http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/26/some-logic-lessons-for-gun-nuts Comments On: Some Logic Lessons for Gun Nuts by Chicago Fan en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…
Posted by randoma]]> Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:33:14 -0800 The Stranger
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication…

Page 2 - relevant file is 'Historical crime data'

You'll notice that from 1980 to 1997, the per capita homicide rate was an average of 11.2. Handguns were banned in 1997. From 1997 to 2002, per capita homicide INCREASED to a maximum of 17.9 in 2002. (Mostly due, I believe, to Shipman) it has trended downward since then, averaging 12.9 from 2003-2011 with 11.5 in 2011.

But wait you say! Firearms are responsible for a miniscule number of deaths (.07 per 100k) per capita! How is that possible?? Amazingly, lacking firearms, people kill each other with sharp and blunt instruments! Apparently, a lack of firearms does not deter people from killing each other! Additionally, since the 1997 ban on handguns, at-home burglaries (burglaries from occupied locations) have increased significantly. A 'gun nut' would point at that and say, "See? Guns deter criminals." A 'gun control nut' would probably say, "Things are different in the UK."

So while yes, the handgun ban did, in fact, reduce the number of homicides by firearm, it did nothing at all to reduce the overall number of homicides and if you were a 'gun nut' as opposed to a 'gun control nut', you might say that the lack of deterrence of an armed populace caused the overall number of homicides to rise!

So, once again, if you want to reduce gun violence, you need to address the root causes of the majority of gun violence in the United States - gangs, drugs and poverty, which in many respects are intertwined. If you want to reduce mass killings you need to take a long hard look at mental health. I realize that all of those things are much much much harder than another 'assault weapons' ban, which will in fact, just be part of that slippery slope to the erosion of the second amendment because it will not have any effect on the majority of firearms crime.
Posted by randoma]]> Sat, 29 Dec 2012 20:47:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by suddenlyorcas]]> Sat, 29 Dec 2012 11:07:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by suddenlyorcas]]> Sat, 29 Dec 2012 11:06:56 -0800 The Stranger MacDonald v. Chicago is much more enlightening. Itsthe first case where the Supremes recognized an individual right to own a gun, and also the first case that recognizes that the "and bear" part of "keep and bear arms" is just as important as the other verbiage. Go read it.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:38:10 -0800 The Stranger "... it's a much better resource for Second Amendment references."

No.
What you are doing is looking for articles that you believe support what you claim because you do not understand the terminology used.
Which is why you cited Cruikshank when it is not applicable nor mostly even regarded as relevant by the SCOTUS today.

"If Miller is read as equivocal ..."

Again, you are conflating two unrelated items.
And again, again, again, again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:07:29 -0800 The Stranger guncite.com -- it's a much better resource for Second Amendment references.

Regardless, you agree Miller defines the primary scope of terms, and Heller reifies the limitations of the National government.

If Miller is read as equivocal regarding the individual State's authority to regulate arms, there is at least a third option in your formula that could reasonably be expected to prevent incidents like Sandy Hook from happening, as I've stated above.

And yes, failure to act on this third option means we the people will have to be Ok with the level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.

I'm off for the weekend, so you all have fun now without me.
Posted by psbirch]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:43:00 -0800 The Stranger Why don't you just link to the article that you're copy-and-pasting from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amen…

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

Which is exactly what I said.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
If you discard sex, then she was a member of the militia as used at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.

"If US v Cruikshank is read plainly, ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat…
"However, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 clearly suggested that Cruikshank and the chain of cases flowing from it would no longer be considered good law as a result of the radically changed view of the Fourteenth Amendment when that issue eventually comes before the courts:"

Again, again, again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).


Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:20:04 -0800 The Stranger
US v Miller is the seminal SCOTUS case is where this language is defined, and it is this language that Heller refers to an relies on:

"""The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."""

Miller then fully addresses itself to the notion of 'common use at the time,' which holding has tested subsequent federal restrictions on gun ownership.

The question then is whether Miller is equivocal regarding collective responsibility, and if so under what circumstances. If US v Cruikshank is read plainly, the National government may not impose collective responsibility, but that individual States may, which reading was upheld in Presser v Illinois, and Miller v Texas.

Which brings us back to Heller, and whether it upholds Miller unequivocally.

Since Heller's majority opinion openly cites that it is not in conflict with Presser or Cruikshank, and the dissent openly states "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a 'collective right' or an 'individual right'" it is reasonable to envision state laws which would apply some collective responsibility regarding gun ownership which would not be in violation with the Constitution or subsequent legal precedent.

If there's some other case law you're relying on please feel free to cite it.
Posted by psbirch]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:57:19 -0800 The Stranger "You're arguing semantics instead of the question at hand: Is it feasible to restrict access to firearms without a full repeal of the 2nd Amendment"

No.
I'm pointing out the exact words that have already been defined and upon which definition the SCOTUS has decided past cases.

"If US v Miller is equivocal, then there is language available that would provide for collective responsibility, ..."

No. You are conflating two completely different items.

Again:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:19:45 -0800 The Stranger
If US v Miller is equivocal, then there is language available that would provide for collective responsibility, which allows a positive response: Future Sandy Hook type incidents could be avoided if laws regarding collective responsibility among gun owners were established.

If you're instead saying that US v Miller is established -- which you imply with "has already been decided by the SCOTUS in favor of the individual's right to own guns" but don't cite your case law so I can only assume you're referring to Miller and/or Heller -- then the answer is no, and my previous statement stands: We the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.

But if you want to play semantics with language, then despite being slightly tongue-in-cheek, my usage of "well regulated" was correct. Check the usage in The Federalist Papers, No. 29, which reads in part "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice...to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle [citizens under arms] to the character of a well regulated militia."

As for "militia," it's definition is less important in this discussion than its agency, which is that it is a body whose authority is always subject to governmental control. The current definition in 10 USC ss 311 doesn't really help your argument though, and if you're for the original usage of 'militia' I'd counter you also need to use the original (antiquated) definition of 'the people.'


Posted by psbirch]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 10:48:09 -0800 The Stranger "Sounds to me then the militia needs to be more well regulated, and the suggestions I put forth earlier stand."

That would be the fallacy of equivocation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocatio…
You are not using the phrase "well regulated" as it was used when the 2nd Amendment was written.
You are not using the word "militia" as it was used when the 2nd Amendment was written.

Not to mention that the mass punishment you propose has already been decided by the SCOTUS in favor of the individual's right to own guns.
Therefore, in order for your proposal to be implemented, the 2nd Amendment would have to be revoked in order to invalidate the existing decisions of the SCOTUS.

"All it needs to be practical is finding the correct language to survive a test against US v Miller which, I will grant, is not guaranteed."

So with one breath you claim that you have provided the answer and in the next breath you admit that your "answer" would not stand up to previous SCOTUS decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment.
As I have said multiple times:
Either a 100% ban on all guns requiring the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
or
You are okay with a certain number of shootings per year (or children killed per year).
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:42:38 -0800 The Stranger
To purchase and maintain a firearm a citizen must be a member of a State or Local militia, which militia is responsible for the abilities and munitions of its members and their households. Any infraction of local, state, or federal law which involves members' munitions results in civil liability of the militia as a whole. As such, the militia in which Mrs Lanza participated would have a vested interest in the dangers presented by her son and, wary of the liability exposure of the community as a whole, would ensure the redress their concerns before he acquired access to the militia member's weapons.

So there you have it -- not even close to 100% repeal of the 2nd Amendment, yet significantly high probability that it would have prevented Sandy Hook. All it needs to be practical is finding the correct language to survive a test against US v Miller which, I will grant, is not guaranteed.
Posted by psbirch]]> Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:30:06 -0800 The Stranger
How many Stranger staffers are actully from here?

Most of them seem to be Least Coast transplants with no respect for Western sensabilities.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:31:15 -0800 The Stranger
Sheesh. Schooled again, and your brain locks up, you hit the reset button, and goes back to square one.

Maybe the problem is trying to interpret American legal facts through the lens of your more familiar Russian legal system. Law works differently here than in your country, you know.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:01:17 -0800 The Stranger "... which brings us back to my suggestion that a requirement for gun ownership to be contingent upon membership in a militia ..."

If you discard sex, then she was a member of the militia as used at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment.
Therefore, you failed in showing how that would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.
Do the research.
But the point of that exercise was to illustrate how nothing short of a 100% ban would have stopped it.
So you are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:21:47 -0800 The Stranger
I'm still waiting for a MH service proposal. I do not imagine it will be forthcoming.
Posted by Chris Jury]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 16:08:50 -0800 The Stranger
"The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"

Regardless, which is it -- either Miller is equivocal, which brings us back to my suggestion that a requirement for gun ownership to be contingent upon membership in a militia; or it is established (as held in DC v Heller) in which case only weapons and not "the people*" which can be regulated, and then only to limit to the people those weapons that are not "in common use."

*Note, it is the use of "the people" to imply the enfranchised, which limits felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, as opposed to "persons" which is the superset including felons, the mentally ill, minors, and other citizens.
Posted by psbirch]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:47:33 -0800 The Stranger "Insomuch as if there are regulations, they're limited in scope to the weapons themselves, rather than to individuals."

And you are still beating straw men.
Do the research on whether convicted felons are allowed to own gun (what types and under what circumstances).

You are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.

So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist. Even if it takes beating on a straw man to accomplish that.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:24:33 -0800 The Stranger
From the Syllabus of DC v Heller (__Emphasis mine__)

1. ...United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather __limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes__. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that __the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time”__ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. __The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.__


Posted by psbirch]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:12:36 -0800 The Stranger What was that I posted about how the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist.

"The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!"

Except that the SCOTUS has ruled that regulations are allowed under the 2nd Amendment so now you're just beating on a straw man in an attempt to claim that your opinion is more than just your opinion.
Exactly as I said you would.

You are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.

So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist. Even if it takes beating on a straw man to accomplish that.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:58:03 -0800 The Stranger
A: "You can have Steak or Pasta."
B: "Oh, I'm a vegetarian; I don't eat steak."
A: "Pasta it is then!"

A: "We can either take out your tonsils, or you can keep getting tonsillitis."
B: "I don't want to lose my tonsils!"
A: "Tonsillitis it is then!"

A: "We can either regulate firearms or keep having people killed with firearms."
B: "The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!"
A: "Dead kids it is then!"

If you're unwilling to re-frame your argument, those are the only options you're offering.

Now if you were to ask "How much regulation would you be willing to endure to reduce the number of dead kids by 50%? By 25%? By only 5%?" If you were to frame your argument in that manner you'd get an actionable answer.

Much of the current debate seems to be in this vein -- "Let's do this and hope we can reduce the fatality rate by at least some fraction of a percent." To which the reply seems to be, ad nausem "The 2nd Amendment prevents you from regulating firearms!" Or, more facetiously, "But that's not an absolute panacea, so it's not even worth trying until you tell me exactly how many dead kids is OK, and then we'll see."

And being so cajoled in to answering such "personal opinion" questions, the answer is invariably "less than we have now." And yes, acting on "less than this" lwill ikely lead to an "X+1," "X+2" legislative effect as you mention in other threads. But that effect is not as infinite as you let on.

BAC for drunk driving has gone down from .15 in the 60s to about half that now. People still die from drunk drivers, and we still let people with cars go to a bar and drink. We don't bring back Prohibition because we know Prohibition doesn't work. Instead, we punish offenders whether they kill people or not. We set differing levels of 'acceptable' based on circumstance. In a word, we regulate -- to the maximum benefit of society within a consensus of forbearance by the people.

So yes -- if you're offering no option other than X or Y, how much of Y is "OK" doesn't matter. We the people will just have to be OK with however many guns kill however many people they do, since we're stymied from restricting which people have guns.
Posted by psbirch]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:47:19 -0800 The Stranger You are getting closer but you are still missing the point.

"... or we the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders."

No.
"We the people" will NOT be "Ok with a level of violence".
As I have stated before, whether any one person is "okay" with X deaths or not is a PERSONAL OPINION.
So the "discussion" will revolve in EXACTLY the same fashion as it is revolving right now.
Because it is nothing more than different people claiming that their personal opinion is a fact instead of an opinion and that anyone who disagrees with them is wrong/nut/unreasonable/fascist.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:10:20 -0800 The Stranger
But yes -- Until legislation arrives that meet the tests put forth in US v Miller, and thus allow the government to regulate weapons regardless of whether they are "in common use at the time," then the only options being presented are the two you outline: Either the 2nd Amendment is repealed or otherwise amended within in the Constitution, or we the people will have to be Ok with a level of violence that the current prolific rate of gun possession engenders.


Posted by psbirch]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:52:22 -0800 The Stranger No.
The purpose was to illustrate that you are either pushing to repeal the 2nd Amendment and then the acceptance of an Amendment restricting gun ownership on a national scale
or
You are okay with a certain number of gun-related shootings/death per year. What that specific number of gun-deaths/shootings versus gun-laws is would a matter of personal opinion.

As I had just stated in #83 in this thread.
As I have stated, again.
As should have been apparent if you had been able to follow my original request (show how it would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting).

But I'm going to bet that I will have to repeat it again, in this thread.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:30:39 -0800 The Stranger