Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

they still haven't been able to show that what they want (which seems to change from day to day) will actually curtail any of the studies they are posting.

That simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence that suggests additional gun control measures would have a positive effect. These usually get handwaved by either: 1) Narrowing the scope of proof ("Well yes, there's a significant correlation, but you can't prove causality!") or 2) Suggesting (without evidence) that people will just ignore the new laws.

[Stormdash]

That simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence that suggests additional gun control measures would have a positive effect. These usually get handwaved by either: 1) Narrowing the scope of proof ("Well yes, there's a significant correlation, but you can't prove causality!") or 2) Suggesting (without evidence) that people will just ignore the new laws.

Don't forget "really can't survive constitutional scrutiny, especially strict scrutiny".

[TZucchini]

Don't forget "really can't survive constitutional scrutiny, especially strict scrutiny".

If regulation impacts society in a significantly positive way, it will survive constitutional scrutiny.

[Rukentuts]

Don't forget "really can't survive constitutional scrutiny, especially strict scrutiny".

Don't forget you don't care of millions of toddlers die, because freedom!

- - - Updated - - -

That simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence that suggests additional gun control measures would have a positive effect. These usually get handwaved by either: 1) Narrowing the scope of proof ("Well yes, there's a significant correlation, but you can't prove causality!") or 2) Suggesting (without evidence) that people will just ignore the new laws.

What we need is a cumulative listing of studies by us versus the snarky secretary. Because that list is literally the embodiment of the vaccination gif right now, and yet apparent the handwavers claim there's plenty of evidence. Yeah, where?

[Stormdash]

If regulation impacts society in a significantly positive way, it will survive constitutional scrutiny.

Which level of scrutiny applies that test?

Strict Scrutiny -- the law/policy/state action must serve a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to that interest, and be the least restrictive means of obtaining that interest (terms of art bolded). In practical terms, a state action will almost always fail strict scrutiny as a question of the facts challenging it.

Intermediate scrutiny -- the law/policy/state action must serve an important government interest and be substantially related to that interest (again, terms of art bolded). This one is more of a coin toss when applied.

Rational basis doesn't apply because the Supreme Court made clear that either/or SS or IS apply to 2nd Amendment cases, although declining to say which (circuits have split since). Importantly, under both those standards, it's the government that bears the burden of proof that their actions satisfy the standard in question.

All of which is to say "impacting society in a significantly positive way" is hopeless broad and amorphous a state interest to survive either form of scrutiny. That's actually closer to stating a rational basis (action serves a legitimate state interest and is rationally related to it), which, again, does not apply to 2nd Amendment cases.

[Tinykong]

That simply isn't true. There's plenty of evidence that suggests additional gun control measures would have a positive effect. These usually get handwaved by either: 1) Narrowing the scope of proof ("Well yes, there's a significant correlation, but you can't prove causality!") or 2) Suggesting (without evidence) that people will just ignore the new laws.

Positive effect on what?

[Rukentuts]

Rational basis doesn't apply because the Supreme Court made clear that

..they aren't rational. Like defining contraceptives as abortion pills.

- - - Updated - - -

All of which is to say "impacting society in a significantly positive way" is hopeless broad and amorphous a state interest to survive either form of scrutiny. That's actually closer to stating a rational basis (action serves a legitimate state interest and is rationally related to it), which, again, does not apply to 2nd Amendment cases.

How about a justice, or, for starters, an expert that actually practices law says that?

[TZucchini]

Which level of scrutiny applies that test?

It would probably be no different than Connecticut's AWB being upheld as Constitutional.

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

- - - Updated - - -

Positive effect on what?

The general welfare of society.

[Tinykong]

The general welfare of society.

How unsurprisingly vague.

Like I said, you haven't been able to prove that the study results you've been jerking off are actually going to be influenced by the regulations you're demanding.

[Stormdash]

It would probably be no different than Connecticut's AWB being upheld as Constitutional.

"The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional," senior U.S. District Judge Alfred V. Covello wrote in a decision published late Thursday. "While the act burdens the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control."

If you read your own quote, you'll note which test they were applying if you refer back to my brief scrutiny syllabus -- that circuit applied intermediate scrutiny, which can break either way. The 6th Circuit applied strict scrutiny and found the state action unconstitutional.

Not every proposed restriction will fail intermediate scrutiny, just trying to awake you to the reality that each and everyone would have to satisfy (at the bare minimum, since strict scrutiny may ultimately win out as the applicable standard), and not all of them will. "DURP let's charge $1000 per round of 9mm" won't pass any scrutiny. Banning everything but muskets wouldn't pass any scrutiny. Certainly "any net benefit to society" as the asserted state interest wouldn't survive either form of heightened scrutiny.

[Rukentuts]

If you read your own quote, you'll note which test they were applying if you refer back to my brief scrutiny syllabus -- that circuit applied intermediate scrutiny, which can break either way. The 6th Circuit applied strict scrutiny and the state action unconstitutional.

Not every proposed restriction will fail intermediate scrutiny, just trying to awake you to the reality that each and everyone would have to satisfy (at the bare minimum, since strict scrutiny may ultimately win out as the applicable standard), and not all of them will. "DURP let's charge $1000 per round of 9mm" won't pass any scrutiny. Banning everything but muskets wouldn't pass any scrutiny. Certainly "any net benefit to society" as the asserted state interest wouldn't survive either form of heightened scrutiny.

Why not? Strict constructionists even have to acknowledge the right is to bear arms, not produce them.

[Stormdash]

"The right is to vote, not to have polling places within 500 miles". "The right is to a jury, not to a human jury". Etc. Same simple-minded nonsense.

[TZucchini]

Like I said, you haven't been able to prove that the study results

1) Narrowing the scope of proof ("Well yes, there's a significant correlation, but you can't prove causality!")

It's like I'm a mind reader.

[Rukentuts]

"The right is to vote, not to have polling places within 500 miles". "The right is to a jury, not to a human jury". Etc. Same simple-minded nonsense.

Yes, bring on the false equivalencies.

[Stormdash]

To be a false equivalency, it first has to be 'false'. I chose examples of rights that the Supreme Court has deemed fundamental rights under our Constitution (the vote, the jury trial) and compared them to another right that the Supreme Court has deemed fundamental -- owning a firearm. You merely wishing that wasn't the settled law of the land doesn't change the fact that it is.

[Rukentuts]

To be a false equivalency, it first has to be 'false'. I chose examples of rights that the Supreme Court has deemed fundamental rights under our Constitution (the vote, the jury trial) and compared them to another right that the Supreme Court has deemed fundamental -- owning a firearm. You merely wishing that wasn't the settled law of the land doesn't change the fact that it is.

For it to be an equivalency, it first has to be true. You're acting like different rights are the same thing, which is hardly surprising in a sense of legal naivety.

[Tinykong]

It's like I'm a mind reader.

Because you can regurgitate the same bullshit you've been spewing for thousands of pages? Hardly.

You don't even have a tenuous link. You've got a study result and an unrelated opinion.

[TZucchini]

Because you can regurgitate the same bullshit you've been spewing for thousands of pages? Hardly.

You don't even have a tenuous link. You've got a study result and an unrelated opinion.

What? There's literally hundreds of studies that suggest additional gun control in order to curb firearm violence, and all the bad things that go along with it. We have major academic institutions calling for evidence-based policies to be put in place to reduce firearm violence.

Firearm violence is a multifaceted problem, and it requires a multifaceted solution. One of those facets is additional gun control.

[Tinykong]

What? There's literally hundreds of studies that suggest additional gun control in order to curb firearm violence, and all the bad things that go along with it. We have major academic institutions calling for evidence-based policies to be put in place to reduce firearm violence.

Firearm violence is a multifaceted problem, and it requires a multifaceted solution. One of those facets is additional gun control.

Maybe I've missed it, but the bulk of the studies I've seen posted have been about firearm violence, not gun control.

Let's see some studies that show gun control at the Federal level will result in lower firearm crime, violence, injury and/or suicide.

[TZucchini]

Maybe I've missed it, but the bulk of the studies I've seen posted have been about firearm violence, not gun control.

Let's see some studies that show gun control at the Federal level will result in lower firearm crime, violence, injury and/or suicide.

There are several studies that assess the effectiveness of firearm legislation/regulation.

Handgun regulations, crime, assaults, and homicide. A tale of two cities.

Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms
were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform.

Gun control and suicide: the impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995-2004.

Male firearm suicide rates declined following the introduction of restrictive firearms regulations in Canada.

Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of restrictive firearm legislation effectively
reduced the rates of firearm suicide and reduced the rates of firearm suicide and homicide.

Results support the hypothesis that state restrictions on firearms have the potential to reduce the suicide rate.

The authors examine relevant characteristics of the laws and recommend that these laws be mandatory, apply to all guns and ammunition possessed by an abuser, and include clear procedures to enhance implementation.



Shall I continue?