooka in every home, school, and office, do you? :)
That's reductio ad absurdum. But if you want to go that route, if someone in that Aurora theater had had an AK-47 on him, he might well have been able to take the gunman out and save some lives.
My point is that you have no more knowledge of what they intended than anyone else.
Common sense alone dictates their intention, i.e., for people to be able to protect themselves.
Understood completely, Michale. What I'm saying is that gun control is a perfect example of where an originalist argument fails.
Because the founders couldn't even conceive of weapons like an AK-47.
Assumes facts not in evidence...
I am sure the founders could conceive that there WOULD be weapons more powerful than what they had in their time. So, the built the mechanism into the 2nd Amendment so that the citizenry would be allowed to have the weapons that the "enemy" (whomever the "enemy" might be) would have. They also differentiated between weaponry and ordinance because they knew that a standing army (if it ever became the enemy) would have weapons that the normal citizenry SHOULD not possess as a matter of course...
Damn smart, our founders, eh?? :D
My point is that you have no more knowledge of what they intended than anyone else. You can't figure out the intent of people who are dead. It is a ridiculous argument.
One CAN make educated guesses, based on the totality of their writings and incidents of the time..
The weaponry v ordinance issue is a prime example..
Just say it, Antonin. It's not so hard. I believe people shouldn't have access to military weapons.
So, what's the requirement for the designation of "military weapons"???
If it's any weapon the military has, that would effectively eliminate ALL weapons from the citizenry??
If the founders wanted that, then they wouldn't have even BOTHERED with the 2nd Amendment..
So, who gets to decide what "military weapons" means???
Michale
CB,
That's reductio ad absurdum. But if you want to go that route, if someone in that Aurora theater had had an AK-47 on him, he might well have been able to take the gunman out and save some lives.
Not possible, CB....
The theater was a "gun free zone"....
Amazing that every mass shooting in the US (sans one) was in a "gun free zone"....
I don't know about anyone else, but that tells me that gun free zones attract psychotics with a gun like flies to crap...
Michale......
Not possible, CB....
The theater was a "gun free zone"....
LOL. And, shockingly enough, the criminal decided not to obey the law. Oh, but not to worry, because the Left's come up with the perfect solution: Let's make some more gun laws. Yeah, that oughta do it.
If the founders wanted that, then they wouldn't have even BOTHERED with the 2nd Amendment..
Everytime we talk about "The Founders" I have to look up and see if Odo is around. :D
Michale.....
So, what's the requirement for the designation of "military weapons"?
I don't know. It's Scalia's argument ... He has to figure out what the founders were thinking about 200 years ago that would apply today.
So he's probably conducting some kind of seance ... :)
One CAN make educated guesses, based on the totality of their writings and incidents of the time.
Yes. And that's exactly what Scalia is doing. And even he is saying that military weapons are likely outside of what was included in the writings of the day.
According to Scalia, when the second amendment was written, there was a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
I think Scalia's originalist arguments are ridiculous, but even if you use an originalist argument, Scalia is saying that there would be a line between military weapons and other weapons.
He doesn't define it, but he claims its there.
I'm glad Scalia at least is able to see that an AK-47 might be a more horrible weapon than a head ax .
Or are you claiming that you know more about the "writings and incidents of the time" than Scalia?
What writings and incidents of the time are you using, Michale?
-David
David
"So he's probably conducting some kind of seance ... :)"
Well played :)
As is sadly too often the case with my posts, this is off topic but too funny not to share...
http://wonkette.com/479749/tennessee-state-rep-knows-precisely-how-obama-will-steal-this-election#more-479749
Apologies in advance to our rabid righties who will howl in protest :)
Now I've got to track down that Huffpo writer.
Or are you claiming that you know more about the "writings and incidents of the time" than Scalia?
Apparently, I know more about weapons than Scalia.. :D
Michale.....
Everytime we talk about "The Founders" I have to look up and see if Odo is around. :D
he's right there, disguised as a chair.
Why isn't there such an outcry when there is a horrendous car pile up that kills dozens or a horrific plane crash that kills hundreds??
Yea, I know I know..
The standard response "Cars/Planes weren't DESIGNED to kill people."
Do you think that matters to the dead??
What??? A dead guy is lying in the ground thinking, "Gee wiz I am SURE glad the car that killed me wasn't DESIGNED to kill me. I feel so much better knowing that the instrument of my death wasn't DESIGNED to do it!!" and then starts humming the tune of Billy Joel's ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG...
:D
If the goal of the Gun Control fanatics is to save lives, then they logically have no choice but to call for the banning of ANYTHING that causes senseless needless death...
Kevin....
Apologies in advance to our rabid righties who will howl in protest :)
Well, I ain't the rabid Right, but I'll howl for you if it will make you happy..
OOOOOOOOOOHHHHOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
That's a howl.. :D
Michale.....
Everytime we talk about "The Founders" I have to look up and see if Odo is around. :D
he's right there, disguised as a chair.
"If he's there, he ain't happy!!"
-Damon Wayans, MAJOR PAYNE
:D
David,
Why isn't there such an outcry when there is a horrendous car pile up that kills dozens or a horrific plane crash that kills hundreds??
Let me try to be serious about this for a second. I'll REALLY try...
When there is a drunk driver incident that involves multiple deaths, does public outcry extend to the vehicle???
Of course not. The solution is to make harsher and harsher penalties against DRUNK DRIVERS...
So, why can't that same exact logic (and it IS logical, no disputing that) be applied to gun crimes??
No one holds the CAR responsible when a drunk driver kills a dozen people..
Why hold the GUN responsible when a scumbag psychotic kills a dozen people??
Michale....
Joshua,
I just had to give you a special call-out..
THAT was hilarious!!! :D
Michale.....
Michale,
Kudos, that was cute and funny. Well played. I really do enjoy a lot of your playfulness; I wish everyone on your side of the spectrum shared it :)
And you torpedoed my pithy response to what I thought would be your reaction. Curses, foiled again :)
It just seems like banning the larger weapons is like banning plane travel because of the high rate of death in car accidents, all because they both fall under transportation...
Most crimes involving guns are committed using handguns because they have the one attribute to rule them all: they are concealable.
Focusing on the spectacular while ignoring the mundane when the mundane is where the real problem lies seems silly to me whether trying to ban them or fearing the "bad guys" carrying them.
To put it in perspective: more people die in a act of homicide with a handgun every single day than died in the Aurora shooting...
If the goal of the Gun Control fanatics is to save lives, then they logically have no choice but to call for the banning of ANYTHING that causes senseless needless death...
that's actually a very good point. if we're going to get serious about saving lives, gun control is really just the tip of a very large iceberg. the policy that would probably save the most lives of all is if police started ticketing everyone five miles over the speed limit.
Kevin,
The guy is obviously a few fries short of a happy meal..
On the other hand, I wouldn't put it PAST the Obama Administration to try something this desperate...
I mean, after all. Nixon nuked the capital building with his opponent in it, just to declare martial law...
But I have a feeling Obama's afraid that the American people wouldn't really care that much. Be a blow to his sensitive ego...
:D
Of course, all of the afore was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek..
:D
Michale.....
that's actually a very good point. if we're going to get serious about saving lives, gun control is really just the tip of a very large iceberg. the policy that would probably save the most lives of all is if police started ticketing everyone five miles over the speed limit.
Exactly.. I know (ok ok. I THINK) yer being sarcastic, but you bring up a good point...
A stricter application of the POLOT guidelines would initiate more stops for LEOs. More stops would translate to less drivers being irresponsible and more drunk drivers being detected and taken off the roads...
Now, let's apply that same logic to Gun Control..
Really address the PROBLEM and not JUST the tool used by the problem...
Michale.....
Michale,
That wasn't a bad analogy between cars and guns. May I make a different one?
If someone was driving a Harvester down a crowded street threshing everyone into pulp, wouldn't it make sense to ban Harvesters as a means of transportation, and restrict their use to what they were built to do, ie. harvest? I realize that's a silly comparison, but aren't a huge number of weapons you and the NRA defenders like Harvesters? A sensible restriction on their use shouldn't be too hard to come up with. If the short-lived Brady Bill hadn't been quashed, might just a FEW lives been saved? That's all we hysterical lefties are asking for...some sensibility.
Apparently, I know more about weapons than Scalia.. :D
But now you're disagreeing with ... in your words ... our founders who were "damn smart"
My point is only that when you think the founders agree with you, they are "damn smart".
When they don't, suddenly you know more than them.
Which basically proves the point I've been making all along that all this originalist baloney is really just a way to justify your own point of view.
Same goes for Scalia.
Why is it so hard to own your viewpoint? Why hide behind dead guys?
-David
Why would harvesters need regulation do to a single spectacular event? If the chance for death is on par of being eaten by a shark while at the same time struck by lightning, regulating that event is more about mollify the populous than solving a problem.
The real danger for a gun ban is the crusader. They have an amazing ability to get both sides to change laws, not always for the better. Don't fear Obama for gun control. Fear a victim or victim's family of the Aurora shooting dealing with their grief by pushing for gun control...
Kevin,
If someone was driving a Harvester down a crowded street threshing everyone into pulp, wouldn't it make sense to ban Harvesters as a means of transportation, and restrict their use to what they were built to do, ie. harvest? I realize that's a silly comparison, but aren't a huge number of weapons you and the NRA defenders like Harvesters? A sensible restriction on their use shouldn't be too hard to come up with. If the short-lived Brady Bill hadn't been quashed, might just a FEW lives been saved? That's all we hysterical lefties are asking for...some sensibility.
I agree with what you are saying.. But the problem is, what is "sensible" to you is taboo with someone else..
It's like the NRA's argument regarding Teflon Ammo..
To me, it's SENSIBLE to ban ammo that can penetrate body armor... As a LEO, shit like that would terrify me..
On the other hand, it's ALSO sensible to oppose such a ban because it will simply lead to more encompassing bans...
The problem is that most Gun Control fanatics (I don't include anyone here in that category) simply don't think guns serve any useful purpose.
So, it's "sensible" to them to simply ban guns in toto...
But for people who have made their living USING guns as their tools of trade, they view guns as just that. A tool. A very necessary, very vital, LIFE SAVING tool...
So, "sensible" is not always the best gauge to go by..
Now this sensible/non sensible dynamic doesn't even take into account the 2nd Amendment..
What we're discussing is merely common sense and how sense that is common for one person is way out in left field for the other person..
You weep for the lives that have been lost due to the mis-use of guns... Shouldn't you ALSO consider the lives that have been SAVED due to the proper use of guns??
Surely that latter deserves as much attention, IF NOT MORE, than the former...
Michale.....
FedWayGuy,
Thanks for an estremely well written piece on where the jurisprudence on the 2nd amendment stands today. This is how an intelligent discussion on gun control should be conducted.
I had to laugh out loud, though, when I read the part about Justice Scalia and frivolous arguments and couldn't help but harken back to his performance during oral arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act where he took the frivolous argument to the extreme. It just goes to prove the axiom that you can't judge a Supreme Court justice on one case alone.
In any event, it will be very interesting to follow the inevitable court decisions on this issue, once we have political leaders who are courageous enough to test the judicial waters.
Like michty, I don't recall seeing you post around here and I would also urge you to comment regularly here and to make more submission to CW!
Please accept my belated welcome to CW.com, one of the most enlightened spaces in the blogosphere. And, your increased presence here will only serve to make this place a better place to be!
The real danger for a gun ban is the crusader. They have an amazing ability to get both sides to change laws, not always for the better. Don't fear Obama for gun control. Fear a victim or victim's family of the Aurora shooting dealing with their grief by pushing for gun control...
There was a TV Movie once, starring Michael Ontkean (Of THE ROOKIES fame) that dealt just with this idea...
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091857/
It was a pretty good flick with the standard Hollwood/Liberal bent...
I have it available if anyone wants to watch it..
Anyways, it's why our legislative process works so well. Things can't (usually anyways) happen in the heat of the moment...
Michale.....
If someone was driving a Harvester down a crowded street threshing everyone into pulp, wouldn't it make sense to ban Harvesters as a means of transportation, and restrict their use to what they were built to do, ie. harvest?
The analogies are getting a little ridiculous. Point: Resticting the use of a weapon only works if the criminal is willing to comply with the restriction. Criminals don't tend to comply with laws get in the way of their mission.
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/walked-142466-knife-began.html
The analogies are getting a little ridiculous.
Well, to be fair, I did bring up the gun to vehicle connection... :D
But you are correct. Criminals, by definition, won't obey the law.. So creating new laws seems devoid of any logic...
Michale.....
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/walked-142466-knife-began.html
Great article...
And it makes the same point I have been making since Aurora occurred..
Gun Free Zones are nothing more than Target Rich Environments that armed psychotics can operate in, in safety and with impunity...
Why would ANYONE want to advocate that???
Michale.....
Michale: "Criminals, by definition, won't obey the law.. So creating new laws seems devoid of any logic..."
Just had to quote this for it's awesomeness.
A better analogy from guns to cars would be:
- If we ban AK47s, criminals will still get there hands on them and use them to kill people - since they don't respect the law. So we should be able to own them too.
- If we ban drink driving, criminals will still drink and drive and use their cars to kill people - since they don't respect the law. So we should be able to drink and drive too.
- If we ban drink driving, criminals will still drink and drive and use their cars to kill people - since they don't respect the law. So we should be able to drink and drive too.
I gotta give you credit, Mitchy...
In a thread that is chock full of ridiculous analogies, your's takes the cake as the most ridiculous.. :D
Congrats.. You put the "absurd" in reductio ad absurdum... :D
Michale.....
Michale,
We're dancing around a possible compromise. I suggested sensible RESTRICTIONS, not banning. If everyone trying to buy a weapon with the capability of causing mass deaths in seconds had to fill out a legal form stating why they NEEDED that capability, and then waited for responsible gun experts (a military panel perhaps?) to decide if their request was reasonable, then place that form in an appropriate monitoring database; I would have no problem with that. As things stand, any nut with an imagined grudge can access that firepower. Remember, this would be a restriction, not a ban.
I realize there are already too many mass killing weapons out there on your streets, but wouldn't an immediate national law doing what I suggested make it harder for future young nutbars to get them?
And sadly, I reject your arguments about how many lives gun-ownership has saved. I've read too many reports debunking that NRA myth in outlets ranging across the political spectrum, and over the last 40 years they ALL agree that it is a myth. Doesn't mean it never happens; just that EVERY study shows it results in far more unintended deaths of their owners and loved ones. As you're so fond of saying, them's just the facts :)
Michale: "Criminals, by definition, won't obey the law.. So creating new laws seems devoid of any logic..."
Just had to quote this for it's awesomeness.
As long as you quote it in the context of the discussion we are having, that's fine bi me.. :D
Michale.....
Re. criminals...yes they are nasty pieces of work, but unless I've missed something all the mass killings are the works of the insane; I don't recall a garden variety "criminal" being the perpetrator. Yes, criminals will evade any restriction, but since most of the insane mass killers weren't known criminals, making it harder for them to get their hands on instruments to enact their fantasies would be a GOOD thing, right? Baby steps, but better than nothing. And I realize mass killers are by definition criminals, but I suspect the "work" in obtaining a restricted weapon illegally might botch up their plans or at least deter a few of them...they're insane remember?
i was not being sarcastic at all. beside improving gas mileage, stricter and broader enforcement of the speed limit would also save countless lives. and yes, the same principle could also be applied to gun ownership. the trouble, even moreso for cars than for guns, is that people like to drive fast. folks tend to get snippy when it's THEM who is caught breaking the law.
Kevin,
I realize there are already too many mass killing weapons out there on your streets, but wouldn't an immediate national law doing what I suggested make it harder for future young nutbars to get them?
If nutbars want to kill dozens of people, they will find a way. Making it harder to find the right tool will make no difference to the people killed...
And, as I pointed out before, it's actually a GOOD thing that 100-Round magazines are available to said nutbars... It saved a couple dozen lives in Aurora.....
And sadly, I reject your arguments about how many lives gun-ownership has saved. I've read too many reports debunking that NRA myth in outlets ranging across the political spectrum, and over the last 40 years they ALL agree that it is a myth. Doesn't mean it never happens; just that EVERY study shows it results in far more unintended deaths of their owners and loved ones. As you're so fond of saying, them's just the facts :)
Sorry, but it's NOT a myth..
Read the latest link posted by CB... You can bet an incident like that occurs at least weekly, all across the country..
Further, my point was that GUNS save lives.. Not JUST in the context of ordinary citizens having guns.. But police, military, security officers and all others who use a gun as the tool of their trade...
sjfm.us/temp/angels.jpg
My wife bought me that after a particularly grueling tour of duty... While I am not much for the religious connotations, it did fill my heart with a real sense of satisfaction and peace.
It's dusty, I know... What can I say. We live in the boonies..
And, just because I came across it and thought ya might like it. :D
sjfm.us/temp/bdayball.jpg
Moving on...
If you need a world wide example, look at Syria... There would have been a MASSACRE of biblical proportions if they government had succeeded in banning/limiting weapons that ordinary citizens can own...
I don't have a problem with making high powered weapons harder to get.. But such restrictions must be logical and rational and not impede the right to bear arms given to us by our Constitution..
Michale.....
I don't have a problem with making high powered weapons harder to get.. But such restrictions must be logical and rational and not impede the right to bear arms given to us by our Constitution..
On the other hand, many political activists perform "Freedom Of Navigation" exercises (to use the military vernacular) simply to exercise their rights that the CAN do something..
Is it so outside the realm of reality that someone would want to own an AK-47 simply because they have the RIGHT to???
Michale....
And I realize mass killers are by definition criminals, but I suspect the "work" in obtaining a restricted weapon illegally might botch up their plans or at least deter a few of them...they're insane remember?
Holmes had an apartment packed with homemade explosives, ready to blow and take out the entire floor of his apartment building simply by opening the door.
The point is that, one way or another, a headcase bent on killing people is gonna find a way to kill people. Deny him access to a gun and he'll find some other way. Instead of chucking smoke bombs into the theater, he could have chucked explosives and killed a whole lot more people. So the solution lies in identifying headcases before they strike, not in disarming responsible, law-abiding citizens.
One last comment on "criminals vs. insane"...since most criminals AREN"T insane, and don't want to get caught, they've never in my memory been responsible for a mass slaughter in the U.S.
"And, as I pointed out before, it's actually a GOOD thing that 100-Round magazines are available to said nutbars... It saved a couple dozen lives in Aurora....." WHAT???
I'm looking forward to being entertained by your logic behind that one :)
And:
"Moving on...
If you need a world wide example, look at Syria... There would have been a MASSACRE of biblical proportions if they government had succeeded in banning/limiting weapons that ordinary citizens can own...
I don't have a problem with making high powered weapons harder to get.. But such restrictions must be logical and rational and not impede the right to bear arms given to us by our Constitution.."
Now you're comparing the U.S. to Syria? You really are hysterical, Michale, and I mean that in a good, laugh riot way :)
Congrats.. You put the "absurd" in reductio ad absurdum... :D
Just another of the Left's bottomless bag of tactics.
i was not being sarcastic at all. beside improving gas mileage, stricter and broader enforcement of the speed limit would also save countless lives. and yes, the same principle could also be applied to gun ownership. the trouble, even moreso for cars than for guns, is that people like to drive fast. folks tend to get snippy when it's THEM who is caught breaking the law.
Not so sure about this one. I think it has more to do with obeying road rules and having good ones in place rather than a blanket statement about speeding. Auto deaths per 100,000 people per year: Germany 4.5, US 12.3
My wife bought me that after a particularly grueling tour of duty...
Aww, that just evoked fond memories of my mom and dad. He did 30-some-odd years with the NYPD.
While I am not much for the religious connotations, it did fill my heart with a real sense of satisfaction and peace.
You have angels watching over you, whether you're too spiritually clueless to realize it or not, Michale.
"And, as I pointed out before, it's actually a GOOD thing that 100-Round magazines are available to said nutbars... It saved a couple dozen lives in Aurora....." WHAT???
I'm looking forward to being entertained by your logic behind that one :)
Simple..
Magazines of those variety are notoriously ineffective and have a jam rate of around 90%.. I think the actual jam rate is 94%, but don't hold me to that...
So, let's lay out an alternate scenario whereas this Holmes scumbag could not get access to defective 100+ round Magazines and opted instead to carry a dozen 30 round clips, which are INFINITELY more reliable... He practiced with those clips, changing them out to the point where he could eject the old clip, slap in a new one, re-jack a round and be back firing in under 3 seconds...
Imagine the carnage that would have ensued if he had had THAT kind of capability...
So, logically, the availability of shoddy 100+ round magazines actually SAVED lives in that Aurora theater....
You don't need to be afraid of the gunman who shows up with a big honking 1000 round magazine. He'll be lucky to get 2 or 3 shots off...
You'll want to be TERRIFIED of the guy that shows up with a dozen small clips. Because THAT is a guy who knows how to kill for the maximum effect...
ow you're comparing the U.S. to Syria? You really are hysterical, Michale, and I mean that in a good, laugh riot way :)
Insofar of what happens when government forces start arbitrarily banning and restricting weapons, Syria is quite apropos to the United States..
'Sides.. I ain't the one who set the precedence for establishing world wide issues on people here in the US.. :D
Like I said before, every totalitarian state in the world, the first thing they did was disarm the citizenry...
There's a reason for that...
Michale....
CB,
You have angels watching over you, whether you're too spiritually clueless to realize it or not, Michale.
Everyone keeps telling me that.. The "clueless" part anyways.. :D
Michale.....
Not so sure about this one. I think it has more to do with obeying road rules and having good ones in place rather than a blanket statement about speeding. Auto deaths per 100,000 people per year: Germany 4.5, US 12.3
the implication there is that germany has less enforcement of speed limits, but that's not really the case. although about half of the german autobahns have no strict limit, they do have recommended speeds, and the rest of german roads do have limits, which are pretty strictly enforced.
i think the lesson in the german example is to have laws that CAN be strictly enforced, and make sure people respect them.
nonetheless, going slower does correlate pretty directly to fewer fatalities.
Personally, I'm in favor of more gun handling training, with or without ownership.
And, David, your hiding behind dead guys counter-argument is one of the worst I've ever read. I've often criticized our legal system for having abandoned attempts to be a justice system but you've attained new lows. Now, not only is justice irrelevant in face of the purported letter of the law but circumstances, history, background, and the intent of the law are irrelevant as well. You seem to champion a legal system that has so totally lost sight of the big picture, of its actual purpose, that anarchy may well be preferable.
Handguns and rifles were common universal tools in rural America for over a hundred years without rampant murder. Why was that? Could it be that it really isn't the guns. That it really is the people? I know, its a cliche. Its a NRA talking-point. Its the truth.
We're more concerned with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill than we are with getting the mentally ill off the streets and into treatment. Law enforcement is more concerned with keeping guns off the streets to protect law enforcement than they are with protecting the public. And the public is always eager to impose restrictions they believe will be borne by others than themselves.
The anti-semiautomatic argument is silly. Why not just limit people to crossbows if what you want is to ensure people only have ineffective and slow weapons? Or just be honest and ban guns altogether?
Self-defense isn't about access to the minimum weapon that might protect you. Its about access to the best weapon that might protect you. Self-defense is about maximizing your chance of survival not merely having some small chance.
I'm in favor of fully automatic weapons for self-defense. There's a reason the military prefers them and its not because they can kill lots of people, its because they are better against moving targets, providing a second shot if you miss, and outside of the OK Corral assailants are seldom stationary.
I disagree with Michale that arming everyone would reduce gun violence but I also disagree that banning guns will. Modern weapons are much more dangerous but, as always, you simply cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Banning technology simply doesn't unmake it.
The British are so proud of the effectiveness of their gun bans. But they've got terrorists using nerve gas! Now there's a weapon of mass destruction! And any half-way competent high school chemistry student can make it.
Dealing with guns by banning them is the easy solution. And like most easy solutions it won't accomplish much. If you want to fort up in fear, disarm yourself, depend on your hired security for your safety that's your prerogative. But thinking to disarm me and everyone else so that only the criminals have guns is not acceptable to me. I'm not willing to be a sacrificial goat so that you mistakenly feel safer.
LD,
I disagree with Michale that arming everyone would reduce gun violence
Of your remarkable diatribe, this is the only part I took exception with... Well, I did think you were a little hard on David, but he's a big boy that can take care of himself.. :D
I never advocated "arming everyone"... I simply said and I honestly believe that if you put guns into the hands of people who are trained (even minimally) and show a modicum of maturity, THAT will reduce the crime rate a LOT better than simply banning guns outright..
News reports are replete with examples of this every day...
The British are so proud of the effectiveness of their gun bans.
They have no right to be...
Violent gun crimes are up 89% since the gun ban was put into place...
But thinking to disarm me and everyone else so that only the criminals have guns is not acceptable to me. I'm not willing to be a sacrificial goat so that you mistakenly feel safer.
I find myself in awe of your oratorical prowess.. :D
Michale.....
Well said, LewDan.
We're more concerned with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill than we are with getting the mentally ill off the streets and into treatment.
[snip]
And the public is always eager to impose restrictions they believe will be borne by others than themselves.
yes, and yes.
We're more concerned with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill than we are with getting the mentally ill off the streets and into treatment.
[snip]
And the public is always eager to impose restrictions they believe will be borne by others than themselves.
yes, and yes.
What he said... :D
Michale.....
You don't need to be afraid of the gunman who shows up with a big honking 1000 round magazine. He'll be lucky to get 2 or 3 shots off...
You'll want to be TERRIFIED of the guy that shows up with a dozen small clips. Because THAT is a guy who knows how to kill for the maximum effect...
"I'm not worried about the general who wants a dozen nuclear warheads. I'm TERRIFIED of the madman who just wants one!"
-Nicole Kidman, THE PEACEKEEPER
Michale.....
Whoa, there, LewDan.
What's so interesting about your comment, is that I haven't made any argument whatsoever about guns or gun control in this thread.
Not one.
To refresh, all of my arguments have been about Scalia's view of the Constitution. My argument is that an originalist view is typically an interpretation regardless of whether or not the originalist in question (Scalia) feels this way.
What I would argue is that "circumstances, history, background" as you've stated are all key to the interpretation of the Constitution. Circumstances including the present situation and how things have changed since the 1700s.
So I'm glad to see these are all important to you as well. Not just the notion of Founder's intent. It seems you're making the case for what I would call a "living Constitution".
If that's the case, I agree and think we're saying very similar things.
I just find it interesting that you addressed me when I didn't make a single argument about gun ownership one way or the other.
But you're probably right, gun owners are the real victims of this tragedy. Every time some nut goes batshit and shoots people, it's the gun owners who are the real sacrificial lambs.
Sheesh ... can you maybe play the victim card a little bit more?
-David
"I'm not worried about the general who wants a dozen nuclear warheads. I'm TERRIFIED of the madman who just wants one!"
-Nicole Kidman, THE PEACEKEEPER
Wasn't that a good movie? Another was "The Siege," with Denzel Washington, Annette Benning, Bruce Willis, and Tony Shalhoub.
But you're probably right, gun owners are the real victims of this tragedy. Every time some nut goes batshit and shoots people, it's the gun owners who are the real sacrificial lambs.
I'm not sure, but I think that was sarcasm.... :D
But it does have more than an ingot of truth behind it..
"An ingot of phinkillium!!"
-Major Nelson, I DREAM OF JEANNIE
(I had to reach WAY back for that little gem!! :D)
The fact is, gun ownership always takes a hit when some scumbag goes apeshit with a gun..
Which is ironic because there is absolutely NO evidence that taking away such ownership would help, or even ADDRESS, the problem...
Michale.....
Another was "The Siege," with Denzel Washington, Annette Benning, Bruce Willis, and Tony Shalhoub.
Yea, that was a killer movie as well..
I have always remarked.. It's ironic..
In two movies (THE SEIGE and CRIMSON TIDE) Denzel played the protagonist, but was also DEAD wrong in his actions...
In THE SEIGE, I was hoping Bruce Willis would head-slam Denzel with an M-16 and say:
"RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, *I* AM THE LAW!!!!!
Oh wait.. Willis DID say that... :D My bust...
Still would have been kewl if Denzel was showed up for the panty-waist his actions made him out to be...
Michale.....
David,
I was just too lazy to post multiple comments. My only reference to your comment was regarding Scalia and the need to consider the history of the Constitution. (And to deriding interpreting the thinking of "dead people"!)
I do believe in a living Constitution, I just don't think that means the courts can just rewrite it on the fly as needed, that's what we have a legislature for. I believe in a living Constitution but I also a representative government is the foundation of this country. The people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times, not the courts.
And, yeah, we mostly agree. Sorry if I seemed to pick on you!
Michale,
I agree with you.
The reason I don't think more gun ownership will reduce crime is that people being people I think it will both help and hurt the situation. In other words it'll be a wash. Lots of other factors also come in to play so absent an actual full-scale long-term trial I wouldn't put heavy quatloos on either proposition!
But as to your position about more trained gun-toting individuals at large in the public being a good thing?--Yeah, couldn't agree with you more.
Had to jump in to correct some stuff:
"The British are so proud of the effectiveness of their gun bans."
Yes indeedy.
"They have no right to be...
Violent gun crimes are up 89% since the gun ban was put into place..."
Word of advice: you should learn not to rely on the Daily Mail (a Conservative gun-loving paper) for your statistics. They love to make up numbers, often including 'possession of a gun' as a gun crime which is technically correct since it has been since 1997 lol. They have done it several times before. But obviously you were not to know this.
The official Government statistics (I have included link to official Government website at the end) state:
"Provisional figures show that 6,285 firearm offences were recorded by the police in the year to September 2011, accounting for 0.2% of all recorded crime. There was a 19% fall in firearm offences in the year to September 2011, compared to the previous year."
After the Cumbria shootings of 2010, another Government review was announced which concluded gun regulations in the UK should be tightened even further. You can find this report if you Google: Firearms control (HC 447). From this paper:
"Comparisons between industrialised countries show that there is a correlation between the levels of gun ownership and gun violence. This country has one of the lowest rates of gun death with annual gun homicides in England and Wales at 0.10 per 100,000 population compared, for example, with 0.69 in Canada, 0.93 in Switzerland and 3.52 in the USA."
Link to official data: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940.pdf
David,
BTW, If you'll excuse my mixing metaphors, I've never understood how anyone who calls himself an "originalist" could not appreciate that a four-page Constitution with no delineated citizen rights, in expectation of some later "Bill of Rights" addendum, clearly shows that The Founders intended a "living Constitution"?!
But as to your position about more trained gun-toting individuals at large in the public being a good thing?--Yeah, couldn't agree with you more
I have no problem with including TRAINING as a pre-requisite for Carry or Possession...
Here in Florida, I believe there is a 16-hr course requirement, plus a range session to demonstrate proficiency...
I admit I am not positive, because prior service or LEO (of which I am both) are exempt from the training requirements..
Word of advice: you should learn not to rely on the Daily Mail (a Conservative gun-loving paper) for your statistics.
Do you have anything to call into question their statistics, other than your political bias??? :D
The stats that show violent crimes increase when guns are banned are all over the world..
It would be senseless to point them out to you, as you have tunnel-vision that only allows you to acknowledge those stats that "prove" your point..
The Founders intended a "living Constitution"?!
Odo strikes again!!!! :D
Michale....
The official Government statistics (I have included link to official Government website at the end) state:
"We're from the government and we're here to help..."
I'm just sayin'...... :D
Michale.....
They play all sorts of numbers-cooking games over there, like changing the counting rules, to try to keep the percentage down.
BTW, If you'll excuse my mixing metaphors, I've never understood how anyone who calls himself an "originalist" could not appreciate that a four-page Constitution with no delineated citizen rights, in expectation of some later "Bill of Rights" addendum, clearly shows that The Founders intended a "living Constitution"?!
Hahahahah ... this is some of the irony I was getting at. Well played.
I do believe in a living Constitution, I just don't think that means the courts can just rewrite it on the fly as needed, that's what we have a legislature for. I believe in a living Constitution but I also a representative government is the foundation of this country. The people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times, not the courts.
But that's not what it says in the Constitution ...
The Constitution gives the power to enact laws to Congress. But it does not give the power to interpret or adapt the Constitution to Congress.
Interestingly enough, as Chris has pointed out, it did not originally grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court. This was established later in the case Marbury vs. Madison. However, it does seem much more likely that the Constitution could be interpreted to give this power to the Judiciary rather than the Legislative branch.
By saying "the people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times", you seem to be suggesting a completely different constitution.
No?
-David
Odo strikes again!!!! :D
Buahahahahahaha ....
It is interesting how this argument turned into a discussion about banning guns, isn't it?
The point of my blog was simply that it may be legal to pass laws against semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, but probably not pistols; and that the Roberts' Court, in the Heller decision, gave us some clues about how to do that...
Whether or not it's a good idea, or even feasible (either politically or physically) is another matter entirely. This is purely a question about legality...
FedWayGuy,
Interesting? I'm afraid typical is the more apt description.
It would be interesting to know how many here have read the Heller decision or have even bookmarked it for future reference.
It is interesting how this argument turned into a discussion about banning guns, isn't it?
Conversations evolve.
FWG,
It is interesting how this argument turned into a discussion about banning guns, isn't it?
As I said above, it's impossible to talk about the legality of a weapons ban w/o talking about the rationale of a weapons ban...
But, in an attempt to get back on track..
How do you respond to the claim that, if it's legal/permissible under the 2nd Amendment to ban semi-auto rifles, then that ban must logically extend to ALL semi-auto weapons..
What I mean is, how would you differentiate between the two so that semi-auto handguns would survive the ban but semi-auto rifles would not?
Liz,
It would be interesting to know how many here have read the Heller decision or have even bookmarked it for future reference.
Heller???? :D
"What gear are you in!!!????"
"Gear?????"
-Dogma
:D
Michale.....
They play all sorts of numbers-cooking games over there, like changing the counting rules, to try to keep the percentage down.
Oh, it's not solely limited to across the pond..
It's called policy-based evidence making and it is alive and well here in the US as well....
Michale.....
"Do you have anything to call into question their statistics, other than your political bias??? :D"
Sure, as I mentioned before bias is openly acknowledged in UK papers and in the UK media. They don't beat around the bush. For example here is the front page of the Daily Mail on election day 2010:
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/e15626192.jpg
Most other newspapers are the same, openly backing the candidate they support on election day, with a massive appeal to vote for them. The Daily Mail has backed the Conservative pretty much as long as it's existed, even when other papers switched to Blair in 1997. Funnily enough there are similarities between the re-elections of Blair and Obama - both took their party to the right and won a 2nd term as the other party moved waaay right...
"The stats that show violent crimes increase when guns are banned are all over the world.."
We can debate this till the cows come home. If have mentioned many times now homicide rate is a much better stat to look at compared to 'violent crime' since definitions of 'violent crime' vary massively, homicides less so. Deciding if punching someone in the stomach is a 'violent crime' results in different decisions country by country; shooting someone in the stomach and killing them is a homicide in every country.
I'll take my Government mandated civil servant produced White Paper over any other studies any day of the week. UK Government White Papers are independently produced and consistently disagree with the Government in power.
For example, the HC 447 paper I mentioned advocates for stricter gun controls than already exist in the UK and this paper was mandated in 2010 during a Conservative Government...
"Do you have anything to call into question their statistics, other than your political bias??? :D"
Sure, as I mentioned before bias is openly acknowledged in UK papers and in the UK media. They don't beat around the bush. For example this was the headline of the Daily Mail on election day 2010:
"D-DAY: CAMERON IS OUR ONLY HOPE - MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN DECADES"
If you Google 'election day specials 2010 UK newspapers' you can see for yourself, wont let me post the link here...
Most other newspapers are the same, openly backing the candidate they support on election day, with a massive appeal to vote for them. The Daily Mail has backed the Conservative pretty much as long as it's existed, even when other papers switched to Blair in 1997. Funnily enough there are similarities between the re-elections of Blair and Obama - both took their party to the right and won a 2nd term as the other party moved waaay right...
"The stats that show violent crimes increase when guns are banned are all over the world.."
We can debate this till the cows come home. If have mentioned many times now homicide rate is a much better stat to look at compared to 'violent crime' since definitions of 'violent crime' vary massively, homicides less so. Deciding if punching someone in the stomach is a 'violent crime' results in different decisions country by country; shooting someone in the stomach and killing them is a homicide in every country.
I'll take my Government mandated civil servant produced White Paper over any other studies any day of the week. UK Government White Papers are independently produced and consistently disagree with the Government in power.
For example, the HC 447 paper I mentioned advocates for stricter gun controls than already exist in the UK and this paper was mandated in 2010 during a Conservative Government...
Oh, it's not solely limited to across the pond..
It's called policy-based evidence making and it is alive and well here in the US as well....
Oh, I'm not arguing that at all. I haven't seen one straight number come out of this administration yet. Cooking the numbers is a very popular tactic among politicians worldwide, I suspect.
FedWayGuy "It is interesting how this argument turned into a discussion about banning guns, isn't it?"
You should take this as a compliment about how good your article was ;)
You should take this as a compliment about how good your article was ;)
I gotta agree with mitchy on that..
Generating almost a hundred comments the first day of a new commentary..
That's good... :D
Michale.....
What I mean is, how would you differentiate between the two so that semi-auto handguns would survive the ban but semi-auto rifles would not?
This was explicitly explained in the original blog. Short answer: semi-automatic pistols were in common use in 1903 when the Militia Act was passed, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were not... the reasoning in Heller is not about the weapons themselves, but rather about whether they were common, lawful, used by the militia, and so on... remember that this is a legal question, and legal questions seldom talk about what is really important to the rest of us. :)
Britain just won their first shooting medal (gold) in 12 years.
That is ridiculous - 12 years with no medals. If ever there was a time for the public to get behind the 'bring back the guns' campaign this is it! ;)
I see your point but I think that's just splitting legal hairs...
The impetus for a gun ban would have to show a practical advantage or benefit in the here and now, rather than simply give acquiescence to the annals of history...
In other words, to ban a certain weapon, cause would have to be shown that banning said weapon is in the public's best interests. It would not be sufficient to simply said, "because that's how it was in the old days"..
In shorter terms, "that's the way it was" wouldn't fly in a court of law, Heller notwithstanding...
IMNSHO, of course.. :D
Michale.....
Teenager kills 8 , wounds 5 in China knife attack
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_KNIFE_ATTACK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-02-06-05-46
Maybe it's as LewDan says..
Maybe, JUST maybe, it's not weapons that are the problem..
Maybe the problem is people...
Hmmmmmmmmm Let's think on that for a while...
Michale.....
"Maybe the problem is people..."
So America is the problem?
Non Fire-arm Homicide Rates:
USA - 1.58
UK - 1.33
Canada - 1.04
Pretty similar. As you'd expect from 3 industrialised, democratic nations with an inter-linked history and similar cultural background.
Firearm Homicide Rates:
UK - 0.12
Canada - 0.54
USA - 2.97
So it's just pure coincidence then that when you look at the firearm homicide rate they are now ranked exactly in order of how easy it is to get a gun and the type of gun you can get.
The US has a 0.18 times higher non-firearms homicide rate than the UK; the firearms homicide rate is 25 times higher. But it must be the 'people' not the guns right?
Sorry for the derailment FedWay I'll leave it as this otherwise we'll just repeat the debate all over again...
So America is the problem?
Apparently, in your eyes, it is..
So we'll just have to leave it at that..
Michale....
Maybe, JUST maybe, it's not weapons that are the problem..
Maybe the problem is people...
I'm thinking, since weapons don't plot crimes, or transport themselves, or activate themselves, you might be onto something, there, Michale.
I am also constrained to point out that the afore mentioned incident happened in China..
So, by YOUR way of thinking, Americans have a problem with guns and the Chinese have a problem with knives... :^/
Or maybe... JUST maybe... the problem is the people..
Michale.....
David,
By saying "the people and their representatives must adapt the Constitution to modern times", you seem to be suggesting a completely different constitution.
Now I'm back to my standard you're right but I disagree answer. The Court granted itself the authority to interpret the Constitution in Marbury not the Constitution, but in my view the role more in keeping with the Constitution is the Court adjudicating and the Congress interpreting.
In a representative government there's no need, or place, for the court to "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is the law agreed to by The People, and if there's any doubt as to what that law means The People and their representatives are available to answer any questions, instead of unelected bureaucrats, answerable to no one, imposing their personal opinions. That, in my view, was not the intent of the Founders or the nation.
I've said many times, the oligarchy we have today is not the result of the Constitution, its the result of a successful constitutional coup by SCOTUS.
Michale
"I am also constrained to point out that the afore mentioned incident happened in China..
So, by YOUR way of thinking, Americans have a problem with guns and the Chinese have a problem with knives... :^/"
Not quite. I quoted statistics which prove my argument - which was that people are not the problem, otherwise you'd expect that the USA would have a 25 times larger non-firearms homicide rate than the UK, as well as 25 times larger firearms homicide rate. Actually the figures are 0.18 and 25.
You're quoting a singular news event. This one event alone doesn't prove China has a knife problem.
I could quote you statistics showing that China too has a lower firearm homicide rate (guns are banned there) but, having lived there, I know better than to quote Chinese statistics given their Governmetn love of secrecy and fudging the numbers ;)
And I can quote statistics that say an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, NM...
That doesn't mean it's what actually occurred..
Because EVERYONE knows that the spacecraft didn't CRASH...
It landed.. :D
Michale.....
The problem here is that there are likely DOZENS and DOZENS of reasons why the homicide rate is higher in the US then other countries..
You are tunnel-visioned fixated on just ONE possible cause...
It's like seeing a blue bird and deduce from that, that ALL birds MUST be blue...
Michale.....
FedWayGuy,
Excellent post, I too hope to see more from you.
As to your premise about the constitutionality of gun ownership restrictions -- As Chris has pointed out repeatedly, the Constitution is, effectively, whatever SCOTUS says it is. They can certainly find rationalizations for claiming that restricting semiautos is constitutional.
I, however, think a more honest view is to not focus on the technology available in the 1700's but rather on the intent of the Founders to ensure people the ability to defend themselves, against the government itself is necessary, not to empower disgruntled individuals but to empower disgruntled communities should the government become oppressive.
The idea behind our government is that government governs with the consent of the governed. That it gets its authority from the people. The obvious corollary to that is that consent and authority may also be revoked. Our Constitution defines government as an exercise in paranoia. The single most obvious principle, addressed in a dozen ways in our brief Constitution, is that government can not be trusted.
I've no doubt at all that SCOTUS could find restricting auto and semiauto weapons constitutional. I've also no doubt at all that restricting citizens to weapons which pose little threat to government agents is exactly what the Second Amendment was intended to prohibit.
Gun control, in my view, is simply incompatible with the Second Amendment. I'm not saying modern weapons don't mandate reasonable controls, I'm saying pretending those controls are consistent with the Second Amendment is sophistry.
In view of the danger posed by modern weapons the Second Amendment needs to be revisited, publicly and openly, not by a star-chamber of unelected bureaucrats acting illegally to impose their views on the public.
I, however, think a more honest view is to not focus on the technology available in the 1700's but rather on the intent of the Founders to ensure people the ability to defend themselves, against the government itself is necessary
Michale ... Quick question for your expertise.
If our armed forces wanted to take my house, what weapons would I have to buy to prevent this?
-David
Michty,
The fallacy in your argument is that of comparing similar but different peoples. The culture in Britain is very similar to that of the U.S. It is not the same though. The people are not the same. the differences with China are much greater.
If you show a dramatic reduction in firearms homicides in Chicago IL, where handguns are effectively banned, versus, say Austin TX, where concealed carry is considered a constitutional right, then you'd have a point.
The biggest factor in the people being the problem is a culture's respect for human life in general and its concern for the welfare of others in general. The U.S isn't nearly as bad as Somalia or, in many cases, India, but it ain't Britain, or France, or anywhere else. We're not the worst, but we're certainly not the best. And one of the legacies of our being a slave nation is our sometimes problematical respect for human life in general and our concern for the welfare of others in general.
In a representative government there's no need, or place, for the court to "interpret" the Constitution.
As I believe you mentioned LewDan, the Constitution is a 4 page document.
As such it is more guidelines which cannot pertain to every issue. Congress can legislate within these guidelines. They do have that power. But obviously there's going to be grey areas in a 4-page document. If you give the power to interpret to Congress as well as the legislative power then you remove a critical check on the power of one branch of government.
I could also say that this is what the Founders intended ... cue Odo :)
In fact, this is what Scalito has said. The father of Founders' intent seems to think that the Founders did not intend for the 2nd amendment to apply to all weapons.
Your evidence seems to be that you "have no doubt" about what the Founders' intended. Scalito, on the other hand, shows how history supports his case.
If I were to look at this argument strictly from a Founders' intent perspective (which self-admittedly I think is ridiculous), I'd have to give the edge to Scalito.
-David
"The problem here is that there are likely DOZENS and DOZENS of reasons why the homicide rate is higher in the US then other countries..
You are tunnel-visioned fixated on just ONE possible cause...
It's like seeing a blue bird and deduce from that, that ALL birds MUST be blue..."
You are quite correct there may be other reasons. I cannot dispute this, even if every study on homicide rates concludes otherwise.
However, firstly consider that the availability and ease of obtaining firearms and firearms homicide rates are HIGHLY correlated. Secondly, consider that the Western Democratic country with the easiest access to guns (and easiest access to high powered guns) has a firearm homicide rate 2-200 times higher than any other Western Democratic country.
With these in mind (and you can even apply Occum's Razor - I know that you love that so much :)) the logical conclusion is simple: the country with the easiest access to firearms and high-powered firearms will have the highest firearms homicide rate (as is the case) regardless of their people.
In fact, this is what Scalito has said.
did you mean scalia or alito? they're two different justices. unless they're secretly a voltron style robot, that is...
http://youtu.be/1uS5b8aQ6z8
David,
My point exactly! Armed insurrections by citizens against a modern military, especially our military, would have much lower odds of success than the American Revolution did. The Second Amendment is a 17th-century solution that isn't relevant to 21st-century problems.
David,
Where do you see a check on SCOTUS rewriting the Constitution in Citizens United? Your idea of a "check" is nine unelected bureaucrats mandating versus hundreds of elected representatives representing?
Seems less than logical and more than a little biased to me.
If our armed forces wanted to take my house, what weapons would I have to buy to prevent this?
Not trying to evade the question, but there are so many factors to consider..
To get to specifics, let's assume a company-sized force wants your house.. Generally speaking, this could be 100 to 300 men.. Let's pick 300...
So, three hundred men want your house.
We'll also assume they don't want to remove it, because then they would just call in artillery and move on...
So, a company of men want your house intact..
Let's further assume that A> you have had some warning and B> that allows you to prepare for a siege and C> with some friends and support of your own...
Guerrilla warfare would be the order of the day. Booby traps, hit and run attacks, misdirections...
Plus, you are fighting for your home and, presumably you will win or you will die.. That's a pretty powerful incentive...
"One man fighting for his home is worth a thousand trained soldiers. The Crusades taught me that."
-Kevin Costner, ROBIN HOOD: PRINCE OF THEIVES
The odds against you are not as bad as you might think.
Now, let's play out a difference scenario. A company of troops pound on your day and say, "Get the frack out, this is our house now."
Pump action shotgun (presumably you are a paranoid SOB and always answer the door with a gun, like I do.. :D) will take care of the initial entry team, likely 4-6 men. You have the element of surprise, as they were expecting a panty-waist homeowner cowering in the corner.. Do NOT discount the element of surprise...
The exterior force will take cover at the sound of fire.. You will have several minutes (more if the guys outside aren't trained) to organize a defense... Your best weapon of choice (availability being the biggest factor) will be a standard issue GAU-5A, mini M-16 with a collapsible stock.. Good cyclic rate of fire, reliable (more or less)... Of course, being the paranoid SOB you are (see above) you will have modified the weapon to shoot full auto.. Keep it to 3-rnd bursts. This will conserve your ammo AND will ensure your full auto mod doesn't jam.. Initial counter assault, you want to splurge on the ammo. Make them think that A> you are more than one person and B> you got ammo to burn...
The next phase will depend on how badly they want your house.. If it's do or die for them, yer fooked... Take as many as you can with you, but prepare to die..
If you are enough of a pain in the ass,and they really don't need your house, they will likely bypass your place, leaving behind a rear guard of 1-2 men to make sure you don't come up THEIR as...
Does that about cover it?? :D
Short answer, NO amount of weaponry will prevent a determined trained force from taking your house.. The most you could hope for is to take as many of the sons of bitches with you to STOV'A'KOR...
We'll discuss Home Invasions next.
Class dismissed.. :D
Michale.....
did you mean scalia or alito? they're two different justices. unless they're secretly a voltron style robot, that is...
A love child??? :D
Michale.....
With these in mind (and you can even apply Occum's Razor - I know that you love that so much :)) the logical conclusion is simple: the country with the easiest access to firearms and high-powered firearms will have the highest firearms homicide rate (as is the case) regardless of their people.
Yes, and because of that pretty blue bird over there, ALL birds MUST be blue.. ;D
Michale.....
David,
Let me also add that I'll grant the Second Amendment doesn't apply to all weapons, tactical nukes have no place even in armed insurrections, or any other battle for that matter. As I sincerely doubt the Founders envisioned us developing insane weapons I've no problem with the Constitution evolving to ban them. Though I still maintain that decision should be one of consensus through our representatives not SOCTUS pretending we've a "living Constitution"—except where we don't.
LD
Nice posts, good points.
If you show a dramatic reduction in firearms homicides in Chicago IL, where handguns are effectively banned, versus, say Austin TX, where concealed carry is considered a constitutional right, then you'd have a point.
Unfortunately this isn't possible unless you put up State/City borders or check points to stop guns coming in. Gun bans in one State/City/area prove nothing - they are pointless when you can just drive out the State/City/area and buy a gun. In fact, in several high profile shootings the perpetrator had to go out of State to get weapons due to regulations in their own State.
In DC pre-Heller, gun crime increased when they passed their regulation against guns. But studies have shown that 98%(!) of guns used in the crimes came from out of State.
The logical conclusion of all inter-State studies is that banning guns in one individual State or area doesn't work. I agree with this premise 100%. I disagree in extrapolating this argument to the Federal level.
The biggest factor in the people being the problem is a culture's respect for human life in general and its concern for the welfare of others in general. The U.S isn't nearly as bad as Somalia or, in many cases, India, but it ain't Britain, or France, or anywhere else. We're not the worst, but we're certainly not the best. And one of the legacies of our being a slave nation is our sometimes problematical respect for human life in general and our concern for the welfare of others in general.
My point is if this were true and Americans had such a lower respect for life/the welfare of others then their non-firearm homicide rates and crime rates would be many times higher than say UK/Canada - they aren't and in fact are quite comparable.
Yet the firearm homicide rate in America is 25 times higher than the UK and 5 times higher than in Canada. So everything is comparable in terms of crime except this one statistic, so it seems to me that arguing it is the people or culture to blame is illogical, when this statistic clearly indicates what the problem is...
LD
One more thing on the cultural argument to illustrate my point.
Let's take say Japan compared to America. I think it is undeniable that America is a lot closer in culture to Canada/UK than Japan. When you look at the statistics, Japan has considerably lower rates of crime and a considerably lower homicide rate (all kinds) - in fact one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Here all the statistics line up: all rates indicate a cultural reason for the crime/homicide rates being lower in Japan.
On the contrary, when you look at Canada/UK the ONLY significant, ridiculously major difference is the firearm homicide rate.
As I believe you mentioned LewDan, the Constitution is a 4 page document.
As such it is more guidelines which cannot pertain to every issue. Congress can legislate within these guidelines. They do have that power. But obviously there's going to be grey areas in a 4-page document. If you give the power to interpret to Congress as well as the legislative power then you remove a critical check on the power of one branch of government.
David,
SCOTUS also is supposed to be restricted to acting "within the guidelines" established by the Constitution, at least theoretically. And the purpose of legislating is to fill in those grey areas unaddressed by the Constitution specifically, an authority reserved exclusively to Congress.
You seem to be granting SCOTUS the authority to act outside of Constitutional guidelines by calling it "interpreting" the Constitution. A more accurate term would be unconstitutional.
I simply have trouble believing that a gun can walk into a party, pick out it's victims, aim itself and start firing...
I mean, I have heard of "Smart Weapons" but I don't think we have weapons that are THAT smart....
I asked before and I'll ask again..
When a driver mows down and kills a dozen people, do we blame the car???
Michale.....
My point is if this were true and Americans had such a lower respect for life/the welfare of others then their non-firearm homicide rates and crime rates would be many times higher than say UK/Canada - they aren't and in fact are quite comparable.
Sorry Michty you're logic is faulty. If firearms were not available and the non-firearm rates were the same you'd have a point. But the fact that the firearm rates are much higher, do to their availability while the non-firearm rates are comparable shows the overall rates are much higher in the U.S. and generally, not surprisingly, involve the best weapons available. I would surmise that British rates also reflect usage of the best tools available with few slingshot and spear attacks.
But the contention that the U.S. homicide rate attributed to firearms will just magically vanish if handguns aren't available, rather than devolve onto the next best available weapon is unsupported by facts, history, statistics, or logic.
Michty,
I will grant that the firearm homicide rate would decrease dramatically were firearms not available. I simply see no point in trying to reduce the firearm homicide rate rather than the homicide rate as I'm less concerned with how people are killed than I am with the fact that they are being killed.
LD
"If firearms were not available and the non-firearm rates were the same you'd have a point. But the fact that the firearm rates are much higher, do to their availability while the non-firearm rates are comparable shows the overall rates are much higher in the U.S. and generally, not surprisingly, involve the best weapons available. I would surmise that British rates also reflect usage of the best tools available with few slingshot and spear attacks."
I don't understand - much of what you say is exactly my point!
Firearms are not available in the UK and the non-firearm homicide rate is the same as the US. So people aren't finding other ways of committing their homicides, because other such efficient ways don't exist.
If you take guns away from people they stop killing each other because slingshots and spears aren't the 'best weapons' to kill someone (which guns are). This is exactly my point - homicide rates will drop when guns are taken away. This is completely counter to the 'guns keep us safe' argument used by gun proponents - actually every statistic shows guns make you considerably more likely to be murdered.
"But the contention that the U.S. homicide rate attributed to firearms will just magically vanish if handguns aren't available, rather than devolve onto the next best available weapon is unsupported by facts, history, statistics, or logic."
Challenge accepted.
Let's start with logic. Guns are by far the most efficient legal tool available to kill people. To kill a mass group of people they are easily the most efficient legally available tool. So if you take away the most efficient legal tool available to kill a person or a mass group of people then, logically , what do you think happens to homicide rates? Consider the emotionally charged person who just lost his mind and he can get his hand on (a) a high powered gun or (b) and knife - logically, which is going to kill the most people? The logic works because guns are very efficient at killing people.
Fact: well I have already produced firearm homicide ones. How about the fact that 2/3 of murders in America are committed using guns. What do you think happens when you take away an extremely efficient killing weapon that is used in 2/3 of your murders?
History/statistics: the UK murder rate in 2010 was the lowest in 12 years. That is, it is the lowest since the year the gun ban came into effect (1997/98). http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years. So the UK banned guns and the number of murders is now at a record low. So your argument that they will just use other weapons doesn't fit the statistics or history about what happened in the UK :)
"I will grant that the firearm homicide rate would decrease dramatically were firearms not available. I simply see no point in trying to reduce the firearm homicide rate rather than the homicide rate as I'm less concerned with how people are killed than I am with the fact that they are being killed."
But, as I just mentioned in my post above, the firearm homicide rate makes up 2/3 of the American total homicide rate. So if you manage to reduce 66% of your homicides 'dramatically' your overall homicide rate will also be dramatically reduced...
History/statistics: the UK murder rate in 2010 was the lowest in 12 years. That is, it is the lowest since the year the gun ban came into effect (1997/98). http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years. So the UK banned guns and the number of murders is now at a record low. So your argument that they will just use other weapons doesn't fit the statistics or history about what happened in the UK :)
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz21upUIIfU
So, which UK media outlet are we supposed to believe??
I thought you only quoted GOVERNMENT sources???
:D
Michale.....
Mitchy,
Let's put your BAN ALL GUNS into practical application..
The US bans all guns...
Are you saying that will guarantee that there will be no guns on the streets, except in the hands of military or LEOs???
No, of course you are not saying that. You CAN'T say that...
So, let me ask you..
What happens to the law abiding citizens when they are faced with armed criminals??
What happens to THEM???
What?? They "HOPE" a cop is close by??? They pray that the criminals "CHANGE" their minds???
What happens to the innocent men and women YOU have disarmed???
Michale.....
Michale
Well the practicalities are obviously a lot more complicated than a simple forum comment. The way the UK went was by having a gun buy-back followed by several gun amnesties giving people the chance to redeem their guns. I believe certain types of guns are allowed on strict permits and storing requirements, but no handguns at all.
Of course you can't guarantee no guns. There are absolutely guns in the UK just now, but they are illegal and 25 times less people get shot and killed than the USA, that's a fact. So you are stopping the supply and demand of guns.
When faced with an armed criminal I'd suggest you do what they say - in fact, assuming the criminal was smart enough to not announce their criminal act in advance, I'd suggest you do this anyway today even if you were carrying a gun. The element of surprise is still with the criminal and the gun in your pocket isn't a magical forcefield against bullets.
What happens to the innocent men and women is probably exactly the same as what happens to them today - except there will be considerably less guns so there will be less innocent men and women being killed.
But, as I just mentioned in my post above, the firearm homicide rate makes up 2/3 of the American total homicide rate. So if you manage to reduce 66% of your homicides 'dramatically' your overall homicide rate will also be dramatically reduced...
Michty,
You are conflating the firearm homicide rate with the homicide rate. Reducing the firearm homicide rate does not automatically reduce the homicide rate.
If you ban automobile traffic you don't necessarily reduce the number of commuters you only reduce the number of commuters using automobiles. Controlling a tool used in an activity does not equate to controlling the activity.
Firearms are not available in the UK and the non-firearm homicide rate is the same as the US. So people aren't finding other ways of committing their homicides, because other such efficient ways don't exist.
Again, Michty, faulty logic. If the non-firearm homicide rates are comparable while the US has a significant firearm homicide rate versus the UKs virtually nonexistent one it indicates the people in the US are far more prone to committing homicide not that the unavailability of firearms prevents Brits from committing homicide.
Your contention is that firearms, in and of themselves, inspire people to kill other people. That's a view borne of ignorance that is absolutely refuted by the facts. As I've said before, firearms were endemic to rural America for over a hundred years. Nearly every household had them. By your reasoning the firearm homicide rate should have been even higher then than now. It wasn't. Firearms simply have no psychic mind-control powers over people that motivate them to kill.
You are conflating the firearm homicide rate with the homicide rate. Reducing the firearm homicide rate does not automatically reduce the homicide rate.
I disagree.
The Homicide Rate (HR)= Non-firearm HR + Firearm HR
USA: 1.58 + 2.97 = 4.55
UK: 1.33 + 0.12 = 1.45
If you dramatically reduce one component of the Homicide Rate, then the rate is dramatically reduced, as happened in the UK. Especially if you reduce the part that makes up 66% of it's value because the weapon involved is the most efficient legally available weapon for committing homicide.
If you ban automobile traffic you don't necessarily reduce the number of commuters you only reduce the number of commuters using automobiles. Controlling a tool used in an activity does not equate to controlling the activity.
Firstly you're comparing apples and oranges. People need to commute to get to home, work, school etc in order to survive. Nobody needs to commit homicide in order to survive.
Secondly, controlling a tool used in an activity that is not an activity of need absolutely controls the activity. If heroine was sold legally in shops, more people would be heroine addicts. But we don't allow this by controlling the tool of heroine by making it illegal. It works because people don't need heroine every day to survive (in the same way they do need their car or another method of commuting).
The cars comparison is often used in many an analogy in gun debates and it makes absolutely no sense. You're comparing a tool whose sole purpose is to enable to convenient travel to a tool whose sole purpose is to kill (animals or humans usually). You're comparing a tool which requires many hours of training and is only available to licensed users to once which requires none of this.
Firstly you're comparing apples and oranges. People need to commute to get to home, work, school etc in order to survive. Nobody needs to commit homicide in order to survive.
Spoken like a person who has lead a sheltered life.. :D
You're comparing a tool which requires many hours of training and is only available to licensed users to once which requires none of this.
Oh bull carp...
An hour, two tops and ANYONE can know how to drive....
And firearms license require many hours of training AND requires a license..
Firearms and cars are more similar than you would like to believe. Probably because it blows your argument out of the water...
The bottom line is, we don't blame the car when a psycho uses one to kill dozens of people..
So why would any rational person blame the gun???
Michale.....
Michale.....
What happens to the innocent men and women is probably exactly the same as what happens to them today - except there will be considerably less guns so there will be less innocent men and women being killed.
Which matters not at all, if YOU happen to be one of those ones who ARE confronted by an armed criminal where you COULD have survived if you were also armed...
"Hay! It took out one of the civilians!!"
"We estimate an 11% collateral casualty rate. Acceptable."
"Yea... Unless you happen to be one of the 11%..."
-BLUE THUNDER
Face it... No matter HOW you try to pretty it up, a gun ban WILL cause the deaths of innocent people who would NOT have died, had they had access to guns...
There is no getting around that...
Michale.....
Grrrrrrr
WARNING: UNCLOSED ATTRIBUTE :D
Michale.....
"Again, Michty, faulty logic. If the non-firearm homicide rates are comparable while the US has a significant firearm homicide rate versus the UKs virtually nonexistent one it indicates the people in the US are far more prone to committing homicide not that the unavailability of firearms prevents Brits from committing homicide."
I disagree. This is why I added the additional paragraph about Japan. Japan has a much lower non-firearms AND firearms HR. This indicates that the people in the US (and also the UK fwiw) are far more prone to committing homicide in general than the Japanese.
The non-firearms to firearms comparison shows many things that disprove this 'cultural' theory:
(1) Restricting firearms drastically reduces the firearms homicide rate and overall HR. This stands true when comparing the USA to every single other Western democracy.
(2) The USA is the only Western democratic country in the world (one exception - Switzerland, where gun rates are high too) to have a higher firearms HR than non-firearms.
(3) There are 9 other countries with a non-firearms HR similar to the USA (between 1 and 2). All 9 have a firearms HR between 5 and 25 times lower. So in countries with a similar non-firearms homicide culture, the firearms homicide culture is considerably lower.
The USA isn't just different than every single Western democracy when you analyse homicides. It is a massive outlier. And the outlying statistic is always firearm homicides!
"Your contention is that firearms, in and of themselves, inspire people to kill other people. That's a view borne of ignorance that is absolutely refuted by the facts. As I've said before, firearms were endemic to rural America for over a hundred years. Nearly every household had them. By your reasoning the firearm homicide rate should have been even higher then than now. It wasn't. Firearms simply have no psychic mind-control powers over people that motivate them to kill."
No I don't argue this at all. Most killings happen due to human emotions overcoming logic and reason. People with psychological problems are included in this, as they have often become the most emotional and irrational.
Putting emotional and irrational people together with a deadly efficient weapon is obviously going to lead to higher homicide.
And I'll think you'll find many people shot each other in the past. There is a reason the end of the 19th Century is referred to as the 'wild west' due to the violence in the period... ;)
But the contention that the U.S. homicide rate attributed to firearms will just magically vanish if handguns aren't available, rather than devolve onto the next best available weapon is unsupported by facts, history, statistics, or logic.
I'm with michty6 here. Actually, history, facts, and logic do seem to support the fact that the firearm homicide rate would drop if firearms were banned.
I'm not really arguing for a ban because quite honestly it's not really a big issue for me. I'm ok w/ the 2nd amendment and I'd much rather argue about economics or the Constitution.
But there does seem to be quite a bit of evidence to support the claim.
One of the issues which I keep hearing which doesn't ring true to me is that most gun violence is committed by criminals. I think most gun violence is committed by angry people with access to guns. Angry people with access to knives are not nearly as likely to commit murder because it's much harder. Whereas shooting a gun is easy.
And if this is indeed the case, this again points to the fact that less guns would equal less gun violence.
-David
One of the issues which I keep hearing which doesn't ring true to me is that most gun violence is committed by criminals.
if you commit a gun crime, that MAKES you a criminal. i think what you mean to suggest more precisely is that gun crimes are committed mostly by people without prior criminal records. it seems counterintuitive to me, but that's the sort of fact that should be verifiable, one way or the other. doesn't anyone have solid facts on this one?
BTW, Michale. Well played on the tactical knowledge. And ummm ... I just have to say ... I'm glad you're on our side!
Well ... yunno. Not "our" as in liberal, but American.
Short answer, NO amount of weaponry will prevent a determined trained force from taking your house.. The most you could hope for is to take as many of the sons of bitches with you to STOV'A'KOR...
This is pretty much what I suspected. If our military really wanted to take me out, they're going to take me out. Literally, they have skills and weapons and numbers far beyond anything I could acquire.
Why this is interesting and, I also believe important, is because the circumstances today are quite different from when our Constitution was written.
And why a "living Constitution" is important ... Because times change and what made sense back in 1794 might not make the same sense now.
A lot of what this has the potential to invalidate is this argument that we need to protect ourselves from our military.
Acknowledging the facts, if our military really wanted to take us, I'm not sure they'd have much trouble no matter how many automatic weapons we own.
Just more food for thought.
-David
if you commit a gun crime, that MAKES you a criminal. i think what you mean to suggest more precisely is that gun crimes are committed mostly by people without prior criminal records.
Absolutely. Thx for the clarification.
it seems counterintuitive to me, but that's the sort of fact that should be verifiable, one way or the other. doesn't anyone have solid facts on this one?
It's a good point, nypoet. I couldn't find much but would be interested in seeing.
David,
I agree. I think the Second Amendment was really about us defending ourselves from a military, foreign or domestic, and is now antiquated.—But! Now, thanks to a much more mobile society and improved weaponry, the right to defend ourselves from each other is highly necessary, while it was just a side effect of the Second Amendment before and basically a given no one felt overly compelled to elucidate.
Michty,
Most killings happen due to human emotions overcoming logic and reason. People with psychological problems are included in this, as they have often become the most emotional and irrational.
A misconception. When a baby sees something it takes it.It has to learn not just take whatever it wants but to respect the property of others. Stealing is natural, human beings do it instinctually. Learning not to steal is unnatural. But its a learned behavior that's become normal since it enhances the chance of survival. (As stealing tends to inspire people to kill you.)
In exactly the same way murder is natural and also instinctive. Like stealing it isn't normal (and for the same reasons) but it isn't necessarily irrational, or even aberrant and it certainly isn't unnatural. Don't confuse abnormal with mental illness. Just because most people do something and you don't doesn't mean you've got psychological issues.
Nothing is more normal or more of a survival trait, than killing. Its the when and the why that matter and they're not at all dependent upon being of unsound mind or irrational.
Because people are capable of altering their environment we've produced places of such safety and security that people, like you, actually think killing is the result of some form of mental defect. Its good that you feel secure enough to think that. But its bad that you're trying to influence policy based on your experiences with your artificial environment, instead of the real world, without appreciating the differences.
Your statistics are lying to you because you're not asking the right questions in the right way and because your preconceptions about what's normal and abnormal are skewed.
A lot of what this has the potential to invalidate is this argument that we need to protect ourselves from our military.
Yes and no. Even in the 1700s the Constitution never guaranteed you'd succeed only that you had a right to the means to try if necessary. I believe that's where the "take as many of the sons of bitches with you to STOV'A'KOR..." part comes in.
And that hasn't changed one bit. It just never gets old!
Yes, it's logical to assume that the readily availability of guns might make killing people easier..
But, as LD logically points out, guns do not have magical mystical powers that induce people to kill..
So, while it MAY be true that gun homicides WILL go down, if guns are banned, one has to look at the OTHER side of the equation..
What about the guns that are used for legitimate self-defense?? POOOF... They vanish..
No matter how the Gun Control crowd tries to sugar coat it with stats and claims of "it won't happen", the simple fact is this..
A gun ban will leave people defenseless against an armed enemy...
NO amount of justification will change that... You simply HAVE to acknowledge that one simple fact...
A gun ban will leave people defenseless against an armed enemy...
Now, for those of you who, for WHATEVER reason, don't use a gun for self-defense, yer fine with that.. Ya'all are a victim waiting for a perp ANYWAYS, so what do you care if you have lots of company...
But TRY to see it from another person's perspective. See it through a person's eyes who USES a gun for self-defense. Who doesn't WANT to be a victim.. Who doesn't WANT their family to be victims... Who doesn't WANT their neighbors and their friends and even strangers on the streets to be victims...
Don't ya'all think you're being kinda selfish to put YOUR needs and YOUR opinions before someone else's??
If you want to make a statement and disarm, fine.. Don't carry a gun. Be proud in your pacifism....
But, fer christ's sake, don't force the rest of us to join you as you jump off a cliff...
You don't want to defend you or yours?? Fine...
But allow those of us who DO want to defend what's ours, the ability to do so....
I bet we can talk to HUNDREDS of shop owners in the UK who lost everything they had to scumbag rioters...
I bet THEY would understand EXACTLY what I am talking about...
There's a "STAT" for you.... There is a "logical" result of a gun ban...
Innocent citizens laid bare, defenseless before a raging mob...
Let's ask THEM how much they like UK's gun ban....
Michale......
I think the Second Amendment was really about us defending ourselves from a military, foreign or domestic, and is now antiquated.—But! Now, thanks to a much more mobile society and improved weaponry, the right to defend ourselves from each other is highly necessary, while it was just a side effect of the Second Amendment before and basically a given no one felt overly compelled to elucidate.
You're changing your argument mid-stream LewDan.
First, you argued that we had to defend ourselves from the military. Which isn't really part of the 2nd Amendment but could be construed as a legitimate concern of early colonists.
Now you're changing to ... defend ourselves from each other.
Scalia would have a field day with this one because defending ourselves from each other isn't in the Constitution. And I don't think you could make an argument that this was the Founders' intent.
Another point to Scalia ...
-David
A misconception. When a baby sees something it takes it.It has to learn not just take whatever it wants but to respect the property of others. Stealing is natural, human beings do it instinctually.
I don't know where you're getting your facts, or if you're simply stating your opinion in the form of fact, but "taking" and "stealing" are not the same thing. Stealing involves knowledge that the act is wrong/improper/illegal. Babies don't have that knowledge. So you can hardly equate a baby's natural act of "taking" with an adult's act of "stealing." The baby's "taking" generally has to do with exploring the world around him.
"The murder rate in England and Wales has fallen from 644 to 619 over the last year to its lowest level for 12 years..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years
THIS is supposed to represent some kind of huge drop??? LOL!
Most likely my last post for a bit before I'm off for a long weekend. But I am enjoying this debate and shall for sure return! Had a couple of beers but here I go...
David, NY
it seems counterintuitive to me, but that's the sort of fact that should be verifiable, one way or the other. doesn't anyone have solid facts on this one?
It's a good point, nypoet. I couldn't find much but would be interested in seeing.
I agree, as a man who loves statistics, but I doubt these sort of statistics exist about as it is too vague an area. I mentioned a little about this in my last post though (and will mention more below) – I believe humans are very emotional creatures and I don't think placing extremely deadly weapons in our hands will ever be a good thing.
I have always argued that if you became completely irrational and wanted to commit a criminal act of murder (eg. a guy slept with your wife and it sent you over the edge), the main determent of how deadly your act would be is your ability for you to get your hands on a deadly weapon. This is why in America the irrational, in the moment, crazy criminal act you commit is likely to be considerably more deadly than every other Western democracy...
LD (going to quote a big chunk, sorry if this makes the post longer)
"In exactly the same way murder is natural and also instinctive. Like stealing it isn't normal (and for the same reasons) but it isn't necessarily irrational, or even aberrant and it certainly isn't unnatural. Don't confuse abnormal with mental illness. Just because most people do something and you don't doesn't mean you've got psychological issues.
Nothing is more normal or more of a survival trait, than killing. Its the when and the why that matter and they're not at all dependent upon being of unsound mind or irrational.
Because people are capable of altering their environment we've produced places of such safety and security that people, like you, actually think killing is the result of some form of mental defect. Its good that you feel secure enough to think that. But its bad that you're trying to influence policy based on your experiences with your artificial environment, instead of the real world, without appreciating the differences.
Your statistics are lying to you because you're not asking the right questions in the right way and because your preconceptions about what's normal and abnormal are skewed."
I think you placed too much emphasis on the part of my comment where I mentioned 'psychological problems'.
My main point was not too far off what you are arguing - I was saying humans are emotional and being emotional leads to being irrational. Anger, hatred, jealousy, love and fear (etc) are all normal human emotions that lead to humans acting irrationally. I included mental problems as the ultimate conclusion of these - I was not making an argument using people with mental problems alone as a case for gun control. Everyone is capable of acting irrationally everyday. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be human.
I’m not saying killing is a mental defect, I’m saying it is an irrational behavior brought on by emotions leading to irrationality, perhaps even because of the 'survival trait' you note. The thing that stops us from killing today or any day is our rationality. The world is considerably less violent now than it used to be because humans are more rational now (see Steven Pinker for more on this).
So my argument actually aligns with yours - putting the most efficient, deadly weapons in the hands of people capable of acting completely irrationally or based on a ‘survival trait’ that isn’t properly attuned is a dangerous idea. The concept that doing will make you more safer is completely illogical when you consider what you are doing, it’s like:
Let's give many humans capable of acting completely emotionally and irrationally an extremely efficient killing weapon, because we believe it will somehow make them safer!
A lot of very pro gun people take this even further and even seem to believe the logic that carrying a gun creates some magic 'force-field' to prevent murders – in reality it just gives a bunch of people capable of stupid irrational motives like hatred, anger, revenge and jealousy an easy method of killing one another.
So I have absolutely considered human emotions in my view of the statistics. The reality is humans are very flawed, especially emotionally, and placing extremely efficient killing weapons in the hands of flawed people is not a good idea. THIS is why the firearms homicide rate will always be considerably greater than the non-firearms homicide rate in ANY country where firearms are more easily available.
Chris
"The murder rate in England and Wales has fallen from 644 to 619 over the last year to its lowest level for 12 years..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/20/murder-rate-lowest-12-years
THIS is supposed to represent some kind of huge drop??? LOL!"
The population of England and Wales is around 50m. So this rate is around the homicide rates I quoted (England and Wales around 1.45 (0.12 guns) per 100k; America is 4.55 (2.97 guns) per 100k).
So yes, 25 times the number of people (per 100k) are shot to death in America than in the UK. And yes, the number is ridiculously low in England and Wales – when you ban guns murders do tend to become extremely rare ;)
The population of England and Wales is around 50m.
You're comparing two itty-bitty countries, with populations comparable to California and Iowa, to the entire United States. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your "per 100k" argument is? (And that's not to even mention the data-gathering methodology over there, one of which consists of a survey, asking people if they've been attacked lately.)
So yes, 25 times the number of people (per 100k) are shot to death in America than in the UK.
Gosh, a gun ban in the UK, yet folks are still managing to shoot each other. Fancy that. Has it ever occurred to you that that there are more violent crimes in America because there are a gazillion more PEOPLE in America; hence, the opportunity for more crimes to be committed, under a gazillion more circumstances than present themselves in the UK? Instead of your apples-and-oranges comparisons of two tiny countries to all of America, try comparing the crime rates of Wales and some similarly populated state in America, like Iowa. I'm wondering how many sheep have been murdered in Wales simply because someone who couldn't find another human to kill.
When faced with an armed criminal I'd suggest you do what they say
ROFL! I'd suggest you blow their head off. Oh, but you'd need a gun for that, wouldn't you?
I'm wondering how many sheep have been murdered in Wales simply because someone who couldn't find another human to kill.
Uhoh ... sheep in Wales have been brought in. This is not headed in a good direction ...
:)
-David
Uhoh ... sheep in Wales have been brought in. This is not headed in a good direction ...
LOL. What I mean, of course, is that there's a big difference between heavily congested, low-income urban areas, where a higher incident of violence is bound to occur, compared to, say, a countryside, where you'll likely find more animals than people. Living conditions, and income levels, and the presece of gangs, etc., have a whole lot to do with the equation. So the idea of comparing the statistics of tiny countries to the entire United States is ridiculous on its face.
So the idea of comparing the statistics of tiny countries to the entire United States is ridiculous on its face.
Yes, England has no big cities whatsoever!
(London, population 8.1 million.)
On a more humorous note, Michty, someone sent this to me earlier and I just about fell over laughing.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,11150/?ref=auto
I send this to you as proof that humor is still alive and well here in the U.S.
Even though the state of our political debate these days is that you have to go eat at Chick-fil-A to protect your marriage!
My comment was that if you feel your marriage is threatened by gay people, then your marriage probably has more serious problems. To which someone sent me the above article pointing out a problem I never knew existed. Who knew?
BTW, Chris1962 ... I blame you for this! It's a slippery slope from sheep in Wales :)
-David
Yes, England has no big cities whatsoever!
(London, population 8.1 million.)
Well, unless its has the same living and income conditions as NYC, you're still talking apples-and-oranges comparisons.
BTW, Chris1962 ... I blame you for this! It's a slippery slope from sheep in Wales :)
LOL. I'm becoming concerned for how your mind works, David.
Scalia would have a field day with this one because defending ourselves from each other isn't in the Constitution. And I don't think you could make an argument that this was the Founders' intent.
David,
The founders believed in people's inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but they didn't believe in the right to self-defense?! You can live without that? Enjoy liberty without that? Pursue happiness without that?-And on what planet would that be?!
That's the problem with SCOTUS abandoning our justice system to promote a legal system. The twisting of the law, with common sense in abeyance, rationalized by supposed legal technicalities and precedents, with truth and justice irrelevant and "process" a new god.
All of which amounts to rule of law in name only and betrayal of every principle supposedly enshrined in our Constitution.
That four-page Constitution had no reference to citizen rights or the specifics of how government would work because they (mistakenly) assumed we'd employ common sense. Whereas Justices like Scalia make arguments only a lawyer could love because the rest of us do employ common sense.
You seriously believe that if it isn't in the Constitution it isn't a "right?" That that four-page document which contained no "rights" was meant to be exhaustive? You think US citizens had no rights for a quarter-century until the Bill of Rights was ratified? You think indigenous Native peoples, Blacks and women enjoyed Constitutional rights just the same as white men just because nothing in the Constitution said they didn't?
The reason I hate to debate the Constitution with legal professionals and scholars is that the Constitution was DOA. I agree with its basic principles and goals but I'm not foolish enough to think it actually governed.--Unlike the legal community who are trained to accept an alternate reality where the "letter of the law" is paramount-except when it isn't. Where the "original intent" governs-except when it doesn't. Where the government gets its authority from the Constitution-except where it doesn't.
To those of us too honest to be lawyers they're paradoxes. To lawyers they're reasonable positions consistent with the Constitution.
I don't mean to disparage lawyers as people but SCOTUS is bent. Always has been. And the legal system its given us is bent. And so our legal practitioners are trained to be bent as well. Please, don't bother to quote the opinions of Justices to me as if they mean something. Anything can be rationalized, especially when you make the rules up as you go along and are subject to change or ignore them without notice.
I said the right of self-defense was "basically a given no one felt overly compelled to elucidate." And I stand by that, in spite of Scalia likely being unable to credit mere truth and common sense over his pet legal theory of the moment. I'm willing to argue the law based on text, logic, history, and the common beliefs of unlettered cretins such as myself, but spare me the opinions of Justices. They might as well be written on the wind for all the logical consistency and substance they contain.
I’m not saying killing is a mental defect, I’m saying it is an irrational behavior brought on by emotions leading to irrationality, perhaps even because of the 'survival trait' you note. The thing that stops us from killing today or any day is our rationality. The world is considerably less violent now than it used to be because humans are more rational now (see Steven Pinker for more on this).
Michty,
And I'm saying that's not true. The world for humans is less violent today because we're more organized not rational. Instead of everyone engaging in killing we employ specialists who kill for all of us. Specialists like butchers, farmers, doctors, military, police, exterminators... But make no mistake, we still kill day-to-day. Everyday. All the time. Its just that for most of us in developed nations we do it by proxy. And we're far enough removed from the dirty deed itself that many can believe we're not killers at all.
As I said nothing is more normal than killing. You simply can not survive in our little corner of the galaxy without killing. Now, the subset of killing that is murder is not normal in most modern societies. But don't assume murder must be based on irrationality because its not normal. If some other person stands in the way of what you want murder will definitely solve that problem. Nothing could be more rational. No emotional or psychological issues necessary, just cold clear logic and rationality. Best, easiest solution? Murder.
Again, however, solving your problems that way will inspire other people to murder you. And most societies generally try to ensure that murder is indeed clearly life-threatening to the perpetrators in order to discourage the practice. So most of us make the rational decision to find less efficient but also less personally life-threatening means to solve our problems. But that's only a rational decision if you believe committing murder is more dangerous and therefor more costly than not murdering.
That's what I meant by your views on killing being skewed. You wrongly equate killing with murder. You think because we're less overtly violent we no longer kill. And you don't appreciate that the decision to murder can be every bit as rational as the decision not to. Which is why you overlook the fact that many murder, not because they're emotionally disturbed, have psychological issues, or are irrational, but rather that they are quite rational and simply don't see personal cost or risk sufficient to deter them.
You see murder as an aberration and overvalue gun controls because you see murder as largely a crime of opportunity. So having weapons unavailable when emotions peak, psyches shatter, or irrational mistakes are made would prevent harm. Unfortunately, that's not reality. From a personal perspective murder is a very rational solution. It will defiantly and permanently remove whomever's in your way.
But it costs society at large. It makes us all less safe, less secure. So we, as a society, try to make murder so personally costly that the rational thing to do is refrain. Most murders really occur because we failed in that effort, not because the perpetrator is irrational. And the simple truth is that while you may think we've evolved and no longer murder, in reality we prevent each other from murdering by threatening to murder anyone who does! (And while more "enlightened" societies incarcerate rather than execute, the point is the same; that they will end the perpetrator's life, effectively, if not literally.)
LewDan,
The issue with bringing "common sense" into the discussion is simple. Who's common sense are we talking about?
Yours or mine or someone else's?
That's the problem with just saying something is "common sense". What people typically mean when they say this is, it makes sense to me and you should agree with me.
For instance, I think it's common sense to walk around in America unarmed. I don't feel the need to carry a gun.
-David
For instance, I think it's common sense to walk around in America unarmed. I don't feel the need to carry a gun
And it "common sense" that no one cares if you do. Its also only "common sense" for us to care if you want to disarm us too. Since its "common sense" that if you feel safe what are you worried about?
Apparently you've a problem with the "makes sense" part of "common sense." Which would explain why you've issues with using "common sense" but quote Scalia.
Apparently you've a problem with the "makes sense" part of "common sense." Which would explain why you've issues with using "common sense" but quote Scalia.
I quote Scalia only to show how little sense he makes.
And how funny it is that even the rightest righty of justices feels there is some distinction between guns and military weapons.
You see murder as an aberration and overvalue gun controls because you see murder as largely a crime of opportunity.
Your psychological analysis is interesting yet baseless as I have made no statements of personal opinion about gun control.
I've merely pointed out the humor in your (and others on the right) being at odds w/ Scalia.
And the fact that he is a conservative hero when he agrees with you. And a "liberal" who wants to pry your guns away from your cold dead body when he doesn't.
You are fighting against his arguments on gun control. Not mine.
But it's very amusing that you project all of this onto me.
And the simple truth is that while you may think we've evolved and no longer murder, in reality we prevent each other from murdering by threatening to murder anyone who does!
This seems like the most costly and least effective way to prevent murder. Wouldn't it be much more effective and far less costly to realize and teach that murdering each other is not in everyone's best interests?
And to use incarceration as a last resort in the statistically few cases where people choose otherwise?
This, not threats, is what many might call the basis of civilization.
-David
I have internet again! Quick responses
Chris
"(And that's not to even mention the data-gathering methodology over there, one of which consists of a survey, asking people if they've been attacked lately.)"
I have never quoted any rates that come from a survey, I have only quoted official homicide rates.
"Gosh, a gun ban in the UK, yet folks are still managing to shoot each other. Fancy that. Has it ever occurred to you that that there are more violent crimes in America because there are a gazillion more PEOPLE in America; hence, the opportunity for more crimes to be committed, under a gazillion more circumstances than present themselves in the UK?"
That's why you look at per 100k rates (consistency) and you look at trends (to see differences pre and post gun ban). Statisticians can factor in populations into their statistics (eg. per capita, per 100k)!
You don't think there are rural areas in the USA? And you don't think there are massive urban areas in the UK? Like one big massive urban area in the south-east that makes up about 1/6th of the UK population???
LOL. What I mean, of course, is that there's a big difference between heavily congested, low-income urban areas, where a higher incident of violence is bound to occur, compared to, say, a countryside, where you'll likely find more animals than people. Living conditions, and income levels, and the presece of gangs, etc., have a whole lot to do with the equation. So the idea of comparing the statistics of tiny countries to the entire United States is ridiculous on its face."
This is nonsense but rather than spouting my opinion I'll once again resort to statistics to prove it. Percentage of people living in urban areas in the US = 87%. Percentage in the UK = 92.2%. Pretty comparable I'd say? http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percentage-population-living-cities (I checked to one other source which had USA at 80, UK at 87).
You're picking faults (that are based on your opinion) in the statistics because there is no argument against their results. As I have mentioned many time the statistics I quoted don't just apply to a comparison between the USA and the UK, they apply to a comparison of with USA to every single Western democracy. So you have the size of population of every single Western democracy vs the size of the population of the USA as a sample. Pretty large and expansive.
LD
"But don't assume murder must be based on irrationality because its not normal. If some other person stands in the way of what you want murder will definitely solve that problem. Nothing could be more rational. No emotional or psychological issues necessary, just cold clear logic and rationality. Best, easiest solution? Murder."
I know what you mean but I don't know about calling 'murder' the best solution! Definitely easiest, especially if you're carrying a gun - this is my point...
" So most of us make the rational decision to find less efficient but also less personally life-threatening means to solve our problems"
I think this is an argument for gun control. It will lead people to making this more correct decision, than to take the easy way out (murder someone).
"That's what I meant by your views on killing being skewed. You wrongly equate killing with murder. You think because we're less overtly violent we no longer kill. And you don't appreciate that the decision to murder can be every bit as rational as the decision not to. Which is why you overlook the fact that many murder, not because they're emotionally disturbed, have psychological issues, or are irrational, but rather that they are quite rational and simply don't see personal cost or risk
sufficient to deter them.
You see murder as an aberration and overvalue gun controls because you see murder as largely a crime of opportunity. So having weapons unavailable when emotions peak, psyches shatter, or irrational mistakes are made would prevent harm. Unfortunately, that's not reality. From a personal perspective murder is a very rational solution. It will defiantly and permanently remove whomever's in your way."
Sure if we agree there are two types of murder: (1) rational and (2) irrational. You could even say type (1) is akin to first degree murder and type (2) second degree murder. You are saying I am focusing solely on murder type (2) and you have a point. Let's examine both:
You could argue that murder type (1) will still happen without guns. I'd agree but would argue it would be harder. Guns make it easier for people committing 'rational murder' as well! What is almost certain is murder type (2) will happen less often without guns. There is no real argument there right?
"But it costs society at large. It makes us all less safe, less secure. So we, as a society, try to make murder so personally costly that the rational thing to do is refrain. Most murders really occur because we failed in that effort, not because the perpetrator is irrational. And the simple truth is that while you may think we've evolved and no longer murder, in reality we prevent each other from murdering by threatening to murder anyone who does!"
My argument would be that if we are trying to make the person follow the rational path of restraint, we should make deadly weapons that are extremely efficient at killing not be available to them. By doing this we allow time for their rational factor to kick in (as they have to work out a more complicated method of murder) and may see the light.
And of course crime deterrents is a whole different issue altogether but I would say you can look up a lot of studies that show deterrents are often not very effective at all (because, as I argue and you point out in this last section, the decision to commit a crime is often irrational, so rational deterrents are shown not to work...)
David
"Wouldn't it be much more effective and far less costly to realize and teach that murdering each other is not in everyone's best interests?"
Or take away their deadly weapons that make murdering each other considerably easier ;)
Chris
One more thing. If you're arguing that homicide rates should be higher in more dense populations (which I'd agree with, the USA being a "strange" outlier to this ;)) then consider that the UK has a population density 8 times higher than the USA.
So there is 8 times higher population density in the UK, but 25 times lower firearm homicides. Wonder why? :)
James Holmes' Psychiatrist Contacted University Police Weeks Before Movie-Theater Shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/US/james-holmes-psychiatrist-contacted-university-police-weeks-movie/story?id=16943858#.UCCGNERTdDQ
Not interested in cooking results through averaging, michty. The U.S. has more violence simply because there are tons more people, and tons more cities, and tons more gangs, and tons more criminals, and hence, tons more opportunities for altercations than in the comparatively tiny UK. And, again, guns don't kill people; people kill people. The trick is weeding out the wackos. (See above article.) Disarming perfectly responsible law-abiding citizens is not gonna stop a wacko on a mission to kill.
Or take away their deadly weapons that make murdering each other considerably easier
Cars can be used as a deadly weapon. A headcase can aim for a crowded sidewalk and mow an awful lot of people down. Shall we take cars away from perfectly responsible law-abiding drivers, just in case one of them may be a headcase? Or should we find a way to weed out the headcases before they go on their killing sprees?
Or should we find a way to weed out the headcases before they go on their killing sprees?
we used to have those; they were called mental hospitals.
you also left out a lot of relevant differences between the US and UK, such as climate, geography, income inequality and our cultural history of armed civilian conflict.
that said, a regression analysis if it were possible would likely reveal access to efficient firearms as at least one of the significant factors. i agree with chris rock:
http://youtu.be/OuX-nFmL0II
"Not interested in cooking results through averaging, michty. The U.S. has more violence simply because there are tons more people, and tons more cities, and tons more gangs, and tons more criminals, and hence, tons more opportunities for altercations than in the comparatively tiny UK. And, again, guns don't kill people; people kill people.
Lol ok. If this was true, about 50% of homicides in the world would be in India or China. They aren't. The homicide rate is lower in both India and China than it is in America.
If you add the entire population of the EU together it would be greater than the USA. And probably similar in land mass. And the total number of murders across all these countries added together would be half that of the US. Firearm homicides about 1/3.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people. You could argue population density but that is easily disprovable, as I already mentioned.
The trick is weeding out the wackos. (See above article.) Disarming perfectly responsible law-abiding citizens is not gonna stop a wacko on a mission to kill."
Arming your entire population, making gun supply plentiful and guns easily available is only ever going arm a lot of 'wackos'. The easiest way to disarm wackos is not to make guns plentiful and easily available!
"Cars can be used as a deadly weapon. A headcase can aim for a crowded sidewalk and mow an awful lot of people down. Shall we take cars away from perfectly responsible law-abiding drivers, just in case one of them may be a headcase? Or should we find a way to weed out the headcases before they go on their killing sprees?"
Comparing guns to cars is like comparing heroine to fruit. They serve totally different purposes, one is a necessity for most people (the other isn't) and one is designed purely to cause damage (the other isn't). You could make drugs legal and weed out the wackos and crazy people not using them responsibly. But it's much easier to keep them illegal.
"that said, a regression analysis if it were possible would likely reveal access to efficient firearms as at least one of the significant factors. i agree with chris rock:"
It is basically trying to bend the statistics and look for 'excuses'. The fact is and always will be:
Western democracy with guns (USA) = Many homicides
Western democracy without guns (Almost everywhere else) = Fewer homicides.
There are Western democracies with higher income inequality than the US, higher crime and a history of civilian conflict that STILL have lower homicide rates than the USA - because guns are banned.
Lol ok. If this was true, about 50% of homicides in the world would be in India or China. They aren't. The homicide rate is lower in both India and China than it is in America.
So are the cultures and the laws. You keep wanting to compare apples and elephants, only it doesn't quite work that way.
Arming your entire population, making gun supply plentiful and guns easily available is only ever going arm a lot of 'wackos'. The easiest way to disarm wackos is not to make guns plentiful and easily available!
We, the People, are the bosses of our government, michty. So unless We, the People, decide to disarm ourselves through a constitutional amendment, it's not gonna happen. Get it?
"So are the cultures and the laws. You keep wanting to compare apples and elephants, only it doesn't quite work that way."
Sure this is why I chose the UK and Canada as my examples. Similar culture and laws. But apparently 90-100 million people isn't a large enough sample for you ;)
"We, the People, are the bosses of our government, michty. So unless We, the People, decide to disarm ourselves through a constitutional amendment, it's not gonna happen. Get it?"
What on earth are you talking about? We are debating whether a gun ban or gun restrictions is a good thing, looking at the data available. I am arguing that America would benefit from a gun ban or tighter gun restrictions. You can choose to act on the data if you want or choose to ignore it - this has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/the-us-is-no-in-gun-violence-is-it/
I should've just linked to this article rather than write about my own statistics!
"Using the U.N. data, European nations -- even former eastern bloc countries -- typically have rates well below 1 per 100,000, or far less than one-third the frequency seen in the U.S. The pattern is similar in other advanced industrialized nations, such as Canada, Taiwan, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
One study published in 2011 confirms this finding. The study, published in the Journal of Trauma -- Injury Infection & Critical Care, found that firearm homicide rates were 19.5 times higher in the U.S. than in 23 other "high income" countries studied, using 2003 data. Rates for other types of gun deaths were also higher in the U.S., but by somewhat smaller margins: 5.8 times higher for firearm suicides (even though overall suicide rates were 30 percent lower in the U.S.) and 5.2 times higher for unintentional firearm deaths."
Sure this is why I chose the UK and Canada as my examples. Similar culture and laws.
Really? Does the UK or Canada follow the U.S. Constitution? Does either have the constitutional right to bear arms? No? Than you're comparing apples and oranges. Again.
I am arguing that America would benefit from a gun ban
What part of "unless We, the People, decide to disarm ourselves through a constitutional amendment, it's not gonna happen" did you not understand the first time around? Do you understand that we have the right to bear arms, and you don't? Do you know what it takes to pass and ratify a constitutional amendment? And if one were to pass (which there would never be enough votes for, rendering the point moot), what then? Do we ban knives? Cars that can be driven into crowds? Chemicals that can create exposions? You don't quite seem to "get" that a person bent on killing is not gonna be stopped. The Batman killer was a perfect example. You'll notice how he had his apartment rigged to take the roof off the apartment building. So you can yammer about guns all you want, but guns don't kill people; people kill people. Solution: weed out the psychos BEFORE they kill.
I should've just linked to this article rather than write about my own statistics!
So what? Take the guns away, and they'll find a way to kill — including with illegal guns. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. And you don't stop killers by disarming law-abiding citizens. The Left always seems to come up with the most bass-akwards so-called "solutions" to problems.