(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 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