The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[robertlouis]

I said more or less the same thing a few months back, I know, but here goes again.


Eight months and 560 posts since this thread started on the premise that those nasty Dems were going to take all your guns away.

So what do we have? Any hope that a tragedy as horrifying as Sandy Hook might finally see the start of a civilised and cool debate in the US about putting sensible controls on the availability and use of firearms has been drowned by the hawks in the NRA and a lily-livered congress.

It's enough to make you weep.

[Prospero]

The title of this thread stands as a constant rebuke to America's inability to tackle this weeping sore in their body politic. I'm with RL in the desire to weep. (And of course I'll probably draw down the hatred of those here who tell me to shut up and fix my own country. Actually it is the world that is broken not just any one part of it... but that is another bigger story)

[broncofan]

I would not be surprised to learn that PaulClifford is not a historian of the atrocities he listed but rather found these examples in one or two places as prepared talking points. This is significant because the list doesn't distinguish between those countries that used gun control measures in a sensible way to protect their citizens and those that did so to make their citizens defenseless. If, for instance, there are countries that passed gun control measures without then building torture chambers, these counterexamples would be useful points of discussion.

I am sure most of the regimes you listed limited individual rights in every imaginable way, from speech, to contract, to allowing the passage of laws that were facially discriminatory. In a completely free society, people would be able to own anything they want no matter how deadly. But we have a body of law that says that even fundamental rights can be curtailed for compelling reasons. So we have child labor laws, work safety laws, restrictions on the sale of illegal narcotics, licensing requirements to practice medicine.

As an example, if we did not distinguish between the curtailment of speech through laws that are subject matter neutral and those that are a prior restraint of only that speech criticizing the government, we would not be discussing the first amendment in a sensible way. Likewise, we should be able to distinguish between laws providing for the registration of deadly implements and wholesale confiscation of every type of weapon. The former allows us to police and discourage illegal behavior. The latter violates the second amendment.

Gun control laws are not a means of making our citizenry defenseless so they can be killed but rather part of a necessary compromise. Individual freedoms must always be balanced with public safety. Slippery slope arguments that compare registration of deadly weapons with genocide only make the pro-gun movement seem more detached from reality. I acknowledge that eliminating our bill of rights altogether would facilitate tyranny, but interpreting these rights so broadly that they are practically borderless precludes responsible governance.

[broncofan]

Why is it that Republicans are willing to sacrifice civil liberties such as the 4th amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure when it comes to issues of national security, but not allow reasonable limits on the use of guns when it comes to public safety?

Terrorism is a very real threat and I supported some of the compromises made regarding the 4th amendment. Not all, but some. For instance, when FISA courts were created to allow for an accelerated process for authorities to get warrants for wiretaps, there was an initial compromise.

The compromise was that there would be a wall between national security operations and eventual criminal prosecution by the federal government. It turned out that this wall was breached and the abbreviated process for receiving wiretaps could be used not just to prevent imminent attacks but also to prosecute individuals. I think it was later ruled that this did not offend the 4th amendment.

But I don't remember Republicans being nearly as concerned about flexibility when it came to this civil right. Or about the possible erosion of first amendment freedom of speech and association protections that are implicated by material support statutes. These are statutes that literally prohibit certain types of speech and advocacy to designated terror organizations. They have not been ruled facially unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court said that their application in some circumstances could violate the first amendment.

Yet, all we hear when the government wants to place some limits on gun ownership is overblown rhetoric about tyranny and comparisons to Nazi Germany. Is the right to bear arms the most important civil right? All other civil rights should yield to extenuating circumstances except the right to own guns apparently. Don't touch that one or 1776 will rise again.

[paulclifford]

>>>Where would you place the UK in that context . . .?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By JAMES SLACK
UPDATED: 18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.

It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

[end excerpt]

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Regarding the above article from the DailyMail, see this:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...her-violent-c/

A critique of the 2009 DailyMail article, worth reading. Essentially, it says that the great discrepancy between the UK and US figures has to do with how the phrase "violent crime" is interpreted by the various official agencies tasked with compiling the data. Still, when the politifact writers compiled their own data by looking only at what they believed were "apples in the UK" and "apples in the US", they again found that the UK has over twice the rate of violent crime per 100,000 citizens as does the US: 775 per 100K vs 383 per 100K.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...D2n6HAQ#at=182
Gun Ban in Britain caused 40% Increase in Gun Crimes

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=6nf1OgV449g
Mandatory Gun Ownership and Training: Why Switzerland Has the Lowest Crime Rate in the World

And finally, see:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1

This last is the FBI website for crime statistics in the US. If you look at the 6th column from the left — "Murder and Non-Negligent Manslaughter Rate" — you'll see that the percentage rate (percentage per 100,000 citizens nationwide) goes from 9.3% in 1992 to 4.7% in 2011 (latest figures I can find); in other words, the murder rate per 100,000 citizens has decreased by about 50% in about 2 decades . . . while legal gun ownership in that same period has dramatically increased. See:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Legal gun ownership has increased in the US by about 70 million since the 1990s.

An increase in legal gun ownership in the US (including an increase in legal carry-and-conceal permits in many states) strongly correlates with a sharp decline in murders nationwide.

Conversely, according to the first YouTube video linked above, as well as many articles online, the decrease in legal gun ownership in the UK strongly correlates with a sharp increase in gun-related crimes including murder.

[paulclifford]

>>>For instance, when FISA courts were created to allow for an accelerated process for authorities to get warrants for wiretaps, there was an initial compromise.

The FISA court itself was set up by a Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) and a Democratic administration:

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Only two of the 9 co-sponsoring senators were GOP: Jake Garn and Charles Mathias.

[broncofan]

I have no problem with the use of FISA courts even though they involve ex parte proceedings to get warrants. It's the way the information obtained from them has been used. They were originally thought not to offend the 4th amendment mainly because the warrants were to gather intelligence about the activities of an agent of a foreign power. This information would then be used for national security purposes.

I think it was not until the passage of the Patriot Act that gathering intelligence information went from having to be the "primary purpose" of the surveillance to a mere significant purpose. This was a significant change (I can explain below if need be) and was part of the bill called the Patriot Act signed into law by GW Bush.

My point is that Republicans have been much less concerned about these civil liberties threats than they have the second amendment issue. I think it was GW Bush for a while who believed that he could even circumvent the FISA courts in certain circumstances based on his inherent authority as the executive. As though an abbreviated process that almost never denied a warrant was not sufficient.

[paulclifford]

>>>If, for instance, there are countries that passed gun control measures without then building torture chambers, these counterexamples would be useful points of discussion.

My genocide list was in response to trish's previous post regarding the "fantasy" that individual ownership of guns can act as a firewall against a government becoming tyrannical. Clearly, the governments of the countries I cited didn't think it was fantasy, or they wouldn't have implemented strict controls or outright bans.

I certainly never suggested that IF a government implements strict regulations (or even an outright ban), THEN it would necessarily become tyrannical. It's the reverse: IF a government is tending toward tyranny, THEN it will necessarily implement strict gun controls or an outright ban.

The statistics in the US clearly show that the cities with the strictest gun control (e.g., Chicago, Washington DC) have the highest violent crime; while those with the least control — including the legal language " . . . WILL issue . . ." (instead of "MAY issue") in its laws pertaining to conceal-and-carry permit requests by gun owners, have the least gun-related crime.

Gun controls obviously only apply to the law-abiding. Those who are criminally minded will break the law anyway and acquire guns irrespective of what laws are in place.

The statistics internal to the US appear to be mirrored in statistics internationally, at least in the EU: e.g., as the UK tightened its gun control laws, violent gun-related crime increased; obviously because it made it more difficult for the law-abiding to acquire guns to protect themselves, while doing nothing to prevent those who would break the law anyway from acquiring them.

[broncofan]

The unstated alternative in my previous post is that if intelligence information is not being used for national security purposes such as to prevent an imminent attack, it is being used to assist in future criminal prosecutions. More stringent process should be required for a search that is undergone to gather evidence in preparation for eventual prosecution than what is generally just called intelligence gathering.

The reason the wording changed from requiring intelligence gathering activities to be a primary purpose to a significant purpose is this. If intelligence gathering only has to be a significant purpose, then the primary purpose of the search could be to gather evidence for eventual trial. The use of the FISA courts could then be an end run around normal criminal procedure with intelligence gathering activities being used only as an underlying pretext.

[Prospero]

Always a bit puzzled by those who join what is, in essence, a forum about the beauty and sexual allure of transgendered girls and other subjects around their lives, and yet only ever post in the politics forum. Wonder about their agendas.