Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[waitforufo]

A clear obstacle here, however, is how for so many participants on this topic ANY mention of ANY regulation is immediately treated as a nonstarter, met with endless obfuscation and perpetual nit-picking, continued focus on furthering division and avoidance of common ground, and IMO misguided arguments regarding our second amendment (which until very recently enjoyed majority agreement that regulations of the type under consideration were not prohibited).

 

Until very recently, 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright, courts were not required to appoint lawyers to defendants who could not afford them.

Until very recently, 1966, Miranda v. Arizona, the police did not have to read a criminal suspect their constitutional rights.

Until very recently, 1984, Strickland v. Washington, defendants had no right to effective council.

Until very recently, 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut, birth control was not protected by an individual’s right to privacy.

Until very recently, 1973, Roe v. Wade, abortion was not protected by an individual’s right to privacy

 

Just pointing out that your "until very recently" comment is meaningless BS.

 

I'm sure there was a lot of "common ground" and "majority opinion" that disagreed with all the above supreme court rulings.

 

Second Amendment:

"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.

 

I know you refuse to accept that the common definition of the words "well regulated" in no way implies controlled by government, and you insist that the second amendment allows for infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but I hope you can at least understand that the recent common ground of the majority has no bearing on my rights.

[MigL]

But we can also agree that a 'well regulated' militia doesn't include criminals, crazies and suicidals.

So background checks to include these restrictions shouldn't violate the second amendment.

Requiring that your guns are stored according to strict regulations also doesn't violate the second amendment.

 

There are ways of improving regulation and enforcement without violation of the constitution.

maybe we should just concentrate on those, and leave constitutional matters alone, as that seems a very sensitive subject.

 

Overtone has argued FOR measures like the above ( for the last 10 pages or so ); He has a problem with how the discussion is being carried out ( on this forum also ) with people taking extreme positions.

What exactly is the source of your confusion, Dimreepr ?

[waitforufo]

The amendment says I can keep and bear arms. It also says that right shall not be infringed. Seems simple to me. I know it is not what some want, but too bad for them.

 

Also, why should my rights be denied because of the actions of the actions of "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"

 

You see in the United States we would prefer to let many criminals go unpunished then let one innocent be punished. That's because the rights good are not predicated on the rights of "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"

Edited September 9, 2015 by waitforufo

[iNow]

...and you insist that the second amendment allows for infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

Because it does. Do you really need me to name all of the various firearms like grenade launchers and cannons and machine guns and short barreled shotguns where private ownership is either heavily regulated or simply illegal in many states, or all of the places like daycare centers and courthouses where citizens are not allowed to have them, in order to validate this self-evidently true point?

[John Cuthber]

The amendment says I can keep and bear arms. It also says that right shall not be infringed...

 

Also, why should my rights be denied because of the actions of the actions of "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"...

"The amendment says I can keep and bear arms."That's not all it says though, is it?

The full passage is

"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"

and the idea is that there's a casual relationship between the two clauses.

But, that, in turn suggests that the reason for not restricting arms is to ensure that you have a well regulated militia.

 

Since there is no well regulated militia, the justification is void.

 

It's like saying , "since we have the right to defend ourselves from dodo attack, we need guns to do it."

It is internally consistent, but it makes no sense once the dodo is extinct.

 

And there's a couple of very simple answers to "Also, why should my rights be denied because of the actions of the actions of "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"

 

Next week you might be one of the "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"

 

and

​why should other people's right to live without fear of being shot be denied by your insistence on sticking to an outdated bit of legislation that no longer even fulfils it's own asserted purpose?

Isn't sticking to that old mistaken belief "crazy"?

Surely 20 kids shot day each day is crazy.

[iNow]

You see in the United States we would prefer to let many criminals go unpunished then let one innocent be punished.

You should consider every once in a while trying to make an argument that's at least reality and fact adjacent. Thus far, especially with points like this, you've been failing badly at that task.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

Edited September 9, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

"The amendment says I can keep and bear arms."That's not all it says though, is it?

The full passage is

"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"

and the idea is that there's a casual relationship between the two clauses.

But, that, in turn suggests that the reason for not restricting arms is to ensure that you have a well regulated militia.

 

Since there is no well regulated militia, the justification is void.

 

It's like saying , "since we have the right to defend ourselves from dodo attack, we need guns to do it."

It is internally consistent, but it makes no sense once the dodo is extinct.

 

And there's a couple of very simple answers to "Also, why should my rights be denied because of the actions of the actions of "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"

 

Next week you might be one of the "criminals, crazies and suicidal's"

 

and

​why should other people's right to live without fear of being shot be denied by your insistence on sticking to an outdated bit of legislation that no longer even fulfils it's own asserted purpose?

Isn't sticking to that old mistaken belief "crazy"?

Surely 20 kids shot day each day is crazy.

Yes there is a militia. The militia all all the people of the United States. The militia is well regulated when the people own their own arms and are practiced in there use.

 

Yes John, I may be one of those "criminals, crazies, or suicidals" next week. That is why we have laws against convicted criminals and people adjudicated "crazies" from having guns. Until they have been convicted or adjudicated they have the same rights as everyone else. We love our liberty that much. We also have laws against suicide so that suicidal people can be stopped from committing suicide. Otherwise no one could stop them.

 

You should consider every once in a while trying to make an argument that's at least reality and fact adjacent. Thus far, especially with points like this, you've been failing badly at that task.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#United_States

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wrongful_convictions_in_the_United_States

Such mistakes should make our police and courts more vigilant in prosecuting the law, They do not justify further continuance of such mistakes, nor to they justify eliminating the rights of the people. Are you suggesting otherwise?

[MonDie]

All aggregation by State in these matters invalidates any conclusions.

Exactly how one aggregates makes a big difference in the validity of the conclusions drawn. The larger the scale, the greater the cultural differences other than gun prevalence, the more arbitrary the boundaries, the less informative the data. Aggregating by State in the US misleads, and I would not be at all surprised to find aggregating by country over the planet misleads.

I cannot understand how using states or nations as "individuals" of a sample invalidates the data. Towns, states, and nations vary in different ways. You think the variation between "individuals", and thus the potential for confounding variables, increases as one zooms out, but some variations lessen as one zooms out. For example, towns may be extremely rural or extremely urbanized, but each state consist of mostly rural land with cities dispersed throughout.

Furthermore, state boundaries are not "arbitrary", they are widely agreed upon.

 

 

Well their best wasn't very good, and their study does not reliably inform the discussion here. They did not even control for race, let alone lead exposure or organized crime or drug fads or income inequality or population mobility - in the US, a world center of racial violence involving guns for 300 years and counting.

 

 

You mention drug wars and organized crime as potential confounding variables, but gang violence only accounts for one-eighth (12.5%) of homicides, which doesn't come close to the 65.5% decrease in homicides that corresponded to the 55% to 75% decrease in gun prevalence (post #485).

 

National Youth Gang Survey Analysis

The table at the bottom gives number of gang-related homicides per yer. Compare those to the number of homicides per year given by FIGURE 1 in the PDF below.

Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement, 2011

 

---

 

More stats.

 

The BJS report coroborates Table 3 of Miller, Azrael & Hemenway (2002) on the finding that approximately 65% of homicides are committed with guns.

Section I: Gun Violence in the United States

In 1996, gun deaths consisted of 54% suicides, 41% homicides, 3% accidents, and 2% other.

 

According to BJS, homicides per year have hovered around 16,000 for the last decade. Deriving some estimates from the above, that comes out to 16,000 homicides, 10,400 gun homicides, and 13,700 gun suicides, dwarfing the approximately 440 child deaths per year implied by the opening post.

Note: We could have greater accuracy with homicide-vs-suicide data newer than 1996.

 

 

---

 

Do you really need me to name all of the various firearms like grenade launchers and cannons and machine guns and short barreled shotguns where private ownership is either heavily regulated or simply illegal in many states,

Actually, if you read it in context, "Arms" refers to 18th century firearms, specifically.

[overtone]

 

 

But, that, in turn suggests that the reason for not restricting arms is to ensure that you have a well regulated militia.

It's to ensure that our militia, the one we have, will be appropriately armed if raised at need. That it won't be farmers going into battle with pitchforks, as the British command referred to American militia in the Revolutionary War (mistakenly drawing on their homeland circumstances).

 

The existence or potential formation of a militia was assumed, in other words. Still is.

 

Since there is no well regulated militia, the justification is void.

Militias are normally raised at need, and disbanded when the need vanishes. They aren't normally standing around as a group in peacetime for someone to point at - they are private citizens, and they have lives to attend to. We do have militia, in other words, currently going about their private lives.

This has been pointed out several times here - the only people questioning the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are people who don't know what a militia is or what well regulated means.

 

You mention drug wars and organized crime as potential confounding variables, but gang violence only accounts for one-eighth (12.5%) of homicides,

That's irrelevant. The question is how much of the variance in homicide rate correlates with variance in gang violence and drug wars. And that's part of what aggregating by State muddles.

 

which doesn't come close to the 65.5% decrease in homicides that corresponded to the 55% to 75% decrease in gun prevalence (post #485).

Post 485 does not document a single decrease in gun prevalence. The study it links compares existing and stable gun prevalence in different places. And it aggregates this data by State, which invalidates any conclusions one might draw - as noted above with argument and evidence.

 

 

 

 

I cannot understand how using states or nations as "individuals" of a sample invalidates the data

It invalidates certain conclusions drawn from the aggregation. not the data. Because the significant factors don't vary by State or nation, but by region and culture and other circumstance - such as race, critically, in the US.

 

It's like aggregating wave height data by time zone - even if you find a correlation you haven't learned anything, and you may have confused yourself.

 

 

 

 

\ why should other people's right to live without fear of being shot be denied

There is no right to freedom from an irrational fear. There is a right to keep and bear arms - in the US, anyway. Edited September 9, 2015 by overtone

[MonDie]

It invalidates certain conclusions drawn from the aggregation. not the data. Because the significant factors don't vary by State or nation, but by region and culture and other circumstance - such as race, critically, in the US.

 

That's a good thing. We don't want the individuals of our sample to vary in other ways because we don't want confounding variables. We want the equivalent of a controlled experiment.

[waitforufo]

This has been pointed out several times here - the only people questioning the meaning of the 2nd Amendment are people who don't know what a militia is or what well regulated means.

.

They are willfully denying the well understood meanings of the words "militia" and "well regulated" because it destroys there arguments.

[MonDie]

They are willfully denying the well understood meanings of the words "militia" and "well regulated" because it destroys there arguments.

I'm questioning the meaning of "Arms" two and a half centuries ago.

[John Cuthber]

Yes there is a militia. The militia all all the people of the United States. The militia is well regulated when the people own their own arms and are practiced in there use.

 

Yes John, I may be one of those "criminals, crazies, or suicidals" next week. That is why we have laws against convicted criminals and people adjudicated "crazies" from having guns. Until they have been convicted or adjudicated they have the same rights as everyone else. We love our liberty that much. We also have laws against suicide so that suicidal people can be stopped from committing suicide. Otherwise no one could stop them.

 

Such mistakes should make our police and courts more vigilant in prosecuting the law, They do not justify further continuance of such mistakes, nor to they justify eliminating the rights of the people. Are you suggesting otherwise?

The "militia" is useless.

Taking the guns away after people get shot is a bit too late (had you not noticed?)

You love your "gun-toting liberty so much that you let it override your "not getting shot" liberty.

It's not an argument for or against liberty- it's which one you choose.

 

As I said, "Surely 20 kids shot day each day is crazy."

"We love our liberty that much. "

More than you love your children.

Plainly crazy.

[overtone]

- We don't want the individuals of our sample to vary in other ways because we don't want confounding variables. We want the equivalent of a controlled experiment.

On that analogy, in aggregating by State you destroyed your "experiment" by mixing your equivalent to a "control group" in with all your varying groups, all jumbled together in a few tubs you labeled by size.

 

 

 

I'm questioning the meaning of "Arms" two and a half centuries ago.

Rifles and muskets (shotguns) and "fowling pieces" - the best rifles in the world, by militia criteria. Anything equivalent to the small arms carried by the best equipped State armies.

 

The interesting innovation, that would be open to legal interpretation in theory, is the invention of the small automatic handgun.

 

 

You love your "gun-toting liberty so much that you let it override your "not getting shot" liberty.

It's not an argument for or against liberty- it's which one you choose.

In the US, we chose both.

Edited September 10, 2015 by overtone

[Willie71]

Sad story on gun safety.

 

An Arizona citizen accidentally shot and killed himself while trying to demonstrate the double-safety feature on a new handgun, reported the Phoenix New Times.

 

Christen Reece, 23, of Phoenix, was partying with several friends when he decided, while drunk, to show off his pistol and the double-safety feature of the weapon. He held the gun up to his head, a little behind the temple area, and fired, said chief deputy Jim Molesa of the Navajo County Sheriffs Office.

 

He immediately dropped to the ground, and his acquaintances started freaking out, not sure what to do, added Molesa.

 

Reece was taken to the nearby Heber-Overgaard fire station since the nearest hospital was 40 miles away in Show Low, Arizona. However, the wound was too severe for paramedics at the fire station to handle, and Reece was airlifted to Scottsdale Osborn hospital.

 

The main thing any teacher of a gun-safety class wants students to walk away is that you should treat every gun as if its loaded and never point it at yourself or anyone else, said Molesa.

 

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/09/man-shoots-himself-in-the-head-while-demonstrating-gun-safety/

[waitforufo]

I'm questioning the meaning of "Arms" two and a half centuries ago.

US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

[MonDie]

US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

 

Alright, but consider some developments since 1789. Should our guns have silencers, be accurate at a mile's distance, or fire ten rounds per second? If 18th century guns didn't, why should we assume the framers had this in mind? With guns so advanced, each lone individual becomes his own one-man militia.

 

I agree that the 2nd ammendment is probably an individual right, in keeping with the rest of the ammendments, but this has been challenged. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

 

On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

Edited September 10, 2015 by MonDie

[waitforufo]

 

Alright, but consider some developments since 1789. Should our guns have silencers, be accurate at a mile's distance, or fire ten rounds per second? If 18th century guns didn't, why should we assume the founders had this in mind?

 

US v. Miller was decided in 1939. The ruling is clear with regard to ordinary military equipment. Yes, I think that is what the founders had in mind.

 

I agree that the 2nd ammendment is probably an individual right, in keeping with the rest of the ammendments, but this has been challenged. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

It is not probably and individual right. DC v.Heller stated the following "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." McDonald v. City of Chicago decided that Heller applied to all the States and and confirms that "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right".

 

I pointed out Heller and McDonald back in post #171. 347 posts later, and you gun control advocates still can't accept reality.

[MonDie]

It is not probably and individual right. DC v.Heller stated the following "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." McDonald v. City of Chicago decided that Heller applied to all the States and and confirms that "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right".

 

I pointed out Heller and McDonald back in post #171. 347 posts later, and you gun control advocates still can't accept reality.

 

Both Heller and McDonald won by the skin of their teeth, with a 5 to 4 vote.

[waitforufo]

 

Both Heller and McDonald won by the skin of their teeth, with a 5 to 4 vote.

So was Miranda v. Arizona, So were a lot of other decisions. So what. Maybe you should look up "stare decisis."

[John Cuthber]

US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

Thus far I have yet to see any evidence of that relationship.

[waitforufo]

Thus far I have yet to see any evidence of that relationship.

Are you on the Supreme Court?

 

Also, since Miller and McDonald both clearly defined the right to keep and bear arms an individual right for the purposes of self defense, it is more likely that the definition of arms would be expanded not contracted.

 

Finally we currently have 50 states, which is an addition of 37 states from the ratification of the US constitution. Congress approves state hood, which includes the review and approval of State constitutions. All those states include there own equivalent of the second amendment. Don't count on the Supreme Court overturning those Congress approved State constitutions particularly after Heller and McDonald. Lets look at Alaska which was admitted into the Union in 1959 "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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."

Edited September 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

Are you on the Supreme Court?

 

No.

But it doesn't matter if I am or not.

If you define something in terms of something that isn't true, you have not actually defined it.

 

Also, you seem to have missed the educational video. it covers "the right to keep and bear arms an individual right for the purposes of self defense" at about 2.5 to 5 minutes.

Edited September 10, 2015 by John Cuthber

[waitforufo]

No.

But it doesn't matter if I am or not.

If you define something in terms of something that isn't true, you have not actually defined it.

Yes if does matter if you are not on the Supreme Court. You are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions are just that opinions, which are no more important than mine.

 

I have defended my opinions with Supreme Court rulings and American history. Please do the same.

 

 

Also, you seem to have missed the educational video. it covers "the right to keep and bear arms an individual right for the purposes of self defense" at about 2.5 to 5 minutes.

 

Funny guy. I watched the whole thing. Thanks for the entertainment. Again, one man's opinion. I'm not surprised that an forelock puller is against guns. They always have been.

Edited September 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

Ok, let's try baby steps.

Do you accept that it would have been a problem if they had said "US v. Miller defined arms as "ordinary military equipment" that "has some reasonable relationship to using unicorns to pull the ploughs on the music tree farms"?

 

BTW, what is a "forelock puller"?

And it's not (for example) an "opinion" that a gun is not available for defence if it stuck in a safe; it's a statement of the bloody obvious.