operator kos wrote:There really is no rational argument for disarming the public. Reasonable people may disagree over the details of what type of guns or what type of training or qualifications should be legislated, but taking all guns away from the public is completely asinine. All such appeals are based on cheap emotional manipulation over this tragic accident or that one.
operator kos, nothing but love, but there really is no rational argument for disarming the public.
By which I mean: I have no idea to which appeals you're referring. As far as I'm aware, no one other than a few small and powerless groups with absolutely no influence on anybody are arguing for anything as extreme as complete public disarmament. So you can pretty much relax on that one.
Especially because the Supreme Court just rocked the world by ruling, totally without precedent or reference to the constitution, that the Second Amendment includes a right to self-defense in 2008, and just heard arguments for two cases seeking to incorporate the second amendment as obtaining at the state and local level last March. Regarding which, their ruling is pretty much a foregone conclusion in favor of the petitioner in one (NRA v. Chicago) and probably a no-go that leaves the door open for a second try in the other one (McDonald v. Chicago).
So you can virtually take it to the bank that handgun bans will be a thing of the past starting at some point next year. And also that while the state will retain some latitude wrt "reasonable regulation" of the right to keep and bear arms, they will have to start recognizing it as a right under the law. Which is brand-new, and will automatically invalidate all state and local gun-control laws that are discretionary about stuff like who gets a permit or license.
On the downside, I'd say that universal open-carry is highly unlikely to be coming your way anytime soon. However, on the upside, I'd also say that's not necessarily the SCOTUS final answer on the subject.
I mean, there's really not a single syllable suggesting that you actually have such a right in the whole of the United States constitution. But given that there was neither a single syllable in the United States Constitution nor any case-law history suggesting you had the right to self-defense prior to 2008 and you've got one now, I couldn't really argue that's an insurmountable obstacle.
Scalia and Roberts just didn't care for the presentation the attorney arguing for McDonald happened to make, basically. Which means that whoever tries next will benefit from their rejection of it.
Anyway. Things are definitely headed your way. So don't repine.
But at the end of the day, my right to self defense is more important and fundamental than your right to feel (falsely) comforted by gun control laws.
Insofar as the former is a right and the latter isn't, no arguments here. Whether or not the comfort is false is another question. On the one hand, the Kleck study, which extrapolated nationwide numbers from a slightly less than 5,000-person sample via telephone survey, which is notable for its high false-response rate, says that it is.*** I
But on the other, the immediate, dramatic and ongoing decline in every category of gun-violence-related crime that there is that started with the passage of the Brady bill says that it isn't. (Figures available on request, but they're mostly in the 40-ish to the high-60-ish percent range, IIRC.
Though I should openly disclose and admit that it's not a very sure thing that I do. There are kind of a lot of gun-violence-related crimes in the United States. Which actually does seem to have a very strong correlation to the number of guns in the United States, despite the numerous splendors of Swiss firearm laws. Speaking of straight-up here-and-there comparisons. But there's definitely been a major acceleration in the decline in gun-violence-related crime post-Brady. Of that much, I am sure.
I own several guns, and what do you know, I've never hurt myself or anyone else with them. I have been in two different bicycle accidents because of blonde bimbos in SUVs, so judging from those odds, I think we'd be much safer banning SUVs. And hey, there's actually a scientific basis for doing that.
May the fates protect you from all future encounters of an unwelcome nature with blonde bimbos at the wheels of SUVs and elsewhere. As well as your right to own a gun and/or guns.
Subject to reasonable regulation, I suppose. But only as long as it's really reasonable. By which I mean: Regulation that (a) has a very well-demonstrated positive and practical impact on that public-good thing the founding fathers were so devoted to; and (b) doesn't significantly or meaningfully infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms if that's what you want to do.
*** I could totally be wrong about this, but I'm assuming that Kleck's the ultimate source for your later assertion about gun ownership as a crime deterrent, too, btw.
But that's really only because Kleck is the only study I'm aware of that reached such a conclusion. For all I know, it may very well have been superceded by abundant amounts of better and more conclusive data. However, since I didn't look for any, please forgive me if I'm speaking out of ignorance by saying that, fwiw, if it wasn't, the bulk of the data is overwhelmingly on the other side.
Not that it matters all that much. A right is a right is a right. And in this country, gun ownership is a right. So you don't really need any justification beyond that, plus a commitment to the public good, as long as you're not, like, shooting people at the drop of a hat just for the sheer convenience and efficiency of the thing when there are other effective options and/or outlets available to you. Or advocating and encouraging others to do so. Which you're not, as I understand it.
So that's that.
