Gun Rights and Gun Control

[rogue06]

Unless you are a convicted felon or currently hospitalized for mental illness you have a right to own a gun.

I'd also put an age restriction on. Sure, there is a (largely vanishing) tradition of father's giving their son a .22 rifle or maybe a shotgun in many rural areas when the boy is in his early teens but I would have no problem with the firearm still legally being the parent's until the recipient became adults

[carpedm9587]

It was an observation not a suggestion. There is no reason to imagine that any of these suggestions you have made will be of any value in ending or reducing gun crime. These are all of the knee jerk approach to a solution. No one has responded to my suggestions for cutting gun crime.

I've gone through this thread and see no such arguments, hence my lack of response. What arguments are you referring to?

1) As for no value - it is fairly clear (to me), that a database of sold guns likely would have raised a flag at the high number of legal gun purchases the Las Vegas shooter bought.
2) Closing the loopholes in background checks would reduce the number of people who can make an end-run around the existing system, further helping to ensure felons and those with mental disorders cannot get firearms. It does not do so perfectly, because illegal avenues will always exist.

These are two fairly common-sense approaches - to me. Since there is precedence that #1 was done by the founding fathers, it is not clear to me why a constitutional originalist would object to this. If you object to 2), then I repeat my question about whether you are looking to do away with all background checks and, if you are, how you propose enforcing "no felons and no people with mental disorders."

For the rest - frankly, we do not know if they woould or woould not be effective. So the highest priority, IMO, would be to end the ban on CDC research into gun violence so they can do the same thing they did for automotive safety: provide some research-backed guidance about what would and would not improve safety with respect to gun violence in the U.S. If the research shows there are no reasonable controls that will change anything, so be it. I would certainly accept that conclusion if it is research-backed. If the research shows that some gun controls would increase safety, then we should look at those controls and seek, as we always do, to balance safety with rights.

[carpedm9587]

I'd also put an age restriction on. Sure, there is a (largely vanishing) tradition of father's giving their son a .22 rifle or maybe a shotgun in many rural areas when the boy is in his early teens but I would have no problem with the firearm still legally being the parent's until the recipient became adults

[Jedidiah]

I'd also put an age restriction on. Sure, there is a (largely vanishing) tradition of father's giving their son a .22 rifle or maybe a shotgun in many rural areas when the boy is in his early teens but I would have no problem with the firearm still legally being the parent's until the recipient became adults

Perhaps, I will have to think about that.

[Jedidiah]

I've gone through this thread and see no such arguments, hence my lack of response. What arguments are you referring to?

Suggestions is what I wrote, not arguments. Serious penalties for any and all use or possession of a gun during any crime.

1) As for no value - it is fairly clear (to me), that a database of sold guns likely would have raised a flag at the high number of legal gun purchases the Las Vegas shooter bought.
2) Closing the loopholes in background checks would reduce the number of people who can make an end-run around the existing system, further helping to ensure felons and those with mental disorders cannot get firearms. It does not do so perfectly, because illegal avenues will always exist.

The idea that it MIGHT have raised a flag is not very convincing. It might not have raised a flag, and if there was no legal way to get those guns illegal means would still be available. 2) I have looked for this imaginary loophole you mention. I have not been able to find it. Even if it exists, as you mention, the illegal avenues will still exist if the imaginary loophole is closed.

These are two fairly common-sense approaches - to me. Since there is precedence that #1 was done by the founding fathers, it is not clear to me why a constitutional originalist would object to this. If you object to 2), then I repeat my question about whether you are looking to do away with all background checks and, if you are, how you propose enforcing "no felons and no people with mental disorders."

Why would I take the actions of the founding fathers, in a very different situation, over the clear statement of the Constitution. The actions of the founding fathers are ignored by the left when looking at religion (as I have pointed out with no response from anyone).

For the rest - frankly, we do not know if they woould or woould not be effective. So the highest priority, IMO, would be to end the ban on CDC research into gun violence so they can do the same thing they did for automotive safety: provide some research-backed guidance about what would and would not improve safety with respect to gun violence in the U.S. If the research shows there are no reasonable controls that will change anything, so be it. I would certainly accept that conclusion if it is research-backed. If the research shows that some gun controls would increase safety, then we should look at those controls and seek, as we always do, to balance safety with rights.

Since we "we do not know if they woould(sic) or woould(sic) not be effective" why would I want to try them out? The automobile comparison is not valid since, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no constitutional protection afforded to owning or using an automobile. As far as research, what sort of thing do you suggest? How about the NRA do this research.

[carpedm9587]

Suggestions is what I wrote, not arguments. Serious penalties for any and all use or possession of a gun during any crime.

I'm pretty sure that is the law now, Jedidiah, and as far as I know, it is being enforced.

The idea that it MIGHT have raised a flag is not very convincing. It might not have raised a flag, and if there was no legal way to get those guns illegal means would still be available.

This makes no sense to me. By this argument, we should have no drug control laws because illegal ways to get drugs exists, we should have no speeding laws, because people can still speed, and...well...since pretty much any law can be circumvented, sometimes without being caught - we shouldn't have any laws at all. This just seems like a nonsensical argument, to me.

2) I have looked for this imaginary loophole you mention. I have not been able to find it. Even if it exists, as you mention, the illegal avenues will still exist if the imaginary loophole is closed.

Background checks are not mandated for guns sold at gun shows, sold over the Internet, or sold from person-to-person. These are the loopholes most are looking to close, as they simply undermine the entire background check process.

Why would I take the actions of the founding fathers, in a very different situation, over the clear statement of the Constitution. The actions of the founding fathers are ignored by the left when looking at religion (as I have pointed out with no response from anyone).

The whole originalist argument about the Constitution hinges on what the founders wanted. The founders were against a standing army, prefering that the country turn to its citizenry in the form of militias to provide for the common defense. To this end, they instituted a way to inventory who had guns so they coould call up those militia as needed. From the writing of the constitution until the 1970s, this was the basic intepretation of "A well regulated militia being necessary, to the Security of a free state...." It was only in the 1970s that the court reinterpreted this amendment to include "personal protection" and the great "2nd amendment war" began. I agree that guns should be available to the citizen for both personal protection and for sport, but I also believe our current system needs to be examined to see what we can do better.

Since we "we do not know if they woould(sic) or woould(sic) not be effective" why would I want to try them out?

I didn't say "try them out," Jed, I said to perform research studies. The CDC was able to research auto safety and determine not just correlation (like the charts depicted earlier) but causality. That information can then be used to make decisions about possible solutions. No one is suggesting creating the laws so they can be studied. But the CDC has been locked out of this type of research. If I didn't know better, I would say it was because people were afraid of what those studies might show and recommendations that might result. My son does this now and then, and I tell him, "hiding the truth doesn't change the truth, and usually means you're just afraid to face it."

The automobile comparison is not valid since, as has been pointed out repeatedly, there is no constitutional protection afforded to owning or using an automobile.

This is a red herring, Jedidiah. I was not equating automobile licensing to gun licensing - I was point out the holes in the process of one render the process meaningless, using cars as an example. the argument is about the futility of the process as structured, not the right to have cars/guns.

As far as research, what sort of thing do you suggest?

I suggest letting the CDC research gun deaths in the U.S. to determine primary causal forces and suggested actions we can take to reduce the carnage.

How about the NRA do this research.

That would be sort of like asking the tabacco industry to research itself, or the abortion industry to research itself. The NRA is not impartial and has a clearly outlined agenda. So too does the gun control lobby - and I would not suggest THEY conduct this research either. Research should be done impartially - which is why federal funding of an independent agency like the CDC, tasked to investigate health threats in the U.S., makes the most sense.

[Teallaura]

Perhaps, I will have to think about that.

Armed three year old really doesn't sound like a rational idea. If they aren't old enough to have sex, vote, drive or drink, they aren't old enough to carry a firearm - or own one.

[EvoUK]

[carpedm9587]

The CDC published a report, many years ago, that linked deaths due to domestic violence to the presence of guns on premises. The NRA went on the warpath and lobbied for Congress to pass a law prohibiting the CDC from engaging in any research whose results could be used to advocated for gun control. That left the CDC in the position I outlined earlier - essentially unable to conduct research. There is some research being done in California, but the kind of federal resources required to do this are currently essentially prohibited by law.

[Teallaura]

Here the problem is the inherent limitations of the research - what do you measure to tell you what you are actually trying to find out. The other part - as far as I can tell - would be the legal issues in researching a gun's history. The existing licensing/registration doesn't cover all weapons and has legal limits to protect owners (the information isn't public record, for the first).

Then we get to rather selective use of evidence - if not outright straw men - like Rogue's. His point is valid only if gun control proponents argue that gun ownership is solely responsible for the amount of gun crime - an irrational position in both cases. And usually tolerated by both sides because they are so used to seeing it that they don't realize it's [is gets an apostrophe - this is for CP] irrational from the proponents and a straw man from the opponents.

Research that involves human behavior isn't pristine as natural science likes to pretend attain. Humans are messy and can and will deliberately sabotage efforts - ironically while truly trying to help. Separating out variables is maddening - and requires both a lot of money and a heck of a lot of preparation for whatever measure is used. One to one correlations are fantasies - and you're purely lucky if you manage to identify all your variables - you can forget measuring them all.

That doesn't mean research has no value - but it does mean that throwing numbers around in a social issue is usually far less meaningful than most people would like to know.

[Teallaura]

The CDC published a report, many years ago, that linked deaths due to domestic violence to the presence of guns on premises. The NRA went on the warpath and lobbied for Congress to pass a law prohibiting the CDC from engaging in any research whose results could be used to advocated for gun control. That left the CDC in the position I outlined earlier - essentially unable to conduct research. There is some research being done in California, but the kind of federal resources required to do this are currently essentially prohibited by law.

I SOOOO hate doing this - but the NRA was... not wrong...

You made me agree with the NRA - I'm mad at you.


Okay, I'm over it.

And being serious again, the CDC was overstepping its [no is, no apostrophe - for CP] bounds - it was not created to engage in social issues not directly related to health. The tie (guns can shoot people) is too tenuous - it shouldn't have been attempted. This is the kind of research that law enforcement - like the FBI - can and should be allowed to do, but not an over reaching agency like the CDC in this case.

[carpedm9587]

Here the problem is the inherent limitations of the research - what do you measure to tell you what you are actually trying to find out. The other part - as far as I can tell - would be the legal issues in researching a gun's history. The existing licensing/registration doesn't cover all weapons and has legal limits to protect owners (the information isn't public record, for the first).

Then we get to rather selective use of evidence - if not outright straw men - like Rogue's. His point is valid only if gun control proponents argue that gun ownership is solely responsible for the amount of gun crime - an irrational position in both cases. And usually tolerated by both sides because they are so used to seeing it that they don't realize it's [is gets an apostrophe - this is for CP] irrational from the proponents and a straw man from the opponents.

Research that involves human behavior isn't pristine as natural science likes to pretend attain. Humans are messy and can and will deliberately sabotage efforts - ironically while truly trying to help. Separating out variables is maddening - and requires both a lot of money and a heck of a lot of preparation for whatever measure is used. One to one correlations are fantasies - and you're purely lucky if you manage to identify all your variables - you can forget measuring them all.

That doesn't mean research has no value - but it does mean that throwing numbers around in a social issue is usually far less meaningful than most people would like to know.

I am fairly confident the CDC could craft research methodology that would pass peer review muster and provide some information about the causal relationships between gun violence and other social factors. Who knows, maybe the results will be a validation that gun control is not the answer and we need better mental health infrastructure, or a different post-incarceration system for felons. The problem is, we don't know because we are not even providing the resources to ask the question, "how can we reduce gun violence in the U.S.?"

Instead, those for gun control have their charts - and those opposed to gun control have their charts - they all show correlations and can be made to say pretty much anything anyone wants to, depending on which charts you are willing to look at - and NONE of them say anything about causality.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so bloody serious...

[carpedm9587]

I SOOOO hate doing this - but the NRA was... not wrong...

You made me agree with the NRA - I'm mad at you.


Okay, I'm over it.

And being serious again, the CDC was overstepping its [no is, no apostrophe - for CP] bounds - it was not created to engage in social issues not directly related to health. The tie (guns can shoot people) is too tenuous - it shouldn't have been attempted. This is the kind of research that law enforcement - like the FBI - can and should be allowed to do, but not an over reaching agency like the CDC in this case.

Have you read the report, Teal?

[Teallaura]

Have you read the report, Teal?

No, and it really doesn't matter - the CDC was out of its bounds. I will bet it was properly couched in public health phrasing - it's still not theirs to do. For the record, the CDC does this a LOT - public health doesn't mean anything that affects a person's health and shouldn't be applied to things that can't be demonstrably intervened (which means we did HIV backwards but I think I can argue an exception on that one).

Public health is about breaking disease transmission - vaccination and treatment can do that. Lobbying for better gun control cannot.

[Teallaura]

I am fairly confident the CDC could craft research methodology that would pass peer review muster and provide some information about the causal relationships between gun violence and other social factors. Who knows, maybe the results will be a validation that gun control is not the answer and we need better mental health infrastructure, or a different post-incarceration system for felons. The problem is, we don't know because we are not even providing the resources to ask the question, "how can we reduce gun violence in the U.S.?"

Instead, those for gun control have their charts - and those opposed to gun control have their charts - they all show correlations and can be made to say pretty much anything anyone wants to, depending on which charts you are willing to look at - and NONE of them say anything about causality.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so bloody serious...

Sure, we can do peer reviewed research - and danged good research. We can't do what Evo asked for - definitive research.

What we really need is to teach research methodology in elementary and high school - throwing charts around doesn't work so well when people know how to peek behind the curtain.