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.
I have no idea what the Supreme Court ruling means yet, exactly, because I am waiting for the legal scholars to explain it all to me. Apparently, they want to read the opinion first. And the television talking heads are saying it is not a good idea to run right out and buy a gun before we find out what the new law will look like. So instead, a couple of associated thoughts:
1) At least one good thing has come out of the Bush presidency. Let's hope this blow for individual rights outlasts the executive power grab. I think the Bush administration genuinely believes that the executive should have more power. I also think they're desperately, hopelessly wrong. But of course, since I think all government officials should have rather less power, I would say that, wouldn't I?
2) It's a little sobering to reflect what this decision might have looked like if Michael Bellesiles' work hadn't been so humiliatingly and thoroughly unmasked as a fraud. As it is, the dissenters apparently argue that this is overweening judicial activism, even though everything I know and have read about the crafting of the amendment makes a collective right interpretation pretty untenable.
3) The lack of a court ruling on the question of an individual right to bear arms has been a gaping hole in American constitutional jurisprudence for too long. Thankfully, it's settled. Double thankfully, it's correctly settled.
4) There is a distressing lack of attention to the female market in gun companies. I want something with accuracy and stopping power, but also, an attractive exterior casing that easily integrates with my other accessories. This doesn't seem unreasonable.
So, basically, you're limited to changing the color. A Model 500 in Hot Pink, perhaps?
MM: "... but also, an attractive exterior casing that easily integrates with my other accessories. ..."
I thought black went with anything.
"I think the Bush administration genuinely believes that the executive should have more power. I also think they're desperately, hopelessly wrong."
I've been reading this blog for two years, and I can't recall anything said by the proprietor in support of our habeas corpus and sixth amendment rights. As far as I can tell, Ms. McArdle would maintain her usual patriotic reticence if President Bush locked some present-day Dr Manette in Guantanamo and threw away the key. I'd like to be corrected about this, but unless this happens I'll continue to believe that McArdle couldn't care less about civil liberties.
I have to admit I was hoping for better than a 5-4 decision. And what's this stuff about registration and licensing?
1.) Any conservative could and should request less power for those in authority. Its a trust issue.
2.) This is one of the cases where the founding fathers should have been more specific about their intent. A well-regulated militia would involve the vast majority of men.
3.) It seems to be a Brown v. Board type paradigm decision. But I don't know I know chapter 1 Law basics. I don't make it past chapter 5.
Women are not prone to buying firearms in large enough numbers to warrant such supply. Yes a lot of women buy weapons. But not nearly as often as men. Also few women own large arsenals of their own. Thats not to say your request can't be done, a decent gunsmith should be able to modify a purchased to your hearts content (on par with the price).
"... I want something with accuracy and stopping power, but also, an attractive exterior casing that easily integrates with my other accessories...."
There was an image (photo-shopped, I presume) circulating on the Web a few months ago of a hot pink "Hello Kitty" AK-47. Would that meet your needs? Sorry I don't have the link.
Forgive my ignorance. But if you are going to carry a concealed weapon (which is, I suspect, what we are generally talking about) looks hardly seem to matter.
If you only take it out when you need to use it, in fact, one might suspect that the ability to deter violence would he enhanced by strict functionality, rather than accessorizing the looks. And like any sensible person, you would rather deter someone than actually have to shoot them -- and then clean up the mess. Right?
In the spirit of your prior post on Euros blaming America first, I predict large, lengthy cover stories and lengthy TV features in the European media warning Europeans never to travel to America because the Supreme Court has now confirmed that Americans should be armed to the teeth and boisterously trigger happy. A nation of natural born killers, etc.
5. Gun violence has caused incredible damage to the District of Columbia and its community, that damage has been borne overwhelmingly by the city's poor, and while I disagree with the city's solution, I recognize that the city was making an effort to address this problem that has cause real people real devastation, injury and heartache. Because, hey, I'm not some affluent carpet-bagger who comes out here and writes gleeful, grave-dancing posts about misguided but good-faith attempts to fix a terrible problems... that's why it's so important for me to include a bullet point like this one, which actually acknowledges this massive problem and the considerable cost the actual community of this city has to bear.
As I said before, the authors of the Constitution may very well have mean that there is an individual right to own firearms.
But if Megan is concerned that her gun is not going to go well with the rest of her accessories, then she needs serious mental help.
On a more practical note, we should probably read the decision before jumping to the conclusion that DC residents will be allowed to carry firearms on their persons. I suspect that the decision is narrowly tailored, and while an outright ban on handgun ownership is declared to be unconstitutional, most gun regulations will not be struck down by the Supreme Court.
There was an image (photo-shopped, I presume) circulating on the Web a few months ago of a hot pink "Hello Kitty" AK-47.
It was an AR-15, and the owner disassembled it and took pictures to prove it was NOT a photoshop job. He had apparently done it up that way for his wife.
I've glanced at the opinion, and it doesn't touch licensing, registration, or concealed carry, it merely orders DC to issue Heller a license to carry in his home.
And what, you haven't heard of the "LadySmith" line?
Maybe some cashmere could be nicely incorporated into a weapon, but for now, you might just have to go with a pink M4.
How about different grips to match each outfit?
*And* Ms. McArdle needs a vegan-friendly holster! Maybe a linen, peep-muzzle variety? Summer's alright, but come fall, you're going to look a little odd with that canvas or straw holster.
There is a distressing lack of attention to the female market in gun companies. I want something with accuracy and stopping power, but also, an attractive exterior casing that easily integrates with my other accessories. This doesn't seem unreasonable
Megan --I've seen a couple of women with pink Glocks at my club.
Excellent point on Michael Bellesiles'. It's impossible to quantify, but I'd say that the whole incident had a huge effect on both sides. Wonder if it had more effect on the pro-second amendment side or the anti.
Yay!!! A victory for the tiny-dicked everywhere!!!
This post sounds like it was written by someone who has never held a gun but wants to sound tough talking about the subject. Its kind of like using prison slang inappropriately.
"I want something with accuracy and stopping power, but also, an attractive exterior casing that easily integrates with my other accessories"
is the most childish thing I've read in a long time.
I've never understood how anyone could consider the notion that gun ownership is an issue of "individual rights" as being remotely coherent--outside a cultural context that pummels them with the idea, that is. Coming from Canada, I feel distinctly less safe and more apprehensive when walking down your average American street. What about *my* right to feel safe and secure in public? The idea that individual gun ownership somehow increases security through deterrence is absolutely risible. If that were true, then states/cities/neighbourhoods with higher gun ownership rates would exhibit lower rates of violent crime--but the opposite is usually true. In reality, a prevalence of guns (especially handguns) is indicative of an adversarial, almost paranoid mentality which itself is a greater cause of violent crime than any other variable you would care to isolate.
Incidentally, this mentality also seems to be at the root of much of America's political system (e.g. the systematic and debilitating distrust built into the "checks and balances" system), and the existence of the Second Amendment itself. It takes a weirdly paranoid people to conclude that, in spite of never having lived anything even remotely resembling true oppression (taxation without representation is unfair and odious, but not truly repressive), their society might still somehow produce a government bent on imposing martial rule.
Megan.
sigh... I continue to read your blog because I don't always agree with you, and I think that by and large, it's good to expose yourself to things you don't agree with. I think I've had it this time though. I am aware of your libertarian leanings, that's fine, we're all entitled to our beliefs. This particular issue is not one I find appropriate to drape with the selfishness often inherent in your logic.
I would not say what happened today is a "good" thing. It remains to be seen if it's a "bad" thing. I own shotguns and rifles, I live in a major metropolitan area in the upper midwest, and have no qualms with hunting for food, hunting for "sport" is a rather disgusting idea to my way of thinking though. I have a Bryant Gumble attitude towards what constitutes a sport.
I believe that people should have the right to possess firearms. Firearms are fancy, high velocity tools. I find that tools are useful, I own several: hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers, knives, firearms. Handguns are the most useless of this particular type of tool. They were very much designed around a single purpose: close quarters combat. Their effective range in stressful conditions for the average person is pretty much nothing. I've been on a scene numerous times in situations where handguns were being discharged by police officers and others, and in the heat of the moment when people aren't set, not a whole lot usually gets hit that was meant to get hit. How many are people are trained in close quarters combat? Now take that number and subtract the number of people with experience to back up their training? That number does not inspire awe.
If you want to protect your home, get a shotgun. A 12-gauge shotgun. Buy the shortest legal shotgun you can find. Load it with shot not slugs. That will solve all your home invader problems without killing a neighbor 6 blocks away. If you're worried about being mugged or something along those lines- $#!+ happens. You can't eliminate risk, but you can decrease it, pay attention to your surroundings, don't be alone, have a cellphone, plan routes ahead of time, simply PLAN.
Handguns. Don't. Solve. Anything. They're fun to shoot at a range I admit, but there's no argument to be made for the general public possessing them, they serve no purpose other than to kill, and they're not even very effective at that depending on the bearer.
While it not be fair to blame him entirely, I have to say, Scalia is a nut. He'll always be a nut. And he's not even a consistent nut. He just legislated from the bench yesterday in the Exxon case as Yglesias pointed out in a post. He's a partisan hack whose philosophy makes Swiss Cheese look like a block of Jack.
At least three bloggers have articles cited in the Heller decision:
Eugene Volokh, Randy Barnett, and Clayton Cramer
Cramer, it should be remembered, did much good work in showing the errors of Mr. Bellesiles' scholarship.
Coming from Canada, I feel distinctly less safe and more apprehensive when walking down your average American street.
You have every right to feel however you wish. Don't blame me if you choose to feel weirdly paranoid.
Erik: you were doing real good until you started to piss on checks and balances. If you start joining gun regulation with diminishing checks and balances, then even liberals are going to line up to buy a Glock.
What about *my* right to feel safe and secure in public?
It's not enumerated in the Constitution.
It was the correct decision. If one doesn't like that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, then pass an amendment rescinding it.
Here's my lingering Constitutional question: the 2nd Amendment, contrary to popular belief, does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It guarantees a right to own arms. Even the most zealous 2nd Amendment defenders, however, support the restriction on some arms-- I don't know many people who think I should be able to have a Stinger missile sitting on my kitchen table. Here's the thing: once you've made that caveat, that the government can regulate certain kind of arms, I don't understand why that regulation couldn't restrict guns the way that it restricts nuclear weapons or bazookas or mortars or whatever.
Now, look-- I believe in some legal gun ownership. I think there should be severe restrictions, but I don't think we should have outright bans.
However, Erik is right that there are some major pro-gun arguments that are simply lies. First, the argument that we need to allow citizens to have guns so they can use them against criminals and keep themselves safe. But look, statistics tell us that you are overwhelmingly more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with your gun than a criminal. It's not even close. The latest statistics I've seen were that you were 48 times more likely. And it's been like that since they've started keeping these statistics. It shouldn't really surprise anyone, either. Go to the supermarket and watch the average person try to navigate the self-checkout aisle. It's amazing people manage to get through their day without killing themselves. (Of course, no one ever thinks that they will be one of the ones to have an accident.)
Another idea is that well-armed societies have less violent crime. Again, the statistics say otherwise. Higher gun ownership does not correlate internationally with lower violent crime. Baghdad and Johannesburg are very well-armed societies. I wouldn't call them polite.
As I said I think simple libertarian principles are enough to support some legal gun ownership. But the commonly floated idea that guns increase safety and are a deterrent to violent crime simply does not match reality.
Steve, you're overlooking some serious practical benefits of a handgun over a long gun. First consider that a 12 gauge shotgun, even with reduced recoil loads, are difficult for smaller framed folks, including women, to handle. Also, handguns are useful as a back-up gun, in case your shotgun fails to function or you run out of shells. Shotguns are more difficult to move around corners. Of course, training and experience are useful and necessary, but handguns are imperfect and practical self-defense tools. It's a lot easier to carry a pistol in a holster at home than it is to sling a shotgun over your shoulder while you walk around your house. Nevermind the tendency of folks to short-stroke pump shotguns in stressful situations...
Most home invasions and crimes that are stopped with firearms are not stopped with lead hitting the perpetrator. Even if a handgun doesn't have the stopping power of a load of double-ought buck, it'll create a scare, which is usually enough. Consider the numbers on defensive use of firearms. A report released by the DOJ (under Janet Reno) put out an average of 83,000 defensive gun uses per year. Over the last few years (2001-2005) for which FBI data on justifiable homicides has been released, there are between 150 and 300 justifiable homicides per year. You don't have to kill someone to stop a crime. Having a weapon that you can run, are comfortable with, and can keep on you is incredibly important. A shotgun may be able to put out more stopping power but that stopping power is no good if it's in the bedroom and you're in the kitchen when you need it.
What you're most missing is that this decision upholds the prior decision that strikes down DC's rules on weapon storage. A shotgun under the DC rules wouldn't do you much good, since you'd have to keep it locked or disassembled with the ammunition stored separately. This is an effective ban on "functional firearms" and violates the Constitution. It is a good ruling, although it's a little scary that it went 5-4.
Here's my lingering Constitutional question: the 2nd Amendment, contrary to popular belief, does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It guarantees a right to own arms. Even the most zealous 2nd Amendment defenders, however, support the restriction on some arms-- I don't know many people who think I should be able to have a Stinger missile sitting on my kitchen table. Here's the thing: once you've made that caveat, that the government can regulate certain kind of arms, I don't understand why that regulation couldn't restrict guns the way that it restricts nuclear weapons or bazookas or mortars or whatever.
I posted a similar response to this question at Matt's as well:
If you grant that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms, then there are pretty specific ways to limit that constitutional right.
Under strict scrutiny, for instance, a law which limits the right must be: a) narrowly tailored, b) The least restrictive means available and c) be in services of a compelling gov't interest.
I don't think any significant portion of people would disagree that a law banning citizen ownership of nukes meets these three criteria and passes the strict scrutiny test with flying colors.
However, lots of people (including 5 Justices, it seems) believe that a law regulating gun ownership does not meet these criteria, and so would be unconstitutional under the strict scrutiny test. I can imagine laws regulating guns which do meet those criteria, but they would obviously be very limited in scope and effect.
I agree that a lot of the pro-gun arguments are groundless, and shouldn't be necessary given the plain language of the amendment.
They're fun to shoot at a range I admit, but there's no argument to be made for the general public possessing them
It's not about having a justifiable reason for owning one. It's about the right to have one if you want.
You don't like that. Fine. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but your evidence to back it is faulty. For every case you cite (or didn't cite as it were) I can cite a specific case that proves handguns were quite useful in stopping a crime -- just Google "Armed Citizen".
As for rifles and shotguns being your preferred firearms -- DC banned those too, at least in any form that permitted their use unless weilded as a club. So spare us the snobbery about hand gun owners.
Bryant Gumble? When was the last time he did anything more than swing a golf club? His views on what constitutes a real sport hardly qualify as the defining word.
However, Erik is right that there are some major pro-gun arguments that are simply lies.
Freddie, this is hardly the time and place for a full fight about this, but suffice to say that there is significant controversy over the points that you mention. Enough that "lies," in the sense of "knowing falsehood" is not a fair way to put it. Indeed, I would dispute many of the "facts" you and Erik have propounded, either as false or as possibly true but irrelevant.
As for the line-drawing problem, it's real, but it's not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. Somethings are clearly OK (ordinary small arms currently widely available) somethings are clearly not OK (nukes), and somethings are perhaps in a bit of a gray zone (select-fire rifles, crew-served light weapons generally), but the mere existence of a gray zone doesn't mean we shouldn't protect those things that are in the "clearly OK" zone. The fact that the scope of "cruel and unusual" is unclear doesn't mean we have to choose between stopping issuing fines for speeders and allowing genital electrocution.
But look, statistics tell us that you are overwhelmingly more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with your gun than a criminal. It's not even close. The latest statistics I've seen were that you were 48 times more likely.
Source please?
Erik claims the usual anti-gun nonsense. Paranoia-induced claims about gun-owners being paranoid. Does he not understand the irony?
Freddie, that 48 times figure is ridiculously too high and it's largely because of suicides anyway. If you control for things like education it turns out that simply graduating from high school drastically reduces the risk of violent assault. Graduating college renders your risk of violent assault to near insignificance.
Honestly. As someone who grew up in West Philadelphia (47th and Baltimore what what) and went to college out in the boonies of western PA I can say I'm more afraid of high school dropouts than I am gun-owners.
Bryant Gumble made the argument that figure skating wasn't a sport because it wasn't objective. That it was athletic, beautiful, and difficult, but subjective due to the judges. While killing something is certainly in one way as objective as it gets, it's not very sporting if the deer don't know you're hunting them and they're unarmed. There's an assumptive baseline of fairness and ability in competition among equals. Otherwise the people from Special Olympics would have to compete against the folks going to China soon.
"I have no idea what the Supreme Court ruling means yet, exactly, because I am waiting for the legal scholars to explain it all to me...."
"I think the Bush administration genuinely believes that the executive should have more power. I also think they're desperately, hopelessly wrong."
I'm wondering, did you wait until the legal scholars explained all the fine points of the Bush Administration's position on war powers and executive authority, before making your judgment?
The New England Journal of Medicine, among others.
Look, you guys can try to square the circle all you want. It doesn't change the fact that countries with low gun ownership have lower violent crime rates than those with high gun ownership, not higher. It simply is not true to say that when you arm the populace, there is less crime. Pre-Katrina New Orleans was filled with guns; it was also filled with violent crime. The idea that criminals stop committing crimes for fear of an armed citizenry just doesn't match the reality, I'm sorry.
C'mon inventors, where's my Holtzman Shield already. Make all of this silly.
Megan,
My mom had a nice little Chrome 9mm with mother of pearl handgrips. Beautiful.
Remember, you buy the gun, then fix it up to be sexy and go with the rest of your outfit. You can find the right parts to get it looking great depending on your taste.
I would kinda shudder/kinda love seeing women deck them out kinda like they do with their little dogs, you know, little carrying case, extra accessories like a matching cleaning kit, and some different grips/sight rails that go with the mood.
Really, a nice autopistol could be the next sign of a high matainence/highly accurate woman. One I would love to see! :)
On any particular day, I'm 47 times more likely to harm the feelings of a loved one with harsh speech than I am to better our polity through incisive debate.
Does that mean speech should be banned?
"Another idea is that well-armed societies have less violent crime. Again, the statistics say otherwise. Higher gun ownership does not correlate internationally with lower violent crime. Baghdad and Johannesburg are very well-armed societies. I wouldn't call them polite."
Why mention Johannesburg and Baghdad when you could have mentioned cities in the United States? The most obvious answer is the fact that multiple studies have conclusively demonstrated that violent crime, in the United States, drops when citizens are allowed to own concealed firearms. The fact that the cities with the highest crime in the United States also happen to be the ones with the most draconian gun laws just bolsters the argument.
As for South Africa and Iraq, if you want to live there be my guest. Just don't pretend they are relevant to an argument about Second Amendment rights.
It simply is not true to say that when you arm the populace, there is less crime.
Of course, neither is it true to say that when you disarm the populace, there is less crime, or gun crime. Witness D.C., or the city of London.
Look, you guys can try to square the circle all you want.
Nah nah nah!! I can't hear you!!!
Forget Bellesiles - the important fraudster is Dr. Arthur Kellerman, the originator of the "47 times more likely to kill someone you know" factoid. This is perverted by the antis into "47 times more likely to kill a family member." It's bogus in either form, as anyone with any training at all in basic statistics and scientific method can see from Kellerman et al's original papers (all in the New England Journal of Medicine).
Re the Supremes, I'm disappointed that they didn't even try to dance around that "shall not be infringed" stuff - they just ignore it, and claim that capricious and arbitrary limitations are A-OK. Which still leaves us with the question - do the words in the Constitution mean something, or can the courts ignore them at whim?
Nice to hear the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms has been upheld as an individual right and not a collective one.
So does this mean I can now buy an H&K MP5?
I really, really want one. With a silencer.
So can I?
Or did Scalia actually pussy out on this and all we get from today's ruling is more litigation likely to come?
Hey freddie,
Your side lost. Get over it.
Look, you guys can try to square the circle all you want. It doesn't change the fact that countries with low gun ownership have lower violent crime rates than those with high gun ownership, not higher. It simply is not true to say that when you arm the populace, there is less crime. Pre-Katrina New Orleans was filled with guns; it was also filled with violent crime. The idea that criminals stop committing crimes for fear of an armed citizenry just doesn't match the reality, I'm sorry.
Much of that may be true--though I think a lot of it is arguable. Even if it were, and the need to limit gun ownership was obvious, the constitution provides a mechanism for amendment. I just don't think that the 2nd amendment can just be waved away because it doesn't seem like a good idea, though.
Freddie, your "48 times more likely" figure is probably Dr. Kellerman's 1986 study in the NEJM which actually said 43 times.
As I said, his group of "firearm-related deaths" was largely composed of sucides and "gun-cleaning accidents." Around 90%, in fact.
That's just one of the many problems with how that statistic is used. The other is what the argument implies. You seem to be saying that gun-owners need to kill more criminals in order to justify their ownership. That seems sort of extreme for someone who is against gun ownership.
Freddie,
You still didn't answer the question as to whether your statistics included suicides. Many of them do, and the numbers you cite sound a lot like the numbers that come out of studies that include suicides.
To your point about countries with low gun ownership having low rates of violent crime, are you sure about that? The studies I've seen say that countries with low gun ownership have a lower rate of violent crimes that involve firearms, which seems unsurprising to me. But that doesn't necessarily translate into a lower rate of all violent crime. In the UK, for instance, they have a tremendous problem with home invasion, and at one point they were talking about a ban on chef's knives with pointed tips in order to reduce their potential for use as weapons.
Finally, if you're as bitter about this decision as you sound, you're probably best off just staying away from this thread. It's only going to make you mad, and you're probably not going to convince anyone to change their minds.
That may very well be. However, since that statement applies equally to both sides of almost any issue it's completely irrelevant.
You really need to look at how that statistic was arrived at. If you do, and you're arguing in good faith, you'll realize how utterly nonsensical it is. First of all they include deliberate suicide in that statistic. Secondly that statistic doesn't take into account that the vast majority of defensive firearms usage don't involve injury. Most criminals when confronted with the threat of deadly force either flee or surrender. Don't believe me? Ask yourself this: how many times each year do police draw their weapons? Now how many times do they fire their weapons. I guarantee you the second number is a tiny fraction of the first.
Those same people are trusted to have and raise children, drive cars and vote. We taking that away from them next in the name of a safer society?
First of all, comparing war zones and lawless anarchy to America is not only logically flawed, it's insulting.
But let's go ahead and use your logic. In Russia there has never been a right to own weapons and it's always been illegal. Are they a violence free paradise? England recently banned gun ownership... did their crime rate go down? (that's a rhetorical question... in fact their violent crime skyrocketed). And of course the city that started this whole thing had a complete gun ban and was still high in the running for murder capital of the world.
No gun control law has ever reduced violent crime. Ever. Anywhere. Why then this stubborn insistance that just one more law will do the trick?
It may be an oversimplification, but it is much closer to reality than the idea that any gun control law has ever made society safer.
Freddie,
Not true. Scotland recently earned the unique honor as the country with one of the highest rates of violent crime per capita -- gun ownership is banned in the UK. I don't imagine there are many armed citizens in Zimbabwe either, unless you count machetes.
New Orleans has a higher muder rate today than pre-Katrina, even after Nagle's gun grab. Chicago has tough guns laws, yet they want to arm their police with M-14's to addrss the shootings.
What does this prove? Only that statistics the address this issue are about as numerous as opinions on the subject. You don't like the Supreme Court decision. Fair enough. Then get two thirds majority of all 50 state houses and have at it. Just don't try to draw conclusions from the available statistics, because for every one you cite, I can found a counter.
It doesn't change the fact that countries with low gun ownership have lower violent crime rates than those with high gun ownership, not higher. It simply is not true to say that when you arm the populace, there is less crime.
Sorry Freddie, these aren't facts, they're just bigotries. They turn out to be false. We have the numbers, and there's just no excuse for your level of ignorance.
Mexico, with strict gun controls, has a much lower rate of gun ownership than does the US. It also has a rate of knife homicides which exceeds that of the US for all weapons. Lower crime rate? Obviously not. Switzerland has a much higher rate of gun possession (whether it's "ownership" is contentious, as most of them are government issued) than the US, and a vanishingly tiny rate of gun crime.
The correlations you cite are simply imaginary. You need to become more familiar with the literature on this topic before you can pretend to have a worthwhile opinion.
That may very well be. However, since that statement applies equally to both sides of almost any issue it's completely irrelevant.
You really need to look at how that statistic was arrived at. If you do, and you're arguing in good faith, you'll realize how utterly nonsensical it is. First of all they include deliberate suicide in that statistic. Secondly that statistic doesn't take into account that the vast majority of defensive firearms usage don't involve injury. Most criminals when confronted with the threat of deadly force either flee or surrender. Don't believe me? Ask yourself this: how many times each year do police draw their weapons? Now how many times do they fire their weapons. I guarantee you the second number is a tiny fraction of the first.
Those same people are trusted to have and raise children, drive cars and vote. We taking that away from them next in the name of a safer society?
First of all, comparing war zones and lawless anarchy to America is not only logically flawed, it's insulting.
But let's go ahead and use your logic. In Russia there has never been a right to own weapons and it's always been illegal. Are they a violence free paradise? England recently banned gun ownership... did their crime rate go down? (that's a rhetorical question... in fact their violent crime skyrocketed). And of course the city that started this whole thing had a complete gun ban and was still high in the running for murder capital of the world.
No gun control law has ever reduced violent crime. Ever. Anywhere. Why then this stubborn insistance that just one more law will do the trick?
It may be an oversimplification, but it is much closer to reality than the idea that any gun control law has ever made society safer.
That may very well be. However, since that statement applies equally to both sides of almost any issue it's completely irrelevant.
You really need to look at how that statistic was arrived at. If you do, and you're arguing in good faith, you'll realize how utterly nonsensical it is. First of all they include deliberate suicide in that statistic. Secondly that statistic doesn't take into account that the vast majority of defensive firearms usage don't involve injury. Most criminals when confronted with the threat of deadly force either flee or surrender. Don't believe me? Ask yourself this: how many times each year do police draw their weapons? Now how many times do they fire their weapons. I guarantee you the second number is a tiny fraction of the first.
Those same people are trusted to have and raise children, drive cars and vote. We taking that away from them next in the name of a safer society?
First of all, comparing war zones and lawless anarchy to America is not only logically flawed, it's insulting.
But let's go ahead and use your logic. In Russia there has never been a right to own weapons and it's always been illegal. Are they a violence free paradise? England recently banned gun ownership... did their crime rate go down? (that's a rhetorical question... in fact their violent crime skyrocketed). And of course the city that started this whole thing had a complete gun ban and was still high in the running for murder capital of the world.
No gun control law has ever reduced violent crime. Ever. Anywhere. Why then this stubborn insistance that just one more law will do the trick?
It may be an oversimplification, but it is much closer to reality than the idea that any gun control law has ever made society safer.
Freddie:
Look it up in the FBI National Criminal Stats.
Something like 75% of gun homocides in this country are committed by felons. I think it's 60% of their victims are felons too. And by a major proportion, the perpetrators and victims are black.
So, you want to target gun laws for efficacy? Well, you know what to do - or is that profiling?
Posters belittling her interest in a gun's appearance are ignoramuses. Probably all living in a cube wearing "functional" shirts, hoping to buy a "functional" car and wondering why they can't get a date.
Aftermarket companies receive millions from men who know guns, but who want their .40 or .45 tricked out to look better. GM, sniffing at looks,lost millions when they jettisoned the distictive looks of their 60's cars in favor of their "unicar" look in the 70's. People hated them, not only for poor quality but mediocre looks.
There's no reason a gun can't be attractive and lots (most?) people, after pondering the technical points, grips, length, capacity, etc, select between SIGS, Glocks etc. for just that reason (SIGs look better). Looks matter: spouse, car, gun and home. You guys that belittle the looks issue probably work at GM's design department.
In my opinion, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma. The optimal outcome for safety obtains when almost no one has a gun. This requires that everyone can reasonably trust just about everyone else -- which in turn requires strong and well enforced anti-gun legislation. In the absence of such legislation, it is rational for individuals to seek protection by possessing firearms themselves -- something that puts everyone in a sub-optimal position (i.e., less safe than they would have been if no one had guns). That's why people are, overall, significantly safer in Canada and Europe than in the U.S. What the Supreme Court decision does is guarantee that Americans will never be as safe as Canadians and Europeans.
Of course, a libertarian might respond that she values freedom over security and is willing to live a less secure existence in exchange for the right to carry a stylish, pink AK-47.
So, mijnheer - we then can deduce from the rising levels of knife assaults in the UK that everyone in the UK should be eating with sporks?
it's a Prisoner's Dilemma
Only if you treat law-abiding gun owners the same as gun-using criminals. That's a pretty silly and useless model.
The optimal outcome for safety obtains when almost no one has a gun.
What? That just leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong.
which in turn requires strong and well enforced anti-gun legislation
Yeah, that's worked so well for drug prohibition.
Sheesh. I understand that some people reflexively argue, but what's wrong with wanting aesthetics as well as functionality?
That said, aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder; I really like the looks as well as the functionality of the Smith and Wesson 625JM in the Vega leather holster that's on my right hip as I write, but others might not.
So, Ms. M: what, to your eye, would look good? I don't do gun sales, but I do like pointing folks at stuff that they like.
In the absence of such legislation, it is rational for individuals to seek protection by possessing firearms themselves
It's not really the absence of the legislation, it's more the absence of any real way to enforce it to the level where individuals need not fear those who simply choose not to abide by said legislation.
The optimal outcome for safety obtains when almost no one has a gun.
Absurd. The last time there were no guns anywhere was during the late Middle Ages - not a period noted for tranquility and safety.
In our era, note that the good citizens of Rwanda had very few guns, but that didn't stop them from using machetes to lop off each other's heads in record numbers.
I understand this is an emotive issue for many Americans.
But I have to ask, the US constitution was made in the 18th century, now I recall guns then only stored one bullet, slow reload time and were very inaccurate, oh and there were cases were personal firarms were needed to defend against Native Americans.
Haven't guns and circumstances changed?
"What? That just leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong."
Do you understand what a Prisoner's Dilemma is? Re-read your Hobbes.
But perhaps it's not a Prisoner's Dilemma that Americans find themselves in. Perhaps Americans are just much nastier and more violent than people in other countries. That's a possibility. But I was trying you the benefit of the doubt.
"The optimal outcome for safety obtains when almost no one has a gun."
"What? That just leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong."
Or the virtuous with the brutal. Its kind of a false analogy to call someone weak because they don't have a gun and another strong because they do have a gun. Strength or weakness is not derived from a gun. Success or failure, survival or death. Yeah those I can see coming from the barrel of a gun.
Haven't guns and circumstances changed?
Sure, and so have communications technologies (First Amendment) surveillance technologies (Fourth Amendment) the existence of professional police and public prosecutors (Fifth and Sixth Amendments), traditional methods of criminal punishment (Eighth Amendment) and both the value of a dollar and the Federal rules of civil procedure (Seventh Amendment).
None of that means that we abandon the Constitution. If times have changed, maybe a new amendment is in order, but not some bogus "Let's ignore what we don't like" argument.
In my opinion, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma. The optimal outcome for safety obtains when almost no one has a gun.
Well, no. Bad people can -- and have -- done damage with swords, knives, clubs, and pointed sticks.
The optimal outcome for safety obtains when only good people have guns. The worst outcome for safety -- see DC -- obtains when only criminals have guns.
tail end Charlie brings up one of the oldest anti-gun fallacies with:
But I have to ask, the US constitution was made in the 18th century, now I recall guns then only stored one bullet, slow reload time and were very inaccurate, oh and there were cases were personal firarms were needed to defend against Native Americans.
Haven't guns and circumstances changed?
...let me guess: he WON'T want this "logic" applied to the 1st or 4th amendments.
Perhaps Americans are just much nastier and more violent than people in other countries. That's a possibility.
Some of them definitely are. The 1988 Seattle-Vancouver comparative study would make the reader suspect that some identifiable groups of Americans are more inclined to violent crime than others. (Though I can't say which, as that would be "profiling.")
But that's irrelevant. We can't solve that particular problem by rounding them up and shipping them off to concentration camps. We're not Europeans, after all.
"That's why people are, overall, significantly safer in Canada and Europe than in the U.S. What the Supreme Court decision does is guarantee that Americans will never be as safe as Canadians and Europeans."
The Brits' low murder rate preceded their gun laws. Culture determines the likelihood that people want to kill others; laws just tweak the incentive structure. If a law against an easily smuggled item was sufficient to prevent its possession and use, street drugs could not be found in the US. If that were the case we wouldn't need gun laws anyway, as a murder ban would protect us against guns as well as knives, 16 ton weights, and all other weapons.
Let's not let our disagreements hide one of the larger issues where most of us agree: that Megan's joke about gun fashion was funny, but those who don't get the joke are funnier.
Nice to hear the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms has been upheld as an individual right and not a collective one.
So does this mean I can now buy an H&K MP5?
I really, really want one. With a silencer.
So can I?
Or did Scalia actually pussy out on this and all we get from today's ruling is more litigation likely to come?"
Yes he pussied out on this. Basically he said that the 2nd amendment only covered firearms in common use and indicated that it could exclude "machine guns". He did not mentioned that select fire weapons were not in common use only because they've been outlawed for 40 years. (I want that silenced MP-5 too!)
Do you understand what a Prisoner's Dilemma is?
Do you?
Hobbes speaks of the problem of diffidence. That one in the state of nature must be pre-emptively aggressive because one can't be sure their neighbor isn't planning to become aggressive against them.
But see, this is where it breaks down. Law-abiding gun owners don't buy guns because they are afraid of what their law-abiding gun-owning neighbors might be doing. They buy them to defend themselves against criminal depredation. It doesn't matter if the criminal is armed with a gun, a knife, a bat, or his fists. If he's robbing my house in the middle of the night I don't want to meet him on any terms but my own.
In that sense it isn't a prisoners dilemma in the slightest. We're not two equal parties making the same decision on the same criteria. There is no way we can reach an collectively-equitable though individually-nonoptimal compromise through cooperation.
So. Do YOU know your Hobbbes?
Perhaps Americans are just much nastier and more violent than people in other countries.
Ok, so you just hate Americans. That makes the rest of your irrationality make a lot more sense. Prejudice is rarely rational.
Or the virtuous with the brutal. Its kind of a false analogy to call someone weak because they don't have a gun and another strong because they do have a gun.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but what I'm saying is all parties being unarmed is not the optimal outcome for safety in a situation with a 55 year old women facing two menacing 20 year olds.
Like I said before, he's treating criminals the same as law-abiding citizens who just don't want to be harmed or robbed. In case you disagree (and I'm not sure, I can't tell from your post), reference my above statement about how this isn't remotely a prisoner's dilemma.
All and sundry -
On the "paranoid" comment: the very fact that there's a debate about a "right" to own a handgun in the US is proof positive that there is endemic distrust of others built into American culture. Yours in the only country in the world that doesn't believe the entire argument to be entirely absurd. Yes, yes, it's an "enumerated righ"; my point is not about the legal niceties of the debate (in fact, since I'm a lawyer, I've read--well, scanned, it's pretty long--the decision, and I tend to think it was correctly decided) but about the fact that it would even be considered socially acceptable to constitutionally entrench--and then defend tooth and nail--such a right. When Megan said (paraphrase) "Hooray for individual rights", I think she was expressing a philosophical, not a legal, point of view.
Before anyone flies off the handle about America-bashing, that's not my intent. Endemic distrust for others has other consequences that confer on the US many of the qualities others admire in it, e.g. self-reliance. But in a society where everyone is looking out for numero uno, it's natural to assume that *other people are doing the same thing*, and that some of them will use violence to get what they want. Americans have every right to feel more afraid than others of being the victims of violent crime, because they are, in fact, more LIKELY to fall victim to a mugging or a murder. So my point is two-fold: a) people want guns because they're scared, not because it's "right" in some abstract philosophical sense, and b) throwing handguns into a boiling pot of distrust and social atomization is a Really Stupid Idea.
In case you're inclined to dismiss what I'm saying as an America-hating liberal commie foreigner, take a look at some of the MANY sociological studies outlining more or less what I've just said using empirical data (you can start with Continental Divide by Seymour Martin Lipset). I'm really not just making this up because I hate God, Guns and Babies.
Re: the separation of powers: only someone whose knowledge of governance is limited to the US Consitution would argue that a US-style separation of powers is a good idea. It's a recipe for paralysis and corruption and results in Very Bad Government, and is/was justified only by a very deep distrust of individuals' ability to wield power responsibly. It's ironic that Parliamentary systems like those in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which concentrate power, generally result in much better public policy and a more productive public debate.
The optimal outcome obtains when only I have a power/life-enhancing thing.
The least optimal outcome obtains when only I do not have the power/life-enhancing thing.
The most practicable optimal outcome obtains when everyone has unfettered access to the power/life-enhancing thing.
Here's what our founders understood and we all seem to have forgotten despite evidence we've all seen. An evil person with a gun can kill another person, or two, or three but their ability to kill large numbers is limited by other citizens.
To really kill a lot of people you need an organization, like a government. I've never heard of gun control advocates calling for a ban on firearm possession by the government.
But of course the U.S. government would never kill its own people. That couldn't happen here, right? Not like it's happened in Turkey, or Germany, or Russia, or China, or Cambodia, or Kosovo, or Ruanda or Iraq, or Darfur.
It can't happen here only as long as we have armed citizens willing and able to keep it from happening.
Wouldn't it make more sense to ban the police from having firearms than to ban private citizens from owning firearms? At the time of the constitutional convention large public police forces didn't exist. There certainly didn't exist a federal police force like the FBI or DEA or BATFE. The founders probably couldn't imagine that someday their finely crafted constitution with enumerated powers could be interpreted to allow a federal police force. But that's exactly why the founders, with their well deserved fear of a standing army, included the second amendment in the Bill of Rights.
And we forget that at our own peril.
There are a variety of handguns in sizes that a woman hands can comfortably use in a variety of colors. Some guns are made not in steel but with annodized aluminum that can be in colors such as blue, magenta, pink, green etc.
The important item is to find a handgun that fits your hand and is comfortable. Go to a range in Va and rent several types. Semi auto and revolvers. Try 9mm 380 40 S&W stc. If you want a purse gun a 25 cal in a good choice. May not kill with one shot but should dissuade an asssault.
Once you find the size amd model then look for duracoat to change color and get a similar in annodized aluminum. Many gun manufacturers are trying to appeal to female taste.
I am sure that with research you can find a handgun that goes with your outfits even if you have to buy many guns to match your clothing and purses.
Erik,
I disagree with your flat assertion that "Parliamentary systems ... which concentrate power, generally result in much better public policy". I could just as easily say the opposite. More important, though, is that the U.S. was founded in response to a corrupt, brutal (and Parliamentary!) regime. Its founders wanted, as much as possible, to prevent their own nascent government from developing the same problems. Hence the idea of limited government with internal checks and balances.
Inherently, this means a less efficient government. It has the virtue, though, of making it harder for the government to do evil as well as good. Look around at a few really terrible governments and you can see why this is at least arguably wise.
Finally, I don't think that Western Europe and the U.S. are actually very far apart in how they are governed, from the standpoint of the daily lives of most citizens. Other effects swamp the differences between parliamentary and bicameral/3-branch government.
To Mike and HeavyG,
Scalia's got nothing to do with it. You could buy an MP-5, or a Thompson, or an Uzi (all fully automatic) yesterday and you can buy one today. As long as you're willing to go through the paperwork and have about $20K to spend. Go here and look:
http://www.impactguns.com/store/machineguns.html
Who is more paranoid, one who believes that there are people who may want to harm him and his family and wants to be able to defend his home, or one who is afraid to trust his law abiding family, friends and neighbors with the means to protect themselves?
To Greg,
No I can't because I live in Illinois. Even if the 2nd becomes incorporated by the 14th I'm SOL.
"Haven't guns and circumstances changed?"
Guns have changed, but not circumstances. Tweakers, gangbangers and other urban threats are just as dangerous as the Comanches.
None of which has anything to do with civil rights which, not to put too fine a point to language of the founding documents, are granted by God, not the state.
Erik,
Meanwhile, actual violent crime is up, and rising, not in the parts of the US that support the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but in the UK where gun restrictions are at about the Chicago level (i.e. slightly less aweful than DC's.)
Bzzzt! Thanks for trying to play!
Seriously, I hope your apparent inability to distinguish between feeling and actually being gets the robust mockery it so richly deserves.
Or tell me this: do you feel the same fear when you encounter a police officer with a handgun? If not, then maybe you're just a statist.
And Freddie, thanks to you, too, for trying to play. That Kellerman study that's at the root of the JAMA article is totally discredited, and furthermore that fact is fairly ancient history now. Try, instead, looking at the DOJ statistics mentioned upthread here. They tell a totally different story...
mijnheer,
Indeed, that's why the early middle ages were characterized by utopian peacefulness....
Nope. Sorry, all your gun-free formulation would do is favor the young, strong, and large against the old, weak, and small.
"In my opinion, it's a Prisoner's Dilemma. The optimal outcome for safety obtains when almost no one has a gun."
Your right, it is a prisoner’s dilemma. If every citizen (not convicted of a serious crime) could be made to put aside their selfishness and fear and purchase a handgun which they carried with them all the time, violent crime might very well drop dramatically. It is a prisoner's dilemma in the sense that, when many criminals own guns, but most law abiding citizens refuse to carry them for fear shooting themselves (or whatever reason) everybody is worse off. It only works when every law abiding citizen cooperates.
Such a publicly armed society has never existed, but Israel comes the closest among modern nations. They have a pretty low violent crime rate too, even if you count outside attacks by Palestinians.
I should have been more specific. The ownership of fully automatic weapons isn't illegal in many states, but the manufacture and importation of them is. Hence the outrageous prices.
I'd like a tommy gun too. And they used to be in common use before the national firearms act of 1934. Maybe there's hope.
Mike,
Sorry about the Illinois thing. You need to move to Virginia; open carry, concealed carry, it's all good. BTW the 1986 NFA is the operative one for machine guns, plenty of Tommyguns out there but like I said the cheapest I've seen is $14K. What I really want is a P-90 (see Stargate SG-1, it's a real gun), the horizontal mag is just too cool.
Anyone looking for a good home defense shotgun should try a Saiga. It'a a semi-auto 12ga (15 round mags) built on an AK-47 frame. Got my wife one for Valentine's Day and she loves it. Cheers.
Glorious: Your use of "diffidence" shows that, yes, you have read your Hobbes. But I question your claim that you and the criminals are not equal parties with regard to decision-making. The criminal, unless he is mentally ill, will act in a way that he believes maximizes his chances of getting the goodies in life, just as you will. (Hobbes recognized that some individuals are more aggressive than others, less willing to live and let live.) My point was simply that a legal regime that makes guns freely available (abetted by a culture of possessive individualism) will make it rational for individuals to act differently than they would under a more restrictive (effectively enforced) legal regime. Given their circumstances, it is rational for Americans to want their own guns. This rational behaviour leaves Americans less secure than Canadians or Europeans. Even so, some, like you, will opt for the freedom to meet the the intruder on your own terms.
You non-Americans do realize that just because people own guns doesn't mean they have to run around using them on random strangers all the time, and that the sort of people who use guns on random strangers are not likely to care what the law says about gun ownership, right?
The 1986 law is the Firearms Owners Protection Act, not the National Firearms Act. Anti-gunners in Congress slipped that thing about post-1986 machine guns into the FOPA, which was otherwise quite useful in curbing gross abuses by BATF and other law enforcement agencies.
The prohibition's major effect was to give a windfall profit to the owners of the 800,000 machine guns currently regestered to civilians. Without the FOPA, MGs would cost less than a tenth of what they do now.
It's ironic that Parliamentary systems like those in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which concentrate power, generally result in much better public policy and a more productive public debate.
This may be the single most absurd and indefensible statement on this entire page. Congratulations; the competition was formidable.
tom swift,
you are correct sir! Sorry, I always forget that that one has a different acronym. Yup, supply and demand gets you every time. Now if we could only convince Congress that it's true about domestic oil supplies too...
Freddie, let me be the next to beat up on you, and I apologize if I'm repeating someone above, since I had time only to scan the comments.
The famous "48 times more likely," even if true, assumes only two outcomes: dead burglar or dead member of household. It ignores several other desirable outcomes:
In all these cases, everyone lives, and no innocent person gets robbed or hurt.
Uh, no, Eric, the U.S. isn't even close to being number one among inustrialized democracies in terms of the likelihood of a citizen being mugged. Murdered? Yes. Violently assaulted? Most certainly not.
But in a society where everyone is looking out for numero uno, it's natural to assume that *other people are doing the same thing*, and that some of them will use violence to get what they want.
Your logic is exactly backwards. In every society THERE ARE people that will use violence to get what they want. This is the human condition from time immemorial and although prosperity and rule of law can supress it, that element never vanishes. Second point: The moment of need will usually be, by the criminal's own design, at a time when there is minimal police presence.
There are three ways you can respond to that, either individually or in some combination:
1. Go statist, increasing policing budgets without limit and monitoring the citizens' every public move and possibly their private ones as well. The UK is presently experimenting with this one.
2. Tell victims of violent crime to suck it up for the common good, or simply isolate and ignore sub-populations where violent crime is endemic. This seems to be the continental European approach at present.
3. Tell victims of violent crime that their initial line of defense is in their own hands, and as long as there is a dire need when the action is taken, the state will support your actions within some delimited boundary of permissibility. This is the US approach.
Options (1) and (2) have some distinct problems of their own, but to do otherwise requires reducing state power and increasing the rights of the citizens, neither of which is popular amongst those who wield the power. So it becomes necessary to demonize (3) as being the product of an untrusting, violent, paranoid soicety, in order to justify why (1) and (2) aren't as oppressive, unjust, and/or socially fracturing as an external observer might claim them to be.
Fortunately for the US, (3) actually works pretty well in practice, and some of the areas with the worst criminal elements are generally large cities with corrupted governments and serious social problems which, in lieu of cracking down on the corruption and addressing the social problems, have resorted to demagouging with gun control and other functionally useless, but highly visible, bandaids. Hence, places like DC, Chicaco, Philadelphia, etc. simultaneously have some of the worst and most corrupted governments, the most draconian gun control laws, and high levels of violent crime.
Americans have every right to feel more afraid than others of being the victims of violent crime, because they are, in fact, more LIKELY to fall victim to a mugging or a murder.
Erik, that isn't actually true. Violent crime in the US in all categories except murder is significantly lower than in many European countries. Murder is definitely higher here, but given that many of the perpetrators and victims are drug dealers fighting over territory, the raw numbers don't actually prove that a law-abiding American is at significant risk.
And there's no way in hell you'll get me on board with "better public policy" in parliamentary systems. I love paralysis and inability to get stuff done. The less government, the better in most cases.
But I question your claim that you and the criminals are not equal parties with regard to decision-making
And I, for the life of me, can't understand why.
They've chosen to break the law. I haven't. By definition we're not equal. I didn't make the decision for them to try and attack/rob me, and it's absurd to say my "equal" option is to try and attack or rob them. That's anarchy. It's completely removing the distinction of lawful and unlawful.
So the only way you can make this into a prisoner's dilemma is by removing the sovereign power in our society, which is the law. Which, by the way, is the precise solution Hobbes advocated to AVOID the problem of diffidence!
That's the reason I don't fear my gun-owning neighbors. I know that they respect the sovereign and aren't willing to ruin their life to rob me. The reason people fear criminals, obviously, is because they DON'T respect the sovereign and thus they've essentially reverted to "war of all against all."
That's the distinction. That's the difference. And that's why the foolish attempts to apply the "Prisoner's Dilemma" are ridiculous. Why? Because your solution is what we already have! You want the sovereign to eliminate guns to remove the state of nature in the relations between men, but the problem is that criminals don't respect the sovereign by definition in the first place!
My 18 y.o. son was mugged on the Paris Metro last summer. He thought that just because he could travel around U.S. cities, with all those gun toting cowboys, without fear of crime that he could do the same in Europe.
Silly boy.
I have no idea what the Supreme Court ruling means yet, exactly, because I am waiting for the legal scholars to explain it all to me. Apparently, they want to read the opinion first.
Welp, you certainly earned your paycheck for today. Deep thoughts there, Megan!
(ps: you're not funny)
I have no idea what the Supreme Court ruling means yet, exactly, because I am waiting for the legal scholars to explain it all to me. Apparently, they want to read the opinion first.
Welp, you certainly earned your paycheck for today. Deep thoughts there, Megan!
(ps: you're not funny)
Argh, fracking tubes.
Argh, fracking tubes
I think I may have found just the styiln' bangstick for you....
Woops, bad HTML-fu. Take 2:
I think I may have found just the styiln' bangstick for you.......
/that's better.
It has been brought up that a full RTKBA decision would allow individual ownership of nuclear weapons. I think not, because the US is party to various treaties that regulate the numbers and kinds of nuclear weapons the US can have, as well as controls on the distribution of fissionable material. Same for bioweapons and chemical weapons.
That said, individual ownership of light infantry weapons is well within the right the founders understood. Today this would include M16s, AK47s, grenades, light antitank weapons, small cannons and light antiaircraft weapons. (Oh, a Stinger would be useful against an airliner only in a few circumstances - they work well against most military aircraft because of the location of the jet engines in the body of the plane.)
Erik,
I think you are on to something about the "paranoid" streak in US political thought but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw from it, nor your characterization as paranoid, i.e, mentally ill.
The major difference comes down to worldview, and the nature of Man. People who believe in the spiritual evolution of the species toward goodness and wonderfulness (the 'immanetization of the eschaton') would naturally see no reason to place limits and controls on what people with political power can do, lest you limit their ability to perform great works of goodness. People with a less optimistic view of human nature, who understand that humans as a species are capable of both great good and great evil, would devise a system that is resistant to abrupt changes and handicaps the ability to centralize power.
A checks-and-balances system hopes for the best and prepares for the worst. Assuming a nefarious person bent on self-interest and accumulation of power reached a position of authority (i.e., the Netroots opinion of GWB and the right-wing view of Obama), the checks and balances inherent in the system restrict their ability to make mischief.
From that standpoint, your "paranoia" is my common sense. It all depends on how you view human nature, and the framers of our constitution come off rather more on the Tragic interpretation than the Theraputic, to use Victor Davis Hanson's formulation.
I expect the best of my fellow citizens and strive to provide that myself. That being the case, I understand that in a large enough cross-section of humanity I may encounter the worst, and choose to prepare for that eventuality without endangering my fellow citizens.
It's unfortunate that you would characterize the people who choose to go through a lengthy and moderately expensive licensing procedure to obtain a concealed handgun license as a threat to public safety. People who do that are statistically one of the least likely groups to commit a crime or constitute a threat to you. Going through the process in Texas only impressed upon me the great responsibility inherent in carrying a firearm, and the imperative that it had truly better be my life or that of another that is at risk before I draw a firearm. That act alone is technically the crime of assault if I am wrong about the circumstances.
It's worth noting that finding a holster to match your suit will not be a new fashion trend in the District of Columbia. This ruling only allows people to, after being licensed by the city, own a handgun for protection of their homes, and dispense with trigger locks if they see fit. The people you see with fanny packs in the Smithsonian are not carrying handguns -- at least not legally. That's still under the purview of the DC government, and is unaffected by Heller.
Freddie,
I'm concerned for you, given your worries about safety. Since you've just had your ass handed to you, for the next few days you need to be very careful of your balance while walking since a large portion of your anatomy is not in its usual location. Your equilibrium is bound to be considerably off.
Safety first, Freddie!
I haven't read all 102 posts or the decision.
But can I say hooray?
Canadians are merely the loyalists who supported the British in our revolutionary war. Its no surprise they worry about an armed populace.
Several years ago when there were a series of breakins and rapes in my area, I bought a gun and went to the Sheriff's classes. The classes were full of like minded women and we were told to pick a defendable spot in our house and shot to kill to defend ourselves at that spot. Also to think about what that meant. Since the rapes were being purpetrated on elderly women (some of whom died) this was totally self-defense. Since that time in my area there have not been an overwhelming lot of gun-toting women killing people. They did catch the creep doing the crime or killing themselves. As for the look -- to me it's a tool. Actually I depend more on my dogs (they're really noisey) but at the time it did help me sleep nights.
Before moving to the bucolic Adirondacks I lived in one of the worst neighborhoods in metro NYC. I had my home burglarized twice and invaded once. Consensus among my suburban coworkers was "get a gun" implying a handgun. A few of them, who were knowledgeable about guns suggested a shotgun. Much more effective at close range and you have far less worry about accurate aim. The resulting mess would probably be a bit easier to clean up too. there less guts splattered all around with a shotgun.
I considered it briefly and decided that it was much more preferable to scare them off before it comes to a personal confrontation. . . anyway installing the alarm system was much cheaper.
The neighbors. people in the same situation as me agreed that a gun wouldn't be terribly effective, considering all the possibilities. Not to mention it's just one more thing that can be easily stolen and easily fenced. And anyway it tends to make an awful mess when you blow someone's guts out with a bullet.
Most of the crime in that awful neighborhood was driven by illegal drugs. Make the drugs cheap and legal and most of the problems not directly related to drug abuse go away. And most of the need for firearms.
Heh. I finally the connection between Jane Galt and Megan McArdle. I read one and didn't pick up the other until recently.
I feel dumb.
An Open Letter to Those Who Wonder Why Citizens Would Want to Carry Guns in Public
http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public
}}The resulting mess would probably be a bit easier to clean up too. there less guts splattered all around with a shotgun.{{
Can you tell me their reasoning for saying this. Thankfully, I have never had to have any personal experience with the aftermath of a firearm being used on a person, but it would seem to me that, given how powerful shotguns are compared to pistols, the trauma associated with being hit by a shotgun blast and the associated mess would be substantially worse than for a pistol.
Canada: what if they made a country and nobody cared.
Hmmm.
What I find astonishing here is the idea that the Bill of Rights was in fact somehow mislabeled and should've been titled:
Bill of Some Rights
or
Bill of not all Rights
Hmmm.
@ Rob Lyman
"Erik, that isn't actually true. Violent crime in the US in all categories except murder is significantly lower than in many European countries. Murder is definitely higher here, but given that many of the perpetrators and victims are drug dealers fighting over territory, the raw numbers don't actually prove that a law-abiding American is at significant risk."
That doesn't include the multitude of Europeans who don't even bother reporting many crimes because of inaction on the part of the police.
The line about 'not having to aim with a shotgun' is not really true at home defense distances.
A shot pattern doesn't spread very fast even with an open choke. At 10 feet a shot load is about the size of your fist. It is easier to aim a shotgun because you can use two hands and have three points of contact on the gun (shoulder, both hands), but buying a shotgun and being able to use one defensively are not the same thing.
What is not overstated is the damage potential of a shotgun. A 000 buckshot round is typically 8 .36-caliber balls, roughly the equivalent of eight .38 Special rounds landing in close proximity. The round balls aren't particularly aerodynamic so they lose energy quickly and they don't expand like modern defensive handgun rounds, but they do leave a mark, and the effect of multiple wounds in close proximity is much more damaging from a trauma standpoint.
Considering that with a pump shotgun you can get off at least two rounds a second, that's a lot of lead downrange. It's also a lot of lead that doesn't have a problem punching right through standard building materials, so you need to be sure of your backstop or use smaller shot (BB or #4) that won't shoot through your bedroom wall and into something or someone you want to keep.
Eric - "It's ironic that Parliamentary systems like those in the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which concentrate power, generally result in much better public policy and a more productive public debate."
Productive for whom, Eric? In Canada and much of Europe the scope of public debate on many issues (gun control, death penalty, EU directives) is very limited, not due to a lack of interest by individuals, but because it is not considered acceptable by the elites.
Modern Russian democracy seems to be even better than European one in channeling political discourse towards the strictly efficient.
And while we are talking Europe, can't you think of any cases in European history where letting poplar leaders have their way with the populace resulted in, shall we say, suboptimal outcomes?
I realize you are focusing on Anglo-Saxon parliamentary systems, which do better than European counterparts, but these systems are more vulnerable than the US is to authoritarianism (see Britian's wholesale socialization of the Economy after WWII) and their built-in checks on power did not evolve through trust.
Didn't English Barons insist on a Magna Carta, rather than trust the judgment of the good King John?
And didn't their descendants hunt and behead a later king, also displaying a worrying lack of trust?
memomachine:
What I find astonishing here is the idea that the Bill of Rights was in fact somehow mislabeled and should've been titled: Bill of Some Rights or Bill of not all Rights
Maybe that idea arises from reading the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Sounds like maybe it really is the Bill of Some Rights.
The "oppressive government" argument is not as far-fetched as some of our Canadian friends would have us believe. After all, the civil rights era it is well within living memory, and that often featured local and state police, courts, and government in cahoots with the KKK to deprive citizens of their rights by violent means. If I had been a civil rights worker in the south a handgun would have been pretty useful.
BTW, shotguns are nice, but also unwieldy in close quarters. I've got both, and my choice for my primary home defense weapon is the handgun. I'd take a 5.56 carbine over a shotgun, too. You'll notice that most of the SWAT guys use carbines with a backup of handguns.
Mike (June 26, 2008 3:24 PM) wrote:
"To Greg,
No I can't because I live in Illinois. Even if the 2nd becomes incorporated by the 14th I'm SOL."
Um, that makes no sense. If the 2nd is incorporated into the 14th, then it doesn't matter what state you live in, you're covered. It's only if for some inexplicable reason the 2nd isn't incorporated that state law will matter. Heller didn't decide the incorporation question, because it didn't have to; but the next challenge is going to be to a state or city law, and when that gets to the Court it will have to decide. There's no way the current Court could justify not incorporating it, but by that time the Court may well have changed, and not for the better, so what it will actually decide is anybody's guess.
to Millhouse,
Unfortunately the decision in Heller left many issues up in the air, including exactly what weapons would be considered covered. Even after the second amendment is recognized in Illinois, Illinois still bans the possession of automatic weapons and silencers. Scalia's opinion seemed to suggest that these need not be covered by the second amendment. Until there are many more cases we won't know.
As an aside, he also seemed to indicate that open carry laws may be covered but concealed carry may not be. Since we don't have either in Illinois that will have to be litigated or legislated too.
Megan wrote:
“4) There is a distressing lack of attention to the female market in gun companies. I want something with accuracy and stopping power, but also, an attractive exterior casing that easily integrates with my other accessories. This doesn't seem unreasonable.”
Several people offered suggestions for the fashion-conscious female firearm buyer, ranging from revolvers designed for a female hand to Hello Kitty semi-auto carbines to full custom jobs.
On this topic, here's a hypothetical: you kill or injure someone in self-defense with your legal firearm. Someone from your local govt. will decide whether it was legitimate, and if the decision is that it was not self-defense, a jury may end up making some important decisions about your whereabouts for the next 3 to X years.
Rhetorical question: would you rather be seen in this situation as someone who owns a basic off-the-shelf gun or someone who is so obsessed with guns that you've accessorized, customized, tricked this one out?
Moral 1: humor's great, but in your real life don't get cute too about something that is primarily about life and death - especially when the life and death (and intermediate inconvenience) of yourself and your loved ones comes into play, not just some bad guy assailant.
Moral 2: buy something high-quality enough that it meets your standards straight out of the box. No accurizing, no smoothing the trigger pull, no laser-dot sights, etc.. Same logic for blued or stainless over pink, taupe, teal...