I am under no obligation to believe that you “don’t want to confiscate my guns.” Aside from that, you’re abusing statistics to get the conclusions you want, and people are trying to point it out, and you’re basically retreating into “BUT WHY DO YOU WANT MY CHILD TO DIE?” instead of acknowledging it. I stand by my analogy – you’re bad at using the science of statistics, in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason that antivaxxers are bad at using the science of biology or global warming deniers are bad at using the science of climatology.
The founders didn’t put a right to bear arms in the Articles of Confederation, or the original constitution. It’s in an amendment because those founders couldn’t get all the states to ratify, and had to throw in a bunch of parchment promises that must have seemed harmless at the time given lack of enforcement mechanisms. The promises were designed to bring on board those who distrusted the federal government (the anti-federalists).
Arguing about statistics with a gun fetishist is like arguing about autism with an anti-vaxxer. It won’t change their mind and it just validates their nonsense by dignifying it with a response.
See? Everyone can play this stupid game.
Virginia ratified the Constitution a year before the Bill of Rights was introduced, despite calls to reject it for the very reason that the BoR was not included. Any argument that purports to connect the IMMENSE number of dots from “Second Amendment” to “supports slavery” is basically just a risible smear designed to accuse gun-rights proponents of being racist, and the three-card-monte that you have to play with the timeline to even get step 1 of your 107-step link on the table makes the whole thing collapse.
It was ratified based on a promise that certain Virginians would push for a Bill of Rights.
North Carolina and Rhode Island were the two states that refused to ratify the US Constitution without a bill of rights.
The Second Amendment was a check against another provision of the proposed Constitution: granting the federal government co-authority with the states over the citizen militia. Article One Section Eight empowers the federal Congress:
Since under the new constitution the states were forbidden to have standing state armies (Article One, Section Ten, the Compact Clause), a militia of armed citizens was the only military force left to the states. As described in detail in the Anti-Federalist Papers, the fear was that a potentially tyrannical federal government could use the above authority to disarm the citizenry.
There were several drafts of the proposed Second Amendment, differing in wording; many versions protected conscientious objectors, and at least one mentioned hunting- probably because the right to keep and bear arms in the English Bill of Rights had been largely nullified in Britain by anti-poaching laws. The different states had different state guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms, and the final wording of the Second Amendment reflects the central point of agreement among the states: that the states had to have an armed population to summon, and that the federal government could not disarm the citizenry.
It was ratified anyway despite the promise being that of one person who couldn’t guarantee anything, the knowledge that it was a permanent compact regardless of what did or didn’t get passed, and the complete lack of agreement as to what exactly a proposed Second Amendment would protect. This is a counter to any suggestion that a secret pro-slavery reading of the Second Amendment was the reason it was ratified.
Today ten of the original thirteen colonies today have something approaching the second amendment in their state constitutions. I can’t get an exact count, but I’m pretty sure that during the debates over ratifying the constitution, there were fewer, but a majority.
Sounds pretty close to correct. I’m not sure, however, that they were sure it was permanent.
Among white Americans of 1790, slavery was a big issue – especially in the South. In a slave state, white people could, and did, judge almost any federal power on whether it would affect slavery. Including militias. In the South, militias were seen as, among other things, protecting whites against slave revolts.
However, I agree with you on this: Hope the Constitution would be amended to protect Virginia’s authority over its militia was not a major reason for Virginia’s ratification of the Constitution. One reason - sure.
Of course you’re not obligated to believe anything I say, but it seems pointless to enter into a debate if you aren’t going to take the other side at face value. Do I have to be a gun hoarder before you’ll believe I’m not a gun grabber?
Let me repeat. I don’t want your guns.
In what way am I abusing statistics? That’s a little vague to constitute any meaningful rebuttal, and it’s painfully apparent that you did bother to even review my cite, which was a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology entitled, “Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study” and which concluded:
[QUOTE=a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiological data, including public health workers and clinicians.]
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
[/QUOTE]
And this is not me just hunting and pecking for a study to justify “the conclusions I want.” I have a degree in criminology and a masters in criminal justice; I’ve been familiar with these types of statistics for over a decade. And it is accurate to assert that, if you have a gun at home and it goes off, it is more likely to be in “error” (i.e. be a tragic result) than to be in the defense of the homeowner.
In short, I judge it not safer to have a gun in my home.
And I didn’t retreat into “BUT WHY DO YOU WANT MY CHILD TO DIE?” hysteria, either. But I didn’t elaborate on the point, either, so let me explain. My son has a squirt gun that he knows how to shoot. He is also at an age where he likes to climb and he likes to get into things. But, he is too young to take instruction on how to safely handle a gun.
So, I consider the risk, however small it may be, of the most horrific accident I can imagine is not worth the hassle of having a gun in my home that would have to be kept unloaded and under lock and key.
As I said upthread, I would like to go to a gun range. Can you “rent” a gun? I have no idea. I have no hate for guns, and I understand that it is futile to try to take them away from decent, law abiding citizens. And I can respect a person’s desire to have a nice, valuable collection of high-powered toys. I’m not interested in hunting (or fishing), [I’m more of a “camping” and “boating” kind of guy], but more power to you if you like to do those things.
My intention in participating in this thread was to argue that a) not all people who support reasonable gun regulations are “gun grabbers” and b) even gun enthusiasts can agree that reasonable regulations can exist.
In my mind, reasonable regulations are:
Every person over the age of 18 can legally purchase a gun, and guns are not limited by size, capacity, design or style, but they do not include “explosive devices”. It does require a background check to exclude those who have a violent criminal conviction or have ever been legally adjudicated mentally incapacitated or a danger to themselves or others.
To be able to legally carry a gun outside your home you must get licensed to carry that type of gun. A license requires a class on how to take apart, clean, load, shoot, and otherwise operate the gun.
Once you are licensed to own a particular gun, you can carry that gun (concealed or open) wherever guns are not legally prohibited (e.g. schools, hospitals, airplanes, designated private property). You can then own as many of that type of gun as you want. But, if you buy a different type of gun, and wish to carry it, then you must be licensed in that gun as well.
And you’re bad at reading cites and actually responding to the arguments presented instead of mischaracterizing them into a strawman that stoops to your skill level.
This is the study that was published in 2004 and relied on data from 1993, a peak of violent crime in the country, oversampled black persons less than 35 , doesn’t distinguish between lawful and unlawful possession of firearms, and didn’t distinguish between a gun that was in the home with the one that casued the death - between scenarios where someone not living in the home brought the gun to the home.
I wouldn’t say you are abusing statistics - just that this isn’t a useful study.
And this is one of the reasons why it’s not a useful study. Owning a car I would bet dollars to donuts increases your chances of being killed in a car accident, of comitting vehicular homicide, and all manor of traffic violations. If a study was conducted that drew those conclusions, that wouldn’t be useful either. There are clearly costs associated with firearm ownership - a more meaningful question is whether those costs are outweighed by the benefits. This study makes no attempt to address that question.
I don’t begrudge anyone this choice. As long as a person isn’t trying to impose their will on others, they should be able to choose what to do for themselves.
Yes, many ranges will allow you to rent guns. Not all though, so call ahead. The costs can add up so depending on your willingness to spend it can be prohibitive. Best bet is to go with someone who owns firearms already - I am always willing to take first timers to introduce them. This may be a better route if you are completely unfamiliar. If you go this direction, make sure you pick someone who is focused first on safety.
The word “reasonable” has been co-opted by gun control supporters. Any who disagree can be attacked for being unreasonable. It’s unfortunate, but the article in the OP is a great example - we’ll give you nothing, and in return, you concede in multiple ways, totally reasonable!
I don’t believe that the majority of Americans, or even gun owners, are willing to smuggle or illegally purchase arms when they are banned. Other than Prohibition, its hard for me to imagine a widespread discontent with a ban that would result in millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens to suddenly care so much that they’d risk jail. Its just not worth it for most people. Add to that laziness and the increased cost of illegal arms and hiding it everything like that, I’m 100% certain that a gun ban would result in significantly less guns.
From there, its simple math. Less guns equals less gun crime. Given the amount of gun crime we have now with legal guns, I’m highly doubtful that anyone’s not shooting someone because guns are too easy to get. There will be a lot of people who will find that a gun ban makes guns harder to get, and will not be able to shoot someone.
The counter to that is that only criminals will have guns but I’m unconvinced that the amount of criminal activity will increase significantly with them knowing that most people won’t be armed. Scoff at that if you will, but if that’s my baseless speculation, then its also speculation that criminals are somehow deterred or crimes are stopped when people are armed now. We still have criminals and we still have gun crimes, and mass shootings still happen, even against people who are otherwise armed (like the Marines who were killed this past week) or on actual army bases or in states are guns are easier to get. You cannot make a convincing argument that having guns legal almost anywhere does jack shit against a criminal who wants to shoot someone.
So in that case, less guns, less avenues to get guns, making it harder for people to acquire it and more expensive will definitely result in less gun violence.
Do you understand that on army bases, soldiers don’t carry guns? MPs are armed, yes, but not everyone else.
How were the Marines who were killed this past week armed?
I do! I want to take them out of your dangerous hands and confiscate them all. PM me for FFL information. 
You are never too young, but I don’t necessarily mean hands-on experience. It should start with “don’t touch; tell an adult” to proper trigger control if you have to touch, etc. I know I’m going to tell my kids to keep their finger off the squirt gun trigger unless you plan on using it.
Yes, some do, but many do not, so call ahead. Many in Las Vegas do, and if you want to rent FA it’ll make putting it all on black seem like the sounder fiscal sense.
This is basically the current law except that pistols are 21. One may argue that the NICS system has false misses, but that’s not a problem with the law itself. That and the so-called “gun show loophole” which is a big misnomer.
Mostly true, except in 5(or 6?: VT, AK, AZ, WY, AR, maybe KS) states anyone who can legally own can carry concealed. And some of the states that have this law have had it de facto illegal unless you have political connections. Not sure what utility teaching someone to clean a firearm has to do with this though. Most (all?) CCW qualifications have range time.
I have a feeling that your last sentence could create an arbitrary and stupid loophole not intended by you (e.g. California has lists of legal handguns, some of which are identical to an illegal one except in finish, etc.)
This varies by state. I think in this state, you can now qualify with one and carry anything, but in the past semi-autos and revolvers were treated separately, and IIRC you had to qualify with a particular model of revolver (I might have that backwards).
I agree with Bone that studies that lump together “all homes with guns” without accounting for the existence of a criminal subclass are going to be misleading. Of course drug dealers, pimps and gang members are going to possess guns, and on occasion use them to commit homicides. They may currently outnumber people with carry permits.
And if you say “but if there simply were no guns, those gun murders couldn’t happen”? To some extent almost certainly; but do you really believe the underclass would simply abandon violence and murder if guns were [del]impossible[/del] harder to obtain? Even if it were literally impossible to obtain a gun (which I doubt could ever happen in the USA), wouldn’t that just leave us with this?
What about this study, from the Annals of Internal Medicine, entitled “The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”, which concludes:
[QUOTE=Another academic journal]
the evidence that we synthesize here helps to elucidate the risks of having a firearm in the home; restricting that access may effectively prevent injury.
[/QUOTE]
My point is that this is not out of leftfield, and it is rationale to not want to have a gun in the home. Guns increase the risk of gun violence in the home. This is empirically studied.
You misunderstand the conclusion. The overwhelming majority of times that I use a car, I use it for its intended purpose. The majority of times a gun is used in the home, it is not used for its intended purpose.
So why don’t you actually make some attempt to support your argument and go find one.
The word “regulation” has been co-opted by gun enthusiasts. Anybody who wants to regulate the gun industry can be attacked for being a “gun grabber”. I don’t think the article in the OP proposes a good solution.
Fundamentally misconceived. Any effective gun-control system should focus mainly on handguns. Most crimes and most injurious accidents and most suicides involving guns involve plain ol’ handguns, not assault rifles or high-capacity magazines or armor-piercing bullets.
No, but anti-gun proponents often believe that the only purpose for guns is murder…which fits the parallel a lot better.
In what way does my ownership of a short barreled rifle conflict with the rights of anyone else? Why does it need regulation?
So lets say there is a community to 1 million people gun owners and 10,000 people who live alone. Lets say 100,000 people die violently in that community. Lets say 5,000 of them lived alone. 95% of the people who died violently died did not live alone but the correlation between living alone and dying violently was much higher than the correlation between dying violently and owning a gun.
No, your point was that you have a study that you think proves something. It doesn’t. It only points out a correlation. People who live in households with guns were 110% to 190% more likely to die violently than people who lived in households without guns. The likelihood of dying violently was much higher for people who used drugs, lived alone or rented their home.
Out of the 350 million people who live in America, perhaps a third live in households with guns. There are about 16,000 homicides per year.
You’re trying to say that the study says owning a gun leads to someone in your household getting murdered. When the study acknowledges that the causal effect might go the other way (people who are likely to get murdered are more likely to go out and buy a gun to protect themselves). I’m not saying that the presence of a gun in the home presents absolutely no risks but the harm that you think it causes is overblown by a LOT.
Sure but if you are really intent on killing yourself, guns are not the only good way to do it.
These people generally aren’t allowed to have guns and I agree that we need toe enforce these rules better.
Do you consider the benefits of guns used in self defense?
Sure, and so is mine. And you are free to go ahead and not own a gun. Nobody is forcing you to get a gun just a like the right to an abortion or gay marriage is not forcing anyone to have an abortion or get married to someone of the same sex.
I don’t know if you were involved in the discussion where we went over this before. Historians (including historians on the left) condemn the distortion of history that is being attempted here. The second amendment was not devised to protect the South’s ability to keep slavery.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2013/01/second_amendment_slave_control_not_the_aim.html
responding to this article that references the paper you cite: