Gun Control 5

[ShowOverBooks]

The guys that wrote the constitution also owned slaves (some of them), didn't allow women to vote (all of them), and determined how many representatives a state got using a formula that counted slaves as a percentage of a human. I don't give a fuck what they thought about the level of firearm technology they were considering.

edit: i realize the basic premise of my post is not logically sound

I am fine with it. It portrays them as hypocritical idiots with limited foresight, which is apt, IMO.

[The Progressive]

Why? Presumably advocates of a total ban want to change that.

Right. After all, tweaking with the constitution have been done before. It will be much harder than passing piecemeal restrictive legislation though, but I reject the gun nuts' framing that total ban is impossible.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The idea is that there will be a gradual ban and removal of guns from society starting with the most powerful. I imagine handguns for home security would be the last to go once the chances of home invasion with a firearm becomes very, very low.

See, I think this reasoning -- though it makes sense on its own level -- is revelatory of a lack of understanding of firearms. "Powerful" generally doesn't have much meaning for most crimes. Those kids would be just as dead if they were shot with the Glock than if they were shot with the Bushmaster. Many would argue that a shotgun is the best weapon for home defense, though it surely is more "powerful" than a handgun, and some would argue that handguns should be banned because they are more easily concealed by criminals. And I strongly suspect that if you started banning, say, handguns, you'd find purchases of other things skyrocketing. Of course, the fundamental problem I don't think some folks understand is that a great many gun owners aren't going to turn in weapons no matter what the law says. Compliance, necessarily, is going to begin with the law abiding.

In any case, regardless of who is right, the theoretical, eventual removal of personally owned firearms is so far off in the future (decades, at least) that is really is of no use in discussing how to handle the current situation with these mass-murdering nuts. For my part, figuring that anyone who really wants to kill people in a movie thater, mall, or restaurant won't be deterred by a "Gun Free Zone" policy, I support concealed carry policies. Even if I'm not armed, I hope one of my fellow patrons is.

[Guest Raidne]

As a lawyer, explain to me your interpretation of 'bearing arms' as it is referenced in the Bill of Rights.

Apologies, because I know people don't love this, but I have posted pages and pages on this subject before, when Heller and McDonald came out, and, because the basis for a constitutional right is not something that should be addressed casually, I can only refer to you to my past posts, or the text of the Heller or McDonald opinions themselves. It would be the same if you asked me about the justification for the right to privacy, etc. It's just a huge topic, and it's settled law.

Why? Presumably advocates of a total ban want to change that.

And best of luck to them. Some cases conclusively settle issues more than others. We waited 150 years for a second amendment ruling, and now we have it. There is no conflicting precedent. It's an interpretation of an existing amendment, not a right found in the "penumbra." The right to bear arms will be premised on the right to self-defense until a constitutional amendment is passed saying otherwise. Which wouldn't be soon, since the majority of Americans are even against things like renewing the "assault weapons ban," which wouldn't even violate the constitution, as interpreted.

I don't know about other people but if you're trying to compare guns to clothes-dryers, then to me you're already way off the deep end.

Lev, somewhere along the way you seem to have lost sight of the fact that a gun is a machine. So you repeatedly say that you don't understand the "crazy killing fire sticks" or whatever, despite the very good and easy to follow explanations of these things to the point where you don't even know the difference between a handgun and a rifle, it doesn't carry much weight when you say that anyone who can tell the difference between a revolver and a shotgun is a "crazy gun nut."

Taking the time to listen to opinions on firearms policy from someone who doesn't know the difference between a handguns, rifles, etc., is like seriously considering the nutrition recommendations of a person who thinks that macaroni and cheese is a vegetable.

[RWHamel]

I've spent almost my entire life with a loaded gun in the house. Yet no one in my family has had a gun accident. In fact I know going back at least three generations on my father's side and two on my mother's this is probably the case. The only one in my family who has possibly died from gun fire was a Great Uncle on June 6, 1944. Plenty of family members have been shot at though.

[ShowOverBooks]

In any case, regardless of who is right, the theoretical, eventual removal of personally owned firearms is so far off in the future (decades, at least) that is really is of no use in discussing how to handle the current situation with these mass-murdering nuts. For my part, figuring that anyone who really wants to kill people in a movie thater, mall, or restaurant won't be deterred by a "Gun Free Zone" policy, I support concealed carry policies. Even if I'm not armed, I hope one of my fellow patrons is.

One of your fellow patrons is likely to be the shooter. In my non-expert opinion, MORE likely to be the perp than a heroic dead-eye.

[The Progressive]

I don't think that most gun nuts grasp that proponents of total ban aren't relying on voluntary compliance. but rather involuntary confiscation as the most effective mean to reduce the availability of guns in the US.

Give it time, the tide is changing.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I am fine with it. It portrays them as hypocritical idiots with limited foresight, which is apt, IMO.

I disagree - considering the times they lived in, they were giants. I doubt I would have been so progressive (even if it was purely motivated by self-interest) in that time period. Hypocrites? Maybe. Idiots? Certainly not.

edit: and limited foresight? What? I don't even know where to go with that...

[Res ipsa loquitur]

That actually should be a part of the law already, but I haven't heard of it being enforced. A restraining order should constitute a mental illness on the person that is receiving it and as such should automatically make it illegal for that person to posses a firearm.

Its too easy to get restraining orders, actually...and that can place a man at risk from a woman who seeks to do him harm. Any false claim can result in taking away a persons right to self defense? I do not believe our nation should do that. ONLY if there is actual evidence that the person is a threat....not just unsubstantiated allegations....should weapons be removed.

I would hate to live like that, sounds horrible.

I don't know...I am liking Lorien more and more on reading his posts. Perhaps we can prove there can be peace and goodwill between Arab and Jew :)

Even though getting murdered by a home invader is a rare event, just getting your home burglarized (burgled?) is a traumatic event and I can understand people wanting to have guns to be able to chase a burglar away, though I'd personally be more afraid of shooting a drunk teenager or a friend or family member trying to grab something from my house by mistake.

If someone is grabbing something from your house without your permission, in a context where they can be mistaken for a burglar, they are not a friend of yours.

What? Hired killers don't get sensitivity from me, and I think it's fair to say they aren't looking for it.

I tend to agree with Erik, reading people like Lorien's posts (others too, but you have been more elaborate) I have to say, why are these people so very afraid? It's as if they feel that the world is personally out to get them. The better armed you are, it seems to me, the more frightened you are.

The more precautions a person takes, the safer they are likely to be. I lock my doors as well, I must be quaking in terror by your standards.

As a lawyer, explain to me your interpretation of 'bearing arms' as it is referenced in the Bill of Rights.

Do you think the founding fathers envisioned semi-auto hand guns and sawed-off shot guns as the arms they mention? Personally, I think they were only considering contemporary firearms.

Im not a lawyer. But it seems obvious to me that the founders had contemporary weapons in mind when they wrote that, and in 2012, contemporary weapons are semi automatics, guns, etc. Or do you believe that the Founders wished the militias and its citizenry restricted ONLY to what was available in 1776 without any regard for advances in technology over the ages>?

[ljkeane]

And best of luck to them.

It doesn't look particularly feasible in the current climate but things change. A few decades ago the chances of gay marriage being legalised would have seemed extremely remote, who's to say that there won't be a similar change in attitude regarding gun rights in the US over the next few decades?

[Larry of the Lawn]

It doesn't look particularly feasible in the current climate but things change. A few decades ago the chances of gay marriage being legalised would have seemed extremely remote, who's to say that there won't be a similar change in attitude regarding gun rights in the US over the next few decades?

The difference is that with gay marriage, you're not telling everyone they have to give up their straight marriage.

[maize]

Im not a lawyer. But it seems obvious to me that the founders had contemporary weapons in mind when they wrote that, and in 2012, contemporary weapons are semi automatics, guns, etc. Or do you believe that the Founders wished the militias and its citizenry restricted ONLY to what was available in 1776 without any regard for advances in technology over the ages>?

You honestly, honestly think the founding fathers would have wrote that into law today had considering how powerful and cheap firearms are, and the British are no longer invading? You honestly believe the founding fathers had any idea what weapons would become?

[maize]

The difference is that with gay marriage, you're not telling everyone they have to give up their straight marriage.

No, just a lethal efficient killing tool that will not be needed, at all, if they are removed from society, except in some extreme circumstances.

[ShowOverBooks]

Im not a lawyer. But it seems obvious to me that the founders had contemporary weapons in mind when they wrote that, and in 2012, contemporary weapons are semi automatics, guns, etc. Or do you believe that the Founders wished the militias and its citizenry restricted ONLY to what was available in 1776 without any regard for advances in technology over the ages>?

I meant contemporary TO THEM. Single-shot muskets, presumably.

I don't think for one moment that they thought it would one day be possible for one sick kid to bust into a school and gun down 26 people in a few minutes.

[maize]

I meant contemporary TO THEM. Single-shot muskets, presumably.

I don't think for one moment that they thought it would one day be possible for one sick kid to bust into a school and gun down 26 people in a few minutes.

Once we revenged the Alamo, and Indians were no more, the law became obsolete, especially with the invention of the revolver.

[DaveSumm]

Seriously, you should go to the Cato Institute article, read some of those stories of armed people defending themselves, and then try repeating to yourself the argument that they'd have been better off if they didn't have a gun. I think folks unfamiliar with that data think that successful, necessary self-defense is much more rare here than it actually is.

I've never argued that in some specific cases, guns don't save lives. I'm sure they do. But I haven't seen any evidence that they outweigh the cons, this is where the statistics are on the anti-gun side: even if there are hundreds of cases like the ones you've pointed to, they aren't enough to make up the numbers to argue your case.

And I respect that you probably feel safer with a gun than without, but again, the statistics aren't on your side. Is there a chance you'll successfully avert your family coming to harm? Yes. Is it greater than the chance it'll end up hurting them? No. Unless we really delve into individual circumstances; FLoW seems intelligent, he seems responsible, he reads aSoIaF, he probably isn't one of those people to whom an accident may happen........but sadly the law can't be that catered to individuals, so we need laws. The more stringent the laws, the safer you'll be.

You ask 'who's first?'; I don't know. You can go last if you want, but there's no evidence that criminals will go last. Maybe one day you, or maybe your children or their children, will realise that the country has gradually become safer around them and that they just don't need a firearm any more.

[Guest Raidne]

It doesn't look particularly feasible in the current climate but things change. A few decades ago the chances of gay marriage being legalised would have seemed extremely remote, who's to say that there won't be a similar change in attitude regarding gun rights in the US over the next few decades?

Outlawing gay marriage has clearly been an unconstitutional violation of equal protection since Loving v. Virginia, if not earlier. What changed is that a premise (marriage must be between a man and a woman) because a factual claim in need of evidentiary support, and there wasn't any.

Pages and pages of evidentiary support was put forth on the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and it was granted something more like intermediate scrutiny than rational basis review. It will be very, very hard for future Courts to eat away at it without doing damage to the Court itself, as it does every time it explicitly overrules an earlier holding.

[SerMixalot]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_2

Accidents

According to death certificate data, from 2003 to 2007, more than 680 Americans per year were killed unintentionally with firearms

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, between 2003 and 2007, the typical resident from the 15 states with the most guns (WY, MT, AK, SD, AR, WV, AL, ID, MS, ND, KY, TN, LA, MO, and VT) was 6 times more likely to die in a gun accident than a typical resident from the 6 states with the fewest guns (HI, NJ, MA, RI, CT, and NY).

Scientific studies show that a gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide. ^[12,18] More than a dozen case-control studies have examined the relationship between gun ownership and suicide in the United States, and all find that firearms in the home are associated with substantially and significantly higher rates of suicide

Other case-control studies have also found that a gun in the home is a risk for homicide in the home. ^[30,27,31] And results from 2 offender-based case-control homicide studies find that gun ownership is a risk for homicide perpetration

a careful analysis of the data did not show that guns reduced crime.

Some have argued that when gun prevalence is high, there are fewer burglaries ^[84] and fewer "hot" burglaries (when someone is at home) because burglars will seek out unoccupied dwellings to avoid being shot. ^[80,85] But the evidence does not show this. An international compilation of victimization surveys in 11 developed countries found that the United States (with the most guns) was average in terms of attempted and completed burglary rates, ^[86] and there was no relationship between gun prevalence and burglary rates. ^[12] Studies in the United States across states and counties found that in areas with higher levels of household gun ownership, there were actually more burglaries, and there were more burglaries when someone was at home, not less. ^[63,87] One reason may be that guns, like cash and jewelry, are attractive loot for burglars, and burglars may target houses with many guns.

Police reports: One study examined Atlanta police department reports of home invasions during a 4-month period. Researchers identified 198 cases of unwanted entry into a single-family dwelling when someone was at home. ^[90] In 32 instances, at least 1 of the offenders was known to have carried a gun. In 6 of the 198 cases, an invader obtained the victim's gun. In only 3 cases (1.5%) was a victim able to use a firearm in self-defense.

Overall, the limited data on self-defense gun use suggest that ( a) genuine self-defense gun use is rare, ( b) there are many ways that people defend themselves without a gun, and ( c) many of these other methods may be as effective as self-defense gun use in preventing injury. Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.

[The Progressive]

Lev, somewhere along the way you seem to have lost sight of the fact that a gun is a machine.

Raidne,

Somewhere along the way you seem to have lost sight of the fact that a gun is a solely a killing machine. So your comparison between which clothes-dryer would suit your need vs. what caliber size you want in a gun is way bizarre to me.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Have you missed the publications people posted links to that a gun in the home is statistically most likely to kill you or your loved ones?

Be specific with one, and I'll address it specifically.

Anyway, such an argument assumes that I personally am somehow the "average" person when it comes to firearms. The fact that someone living in a bad neighborhood with heavy drug use has a gun that is more likely to be misused on someone within the family doesn't put me personally in any greater danger. Such statistics also includes situations when people use the weapon to commit suicide, which likewise is no threat to me.

Second, and more importantly, killing an intruder or person committing an assault is not the only measure of the successful use of a weapon. So, for example, a woman who is being assaulted who gets a weapon and uses it to chase of the assailant (plenty of examples of that in the Cato study) has benefitted greatly from that weapon even though there isn't a dead assailant to add to your totals. In fact, the number of total deaths by firearms is much less than even the lowest estimates of individuals who use a weapon in successful self-defense.

Do you doubt that in the rest of the western world guns are not needed for a large percentage of those Cato reported cases?

Yes. Are you guys all Batman or something, able to overpower any group of ordinary criminals, armed or not, who seek to do you harm? Or do you just think that victims don't need to defend themselves because they should just accept whatever the criminal is attempting to do?