If the current laws are not properly enforced, how do we know we need more laws? Will those laws be properly enforced? The de-escalation tactic would have been to ignore the robber and let him escape, to rob someone else. I think the robber being shot and captured is a better outcome, even with two bystanders suffering non-life-threatening gunshot wounds. You are welcome to disagree. The different standards were that Lott included more data from foreign countries. The argument that the US does have bad firearm violence compared to the rest of the world was based on the more limited study. Why would a study that gives a more accurate picture of the rest of the world be of less value in determining the relative violence between the US and the rest of the world than the one that doesn't capture the violence accurately because they miss all the foreign language press and ignore incidents with multiple shooters?
This is a fair originalist take. Taken to the extreme (like how Alito writes for the majority in the VRA decision), then only guns and gun technology that existed when the amendment was passed deserves legal protection. I would totally be for consistent protection of broad 2A rights if Alito's VRA troll was reversed. Also, regarding the Jefferson points. I think a broader counter is that no one man writes and passes an amendment. In fact, many states ratified the constitution without the bill of rights. It was promised after the Mass convention and then passed prior to NC flipping and ratifying the whole thing. And, it was a collective document that, while you argue that was meant to be individual and I'm not going to push back on that yet because I trust your credibility regarding that evidence and in last and vacation. But my counter is that there was much broader language in the individual right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting in multiple state constitutions prior to the Bill of Rights. That's pretty valuable information. Whatever 2A was meant to be as a restriction on the national government pushed for by anti-federalists (many who didn't even want the constitution), it was less of a protection than the right to bear arms in certain state constitutions like Vermont and Pennsylvania. What Thomas Jefferson was intending may not have been the whole picture. Never-the-less post 14th incorporation means that a constitutionally faithful reading is that no state government can deny the individual right. Yet the South still prevented blacks from owning and carrying guns.
this is a good point, but there are plenty of accounts besides Jefferson's that makes the same point. And with states that DID ratify state constitutions with bills of rights, many states articulated a right to bear arms wholly independent of any mention of militia, well-regulated or otherwise yes. on the whole the evidence for one interpretation vs another is ambiguous--that's why folks are still arguing about it today. I just don't happen to find the arguments favoring linking the right to bear arms to military service convincing, at least not as they are usually expressed today
and on Jefferson, there is also the evidence that he was in sympathy with a point made by Cesare Beccaria in Essay on Crimes and Punishments: The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons. again, this is not a knock-down point one way or another, but I interpret Jefferson's interest in this passage as reinforcing his generally pro-arms rights position. I do not believe that Jefferson's was an idiosyncratic, unique perspective held only by him. https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/laws-forbid-carrying-armsspurious-quotation
Well then why don't we do away with all laws then? I mean why laws against murder if people still get away with murder? Seriously though there are multiple factors regarding gun violence., lack of current enforcement is a problem it doesn't necessarily mean that we don't reform and add new laws I'm not sure you understand what deescalation is or range of force options. Yes I disagree that having bystanders shot is a "good outcome". I would say that shows that there is room for improvement regarding responding to a crime. The different standards that Lott cited was that they counted the number of victims per incident versus the number of shooters per incident as Lankford did. so again not an apples to apples to comparison which is why the mass shooting in Norway might skew the numbers versus the numbers of shootings that occured. But again I will agree that Lankford's assesment might not be accurate since it stopped before some of the worst shootings happened in the US. That applies to Lott's studies also.
good article about red-flag laws in today's NYT How a New York County Used the State’s ‘Red Flag’ Law to Seize 160 Guns Suffolk County on Long Island aggressively uses the law to take guns from people in crisis in an effort to prevent shootings and suicides. Its experience could inform a national debate. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/nyregion/red-flag-law-shootings-new-york.html?smid=url-share
It's an interesting question. As a side note alcoholic beverages for most of human history have improved human health and development. Sanitary water treatment is a relatively new thing and for most of history using water to ferment grains has provided cleaner drinking water and helped to preserve grains. At the same time given that when the US Constitution was written there was no US standing army and in most localities no police force. In that sense it was mostly up to individuals to provide for their own protection. Also firearms then were not as reliable, easy to use or as lethal as now. If we were to start a new society with a new Constitution now with current technology, established military, and PD's throughout the country we might think differently.
Except that "well discipline" would mean that the militia is under a command and control system. Federalist 29 states clearly that "well regulated" means that the state was in control of the militia to provide for common defense. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp "t requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''"
yes, but that passage would need to be weighed against what is said in Federalist 46 about the balance of power between state and federal levels of government, and how the universal bearing of arms by individuals is the ultimate counter to federal overreach: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed46.asp
Just going to point out that Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the Constitution was written and he had a lot of disagreements over the Constitution besides just the interpretation of the right to bear arms. The Federalist Papers are consider one of the best sources of what the Founders meant because it was written by two of the main authors of the Constitution and specifically advocating for the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton and Madison are pretty clear that "well regulatied militia" is a militia that has a command and control system, is disciplined and in the service of collective self-defense of the state(s) at a time when there wasn't a standing army.
That doesn't counter anything else that was stated but is a further elaboration that the militia is for collective defense and the right to bear arms is in the service of the militia. It emphasizes the importance of having officers and "conducted by governments". To get to the main point of the discussion. Yes firearms can be used to oppose a federal government. That decision though isn't an individual decision but is done through a militia with an command and control system. The federalist papers don't argue for an unfettered individual right to firearms.
I think you may have missed the bolded point about gun control and how every other nation besides the United States is afraid to let its citizens keep and bear arms
Total non-sequitor. We have laws against murder because the act of murder itself is something that we do not want to happen. We do not inherently oppose a person having a gun, that is neither positive or negative. We oppose murder because it is of itself a terrible act. It is malum in se. Changing gun control laws is a modification of a regulatory scheme designed (ostensibly) to prevent other things which are already illegal (like robbery, murder, rape, etc.). The idea behind the regulatory scheme is not that the regulations should be followed for their own sake, but to acheive some other goal. You are suggesting to change the regulatory scheme in hopes of better acheiving that goal, but I am pointing out that we cannot know if the current regulatory scheme is sufficient if it is not currently enforced, nor whether new laws changing it would be more or less effective, especially if we are not going to enforce them either. Please, explain de-escalation in the context of this event. A man was held at gunpoint and his property was taken. The robber then started to leave. The man retrieved a gun and shot at the fleeing robber. Where was the opportunity to de-escalate and what would it have involved (other than what I already said, which was to just let the robber leave)? That's nice, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Do we care more about how many people are killed, or how many shooters there are? I would suggest the former, as people being killed is the reason why it is a problem. Do you have an argument as for why we should care about the latter instead? Which was worse, the Norway shooting or the San Bernardino shooting? Columbine or Virginia Tech? The Las Vegas Shooting or the June 4 shooting in Philadelphia. Even if they are not apples to apples comparisons (which they are, both are comparing mass shootings, one is just doing a better job), why would we focus on the apples of how many shooters vs. the oranges of how many victims? They are both representative. There are more than enough shootings in both samples to get an idea of how the US compares to other countries. There have been no major changes in gun control legislation since 2012 which would invalidate the findings, to say well the US used to be low in gun violence but since X law passed in 2014 now it is the worst. It is a non-argument.
so says one who, when discussing racial diversity, intentionally lumps Whites and Asians as one group the intellectually dishonest one needs to look in the mirror,
A House Democrat plans to introduce a bill that would hit AR-15s with a 1,000% tax — and it could pass Congress without GOP votes https://www.businessinsider.com/dem...s-gun-control-biden-administration-2022-6?amp excerpt: The recent string of high-profile shootings in the US is prompting one House Democrat to draft a measure designed to severely restrict access to the AR-15-style weapons used by gunmen in the carnage. Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia, a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, wants to impose a 1,000% excise tax on such semiautomatic rifles. "What it's intended to do is provide another creative pathway to actually make some sensible gun control happen," Beyer told Insider. "We think that a 1,000% fee on assault weapons is just the kind of restrictive measure that creates enough fiscal impact to qualify for reconciliation." New AR-15-style guns cost anywhere from $500 to over $2,000 depending on location, NBC News reported. That means a 1,000% tax on the weapons would add $5,000 to $20,000 to their final sales prices — and would probably keep them out of reach from many younger Americans. Some details of the bill still aren't finalized, such as when the tax would take effect and what to do with any revenue raised. It's also unclear how much money it would generate. The National Shooting Sports Foundation in a 2014 court brief cited estimates that AR-15-style rifles accounted for one in five guns purchased in the US. Gun sales have surged since then and last year reached their second-highest level recorded. more at the link
Steven Lubet: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2022/06/spare-me-the-bullshit.html June 06, 2022 Spare Me the Bullshit Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) got pretty exercised at Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) in a nine-hour debate over red flag laws. It went like this: Gaetz: [Red flag laws] “trample on an individual’s due process and Second Amendment rights. Cicilline: You know who didn’t have due process? You know who didn’t have their constitutional right to life respected? The kids at Parkland, and Sandy Hook, and Uvalde and Buffalo, and the list goes on and on. . . . So spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights.” It was a great sound bite, but not a very compelling argument. There are many Republicans who support red flag laws, or who could be convinced, but who will recoil at hearing "Second Amendment" and "bullshit" in the same sentence. For better or worse, gun control advocates will need to speak in a language they are willing to hear. Here is what I wrote about that a few years ago: What liberals miss about the Second Amendment By Steven Lubet Chicago Tribune Feb 20, 2018 When it comes to guns, it often appears as though liberals and conservatives are speaking different languages. Liberals express their horror at each new mass shooting and demand government action, while conservatives call for “thoughts and prayers” and insist on respect for the Second Amendment. The constitutional argument usually leaves liberals cold, but it would be more recognizable if they gave it more thought. There is in fact a symmetry between liberal and conservative approaches to the Constitution, which explains a lot about the intractable nature of the gun problem. Both sides read the same Bill of Rights, of course, but they tend to emphasize different provisions. Liberals, for example, make a priority of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which guarantee accused suspects the right to remain silent and the appointment of counsel when facing prosecution. Although these rights are well established by U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright, they are still questioned by many conservatives who see them as just one more way of coddling criminals. Why should even terrorism suspects be read warnings before interrogation? And why should cash-strapped local governments have to spend millions of dollars providing lawyers for obviously guilty defendants? Worst of all, why should a criminal’s confession be thrown out simply because the arresting officer made a technical mistake? Liberals, in contrast, believe that procedural due process protects the public from overreaching by the police. Without the Miranda and Gideon rules, innocent people might be convicted and ordinary citizens might find themselves arrested and locked up for no good reason. It is true that guilty defendants might sometimes be released, but, as liberals will explain, that is the price of freedom for everyone else. Conservatives prioritize the Second Amendment, which, under the recent Supreme Court cases District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, guarantees the right to keep and bear firearms for personal protection. Under the decisions in Heller and McDonald, every state now allows “concealed carry” of handguns, and many allow “open carry” of assault rifles and other weapons. This is baffling to liberals, who cannot understand conservatives’ constitutional reverence for firearms. Why would anyone need to own multiple semi-automatic handguns and rifles, large-capacity magazines or bump stocks that make it possible to fire hundreds of rounds per minute? Every school shooting, such as the most recent one in Parkland, Fla., brings new calls from liberals for some form of gun control, followed by outrage and consternation when legislatures fail to act. The response from conservatives, led by the National Rifle Association, is that gun ownership is a “fundamental right” that simply cannot be diminished by the government. They consequently object to even small measures — such as limiting magazine size or requiring universal background checks — because they see them as preliminary steps toward abrogating the Second Amendment itself. You will seldom hear them say it, but conservatives apply the same logic as liberals when it comes to the consequences of protecting individual rights. As Bill O’Reilly once explained, mass shootings — in schools, churches, shopping malls and theaters — are just the price of freedom under the Second Amendment. It may seem that liberals and conservatives do not understand each other when it comes to the Bill of Rights, with one side extending too much protection to criminals and the other tolerating too many guns. But in fact, they are really engaging the same calculus of societal risk and constitutional reward, although premised on different values and with dramatically different results. The constitutional visions mirror each other, but they are not equivalent. In the name of procedural fairness, liberals are willing to see suspects go free, although the actual number is quite small. For the sake of their own guns, conservatives are willing to abide the slaughter of innocents, and the death toll keeps rising.
Just toss in my .2. You can capture a robber without shooting them. If you can ID the robber, you can arrest them later when they aren't behaving like a cornered animal. Take the below story, cops got into a shootout, guy got away anyway. The police used their vast investigative capabilities to track him down later and he was peacefully arrested the second time around. 3 Houston cops shot after pursuit into Third Ward (chron.com)
You know it's getting bad when a 12 year old robs a store at gunpoint. Where did he get it? Supposedly his Grandpa's locked safe. Guns at home are never the answer. Too many get into the hands of kids. That's why licensing and insurance needs to be mandatory to hold them liable for their guns.
