Actually, storage method does not appear to make.much difference:

http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns- ... cide-risk/

danivon wrote:Actually, storage method does not appear to make.much difference:

http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns- ... cide-risk/

Weird. Grew up with guns in the house. Grew up shooting them. So did my kids.

No suicides. No accidental shootings.

Must be a miracle.

Supreme Court appears to be allowing some significant restrictions on gun ownership to stand, including laws banning semi- automatic wespons that carry more than 10 rounds in a clip or magazine, sales of handguns to young adults, and not allowing a handgun to be carried in public without a justified need.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sup ... ct-n475421

Of course , we won't know what they would decide if they took up some cases, but they are not intervening to strike down those laws, as yet. But it certainly looks as if the majority is getting concerned about mass shootings and unwilling to decide that the government cannot do something to prevent people from getting weapons that can kill many people in a short period of time and people routinely walking around with loaded handguns (remember it only takes 4 justices to grant cert and take up the case). Protection of gun rights--other than protection of gun ownership in the home and non-"dangerous and unusual weapons" for public use for hunting and range shooting--may be left to politics.

And the connection between the NRA and gun manufacturers is something that is concerning, as well.http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-indu ... nra-2013-1

freeman3 wrote:But it certainly looks as if the majority is getting concerned about mass shootings and unwilling to decide that the government cannot do something to prevent people from getting weapons that can kill many people in a short period of time and people routinely walking around with loaded handguns (remember it only takes 4 justices to grant cert and take up the case).

My question: is the USSC a legislative body? Should it be "getting concerned" about various happenings in the country? Is that its role?

rickyp wrote:So smart guy, name one time that civilian carried guns stopped a mass shooting in the US this year....
Hell, anytime.

For the record, I didn't even have to look. It appeared in my Facebook feed. You would do well to stop making stupid challenges.

On Friday, an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit thwarted an attempted mass shooting by pulling his own weapon and shooting a gunman who had opened fire in Chicago’s Logan Square.

Illinois Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn verified that the driver “had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others.”

According to the Chicago Tribune, the driver was watching “a group of people” walk in front of his car on North Milwaukee Avenue just before midnight when 22-year-old Everardo Custodio allegedly “began firing into the crowd.” The Uber driver pulled his own gun and “fired six shots at Custodio,” wounding him in “the shin, thigh, and lower back.”

The attempted mass shooting ended with no one other Custodio injured.

The Chicago Sun Times reported that the Uber driver had dropped off a passenger minutes before Custodio allegedly began shooting. The Times contacted Uber about the incident and they simply said “the company requires all its drivers to abide by local, state and federal laws pertaining to transporting firearms in vehicles.”

bbauska

I recall RickyP castigating me for my choice, saying that it could endanger other drivers

.
No you don't.

fate

Again, I have a problem with the "terror watch-list" idea. There are 70 or so DHS workers on the no-fly list. So, either that list is useless or DHS is a joke.

One can either work to make the watch list better, and provide recourse for people on it to clear their names...
Or one can just ignore the watch list and let everyone on it buy guns.
One is a sensible response. One is irrational.
The right to life and liberty should also include the right to a safe environment. That means making regulation and enforcement of regulation better, not just enduring the results of the increased risk that arises from the protection of individual liberty.

If a safe environment requires that there be severe restrictions on gun ownership and use, that should change the way people think about the 2nd. As has been seen in the interpretations of SCOTUS regarding gay marriage ... the constitutional language can be interpreted differently when the understanding of the Constitution changes as society changes.

The issue needs to be looked at as a public health issue. People have a right to any behaviors that do not risk the lives or diminish the enjoyment of life for other people.
You can smoke. Just not in public spaces.
You can drive. But you need to follow the rules of the road. You need to be licensed, pass tests, and your vehicles must be licensed and pass tests. You need appropriate insurance to protect other people on the road from any mistakes you might make.
Private use of drugs? Right to end one's own life?
Currently the debate about guns is not genuinely one about public health and safety and the right for the general populace to enjoy their lives. Its about individual liberty only.
The reason republicans don't want additional research into the effects of gun ownership is that they already know that gun ownership is not good for public health and safety. (As do the people debating on this board which is why they either evade or simply run to the cover of "Yeah but the 2nd amendment".)
It should be incumbent upon gun owners to show why guns have made the US a safer place. They should have to prove that there is a positive good to be gained from looser regulation ...

Generally they can't. Why should the public have to risk allowing people on the terror watch list access to legal gun ownership? Why shouldn't someone on the list have to prove they are not a threat and can be trusted with guns....
Bbauska Why should a gun owner not have to prove that a 20 round clip is necessary? We have to prove that the cars we own are designed for use on public highways or they aren't licensed. (race cars are not allowed)....
When the discussion becomes about public health and safety, the burden of proof should be on those who's individual liberties may affect the liberties of others...
Carrying and using firearms cannot be proved to be a positive good for society. Until it can, the 2nd amendment as currently interpreted contradicts other parts of the Constitution.
It would't be the first time that Scotus and the public had changed the interpretation of the Constitution. And it will happen when people are forced to deal with the increasing carnage and the irrationality of those opposed to any restrictions on guns.
Already 92% of Americans want gun show checks, and I'll bet when polls are taken of whether or not someone on the terror watch list are taken, it will show an overwhelming majority don't want those on the watch list to get guns... When this becomes an election issue... then politicians will stop bowing to the NRA.

BTW, I had a friend who would never wear her seat belt. She had seen an accident where someone was "thrown clear", she said. And against all evidence to the contrary she was convinced that if she were in an accident she too would be "thrown clear". People who own guns have a similar mindset to my friend. Despite the evidence that shows that successful suicides increase in houses with guns, that accidental deaths increase in houses with guns they persist in thinking that guns in their house will be a positive benefit to them.
That they will be able to interdict a home invasion, just by running to their gun safe and quickly loading their weapon before the invaders reach them.
They think that they will be carrying their weapon with them when there is a shooting or crime going on and they will be able to act like Wyatt Earp and end the conflict for the side of good.
Against all evidence to the contrary. It just doesn't happen. Especially not with the regularity that would provide a net positive.
(And against the reality that Wyatt Earp took guns from everyone entering Tombstone, because too many drunks had taken shots at his deputies when they carried them with them. Gun control in the so called Wild west. Imagine that..)

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Actually, storage method does not appear to make.much difference:

http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns- ... cide-risk/

Weird. Grew up with guns in the house. Grew up shooting them. So did my kids.

No suicides. No accidental shootings.

Must be a miracle.

Or just the fact that anecdotes do not trump empirical studies. I have known people who smoked like chimneys but did not get lung cancer, and heavy drinkers with no cirrhosis. But that does not mesn smoking and drinking do not significantly increase risks.

I have done a search and cannot find that RickyP did say anything about an SUV. I withdraw that. Perhaps my overloaded mind is conflating two different sites that I was discussing on.

I apologize.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:But it certainly looks as if the majority is getting concerned about mass shootings and unwilling to decide that the government cannot do something to prevent people from getting weapons that can kill many people in a short period of time and people routinely walking around with loaded handguns (remember it only takes 4 justices to grant cert and take up the case).

My question: is the USSC a legislative body? Should it be "getting concerned" about various happenings in the country? Is that its role?

Its role in this case is to review legislation that is being challenged against the Constitution. And the General Welfare clause, if interpreted in the Hamiltonian way, gives latitude to consider what is happening in the country and allows the government to legislate for the overall welfare of the people and nation.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I recall RickyP castigating me for my choice, saying that it could endanger other drivers

.
No you don't.

fate

Again, I have a problem with the "terror watch-list" idea. There are 70 or so DHS workers on the no-fly list. So, either that list is useless or DHS is a joke.

One can either work to make the watch list better, and provide recourse for people on it to clear their names...
Or one can just ignore the watch list and let everyone on it buy guns.
One is a sensible response. One is irrational.

False choice.

The President has been decrying the GOP blocking the use of the no-fly list as an extra step on the road to buying a gun. That is the issue.

However, there is no realistic legal process to get off the list. Read the ACLU on the matter.

It's surprising, *cough*, that you don't know what you're talking about. It's less surprising that your lack of knowledge doesn't stop you.

If a safe environment requires that there be severe restrictions on gun ownership and use, that should change the way people think about the 2nd. As has been seen in the interpretations of SCOTUS regarding gay marriage ... the constitutional language can be interpreted differently when the understanding of the Constitution changes as society changes.

That's a clear statement that the USSC should act as a political body. What a horrible and unconstitutional idea. Under your system, who needs a legislature?

BTW, I had a friend who would never wear her seat belt. She had seen an accident where someone was "thrown clear", she said. And against all evidence to the contrary she was convinced that if she were in an accident she too would be "thrown clear". People who own guns have a similar mindset to my friend. Despite the evidence that shows that successful suicides increase in houses with guns, that accidental deaths increase in houses with guns they persist in thinking that guns in their house will be a positive benefit to them.

Is there an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing a right not to wear a seatbelt? Other than that, great comparison (okay, not really).

Do you suppose in the age of the Internet, people cannot figure out many ways to commit suicide without guns? Did suicide not exist when the Second Amendment passed? Is this a new thing?

Stay north of the border. I wouldn't want you to get shot.

Oh, and pipe down.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:But it certainly looks as if the majority is getting concerned about mass shootings and unwilling to decide that the government cannot do something to prevent people from getting weapons that can kill many people in a short period of time and people routinely walking around with loaded handguns (remember it only takes 4 justices to grant cert and take up the case).

My question: is the USSC a legislative body? Should it be "getting concerned" about various happenings in the country? Is that its role?

Its role in this case is to review legislation that is being challenged against the Constitution. And the General Welfare clause, if interpreted in the Hamiltonian way, gives latitude to consider what is happening in the country and allows the government to legislate for the overall welfare of the people and nation.

Yes, the Constitution "allows the government to legislate for the overall welfare of the people and nation." However, we have a process. It is the Congress which legislates, NOT the Supreme Court and NOT the President.

Supreme Court Justices are not immune from real-world events. With regard to the Second Amendment justices have to make a judgment call as to the extent of allowable government regulation. In particular, the Court has previously stated the government can regulate dangerous and unusual weapons. Well, what are those exactly? It's a judgment call and real-world events (such as mass shootings) can affect that judgment.

Keeping order has always been the central role of government. At some point mass shootings threaten that. Whether it is infringing a certain amount on civil liberties (at least more than was previously thought allowable not that civil liberties are knowingly being violated or ignored)to stop radical Muslims from attacking us or a more restrictive view of the Second Amendment, government has to be able to take reasonable steps to prevent mass violence that threaten public order. I suspect the Supreme Court will be affected by the threat to public order in making rulings in these areas.

How about this? Forget the No-fly list. To purchase a firearm, you need to have a background check, and be a citizen. You cannot have any felony, and you cannot be under a restraining order. I would love to add that you cannot be under a psychiatrist's care, but that breaks doctor/patient confidentiality.

Is that acceptable?

It's interesting how the topic of another Muslim extremist attack has quickly turned into another discussion about gun control. I am in favor of gun control, but I do notice that it seems to be a way to shift the discussion and avoid talking about Islamic extremism. The 9/11 murderers had box cutters. The Boston Marathon murderers used pressure cookers. We cannot ban knives and cooking devices. France has very good gun control, I presume, and look what happened there.

What other steps should we be taking; gun control may reduce risk (or not depending on your perspective) but there's no evidence that it is sufficient to eliminate these terrorist attacks.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:But it certainly looks as if the majority is getting concerned about mass shootings and unwilling to decide that the government cannot do something to prevent people from getting weapons that can kill many people in a short period of time and people routinely walking around with loaded handguns (remember it only takes 4 justices to grant cert and take up the case).

My question: is the USSC a legislative body? Should it be "getting concerned" about various happenings in the country? Is that its role?

Its role in this case is to review legislation that is being challenged against the Constitution. And the General Welfare clause, if interpreted in the Hamiltonian way, gives latitude to consider what is happening in the country and allows the government to legislate for the overall welfare of the people and nation.

Yes, the Constitution "allows the government to legislate for the overall welfare of the people and nation." However, we have a process. It is the Congress which legislates, NOT the Supreme Court and NOT the President.

At a Federal level, yes. When they are not sclerotically deadlocked. But reading freeman's post as a whole, he was talking about State level legislation which would be nothing to do with Congress or your mate Obama. But it can be referred up to the USSC.