Well, our society has multiple definitions of “child”. There are many different ages of responsibility for various things (voting, driving, borrowing money, marriage, military service); why should a government agency be consistent when the country isn’t? If one study breaks off at 18, but another draws the line at 19 and still another stops at 20, maybe it’s because each study is looking at different things.
**I’m familiar with it.
There are some people older than 18 still in high school for various reasons. Legally, they are adults (unless they want to drink), but I think most people consider someone still in high school to still be a child regardless of his or her age.
Fine, then. let’s just count the ones from birth to age 19, since those are the numbers we have:
AGES & # OF DEATHS (in 1998)
15-19: 3180
10-14: 0433
05-09: 0096
01-04: 0078
00-01: 0005
Total: 3792
If you still don’t like having 18 and 19-year-olds in the list, why not knock off 500 to 1,000 from the total? That still leaves us with 2180 to 3130 firearm deaths in one year, an average that ranges from about 6 per day to about 8.5.
But at one time, it was higher, wasn’t it? (And, IMHO, even 6 per day is too many. If one of your children was one of those 6, I bet you’d think it was too high. I hope you would anyway. Me, I don’t need to have one of my own children die to think children should not die.) As I stated earlier, HCI’s only fault was in not revising its “13 per day” claim to fit new data.
No rational person claims that guns cause suicides; they claim that guns make suicide easier to accomplish.
Cultural differences. Suicide is more acceptable in Japan. It doesn’t have the stigma it does here. It’s NOT seen as cowardly. And everyone is affected by one’s culture whether they want to be or not.
Doesn’t Scotland have its own Parliament now?
I’m going to say more in a later post. I’m sure you’re all waiting with bated breath…
Uh, no, it doesn’t. It adds up to 30,708. And I’m surprised you didn’t complain that they lumped illegal and legal homicides together. That makes it difficult to determine how often a gun was used in self-defense, doesn’t it? Maybe the FBI knows?
But what if half of all homicides are legal incidents of self-defense? (Not that I believe this.) That would be about 6,000 deaths out of 30,000. Not a very good ratio, I would say.
Does anyone honestly think that half of all gun-related homicides are legal? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that it’s less than half?
If guns don’t cause suicides, then they don’t cause homicides or accidents either. The cause, in most circumstances, is the person holding the gun. Suicides should be included.
I was responding to what YOU said about the report. YOU said: “…they treat ALL the incidents of gun use as reported by gun owners as if each one was warranted.” IOW, you said they assumedbeforehand (the very definition of a priori) that every reported incident was warranted. Are you denying that you said this?
In other words, YOU have already reached a conclusion about guns, so therefore any evidence that indicates otherwise is immediately suspect and should be discarded. **
[/QUOTE]
What are you saying? That people don’t lie anymore? Or it it just legal gun-owners who never tell a lie?
BTW: Are you conceding that you appealed to emotion instead of reason when you asked someone what he’d do about his home being robbed and his wife raped, and himself murdered? (What if he isn’t married?)
Ben has noted that fundamentalist Christians often tell non-believers “You’re going to burn in Hell for all time if you don’t believe as I do!” He calls this “fundie porn.” I guess what you indulged in is “gun-owner porn,” the fantasy of your opponent suffering a gruesome fate because he dares to believe differently from you.
I’m bringing this up again because it’s something that really annoys and disturbs me, and I think doing it is the epitome of idiocy. Every new year, and every fourth, these lunatics feel compelled to go out and shoot at the sky. And every year some people are hurt or killed by falling bullets. I assume that many of these people would claim that they have a gun for self-defense.
Anyone convicted of discharging a gun this way should forever lose their right to own a gun, and spend some time in the slammer. Even if nobody is hurt by the bullets.
I will (and have) call the cops and testify if I see someone doing this.
I know that responsible gun owners (by definition) don’t discharge firearms into the air. What I wonder is, if responsible gun owners will also report these incidents. And testify, if need be.
Peace,
mangeorge
Because without consistency of terminology, words and numbers are meaningless.
We’re not talking about what most people think, we’re discussing a government organization conducting (supposedly) scientifically valid studies and surveys for analysis, to aid in the formation and implementation of national-level health policy. Humans mature physically, emotionally and mentally at different rates, depending upon a variety of factors. The medical community got together with legislators and decided that the age of 18 was sufficiently mature in all categories to be considered a legal adult. Why in the world they pushed the drinking age to 21 is beyond me, other than to say that it’s parents abdicating parental responsibilty to the government. Nah; too simple.
Hey, cool! I get to make up my own numbers! I’ll knock 3,179 off of the age category 15-19. How’s them numbers lookin’ now? You can’t just rearrange numbers willy-nilly to suit yourself. I rearranged numbers to illustrate a point; you’re rearranging numbers to belabor the point.
True, but only in an extremely limited context. Did you even look at the article from the Intl. Journal of Epidemiology I linked to?
Okay, answer to my question: you didn’t. Or you did, and you’re ignoring it because it shoots (no pun intended) your new and revised numbers to hell and gone as well.
Let me spell it out in plain and simple English: there is no proven correlation between firearm ownership rates and suicide rates. Stop looking at raw numbers, and look at rates. How can Japan and Denmark, with no appreciable gun ownership at all, have suicide rates 38% and 93% higher than the U.S.A., respectively? What is different about the human beings in Japan and Denmark that they can successfully off themselves at significantly higher rates than us, without any access to firearms? Could the answer possibly be that, in the absence of firearms, human beings who are determined to end their lives, regardless of race, color, religion or country of origin, will somehow find a way to do so? Jump off of a tall building? Take a bottle of pills? Open a vein? Hang themselves? The rates seem to indicate that this is so. Hence my advocacy of excluding “suicides by firearm” in calculating firearm deaths.
IOW: Suicide is a mental and emotional health concern, not a gun problem.
Yes, it does. But not at the time of the report. Considering that the British Home Office has been caught faking crime rates (downward), I have a suspicion for why Scotland was separated from England/Wales.
DOH! @#$%& Calculator! :mad: Remember: calculators don’t cause arithmetic error, people do. And stop quibbling.
I think that you’re confusing “legal intervention” with “justifiable homicide”. Legal Intervention is:
The causes of death attributable to firearm homicides are E965-E965.4 and E970, found on tables 16, 17 and 18, pgs. 67-71, of the “Deaths: Final Data for 1998” release. The Ninth Rev., International Classification of Diseases, 1975, defines those categories as follows:
E965: Assault by firearms and explosives
E965.0: Assault by Handgun, Pistol, Revolver E965.1: Assault by Shotgun E965.2: Assault by Hunting rifle E965.3: Assault by Military firearms E965.4: Assault by Other and unspecified firearm
E970: Injury due to legal intervention by firearms
That makes all the other stuff that I snipped out of that statement of yours, quoted above, unadulterated bunk.
Finally! Something we agree upon! If it truly is the case that “guns don’t kill people; people do!”, then let’s stop trying to regulate, restrict and/or ban guns and figure out how to get people to stop killing each other. That being the case, I’ll include suicides. Just for you.
But only if you never, ever cite the number of people killed with firearms in advocating stricter gun control. Deal?
I’m glad you mentioned this (as did mangeorge: “patriot missile”, etc). There is no (arguably) in the 2nd Amendment. It’s more than clear. The primary clause (grammatically, not in order of appearance) states in no uncertain terms: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That’s all. I don’t know how it could be more clear. The subordinate clause does not limit or qualify the right, it clarifies it. It could just as easily say “Fruit Loops, being an important part of this complete breakfast, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” without significantly changing the meaning.
Also, the word “arms” indicates weapons that can be easily carried and operated by a single person. Missiles, cannons, artillery, tanks, bombs, etc fall under the classification of “ordnance,” ownership of which is not protected by the Constitution.
This discussion, predictably, has broken down once again into bickering over Kleck & Lott vs. Kellerman. True, the 2nd Amendment’s intent wasn’t law enforcement, but that’s mainly because that was never questioned, for the same reason the Constitution doesn’t address personal privacy in much depth. Two hundred years ago eavesdropping technology didn’t exist. If you wanted privacy, you walked away and spoke privately. It didn’t occur to them that conversational privacy could ever be compromised the way it has been today. By the same token, there was no reason to believe that the need to protect yourself from crime would even need to be addressed. And I feel certain that if it were written today by the same men, eavesdropping and self-defense would have been explicitly covered. That is a perfect example of why intent is important in discussion of Constitutional matters.
Bottom line is that the primary intent of the Bill of Rights was to PROTECT personal liberty by denying government the ability to deny it. It is a series of “Further restrictive and declatory” laws that TAKE AWAY authority from the government. Federal and state laws that restrict gun ownership are in direct violation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments. There is no other way about it.
Regardless of the reason why you want to own a gun, the fact is that the government does not have the right to deny law-abiding citizens the right to be armed. Period.
When it says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms,” who besides the people do you think it’s talking about? Who are THE PEOPLE, if not the actual people?
ExTank:Kimstu: you chided me earlier for accusing the Clinton Administration of having an anti-gun agenda, and ignoring or fabricating evidence to promote their cause (post dated 04/14/01, 1:32 PM)
Hey, hey, waitaminnit, I plead not guilty. What I “chided” you for (and I wouldn’t have put it that strongly) was your implication that the NCVS figures were somehow extra suspect because the study was carried out on Clinton’s watch. What I pointed out was that the 1994 study was a continuation of the same Bureau of Justice Statistics data-gathering project on gun violence that had been going on since '73 under the auspices of the Census Bureau, so I doubted that it was likely to be any more “tainted” by anti-gun bias than previous forms of the survey under other administrations (though as I said, I’ll be happy to examine specific evidence indicating otherwise, if you have any).
What I did not do was to claim that the Clinton administration per se didn’t have an anti-gun agenda, or to chide you for thinking it did. I find it perfectly plausible that their gun-control PR, like lots of the rest of the PR on both sides of the gun issue, played fast and loose with the facts.
But it’s a whole lot easier with a gun, ain’t it? If guns don’t make killing easier, why own one? If guns don’t make killing easier, why were they invented?
I think you missed the point. Of course a commuity of people is composed of people, But when you grant a right to the aggregate, you are NOT granting that right to individuals EXCEPT in their role as part of the whole.
Molecules are composed of atoms, but atoms are NOT molecules. (with a few notable exceptions ).
That is, if the group decides that certain individuals aren’t to be trusted with guns, then the right of the people to bear arms wouldn’t be harmed by restricting access of certain members. (Undoubtedly the reasoning behind taking guns from felons).
So once again, how do you figure that the granting the people the right to bear arms gives you an INDIVIDUAL right that the people can’t take from you? The 2nd amendment doesn’t say that at all.
It’s the people’s right. not yours. In addition, if you can cure yourself of ignoring the parts of the 2nd that don’t make your case for you, It becomes even clearer. ‘the militia’ and ‘the people’ are meant to be taken as one and the same (or more likely, the militia is a portion of the people, and it is that portion which actually does the bearing).
Essentially, the 2nd gives the people the right to have an armed militia. Individuals have the right to bear arms only to the extent that the people’s interest is served.
I’ve been reading this rather spottily, I must admit, but I feel compelled to make one comment while this thing spools off my printer for comprehensive consumption this evening. What I wish to comment on is a side bar to to ExTank’s latest thrust on the floating definition of “children.”
I believe many of the pro-control folks use the rather inclusive definition because it is illegal for people under the age of 21 to own handguns; it is thus rationalized by the pro-control people that the inclusion of this age group is valid. On the other hand, what a critical examination of this rationale would conclude, is that no additional handgun restrictions, short of a total ban and confiscation of all handguns could possibly have any effect on the willful shootings among this age group. Since possession of handguns by these persons is already completely illegal, obviously simple restrictions are ineffective and valuless.
Yes. I said nothing about them assuming “beforehand”. I said that they treated each incident as if it were warranted as opposed to necessary. Note my exact words: “Again, if someone breaks into your home, defensive retaliatory action is completely warranted.”
In other words, just because the usage wasn’t necessary, that doesn’t mean it was unwarranted.
I’ll thank you to keep better track of the context of my words in the future. It’ll help you avoid such blatantly obvious strawmen.
I’m saying it’s stupid to assume that people lied simply because you don’t like what they say. Do you have any evidence that a significant amount of people lied in these surveys? Aside from your assumptions, of course.
Of course. Take a scroll back to page 1 and look at what I was replying TO.
Another strawman. Did you come from the land of Oz or what?
Hyperbole. Go back and re-read ExTank’s talking points. If gun owners were held criminally liable for situations when their guns are mis-used by those too young to own their own guns (i.e. the under 21 ‘children’), then I believe this would drastically reduce the problem of children with guns.
In fact, it isn’t necessary to ban guns at all. It is only necessary to keep them out of the hands of children. A policy of severe restrictions on where and how legal gun owners could own and store (and use) their guns would be quite sufficient.
For instance: I understand that in the UK, while it is possible to own a gun, you can’t store it at home; Only at a shooting range. I’m not advocating this, but it certainly would keep guns out of the hands of children without banning private ownership.
NRA apologists would like you to believe that all forms of regulation lead to gun bans, but this is pure horseshit. If congress ever tried to actually ban all guns, you can bet your life that the whole country would make that the a hot-button issue for the next election.
Right now, I think guns are too available to people who aren’t mature enough to use (and store!) them safely. I favor either more or better regulation of certain types, but I would NEVER favor and outright ban of all, or even most types of guns. I think you will find that attitude in the majority of what you call ‘anti-gun’. Only a small minority are truely anti-gun.
Between those who want the wild west back, and those who want sensible regulation, there will always be a majority to vote against absolute bans. I certainly would.
The only real question is where do you draw the line between your right to bear arms and my right to be safe from the consequences of your carelessness and/or stupidity. The right to carry lethal force around on your hip is an enormous responsibility.
Can you can somehow gurantee me that without any regulation of guns, only safe and sane people will have guns, and none of their guns will ever end up in the hands of wackos or the criminally careless? I don’t think so.
ExTank has put his mind the the problem of trying to devise such a set of rules while getting in the way of gun owners as little as possible. IMO this is the only smart thing for gun owners to do.
In fact, I’ll go even further. IMO Anyone who doesn’t want to think of sensible rules/regulations to keep guns out of the hands of children isn’t mature enough to own a gun. That would be MY rule of gun safety
Only inasmuch as it reduces the the supply of stolen weapons, and one cannot assume unilateral success. Substitution would undoubtedly take place to some degree or another.
The “collective right”/“individual right” has been discussed before; different groups will give you different interpretations of the exact same ruling, be it state or federal. But, as Cecil pointed out here., regardless of how the courts have ruled, the FF certainly intended the right to be an idvidual one. Quite a few more legal scholars are beginning to agree with Prof. Sanford Levinson.
Kimstu: when I said “chide”, I meant it in the mildest sense of the word. I certainly took no offense at your comment, as you politely and eloquently sliced my red herring to sushi and handed it back to me, and then let the matter drop gracefully.
Proof? That would be exceedingly difficult for me to prove, and I wouldn’t like to make a declarative statement of facts not in evidence. At least not at this time (where’s the foot-in-mouth smiley?).
From where I (and most of the gun community) stand, it’s fairly self-evident. Not being in my shoes, you probably lack my perspective; and forcing it upon you won’t make you see it.
The best analogue available would be anti-abortion movements, or some form of censorship.
This is true. But there are two problems with your argument:
The Bill of Rights does NOT grant any rights whatsoever. It removes government’s ability to restrict rights. There is a big difference.
The 2nd Amendment does not address the aggregate, the collective, the state, etc. It addresses solely the people. You appear based on remainder of your post to be one of those who intentionally confuse the people with the state in order to further an agenda of disarmament. Throughout the Bill of Rights, the people and the states are mentioned distinctly and separately. The terms are NOT used interchangeably. When it says “the people”, it MEANS the people. Not the group which is collectively made up of people, otherwise known as the state.
Wrong. The militia is composed of the whole of the people who are capable of bearing arms. Cites for that have been posted so often here that there are burn-in marks on my monitor. Do a search, because I don’t really feel like doing your homework for you. The people don’t need to have a militia, because the people ARE the militia. If YOU can cure YOURSELF of using words interchangeably that are not meant to be so, then it will become very clear that the states and the people are entirely different.
By your logic, the tenth amendment must be referring to the Union rather than the States, right? After all, the Union is made up of the States, the same way molecules are made of atoms. And everyone knows compounds are made up of molecules. So any reference to molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, etc, must in reality be talking about compounds.
See the flaw? That’s the reason we have words for the parts as well as the whole. When we want to discuss molecules, we say so. When we mean atoms, we say atoms. Same goes for the States, the Union, and the People.
Kimstu: profuse apologies on my part to you. You did indeed make a fine, if definite distinction above. It went right over my head both times until I really gave it some thought.
Not to say that what you have to say is unimportant or somehow less noteworthy. Just a lot of signals to process, and yours got lost for a bit on the sideband.
And: “What Joe_Cool said.”
As interesting (and civil; for a GCD, a true rarity) as this is and has been, a personal project I have been procrastinating on starting (it’s the Teeming Millions fault, really) will be taking up some largish chunks of my free time. I’ll be dropping down to almost lurker mode for a while, to keep in touch with the peeps, but posts are going to be few and far between.
Since Joe is too tired, I’ll provide the authority upon which he apparently relies for the proposition that everyone is in the “militia” contemplated by the Second Amendment: U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which decided that:
Since who was actually in the “militia” was not an issue before the Court, anything the opinion says on that matter is dicta, i.e. not binding authority. Nevertheless, the Court’s statements about the militia make it clear that Joe is full of it when he says that the militia is “the whole of the people who are capable of bearing arms.”
The Court cites further authorities and statutes that variously defined the militia as being between certain ages, able-bodied, “of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell,” etc.
So under Joe’s apparent reading of the Second Amendment, you have no right to bear arms if you’re a woman. Sorry, ladies. If you’re in a wheelchair, that NRA membership doesn’t do you a lick of good. Charlton Heston’s not between the ages of sixteen and sixty years, so Sarah Brady’s on her way to pry the musket from his cold, dead fingers.
(Aside: Joe will now reply that the first clause of the Second Amendment poses no restriction on the second clause. To which I reply, then why are you arguing who’s in the “militia” in the first place?)
And not that it makes any difference to the debate, but your Joe’s reading of the Bill of Rights is rather restrictive:
Um, how about that little thing that says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”? I also refer any interested readers to the first half of the Fourth Amendment, as well as the entirety of the Sixth and Seventh for further examples of affirmative grants of rights.
My deducting 500 to 1,000 is a lot more reasonable than your deducting all but one.
Do you honestly believe that the rates of suicide in Japan and Denmark would be the same if gun ownership was not restricted there? I say it would be even higher because the most effective means of committing suicide is with a handgun. Those other methods you mentioned have much lower success rates.
And yet you agree that people with a history of mental-health problems should not be permitted to own guns. If guns did not exist, most mental-health problems would be less of a concern. We wouldn’t have to worry about some nut shooting up a school or an office or their home.
Minty Green:
Did you actually read what I wrote? Or did you only pick out a few sentences to attack with smart-ass remarks? Well, since you think it’s pretty clever to make my arguments for me, I’ll play along.
To start, I’m not arguing who’s in the militia. If you had bothered to read my post, you’d see that I was arguing who “the people” are, and why it would say “the people” if it meant “the states”. The people have no need to have a militia, since the people are the militia.
Yes, the people are the militia, and no, you don’t have to be a member of the militia to bear arms. You sneer at what you know I’m going to say because you seem to think that changes the validity of it. See the militia act of 1792, USC 10.113, The decision you quoted above, and many quotes from the men who actually drafted the Constitution. The protection was intended to be for individuals, not the states. To hold to any other view is to be dishonest.
Read what you wrote. Do you really not recognize the difference between a grant of rights (“A right to keep and bear arms shall be hereby granted”) and a protection of a right (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)? The Bill of Rights protects what were considered to be “inalienable rights.” It does not grant rights anew. In fact, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights states:
Declatory and Restrictive clauses, meant to prevent the government from misconstruing and abusing the powers in the Constitution. Does not sound like a granting of rights to me. In fact, if you read the ninth Amendment, you’ll see this reasoning in action:
Bingo. Acknowledgement that rights exist without being documented in the Bill of Rights.
Now, can we discuss this civilly, without acting like asses, or are you going to end up getting us thrown into the pit?
No need to take it personal, Joe. I disagree with you, you disagree with me. Smart-ass remarks and vigorous debate are well within the bounds of GD, which is (at least on the Internet), the epitome of civilized debate. I certainly have no intention of taking this discussion into the Pit, and definitely did not intend any personal slight towards you.
As a matter of fact, I did read your post. I even quoted the pertinent part in which you asserted that “The militia is composed of the whole of the people who are capable of bearing arms” and “The people don’t need to have a militia, because the people ARE the militia.” The meaning of those statements seems clear enough to me–that “the people” as a whole are “the militia” of which the Second Amendment speaks. That seems to me to be a wrong reading of the amendment, and is in fact legally incorrect under the dicta in Miller, which defined “the militia” in a much more restrictive manner. I personally read the Second Amendment to be a grant of rights to individuals rather than some ill-defined collective. But that has nothing to do with your argument that we’re all “the militia,” which just ain’t true. If you’re not male, able bodied, approved by your town’s leaders, and of some indeterminate age between 16 and 60, you are not in the militia.
So why does any of this “militia” stuff matter to the current debate? Easy. You yourself argued above that the first clause of the Second Amendment (“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) does not limit or qualify the right contained in the second clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”). Legally speaking, that could not be more wrong. How do I know? Because the Supreme Court has already held that the scope of the right granted in the second clause is dependent upon the context described in the first clause.
Go read Miller, the case I linked to in my previous post. The Court decided that it was possible under the Second Amendment for a criminal defendant to be be indicted for possession of a shotgun. Now under most ordinary definitions, a shotgun is a kind of “arm,” i.e., " a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; esp: FIREARM." If the right described in the second clause of the amendment were not restricted by the first, Mr. Miller could not have been indicted for bearing that arm. But instead, the Court looked to the first clause and its “militia” context to decide that the Second Amendment did not protect a sawed-off shotgun because it was not the type of weapon that would be used in a 19th century militia. In other words, the Second Amendment’s “subordinate clause” does indeed limit the right to bear arms. If you want to argue with that, take it up with the Supreme Court, not me.
As for your insistence that the Bill of Rights does not “grant” rights, allow me to quote the Sixth Amendment, just as one example:
That looks to me like an affirmative grant of a right to a speedy trial, etc. It does NOT say the government cannot prevent a speedy trial, etc.
Yes, the Bill of Rights largely confirmed rights that most thinkers of the day already assumed people had vis a vis the federal government. But while some of those amendments speak merely of prohibiting the feds from engaging in certain actions (I, III, second half of IV, V, VIII), others identify rights that the feds cannot violate (II, first half of IV), and others specifically grant rights to the people (VI, VII). The difference between these approaches is largely semantic, given that the Supreme Court (except in Griswold v. Connecticut, the birth control case) have never paid the slightest bit of attention to the Ninth Amendment, the one that might have been interpreted to confirm particular rights not listed elsewhere. So good luck using the Ninth Amendment to get weapons outside the scope of “a well regulated militia” written into the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
