Roe and Guns

[Bootstrap]

Before that, I don't think any Supreme Court claimed that there was an individual right to guns for self defense, which is why it made headlines.

It was never defined and more an assumption. The right is to bear arms. It is not conditional to anything. If it should be conditional, then there needs to be a new amendment stating that.

No such right is spelled out in the text of the Constitution. I think that much is simple fact.

Again, the right it to bear arms. No reasons or conditions are made.

The Second Amendment originally limited only the Federal government, and it did so in order to let states create well regulated militias:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Between 1791 and 2007, the Supreme Court issued only four rulings on cases dealing with the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court was not making these kinds of claims. Since 2008, the Supreme Court has made three major rulings that greatly change what the Second Amendment means.

You would like a new amendment to the Constitution. I think that would be the right way to do it, if there were enough consensus to do so. I don't think the Supreme Court should be creating new Constitutional rights in areas where Americans disagree.

[GaryK]

There is a country where guns are practically impossible to own. This country is an island, meaning it has no land borders, so guns cannot be smuggled across a border from a neighboring country with more lax gun laws. This country also has incredibly tight border control, and a generally compliant population.

This country is Japan, and their Prime Minister was just assassinated with a firearm.

Please tell me how effective gun control is again?

You seem to be saying that Japan has the same level of gun violence problems that the United States does.

Talk about putting words into someone's mouth....

[Robert]

The Second Amendment originally limited only the Federal government, and it did so in order to let states create well regulated militias:

Founder's writings and Federalist Papers show their fear that tyranny would raise and the people would need a way to resist it. This allowed the people and the states, through militias to resist a totalitarian federal government.

The Bill of rights is all about limiting the federal government, not the people. A citizen has the right to own a gun for whatever use they choose to use it for as long as it does not harm someone else. It is AFTER they harm someone and through due process that this right can be removed by the federal government. The constitution does not directly limit a state other than guarantee the rights promised within the constitution. A state can regulate arms, but can not take the right to own them away. This is the latest ruling from the Supreme Court. NY was just flat denying citizens the right to gun ownership through not giving out concealed carry permits. They stated that states did have the right to regulate, just not deny without due process.

The tragedy is innocent until proven guilty means we have to wait for someone to do something wrong before we can remove their rights. We can not remove those rights because we THINK they are going to do something wrong. This is the down side of individual rights. It does come with responsibilities and costs. Some think the cost of the individual self determination is too high a cost. This is the idea of communism/socialism. The ruling elite know better and need to regulate the plebs because they will make a mess of things.

[nett]

Over and over, the argument for gun control is that we we need to reduce access to guns, then the criminals will not be able to carry out their crimes, because it's "all about the guns".

This guy literally made his own gun, and killed one of the most protected people in the world.

This once again decimates the idea that restricting guns will stop criminals or crazy people from shooting people.

If you want to stop violence, you have to address the motive or the environment that is necessitating the violence.

I'm relatively certain none of the resident liberals will read this, because it's doesn't align with their worldview, but maybe someone else will get some value out of it.

Michael Hanby expertly identified the problem in 2004, and explains exactly what is happening in his article:

THE CULTURE OF DEATH,
THE ONTOLOGY OF BOREDOM,
AND THE RESISTANCE OF JOY

https://www.communio-icr.com/files/hanby31-2.pdf

[Robert]

Michael Hanby expertly identified the problem in 2004, and explains exactly what is happening in his article:

THE CULTURE OF DEATH,
THE ONTOLOGY OF BOREDOM,
AND THE RESISTANCE OF JOY

I looked at this but it is really hard for me to read right now. Can you give me a quick conclusion? I think I will agree but my mind and eye is restricting me.

[ken_sylvania]

There is a country where guns are practically impossible to own. This country is an island, meaning it has no land borders, so guns cannot be smuggled across a border from a neighboring country with more lax gun laws. This country also has incredibly tight border control, and a generally compliant population.

This country is Japan, and their Prime Minister was just assassinated with a firearm.

Please tell me how effective gun control is again?

You seem to be saying that Japan has the same level of gun violence problems that the United States does. Let's compare:



And it's not that they simply kill with some other weapon, their homicide rate is also much lower:

If all gun-related instances were removed from the USA stats how would remaining homicides and violent crimes compare with Japan? And if at that point the USA rates are still multiples higher, does that give us a clue as to the source of the problem?

[Ken]

If all gun-related instances were removed from the USA stats how would remaining homicides and violent crimes compare with Japan? And if at that point the USA rates are still multiples higher, does that give us a clue as to the source of the problem?

Well, what are the other differences between the US and Japan? Religion is one I suppose. What are the others?

In any event, according to the CDC, homicide deaths in the US break down as follows: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

Total homicide deaths deaths per 100,000 population: 7.5
Firearms homicide deaths per 100,000 population: 5.9

Therefore, the non-firearm homicide death rate in the US is 1.6 per 100,000.

For Japan: https://www.vox.com/world/2015/12/13/99 ... ction-rate

Total homicide deaths per 100,000 population: 0.3
Firearms homicide deaths per 100,000 population: 0.01 per 100,000

These numbers are somewhat different from the graphs above, but the orders of magnitude are similar. Perhaps different methodologies or different years used.

[MaxPC]

Over and over, the argument for gun control is that we we need to reduce access to guns, then the criminals will not be able to carry out their crimes, because it's "all about the guns".

This guy literally made his own gun, and killed one of the most protected people in the world.

This once again decimates the idea that restricting guns will stop criminals or crazy people from shooting people.

If you want to stop violence, you have to address the motive or the environment that is necessitating the violence.

I'm relatively certain none of the resident liberals will read this, because it's doesn't align with their worldview, but maybe someone else will get some value out of it.

Michael Hanby expertly identified the problem in 2004, and explains exactly what is happening in his article:

THE CULTURE OF DEATH,
THE ONTOLOGY OF BOREDOM,
AND THE RESISTANCE OF JOY

https://www.communio-icr.com/files/hanby31-2.pdf

Nett, thank you for linking to this article. It provides considerable insight into the variables involved in the motivations to violence.

[Ken]

Over and over, the argument for gun control is that we we need to reduce access to guns, then the criminals will not be able to carry out their crimes, because it's "all about the guns".

This guy literally made his own gun, and killed one of the most protected people in the world.

This once again decimates the idea that restricting guns will stop criminals or crazy people from shooting people.

If you want to stop violence, you have to address the motive or the environment that is necessitating the violence.

I'm relatively certain none of the resident liberals will read this, because it's doesn't align with their worldview, but maybe someone else will get some value out of it.

Michael Hanby expertly identified the problem in 2004, and explains exactly what is happening in his article:

THE CULTURE OF DEATH,
THE ONTOLOGY OF BOREDOM,
AND THE RESISTANCE OF JOY

https://www.communio-icr.com/files/hanby31-2.pdf

Because guns are so restricted in Japan he did literally make his own 2-shot double barreled handgun. Two shots at close range then done. No reloading. At least no quick reloading as one would have to pry the spent cartridge by hand out of the pipe and push in a new one if it was still functional after firing. And a home made gun like that with a smooth bore barrel would have extremely poor accuracy at anything but point blank range. This was the weapon made with pipe and held together with tape



According to the BBC:

The weapon appears to have been covered in black tape, holding together two barrels possibly made of aluminium and a base of wood. It does not appear to have a loading mechanism or traditional grip.

The rounds used are likely to have been preloaded as they were fired in quick succession, about three seconds apart.

How many lives would have been saved at any of the recent mass shooting in the US (Uvalde, Buffalo, Highland Park, etc.) if the shooter had been limited to only two shots from a home-made gun?

FYI, the recent reports out of Uvalde is that the shooter fired carried 315 rounds into the school and fired 142 in order to kill 21 victims. So about 1 death per 7 rounds fired. In Highland park the shooter fired 83 rounds and managed to kill 7 people so about 1 death per 11 rounds fired.

You do the math.

And FYI, I did read the article. And I would ask if we are indeed living in a culture of boredom and death then why on earth are we so eager to arm our bored nihilistic young men with weapons of war?

[RZehr]

How many lives would have been saved at any of the recent mass shooting in the US (Uvalde, Buffalo, Highland Park, etc.) if the shooter had been limited to only two shots from a home-made gun?

FYI, the recent reports out of Uvalde is that the shooter fired carried 315 rounds into the school and fired 142 in order to kill 21 victims. So about 1 death per 7 rounds fired. In Highland park the shooter fired 83 rounds and managed to kill 7 people so about 1 death per 11 rounds fired.

You do the math.

I guess if the Uvalde and Highland shooters had the Japanese home made gun, they would have killed 71 people and 41 people. This is figuring a kill rate of 1 death per 2 shots, which is what the Japanese guy did. At this rate, we’d have 112 deaths instead of 28, which is 400% more.
I don’t know how many extra rounds the Japanese carried.