Repeal the 2nd Amendment

[esmith]

I don't think any of the candidates are against the 2nd. The real debate is over the nature of gun control. So this thread is really irrelevant. Perhaps we should start a new one to discuss Gun Control !

Well why the heck not. It seems that the political discussion is heating up, especially with the Dems, which is causing the Pubs to counter. Therefore I will start one.

 

[aoji]

If we are going to write more laws regarding gun control they should be targeted at the illegal gun trade permeating the troubled areas of inner cities.

Why not try enforcing the gun laws already on the books? For example, in NY judges have little to no discretion in reducing mandatory gun crime related jail terms. So what happens? The lawyers bargain and gun charges are never filed. The end result is that mandatory sentencing is never done. Well, if you're white and a celebrity. Then you get to give a free concert in NYC...

Want to cut crime in NY and Chicago, for example? First find if the firearm came from another state. If so, then it crossed a state border. Make that a federal offence. Watch the crime rate drop. The firearm was stolen? That should already be a felony. Give mandatory sentencing, without the chance of reduction. Watch the crime rate go down. Ribbed a bank? It's federally insured. Make it a federal crime. Watch bank robberies go down.

But the fact is that the authorities don't want the crime rate to go down because they are federally funded - the more crime, the more funding they get. More crimes will therefore get listed as felonies, so that funding is increased because the number of felonies keeps going up.

 

[RRex]

Aoji,

That is a conspiratorial assumption that I cannot subscribe to implying a massive effort involving the entire country's law enforcement and judicial systems. Highly illogical unless you're going to ascribe the effort to a higher power.

I agree that we need to enforce existing gun laws, however, that would require more prisons, which the Left is loathe to build and which you would probably object to based on your opinions.

I believe in truth-in-sentencing. Criminals should do their full sentence. No plea bargaining. Enhanced penalties for felons in possession of firearms should be strict and not subject to appeal.

 

[Nous]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

[. . .]

Here are some.

Is this supposed to be a response to my request, “If you have any information that shows Justice Stevens' claims to be false, then present it”?

All you have done here is to copy and paste a bunch of snippets that you’ve gotten from some website, apparently without even reading the original documents or understanding what the authors were saying.

For instance, your first quote is from George Washington’s address to Congress in 1790, precisely during the debates on the Bill of Rights, just prior to the ratification of the Second Amendment. His whole speech shows very clearly that when he says, “A free people ought not only be armed . . . ,” he was speaking of a military context and providing for the common defense:

Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.

A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well–digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

The proper establishment of the troops which may be deemed indispensable will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the officers and soldiers with a due regard to economy.​

http://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/132/presi...25/annual-message-to-congress-january-8-1790/

Again, if you believe you have any information showing any of Justice Stevens’ claims are false, then quote his statement (e.g., from the below) and show that it is false. That will require more effort than copying and pasting; it will require the use of logic.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.[1] Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i ]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller--that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons--is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;[2] we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).[3] No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

[. . .]

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

The preamble to the Second Amendment makes three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment’s purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of a free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be “well regulated.” In all three respects it is comparable to provisions in several State Declarations of Rights that were adopted roughly contemporaneously with the Declaration of Independence.[5] Those state provisions highlight the importance members of the founding generation attached to the maintenance of state militias; they also underscore the profound fear shared by many in that era of the dangers posed by standing armies.[6] While the need for state militias has not been a matter of significant public interest for almost two centuries, that fact should not obscure the contemporary concerns that animated the Framers.

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expressly protect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

 

[Nous]

I take it you can not yet explain why the right would be a right of the people not a right of the militia members?

Why do you say that?

The Second Amendment right is the right of the people to have an armed well-regulated militia in order to provide for the security of a free state. It is the right of the people as a whole to keep and bear arms for the purpose specified in the prefatory clause. In this sense, “the people” in the Second Amendment carries exactly the same meaning as “the people” in the Constitution’s preamble and elsewhere.

Obviously “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals” because many individuals are lawfully forbidden to purchase and possess guns--due to having been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence; due to having been adjudicated as dangerous; due to being underage. Any individual can temporarily be lawfully forbidden to possess his/her guns when in “sensitive places” (e.g., a courtroom) or even when detained on suspicion of a committing a crime, without yet being charged.

The phrase “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals” to keep and bear arms for personal-use purposes because such interpretation unavoidably raises the conundrum of “which arms” individuals may keep and bear, a conundrum that Scalia was unable to resolve coherently. To interpret the Amendment as securing a right to maintain armed well-regulated militias does not provoke such a confounding question--we know that we want a well-regulated militia that is providing for the common defense to have access to all available weapons that can possibly be effective in providing for the common defense. We know that we don’t want, and don’t allow, individuals to have any and all kinds of weapons for personal-use purposes--individuals cannot keep and bear machine-guns, anti-aircraft guns, hand grenades, etc., etc. Here is California’s lengthy list of weapon that are prohibited for individuals to keep and bear for personal-use purposes:

short-barreled shotgun
short-barreled rifle
camouflaging firearm container
cane gun
wallet gun
undetectable firearm
flechette dart
zip gun
unconventional pistol
multiburst trigger activator
bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent
dirk or dagger
nunchaku
metal knuckle
hard plastic knuckles
ballistic knife
shuriken
belt buckle knife
lipstick case knife
cane sword
shobi-zue
leaded cane
air gauge knife
writing pen knife
metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade
large capacity magazine
Machineguns
Assault Weapons
Armor-Piercing Bullets
Larger Caliber Weapons and Tracer Ammunition
Firearm Silencers
Sniperscopes
Boobytraps
Flamethrowers

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2006.pdf

Justice Breyer points out that Scalia’s attempt to answer the “which guns” question is the product of circular reasoning, and notes that there is no rational reason to believe that the Framers wrote a provision that relied on such a fallacious thought process. Indeed, except for reliance on such circular reasoning, there is no way to justify excluding handguns from the list of prohibited “dangerous weapons”. Handguns are currently the most lethal type of firearm to American civilians.

These are among the reasons that “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals”.

 

[Nous]

Yet defensive gun use is 5 to 8 times more common than deaths from gun homicide and 100 times more likely than an accidental gun death.

Cite that evidence.

 

[Nous]

How does this apply to the case when the police become the criminals ?

"When" the police become criminals (which actually happens occasionally in the US), they should be and are prosecuted.

Solving problems by civil means is always better than trying to solve problems by use of deadly violence.

 

[Nous]

Let's just say that we may each disagree with the USSC at times, but what they say will be the law of the land.
I do hate it though when they void our rights by fiat, eg, the right to jury trial when gov calls the offense "petty", ie, less than a year in jail.
Justices who voted for that should be smothered by me kilt.....before laundry day (every Feb 29).

What cases are you talking about?

Are you saying that every misdemeanor offense deserves more than a year sentence?

 

[Nous]

Why not try enforcing the gun laws already on the books? For example, in NY judges have little to no discretion in reducing mandatory gun crime related jail terms. So what happens? The lawyers bargain and gun charges are never filed. The end result is that mandatory sentencing is never done.

Actually what happens is that prosecutors typically bring inflated charges only to encourage the person to plea bargain.

Prosecutors don't like to prosecute especially on petty offenses because it's time-consuming and expensive.

Want to cut crime in NY and Chicago, for example? First find if the firearm came from another state. If so, then it crossed a state border. Make that a federal offence.

So, you're saying that a person should not be able to purchase or own guns that are not manufactured in the state in which the person lives?

I like that. That would make a hell of lot of currently legal guns illegal.

The firearm was stolen? That should already be a felony.

It is.

But the fact is that the authorities don't want the crime rate to go down because they are federally funded - the more crime, the more funding they get.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks so much! Coming from you, that's actually interesting because you don't have a history of distorting facts and irrationally dismissing those you don't like. But could you link to a source please?



Of course. One study does not a law of nature make. What's needed here is a reliable mega-study.

Yes, I followed the sources in your Philadelphia study, apparently kleck and Hemenway have had a love fest over the years and wrote much back and forth. But relevant statistics from hemenway are the conservative estimates which are 55k-80k

And can be found throughout his studies on Google or simply accepted from Wikipedia here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use


Then compared it to gun deaths.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

But the problem here isn't the statistics, the problem here is the tossing around the word rare. As though neither deaths or defenses happen around the country every day.

Rare was the word in your study on which I was challenging.

 

[Nous]

But relevant statistics from hemenway are the conservative estimates which are 55k-80k

Here's a better summary of the findings:

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.


4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.


5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.


6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.


7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.


8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com


9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.​

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

 

[Curious George]

Here's a better summary of the findings:

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.


4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.


5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.


6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.


7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.


8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com


9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.​

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Read that already...But it doesn't negate anything I said.

In fact it is utterly irrelevant.

 

[metis]

Here's a better summary of the findings:

1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.


4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.


5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use. We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.


6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.


7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people. We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.


8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com


9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.​

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

Exactly.

 

[Curious George]

Exactly.

How exactly do you think that is a better summary of actual instances of self defense gun use? These are asides that are not relevant to the discussion, comprise findings in several studies non of which specific estimates of actual instances of self defense which is the current topic at hand.

 

[RedDragon94]

Why not?

And what if we go to war and are invaded by another nation that will rape and pillage our land? Do you really want our citizens left without a way to defend themselves?

 

[metis]

How exactly do you think that is a better summary of actual instances of self defense gun use? These are asides that are not relevant to the discussion, comprise findings in several studies non of which specific estimates of actual instances of self defense which is the current topic at hand.

Because I have run across other university studies over the years that have concluded much the same. On top of that, I invited the local police, the state police, and the FBI into my political science classes, and they all said pretty much the same thing, namely do not keep a loaded gun in your house. If one really stops and thinks carefully about it by connecting the dots under different scenarios, it's really just plain old common sense.

 

[McBell]

Because I have run across other university studies over the years that have concluded much the same. On top of that, I invited the local police, the state police, and the FBI into my political science classes, and they all said pretty much the same thing, namely do not keep a loaded gun in your house. If one really stops and thinks carefully about it by connecting the dots under different scenarios, it's really just plain old common sense.

What is the difference, politically, between a gun and a loaded gun?

 

[Curious George]

Why do you say that?

The Second Amendment right is the right of the people to have an armed well-regulated militia in order to provide for the security of a free state. It is the right of the people as a whole to keep and bear arms for the purpose specified in the prefatory clause. In this sense, “the people” in the Second Amendment carries exactly the same meaning as “the people” in the Constitution’s preamble and elsewhere.

Obviously “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals” because many individuals are lawfully forbidden to purchase and possess guns--due to having been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence; due to having been adjudicated as dangerous; due to being underage. Any individual can temporarily be lawfully forbidden to possess his/her guns when in “sensitive places” (e.g., a courtroom) or even when detained on suspicion of a committing a crime, without yet being charged.

The phrase “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals” to keep and bear arms for personal-use purposes because such interpretation unavoidably raises the conundrum of “which arms” individuals may keep and bear, a conundrum that Scalia was unable to resolve coherently. To interpret the Amendment as securing a right to maintain armed well-regulated militias does not provoke such a confounding question--we know that we want a well-regulated militia that is providing for the common defense to have access to all available weapons that can possibly be effective in providing for the common defense. We know that we don’t want, and don’t allow, individuals to have any and all kinds of weapons for personal-use purposes--individuals cannot keep and bear machine-guns, anti-aircraft guns, hand grenades, etc., etc. Here is California’s lengthy list of weapon that are prohibited for individuals to keep and bear for personal-use purposes:

short-barreled shotgun
short-barreled rifle
camouflaging firearm container
cane gun
wallet gun
undetectable firearm
flechette dart
zip gun
unconventional pistol
multiburst trigger activator
bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent
dirk or dagger
nunchaku
metal knuckle
hard plastic knuckles
ballistic knife
shuriken
belt buckle knife
lipstick case knife
cane sword
shobi-zue
leaded cane
air gauge knife
writing pen knife
metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade
large capacity magazine
Machineguns
Assault Weapons
Armor-Piercing Bullets
Larger Caliber Weapons and Tracer Ammunition
Firearm Silencers
Sniperscopes
Boobytraps
Flamethrowers

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2006.pdf

Justice Breyer points out that Scalia’s attempt to answer the “which guns” question is the product of circular reasoning, and notes that there is no rational reason to believe that the Framers wrote a provision that relied on such a fallacious thought process. Indeed, except for reliance on such circular reasoning, there is no way to justify excluding handguns from the list of prohibited “dangerous weapons”. Handguns are currently the most lethal type of firearm to American civilians.

These are among the reasons that “the right of the people” cannot logically be interpreted as “the rights of all individuals”.

You are mistaken. "The right of the people" is interpreted as the right of all individuals. However no right is unfettered. If a compelling government interest arises congress can make laws toward that interest as long as they are not overly broad. That you would say that People does not include individuals is laughable... You stretch too far, yet you belittle Scalia for his interpretation of Prefatory clause. I have no doubt that your con law prof. has biased your opinion. Yet, your con law prof is an academic and would likely not hold such an opinion of something such as your interpretation of "people" to not include individuals.

 

[Curious George]

Because I have run across other university studies over the years that have concluded much the same. On top of that, I invited the local police, the state police, and the FBI into my political science classes, and they all said pretty much the same thing, namely do not keep a loaded gun in your house. If one really stops and thinks carefully about it by connecting the dots under different scenarios, it's really just plain old common sense.

That is not what we were discussing. We were discussing whether people use guns in self defense "rarely." Chances are that these are the studies across which you have ran or at least the studies on which those studies relied. The author has a large body of work in this specific field and these conclusion are certainly noteworthy and deserve examination and consideration in there own right. But be careful with taking statistical data and trying to apply it to case specific situations. This is certainly an academic no-no.

Is it smart to engage in safe gun practices? yes. Is anyone disputing that? No. What we are discussing is the repeal of the second amendment and as an aside the different interpretations that amendment has.

But peoples misuse compared to self defense could fall under the reasons to repeal the second amendment. Intimidating someone with a gun is illegal. This activity crime should be reported. If some people are going to use guns to do this, then charge them with crimes and take away their right to use a gun. However, this should not impact Dick or Jane's ability to lawfully use a gun to protect their lives or the lives of their family. In essence you are suggesting that because a group of people are misusing guns that other people's right of self defense should be impacted.

 

[Revoltingest]

What cases are you talking about?

Lewis v. United States (1996)

Are you saying that every misdemeanor offense deserves more than a year sentence?

No.