Supreme Court / Right to Keep & Bear Arms

Great Debates
201

As previously said, I’m not wild about being called “Dr Brown”. Except on my diploma. :slight_smile:

The problem with posting at 3AM is that you may fail to make your point clear. I apologize. The point was not merely to blather on about my life history, though I certainly seem to have done that, but to respond to **Stealth Potato[/p]'s comment regarding resistance versus submission during an attempted assault.

So a direct statement of my response, in impersonal and general terms:

If resisting would lower the chance of your injury or death, by all means resist. For example, if a would-be rapist is unarmed and not likely to beat you to death with his bare hands, kicking him in the ankle and screaming bloody murder while running like hell may be an excellent choice. Or pepper spray, if you prefer, although for my money I’d rather have an airhorn.

If your assailant is a psychopath who intends to kill you whatever you do, then your best response by far is to fight to the death, by whatever means are at hand.

If, however, resisting would likely increase your chance of being injured, as is most likely the case if your assailant has a gun and appears to have the wherewithal to use it but does not have the specific intention of killing or seriously injuring you, then meek submission is your best choice. The Victorians may have been of the opinion that rape is a fate worse than death, but I personally disagree.

Of these three cases, the only one in which I feel having a gun would substantially increase my personal safety is case two, which, as I am sure you are aware, is extremely rare. If you are attacked by someone with a gun, and you respond by drawing a gun of your own, then you have given them an urgent and pressing reason to shoot you; I would much prefer to surrender my wallet or my “honor” than see which of us has a faster trigger finger. In the case of an assailant with, say, a hunting knife, I dunno whether I would choose to resist or not; but the risk is, for me, not nearly enough to justify carrying a gun.

Now rape may not be the ideal test case, since the majority of rapists are known to the victim (the vast majority, if unreported rapes are included), and the overall risk of death is relatively low (a woman is far more likely to be killed by a husband or boyfriend than by a rapist). However, the same cost-benefit analysis applies to any other crime of which I am likely to be a victim; I do not think that the frequency of cases where having a gun on my person would effectively increase my ability to resist are is enough to justify the risks inherent in having a loaded gun on my person in the first place.

As of 2005, the overall violent crime risk for the US was 21 crimes per thousand persons per year, or 1 in 416,000 per hour. The overall homicide risk was 56 deaths per million persons per year, or 1 in 145 million per hour. What is the risk, per hour of carry, that a loaded gun in a hip holster (or whatever you advocate) will accidentally discharge due to heat or impact or what-have-you and thus injure the carrier or a bystander?

The anecdotes were intended to illustrate cases from my personal experience where escalating the incident by, for example, drawing a gun, would more likely than not have lead to a far more deleterious outcome. You are welcome to respond with anecdotes illustrating cases from your personal experience where a having gun more likely than not prevented a far more deleterious outcome.

JRB

202

Yeah, this is heavy.

203

Considering that I don’t carry a gun, have defended myself from muggings by running or hitting people with large bags full of metal, or by simply continuing to walk on by, I have no statement to make on self defense issues. I am planning to pick up a Colt pistol, but simply because I appreciate the historic value of the iconic weapon, rather than any need to walk around with it.

(Again, I did, most recently, decide to try giving in to being mugged. Fucker decided I wasn’t moving fast enough to suit him, and he slashed at me. I think I broke his arm, I’m not sure.)

There are no dangerous weapons, merely dangerous people.

Myself, I’m a sport shooter. But I shoot with people who are retired from the armed forces, and people who will join the armed forces one day. And this does make them better soldiers. And god forbid I ever have to take up arms, I will know how to use them. Which may mean fewer people hurt than otherwise.

Guns are a lot like chainsaws. They look scary, and if you don’t know how to use them, you can get seriously hurt. But generally, if you obey the rules, they’re safe.

Now, cars, those are dangerous things given to far too many people who pay far too little attention to what they’re doing.

204

Pretty much none.

Cite please. How many people in Wal-Mart or where ever have been injured from the accidental discharge of a person that had a CCW. Give me some numbers.

Heat? You must be joking. You’re a Doctor. You must know a bit about chemistry.

If modern firearms just started shooting because it got a bit warm, wouldn’t you think that the people that carry them every day (say the police) would be a bit concerned about it?

Impact? There is a test for pistols and revovers. I believe they have to be able to be dropped from 6 feet onto a concrete floor. And not go off. Again and again. But the weapon has to be able to be picked up and be able to fire.

Again I ask –

And I ask again, are you against CCW, or any ownership of a gun.

205

JRB

I disagree with your stance on gun control.

Thank you for the story about growing up in Mexico and South America… I really enjoyed reading it.

Sorry about you being raped.

T. Slothrop

206

I would be more than happy to review any statistics you can point me to. I have conducted occasional journal searches (admittedly not exhaustive) and there is very little information available besides individual case reports, perhaps because data on nonfatal injuries are not systematically collected in most states. What is your basis for saying that the risk is “pretty much none”, and is “pretty much none” greater or less than 1 in 416,000 per hour?

I am against concealed carry unless you can persuade a judge that you have material reason to believe that your life is in imminent danger.

I believe guns should be subject to regulation based on public-welfare cost/benefit analysis, as for any tool capable of substantial misuse, and not subject to “special protection”.

I believe there are perfectly legitimate reasons to own some types of firearms, and that firearms suitable for these uses should be permitted.

I believe that regulation of the types of gun and ammunition freely available to private citizens without special permissions should be based on the capabilities required for their socially-sanctioned uses.

I believe that private sale or transfers of firearms bypass legal checks on permissible buyers/recipients, and should be made illegal or at least should be far more stringently regulated.

I believe that current gun control laws are not being adequately enforced.

I believe that a greater consistency in gun control laws would be beneficial to their enforcement, and thus favor federal rather than state legislation.

Any other points that you would like me to clarify?

JRB

207

I agree entirely. But until you have perfected the Charact-O-Meter, capable of detecting those who will not take adequate safety precautions, or are likely to use a gun in an unjustified manner in a moment of anger, or who would otherwise pose a public danger should they have a lethal weapon at their disposal, we are forced to rely on relatively crude screening methods to identify the “dangerous people.”

If we could guarantee that each and every gun owner and potential gun owner were models of morality, sensibility and restraint, I would entirely support letting all comers have whatever type and kind of firearm they desire. Since this is unfortunately not the case, I believe we should regulate the types and kinds of guns available in a manner so as to maximize the public safety.

JRB

208

Actually I believe he was referring to this.

JRB

209

Ms. Brown, the problem with your above statement is that every single thing you say applies to cars.

Cars are far more dangerous than guns. There is no risk of an accidental carrying around discharge in Wal-Mart. Guns will not go off accidentally on a casual carry basis, unless you have the tendency to leave your guns in an oven.
The most dangerous point when carrying a gun is when you pass it to someone else, or pick it up in the first place. Carrying it around is essentially idiot-proof.

Shoot. Where to begin? That ammunition can be made by hand trivially? No… darn.

Sadly, you just don’t know enough about guns to have an educated conversation about them. It’s like talking to someone who has never driven a car about why people buy pickups.

Briefly, then, to rock bottom stages.

Welcome to the USA. The second amendment regulates what the government and states can do about guns. Many states have even more liberal restrictions.

It’s nice that you believe things. Now, I’d like to see you tell us how you think they can be implemented, and why they’re good ideas.

What is ‘public welfare cost/benefit analysis’ when it’s at home, if not ‘they make me feel uncomfortable’? What are ‘legitimate reasons to own some types of firearms’? What firearms? Why? What separates these guns from ones that make you feel uncomfortable? Are there numbers to back this up? What are ‘socialy-sanctioned uses’ for a gun, and how would you limit them? Remember, a deer rifle is a very high powered and long range gun. Deer are bigger than people.

How are you going to control what people do with guns, in ways that will not be ignored by criminals, while providing unnecessary restrictions on legitimate gun owners? Why do you feel the state has any right to know if I own a shotgun or not? Is it because I might hurt someone with it? Is my shotgun more or less likely to hurt someone than my prybar? Should I register the prybar?

Remember, you only need to register a car if you intend to operate it on public roads. I could have no license, an unregistered car, that does not meet safety and emissions standards, and no insurance. I could still drive that car around on my own property all I wanted. I could sell that car with no paperwork, excepting tax issues.

Why should a gun, whose ownership is protected by the Constitution, be subject to greater restrictions than any other lethal item?

210

So was Bricker. :slight_smile:

211

This is the crux of the issue - in this country, we 1) presume that the people reserve all rights by default, and that the government’s power does not exist where not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, and 2) a person is innocent of wrongdoing until proven guilty.

Your idea of restricting everyone’s rights because of the potential misdeeds of a few is all very well and good if all you care about is “safety”, but it’s illegal in the United States of America.

Anyhow, I picked up my M44 Carbine yesterday. Beautiful gun, in excellent condition considering it was built to fight on the eastern front 64 years ago. And for less than $100, I feel like I should have bought two. In fact, I might just pick up a 91/30 to be its companion! :smiley:

And since we’re talking about lethality, and what kind of guns people should be “allowed” to have… People who don’t understand guns often like to talk about banning “unnecessarily powerful” or “rapid-firing” weapons, but where do we draw the line? My M44 is more than 60 years old. It is a bolt-action carbine in an old wooden stock with a fixed magazine holding 5 rounds of 7.62x54R. That esteemed cartridge has been in service since 1891, and delivers far more energy than any assault rifle. A reasonably skilled person armed with this carbine could visit a violent, lung-exploding death on 5 or more people in as many seconds in a crowded area, and reload another 5 rounds in a few more.

In every sense of the word, this is a very formidable weapon. Every gun is formidable when facing it is a crowd of unarmed people. What does that tell you?

212

As Stealth Potato says, you have it backwards.

The Second Amendment guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It also gives a reason why it is important to guarantee this right - so that we can raise a militia if we need to, because the ability to raise a militia is vital to maintaining a free state.

Therefore, by default, any of the people (that is, any citizen of any free state in the Union) has the right to keep and bear arms, and that right may not be infringed.

So, if any citizen wants to own a weapon, you have to present a compelling reason why he or she should not be allowed to exercise the right. There can be reasons why this could happen - free speech is not absolute, nor are any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. But unless and until you can show a compelling reason, and show how that reason applies to the specific citizen who wants to own a weapon, the government does not get to infringe.

Freedom of the press has allowed some to make false and malicious statements in public. Nonetheless, the fact that this has happened does not mean that citizens who want to exercise their First Amendment rights have to present some kind of justification before they do so. Just the opposite - in a republic with a limited government, the government has to justify its actions in limiting those rights.

The Second Amendment does the same thing that the rest of the Bill of Rights does - forbids the government from interfering with certain specific rights in particular, and in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, establishes a rule of thumb to control the government’s actions as regards other rights - hands off, basically. Government may not do anything, IOW, that the Constitution does not specifally say it can do. The principle has admittedly suffered much in the last few decards. But it remains as a core of our system of government. All that is necessary is to appoint reasonable justices who will recognize that fact.

Regards,
Shodan

213

This is your personal interpretation. The Supreme Court has never actually ruled that it’s the correct one.

214

Really? :confused: I don’t get it, but then I haven’t seen that movie in decades.

JRB

215

E-Sabbath, my pet, is there any particular reason you don’t want to call me JR Brown?

As an example, directly connected to my daily life, of the attempt to balance public safety versus public benefit, I give you the City of Boston’s regulations concerning biological research. This is only one set of the federal, state, local and institutional regulations to which we are subject; my institution has an Office of Radiation Safety, an Office of Chemical Hygiene, an Office of Safety and Environmental Health, and an Office of Animal Resources to ensure that when I come in to work each morning I will remain within the legally prescribed restrictions on my research activities.

As far as “it scares me” goes, consider the people protesting the Biosafety Level 4 (high-risk agent) research facility at Boston University. These people are by and large not biologists, have little knowledge of research procedures, and have no statistics to support their assertion that this facility poses a public risk. Shall I tell them to run off and not worry their little heads about things they don’t understand?

Stealth Potato, Shodan, et al:

Rights, in this country, are established by interaction between the voters, their elected representatives, and the members of the Supreme Court. They are always subject to negotiation and revision.

A post enumerating all the “rights” that have changed since the original adoption of the Constitution would take a week to compile and probably crash the servers, so I won’t try. However, I will point out, firstly, that it is only by virtue of amendments to the Constitution that I, as a woman, a non-landowner, and an atheist, have a federally guaranteed right to participate in the political process (hell, as an African American, I might not even be a free person); and secondly, that significant expansion of First Amendment rights has occurred within my lifetime.

Because of the immense symbolic importance of the Bill of Rights, amending the Second Amendment would be, politically, monumentally difficult. But that does not mean that it is impossible, or that we should not try, if we believe that it is desirable to do so. You and I are three data points out of the 300 million or so potential voters. I am not going to charge into your home and rip your beloved guns from your hands. I will, however, vote for such restrictions and regulations that I find reasonable. And you have no Constitutional right to stop me.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some mice to harass.

JRB

216

Ever read the Ninth or Tenth Amendments? They seem to present a different picture of how rights are established.

Amendment of the Constitution is the legitimate way to bring previously unrecognized rights under the protection of the federal government. But don’t you see the point? You have the right to participate in the political process, you believe, because the Constitution has amendments that guarantee that right. In exactly the same way, I have a right to own firearms because an amendment to the Constitution guarantees that right. So your right to vote and my right to own a handgun are based on the same thing.

It would be illegitimate to deprive you of your right to participate in the political process by passing some law that said you had to prove your worthiness before you were allowed to vote. Correct?

Well, sure, you can try. What I am saying is that you may not attempt to deprive others of their rights without amending the Constitution.

I assume my right to prevent you from voting is just as subject to “negotiation and revision” as my right to own a firearm, correct?

Regards,
Shodan

217

In the movie, Dr. Emmet Brown, played by the incomparable Christopher Lloyd, would frequently explode with the exclamation, “Great Scott!”

Marty McFly, his pal, played by the redoubtable Michael J. Fox, would frequently reply with some comment about how “heavy” the issue or situation was. Doc Brown of the 1980s was used to this somewhat common expression, but when Marty was in 1955, he used the phrase only twice before the 1955-version of Doc wondered, “There’s that word again – ‘heavy.’ Why are things so heavy in the future? Is there a problem with the Earth’s gravitational pull?”

218

And if this current case up from the DC Circuit has them ruling as Shodan suggests? That will, in your view, be legitimate and an end to the constitutional interpretation debate?

219

Well, the mice are being uncooperative again, so back to your Regularly Scheduled Argument.

Well, lessee, when was the last time a baby was born with a “natural rights listing” wrapped around its arm? From a functional point of view, if you can’t persuade the Judiciary or the Legislature that you have a certain right, then you don’t have that right.

Usually you can’t extend a “previously unrecognized” right to someone without at the same time removing or limiting someone else’s previously recognized right. We had a pretty big and well-publicized war a while back because of a little disagreement between the states about how the right to liberty should interact with the Constitutionally recognized right to legislate service (Article IV, Section 2).

Sure. As long as the law in question does not violate the Constitution as it stands at the time, it is perfectly legitimate. If you can arrange a repeal of the 19th Amendment and then persuade Massachusetts to disenfranchise women, I’ll be out of your hair. So far I don’t see that any gun control laws violate the 2nd Amendment as I interpret it. We’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say.

JRB

220

OK, cool. I got the “great scott” thing but not the “heavy”. Thanks.

JRB