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

[John Cuthber]

"Purpose" is irrelevant and a red herring. It is risk that matters.

 

And for the record, skiers DO kill other people.

Not nearly as often as they harm themselves.

[overtone]

And for the record, skiers DO kill other people.

Not nearly as often as they harm themselves.

Also true of private gun owners, group and individual.

 

It's none of the government's business why any citizen exercises a Constitutional right.

Edited July 12, 2015 by overtone

[StringJunky]

Also true of private gun owners, group and individual.

 

It's none of the government's business why any citizen exercises a Constitutional right.

It is when that right kills innocent people. Just because something was granted 200 or 300 years ago does not mean, necessarily, that it should be there for all eternity.

Edited July 12, 2015 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

It is when that right kills innocent people. Just because something was granted 200 or 300 ago does not mean, necessarily, that it should be there for all eternity.

The 'right' does not kill innocent people. And I don't think anyone here is suggesting that all rights should necessarily be there for eternity.

[overtone]

It is when that right kills innocent people.

Uh, no, it isn't. Free speech kills lots of innocent people, freedom of the press and religion and so forth likewise, all kinds of people have died from the consequences of freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, there isn't a single Constitutional right that doesn't result in the deaths of innocent people occasionally; that's no argument.

Edited July 12, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Also true of private gun owners, group and individual.

 

It's none of the government's business why any citizen exercises a Constitutional right.

Why do Americans seem to think that the constitution is so important?

It had seven articles in the first place, but has been amended 27 times.

Would a 28th amendment that effectively said " we will try to reduce the number of gun deaths from at least 8 times as high as the rest of the civilised world" be a bad thing?

 

Also, since what it says 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 there's no way that most gun owners could be called a "well regulated" anything, the point is moot.

Uh, no, it isn't. Free speech kills lots of innocent people, freedom of the press and religion and so forth likewise, all kinds of people have died from the consequences of freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, there isn't a single Constitutional right that doesn't result in the deaths of innocent people occasionally; that's no argument.

Nobody got killed by a speech. No religion ever killed anyone. No press article ever killed anyone.

People have died because someone wasn't searched and found to have- for example- a gun.

But that's not arbitrary search- that's searching law breakers. The difficult of distinguishing the two is a problem, but not an issue of the constitutional right.

So, the right to freedom from arbitrary search never killed anyone.

[overtone]

Also, since what it says 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 there's no way that most gun owners could be called a "well regulated" anything, the point is moot.

The point is precise and exactly relevant. You do not know what the word "regulated" means in this context, and have overlooked the nature of a "militia".

 

Militias were and are formed by temporarily recruiting ordinary citizens who bring much of their own gear - clothing, weapons, etc. They are not armies. To be able to recruit a militia at need, there must be a large number of private citizens who own firearms and are capable of handling them competently, to draw from. So the right of a private citizen to keep and bear arms, ready to join a militia on short notice at need, was thereby established - actually, militia grade arms (the finest in the world at the time were made in the US in the Eastern mountains from Pennsylvania down through Kentucky). The equivalent today would probably be a high quality military combat rifle, whatever the Marines carry.

 

Well regulated meant, at the time, not only well trained and managed but well equipped, having the right gear in good repair. You can find the term used to describe a sailing ship with a proper store of rope and sailcloth and such, well stowed and ready to hand. The reference in this context is to the need for a militia to be well armed - that is, not showing up for combat with pitchforks and other farm gear as was common in the disarmed regions of Europe upon the onset of trouble, but carrying firearms good for battle.

 

The immigrant peasantry of America had had recent and harsh experience of being disarmed by authority and facing enemies or government agents who had weapons. They also had experience of owning slaves, and knew how important it was to disarm people one intended to abuse. That amendment means exactly what it says, and what it says is that no American government may disarm its citizens.

 

 

 

 

Nobody got killed by a speech. No religion ever killed anyone. No press article ever killed anyone. - - So, the right to freedom from arbitrary search never killed anyone - - Neither has any right to bear arms.

But people have died as a consequence of the exercise of those rights, all of them, and governments have used these bad consequences to justify forbidding speech, banning religion, searching people's houses and persons at will, and the censoring the press. To forestall this temptation of government to encroach and abuse on those expedient grounds, the Constitution was written.

 

 

 

 

Why do Americans seem to think that the constitution is so important?

Joke, right? Edited July 12, 2015 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

To take the last point first,

If it's so damned sacrosanct, why do they keep changing it?

if they accept that it can change why pretend that the current version is some sort of holy writ that an't be altered.

 

The purpose of a militia is to ensure that you can defend yourselves. Well being largely surrounded by oceans helps there. In any event, since the US has an extraordinarily large standing military

(1) it is unlikely to be attacked by another country- at least not in a way where a militia would help.

(2) If the government decides to oppress the people, just exactly how far will your pop-guns get you when you take on the combined US armed forces?

 

On a related note, you may have missed this, but your police forces are armed and are actually well regulated and subject to locally elected control; they are your militia.

 

 

You say "But people have died as a consequence of the exercise of those rights,"

 

OK, what do I need to say to get someone killed?

 

What's the magic "death spell" that I need to speak to bring about someone's demise?

Edited July 12, 2015 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

I find debates regarding the wording of the second amendment useless. Trying to define "regulated" or "militia" as the founders would have does not shine light on what they envisioned. The world is a very different place today than it was then. When the second amendment was conceived every aspect of life was different. People could not traverse hundreds of miles a day as a commute, blacks and whites couldn't be married, people did not carry around the collective knowledge of humanity in the pockets. Then there is the more direct and obvious difference in gun technology they couldn't have known. We can read and re-read the second amendment , federalist papers, and other writings but can never know how any of the ideas held within them apply to the world as it exists today. The constitution was created to be amendable. We do it a disservice when we pretend it was written in stone.

[zapatos]

I often hear people who want the 2nd Amendment changed, suggest that those who support gun rights pretend the Constitution is written in stone. I never actually hear supporters of gun rights act as if the Constitution is written in stone.

 

While I agree with your entire post Ten oz, I find that last statement to be a criticism of gun rights advocates that has little merit.

[overtone]

Trying to define "regulated" or "militia" as the founders would have does not shine light on what they envisioned.

It's not a debate, really - it's just reading the thing for what it says. It's perfectly clear, and requires only literacy.

 

The only people trying to nitpick definitions and arcana are those trying to find some loophole of "interpretation" that would allow them to treat rifle and shotgun possession by American citizens as a privilege revocable at legislative will. It's a Constitutional right, on a par with freedom of speech and religion.

 

 

 

 

If it's so damned sacrosanct, why do they keep changing it?

It's not a religious text - it was made to be changed, and the means of changing it are clearly set down.

 

But mind that it curbs or bounds the government, limits the employment of power and violence by the designated employers of them. One would be wise to exercise extreme caution in removing what limits we have on that stuff.

 

 

 

(1) it is unlikely to be attacked by another country- at least not in a way where a militia would help.

(2) If the government decides to oppress the people, just exactly how far will your pop-guns get you when you take on the combined US armed forces?

You seem unfamlisr with the normal means and operations of oppression. Taking on the US Army is not envisioned - as Cliven Bundy demonstrated, that isn't necessary even in fairly extreme circumstances. Americans know very well how the black and red people of the US were oppressed, how the indigenous peoples of Central and South America were oppressed, and the key role disarming them played in that oppression. It's not ancient history for us. And these lessons took root in the oppressors as much as in the oppressed - they don't want others to do to them what they did to others.

 

The constitution was created to be amendable.

So amend it. But don't discard it, allow the government to ignore it, damage its authority and reduce its strength of protection, as it is written however that may be.

Edited July 13, 2015 by overtone

[iNow]

These conversations often seem worse than the abortion debate, always getting bogged down in the abstract ideological muck and heels only further dug into already recalcitrant positions.

 

Let's stop that for a few posts and just brainstorm together for a bit, shall we?

 

Stepping outside the constitutionality question for a moment, how do folks think the founders would've adjusted their thinking on this subject or their word choice in the amendment if they had a detailed knowledge of today's weapons and military technology, deep understanding and appreciation for the types and frequencies of crime we see, and clear unclouded visibility into the fact that every single day 20 children are hospitalized in the U.S. due to guns and every single day 6% of those children die or if they'd known that every single year during the past decade there have been 30 mass killings with 137 victims... thus forever subtracting the entirety of their potential and leaving behind thousands of grieving families who will mourn and ache at their loss in perpetuity?

 

If it were being drafted today with the above stipulations accepted, how do you think the founders would've adjusted their thinking on this subject or their word choice in the amendment?

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/18/11-essential-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there's substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders.

 

This holds true whether you're looking at different countries or different states.

<snip>

In 2011, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive

Edited July 13, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

Stepping outside the constitutionality question for a moment, how do folks think the founders would've adjusted their thinking on this subject or their word choice in the amendment if they had a detailed knowledge of today's weapons

That's an odd way to go about "stepping outside the constitutionality question".

 

 

 

 

If it were being drafted today with the above stipulations accepted, how do you think the founders would've adjusted their thinking on this subject or their word choice in the amendment?

This is how you avoid abstract ideological muck that bogs everything down?

 

Ok:

 

Off hand, one likely position of the founders would be shock and horror at the establishment of a standing Federal army encamped, fully armed, all over the country and in foreign countries in force during peacetime - as well as the prevalence of heavily armed paramilitary State police, etc. That would look like a serious danger, an imminent threat of tyranny. They would probably be far more comfortable with the idea of private citizens keeping military weapons at home, ready for mobilization.

 

As far as the accident and murder rates involving children, etc - it would look trivial compared with the hazards faced by children in their day. We are even counting 14 year olds as children, mollycoddling grown young men and women, forbidding them from carrying even jackknives to school - that would strike them as dubious and likely to turn out badly.

 

The weapon that would give them the most pause for thought, once they had figured it out, would probably be the handgun. That was the gamechanger that altered the terms of safety and discussion.

Edited July 13, 2015 by overtone

[ajb]

John, if you don't have a gun and someone breaks into your home what would prevent them from doing you bodily hard?

Fortunately, in the UK this is a very rare situation. Most people who break into a house are there to steal things and usually do not wish the owner any physical harm. We can discuss the mental harm separately.

 

Now, what is the evidence that pulling a gun on a criminal is a good idea?

 

My logic, and this may not be backed up in reality (I would like some gun slinging Americans to correct me), is that by having a gun in the house you are only upping the stakes. The criminal knows full well that you are likely to own a gun and will use it. Therefore he feels the only option is to use more force, including lethal force, when committing his crimes. The result is more violent crimes, not less.

 

Why do Americans seem to think that the constitution is so important?

I second Johns sentiments here.

 

It is not that the document or what it stands for is not important, we think it is. The point is that it must be a fluid document that can be changed as the needs demand it (It has been changed on several occasions already!). The right to bare arms is now archaic and was written in a different time when the nation was young. I cannot see how the removal of this right is such a big issue. It would benefit the US in the log run.

 

 

What is certianly clear is that many people around the globe do not understand the fascination America has with guns. Many of the statements made here by Americans seen very very strange to Europeans.

Edited July 13, 2015 by ajb

[overtone]

My logic, and this may not be backed up in reality (I would like some gun slinging Americans to correct me), is that by having a gun in the house you are only upping the stakes. The criminal knows full well that you are likely to own a gun and will use it. Therefore he feels the only option is to use more force, including lethal force, when committing his crimes. The result is more violent crimes, not less

In practice, communities in which most people keep guns handy in their homes have lower rates of burglary of occupied houses, and therefore less violence from that situation. In my childhood in western Minnesota, for example, burglary of an occupied dwelling was unknown, and I've heard the same from people who lived in the Ozarks and Appalachians as well as in the largely unpopulated western steppe. This is significant because burglary of an occupied dwelling is a dangerous and violence ridden circumstance.

 

But overall violence - including gun violence - is statistically unaffected, so something else must have risen.

 

There is no significant correlation, in America, positive or negative, between gun prevalence and violent crime.

 

 

 

 

The right to bare arms is now archaic and was written in a different time when the nation was young. I cannot see how the removal of this right is such a big issue. It would benefit the US in the log run.

Two caveats:

 

1)The time during which black people and other minorities were systematically disarmed and then abused by their armed neighbors is not "archaic" - it's living memory for at least a third of the population.

 

2) As a legacy of that archaic time, there are hundreds of millions of guns floating around, and lots of people who want to keep them. The means necessary to significantly reduce that number by coercion (voluntary will not work in our lifetimes) would be tyranny.

Edited July 13, 2015 by overtone

[ajb]

1)The time during which black people and other minorities were systematically disarmed and then abused by their armed neighbors is not "archaic" - it's living memory for at least a third of the population.

 

The idea would be to reduce gun ownership of all Americans, not just those of a given race.

 

2) As a legacy of that archaic time, there are hundreds of millions of guns floating around, and lots of people who want to keep them. The means necessary to significantly reduce that number by coercion (voluntary will not work in our lifetimes) would be tyranny.

If a bill were passed by the process of democracy then it would be the will of the people on the people. This is not tyranny but democracy at work.

[zapatos]

My logic, and this may not be backed up in reality (I would like some gun slinging Americans to correct me)...

I think that part of the reason that those outside the US can't understand us, is that they are under the impression we are 'gun slinging' Americans. Most of us are not. But even the gun-slingers don't want criminals or those who don't know how to store dangerous items to have guns.

 

...is that by having a gun in the house you are only upping the stakes. The criminal knows full well that you are likely to own a gun and will use it. Therefore he feels the only option is to use more force, including lethal force, when committing his crimes. The result is more violent crimes, not less.

Maybe it is just Americans who feel this way, but if someone has already decided to commit a crime against me (say, by breaking into my house), I am not going to count on his good will to not harm me.

 

The point is that it must be a fluid document that can be changed as the needs demand it (It has been changed on several occasions already!).

It is a fluid document that can be changed as the needs demand it. But the need must be seen by a majority of Americans, not a majority of Europeans. And at this time, Americans don't think the needs demand it.

 

The right to bare arms is now archaic and was written in a different time when the nation was young. I cannot see how the removal of this right is such a big issue.

Most Americans with guns are not using them for nefarious reasons. For them, it seems kind of silly to punish the innocent along with the guilty.

[iNow]

In practice, communities in which most people keep guns handy in their homes have lower rates of burglary of occupied houses

If you're going to ignore my request to move the conversation forward on to something potentially more productive than an umpteenth rehash of already known talking points, at the very least perhaps you could do so without repeating obvious myths and empirically debunked falsehoods.

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262.html#.VaO_tsGCOrU

What do these and so many other cases have in common? They are the byproduct of a tragic myth: that millions of gun owners successfully use their firearms to defend themselves and their families from criminals. Despite having nearly no academic support in public health literature, this myth is the single largest motivation behind gun ownership. It traces its origin to a two-decade-old series of surveys that, despite being thoroughly repudiated at the time, persists in influencing personal safety decisions and public policy throughout the United States.

<snip>

The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively over 2 million times every yearfive times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes. Or, as Gun Owners of America states, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.

 

It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false.

There is no significant correlation, in America, positive or negative, between gun prevalence and violent crime.

Well, except... There is, and data about this has already been shared in this very thread (such as in my very last post). It pretty robustly refutes your claim.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

<snip>

We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

<snip>

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

<snip>

We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty).

More evidence here (not that I suspect it will matter given the aforementioned recalcitrance):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10619696

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15066882

Edited July 13, 2015 by iNow

[Ten oz]

In the United States 2 million people sit in jail and prison. Their rights taken from them. Felons can't vote. Once out employed Felons pay taxes and get no voice in representation. One of the basic charges before the onset of the war for independence. I have a right to free speech but need a permit (which could be denied) to protest. I can not just set a soapbox up on any corner and exercise my freedom speech. And if my speech is hate speech or causes a panic it may be a crime for me to speak it depending on the setting. Calling guns a right does not place them beyond governmental management. If a group of people from the OWS movement need a permit to exercise their freedom of speech than I hardly see how the Second Amendment provides cover to gun advocates who claim background checks, waiting periods, and permit requirements deny them their rights.

Car are involved in accidents that kill tens of thousands of people per year. So the government is involved requiring seat belts, airbags, installing speed limits, and building roadway infrastructure. Guns kill just as many people. There is a role for the government to play working to reduce that number.

[imatfaal]

I was looking for a few papers and this recent article from the Magazine of the Smithsonian popped up

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist

 

The CDC doesn't seem to an outsider the prime candidate for this sort of research - but any chilling of research funding, expecially when this political intervention is partisan and on a divisive issue, is very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost.

[Ten oz]

WASHINGTON – About 1.4 million firearms were stolen during household burglaries and other property crimes over the six-year period from 2005 through 2010, according to a report released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/fshbopc0510pr.cfm

 

Millions of guns bought with the intention of self protection or other innocent purposes end up in the hands of criminals. Which number do we assume is greater: the number of crimes prevented per year by average civilian gun owners or the number of crimes committed per year by criminals using these millions of stolen guns?

[zapatos]

Millions of guns bought with the intention of self protection or other innocent purposes end up in the hands of criminals. Which number do we assume is greater: the number of crimes prevented per year by average civilian gun owners or the number of crimes committed per year by criminals using these millions of stolen guns?

I'm not sure we should assume anything. I imagine we could use real data to get a pretty good idea of what you are asking.

 

Once you get your answer, are you proposing a specific action that depends on which number is greater?

[Ten oz]

I'm not sure we should assume anything. I imagine we could use real data to get a pretty good idea of what you are asking.

 

Once you get your answer, are you proposing a specific action that depends on which number is greater?

I am addressing the notion that more guns equal safer communities. Millions of guns in the hands of criminals were purchased by well intented people.

[zapatos]

Got it. Yes, that makes sense.

[StringJunky]

I was looking for a few papers and this recent article from the Magazine of the Smithsonian popped up

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist

 

The CDC doesn't seem to an outsider the prime candidate for this sort of research - but any chilling of research funding, expecially when this political intervention is partisan and on a divisive issue, is very dangerous and should be avoided at any cost.

I am a very frequent reader of CDC material and now consider it as primary source. It is very, very disturbing that they cannot do their work with the necessary lack of bias or outside influence. If it was happening here I would be an activist.