[barmar]

So with the latest shooting in Santa Fe, TX, more Americans have been killed this year in school shootings than in military actions. And more Americans have been killed by guns in America since 1968 than have been killed in all wars in American history (see snopes.com for verification).

This is a horrible statistic, but I'll bet someone will turn it around and use it as justification for putting more armed guards and arming teachers in schools for protection. After all, soldiers have guns, maybe that's why they're safer than school children.

And of course The Onion had good reason to pull out their regular headline:

Quote

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

[johnu]

“Our teachers are part of that well-run militia” according to Texas Lt Governor Dan Patrick.

If the teachers are the officers in this militia, then I guess that high school students would be the non-commissioned officers, and younger kids would be the foot soldiers. Instead of a chicken is every pot, we could have a gun in every backpack. What could possibly go wrong?

[Winstonm]

To be fair, every other country has safer schools than the U.S.

The Atlantic:

Quote

Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

[PrecisionL]

And traffic deaths are even higher than gun deaths in the USA?

[Winstonm]

 PrecisionL, on 2018-May-21, 06:56, said:

And traffic deaths are even higher than gun deaths in the USA?

In a discussion of oranges, what is the point of bringing up apples?

The vast majority of automobile deaths are caused by driver error; the vast majority of gun deaths are purposeful.

[helene_t]

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-21, 10:34, said:

The vast majority of automobile deaths are caused by driver error; the vast majority of gun deaths are purposeful.

This sounds like a case for banning cars sooner than guns: gun killers are determined to kills so they might find another tool. Car killers are not determined to kill so they would probably not kill anyone with their walking boots or bicycles.

But as you said, it is a completely separate discussion.

And the benefits to society of allowing cars is substantially bigger than the benefits (if any) of allowing guns.

[Winstonm]

 helene_t, on 2018-May-21, 17:46, said:

This sounds like a case for banning cars sooner than guns: gun killers are determined to kills so they might find another tool. Car killers are not determined to kill so they would probably not kill anyone with their walking boots or bicycles.

But as you said, it is a completely separate discussion.

And the benefits to society of allowing cars is substantially bigger than the benefits (if any) of allowing guns.

Actually, it's an argument for better driver training and stiffer licensing and re-licensing requirements for drivers.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-21, 18:09, said:

Actually, it's an argument for better driver training and stiffer licensing and re-licensing requirements for drivers.

I think you are on to something. Treat guns like autos. If you are over 16, have not committed a felony with a gun, can pass a basic competency test in gun use, then you will be entitled to carry a gun on public streets. We can require 70 year olds to retake the competency test.

[johnu]

 ldrews, on 2018-May-21, 20:26, said:

I think you are on to something. Treat guns like autos. If you are over 16, have not committed a felony with a gun, can pass a basic competency test in gun use, then you will be entitled to carry a gun on public streets. We can require 70 year olds to retake the competency test.

Great Idea I've read that members of the National Grenade Launcher Association are also feeling bummed out by peaceniks. Let me rephrase your comment:

Treat grenade launchers like autos. If you are over 16, have not committed a felony with a grenade launcher, can pass a basic competency test in grenade launcher use, then you will be entitled to carry a grenade launcher on public streets. We can require 70 year olds to retake the competency test.

I haven't heard anything yet from the National IED Association, the National Poison Gas Association, or some of the other groups that are being marginalized in this country.

[ldrews]

 johnu, on 2018-May-22, 14:36, said:

Great Idea I've read that members of the National Grenade Launcher Association are also feeling bummed out by peaceniks. Let me rephrase your comment:

Treat grenade launchers like autos. If you are over 16, have not committed a felony with a grenade launcher, can pass a basic competency test in grenade launcher use, then you will be entitled to carry a grenade launcher on public streets. We can require 70 year olds to retake the competency test.

I haven't heard anything yet from the National IED Association, the National Poison Gas Association, or some of the other groups that are being marginalized in this country.

Or, we could ban all instruments that could result in the deaths of people. How about that?

[Winstonm]

Or maybe we could simply restrict ownership of items for which inflicting injury or death is their primary purpose.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2018-May-22, 16:30, said:

Or maybe we could simply restrict ownership of items for which inflicting injury or death is their primary purpose.

Sounds like you are not interested in saving the most lives, but rather reducing or eliminating your fears.

Eliminating ownership of weapons is, practically speaking, impossible. In the US you would have to amend the Constitution; good luck with that. And since 3D printers can manufacture a working gun quickly, you would have to impose draconian controls on the use of 3D printers, machine shops, etc. Even if you did that, a black market would arise to provide weapons to those willing to pay for them. You would quickly arrive at the situation where the only people having guns are those intent on doing harm. The targets would be helpless.

Then there is the problem of national defense. Many of the soldiers arrive already knowing how to use weapons because of their ready availability in their homes, particularly rural or inner cities. As China has observed: invading the US is pointless because there is a gun behind every blade of grass.

But why stop with guns and their derivatives. In London the ban has been extended to knives. Disregard the fact that knives are extremely useful tools. Boy Scout training even included the proper use of knives.

And since terrorists are starting to use cars and trucks as killing instruments, one can make the argument that they should be banned as well.

Then you would have to fear no more, right?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-May-22, 17:52, said:

Eliminating ownership of weapons is, practically speaking, impossible. In the US you would have to amend the Constitution; good luck with that. And since 3D printers can manufacture a working gun quickly, you would have to impose draconian controls on the use of 3D printers, machine shops, etc. Even if you did that, a black market would arise to provide weapons to those willing to pay for them. You would quickly arrive at the situation where the only people having guns are those intent on doing harm. The targets would be helpless.

Bullshit.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute.

• Freedom of speach does not allow one to cry fire in a crowded theater
  
• The Supreme Court has already rules that right to bear arms does not extent to machine guns

Shifting the line from "Individuals may not own machines guns" to "Individuals may not own semi automatic weapons" would most certainly not require a constitutional amendment.

The Heller decision completely re-interpreted the right to bears, establishing the notion of an individual right where there had been none.
All well and good, but by completely ignoring stare decisis, this interpretation the court pretty much guarantees that this interpretation won't last longer than the current conservative majority.
(And if the democrats don't pack the living ***** out of the supreme court next time they are in the majority AND name the Bill "***** you Mitch" I will be sorely disappointed)

As I have mentioned before, I favor a system in which

1. Individuals have the right to own most anything
2. Most weapons need to be stored and used at licenses firing ranges
3. If you want a weapon for home defense or hunting you are limited to bolt action rifles, shotguns, and revolvers.

This seems like a reasonable compromise. (As the recent shooting in Sante Fe shows, even a revolver and a shotgun are capable to exacting an awful toll)

[Winstonm]

Notice the disingenuous reply: I said, restrict ownership; reply was, eliminating ownership.

This is the very definition of a straw man argument, made in Oz by someone looking for a brain.

[Winstonm]

 hrothgar, on 2018-May-22, 18:18, said:

Bullshit.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are absolute.

• Freedom of speach does not allow one to cry fire in a crowded theater
  
• The Supreme Court has already rules that right to bear arms does not extent to machine guns

Shifting the line from "Individuals may not own machines guns" to "Individuals may not own semi automatic weapons" would most certainly not require a constitutional amendment.

The Heller decision completely re-interpreted the right to bears, establishing the notion of an individual right where there had been none.
All well and good, but by completely ignoring stare decisis, this interpretation the court pretty much guarantees that this interpretation won't last longer than the current conservative majority.
(And if the democrats don't pack the living ***** out of the supreme court next time they are in the majority AND name the Bill "***** you Mitch" I will be sorely disappointed)

As I have mentioned before, I favor a system in which

1. Individuals have the right to own most anything
2. Most weapons need to be stored and used at licenses firing ranges
3. If you want a weapon for home defense or hunting you are limited to bolt action rifles, shotguns, and revolvers.

This seems like a reasonable compromise. (As the recent shooting in Sante Fe shows, even a revolver and a shotgun are capable to exacting an awful toll)

And there is this:

Quote

Antonin Scalia was wrong about the meaning of ‘bear arms’

For most of its history, the Second Amendment protected a collective right to gun ownership connected to service in the militia. This is fairly clear from the text, which says: “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.”

But in 2008, the Supreme Court found in District of Columbia v. Heller that the amendment instead supports an individual right to own a gun for any lawful purpose, a right that has nothing to do with military service.

In his opinion in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that we must understand the Constitution’s words exactly as the framers understood them, disconnected the right to keep and bear arms from the need for a well-regulated militia, in part because he concluded that the phrase “bear arms” did not refer to military contexts in the founding era.

By Scalia’s logic, the natural meaning of “bear arms” is simply to carry a weapon and has nothing to do with armies. He explained in his opinion: “Although [‘bear arms’] implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of ‘offensive or defensive action,’ it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”


But Scalia was wrong. Two new databases of English writing from the founding era confirm that “bear arms” is a military term. Non-military uses of “bear arms” are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.

A search of Brigham Young University’s new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95,000 texts and 138 million words, yields 281 instances of the phrase “bear arms.” BYU’s Corpus of Early Modern English, with 40,000 texts and close to 1.3 billion words, shows 1,572 instances of the phrase. Subtracting about 350 duplicate matches, that leaves about 1,500 separate occurrences of “bear arms” in the 17th and 18th centuries, and only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action. These databases confirm that the natural meaning of “bear arms” in the framers’ day was military.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-May-22, 18:18, said:

The Heller decision completely re-interpreted the right to bears, establishing the notion of an individual right where there had been none.
All well and good, but by completely ignoring stare decisis, this interpretation the court pretty much guarantees that this interpretation won't last longer than the current conservative majority.
(And if the democrats don't pack the living ***** out of the supreme court next time they are in the majority AND name the Bill "***** you Mitch" I will be sorely disappointed)

Well, I would prepare myself for a long wait. With Trump likely to appoint one or more additional Supreme Court Justices, and with the appointment of a slew of Circuit and Appeal Court justices, all of whom have lifetime appointments, I suspect the tenor of the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are going to become even more conservative/textual.

It seems to me the practical matter is that the legality of the right to bear arms is not going to change much. So I suggest we start looking for another type of solution. Assuming of course that you would like to see the problem solved in our lifetime.

Of course one may continue to shout out against guns and gun ownership while people continue to be killed. That is a choice one has to make. Ideology or practicality.

For example, it has been observed that almost all of the mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free" sites. Perhaps that approach isn't working.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-May-22, 21:17, said:

Well, I would prepare myself for a long wait. With Trump likely to appoint one or more additional Supreme Court Justices, and with the appointment of a slew of Circuit and Appeal Court justices, all of whom have lifetime appointments, I suspect the tenor of the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment are going to become even more conservative/textual.

You seem to assume that the number of justices is fixed...

There is nothing in the constitution stating that there needs to be 9 Supreme justices.
I would be happy with 11 or 13 or 17 or 19....

In much the same way, the number of justices on the circuit courts can be increased dramatically.

McConnell decided to break all the normal rules wrt appointment of judges.
The repercussions will be horrific.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2018-May-22, 21:17, said:

For example, it has been observed that almost all of the mass shootings have occurred in "gun-free" sites. Perhaps that approach isn't working.

It has been observed that those studies are badly badly flawed...

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-May-22, 22:33, said:

It has been observed that those studies are badly badly flawed...

Can you provide a link to such observations? Or do you know of a counter-study that you can reference?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2018-May-22, 22:32, said:

You seem to assume that the number of justices is fixed...

There is nothing in the constitution stating that there needs to be 9 Supreme justices.
I would be happy with 11 or 13 or 17 or 19....

In much the same way, the number of justices on the circuit courts can be increased dramatically.

McConnell decided to break all the normal rules wrt appointment of judges.
The repercussions will be horrific.

Changes in the makeup or number of judges has occurred only a couple of times in US history. Are you waiting for such an event?