# California's refusal to allow carry of firearms: Unconstitutional **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278 "2014-02-13T20:25:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/121 "2014-03-14T02:27:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Can you guys take this hijack to another thread? Yeah, sorry, these things keep coming up in every gun thread. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > As you may recall, I am a supporter of suicide prevention, and most US gun deaths are suicide. That I am saying. I’m going with the public health research that strongly associates having a gun in the house with getting shot. Just one last thing. Do people who have guns commit suicide, or do people who intend to commit suicide get guns? How does this compare to the number of people who would commit suicide some other way if guns were not available? Like i said, the suicide rate here is comparable to several other industrialized nations, its hard to blame guns for our suicide rate. > [@](#): > > To get back the OP: The US Constiution means what the Supreme Court says it means, and, on the right to bear arms, they’ve been silent. As has been pointed out, they have not exactly been silent and I don’t see how they they would reach any other conclusion in light of Heller and the cases that came before it. > [@](#): > > The sort of appellate judges who hate being overruled by the Supremes have no clue which way to go in a right to carry case. > > Maybe the Supremes don’t want to declare themselves on this, and will continue refusing to rule on the right to carry. We have two circuits upholding the right to carry, either all the rest of the circuits will follow suit or one will split off. If there is a split, then SCOTUS is much more likely to take up the question. I suspect there will be no split and SCOTUS will deny Cert and the appellate law will be the law. > [@](#): > > Perhaps. Then the right to carry will be dependent on what federal jurisdiction a person lives in. That seems like a nonsensical outcome to me, but if SCOTUS doesn’t resolve the issue that would be the status quo. A split in the circuits is a compelling rationale for cert > [@Abatis](#): > > I seem to remember a rather definitive statement in Heller: > > [INDENT] > [INDENT] > c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Yeah, I don’t see how they rule the other way on the carry issue. I think the circuit courts realize this as well. They might come up with different rationales for reaching that conclusion but I would be surprised if any of them did (the 9th was the most likely candidate). ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/122 "2014-03-14T15:22:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We have two circuits upholding the right to carry, either all the rest of the circuits will follow suit or one will split off. If there is a split, then SCOTUS is much more likely to take up the question. I suspect there will be no split and SCOTUS will deny Cert and the appellate law will be the law. > > … > > A split in the circuits is a compelling rationale for cert FYI - there is already a circuit split. The split is between the 7th and 9th vs the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Woolard was denied cert in the 4th, and Kachalsky was denied cert in the 2nd. Either this case can request cert or Drake vs. Filco in the third circuit cert petition can be granted (wait until this Fall). ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2014, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/123 "2014-03-14T23:48:56Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > FYI - there is already a circuit split. The split is between the 7th and 9th vs the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Woolard was denied cert in the 4th, and Kachalsky was denied cert in the 2nd. > > Either this case can request cert or Drake vs. Filco in the third circuit cert petition can be granted (wait until this Fall). I forgot about kachalsky. It serms like so long ago. Its seemed wrong at the time and even moreso now. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/124 "2014-03-15T00:23:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do people who have guns commit suicide, or do people who intend to commit suicide get guns? In one study, 71 percent of people who committed near-lethal suicide attempts had deliberated less than an hour, and others have found similar or moderately less planning time. See: [Means Matter - Impulsivity and Crises](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/impulsivity/) Even in red states, I’m thinking it takes more than an hour to go through the whole process from conceiving of buying a gun to shooting it at yourself. So we are mostly talking about people who are using a gun that is already in their house, or perhaps their parents’ house. (By the way, these probably are adult children; younger people seem to be more sensible than adults when it comes to not killing people. I, of course, mean this not as an argument to let your kids play with guns, but as a suggestion to discourage the average person of any age from keeping and bearing them.) There are people who persistently desire death. There’s no stopping them, and I’m not going to argue there should be. But they are in the minority among suicides. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Like i said, the suicide rate here is comparable to several other industrialized nations, its hard to blame guns for our suicide rate. Yes there are several outliers. By the “several other industrialized nations” logic, if we find that hundreds of thousands of smokers live to their nineties, it would be hard to blame smoking for early death. But there always are outliers, and that doesn’t disprove statistical significance. It also makes it harder if you tell yourself that all that matters is homicide alone, or suicide alone, rather than adding together the two types of impulsive violence, the ratio between with varies depending on culture. Yes, having a gun around is not the only factor. But it is a big one: [Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths](http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJM12080.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/125 "2014-03-15T00:38:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Like i said, the suicide rate here is comparable to several other industrialized nations, its hard to blame guns for our suicide rate. I should also have mentioned this: Japan is often listed as having the world’s longest life expectancy. But Japanese smoke eighty percent more than Americans do\*. South Koreans live longer than Americans do despite smoking twice as much! Does this make it hard to see smoking as a national public health problem? Of course not. The relationship between death and smoking, and between death and gun ownership, holds despite the inevitable outliers. * * * - Documented here: [Prevalence of tobacco use - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita) ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/126 "2014-03-15T00:57:31Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Yes there are several outliers. > > By the “several other industrialized nations” logic, if we find that hundreds of thousands of smokers live to their nineties, it would be hard to blame smoking for early death. But there always are outliers, and that doesn’t disprove statistical significance. With suicide rates/gun laws among industrialized nations, it isn’t a question of “several outliers”, it’s that there is [no correlation whatsoever](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html). (Taking it as a given that the United States is unquestionably a huge outlier on that list with regard to the permissiveness of its laws regarding firearms.) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/127 "2014-03-15T02:36:29Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > In one study, 71 percent of people who committed near-lethal suicide attempts had deliberated less than an hour, and others have found similar or moderately less planning time. See: > > [Means Matter - Impulsivity and Crises](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/impulsivity/) > > Even in red states, I’m thinking it takes more than an hour to go through the whole process from conceiving of buying a gun to shooting it at yourself. So we are mostly talking about people who are using a gun that is already in their house, or perhaps their parents’ house. (By the way, these probably are adult children; younger people seem to be more sensible than adults when it comes to not killing people. I, of course, mean this not as an argument to let your kids play with guns, but as a suggestion to discourage the average person of any age from keeping and bearing them.) OK so about half of all suicides are with a gun, I don’t know that the method of suicide is proportionally distributed between people who have contemplated suicide for an hour and those that have contemplated it for days. What you seem to be saying is that some large number of these suicides would never happen is we didn’t have guns because guns provide much too easy a method of committing suicide. That many of these impulsive suicides wouldn’t replace suicide by gun with suicide by hanging or jumping off a rooftop. That “but for” the guns, a lot of these people would not have committed suicide. I haven’t really seen anything that supports this. > [@](#): > > Yes there are several outliers. We’re 34th with a suicide rate of 12.0 per 100,000. So lets say all the east Asian countries are outliers or there is something cultural that makes suicide more common in these countries despite the complete lack of guns. So here are the EU countries: 1. Malta 3.4 2. Greece 3.5 3. Cyprus 3.6 4. Italy 6.3 5. Spain 7.6 6. Luxemburg 7.8 7. Netherlands 8.8 8. Germany 9.9 9. Slovakia 9.9 10. Sweden 11.1 11. Denmark 11.3 12. Portugal 11.5 13. UK 11.8 14. Romania 11.9 15. Ireland 11.9 16. **USA 12.0** 17. Bulgaria 12.3 18. Austria 12.8 19. The Czech Republic 12.8 20. France 14.7 21. Estonia 14.8 22. Poland 15.3 23. Finland 16 24. Belgium 19 25. Croatia 19.7 26. Latvia 20.8 27. Hungary 21.7 28. Slovenia 21.8 29. Lithuania 31.0 We are pretty solidly in the middle of the pack of EU countries (median 11.9, USA 12.0). How about NATO?: 1. Greece 3.5 2. Turkey 3.62 3. Albania 4.0 4. Italy 6.3 5. Spain 7.6 6. Luxemburg 7.8 7. Netherlands 8.8 8. Slovakia 9.9 9. Germany 9.9 10. Denmark 11.3 11. Iceland 11.3 12. Canada 11.5 13. Portugal 11.5 14. UK 11.8 15. Norway 11.9 16. Romania 11.9 17. **USA 12.0** 18. Bulgaria 12.3 19. The Czech Republic 12.8 20. France 14.7 21. Estonia 14.8 22. Poland 15.3 23. Belgium 19 24. Croatia 19.7 25. Latvia 20.8 26. Hungary 21.7 27. Slovenia 21.8 28. Lithuania 31.0 Once again we are solidly in the middle of the pack (median 11.8/11.9, USA 12.0). Considering the absolutely routine level of suicide in the USA (and remember we are ignoring all those high suicide outliers in Asia). I am having trouble believing that some large percentage of those gun suicides would not have happened by other means if we didn’t have guns in our society. > [@](#): > > By the “several other industrialized nations” logic, if we find that hundreds of thousands of smokers live to their nineties, it would be hard to blame smoking for early death. But there always are outliers, and that doesn’t disprove statistical significance. So what is the statistical significance you are talking about? Other than the fact that because guns are available, people use guns in the USA versus the means used by people in countries where guns are outlawed? > [@](#): > > It also makes it harder if you tell yourself that all that matters is homicide alone, or suicide alone, rather than adding together the two types of impulsive violence, the ratio between with varies depending on culture. Yes, having a gun around is not the only factor. But it is a big one: > > [Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths](http://www.amjmed.com/webfiles/images/journals/ajm/AJM12080.pdf) OR (1) people who are likely to be murdered tend to keep guns around, and (2) people who are going to commit suicide that have a gun tend to use the gun rather than other means. All you are proving is that people who tend to get murdered tend to also own guns and that people who commit suicide by guns tend to own guns. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I should also have mentioned this: > > Japan is often listed as having the world’s longest life expectancy. But Japanese smoke eighty percent more than Americans do\*. South Koreans live longer than Americans do despite smoking twice as much! Does this make it hard to see smoking as a national public health problem? Of course not. The relationship between death and smoking, and between death and gun ownership, holds despite the inevitable outliers. Of course, there are identifiable factors at play there that mitigate the effects of smoking on life expectancy (mostly related to diet), what factors is it that you think makes a country with as many guns as America and as high a percentage of suicides by gun as America still fall smack bad in the middle of suicides among industrialized nations if the prevalence of guns in America is causing more suicides than we would otherwise have? What is the special circumstance in America that makes America have an average suicide rate if access to guns increase our suicide rate as much as you seem to think? What makes firing a gun in my mouth so much easier than jumping out a window? ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/128 "2014-03-15T03:31:14Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > With suicide rates/gun laws among industrialized nations, it isn’t a question of “several outliers”, it’s that there is [no correlation whatsoever](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html). (Taking it as a given that the United States is unquestionably a huge outlier on that list with regard to the permissiveness of its laws regarding firearms.) I did the stats, mostly because I actually enjoy that crap, and less to prove a point. Using this [rate of gun ownership list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)\*. Pearson’s r = -0.11 (Explanation below). But the data isn’t terribly linear, so: Spearman’s rho = -0.039 If I remove the high suicide/few guns countries of Japan and South Korea: r = 0.092 rho = 0.218 If I remove suicide-happy Hungary (but the rate lower than the past I think, Rezső Seress, [your work](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloomy_Sunday) has been slipping!) r = 0.223 rho = 0.361 If you don’t speak stats-ese, that means the relationship is pretty much near-nonexistent for most of the comparisons, and very tiny at best. In plain English, number of guns probably has no relationship to suicide rate. Halving your gun ownership rate is unlikely to make people commit suicide less often. \*4 main caveats: 1. Numbers are from 2007, but I make the assumption that they haven’t changed much 2. Guns per 100 people is probably not the best measure to use. I mean, I wouldn’t assume it relates to _crime_ rate as we only have two hands, and akimbo only works in the movies! 3. One list lists “Britain”, and the other lists England/Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland separately. By NI’s rate, I am assuming that Britain means Britain and not UK. I averaged EN/WA + SC based on the weighted populations = 6.14 per 100, but I don’t think it would be much difference with a simple mean. 4. The gun rate may be artificially high (which if fixed, would make the conclusion stronger), due to police ownership and so on. It looks like that might be included. Also, I don’t pretend the stats are valid for an actual study, this is back of the envelope stuff and I’m working with what I’ve got. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2014, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/129 "2014-03-15T23:50:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What is the special circumstance in America that makes America have an average suicide rate if access to guns increase our suicide rate as much as you seem to think? There are aspects of US culture and/or subcultures making Americans more likely to aim at someone else when they impulsively shoot to kill, as opposed to aiming at themselves, in comparison to many other countries. I don’t know what those special circumstances are, and they have little relevance to the discussion. The homicide/suicide ratio, which is what some posters are playing with to obfuscate the guns/violent death connection, has nothing to do with whether guns overall are a public health problem. You could ask the same question you ask about nations concerning US states. Why do people in Louisiana usually aim at others than when they shoot to kill, whereas people in Wyoming are more likely to aim at themselves? There is no need to get into dubious generalizations about what people are like down on the Bayou, or to ruminate on lonely cowboys. All we need to know, when it comes to whether we should treat guns as a public health problem, is that guns are associated with violent death. > [@](#): > > What makes firing a gun in my mouth so much easier than jumping out a window? I never said it is easier. I do say that the fatality rate is about three times higher for gun suicide than jumping. See: [Lethality of Suicide Method](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/) ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/130 "2014-03-16T21:34:37Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > There are aspects of US culture and/or subcultures making Americans more likely to aim at someone else when they impulsively shoot to kill, as opposed to aiming at themselves, in comparison to many other countries. Hey, you’re the one that brought up suicide (presumably because you thought it would be an easier argument for gun control than homicide). > [@](#): > > I don’t know what those special circumstances are, and they have little relevance to the discussion. The homicide/suicide ratio, which is what some posters are playing with to obfuscate the guns/violent death connection, has nothing to do with whether guns overall are a public health problem. You want us to believe that guns are somehow the source of this violence rather than the instrument of this violence (and you use the notion that there are a lot more suicides just because the availability of guns makes it easier to commit suicide) and when you are presented with arguments that guns in society doesn’t really seem to affect suicide rates, you say that there are some unidentified, inarticulable circumstances that makes us kill each other with guns (but not neccessarily with other things) rather than kill ourselves with guns, and you say that WE’RE the ones trying to obfuscate things? > [@](#): > > You could ask the same question you ask about nations concerning US states. Why do people in Louisiana usually aim at others than when they shoot to kill, whereas people in Wyoming are more likely to aim at themselves? There is no need to get into dubious generalizations about what people are like down on the Bayou, or to ruminate on lonely cowboys. All we need to know, when it comes to whether we should treat guns as a public health problem, is that guns are associated with violent death. Like I said, YOU brought up suicide and we showed you why your claim about suicide is not nearly as watertight as you think it is. So now you want to say that guns are a public health issue. In what way? You have some studies that correlate guns with being murdered but those same studies admit that they may have it backwards. That people who are likely to be murdered may own guns because they are more likely to be murdered. > [@](#): > > I never said it is easier. I do say that the fatality rate is about three times higher for gun suicide than jumping. See: > > [Lethality of Suicide Method](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/) And yet the suicide rate in the USA is comparable to the EU, NATO and much lower than many jurisdictions that don’t have any guns whatsoever. When you are presented with all this evidence that other countries without guns have the same sort of suicide rate, rather than looking at your assumptions, you seem to look for some way to reconcile the facts with your immutable conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/131 "2014-03-16T22:51:26Z")
Do the European suicide rates even count voluntary euthanasia, which is mostly illegal in the US? ---
**Author:** ![thelurkinghorror](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7c8e57/32.png) [@thelurkinghorror](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelurkinghorror)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2014, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/132 "2014-03-16T23:22:24Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Do the European suicide rates even count voluntary euthanasia, which is mostly illegal in the US? It looks to me like a similar number of US states and European countries seem to make it legal/decriminalized. I just did a quick search, so info may be out of date, but ~7 European countries and ~6 states have at least some laws allowing it in some situations. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/133 "2014-03-17T00:01:09Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You want us to believe that guns are somehow the source of this violence rather than the instrument of this violence (and you use the notion that there are a lot more suicides just because the availability of guns makes it easier to commit suicide) and when you are presented with arguments that guns in society doesn’t really seem to affect suicide rates. . . I am pulling out part of a very long sentence and stopping right here because I missed the arguments that guns in society don’t affect suicide rates, except for one. A gun-friendly poster wrote that jumping would be just as effective at causing death as shooting, and I showed that the jumping case mortality rate was only one third as high. The next study I am going to link with is, unfortunately, behind a pay wall. But university library card holders will be able to read it, and others can read the summary I will link to. Here’s the article link: > **[Firearms and suicide in the United States: is risk independent of underlying...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23975641/)** > > On an average day in the United States, more than 100 Americans die by suicide; half of these suicides involve the use of firearms. In this ecological study, we used linear regression techniques and recently available state-level measures of suicide... Here’s the summary > **[New Study: Gun Ownership, Not Suicidal Behavior, Is Strongest Predictor of...](https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2013/09/04/17657711/new-study-gun-ownership-not-suicidal-behavior-is-strongest-predictor-of-death-by-suicide)** > > State by state data has long shown a strong correlation between rates of gun ownership and rates of suicide, but whether there is a causal relationship, well, that has been harder to discern. A variety of factors influence suicide rates, including... > [@](#): > > Statistically, the impulsive and fleeting nature of suicide—a quarter of all attempts occur within five minutes of the initial impulse, about half within the first 20 minutes—combines with the lethality of guns to overwhelm all other factors. > > To be clear, easy access to firearms within the home does not increase one’s risk of attempting suicide, the study found. It merely increases one’s risk of succeeding. . . . > > And since less than ten percent\* of suicide survivors go on to make a second attempt, it is easy access to firearms within the home, at that fleeting moment of impulse, that ends up having the single largest impact on suicide mortality rates. And that explains why: [The nine states that rank lowest in terms of gun prevalence are the very same nine that rank lowest for suicide rates. Similarly, the three states top-ranked for gun prevalence can be found among the four states ranking highest for suicide rates.](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/) * * * - Percent is too low, but the great majority of nearly successful suicide attempts are not repeated. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/134 "2014-03-17T00:16:41Z")
P.S. on my last post. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I missed the arguments that guns in society don’t affect suicide rates, except for one. I should have also mentioned a second argument – that since some countries like South Korea have a high suicide rate despite low gun ownership, it must be that gun ownership doesn’t matter. What I think is that their suicide attempt rate is higher. The link in my last posts compares places (US states) where the suicide attempt rate is similar and finds than availability of guns matter. It is NOT my claim that all evidence goes one way. Comparisons between countries, and even states, risk the ecological fallacy. That gives us a lot to unravel in these threads and is why there can be posters of good intention on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/135 "2014-03-17T02:11:16Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I am pulling out part of a very long sentence and stopping right here because I missed the arguments that guns in society don’t affect suicide rates, except for one. A gun-friendly poster wrote that jumping would be just as effective at causing death as shooting, and I showed that the jumping case mortality rate was only one third as high. > > The next study I am going to link with is, unfortunately, behind a pay wall. But university library card holders will be able to read it, and others can read the summary I will link to. > > Here’s the article link: > > [Firearms and suicide in the United States: is risk independent of underlying suicidal behavior? - PubMed](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23975641) > > Here’s the summary > > [http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/04/new-study-gun-ownership-not-suicidal-behavior-is-strongest-predictor-of-death-by-suicide](http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/09/04/new-study-gun-ownership-not-suicidal-behavior-is-strongest-predictor-of-death-by-suicide) > > And that explains why: > > [The nine states that rank lowest in terms of gun prevalence are the very same nine that rank lowest for suicide rates. Similarly, the three states top-ranked for gun prevalence can be found among the four states ranking highest for suicide rates.](http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/) > > * * * > > - Percent is too low, but the great majority of nearly successful suicide attempts are not repeated. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > P.S. on my last post. > > I should have also mentioned a second argument – that since some countries like South Korea have a high suicide rate despite low gun ownership, it must be that gun ownership doesn’t matter. What I think is that their suicide attempt rate is higher. The link in my last posts compares places (US states) where the suicide attempt rate is similar and finds than availability of guns matter. > > It is NOT my claim that all evidence goes one way. Comparisons between countries, and even states, risk the ecological fallacy. That gives us a lot to unravel in these threads and is why there can be posters of good intention on both sides. We should really start a separate thread rather than hijack this thread on the right to carry. I don’t know if there is much more to say on this subject of right to carry but here is a thread on the effects of guns on society but here is a thread on gun control generally: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17201556#post17201556](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17201556#post17201556) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2014, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/136 "2014-03-21T15:18:34Z")
The sister case out of Hawaii was handed down yesterday. [Baker v. KEALOHA (pdf)](http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Baker-v.-Kealoha_Opinion-_-Vacated-and-Remanded.pdf). Similar to Richards V. Prieto out of Yolo County in CA, an unpublished opinion that largely relies on the previous Peruta decision. I think the folks have until March 26 to respond in the Peruta case. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/137 "2014-03-22T02:09:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The sister case out of Hawaii was handed down yesterday. [Baker v. KEALOHA (pdf)](http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Baker-v.-Kealoha_Opinion-_-Vacated-and-Remanded.pdf). Similar to Richards V. Prieto out of Yolo County in CA, an unpublished opinion that largely relies on the previous Peruta decision. > > I think the folks have until March 26 to respond in the Peruta case. Damn!!! You really keep up on this stuff. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/138 "2014-03-31T15:10:01Z")
The deadline for the parties to respond to the petitions to grant intervenor status were due March 26. [The NRA opposition to granting intervenor status is here (pdf)](http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2014/03/27/10-56971_appellants_resp.pdf) > [@](#): > > The State seeks to intervene on three different theories: as of right under > Rules 24(a)(1) or (a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or also on a > permissive basis under Rule 24(b). Rule 24(a)(1) permits a state to intervene only > when it has an unconditional statutory right to do so. The state does not have any > such right in this case, as the statute it relies upon—28 U.S.C. § 2403—permits > intervention only where no representative of the state is a party, which is not and > never has been the case here. Nonetheless, under the limited and specific facts as > they have now developed, Peruta does not object to this Court exercising its > discretion under either Rule 24(a)(2) or 24(b) to permit the state to intervene for the purpose of filing a petition for rehearing en banc. Of course, whether the Court > should grant that petition is an entirely separate matter, and one Peruta is prepared > to address should the Court entertain the petition and call for a response. I don’t really understand why they are not objecting to the State being an intervenor. Even if granted that status, the only thing it does is allow them to petition for either en banc or cert, neither of which are a slam dunk. And in the meantime, the Peruta decision is held up from being made the law of the land. The only reason I could see the NRA doing this is that they want to be the ones that go to SCOTUS rather than Drake out of NJ which is being pushed by the SAF (Alan Gura). If that’s the case, that’s pretty shit. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/139 "2014-03-31T15:20:12Z")
I’m guessing it’s because that would force the Ninth Circuit and/or SCOTUS to craft a holding that applies to all of California instead of (nominally) only to the county. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278/140 "2014-03-31T15:33:20Z")
Anything that the Ninth will rule would apply to the entire circuit, right? The licensing scheme in CA is statewide, so there is no basis for something to only apply to the County (San Diego). Consider the possible outcomes: [ul] [li]Intervenor status is granted to the state. They petition for en banc and it’s granted or denied.[/li][li]If the State is granted en banc, either they prevail and the judgement is nullified, or they lose and it’s status quo. If the State is denied en banc it’s status quo.[/li][li]If then or alternatively the State petitions for cert it’s either granted or denied.[/li][li]If cert is granted and they prevail at SCOTUS then carry is killed at the federal level. If cert is granted and they lose, then carry is protected at the federal level. If cert is denied then it’s status quo.[/li][/ul] Any delay in bringing the current judgment to closure delays the implementation of the ruling in the most populous circuit in the country. If you are a believer (like me) that carry is being denied unconstitutionally to folks in CA and HI, these delays further that injury. I can’t see how it’s good for the NRA to concede on intervenor status since the ruling is already a win. The only reason I can think of is that the NRA wants it to go to SCOTUS. Since they won, they can’t appeal a victory so the only way it goes there is with a loss at en banc and the NRA can petition for cert, or the State petitions for cert. It’s the long game sure, but why give up a win when Drake has already applied? SCOTUS isn’t going to take two carry cases, so by letting this one proceed, you give up a win (in the 9th), and compete with a loss (in the 3rd) with Drake. It’s really about in-fighting among the gun rights advocates camps I think. The NRA did the same thing when Heller was making it’s way through the system - they tried to moot Heller several times, only to have it be pushed by the SAF and Gura. That has been my primary reason for not being able to support the NRA. They should take the win, and let Drake proceed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/californias-refusal-to-allow-carry-of-firearms-unconstitutional/681278.md?page=8)