jody
jody's JournalBloomburg et al who believe "guns cause crime" remind me of creationists believers who oppose
evolution and were told to take your best shot in the federal case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Those creationists tried their very best and lost.
Will Bloomburg and his gun-creationists win or lose in the court of public opinion aka We the People, many who support the right of each law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms for self-defense protected by our Constitution as enumerated in the Second Amendment?
Reports and statistics for discussing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense.
"First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services" October 3, 2003, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. [font color = ff0000 size = 3]The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.[/font] (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.
"Firearms and Violence, A Critical Review" 16 December 04 by the National Research council of the National Academy of Sciences
Empirical research on firearms and violence has resulted in important findings that can inform policy decisions. In particular, a wealth of descriptive information exists about the prevalence of firearm-related injuries and deaths, about firearms markets, and about the relationships between rates of gun ownership and violence. Research has found, for example, that higher rates of household firearms ownership are associated with higher rates of gun suicide, that illegal diversions from legitimate commerce are important sources of crime guns and guns used in suicide, that firearms are used defensively many times per day, and that some types of targeted police interventions may effectively lower gun crime and violence. This information is a vital starting point for any constructive dialogue about how to address the problem of firearms and violence.
While much has been learned, much remains to be done, and this report necessarily focuses on the important unknowns in this field of study. The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. [font color = ff0000 size = 3]For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements. [/font]
Drawing causal inferences is always complicated and, in the behavioral and social sciences, fraught with uncertainty. Some of the problems that the committee identifies are common to all social science research. In the case of firearms research, however, the committee found that even in areas in which the data are potentially useful, the complex methodological problems inherent in unraveling causal relationships between firearms policy and violence have not been fully considered or adequately addressed.
"Gun Control Legislation" November 14, 2012 Congressional Research Service
pnwmom you conflate magazines with proposals to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy. Too many posts
have repeated as nauseam the simple fact that hundreds of millions of high capacity magazines are already available.
A ban on possessing them is not an effective option although it might make anti-gun types feel good.
The Sandy Hook LEO report has not been completed but it does appear Adam Lanza had some type of mental-health problem.
That seems to be a common thread with many who commit mass murder.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City, cochairmen of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, along with 750 other Mayors want Obama to create a central data base that will include mental-health data on people.
We already have the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, and now the new health care record system that can easily share data.
All that's needed is to identify the Diagnosis Related Group codes that place a person at risk of becoming a mass murderer and add their name and appropriate data and create the central data base Bloomberg and his mayors want.
Even better, identify the prescription drugs that might trigger a mass murder episode and whenever a patient fills a prescription add that incident to the central data base. That would give our Attorney General all the data needed to monitor in real time people who science and health care professionals have profiled as mass murder risks.
What laws do you support that protect an individual's inalienable right to self-defense against
criminals that also enforce society's alienable right to defend groups against mass-murderers?
IMO the problem is "self-defense" and "group-defense" and a solution must satisfy both.
SCOTUS says govt is not obligated to protect citizens unless they are in custody.
See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) and read an excellent DU post by X_Digger at http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2036160
I ask in another DU post “Is govt obligated to protect citizens in groups like Sandy Hook’s School?” http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022038386
No one has answered that question yet.
Many people live in places where LEO response to a 911 call is more than 10 minutes away or perhaps hours or longer.
Even LEO recommend citizens in those areas arm themselves against criminals who wish to rob, rape, or commit other violent crimes.
On the other hand, when people group together as in a theater or school, they present an inviting target for anyone; mentally unstable, terrorist, et al; who wish to murder lots of people.
That's something IMO society has a right to defend.
That's the problem as I would define it, not one but two problems.
A solution would enact laws that balance the "right of an individual to defend self" with the "right of society to defend itself".
IMO the first is the older since it predates society and preexists our Constitution. The latter is an outgrowth of society.
Perhaps an imperfect hypothetical would be laws that acknowledge the individual right to self defense of a rancher in remote Wyoming with the social right to defend groups in the District of Colombia.
I purposefully chose two extremes as something like a worst case scenario.
Don't know the answer, really don't, but IMO a solution must satisfy both needs.
[font color = ff0000 size = 3]I considered posting this in GD under Skinner’s temporary amnesty but thought it would attract invective and ad hominem posts and not mature, dispassionate debate.[/font]
Social Security began as "social insurance" during the Great Depression and has morphed into
something some people depend upon as complete retirement support.
When "complete retirement support" is defined as the "poverty threshold" or more it makes debate challenging.
I was born before WWII at the end of the Great Depression.
I've watched Social Security grow from "social insurance" into "poverty threshold retirement".
I'm not sure the programs for funding Social Security have kept pace with that change.
Is govt obligated to protect citizens in groups like Sandy Hook’s School? We know govt is not
obligated to protect individuals unless they are in custody as SCOTUS said in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
That means that for individuals, self-defense is a personal responsibility.
Government requires students to attend school in government buildings in the custody of government employees.
Will parents of the murdered students bring a class law suit against the local school district et al?
If so will they win?
If they win, what are the implications?
Understand but if words on paper do not create a right, how can words on paper destroy that
right?
It's accepted that the BOR does not create rights, it simply recognizes rights that preexist our Constitution.
PA and VT stated in their constitutions:
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable/unalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Inalienable/unalienable rights could not have been given away when PA and VT citizens ratified our Constitution and later the Bill of Rights.
For PA and VT citizens, our Constitution obligates government to protect rights that preexist our Constitution and those rights are natural, inherent, and inalienable/unalienenable at least in those states.
Sorry I'm right, see CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.htmlMany people live in places where LEO response to a 911 call are more than 10 minutes away or perhaps
hours.
Even LEO recommend citizens in those areas arm themselves against criminals who wish to rob, rape, or commit other violent crimes.
On the other hand, when people group together as in a theater or school, they present an inviting target for anyone; mentally unstable, terrorist, et al; who wish to murder lots of people.
That's something IMO society has a right to defend.
That's the problem as I would define it.
A solution would enact laws that balance the "right of an individual to defend self" with the "right of society to defend itself", i.e. social groups.
IMO the first is the older since it predates society and the latter is an outgrowth of society.
Perhaps an imperfect hypothetical would be laws that acknowledge the individual right to self defense of a rancher in remote Wyoming with the social right to defend groups in the District of Colombia.
I purposefully chose two extremes as something like a worst case scenario.
Don't know the answer, really don't, but IMO a solution must satisfy both needs.
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHometown: AL & CA & GA
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 26,624
