5 ms·

> because it's handguns that do the dirty work I'd also like to point out that the Supreme Court of the United States of America affirmed that individual owner

by 15155 11y ago

> because it's handguns that do the dirty work I'd also like to point out that the Supreme Court of the United States of America affirmed that individual ownership of semi-automatic handguns (cited example, but, "common use" is the test) is a protected right. We have a financial inequality and mental health problem (somewhat stemming from said inequality) in this country, not a firearm problem. These are the problems that need addressed to reduce crime.

x0x0 11y ago
The justices, as aptly demonstrated recently (viz scalia, whose textualism has no meaning besides whatever his personal politics prefer) are politicians, no more. Or one could ask why gay rights have done better than reproductive rights, and the answer comes down solely to Kennedy is more sympathetic. At this point, we are so inured to gun violence that my SO was at a community college a couple years ago while it had a lockdown because of a shooter on campus. She was ushered into a classroom by swat with them standing outside the door and it didn't even make the tv news that night. I grew up shooting guns with my father and have treasured memories of going to gun shows. I'd vote for an amendment for Japanese gun laws. ps: in 2008, the us had 12k+ firearm related homicides while japan had 11. The population ratio was 2.39, so the US would have experienced (rounding up) 27.
- 15155 11y ago
  The Heller decision wasn't based on textualism, though that argument holds true as well. If you'd like to see stricter laws or the outlawing of personal ownership, feel free to lobby for an amendment to the Constitution.
wisty 11y ago
Yep. Banning guns will reduce mass shootings, and gang shootings (somewhat - well organised criminals will still have guns, but the stupid ones who cause the most damage won't). It can also reduce suicide rates (since guns don't give people time to change their mind). However, a crazy relative can still kill you without a handgun. In countries that introduce gun laws, they get more murders with knives, blunt objects, etc. US murder rates may be partly driven by guns. But they're mostly the result of education, prison sentences, and other social factors. The US is a developed country with the welfare system of a developing country (and a bunch of very expensive bandaids to catch the people who have fallen too far to really recover).
- sdenton4 11y ago
  /However, a crazy relative can still kill you without a handgun. In countries that introduce gun laws, they get more murders with knives, blunt objects, etc./ Do you have data to back up this claim? I hear it quite often in these debates, but have never seen anything to back it up, and it seems suspect: It's pretty easy to imagine that even if the number of assaults were the same per capita, that the lethality of the weapon involved in the assaults will have a bearing on the total number of fatalities. (As for me, I would be happy with a sane approach to prisons, better mental health treatment, AND better gun controls... These need not be mutually exclusive.)
  - wisty 11y ago
    You can find cherry picked data here: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-... They don't mention Australia, because the murder rate gradually decreased (though it was on a trend down anyway). Or you can find cherry picked data about how gun related crime falls if you ban guns. The only reason this debate keeps going is that there's bugger all hard evidence on either side. Sometimes overall crime rates drop. Sometimes they rise. So both sides just cherry pick stats, and call the other side idiots. If the occasional mass shooting is acceptable, there's no reason to either ban guns or keep them. "Guns cause crime" and "guns stop crime" are both red herrings. Whether the freedom to have a gun (which won't make you statistically more or less safe) is more important than stopping mass shootings is a value judgement. The statistics are a wash. I'd say something similar to Australia is a good compromise - allow single-shot long guns (for sport), and ban semis / handguns (unless you have a really good reason). There's also laws about gun safes, safety tests, etc. The most well-known mass shooting in Australia since guns were banned left three people dead - a shooter with a double-barreled shotgun, and two victims. Australian style laws do a good job keeping mass shootings from causing too much damage.
    - sudioStudio64 11y ago
      I think that sounds completely reasonable.

by 15155 11y ago

x0x0 11y ago

The justices, as aptly demonstrated recently (viz scalia, whose textualism has no meaning besides whatever his personal politics prefer) are politicians, no more. Or one could ask why gay rights have done better than reproductive rights, and the answer comes down solely to Kennedy is more sympathetic. At this point, we are so inured to gun violence that my SO was at a community college a couple years ago while it had a lockdown because of a shooter on campus. She was ushered into a classroom by swat with them standing outside the door and it didn't even make the tv news that night. I grew up shooting guns with my father and have treasured memories of going to gun shows. I'd vote for an amendment for Japanese gun laws. ps: in 2008, the us had 12k+ firearm related homicides while japan had 11. The population ratio was 2.39, so the US would have experienced (rounding up) 27.

15155 11y ago
The Heller decision wasn't based on textualism, though that argument holds true as well. If you'd like to see stricter laws or the outlawing of personal ownership, feel free to lobby for an amendment to the Constitution.

wisty 11y ago

Yep. Banning guns will reduce mass shootings, and gang shootings (somewhat - well organised criminals will still have guns, but the stupid ones who cause the most damage won't). It can also reduce suicide rates (since guns don't give people time to change their mind). However, a crazy relative can still kill you without a handgun. In countries that introduce gun laws, they get more murders with knives, blunt objects, etc. US murder rates may be partly driven by guns. But they're mostly the result of education, prison sentences, and other social factors. The US is a developed country with the welfare system of a developing country (and a bunch of very expensive bandaids to catch the people who have fallen too far to really recover).

sdenton4 11y ago
/However, a crazy relative can still kill you without a handgun. In countries that introduce gun laws, they get more murders with knives, blunt objects, etc./ Do you have data to back up this claim? I hear it quite often in these debates, but have never seen anything to back it up, and it seems suspect: It's pretty easy to imagine that even if the number of assaults were the same per capita, that the lethality of the weapon involved in the assaults will have a bearing on the total number of fatalities. (As for me, I would be happy with a sane approach to prisons, better mental health treatment, AND better gun controls... These need not be mutually exclusive.)
- wisty 11y ago
  You can find cherry picked data here: http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2013/12/murder-and-... They don't mention Australia, because the murder rate gradually decreased (though it was on a trend down anyway). Or you can find cherry picked data about how gun related crime falls if you ban guns. The only reason this debate keeps going is that there's bugger all hard evidence on either side. Sometimes overall crime rates drop. Sometimes they rise. So both sides just cherry pick stats, and call the other side idiots. If the occasional mass shooting is acceptable, there's no reason to either ban guns or keep them. "Guns cause crime" and "guns stop crime" are both red herrings. Whether the freedom to have a gun (which won't make you statistically more or less safe) is more important than stopping mass shootings is a value judgement. The statistics are a wash. I'd say something similar to Australia is a good compromise - allow single-shot long guns (for sport), and ban semis / handguns (unless you have a really good reason). There's also laws about gun safes, safety tests, etc. The most well-known mass shooting in Australia since guns were banned left three people dead - a shooter with a double-barreled shotgun, and two victims. Australian style laws do a good job keeping mass shootings from causing too much damage.
  - sudioStudio64 11y ago
    I think that sounds completely reasonable.