4 ms·

True, and yet given that gun control is an important political battle of our time, data pertaining specifically to guns, not just violence in general, is import

by jarrett 14y ago

True, and yet given that gun control is an important political battle of our time, data pertaining specifically to guns, not just violence in general, is important. (At least to the extent that data ever influences these kinds of public decisions.) Granted there are knee-jerk partisans on both sides of the issue. But thinking people would benefit from solid data. There are intelligent people who believe that defensive gun use almost never occurs, and then there are intelligent people who believe it's far more common than criminal gun use. They cannot both be right, but I believe intelligent people could be persuaded to the truth, if science could establish what the truth was. That being said, gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. So it is not just a scientific question, but also one of constitutional law.

MichaelSalib 14y ago
gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.
- jarrett 14y ago
  The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said: "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.

by jarrett 14y ago

MichaelSalib 14y ago

gun control cannot be decided by a science-based, cost-benefit analysis alone. That's because we have the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it speaks of arms. And we seem to have a science-based cost-benefit based policy regarding all sorts of non-gun arms: you can't buy shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles or landmines or tanks. You can't even talk about practical astronomy with foreigners in some cases thanks to ITAR.

jarrett 14y ago
The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns In Heller v DC, the Supreme Court said: "United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." If the Supreme Court ever has to decide whether tanks fit this definition, my guess is they'll say tanks do not. The existence of laws against civilian-owned tanks does not tell us anything about how the 2nd Amendment applies to ordinary guns.