Yay, GUNS!

[overtone]

There are now more than twice as any guns.

If the country isn't "awash" with more than 1 gun each, then it wasn't awash with half that many.

And if it was awash with "half that many", it is now with double. Are you, like a couple others, objecting to my use of "awash"? I am as above and always and explicitly quite willing to use another term for the situation described. Or are you going somewhere with this?

 

I'm not the one arguing this point with the NRA; you, tacitly, are.

You, explicitly, were. Like this:

 

If you ask the NRA today they probably won't say that the US is "awash" with guns.

I'm not asking the NRA. The NRA is among the polarized extremists currently deadlocked on this matter in the US, and there's nothing the reasonable can do about it except wait 'til they've cooled off and we can get a word in edgewise.

btw: as pointed out earlier, "families" and "households" are not interchangeable in this analysis. Even worse is to make historical comparisons while interchanging those terms.

Edited January 19, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

The current data I have is per capita. It's about 1.13 guns per head.

If you assume (absurdly) that all males are adults and each male has a gun that that's pretty much 0.5 guns per capits.

The only thing that family size can do is make that disparity bigger.

In particular, children (male or female) who don't have guns will drop the per capita count from 0.5 downward.

How far down depends on family size but broadly speaking , biologically, each adult pair produces an pair of new adults eventually.

So there are about 2 kids for each pair of parents.

So the group of 4 people including 1 adult male is biologically reasonable (assuming that all children live to become adults).

That takes the figure to about 1 gun per 4 people.

 

The sad truth is that not all kids grow up.

So, there must be more than 2 children for each pair of adults which pushes the figure even further from the current value.

To pick a figure from the air, lets assume there were 4 kids in a typical family; that takes the figure to 1 gun for 6 people.

 

Now can you show me a plausible demographic distribution where the number of guns (per capita or in absolute numbers) was anything other than a lot lower than it is now?

 

And no, it's not the word "awash" that troubles me.

It's the tacit implication in this

"btw: This country was awash in guns long before there was a "gun lobby". Just saying. "

that there were always lots of guns.

 

Even if this "There were large and populated regions in this country in which almost every household had a firearm, at all times in the history of this country. " is true (and it's been disputed), it misses the point that there are now a whole lot more guns (in terms of numbers, and per capita) and those guns have vastly more fire-power than ever before.

The problem isn't the same as it was "back then", and there's no sense pretending that it was (especially if that pretence ignores basic biology).

​(another interesting point would be the availability of ammunition- rather than guns. It's not just relevant to the historic discussion. If no more bullets were sold in the US then the gun crime rates would fall.)

 

[overtone]

Now can you show me a plausible demographic distribution where the number of guns (per capita or in absolute numbers) was anything other than a lot lower than it is now?

Of course not. And it's never been an issue.

 

And no, it's not the word "awash" that troubles me.

It's the tacit implication in this

"btw: This country was awash in guns long before there was a "gun lobby". Just saying. "

that there were always lots of guns.

That's hardly "tacit". That's the assertion. In the US, there have always been lots of guns. Household availability of a firearm, in particular, has been at times and in regions something approaching universal - at least, among the white and not brutally impoverished in the country.

 

it misses the point that there are now a whole lot more guns (in terms of numbers, and per capita) and those guns have vastly more fire-power than ever before.

That there are - in some regions especially - significantly more guns per capita now is something I've posted myself, in the course of pointing out that neither the density nor the pervasiveness of guns tracks gun violence very well - especially the types of gun violence most easily addressed by a Federal government. That the guns have more firepower is also something I've posted repeatedly concerning, although my take is more nuanced - I point to the well-engineered handgun (the high density reservoir of considerable lethality invented in the US long after the Constitution was written, of little militia or hunting use, and for various reasons uniquely adopted, almost as an icon, by the US and its culture) as a key aspect of the current insanity in the US.

So where are you going? Because the "tacit implications" of side comments like this:

 

​(another interesting point would be the availability of ammunition- rather than guns. It's not just relevant to the historic discussion. If no more bullets were sold in the US then the gun crime rates would fall.)

lead directly to that deadlock I keep pointing at.

Edited January 21, 2016 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

And the deadlock is still based on one side lying.

[overtone]

 

 

And the deadlock is still based on one side lying

It's not based on the "other side" telling the truth.

[waitforufo]

Interesting Supreme Court decision today regarding the Second Amendment.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stun-guns-second-amendment_us_56effe0de4b03a640a6afebb

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

 

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”

 

 

We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

 

 

Instead, the [Massachusetts Supreme] court seized on language, originating in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), that “‘the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” That quotation does not mean, as the court below thought, that only weapons popular in 1789 are covered by the Second Amendment. It simply reflects the reality that the founding-era militia consisted of citizens “who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty,”

 

They saved the best for last.

 

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

 

Read the whole thing. Its a great decision.

[StringJunky]

Interesting Supreme Court decision today regarding the Second Amendment.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stun-guns-second-amendment_us_56effe0de4b03a640a6afebb

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

 

 

 

They saved the best for last.

 

Read the whole thing. Its a great decision.

When's the next funeral... in the next hour... or two?

[iNow]

Read the whole thing. Its a great decision.

Thanks for the tip. I'd seen a few articles about this in my feeds today, but hadn't yet spent gthe time to drill-down.

 

I, for one, am glad that stun guns are now confirmed as protected by the second amendment and think they were right to vacate the Massachusetts ruling that they are ineligible for protection under the 2nd.

[Willie71]

Interesting Supreme Court decision today regarding the Second Amendment.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stun-guns-second-amendment_us_56effe0de4b03a640a6afebb

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They saved the best for last.

 

 

Read the whole thing. Its a great decision.

 

 

Hmmmm, another originalist interpretation.

[zapatos]

Interesting Supreme Court decision today regarding the Second Amendment.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stun-guns-second-amendment_us_56effe0de4b03a640a6afebb

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

 

 

 

 

They saved the best for last.

 

Read the whole thing. Its a great decision.

 

So if I read that right, they are saying to the Massachusetts Court that they may be able to still rule that stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment, but not using the current argument. Did I understand that correctly?

 

And on another note they mentioned 'bearable arms'. Does this imply that guns that cannot be 'carried', such as tanks, would not be allowed under the Second Amendment?

[StringJunky]

 

So if I read that right, they are saying to the Massachusetts Court that they may be able to still rule that stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment, but not using the current argument. Did I understand that correctly?

 

And on another note they mentioned 'bearable arms'. Does this imply that guns that cannot be 'carried', such as tanks, would not be allowed under the Second Amendment?

bear¹

bɛː/

verb

verb: bear; 3rd person present: bears; past tense: bore; gerund or present participle: bearing; past participle: borne

1. 2.

   support; carry the weight of.

   "walls which cannot bear a stone vault"

   synonyms:

   support, carry, hold up, prop up, keep up, bolster up;

Tanks are out but bazookas, grenades etc should be allowed under the judge's definition. I refer you to:

 

 

Quoting its landmark 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller — authored by none other than the late Justice Antonin Scalia — the court said that “the Second Amendment extends ... to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

[waitforufo]

Hmmmm, another originalist interpretation.

The decision was unanimous, so Scalia's decision lives on without him on the court.

 

The ruling also gives guidance on interpreting US v. Miller.

 

The [Mass. Supreme Court] court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our 8 CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS ALITO, J., concurring in judgment interpretation of the right.”

[overtone]

That Court decision is simply the ordinary reading of the English language in the Amendment, as essentially everyone has understood it for centuries until recently.

 

It does in fact create problems in a world of technological advance. The handgun we know today was not anticipated by the authors of that Amendment.

 

But now that it is clear these problems cannot be solved by expedient and unethical (and dangerous) pretense, "interpretation" of the language that bears no sound relationship to history, reason, or basic literacy in English, they can be addressed openly and in good faith.

[Ten oz]

Washington (AFP) - More than 22,000 people have signed a petition calling for Americans to be allowed to carry firearms at the Republican National Convention -- because the ban puts lives at risk.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-call-guns-us-republican-convention-180751629.html

 

Would not want to be the Bernie support attending this event!!

[StringJunky]

Washington (AFP) - More than 22,000 people have signed a petition calling for Americans to be allowed to carry firearms at the Republican National Convention -- because the ban puts lives at risk.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-call-guns-us-republican-convention-180751629.html

 

Would not want to be the Bernie support attending this event!!

Mental.

[overtone]

 

 

Would not want to be the Bernie support attending this event!!

Traditionally, there's little danger from the crowd. The danger at Republican Conventions has been - for a couple of election cycles now - from the police and security teams, who are already heavily armed. http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/news/2016/03/08/cleveland-seeking-to-buy-riot-gear-for-republican-national-convention.aspx

 

In 1968 the T Party (for Trump, for Tantrum, for Theocracy) was largely Democratic, and the Democratic Convention was violent. It was described later, by sober historians, as a police riot.

 

Forty years later, in 2008, the heirs of Jefferson Davis's vision of America were Republican, and the Republican Convention was feared to be possibly violent. The police - not being Chicago's finest, and blessed with good advice and substantial help from four decades of Federal experience - did not riot, but instead: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/09/01/rnc_day1

 

 

Sheriff Fletcher said the mass detention was meant to sort out peaceful people from troublemakers.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2008/09/01/rnc_day1#gallery

[iNow]

History may not be the best guide here. Rallies and conventions were not generally as violent as those were now seeing with Trump. There has certainly been violence and there has been intimidation in the past, don't get me wrong, but not for several decades and not with as much fervor or frequency.

[Willie71]

History may not be the best guide here. Rallies and conventions were not generally as violent as those were now seeing with Trump. There has certainly been violence and there has been intimidation in the past, don't get me wrong, but not for several decades and not with as much fervor or frequency.

 

But if guns make you safer, everyone should carry, including the candidates. It's just hypocrisy again. We all know guns don't make you safer, there is too much evidence to the contrary. Well, some people believe the John Wayne myth, but most of us don't.

[dimreepr]

But if guns make you safer, everyone should carry, including the candidates. It's just hypocrisy again. We all know guns don't make you safer, there is too much evidence to the contrary. Well, some people believe the John Wayne myth, but most of us don't.

 

 

There’s a great deal of pleasure to be had from guns, I love target/skeet shooting but when the ‘excuse’ is safety, the ‘reason’ is revenge.

[iNow]

It's just hypocrisy again.

Oh, I don't at all disagree.

[iNow]

It's all a moot point, anyway. Guns won't be allowed at the GOP convention.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/secret-service-guns-gop-convention-petition-open-carry/story?id=37981517

The U.S. Secret Service said today that no firearms will be allowed at the Republican convention in Cleveland this July.

 

Ohio’s open carry law allows private employers to prohibit the presence of firearms on their property or in motor vehicles owned by the employer. In this case, that private employer is the Quicken Loans Arena, which bans handguns, firearms and any other weapons on their premises.

 

A spokesperson for the Secret Service told ABC News today that “firearms will not be allowed in the Quicken Loans Arena” and “only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site.”

 

“Individuals determined to be carrying firearms will not be allowed past a predetermined outer perimeter checkpoint, regardless of whether they possess a ticket to the event,” Secret Service spokesman Robert Hoback said.

 

The Secret Service is authorized to ban firearms from entering sites visited by their protectees, including venues located in open-carry states.

[Endy0816]

Went decently enough in Tampa last time:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/10/law-enforcement-turned-the-other-cheek-to-tampa-rnc-protesters/

 

I do think the hurricane provided an assist though. Schedule changes, weather keeping people away, etc.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Endy0816

[Raider5678]

I think its obvious that we already have regulations on arms and that we can and should enact more without messing with the constitution.

 

However, I do think we need an amendment that basically says bearing arms is a privilege that brings great power and thus has great responsibility and great punishment if that responsibility isn't met. This privilege is for personal protection or sport and not to engage in war against your government. If the people need to fight an armed conflict against their government, their only chance is to either confiscate army property or acquire the aid of a foreign power. So, guns are no longer needed if this was ever the intent.

 

While we are at it, would also be nice to add another amendment that states that the founding fathers were not gods, but flawed men. These men had no idea what challenges would be faced in the future, so reading this document with only their intentions in mind would be like trying to get our morality from men who lived 2000 years ago. It would be sheer stupidity.

 

But, more likely to get an anti-gay marriage amendment before we get anything like the above.

 

This incident makes me wonder how they are able to catch terrorist plots in this country. I guess we have been lucky that they try to take action that requires communication within a group? I mean if they ever just start going rogue like this guy, well...batman help us, batman help us all.

The civil war? The uninion was a immensely armed group, the more advanced guns, the better training, and more men. They also lost just as many as the confederates. In modern time rebbeling against the government would be surprisingly easy. You see, the problem with the army, is that not all of them immediately take arms with the government, by let's say they did. They have to spread across the entire country. Now there are currently a bit more then a million armed personnel k. The united states, but let's say there are 2 million. 1 armed personnel for every 114 people. Even WITH military training they would be over run. Now obviously that's just saying we would have power In numbers, and that's clearly not enough. Just mentioning.

[iNow]

Perhaps unintentionally, but your argument hinges on the mistaken assumion that all nonmilitary citizens will somehow be unified; all on one page; each ready to take up arms to defend one universally shared principle; to die for this cause .

 

Of course, it's fair to assume that our well trained and well armed military will be a minority. After all, they are, but IMO that's not the same as assuming they are going to be in any way outmatched or in any way incapable of achieving overwhelming awe-inspiring victory.

 

If I may be so bold, you should consider rethinking your underlying premises and the flawed structure of your current position .

[Endy0816]

Insurgents here would be wiped out. Technological superiority is where it is at now. Explosives, chemical, biological weapons, napalm, airstrikes, drones. Phones would stop working, US GPS would be restricted to military use.

 

If you are really enamored of guns, then keep in mind the military has fully automatic weapons as well. You'd be running a gauntlet of mines, grenades, aimed shots and automatic fire and if the base has been fortified still need to figure out how you are getting through a concrete/metal wall or gate at the end. Only to end up fighting soldiers wearing that uncomfortable body armor. Even the worst attacks in these recent wars only saw relatively light causalities on the defender's side when fighting from a secured position.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Endy0816