Gun policy analysis thread.

[dneal]

Guns are part of the issue, no doubt. I can’t reconcile the fact that they’ve been ubiquitous since the founding, but mass shootings are relatively recent. “Going Postal…” and all that. Semiautomatic rifles have been in circulation for over 100 years.

Give this paper a look. He shows his work, so you can “do the math” quite literally.

I’d honestly be interested in your take of the data.

[Lloyd]

I looked over about 2/3 of it. I'm no specialist in this field, but I know the how statistics can be used to make many points (there ain't no truth). See this article
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...t-of-the-world

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

I looked over about 2/3 of it. I'm no specialist in this field, but I know the how statistics can be used to make many points (there ain't no truth). See this article
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...t-of-the-world

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I'm a fan of Disraeli's "lies, damned lies and statistics"*, but that's just pointing out that sophistry can be employed with numbers as well as with letters.

What I was looking for was your opinion of the overall piece. The author goes to great lengths to describe their sources and methodologies, how they scrutinized and employed them, and how they arrived at the conclusion. Setting aside whether they're correct or not for the moment, does it appear to be a good-faith effort to be transparent and/or objective? Some of the information is irrelevant to an extent, but I don't see anything glaringly out of place.

Although the conclusion isn't what one would intuitively suspect, the presentation does seem reasonable. I'm skeptical of everything to some extent, and was curious about your opinion as a second set of eyes with a math background and liberal philosophy.

*attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain

[Lloyd]

I looked over about 2/3 of it. I'm no specialist in this field, but I know the how statistics can be used to make many points (there ain't no truth). See this article
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...t-of-the-world

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

I'm a fan of Disraeli's "lies, damned lies and statistics"*, but that's just pointing out that sophistry can be employed with numbers as well as with letters.

What I was looking for was your opinion of the overall piece. The author goes to great lengths to describe their sources and methodologies, how they scrutinized and employed them, and how they arrived at the conclusion. Setting aside whether they're correct or not for the moment, does it appear to be a good-faith effort to be transparent and/or objective? Some of the information is irrelevant to an extent, but I don't see anything glaringly out of place.

Although the conclusion isn't what one would intuitively suspect, the presentation does seem reasonable. I'm skeptical of everything to some extent, and was curious about your opinion as a second set of eyes with a math background and liberal philosophy.

*attributed to Benjamin Disraeli by Mark Twain

It was tabulations of values which I assume are correct. It was just an exploration into what these numbers might imply. There are other ways of looking at the numbers to make other implications as the article I sent I was trying to do. I assume the numbers aren't lying, but how you interpret them is quite variable.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Chuck Naill]

I would like o e if these.
https://www.shotgunlife.com/shotguns...r-classic.html

[Lloyd]

Loopholes and Missing Data: The Gaps in the Gun Background Check System
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/u...nd-checks.html

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Paywall... :/

[Lloyd]

Same article, different site
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-new...-check-system/

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[dneal]

Same article, different site
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-new...-check-system/

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

Reasonably fair article. Some comments:

The 3 day "limitation inserted by the gun-lobby" was a compromise to prevent the government from dragging its feet. "We didn't deny anyone their 2nd Amendment rights... we just haven't gotten around to approving their purchase yet...". The pro-gun side will claim the Obama administration did this, but in fairness sales went through the roof during his admin. That said, his administration also stopped processing appeals to denials. If the government wants to mandate a system, the government should fund one that works.

Some of it is specious.

Even the smallest error can lead, directly or indirectly, to tragedy. In 2014, a 15-year-old boy walked into his high school in Marysville, Wash., and fatally shot four students before killing himself. The gun he used was purchased by his father, who obtained it after a background check failed to flag an order of protection filed against him for assaulting his onetime partner, after local authorities failed to input a conviction for domestic abuse, which should have halted the sale instantly.

The "Lautenberg Amendment" makes it illegal for anyone convicted of domestic violence to possess a firearm. Not clear here, but a protective order is not a conviction. Also, it could have been average not-wife-beating dude whose 15 y/o did that.

They get the Air Force story right, but that's not a state or local government they're citing as a problem. It's the federal government not reporting to the federal government. Not a NICS problem, but a compliance problem.

Private sales don't require background checks. The ATF doesn't refer to sales though, they refer to "transfers". I can give my mother a gun. No check required. I can sell it to her also. No check required. The argument against universal checks is that it stymies that, imposing an undue burden on the majority who are law-abiding. It ignores that criminals don't go to the gun store and buy guns. They steal them or have a friend/girlfriend/family member/etc... buy it for them. That's already an illegal "straw-purchase". Not much way around that, and we haven't even got to all the guns that have no record of existing.

Gunshows. If you're a dealer at a gun show you conduct a background check. If you're a private seller, you don't have to. It's not a loophole for gunshows, that's just a location. Hypothetically, if you're a dealer selling pens at a penshow, you collect tax. If you're a private seller, you don't. The fact that it's a hotel ballroom is just an incidental fact. "Pen sellers avoid sales tax at penshows!!! There's a penshow loophole!!!" (yeah, I know tax law varies by state, etc... It's just to illustrate a point).

I like that they show the problems with family members having knowledge of something outside the system. Not a lot to be done about that. Notifying police when a family member who owns a firearm has even a non-violent episode or just for a wellness check has resulted in the family member being shot by the police.

I like that they point out the gun-control side has a problem with the mental health and juvenile proposals. It's not just one side that has objections to "common sense" laws.

Each of those issues (mental health and juvenile records) are laden with legitimate objections.

[Lloyd]

Thank you for taking the time to go through that, dneal.

Typos courtesy of Samsung Auto-Incorrect™

[Niner]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical. The centuries-long recognition of the natural right of self defense is also given note but is not the primary intent. Of course, no one is required to accept the Framers' logic. See Castro, Hitler, Lenin, et al. who seemed to understand what the Framers were getting at.

[TSherbs]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical.

Which document would that be? Madison's notes?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Chuck Naill]

Just listen to an NPR discussion about smart guns. Sounds promising as a way to have a loaded firearm safely.

[TSherbs]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical.

Which document would that be? Madison's notes?

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Actually, now I have had a chance to read more, spurred by Niner's comment. Adams and Jefferson made a few comments on ownership of arms, but I had not read before the various states' "rights" that were proposed at basically the same time as the convention debates (more or less the same time), which were often clearer in their language. Indeed, the draft version of the 2nd Amendment is even clearer than the final version: in shortening the 2nd, they muddied it.

So let me also be clear about this: I don't disagree with Niner's assessment about the 2nd and its purpose: I was more interested in what sources he/she knew of.

[dneal]

If we consider the Second Amendment in purpose, a civilian might be able to protect their family and others, but to engage in war, those privileges need to be supported and supplied by police and military infrastructures.

The well-documented intent of the Framers makes it clear the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to use fear of the populace to restrain government from becoming tyrannical. The centuries-long recognition of the natural right of self defense is also given note but is not the primary intent. Of course, no one is required to accept the Framers' logic. See Castro, Hitler, Lenin, et al. who seemed to understand what the Framers were getting at.

Yes, which is made clear to anyone who bothers to read Scalia's Heller decision and the thorough history it includes.

[Chuck Naill]

That's like reading Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no correct way to interpret a document regardless of the source because two people may read the same sentence and have differing opinions. This is why the best way to interpret is not from what someone's opinion is, but to allow the document to speak for itself. "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."

The Heller decision said an individual could keep a gun in the house for personal protection. The amendment says nothing of personal protection, but "security of a free state".

[TSherbs]

That's like reading Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no correct way to interpret a document regardless of the source because two people may read the same sentence and have differing opinions.

You're clearly not Catholic. Nor am I, but traditional Catholics believe in only one interpretation of central teachings of Jesus and the Church. I've read some of the encyclicals and other papal documents. Wild stuff!



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

That's like reading Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. There is no correct way to interpret a document regardless of the source because two people may read the same sentence and have differing opinions. This is why the best way to interpret is not from what someone's opinion is, but to allow the document to speak for itself. "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."

The Heller decision said an individual could keep a gun in the house for personal protection. The amendment says nothing of personal protection, but "security of a free state".

The Heller decision clarifies all that. It points out the difference between the prefatory clause and the operative clause, what difference it makes and why. The militia is one purpose. Personal protection (self-defense), to include keeping a firearm in the home is another. Defense of the people from a tyrannical government is another. It cites the definition of "bear" and "arms" applicable to the period, referencing several dictionaries from the era. It cites state constitutions that predate the federal constitution, and the context of why they were in state constitutions in the first place. It clarifies the history, going back to English common law and the disarming of Catholics. It discusses the disarming of blacks during Jim Crow. It refutes Stevens' dissent as it goes along. It's all thoroughly documented and footnoted.

But you have to read it to know all that. You have to read it to devise a cogent rebuttal. Harping on "but it says 'militia'" just demonstrates that you haven't.

Inform yourself. Do the due diligence of a college undergraduate in a 100 level history or civics class, or mouth off like a 6th grader with an opinion. Respond as if you were demonstrating the familiarity required for a "short answer" quiz. You don't have to agree with Scalia, but you at least should understand the analysis that resulted in the decision.

Since so many people seem to have this issue recently - I don't think I'm smarter than you. I do think you make yourself look dumb (ignorant, more strictly speaking). If pointing out facts that you haven't bothered with is the cause, that's a shortfall on your end and not mine.

Now go on and resort to the predictable ad hominem or other typical deflections...

[Chuck Naill]

The Heller decision is not the Second Ammendment, but an opinion about how it could be interpreted. Of course, you’d have to tie yourself into a pretzel to come to the conclusion that personal protection was the first or secondary purpose. The intent is so obvious.

No reason to attack you @dneal.

[dneal]

Chuck, I think the distinction is that it is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. A decision is not an opinion about how it could be interpreted, but how it is interpreted.

You don't have to tie yourself in a pretzel to conclude that self-defense is one of the most basic fundamental rights. No life form is obligated to surrender its existence without a struggle.