Gun Control Educational Information
Below is basic information regarding gun control, including science, policy, and law. GUN SCIENCE -where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review. being a literature review makes this a lot more informing than just being a single study; we see the consensus forming. also included is a link to a poll of scientists but a literature review itself makes the claims even stronger. https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html -where there are more guns, there is more murder, across geographic regions from localities and larger. this is also a lot more informing because it a literature review of lots of studies. what's more, people are shown not to kill with other weopons instead of guns, as is often argued, because if they did there would be no correlation here. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/ -women are five times more likely to be killed if their significant other has a gun. this is a practical point in illustration of the guns v murders correlation. same in individual lives as general trends https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/ -you are more likely to be murdered if you have a gun, as well as those close to you https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858 -States with more gun control have fewer mass shootings https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/433017-states-with-stricter-gun-control-regulations-have-fewer-mass?fbclid=IwAR0f5l5eW7d-rX4ZoE8R2MOe6VBvLJVrfQQRFwd2b7anlBIM_wgsYYx-uQk -only around two hundred and fifty killings are done in the name of self defense per year. people like to pretend defense is such a huge thing, but the odds of being murdered is is closer to forty times higher. the odds of being shot and not necessarily killed are upwards of four hundred times higher. -we have half the worlds guns in the usa but a small percent of the worlds population -Police are more likely to kill unjustifiably in low gun control and high gun areas due to their increased fear, and police are more likely to be shot themselves in those areas. http://justicenotjails.org/police-shootings-gun-problem/ https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/more-guns-more-dead-cops-study-finds-n409356 -Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries -High school kids in the USA are eighty two times more likely to be shot than the same kids in other developed countries. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0767 -states with more gun control have fewer youth who die from guns https://abc30.com/5396718/?ex_cid=TA_KFSN_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d2d172f8e73cc000164c229&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2T40EdBsGdPZk_VCL8Bi5RDJsNtpF2Ud9NIYiB74njS72zrcqudw1idWY -it is claimed that most murders are gang related, but this looks to be factually incorrect in the link. even if higher numbers floating around on the internet are true, our murder problem still there if you take out the gang murders from consideration. the numbers here can be arrived at with basic math. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html -this really isn't just a mental health problem. we don't have more people with mental health problems than other countries.... just more people with guns. the study controls for mental health factors v other factors. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings?fbclid=IwAR3nS6e4bHyakjB-_GkXvWZKNqnWfDfx-LwBVnuAUXewEzgB_7AnMGdgXVk# -we dont have more crime than the rest of the world, just a lot more people getting shot and killed. you aren't more likely to be mugged here, for instance, but you are more likely to be mugged and shot in the process. again a gun problem. showing it's not just deviants being deviants as some suggest but an emphasis on the gun problem. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe -You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix: non-gun homicides are slightly on the higher side but within normal range, while gun homicides go wildly higher. If this was a bad person problem at its core, there would be a wildly higher amount of non-gun homicides as well, but that's not the case. Included is an article describing this phenomenon and a link with a picture. https://i.imgur.com/skcT8qr.png https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/71n1u2/gunnongun_homicide_rates_in_oecd_countries_for/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/canada-gun-control-debate/566102/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2018-07-28T09%3A00%3A12 -people like to say assault rifles are not that dangerous, because there are only a few hundred murders with them per year out of only around ten or so thousand of gun murders. the thing is though, the percent chance an assault rifle will be used to kill someone is significantly higher than the chance other guns will be used to kill someone. /// you can do the math yourself. there are 2.5 million assault rifles in circulation. 374 rifle deaths per year. there are 11000 gun homicides. there's a gun for every person in the usa, 340 million. what's the math say? 374 divided by 11000 is 3.4 percent of deaths are from rifles. 2.5 milliion divided by 340 milliion is less than a percent. so what does this mean? despite rifles being less than a percent of guns, they cause 3.4 percent of deaths. that is, a rifle has a higher percent chance of being used to murder than a non rifle. most guns that are used in murder are hand guns, but assault rifles are more likely to be chosen over a hand gun when faced with that choice. just like, as an analogy, people are more likely to speed in a sports car, but most cars that speed are not sports cars. -people like to throw around number of defensive gun use. the idea is that not all defensive gun uses result in a killing. the most common number in literature is tens of thousands, though the number vary wildly. the only thing is, even if you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than being murdered, you are still more likely to be murdered than someone who doesn't have a gun. also, a lot of those thousands of defensive uses are not all that critical.... downplaying their significance. and, a lot of those 'defensive' uses were actually situations that were people instigating and escalating a situation that wouldn't otherwise exist, as the link below illustrates. even if we used the higher numbers, is it all that convincing that there are tens of thousands more near murders in a nation with already a globally disproportionate number of murders? it holds true, that we could give lots more people guns, and that may increase defensive use... but it would come at the cost of more murder, too. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/ -for more on giving an overview of the gun issues, see the following https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts -in the usa, the number of murders has overall gone down in recent decades. the thing is, while the number of guns went up, the number of people owning them went down. also, this is just one measure: all the other measure include all the countries and localities where gun levels are proportionate to murder rates. -for more information on gun policy in the usa and other countries: www.gunpolicy.org -australia. they enacted major gun reform around twenty years ago after a mass shooting. they bought back a bunch of guns and enacted other gun control. their mass shootings stopped. this almost surely is not an anomloy. their homicides dropped by up to fifty percent. the idea is a lower murder rate came with a lower percent of people owning guns (note that this is different than the specific gun ownership rate because if less people own more guns that could cause the percent owning to go down but the overall rate could be the same). misinformation attempts like to point that overall murder went up slightly after reform, but the rate did not and went down. also, the number of guns have gone up closer to previous level but the gun ownership rate is still lower. it is true that global murder went down, and some of that correlates with australi's rate... but global reductions arent as drastic s australia's. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback -japan. they literally have barely any murders, and barely any guns. they have a rigorous process for allowing guns POLICY AND COMMON SENSE POINTS -here are some ideas for gun control ranked by experts as more to less effective, with a comparison to how much public support each has. this is important because experts say gun control can be effective, and this shows examples. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur -i read a story about a boy who got a gun out of his house to shoot some bullies who followed him home. they were challenging him. he admits he wouldn't have did this if he didn't have access to a gun. ive seen with my own eyes an adult do in a pretty exactly the same situation... it's not just limited to kids. remember again that men are five times more likely to kill their significant other if they have a gun. guns cause escalation when the situation otherwise wouldn't. a gun is critical. -the world isn't magically split into those who will stop at nothing to get a gun and those who aren't. preventing some from being allowed a gun will sometimes prevent them from getting one. when they go off on their significant other or get into a tussle, as the examples and trends show.... they are less likely to kill someone. -40% of gun sales involve no background check. 90% of people support background checks. 70% of the NRA does. most people want better gun control. congress isn't doing anything, it stands to reason, because they are beholden to the gun lobby. -barely anyone is hard core per the second amendment. everyone has limits. no machine guns, no grenade launcher, some like the current set up. the thing is, the current set up is arbitrary, there is nothing magical about it. -the idea of rigid approach to gun control is atypical from a historical perspective as shown in the following section, and a world wide perspective. barely any other countries enshrine such fundamental rights to gun, and these countries aren't those who we'd otherwise want to emulate or be compared to. people just cling to what they have been taught. before the NRA got involved politically, most people wanted to ban hand guns in the recent century. -the best approach forward is to enact the ideas in the examples link from experts. then, gradually buy back guns like australia did and follow some of their lead on other gun control. eventually we can start treating guns as a privilege instead of a right. we can be like japan and then only allow some people who especially think they need a gun to have one. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW "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 phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48302 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a09534fd49a0 -“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals. -when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364 https://thedoctorweighsin.com/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-guns/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-madison-played-politics-and-gave-us-the-2nd-amendment -From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun -when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control -here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era: -stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible. -public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned -anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal -the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york. -all guns had to be registered and inspected -some states regulated the use of gun powder -some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit -some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses -only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia -several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet -indians and blacks were barred from having guns -the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger. -drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff. -half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as. http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm -all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions -the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that's why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental "liberty" interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental 'liberty' interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with? -what does "arms" mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed -you would have to use the word "keep" in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together. -the following shows that courts have only since recently started applying strict principles for an individual right to a gun since the case Heller. (because that ruling deviates from prior precedent) the line between fundamental rights, non-fundamental rights, and privileges can be blurry in practice. but the rules have meaning.... there will now be a stronger expectation to let people have guns. if the legal system starts treating a gun like the right to water, a lot of bad policies and outcomes are possible even perhaps despite the fact that everyone knows these shouldn't be treated the same way. the legal system may expect things to get bad with a person before we can do anything about it, which again is a standard atypical from history or globally. "reasonable suspicion" someone is violent may not be sufficient, "probable cause" may not be. "beyond a reasonable doubt" probably would be, but it's hard to say someone is like that for their whole life. a good example is the fact that people on 'no fly' lists for airplanes can still buy a guy- there's a different legal standard even though everyone knows the person is too shady to be doing things like fly planes, and buy guns. expanded background check and treating guns like cars would simply weed out the incompetent, undisciplined, and unmotivated, violent, and mentally disturbed.... if promoting the use of guns causes more murder, do we really want these sorts of people having guns? granting fundamental rights for legal purposes instead of a practical right will cause excessive litigation to deprive people from guns on an individual basis when they shouldn't have had them to begin with. thus, because Heller got the law wrong, society is approaching a system where people can be unfit to have guns but still society still be forced or otherwise prone to allowing them to have guns anyway. http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/appeals-court-gun-control-must-meet-toughest-test/ -the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted. for example, here is the proper context of washington's first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia... so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a "requisite" condition: ""Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies. The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy."" https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers https://gawker.com/the-famous-pro-gun-quotes-the-founding-fathers-never-1567962573 http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/03/louie-gohmert/louie-gohmert-says-george-washington-said-free-peo/ |