A good person with a good gun can do wonderful things.
A crazy person with a crazy gun can do some very terrible, horrible things.
A solution requires that we balance the ability to do the wonderful things with the cost of the terrible, horrible things.
The NRA wants to insure the wonderful things at any cost of terrible, horrible things.
The Anti-Gun movement wants to limit the chances of any terrible, horrible things to the extent that it does away with all possibility of any of the wonderful things.
Military Style Weaponry--assault weapons, high capacity clips, automatic weapons, grenades, etc. have a significant place in this debate. They are involved in the majority of the terrible, horrible things while doing only one positive thing--a bulwark against tyranny. Unless used for that purpose, the weapons are crazy. You would have to be crazy to use one to hunt deer, to defend yourself (very unwieldy) or to shoot attackers in your home (hit more innocent neighbors than criminals, and cause more property damage than the property that would have been stolen).
The Crazy people are similar in that they. They do more of the terrible and almost none of the good. Outlawing the crazies from having guns runs into one problem--who do we define as crazy?
Personally I think its crazy to have any of the following own a gun--Incompetent, Criminal, or Insane. Your list may differ. We may not be able to list their stats, but we know them when we see them.
If we let the government control who can and can not have guns, and tyranny takes over the government then those who differ with the government will be listed as crazy and be forced to surrender our guns.
If we let the government control what guns we can have then if tyranny takes over the government we will be underpowered in our defense of freedom.
Ok, no matter what weapons we stockpile at home, we will always be underpowered in facing the US Government.
But the Constitution is written with the promise that armed revolution is allowed in extreme circumstances, and we should be prepared.
On the other hand letting any sociopath with a martyr complex the ability to kill kids until they are finally shot themselves is not working for us.
How about a free market solution involving a firewall between most of the gun owners and assault/military grade weaponry, and one given in the constitution.
I am referring to militias. Well, a new definition of militia.
The law would allow Assault Weapons, Semi-Automatic Weapons, and Large Magazine Clips to be purchased by any militia who can afford it.
How those weapons in the militia are dispersed to their members is the business of the Militia, not the government. However, the serial numbers, and perhaps ballistic patterns of their weapons must be on file.
Who are members of that militia is the business of that militia and not the government--except for three mandatory officers who must register with the state. Those three officers are the President, Treasurer, and Secretary of Arms. Yes, the government could round up those three members, but the rest of the members would be free and their guns would be well hidden for any necessary revolution.
These militias are subject to no rules or laws except as follows: If any of their weapons are used in any crime, the victims have the right to sue the militia for compensation.
If the militia does not have the money to pay the compensation, the government will close the militia and confiscate all weapons it owns--no matter who is housing them. They must be turned in or whoever carries one faces a $10,000 fine and 6 Months in prison.
So you join "Joe's Militia" to get your hands on an AK-47. They charge you a $500 fee that gets you a membership, a cute hat, and an AK-47 to store in your home. That militia is lax on their background checks and Tommy Two-gun also gets an AK-47. Tommy proceeds to shoot up a Starbucks because he thinks their terminology is a Venusian invasion plan. Starbucks, and his victim sues. Joe's Militia goes bankrupt and folds. You are told to turn in the AK you were holding or be in breach of the law. Next time you want to join a Militia to get your hands on a cool gun or two, you make sure they do good background checks.
If the weapons were reported stolen well before the crime, than that militia has no responsibility for the crime. On the other hand if a large percentage of their weapons are stolen, the state can close the militia or the victims can still sue the militia for incompetence in keeping their weapons safe.
Hence, what ever background checks, sanity evaluations, or technical training needed to safely have a weapon are the responsibility of the market buying the weapons. A firewall exists to stop government seizure of the weapons. Sales of the weapons will continue and probably increase as cross militia sales and trades are allowed. Gun shows with their loopholes will be replaced by Militia Meetings. Manufacturing and jobs would increase.
What could possibly be the problem with this?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The type of people to create and join a militia will fire upon a government coming to confiscate their weapons if they don't pay.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Personally I would rather have the 2nd Amendment amended again to exclude any mention of militias then to encourage groups of people getting tiny little private armies together where guns can be distributed to any member fully legally unless they are successfully sued, out of existence, so if the mini army has enough money to pay the victims, their gun stay legal, where as if they don't, the guns must be turned in or if the -next- time they are used they are illegal, because since the government doesn't know who has them, they can't even attempt to get them back.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You definition of militia has almost no real standing in US history outside of the crazy backwoods militias that the ATF and FBI are always cracking down on. Militias have always been organized and regulated by some form of government, although it's usually state, not federal, until the Militia Acts of the early 1900s that brought Militias under federal control before WWI and created the National Guard.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Personally I would rather have the 2nd Amendment amended again to exclude any mention of militias then to encourage groups of people getting tiny little private armies together where guns can be distributed to any member fully legally unless they are successfully sued, out of existence, so if the mini army has enough money to pay the victims, their gun stay legal, where as if they don't, the guns must be turned in or if the -next- time they are used they are illegal, because since the government doesn't know who has them, they can't even attempt to get them back.
I'd further amend the second amendment to remove the part after the mention of militias as well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You don't think it's important for citizens to retain the right to defend themselves?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and D_M the phrase in the title "assault gun" hurts my soul.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You don't think it's important for citizens to retain the right to defend themselves?
Why is this right predicated on gun ownership?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You don't think it's important for citizens to retain the right to defend themselves?
Sure I do. I just don't think a constitutional guarantee to own weapons of war is a necessary component of self-defense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf_, don't you think it is important for people to retain the right to defend themselves from tanks? Bombs? Jet fighters? Should individuals have the right to have those things, too?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Bureaucracy for its own sake?
A single "stolen" gun makes the whole point moot. And why is this any better than government mandated background checks? Kids can still steal dad's gun. Same problem. And don't most of these shooters have clean backgrounds / psych profiles? It's video games that does it too them, right?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You don't think it's important for citizens to retain the right to defend themselves?
Sure I do. I just don't think a constitutional guarantee to own weapons of war is a necessary component of self-defense.
So guns are weapons of war, yeah?
So... every weapon ever invented is a weapon of war, then, up to and including rocks and fists. I mean, they were used in wars sometime, right?
So self-defense is fine, as long as you don't use any weapons. Or fists. Maybe stern language... no, wait, wars have definitely used that, too. Shucks.
Seriously, the sentiment you, Tom, and Kate just expressed really baffles me. Tanks and jet fighters? What? This is so over-the-top it barely even qualifies as a straw man anymore.
Also, yeah, Darth, as Stone Wolf alluded to your initial statement in the beginning of this makes no real sense. Specifically:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Military Style Weaponry--assault weapons, high capacity clips, automatic weapons, grenades, etc. have a significant place in this debate. They are involved in the majority of the terrible, horrible things while doing only one positive thing--a bulwark against tyranny. Unless used for that purpose, the weapons are crazy. You would have to be crazy to use one to hunt deer, to defend yourself (very unwieldy) or to shoot attackers in your home (hit more innocent neighbors than criminals, and cause more property damage than the property that would have been stolen).
"Assault weapons" (i.e. semi-automatic rifles) are by far the most common hunting weapons and the best weapons for home defense, bar none. You're calling a basic common-sense fact "crazy" with no argument.
And if you just mean "semi-automatic weapons," as you mention lower down when you start talking about militias, then you're even wrong about personal self-defense, too. By many orders of magnitude the most common self-defense weapons are semi-automatic.
People who don't even take the time to understand the basic mechanics of guns really shouldn't make broad proclamations about guns.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you want to get caught up on language I suppose we can go round and round on this forever.
I haven't used the tanks and fighter jets argument because it depends entirely on what you and Stone Wolf mean by "defense." If you're trying to push that sad argument about being able to overthrow the government, then it becomes a useful point of discussion. If you're just talking a right, contingent on nothing in particular, just a basic right, to own a gun, then it's a pretty useless argument.
Though I will say that Justice Scalia has hinted he might be open to personal ownership of Stinger missiles since they could be construed as "arms" under the definition of a shoulder mounted weapon as he sees it in the Constitution. It's a pretty serious blurring of the lines.
I'm okay with some guns being bought and sold. I just can't fathom why we need a constitutional amendment to protect it. The original purpose of the amendment was to keep out a standing army. The framers were afraid of the power of a standing army, and felt that the best defense against it was an armed citizenry who could be called up for militia duty to supplement a very, very small professional force. That idea simply does not apply to the present day, and it hasn't really been applicable for at least 70 years. The amendment had nothing to do with hunting or personal defense from home invasion. And laws passed for the first 180 or so years after the amendment was ratified clearly had no problem with aggressive gun control.
How we got to where we are today on the discussion of guns is an incredibly bizarre story from a historical standpoint.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You don't think it's important for citizens to retain the right to defend themselves?
Why is this right predicated on gun ownership?
It's predicated on using whatever is necessary to defend themselves. That means guns.
quote: Military Style Weaponry--assault weapons, high capacity clips, automatic weapons, grenades, etc. have a significant place in this debate. They are involved in the majority of the terrible, horrible things while doing only one positive thing--a bulwark against tyranny.
The initial statement is actually pretty false. According to the National Crime Victimization Surveys (going back a good ways) 2% of all convicted criminals used a military style semi-automatic rifle in their crimes. 15% used a handgun. The same survey in 2008 determined that firearms were used in self defense slightly more than 300,000 times. This is also the lowest estimate of any survey investigating that statistic (Note that use of a gun in self defense does not mean "Shot the attacker" but could mean little more than just showing a firearm to an unarmed attacker). The survey also showed that of the criminals in prison who used firearms in crimes, 80% were obtained either from a friend or family member or through illegal means. It doesn't distinguish between arms obtained from family and friends or illegally obtained weapons. However, either method would effectively bypass any firearms registration laws.
The NCVS is conducted by federal agents and is potentially impacted by the fact that many individuals involved in the survey might have chosen not to incriminate themselves in front of a federal agent by admitting they held a firearm when they were not legally entitled to do so. I can't find any recent statistics beyond the NCVS, though. This is also a general survey of crime victims, and I can't determine if the survey only included victims of reported crimes or if it included a broad sample of the general populace. Detailed info here. Most of the data is fairly old and may not be applicable.
The Sandy Hook Shooting did not involve expanded Magazines. They would have made little difference in this event because a period of more than 25 minutes occurred before police arrived on scene. Reloading a weapon is pretty easy. Adam Lanza carried a lot of ammo with him.
Expanded magazines were used in Tucson, and they can be blamed for the high casualty rate, but if you've never reloaded a gun using pre-loaded magazines, it takes less than 10 seconds to do so. In fact, Jared Laughner was only stopped because he dropped the magazine he was reloading and was tackled as a result.
As to why anyone would "need" an expanded magazine, have you ever tried to stop a raging drug addict hopped up on something that keeps them from feeling pain? It's possible that it could take more than 10 bullets to keep someone like that from causing significant physical harm. How about an angry bear?
[ January 10, 2013, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't used the tanks and fighter jets argument because it depends entirely on what you and Stone Wolf mean by "defense." If you're trying to push that sad argument about being able to overthrow the government, then it becomes a useful point of discussion.
It isn't the Second Amendment that puts forth that overthrowing your government is a right...it's the Declaration of Independence (bolding mine).
quote: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I'm fairly certain that the Founding Fathers intended us to be -able- to throw off our government, an act which is imposable without firearms. Of course they had no way of knowing that weaponry would go the way it did, although they were not calling for each citizen to own a man of war or a brass cannon. But let's face it, for us to even potentially hold federal power in check we would require box fed, semi automatic weapons.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The only way you're going to overthrow the government is if two things happen A. The government decides to enact a great deal of restraint in suppressing resistance. B. Large numbers of the military defect to your side.
Without that, you're screwed. People like to point to the casualty counts in Afghanistan as an example of what a sturdy band of fighters with AKs can do against the US, but they tend to ignore that the casualty count on the OTHER side has a lot more zeroes after it, and that's with accuracy as pinpoint as we can often get it to try to reduce civilian casualties. If they take off the gloves, you really don't stand a chance, even with your semi-automatics.
The guys who wrote the Declaration put down at least three major armed rebellions in the first decade or two of the nation from guys who claimed they were just overthrowing government tyranny, so I'm not sure they'd really agree with you.
I'm sorry, but I think that's a pretty stupid argument. What criteria do you have for when a rebellion is and isn't acceptable? Is it YOUR criteria, or the Framers' criteria? What criteria did they use? Did they all agree? What level of oppression has to happen before you're allowed to fire the first shots?
There's no answer to any of those questions in part because the premise is ridiculous. The Founding Fathers intended for states to regulate militias of citizens to stop a standing army from ever coming about, because they were afraid a standing army would lead to tyranny. They did not intend what you're implying.
If you want to take the militia argument to its natural conclusion, then you could argue, with constitutional and historical fact behind you, that we should have the power to form state militias that should be armed with tanks and fighters, under local not federal control. In other words, we should denationalize the National Guard. I think that's a sensible argument. But it's about state control, not individual control.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, there are certain things we agree about: The likelihood of an armed rebellion having any traction what so ever is mostly dependent on the military factions willing to join them...and the sheer unlikelihood of the US military every been over thrown by anything short of the US military.
But to the rest, I'm not sure how you can question the founding father's intent considering the text I quoted above. Seems rather cut and dry.
As to the criteria it's a side issue of little importance. The question isn't why we should revolt, its did the founding fathers want us the people have the -ability- to do so, if need be. And again, I would say the answer is pretty obvious.
We are talking about why bearing arms is a right, why its in the bill of rights, why the founding fathers put it in there. I for one don't think it (the armed overthrow of the US government) is a real possibility or really desirable, but I don't question that that was their intent, and am a little surprised that someone of your scholarly pedigree would find it so ridiculous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From the US Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it...
I derive my information from the fact that every actual governing document created by the framers clearly stated that armed insurrection and rebellion was not only illegal, but the government was to be afforded special powers and privileges to engage and suppress them.
They also went out of there way on almost every occasion to suppress domestic insurrection, a la the Whiskey Rebellion, the Bonus Army, Shay's Rebellion and more in just the first couple decades alone.
When they actually got around to governing, they weren't at all condoning the idea that people should overthrow their government whenever they wanted to. And you'll note that a great many state governments put more specific protections in their constitutions that lock personal gun ownership much more concretely into militia service with far less ambiguity than the US Constitution does. State organized militias were the bulwark against tyranny, not roving bands of unorganized rabble. That leads to chaos. Keep in mind that there was only one thing the founding fathers were more scared of than tyrannical government - the masses. They were terrified of the people. It's why they invented the electoral college, so people couldn't directly vote for a president. It's why they made it so state legislatures voted for senators, because people couldn't be trusted. It's why so few people were enfranchised after the Constitution was passed.
Getting all your information from the Declaration of Independence, written by one guy, ratified by a couple dozen others in 1776, is just too thin. Most of those guys weren't even around when the Constitution was written. History is a lot longer than that.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: How we got to where we are today on the discussion of guns is an incredibly bizarre story from a historical standpoint.
Indeed. But then again, maybe not... To repeat a cliche: follow the money.
The thing is, at this point I think it would be a very bad idea to try and enforce a complete gun ban or even super strict regulation - the backlash could get ugly. But I think small steps can be reasonably agreed to by all sides if people are willing to come to the table.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What criteria do you have for when a rebellion is and isn't acceptable? Is it YOUR criteria, or the Framers' criteria? What criteria did they use? Did they all agree? What level of oppression has to happen before you're allowed to fire the first shots?
There's no answer to any of those questions in part because the premise is ridiculous. The Founding Fathers intended for states to regulate militias of citizens to stop a standing army from ever coming about, because they were afraid a standing army would lead to tyranny.
I'd like to also throw in here a point that I think gets lost in almost every political/law argument I see at least in the US: are the founding fathers so sacrosanct that we must base all our decisions on what they intended?
Sure, they developed and put into practice one of the best forms of government in human history, but they weren't gods, they weren't omniscient or infallible. They were smart enough, I think to realize that and built a base document that can be amended.
To question the amendments is not an unforgivable sin - it's an essential part of the process they developed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I personally don't subscribe to the Cult of the Founders.
I think understanding them and their ideas is important, but I don't think everything they came up with is holy writ. I think they came up with an amazing innovation of government, but not everything that was relevant in 1787 is relevant in 2013.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
I love how the OP is an attempt to find a middle ground solution with possibly the craziest idea that neither side would ever want. That's the spirit of compromise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Seriously, the sentiment you, Tom, and Kate just expressed really baffles me. Tanks and jet fighters? What? This is so over-the-top it barely even qualifies as a straw man anymore.
I was unclear. My point is that there are obviously some reasonable limits to our "right to defend ourselves" that most sane, responsible people find acceptable. It is not an absolute right and, like freedom of speech, is already subject to some limitation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I personally don't subscribe to the Cult of the Founders.
I think understanding them and their ideas is important, but I don't think everything they came up with is holy writ. I think they came up with an amazing innovation of government, but not everything that was relevant in 1787 is relevant in 2013.
Amen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Seriously, the sentiment you, Tom, and Kate just expressed really baffles me.
What sentiment did I express? I asked -- quite clearly, I thought -- why the "right to defend yourself" was predicated upon the specific right to own certain types of projectile weapons.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: The only way you're going to overthrow the government is if two things happen A. The government decides to enact a great deal of restraint in suppressing resistance. B. Large numbers of the military defect to your side.
A is less likely than B. B is actually more likely than you're probably willing to accept.
Much of the military is very dissatisfied with our government as it stands, and a significant portion would either choose to leave or outright refuse an order that would cause them to turn their guns on other Americans, even if they didn't choose to fight against the standing government. There's also the matter of the use of Federal military forces on American soil, which requires an act of congress to authorize. It would take a whole lot for something like that to make it through, given the political cost something like declaring war on American citizens would entail.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The only way you're going to overthrow the government is if two things happen A. The government decides to enact a great deal of restraint in suppressing resistance. B. Large numbers of the military defect to your side.
Just like in Syria? It's true that Assad hasn't used his chemical weapons, which I suppose is 'restraint' in some sense. But he certainly does use tanks, aircraft, and heavy artillery. Hasn't seemed to help him a lot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: The only way you're going to overthrow the government is if two things happen A. The government decides to enact a great deal of restraint in suppressing resistance. B. Large numbers of the military defect to your side.
A is less likely than B. B is actually more likely than you're probably willing to accept.
Much of the military is very dissatisfied with our government as it stands, and a significant portion would either choose to leave or outright refuse an order that would cause them to turn their guns on other Americans, even if they didn't choose to fight against the standing government. There's also the matter of the use of Federal military forces on American soil, which requires an act of congress to authorize. It would take a whole lot for something like that to make it through, given the political cost something like declaring war on American citizens would entail.
I'm actually both perfectly willing to accept and perfectly able to see a strong likelihood of some form of B. But I think you're underplaying how powerful an escalation of violence can be.
Occupy Wall Street and its affiliated protest movements were basically squatters, and in some cases were put down with extreme prejudice by local law enforcement. Maybe that's just because cops don't like anything liberal or that looks like hippies, but it's a precedent for the use of force. If protest movements start, the military will be the LAST force used to stop them. It will start with local law enforcement, then probably with governors calling out the National Guard. Maybe there will be spot forces of ATF or FBI assault teams for small holdouts here and there. There are many, many levels of government forces that can be brought to bear on a variety of situations. Using regular US military forces like the army would be a measure of last resort, and if things are really that wildly out of control, I don't think you can assume even a dissatisfied military is going to automatically side with the rebels. It depends entirely on what the impetus is, and what the current situation is.
If it's bullshit like "Obama is taking our freedoms!" then my guess is most of them aren't going to join the revolution. If a president actually does something dramatic that oversteps the Constitution in a particularly heinous way, or Congress passes a law that curtails freedoms in an egregious way, then sure, I honestly wouldn't be surprised, and it would necessarily even bother me depending on how it was done. But there's a big difference between upholding the Constitution and taking your ball and going home because you don't like the results of the game.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The only way you're going to overthrow the government is if two things happen A. The government decides to enact a great deal of restraint in suppressing resistance. B. Large numbers of the military defect to your side.
Just like in Syria? It's true that Assad hasn't used his chemical weapons, which I suppose is 'restraint' in some sense. But he certainly does use tanks, aircraft, and heavy artillery. Hasn't seemed to help him a lot.
Help him with what? Your comparison is somewhat unclear.
You mean it hasn't helped him crush the rebels? It's not surprising given even heavily militarized Syria is far less powerful with fewer more outdated resources than the United States has. He's also facing rebels even more heavily armed than what regular US citizens would be at the outset, so it's really not surprising. It's a genuine civil war, where the non-governmental forces are pretty well armed, vs. an insurrection of ill-armed rabble.
[ January 11, 2013, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Seriously, the sentiment you, Tom, and Kate just expressed really baffles me.
What sentiment did I express? I asked -- quite clearly, I thought -- why the "right to defend yourself" was predicated upon the specific right to own certain types of projectile weapons.
Why wouldn't it be? It's a form of self defense. A very important one, in fact.
That's like saying "Why is the right to free speech predicated on the specific right to write your thoughts down?"
And there may be some limitations on written free speech (as there are many limitations on ownership of projectile weapons)... but I think anyone seriously suggesting that a right to free speech ought to categorically not include the written word would be laughed out of the room.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Lyr,
Interesting point, that nothing beyond the Declaration of Independence suggests that revolt is a right. I also don't subscribe to the "Cult of the Founders" as even had they planned out the entire course of our nation, no one is clairvoyant enough to see 240 or so years into the future. My point is still valid I feel that while the government of the founders is against revolt against themselves, they had just revolted against their rightful government, and were only able to do so because they were armed. I also feel that the DoI (Declaration of Independence) is clear that armed revolt wasn't their first option, that it is an option of last resort, and that it should be the last stop along a long road. It makes perfect sense to me that the founders gave us the right to bear arms, that this country which was born of strife and struggle should remain at its heart one able to defend itself, one able to keep and hold the ultimate reigns of power by its citizenry.
And while I understand that firearms seem very anachronistic in a modern, civilized society, it is I believe an important right to maintain. We do not need guns on a day to day basis, we are not the frontier nation we recently were, expanding into hostile territory, needful of a way to defend ourselves against native populations, aggressive wild life or to support ourselves through hunting. But the civilization which holds up our ways of life is very fragile, and if we abandon our "gun culture" we place the safety and future of people into the hand of those who are willing to keep the reigns of power intact, be they foreign or domestic, be they hostile or helpful.
In another thread Samp called into question the fragility of civilization. Personally I don't understand that bafflement, as history has shown that all civilizations suffer from temporary lapses, be it from natural disasters, riots, wars, etc, and eventually crumble (usually quite violently) permanently. Even if my guns are never used to defend my family (I sure hope) and get passed to my son, and his children after him, and so on, my line will have the ability to protect itself when one of these lapses in civility come a knocking.
At the risk of a cliche, if you want to live in peace, prepare for war.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Seriously, the sentiment you, Tom, and Kate just expressed really baffles me.
What sentiment did I express? I asked -- quite clearly, I thought -- why the "right to defend yourself" was predicated upon the specific right to own certain types of projectile weapons.
Why wouldn't it be? It's a form of self defense.
Fire arms are the primary form of self defense.
If we had access to phasers, which we could set to permanent stun then we could ban guns forever! We do not. So until that point, guns = self defense as far as rights go.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do you find it at all problematic that your primary means of self-defense actually raises the level of danger?
As for your post, yes, I see your point, but you're putting forth an argument not espoused by the founders. You're trying to mix bits of Framer speak with modern personal rationalizations to form your own personal justification for gun rights. But I also think you're sort of misapplying history as well. We currently live in the most stable period history has ever known.
But this also takes us away from a fundamental point: Very, very few people openly advocate taking ALL the guns away. I'm certainly not one of those people. I just don't think A. That it should be a constitutional right, and B. That the Second Amendment was never intended for that kind of right, and B-Corollary. That if it was intended for something along those lines, it was meant not as a personal/individual right, but as an organized group right, which is a very different thing.
I think this conversation tends to get hung up on extremes. If no one is actually advocating we take all the guns away, why continue to profess that we need to keep the guns? The discussion is about which guns and safeguards against particularly dangerous kinds of gun ownership.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you find it at all problematic that your primary means of self-defense actually raises the level of danger?
The level of danger has already risen.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think this conversation tends to get hung up on extremes. If no one is actually advocating we take all the guns away, why continue to profess that we need to keep the guns? The discussion is about which guns and safeguards against particularly dangerous kinds of gun ownership.
Is it?
Darth made some assertions in that discussion. I criticized his ideas about which guns, and what kinds of gun ownership are actually dangerous, and you said I was just getting caught up on language.
The most ardent anti-gun posters don't seem to be coming forth with any reasonable positions on the matters you're suggesting here, Lyr. Banning semi-automatic weapons is ridiculous and impossible, as much so as banning guns altogether. Because it basically is banning guns altogether.
The "language" is not trivial when it's the criteria for what's banned and what isn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Yes it has. An increase in gun violence has closely tracked with the increased prevalence of guns and with newer deadlier guns.
As far as my "language" comment, I should have been more specific. I wasn't commenting on your discussion with Darth, I was referring to your semantic twisting of "weapons of war."
But again, the semi-automatics debate isn't one you're having with me, because I don't necessarily believe they should all be banned. The discussion Stone Wolf and I were having veered off into historical/philosophical territory and somehow seemed to change into a discussion on an all or nothing prospect regarding all guns. I was trying to steer it back to a more helpful, pragmatic place.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Yes it has. An increase in gun violence has closely tracked with the increased prevalence of guns and with newer deadlier guns.
As far as my "language" comment, I should have been more specific. I wasn't commenting on your discussion with Darth, I was referring to your semantic twisting of "weapons of war."
Gotcha.
I thought you were calling basically all guns "weapons of war," so I thought the semantic twisting had already been done (by you) and I was just taking it to the next logical step. Which seemed very relevant.
If you didn't mean it that way, though, then I can see why you'd think I was the one making a leap.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But again, the semi-automatics debate isn't one you're having with me, because I don't necessarily believe they should all be banned. The discussion Stone Wolf and I were having veered off into historical/philosophical territory and somehow seemed to change into a discussion on an all or nothing prospect regarding all guns. I was trying to steer it back to a more helpful, pragmatic place.
Ah, I see. My mistake.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Might the historic ease with which guns can be obtained have anything to do with this already-risen level of violence? If so, what's the plan? Continue with the same general path that got us to this risen level of danger, since going a different way wouldn't account for this risen danger, which...well. You get the idea. Sounds a bit like the trillion dollar coin idea. A nice end run around the problem without taking meaningful steps to address how we got there.
And as Lyrhawn has said, guns are *not* just a simple benefit, open and shut. Absolutely, owning a gun might be useful in the event of tyranny or civil unrest or general breakdowns of civilization. The question is, what level of risk are we willing to tolerate to insure us against that sort of event?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Might the historic ease with which guns can be obtained have anything to do with this already-risen level of violence?
Wait, what?
Violence is down, man. What are you talking about?
I was referring to the fact that Lyr said owning a gun "raises the level of danger." But guns exist. So that level of danger is already risen, since other people can own them.
Violence and homicide are on the decline, though. So... not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I thought you were calling basically all guns "weapons of war," so I thought the semantic twisting had already been done (by you) and I was just taking it to the next logical step. Which seemed very relevant.
If you didn't mean it that way, though, then I can see why you'd think I was the one making a leap.
I'm open to new information changing my mind on this topic. Clearly, all guns COULD be used in a war, in much the same way that you take it further by saying that potentially any object could be made into a weapon, employed in a war, and thus be called a weapon of war. That was a fair thing for you to say given what you thought I was saying.
But I make a distinction between weapons designed for the quick and efficient killing of large numbers of living things, and others.
I wouldn't consider a six-round revolver a weapon or war, or a musket in today's world, or probably a shotgun. I don't have an extensive, specific list for you at the moment, I'd have to apply my criteria to each individual gun or accessory, but I do think there is a distinction to be made. And I think currently there are many, many weapons available for sale that fit into the category of "weapon of war." I think there would be many, many weapons left available for purchase even after all weapons of war were taken off the market that would enable you to protect your house while dramatically lowering gun deaths.
My opposition to a total ban on guns comes from my belief that, while probably a good idea, it would be effectively impossible to recover every weapon in the country. It worked in Australia, where they never had nearly as many guns as we do, but in America? It's probably impossible. So as long as we have to deal with guns, let's try to ratchet down the body count and increase safety protocols.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Might the historic ease with which guns can be obtained have anything to do with this already-risen level of violence?
Wait, what?
Violence is down, man. What are you talking about?
I was referring to the fact that Lyr said owning a gun "raises the level of danger." But guns exist. So that level of danger is already risen, since other people can own them.
Violence and homicide are on the decline, though. So... not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
I was referring specifically to the danger of gun violence.
Anyway, just to be clear-you're not attributing the general downward trend in violence to America's rather large number of guns, are you? I doubt you are, and in any event there are many better possibilities (particularly generations of, on the whole, a steadily improving economy).
As for guns, though, is it really a genie bottle situation? Once the danger has risen, we're doomed to the cycle forever? If one finds one's self in a bad situation, shouldn't the first approach be to consider a change?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Might the historic ease with which guns can be obtained have anything to do with this already-risen level of violence?
Wait, what?
Violence is down, man. What are you talking about?
I was referring to the fact that Lyr said owning a gun "raises the level of danger." But guns exist. So that level of danger is already risen, since other people can own them.
Violence and homicide are on the decline, though. So... not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
You're right. Overall violent crime in the nation has been in decline since the 90s.
But studies still show that guns make for deadlier crimes, not in the way you'd probably assume. There are more murders in states with Stand Your Ground laws, in part because people resort to guns to resolve disputes when they likely would not do so without the protection SYG laws provide. In other words, if people knew they might go to jail for shooting someone in a given situation, they might not shoot them. The belief that only criminals do bad things is wrong. Regular people will do bad things if the law doesn't restrict them from doing so.
A study came out recently that found people who carried guns for self-defense were far more likely than unarmed people to be hurt or killed in a gun crime.
In other words, having a gun often doesn't give you security. It gives you a false sense of security.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Might the historic ease with which guns can be obtained have anything to do with this already-risen level of violence?
Wait, what?
Violence is down, man. What are you talking about?
I was referring to the fact that Lyr said owning a gun "raises the level of danger." But guns exist. So that level of danger is already risen, since other people can own them.
Violence and homicide are on the decline, though. So... not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
I was referring specifically to the danger of gun violence.
Anyway, just to be clear-you're not attributing the general downward trend in violence to America's rather large number of guns, are you? I doubt you are, and in any event there are many better possibilities (particularly generations of, on the whole, a steadily improving economy).
As for guns, though, is it really a genie bottle situation? Once the danger has risen, we're doomed to the cycle forever? If one finds one's self in a bad situation, shouldn't the first approach be to consider a change?
Nope, not attributing the downturn in violence to anything at all, actually. I've already explained in the other thread why I think people who try to attribute causes to statistical trends like that are usually bullshitting. Whether they're using it for or against guns makes no difference.
On the genie-bottle comments... I don't think that the existence of guns makes for a bad situation, inherently. The existence of guns is a net positive, I think. The existence of guns, and weapons like them, make society better in a tangible way.
I say that because I think a society where the strong win and the weak perish is much worse than a society where the mind rules and physical strength is not the most important attribute. With guns, a weak and largely untrained person can reliably defend him or herself from a larger, better trained attacker. If we go back to swords and bows, that's a worse situation.
Like everything else that separates us from the Dark Ages, guns are an improvement to society, not a detriment.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The level of danger has already risen.
Might the historic ease with which guns can be obtained have anything to do with this already-risen level of violence?
Wait, what?
Violence is down, man. What are you talking about?
I was referring to the fact that Lyr said owning a gun "raises the level of danger." But guns exist. So that level of danger is already risen, since other people can own them.
Violence and homicide are on the decline, though. So... not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
You're right. Overall violent crime in the nation has been in decline since the 90s.
But studies still show that guns make for deadlier crimes, not in the way you'd probably assume. There are more murders in states with Stand Your Ground laws, in part because people resort to guns to resolve disputes when they likely would not do so without the protection SYG laws provide. In other words, if people knew they might go to jail for shooting someone in a given situation, they might not shoot them. The belief that only criminals do bad things is wrong. Regular people will do bad things if the law doesn't restrict them from doing so.
Are these actually more murders in SYG states? Because the scenario you described above makes it sound like they were gun killings, but not considered murder under SYG. Which was it?
If it was just more gun deaths, I'm not remotely surprised. Because if you might face a murder rap for shooting a guy trying to mug you at knife-point, you'll give up your wallet instead. But if you have the right to defend yourself, maybe you'll be more willing to. Is that bad?
You've provided no argument that these increased increased deaths are actually good people doing bad things at all. Why do you think that's what this is?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A study came out recently that found people who carried guns for self-defense were far more likely than unarmed people to be hurt or killed in a gun crime.
In other words, having a gun often doesn't give you security. It gives you a false sense of security.
Just for fun, can you think of any other explanation for that study? One that doesn't support the conclusion you prefer? If not, I can give you the one that occurred to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Like everything else that separates us from the Dark Ages, guns are an improvement to society, not a detriment.
Dan, I'm going to start linking to you when I need an example of a technoutopian in other conversations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Technology is pretty amazing, but I still rankle at the "utopian" part of that label. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dan -
In your hypothetical, not necessarily. But there are many incidents where bar room brawls and sheer menacing behavior, a la Treyvon Martin, is resulting in gun deaths, which any objective outsider would probably classify as a murder rather than a justifiable homicide, because "I was scared" isn't a good enough reason to kill someone. There are some cases where the SYG defense has failed when applied in these situations, and almost every case is where someone says "I felt like my life was threatened," and the jury said "no it wasn't."
The premise of SYG isn't when you shoot someone in the middle of a crime at knife point. Justifiable homicide already covers that in I would imagine ever state. SYG is where you could have simply ran away or otherwise de-escalated an incident if you chose to, but instead of that, or allowing the police to handle it, decided to escalate and engage instead.
If you want examples, Google it, they're readily available. But that's why I'm led to believe that these laws don't protect people so much as they make murder legally available so long as you can prove a vague threatening incident to a jury.
quote:Just for fun, can you think of any other explanation for that study? One that doesn't support the conclusion you prefer? If not, I can give you the one that occurred to me
I haven't drawn a conclusion. I've merely pointed out a correlation. If you'd like to provide one though, feel free.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The first one that occurred to me was: many people who concealed carry may already be in demographics more likely to be involved in a shooting. That's often why they carry.
I wonder how the study controlled for this. Honestly, I doubt it bothered to address this factor at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The first one that occurred to me was: many people who concealed carry may already be in demographics more likely to be involved in a shooting. That's often why they carry.
I wonder how the study controlled for this. Honestly, I doubt it bothered to address this factor at all.
That's an interesting point. It would take a greater level of detail beyond mere statistics gathering to find out exactly what happened in each individual case, though I wonder if your argument would change at all if you found out many or most of them were injured or killed either because the bad guy stole their weapon from them, or because they escalated an otherwise non-deadly situation into a deadly situation by trying to play shoot-em up with a criminal.
A lot of that is probably unknowable, but I'll keep the idea in mind in the future.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I'd like to see the actual study, personally, cause I doubt it's results based on the numbers I see from 2011. California, for instance, has no SYG law, but does have law that follows the Castle Doctrine (almost all states have some form of Castle Doctrine, but about a dozen have additional protections that allow self-defense beyond the home).
California also has the highest number of firearm homicides in the nation, with the 17th highest firearm homicide rate. In fact, of the top 10 states with the highest firearm homicide rate, only half have SYG laws. Granted, the lowest 10 states for firearm homicide rate have no SYG laws, though New Hampshire just passed one in 2011. Statistics for 2012 aren't available yet. Admittedly, though, this doesn't account for injuries. As I mentioned earlier, it isn't specifically necessary for a weapon to be fired for it to be used in self defense. Actual statistics on self-defense usage of firearms would be nearly impossible to discover primarily because the bulk of those incidents are likely unreported.
I never take the word of people who perform studies. I like to look at the actual data they used to reach their conclusions, because there are usually more answers there than in what is said about the study.
ETA: The District of Columbia has the highest firearm fatality rate in the US and has no SYG statute. DC also has no specific Castle Doctrine statute.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There are a number of studies linked to in this story. The specific one I was referring to earlier was from the University of Pennsylvania if you want to try to find the raw data.
Edit to add: I think this is the UPENN study that's been talked about a lot recently. It actually does take into account things like socioeconomic status, location, prevalence of violence in the area, etc. It's an interesting read that is also very aware of the limitations and problems inherent with any study like this.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Here's an interesting rebuttal to the Philadelphia study here from the same journal. Makes some good points as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If the water is so murky, is it then safe to say that SYG was/is not, in fact, such a pressing need to be passed where it has not, or such a powerfully vital protection where it has?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you find it at all problematic that your primary means of self-defense actually raises the level of danger?
I taught other people gun safety professionally, so I'm not "a national average statistic", so I in no way accept that my danger level is raised. Nor that it has to be that way.
We need to make gun safety a larger component of our gun culture, make mandatory safe handling testing a part of gun ownership, make mandatory safe storage a part of our laws.
The concept that guns are more dangerous to their owners then potentially helpful is one that pains me, as it is entirely unnecessary, it is damn shame (as in we should be ashamed) and more over an utter failure of groups like the NRA who oppose all legislation which might improve the safety if they are even a small and reasonable restriction of "gun rights".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That if it was intended for something along those lines, it was meant not as a personal/individual right, but as an organized group right, which is a very different thing.
I'm not sure why you think this, given that militias were not given the right to bear arms, the people were, clear and simple.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: That if it was intended for something along those lines, it was meant not as a personal/individual right, but as an organized group right, which is a very different thing.
I'm not sure why you think this, given that militias were not given the right to bear arms, the people were, clear and simple.
You're right, it IS clear and simple. The amendment says the words "militia" and "regulated" right there in the text. The militia ARE the people.
But I love it when people ignore all the words they don't like.
As for why I think that, it's because the Founders told me so.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Come on, Lyr, you're a historian. I'm sure you're familiar with the interpretation that "the people" has a specific meaning in the Constitution, and all such references share that common meaning. It's a pretty common interpretation.
And by that interpretation, what he said is perfectly accurate, and doesn't require ignoring words. "Militia" and "the people" being two distinct and listed entities.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How difficult would it to have been to write the Second Amendment like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in said Militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But it isn't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That is because the idea of a standing militia would have been anathema.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
They could sit or lie down.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm going to re-post something I wrote for Hatrack a few years ago because it bears repeating, and because we've dipped into the Framers/Founders argument quite a bit here. While I don't think everything they thought is pure gold, I think it's important to know exactly what they were thinking with regards to the Second Amendment, and why modern interpretations completely distort their original intent into something completely different.
As a sort of pseudo essay post, my thesis is this: The second amendment was written for the sole purpose of ensuring the arming of militias, and was never intended to be a universal individual right to own a gun. I will say that I can see a middle ground between the insurrection argument and mine. It comes down to semantics, I think. Militias were viewed at the time as the people’s way of keeping the government in check. They were against standing armies, and thought they were pathways and playthings for governments on their way to corruption and tyranny, and thought that if the power was vested in the people’s army, a militia, then the government would never be able to overcome them. So in effect, keeping the guns with the people, organized in a militia, could be considered a way for the people to ‘rebel’ if the government gets out of hand. But this action would only be taken if the government actually called out the army for use on civilian soil, violating what soon became the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (passed to make sure a "Reconstruction" style military act never happened again) and also the spirit of the Insurrection Act of 1807. Militia service was designed to repel military aggression from the government should it ever come. Lots of people think it means you should march on Washington when you don't like what Congress is doing. That's precisely what the Framers feared, not wanted.
Granted I don’t think home state loyalty is what it was in the 1860’s, there’s very few who would say their loyalty to Virginia is higher than that to the US, though I suppose it would have to depend on the circumstances. The militias themselves, that are mentioned in the multiple state constitutions and in the previous versions of the second amendment were there specifically for defense of the states (individually and together), against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections. They weren’t created as an instrument of insurrection, but as a prevention and defense mechanism.
Anyway, the history of the amendment can be traced back to England. The English Declaration of Rights gave Protestants (no dice for Catholics and Jews) the right to “have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law” (English Declaration of Rights) At the early stages of the Revolution, the British tried to take away the guns of the militias in an effort to quash the ability of the Americans to stage a real revolt. Colonists tried to cite the above stated passage, and parts of Common Law as reason to keep their weapons, that they be allowed to have them for hunting, self defense, militia obligations, etc.
Their real fear was a standing army. Standing armies were to them the ultimate tool that a president (or king) could use to revoke the civil rights and liberties of the people. Jefferson, writing to John Adams while they were in Europe (Paris and London respectively) said of the Presidency: “He may be reelected from four years to for years for life…Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union…he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him.” (From The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson & Abigail & John Adams edited by Lester J. Cappon). At the start of the United States of America (post Articles of Confederation), there were less than a 1,000 men in the Federal Army (John Adams by David McCullough). They believed that militias were the best form of defense against foreign enemies and domestic insurrections, such as the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay’s Rebellion, though it’s also true that Shay’s Rebellion is a probably the best representation of why the looser Articles of Confederation weren’t strong enough to deal with threats to the nation.
On the subject of militias vs. a standing army, James Madison had this to say (From Federalist No. 46).
quote: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
The ongoing French Revolution scared the hell out of a lot of people too. John Adams, while remarking on the debate around the second amendment had this to say:
quote: The State is in critical Circumstances, and have been brought into them by the Heat and Impatience of the People. If nothing will bring them to consideration, I fear they will suffer
His fear was that if the people were armed, and dissatisfied with their government, they’d take up arms and let mob rule supplant the government, to the ruin of all. Something along the lines of the decline that followed in Russia after the Revolution killed off the Romanoffs. Remember that the Bill of Rights was being debated and voted on in the early days of the French Revolution, an ongoing event that utterly terrified the Framers who were already afraid of the vicissitudes of the common man.
Alexander Hamilton, speaking on the subject of militias in Federalist No. 29 had this to say:
quote: The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy … This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
What he and the others are saying, is similar to what others on this board were saying, that an armed populace is the an ultimate defense against a tyrannical government, but that isn’t the same thing as saying the second amendment was forged for the purpose of the people retaining the right to insurrection at will. On the contrary, it was designed so that standing armies, being the most obvious threat to liberty and civil rights at the time, would be rendered unnecessary except in times of war, and that militias would always outnumber them and could always overpower them at any given time, for the defense of liberty, and of the state, against domestic insurrection and foreign invasion. The idea was that if the federal government did become out of control, and used military force against the people, the states would use the power of their domestic militia to overpower the Federal Army and restore Constitutional law. I think there is an emphasis on the collective rights of people to keep and bear arms, as a militia, rather than the individual right of a person to. In other words, your second amendment right is contingent upon militia service, to be regulated by states. This is anachronistic, since we don't really do it this way anymore, but that was the intent.
If you look at earlier versions of the second amendment, the material being played with had entirely to do with military service to a militia:
quote: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. … A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. … A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The words “necessary to” were added before the final version, “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.” was submitted to the states for approval. I think it should be especially noted, that a measure was put forth in the Senate and the House to add the words “for the common defense” after “bear arms” but was defeated narrowly. Much of this had to do with compromise, but clearly the thought of the time was that the defense of the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic was best held in the hands of a regulated militia.
Forty-Four states have a right to bear arms in their state Constitutions, around 28 of those states specifically include the provision that the right to bear arms is for the common defense of the state, or similar language. And considering the importance of context, the majority of them are constitutions passed earlier rather than later in history, which suggests it was recognized by all that the second amendment was intended for militia service alone.
quote: Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence … Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796) … Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Several states sent requests for a Bill of Rights, and that they include the following amendments:
quote: New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion. … Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. … New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power. … North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms." … Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
The North Carolina Declaration of Rights (12/18/1776) states:
quote:“The people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Pennsylvania and Vermont wrote an almost identical provision in their Declaration.
Another interesting conversation to be had, as an aside from this one would be the Militia Act of 1903. It was the act that turned what had once been citizen militias into what is today the National Guard, which functions as a highly trained offshoot of the regular army. That did away with citizen militias, which theoretically I think anyway, is a violation of the spirit of the second amendment and the Constitution, but apparently doesn’t violate the letter of the law. I’m more a fan of something akin to the (not outdated, I believe) Swiss system, which is I think what the framers intended us to have, a well-regulated, trained force of citizens who could be called up to defend the state with a medium amount of training, which would also serve as a bulwark against a standing army’s threat to personal liberty.
Early American common usage of “to bear arms” had a decidedly military bent to it.
quote:“The Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight". This study casts doubt on the modern definition of 'bear arms' to mean 'carry firearms'. In Amyette v. The State the court stated in 1840 that bear arms "has a military sense, and no other."
There's still more to the story than this, this is just a collection of some sources I could pull together in a couple hours of looking online, but it lays out the argument in its historical context. The Framers had just finished fighting a war where a standing army was a powerful threat to their liberty, and was defeated by citizen soldiers. They thought the common law protections of rights to bear arms were not strong enough, and wanted them codified more concretely to make sure they could have militias strong enough to stand up against the federal government should it ever come to that. Stat constitutions written at the country's founding back that up, as does the internal debate in 1789.
There's also another aspect to this that I haven't touched on much, and that's Supreme Court findings. The most recent couple of cases on guns in the last ten years overturned 200 years of case law. Historically, the Supreme Court agreed that the second amendment dealt with militia service, that gun control laws were perfectly acceptable, and that it was not an individual right. What we've seen recently is a dramatic shift in understanding on what the amendment means.
There are two great resources some might enjoy on the history of the second amendment:
The Avalon Project is a resource about colonial charters and founding documents for the state governments where you can tease out some information.
But the really helpful link of second amendment sources is from the UCLA Law website. It has a large number of references and documents that provide a primary source historical understanding of the second amendment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for putting all of that together, Lyrhawn.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Seconded.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It almost sounds like you're saying that the Founders never saw even *one* Western movie, where everyone everywhere could be relied upon to be carrying a firearm!
Thanks as others have said for all of that. One of the (many, many) funny American notions about What the Founders Thought to me is the idea that they wanted all people (well, white men) to have firearms for any reason or no reason, or shades of that. It's funny to me because of just how far trust in the people actually went among the Founders-that is, not nearly as far as has been made out
ETA Well, it was worth a shot, Lyrhawn.
[ January 13, 2013, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While I feel you made persuasive argument for why the founders gave us the right own weapons, I must disagree that they did not intend for citizens to have an individual right to own guns.
quote:Problem is, as Washington himself knew from the beginning of the conflict, militia was undependable, poorly trained, and generally ineffective on the field of battle. They came armed with civilian weapons ranging from fine rifles to cheap trade muskets to fowling pieces—known today as shotguns. Within each of these categories of arms, there were differences among individual weapons. A unit equipped with almost as many different kinds of arms as soldiers could not load and rapidly fire volleys in unison.
In many of the colonies, militia laws specified a few days of annual training. Selection of militia officers was more often based on social status and charisma than on military experience and skill, and the colonies frequently were reluctant to send their militia units outside their borders. Militia units were notorious for leaving camp to tend to their lives as farmers or tradesmen. One militia unit apparently left the field immediately before the October 7, 1777, struggle at Saratoga. At Camden, South Carolina, August 16, 1780, the bulk of American forces was militia. British regulars charged the colonials with bayonets fixed, and the militiamen panicked, many dropping their loaded arms, never having fired a shot in one of the most decisive American defeats of the war.
Washington called the militia “a broken staff” and consistently pressed the Continental Congress to authorize the recruitment of regular troops. These recruits became the Continental Army with which he prosecuted the Revolution. He worried that militiamen possessed “an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes” and that “shameful and scandalous desertions” might harm the morale of the regulars.
The militia brought their own guns. So, yes, the reason Americans were given the right to own guns was so we could defend ourselves, our families, our homes, our towns, our cities, our states, but the right to own and bear arms is an individual right, and always was.
It isn't like the national guard where you show up empty handed and are issued a weapon while serving, which you leave behind when you go home.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Your quoted section is a very good reason why the Founders passed laws soon after the Constitution was passed mandating training, and why armories were some of the first things they built so the militia would have better weapons. They knew the pitfalls from the war, and wanted to correct them, and it worked out for the first 70 years or so, but things started to change pretty seriously after the Civil War, and then more seriously than that after the launch of the Great White Fleet.
But regardless, gun ownership was clearly contingent on militia service. If you want to get into the specifics of what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" means in the context of 1789, you might be surprised that it doesn't mean what you think it does. As I noted above, "bear arms" means to engage in military service. "keep" doesn't necessarily mean "own." In other words, a plain text reading of the amendment could absolutely mean, like the Swiss used to do, that you could be issued a rifle never to be used unless called upon for military service in a militia. Given what the original intent of the amendment was, this seems a perfectly reasonable way to interpret the words as written.
It's also how the Supreme Court understood the amendment for 200 years. The theory you're putting forward is only a few decades old.
quote:It isn't like the national guard where you show up empty handed and are issued a weapon while serving, which you leave behind when you go home.
Because the concept your describing here didn't exist in 1789.
quote:is an individual right, and always was.
What do you mean when you say "always was"? To what time are you referring? Before the amendment? Or are you simply backdating your theory to the passing of the amendment itself?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: It's also how the Supreme Court understood the amendment for 200 years
Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you mean that the Supreme court understood the second amendment to mean that ownership of arms was a right of the militia? If so, I'd be interested in which supreme court cases you could cite to support this claim, since I'm not really willing to accept that just because you said so.
The Supreme Court has treated the second amendment as two separate provisions in every case it has heard that's really even close to related to the second amendment, and the standard model, which has existed since 1820, views ownership of arms as an individual right.
[ January 14, 2013, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But regardless, gun ownership was clearly contingent on militia service.
So, you are saying that if you were not a militia member, you couldn't own a gun, right? Because I don't believe that is even remotely true. Perhaps I am not understanding you...but if I am, do you have any evidence to this claim?
quote:If you want to get into the specifics of what the phrase "to keep and bear arms" means in the context of 1789, you might be surprised that it doesn't mean what you think it does. As I noted above, "bear arms" means to engage in military service. "keep" doesn't necessarily mean "own."
Here is some good evidence to the contrary.
quote:THE ENGLISH RIGHT TO HAVE AND USE ARMS BELONGED TO INDIVIDUALS BROADLY, REGARDLESS OF MILITIA SERVICE, AND PARTICULARLY PROTECTED THEIR “KEEPING” OF GUNS FOR SELFDEFENSE. The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right. It could not have been a federalism provision, and none of them conditioned it on militia service—depredations by the king’s militia having provided one reason for it. Pre-existing restrictions fell away as the right developed after 1689, such that by the Second Amendment’s adoption Americans had inherited a broadly applicable and robust individual right that had been settled for at least fifty years. This right of course had limits, but they did not intrude on the core right to keep firearms to defend home and family: They confirmed it. A. The English Right was, by Well Before the Founding, a Broadly Applicable Right of Individuals, not Depending on Militia Service. 1. The right to arms was declared in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, part of England’s Glorious Revolution. A “Convention” Parliament adopted the Declaration; William and Mary accepted it before Parliament proclaimed them King and Queen; and the ensuing regular Parliament enacted it as the Bill 5 of Rights. William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries *128, *211-16 (“Blackstone”).2 The Declaration presented twelve indictments against King James II (Mary’s father), including for having “caus[ed] several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law.” Then, in a parallel list of thirteen articles, it stated: “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.” 1 W. & M., Sess. 2, c.2, § 1 (1689). This article set out a personal right. See Lois G. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, at 283 (1981) (recognizing that many articles “guaranteed rights to the individual,” including the right “to bear arms (under certain restrictions)”). Neither the article nor the indictment tied having arms to militia service, which the Declaration nowhere mentioned. Rather, being “armed” and “employed” were distinct. Furthermore, the right belonged to “Subjects,” allowed arms “for their Defence”; indeed, Parliament adopted such language in lieu of the House of Commons’ drafts referring to “their common Defence,” see G&V at 58-59.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was widely based on English law, and even predating our lovely republic, the right to own firearms known as "keep and bear arms" did not mean military service.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:It isn't like the national guard where you show up empty handed and are issued a weapon while serving, which you leave behind when you go home.
Because the concept your describing here didn't exist in 1789.
The concept that you show up, are armed with a firearm which belongs to the state, to be used only while on duty, and returned when off duty? Can you provide evidence that militia were not allowed to own their own weapons, and supplied from a government armory as described above?
quote:What do you mean when you say "always was"? To what time are you referring? Before the amendment? Or are you simply backdating your theory to the passing of the amendment itself?
Always was...as in, as long as our country has been here, citizens have been allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families regardless of their involvement with the militia. Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: The concept that you show up, are armed with a firearm which belongs to the state, to be used only while on duty, and returned when off duty? Can you provide evidence that militia were not allowed to own their own weapons, and supplied from a government armory as described above?
The Uniform Militia Act of 1792 required militia members to arm themselves (With their own funds) and outlined the equipment that each militia member should have, so the concept of state-owned arms did not exist at that point in history. There were a couple modifications to the Uniform Militia Act, but nothing regarding the procurement of arms until it was replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the National Guard.
Now, it also conscripted every able-bodied (white) man to the local militia with a few exceptions granted to infrastructure workers (coach drivers, ferrymen, etc.) and some others, so I guess *technically* you could say that owning arms was dependent on membership in the Militia. But members were not limited to the weapons they used for militia service.
[ January 14, 2013, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:citizens have been allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that suggests that citizens are allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
quote:Furthermore, the right belonged to “Subjects,” allowed arms “for their Defence”;
It's inferred.
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that people have the right to free speech on telephones? Or in emails?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:citizens have been allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that suggests that citizens are allowed to own firearms for the defense of their homes and families?
How about the ninth amendment? Just because it doesn't say it specifically doesn't mean it doesn't allow it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm going to re-post something I wrote for Hatrack a few years ago because it bears repeating, and because we've dipped into the Framers/Founders argument quite a bit here. While I don't think everything they thought is pure gold, I think it's important to know exactly what they were thinking with regards to the Second Amendment, and why modern interpretations completely distort their original intent into something completely different.
<insert long explainy text here>
This is basically a distilled version of the Dissenting opinion for DC vs Heller. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court affirmed the opposite of what you placed here. I'm currently parsing through the Opinion and Dissenting Opinion of DC vs Heller (for giggles, cause being contracted to a help desk is pretty non-stimulating for my brain these days). So far it's an interesting exploration of the history of the 2nd Amendment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My quoted text above about English law is from DC v. Heller.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How about the ninth amendment?
While it's arguable that the Ninth can be interpreted to extend that right, I'm not sure how you'd be able to infer the rationale behind that right as SW has done.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
How about this Tom:
We have the right to own guns...for any bloody lawful purpose we choose, including defending our homes and families.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think that's at all clear from the text, no.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What do -you- think is clear from the text?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That the federal government cannot tell a state's citizens that they can't own guns, because that state might need to mobilize its citizens as part of a militia.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But the state can tell them that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Certainly that was the Founders' intent. As to whether an activist, right-wing court would interpret the Fourteenth in a way that'd undo that clear meaning, well, obviously they have.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I didn't know you were such a states rights advocate, Tom! Nice to know.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You never asked. I'm not exactly a fan of federal power.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So do you think it's appropriate that the federal government restricts the type of guns, or should they leave it up to the states?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm fine with leaving that up to the states, although obviously interstate commerce complicates that a bit.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Stone_Wolf_, don't you think it is important for people to retain the right to defend themselves from tanks? Bombs? Jet fighters? Should individuals have the right to have those things, too?
Man, that would be so wicked awesome.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Bureaucracy for its own sake?
A single "stolen" gun makes the whole point moot. And why is this any better than government mandated background checks? Kids can still steal dad's gun. Same problem. And don't most of these shooters have clean backgrounds / psych profiles? It's video games that does it too them, right?
Not true. I'm fairly certain that prohibition completely eradicated the whole drinking problem around here. Ditto with Cocaine being illegal.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:
So... every weapon ever invented is a weapon of war, then, up to and including rocks and fists. I mean, they were used in wars sometime, right?
Um...yes. But I saw that Troy movie, and apparently hot chicks cause wars too. So being hot should probably be banned. Or at least require a background check.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: If it's bullshit like "Obama is taking our freedoms!" then my guess is most of them aren't going to join the revolution. If a president actually does something dramatic that oversteps the Constitution in a particularly heinous way, or Congress passes a law that curtails freedoms in an egregious way, then sure, I honestly wouldn't be surprised, and it would necessarily even bother me depending on how it was done.
What if the freedom thieving happens gradually, like becoming obese?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I was unclear. My point is that there are obviously some reasonable limits to our "right to defend ourselves" that most sane, responsible people find acceptable. It is not an absolute right and, like freedom of speech, is already subject to some limitation.
Say what you want. RPG's would rock. I'd write stuff on the nose of mine, like "Don't blink, or you'll miss it"
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Fire arms are the primary form of self defense.
If we had access to phasers, which we could set to permanent stun then we could ban guns forever! We do not. So until that point, guns = self defense as far as rights go.
Tazer X26. They even make a version just for consumers that has a 30 second cycle specifically to give you time to run away. Want a link? Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Wait, what?
Violence is down, man. What are you talking about?
I was referring to the fact that Lyr said owning a gun "raises the level of danger." But guns exist. So that level of danger is already risen, since other people can own them.
Violence and homicide are on the decline, though. So... not sure where you're going with this line of thinking.
I like all of these words. And as near as I can tell, they are in the right order.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that people have the right to free speech on telephones? Or in emails?
No. So I think you should all cease this electronic transfer of Constitutionally UNprotected prattle!
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Personally I think Chris Rock solved this problem for us a LONG time ago.
Wow, 8, count them, 8 dogpiled driveby snipes, I bet that is some kind of record!
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Wow, 8, count them, 8 dogpiled driveby snipes, I bet that is some kind of record!
I would've fired off more, but Obama won't let me have any more without reloading
BAZING! Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: So being hot should probably be banned. Or at least require a background check.
I would be happy to do the background checks *eyebrow-waggle* /creepyguycomment
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can you show me a single bit of text in the Constitution that people have the right to free speech on telephones? Or in emails?
Actually you don't have the right to say certain things over telephone or via email. Just like you don't have the right to say anything you want in person. Freedom of speech is limited by precedent, just like all our rights are.
And even so, it's a false analogy. A better one would be: would the constitution guarantee the right to, say, drive down the street blasting your voice from a megaphone for no reason?
The answer is probably no- the constitution doesn't protect *all* speech, only *some* speech, and precedent has established what type of speech (usually based on the intent involved), is not protected.
So the fact that the constitution guarantees *a* right to bear arms, says very little about the type of arms, the number of arms, and other provisos. And just because the right itself exists, does not mean that it cannot be limited by precedent. It already has been: there are categories of arms which are not legal to own in the US. As technology progresses, there will be others.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That's great and all, but not actually pertinent to the discussion Tom and I were having.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Certainly that was the Founders' intent. As to whether an activist, right-wing court would interpret the Fourteenth in a way that'd undo that clear meaning, well, obviously they have.
You mean like the activist court that oversaw US vs Miller in 1939 (the only Supreme Court case brought against the National Firearms Act) after both claimants were already dead and buried? There was no defense available to make arguments during that trial, and as such no evidence was presented to the court as it was in the district court that overturned the NFA. Realistically, the supreme court never should have overseen that case and should have dismissed it, but they ruled in absentia instead. I would submit that the results of that trial, which has been the precedent for all following federal weapons bans, is a significantly greater violation of constitutional principles than the decisions handed down in DC vs Heller and Chicago vs McDonald.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I would submit that the results of that trial, which has been the precedent for all following federal weapons bans, is a significantly greater violation of constitutional principles...
Why? Note that you aren't saying that the mechanisms of the trial itself are flawed here; you're claiming that the results of Miller violate constitutional principles more than Heller does. That seems highly suspect to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It helps when you begin with the assumption that it's a constitutional right, period, and when the Supreme Court affirm it they are in accord with the Constitution, and when they don't, they aren't. Simple.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It helps when you begin with the assumption that it's a constitutional right, period, and when the Supreme Court affirm it they are in accord with the Constitution, and when they don't, they aren't. Simple.
And don't the exact opposite assumptions help you, Lyr, and Tom? I'm confused...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn's argument, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out how in terms of history, the modern court interpretations of the 2nd are something new, and to point out that the supposed obviousness and immutability of the modern reading isn't.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I would submit that the results of that trial, which has been the precedent for all following federal weapons bans, is a significantly greater violation of constitutional principles...
Why? Note that you aren't saying that the mechanisms of the trial itself are flawed here; you're claiming that the results of Miller violate constitutional principles more than Heller does. That seems highly suspect to me.
In absentia rulings tend to violate a defendants right to due process provided by the 14th amendment. The case was actually remanded to district court for further arguments and clarifications, but this never happened because the defendants were dead.
quote: It helps when you begin with the assumption that it's a constitutional right, period, and when the Supreme Court affirm it they are in accord with the Constitution, and when they don't, they aren't. Simple.
Actually, it helps when you look at the actual rulings, history, and have a bit of an understanding of constitutional law. Ruling in absentia is something that judges and lawyers avoid as much as possible because doing so often leads to claims of rights violation based on the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court in this case knew that no challenge could be filed by the defendants, because they were dead, but there's an argument to be made that due process was still violated in the ruling.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's great and all, but not actually pertinent to the discussion Tom and I were having.
I think it is quite pertinent to the discussion in general.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn's argument, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out how in terms of history, the modern court interpretations of the 2nd are something new, and to point out that the supposed obviousness and immutability of the modern reading isn't.
Lyrhawn has yet to actually provide any evidence to support his assertion that the supreme court viewed ownership of firearms as dependent on membership in the militia for 200 years after the constitution was written, and was not an individual right as was asserted by Stone_Wolf. In fact, the standard model of 2nd amendment interpretation asserts that firearms ownership is an individual right. The standard model interpretation is the oldest interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
The actual interpretation the supreme court held through the 19th and early 20th was that ownership of arms was an individual right, but said right could be limited only to weapons that were useful in the purposes of a militia. US vs Miller found that there was no evidence that a sawed off shotgun furthered the aims of an organized militia. The fact that such weapons were used in wartime activities wasn't presented to the court because no defense at all was present during the proceedings.
No decision of whether the right to bear arms was one accorded to the states or to individuals was actually laid down by the supreme court until 1990, because it was assumed to be an individual right until that point. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez was the first case to define the rights granted in the first, second, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments as individual rights. Perpich vs. DoD found that the National Guard was not the militia referred to in the 2nd amendment and laid out the definition of the National Guard as an organized militia, and all non-enlisted individuals as an unorganized militia.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn's argument, if I'm not mistaken, was to point out how in terms of history, the modern court interpretations of the 2nd are something new, and to point out that the supposed obviousness and immutability of the modern reading isn't.
I didn't think anyone was saying their reading is obvious or immutable. They're just arguing for why their reading is correct.
You may disagree, but the dismissive straw man (Assume you're right and everyone else is wrong) wasn't the best way to show your disagreement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In absentia rulings tend to violate a defendants right to due process provided by the 14th amendment.
Sure, they can. Is it your belief that Miller has led to a lot of twisted in absentia rulings since then? Or that it's been used repeatedly since to violate the due process of a defendant?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That's great and all, but not actually pertinent to the discussion Tom and I were having.
I think it is quite pertinent to the discussion in general.
Pertinent to -this- conversation where NO ONE has ever said that because bearing arms is a right it should not be restricted in anyway? What was said was -correct- but utterly immaterial as no one has asserted otherwise.
In fact, every single participant in this conversation has either said nothing against current restrictions or is calling for more restrictions.
It is comments like this and Orincoro's that frustrate me so much, as you guys are arguing with ghosts.
If you want to make up things for opponents to say and then rebuff them, please keep it out of our legitimate, actual discussion.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:In absentia rulings tend to violate a defendants right to due process provided by the 14th amendment.
Sure, they can. Is it your belief that Miller has led to a lot of twisted in absentia rulings since then? Or that it's been used repeatedly since to violate the due process of a defendant?
My argument is that Miller's finding was not particularly constitutional because the supreme court effectively ignored due process by ruling in absentia. As a result, it's precedent should be considered tainted. Realistically, it's a response to your claim that Heller and McDonald were just acts of activist courts ignoring precedent, when said precedent was actually set by an activist court ignoring due process.
ETA: By way of clarification, Miller has been used to justify federal bans against specific weapons by suggesting that said weapon is not useful or important to a well-regulated militia. The weapon in question was a sawed-off shotgun. It did not address the issue of automatic weapons, because the NFA did not outright ban them. It also did not address the issue of banning specific types of modern weapons, only the sawed off shotgun. My opinion is that the precedent set by Miller has been greatly abused and misused since.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What do -you- think is clear from the text?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That the federal government cannot tell a state's citizens that they can't own guns, because that state might need to mobilize its citizens as part of a militia.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But the state can tell them that?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Certainly that was the Founders' intent.
Are you saying you think that rules layed out in the Bill of Rights don't effect the state's laws, only federal laws? Because if so, I disagree...a lot.
quote: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.
Not:
quote: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 by the federal government.
States can't infringe on constitutional rights just cause.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My argument is that Miller's finding was not particularly constitutional because the supreme court effectively ignored due process by ruling in absentia. As a result, it's precedent should be considered tainted.
That is not, I should point out, what you actually said. It's also a bit of a non sequitur, since it doesn't actually challenge any of the logic in the Miller ruling -- whereas my objections to Heller are based on what appears to be an obvious misreading of law. (Note, by the way, that I'm fine with challenging the Miller logic; it's strained in many places.)
quote:Realistically, it's a response to your claim that Heller and McDonald were just acts of activist courts ignoring precedent, when said precedent was actually set by an activist court ignoring due process.
Bah. The "precedent" I'm talking about was "set" by the Constitution, not by Miller. That Miller just happened to be the first case that came before the court on the topic is largely irrelevant.
----------
quote:States can't infringe on constitutional rights just cause.
Specifically, states can't "infringe" on constitutional rights because of bad readings of the Fourteenth Amendment. The idea that the rights granted by the Constitution are somehow innate rights which trump all law, anywhere, is not only very modern but incoherent and nonsensical.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: That is not, I should point out, what you actually said. It's also a bit of a non sequitur, since it doesn't actually challenge any of the logic in the Miller ruling -- whereas my objections to Heller are based on what appears to be an obvious misreading of law. (Note, by the way, that I'm fine with challenging the Miller logic; it's strained in many places.)
I can now see where you may have misunderstood me. Basically, my opinion is that because there was no defense involved in Miller to present evidence against the NFA, in potential violation of due process, the results of the case are therefore suspect. This kind of logic would follow the idea that the findings are the fruit of the poisonous tree. If the mechanics of the trial violated constitutional principles, the results of the trial also do so.
quote: The "precedent" I'm talking about was "set" by the Constitution, not by Miller
Because I'm likely misunderstanding what you are referring to, could you please elaborate one what specific precedent you're talking about?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Basically, my opinion is that because there was no defense involved in Miller to present evidence against the NFA, in potential violation of due process, the results of the case are therefore suspect.
Before we continue, I'm curious why you think the Supreme Court has to observe what we're calling "due process," here.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So my plan is despised by both sides. Sounds like it would be the logical solution then, but never be accepted.
The argument I am making is not to eliminate all guns, just those who have the ability to cause the most damage while doing the least amount of good.
The response that, "Hey, most damage is caused by handguns" is not the point. Handguns do the most good--in stopping crimes. While they may do the most bad over-all--suicides, accidents, and criminal behavior, one assault weapon with a large clip can do the damage of a dozen hand guns.
I have received emails, passed on from questionable sources, saying that they prefer hunting with an assault weapon. These have come from inexperienced children and an old man who said, "My sight isn't what it once was, so I need a 30 round clip to bring down a deer."
My first thought was--NEVER GO HUNTING WITH THIS PERSON. Every bullet that does not go into the target must go somewhere. I'd rather not it be me.
But the more I thought about this, the more I realized this was the key to getting rid of Assault Weapons. Publicize the truth that has been known for years.....
The bigger the gun, the smaller the man.
Assault weapons are the Viagra of guns.
High Capacity Clips are the cure for Projectile Dysfunction.
Automatic Weapons for those who suffer premature escalation--of violence.
Spray and Pray is not an approved hunting technique. (Spray your bullets and pray you hit something good, not something bad)
If we can brand these most dangerous of weapons as the last refuge of the gun newbie, the wimp, and the bad marksman, nobody will want them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So my plan is despised by both sides. Sounds like it would be the logical solution then, but never be accepted.
That doesn't necessarily follow, Dan. A plan that declared something like "Everyone in America who wants to own a gun has to wear a headdress made of cupcakes" would be despised by both sides, too.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Specifically, states can't "infringe" on constitutional rights because of bad readings of the Fourteenth Amendment. The idea that the rights granted by the Constitution are somehow innate rights which trump all law, anywhere, is not only very modern but incoherent and nonsensical.
Bad readings?
quote: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ...one assault weapon with a large clip can do the damage of a dozen hand guns.
I'm afraid you have no idea what you are talking about.
The average mag for a semi-automatic pistol is 15...so, two handguns, say, one in each hand, can put as many rounds downrange as an "assault weapon" (which has been clarified over and over again that this is a political term and has nothing to do with any real gun).
And trying to shame people into not getting weapons which stand a chance against an armored assailant is not the answer.
*Edited because it sounded snottier then intended.
[ January 15, 2013, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Basically, my opinion is that because there was no defense involved in Miller to present evidence against the NFA, in potential violation of due process, the results of the case are therefore suspect.
Before we continue, I'm curious why you think the Supreme Court has to observe what we're calling "due process," here.
Because every other court in the nation must follow due process laws. Specifically, the right of a defendant to be present at trial. As far as I know, there is no precedent that suggests death is an acceptable waiver of that right. Criminal cases end when a defendant dies, in no small part because they can no longer be present at their trial. Why, then, did the supreme court continue to hear a case where no defendant remained? The proper course of action would have been to dismiss the charges and vacate the lower ruling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Can you explain why you believe the Supreme Court needs to follow all the rules followed by every other court in the nation, Boris?
quote:If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Specifically, the federal constitution is the foundation of all federal law.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain why you believe the Supreme Court needs to follow all the rules followed by every other court in the nation, Boris?
quote:If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Specifically, the federal constitution is the foundation of all federal law.
Tom...That question might just cause an aneurism for me in the future...Thank you for that. But I'd have to answer, because the Supreme Court is still beholden to the constitution, its amendments, and all precedent upheld by prior cases. Its decisions can rest on shaky interpretations and misreadings at times, but if the supreme court is not beholden to the rules that it *sets* (behavior in courts across the country has been set as a result of decisions handed down by the supreme court, after all), why should any court follow those rules? If the Supreme Court views itself as free to act beyond the scope it sets for lower courts, I would call that an extreme abuse of power and position, wouldn't you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Thank you for that. But I'd have to answer, because the Supreme Court is still beholden to the constitution, its amendments, and all precedent upheld by prior cases.
I would argue that the Supreme Court is beholden to the Constitution, and -- amusingly -- specifically to its own interpretation of the Constitution, barring the impeachment of its members. I would say that it is not technically beholden to precedent, although its members may choose to acknowledge precedents.
quote:if the supreme court is not beholden to the rules that it *sets*..., why should any court follow those rules?
Because the Supreme Court says so.
quote:if the supreme court is not beholden to the rules that it *sets* (behavior in courts across the country has been set as a result of decisions handed down by the supreme court, after all), why should any court follow those rules?
No. You don't even need to have passed the Bar to sit on the Supreme Court (I keep expecting Bill Clinton to get appointed to the Court, just to give a huge middle finger to everyone who cheered when he was disbarred); the rules of lower courts don't have to apply to the Supreme Court at all, except insofar as they voluntarily allow themselves to be bound by them.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
So basically the supreme court, as it stands, is broken and constantly abuses its power. I agree. That said, if the Supreme Court is beholden to the constitution only, then choosing to continue viewing Miller actually defied the sixth amendment, which is what grants the right to be present at trial. But since you asked so many questions of me in order to dodge my question...what exact precedent did Miller affirm that was so obvious in the constitution?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Specifically, the federal constitution is the foundation of all federal law.
quote:This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
I truly don't understand how you can think what you think Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sure you don't. Here's a fun one for you, though: why do you think states have constitutions?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So basically the supreme court, as it stands, is broken and constantly abuses its power.
I didn't actually say that. I said that it wasn't bound by the traditions and expectations of lower courts.
quote:That said, if the Supreme Court is beholden to the constitution only, then choosing to continue viewing Miller actually defied the sixth amendment, which is what grants the right to be present at trial.
Note that I observed that the Court is beholden to its interpretation of the constitution. If the Court believes -- for whatever reason -- that it doesn't violate the constitution to convene an appeal in the absence of the defendant, what other court gets to say it's wrong?
quote:what exact precedent did Miller affirm that was so obvious in the constitution?
It's amazing how it absolutely doesn't matter, because Miller isn't really all that important of a case. That said, Miller was the first time the court was called upon to try to explain the purpose of the Second Amendment, and they came down pretty firmly on the side of "in order to make a civilian militia possible."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm sure you don't. Here's a fun one for you, though: why do you think states have constitutions?
Wow, what a horrible response.
I'll make it more plain for you. The US Constitution's Sixth Article (that I quoted and you utterly ignored) makes it clear, abundantly, fully and entirely clear that the states must adhere to the Constitution, that every single state official swears to uphold the US Constitution.
Your passive aggressively waving off my lack of understanding as some kind of personal lacking without any kind of explanation is utter crap.
So, instead of endlessly asking questions why don't you try and answer one for once.
How can you possibly feel that states do not need to follow the US Constitution? And site sources please.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The US Constitution's Sixth Article (that I quoted and you utterly ignored) makes it clear, abundantly, fully and entirely clear that the states must adhere to the Constitution...
Where it is speaking to the behavior of the states, yes. What makes you believe that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the behavior of the states?
I wasn't just insulting you, you know. I'm sure you do realize that states have their own constitutions -- even though they already have the U.S. Constitution, which you have asserted is the sole and foundational law of the land. Still, presumably they find these constitutions useful, despite the fact that many of them just go on to reiterate -- sometimes with subtly different language -- rights very similar to the rights enumerated in the federal constitution.
I would suggest to you that you try to imagine why this might be so. I would also suggest that you might want to try Googling both Barron v. Baltimore and Gitlow v. New York. In the context of Barron, the recent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago is egregiously flawed; it incorporates against the states an amendment that was specifically written to permit the states to maintain a means of defending themselves against the federal government.
Anyone who claims to be a fan of a weak federal government should be disgusted by the way McDonald was ruled. And further disgusted by the hypocrisy in incorporating the Second Amendment before incorporating the right to a jury trial -- which, let's face it, has been done solely to protect corporate interests.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Answering the question "Must states follow the US Constitution?" with the question "Why do states have their own Constitutions?" Is like answering the question "Do cities have to follow state laws?" with "Why do cities have their own laws?".
It is not applicable, it is not an answer.
quote:What makes you believe that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the behavior of the states?
The Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are part of the US Constitution, which the sixth clause that I've quoted clearly states is the supreme law, superseding all state laws.
I wonder if you are messing with me here. I mean, it's like you are trying to argue that an apple isn't a fruit.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Answering the question "Must states follow the US Constitution?" with the question "Why do states have their own Constitutions?" Is like answering the question "Do cities have to follow state laws?" with "Why do cities have their own laws?".
I would submit that this is precisely wrong. And I mean precisely, in that cities are to states exactly what states are not to our particular country.
quote:I wonder if you are messing with me here.
*sigh* I know. And I know you find it insulting, but the fact of the matter is that you are just fundamentally misunderstanding, here, and I am failing to reach you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm falling a little behind in this thread, but I'll try to answer a couple bits I've seen pop up:
quote:From Stone Wolf: So, you are saying that if you were not a militia member, you couldn't own a gun, right? Because I don't believe that is even remotely true. Perhaps I am not understanding you...but if I am, do you have any evidence to this claim?
No that's not quite what I'm saying. Guns weren't illegal either at the federal or state level when the amendment was passed, nor for many years afterward, so there's no reason at all why you couldn't own a gun. I'm not sure how you jump from "you don't have a constitutional right" to "you cannot own a gun." There still has to be a law against it, and there wasn't.
As for Boris' drumbeat about the Supreme Court, I may have to backpeddle a bit on my answer. You're right that the Court affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual federal right, though not necessarily restrictive of state governments, and a contingent, limited one, subject to due regulation. That's where the modern interpretation is new. I'll have to do some more reading of case law and some of the better academic articles that have cropped up in the last two years to give you a better feel for my position, but suffice to say I grant that it's an individual right, but I don't grant that just because something is an individual right, that means it's universal and without limitation. Clearly that has not been the case historically.
Stone Wolf -
How familiar are you with the history of the 14th amendment? When the bill of rights was passed, it was clearly understood to limit only federal and not state powers. It is, some believe, why the 14th amendment was passed, to enforce bill of rights laws on state governments, but the 14th amendment was never actually treated that way for a 100 years (depending on which amendment you're referring to, I guess, some were incorporated at different times). My knowledge of this comes in mostly in terms of black history, but I know that until the 1960s, blacks weren't protected, by and large, by the bill of rights from state governments until after Brown because of Plessy. It took decades for activists to push a definition of the 14th amendment that allowed for SCOTUS to enforce the bill of rights on state governments. Before that, there was a virtual dual-citizenship that gave a lot of people two sets of rights, and for all intents and purposes, it was the rights derived from states that really mattered since federal power was relatively weak.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That cities are not to states what states are to this country I can see. Although the point I was trying to make is still valid.
Imagine Oklahoma decided to make a law that said that women must stay silent in public. This is unconstitutional in at least two ways.
The Oklahoman women are also American women, and their right to be treated the same as others and to free speech is protected by the US Constitution. The law would be removed...for being unconstitutional.
The states must follow the US Constitution. Period. Where is the problem in communication breaking down here?
You are either, not communicating well, or just plain wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The states must follow the US Constitution. Period.
*sigh* If you won't Google the specific cases I mentioned, please Google something like "incorporation Bill of Rights" and look at the timeframe we're talking about. I mean, it is within living memory that the Bill of Rights might be said to be binding on the states. And even now, not all of it is.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Stone--I'm afraid I do know what I'm talking about, though I admit I exaggerate. While two guns with 7 round clips can do as much damage as a semi-automatic pistol. However I was referring to Assault Weapons--rifles with extended magazines--30, 50, 100 rounds that are more powerful--able to go through walls, etc.
As for as shaming people into changing behavior, it has worked in the past, to lower the number of people who are racists, who risk drunk driving, cigarette smoking, even abortion. If you make those behaviors unpopular, tarnish their image, you can change behavior.
Your final claim is that such weapons-- are the only weapons you can use against an armored assailant. There are very few attacks made by armored assailants. Body armor is conspicuous, costly, and rarely used in home invasions. It is 99 more likely any armored assailant you would face would be the police. Those are the people I would like to protect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stone Wolf,
You may find this link helpful. It gives a timeline of the SCOTUS cases that incorporated Bill of Rights protections with the 14th amendment, making them applicable to states. For the first 100 years of the nation, this wasn't the case. And for another 100 years, it still wasn't the case for some individual amendments. Even now, some aspects of the BoR are not incorporated.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks Lyrhawn, I had no idea.
Tom, it's as easy as linking to Incorporation of the Bill of Rights instead of constantly quipping with cryptic counter questions. Say that ten times fast.
Darth. This...
quote:While two guns with 7 round clips can do as much damage as a semi-automatic pistol.
...isn't even a sentence, let alone a coherent thought.
Also this is a clip. You were trying to refer to a magazine maybe? Of course that doesn't make sense either, as all semi-automatics use magazines.
Cop issues Beretta/Glock 9mm (most common handguns around) have a capacity of 17 +1. A standard semi automatic rifle mag holds 30. So, two pistols = 36 rounds, or MORE then common rifle mags do.
And while you can get 100 round drums, I had to look up to see if 50 rounders were even available...they are new, and very uncommon. Still, 99.9% of the time you are either dealing with 10 rounds or 30, depending on which state you are in.
As to wall penetration, all guns go through drywall like nothing...here is a chart of an interesting experiment:
quote:Ammunition Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Fiocchi 40-grain VMax(.223) penetrated fragments, some penetration few speckles, no penetration Federal 230-grain .45 ACP FMJ penetrated penetrated penetrated Speer 115-grain 9mm Gold Dot JHP penetrated penetrated missed (user error) Magtech 90-grain .380 FMJ penetrated penetrated penetrated first wall Wolf 7.62x39mm FMJ penetrated penetrated penetrated (keyholes) Winchester Ranger 55-grain Softpoint (.223) penetrated fragments, some penetration speckles, one fragment penetrated first wall Hornady TAP 55-grain (.223) penetrated penetrated penetrated Hornady 60-grain TAP(.223) penetrated penetrated, two pieces fragments, some penetration Winchester Ranger 64-grain Power-Point (.223) penetrated fragments, no total penetration no hits Winchester 12-Gauge 00 Buckshot penetrated penetrated penetrated
The most common "assault weapon" is the AR15, .223 caliber. As you can see, it had less penetrations then the pistol rounds and shotgun. The .223 (5.56 NATO) fires a .22 bullet (the actual projectile, not the whole round), just A LOT faster then the .22lr. But it is the same projectile, which is very small and light and not very good at punching through anything. What it does do well is tumble in soft tissue, making it effective against human targets, it also has low recoil, which is good for accurate burst fire.
If people are carrying these to hunt because they can't hit the side of a barn, then those people need to stop it, seriously, that's horrible.
But that isn't the point of this gun. This gun makes it possible to stand off multiple attackers, it specializes in putting multiple rounds into a single target at close range, effectively disabling them quickly, and is decent at penetrating soft body armor. Police did not carry such weapons prior to the North Hollywood shoot out. They are now quite common. If armored shooters are so very rare, and the only ones around are other cops, why do so many cops carry them? Because the North Hollywood shoot out taught both sides something: Armor makes pistols all but useless. Who taught the cops this...criminals. So, I'll keep my AR15 around, and you can feel free to try and shame me, but I doubt it will work.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
SW thanks for the lessons in weaponry. I do apologize for my grammatical errors due to late night posting. The thought was coherent, since you understood it.
The point remains the same--that more damage can be done by Assault Weapons than by handguns.
Your arguments against that point are persuasive, there are some very dangerous hand guns out there. However, your argument that you need an assault rifle to defend yourself against armored assailants is a bit weak.
Yes, the North Hollywood shoot out showed that hand guns were not the right tool to stop armored criminals. It took trained police officers with automatic weapons to put them down.
However, that was a bank robbery. The return on investment for a gang to buy body armor to rob a bank is great. The return on investment for a gang to buy body armor to rob a house, or a great number of houses, is not strong. The ROI for body armor to mug people in an ally is so negative as to be ridiculous. In other words, no bad guy you are ever likely to come up against is going to have body armor.
The Cops used their assault weapons to stop the bad guys, but the cops have gone through training, testing, and certification. Any attempt to require training, testing, or certification to acquire an assault weapon, or any weapon, is shot down by the NRA and other pro-gun groups. They fear that the ability to license is the ability to deny. So while the cops know that every bullet that misses a bad guy goes somewhere, so they make sure that they know exactly where those bullets go. The untrained, unlicensed, etc are more likely to rely on "Spray and Pray".
You may have the skills, training, and ability to handle an AR15. There are others who don't. Even you said that someone hunting with an assault weapons because they need 30 shots to hit a target should stop hunting. How do we get them to stop?
Who do you plan on having to face that has Armor?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Can you explain why you believe the Supreme Court needs to follow all the rules followed by every other court in the nation, Boris?
quote:If the constitution isn't the foundation which all law is based, the basic rules for our country, then what the hell is it?
Specifically, the federal constitution is the foundation of all federal law.
Tom...That question might just cause an aneurism for me in the future...Thank you for that. But I'd have to answer, because the Supreme Court is still beholden to the constitution, its amendments, and all precedent upheld by prior cases.
Right on all but the last count. The supreme court is beholden only to precedent set by itself, making this proviso functionally meaningless: as each case the SCOTUS hears effectively *sets* precedent in an either narrow or broad sense, and the court *chooses* it's own cases. Meaning it is never in danger of directly reversing itself- as it can choose both what cases to hear, and whether or not to deliver a broad decision. And in the cases where it has reversed itself, there was no recourse to the party which had precedent overturned.
Most people are not aware of the profoundly powerful position the court occupies. They are for practical purposes responsible to no one, ever for anything.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Guns weren't illegal either at the federal or state level when the amendment was passed, nor for many years afterward, so there's no reason at all why you couldn't own a gun. I'm not sure how you jump from "you don't have a constitutional right" to "you cannot own a gun." There still has to be a law against it, and there wasn't.
Fair point.
quote: When the bill of rights was passed, it was clearly understood to limit only federal and not state powers. It is, some believe, why the 14th amendment was passed, to enforce bill of rights laws on state governments, but the 14th amendment was never actually treated that way for a 100 years (depending on which amendment you're referring to, I guess, some were incorporated at different times).
Yea, this was new info to me...not sure if I wasn't paying attention in Civics, or had a crappy teacher...
Apologies to Tom for being so stiff necked.
What did you think about the argument I quoted about the "right to bear arms" being individual even before it was inherited by the US?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: However, your argument that you need an assault rifle to defend yourself against armored assailants is a bit weak.
...
Who do you plan on having to face that has Armor?
Part of the reason I keep guns is not simply to defend against someone coming into my home, it is because the system of civility which offers us so much protection is fragile and can and has temporarily and will eventually permanently fail.
A hand gun is only useable out to 100 yards at best. A rifle can reach out, for hunting, for defending a position, it has range.
If our civilization falls apart, I want to be ready so that me and mine survive.
Semi-automatic rifles are not tools of evil that need to be squashed. The tragedy at Sandyhook and those like it are such huge outliers, they do not represent a significant reason to drastically change our laws, forcing the surrender of legally owned rifles by law abiding citizens. Other changes, such as mandatory safe storage, will do more good in more areas and not be as invasive.
And when you consider that an average handgun is nearly as "dangerous" to groups of people, you remove a lot of the reason to even consider banning them.
And please. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It is a political distinction which was coined to cause an emotional reaction and does not have any real world applicability. An assault rifle is a military firearm with burst fire capability, a box mag and a smaller cartridge then a full rifle round. The difference between an "assault weapon" and a "featureless rifle" is some ergonomics and a mount for a knife for God's sake. I seriously doubt that we are facing an epidemic of bayonetings in this country. When you use the phrase "assault weapon" it says two things: you don't know what you are talking about, and you have been listening to the wrong people.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
If our civilization falls apart, I want to be ready so that me and mine survive.
Things like this scare me a lot. Not the idea of the fall of civilization but the idea that people seriously think it's going to come down to needing that sort of weaponry like some post apocalyptic scenario out of the movies.
I have a crazy distant cousin I stay facebook friends with so I can pretend I don't live in a internet bubble. One of his friends posts that he has a gun to fend off the muslim invasion. The man lives in Florida, suburbia, I assume. Being on my third muslim roommate I would really like to know what the purpose of this invasion is. Why Florida, would it be house to house? Mouse to mouse? What are the strategic targets? Would they sail over in a boat from Cuba and then work their way upwards state by state until they reach New York or DC? Would they take his TV?
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
If our civilization falls apart, I want to be ready so that me and mine survive.
Things like this scare me a lot. Not the idea of the fall of civilization but the idea that people seriously think it's going to come down to needing that sort of weaponry like some post apocalyptic scenario out of the movies.
I have a crazy distant cousin I stay facebook friends with so I can pretend I don't live in a internet bubble. One of his friends posts that he has a gun to fend off the muslim invasion. The man lives in Florida, suburbia, I assume. Being on my third muslim roommate I would really like to know what the purpose of this invasion is. Why Florida, would it be house to house? Mouse to mouse? What are the strategic targets? Would they sail over in a boat from Cuba and then work their way upwards state by state until they reach New York or DC? Would they take his TV?
Well according to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists we are 5 minutes away from midnight on the doomsday clock. Down from 17 in 1991.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
So, can anyone un-pack what this would mean if passed and does it have a chance of passing?
quote: (a) No public servant as defined in W.S. 6-5-101, or dealer selling any firearm in this state shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(b) Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a misdemeanor felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.
(c) The attorney general may defend a citizen of Wyoming who is prosecuted by the United States government for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(d) Any federal law, rule, regulation or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable within the borders of Wyoming if the law, rule, regulation or order attempts to:
(i) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
(ii) Require any firearm, magazine or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
It's a sign that President Obama's call for Congress to renew a ban on *any* firearms is doomed to failure. The popular support is just not there, and even if it were, marginally, Congress is owned lock, stock, and smoking barrel by the gun lobby.
It seems obvious to me that the President is making a political statement to please certain vocal people. Since Congress has to take the action (pass the legislation), therein lies the beauty of his politicking. Congress won't do anything, and Obama won't have to sign any legislation, and this debate can just go away. Or segue into the next manufactured crisis...another 'fiscal cliff'.
I don't see his executive orders as much of an issue, honestly. I'd be surprised if my rabid gun-toting family and friends (the intelligent ones) would see any issues with them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Practically it means nothing. States can't pass laws that say they refuse to adhere to laws passed by the federal government so long as they are upheld as constitutional. This IS a case where the Supremacy Clause makes passing such a law a moot point. Besides, it's Wyoming...
I think Tstorm is wrong about the President's call being DOA, though he's right about the NRA being so powerful. Part of the problem of gerrymandering and polarization in Congress is that the NRA can't really pick off many more Democrats because everyone in Congress has been shoehorned into virtually impenetrable districts. There IS public support for many new (somewhat watered down) gun control initiatives like increased background checks and the like, but I have no idea if the assault weapons ban will pass again. GOP leaders were somewhat muted in their response today.
As for his executive orders, he issued 23. 22 of them were virtually useless. But he issued an order directing the CDC's crime prevention unit to begin studying gun violence. Part of the reason why there are so few really good academic studies on the effects of guns on society is that the NRA shut down government support for them years ago. The CDC was banned from studying gun violence, presumably for fear that the evidence they would collect would provide a counternarrative for the gun control lobby, and the GOP has been enforcing it in Congress ever since.
This one is a slow boil, but if the CDC starts really gathering good data on gun violence, we can start having a real debate on this issue with something more than arguing what the Framers wanted and what feels right, and start using some real evidence and facts. It's something that will fly mostly under the radar, except I'm sure the NRA noticed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stone Wolf -
quote:What did you think about the argument I quoted about the "right to bear arms" being individual even before it was inherited by the US?
Tricky subject. You're talking colonial times when the people were still, by and large, English, and derived their rights from a combination of English common law and the 1689 Declaration of Rights. I think it's largely an academic discussion. While a large amount of the US Code and other US law was initially drafted from US law, and US common law was often derived directly from British common law, it was still a new nation, and you can't guarantee every right or restriction from Britain here. And clearly that was a precedent we were okay with doing away with, otherwise slavery and the slave trade, which we specifically protected in our constitution but was illegal in Britain by this time, would have been covered by that same precedent of adhering to British laws and rights.
It's all too much like picking and choosing the things you like and don't like, which is exactly what we did when the nation was founded, but that makes it hard to look to Britain and say "they have that right so we have that right," because you can't say that about everything. So I think that makes it difficult to argue that rights based on English law supersede those written into US law after the Constitution was ratified.
I would hasten to add, by the way, even if someone were to agree that it was an individual right, the right protected the people from fiat laws set by the King to take away guns. The right did NOT protect them from regulation and laws created by parliament. It was parliament that passed laws on the colonists limiting their importation of weapons, seizing arsenals and other overt acts to take away guns, and while the colonists felt this was a violation, many in England felt it was perfectly in keeping with the law because Parliament had that power.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: So, can anyone un-pack what this would mean if passed and does it have a chance of passing?
quote: (a) No public servant as defined in W.S. 6-5-101, or dealer selling any firearm in this state shall enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(b) Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a misdemeanor felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.
(c) The attorney general may defend a citizen of Wyoming who is prosecuted by the United States government for violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively within the borders of Wyoming.
(d) Any federal law, rule, regulation or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable within the borders of Wyoming if the law, rule, regulation or order attempts to:
(i) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
(ii) Require any firearm, magazine or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
It doesn't have an ice-cube's chance in hell of standing up in federal court. It is blatantly illegal, and would be thrown out so fast you would feel the breeze.
Not to mention it would get the state's attorney charged with obstruction of justice- meaning that he would *never* charge anyone under this statute. So whether it passes or not, it will never be a law in effect.
And, I should add, it would never make its way to the supreme court either, because there is absolutely no case in its favor. It is a law suborning obstruction of justice- not a legitimate challenge to federal law on constitutional grounds. And it's a stunt.
Posted by Daryl (Member # 12932) on :
To clarify where I'm coming from, I'm an Australian who has a gun collection, put himself through University by selling kangaroo skins that he hunted, and believes that anyone is entitled to defend himself and his family. That said I (as do many non US citizens) find the whole concept of constitutionally allowed gun armed rebellion, if you don't agree with your democratically elected government, to be absurd and illogical. Regarding personal safety my guns are well locked away & home safety is secured by much more effective means. Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe, and should understand that competent assailants will quickly turn such against them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe...
So, by your estimation, nearly every single law enforcement officer and member of any military world wide is a "loser". Way to troll!
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Stone--I'm afraid I do know what I'm talking about, though I admit I exaggerate. While two guns with 7 round clips can do as much damage as a semi-automatic pistol. However I was referring to Assault Weapons--rifles with extended magazines--30, 50, 100 rounds that are more powerful--able to go through walls, etc.
Darth, you haven't provided much evidence that you know anything at all about firearms, beyond maybe what you've learned from TV and Movies. You are overestimating both the lethality and effectiveness of "Assault Weapons" vs. a non "Assault Weapon"
First: Rifles with extended magazines don't actually make a significant difference in lethality in semi-automatic weapons. A practiced marksman can change a rifle cartridge in about a second, so when you are talking about 10 rounds vs 30 rounds, an extended magazine saves maybe 3 seconds when firing 30 rounds. In most mass shooting events, the assailants usually have more than 20 minutes before meeting any resistance at all. Extended magazines make no difference in these, but they do make a difference for people who are hunting, target shooting, or have to carry firearms when traveling in the wild, because it means they have to carry fewer magazines with them and have to manipulate their firearms less.
In addition, a practiced marksman can fire a non-semi automatic firearm with incredible speed.. Note, from that video, that even a 6 shot revolver, with no magazine, can be reloaded in less than 2 seconds by someone who practices. Shotguns can be fired just as fast. The trick, though, is accuracy. You can only fire so fast and remain accurate. Cowboy Shooting involves being both fast and accurate with non-semi automatic weaponry (revolvers, lever action rifles, pump-action shotguns). Those guys can get off 30 accurate shots in only slightly more time than the average person can with a semi-automatic weapon using an extended magazine.
Second: You can only fire the weapon as often as you pull the trigger, and the human finger is capable of pulling the trigger only a certain number of times in a minute. This is why fully automatic weaponry has developed so much, to overcome the human body's limitations. Firearms with fully automatic and even burst fire (three or more shots per trigger pull) capabilities are already illegal for civilians to purchase if they were made after the mid 80s or so. It's legal to own a fully automatic weapon made prior to the late 70s, as long as the purchaser pays a tax and registers it and the sale with the ATF. Only 1 legally obtained fully automatic weapon has been used in any crime in the past 75 years. Illegally obtained or modified fully automatic weapons are used more often. It's stupid to think any "Assault Weapons" ban will change that.
Third: A weapons ability to "Fire through walls", as you put it, is determined primarily by two factors, and both are matters of ammunition type and have nothing to do with how the weapon looks or operates. Ammunition Caliber and Type do more to determine lethality than anything the last Assault Weapons Ban and what the President currently wants defines as "lethality improvements." A .22 caliber bullet won't even go through a human skull unless it's fired from less than a few feet away. A .50 Caliber round can go through an engine block.
In addition, the type of projectile has an impact. A hollow point round typically won't pierce body armor, but will cause severe damage to a "soft" target like flesh because the hollowing of the bullet's tip causes the bullet to deform and spread on impact. A full metal jacket round can pierce a flak jacket (not modern body armor, for the most part), but does very little damage to flesh because the hard metal jacket prevents the bullet from deforming. This results in greater energy focused at the tip of the bullet, allowing the bullet to penetrate further. Since the jacket also holds the bullet together, this results in significantly less damage to flesh. Also, an FMJ round is likely to pass through a soft target while a Hollow Point is designed specifically to prevent complete penetration from happening.
Two bullets with the same caliber, one hollow point and one FMJ, will result in significantly different survivability prospects for a victim. There are also rounds designed to pierce any kind of personal body armor and even some types of vehicular armor, rounds that explode shortly after impact, rounds that are designed to do no damage to flesh, and incendiary rounds that catch fire when the bullet deforms. You also have tracer rounds which are basically pure phosphorous and are used to allow a shooter to know where their bullets are going. Civilians can usually only obtain FMJ rounds and Hollow points. Most specialty ammunition requires special permits from the ATF, and some types are outright banned in various states.
What past laws refer to as "Assault Weapons" range from the smallest caliber (.22, usually) up to .45 caliber and 9mm ammunition. As such, some "Assault Weapons" will do little more damage than a BB gun while others can stop a bear in its tracks. .50 Caliber, one of the largest bullets you can obtain for weapon that isn't crew served, is usually only available in weapons that wouldn't meet the "Assault Weapon" definition. There are few, if any, .50 caliber ammunition types that *won't* go through a wall of just about any type (except perhaps steel bunker walls). Just a few .50 Caliber weapons available on the market: Smith and Wesson .500 Special Armalite AR-50 Desert Eagle XIX .50AE The "Assault Weapons" ban wouldn't apply to any of these weapons, but they are among the most powerful weapons available.
On the other hand, a .22 Archangel is, in reality, no more lethal than a 10/22 Ruger. They are actually the *exact same weapon*. They fire the same type of ammunition, and the ammunition they fire has the exact same amount of powder and lead. A shot from a 10/22 will do the exact same thing as a .22 Archangel. The Archangel just has a number of cosmetic modifications that make it look more imposing and operate slightly different. A pistol grip is an Ergonomic improvement that makes it so the firearm is less likely to injure the person shooting the rifle. The rail on top allows to to mount scopes in a different way. A mussel break at the end of the barrel is the most likely to increase a weapons lethality, but in reality the only thing that does is reduce the rifle's recoil slightly. It allows you to re-acquire a target faster, but the time required to aim is measured in fractions of a second. The fact that the weapon looks significantly more imposing is a matter of aesthetics. It looks really mean and deadly, but it's still a .22 caliber rifle that is barely capable of killing small rodents.
Finally: "Assault Weapons" are used in fewer homicides than blunt objects, according to the FBI. I know you've dismissed that argument because no one has given you a verifiable source, but here's the statistics direct from the FBI. Note that the vast majority of homicides are committed with handguns. Only 2.5% of all homicides are committed with rifles. I will, of course, note that about 15% of homicides are committed with firearms of indeterminate type, but assuming that even a majority of these undetermined weapons are rifles would be a stretch considering the statistics on known firearms.
Why? The point you made about body armor applies to "Assault Weapons" as well. "Assault Weapons" are extremely conspicuous and difficult to hide. As such, criminals rarely use them. Handguns are easier to conceal and require less effort to use. And as for magazines that hold 50 to 100 rounds...have you *seen* those before? They're freaking huge. There isn't a pocket on earth big enough to hide a 100 round magazine. They also usually cost more than the weapon they hold bullets for. (A 100 round drum for an AR-15 costs 700 bucks, and that's *cheap*).
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe...
So, by your estimation, nearly every single law enforcement officer and member of any military world wide is a "loser". Way to troll!
I translated that statement to mean something close to, "I don't think people need semiautomatic weapons, and people who disagree with me are poopoo-heads."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe...
So, by your estimation, nearly every single law enforcement officer and member of any military world wide is a "loser". Way to troll!
I translated that statement to mean something close to, "I don't think people need semiautomatic weapons, and people who disagree with me are poopoo-heads."
On the one hand, it was trolling. On the other hand, it obviously didn't include cops and soldiers. He was trolling-not sure why counter-straw-manning was needed to rebut *that*.
---------
So I'm wondering how people will justify continued support for a refusal even to attempt to *research* gun violence, its causes and effects and methods by which it might be decreased, in scientific and medical ways. My suspicion is that it will be 'it's the NRA, not us, the reasonable gun owners'.
In other words, more of the same. But I suppose it is important-statistics and studies done in other nations can be rejected out of hand as inapplicable to the US situation. But that isn't as helpful if we're doing more research here, so let's clamp down on that.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I don't know if this was posted in the other thread or this one, but this blog post is worth reading. The author makes many of the points I've tried to make here, but does so without being as bad at communicating as I am.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
All and all a great post Boris, but I must object to a couple of things you have put out that are just incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: It looks really mean and deadly, but it's still a .22 caliber rifle that is barely capable of killing small rodents.
.22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
quote:The clothing layers were composed of the following: One usual heavy cotton t-shirt, one heavy cotton shirt and a canvas raincoat. ... Unwrapping the target showed that the rounds at 300 yards (assuming that the round that went through was probably the 250 yards round) went through the turkey and got stuck under the skin. Still penetrating 7 inches of bones and meat.
Part of what makes the .22 so deadly is that it has entrance velocity, and not exit velocity, so instead of just punching a hole in people, it bounces around off of bones, doing devastating damage to internal structures. I have heard it said that statistically it is the most lethal round of all, but I couldn't find any real studies to back that up. Regardless, .22's are very deadly.
quote:They also usually cost more than the weapon they hold bullets for. (A 100 round drum for an AR-15 costs 700 bucks, and that's *cheap*).
Here is a 90 round drum for $120. And Here is an extended 100 round mag for $170.
[ January 17, 2013, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Most butchers use .22 shells to put down animals (cows, pigs, sheep).
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: .22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
Yeah. Like I said in another thread, I grew up in the south. If there's one thing southerner's do really well, it's exaggeration. Any round can be deadly to a human, yes, but it depends on a lot of factors. Specifically where you're hit, at what range the bullet was fired from, ammo construction, and all sorts of factors. Pistols that fire .22LR are useful for target shooting and varmint hunting, but not a lot more.
Of course you got the point I was making, that just about any rifle that fires .22LR is going to do pretty much the same amount of damage to what gets shot, regardless of whether it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount. If it has a grenade launcher attached, that changes things a bit, but only if you actually use the grenade launcher (seriously, where do you get rounds for a grenade launcher, and why did they think it was necessary to add that to the 1994 AWB? Was there a surge in grenade related deaths during the early 90s I didn't know about? I admit, I was 14 when they passed that, so I might just not remember).
quote: Most butchers use .22 shells to put down animals (cows, pigs, sheep).
Because I feel like being picky, .22 caliber bullets are referred to as "rounds," not shells. Shells are used in Shoguns, and they are measured by gauge, or the diameter of the shotgun's barrel. Shotguns don't fire traditional bullets, so you have to go by the barrel size with them.
Pickyness aside, .22 is useful for putting down animals for the reasons SW mentioned...It goes in easy but doesn't go out easy. A .22 to any softer portion of the skull (below the jaw, between the sinuses, etc) will bounce around inside the skull and basically scramble the brain of the animal. It's an instant death and does no damage to the meat, and has no possibility of over-penetration.
More often, though, cattle are slaughtered with Captive Bolt Pistols rather than traditional pistols.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: .22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
Yeah. Like I said in another thread, I grew up in the south. If there's one thing southerner's do really well, it's exaggeration. Any round can be deadly to a human, yes, but it depends on a lot of factors. Specifically where you're hit, at what range the bullet was fired from, ammo construction, and all sorts of factors. Pistols that fire .22LR are useful for target shooting and varmint hunting, but not a lot more.
Of course you got the point I was making, that just about any rifle that fires .22LR is going to do pretty much the same amount of damage to what gets shot, regardless of whether it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount. If it has a grenade launcher attached, that changes things a bit, but only if you actually use the grenade launcher (seriously, where do you get rounds for a grenade launcher, and why did they think it was necessary to add that to the 1994 AWB? Was there a surge in grenade related deaths during the early 90s I didn't know about? I admit, I was 14 when they passed that, so I might just not remember).
There were approximately as many grenade deaths as there were rifle-mounted bayonet deaths.
The numbers for pistol grip deaths, barrel shroud deaths, and flash suppressor deaths are similar.
I won't commit to saying the same for telescoping stocks, though. I have no trouble believing someone somewhere might have bludgeoned someone to death with a stock. So there might be one of those (a.k.a. an infinite percentage increase over the aforementioned deaths).
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote: .22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
Yeah. Like I said in another thread, I grew up in the south. If there's one thing southerner's do really well, it's exaggeration. Any round can be deadly to a human, yes, but it depends on a lot of factors. Specifically where you're hit, at what range the bullet was fired from, ammo construction, and all sorts of factors. Pistols that fire .22LR are useful for target shooting and varmint hunting, but not a lot more.
Of course you got the point I was making, that just about any rifle that fires .22LR is going to do pretty much the same amount of damage to what gets shot, regardless of whether it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount. If it has a grenade launcher attached, that changes things a bit, but only if you actually use the grenade launcher (seriously, where do you get rounds for a grenade launcher, and why did they think it was necessary to add that to the 1994 AWB? Was there a surge in grenade related deaths during the early 90s I didn't know about? I admit, I was 14 when they passed that, so I might just not remember).
There were approximately as many grenade deaths as there were rifle-mounted bayonet deaths.
The numbers for pistol grip deaths, barrel shroud deaths, and flash suppressor deaths are similar.
I won't commit to saying the same for telescoping stocks, though. I have no trouble believing someone somewhere might have bludgeoned someone to death with a stock. So there might be one of those (a.k.a. an infinite percentage increase over the aforementioned deaths).
Hey now, if you can bop someone to death with a telescoping stock you can do it with a pistol grip. Just...takes more effort. That said, even if you limit yourself to ten round magazines, you can just do this. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because I feel like being picky, .22 caliber bullets are referred to as "rounds," not shells. Shells are used in Shoguns, and they are measured by gauge, or the diameter of the shotgun's barrel. Shotguns don't fire traditional bullets, so you have to go by the barrel size with them.
Well, if you are going to be that picky...
quote:Originally posted by Boris: A practiced marksman can change a rifle cartridge in about a second, so when you are talking about 10 rounds vs 30 rounds, an extended magazine saves maybe 3 seconds when firing 30 rounds.
A cartridge is a single round, not a magazine.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm going to point out that a non-telegraphing stock is both heavier and more solid and more likely to cause a death.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I don't know if this was posted in the other thread or this one, but this blog post is worth reading. The author makes many of the points I've tried to make here, but does so without being as bad at communicating as I am.
Great article!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh, and I had forgotten, Boris mentioned .50 cal weapons and included the Desert Eagle. The Desert Eagle is not a .50 bmg (Browning machine gun) weapon, it is .50 ae (action express).
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because I feel like being picky, .22 caliber bullets are referred to as "rounds," not shells. Shells are used in Shoguns, and they are measured by gauge, or the diameter of the shotgun's barrel. Shotguns don't fire traditional bullets, so you have to go by the barrel size with them.
Well, if you are going to be that picky...
quote:Originally posted by Boris: A practiced marksman can change a rifle cartridge in about a second, so when you are talking about 10 rounds vs 30 rounds, an extended magazine saves maybe 3 seconds when firing 30 rounds.
A cartridge is a single round, not a magazine.
Yeah yeah. Grammar nazi gets as he gives...
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and I had forgotten, Boris mentioned .50 cal weapons and included the Desert Eagle. The Desert Eagle is not a .50 bmg (Browning machine gun) weapon, it is .50 ae (action express).
Still both .50 caliber. The S&W .500 Special uses a different cartridge that isn't BMG as well. All of them will stop a truck. Or at least a Volkswagen.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Comparing .50ae and .500sw to .50bmg is like comparing a mini-bike with a semi-truck. Well, they are both motor vehicles.
I mean, did you look at the picture?
The handgun rounds might stop a Volkswagen...if they had depleted uranium rounds...but I still wouldn't put large money on it.
The .50bmg was used as an anti aircraft gun in WWII. It's fracking huge! The two pistol rounds are only slightly larger then other pistol rounds, like the .45acp or the .454casul.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Please refrain from quoting posts that involve Stone_Wolf.
Posted by Daryl (Member # 12932) on :
Apologies for offending anyone with my last post, but if you think using the word "losers" is trolling don't go to other sites. I obviously underestimated people's sensitivities by using emotive simplistic language. To pontificate my point I meant to say that well organized capable people don't need to have a loaded semi automatic weapon at easy hand to ensure domestic safety. If you are living in that environment either get out or change it, and if you aren't very capable, a readily available semi auto is just one more dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with. On more recent trends I've used various heavy rounds and agree that 0.5 pistol ammunition is not in the same league as 50 cal. The biggest personal weapon I've used is a 20mm, followed by a 50 cal, but I've also used big pistol rounds. Except for long distance sniping with 50 cal these are not optimal human killing rounds, due to the recoil and recovery time. I believe that in a civilized society regular police shouldn't have to carry semi auto but on the rare occasion wait for the swat team. Military need switchable semi and full auto but should be trained to use semi auto unless repelling a mass attack. Semi allows precise targeting, but the only accurate full auto weapon was the Bren. Placed in the middle of a hostile mob my weapon of choice would be a 12 gauge Street Sweeper with circular mag loaded with SGs, but I'd hope to plan ahead & not be there anyway.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I actually keep a .357 revolver in a quick access safe by my bedside...but not for any reason discussed...just because I don't want to have to have the hassle of cycling my ammo every month.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: a readily available semi auto is just one more dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with. [/QB]
*Every* firearm is a dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with. Every firearm shoots bullets. The action used to cycle bullets has no impact on whether or not a gun can kill someone. It doesn't even have a realistic impact on how *fast* a gun can shoot bullets. What it does is keep the shooter from having to manipulate the weapon constantly, and with practice you can fire a non-semi-automatic weapon with as much speed as a semi-automatic one. Go look at the videos I posted earlier. The world record for revolver speed is 12 shots in less than 3 seconds, which includes a single 6 round reload. The one time I've gone shooting with handguns, it took me about 5 seconds to empty a 15 round clip with a 9mm Glock. And I don't think I hit anything.
quote: I actually keep a .357 revolver in a quick access safe by my bedside...but not for any reason discussed...just because I don't want to have to have the hassle of cycling my ammo every month.
I don't own a gun at all because I don't want to have the hassle of cleaning and maintaining it. Responsibility keeps me lazy and laziness keeps me responsible Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe, and should understand that competent assailants will quickly turn such against them.
quote:...and if you aren't very capable, a readily available semi auto is just one more dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with.
The first time you stated this (not the loser part) was put in utterly ridiculous terms. The second was at least plausible, although still not likely. I wonder, why do you have so much faith in criminal's skills and so little in gun owners?
I mean...let's play this out, I'm home, with a gun, and you break into my house. How is it more likely that you are going to get my gun from me and use it on me then me just shooting you?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Stone Wolf: I'd guess it's because of the old statistic about guns in your home being more likely to be used against you than an intruder. People twist it into meaning all sorts of things.
Even though the stat was derived from looking over the course of owning a gun, not by any means by looking at the context of a specific home invasion scenario.
The statistic is also derived from stuff like suicide rates, so it's pretty horrifically misleading all around. Yeah, there are more suicides than there are home invasions that end with the invader being shot. Okay. That wouldn't be a particularly damning statistic, though, so it gets gussied up a little.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It wouldn't? If someone is killed with a gun, it *is* likely that it was by suicide. That's not gussied up, that's the straight truth.
You're right though that it doesn't dig into nuance such as suicide by gun vs home invasion repelled by gun. If only there were some way scientists could, say, do a study of some sort to begin shining some light onto that subject...
Not to (well, actually yes, to) beat a dead horse, but there is a reason the NRA gets referenced repeatedly. One of the main reasons people feel secure arguing solely with anecdote is because science has been deliberately hamstrung on the matter, and there's really only one side doing that in this country right now.
A skeptical person might begin to wonder if that was because the big shakers among the NRA are worried about the kinds of answers they might find. It's either that, or fears that we're just a few months away from Hitler are actually *genuine* and non-crazy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Blaming a gun for a suicide is like blaming obesity on spoons and forks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's *possible* that if they couldn't get a firearm, all of those 90% successful firearm attempts-over half of all gun deaths-would successfully utilize one of the other methods, but I don't know how anyone could assert that with anything other than 'it just makes sense'. Which it doesn't anyway, to anyone who understands a bit about the dynamics of suicide.
In any event, I wasn't blaming guns for suicide. You're welcome to point to where I did, if you can. All I did was (correctly) highlight that any given gun death is simply likely to be a suicide. Which it is. I even acknowledged the murkiness of the truth, given a poor understanding of suicide attempts with guns compared to home invasions or assaults thwarted by guns.
Isn't it a shame we don't know more about those things? Maybe we could fund some research across the country to try and study the problem.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm all for suicide prevention help lines, etc, but really my libertarian principals are not so ruffled by someone choosing to take their own life. It is theirs to take. Of course if we -can- help them, we should. You say you aren't blaming guns for suicide, okay, then what is your point?
As to the research, it should be done, and the NRA are assbags for many reasons, and stopping that research is one of the major ones.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm all for suicide prevention help lines, etc, but really my libertarian principals are not so ruffled by someone choosing to take their own life. It is theirs to take. Of course if we -can- help them, we should. You say you aren't blaming guns for suicide, okay, then what is your point?
If it is a libertarian principle to be unruffled when someone, almost always as a result of mental illness or short-term trauma, kills themselves because they didn't get help, then that is a reason to consider it a fearful and shameful ideology. Suicide is hardly ever some calmly chosen, coolly rational decision to be respected as a person's private business, anymore than we should let someone drive when they're delirious with the flu. Thus 'principle' is not the word to use if unruffled by it.
As for my point, my point was to talk about how guns are actually used. It is a fact that most gun deaths are due to suicide. There's nothing gussied up about saying so. It's also a fact that the issue isn't that cut and dried, that there's more to consider than that. But as for facts, it is finally also a fact that one of the biggest reasons we can't be more precise is because of the nation's chief 2nd Amendment advocates. Who won't listen to *us*.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When Australia increased gun regulations, suicides using gun decreased with no increase in other methods. So, while guns might not cause suicide, if the gun was not available, a lot of people wouldn't kill themselves.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I had a rather long and thought out reply typed out, but my daughter turned off my computer and it was lost.
I'll try and duplicate it later.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
It's a scary world you live in, Stone Wolf, where you're forced to conceal carry over open carry because someone is going to sneak up behind you and shoot you first.
I hope I never have to live there.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: When Australia increased gun regulations, suicides using gun decreased with no increase in other methods. So, while guns might not cause suicide, if the gun was not available, a lot of people wouldn't kill themselves.
A right to bear arms, a right to free speech. What a shame that there's no right to one's own death.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh: Please refrain from quoting posts that involve Stone_Wolf.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Um...are you writing from Alpha Centauri? Otherwise, we have but the one world, and for the record, I don't carry...unless paid to do so as a professional.
And I'm not sure why you find it so funny that BB had asked Rakeesh not to quote me.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
A person's rights are limited when there is mental incapacitation. We as a society have determined that one is not of sound mind if they wish to kill themselves and therefore that right is denied to them. Catch 22 but consistent with other rights and limitations of those rights.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I feel very strongly that simply wishing to end your life should not qualify as mental incapacitation. I do, however, feel that if that diagnosis is made by other criteria, then society should not allow someone who is mentally unwell to take their own life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You will hardly ever find someone who lacks the other characteristics you're likely referring to, who committs suicide. It is such a small fraction of people who commit these sorts of suicide-we're not talking, after all, about incurable disease or something-that they don't have much place in this sort of discussion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That was part of my post that got deleted...where are you getting this idea that "almost always as a result of mental illness or short-term trauma, kills themselves because they didn't get help,"...I mean, that sounds like you are referencing a study, not just your impression of mental health and suicides. If so, what study? And if not, what lead you to such a strong opinion?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To be clear, there is a claim in that question you're basically insisting others research and rebut for you: that suicides *aren't* most commonly due to mental illness that could be diagnosed and treated.
This isn't me telling you to do my homework, or assigning homework, or what have you, this is me saying that if you do just a little digging you'll find that suicide really *is* almost always a response to mental illness, unless you reject out of hand the work of mental health professionals in general.
Take suicides by firearm versus other methods of suicide-why is it that if someone tries to kill themselves with pills or cutting or fumes, they have a much lower success rate...and then when are treated don't just immediately go out and try for the most successful suicide method of firearm? Or is it that they aren't *actually* suicidal? You have to do so much navigation to arrive at a different conclusion.
I'll dare you to find a medical doctor or someone who works in the medical field who *doesn't* say that suicide is almost always a sign of mental illness or at most a response to incredible stress such as grief, finances, or breakups. Here's just one of dozens you could reference from the suicide wiki alone.
This isn't meant as a shot, but rather an observation: that you think suicide *isn't* almost always-and note again I'm not talking about end-of-life stuff, and even if I were, but that's another conversation-that you think suicide isn't almost always attributable to mental health problems is a sign that you're pretty ignorant on the topic. I'm using the term carefully, not to insult but only to point out that a bit of basic investigation would clear things up.
Now, if you *didn't* mean to suggest that, if you're not claiming that suicide is mostly a result of mental illness, then I've misunderstood you and my criticism would be that i think you expressed yourself badly, but this is the Internet and that happens.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It was the latter...I was just wondering at your strong feelings, not expressing any myself. I'm not sure where you got the idea that was putting anything forward myself, I mean I was just asking questions.
In looking over the study you furnished (thanks!) it says that about 90% of studied suicides had been diagnosed previously with some kind of mental health issue.
quote:Twenty-seven studies comprising 3275 suicides were included, of which, 87.3% (SD 10.0%) had been diagnosed with a mental disorder prior to their death.
That does seem fairly conclusive, although I wonder...how much previous to their self inflicted deaths are we talking about...and are we talking about serious disorders, or all...not that I would really be able to recognize the difference without some research.
Regardless, I for one would be hugely in favor of increasing funds for mental health care, as well as funds for research into new methods and drugs to help.
Is there another technique you would suggest (that isn't banning all guns) to help reduce the number of firearm suicides?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: It's a scary world you live in, Stone Wolf, where you're forced to conceal carry over open carry because someone is going to sneak up behind you and shoot you first.
I hope I never have to live there.
Oh, looks like you're back.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Rakeesh, or anyone else sounding off on the suicide issue, I have a sincere question for you:
Do you think that someone who is in incapacitating physical pain with only a slim prognosis of alleviating said pain in the near future should have the right to end their own life?
Or should we force them to remain alive, and in agony, in the hopes that their pain will eventually be treated down to a more manageable level and they will be able to go back to living a semi-normal life?
I have a followup question based on your answer.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
For me Dan, I don't know. It is a difficult question. Neither option really satisfies me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Unequivocally, yes they should be able to.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The problem with that is people in full depression/ stress anxiety/PTSD sometimes live in very painful circumstances, where every moment is miserable. So, if you say, yes let people with painful prognosis with little chance of brighter future (since not every case is treatable even with all the drugs out there), then we have to give that right to those with depression. I am not comfortable with this. Nor would I be comfortable with say someone with arthritis killing themselves. This might be horrible selfish and unscientific to me but in the end, I just can't be ok with suicide. When we are talking end of life, well, in that case death is assured within a short frame of time and so I am a little better with it but I am still not completely ok.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem with that is people in full depression/ stress anxiety/PTSD sometimes live in very painful circumstances, where every moment is miserable. So, if you say, yes let people with painful prognosis with little chance of brighter future (since not every case is treatable even with all the drugs out there), then we have to give that right to those with depression.
Bingo. That was precisely my followup question. If people in intense physical pain should be allowed to end their suffering, why should people in intense mental/emotional pain be in a different category?
On the hope that maybe it will get better for them? Because we know better than they do how much pain is tolerable? Those still apply to people in physical pain.
I think it may be just because we don't consider mental anguish as "real" as physical pain. But if anything, I think it's worse. The worst periods of my life have all been times of intense mental pain, not physical pain.
It's sad when someone dies. But I think it's far sadder to force someone to live in agony when they would rather be dead. It's ridiculous that we think we can make that decision for them.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I am not comfortable with this. Nor would I be comfortable with say someone with arthritis killing themselves. This might be horrible selfish and unscientific to me but in the end, I just can't be ok with suicide. When we are talking end of life, well, in that case death is assured within a short frame of time and so I am a little better with it but I am still not completely ok.
I understand what you're saying, and I don't think you're being horrible or selfish. I get it. Death is scary and it's sad when people die.
Personally, I can't imagine being in so much pain that I would rather die. I love life too much.
But if I ever was in that much pain, mental or physical... I'd want the right to make my own decision. I wouldn't want to be forced by someone else who couldn't imagine what I was going through.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's sad when someone dies. But I think it's far sadder to force someone to live in agony when they would rather be dead. It's ridiculous that we think we can make that decision for them.
The trouble is, particularly with depression but also with other mental illnesses, is that the suffering being endured is because the instrument (for lack of a better word) isn't tuned properly, and is sending back off key notes, painful ones. So the pain is there, but it can often be substantially mitigated. To see evidence of this one need only look at just how many people *attempt* suicide, fail, but don't later kill themselves.
So in the case of mental illness, do we say to the sufferer, "It's your choice," and let them do as they will when the instrument with which they make that choice is literally broken? Or should we perhaps make an effort to fix it?
It isn't necessarily that death is worse than living in pain, it's that one cannot be taken back. At least with the idea of treating someone who is sick, well, we stand a chance at getting them well and if we do, then the option to commit suicide is still there after we've pointed them through the exit.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:But if I ever was in that much pain, mental or physical... I'd want the right to make my own decision. I wouldn't want to be forced by someone else who couldn't imagine what I was going through.
If you knew a person who came up to you and said absolutely seriously, "I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and I have discovered that I can keep the world safe from evil by committing suicide and preventing the return of the antichrist".
Then said they were off to hang themselves in the bathroom of their own house, would you call anyone and tell them to try to stop this person, or not?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Parkour, do you think that's a representative example of most people who commit suicide?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's closer to the mean than the ideal of the long-suffering and entirely rational elderly person with terminal cancer, at least. Far sadder than people being forced to live when they would rather die are people who decide they would rather die and kill themselves before anyone else gets a chance to help them change their mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Particularly when that mind ain't working. As for the ultimate sadness contest, the clear winner seems to me to be the person who to stop dreadful pain kills themself, without being given the treatment that does often exist that could've stopped the pain *short* of suicide.
Also, I'm really not sure where this faith in the cool rationality of someone in so much pain they're considering death comes from. Shall we lower anesthesia during surgeries and require medical decisions from patients while they're under the knife? Or would we be shocked and point out that besides the inhumanity of such an extreme example, people usually can't think straight when under great pain?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It has nothing to do with thinking they are being coolly rational. I don't think most people are particularly rational most of the time. That doesn't give me the right to, e.g. Dictate how vegans should run their life.
The point isn't whether or not they can think straight. The point is whether or not they're in such intense pain that they would rather die than go on. They may well not be thinking straight. I don't know. It's still their life to end if they choose.
I'm not arguing against trying to help such people. Just drawing the line a specific kinds of help.
Tom: do you actually mean "change their mind" in the traditional meaning of "persuasion," or do you mean "forcible restraint and forced treatment?"
Rakeesh: You didnt answer my original question. Does this mean you're against all forms of suicide and would advocate forcing people to stay alive whenever possible?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let's use Rakeesh's hypothetical for a moment. Is it still that crazy person's life to end, if he freely chooses to do so? Would it be morally wrong to forcibly restrain him and prevent him from sacrificing himself upon an altar made out of a foozball table and US Magazine clippings about Taylor Swift?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The point isn't whether or not they can think straight. The point is whether or not they're in such intense pain that they would rather die than go on. They may well not be thinking straight. I don't know. It's still their life to end if they choose.
Where is the choice where the mind is broken? Or is this a larger meta discussion about 'who are we to say what's broken or damaged?' More distrust of psychology and psychiatry? The proof is in the pudding-if what you were saying was true about all of this pain being so bad, people who attempt to commit suicide would continue to do so until successful, which is thankfully not the case.
My answer to your original question is to say that I don't know, but probably we should morally respect the right to suicide in some cases. But you've not answered two of mine: one, what is to be done about the problem being not just pain, but irrevocability? And two, what about the fact that help exists for much of this pain we're discussing, but those suffering don't realize it because their minds aren't working properly?
While we're speaking of individual rights, how many people who would if treated for their suicidal desires later reject them and be grateful they hadn't gone through with it-how many of them must be let perish on the altar of individual rights? There are hard questions on all sides of this, and perhaps it's because you've been asking questions so far rather than an indicator of your full thoughts, but you don't appear to recognize that this high minded ideal you've got, that seeks to prevent the real cost of dreadful suffering on one hand, also carries with it a blood price on the other. For that you've your article of faith that it is a very sad thing that some of those who suffer aren't allowed to die, but what of the flip side of that? What of the sadness of all of those who did die, but might have been helped?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is there another technique you would suggest (that isn't banning all guns) to help reduce the number of firearm suicides?
The moral question is...tricky, is there anyone who can answer the practical?
To the moral:
If someone is terminal, and suffering, I think we mostly all agree, that suicide is justified.
If someone is mentally unstable, they shouldn't be allowed to kill themselves, as long as what qualifies them as "mentally unstable" ≠ "suicidal". Every attempt to help those in need should be brought to bear. This is a much more difficult road to follow, i.e. should medicine and therapy be forced on to people, should the be held and restrained. Well, in an ideal world, we could objectively know who "needs" our help, and who does not, but it isn't ideal, so which is worse, not forcing help on those who truly need it or effectively incarcerating fully sane people and forcing them into invasive and harmful treatments, like trying to cure homosexuality with electroshock, chemical castration and even lobotomy.
So, to me, morally it becomes a question of what does less harm. Allowing people the "right" of killing themselves would certainly remove the horror of one flew over the cuckoo's nesting sane people. But it allows people who otherwise might have been helped and lived happy and fulfilling lives to die unnecessarily.
There's the rub to the moral question.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Dan - You're the only one being reasonable in this.
Rakeesh - Their suffering and sadness is over. They're dead, yeah?
A big deal is made about taking away the choice of suicide in order to get someone help. I'm assuming that we should also take away the choice over whether that help is worth the cost of receiving it. How long to tolerate it.
You know, mental illness can be genetic. Prevent one younger person from ending their pain, and maybe she or he pops out three kids. Now you've not only extended the pain of one sentient mind, you've helped to introduce it in up to three brand new ones!
The world is not underpopulated. Let those who want to go, go.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boy, you crammed in eugenics and Ebenezer Scrooge (pre-enlightenment) into one post.
I'm getting a strong whiff of 'not worth taking seriously-troll' from you, by this and past posts, so I'll take a crack at it on a provisional basis.
One, by your reasoning anytime anyone is suffering, euthanasia should be considered. Their suffering is over, so the problem is solved, apparently. Two, you do pose a decent question with the 'when and how much' bit. I'm not sure why the answer to a complicated gray area like that should be one extreme end solution, though.
Three, if you're going to advocate eugenics, one: do so under its own banner, don't pretend to he concerned with the chilluns, and two: shall we look at your genetics and see whether you should be sterilized? Thought not.
Oh, and findally: the world ain't underpopulated (supposedly)-by all means, see yourself out then. Or is this one of those good for the goose ideologies? Sounds like it.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
No, anytime someone is suffering, euthanasia should be given if they request it. Not if someone else requests it.
No one should be forcibly sterilized, but you see people all the time who have terrible genetic illnesses have children, and that's just selfish. Educate them on why, and then let them make their own decision. I have no intention of having children, and I would be terribly upset if I were to knock a woman up and she wanted to keep it.
Finally, you can consider me one of the geese. Suicide has been on the list of options since I was a teenager, and it's only climbed up the list since. It annoys me to hear people talk so condescendingly about taking away what may end up being my best option.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
How would you guys feel about something a bit like a living will, in which you can dictate beforehand how it should be handled should you ever become mentally ill and suicidal?
Some people with Dan's take on things could sign under column A and be allowed to take their own lives, while other people with Rakeesh's preferences (mine too) could sign under column B and be forcibly institutionalized and treated, should it come to that.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Destineer, that sounds entirely reasonable.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fascinating idea Destineer...
How would the system handle if someone hadn't signed at all?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I agree that Destineer's suggestion could be a decent solution.
To be clear, Destineer, I would probably also sign onto column B. Because me, right now, really doesn't want to die and I'm willing to screw over Theoretical-Suicidal-Me-Of-The-Future in the hopes that one day I'll return and reclaim his body.
But I, similarly, would never sign a DNR and would never preemptively tell someone I wanted someone to pull the plug on me were I a vegetable. Just in case. If cryonics wasn't such a useless crock I'd be in on that, too.
Those are my preferences, though. Many people disagree with me. I don't presume to know better than they do what the best solutions to their problems might be.
Rakeesh, I'll take a look at your questions a bit later.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Fascinating idea Destineer...
How would the system handle if someone hadn't signed at all?
The argument y'all are having would carry over to that sort of case, I'm afraid.
It would be sort of like the situation with organ donorship: does one have an opt-in policy (as in the US) or an opt-out policy (as in some other countries)?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: But I, similarly, would never sign a DNR and would never preemptively tell someone I wanted someone to pull the plug on me were I a vegetable. Just in case. If cryonics wasn't such a useless crock I'd be in on that, too.
That's funny you mention that, I'm probably going to sign up for cryonics one of these days.
There's probably about a 0.1% chance it'll work, but it seems worth it even for that.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The point isn't whether or not they can think straight. The point is whether or not they're in such intense pain that they would rather die than go on. They may well not be thinking straight. I don't know. It's still their life to end if they choose.
Where is the choice where the mind is broken? Or is this a larger meta discussion about 'who are we to say what's broken or damaged?' More distrust of psychology and psychiatry? The proof is in the pudding-if what you were saying was true about all of this pain being so bad, people who attempt to commit suicide would continue to do so until successful, which is thankfully not the case.
I don't deny that their mind is damaged... that's what's causing them so much pain in the first place. Whether that damage is sufficient to say that they are incapable of making decisions is another matter, I think.
You still haven't sounded off on whether or not you're comfortable with suicide for people in intense physical pain, Rakeesh. I'm curious where you stand on that.
As to the last quoted bit above... many people in such immense physical pain that they seek suicide do not immediately try again upon failing. Often what drives people to try suicide is a powerful conflux of factors, including things like the pain they are in being particularly horrific at that moment.
Once the failed attempt is over, the pain may also have subsided. The fear of death may have had time to set in further. But that doesn't mean they've stopped suffering, and it doesn't mean they won't hit a level of suffering in the future that once again leads to them wanting to not have to suffer any longer.
Should we forcibly stop all suicides, if we can?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd still like you to address the extant hypothetical, Dan.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan,
quote:I don't deny that their mind is damaged... that's what's causing them so much pain in the first place. Whether that damage is sufficient to say that they are incapable of making decisions is another matter, I think.
But if the damage is what is saying to the sufferer 'kill yourself'...you see my point? Imagine...hmmm. Imagine a color blind person asserting their ability to judge for themselves the difference between red and green (is that one of the splits?). Would you really credit them with the capability to do so? I'm not talking about the abstract rights side of this question here, just trying to point out that it seems you're radically overestimating capability here. In many cases it may very well be like someone who is dyslexic to write a book report of a technical manual in a field they're not in.
None of these are precise examples, but we're all pretty much floundering on much of this-except that we do know a few things about attempts, successes, and repeat attempts which point well away from the conclusions you're drawing.
quote:You still haven't sounded off on whether or not you're comfortable with suicide for people in intense physical pain, Rakeesh. I'm curious where you stand on that.
It's the same answer for me as for abstract suffering, mental illness suffering. Well, not quite-I'm not comfortable with suicide for anyone ever. In my opinion it is very often perversely romanticized as this practice that has some sort of platonic ideal. But I also think there are probably extreme outlier situations where it would be acceptable, I just don't know where they are. Future you might very well want to kill himself-he may even have good reasons. But as you admit present you is happy to screw him over, and the only way we get to hear from future you+ six months is if he is allowed to come about.
I'll put it another way: if death is something a rational, committed person can reasonably desire (setting aside physical incapacitation) then they'll be able to execute that plan. There are methods that are as reliable and painless, after all, as anything one might elaborately arrange in a hospital.
quote:Once the failed attempt is over, the pain may also have subsided. The fear of death may have had time to set in further. But that doesn't mean they've stopped suffering, and it doesn't mean they won't hit a level of suffering in the future that once again leads to them wanting to not have to suffer any longer.
I'm a bit surprised to hear you offer this reasoning without at least a nod to its included rebuttal: there's a lot of if and maybe and could potentially in this rhetoric, and yes, they may swing around to a desire for death again. But speaking broadly of suicide, if they actually get help, they usually don't.
I'm a big fan of free will and individual rights, but I'm also a big fan of not simply washing my hands of my responsibilities to other human beings AS a human being because of a very possibly fleeting illness or suffering that could be alleviated if someone reached out at one of the many cries for help that so often precede suicide in the first place.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Is there another technique you would suggest (that isn't banning all guns) to help reduce the number of firearm suicides?
The moral question is...tricky, is there anyone who can answer the practical?
Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One of my cOworkers has a friend who had schitsophrenia and refused to get treated because there was nothing wrong with him. Her solution was to not be friends anymore because clearly he didn't care enough to fix himself. I was a bit horrified because if he really was in the midst of a schitsophrenia break, of course he couldn't understand how his mind was damaged. That is one of the great difficulties with mental problems. It is very hard to assess how your brain is distorting your perceptions. Even with my very mild easy to treat post partum depression, my dr seemed more interested in what my mom and husband had to say about where I was than my assessment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't want (nor has anyone who is taken seriously) to ban all guns. Not sure where that came from, but...universal background checks on all transfers of ownership, basically. Tied in with some form of medical health professional reporting for, say, suicidal thoughts or tendencies.
Yes, there are hazards with these options, and they're very broad strokes. But over half of gun deaths are suicides, and suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in this country. If you strike out physical illness (heart disease, strokes, cancer), it's *second*.
Though actually, the first thing would be to begin, today, many different kinds of studies by as many disinterested (that is, not shills) scientists as we can get interested, and try to discover the actual real-world answers to some of these questions. Because medically, right now, we're permanently stuck at the level of vaccinations causing autism rhetoric because we've permitted a special interest group inhibit us from actually finding root causes.
------
On another topic, I'm interested to hear what anyone thought of the latest NRA ad. I was astounded and depressed to hear it defended seriously by a coworker. My beefs: it's a cheap political ploy, bringing the President's children into the situation; it's a profoundly dishonest argument for two reasons-one, the President's family faces far more danger than an ordinary American family and two, if the NRA were pushing for Secret Service level training for these armed guards they're advocating, it would be a different matter.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
boots is suggesting that (whether or not you take her seriously is not being commented on)...and I just put it in the question for the sake of being specific.
Medical health care pros are already on the hook for reporting plans to commit suicide...and I think anything more (reporting thoughts) would be a major violation of Dr./patient confidentiality. I mean who is going to mention that they had considered killing themselves to their theripist if the next day the PD show up to confiscate their guns?
I'd say that a safe storage requirement might help, as from what I recall, a lot of these deaths are with borrowed guns.
[ January 21, 2013, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Stewart had a good bit the other day on how NRA completely knee capped the ability of the ATF to enforce existing gun laws.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Parkour, do you think that's a representative example of most people who commit suicide?
I don't know, and it's irrelevant to my question. What do you do?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is she in the conversation? It's a long thread, though. In any event, the idea of banning all guns isn't one seriously proposed anywhere. There's this peculiar victim mentality among many Second Amendment advocates, as though things hadn't been going their way literally for generations. Y'all have the enormous angry gorilla in your corner, not us.
Anyway, as for reporting I was referring to something like a background check database-for future would-be possessions. Not a report to the local cops who bust down the door all SWAT style and snatch up the guns. Though really, if a means could be found of retrieving guns from those who had expressed some (I'm not a professional, doctors would need to establish some standard) suicidal thoughts.
Anyway, others have mentioned other stuff too-such as how gun trafficking laws are absurdly lightly enforced and punished. Drug busts can and very often do get harsher penalties than selling multiple guns. It's of interest to note two things: one, it's not quite as simple for criminals to go out and get a gun as is commonly believed and two, the extent to which it is has much to do with how lightly we land on gun traffickers, as well as how very hard we work (thanks again, NRA) to offer plenty of avenues for criminals to get guns when they want them.
This would be a *great* issue for that old conservative standby 'let's enforce the laws already on the books' to be heard, but strangely it's not.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Parkour and Tom sincerely want me to address their edge-case hypothetical, so I will. But if they want me to consider it anything but a sort of ridiculous edge case they'd best have a good argument for it. Suicidal, even schizophrenic, people don't usually sound this straightforwardly silly.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:But if I ever was in that much pain, mental or physical... I'd want the right to make my own decision. I wouldn't want to be forced by someone else who couldn't imagine what I was going through.
If you knew a person who came up to you and said absolutely seriously, "I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and I have discovered that I can keep the world safe from evil by committing suicide and preventing the return of the antichrist".
Then said they were off to hang themselves in the bathroom of their own house, would you call anyone and tell them to try to stop this person, or not?
Why would I call anyone? The person just came up to me. I'd talk to them. Ask them how they'd figured that out. Ask them why that was a problem that needed solving. Ask them how suicide would solve that problem.
I probably wouldn't handcuff them and hold them until they told me they didn't want to commit suicide anymore, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan, we're rather in edge-case and ambiguous (particularly in the questions you're asking) territory here.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Parkour and Tom sincerely want me to address their edge-case hypothetical, so I will. But if they want me to consider it anything but a sort of ridiculous edge case they'd best have a good argument for it. Suicidal, even schizophrenic, people don't usually sound this straightforwardly silly.
Okay, fine. I will make a new question. Let's say it is not just someone who walked up to you, it is a long time friend or a family member. And instead of saying they were the reincarnation of jesus christ, how about something more plausible. They tell you that on September 11, 2001, the United States government committed a false flag attack that would be used in order to explain the existence of a psycho-surveillance infrastructure, utilizing quantum mind control which had been globally in place for at least a decade prior. Your brain doesn't understand that because of mind control. Anyway they have figured out a way to download their consciousness onto a passing spaceship and they wanted to say goodbye to you before they kill themselves to free themselves from their body and get on board the spacecraft. They have a container of antifreeze with them. When you inquire about it they say they have spiked it with rat poison to make sure that it kills them at the right time, which is swiftly approaching.
Sure enough 4:40 PM comes about. That's the time. They bid you a fond farewell and begin unscrewing the cap. In the time you have been having this conversation with them you are aware that they completely believe everything that they are saying, which was hard to really get for sure because they were acting very flaky and disconnected and hard to follow, and that they are very intent on actually killing themselves and that the spiked antifreeze is spiked antifreeze. They will not be convinced otherwise, it's going to happen in about thirty minutes. Are you going to stand there and talk to them and otherwise not in any way intervene when they start to kill themselves, or are you going to do something else, like possibly call the cops or a hospital or even physically intervene if they start to drink?
If this still sounds outlandish even though it is a combination of a delusion you got to see right here on this forum alongside a life or death situation involving a catatonic individual that I went through, then you could cut it down to "A person you know is completely irrational and delusional and is getting ready to kill themselves because of a complete delusion. Do you stop them? Would you call the police or the paramedics on them if you had to in order to stop them"?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Will such a person's life be improved by imprisoning them? Or will it continue to be a miserable disconnected hopeless nightmare from which they can't escape?
For what it's worth (not much), Parkour, I've plenty of personal experience with the schizophrenic. Ostensibly, it runs in my family.
I'm not too interested in either of us making this into a big personal/anecdotal thing though. If it's too difficult for you to discuss this issue impersonally and hypothetically, I totally understand. No worries.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Will such a person's life be improved by imprisoning them? Or will it continue to be a miserable disconnected hopeless nightmare from which they can't escape?
You don't know. You just know that if you do nothing, this person kills themselves right on the spot in front of you because they think they're Jesus Christ or because they think they are uploading themselves into the comet matrix or whatever is the result of what is obviously complete delusion. You might have some knowledge about which psychiatric care unit they will end up based on where you live, but it is not like you can diagnose them and figure out what would be done.
So do you respect some sort of a right of theirs to be suicidal for any reason, or do you intervene in some way?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Suicidal, even schizophrenic, people don't usually sound this straightforwardly silly.
Ten years ago, I called police to have my brother committed because he believed angels on the radio were telling him to kill himself. He is now, many years later, a moderately successful composer and professor of music -- but at the time I made the call, there was certainly no basis for any surety that his life would improve. I only knew that if I did not, there was a significant chance that he'd be dead.
Your response suggests that you believe the relevant question to be how SILLY an individual's justification for suicide to be. That I should not have had him committed if he told me that his next-door neighbor had talked him into killing himself seems, frankly, rather appalling.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Will such a person's life be improved by imprisoning them? Or will it continue to be a miserable disconnected hopeless nightmare from which they can't escape?
Why on Earth do you think this is a decision you should be or are qualified to make? I ask because you pose the question as though it should be something a layman human being should ask before intervening to stop someone with this sort of illness from killing themselves.
It's actually quite simple. If you are deeply concerned with an individual right to choose, someone who is psychotic or deeply depressed or schizophrenic is perhaps not making the same kinds of individual choices a healthy, sane person is.
The idea that someone should really ask themselves, "Well how do I know it would help?" when posed with that scenario is a scary, appalling devotion to ideology over people.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What I read here is a lack of knowledge about the causes of the majority of suicides. Depression is a sickness. It is not a fault of character, or a rational response to physical, emotional, or mental pain. It is a sickness caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain.
Thoughts of Suicide is a symptom of that disease.
People commit suicide not because the pain is so bad, but because the brains, due to a shortage of some chemical or overabundance of another, has started a negative feedback loop.
They can not comprehend that things can and will ever get better.
The disease is almost completely treatable, and often curable. It can be short lived or it can be enduring.
When you say, "If a person thinks they should die, we should let them." you assume the person is thinking. They can not think clearly. The hardware for them to process the data has been altered so that rational thought is not possible.
When you say, "The pain they are feeling will go away once they die, so let them die" you do not understand that with a little medication, the pain they are feeling will go away as well, and no one has to die. However, until they get the medication they can not think clearly enough to take the medication. They think clearly enough to create false logic to stop them from taking the medication, and clearly enough to seem reasonable--except for their depression.
When you say, "Its genetic. If they live they will pass it on to their children, so kill them now to save the children" you assume that it is 100% transferable. Sure, 1 of 4 children may develop severe depression in their lives, but you are denying 3 of 4 their normal lives.
Depression, and suicide, is a disease. We should help with the cure, not write off the patient. You start by no longer blaming that patient for the disease, no longer pitying their suffering, but sympathize with the disease, no longer blaming the patient, but help them to a doctor, no longer assuming they are weak, unworthy, or pathetic, but seeing them for what they are--worthy people with a treatable illness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well said.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Unless I had reason to believe that they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol or something, I'd let them drink the antifreeze.
Every sentient mind being allowed to follow it's own course is more important then some mystical reverance for life.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
We're hardwired to avoid death. It's been part of the genome probably since life first began. I'd say that this hardwiring combined with empathy makes it difficult for people to accept that sometimes, yeah, other people just want to die.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I hope I don't come off as condescending when I say, well done to Parkour for engaging in conversation in such a meaningful way. Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
You absolutely came off as being completely condescending, even more so because you stated that you hoped you didn't.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Agreed, Darth.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Unless I had reason to believe that they were under the influence of drugs or alcohol or something, I'd let them drink the antifreeze.
Every sentient mind being allowed to follow it's own course is more important then some mystical reverance for life.
To say you would let someone who is obviously insane drink the spiked antifreeze without a murmur is a terribly cruel and callous thing to believe, under the guise of high-minded idealism.
You reject the 'mystical' reverence for life, and in its place substitute...what, the decidedly non-abstract, absolute 'fact' (in truth it is no less 'mystical' than this reverence for life you disdain) that every sentient mind has a right to follow its own course.
That's before we even get into whether or not an insane mind truly *is* sentient, and what we do about the bits of the person who *aren't* insane, that wish they were well but cannot (because, surprise, it's tough to think with a mind that is ill) see a way to health.
The good news is that you likely wouldn't actually do that, if it was a person you knew and cared for, and it was just the two of you, and they actually had the jug of spiked antifreeze a foot from their hand and had just begun moving their arm towards it. Not many people can really muster that amount of cruel indifference to both life *and* sentience, though there are ideologies which teach that it would be desirable to do so.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Will such a person's life be improved by imprisoning them? Or will it continue to be a miserable disconnected hopeless nightmare from which they can't escape?
You don't know. You just know that if you do nothing, this person kills themselves right on the spot in front of you because they think they're Jesus Christ or because they think they are uploading themselves into the comet matrix or whatever is the result of what is obviously complete delusion. You might have some knowledge about which psychiatric care unit they will end up based on where you live, but it is not like you can diagnose them and figure out what would be done.
Right. So I can lock them up where they may well be kept locked up and miserable for the rest of their life... or I can "let" them do what they think is best for them. Since it's their life...
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: So do you respect some sort of a right of theirs to be suicidal for any reason, or do you intervene in some way?
The fact that you dismissively refer to the last bastion of personal autonomy as "some sort of a right" is pretty terrible, I think.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Suicidal, even schizophrenic, people don't usually sound this straightforwardly silly.
Ten years ago, I called police to have my brother committed because he believed angels on the radio were telling him to kill himself. He is now, many years later, a moderately successful composer and professor of music -- but at the time I made the call, there was certainly no basis for any surety that his life would improve. I only knew that if I did not, there was a significant chance that he'd be dead.
Right. Sometimes when we force things on people, it "works out" in the sense that we think things have gotten better for them (and perhaps they think so too!)
Part of respecting someone's autonomy is letting them make irrational decisions unless those decisions are violating someone else's autonomy (and even then we have a high tolerance threshold).
Is your point that there should be a limit to how irrational they're allowed to be? I'm open to the possibility, but I wonder how that would be determined, and by who. I'm pretty sure I don't think shrugging and leaving it in the hands of an institution with a track record of horrific mistreatment is the way to go.
And again, for the record, I think it's not a good idea to discuss personal experience in this sort of discussion. It increases the likelihood emotions will run high.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Your response suggests that you believe the relevant question to be how SILLY an individual's justification for suicide to be. That I should not have had him committed if he told me that his next-door neighbor had talked him into killing himself seems, frankly, rather appalling.
No. My comments in that regard mostly pertain to the fact that the hypothetical situations you and Parkour are offering are extreme (and in his case, yes, silly) edge cases. You keep asking that I address those instead of, e.g. of people who want to kill themselves because they feel sad all the time, or because nobody will ever love them, or because school is unbearable, or because they hate their job and have no friends, etc.
These are common reasons for suicide. They are generally the ones Darth is alluding to, as well.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Will such a person's life be improved by imprisoning them? Or will it continue to be a miserable disconnected hopeless nightmare from which they can't escape?
Why on Earth do you think this is a decision you should be or are qualified to make? I ask because you pose the question as though it should be something a layman human being should ask before intervening to stop someone with this sort of illness from killing themselves.
Well, if we can't answer that question (and I agree, we can't! In point of fact, I don't think it's a decision I'm qualified to make) then how can we justify imprisoning them? They aren't hurting anyone else, they aren't trying to infringe on anyone else's autonomy. Why are we infringing on theirs?
I mean, you don't think we have the right to imprison anyone for any reason at any time, right? So you think there are specific circumstances that then allow us to imprison people. So, clearly you already have asked yourself whether or not that's a decision you're qualified to make, and you decided it was, and you decided it was okay to imprison people who want to kill themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's actually quite simple. If you are deeply concerned with an individual right to choose, someone who is psychotic or deeply depressed or schizophrenic is perhaps not making the same kinds of individual choices a healthy, sane person is.
People often don't make the same kinds of choices. All the time. Every day. They're constantly choosing things someone else might have chosen differently. And many of these choices are irrational. They often cause harm to themselves, and even people who choose to be close to them (or their children, who don't get a choice in the matter).
Obese people are allowed to make their own choices, right? And religious people (but not too religious)? But sad people can't make their own choices.
Or is it just that all of those people can make all of their own choices... unless their obesity, religion, or sadness leads them to want to commit suicide?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You keep referring to imprisonment, but society doesn't just throw people who it considers insane in jail forever. And while you do have a fair point that psychiatric institutions do not have a historical good record, that does not actually reflect at all on the current state of affairs.
If we did just lock people away, then I'd agree with you.
But we don't. And that's the point. We make every effort to help them get better, and while I don't know the success rate, I'm sure it's quite a bit better then it was throughout the less then sterling history you refer to.
On principal I agree that society should allow people's autonomy, but legally, if someone is not in their right mind and signs a contract or kills someone else, we take that into consideration. So, why have less of that standard just because it is their own life at risk and not someone else's?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Acftually, they do lock you up forever. Unless you convince them that you're no longer suicidal.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Psychiatric institutions generally lock you up until you convince them you're no longer X, where X is whatever they locked you up for in the first place. So, if X is "suicidal," then Tittles is exactly right.
In practice, depending on X, they may also let you out if funding or whatever runs out, but this is seen by most as a failure of the system. They're supposed to keep you imprisoned until you convince them you're not X.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The major cause of suicide is a disease called depression.
Depression can be treated and cured.
Depression makes it impossible for a person to make rational decisions.
How can a person unable to make rational decisions be condemned to die because they didn't make a rational decision.
Its as if the antidote to a poison is sitting on the table. You are arguing that the person poisoned should be able to drink the antidote. We are arguing that the person poisoned can't move their arms to grab the antidote. We should give it to them.
I've had friends who became suicidal after taking certain medications. Should I let them kill themselves, or make sure they change medications. They thanked me for changing the medication, and one was thrilled that he was in the hospital at the time, and not home with his gun collection.
Suicide is not the sad but romantically tragic end of some great story involving too much pain to endure.
It is a disease, like the flu or appendicitis. We no longer lock up lepers, plague victims, or suicidal patients for their lives. We cure them.
Sentience does not equal rational thought. A child is sentient, but still will grab a hot pot or jump off of garage roof. Should we let them?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My comments in that regard mostly pertain to the fact that the hypothetical situations you and Parkour are offering are extreme (and in his case, yes, silly) edge cases. You keep asking that I address those instead of, e.g. of people who want to kill themselves because they feel sad all the time, or because nobody will ever love them, or because school is unbearable, or because they hate their job and have no friends, etc.
The reason I suggested that you address Parkour's hypothetical is not that it clouds the issue, but that it actually makes the issue clearer. In his hypothetical (and in his from-life example, as in my own) we clearly see that someone's wish to kill himself is rooted in an irrational, incorrect assessment of reality. With the greyer issues above -- "I should kill myself because school is unbearable" or "I should kill myself because I hate my job and have no friends" -- it is less immediately obvious (although remains strongly likely) that this motivation is highly foolish.
I submit that maintaining that someone should be permitted to kill himself because he finds school unbearable is yet another example of why dogmatic libertarianism is absolutely insupportable in any viable social framework.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: Acftually, they do lock you up forever. Unless you convince them that you're no longer suicidal.
That depends on state law and procedures, and very very few states go that far with Suicide attempts. Even in states that do have such statutes in place, doctors will often choose to release patients after a prescribed period of time regardless of their history.
For instance, my sister, who has severe frontal lobe damage and epilepsy, has attempted suicide several dozen times (she enjoys the attention she gets from people after attempting suicide, and does so mostly for that attention). In order to even be committed to the state mental institution, my mother had to swear out an arrest warrant for her stating that she was a danger (she was, she often threatened to kill the rest of the kids in my family) and then relinquish her parental rights to the state. My sister escaped the institution about 3 months alter and lived with my grandparents for the next several years, who put up with her constant suicide attempts and random acts of violence for reasons I cannot comprehend.
Once my grandmother developed Alzheimer's, they couldn't care for my sister anymore and she moved to North Carolina to live in government housing. For the next 5 years she was moved into and out of the state mental institution every 90 days because the doctors would determine that she was no longer a danger to anyone and release her. Shortly after being released, she would live in halfway houses, government housing facilities, or on the street until she got caught committing some small act of lawlessness (shoplifting, drug use, a public suicide attempt, etc). Once the police caught her and all the charges were filed, she would be carted back to the mental health facility to spend another 90 days, when she would be released because she was declared no longer a danger to herself or others. This continued even after she jumped off a bridge in the middle of town, which pulverized all but the major bones in her legs, and the major bones were broken in multiple places. She was stuck in a wheel-chair after that event and could no longer walk, but the mental institution released her after her recovery period was done. She was a bag lady after that for quite some time, with a typical 90 day stint in the mental health facility.
After about 3-4 more years of this back and forth, she was finally permanently admitted to the mental health facility. It took at least a dozen re-admissions in half as many years to convince the state of North Carolina that she was a continuing danger to herself and others.
A few years ago, the state health department decided to start moving a number of the non-violent mental patients to community care housing. My sister was one of those, primarily because (we assume) the doctors at the state facility did not want to deal with her.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My comments in that regard mostly pertain to the fact that the hypothetical situations you and Parkour are offering are extreme (and in his case, yes, silly) edge cases. You keep asking that I address those instead of, e.g. of people who want to kill themselves because they feel sad all the time, or because nobody will ever love them, or because school is unbearable, or because they hate their job and have no friends, etc.
The reason I suggested that you address Parkour's hypothetical is not that it clouds the issue, but that it actually makes the issue clearer. In his hypothetical (and in his from-life example, as in my own) we clearly see that someone's wish to kill himself is rooted in an irrational, incorrect assessment of reality. With the greyer issues above -- "I should kill myself because school is unbearable" or "I should kill myself because I hate my job and have no friends" -- it is less immediately obvious (although remains strongly likely) that this motivation is highly foolish.
I submit that maintaining that someone should be permitted to kill himself because he finds school unbearable is yet another example of why dogmatic libertarianism is absolutely insupportable in any viable social framework.
Right. Because you're arrogant enough that you think it's easy for you (or many other Smart People) to know better than other people what's best for them.
I get that.
But lots of your decisions are also rooted in an irrational, incorrect assessment of reality. Is this the criteria for imprisonment?
As I said earlier, I suspect you have a high threshold for irrational (or deviant) behavior. But once someone is sufficiently irrational or deviant, then it's okay to imprison them. Sufficient as decided by... you? A psychiatrist? Who?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Right. Because you're arrogant enough that you think it's easy for you (or many other Smart People) to know better than other people what's best for them....But once someone is sufficiently irrational or deviant, then it's okay to imprison them. Sufficient as decided by... you? A psychiatrist? Who?
Believe it or not, there are actually already laws about this. And I think you would be very hard-pressed to make a successful moral, ethical, or legal argument that advocates for the freedom of people to intentionally do themselves mortal self-harm that does not posit freedom as pretty much the only virtue -- which is, as any first-year philosophy student can tell you, a pretty insupportable claim in itself.
For my part, I think locking people up when they're actively suicidal is a pretty decent response. If it is necessary to then conclude that some people should be permitted to end their lives, I'd have no problem with letting them argue that case to a board of psychologists, in the absence of a previously written and notarized living will.
quote:But lots of your decisions are also rooted in an irrational, incorrect assessment of reality.
I dispute that, of course. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Right. Because you're arrogant enough that you think it's easy for you (or many other Smart People) to know better than other people what's best for them....But once someone is sufficiently irrational or deviant, then it's okay to imprison them. Sufficient as decided by... you? A psychiatrist? Who?
Believe it or not, there are actually already laws about this. And I think you would be very hard-pressed to make a successful moral, ethical, or legal argument that advocates for the freedom of people to intentionally do themselves mortal self-harm that does not posit freedom as pretty much the only virtue
It certainly requires that you think personal autonomy is valuable and important. Very much so! Not sure why you think it requires the position that such autonomy is the only thing that's important, though. Especially since you've summed up personal autonomy as a generic "freedom," here.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But lots of your decisions are also rooted in an irrational, incorrect assessment of reality.
I dispute that, of course.
Do you? I'm sure you disagree if I'm saying that, e.g. your political opinions are irrational or whatever. But this wasn't meant as an underhanded dig at you or anything like that. It wasn't even an attempt to say you're being irrational in this discussion.
It was a much broader statement than that. Irrational behavior, and incorrect assessments of reality, happen to almost everyone almost every day.
You have no flaws you'd like to improve on, and yet haven't successfully improved yet? No irrational fears? You're not too fat, or too under-muscled, or too over-muscled? You don't lose your temper at your spouse, or your kids? You don't get irritated at minor stuff that, in hindsight, wasn't worth your irritation? You don't overreact to anything? You don't have good or bad moods?
Etc. Insert whatever ridiculously common problems you actually have, as you like.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So how many suicides are acceptable in the name of pursuing this ideal of pristine personal choice?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So how many suicides are acceptable in the name of pursuing this ideal of pristine personal choice?
This is actually a really good, relevant question. Part of what it does is point out how moral value is contingent on our natural makeup.
For example: if brief periods of temporary suicidal urges were extremely common, this would not be just an issue of freedom. We would have to do something about it, to protect civilization itself as well as our fellow people.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right. Because you're arrogant enough that you think it's easy for you (or many other Smart People) to know better than other people what's best for them.
I get that.
No, that's how you interpret it. It is just as easy or perhaps more so to interpret "Dan is arrogant enough to assume he understands the mind better than psychology and neuroscience, and has ideologically concluded that X"
Sometimes it is easy and better and ultimately necessary that certain people know better for you than what you do. If you are brought into the ER, it is the doctors who decide your care for you. Are they arrogant? Is it the height of autonomy-murdering hubris that they would put you under the knife without your consent? Since, much like acute physical trauma, mental disorder, dementia, and catatonic states are an inconvenient biological reality for our species (which cannot be handwaved away with bad interpretations of mental states), this often happens to people who are otherwise "conscious" but must still be "imprisoned" for care or personal management.
You were once having a productive conversation about this with Mucus and others where they were very clearly and comprehensively laying out the extent of your ignorance about mental illness and related issues of personal self agency and it is not entirely surprising that your misguided view of mental agency has continued unabated and extends to issues of suicide on the part of people suffering any type of mental illness and you effectively holding the view you do involving intervention.
It is time for that discussion to continue.
quote: But once someone is sufficiently irrational or deviant, then it's okay to imprison them. Sufficient as decided by... you? A psychiatrist? Who?
A related question. Do you think that anyone should ever be considered and ruled unfit to stand trial due to mental disorder?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right. Because you're arrogant enough that you think it's easy for you (or many other Smart People) to know better than other people what's best for them.
I get that.
No, that's how you interpret it. It is just as easy or perhaps more so to interpret "Dan is arrogant enough to assume he understands the mind better than psychology and neuroscience, and has ideologically concluded that X"
Sometimes it is easy and better and ultimately necessary that certain people know better for you than what you do. If you are brought into the ER, it is the doctors who decide your care for you. Are they arrogant? Is it the height of autonomy-murdering hubris that they would put you under the knife without your consent? Since, much like acute physical trauma, mental disorder, dementia, and catatonic states are an inconvenient biological reality for our species (which cannot be handwaved away with bad interpretations of mental states), this often happens to people who are otherwise "conscious" but must still be "imprisoned" for care or personal management.
So you're indicating that insane people are effectively unconscious, and so it's okay to treat them without consent?
Except they're not. They're literally conscious. So I guess this is a metaphor?
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: You were once having a productive conversation about this with Mucus and others where they were very clearly and comprehensively laying out the extent of your ignorance about mental illness and related issues of personal self agency and it is not entirely surprising that your misguided view of mental agency has continued unabated and extends to issues of suicide on the part of people suffering any type of mental illness and you effectively holding the view you do involving intervention.
It is time for that discussion to continue.
If you like.
Parkour, you didn't answer my earlier question for Rakeesh, right? Do you think all forms of suicide should be illegal/prohibited? Including, e.g. someone with an illness that causes crippling, agonizing physical pain?
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote: But once someone is sufficiently irrational or deviant, then it's okay to imprison them. Sufficient as decided by... you? A psychiatrist? Who?
A related question. Do you think that anyone should ever be considered and ruled unfit to stand trial due to mental disorder?
I don't see the point, no. Either they did the crime in question or not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It very much sounds as though you believe there isn't any medical condition which can override someone's agency, even temporarily.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Once again I'd like to thank Dan for being reasonable.
With that out of the way, a confession or two.
Obviously, I've got personal stake in this issue. When I was fifteen, one of my two sisters went nuts. She's been in and out of mental institutions ever since. Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, the works.
For Christmas this year, my other little sister drank a bottle of vodka on the 23rd and chased it with a bottle of Ambien. She was found, just barely, in time. She stopped breathing in the ambulance, though. Close call.
Myself, I've got a decent case of what is jokingly referred to among my relatives as the *lastname* melancholy. It makes taking care of my physical disease properly all but impossible, which keeps a neat little feedback loop going. I honestly think I'm at least a decade removed from having felt true happiness; the closest I've come has been a dull sense of satisfaction. But at this point it doesn't really matter.
I was dealt a less then spectacular hand, and I've managed to piss away any opportunities that came my way. My sisters are not functioning adults, my father is a non functioning alcoholic, and my mother is a functioning alcoholic. I can not seek "help" because I can not afford to give up my fifty hour a week job, that I could easily be replaced in.
I've been around the mental health system for a long time, and not as a patient. I've been on the outside, and I've seen how the patients are looked at. How they are talked about. By their doctors, their nurses, any person who hears the word "mental."
That is not going to happen to me.
Some days I wake up and I feel so bad that I wonder if this is the day the diabetes finishes me off. But I get up and go to the job I hate and eat people's s**t all the live long day, because if I don't do that for my family then no one else will.
But it's hard, and I'm tired. And someday, probably when one piece of my body or another has given out, I'm going to have had enough. And I will check out, and get some rest. And my feelings, my thought processes in coming to that decision, will not be rendered invalid because death and sadness makes some people feel icky.
A shrink does not know my life, or what I deem to be important or not, or what paths and successes in life have been squeezed shut for me. Neither do any of you. So by all means, save the poor bastard who thinks that a spaceship is going to swing by and grab his exiting soul. But please drop the arrogance inherent in the assertion that no one ever really wants to die.
That is false.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right. Because you're arrogant enough that you think it's easy for you (or many other Smart People) to know better than other people what's best for them.
I get that.
No, that's how you interpret it. It is just as easy or perhaps more so to interpret "Dan is arrogant enough to assume he understands the mind better than psychology and neuroscience, and has ideologically concluded that X"
Sometimes it is easy and better and ultimately necessary that certain people know better for you than what you do. If you are brought into the ER, it is the doctors who decide your care for you. Are they arrogant? Is it the height of autonomy-murdering hubris that they would put you under the knife without your consent? Since, much like acute physical trauma, mental disorder, dementia, and catatonic states are an inconvenient biological reality for our species (which cannot be handwaved away with bad interpretations of mental states), this often happens to people who are otherwise "conscious" but must still be "imprisoned" for care or personal management.
So you're indicating that insane people are effectively unconscious, and so it's okay to treat them without consent?
Except they're not. They're literally conscious. So I guess this is a metaphor?
No. It's a comparison that also notes you likely differentiate between acting on someone's behalf when they are unconscious versus when they are conscious. They are literally conscious but they can also be catatonic. Someone can be in a catatonic state where they are effectively unable to care for themselves. They can also be demented due to age or illness.
If my grandmother has dementia and she is living in an assisted care facility, and she sits up one day and decides that she wants to go visit her husband (who has been dead for six years) and walks out the front door still thinking she is in her hometown, according to your theory on self agency so far, it is morally wrong for anyone around her to stop her or force her to stay in the assisted living home. She might go wander into traffic or get lost. She does not have the agency to care for herself. Your theory so far says to me that even given the undeniable reality of dementia that nobody is allowed to keep her in the assisted living home if she says she wants to leave, she is just allowed to walk out into the street.
Can you confirm this for me?
quote:If you like.
Parkour, you didn't answer my earlier question for Rakeesh, right? Do you think all forms of suicide should be illegal/prohibited? Including, e.g. someone with an illness that causes crippling, agonizing physical pain?
No. I am perfectly fine with and completely encourage right-to-die where a person of sound mind can consent to assistance with euthanasia. My position is actually the same as sam one (surprise) based on the idea that we already allow suicide but because of some stubborn convictions against it we only allow it in agonizing ways, so we are in a total cop-out position today which makes it doubly unethical not to allow people to acquire medical assistance in euthanasia given the medical authority in question does not see any mental disorder at play.
quote:I don't see the point, no. Either they did the crime in question or not.
Have you seen what a trial is like when the accused is literally unable to understand the charges against them or why they are in court because of mental illness?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Why is Shigs being allowed to post under another username?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Something fascinating to me: more than once people, mostly Dan and Tittles or Shigs or whoever has remarked on the 'arrogance' of believing it is possible for someone not to be in possession of their own agency due to illness.
Well, alright. Possibly that *is* arrogant. There's certainly a case to be made for that claim. But on the other hand, these assertions absolutely require a belief that one knows when or if at all one's agency is still intact and exists, or could be considered gone. There isn't enormous arrogance there as well? Both sides are claiming to have, or at least wish to base serious policy on, an idea or belief about what free will really is and when it should be protected and to what extent.
So please, let's not hear anymore about high-handed arrogance, because it goes both ways.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Exactly the point I was working on. If my position is arrogant, arrogance is a good thing that is created by not being uninformed or unwilling to accept certain realities of mental disorder that exist whether or not we would like them to, or whether or not they are convenient to an idealistic view of constant positive autonomy and self-rule.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I don't see the point, no. Either they did the crime in question or not.
So, do you believe that all crimes should be measured by the result?
Are all of these the same?
•Premeditated murder for profit.
•A crime of passion where the perp walks in on their spouse in the act of infidelity and kills both parties.
•An unintentional death due to a car accident, where the driver fell asleep behind the wheel.
•An unintentional death due to a car accident, where the driver was drunk behind the wheel.
•A death caused by someone in the middle of a psychotic break who thought they were defending themselves against evil space aliens.
Because in each of these examples, someone dies, and someone "did the crime in question". Surely one's intent should be considered when society decides the appropriate consequence for its citizens.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I feel it's more arrogant to be on the outside looking in and have that certitude, then it is to be on the inside looking in and have the same.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wouldn't you be on the inside looking out?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I feel it's more arrogant to be on the outside looking in and have that certitude, then it is to be on the inside looking in and have the same.
Only if you're right-and bear in mind, you're *not* just talking about yourself, you're suggesting a system be adopted for everyone. If you're right (and speaking of arrogance, you've asserted an opinion that seems to indicate you're always right, an absolutist position), then yes, some arrogant outsider is speaking to you within and telling you how things are.
If you're wrong, then it could be akin to an outsider seeing someone blindfolded and trapped at the bottom of a pit, casting about (ineffectually, in many cases) for ways to help them out of it. The certainty you're expressing is the arrogant part.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Saving someone from their self-destructive behavior is a fact of living in a family and a community rather than in a vacuum. We band together to help loved ones fight alcoholism or drug abuse and intervene when it looks like they're losing control. They're rarely just harming themselves with their behavior. The same with suicide. If someone has attempted suicide, they need to be saved from their own destructive urges until they can regain control of themselves. Someone committing suicide is in fact hurting many people, not just himself. The effects of a suicide are almost always devastating for surviving family members and friends. It's not just a matter of letting someone choose to do with themselves what they want. It's an effort to prevent great harm to that person and the community around them.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
It is true that a lot of suicide hurts others but if someone wants to kill themselves for reasons which ultimately involve a sound mind and sound judgment, the suffering of others does not factor into it, it is still their own life.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can that be said of parents of minors? Of parents at all?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Under what circumstances can a minor consent meaningfully to ending their own lives? The only cases that could present themselves are verifiable terminal and agonizing illness, and even that would be tough for a medical body to sign off on as they would for an adult.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
No, I mean parents...should a parent of a minor be able to commit suicide and it be considered "still their own life".
Someone very close to me's mother has attempted suicide many times, including when they were a minor, and I'm hard pressed to think of something more selfish or detestable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It probably would be, were it a decision made in calmly reasoned rational (if selfish) desire.
To speak plainly, to call that selfish and detestable-assuming the attempts fit the broad pattern of what is usually true of suicide attempts (mental illness, short-term huge stress, or incredible pain, so on and so forth)-to call it those things stands in pretty stark contrast to some of the other remarks you've made about suicide and associating it with mental illness.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Fair to say. I'm afraid my objectivity is a bit lacking when I see a loved one in pain, and further I lack those circumstances you mentioned, but as a parent myself, I could not envision myself putting my children through what my loved one went through.
My loved one's mother suffered terrible abuses at the hands of her parents and the fact that she is alive now is miraculous, although she suffers from myriad of mental illnesses which make it impossible for her to be a part of my loved one's life.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: No, I mean parents...should a parent of a minor be able to commit suicide and it be considered "still their own life".
Well what is the parent doing for the child to be provided for if it is still under their care?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The full range from absolutely nothing to trust fund and a small army of nannies.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)