Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 12:24am PT
|
Thanks, Kerwin - helpuful info on the history and historiogrraphy of the second amendment.
Speaking of which:
Norton: The Constitution is a "living" document, well written in the 1700s. It should be interpreted in the light of its date in history, with full awareness of the intent and life experience of those who wrote it, realizing that those men gave the mechanism for future generations to make it more "perfect" through change.
It always has been interpreted in light of circumstances at the time, hasn't it? Sociology, economy, history, prejudices of the judges, etc? Why the sudden argument now to interpret the constitution just as it would supposedly have been in 1789, had the writers considered whatever the question is? Bearing in mind that the argument is almost always used by the right wing and far right wing, as another part of their alleged fight to "restore" America.
As for the efficacy of handguns, and the keystone cops shootings in the Empire State building, I'm reminded of the scene in Pulp Fiction where the punk empties his handgun at Travolta and Jackson, at point blank range, and doesn't hit either.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:04am PT
|
Those numbers do exist Riley. I can run them tomorrow if wanted. Going to bed now...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:09am PT
|
Okay, just got back from work. Catching up....
The Constitution is a "living" document, well written in the 1700s
It should be interpreted in the light of its date in history, with full awareness of the intent and life experience of those who wrote it, realizing that those men gave the mechanism for future generations to make it more "perfect" through change
Just "hand waving." It completely misses the point, which is that any attempt at "more perfection" must still comply with the principles upon which this nation was founded. I'm talking principles, and you keep talking tactics.
The tactics that many on this thread wish to employ violate the founding principles, and that approach won't make anything "more perfect."
If such tactics are attempted by a minority, then nothing comes of it. But if such tactics are attempted by a majority, they CAN use their majority power to violate rights and founding principles. Then they become "majority faction," which is the greatest possible evil in a republican form of government.
And when majority faction violates enough principles, it WILL ultimately find the minority rise up in revolt. And the founders had the second amendment as one significant backstop against majority faction. So, it's ironic that this is the amendment now under such fire (particularly now that our government HAS become officially a tyranny).
|
|
Anastasia
climber
InLOVEwithAris.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:13am PT
|
I hate statistics. For one thing, size of countries, population, how many major cities, etc. Without that, the numbers don't mean much.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:17am PT
|
Madbolter1, in the second amendment the consequent is wholly dependent on the antecendent condition, it does not stand apart. And, if we're going to discuss intent, then the entire second amendment is today without merit and entirely out-of-sync with what the founders' had in mind.
Including your comment about simply not agreeing, coupled with this one, I can only respond that you've not explained why you don't agree. You're making STATEMENTS (the first in this quote being incorrect), but not REASONS why I should believe your statements.
In the case of your claim that the consequent is wholly dependent on the antecedent, I've explained why that's not the case. It's a matter of logic. If you "don't agree," then I'd like to understand why not. I know you are not just fundamentally illogical/irrational, so either you are putting more weight on the "unsupported" notion than it will bear (logically speaking), or you are conflating necessary and sufficient conditions (a very common mistake, and nothing to be embarrassed about, seriously).
At any rate, I'd like to understand WHY you don't agree.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:21am PT
|
You confuse grammar with logic, and laws with morals.
While I believe that the founding fathers were intellectual and political giants, can anyone honestly think that they could ever conceive of the lethal firepower now available to a single human being?
The most devastating firearm known to mankind at that time required a team of horses to transport, several men to operate, fired perhaps one shot every twenty seconds, and couldn't have killed twenty six unrestrained people under any circumstances. No discussion of the intent of the constitution can ignore this fact. In 2000 posts here, the right to bear muzzle loading black powder weapons of any size has never been threatened.
I've carefully explained exactly why I don't believe that the second amendment puts us on some slippery slope toward individuals having nukes. You can ratchet that back quite a ways before you get to disarmament! Exactly where you draw the line is what's at issue here, and I believe that I've clearly indicated my willingness to be compromising.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:27am PT
|
that's what i used to think. but it is almost certainly incorrect.
Wow! FINALLY a truly serious posting, supported with scholarly research and books I haven't read yet. This is really good stuff, klk, and I will definitely be reading some more. If what you say is true, then I will be changing my perspective.
Good, good stuff! Thank you!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 01:55am PT
|
Before the Gulf War the Army was having Mash unit docs work at Cook County ER so they'd get experience gun wounds.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 02:18am PT
|
Madbolter1: In the case of your claim that the consequent is wholly dependent on the antecedent, I've explained why that's not the case. It's a matter of logic.
I'm a software engineer and know enough formal logic to truth tables, but what I have a problem with is your assertion the consequent is somehow independent of, or "logically unaffected" by, the [conditional] antecedent. If it weren't conditional, those thoughtful framers wouldn't have included it. Remove or invalidate the antecedent and the consequent no longer stands. Or are you saying the conditional antecedent was merely the framers engaging in the superfluous?
And again, the entirety of the 'defense of freedom' tract simply doesn't hold water in the context of the framer's intent against today's lifestyles, infrastructure, and standing internal and external security apparatuses.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 02:52am PT
|
Remove or invalidate the antecedent and the consequent no longer stands.
And again, the entirety of the 'defense of freedom' tract simply doesn't hold water in the context of the framer's intent against today's lifestyles, infrastructure, and standing internal and external security apparatuses.
"No longer holds" doesn't mean "false," as many on this thread are asserting. I've tried to clarify that "unsupported" means simply "no reason to believe it," which is NOT the same thing as "reason to think it false." From your latest post, I do believe you see the distinction, which is all I was concerned about.
But, as I said upthread, we legitimately believe all sorts of things that are "unsupported" by some antecedent. My point is that the many assertions on this thread that because the "militia" idea is invalid (false), the idea of a right to bear arms is also invalid (false)... this logical move is unsustainable. If all that is meant is that the right is now unsupported, that's a considerably weaker claim, and one that I would say is supported in many other ways besides just the "militia" antecedent.
Regarding the whole "security infrastructure" idea, I've said that "winning" (especially in the first round) is not the presumptive point of revolt. Making "enough noise" is. You can't make "enough noise" for a genuine revolt with empty hands. You DO have to kill some people; that's what distinguishes a genuine revolt from a mere "demonstration." And, you have to do it in organized, "well regulated" fashion.
I entirely agree with you that it's probably an exercise in futility. But when things reach a certain point, you WILL have many rise up and like Henry say, "Give me liberty or give me death." And they will die fighting, even knowing it's futile.
Such people will be viewed by the VAST majority as losers, idiots, asshats, asswipes, reckless idealists, stupid, etc., etc. And MOST will just be glad that they're gone. But the founders were such idealists, and they did put it all on the line with a pretty slim hope of success. Lines like "we hang together or hang separately" were not just wry humor.
The world HAS changed, and we are a long, long way from individuals believing in their principles to THAT extent. The world is a sadder place because of that fact.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 02:58am PT
|
You may as well be looking at the world through a straw while standing on a straw man.
Well, I disagree that my view is "narrow," but I will agree that I am something of an idealist. Maybe someday, if push comes to shove, I'll hope to have the courage of my convictions. Meanwhile, I'm not willing to give up my principles merely because they are "impractical."
But in a sense, this aspect of the discussion is moot. Bottom line is that, as I've repeatedly said, I'm not opposed to the sorts of bans or responsible-ownership legislation many on this thread seem to want. So, I'm not really debating with most people here about tactics.
It seems that some are determined to change my principles, however. And that's much harder to do. Perhaps the links klk offered will have that effect, which I'm very open to. But I haven't heard on THIS thread any reason to change my basic perspectives.
But to sum up, I have no problem with the proposed tactics many are suggesting here. I don't believe they will have the desired effect, because I believe that the reasons behind these mass-killings (well, actually, ALL the gun violence in this country) are far, far, FAR more complicated than these sorts of tactics are even going to TOUCH. But I have no problem with "starting somewhere" and giving it a try.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 03:10am PT
|
Madbolter1: I entirely agree with you that it's probably an exercise in futility. But when things reach a certain point, you WILL have many rise up and like Henry say, "Give me liberty or give me death." And they will die fighting, even knowing it's futile.
Personally I sincerely doubt it. Our lack of societal will has been on full display during three conflicts in the Mideast and I believe that is simply a projection of the will of the vast majority of individuals in our nation. So I don't believe you'll have "MANY", but rather quite few and even "futile" would be an incredible reach.
Also, I would love to see more info supporting the leap from FP10 to the second and particularly to an individual right. For me the leap from FP10's factions and 'militia' to an individual right is just several leaps too far and again I don't see the framers as given to the superfluous.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 09:13am PT
|
i hope y'all notice that i did NOT post on this thread until all hell broke loose here, and i was frankly rather surprised to find that tom had said what he did. he is usually quite reserved when he addresses the far-out OT, and i can only surmise that it's out of concern for what seems to be going on that he played the "dark ops" card the way he did.
i'm actually trying to stay away from the subjects of ET, 9/11, chemtrails and the like on supertopo. although there seems to be an increased savvy here about such subjects, discussion quickly bogs down to an impossible, juvenile internet slugfest. i've gotten myself typecast with all that, so unless there's something specific i feel i have to contribute, or, as in this case, people start picking on a good friend, i take my discussion of these matters elsewhere.
as it stands, i would now like to contribute something to this thread. to understand the suspicions many of us have when these atrocities happen, it's best to forget the internet rumor mills for awhile and take a look at history. the classic example of a "patsy" setup was performed by the nazis as they consolidated dictatorial power in germany prior to world war 2. in the reichstag fire, a mentally unstable anarchist was led to do the deed and proudly take the rap for it. he went proudly to his execution thinking he was a hero for his imagined cause. the nazis, in their cynical shrewdness, had done extensive profiling, singled him out, and "trained" him for the event.
so, do you think this is something invented by those evil nazis? think again, and look at the gunpowder plot and popish plot of english history.
not going to happen in the good ol' u.s.a.? take a close look at the political assassinations of the 1960s. i understand the jfk assassination is still a bit controversial, even though most public opinion surveys find that a majority of americans now believes that lee harvey oswald did not do it. be that as it may, i think the king assassination ought to be a no-brainer. take a close look at the civil lawsuit won against non-james earl ray perpetrators, awarding coretta scott king $100 to defray her husband's funeral expenses.
we now seem to be getting a string of public shootings in our country, attributed to mentally unstable copycats with way too much armament. this doesn't seem to be inspiring a push for increased mental health services, or some sort of increased attention through gun regulation we already have. no, there's just a drumbeat for even more gun control.
i have to say that i'm just not paying real close attention. i've had a number of links sent to me on possible dark ops aspects of this incident, and i haven't taken the time--and frankly, i don't have the appetite for it--to try to vet them out and make a halfway reasonable posting here. i've forwarded these links to tom, who seems to have such an interest, and i'll let him work through them and brave further supertopo storms if he's so inclined.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 09:23am PT
|
Anastasia - reporting "Rates" takes into account differences in population sizes. Reporting "Counts" does not. A rate is a number of something PER so many people in the population.
e.g., 10 per 1000 means there are ten cases per 1000 people in the population.
Population size is accounted for with rates, that is why we use them. Also, statistics can and do look at MANY differences in countries (or other geographic regions) to understand violence. For example, urban areas, age distributions, marital status, economy, etc. They don't just count and are done with it.
Riley - as per non-fatal injury, here are the 2011 estimates for this US:
Estimated # of nonfatal injury due to firearm (not counting BB or pellet guns: 73,883
Based on this population: 311,591,917
Crude rate per 100,000 people in US: 23.71
Age-adjusted rate per 100,000 people in US: 23.64
This also comes from CDC online calculator: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html.
Riley: Nothing fishy about these numbers but they are likely underestimates. If someone is injured due to a firearm and seeks no medical attention, it won't be reflected here. If someone does seek medical attention, and the facility doesn't report it, or reports it incorrectly, it won't be reflected.
Also, upthread I offered murder numbers. Here I've offered the non-fatal injury estimates. What you haven't seen yet are the number of folks in the US who are killed by firearms annually due to suicide, and justifiable homicides. Those numbers exist too (though suicide can be pretty hard to id sometimes. Still, they'll end up in accident of suicide counts).
Going back to the murder numbers - they likely are not perfect either, but given that murder generally produces a body, or people report a missing person that may later be presumed dead, it is a very well measured crime
No data are perfect, but people strive to offer the best estimates they can.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 10:01am PT
|
Damn. Just wrote long post and blew it away accidentally.
Suicide from firearms in 2010 according to death certificates in the USA:
Count: 19,392
Population: 308,745,538
Rate per 100,000: 6.28
Age-adjusted rate: 6.06
This represents a bit more than half (50.5%) of ALL suicides in the nation (there were 38,364 in 2010).
Also note there are more firearm-related suicides than murder annually. Pretty grim. This is why people talk about guns being in the house are more likely to be used to kill oneself versus someone else.
Gun-related deaths include suicide, murder, justifiable homicide and accidental deaths. Murder is the unlawful and intentional taking of one's life.
Suicide may be recorded as homicide or accident - sometimes these are not easy to discern. Even if they are under counted in the suicide column, they do end up in the gun-related death column.
Also, it's fair to say that crime estimates tend to be underestimates. It is not so easy to count this stuff. But we know things like murder are pretty darn well counted. Other things (e.g., intimate violence, bullying, stalking) are not very easy to count and excellent estimates are a challenge.
And keep in mind that death and injury information in the US comes from two primary places (DOJ and CDC) but from a variety of sources.
1. DOJ FBI: this is where good murder and justifiable homicide numbers are. They are compiled from people reporting this stuff to police and police voluntarily (though many states mandate they do) report this to the FBI.
2. DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (where I am affiliated) (BJS): non-fatal violence (and property) information comes from here. This is based on an enormous sample of people in the US that is on-going throughout the year and has been going on since the early 1970s.
3. CDC: the suicide numbers and some other numbers I posted above are fro here. The suicide/death #s come directly from death certificates. The injury #s (could also get from BJS data above) come directly from medical care places submitting information. CDC numbers do not come from police taking reports and submitting them up the food chain.
edit: Re: padding stats. Only people in hospitals could pad stats that come from there. Think that is likely? Or guys filling out death certificates would have to pad those - unlikely.
As far as police, there are documented cases of misreporting numbers. However, I am unaware of anyplace over reporting on purpose. When crime goes up in a community, police chiefs get fired. Real estate prices suffer. Nobody likes to stand up and say 'crime is out of control here'. Not good. What can and does happen is in the wake of a tragedy like Connecticut, the police can get better funding. They, like most places are under-funded and under-staffed.
While most police agencies report as accurately as they can, sometimes some futz numbers on purpose. And this is generally in the form or under-reporting. The numbers that seem to be primarily underreported are rape. Here is one example with Dallas: http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/als-morning-meeting/99907/dallas-morning-news-finds-police-department-misreporting-violent-crimes/
What some people who do this intentionally (lower numbers to report) do not realize is that there are people like me or my friend Rick Rosenfeld who KNOW these numbers by city by type of crime. They know when an unlikely change in crime occurs. They dig and things get revealed.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 10:33am PT
|
Also note there are more firearm-related suicides than murder annually. Pretty grim. This is why people talk about guns being in the house are more likely to be used to kill oneself versus someone else.
Of all people, Callie should know of the Seattle study and its grossly flawed methodology.
Makes Lott's stunt look like an oopsie.
|
|
Crimpergirl
Sport climber
Boulder, Colorado!
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 10:39am PT
|
Is it the one in Journal of Trauma you are talking about Ron? Kellerman et al? 1998? Or another? Or his first - 1986?
Curious as to what you dislike about the methodology? (I want to pull it and review the methodology).
I am engaging in spectacular work-avoidance with all of this. :)
Oh, and Riley, in case you are wondering, these numbers do not include the number/rate of firearms being brandished when no one gets injured or killed. Think you know that though.
edit:
As far as measuring defensive gun use - that is a measurement nightmare!
|
|
stilltrying
Trad climber
washington indiana
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 10:48am PT
|
27 people a day (many of them children) are killed by drunk drivers EVERY DAY. Seems we should be worrying more about giving people a drivers license and a car instead of guns - 27 every day and not a mention on the national news for the most part. Virtually all these mass murderers are on some kind of perscription drugs - we have always had guns but the drugs are new to the equation and from what I have read they are proven to cause this crazy behavior. Also how many suicides, murder/suicides are a result of this. I see a lot of mention about statistics, tracking etc. and some of it is over my head. However according to what I think is correct we don't hear of the drugs because of HIPPA laws etc. Seems we are led around by the nose by eggheads and talking heads. It is simple to me, the world is a jungle and therefore I have to be aware that some of the creatures in the jungle are lunatics and I better be aware that laws, logic, reasoning are worthless when the sh#t hits the fan but a weapon might save me and my loved ones. Watched a video of a young woman who was in the Texas restaraunt when that luntic drove through the window and randomly started shooting people. At one point she reached in her purse to get her gun but then remembered she started leaveing it in her car because Texas law made it a felony to carry a concealed weapon in. She escaped but her Mother and Father were both killed. She point blank told the congressmen and women that one reason we need to carry a weapon was to protect ourselves from them. I have never owned a gun in my life but I think I will get one and the necessary training just because if the goverment tells me what I should be doing it is 99% certain they are wrong. Hell they give weapons to Mexican drug cartels, supply money for abortions (murder in the eyes of lots of folks), take funds away from metal institutions and the needed services, the list goes on. Who in their right mind thinks that goverment ever gets anything right. It is always the citizens who when fed up get the job done. So, what's a good hand gun to get ?
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 10:52am PT
|
Nice work crimper...
Is there any way to find the annual rate/raw # of suicides(don't care on the method) over say the past 50 years? I've only been able to find data going back 20 years...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2012 - 11:05am PT
|
Not sure of the year, Callie, but it is old.
The "researcher" went looking for a city with the most skewed stats in order to "prove" his point.
A Boeing plant had shut down followed by a rash of suicide with co-incidentally low number of break ins.
Bingo, the exception used to prove an assumption.
The trouble lies with the fact that when people repeat something often enough they believe it is true.
Personally, every time I hear somebody say, "Well, everybody knows,..." alarm bells go off.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!