Time to revisit the 2nd Amendment?

[Balta1701]

A lot more than 26 people have been killed by the AR platform. That doesn't change the intended function of the weapon or how quickly it would lose its killing effectiveness if someone was there to stop this loon.

Ah, the vigilante fantasy again.

[BigSqwert]

Ah, the vigilante fantasy again.

If only Liam Neeson were the hall monitor at the school.

[Balta1701]

If only Liam Neeson were the hall monitor at the school.

(Thankfully, he never produces any collateral damage).

[StrangeSox]

We need to arm the Good Guys with guns to stop the Bad Guys who want to shoot other Good Guys

defining Good Guys and Bad Guys prior to any specific incident is left as an exercise to the reader

 

If the only way to stop gun violence in this country is to arm more and more people with guns, then there's something deeply, deeply wrong with this country.

[Reddy]

We need to arm the Good Guys with guns to stop the Bad Guys who want to shoot other Good Guys

defining Good Guys and Bad Guys prior to any specific incident is left as an exercise to the reader

 

If the only way to stop gun violence in this country is to arm more and more people with guns, then there's something deeply, deeply wrong with this country.

 

well...

[StrangeSox]

Interesting post over at poly-sci blog Monkey Cage, putting forth the case that Heller could actually make it easier to enact gun control laws as it provides a strong backstop on any slippery slope.

 

Last Saturday, I questioned skeptics who claim that the 2nd amendment and its interpretation by the Supreme Court prohibits meaningful regulation of gun sales and manufacturing. Indeed, I argued that Heller and other rulings may well make certain forms of gun control more palatable by diverting fears that new laws set us off on a slippery slope towards more intrusive prohibitions. I expand a bit on that here and speculate about what this might mean for political compromises on gun control.

 

The basic idea is simple: a constitutionally protected “individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” makes outright prohibitions on owning, carrying, and using guns much less likely. Yet, it has little direct effect on other potential regulations, such as licensing and assault weapons bans. This takes away one potent argument against these rules: that they will ultimately lead to bans on owning and carrying guns. I applied the argument to assault weapons bans but I just found this quote from Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet in the UCLA Law Review (non-gated, pdf) who makes the same argument for licensing and registration:

 

Oddly, Heller may actually ease the path to the adoption of regulations requiring that those who wish to possess handguns register their ownership, with the right to possess a gun contingent on satisfying licensing-like rules such as demonstrating one’s ability to use guns responsibly and accurately, and knowledge about safe storage of weapons. The reason is that gun-rights advocates had been able to portray registration and licensing requirements as one step toward gun-control proponents’ ultimate goal of gun confiscation. Heller rules out that goal as long as it stands. The slippery slope to gun confiscation is not quite as slippery after Heller, though gun-rights proponents can continue to argue that there is still some grease on the slope.

[StrangeSox]

A lot more than 26 people have been killed by the AR platform. That doesn't change the intended function of the weapon or how quickly it would lose its killing effectiveness if someone was there to stop this loon.

 

The intended function of the AR platform is to kill things, not to wound them. Whether or not it is as effective at that goal as some would like isn't relevant to the design intent.

[caulfield12]

For those bringing up the fact that Australia or England is not comparable to America because they are more "isolated," I give you another example, Israel.

 

They are surrounded by historical enemies and at permanent war with terrorism, even moreso than the US.

 

One of the unique provisions there is a lifetime limit of 50 bullets (edit, 50 rounds per year), from what I understand.

 

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24...n-violence-down

 

In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here.

 

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests (such as target or sharpshooting) before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

 

Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

 

In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.

 

Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.

 

Lior Nedivi, a former police officer, said that despite Israel’s militarized society, neither soldiers nor veterans engage in extensive gun violence because 18-year-olds are tested for mental and physical fitness before being drafted.

 

In 2008, 143 people in Israel died from firearms, according to the website gunpolicy.org.

 

“They don’t recruit everyone,” said Nedivi, who runs a company called Advanced Forensic Science Services. “If you are a person with a record of violence, you will be discharged.”

 

Nedivi favors allowing private gun ownership with tight regulations, noting that armed civilians have used their guns to stop terrorists during attacks.

 

He said that gun massacres don’t occur in Israel because gun owners here undergo more comprehensive psychological screenings than do U.S. gun owners.

 

“It’s not guns that kill, it’s people that kill,” Nedivi said. “If this person in Colorado will be screened now, they will say he has mental problems. In Israel, most people like this don’t get a chance to get a gun.”

 

Gun violence does still occur in Israel, though gun control is not a sensitive political issue.

 

“We think the society is over-armed,” said Smadar Ben-Natan, a lawyer who co-heads Gun-Free Kitchen Tables, an Israeli coalition to end domestic gun violence. “There are too many weapons going around. There is no justification that these weapons go home and are present in civilian surroundings.”

 

Rather than lobbying for new laws, Gun-Free Kitchen Tables is pushing for the enforcement of current regulations, which require security guards to leave their weapons in their workplace. Ben-Natan said private security companies often do not abide by the law.

 

“The private police companies offer an illusion of security,” Ben-Natan said. “They’re not accountable in terms of the public interest. They don’t bear the cost of the precautions that need to be in place. The people that pay this price are the women and family members who get shot.”

 

For soldiers who take their weapons home on weekends and off-nights, the rule is they must be on their person at all times or under double-locks if left at home.

Edited December 19, 2012 by caulfield12

[DukeNukeEm]

Ah, the vigilante fantasy again.

Fantasy? I would've gotten the f*** out of there even if I was carrying. My chances would still be better running than getting a firefight. But if there was nowhere to run, yea I'd rather have a gun in that situation and so would you.

[caulfield12]

Why does the cartel buy guns from the Sons of Anarchy if they're so easily produced in Mexico!? Come on, think!

 

 

It's Galen and the Irish, SOA Belfast Chapter.

 

LOL.

 

Don't think I can wait another half year or so for the next episode. Damn you, Clay and Jax.

[StrangeSox]

Fantasy? I would've gotten the f*** out of there even if I was carrying. My chances would still be better running than getting a firefight. But if there was nowhere to run, yea I'd rather have a gun in that situation and so would you.

 

I'd rather work to craft public policy such that there's no gun in that situation, and thus no situation, in the first place.

[Jenksismyhero]

Interesting post over at poly-sci blog Monkey Cage, putting forth the case that Heller could actually make it easier to enact gun control laws as it provides a strong backstop on any slippery slope.

 

Yeah I don't buy that and the Supreme Court isn't held to technical readings of their opinions like that. Heller stands for the fact that you have a constitutional right to have a gun but that no constitutional right is absolute. They're not going to allow a back door restriction that still limits your right to own a gun unless it meets that strict scrutiny standard. That was the importance and one of the reasons the 7th circuit just overturned Illinois' law - banning guns to anywhere but your home is unconstitutional.

[caulfield12]

Fantasy? I would've gotten the f*** out of there even if I was carrying. My chances would still be better running than getting a firefight. But if there was nowhere to run, yea I'd rather have a gun in that situation and so would you.

 

Or the example recently in the Empire State Building where police officers hit 9 civilians (not directly involved) in a shoot-out due to ricochets.

 

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24...ice-rounds?lite

 

 

So the police, trained to kill someone in that situation in their everyday duty, had 9 out of 14 shots hit non-combatants.

 

And yet somehow teachers are going to do better? C'mon, I've been a teacher for over a decade and that's just impossible to believe. Teacher, school administrator, counselor, whatever.

[BigSqwert]

Or the example recently in the Empire State Building where police officers hit 9 civilians (not directly involved) in a shoot-out due to ricochets.

 

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24...ice-rounds?lite

 

 

So the police, trained to kill someone in that situation in their everyday duty, had 9 out of 14 shots hit non-combatants.

 

And yet somehow teachers are going to do better? C'mon, I've been a teacher for over a decade and that's just impossible to believe. Teacher, school administrator, counselor, whatever.

More fear mongering.

[caulfield12]

More fear mongering.

 

Okay, please give me some specific examples where schoolteachers have successfully shot and killed intruders in their homes with handguns (am not talking semi-automatic rifles here) without harming anyone else in the process...?

 

So when the next school/public building shooting takes place due to copycat syndrome, then this whole fear-mongering label will be thrown out again, right?

 

And yet how would you feel if it was your own son or daughter on that list of victims?

 

Would you feel the "interpreted" right of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was more important?

 

Then why didn't the killer use a musket from the Revolutionary War or War of 1812? If guns (and the country/world/globalization, etc.) can change, so can the US Constitution.

Edited December 19, 2012 by caulfield12

[BigSqwert]

Okay, please give me some specific examples where schoolteachers have successfully shot and killed intruders in their homes with handguns (am not talking semi-automatic rifles here) without harming anyone else in the process...?

I'm razzing you. However, the fine people of Tennessee feel that teachers would be perfectly capable of using guns in their classroom.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah I don't buy that and the Supreme Court isn't held to technical readings of their opinions like that. Heller stands for the fact that you have a constitutional right to have a gun but that no constitutional right is absolute. They're not going to allow a back door restriction that still limits your right to own a gun unless it meets that strict scrutiny standard. That was the importance and one of the reasons the 7th circuit just overturned Illinois' law - banning guns to anywhere but your home is unconstitutional.

 

they allowed the NFA etc. to stand, so conceivably they would allow a well-crafted AWB to stand. At the same time, there's still that backstop that, no, you don't have to worry about them banning every gun as a next step (so long as the court makeup stays the same).

 

Somewhere on here, maybe the Republican thread, I linked to a piece wondering if Posner is really just trolling the SCOTUS here. He was decidedly against the Heller ruling and may be making a reducto ad absurdum ruling. I could see Posner doing that.

 

edit: can't find it, maybe i didn't post it here

Edited December 19, 2012 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

I'm razzing you. However, the fine people of Tennessee feel that teachers would be perfectly capable of using guns in their classroom.

 

So I can razz back, lol.

 

Why shouldn't they be using Davey Crockett styled weapons (the most important person in Tennessee state history, or Andrew Jackson) instead of more modern handguns or semi-automatics?

 

Wouldn't that be what a strict constructionist to the Constitution would prefer, muskets and breech loaders?

Edited December 19, 2012 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

South Korea, Japan, Finland, France, Belgium, Switzerland, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway all are and I'm pretty sure all those countries have much more stringent gun laws

otoh:

 

There are four male suicides for every female suicide, but three female attempts

for each male attempt.

 

Firearms are the most frequent method of suicide among adults in the U.S.

 

men are much more likely to attempt suicide with a gun and thus be successful

 

http://www.afsp.org/files/College_Film//factsheets.pdf

[BigSqwert]

 

The only way to protect ourselves from eagle attacks is of course MORE eagles. Fill our homes with these gentle, knife clawed birds of prey.

 

via

[ChiSox_Sonix]

otoh:

 

 

 

men are much more likely to attempt suicide with a gun and thus be successful

 

http://www.afsp.org/files/College_Film//factsheets.pdf

 

That's interesting, but I think lumping suicides in the gun conversation is kind of silly. If you want to kill yourself, you're most likely gonna kill yourself, whether you have access to a gun or not.

[StrangeSox]

That's interesting, but I think lumping suicides in the gun conversation is kind of silly. If you want to kill yourself, you're most likely gonna kill yourself, whether you have access to a gun or not.

 

You're much more likely to be successful with a gun it seems, though.

[Balta1701]

That's interesting, but I think lumping suicides in the gun conversation is kind of silly. If you want to kill yourself, you're most likely gonna kill yourself, whether you have access to a gun or not.

This is really not the case.

 

Psychological studies on this one typically show that the real urge to commit suicide is a passing one. If someone has the ability to do so easily available, then that makes them vastly more likely to make the attempt.

[BigSqwert]

A gun show is scheduled in the vicinity of Newtown, Conn., in a few weeks.

 

Big Al’s Gun Shows is bringing its traveling firearms market to the Crowne Plaza hotel in Danbury, 13 miles from Newtown, on Jan. 5 and 6.

 

According to Big Al’s Web site (warning: click on it and you hear a loud gunshot), children under 10 will get in free when accompanied by an adult.

 

via

[ChiSox_Sonix]

You're much more likely to be successful with a gun it seems, though.

 

 

This is really not the case.

 

Psychological studies on this one typically show that the real urge to commit suicide is a passing one. If someone has the ability to do so easily available, then that makes them vastly more likely to make the attempt.

 

And reverting back to the fact that countries such as South Korea, Japan, Finland, Switzerland etc have a much higher suicide rate than the US, you can't really draw the correlation that gun control has much to do with it.

 

Also, due to the nature and results of the act in question, I find it hard to believe that they can really, truly say that with much confidence