(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

[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.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Re: Non-lethal self-defense. My concern was that, where non-lethal methods are available that are similarly effective, shouldn't those be preferred and encouraged over lethal means? After all, we require individuals under the law to limit their responses to the means necessary to stop or avoid a threat (so you can't shoot those rascally teens throwing snowballs at you, even if one of them was mostly ice and it really stung). Proportionality is a big concern. Contrary to popular belief, you don't get to use lethal force for defense of property alone. The key test is whether a life is endangered. So the law seems to have some idea that, where death or gross bodily harm is not imminent, non-lethal measures should be preferred.

Against that background, I'd argue that any justification for guns as necessary for self-defense be limited by other available and equally effective means of self-defense that have much lower risks of death to others.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

"shouldn't those be preferred and encouraged over lethal means?"

Ah - I get it. Yes - if it were demonstrable that they were as effective in defensive situations, I'd encourage them over lethal means. I'm not sure how to gather the data or build that case, and I'm also not sure if "encouraging them over lethal means" would include gun prohibition.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Nor am I. It's just that it reduces weight from the necessity of guns for self-defense. And I agree that it'd require further study, but I'm sure we can agree there's some significant overlap in the situations where a Tazer and a gun would be equally effective at defusing a situation, with the Tazer being far less likely to cause death.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

Oh - absolutely. LJ ate a sentence that didn't appear in my previous entry. My memory is that some 80% of all self-defense incidents where a gun was used occur within 10 feet. There would seem to be some number of situations where a Tazer could do the trick.

[blorky.livejournal.com]

I tried to put some thought towards this on the drive home. The basic question became "What situation would I be in where I would feel that having a Tazer would be an adequate substitute for having a gun?"

The answer I came up with was "A life or death or rape prevention situation where I was assured that the perpetrator didn't have a gun." (because you can shoot someone when you've been Tazed.)

Dunno if that helps advance the discussion, but it's what I came to. My two cents.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

"Non-lethal" means aren't. "Less-lethal" has become the preferred term of late precisely because of all the cases of people not taking "nonlethal" weapons seriously and consequently getting someone crippled or killed. Batons, tasers, etc. are all still quite dangerous AND they're significantly less likely to stop an attack. I would be very careful of giving assault with "nonlethal" weapons a special legal status. Assault is assault, the only situation where you should be attacking someone with anything is when your life is in immediate danger and you need to stop them at any cost. It's not okay to take out those pesky snowball-throwing kids with an ASP either.

Pepper spray is pretty innocuous, I guess, you could make a decent case for not regulating that like other forms of armed assault so long as the chemical contents are pretty strictly defined. It's also got relatively low stopping power and is much harder to use effectively than a gun, but there's practically no risk of killing someone with it so it might actually be a viable solution for reduced but significant threat - not exactly sure what exactly that situation would be in real life, though.

Also, Castle law is in fact basically a legalization of lethal force in defense of property. It's completely horrible and evil, but it's the legal reality for much of the country so there you go!

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I went with the definition of "less lethal" ("...means of self-defense that have much lower risks of death to others"). I understand that these methods are not entirely un-lethal. As for these methods being significantly less likely to stop attacks - I haven't found any stats on that. Did you have a specific report you were citing? I'd like to see it. As I said, it's just something to consider in the self-defense justification, and something I'd need to see more empirical data to analyze fully.

Also, Castle law requires that you be defending an inhabited residence (or car, office, etc.). The basic rationale is that someone breaking and entering poses an unknown, but quite high, risk of violence, and so deadly force is authorized to protect those within from that violence. The flip side of this is that non-home structures (detached barns, unused houses, etc.) are not eligible for lethal-force-using protection. That's why I said that you're not allowed to use lethal force for defense of property alone. It requires that the property be inhabited.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Actual statistics of practice? Nah, any analysis of all nonlethal weapons versus all lethal weapons as applied in the world is going to be pretty horribly unscientific. The whole "personal defense" weapon-carrying thing is really not my bag, either, so I'm in the dark as you mostly.

All the common technologies have pretty known and documented drawbacks, though - taser darts have noted issues penetrating and staying in contact and induce a fairly brief irresistible effect; capsicum needs contact with the mucuous membrane, and the jet is difficult to aim, as likely to splash onto unintended targets (like yourself) as any other spray, and can't always overcome someone hopped-up on adrenaline; and all the little clubs and kubotans and goofy ninja shit either just flat-out don't work or, since they rely purely on physical trauma, fuck people up so badly they can't honestly be called an ethical alternative to a firearm. Guns have their issues, too, aside from the whole killing-people bit - anything but a center-of mass hit won't necessarily physically prevent an attacker from continuing, though like the others if you screw up you might still succeed in inflicting enough pain to shock or deter.

You can find pretty decent detailed sources about any of these you like, or let me know what specifically you're looking at and I'll see what I can dig up for that specific thing (because holy shit are there a lot of different weapons out there), but nobody's done real research on how many taser barbs get stuck in somebody's jacket versus how many panicky gun-owners blow a mugger's fingers off and get stabbed to death or anything like that and I don't know how you would do that, though I'm sure you can find a million obese mall ninjas who'll argue passionately for the theory behind any given side.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. You do make a good point. I have no idea how I'd go about constructing a test that actually reveals anything.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

I don't know that it really matters, anyway - let's say someone invents a less-lethal weapon that for all intents and purposes works like a gun does. Even if what we've got now aren't in fact as effective, I'm sure someday there'll be a weapon that fits. It can still maim or kill, though obviously it's less likely to than a bullet. Would you be in favor of granting it a special legal status, apart from other deadly weapons? Should people really be allowed to use a weapon that only kills you some of the time in situations where armed assault is currently banned?

This site does a pretty good job of summarizing self-defense law as it stands currently:
http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument