Guns: Newsweek proposes a compromise

[Jackmannii]

As a compromise, I won’t wear my “If you know how many guns you have, you don’t have enough” t-shirt in this thread.

No, I don’t actually have such a shirt, but I did see them on sale in Wyoming.

[Czarcasm]

@Lumpy

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. 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).

Interesting evolution of the term-Thank you.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

I know this is a popular refrain but is it true? What are all these gun rights you once had but have now lost? Where was this well meaning compromise by gun owners to the ebil libruhls?

And you think those laws were constitutional?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@HurricaneDitka

A leftist author at a leftist media outlet proposes a compromise on the great gun debate:

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.html

To summarize, he wants to give gun control advocates the following:
[ul]
[li]Ban on high-capacity magazines[/li][li]Universal background checks[/li][li]Outlaw open carry[/li][/ul]

And gun rights advocates get:
[ul]
[li]“shall-issue” permits everywhere[/li][li]No more “evil feature” bans (except the aforementioned magazine ban)[/li][li]No more bans on “armor-piercing” bullets[/li][li]No more “assault weapon bans” (I’m not certain the author realizes this is essentially the same thing as the “evil feature” ban[/li][/ul]

What are your thoughts here?

Mine are that he basically gives the gun control side the things it wants the most, and lets the gun rights side keep things they’ve already won, or are in the process of winning. In other words, I would not sign onto such a proposal, but I suspect that most gun banners would (and do so quite cheerfully).

He also fails to define his limit for “high capacity” magazines. He mentions 100-round drums at first, and then later 30-round magazines. Where would you put the limit? 20? 15? 10? 7? 6?

What tweaks could be made to his proposal to win your support?

This guy sounds like some of my gun control friends who discovered that many of the gun control lobby’s proposals were retarded. So they are now willing to give up what they have already lost as well as things that clearly won’t make a bit of difference.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

The Firearm Owners Protection Act mainly revised the Gun Control Act of 1968.

And how have these trampled on your rights?

Doesn’t seem all that bad.

There is a registry for short barreled shotguns and rifles. There is a $200 stamp fee. And your local law enforcement official has to sign off on your ownership of it.

[Haberdash]

@Lumpy

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.

There wasn’t a requirement in the federal act (are you referring to the one from 1792?) because Muster Day was established in local laws for 150 years at that point. Many newer towns did in fact establish “requirements to drill at arms” in response to the 1792 bill.

http://www.hampton.lib.nh.us/hampton/history/1988/musterday.htm

Of course, even going down the “what exactly does ‘militia’ mean” rabbit hole misses several points…

[Damuri_Ajashi]

[quote=“Shodan, post:17, topic:725345”]

[LIST]
[li]How high is “high-capacity”?[/li][li]Does this mean background checks for private sales/transfers?[/li][li]Did you/he mean “outlaw concealed carry”? I don’t see how open carry is any more dangerous than concealed.[/li][/quote]

A lot of people seem to think you shouldn’t have more than 6 shots.
Universal means universal.
Open carry is scarier for a lot of people because they can see the gun.

Is this agreement going to overrule every gun law on the states’ books?

The word you are looking for is pre-emption and it is an important part of any nationwide compromise on guns. You can’t just let the states take away what you negotiated for at the federal level

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bone

I would compromise if in return there was a constitutional amendment making gun ownership, posssession, and carry a suspect class subject to strict scrutiny.

Suspect classes can be created by congress.

See, Civil Rights Act

[Bone]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Suspect classes can be created by congress.

See, Civil Rights Act

Yes they can. That means they can take it away too. A constitutional amendment would be a stronger level of protection.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@YogSosoth

This is right. Gun banners like me know that momentum is not on our side and would accept a lopsided deal to look like something’s being done, but there’s no reason for the other side because they negotiate from a position of strength. For someone like me, the only recourse is to wait for the SCOTUS to change and try it again

Is there any deal that the gun control side would adhere if they suddenly found themselves with 5 votes on the supreme court?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Whack-a-Mole

Sigh

verb
verb: compromise; 3rd person present: compromises; past tense: compromised; past participle: compromised; gerund or present participle: compromising

settle a dispute by mutual concession.

Note it says nothing about mutual giving things.

So the gun control side’s concession is that tye will do what? Stop asking for more gun control? For how long?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bone

Yes they can. That means they can take it away too. A constitutional amendment would be a stronger level of protection.

Good point. How would your position be different if the Second were repealed?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Moriarty

Stockpile as many as you like…it’s your own life you are putting at risk.

Is this the same study that found an even greater correlation between violent death and renting your home or doing drugs or living alone.

The study also acknowledges that the risk of death might be the reason people have the gun. IIRC, the study made a good case for the link between successful suicide and gun ownership but considering that our suicide rate is dead fucking average for wealthy industrialized nations.

[Bone]

@ElvisL1ves

Good point. How would your position be different if the Second were repealed?

Position on what? How the new Planet of the Apes reboot is compared to the original? On the introduction of midichlorians in the Star Wars canon? You’ve made the mistake of asking an incoherent question.

[Moriarty]

@Damuri_Ajashi

There is a registry for short barreled shotguns and rifles. There is a $200 stamp fee. And your local law enforcement official has to sign off on your ownership of it.

He said trampled. Not regulated.

Do you feel the same angst when you are told you need a permit to lead a parade? Or turn your music down when you drive in residential neighborhoods late at night. Is the First Amendment being trampled when that happens?

[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Is this the same study that found an even greater correlation between violent death and renting your home or doing drugs or living alone.
[/QUOTE]

“The majority of decedents, regardless of cause of death, were living with other people at the time of death.” Apparently not.

The study also acknowledges that the risk of death might be the reason people have the gun.

So. Having the gun in the home increases the likelihood that it is used tragically. Which is my point.

IIRC, the study made a good case for the link between successful suicide and gun ownership but considering that our suicide rate is dead fucking average for wealthy industrialized nations.

For me, I would rather make it harder to pull off suicide. I’d also like to reduce the odds of a shooting due to a domestic fight, or mistaken identity of a person at the door, or in an accident by a kid, or a robbery, or of any other reason that guns may be misused.

I’m not judging your decision to do otherwise. I take calculated risks in other areas. I’m just saying that my decision is rational and evidence based.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Moriarty]
For me, I would rather make it harder to pull off suicide.
[/QUOTE]

Except it really doesn’t…as noted, Japan has a MUCH higher rate of suicide yet they have very strict gun controls. Ours, with all the guns is really about average for industrialized nations, most of which have very strong gun control.

I’d also like to reduce the odds of a shooting due to a domestic fight, or mistaken identity of a person at the door, or in an accident by a kid, or a robbery, or of any other reason that guns may be misused.

Sure, but those levels are already pretty low in the US. You’d be better off campaigning against alcohol since it kills a hell of a lot more folks due to accidents (including kids) and misuse.

I’m not judging your decision to do otherwise. I take calculated risks in other areas. I’m just saying that my decision is rational and evidence based.

What do you calculate the risks based on, though? Do you think having a gun in your house is more risky than having a bottle of vodka? How about having one of those car thingies in your driveway? Are you more likely to be shot with your own gun by accident than killed driving to and from work? What’s the actual relative risk? Do you know? If I told you that it’s less than a 1000 in a country of 320 million what would you then judge the relative risk to be?

The thing about these sorts of discussions is that people are horrible at risk assessment and at understanding relative risk, as well as putting things into context. There are a lot of things in your home that are way more risky than having a gun in it, and they are things you probably don’t give a second thought to since you KNOW that the gun is dangerous and you don’t think about or give a second thought too other things.

[Haberdash]

Arguing about statistics with a gun-confiscation 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.

[Lumpy]

@ElvisL1ves

Good point. How would your position be different if the Second were repealed?

Speaking for myself, I would be saddened by the erasure of one the last vestiges of the idea that the People aren’t a herd of sheep to be “managed” by the government.

[Moriarty]

@XT

What do you calculate the risks based on, though? Do you think having a gun in your house is more risky than having a bottle of vodka? How about having one of those car thingies in your driveway? Are you more likely to be shot with your own gun by accident than killed driving to and from work? What’s the actual relative risk? Do you know? If I told you that it’s less than a 1000 in a country of 320 million what would you then judge the relative risk to be?

The thing about these sorts of discussions is that people are horrible at risk assessment and at understanding relative risk, as well as putting things into context. There are a lot of things in your home that are way more risky than having a gun in it, and they are things you probably don’t give a second thought to since you KNOW that the gun is dangerous and you don’t think about or give a second thought too other things.

You completely ignored the parts of my post where I said 1) this is for me, and this is not (if you had read the thread) anything I am proposing in terms of policy and 2) I take calculated risks all the time.

I also get the risk assessment thing. For example, I have a pool. And I very well know that my 2 1/2 year old child is at greater risk of drowning in a pool than in getting shot by a gun in a home accident. Which is why I put a fence around the pool. And why I gave him swim lessons already. And continue with the teaching almost daily.

I’ve simply chosen to minimize my risk in the area of gun ownership by not owning one. I take other measures (i.e. shatter resistant windows, home alarm, beware of dog sign, dog, etc.) to protect my home, and I sleep better at night not having a gun in the house.

I don’t begrudge you the opposite decision, but stuff like this

[QUOTE=Haberdash]
Arguing about statistics with a gun-confiscation fetishist is like arguing about autism with an anti-vaxxer
[/QUOTE]

is downright useless for a decent discussion. I, for example, don’t want to confiscate your guns. I just don’t want to live in your house where a small arsenal is stored, either.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Moriarty]
I don’t begrudge you the opposite decision, but stuff like this
[/QUOTE]

I actually don’t have a gun in my house (my dad has enough for both of us :p). And I don’t begrudge anyone making an informed choice about whether or not to have a gun in their home. I just want to make sure that folks do have that choice and don’t have it taken away by fiat. If my fellow citizens one day vote to strike down the 2nd and then move, through the voting booth to curtail or even completely remove gun ownership from the rest of their fellow citizens I’ll honor that vote (though I hope they ARE actually informed and are making the decision based on rational reasons and not based on fear and ignorance of the actual risks). If my fellow citizens vote to put additional controls on gun ownership and these controls don’t violate the 2nd then I’ll honor those as well, hoping the same thing, that they make informed decisions.

You completely ignored the parts of my post where I said 1) this is for me, and this is not (if you had read the thread) anything I am proposing in terms of policy and 2) I take calculated risks all the time.

I didn’t ignore it, I was asking you for a follow on in how you evaluate that risk, which you did. That you can make a decision of whether or not to own a gun and keep it in your house is basically all I ask…that the choice be there and not removed by fiat. At the base that seems reasonable to me, that folks be given a choice about the decision. To me, it’s a fundamental difference between Americans and most of the other western/industrialized nations out there, a quirk of our own history and attitude, and one I think that indeed costs us some number of lives per year that might otherwise have not died. But this is like a lot of decisions we as a society make…most laws and ordinances have a non-zero expectancy of death (i.e. change the speed limit, allow alcohol in society or even change whether the corner store can now sell the stuff when they couldn’t before, etc) and I’m good with that. We are a huge nation, population wise, and so we are going to have all manner of things to kill folks with. Guns are just another tool that has an expectancy of non-zero deaths per year, so mitigating that while maintaining the right is, to me, the best course we can take while maintaining the right which historically we’ve enjoyed.