Gun Control Proposal

[arthwollipot]

By the same logic it would be conceivable to forbid Muslim males between the ages of 21 and 40 from using air travel within the US. Are you still absolutely sure?

Well, now you're talking about a different situation, a different demographic and a different motivation.

I was talking about recognising demographic information when developing education and targeted prevention strategies. You're talking about profiling - ie. pre-emptively assuming that a person has committed or will commit a crime based on their demographic data.

No, the logic isn't the same at all.

 

[WildCat]

My apologies - I am in error. I should have said that the majority of ideologically motivated mass shooters are under-65 white males. To imply that the majority of shooters in general were of that demographic was a mistake.

"Ideologically motivated"? What does that mean? Loyalty to a street gang? Upholding street honor? What ideology did the Oregon shooter have? The Columbine shooters? The Aurora shooter? The Beltway Snipers? The Navy Yard shooter? The Ft. Hood shooter (which is not terrorism no way but workplace violence)?

Most were just batguano crazy.

 

[Noztradamus]

My apologies - I am in error. I should have said that the majority of ideologically motivated mass shooters are under-65 white males. To imply that the majority of shooters in general were of that demographic was a mistake.

The beltway sniper
Fort Hood shooter
Recruiting centre shooter
Oregon

Just immediate recall

 

[arthwollipot]

The beltway sniper
Fort Hood shooter
Recruiting centre shooter
Oregon

Just immediate recall

Four out of...?

 

[arthwollipot]

Regardless, this is a red herring as far as the OP is concerned, since the OP suggests restricting both white and black (and middle eastern, and asian, and pacific islander) males from owning guns.

So let's get back to that topic, hmm?

 

[WildCat]

Let's start with a pilot program using just Bloomberg's bodyguards.

 

[Polaris]

Well, now you're talking about a different situation, a different demographic and a different motivation.

I was talking about recognising demographic information when developing education and targeted prevention strategies. You're talking about profiling - ie. pre-emptively assuming that a person has committed or will commit a crime based on their demographic data.

No, the logic isn't the same at all.

I figured you might say that.

Profiling is still just a specific form of discrimination. And discrimination based on gender is just as wrong - would you support a law that only prohibits women from doing something? If not, then why would you support it for men?

The demographic for terrorism aboard airplanes is Muslim males ages 21-40 - sure the vast majority don't do anything of the sort, but neither do most males of any race or age commit mass-shootings. Keep in mind I'm not advocating the profiling I mentioned, but I am thinking about precedent, and knowing GOP politicians I can easily see the OP proposal being used for all kinds of discriminatory laws as a result, or even retaliatory legislation. Suppose a bill were introduced to deny birth control to women for whatever goofball reason?

After all, if you establish that precedent it's no longer about the crime rates among certain demographics, it's about, as I said, equality under the law. I'm kind of a big fan of that - and that's speaking as someone who would be allowed to carry based on the OP (I'm permanently disabled).

 

[arthwollipot]

I figured you might say that.

Profiling is still just a specific form of discrimination. And discrimination based on gender is just as wrong - would you support a law that only prohibits women from doing something? If not, then why would you support it for men?

I have no idea how you get from what I posted to the suggestion that I support profiling. I explicitly and clearly stated that what I was suggesting (and "suggesting" is far to strong a word) was not profiling. I even outlined the clear definitional differences between what I was "suggesting" and profiling, in order to make as clear a contrast as possible between them.

 

[Ambrosia]

If you're going to engage in a mass shooting, you really aren't going to care about a gun possession offense escalating your punishment. That's going to be maxed out already by the very nature of the crime you're going to commit, and in many cases won't even be relevant since many mass shooters don't intend to (and don't actually) survive.

There are 2 types of mass shooters, those that plan out and plan in meticulous detail and then carry out the mass shooting, overcoming all the hurdles that the legal system puts in the way. You find those in every country, even ones with strict gun control laws. And no amount of legal deterrent is going to stop these people from becoming mass murderers.

Then there are those that snap one day and because they have easy access to guns take the weapons and go and shootup a school/shopping mall/workplace etc. No amount of legal deterrent is going to stop these people either, but the 2nd group is opportunistic, and if guns were harder to get hold of then this group will go do something else instead, which is almost always less destructive.

in Canada, it is handguns that are most closely regulated. For other guns, as would be used in the vast majority of hunting, the rules are more lax, but still successful in limiting gun violence. After all, it is handguns that are used in a large majority of gun-based murders, and as such, Canadians largely focus their regulation on those types of weapons.

Again, a perfectly reasonable and workable system, that's by and large effective, but again, rejected by Americans under the belief that it just couldn't work, for some reason.

same is true here in the UK, handguns *really* hard to get hold of legally, other guns, not so much.

You are still stuck with the 2A to our Constitution.

Unless you reinterpret that, or repeal it, or rewrite it, you are going to have a tough time with much of any serious gun control in the USA.

2A reads: "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."


It's Keller vs DC AIUI that would need overturning, that ruling explicitly states that a handgun is an "Arm" and further that for all intents and purposes it rewrote the 2A to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Which isn't actually what it says at all.


I still wonder what it will take for enough of a change in public opinion for the second amendment to be rewritten, 2 mass shootings a day? 3?

 

[The Don]

I still wonder what it will take for enough of a change in public opinion for the second amendment to be rewritten, 2 mass shootings a day? 3?

If there were that many mass shootings* then those people who advocate carrying guns for personal protection would consider it even more important that they are able to do so.


* - in another thread the definition of mass shooting is being clarified. As I understand it, there have to be at least three deaths, not including the shooter and that in a case where it starts off as a domestic incident, those deaths are excluded from the tally so...

Person runs amok shoots and injures dozens but thankfully doesn't actually kill anyone - not a mass shooting by the standard definition

Person kills two strangers and injures several and is then killed in the process or kills themselves - not a mass shooting by the standard definition

Person kills five members of their family in a domestic incident - not a mass shooting by the standard definition

 

[Varanid]

Prior to a junior varsity football game a number of the dads with concealed carry permits did a sweep of the ground. They weren't clear about whether they were looking for terrorists who might disrupt a high school football game or just local ne'er do wells - each equally unlikely - but they felt it vital for the safety of their families.

I am relatively gun-friendly (despite the fact that I do not own one), but those kind of people make me nervous.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then there are those that snap one day and because they have easy access to guns take the weapons and go and shootup a school/shopping mall/workplace etc. No amount of legal deterrent is going to stop these people either, but the 2nd group is opportunistic, and if guns were harder to get hold of then this group will go do something else instead, which is almost always less destructive.

But the proposal doesn't really make it any harder for these people. DarthFishy explicitly stated that he didn't want to limit gun ownership. They can still own guns, they can still buy guns, they just can't legally carry them. But the prohibition on legal carry will do nothing to dissuade them. If you're going to commit mass murder, why do you care if carrying the gun to the mass murder is illegal? This is basically the point made previously that the point of control for this law is not effective.

 

[WildCat]

2A reads: "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."


It's Keller vs DC AIUI that would need overturning, that ruling explicitly states that a handgun is an "Arm" and further that for all intents and purposes it rewrote the 2A to "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Which isn't actually what it says at all.

Why do you think the second part is conditional on the first part? If it was, wouldn't it have read "the militia" instead of "the people"?

And doesn't an amendment in the Bill of Rights forbidding infringement of the right of a government commanded and controlled militia to keep and bear arms seem absurd on its face? Is there any government on the planet that denies the right of its troops to be armed? Has that ever been an issue anywhere?

 

[Ambrosia]

Why do you think the second part is conditional on the first part? If it was, wouldn't it have read "the militia" instead of "the people"?

And doesn't an amendment in the Bill of Rights forbidding infringement of the right of a government commanded and controlled militia to keep and bear arms seem absurd on its face? Is there any government on the planet that denies the right of its troops to be armed? Has that ever been an issue anywhere?

You're taking it out of context.

The 2A was drafted in 1776 and adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791 you might want to read up on some history.

The US Constitution was written by the founding fathers, who were in turn heavily influenced by English republicans of the time.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

[wikipedia]

Back then militia had a different meaning to what it does now. Words evolve over time, and taking one sentence out of context more than 300 years after it was written does not, a good argument make. That's without getting into what passed for 'Arms' three centuries ago.

 

[WildCat]

You're taking it out of context.

The 2A was drafted in 1776 and adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791 you might want to read up on some history.

The US Constitution was written by the founding fathers, who were in turn heavily influenced by English republicans of the time.

[wikipedia]

Back then militia had a different meaning to what it does now. Words evolve over time, and taking one sentence out of context more than 300 years after it was written does not, a good argument make. That's without getting into what passed for 'Arms' three centuries ago.

I'm well aware of the history, I'm also aware of the meaning of the word "arms" and it hasn't changed. There's a reason they used "arms" instead of "muskets", they were well aware that technology changes.

And you have yet to explain why they used "the people" instead of "the militia" or "the states".

And from your own link "Virginia's Richard Henry Lee argued that select militia might be used to disarm the population and that, in any event,
it would pose more of a danger to individual liberty than a militia composed of the whole population. He charged that a select militia
"commit the many to the mercy [and the] prudence of the few.". Hamilton expressed similar concerns in Federalist No. 29. In that context it is apparent that "the people" were to be a counterweight to the government-controlled "well-regulated militia".

And it makes no sense whatsoever that an amendment would be needed in order for the government to arm government-controlled militia, that is just absurd.

Yes, militia can mean the entire body of people, but the "well-regulated militia" was a select subset of that which was trained to a level of proficiency, that's what "well-regulated" means. The people, by contrast, literally means "the people". They are not "well-regulated", but by sheer force of numbers they provide a counterweight should the well-regulated militia be used by the government for mischief.

eta: and in his Heller dissent Stevens bases his entire dissent on his belief that "to bear arms" was used exclusively in a military context when the Amendment was written. That is factually incorrect, as many examples of it being used in a non-military context exist from that era of which Stevens is apparently completely ignorant.

 

[WildCat]

And for all ofyou who proclaim the 2ndA applies only to those in the "well-regulated militia" and proclaim the National Guard to be that militia, then why can't National Guard members keep and bear their arms in any state? Instead they stay locked up in the armory.