Joe, will you explain why you would like to see all semi-auto guns banned?
Quote:I love guns, but do not try to argue that I should be allowed to have them. IMO you need to weigh the societal cost versus the societal benefit, society has already ruled that another of my hobbies (running around in the street naked) is not worth the downside.
Craven, what is the societal cost of legally owned guns?I am not aware of the cost. I have never seen a believable study as to how many crimes are committed with guns that were purchased legally. I do not thing that either side of the debate has honest statistics, both sides massage the data to show that they are right. That is why I brought up the full-auto’s (I understand that by there being a lot less of them in the public, there will be a lot less crimes committed with them. I still feel that 1 in 70 years is an example of there being a lot fewer crimes committed with legal guns.)
If you would like running around in the street naked I can send you the address of a local resort that would not mind at all.
Quote:I reject many of the "self-defense" arguments about guns. Because the need for guns is self-propagating either side can be argued to be about protection. And either side can be argued to harm security.
Until the police are willing to take responsibility for a person’s protection, there needs to a way for them to protect themselves. Yes it might be self-propagating, but I feel a trained person with a gun can protect themselves and there family much better that with out a gun.
Quote:Would you consider a compromise? For example, if it were possible to divest the populace of arms but have them available in restricted settings (ranges, hunting areas) would your fun factor be satisfied?
I would rather keep my weapons at home, but if it were possible to get all privately held firearms in to these restricted settings, and get the police to be there for protection, I would have no problem with it.
I think we should be able to have guns, and there are TOO MANY restrictions... you didn't have that option.
Thomas wrote:I read the article the same way. What I'm saying is that he is taking inconsistent positions on the incorporation debate. When he talks about abortion rights, he leans much more towards a principle of total incorporation than when he talks about gun rights.
Did he talk about abortion rights in that article?
Thomas wrote:As to Supreme Court rulings, I read the
"Constitutional Conflicts" site you linked to as saying that there is a precedent from 1876 where the Supreme Court rejected the incorporation of the Second Amendment. Since then, the Supreme Court's opinion has moved much farther towards total incorporation on the Bill of Rights in general, but never explicitly decided whether the Second Amendment was incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. The precedent of 1876 is technically still in operation. But that isn't saying much, given how the Supreme Court's stand on incorporation changed over the 20th century.
Very astute comments. Yes, the SCOTUS has been moving toward a total incorporation position, albeit through a selective incorporation route. There are some rights, however, that will probably never be incorporated. For instance, the grand jury requirement in the Fifth Amendment is simply unworkable today: grand juries are expensive, unwieldy, and time consuming, and most states, as a result, rely on "informations" rather than indictments. Likewise, the civil trial requirements in the Seventh Amendment are clearly designed to apply to federal courts: states have not felt bound by what are, in effect, procedural rules embodied in that amendment.
Thomas wrote:As I currently understand it, the Jury is literally still out on the incorporation of the Second Amendment, so it seems fair of me to lean on scholarly opinion about the question.
Technically, that is correct: the SCOTUS has never formally declared that the Second Amendment is either incorporated or not, at least not since it started selectively incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment in the latter half of the twentieth century. But the court has certainly shown no inclination (despite many opportunities) to overturn the 1939
Miller case, which held that the right to bear arms is tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.
emclean wrote:Joe, will you explain why you would like to see all semi-auto guns banned?
Is this thread about the Second Amendment or about gun control? I am interested in constitutional law and history; I have only a slight interest in the topic of gun control. So I'll state my position on semi-automatic weapons here, and then have done with the topic: the primary reason for having a semi-automatic mechanism in a gun is for shooting people more efficiently. It has little legitimate purpose for sport or recreational shooting (except for contests involving who can shoot semi-automatics the fastest and the most accurately; in that regard, however, they are little different from fully automatic weapons, which
are banned). Since the sport or recreational gun enthusiast can use a non-automatic weapon just as easily as a semiautomatic, any ban of the latter would have little practical effect on the legitimate uses of weapons.
joefromchicago wrote:Did he talk about abortion rights in that article?
No, not in that article -- he talked about abortion rights in
another FindLaw article, which I found by surfing his archives from the article you linked to. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough in my earlier post. What I did was read Mr. Dorf's Roe vs. Wade article after his Second Amendment article, discover that he appears to take a very inclusive stand on the principle of incorporation when talking about the Ninth Amendment while ignoring the principle altogether in talking about the Second. He could have said: "There is this incorporation debate, and the current status is that the Ninth Amendment is incorporated but the Second Amendment is not." That's not what he did, which strikes me as a little odd.
joefromchicago wrote:[T]he SCOTUS has never formally declared that the Second Amendment is either incorporated or not, at least not since it started selectively incorporating the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment in the latter half of the twentieth century. But the court has certainly shown no inclination (despite many opportunities) to overturn the 1939 Miller case, which held that the right to bear arms is tied to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.
Where do you expect the growing conservative minority in the Supreme Court to stand on this? (Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia) Do you think their inclination to overrule Miller will increase when they are joined by one or two like-minded Supreme Court judges? I imagine that the Second Amendment might be an interesting test case to find out whether these people are really the "original intent" minimalists they claim to be, or whether they are in fact conservative judicial activists. If their minimalism dominates, I'd expect them to uphold a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment. But if they are conservative, I'd expect a broader interpretation. Any data points on this?
joefromchicago wrote:Since the sport or recreational gun enthusiast can use a non-automatic weapon just as easily as a semiautomatic, any ban of the latter would have little practical effect on the legitimate uses of weapons.
Yeah, right. Guess you are one of those with no physical disabilities or any other problem that would prevent you from using a pump shotgun, for example. Many (if not most) older hunters have arthritis, often affecting their elbows and/or shoulders. So what do you say to them?
I expect you to think this through. Think of all the times you went to a ski area, for example, and there were 25 empty handicapped parking spaces right up front by the lodge. My point is that the law must be applied fairly and equally.
Quote:Is this thread about the Second Amendment or about gun control?
I thought the two were linked together. My interest is more on the side of gun control.
and thank you for your explanation
emclean wrote:
Craven, what is the societal cost of legally owned guns? I am not aware of the cost.
emclean, do you assert that there is no societal cost? Seriously emclean, even things like alcohol and automobiles come with societal cost.
Quote: I have never seen a believable study as to how many crimes are committed with guns that were purchased legally.
emclean, do you think that there's a possibility that curbing legal sales of guns would eventually result in curbing illegal sales? Having a legal marketplace greatly increased the illegal marketplace.
That being said there are many deaths from legal guns, whether or not you consider it a significant enough number is one thing, but it still represents a societal cost.
Quote:That is why I brought up the full-auto's (I understand that by there being a lot less of them in the public, there will be a lot less crimes committed with them. I still feel that 1 in 70 years is an example of there being a lot fewer crimes committed with legal guns.)
Ok, emclean, I let that stat slide despite my doubts. But if we are to speak of honest use of stats I'd like to request that you source this claim.
Quote:If you would like running around in the street naked I can send you the address of a local resort that would not mind at all.
I am most interested, kindly warn them in advance. I do not want to be responsible for what is sure to happen.
Quote:Until the police are willing to take responsibility for a person's protection, there needs to a way for them to protect themselves. Yes it might be self-propagating, but I feel a trained person with a gun can protect themselves and there family much better that with out a gun.
IMO self-defense is the best argument in support of guns. Ultimately it's a tough question to answer but I do give this argument more credence than the "freedom from tyranny" and the "hobby" arguments.
In a nation like America, I do not think that banning guns would immediately result in more safety. But I do think that if we were to stay the course and rid ourselves of the gun culture we could improve our collective security over time.
The reason I don't advocate banning guns much in America is because I feel we are incapable of staying the course because of the tremendous support for guns within our gun culture.
Quote:Quote:Would you consider a compromise? For example, if it were possible to divest the populace of arms but have them available in restricted settings (ranges, hunting areas) would your fun factor be satisfied?
I would rather keep my weapons at home, but if it were possible to get all privately held firearms in to these restricted settings, and get the police to be there for protection, I would have no problem with it.
That is a compromise I could easily live with. I'd actually prefer it to a complete ban of guns (remembering that I too enjoy the sporting aspect of firearms).
Alas I think this is not really viable either so I restrict this argument, at present, to the realm of theory.
Don't regulate guns. Regulate bullets.
cjhsa wrote: Think of all the times you went to a ski area. . .
Thanks,
cjhsa, that made me laugh out loud.
Or anyplace else for that matter. I'd help you dig that hole Joe, but my shoulder's killing me.
Thomas wrote:What I did was read Mr. Dorf's Roe vs. Wade article after his Second Amendment article, discover that he appears to take a very inclusive stand on the principle of incorporation when talking about the Ninth Amendment while ignoring the principle altogether in talking about the Second. He could have said: "There is this incorporation debate, and the current status is that the Ninth Amendment is incorporated but the Second Amendment is not." That's not what he did, which strikes me as a little odd.
True. The jurisprudence of the Second Amendment is somewhat confusing, as there are two problems: (1) what right is actually protected by the amendment; and (2) whether that right (whatever it might be) is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. Dorf's column on the Second Amendment dealt primarily with the first question, and Dorf ultimately sided with the notion that the Second Amendment protects a "collective right." Although he doesn't really say it, I think that also answers the second question: if the Second Amendment is only protecting a collective right, then it cannot be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment (which, after all, deals with individual rights).
Thomas wrote:Where do you expect the growing conservative minority in the Supreme Court to stand on this? (Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia) Do you think their inclination to overrule Miller will increase when they are joined by one or two like-minded Supreme Court judges? I imagine that the Second Amendment might be an interesting test case to find out whether these people are really the "original intent" minimalists they claim to be, or whether they are in fact conservative judicial activists. If their minimalism dominates, I'd expect them to uphold a narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment. But if they are conservative, I'd expect a broader interpretation. Any data points on this?
I think you have accurately summarized the problems in trying to predict the outcome of any Second Amendment case. Conservatives like Scalia (who is, as we now know, an avid duck hunter) and Thomas could be expected to side with those who favor fewer gun regulations, but they also favor an "original intent" view of the constitution. Liberals, like Ginsburg and Breyer, could be expected to favor more regulations, but they also favor greater individual rights.
So, to answer your question, I have no idea how the Supreme Court would decide a Second Amendment case.
Joe, you might like it here.
Weapons Bans Miss the Mark
John R. Lott Jr.
The Australian
March 24, 2004
AUSTRALIANS are a dangerous lot. Weapons that would hardly cause a second thought in the hands of a citizen in another country generate concern when held by an Australian.
Fortunately, some Australian state governments have understood the dangers of letting ordinary Australians get access to weapons such as laser pointers, a popular device for making business and academic presentations in countries such as the US.
Americans may feel safe when an academic addresses a conference using a laser pointer. In the hands of an Australian, however, there is understandable fear that these devices could do untold harm. An Australian academic with a laser pointer would cause real panic.
Now the Victorian Government is achieving international recognition for
protecting Australians from a danger that has been around for far too
long: swords. After July 1, swords will be banned and violators will
face penalties that previously have been reserved for laser pointers -
six months in jail and a $12,000 fine.
Swords are broadly defined as a cutting or thrusting weapon with a long
blade, a hilt and one or two sharp edges. Although this unfortunately
exempts knives with either no sharp or three or more sharp edges, or
knives without handles, not specifying a blade length in the
legislation hopefully ensures many knives will be banned.
A licensing pocess will be set up so that a select few will be granted
an exemption and pay a $135 fee, but they will have to lock their
weapons in sturdy safes and put in burglar alarms. If properly
enforced, the law could produce other benefits, such as ensuring that
dishes are promptly washed after dinner so that any offending steak
knives can be placed back in their safe. On the downside, the knives
would still be available during dinner when many family arguments might
get out of hand. It is also not clear if the family will be able to use
the knives if the licence holder is not present.
And if Australians can't be trusted with laser pointers or swords, they
surely can't be trusted with guns. Citizens in other countries are
obviously much more trustworthy. Americans, for example, can own all
these items. Indeed, 46 states in the US even trust millions of
law-abiding Americans to carry concealed handguns when walking on the
street or eating in restaurants.
And, yes, in most states an academic addressing a conference or a class
can carry a gun along with a laser pointer. Over the decades, concealed
handgun permit holders in the US have proven to be extremely
law-abiding, losing their permits at only hundredths of thousandths of
one percentage point for any type of firearms related violation.
If dangerous weapons made citizens in other countries dangerous, no one
would visit Switzerland. There, all able-bodied men between the ages of
20 and 42 are trusted to keep a machinegun in their homes as part of
their military service. (Not the wimpy centre-fire semi-automatic
rifles everyone is afraid to trust Australians with.) Yet the trust in
the Swiss is well placed. Switzerland has one of the lowest murder
rates in Europe.
Letting law-abiding citizens in the US and Switzerland own guns lowers
crime because would-be victims are able to deter criminals or, if
confronted, protect themselves. Australians are clearly quite
different. They understand the risks of letting Australians own guns.
The International Crime Vitimisation Survey shows that Australia's
violent crime rate is already twice that of the US or Switzerland.
Australia's violent crime rate is about as high as England's, a country
that bans handguns.
It would be simple enough just to blame Australia's high crime rates on
its largely English heritage or its convict history, but for much of
the past century Australia had lower crime rates than the US or the UK.
Violent crime rates have gone up dramatically in Australia since the
1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. And violent crime rates averaged
20 per cent higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997
to 2002) than they did in 1996, 32 per cent higher than the violent
crime rates in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates
showed increases of 67 per cent and 74 per cent, respectively; for
aggravated assault, 20 per cent and 32 per cent; for rape, 11 per cent
and 12 per cent; murder, attempted murder and manslaughter rose by 5
per cent in both cases.
Perhaps six years of crime data is just not enough to evaluate the
experience. Yet Australian governments seem to believe that if gun
controls don't work at first, more and stricter regulations (like
getting rid of swords) are surely the solution. Remember, never
second-guess government regulations.
While the ban on swords is modelled on the gun control measures, the
Victorian Government obviously hopes that its new measure is more
successful in reducing crime. Australian gun laws also require people
to lock their guns in safes and ban many types of guns. But requiring
an alarm for storing any swords, unlike the 15 or more rule for guns in
Victoria, is a nice touch and may make the crucial difference.
Metal swords have been around since the Bronze Age, 4600 years ago. Yet
citizens in few countries have so clearly posed dangers to themselves
and it is fortunate that Victoria recognises this.
Possibly, Australians can turn now to solving some really important
problems. One suggestion: 240-volt electrical currents can killyou. Is
it really true that Australians have these overpowering urges to try
sticking metal in electrical sockets?
John Lott Jr, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
in Washington, is author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of
Chicago Press, 2000) and The Bias Against Guns (AEI Press, 2003).
Gotta keep the playing field fair.
Woman kills attacker
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
BY CECIL ANGEL
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
A woman shot an armed man to death Tuesday after he attacked her as she was entering her east-side Detroit home, police said.
The woman, who owns a car dealership, was at the side door of her home in the 15200 block of Troester at 7:45 p.m. when a man ran up behind her brandishing a nickel-plated handgun, Officer Derek Jones said.
"He said, 'I got you,"' Jones said.
She tried to shut her screen door, but he pulled it open and began shoving her into the house, police said. As they struggled, she pulled a handgun from her purse and fired about five shots, Jones said.
The man fell to the ground between the door and the driveway.
Jones said the man was 42 years old and had a criminal record for breaking and entering homes. Police declined to release his name pending notification of his relatives.
Jones said the woman had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Quote:Quote:
That is why I brought up the full-auto's (I understand that by there being a lot less of them in the public, there will be a lot less crimes committed with them. I still feel that 1 in 70 years is an example of there being a lot fewer crimes committed with legal guns.)
Ok, emclean, I let that stat slide despite my doubts. But if we are to speak of honest use of stats I'd like to request that you source this claim.
I have been unable to find any "unbiased" source to prove the clam of only one murder with a legal machine gun. I first herd the statistic in a History Channel Modern Marvels program. I have been unable to find any statistics about machine gun use in murders. In a Department of justice report titled Guns used in crime the only reference to automatic weapons is that out of "over 240,000 automatic weapons were registered with the ATF. As of March 1995, the NCIC stolen gun file contained reports on about 7,700 machine guns and submachine guns." That is at the top of page 4.
here
It is difficult to find statistic on what did not happen.
Quote:emclean, do you assert that there is no societal cost? Seriously emclean, even things like alcohol and automobiles come with societal cost.
Both of those have a higher societal cost. I think the cost is veary low, especial next to alcohol and automobiles mixed together. When given those examples, I would definitely say the self-defense by a trained person has a much lower cost that automobiles.
Quote:Quote:
If you would like running around in the street naked I can send you the address of a local resort that would not mind at all.
I am most interested, kindly warn them in advance. I do not want to be responsible for what is sure to happen.
Any of these four links would help you to run around naked here in my home state, and maybe in any other place you would like.
1
234
If you come to one here in N.W.Indiana, let me know, we could go get a drink and debate in person.
emclean wrote:
I have been unable to find any "unbiased" source to prove the clam of only one murder with a legal machine gun.
I'm actually interested in seeing any source you know of. It seems to me like an incredible statistic and would like to know more about it.
Quote:Both of those have a higher societal cost. I think the cost is veary low, especial next to alcohol and automobiles mixed together. When given those examples, I would definitely say the self-defense by a trained person has a much lower cost that automobiles.
I am on the line between agreement and disagreement as to the comparison of the cost, but also important to remember is that cost is only one side of the equation and that the societal boon must also be taken into consideration.
I don't think you'd say that guns have the same societal benefit as automobiles, though perhaps more or comparable to alcohol.
Quote:Any of these four links would help you to run around naked here in my home state, and maybe in any other place you would like.
Ah, I was kiddin' about that. You don't happen to be a nudist do you?
Quote:
If you come to one here in N.W.Indiana, let me know, we could go get a drink and debate in person.
I'm sure there are better things to do in Indiana than debate. But drinks would be cool, mayhap some shootin' too. ;-)
You should get Slappy to join you. You could play The Crazy Naked Glockskateers.
Of course you'll want to bring the extra long barreled models.
Quote:I'm actually interested in seeing any source you know of. It seems to me like an incredible statistic and would like to know more about it.
here are two.
1
2
Quote:
I am on the line between agreement and disagreement as to the comparison of the cost, but also important to remember is that cost is only one side of the equation and that the societal boon must also be taken into consideration.
I don't think you'd say that guns have the same societal benefit as automobiles, though perhaps more or comparable to alcohol.
Automobiles are a necessary problem today. It would be hard to argue that guns have more societal benefit than automobiles. Alcohol I think has a higher societal coast, with out much societal benefit. It is fun though.
Quote:Ah, I was kiddin' about that. You don't happen to be a nudist do you?
I am not a nudist, but there was a huge stink raised around 15 years ago about a nudist community in the area, so I herd the arguments then.
Quote:I'm sure there are better things to do in Indiana than debate. But drinks would be cool, mayhap some shootin' too.
As long as the shooting is first, then drinks!
