The US 2nd Amendment.....

[duckmcf]

Hi Gang,
Once again, I really apologise for starting this thread.

It's turning FP Geek against FP Geek. I'm worried that someone will accuse someone else of using a ballpoint pen and then all hell will really break loose.

But seriously, as an outsider to the US I originally started this to try and get an understanding of why every time there's a mass shooting in the US, one side of it talks up banning guns and the other side goes all out to shut them down. Meanwhile a good chunk of the population goes to their local gun store and votes with their feet by coming home with a shiny new AR-15.

As a thought experiment imagine what would happen if this president, or the next, initiated the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment (Please don't flame me if this isn't how it works in the US, I really have no idea how your system works). I fear that US politics would journey down an even darker place which would likely turn into mass demonstrations that could escalate into riots in hot spots all over the US.

My thinking is that both Obama and Clinton know how it could unfold and so rather than unleash a whirlwind they both talk a big a game that ends in business as usual.

To hoist my colours to the mast, I knew a couple of people that were killed at the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 and while I've fired my fair share of guns, I happy that we have solid gun restrictions here in Oz and I think that we have balance about right. For me, I think it's just a better way to live, but I'm sure others will disagree.

Please, lets just leave it all there, turn off the lights and shut the door.

Cheers,
Noel

[HughC]

The one issue not discussed in depth is the "more guns less crime" theory and I'm not fond of it as I've mentioned previously. Statistics tell us that from 1950 to 1965 homicides where ~4.5/100k rising to ~10/100k in 1980 before declining to current levels. Another startling stat is that in 1980 whites killed or killers was ~6.5/100k while among blacks the rate was ~38/100k killed and ~50/100k being killers. By 2005 the white figure was negligible while the black figures where ~22 and 25/100k. The 2015 NORC ( Uni of Chicago) report indicates that households with guns has declined from 47% to 31% ( note the actual number has probably risen as there are more households now) from 1973 to 2013.

Putting some of the stats together it would appear that in mainstream America there has been % wise a decrease in gun ownership. Something I would associate with a falling homicide rate.

Why did homicide rates increase in the mid '60's ? Is the cause of this increase linked to the eventual decline? Environmental lead has been offered as a cause ( meaning increased violence is a health issue ) and the addition of lead into petrol and removal fits the observations. This also fits that the amount of lead found in poorer inner city areas is normally very high. Drugs has been offered as well. Anyway they're just theories that may or may not have had an impact. I'm inclined to think there's a number of factors involved and maybe "more guns less crime" has had some impact but I doubt it's the major factor. In good news for those anti gun people it does mean, if the stats are correct (!!), that it's actually much safer than 20 yrs ago and as a % the number of people with guns has declined but those with guns have a larger, increasing number....now as pen collectors most of us could relate to that !!

Regards
Hugh

[Empty_of_Clouds]

There are some who will contend that crime figures in general did not rise as expected - from looking at the 60s increases - because of Roe vs. Wade. It's a contentious theory, although it does make some quite good points. HughC, the figures you give above of ~10 per 100,000 in 1980 are pretty much the same as those cited by the CDC in 2003 for gun deaths, which at first sight suggests that there has been a long level period. Are your figures for all homicides or only gun related ones. That could alter the picture a bit.

If the figures are correct then perhaps all the publicity surrounding whatever is the latest gun tragedy is just that, and represents not an increase in the crimes so much as more strident blaring of the media's trumpets. Essentially, is there more gun death, or is there just more talk about it?

I'm not saying any of this is necessarily correct, but do give me pause for thought.

Interesting ethnic involvement figures. Not seen those before.

Unfortunately, as with many things in the wonderful world of epidemiology, there is rarely a single factor involved. Here we may be seeing the ethnic divide along the socioeconomic axis contributing to the figures, or as you have pointed out there is the issue of lead in/out of petrol. Determining whether these or any other factors are causative rather than correlative is trick. Bloody difficult trick at that!

[HughC]

The figures quoted are total homicides not just gun related. In the context of "more guns less crime" I think it's the relevant statistic as well as in broader context of violent crime. The more I look at the "figures" ( assuming what I find has an acceptable margin of error) the less the "gun" problem looks now....clearly it was a lot worse. Still VertOlive suggests that it's not "better" in her experience so again there is clearly regional variability in the data. Obviously "correctly" analyzing the data is beyond every one here so we're really down to "opinions" based on how we see the data. Personally I like the "lead" theory because it fits both the rise and decline of homicides and I like simple solutions which is rarely the reality.

There has been a rise in mass shootings and statistically the numbers are small but with terrible impacts that justifiably attract media attention. Anyway I've found this topic informative at many levels.

[dneal]

RE: Hugh's point about gun ownership percentages. This piqued my interest. During the Obama administration, gun sales have skyrocketed. What isn't clear to me is what percentage are new owners, and what are additional guns purchased by existing owners. I found two recent surveys, one from Gallup (which tends to lean slightly left) and one from Pew (which leans slightly right). I think it's a reasonably uninfluenced set of data, although it's certainly not comprehensive or absolute. It is food for thought.

Gallup 2011 survey
Pew 2014 survey

Some data points are not surprising. Male, white, rural conservatives are more frequently gun owners - and there are probably many reasons for this.
Some data points are surprising. Female gun ownership appears to have increased significantly, as has liberal/Democrat gun ownership.

RE: 60's homicide rates. Another interesting sub-topic. I suspect it has to do with baby-boomers coming of age, the increase in drug usage, and the illegalization of many drugs (i.e.: the beginning of the drug trade and 'drug war'); though there are certainly other factors. Several years ago, I read a paper which examined the black middle class. Various cultures can be tracked as they rise in affluence. The Irish, for example; began as highly impoverished, often indentured servants. Local commerce (within the ethnic group) creates a middle class, which can then afford to create a professional class (doctors, lawyers, etc...). The study noted that this was beginning with the black demographic in the U.S., and climbing up until the civil rights act, after which there was a steep decline. The thesis was that one negative result of the civil rights act was that black consumers quit patronizing black businesses and instead chose to frequent white business which they were previously forbidden to use. Combined with the "Great Society" envisioned by LBJ, and the vast expansion of the welfare state, this was an enormous economic set-back to the black community. Their environment for natural economic advancement was destroyed, and replaced with a government system that had incentives not to work. We know that impoverished communities often have higher rates of crime (murder among them), it's not surprising to see the black murder rate increase.

[dneal]

As a thought experiment imagine what would happen if this president, or the next, initiated the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment (Please don't flame me if this isn't how it works in the US, I really have no idea how your system works).

If you go back to the first few pages of the thread, you'll find the process in detail. In summary, the process has to originate in the Congress or by a convention of states. 2/3rds have to approve the change, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

[duckmcf]

As a thought experiment imagine what would happen if this president, or the next, initiated the process to repeal the 2nd Amendment (Please don't flame me if this isn't how it works in the US, I really have no idea how your system works).

If you go back to the first few pages of the thread, you'll find the process in detail. In summary, the process has to originate in the Congress or by a convention of states. 2/3rds have to approve the change, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

Thanks for that, but the mechanism's not the point I was trying to make.

Here's my point, if the planets aligned (post a Trump presidency ;- ) and Congress got the 2/3rds necessary to repeal the 2nd, ratification by the states could well result in another Civil war.

I think this is why the anti-gun politicians talk a big game, but nothing changes. They intuitively know how it could unfold.

Cheers,
Noel

[dneal]

Thanks for that, but the mechanism's not the point I was trying to make.

Here's my point, if the planets aligned (post a Trump presidency ;- ) and Congress got the 2/3rds necessary to repeal the 2nd, ratification by the states could well result in another Civil war.

Ok, but you noted that you have no idea of how the U.S. system works (even though it was previously explained).

Honestly, I don't see the point of your thought experiment since it's not going to happen any time soon. Are you speculating on what the results of a successful Constitutional change would be? There's a long way to swing the pendulum first, and we don't know what the mindset of America would be in that hypothetical case. Currently 42 of the 50 states have "shall issue" concealed carry laws or are completely unrestricted. The remaining 8 are "may issue", with varying degrees of difficulty imposed. That's a big swing in the last 30 years. Wikipedia has a pretty good graphic illustrating the changing mindset.






Anyway, nothing changes because politicians know for a fact what would unfold. With the exception of a few that are in "safe" (i.e.: highly liberal) districts, they would lose their seats. Democrats fear gun legislation like Republicans fear "shutting down" the government. Once bitten, twice shy...

[HughC]

Included for completeness:

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Repor..._1972-2014.pdf

http://wmbriggs.com/post/5969/

While there's always a margin of error in surveys Pew is probably more reliable than Gallup by virtue of sample size being 3 times larger and CSS the most reliable with over 55,000 ( or 15 times more than Pew). Of course the data from previous years is also open to the same vagaries. As far as I can see the majority of surveys mirror CSS. As Dneal points out the data set could be wider but we can say with some confidence that due to population growth there are many new gun owners just not what percentage they account for. With growing population for gun ownership to remain a steady % then sales should increase and records be set but again the data is not easily at hand ( which means I couldn't be bothered trying to find it...).

Regards
Hugh

[duckmcf]

That animated gif is interesting. That's a big swing over 30 years for a 200+ year old democracy.

I wonder if there's a root cause for the swing? Perhaps perceived fear or perceived freedom?

[Dragonmaster Lou]

That animated gif is interesting. That's a big swing over 30 years for a 200+ year old democracy.

I wonder if there's a root cause for the swing? Perhaps perceived fear or perceived freedom?

I'm thinking fear. That overlap seems to coincide with the prevalence of 24 hour news channels which hype up every little violent crime they can for the sake of ratings, thus frightening the population.

The biggest jump also appeared to be during the Bill Clinton administration. I wouldn't be surprised if part of this was fear that "Them Democrats 'r' gunna take away all yer guns!" There was a smaller jump, post 9/11, probably due to terrorism fears and a possible belief that being armed was the best defense against a possible terrorist attack.

There wasn't a significant jump during the Obama administration (despite more "take away all yer guns" rhetoric), but by that point, most of the states had already gone to "shall issue," so it was moot.

[dneal]

Note that the graphic is simply portraying concealed carry laws, not gun sales or anything else.

The 90's period was also the height of gang and other violence, which prompted "mandatory minimums", increased police funding, providing military equipment to police, etc... An interesting read is Radley Balko's "Rise of the Warrior Cop".

Fear was the main reason that concealed carry agendas were usually not successful. "It'll be the Wild West" was the usual cry. As Florida showed, followed by other States; it was an unfounded fear. Things took off after that, so you can also say that it is a lack of fear that causes the spread of concealed carry.

Each State's politics are unique though. Vermont is typically liberal, but has always had no restrictions on concealed or open carry. Missouri didn't allow concealed weapons, but had (and still has) "Peaceable Journey" laws (you can have a loaded gun in an automobile with no permit).

[Morgaine]

There will always be guns. The number used in crimes in the UK has increased (I don't know the %/amount at the moment) and I believe the UK has quite strict rules.

As an outsider, I guess the issue is the number of guns children have access to - wasn't a pro-gun person shot in the back by her young child? How many accidental shootings are there?

[bamapendude]

We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.



WELL SAID! The problem is the minority bring it up again and again and outsiders looking in that see our leftist media pushing the minority agenda on the subject. No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....

[HughC]

[HughC]

We don't do "country-wide referendums". Either you aren't American or (if you are) you didn't pay attention in civics.

- When the Clinton administration enacted the "assault weapon" ban, the country threw out the majority party that enacted it.
- When the issue reached the Supreme Court (several times), the intent of the wording was made perfectly clear.
- The overwhelming majority of States have loosened restrictions on public possession (usually concealed).

The American people have worked it out, many times. A vocal minority keeps bringing it back up as if the discussion hasn't taken place yet. That's simply not true. They just don't like the result.



WELL SAID! The problem is the minority bring it up again and again and outsiders looking in that see our leftist media pushing the minority agenda on the subject. No disrespect to original poster but he has no skin in the game....

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

[dneal]

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

[pengeezer]

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

[dneal]

American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world so, to a degree, we all have a bit of "skin in the game". The shock waves Trump has sent around the world in what is a purely domestic campaign at present proves this. While the US is the world's leading power I think we all want to see good policy choices at all levels, the issue is what "good" is. On that you have to ask the question : Does a domestic pro gun policy/culture make the US more inclined to military intervention ?

C'mon Hugh, that's some seriously tortured logic and willful ignoring of history.

But no, I see no evidence that domestic "pro-gun" policy/culture makes the US more inclined to military intervention. Feel free to provide such.

I was always under the impression that our gov't./military didn't intervene unless they wanted something....



John

It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.

[HughC]

It has become that way. We usually only act when it's in our national interest, and has nothing to do with a domestic gun policy/culture. But each war was fought for different reasons. The Spanish American war was whipped up by Hearst and "Yellow Journalism". The "Banana Wars" were on behalf of the United Fruit Company. America favored neutrality in the case of WWI and WWII - the opposite of Hugh's argument - but was forced into it in both cases. The Cold War that followed is its own story.

Indeed the US did initially favour neutrality in both World Wars, public opinion dictated this option then in both cases public opinion changed in favour of entering the wars (http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww1/cou...1cush-opi.html http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/michigan_2003.pdf ) which thankfully happened. The stance of Govt. is reflected in the opinions of the people in these cases which supports "American people influence domestic policy by who they vote for, domestic policies influence foreign policies and US foreign policies affect the entire world".

Since then the political, economic and military importance of the US has grown to it's current world dominating position ( economically though as an entity the EU is larger and in output terms China is the leader) with military facilities throughout the world. A stuff up in the US ( or China for that matter) can have far reaching impacts, the sub-prime fiasco that started the GFC is one example, and the reality is domestic US policies can flow over to other countries. Looking at the last Iraq invasion, it had public support and the US Govt. went with that support....of course Uncle Sam knocked on a few doors and said " come on"....you don't say no when asked so many countries where tied up in it. Again that's what you do to keep on the good side of the "big boy" but it also shows how much power the US Govt. has and as it's a product of it's people that power is in the voters hands (to a degree).

The current fiasco in Syria and Iraq ( you could add Libya and Afghanistan) show clearly the perils that military action can have when not backed up with a workable future plan. I'm not sure arming opponents of Assad can be shown to have been in the "national interest", more a case of guns before brains, because the Russians where never going to allow their military presence in the region to be reduced. With hindsight the dictators where better than the current situation that's evolved. While few would criticize US targets in Pakistan it needs to be noted there is scant regard for Pakistani sovereignty, if the boot was on the other foot...

I'm of the opinion that "public opinion" is a very powerful political force and Govts take notice.