Redacting a Failed Discusion

Here are my comments on Japete's blog which I am removing since I think the possibility of any actual discussion basically nil.

"Gun deaths per 100,000 is not equivalent to safety. It may be a statistic that can be used to evaluate safety but it includes many deaths such as suicides and anti-criminal shooting which either don't effect or increase safety for the average person.

Also comparisons between countries are pretty much useless unless you are able to norm for culture. Which is why the question asks about improvements within the same country reducing the influence of non-related cultural effects on the data.

The murder rate, which I think is better metric for safety, does not correlate well to each country's gun laws. Indeed within this country there is not a positive correlation between legal access to guns and the murder rate. In fact since major cities tend to have higher murder rates and stricter gun laws those two factors can be easily presented as having a strong positive correlation if as in the case many statistically driven arguments the data is chosen to support that finding"

"Alan are you saying that people belonging to racial or gender groups should be treated on that basis rather than their own specific character, actions, and circumstances? I think that treating people that way is dangerous and destructive morally and practically. I also think that everyone deserves to be able to advocate against the wrongs in their lives and that white men over 40 have as much right to do this as members of any other group. Though as you have made clear the majority of people care about their problems about as much as they do rape in prisons. I think that disdain for the dignity and suffering of anyone reduces for everyone the amount of compassion in our society.

Also I think that attacking the articles BoB S posted on the basis of their substance would be more effective than pointing out a dead link from 2000 and a curse word used by the hosts (not the author) of an article. Those seem to me to be the internet equivalent of a character attack."

"I have to say that the BJS graphs to make a strong case for background checks being effective in reducing the the number of homicides committed with hands. I think most pro-gun folk agree that a background check system that prevents people such as criminals or those adjudicated mentally ill or incompetent is something they support and are prepared to accept. Many would rather those people where not a part of our society but in lieu of that most are willing to have a mechanism that inhibits their acquisition of weapons as long as it does not place a burden on law abiding citizens or intrust the government with information about the legal actions of citizens.

I also think that many pro-gun people want much harsher criminal penalties for violations of our gun laws. I personal would support stricter jail terms and non-discretionary prosecution for criminal weapon possession by felons. I think jailing those who have proven that they will not abide by the conditions of their liberty would be more effective than measures that target non-criminals.

“I have provided facts to show that gun deaths take more lives than any other means in the U.S. “ I assume you mean “gun's are the implement used most often to murder people” since car related deaths out number gun related deaths.

I don't think that anyone is advocating no action by anyone on reducing deaths from guns. Many pro-gun activists are involved in gun safety instruction and awareness reducing accidental injuries and deaths from firearms. I believe that if you own guns you should instruct everyone you live with in proper gun safety and that many of the deaths related to found gun are the result of failure to do so. Many have made different proposals for reducing criminal actions and homicides. I think any benefit that comes from preventing the use of firearms in suicide would be balanced by the increase in suffering inflicted by other means and increased suicide attempts cause by increased feelings of helplessness in some people.

Also any defects in firearms which cause them to function improperly, especially a fault which would make a gun fire without the mechanical action of its trigger, are a very grave concern for everyone but one for which there is a remedy. Just as with unsafe cribs and cars if a gun is made in such a way that it doesn't function properly and causes injury the manufacturer incurs civil liability. That liability does not extend to misuse of the gun just as car manufacturers aren't liability for people who intentionally use them to kill or injury.

On the issue of reducing the number of who's deaths are related to gun use" 

"Let me try to explain some of the fear. The Brady campaign states that one of it's goals is “banning military-style assault weapons”. That category of weapons has the strongest constitutional protection under United States vs Miller and 10 USC chapter 13 – 311(a). If those weapons can be banned then very little prevents additional bans, most of these have either been proposed or enacted in other countries, such as military caliber firearms, semi-automatic firearms, large caliber firearms, firearms without safety features or F/F recognition, required barrel length, detachable magazines, internal magazines, and pretty much any feature of a firearm other than the most basic. And if the right to appropriate arms of those who may need those arms as part of their military service liability, males 17-45, is violated there is much less protection for those who want to choose which guns are appropriate for other less protected uses such as sport, hunting, or self-defense.

Also current Supreme Court interpretations are often overturned sometimes with external pressure such as Lincoln and Roosevelt placed on the court. The constitution can be changed and the powers it grants the government interpreted more broadly. While currently that isn’t a strong possibility, the fear is that if the idea that banning guns would prevent all firearm related deaths is allowed to stand uncontested then in the face of some cause célèbre people might be convinced to accept such changes. Thus our willingness to respond and engage with those holding or promoting such a belief." (not published)

"Would you support an recognition of those persons with 10 USC chapter 13 – 311(a) militia obligations as members of a government agency for the purposes of federal firearm law?

I think that if such a recognition was made it would protect the second amendment right of the militia to arms which is a right clearly and almost universally articulated by the Supreme Court. That could allow some legal and rational room to limit the types and forms of arms owned by those without militia obligations to those firearms strictly necessary for self-defense and those firearms used in approved activities."

"I believe 10 USC chapter 13 – 311 is originally from the Militia Act of 1903.

The law makes certain people members of the United States Militia which can be called upon “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions ”. Congress is to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States “

Congress has broadly defined the scope of the militias members (males 17-45 and females in the National Guard) but has for the majority of the militia neglected to provide for their organizing, arming, and disciplining and has in fact barred the normal means though which the unorganized militia might arm itself.

As it stands now Militia members are required by Law to pay $200 Tax to the BATFE for a some guns appropriate for military use (unlike other agents of the government) but they are barred from doing so with machine guns by a refusal to accept such taxes by order of Congress. To top it off the Supreme Court precedence (Haynes v. United States) states that 4th Amendment protects those who fail to pay that Tax if compiling with the registration would incriminate the person obligate to register their weapon which is a crime to posses if they haven't paid the tax.

It seems to me to me that we are at a rather convoluted place legally at the monument. A large section of the population has a real if not immediate obligation to fight to protect this country and enforce its Laws. If they want to make themselves prepared to meet those obligations they must do so on their own because of the lack of congressional provision and in that attempt to they can come into conflict with laws designed to limit non-militia uses or types of weapons. I think that the organizing and disciplining of the militia is a grand opportunity that is being missed to do some good in our communities and build positive social bonds.

The have courts strongly supported the rights of the militia to military weapons. I think that there are strong possible challenges to any law the prohibits military weapons to citizens in the militia. And that the failure to consider the presence of the militia in US law can endanger any legislation that hasn’t provided for it. Only recently has the Supreme Court begun to support the right of citizens to arms for other uses such as self-defense. I support this expansion of rights because I think the right is a good right and that good rights tend to support each other against abuse and infringement.

Self organized groups that style themselves as militias are not the US militia their existence many be protected by freedom of association and they maybe comprised of member of the US militia but those organizations are not what the law refers to when it talks about the militia or militias."

 "United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir.1992) rejects 14^th Amendment incorporation of the 2^th Amendment limiting its function to merely a constraint on the federal government, does not take a view on if the right granted is individual or collective right, and only recognizes the 2th Amendment as relating to “preservation or efficiency of a militia”. It is in fact a the product of a long series of cases which have had their rational refuted by the Supreme Court.

Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir.1942) states “The right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights in this respect the people may have depend upon local legislation; the only function of the Second Amendment being to prevent the federal government and the federal government only from infringing that right “ and attempted to create precedence from United States v. Miller by contending that there was none.

U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.) states “the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right” and created the non-rights holding category of “sedentary militia” ex nihlo very much the reverse of the "sovereign people" category created in Scott v. Sandford.

Since the McDonald v. Chicago incorporation of the 2^nd Amendment under the Due Process clause of the 14^th Amendment and its and District of Columbia v. Heller's recognition of an individual right to own weapons for some purposes by the Supreme Court a court hearing a similar case now would have to consider those issues and would be force to rule on another basis.

Also US v. Hale doesn't not address the fact that laws upon which it ruled both require and prohibit registration a situation similar to the one present in District of Columbia v. Heller were the laws in question were found unconstitutional." (not published)