So the Supreme Court overturned D.C.'s handgun ban, and Justice Scalia took enough time away from his hobby of inventing bullshit semantic justifications for torture to write the majority opinion. From the AP:
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans' preferred weapon of self-defense in part because "it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police."
Oh my fucking Lord, one of the most senior Supreme Court Justices is John Saxon in "Mitchell":
Sure, a gun in your house is 40 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. But you know what, that's okay. Some people love their guns and are willing to risk their lives like that. Some of them even think that private gun ownership is necessary to prevent the U.S. from turning into a police state. They have the right to bear arms and it would be wrong to violate constitutional rights, even if it protects people from potential harm or death. Isn't that right, Justice Scalia from two weeks ago?
"It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed... The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."
Oh. Well that almost seems kind of, sort of inconsistent. Actually, a lot of conservatives were pretty pissed off about the habeas corpus decision: Scalia, McCain, reliably douche-y political cartoonist Michael Ramirez:
"Habeas Corpses." That's the kind of clever wordplay that wins you the Pulitzer. Twice. I'm not kidding.
So tell me what I'm missing here. Putting Americans' lives in danger in order to uphold the right to own something 40 times more likely to hurt you than help you, and also maybe prevent the U.S. from turning into a police state, but that seems a little specious to me = good. Putting Americans' lives in danger in order to uphold the right to keep the government from throwing you in prison indefinitely without charging you with a crime, which kind of sounds like a police state to me = bad. I don't get it. It's illogical. In fact, I'm going to make a political cartoon about it right now.
Pulitzer Prize, please!
9 responses:
awesome post, man.
the saddest part about that?
i just saw a bunch of hand-drawn coffins covered in american flags, but i can't remember the last time i saw one in real life.
You wanna cite some stats on that, Blood Zirconia? If you're referencing that famous "43 times more likely" study by Arthur Kellerman, et. al., then the stats aren't really valid. But I'll wait for your response before I tell you why.
Thanks, analyst.
And thank you, Joeverkill, for keeping me honest. You’re right, I had heard the 43 statistic and regurgitated it without knowing that it was controversial. I did a little further research and it would seem that the major points of contention are that the study doesn’t include instances where an intruder is frightened away by a drawn weapon and that it doesn’t adjust for high risk factors like drug-use and histories of domestic violence. Another study was conducted later that determined that after adjusting for those high risk factors, “there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home” and “this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house.” This study was criticized for focusing exclusively on urban areas, but then D.C., the city that inspired all this, is an urban area. I’m getting all this from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann#1993) which I realize is not the best way to get good information, but it is the best way to get fast information and I have work in a couple hours, so please let me know if I’m still being stupid.
And just to clarify, I’m not advocating the repeal of the second ammendment or anything here, I’m just snarkily making fun of people who place so much value in a constitution right that I personally find to be silly, while they simultaneously act dismissively toward a constitutional right that I think is pretty god damn important.
(((posts up)))
i don't really have a take yet.. i'm just waiting for joe to get back.
Good ups, Blood Zirc, on doing your research.
My biggest problem with that Kellermann study is that it only examined households in which a homicide had been committed with a firearm. The biases introduced by this methodology are obvious.
There are many other problems with the study as well. For instance 37 or those 43 deaths are attributed to suicides.
The study also completely ignores the fact that the knowledge that people have guns in their homes serves as a formidable deterrent to would-be home invaders.
Additionally, the Kellermann study showed that the presence of illicit drugs in the home played almost as important a role in firearm homicides as the presence of firearms themselves. Does that mean that if someone brings a bit of marijuana into their house, it instantly multiplies their chances of being shot to death? Does it mean that if they throw that marijuana away, they're instantly safer? Of course not.
Kellermann exercised some pretty shoddy science with these studies. If they were credible, I could certainly argue against the ethics of applying their results to legislation. But the conclusions drawn by Kellermann cannot be reasonable drawn from the data he gathered, so they're worthy of little more than dismissal.
I have a question here. If the presence of a hand gun is such a deterrant, why don't hand gun owners hang a sign outside their house saying "Owner of a weapon" or something like that to ward off intruders. Wouldn't that help keep away armed criminals.
There is a downside to this though - every one would start putting one of those signs and then it would be completely meaningless. However the point I am trying to make is the usefulness or efficiency of deterrance. A deterrant like a nuclear weapon in the hands of a country needs to be displayed by a test explosion so that neighbours know the existence of such a power in the hands of the government. Similarly, wouldn't it be better for a household that has a gun to advertise this fact? What do you think Joe? Do people ever put up signs like the ones for dogs? Wouldn't this be something that law enforcement officers would appreciate as well when they plan to enter?
Minotauro,
People definitely do put those signs up. I've seen tons of 'em, of all different types. I definitely don't see as many out here in fruit and nut territory, but they're bountiful back in Florida.
Also, it's not necessarily imperative to advertise the fact that you have a gun for it to be a deterrant. People who don't have guns benefit from the fact that many others do. In my own opinion, it's best for everyone if a significant portion of gun owners don't advertise that fact. The unknown unknown of the possibility deters would-be home invaders.
There's no way to demonstrate these facts statistically with and degree of validity (no way to demonstrate the counterargument either), so I'm not going to attempt to.
I believe in personal responsbility. Alcohol kills thousands of people every year, for example, but by no means should alcohol be outlawed. It should be up to the individual to exercise self-control and proper judgment, and if they fail to, they should pay a steep penalty.
Personal responsibility? Careful Joe, you're going to lose the libs.
I have had guns in my home for the past 4 years, and it hasn't really affected me (that I can tell) either way. I don't really think of them as "home defense," because when you securely lock up guns to avoid accidents in the home, they aren't really a timely defensive option. Time out Mr. Bad Guy! Just gimme a sec to grab the key, open the lock box, remove the cable lock, and load it!
I'm wandering. The point is, I have noticed some people tend to immediately want to grab for a gun at the first sign of trouble, just because it's there. My old roommate pulled it out every time he thought he heard a noise, when I thought a Louisville slugger would suffice. Watching him, I could understand the arguments that people become more paranoid and defensive when they have a gun and fall into a mindset of combat or danger. My roommate was so antsy the first 6 months he owned a gun that I was afraid he WOULD shoot someone by accident.
I agree that it's ridiculous for us to rabidly tout our constitutional rights if they become a clear hazard. I, for one, don't think the Bill of Rights is the be all, end all, although it laid a great foundation for our country.
Well put, Stacey. Speaking as someone who actually HAS had his house broken into while he was at home (it was some strung-out 15-year-old who thought that monsters were chasing him), I can say with certainty that instantly pulling a gun would have done nothing but make a horrible, tragic mess of that situation.
Post a Comment