An observation on gun control

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Since that time, citizen militias have become unable to handle modern threats. 

Citizen militias are an obsolete military formation. Like taking a knife to a gun fight... as if it has to be said.

Edited January 31 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It doesn't seem difficult to me either, unfortunately the SC ruled in 2008 that the 2nd amendment says that gun ownership is the right of every citizen.  So now I hope I never accidently cut off someone in traffic or heaven forbid that I get lost and have to turn around in someone's driveway.

For the latter be sure to follow the "don't be black rule".

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Citizen militias are an obsolete military formation. Like taking a knife to a gun fight... as if it has to be said.

I like the proposal to make the second amendment all about blunderbusses.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

It doesn't seem difficult to me either, unfortunately the SC ruled in 2008 that the 2nd amendment says that gun ownership is the right of every citizen.  So now I hope I never accidently cut off someone in traffic or heaven forbid that I get lost and have to turn around in someone's driveway.

"Arms" in the constitutional sense were never supposed to be handguns. Militias and armies don't rely on them, they rely on rifles (you get in big trouble calling your rifle a "gun" in the army, I'm told). 

We could follow the letter of the law and issue a government-manufactured carbine (something like the M1) to every citizen over a certain age. That's all you're allowed to own (unless you have a special permit for collecting, hunting, or other hobbying), and you're not allowed to modify it in any way (15 round clip only). It's to fulfill your duty as part of a well-regulated militia. 

Maybe, just maybe, we could start to defund some military/police/prison operations and put those funds to work helping people avoid a life of crime and guns. Imagine if our society openly showed it cares more about our freedoms than it cares about putting us in jail!

[Moontanman]

13 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Home defense?  In the 12 years I have lived in my current home I have never heard of a home invasion-- that's why my guns are unloaded and locked in the safe.

Home invasions do happen where I live. 

https://www.wwaytv3.com/news-tags/home-invasion/

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Home invasions do happen where I live. 

https://www.wwaytv3.com/news-tags/home-invasion/

I wonder what the relative outcomes are between armed and unarmed homeowners being intruded?

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I wonder what the relative outcomes are between armed and unarmed homeowners being intruded?

Good question, I do know of at least one that resulted in the homeowner capturing the invader but most of the time the invader simply chooses a homeowner he suspects is unarmed. From what I understand some reconnoitering happens in most cases.   

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

"Arms" in the constitutional sense were never supposed to be handguns. Militias and armies don't rely on them, they rely on rifles (you get in big trouble calling your rifle a "gun" in the army, I'm told). 

We could follow the letter of the law and issue a government-manufactured carbine (something like the M1) to every citizen over a certain age. That's all you're allowed to own (unless you have a special permit for collecting, hunting, or other hobbying), and you're not allowed to modify it in any way (15 round clip only). It's to fulfill your duty as part of a well-regulated militia. 

Maybe, just maybe, we could start to defund some military/police/prison operations and put those funds to work helping people avoid a life of crime and guns. Imagine if our society openly showed it cares more about our freedoms than it cares about putting us in jail!

That is pretty much the Swiss model. To be honest, I do not think that necessarily the second amendment in itself is a huge issue, but there are cultural issues in the US related to violence and almost casual gun use (and the subset of almost cult-like behaviour in that area).

Closely related to that, is what effectively is a taboo to do proper research on the subject (with federal agencies crippled in collecting necessary data). 

[TheVat]

I see the weakest part of the pro-gun argument as the false equivalence that is made between gun rights and, say, free speech rights.  It is true that dictators have successfully withdrawn free speech rights via baby steps - first, quelling talk of sedition, then incrementally widening the definition of speech that is "dangerous," until they've pretty much shut up everyone who isn't saying I love fearless leader!  The right-wingers think they have a clever parallel there.  What makes the equivalence false is that speech cannot be limited because we cannot in a democracy define limits on what grievances people may have with government.  Speech is, by its nature, unpredictable and often ambiguous and even after a thing is said, opinions may vary greatly on what was really said. 

Shooting someone with a gun, however, is unambiguous.  Offend someone with your speech, and you can discuss it, restate it, even apologize or retract it.  And they can freely speak and critique your speech.  Shoot them dead with a gun and they stay dead.  Governments, and the people they serve, have a natural interest in preventing what is irreversible and lethal.  Gun rights imply the right of civilian citizens to kill people in certain circumstances where self-defense or defense of another could be implemented by lethal force.  Anyway, I have real contempt for the false equivalence argument.  If I say I would like to dig up the corpse of Julie Andrews and have sex with it, you might be offended.  If I shoot you for standing on my porch and looking menacing, you might be dead.

The First Amendment and the Second Amendment are not of equal importance.  We would not have even had the 2nd A. if the founders had created a standing army at the outset.  There was talk of doing it, but the funds and organization weren't there, so they opted to create the 2nd A in the interests of forming militias.  

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I wonder what the relative outcomes are between armed and unarmed homeowners being intruded?

As mentioned, the data is lacking, but there were a few studies looking into related issues. There is some lack of granularity and I don't think there is a study focusing on a relatively rare event such as home invasion.

One study looking at a cohort cohabitating with folks with and without gun ownership and they found that although the all-cause mortality was similar, the homicide rate among gun owners was double to those of non-gun owners. Specifically looking at homicides at home, gun owners were about 4x higher at risk. However, the risk of getting killed at home by strangers was only 1.45x higher among gun owners (but therefore still higher) and 7x higher for the risk of getting killed by a spouse or intimate partner.

So from a high-level view, gun ownership as such does not reduce risk of getting killed, but seemingly in all scenarios (again, from a composite view) increases it.https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-3762

There are more studies looking into whether gun ownership can be deterrent for burglary and the overall consensus seems to be that it is not the case. However, there is a positive correlation between burglary and gun ownership and it could be that in rough areas folks are more likely to have both, guns and burglaries. 

[Moontanman]

15 minutes ago, CharonY said:

As mentioned, the data is lacking, but there were a few studies looking into related issues. There is some lack of granularity and I don't think there is a study focusing on a relatively rare event such as home invasion.

One study looking at a cohort cohabitating with folks with and without gun ownership and they found that although the all-cause mortality was similar, the homicide rate among gun owners was double to those of non-gun owners. Specifically looking at homicides at home, gun owners were about 4x higher at risk. However, the risk of getting killed at home by strangers was only 1.45x higher among gun owners (but therefore still higher) and 7x higher for the risk of getting killed by a spouse or intimate partner.

So from a high-level view, gun ownership as such does not reduce risk of getting killed, but seemingly in all scenarios (again, from a composite view) increases it.https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-3762

There are more studies looking into whether gun ownership can be deterrent for burglary and the overall consensus seems to be that it is not the case. However, there is a positive correlation between burglary and gun ownership and it could be that in rough areas folks are more likely to have both, guns and burglaries. 

Interesting, I wonder how much hand guns account for the injuries or deaths compared to long guns or shot guns. In gun deaths overall handguns are paramount in cause of deaths.

 https://www.gafirm.com/legal-blog/commonly-used-weapons-for-homicides/

Quote

The following is a simple breakdown of the percentage of each type of firearm used in nationwide homicides:

Handguns 45.7%

Rifles 2.6%

Shotguns 1.4%

Firearms (type unknown) 23.9%

 

[MigL]

15 hours ago, OldChemE said:

Home defense?  In the 12 years I have lived in my current home I have never heard of a home invasion-- that's why my guns are unloaded and locked in the safe.

That is commendable, and it is the law, here in Canada/
Unfortunately, some areas of the US are still the 'wild west' when it comes to carrying and storing firearms.

Here in Canada, most of the legal guns on the street come from break-ins and theft from legal gun collectors and hobbyists.
Actually, a lot are stolen in the US, and smuggled into Canada.
Most are handguns.
No gang member will steal a hunting shotgun; it cannot be concealed.
( and you can't hold them sideways, like you can handguns, for that extra 'wow' facto )

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

Interesting, I wonder how much hand guns account for the injuries or deaths compared to long guns or shot guns. In gun deaths overall handguns are paramount in cause of deaths.

 https://www.gafirm.com/legal-blog/commonly-used-weapons-for-homicides/

 

I am fairly sure that if one includes suicide, handguns would play a huge role, though in many ways that is likely a convenience thing. I suspect accidents are also somewhat less likely.

[Ken Fabian]

As for restricting home computers (the OP) - the deaths of innocent victims from AI are hypothetical, and even more hypothetical from home computers. Deaths of innocent victims from misuse of assault rifles are not hypothetical.

Not sure many home computers can even support the kinds of AI that can (hypothetically) be dangerous; AI as a tool used nefariously by military and intelligence services (including by despotic regimes) seems more likely to me than rogue AI. But assault rifles are designed for one purpose - injuring, maiming and killing people. I'd prefer that power to use such force be in the hands of trained people who understand proportional and appropriate responses as well as operate within the rule of law. (Which I would want to be the case for government agencies using AI as well).

In functioning democracies with rule of law armed citizens rising up to support and protect their government and institutions when attacked by enemies, including insurrectionists makes more sense than as a standing tool, just in case, FOR insurrectionists. Without an existing, credible threat and absence of military capability to face it there seems no good cause for a standing armed populace.

No government as better - Libertarianism - is delusional; the solution to bad governance is better governance, not absence of governance - and a lot of nations with high levels of personal freedom have made their institutions, like independent courts, their bulwarks against tyranny.

From outside the USA it looks like the day the armed populace there rises up will be the nation's ruination - those weapons are for use against other Americans and the designation of "enemy of America" for those with different politics, religion, ideals as promoted through free speech and voting will be self serving justification at best. The historic Revolution may be the aberration, where the winners did not put themselves above the rule of law - eventually - once those who supported the King were ousted, or summarily executed, or had their property taken or were forced to flee (to Canada).

The kinds of insurrection the US faces now doesn't look legitimate in any sense, and unlikely to result in greater freedom or prosperity even if it succeeds.

 

 

Edited January 31 by Ken Fabian

[J.C.MacSwell]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that at the coming Super Bowl only Law enforcement will be allowed in with guns.

Kind of like most towns in the "Old West".

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/

Somehow everyone buying tickets seems to agree it makes sense..,Go figure!

[MigL]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm going to take a wild guess and say that at the coming Super Bowl only Law enforcement will be allowed in with guns.

But we need armed militias to prevent the Government from 'fixing' the outcome of the Super Bowl ...
It's a Constitutional right.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

But we need armed militias to prevent the Government from 'fixing' the outcome of the Super Bowl ...
It's a Constitutional right.

This is sadly representative of and ridiculously similar to the meltdown happening across the right in the US ATM regarding Taylor Swift and the super secret democratic master plan to fix the outcome of the NFL playoffs so the deep state can prevent Trump from regaining his rightful place in the oval office. 

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

This is sadly representative of and ridiculously similar to the meltdown happening across the right in the US ATM regarding Taylor Swift and the super secret democratic master plan to fix the outcome of the NFL playoffs so the deep state can prevent Trump from regaining his rightful place in the oval office. 

We have to watch Taylor and her secret government mission.  I like a description given to these people as Not-Too-Swifties.   The hard RW are becoming quite comedic in their accusations.

Edited February 1 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

We have to watch Taylor and her secret government mission.  I like a description given to these people as Not-Too-Swifties.   The hard RW are becoming quite comedic in their accusations.

becoming ?   🙂

The RW started cranking out goofball theories back around the time of Newt Gingrich's "Republican revolution" in 1994.  Dana Milbank, a WaPo columnist, wrote a whole book about that and the decay of the GOP generally.  The Destructionists, iirc the title.

LOL the not too swifties label.  

In any case, I will keep watching Taylor.  Very pleasant to watch.

 

 

[npts2020]

Since the majority of SCOTUS seems to supposedly be "originalists"/"literalists" when interpreting the law, maybe the 2nd Amendment could be interpreted to allow only weaponry available at the time of its writing.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Something something about digging up the icbm missile silo in my backyard and my cold bloody hands...

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic discussion split to new topic.