Guns Equal Death Therefore We Ought to Ban Them

While the gun crazies are telling us that ever more Americans need to be walking around armed, we should keep in mind that more than a million people have died from gun violence — in murders, accidents and suicides — since Dr. King was shot to death in 1968.

We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started.
How Many Deaths Are Enough? by Bob Herbert

Wow. What a horror! One million people have died from gun violence in 40+ years: that's approximately 25,000 a year. More American civilians have died since Martin Luther King was assassinated than American soldiers in World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the Iraq War and Afghanistan combined! Bob, you're so right - we need to stop this epidemic of violence.

Or is Bob Herbert mistaken? Certainly we need fewer homicides but clearly if all guns were illegal (or magically removed) we would still have homicides wouldn't we? Therefore we can't blame ALL homicides on guns. Let's say that all accidental gun deaths would be eliminated if guns were illegal. That's not entirely true as professionals still make mistakes as well as illegal gun owners. Finally, is it just to blame guns for suicides? Certainly that ought to be removed from the equation as drugs, cars, windows and bridges would remain giving people intent on suicide numerous alternatives.

A quick look at the US Statistical Abstract shows that, on average, about 650 Americans die by accidental gun deaths. At the same time approximately 3,200 Americans drown; 19,000 die from falls and 48,000 from car, boat, airplane and other "transport" accidents. Since safety is the primary concern perhaps we ought to ban swimming, driving, flying and other dangerous activities as well.

Clearly as tragic as the 650 deaths are it is not a reason to outlaw guns. First of all not all these deaths are children accidently playing with their parents guns, some are gun-owner accidents; others are hunting accidents. We don't stop skiing because approximately 40 people die per year skiing; or sky diving because about 30 people a year die from them; or scuba diving, hiking, mountain climbing or other such activities.

Regarding suicides: approximately 34,000 people per year commit suicide in this country and about half (a little bit more than half) use guns. Certainly we cannot blame guns, in any way, for the suicides. The suicide rate in Japan is more than twice ours and they have some of the most stringent gun control laws in the world.

Let's review Bob Herbert's contribution to the debate:

We need fewer homicides, fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides. That means fewer guns.

That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started.

Bob Herbert is correct. There would probably be less homicides if we had stricter gun laws as about 2/3rds of the homicides are by guns. Still, if Mr. Herbert was interested in fewer gun homicides he would support increased penalties for using guns in crimes and doubling down on these increased penalties when it comes to gang crime. This would decrease gang violence and make poor neighborhoods safer. How about this: rather than banning the "assault" weapons for everyone (true assault weapons are outlawed) how about increasing the penalties for using these "assault" weapons in a criminal manner. Let's start penalizing criminal behavior and not gun ownership. Let's start with that. It's not too hard to achieve.

Somehow I don't think Bob Herbert would go for that.

Meet the Militias

Do you think Ali Velshi of CNN wanted these answers from Amy Cooter, or was he trying to steer her to the standard narrative regarding Militias?

Do You Have a Right to Self-Defense?

People ask, why am I opposed to Obama? Here's one: nominating a justice to the Supreme Court who doesn't believe in an individual's right to self defense.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is asked if she sees the right to personal self-defense. She doesn't see it; doesn't see a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that. Now that's just a little slippery of her, isn't it? Just because the Supreme Court hasn't had to address it doesn't mean that it is not part and parcel of the agreed upon social contract (The US Constitution). Maybe the Supreme Court hasn't addressed it because no one was foolish enough to question it.

We have had, for the last several generations, a concerted, and quite silly argument against the Right to Bear Arms. And yet through Rebellions (Whisky) and Civil War we maintained -- until the Progressive Era -- a Right to Bear Arms. Now we get a Supreme Court justice who doesn't believe in Americans having a Right to Defend themselves.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers,

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot,

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

Of course to Sotomayer, and her ilk, these statements mean nothing. The only thing that matters is what can be parsed from earlier Supreme Court decisions. As there was a Protestant Revolution in the 16th C there will be a Constitutional Revolution. We must reinclude "Original Intent" or there will be no constitution left to defend.

Radical Judges Making Gun Ownership a Right!

My mind is racing, not only from the title of the piece but a lot of comments. Unfortunately I'm working on my taxes. Seeing the accountant on Friday.

Justices signal they're ready to make gun ownership a national right

I posted some of the comments below:

We have the silly:

Yippee!!!! Now the Country can be like Somalia. Why not? We're heading that direction anyway. Let the civil wars, crazy private armies, etc. begin.

I love reading the comments about peace loving gentle people who feel the presence of murderous weapons lead us to commit crimes. We will not become an enlightened society by banning everything that is bad for us. If that is the case, why isn't Mexico the safest most peaceful place on the earth?

I guess it's just not dangerous enough for them. What fairy tale land do these justices live in? Here in reality, we live in fear of armed men. And it's not the "hoods" either; The "law-abiding Americans" are just as dangerous and just as likely to shoot innocents.

We have the half-informed pseudo-intellectuals:

Does everyone ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment?? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, At the time the nation was founded there was no permanent standing Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, or well established State National Guards; the everyday citizen was the Militia. When the organized National Guards were established by Congress & the States, they became the Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment. So by that Act, the 2nd Amendment should of become null & void to the regular citizen and would only apply to those enlisted in the National Guard.

We have the self-righteous who demean their philosophical opponents:

The passion of this issue isn't about the constitution. Many people just like guns and want them. The Constitution is meaningless to them since many of them probaly think the Bill of Rights is what Moses brought down from Mount Sinai.

The constitution says "Well-Regulated" when referring to guns, so it's pretty much an open and shut case. However, if youa re a Supreme Court Justice you can pretty much rule on anything without needing a legitimate reason.

All those people who get their seilf identity from gun ownership will probably think this is great. Now they can wear their insecurity in a holster for the rest of the world to see. If they can conceal it, then no one else needs to know about their low self-image.

At least everybody will have a gun handy to commit suicide as society degrades into chaos. Keep a health watch on Kennedy and Scalia. If either dies, all the liberal Justices (except Sotomayor) will retire before the end of Obama's term so that he can restore some faith to the American people, and to keep things from degrading into a corporatist, rightwing, survivalist mentality.

Then we have the ones that ask the only truely valid philosophical question: what is the limit of firepower allowed to an individual?

I want an M1A1 tank, an F-22 Raptor, and some Hawk missiles so I can defend myself against my neighbor who will probably get an F-16... does the Supreme Court think this would be okay? Just thought I'd ask...

Where this breaks down is that the 2nd amendment talks about arms, not rifles or pistols. If the Supreme Court thinks that this means that individuals have a right to own and possess arms then it isn't limited to guns, an individual has the right to own and possess anything up to and including a hydrogen bomb. I think the terrorists have won.

And finally we have the people who simply don't deserve citizenship in this great country:

How many innocent people will now die because of this dogmatic worship of the constitution? Let their bodies be delivered to the Supreme Court and show them the result of their Supreme stupidity.
Who knows best how to run a city? The people who live there or 9 pedants who have never lived there?
You live in a democracy if, and only if ,you and your peers and your neighbours are free to take the decisions which affect your life and your life only. This country is a dictatorship of 9 lawyers who dedicate their life to implementing unto eternity the ideas of a dozen Englishmen in the 18th century who knew nothing of 21st century life. The magnificent nine in their shining temple on the hill, regard as secondary, the views of everyday people alive today (until some nut shoots them) This country has more nuts per acre than any other country in the world.
The constitution has become a cross on which innocent people will be crucified.
Repeal the 2nd amendment in the name of common sense and sane men, women and children.
If you want a gun then join the damned militia