Again I go to New York law. As you may know, New York requires both a permit to own a pistol and each pistol must be registered on said permit. When I lived there, it was extremely difficult to obtain such a permit in certain counties because the issuance was under the control of the local constabulary, some of whom felt that only cops and ex cops should be given permission to carry sidearms.
In the registration/training process, some governmental body will be responsible for witholding permits or deciding on class size, instructor number, etc. Registration puts the decision in their hands. This can result in de facto gun bans based on the political proclivities of the governmental body.
Come, Sir. You cannot win an augument by misquoting an opposing view. I never said, not do I believe what you ascribe to me. It is not the carriage of the gun that protects those close to me, it is my trained situational awareness, my avoidance of unnecessary risk, and meticulous attention to detail.
Without those things the gun would probably be worse than useless. The gun is simply a tool for rendering a person harmless, to be used only if nothing else will suffice. Note that I do not call a gun a device for killing people - it is not.
Please allow me to give you a look into the kind of extremely basic training required for the issuance of a CCW in Arizona. You are taught to fire only as a last resort. You are taught to fire no more than is necessary to stop the action which necessitated the fire. You are taught that if you fire beyond this, you are guilty of a crime and will be prosecuted.
You are taught that to avoid this you must keep your head in a situation where it will be difficult to do so.
Now, Jacky, had I said what you quoted me to say, you would indeed be correct. However, you are not, and therefore should not use me to support your argument.
This argument doesn’t hold up at all, IMO. I can’t believe it’s continually used in this debate. Political tyranny will never occur in America because it would upset the market, which is the base of America’s world power and, indeed, what the country was founded on. The U.S.'s world power status comes first from its dominance in capitalism and second in its armed defense (and sometimes offense) of that dominance. Basically, the dollar in my pocket (and how I choose to spend it) does far more to keep away political tyranny than the rifle in my closet.
If anything, this is all evidence of America as a very stable and functioning political system. If anything is to be noted, it is that we can have such occurrences without armed conflict in the streets, most especially with such an armed populace.
Joe, you’ve put forth some good arguments, IMO, but these make you sound like you have no idea what you’re talking about and have no credibility on any subject. It is NOT easy to have that surplus with such taxation, or it would have been happening all along. Bringing Germany as a comparison is one of the most ludicrous things you could have done for the debate. As for a police state, you are correct. However, I take the Nietzsche line that the presence of police is inversely proportional to the strength of a society. Having guns won’t make society better or stop the rise of a police state. I understand your point from the perspective that you are more concerned with protecting yourself and your family than society, to deal with the situation as it is (though I do not agree).
This is just plain ridiculous–one of the most incredibly ludicrous generalizations I’ve seen on these boards, even by my standards. There are TREMENDOUS cultural, political, and historical differences involved–TREMENDOUS. After reading your previous posts with interest, I can’t believe that you would put forth an argument so ignorant of history.
Again, all of this has been non-violent. Where is your argument? Your assertion that the U.S. could fall prey to dictatorship is an indictment of everything that America is and everything America stands for. It’s also an indictment of the Constitution and, thus, the Second Amendment. All of this argued from the side that regards as holy the American Way and its support of their rights.
It also seems, in summoning the spirits and words of the Founding Fathers, that you are comparing the impeachment hearings and current voting mess to the oppression of British rule in colonial times–yet another comparison that tips the absurdity scale. What is there to be up in arms about? I know you just want to protect yourself and your family, but let me remind you that we are living in a society here. To me that means I will sacrifice certain rights to live peaceably and reap other benefits from cooperative living. I believe it is entirely possible to have gun control laws and still have guns.
IMO, to own a gun is American. To own a personal arsenal is subversive to the American Way of life.
This will be my last post in this thread for 2 reasons. Firstly I think this is just a case of us having to agree to disagree. Secondly staring at a screen for the length of time it takes me to write these posts gives me a killer headache. I’ll answer some of your rebuttals of my last post and leave it at that, I think.
Anyway, here goes.
Joe
quote:
Once again, persistently ignoring the fact that murder predated the advent of the gun by at least 4500 years.
So what? Wow, guns came after murder, what a revelation. That’s why guns were invented, to make murder easier, to refine it.
quote:
A ban is a ban. Yours would be easier to get people to give in, but it’s still a ban. In fact, it is more heinous than an outright ban because it is deceptive. Regardless of how you feel about the Bill of Rights, it is still the supreme law of the land. And making it illegal for my children to own guns is still infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period.
And you accuse ME of ignorance? Read my posts again, then go back and read them AGAIN. If you tried comprehending those funny little black squiggles on the page you might actually realise that I am against the forcible banning of guns. What I conclude to mean by the forcible banning of guns is the practise of removing guns from the populace, TODAY. The idea of just prohibiting their sale, although both would result in guns disappearing from the streets, is THE only safe and reasonable way to accomplish this. It would disarm the criminals far, far faster than the general populace leaving them with the edge.
Wrath
quote:
I can’t actually believe this has been said. The agenda of gun control proponents is clear to me now: they don’t want anyone to defend themselves. Voice, if you ever come up against a meth-ed-out 250lb mugger looking for quick cash for his next hit, good luck. We’re not all capable of weaponless self-defense, particularly the elderly and handicapped.
See above (minus the sarcasm of course)
Back to Joe
quote:
Once again, “Not in America” doesn’t cut it. Germany early in the 20th century was much more stable than the US is now. And all it took was one unfavorable treaty following a war, and the democratic people were more than happy to elect, democratically, a chancellor who was an insane, rabid racist bent on world conquest.
sigh there’s nothing I hate more than people who speak from ignorance. A brief history lesson: Germany in the early 20th century (and I assume you are talking about post WWI, it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference because ever since the sacking of Bismarck Germany had been relatively unstable, but anyway…) was tremendously politically unstable. The Treaty of Versailles had inflicted such massive economic damage on Germany that employees were carrying their wages home in suitcases and just chucking them straight on the fire because they were worth more as fuel than money. The advent of the Weimar Republic sorted their problems out, slightly and the Dawes loan plan instigated by the US helped them even more and by 1928 Germany was back on its feet. That was, until the Great Depression when America withdrew all funding and threw Germany back into the gutter. Hitler was elected because the electorate was DESPERATE. Post depression, but pre Hitler Germany was INCREDIBLY unstable. More than you will ever know. TO compare the plight of the people in Germany at that time with America today is a fallacy of epic proportions.
quote:
If you think we live in such enlightened times, and America is so stable that nothing bad will ever happen in this “jewel in the crown of democratic process” (again, see impeachment '98 and democratic process 2000), then it is obviously stable enough that you need not fear an armed population.
I fear an armed population because I fear what an armed individual can do to ME. I consider my life to have infinite value, to ME. It cannot be replaced. If I were to die I would go so far as to call that mass destruction and because I cannot live my life as a hypocrite I put the same weight on everyone elses lives. THAT (and many other reasons) is why I fear an armed population, because this particular armed population is made up by a disproportionate amount of hotheads and pshcho’s who are just not up to the task of owning a gun. They can’t hack it. Every story of someone being shot dead, every gun massacre, every news story you hear of children accidentaly shooting their friends is proof absolute of that. Proof absolute.
quote:
So which is it? Are we the stable jewel of democracy? Or are we a savage, violent, uncivilized antithesis of all that is right and humane?
Paradoxically we are both. You, as a responsible gun owner, are part of the stable jewel, David Berkowitz is part of that other group, that group many gun rights activists seem willing to overlook in their comically exaggerated defence of a ridiculously obsolete and outmoded right that THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE.
quote:
You claim there was no projectile weapon analagous to the gun in biblical times. I showed that you were incorrect. Why is this so difficult?
Fair point. However, nowadays that comparison is ridiculous. A sling shot is not as effective as a gun by any means. Again I say it, I don’t know of anybody who owns a sling. I do know of several people who own guns. None of them are up to the task, in my opinion.
quote:
Maybe you’ve heard of it. In fact, I think (pre-)King David made a one-shot kill against Philistia’s champion warrior.
So you can acknowledge a one shot kill with a sling but not point blank with a Colt 45. Are you sure?
quote:
You’re not very good at sarcasm, are you Joe?
On the contrary, you found the sarcasm with not too much trouble, so I’d say I accomplished precisely what I meant with a minimum of effort. Making me somewhat skilled at sarcasm, IMO.
Heh, touche.
quote:
Ironic that you should say this in the midst of a disputed election, with the losing candidate acting less mature than my girlfriend’s three-year-old daughter, just two years after the first impeachment of an elected president in America’s 224 year history.
The fact that Clinton got impeached because he got his dick sucked doesn’t constitute political instability on the scale which would be on e fraction of a fraction close to what would be needed to incite true civil unrest. Neither does a vote dispute in Florida which is all but over now anyway.
quote:
Second, Germany at one time was an one of the most stable and well-respected countries in history.
Third, there won’t be a military coup. There will be a stripping away of all civil rights and a reduction of our “flower of democracy” to a police state. Don’t believe it? Look around you. It’s already begun. And you’re helping it along.
Yes, and then they’ll be planting mind control chips in our heads, you’ll rue the day. There will not be a stripping away of “All our civil rights”. If this was the case then the citizens in countries like Great Britain, who banned guns in 1996, would be under virtual house arrest by now, right Joe? They’re not however. They’re just carrying on as before and most likely sleeping easier to boot.
quote:
Another case of the gun control establishment redefining words to make them “scarier” for propaganda purposes. I already gave you the true definition of a dum-dum bullet.
No, you gave me A definition of a Dumdum bullet, I gave you another. Why is this so difficult?
quote:
The true definition of an assault-weapon is (ready?): Any weapon used in an assault.
Define assault? Actually go and look it up in the dictionary and tell me what the word assault means, literally. If I decided to shoot someone with a normal handgun that would be assault.
quote:
James Brady was Press Secretary under President Ronald Reagan and is the husband of Sarah Brady, whose name is on the Brady Law, and whose only qualification for the position she holds is that her husband was shot on national TV. He was, of course, shot in the head during the 1981 attempt on President Reagan’s life.
I know. I amended that mistake in a previous post. It really does help to read the whole thread, you know.
quote:
Again, I need to ask you for an example of your scenario. Joe Blow, a sensible and responsible man who, finding his wife in bed with the milkman would NOT kill with a knife or a club, but, having changed the scenario solely by the addition of a readily accessible gun, would go against his nature and societal training and kill the milkman.
Who the fuck said anything about Joe Blow being sensible and responsible. Joe Bloe is an allegory for every pissed off postal worker, every ex-con who can still get his hands on a gun, everyone who’s ever lost their tempers for a fraction of a fraction of time to see the red mist clear and a smoking gun in their hand. I do not need a cite to tell you that there are plenty of people with that disposition who are able to buy guns. To hold the power of life and death in a leather holster demands a responsible mindset very few people have. It is a mindset I don’t have and never will have, that is one of the reasons why I don’t have a gun. I know I’m not up to the job.
quote:
I repeat, this has to be a man who would NOT have killed had there been no gun, but ready access to a knife, golf club, baseball bat, brick, bare hands, or other item common in the household.
It only takes a second to pull a trigger, it takes a lot longer to go around looking for a knife and then stab someone with it. Also a gun is far more impersonal than a knife, or a bat or a candlestick or any other household object you can think of. It’s over in a second, point and shoot. That’s it. Contrast that with go get a knife, come back, stab, stab again etc… It is the sheer simplicity of a gun which makes them so dangerous. How many websites would you visit if you had to type in the whole address, numbers and all
How many sites do you visit just by pointing and clicking?
"But to address your question, if “5 men armed with knives…” Actually it was originally your question, but nevermind.
quote:
Thomas Jefferson said “I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away.”
Thomas Jefferson said a lot of things. Many of them weren’t quite so politically correct. His views on racial equality and the Jews are very offensive. I don’t have all that much time for Thomas Jefferson.
quote:
Though you don’t seem to be terribly offended by knife violence. Interesting. As has already been pointed out, more people are killed by cars, by drownings, by beatings, by stabbings, even by lightning strikes than by guns.
You’re joking, right? About the lightning strikes thing I mean? How many people get struck my lightning each year, 5? 10? 15? As to your assertation that more people are kiled by cars, knives etc… I agree but the one simple fact you patently fail to understand is that cars and knives have other uses which don’t involve killing. Guns do not. Also, I know that it has been pointed out that threatening someone with a gun is a second use but is that not connected with killing? It is easy for a threat to turn into a fatal shot and I doubt the people who posted scenarios of where guns could be useful would be able to keep their head and simply threaten them (BTW - Please don’t take offence, I don’t think I would be able to keep a cool head under that sort of duress myself).
quote:
The very presence of those millions of guns prevents tyranny from even appearing, and forces the government to be answerable to the people.
No it’s not. A government with a loyal army supporting it won’t be dissuaded by an armed populace no matter how well trained they are. In the battle
1 well trained marine vs 10 schmucks with 12 bores who have no clue what they’re doing (and no matter how often you go to the gun club you won’t have a clue what you’re doing compared to the marine)
The marine will always, without fail, come out on top.
A well armed militia will never be a match for a loyal army, especially one as large as ours.
That’s about it. I’m not going to repost to this thread because I can see that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. This debate always gets me riled up and I don’t like posting when I’m pissed off. This isn’t just somne petulent attempt to have the last word, you can reply to this post if you want, I just won’t be replying.
Well, I guess I’ll opt out of this thread, because it seems like it is getting more Pit-like by the moment, probably due in large part to the nastiness of The Crimson Hipster Dufuz. (I mean really, dude, did you ever learn to have a civil argument?)
But I’ll add just a couple more cents, regarding jumblemind’s contention that the people in the U.S. no longer need protection from their own government:
What about in the future? Even if the U.S. is the most stable government in the history of the world, history teaches us that no government lasts forever. Do you think the U.S.A. will be the same in 100 years as it is today? What about in 500 years? 1000? Things change quick enough in one generation that I think it makes sense to safeguard the safety of our descendants.
That was not my contention at all. My contention was involvement as consumers in the economy is what protects the people from their own government, not guns.
I kind of figured this response would pop up. I thought about this, too, but I don’t think preparing for anarchy is a particularly healthy attitude. Many people have argued on these boards that capitalism will never burn out. It is my estimation that as long as capitalism dominates the world economy, America (virtually capitalism’s birthplace) will certainly be on top. Thus any change drastic enough to overthrow our checks-and-balances democratic system will be one towards total anarchy. If history tells us that power will shift no matter what, that means a continued proliferation of guns in America will not stop this shift.
Crimson, your cites are relevant and the information contained within is tantalizing, but it’s sometimes hard to find meaning in your arguments when you reduce them to sophmoric name calling. We can disagree without being disagreeable, can’t we?
For as many cites and references you can find we can find others that contradict your studies.
In fact, in a pdf from a link in the above site is a study, representing a larger sample across the country and over time than your cite, that shows,
And the problem with your quotes on accidental death rates in homes with guns, the report says nothing about the deaths and injuries prevented by handguns, where, as the NRA often states, the mere presence of a handgun, without actually firing a shot, will often deter criminal activity.
In NRA periodicals, 12-16 cases are detailed each month where guns were used in the prevention of crime across the U.S. These are all from news reports and police blotters. What are not mentioned are the numbers of times these cases are not reported and recorded. So for every homicide (accidental or otherwise), how many lives have been saved?
During the LA riots a few years back, news clips showed store owners defending property with firearms. Although not much was mentioned about it except to show the “level of violence,” I wonder how much damage was prevented because a man with a rifle had the guts to protect his property?
I encourage you, Crimson, and other anti-gunners to visit the site and download and read the pdf. And please, offer your points and counter points with a little more class, m’kay?
Is it just me, or are the people who say gun-related deaths are so rare we needn’t worry about them the same people who say we need to worry about the fall of the US government?
Huh. Maybe you should move, if that’s important to you, the owning a gun thing, or short of that, agitate for a broader state right to keep and bear. I suppose you could make a constitutional challenge, but I’ll put the odds on you being denied cert after a circuit court overrules.
Again, the legislature will pass what laws the most concerned part of the people agitate for.
Registration and training sound like part of the ordinary discipline imposed on militia men. There might also be regular inspection and drill, you know, like in Sweden. You are in the milita, yeah?
Voters. Why don’t your neighbors trust you with a gun?
Bottom line is that Hitler was elected legally, took office legally, took over the country legally, etc. Democracy did nothing to hinder him.
I think it’s fairly obvious that I meant to type “killed accidentally by…”, moron. But if it’s not, then I’ll let you know. I meant to type “killed accidentally by…” Accidental deaths exclude homicide, self-defense, police shootings, etc.
study:
Pronunciation: 'st&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural stud·ies
Etymology: Middle English studie, from Old French estudie, from Latin studium, from studEre to devote oneself, study; probably akin to Latin tundere to beat – more at CONTUSION
Date: 14th century
2 a : application of the mental faculties to the acquisition of knowledge <years of study> b : such application in a particular field or to a specific subject <the study of Latin> c : careful or extended consideration <the proposal is under study> d (1) : a careful examination or analysis of a phenomenon, development, or question (2) : the published report of such a study
ex·am·ple
Pronunciation: ig-'zam-p&l
Function: noun
1 : one that serves as a pattern to be imitated or not to be imitated <a good example> <a bad example>
3 : one (as an item or incident) that is representative of all of a group or type
4 : a parallel or closely similar case especially when serving as a precedent or model
5 : an instance (as a problem to be solved) serving to illustrate a rule or precept or to act as an exercise in the application of a rule
A link to a flawed and biased study is not an example. Since it supposedly happens 21 times more often, surely you can find a single example, right?
Excuse me,Mr Crimson sir.
Am I to understand that you are a proponent of hand to hand combat?
If so how is the single mother in Harlem going to protect herself and her family? or the 67 year old retireeliving in Mt Union Iowa.
If not sir, how is the single mother in harlem going to protect herself and her family?or the 67 year old retiree living in Mt Union Iowa?
Patent nonsense gets on my last Irish nerve. “Lightning kills more people than guns!” Jeez. You may expect civility when you have earned it, and only then.
it seems the methodology of the pro-gun studies is very shoddy, as has been raised, but the criticisms of the studies showing more modest benefits of gun ownership is generally stronger. Lott, for example, says things that can’t possibly be so, as we have seen, and just flat out makes things up, like his “only 2% of defensive gun use involves firing the weapon.”
John Lott’s work is very bad science. Here’s one of the major problems:
"Lott claims that ``Guns are used for defensive purposes about five times as often as they are used for crimes.’’ In fact, the National Crime Victimization Survey indicates that the number of gun crimes (about 850,000 in 1996 [22]) is about twelve times as much as the number of defensive gun uses (about 72,000 in 1996 [22]). This is surely not surprising–criminals are more likely to be involved in a situation where a gun might be useful, and so have more incentive to carry a gun. They can also only choose to commit crimes on the occasions when they are carrying a gun.
Lott arrives at his claim by taking the lowest available estimate for gun crimes (430,000 from the FBI’s UCR) and a high estimate for defensive gun uses (An average of the estimates computed by Kleck [13], omitting the NCVS estimate). While that produces a ratio favourable to Lott’s position, it is impossible for both estimates to be correct. According to the respondents in Kleck’s survey (which is the basis for all the estimates computed in [13]) one fifth of his estimated 2.5 million defensive gun uses were against gun crimes, implying that every single time a criminal committed a gun crime, they encountered an armed victim. This is clearly impossible. " http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/Lotts_of_Errors.html
I’m going to be nice to you, this time, and not call you a name for saying something so mind numbingly stupid.
A) My quote isn’t on accidental death rates in homes with guns, its on homocide, 95% or so of which are illegal; murder, negligent manslaughter, etc.
B) well, here, read it for yourself:
"1. “99.8 percent of the protective uses of guns do not involve homicides,” says Paul Blackman of the NRA. Defensive gun uses include waving the weapon, firing warning shots, wounding the intruder, etc.
It is simply untrue that researchers cannot measure the nonfatal protective benefits of firearms, or that Kellermann’s survey failed to detect such a benefit. If firearms deter, scare away or wound intruders, then the murder victimization rate of gun owners should be lower than non-gun owners. The absence of a gun in the home would have been recognized as a murder risk, rather than the presence of a gun.
Kellermann’s case-control method was ideally suited to detect such benefits, if they existed. For example, suppose that guns save 100,000 lives a year, through nonfatal means. Assuming a perfect protection rate, we would see no homicides in households with guns, and 100,000 in households without them. A case-control survey would find the risk associated with guns to be 0.0 – a perfect benefit. But suppose (more realistically) that guns protect their owners only half the time. There might then be, say, 100,000 homicides in homes with guns and 200,000 in homes without them. A researcher using the case-control method would find that 33 percent of the cases and 50 percent of the controls owned guns, for an odds ratio of .50. Being less than 1, that’s a very strong benefit.
Of course, Kellermann’s survey found quite the opposite – a risk 2.7 times greater."
That’s really just common sense, guys. You can’t argue “your study doesn’t show the health benefits of smoking cigarettes” if my study has a higher health risk from smoking. If smoking had a lower risk, the supposed health benefit, it would show up as a lower incident of illness among smokers, see?
Apparently it’s pretty insignifigant if having a gun in the home is associated with nearly three times the risk of homicide.
“About 2/3 of the crimes where guns are used for self defence are
assaults[1], so this is the death rate that we should use. We can
compute an upper bound to this by taking (1980 figures from [1])
23,000 homicides / 4,000,000 assaults, or 6/100, assuming an
impossible 100% of homicides are associated with assaults. This leads
to an estimate of an upper bound of 656(2/3) = AT MOST 250 lives saved.”
I’m defending my house from tigers with gouda cheese even as we speak. Does it work? Well, I don’t see any tigers…
well, clearly not as much as was caused by a man with a rifle, and some guts, who wanted to destroy that property.
hey, did that violent insurrection in LA, those people rising up against a government that no longer protected their rights, did that make all of you second amendmenters proud? Did the riot convince the government of the error of their ways?
Hitler wasn’t actually elected to anything, you know. I don’t see why I have to be nice to anyone who asserts otherwise.
You didn’t post a summary, you posted a summary of a summary. You do realize that the link you’ve posted (twice now) is not to Kellerman’s article, but to one person’s interpretation of Kellerman’s article, don’t you? Best evidence rule, man; link to the original whenever possible. My link to NEJM’s summary
I’ll address “higher risk” after the next quote.
I believe my brethren are thinking of Kellerman’s earlier study (Kellermann Arthur & Reay Don, “Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home,” New Engl J Med 1986. 314: 1557-60), which did indeed include suicides. Sorry for the confusion of others, but I’m quite clear about which study you’re referring to.
The problem is (and I’ll type this slowly so that you’ll be able to understand it) that Kellerman’s study wasn’t set up to find causation, only coincidence. Imagine, for example, that Kellerman decided to survey about lawn mower ownership and discovered that persons living in a home with a lawn mower were killed 5 times as often as those without lawn mowers. Does this demonstrate that lawn mower ownership causes a higher risk of homicide? No, it does not; but it certainly merits a study into causation. Perhaps persons who own lawn mowers have a higher incidence of stress, or are more likely to seek conflict, or are more likely likely to be wealthy and have property worth stealing? We don’t know, because the initial survey uncovered only the incidence, NOT the cause.
If Kellerman decides to do a causation study, I’ll take a look at it, by all means. But he has yet to do so.
Refer to the article quoted at the end of my previous post. If there is one male Hispanic drug dealer in a given apartment building (and, since drug dealers tend to make pretty decent money, we’ll assume it’s an affluent apartment building), do you believe that other Hispanics in the same building are just as likely to be murdered, by virtue of their being of the same age, sex, income, and ethnicity as the drug dealer?
Your linked page says “the study controlled for neighborhoods,” but I’m afraid I’m gonna need more than that, like, say, a methodology. Bald assertions don’t cut it here.
So give me the cites. I don’t have to prove that Kellerman’s results are valid, HE DOES. Let’s use an example in my own city: University Avenue is a dividing line. To the east is what we call the “Tech Ghetto”, a high-crime area where many students live. To the west, one block away, is an extremely low-crime area…where many students live. A move of just one block can have an enormous effect on one’s likelihood of being killed.
“The vast majority of both harmful and beneficial uses of guns occur outside the home. For example, of 11,984 gun homicides committed in Chicago, Ill, between 1965 and 1990, only 2962 (24.7%) were committed in a home and not all of these occurred in the victim’s home.” Gary Kleck, “Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home”, JAMA. 1998;280:473-475. Seems intellectually dishonest to me to focus on such a small subset of all gun deaths in an attempt to force a conclusion that “gun ownership is dangerous.”
Those being…?
The methodology of the study is fundamentally flawed, the conclusions were drawn from largely incomplete data, and the survey method chosen indicates only coincidence, not causation as you and that page’s author contend. Those are facts, not “unwarranted speculation.”
And here I thought we were being civil. Let me know when you want me to engage in petty name-calling, I’ll be happy to oblige.
Very big of you to amend your statements after you were proven wrong. You specifically asked about statutes invalidated on Second Amendment grounds; as I’m sure you’re aware, folks are reluctant to try cases on such grounds. Emerson is the first prominent Second Amendment case since Miller, almost 70 years ago.
The Due Process clause, although perhaps that’s not a “who”, but a “what.”
I was referring to the frequent argument that the Second Amendment refers to a collective (militia), and not an individual, right to bear arms. I’ll try to go more slowly next time.
What a selective quote. How about the part that reads, “the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government”?
Had to interrupt the Miller quote here. Aymette v. State (your cite is incomplete, it’s at 21 Tenn. 154, 2 Hum. 154, decided by the Supreme Court of Tennessee in 1840), dealt with a person wearing a Bowie knife, NOT a firearm, under his coat and threatening a man with it (the knife, not the coat). Here’s a quote from the case: “The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.” (21 Tenn. at 159).
Upon actually reading the case, I’m sure you’ll realize two things: first, that the Court did not require any evidence that Miller was in fact a member of a militia, implying that a showing that one is a member of one’s state’s militia is not important to the ownership of firearms, and second, that the Court was merely refusing to give an opinion upon the shotgun in question as to whether it was or was not a weapon that furthers the interests of the Second Amendment. Miller is probably the most frequently misread case in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Man, is it hard to make out your citations, but I’m gonna do my best. United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines concerned a statute that prohibited persons previously convicted of a felony from transporting guns across state lines, which is way off the issue; no one here is arguing that felons cannot be deprived of rights. United States v. Johnson is basically the same, but without the discussion about the status of American Indians. Cody v. United States: Cody lied about his criminal record in order to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer. In short, these cases all hold that felons cannot own or transport firearms, and that such a restriction does not offend the Second Amendment, something that I, and I’m sure most other gun owners here, agree with. Felons are deprived of many other rights that the Constitution reserves to the people, such as the right to vote, hold public office, and serve on juries; it’s not a stretch to extend that deprivation of rights to firearm ownership.
Such a law could indeed be drafted. The problem in Emerson was that the restraining order in question was a temporary restraining order, or a TRO, which may be obtained by the person requesting the order petitioning the judge directly. The person against whom the order is entered is not informed about the hearing and does not have the opportunity to respond. The judge in Emerson could have easily found the statute unconstitutional for its lack of due process “notice and hearing” requirements, but instead decided the case on Second Amendment grounds. It’s entirely possible that on appeal the reasoning will be rejected but the result upheld for the statute’s denial of procedural due process, but I’m hopeful that the reasoning will stand.
Quilici found that the police power of a municipality could be validly executed to restrict ownership of some, but never all, kinds of firearms.
From your note in Atkinson: “Plaintiff has not grounded his argument on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution…There seems little doubt that the Second Amendment would have no application to this case. The Second Amendment is a check on the powers of Congress, not the states, and it is not likely to be held applicable against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.” In truth, this reasoning is questionable; it is more accurate to construe the First Amendment as a restriction on the powers of Congress than the Second, since the First begins “Congress shall make no law…” while the Second states “…the right of the People…shall not be infringed.” As such, Atkinson has received some subsequent negative treatment.
Amos, again, dealt with a felon carrying a firearm.
Davis dealt with a sawed-off shotgun, discovered during a police search for narcotics. Again, the case dealt with regulation of one specific type of firearm, not a sweeping ban, which would exceed the police power of the Commonwealth.
Cases is again about a felon carrying a gun. Furthermore, its analysis has been criticized by other courts as an improper reading of Miller.
By this point, I have to question whether you’re actually reading the cases you cite.
Emerson will likely stand in the Court of Appeals; reports on the presentation of arguments indicated that the C of A judges were very pro-gun. Should Emerson stand, the Supreme Court will pretty much have to grant cert, since there will then be a disagreement concerning a Constitutional issue among the circuits (California’s circuit had stated that the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right to firearm ownership). Should be an interesting next few years.
Incidentally, you might wanna use that “Preview Reply” button in the future, helps you keep your formatting straight and your posts reasonable. I can’t see bolding very well on this screen, so I hope I got all the kinks worked out of this one.
Well, since you are unable to quote who said what in this GD, the rest of your arguments become suspect.
We can send cites all day long, I guess it depends on which studies you wish to believe. Here are articles which point that flaws in your beloved Kellerman study, A,B, and C.
So, when you continue to quote the “3 times as likely” stat, you’ll have to understand that we simply don’t believe you (or Kellerman).
Rats, I still had an error. The last sentence of that first paragraph of mine was meant to read “My link to NEJM’s summary is closer to the original than your citation”, but I moved on before finishing the sentence. Whoops.
OK, let’s not be tedious here. How do you think I was trying to characterize you? As a person who thinks that a gun will form a protective force field around you and your family?
Yes yes!
You’re saving me a lot of work here, Screwtape.
I wouldn’t dream of using you to support my argument.
No, he wasn’t, as was cited. You do understand what “appointed” means, yes? If you want to safeguard America from tyranny, try to avoid having one leader appoint another with the power to declare war.
You haven’t earned the right to call anyone a moron, and you won’t as long as you keep saying demonstrably false things like “Bottom line is that Hitler was elected legally.”
Well, in that case the number is higher than lightning. I have no stats on the number of accidental beatings or stabbing deaths that do not constitute homicide, I would imagine them to be less than ten, since that’s still at least negligent homicide. nnn. Accidental gun deaths…
"About .5 people per 100,000 population (1400 total) die from accidental gunshot wounds "
“Lott claims that there were only 200 accidental handgun deaths in the US in 1988. While it may be true that there were 200 gun deaths were a handgun was identified as the gun type involved, in most accidental deaths the gun type was not identified, and it is incorrect to assume, as Lott does, that in none of these a handgun was involved. If we assume that the handgun percentage for these was the same as for the ones where the gun type was identified then there were 632 accidental handgun deaths [13].”
Can you do the math there and figure out how that breaks down? I can’t, but I do know its higher than 80 or so, which at least puts it ahead of lightning, and for practical reasons there would be almost no accidental beating or stabbing deaths taht are not homicides, since a court would generally hold that you would be negligent in assuming an extremely severe beating or stabbing wouldn’t cause death.
Kellerman’s study, of course, isn’t flawed. In fact, it uses first rate statistical methods to find a correlation between gun ownership and homicide, and if you have information otherwise, please show so. (you’d have to show that he intentionally cherry picked his data, like Lott did, or that he accidentally selected a sample that makes his point stronger than it is, the CCM is a fine method otherwise, and so is multivariate analysis) Also, you didn’t ask for an example. you asked if having a gun made a person more likely to kill, using an illustration of an ugly domestic love triangle all things being otherwise equal, and unsurprisingly it does.
[quote]
Since it supposedly happens 21 times more often, surely you can find a single example
[quote]
What, a person being killed by someone they know? Sure, um…Nicole Simpson, uh…Ray Carruth’s girlfriend…wow, that’s two, huh?
Thank you, Dufuz, for not including any direct name-calling in that last post and finally getting the quote format right. Both were getting out of hand.
I remember some folks ducking out of the debate due to not wanting to repost statistics debunking Defuz’s argument and citations. However, when I did a search for other debates for the facts, all I found were the statistics on accidental gun deaths. I find this odd, as it is only one aspect of the debate out of many and doesn’t directly address all of the citations at all. Every post I’ve seen from Dufuz has had facts, quotes, and citations along with the silly antics. I could understand bowing out because the antics were the argument, but that’s not the case. Ducking out because you think someone is behaving badly, despite the argument, seems like an admittance of being wrong to me. Help me out, guys.
Once again, Joe_Cool, you persist with the Hitler thing. Please stop pushing a ridiculous argument based on grossly incorrect historical facts.
