(no subject)

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Arguments about gun control invariably center around two areas - the Constitutional component and the public health and safety component.

The Constitutional piece, while far more interesting to me, is the easier of the two. The 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well, the first thing I notice when I read this is that if it were handed in to a high school professor, this sentence would probably be highlighted in red marker with a note reading "Mr. Madison, see me after class." The language and vernacular has changed, and arguments about whether the first clause indicate a restriction of who's allowed to own guns don't really hold water. In the vernacular of the time it was written, that prefatory clause is indicative of an example of the right's context, rather than a condition of the right. You're also seemingly allowed to use commas with reckless disregard for the public good.

Arguments to the effect that the founders didn't foresee modern weapons are similarly irrelevant. You don't lose your right to free speech because you're spouting your opinion in the Internet, and you (mostly) don't lose your right to protection from illegal search and seizure because modern search technology involves through the wall heat sensors, electronic surveillance or remote sensing satellites.

Arguments about modifications of the granted right lead directly into the "public good" component of the argument. The first amendment is just as direct, but over time, abridgments to the complete freedom of speech have been held to be constitutional in instances where complete FoS is not in the public good. Libel, obscenity laws, truth in advertising, imminent lawless action, and other special cases all modify a blanket license for FoS. Similarly, I'm of the opinion that there are reasonable limits on access to gun ownership, as long as the public good is established.

Before we dive into this section, it's important to ask 3 questions
- How many gun deaths are there in the US every year?
- How many of those are criminal in nature as opposed to accidents or suicide?
- How many incidents occur where someone defends themselves with a gun every year in the US?

If you don't know the answers to those questions without looking them up, you do not have an informed opinion on the public health component of the argument.

The answers, btw are:
- About 30k
- Less than half
- It's really hard to get good stats - anywhere between 600k and 2.4m incidents. (Source: search Google on "DGU" or Defensive gun use" *)

My stance is that while gun violence is a real problem, most currently proposed gun control measures are not going to substantively reduce crime, AND they will reduce an individuals ability to defend themselves. (When you prepare your counter argument, put yourself in the place of a 90 lb woman defending themselves against a rapist or an elderly person defending themselves against a violent mugging. You're not Brock Lesnar defending himself against a pickpocket.) Additionally, recent studies which compare crime rates in communities which have lax CCW regulations to those that restrict CCW's indicate that the effect that knowing a potential victim could be carrying might serve to lower the crime rate.

I'd like to address some known rebuttals at this point:
- "X country has gun control and their crime rates/suicide rates are better/worse than the US." I don't believe that cross cultural comparisons are sufficient to rebut the issue about self defense. Finland has a much lower gun ownership rate and a much higher suicide rate (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html and other sources). Other countries have different constellations of gun ownership and violence rates. Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide.
- "Nobody needs a gun that can [fire rapidly/shoot big bullets/looks ugly]." Good point but irrelevant. Nobody NEEDS these things, but the role of government isn't to prohibit anything people don't NEED, particularly if it reduces their ability to defend themselves.
- "Reckless/stupid people will get guns and use them inappropriately". Good point. I'm ok with an educational requirement for gun ownership, but not an outright prohibition as DC had for many years.

Lastly, if you're in favor of prohibiting guns entirely, let me know if you're also in favor of prohibiting alcohol entirely. Alcohol causes more deaths per year, is essentially a recreational product, and nobody's ever fought off an attacker with a Tom Collins.

* Don't ask for my sources if you don't want to hear "Do a Google search for X". I didn't do any complicated research - it's all available if you want to look for it.

EDIT: Restrictions I'm ok with:
- Gun registration doesn't bother me too much. Most of the cops I know feel its a useful investigatory tool
- 5 day waiting period doesn't bother me too much, but I would be happier if there was a waiver for someone demonstrating an urgent cause (protection order where they're in fear for their life.)
- Felons can't have guns. I'm ok with that. You've already demonstrated that you have bad judgment.
- I'm ok with certain kinds of firearms being restricted. Your ability to cause mayhem with a bazooka and endanger the public good exceeds my admittedly hazy line about your right to recreational devices.

I'm sure there's more that I'm not presently thinking of.

Comments

[futurebird.livejournal.com]

Lastly, if you're in favor of prohibiting guns entirely ...

I run in some pretty liberal circles and I have NEVER met someone who is for this. I would like to know if anyone is this forum thinks this. It just seem like something people bring up to put these images in people's minds of liberals "talking your guns away" -

I have some answers to other things you posted that I'll address later.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

The DC gun ban tried to do exactly that with the exception of grandfathered weapons and police weapons.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

Hmm I thought you live in NYC?

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

I'm kinda torn on gun control. On one hand I'm from a family of hunters so I generally oppose most forms of gun control. On the other I moved to NY a couple of years ago. It's VERY hard to get a gun here, and after dealing with certain people day in and day out I'm glad they can't get a gun so easily. Now and then I hear of robbery attempts with crowbars and the like and it kinda makes me laugh.

What I'd like to know is what impact New York's strict gun control laws have had on their crime rate, if any.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City

[contrachamp.livejournal.com]

That's just it. Gun restrictions are good in cities, but not so good in the countryside.

[merig00.livejournal.com]

You mean NYC cause you drive 2 hours out of NYC and you can see people walking around with guns.

[technocratic.livejournal.com]

I support an educational requirement for gun ownership and ammunition purchase. I grew up in Oklahoma with a grandfather who introduced me to the safe and responsible use of firearms (under extremely close supervision) from the age of 9 or 10.

In this modern age, that kind of experience is increasingly rare. Without training or previous experience, a person with a gun is a danger to themselves and others. I believe some formalized training should be required, as is already required in some states to hunt or carry a concealed weapon (actually, I think it's required in all/most states for concealed weapons).

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Abso****inglutely.

[contrachamp.livejournal.com]

recent studies which compare crime rates in communities which have lax CCW regulations to those that restrict CCW's indicate that the effect that knowing a potential victim could be carrying might serve to lower the crime rate.


Really? I've read in the Boston Globe of a study showing that gun owners are more likely to get shot than those who don't. It may have to do with gun owners going into dangerous situations they wouldn't go into without a gun.

Violent crime has declined in the US over the last few decades, and the rates of gun ownership have dovetailed down with it. I'm not convinced that gun ownership reduces crime.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

re: para 1. I think it has more to do with the fact that poor people are more likely to a) get shot, and b) try to own a gun to protect themselves.

re: CCW - do a google search on "ccw lower crime rates"

I had the impression that ownership rates are increasing, but if you have something contrary, please post it. I must have missed that trend.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that if you are an adult of sound mind and body and without a criminal record, you should be able to own a gun in the US.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Really? Bazookas are fair game? Ex-felons are cool? No requirement on training?

(Not challenging, just clarifying.)

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

It also pays to remember that at the time, militia and even the military required recruits to own and maintain their own weapons.

Self defense isn't an argument unless the person knows how to use the weapon properly. A .22 stuffed in a purse is as useless as the purse in defending yourself. In this sense there is no upside, it tends to give only a false sense of security while risking theft or misuse of the weapon. So I am in favor of mandatory gun and self-defense training in public high school. Guns are here to stay, it only makes sense that people know how to use them.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I think the constitutional issue is more complicated than you give it credit for. The other amendments of the Bill of Rights do not state rationale or possible contexts in which the right might be asserted. The fact that the Framers felt the need to involve a contextual example or justification for this seems significant, at least to me. I don't find it worth handwaving away all that easily. A lot of the drafters were lawyers or at least familiar with the canons of construction, and thus would have been aware of "expresio unius est exclusio alterius" (to express one is to exclude others, or the general principle that by specifying one scenario in legislation, they are excluding others from consideration).

Still, it's probably the less important constitutional issue I can think of. Strangely, I'm more worried these days by interesting interpretations of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment...

You also didn't address the availability and effectiveness of non-lethal means of self-defense (Tazers, Mace, and the like). I'd like to know how these affect the self-defense argument, if at all. Obviously many cases will require the range and accuracy of a gun, but what proportion? Does this proportion justify the increased risk that wide availability of guns poses?

Finally, minor logical quibble:
Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide.
This statement is not consistent. If gun ownership has *any* impact on crime, violence or suicide, then addressing it is "working to reduce crime/violence/suicide." You assert that other things are more likely to produce the problems complained of. While that may make gun control a less efficient means of controlling violence, it doesn't render it 100% toothless, or the actions of those working for it somehow invalid or disingenuous.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"I think the constitutional issue is more complicated than you give it credit for. " Absolutely - I was deliberately simplifying, but I don't see a clear way to find a middle ground between "waving it away" and "only the police/military get guns". (I also didn't discuss difficulties re: incorporation WRT gun ownership. Again, a deliberate omission.)

Agreed re: 14th.

I'm not sure that I understand the non-lethal means paragraph completely, but I'll try to give a good faith answer. I think you're asking whether the availability of non-lethal methods should affect the policy towards GC, and without knowing the numbers re: Non-L defense instances, I'm inclined to say no. Without a compelling case to the contrary, people should be able to use the self defense method they feel appropriate. It's an excellent point, though.

re: logical quibble. A fair point based off a piece of hyperbolic rhetoric on my part. It's more accurate to say that you're not actually working optimally to reduce crime/violence/suicide.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Gun control seems to be a staple of every Tea Party demonstration I've seen. OMG THEY'RE COMING AFTER MY GUNZ is almost a mantra with the right wing, always accompanied by a few choruses of REMEMBER THE ATF AND WACO? as if a group of religious zombies led by a complete psycho represents the average American citizen.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

(...)as if a group of religious zombies led by a complete psycho represents the average TEA PARTY demonstration.

Fixed.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Let me start by saying that this is a nice post, data, clear arguments and an attempt to anticipate some arguments and address them. I wish more people would put this kind of thought into their posts. That said:


"I don't believe that cross cultural comparisons are sufficient to rebut the issue about self defense"

why not? Presumably, if guns are really effective for self defense that would ultimately manifest itself in lower crime rates. If you're telling me that in Country X there are few guns, much less crime but also far fewer incidents of people defending themselves with guns as compared to Country Y, that hardly seems like a very convincing argument for less gun control. For one thing, it seems that the evidence is at least consistent with lax gun control laws (a) creating a culture of violence and (b) guns not being a very effective detterent of crime.


"Factors other than gun ownership rates contribute more to crime/gun violence/suicide rates than simple gun ownership does. Therefore, if you are trying to control gun ownership rates at a macro level, you are not actually working to reduce crime/violence/suicide."

You can't just wave your hands like this and claim to have refuted the argument. Which factors? why are they important and/or why do they trump the prima facie evidence in favor of gun control? why isn't it reasonable to argue that controlling guns at the "macro level" can reduce crime/violence/suicide if a strong correlation between the factors exist? Of course, one determined to save the hypothesis that gun control doesn't decrease violence but that's a helluva long way from showing that controlling gun ownership rates at a macro levels fails to reduce crime/violence/suicide.

[mijopo.livejournal.com]

Yikes, all sorts of bad writing there, sorry, supposed to be working, but let me at least rewrite the last sentence.

Of course, one determined to save the hypothesis that gun control doesn't decrease violence can always find ways to reject the naive conclusion such data suggests but that's a helluva long way from showing that controlling gun ownership rates at a macro levels fails to reduce crime/violence/suicide.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Any objections to this going into [recommended]?

[blorky.livejournal.com]

I don't know what that means, but since I can't imagine that what you'd do would be offensive or damaging to me, go for it (whatever it is). Bonus points if you can Rule 34 this post.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

No one needs an AK47 or similar kind of weapon. There are firearms made for personal protection, firearms made for hunting and firearms made for the battlefield. Civilians don't need battlefield weapons.

I disagree with the need to carry a gun for personal protection, but then it has become apparent to me on this forum that I live in a different universe, here, carrying a gun only increases the chance of someone being hurt, because so few people carry guns.

Which brings me to another point probably irrelevant because we don't have the need to carry a gun for personal protection; if you own a gun, it lives in a safe. The only reason to have a gun is for stock control or hunting purposes, this means you know in advance when you'll need your gun. I'd be happy if you lived in an urban area your gun had to live in a safe at a club, or the police station. If your gun lives in a safe in your house, you give permission for random searches to be conducted to ensure the gun is in its safe.

I used to be completely against guns, but I've softened. Now I just think that if you want to own a gun, you're giving permission to be heavily regulated; psych evals, criminal checks, random property searches. In this country at least, if you die by a gun, odds on it's an accident or domestic violence.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

To a lot of the rest of the world the idea of you need a gun for self defence is like saying you need a tiger to protect you against Elvis :) Just that level of alien.

Still not something you will ever convince Americans of.

Guns don't kill people...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

... gun nuts do.

Now that the sweeping generalization is out of the way, I'd like to voice my opinion on the use of a firearm for self-defense. I've never been in a situation where I would have felt more comfortable with a gun in my hand. In fact, if I were mugged, I would prefer not to have a gun in my hand. It's my personal distaste for the device. As far as others are concerned, I have nothing against them cowering behind their precious heaters.

Re: Guns don't kill people...

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Heh. Someone looking to pick an argument would say that your stance is effectively "I'm incompetent with a particular tool so I'll insult anyone who is."

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

I agree with Chris Rock. I think we should totally deregulate guns, but charge $500 for a bullet. There would be a lot less innocent bystanders shot and criminals would think "Hmmm. Is it really worth $500 to shoot this person?"

[blorky.livejournal.com]

It was a great line, but sadly, there are people who insist that the way to reduce gun violence is to make guns/ammo very expensive. Sadly, all that will do is make it difficult for poor people to practice becoming competent with their self defense weapon, thereby INCREASING the likelihood of a bystander or themselves getting shot.

Well said.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Yoinked for ammunition in later arguments.

What a issue

[heroditus.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that those who advocate for "original intent" of the Constitution selectively ignore the original intent of the 2nd amendment. There is a comma in the second amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Three commas to be precise. It was written to be broad and to apply to state Militias, not these wackaloon groups that call themselves "patriot". That is the biggest misnomer I have ever heard. Consequently, even if you do not agree that this applied mostly to State militia's, then look at the kinds of guns that were around in 1787. By today's standards they were very poor instruments. Hence, the type of guns that they were allowing State Militias and individuals to have were muskets.

As with all improvements in technology, they were unforeseen by the Founding Fathers, they could not have envisioned the Colt hand gun or the birth of the Internet or even Online Banking. Hence, originally the Founding Fathers were talking about muskets. As time has passed, a reasonable assessment of this issue must take into account these changes.

As a person who lived the first 36 years of my life in Michigan, I don't have a problem with people who have shot guns. I grew up on a farm I know for what purpose animals are raised. Also, my family liked to go hunting during the various assigned times throughout the year. I never got a kick out of it, but hey whatever floats your boat. So regulating these guns for hunters is absurd. However, as I moved to the East and in more populated areas, I have no problem regulating automatic weapons and hand guns. These guns were developed for only one purpose, killing people. And that old argument that "if you take away guns only the criminals will have them," is hallow. The criminals have them now and anyone who knows how to get a gun illegally will get one whenever they wish. The other thing about this issue is "how do we know this witticism is true"? This nation has never tried to eliminate hand guns. . and its poor efforts in regulation of the Brady Bill in the 1990s do not show much advancement, slight but not much. The other part of this answer lies in that "if only criminals will have guns, then we know who to arrest don't we."

Crime will not go down because of the elimination of these weapons, but violent crime will. People will have to rely on physical force and while not all people are created equal in that department, it will make things more difficult on the criminal since he/she now have to engage physically with their victims rather than just shoot them. I know it is strange but think about it. The longer a victim struggles the more likely someone will notice.

And the question remains why do people feel the need to arm themselves? Crime has decreased over the last 20 or so years, mostly due to the fact that we have added more police to the payrolls. So what are you afraid of? If you live out in the middle of a field in northern CT, for example, what are you afraid of, bears? How many people have been injured by shooting someone by mistake? Thousands. I recall a story of a man in Alabama, these stories always take place in Alabama, and his daughter was coming home late and she was sneaking into the house and before the father could say anything he shot her. Now, I would be upset at my daughter, but I don't think she should have to died for making a stupid mistake.

So what it boils down to is this. keep you hunting rifles. But the hand guns and automatic weapons belong in a museum where you can go look at them but not own one. If you are so afraid of being attacked, then maybe we need to address why people feel this way? Its a psychological/sociological problem that needs to be addressed.

Re: What a issue

[blorky.livejournal.com]

re: Paragraph 1. A great number of Constitutional scholars and linguists disagree with you about the use of the prefatory clause. Your potshot at wackaloon groups is irrelevant.

re: FF talking about muskets. Again, you don't lose the right as the technology changes.

"Crime will not go down because of the elimination of these weapons, but violent crime will. " Please document this assertion, with specific attention to DC's attempt.

"And the question remains why do people feel the need to arm themselves? " Because they wish to defend themselves against assailants more powerful than themselves. Please explain why you're willing to take that option/right away from them.

"How many people have been injured by shooting someone by mistake? " Please explain why inappropriate use should preclude people who can use guns safely from doing so.

Please also address whether you'd be in favor of a complete ban on alcohol which is responsible for far more deaths than guns every year.

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

I am aware of those statistics, but what impresses on me the sensibleness of gun control is the answer to those questions when asked of other comparable western nations which have stringent gun controls.

Basically what it tells me is that from where I am sitting, I have approximately one fourth the risk of being murdered living here in Australia than I would if I lived in the U.S. Other western nations are almost without exception very similar comparative rates.

And interestingly, this decreased risk of being murdered matches *very* closely the exact amount of decreased risk I have of being killed with a firearm (which is 1/10th) in comparison to if I lived in the United States.

Correlation does not equal causation, but I would like to see a better explanation other than simply that less guns being around mean more likely to be killed, particularly given that my risk of every other form of homocide is highly comparable, so the common argument, that America is just inherently more violent than other western nations would seem to be an indefensible position.

Don't get me wrong, frankly, if I lived in the U.S. I don't think I'd feel safe without owning a gun either. But I'm glad that I don't, and that I don't have to own a gun in order to feel safe.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Well for starters Australia doesn't have the gigantic racialized underclass America does. Our treatment of our black population and its social fallout is the single biggest contributor to gun violence in America. From the Bradys:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/factsethnicity

You've also got a much more even economic distribution (scroll down), and higher overall median incomes anyway:
America (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/DistributionofIncome.html#lfHendersonCEE2-042_table_018)
Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/1020492cfcd63696ca2568a1002477b5/5f4bb49c975c64c9ca256d6b00827adb!OpenDocument)

What I don't have available to me online, though I might do some scans later, is demonstration of how sharply those incomes break along racial lines over here too. Basically we have vast ghettoes of institutionally disenfranchised people wallowing in crippling poverty, where in the absence of real police protection gangs and drug cartels are the dominant local powers; while by comparison Australia is one big whites-only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia#Ancestry_of_Australian_population) middle-class gated community, with basically the same murder rate as our big white middle-class gated communities. And yet you've still got more overall violent crime (http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d8-Australia-experiencing-more-violent-crime-despite-gun-ban). It's a lot more complex an issue than just more guns = everyone dies aaaaa

The prevalence of guns certainly doesn't help, but the drug war, redlining, and the legacy of Jim Crow have infinitely more to do with why America is as screwed-up as it is.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

test