Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

[Ikari]

From whence would this claimed effect come from, pray tell? Could you describe the principle of operation?

Simply that if you took all the guns, there would be no gun crime. Duh.

 

[Crimefree]

For suicides, it's the same principle as replacing gas ovens. The less convenient your means of suicide, the less likely you are to commit suicide-- it's typically an impulsive decision that people, if they have to take more than five minutes to execute, frequently change their minds about. Note that I do not consider this a valid reason to suspend gun rights.

There is no substantiating evidence of that that can face careful examination. That is like saying access to high bridges will reduce suicide. It is patently false and has no impact on the desire and determination to commit suicide. The best you could claim is look less "gun suicides" which is precisely why gun control coined the term. There is no known mechanism between any of the means of suicide and the desire to commit suicide. You failed to present that non-existent mechanism but alluded to it.

As for homicides, there is a portion of homicides committed by people who had, otherwise in their lives, been law-abiding. Typically crimes of passion or mass killings. Since these are law-abiding citizens, taking away their legal guns would actually leave them without guns to commit their crimes. Of course, I would argue that the decrease in defensive shootings would be greater than this decrease... but that was not the question being asked.

I think you are trying to claim crimes of passion occur more often if a gun is available which is patently false. There is no know mechanism by which guns can influence a human decision. Any such claim must fail until this mechanism is found. Have you found it?

 

[RetiredUSN]

Pro gun people like myself have been alive long enough to see that anti-gun people never stop at what is good enough. They keep trying to nip away just a little at a time until they achieve what they truly want.

 

[Lursa]

Very few people are genuinely advocating total bans. There are definitely some people like that out there, but most people are more interested in restricting ownership.

Anyway. One issue with guns is that they are really, really good at killing people. Pulling a trigger is substantially easier than stabbing someone. Knives, clubs and spears are far less effective than guns.

Another issue is impulse control and escalation. Many homicide victims know their killer (about half iirc), and a high percentage are a result of domestic violence. What can easily happen is that an argument begins, and it escalates. In many cases, people will grab whatever weapon is at hand, and use it; if that's a gun, the incident is far more likely to end up as a homicide rather than an assault.

It's not clear how many homicides are impulsive, or whether gun ownership rates are a genuine causal factor for homicides.

So in your opinion, what gun controls will stop or seriously curtail what you've described without depriving the rest of us, the regular citizens, of our right to own and carry a firearm?

You dont have to address suicide, at least not for me. I dont care about that aspect. I think it's ridiculous that law abiding citizens would be punished (with more gun restrictions) because people...mentally ill or not...choose to kill themselves. It should only be about the public safety *IMO*. (That's really why my focus tends to be on the right to 'carry' rather than 'own' in general.)

Go ahead, claim I'm heartless. I dont care, I see it as pragmatic. I dont 'hope' people will kill themselves, I 'hope' that their friends and family will help them before that. Has nothing to do with guns IMO.

 

[Crimefree]

I wouldn't go so far as to claim courts may not interpret the Constitution. It's about as basic in constitutional law as it gets that the Supreme Court may do that, the principle having been established in Marbury v. Madison more than 200 years ago. At the same time, I think it's clear the Court does not have the final word on what the Constitution means. There are several ways for the other two branches, especially Congress, to limit the power of federal courts--including the Supreme Court. Congress is made up of legislators the people have elected, so the ultimate power to say what the Constitution means remains with the people. IF enough people wanted it badly enough, Congress could impeach and remove a Supreme Court justice, make a law reversing a decision by the Court, remove the Court's jurisdiction to hear cases involving a particular matter, and so on. But drastic measures like that are very unlikely.

How can government represent the people in judging the peoples laws government may have infringed? It seems you have forgotten or never knew of the supremacy of the people. It is the peoples task to police and enforce their laws which is the constitution. No branch of government can do the peoples duty and responsibility. The constitution belongs to no branch of government. That would be totally counter productive of freedom.

I agree that it's pretty clear what "shall not be infringed" means. What the text of the Second Amendment does not say is just what the right that phrase refers to consists of. I believe Justice Scalia cleared that question up well in D.C. v. Heller, when he described exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms that were already widely acknowledged by 1791. The right that is codified in the Second Amendment is not a right to carry any firearm anyplace, at any time, any more than the right to free speech codified in the First Amendment is a right to say anything anyplace, at any time. No serious person would claim, for example, that the Constitution protects a right to defame a person, or to drive a sound truck through a residential neighborhood at 3 A.M., blasting loud messages. And no serious person would claim the Constitution protects a right for a mental patient or a felon to bring a machine gun into a courtroom.

On the contrary it is eminently clear what the right refers to "to keep and bear arms". I see no need for interpretation of that. Which word needs clarification that the meaning is not understood.

I do not understand the reference to behaviour as any reason to address the right. People who behave badly break other laws which are more that adequate to punish them.

In your example would controlling or limiting the sale of sound trucks make any difference? Does this not illustrate the iniquity of trying to control an object when it is peoples behaviour that is the problem?

 

[Crimefree]

Very few people are genuinely advocating total bans. There are definitely some people like that out there, but most people are more interested in restricting ownership.

You are making the case that gun control advocates have logical reasons for demanding gun control measures and are striving to achieve some desired goal. Simply state the goal so firearm owners know what the desired solution is and possibly can negotiate. Is that going to be difficult for you? Alternatively could you define what will appease a fear.

Anyway. One issue with guns is that they are really, really good at killing people. Pulling a trigger is substantially easier than stabbing someone. Knives, clubs and spears are far less effective than guns.

Sigh! The efficiency of a tool has no bearing on what people do with it. Knives and edged weapon wounds are equally difficult to attend to and often cause equal or more trauma. What of it?

Another issue is impulse control and escalation. Many homicide victims know their killer (about half iirc), and a high percentage are a result of domestic violence. What can easily happen is that an argument begins, and it escalates. In many cases, people will grab whatever weapon is at hand, and use it; if that's a gun, the incident is far more likely to end up as a homicide rather than an assault.

In what way does a gun, knife, bat or any object influence the decision? You have failed to mention this and it is vital to your claim. I get the impression you are trying to claim shooting somebody in the finger will kill them. It is interesting that Babyface Nelson was shot 17 times with .45 ammunition and still managed to drive a vehicle 1/4 of a mile in trying to escape. How lethal is that?

It's not clear how many homicides are impulsive, or whether gun ownership rates are a genuine causal factor for homicides.

Impulsive is the wrong term. These are crimes of passion. ie an argument ends badly. There is absolutely is no question or evidence to show a gun can influence human behaviour any more than a club, stone, knife...... None of these would you even question. It would be best you described the mythical power guns have that sets them aside from other objects. This is vital to all your claims.

balance follows

 

[Crimefree]

In contrast, gun ownership is a substantially bigger issue for suicide, which is well understood to be a product of impulse. Note that it is not that the gun causes or induces a suicidal impulse. Rather, what happens is that the person has the suicidal impulse, and are much more likely to follow through on that impulse if the means are readily available. Thus, if you happen to have a suicidal impulse, and you happen to have ready access to a gun, you are much more likely to follow through on that impulse, and to succeed in the attempt.

I beg you pardon, suicide is hardly ever a product of impulse. Previous research and popular conceptualizations of suicide have posited that many suicides are the result of impulsive, “on a whim” decisions. However, recent research demonstrates that most suicides are not attempted impulsively, and in fact involve a plan. ~~Revisiting Impulsivity in Suicide, Implications for Civil Liability of Third Parties

In contrast, if you drive 20 minutes to a bridge, only to find it has suicide barriers, you're much more likely to give up the suicide attempt altogether, rather than drive 20 minutes to some other bridge.

You are making the assumption the bridge is unknown which does not accord with facts that suicides are planned.

In this case, it may make a lot of sense to empower a court to temporarily remove guns from a person who is at high risk of suicide.

And what will such token foolishness achieve? Guns are hardly a single source of suicide. Your suggestion they are is insulting of intelligence.

We should also note that claims of crime rates skyrocketing without citizen access to guns are fairly easily refuted. In particular, Japan has very strict laws and rock-bottom rates of gun ownership, yet very low crime rates and very low homicide rates. Similarly, big cities like New York and San Francisco have strict laws, and crime / violent crime / homicide rates have fallen there for well over 20 years. Meanwhile, states and cities with high rates of gun ownership rates, concealed carry laws etc don't exhibit unusually low crime rates; in fact, most Southern states have higher rates of both gun ownership and homicide than other regions.

Why can gun control advocates not leave cross country comparisons alone. It is said that with the bible one can prove anything you want. The same applies to cross country comparisons. So I know how happy you are going to be when I ask you to explain Switzerland with a similar low rate of crime using your claimed gun effect. No matter what you think you are doing correlation does not prove causality and you failed abysmally to do that. There can be absolutely no reason you are not aware of that fact. Which brings into question your reasons fore using such false claims.

And yet, it's the ones who think that "a piece of metal is at fault" are usually the ones demanding more data -- and being stopped by those who don't want the slightest restrictions on gun ownership. Go figure.

No the ones thinking a piece of metal is at fault require no more data as they are indoctrinated stooges of gun control. Go figure.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I came here to post that it would reduce them some, but not nearly as much as anti-gun idiots would like to think. Certainly not enough to forsake our basic human right to keep and bear arms.

I doubt it would make a minor dent if anything. People have been killing each other since the beginning, if it isn't a bullet or a knife, it will be a hammer or baseball bat, or a rock, or poison. Suicide and murder are both pretty much going to be dependent upon the willingness of the person to go through with it.

 

[matchlight]

"The Supreme Court has made clear that all the rights protected by the First Amendment and the right protected by the Second are fundamental."

If you say so

No, not just if I say so--my statement is entirely accurate. It is basic constitutional law that the Supreme Court regards all right protected by the First Amendment as fundamental. As I noted, the Court could not have made more clear that the right protected by the Second Amendment is also fundamental. Much of Justice Alito's decision for the majority in McDonald v. Chicago is devoted to just that question. It went to the hear of the decision in McDonald, because under the Court's precedents the right had to be fundamental in order to be incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment and apply to the states. Here is the Court's conclusion:



In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

And you yourself dismiss rights to due process, rights to counsel, right to remain silent, right of association etc when it suits you.

If you say so. But then again, everyone knows that most of us lawyers dismiss those rights when it suits us, just like the courts do. Can't be bothered with that stupid, outdated constitutional stuff.

We should also note that the SCOTUS has routinely asserted that gun control is constitutional

The hell you say. And here I'd thought that whether a gun control measure violates the Second Amendment all depends on exactly what it says. Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to just where the Supreme Court of the U.S. "has routinely asserted" that "gun control," as a general proposition, is constitutional.

the problem only arises if those laws are so strict that they effectively prevent gun ownership altogether

You don't know that, and neither does anyone else. In recent history, at least, the Court has only decided two Second Amendment cases, which involved a total of two laws. The fact they both imposed complete bans does not mean laws which impose restrictions short of complete bans may not also violate the Second Amendment. I strongly suspect the Court will in time hold that some of them do--at least if a collectivist president does not seal our doom by appointing two or three more unprincipled justices.

The few people who do want to truly ban guns fully understand that the only way to do that is by overriding the 2nd Amendment with a new amendment.

I doubt there are only a few, or that they understand that at all. If a future Court took the view Justice Stevens took in his dissenting opinion in Heller--in which three other justices joined--the individual right to keep and bear arms could be restricted almost without limitation. Stevens claimed that:

"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia."


Statists like Mrs. Clinton, to cite just one prominent example, are implacably hostile to the individual right to keep and bear arms. They would like to see a future Supreme Court interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly as to be tantamount to repealing it, and they may get their wish. The Democratic Party is riddled with statists, and the fact they ironically claim to be "liberal" should fool no one. These collectivist authoritarians are the very opposite of true liberals, and they loathe the First and Tenth Amendments almost as much as they loathe the Second. They would do well to keep in mind that one purpose of the right to keep and bear arms has always been to safeguard against tyranny.








Funny, that's what leftists say about the far right. Go figure.[/QUOTE]

 

[TurtleDude]

Very few people are genuinely advocating total bans. There are definitely some people like that out there, but most people are more interested in restricting ownership.

Anyway. One issue with guns is that they are really, really good at killing people. Pulling a trigger is substantially easier than stabbing someone. Knives, clubs and spears are far less effective than guns.

Another issue is impulse control and escalation. Many homicide victims know their killer (about half iirc), and a high percentage are a result of domestic violence. What can easily happen is that an argument begins, and it escalates. In many cases, people will grab whatever weapon is at hand, and use it; if that's a gun, the incident is far more likely to end up as a homicide rather than an assault.

It's not clear how many homicides are impulsive, or whether gun ownership rates are a genuine causal factor for homicides.

In contrast, gun ownership is a substantially bigger issue for suicide, which is well understood to be a product of impulse. Note that it is not that the gun causes or induces a suicidal impulse. Rather, what happens is that the person has the suicidal impulse, and are much more likely to follow through on that impulse if the means are readily available. Thus, if you happen to have a suicidal impulse, and you happen to have ready access to a gun, you are much more likely to follow through on that impulse, and to succeed in the attempt.

In contrast, if you drive 20 minutes to a bridge, only to find it has suicide barriers, you're much more likely to give up the suicide attempt altogether, rather than drive 20 minutes to some other bridge.

In this case, it may make a lot of sense to empower a court to temporarily remove guns from a person who is at high risk of suicide.


We should also note that claims of crime rates skyrocketing without citizen access to guns are fairly easily refuted. In particular, Japan has very strict laws and rock-bottom rates of gun ownership, yet very low crime rates and very low homicide rates. Similarly, big cities like New York and San Francisco have strict laws, and crime / violent crime / homicide rates have fallen there for well over 20 years. Meanwhile, states and cities with high rates of gun ownership rates, concealed carry laws etc don't exhibit unusually low crime rates; in fact, most Southern states have higher rates of both gun ownership and homicide than other regions.



And yet, it's the ones who think that "a piece of metal is at fault" are usually the ones demanding more data -- and being stopped by those who don't want the slightest restrictions on gun ownership. Go figure.

why does the ethnic group with the highest proportion of legal gun owners have such a lower rate of gun violence than the ethnic group with the lowest rate of legal gun ownership?

Japan has 1000+ years history of commoners being killed for merely owning effective weapons

 

[Visbek]

Emphasis on "temporarily". And even then, I would argue this should only be at the person's request.

If we have the "right to life", surely we have the right to decide to end our own lives. Otherwise, it's not really our life, is it?

I also concur it should be temporary. However, family or therapist should also be able to request it, otherwise it's kind of pointless.

Neither law nor ethics currently recognizes a right to suicide. I'd argue that few people who commit suicide do so as a calculated and rational decision; rather, they are in such emotional despair, or otherwise psychologically impaired, that they are not competent to make that decision.

Note this is different than euthanasia, which has a very different set of arguments and issues.

 

[Visbek]

So in your opinion, what gun controls will stop or seriously curtail what you've described without depriving the rest of us, the regular citizens, of our right to own and carry a firearm?

• More funding for research on links between gun ownership and homicide rates / crime rates
• True universal background checks (Internet based, 24/7, very low fee, easy for citizens to use)
• National database of people who aren't supposed to purchase guns
• National database for gun sales and tracking
• ID in firearms that are extremely difficult to remove
• Bullet tracking tech
• Brief waiting periods
• Magazine size limits (including restrictions on manufacturers)
• Measures to temporarily remove firearms from someone at risk of suicide
• Strict regulations on concealed carry
• Very strict enforcement of laws on gun dealers

I'm sure some of these strike fear into the bowels of the NRA. However, the reality is that none of them take away anyone's right to own or legally use a gun, and given the number of guns and gun owners, it really does not make it any easier to seize 300 million guns.

There will be a few inconveniences, but no more than (for example) changing a car's registration, getting a driver's license, purchasing auto insurance, and so forth.

While it may seem like such things won't work, real-world examples seem to suggest otherwise. E.g. New York City has fairly strict gun control laws, and the result is not an explosion in gun-related crime; all crime has fallen in NYC almost every year since 1992. Instead of massive illicit outdoor gun markets, many criminals travel to Virginia and engineer straw purchases.

While it's not clear that national laws would produce the same results, I suspect they will be more effective than the pro-gunners proclaim.

 

[Visbek]

The hell you say. And here I'd thought that whether a gun control measure violates the Second Amendment all depends on exactly what it says. Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us as to just where the Supreme Court of the U.S. "has routinely asserted" that "gun control," as a general proposition, is constitutional.

Did you not read Heller?

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

You don't know that, and neither does anyone else.....

That was a major point of the ruling. DC's laws were so strict that the SCOTUS concluded they prevented residents from exercising their right to bear arms. The SCOTUS is generally very reluctant to overturn any ruling, let alone one less than 10 years old.

Now, I do agree that a Scalia-less court might approve some types of gun control that extreme pro-gunners won't like. However, it seems highly unlikely the SCOTUS will classify a handgun ban as constitutional any time soon.

I doubt there are only a few, or that they understand that at all. If a future Court took the view Justice Stevens took in his dissenting opinion in Heller--in which three other justices joined--the individual right to keep and bear arms could be restricted almost without limitation....

Ironically (in many ways), Stevens et al were decrying the increasing involvement of the judiciary in gun control, and want to leave the decisions in the hands of legislators. He asserts that to do so is to follow *cough* the original and textual meaning of the 2nd Amendment:

The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

Statists like Mrs. Clinton, to cite just one prominent example, are implacably hostile to the individual right to keep and bear arms. They would like to see a future Supreme Court interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly as to be tantamount to repealing it, and they may get their wish.

:roll:

She supports gun control. She has never said she wants to invalidate the 2nd Amendment. Those are mere fever dreams of the pro-gunners.

The Democratic Party is riddled with statists, and the fact they ironically claim to be "liberal" should fool no one.

*shrug*

Political terms are lacking in many ways. At any rate, I prefer the term "leftist."

These collectivist authoritarians are the very opposite of true liberals, and they loathe the First and Tenth Amendments almost as much as they loathe the Second. They would do well to keep in mind that one purpose of the right to keep and bear arms has always been to safeguard against tyranny.

Right-wing authoritarians are the very opposite of true liberalism, and they loathe the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth amendments.

Some are also apparently not fans of the Nineteenth Amendment, or Article VI either ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States").

Oh, and apparently they don't seem to understand or recognize human rights, which is the basic concept underlying the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and American government as a whole. Go figure.

 

[jet57]

Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy ~ Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?

The PDF won't let me copy/paste so you'll have to read it yourselves. The obvious answer of course is "No, banning firearms will not reduce murder and suicide".

Here's another PDF worth looking at.

Will Gun Control Make Us Safe? Debunking the Myths

Enjoy!

I think it would reduce murder rates by quite a bit. Maybe some in suicides, but not much. Gang murders would probably drop by 80% though.

 

[TurtleDude]

• More funding for research on links between gun ownership and homicide rates / crime rates
• True universal background checks (Internet based, 24/7, very low fee, easy for citizens to use)
• National database of people who aren't supposed to purchase guns
• National database for gun sales and tracking
• ID in firearms that are extremely difficult to remove
• Bullet tracking tech
• Brief waiting periods
• Magazine size limits (including restrictions on manufacturers)
• Measures to temporarily remove firearms from someone at risk of suicide
• Strict regulations on concealed carry
• Very strict enforcement of laws on gun dealers

I'm sure some of these strike fear into the bowels of the NRA. However, the reality is that none of them take away anyone's right to own or legally use a gun, and given the number of guns and gun owners, it really does not make it any easier to seize 300 million guns.

There will be a few inconveniences, but no more than (for example) changing a car's registration, getting a driver's license, purchasing auto insurance, and so forth.

While it may seem like such things won't work, real-world examples seem to suggest otherwise. E.g. New York City has fairly strict gun control laws, and the result is not an explosion in gun-related crime; all crime has fallen in NYC almost every year since 1992. Instead of massive illicit outdoor gun markets, many criminals travel to Virginia and engineer straw purchases.

While it's not clear that national laws would produce the same results, I suspect they will be more effective than the pro-gunners proclaim.

magazine limits are idiotic and are designed to gradually ban firearms.

so you are telling lies when you say none of this takes away rights


"inconveniences" is a banner's code word for Bans.

why do we need any of that crap

Note-I won't get an answer from Visbek but when you see the crap he calls "reasonable" you understand why we oppose what he wants

 

[TurtleDude]

I think it would reduce murder rates by quite a bit. Maybe some in suicides, but not much. Gang murders would probably drop by 80% though.

wishful thinking

and why do you gun banners pretend its gang violence you want to ban?

 

[Crimefree]

Did you not read Heller?

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.



That was a major point of the ruling. DC's laws were so strict that the SCOTUS concluded they prevented residents from exercising their right to bear arms. The SCOTUS is generally very reluctant to overturn any ruling, let alone one less than 10 years old.

Now, I do agree that a Scalia-less court might approve some types of gun control that extreme pro-gunners won't like. However, it seems highly unlikely the SCOTUS will classify a handgun ban as constitutional any time soon.



Ironically (in many ways), Stevens et al were decrying the increasing involvement of the judiciary in gun control, and want to leave the decisions in the hands of legislators. He asserts that to do so is to follow *cough* the original and textual meaning of the 2nd Amendment:
The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

Then you have not read the words they wrote and there can be no mistake as to the intent. It is the only amendment with the wording shall not be infringed, the meaning of which is as real then as it is now

:roll:

She supports gun control. She has never said she wants to invalidate the 2nd Amendment. Those are mere fever dreams of the pro-gunners.



*shrug*

Political terms are lacking in many ways. At any rate, I prefer the term "leftist."



Right-wing authoritarians are the very opposite of true liberalism, and they loathe the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth amendments.

Some are also apparently not fans of the Nineteenth Amendment, or Article VI either ("no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States").

Oh, and apparently they don't seem to understand or recognize human rights, which is the basic concept underlying the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and American government as a whole. Go figure.

As of when was Heller above the constitution and who gave him the right to change the meaning of any word?

He may well be right that it is limited. Now all you have to do is think of a way to limit it without infringement. It is entirely possible such a way exists but so far it has not been found. Try to stick to facts rather than creating false hope for ideologically driven fools.

 

[TurtleDude]

Then you have not read the words they wrote and there can be no mistake as to the intent. It is the only amendment with the wording shall not be infringed, the meaning of which is as real then as it is now





As of when was Heller above the constitution and who gave him the right to change the meaning of any word?

He may well be right that it is limited. Now all you have to do is think of a way to limit it without infringement. It is entirely possible such a way exists but so far it has not been found. Try to stick to facts rather than creating false hope for ideologically driven fools.

The second amendment was a complete restriction on the POWER of a federal government that was never created with the power to regulate the firearms of private citizens

the only "limits" the founders contemplated was state powers that existed prior to the new government being created. The founders did not have the authority to tell state governments to give up police powers they already had Only in those areas that the state governments agreed would that happen. Since gun control was never contemplated as a federal power, "shall not be infringed" meant no federal infringement since the new government was not given any such power.

 

[Lursa]

• More funding for research on links between gun ownership and homicide rates / crime rates
• True universal background checks (Internet based, 24/7, very low fee, easy for citizens to use)
• National database of people who aren't supposed to purchase guns
• National database for gun sales and tracking
• ID in firearms that are extremely difficult to remove
• Bullet tracking tech
• Brief waiting periods
• Magazine size limits (including restrictions on manufacturers)
• Measures to temporarily remove firearms from someone at risk of suicide
• Strict regulations on concealed carry
• Very strict enforcement of laws on gun dealers

I'm sure some of these strike fear into the bowels of the NRA. However, the reality is that none of them take away anyone's right to own or legally use a gun, and given the number of guns and gun owners, it really does not make it any easier to seize 300 million guns.

There will be a few inconveniences, but no more than (for example) changing a car's registration, getting a driver's license, purchasing auto insurance, and so forth.

While it may seem like such things won't work, real-world examples seem to suggest otherwise. E.g. New York City has fairly strict gun control laws, and the result is not an explosion in gun-related crime; all crime has fallen in NYC almost every year since 1992. Instead of massive illicit outdoor gun markets, many criminals travel to Virginia and engineer straw purchases.

While it's not clear that national laws would produce the same results, I suspect they will be more effective than the pro-gunners proclaim.

Strict regulations on carry? Like what? That sounds like restrictions that penalize law-abiding citizens.

Magazine limits? That penalizes the solitary victim being attacked by more than one assailant. Like a woman in a parking lot or her home by 3 assailants. Even the police...in many publicly posted videos...miss under real life stress conditions. Why would you remove any possible advantage I could have against more than one attacker by limiting me to..what?....10 bullets?

Do you know that, unlike in the movies or TV, one bullet rarely STOPS an attacker? They may die later, but they can often keep attacking, keep shooting, etc before they die. There are also lots of videos on that too. The guy that robs a convenience store, clerk shoots him, guy leaps back over counter, runs out of store, and doesnt die until he's across the parking lot.

So sorry, that is all mostly fail or mostly stuff that sounds good but doesnt have a 'real life' foundation under it for HOW it would be implemented. Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Pretty much everyone agrees with that. But HOW would it be done? There's no 'real life' basis for many of your options.

 

[TurtleDude]

Strict regulations on carry? Like what? That sounds like restrictions that penalize law-abiding citizens.

Magazine limits? That penalizes the solitary victim being attacked by more than one assailant. Like a woman in a parking lot or her home by 3 assailants. Even the police...in many publicly posted videos...miss under real life stress conditions. Why would you remove any possible advantage I could have against more than one attacker by limiting me to..what?....10 bullets?

Do you know that, unlike in the movies or TV, one bullet rarely STOPS an attacker? They may die later, but they can often keep attacking, keep shooting, etc before they die. There are also lots of videos on that too. The guy that robs a convenience store, clerk shoots him, guy leaps back over counter, runs out of store, and doesnt die until he's across the parking lot.

So sorry, that is all mostly fail or mostly stuff that sounds good but doesnt have a 'real life' foundation under it for HOW it would be implemented. Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Pretty much everyone agrees with that. But HOW would it be done? There's no 'real life' basis for many of your options.

its a common theme. Gun banners claim they aren't gun banners and all they want are "reasonable restrictions" which are clearly unreasonable and nothing more than attacks on lawful gun owners. Like magazine limits. How ignorant does one have to be to think that someone who cannot legally own or even touch a firearm will obey a magazine limit? all that law does is handicap and penalize those who can actually own guns.

the less one knows about guns and self defense, the more reasonable these crappy Solutions sound.

However, those who are so ignorant of this topic are unreasonable in telling the rest of us what we should obey

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

• More funding for research on links between gun ownership and homicide rates / crime rates
• True universal background checks (Internet based, 24/7, very low fee, easy for citizens to use)
• National database of people who aren't supposed to purchase guns
• National database for gun sales and tracking
• ID in firearms that are extremely difficult to remove
• Bullet tracking tech
• Brief waiting periods
• Magazine size limits (including restrictions on manufacturers)
• Measures to temporarily remove firearms from someone at risk of suicide
• Strict regulations on concealed carry
• Very strict enforcement of laws on gun dealers

I'm sure some of these strike fear into the bowels of the NRA. However, the reality is that none of them take away anyone's right to own or legally use a gun, and given the number of guns and gun owners, it really does not make it any easier to seize 300 million guns.

There will be a few inconveniences, but no more than (for example) changing a car's registration, getting a driver's license, purchasing auto insurance, and so forth.

While it may seem like such things won't work, real-world examples seem to suggest otherwise. E.g. New York City has fairly strict gun control laws, and the result is not an explosion in gun-related crime; all crime has fallen in NYC almost every year since 1992. Instead of massive illicit outdoor gun markets, many criminals travel to Virginia and engineer straw purchases.

While it's not clear that national laws would produce the same results, I suspect they will be more effective than the pro-gunners proclaim.

Once again lets force the law abiding citizen to jump through hoops because government is too lazy and incompetent to go after the people breaking the laws. Just look at how successful the war on drugs has been. You can expect the same results with all your red tape you require from the law abiding citizen. Criminals and non law abiding citizens will still have guns.

Lets reward illegal aliens because government is to incompetent to secure our borders and enforce our laws. Always the same with the left. More laws for the law abiding to deal with while nothing is done to stop the people breaking the law. Oh except rewarding bad behavior believing it will solve the problem.

 

[Crimefree]

• More funding for research on links between gun ownership and homicide rates / crime rates
• True universal background checks (Internet based, 24/7, very low fee, easy for citizens to use)
• National database of people who aren't supposed to purchase guns
• National database for gun sales and tracking
• ID in firearms that are extremely difficult to remove
• Bullet tracking tech
• Brief waiting periods
• Magazine size limits (including restrictions on manufacturers)
• Measures to temporarily remove firearms from someone at risk of suicide
• Strict regulations on concealed carry
• Very strict enforcement of laws on gun dealers

I'm sure some of these strike fear into the bowels of the NRA. However, the reality is that none of them take away anyone's right to own or legally use a gun, and given the number of guns and gun owners, it really does not make it any easier to seize 300 million guns.

There will be a few inconveniences, but no more than (for example) changing a car's registration, getting a driver's license, purchasing auto insurance, and so forth.

While it may seem like such things won't work, real-world examples seem to suggest otherwise. E.g. New York City has fairly strict gun control laws, and the result is not an explosion in gun-related crime; all crime has fallen in NYC almost every year since 1992. Instead of massive illicit outdoor gun markets, many criminals travel to Virginia and engineer straw purchases.

While it's not clear that national laws would produce the same results, I suspect they will be more effective than the pro-gunners proclaim.

On what basis do you claim a single one of these laws can work to reduce crime.

More funding to FIND what has not been found in 200 years of the most frantic and desperate searching that has lead researchers to fabricate results is going to do what? Are you suggesting this link you claim exists but just has not been found yet? What evidence do you have of it's existence when no trace has yet been found anywhere?

Does your example of denial or restriction work with drugs? If not why not? Surely if you cannot explain that what you are proposing is laws that must fail. Why will gun control work where drug control has failed?

 

[Crimefree]

The second amendment was a complete restriction on the POWER of a federal government that was never created with the power to regulate the firearms of private citizens

the only "limits" the founders contemplated was state powers that existed prior to the new government being created. The founders did not have the authority to tell state governments to give up police powers they already had Only in those areas that the state governments agreed would that happen. Since gun control was never contemplated as a federal power, "shall not be infringed" meant no federal infringement since the new government was not given any such power.

It's an interesting question but do States have the power to ignore the 2nd since there is no exclusion. Were the states given the power to limit the militia arms? That sounds a bit foolish but interesting to know.

 

[TurtleDude]

It's an interesting question but do States have the power to ignore the 2nd since there is no exclusion. Were the states given the power to limit the militia arms? That sounds a bit foolish but interesting to know.

at first the answer was clear-the second amendment ONLY restrains federal power and the citizens of say the communist collective of California had to look to their own state constitution for redress which is consistent with the Cruikshank decision which was issued almost a decade AFTER ratification of the 14th amendment. The tardy but ultimate incorporation of the second by the 14th (as was the case with other provisions of the bill of rights including the NINTH which also provides a very strong counter to banoid idiocy) changed that entire balance. I doubt you can find any state constitution that gives its state government such power though

 

[Visbek]

Strict regulations on carry? Like what? That sounds like restrictions that penalize law-abiding citizens.

Uh, yes. Regulations are going to affect people across the board.

Also, look at your own standard -- you wanted to know what could be done that would not deprive citizens of the right to own or carry firearms. You did not say that you wanted regulations that would not prevent anyone from taking a firearm anywhere they want, any way that they want.

Magazine limits? That penalizes the solitary victim being attacked by more than one assailant. Like a woman in a parking lot or her home by 3 assailants.

News flash! A single person attacked by 3 people is not likely to mount a successful defense. Having 17 bullets instead of 10 is not likely to turn the tide, especially if the defender can't hit the side of a barn with a sawed-off shotgun while in a high-stress situation.

What we do know is that mass shooters often favor high-capacity magazines, and that the need to reload (or switch weapons) does tend to slow them down. Given that there may not be much else we can do about mass shooters, I don't see a problem with this one.

Even the police...in many publicly posted videos...miss under real life stress conditions. Why would you remove any possible advantage I could have against more than one attacker by limiting me to..what?....10 bullets? Do you know that, unlike in the movies or TV, one bullet rarely STOPS an attacker?

So, let me get this straight.

You accept that armed civilians are basically unable to defend themselves (or at least, at a severe disadvantage), because most of the time they're going to miss, and one bullet hit is insufficient. You do understand this undercuts the validity of the self-defense argument in the first place, yes?

Is the only way to ensure your safety to carry a Tommy Gun with a 100-round drum mag, and fire indiscriminately at your suspected attackers?

And of course, you do know that violent crime rates are down significantly since 1992? That a large percentage of homicides are not these kinds of "Stranger Danger" situations at all, rather the killer is known to the victim?

I don't see a substantial "real life foundation" to the scenarios you're positing here.

So sorry, that is all mostly fail or mostly stuff that sounds good but doesnt have a 'real life' foundation under it for HOW it would be implemented. Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? Pretty much everyone agrees with that. But HOW would it be done?

We already have a process by which someone who poses a potential danger to self or others can be evaluated. It wouldn't be difficult at all to include provisions in that type of process by which access to firearms can be temporarily restricted, even if the person does not need to be committed to a mental health facility. We can also add provisions by which police can refer someone for evaluation.

Also, if we had a national database, individuals can be temporarily barred from purchasing firearms until they were determined to no longer be a danger.

Will it achieve 100% accuracy? Of course not, but nothing does. Laws against homicide do not reduce homicides to 0; laws against drinking while intoxicated will not completely eliminate DUI's; laws against car theft don't stop every car thief. None of us want to live in the type of police state that would get close to that level of compliance. That's an irrational standard, and one that we do not apply to other regulations.

Last but not least: Many other nations do use these kinds of laws, and do see lower gun ownership rates, lower homicide rates and fewer mass shootings than the US. Go figure.