# Guns: Newsweek proposes a compromise **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 16, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345 "2015-07-16T18:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**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:** [July 19, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/141 "2015-07-19T16:42:43Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Some people want no guns at all. Some people want any gun under any circumstance. Finding a blending of the two is a compromise. But it’s a question of fundamentally different axioms that each side subscribes to: _ **Either** _ guns are instruments of murder and death that have no place in a civilized society except for a minimum number of well-trained peacekeepers; _ **Or** _ owning and carrying weapons for both personal and group protection is a fundamental freedom on a par with freedom of speech and thought. How do you find a compromise there? Similarly in the abortion debate, one side holds that abortion is prenatal infanticide, while the other says that abortion is reproductive freedom. Roe V. Wade was able to achieve a compromise by ruling that the government acquires a compelling interest in direct proportion to how close to term a pregnancy is- very little within a few weeks of conception, a lot by the ninth month. What analogous compromise would work for firearms? ---
**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:** [July 19, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/142 "2015-07-19T18:04:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Suicide by gun is violence done with a gun, and I’m sorry it interferes with the “gun violence is going down” thing some have going on. Let’s focus on gun violence that does not include crime. We know gun crime in nearly all categories is trending downward as discussed and you appear to concede. So what does that leave the gun control advocates? Suicide and unintentional firearm injury and unintentional firearm death. Luckily, in the previous thread that you participated in we discussed one of these items, unintentional firearm death: > [@Another deadly shooting](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-deadly-shooting/690488/37): > > Not quite. To show this, you’d have to isolate unintentional firearm related death. Homicide and suicide would need to be omitted to get information on the safety of the gun itself. > > 1991: 1441 > 2001: 802 > 2010: 606 > > A 24% drop in the last 10 years, and a 58% drop in the last 20 years using 2010 data. > > [Pulled from here (pdf)](http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf). I did verify the 2001 and 2010 numbers at the [CDC site here.](http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/dataRestriction_inj.html) but I couldn’t find the source of the 1991 figure. So what about unintentional firearm injury that doesn’t result in death. Not a straight line trend, but an overall decrease for the past 12 years with recent increases. (per 100K): > [@](#): > > Rate Year > 5.33 2013 > 5.53 2012 > 4.71 2011 > 4.59 2010 > 6.07 2009 > 5.66 2008 > 5.21 2007 > 4.92 2006 > 5.21 2005 > 5.65 2004 > 6.53 2003 > 6.11 2002 > 6.21 2001 So that leaves suicide. As you acknowledge, suicide trended downward until about 2006, then started rising again. If you only looked at this, then you could think of it as an indictment against firearms. Firearms are a very effective method of suicide. But over this same period, suicide by all methods increased (per 100K): > [@](#): > > Rate Year > 13.02 2013 > 12.94 2012 > 12.68 2011 > 12.43 2010 > 12.03 2009 > 11.85 2008 > 11.49 2007 > 11.16 2006 > 11.04 2005 > 11.08 2004 > 10.85 2003 > 11.01 2002 > 10.75 2001 > 10.43 2000 > 10.46 1999 So if the discussion is focused on firearms, and their interaction with suicide, then the question is really is suicide by firearm increasing, decreasing, or staying the same? Here is the rate of suicide by firearm as compared to all other methods: > [@](#): > > 51.46% 2013 > 50.90% 2012 > 50.58% 2011 > 50.55% 2010 > 50.76% 2009 > 50.57% 2008 > 50.15% 2007 > 50.70% 2006 > 52.09% 2005 > 51.64% 2004 > 53.70% 2003 > 54.05% 2002 > 55.09% 2001 > 56.51% 2000 > 56.85% 1999 So at the same time suicide overall has experienced a consistent rising trend, the proportion of those suicides by firearm has decreased, with an uptick over the last 2 years of data available. The conclusion is that firearm violence when you include injury and suicide is also trending down in similar fashion to firearm crime. Overall suicide is increasing which as I said before, has separate remedies than gun crime. But even if the suicide data went the other direction - it doesn’t matter. Suicide prevention is not a valid reason to restrict gun rights. Doing so disproportionately impacts the rest of the population who are not suicidal, and are law abiding. And just to be clear, none of the gun control proposed in the OP from the article would have any meaningful impact on suicides. Standard capacity magazines (only 1 round is used), open carry (these aren’t being done at Target), and background checks (NICS reporting isn’t mandatory for mental adjudication) - there is no connection here with suicide prevention. These control measures are simply what gun control advocates think they can push now. They’re wrong, but that’s what’s going on. If they were ever to be successful, the people who support gun control would move on to the next thing. Like \*\*Yog \*\*said in post 45, gun banners just want something, anything and won’t stop. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2015, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/143 "2015-07-19T23:31:35Z")
And less we forget, Japan with very strict gun control laws has one of the highest suicide rates in the world…in fact, more folks [kill themselves in Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan) (with less than half our population) per year than die of the dreaded gun violence in the US (well, not strictly true depending on how one defines ‘gun violence’…but it’s around 31k if you combine murder and suicide…this leaves out death by cop and some other stuff, and the Japanese have managed to get their suicide deaths below 30k for 3 consecutive years according to the linked cite above. Of course, the Japanese only have 125 million people, compared to 320 million in the US). ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/144 "2015-07-20T14:48:20Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Sorry, wrote a long post and hit the “Refresh” button on accident and deleted it. > > I think the SBR/SBS and suppressor restrictions contained in the NFA should go away. They’re stupid and illogical. > > I think full-autos should be legal to own in the same way that semi-autos are, but I’d be willing (here’s a line I am willing to accept) to do all the NFA paperwork and deal with the associated delays and pay the additional fee if it meant I could have full-auto version of modern sporting rifles. The 1986 machine gun ban should go away and the NFA registry should be re-opened. > > The NFA has provisions for handling “destructive devices”, and I think those are working just fine (there’s another line I can live with). See…concession is possible! You would get access to the machine guns, but would accept greater oversight for their acquisition. I think that’s eminently reasonable. What I find most interesting, though, is that even gun owners can accept that there are sensible regulations and even prohibitions (i.e. “lines I can live with”) for weapons. See…where not so different after all? Now please stop calling all of us gun grabbers. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/145 "2015-07-20T14:58:44Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Anyway, here’s my gun control proposal: > > Pro gun - > Shall-issue conceal carry permits everywhere > Open carry allowed everywhere > No outlawed features or styles (including magazine capacity) > No background checks (after all, the 2nd amendment doesn’t say “…shall not be infringed, unless you’re the wrong sort of person.”) > > Gun control advocates - > Universal firearm registration. Failure to report or register a stolen, sold, purchased, owned, found, given, or manufactured firearm within a reasonable time (I’m thinking days or weeks) would be a federal crime, with a mandatory penalty of being denied the right to own firearms for a probationary period (I’m thinking months, up to a year). A repeat offence would extend this penalty for the remainder of your life. I’d be happy to agree to all of this, except for the part about “no background checks”. We already choose to deprive people of rights because of their status (i.e. ex-felons, as you mentioned later in your post), due to a sensible weighing of risk factors, and I think mental illness/confirmed erratic behavior (strictly and clearly defined) belong within that domain of restriction as regards gun ownership. > [@](#): > > I think if you have a problem with the way the second amendment is written, the solution is not to pretend that it actually says something else. The text is plain, and the wording is unambiguous. If you don’t like the law, you should campaign to amend the constitution to make it say what you want it to. I think calling the second amendment “plain” and “unambiguous” is ridiculous. It is the only amendment that gives a reason/intent within its text (i.e. “being necessary for the security of a free state”…), it refers to “arms” and not “guns”, and it even uses the word “regulated” within its text! Plain and unambiguous would be something like “the right to private gun ownership shall not be infringed.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/146 "2015-07-20T15:21:46Z")
[QUOTE=Moriarty] I think calling the second amendment “plain” and “unambiguous” is ridiculous. It is the only amendment that gives a reason/intent within its text (i.e. “being necessary for the security of a free state”…), it refers to “arms” and not “guns”, and it even uses the word “regulated” within its text! Plain and unambiguous would be something like “the right to private gun ownership shall not be infringed.” [/QUOTE] Or maybe something like this: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” 😛 Yeah, what we got was a mess…this was the original draft of the amendment by James Madison before a committee went to work on it to make it the model of clarity it is today. And, BTW, ‘well regulated’ meant something different to Madison and the folks of that day than it means today, so they should have defined their terms as well. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/147 "2015-07-20T15:28:27Z")
The actual constitutional law in effect at that time, from the Articles of Confederation: > [@](#): > > No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? ---
**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:** [July 20, 2015, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/148 "2015-07-20T15:40:26Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > I think calling the second amendment “plain” and “unambiguous” is ridiculous. It is the only amendment that gives a reason/intent within its text (i.e. “being necessary for the security of a free state”…), it refers to “arms” and not “guns”, and it even uses the word “regulated” within its text! > > Plain and unambiguous would be something like “the right to private gun ownership shall not be infringed.” After Heller, the language is unambiguous as interpreted. The points you raise were authoritatively addressed. Any claim that calls the current interpretation ambiguous is wrong. Have you read Heller? Prefatory clause: > [@](#): > > The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). > > … > > It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. Arms (which should include knives, swords, nunchaku, etc.) > [@](#): > > Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar). > > … > > We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” As for “regulated”: > [@](#): > > Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”). ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/149 "2015-07-20T15:43:37Z")
> [@XT](#): > > …a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. That part about “religiously scrupulous” refers to conscientious objectors, right? > [@](#): > > And, BTW, ‘well regulated’ meant something different to Madison and the folks of that day than it means today, so they should have defined their terms as well. 😉 And regulated refers to “regulars”, or infantrymen, right? It sounds like the intent of the amendment is to allow for a standing Federal army, and the right to compel service (with all due allowance to the Quaker Friends). ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/150 "2015-07-20T15:44:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > As for “regulated”: Under that definition, is gun ownership well-regulated in this country? ---
**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:** [July 20, 2015, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/151 "2015-07-20T15:51:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Under that definition, is gun ownership well-regulated in this country? Do you think it is? Do you think this question is relevant? Do you acknowledge that firearm violence has experienced a decreasing trend over the last 20ish years? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/152 "2015-07-20T15:53:51Z")
[QUOTE=Moriarty] That part about “religiously scrupulous” refers to conscientious objectors, right? [/QUOTE] Yes…there were several religious sects that prohibited killing, so you couldn’t be compelled to give military service in a militia if you had such a religious objection. > [@](#): > > And regulated refers to “regulars”, or infantrymen, right? No. Regulars in the parlance of the time were the professional military who were full time soldiers. Militia were part time citizen soldiers. Well regulated in the parlance of the time basically meant they were authorized by a governing body and were disciplined and under control (as opposed to a mob of dudes with weapons). It didn’t mean what it means today, and as you can see based on the initial draft it applied to the militia, not to the first part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That was the original intent. That doesn’t mean that some regulation can’t be put on gun ownership as long as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed. > [@](#): > > It sounds like the intent of the amendment is to allow for a standing Federal army, and the right to compel service (with all due allowance to the Quaker Friends). Um…no. That wasn’t the intent. The founders were distrustful of a large regular (i.e. professional) army, and instead they were more in favor of ‘well regulated’ local militia groups comprised of citizen soldiers…which is also why they wanted to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms, since ‘the people’ would comprise those citizen soldier formations using their own weapons. Of course, these formations didn’t have uniformly good or reliable service during the revolution, so eventually we did move to a more professional ‘regular’ military force, but none of this had anything to do with the use of ‘well regulated’ in the 2nd Amendment. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2015, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/153 "2015-07-20T15:55:01Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Um…no. That wasn’t the intent. I think he’s talking about your proposal, not the current law of the land. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/154 "2015-07-20T16:00:57Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I think he’s talking about your proposal, not the current law of the land. Wasn’t my proposal, that’s how Madison first drafted the thing. But I don’t believe HE wanted or was proposing a large standing ‘regular’ army either. He was merely saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shouldn’t be infringed, and that obviously (to him) the defense of a country rests on a ‘well regulated’ militia, but that those militia units couldn’t compel service if someone objected to it from a religious standpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/155 "2015-07-20T16:04:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Do you think it is? Do you think this question is relevant? Do you acknowledge that firearm violence has experienced a decreasing trend over the last 20ish years? The question must be relevant, since you just asked the very same question of me. I acknowledge that total firearm violence, until approximately 2006, has shown a downward trend, then started swinging back upwards again(for some types of gun violence at least) for an as of now unknown reason. My initial complaint was the goalpost-moving tactics of reciting gun _crime_ stats, and sometimes initially only the stats involving gun crimes that result in death, when the topic of gun _violence_ comes up. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/156 "2015-07-20T16:12:06Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > So you’ve found an article by an online commentator no one has heard of writing for a magazine that is all but defunct proposing something that nobody of significance is getting behind? I’ll admit that my first reaction was “Wait - Newsweek is still in print?”. And it’s not so much “leftist” as “superficial dreck desperate to remain relevant”. > [@Construct](#): > > The best way to win a war that never ends, then, is never to concede an inch, never to compromise or admit that your opponents have legitimate concerns, and to do everything possible to villainize and extirpate your enemies. > > This is what the pro-gun side is doing, and we’re winning. There’s no reason to stop until Brady Campaign and Everytown are the equivalent of the American Nazi Party. Good to know you’re arguing in good faith. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Gun control advocates would like all guns banned outright **Some** gun control advocates would like that. Some have more moderate positions. > [@Absolute](#): > > But your point is well-taken nonetheless. What I should have said was “Because the anti-gun position _that this article represents_ is rooted in politics, tribalism, and irrational fear, not logic.” It is certainly possible to approach gun control from a rational, logical perspective in the US. Unfortunately, the gun control lobby doesn’t seem interested in doing that. All of the above is also true of the pro-gun lobby. How many arguments have we seen here defending gun ownership on the basis of the danger of armed thugs bursting into your house intent on murder and mayhem? How many gun owners have expressed the need to walk everywhere armed just in case someone holds up their local Starbucks while they’re in there picking up their grande mocha? And how many times has the NRA goaded its membership into forking over a few more bucks out of fear that the government was going to be [coming for all their guns](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AtQKTBaEv7w/UVsYGCH161I/AAAAAAAAGN4/77Tzm1ebcWc/s1600/americas-1st-freedom-2012-11.jpg) any day now? It is certainly possible to approach gun ownership from a rational, logical perspective in the US, but don’t pretend for a moment that the fear factor isn’t the predominant driver of that position as well. You can’t say that gun control advocates don’t understand risk assessment while you’re busy arming yourself in case Islamic terrorists hold up your local Walmart. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/157 "2015-07-20T16:35:28Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > The question must be relevant, since you just asked the very same question of me. > I acknowledge that total firearm violence, until approximately 2006, has shown a downward trend, then started swinging back upwards again(for some types of gun violence at least) for an as of now unknown reason. My initial complaint was the goalpost-moving tactics of reciting gun _crime_ stats, and sometimes initially only the stats involving gun crimes that result in death, when the topic of gun _violence_ comes up. I don’t think the question is relevant, but I’m willing to be corrected. The best way to do that would be for you to indicate how you think it is relevant. I invite you do to this by asking you the same question. Has your complaint of discussing crime without including injury and suicide now been addressed? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2015, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/158 "2015-07-20T16:45:52Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I don’t think the question is relevant, but I’m willing to be corrected. The best way to do that would be for you to indicate how you think it is relevant. I invite you do to this by asking you the same question. > > Has your complaint of discussing crime without including injury and suicide now been addressed? I thought it was relevant to this thread since it had just been brought up and pointed out directly before I posed the question in this thread. My complaint wasn’t about “discussing crime without including injury and suicide”-My complaint(as I have said repeatedly now) is moving the goalposts when the subject of gun violence is raised to change the topic to gun crime. ---
**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:** [July 20, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/159 "2015-07-20T17:10:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I thought it was relevant to this thread since it had just been brought up and pointed out directly before I posed the question in this thread. > My complaint wasn’t about “discussing crime without including injury and suicide”-My complaint(as I have said repeatedly now) is moving the goalposts when the subject of gun violence is raised to change the topic to gun crime. “Well regulated” was only brought up to the extent it was related to the militia, not gun ownership. The conflation is easy to do, but it was a topic you brought up. In what way do you think “well regulated” as applied to gun ownership relevant? I think it has been demonstrated that gun violence has moved directionally with gun crime, so much so that it’s not misleading or moving goal posts to talk about one without including exhaustive discussion of the other. Do you agree? ---
**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:** [July 20, 2015, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345/160 "2015-07-20T17:22:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Under that definition, is gun ownership well-regulated in this country? The original federal Militia Act actually set requirements for the arms that citizens were obliged to own for the purpose of militia duty. But there was never a universal requirement to drill at arms, and such a requirement would have been viewed with suspicion as an attempt to regiment the population. For a while citizens were required to “muster” once a year, but short of a state of emergency they didn’t want to be bothered with militia duty and were recalcitrant to be called to enforce the law, especially unpopular laws. During the War of 1812 local militias fared poorly against the invading British, which was hardly surprising as you can’t expect people to be good at anything they don’t practice regularly. As decades went by the practice of yearly musters was allowed to grow moribund until by the 1840s it was [considered a farce](http://www.common-place.org/vol-13/no-03/larkin/images/04a-big.jpg). The states eventually began to rely on the “select” militia- the volunteers who practiced regularly and could be relied upon to enforce the laws of the state (what the 1903 Militia Act termed the “organized” militia). Some hardcore minarchists think that we missed the point- that we shouldn’t _have_ any laws that the general population can’t be troubled to help enforce. Imagine for example if we’d started out with a universal requirement to serve on juries when called, but eventually jurors were drawn solely from a pool of people who volunteered for the duty. I doubt most people would trust the impartiality of such a jury. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-newsweek-proposes-a-compromise/725345.md?page=9)