Red Mosquito • View topic - The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread

Chris_H_2 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:51 pm

aprilfifth wrote:

I read this statistic in passing so I don't have a source for it: there are 90 guns per 100 people in America. The next highest ratio in the world is 4 guns per 100 people. Don't remember which country that was.

If true, it's an interesting commentary on our nation and firearms.

I'd be interested to see how many different people own guns, as opposed to how many people own multiple guns.

corduroy_blazer · **Posted:** Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:08 pm

Chris_H_2 wrote:

aprilfifth wrote:

I read this statistic in passing so I don't have a source for it: there are 90 guns per 100 people in America. The next highest ratio in the world is 4 guns per 100 people. Don't remember which country that was.

If true, it's an interesting commentary on our nation and firearms.

I'd be interested to see how many different people own guns, as opposed to how many people own multiple guns.

this would seem, to me, to be more telling of the situation.

SLH916 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:44 pm

corduroy_blazer wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

aprilfifth wrote:

I read this statistic in passing so I don't have a source for it: there are 90 guns per 100 people in America. The next highest ratio in the world is 4 guns per 100 people. Don't remember which country that was.

If true, it's an interesting commentary on our nation and firearms.

I'd be interested to see how many different people own guns, as opposed to how many people own multiple guns.

this would seem, to me, to be more telling of the situation.

25% of Americans own a firearm. 10% of Americans own 77% of the total stock of firearms. Handguns make up 34% of all types of firearms.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm

And tracing guns is a very difficult business. Most guns in the US are purchased legally, initially. But they can change hands and move around very quickly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... chtel.html

corduroy_blazer · **Posted:** Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:48 pm

i wonder if handgun ownership is heavily isolated to certain areas, too.

SLH916 · **Posted:** Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:06 pm

corduroy_blazer wrote:

i wonder if handgun ownership is heavily isolated to certain areas, too.

State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to
survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003

Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, Deborah Azrael
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

Available online 27 October 2006

Abstract
Two of every three American homicide victims are killed with firearms, yet little is known about the role played by household firearms in homicide victimization. The present study is the first to examine the cross sectional association between household firearm ownership and homicide victimization across the 50 US states, by age and gender, using nationally representative state-level survey-based estimates of household firearm ownership. Household firearm prevalence for each of the 50 states was obtained from the 2001 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Homicide mortality data for each state were aggregated over the three-year study period, 2001–2003. Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index (a construct that includes median family income, the percentage of families living beneath the poverty line, the Gini index of family income inequality, the percentage of the population that is black and the percentage of families headed by a single female parent). Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children. The association between firearm prevalence and homicide victimization in our study was driven by gun-related homicide victimization rates; non-gun-related victimization rates were not significantly associated with rates of firearm ownership. Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

http://www.anth.uconn.edu/faculty/handw ... 20SS&M.pdf

LittleWing · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am **Posts:** 10694

SLH916 wrote:

likeatab wrote:

not sure where you're getting your statistics, but there are a number of flaws with many of the studies that are frequently used as support for that argument. one thing that's frequently not accounted for is the number of times a handgun is used for self defense without a shot being fired.

The amount of gun violence in the US is huge compared to other developed countries. I've also wondered about whether local gun control laws have had an effect on the numbers in individual localities. I've seen studies published that purport to justify both gun control and gun ownership. I was very interested when the CDC underwrote a systematic look at the previous studies. And it seems that, in general study methodologies have been flawed, and that no conclusions can be generated on the effectiveness of local gun control legislation.

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

You know what makes this so grotesquely funny? The city of Washington DC. :haha:

Anyhow. It just warms my heart to know that we are one Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice away from having political policy supersede the constitution.

I'm REALLY interested to see what PD thinks about all this.

LittleWing · **Joined:** Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:43 am **Posts:** 10694

Quote:

"The majority would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." - John Paul Stevens

glorified_version · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:44 am

Yes, missile launchers for every man woman and child!

4/5 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:17 am

LittleWing wrote:

Anyhow. It just warms my heart to know that we are one Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice away from having political policy supersede the constitution.

given2trade · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:31 am

the guy in the middle scares me :shock:

Theresa · **Joined:** Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:59 pm **Posts:** 14656

High Court: No Death Penalty for Child Rape
Justices Narrow the Scope of the Death Penalty with 5-4 Ruling
By ARIANE de VOGUEWASHINGTON, June 25, 2008
181 comments FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
SHARE In a closely divided opinion today, the Supreme Court found that while the crime of raping a child is a "revulsion" to society, it does not merit the death penalty.

Divided Supreme Court rules 5-4 to ban the death penalty for child rapists.Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, found that "a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional."

Louisiana and five other states have laws imposing the death penalty for that crime. The ruling today overturned those laws.

How come you guys glossed over this one? did i miss it?

homersheineken · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:26 pm

If the constitution doesn't specifically talk about bullets, why not just ban the bullets? They seem to do the real damage here, not the guns.... (credit to Chris Rock here).

I hate guns, I really do. I'm jsut not sure what a ban will do if most people have them, or at least the people who want to get them already have them. Perhaps many generations down the line it will help? But I can't imagine it being more difficult in the future to get them than now, perhaps just more expensive.

corduroy_blazer · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:46 pm

thing is, the ban's effectiveness is not the question: it's legality under the constitution is.

homersheineken · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:52 pm

corduroy_blazer wrote:

thing is, the ban's effectiveness is not the question: it's legality under the constitution is.

If the ban's effectiveness isn't a question, why do we need to determine the legality of it? It's a waste of time then.... There are millions of things we can test the legality of, but we don't because it doesn't have an impact or effect on society.

4/5 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:20 pm

Theresa wrote:

High Court: No Death Penalty for Child Rape
Justices Narrow the Scope of the Death Penalty with 5-4 Ruling
By ARIANE de VOGUEWASHINGTON, June 25, 2008
181 comments FONT SIZE
EMAIL
PRINT
SHARE In a closely divided opinion today, the Supreme Court found that while the crime of raping a child is a "revulsion" to society, it does not merit the death penalty.

Divided Supreme Court rules 5-4 to ban the death penalty for child rapists.Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, found that "a death sentence for one who raped but did not kill a child, and who did not intend to assist another in killing the child, is unconstitutional."

Louisiana and five other states have laws imposing the death penalty for that crime. The ruling today overturned those laws.

How come you guys glossed over this one? did i miss it?

Why did the Supreme Court take this case? This sounds like a clear state issue to me.

simple schoolboy · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:26 pm

Would a highly restrictive application process pass muster?

punkdavid · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:57 pm

Chris_H_2 wrote:

I'm not sure. My friend is pretty law abiding, but he's also pretty careless. I don't trust people like him who are sitting in a coffeeshop with a gun in their pants.

This decision does not outlaw concealed carry restrictions.

punkdavid · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:00 pm

Theresa wrote:

this case was specific to washington dc? i'm not clear on that

The original case was brought to challenge the DC law. It is a critical point, because since DC is a Federal District, the law was a federal law enacted by Congress. In order to have this apply to state and local laws, the court would have to find that the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment apply to teh states, as it has for most of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

punkdavid · **Posted:** Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:08 pm

SLH916 wrote:

Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children.

This doesn't surprise me at all. It would seem logical that a domestic dispute, between otherwise law abiding and responsible people, could easily and quickly escalate into gun violence in the heat of the moment. If there is no gun in the house, there is no gun violence. This in addition to the increase in accidental firearms deaths.

bart d. · **Joined:** Fri Jun 03, 2005 1:32 am **Posts:** 17563

given2trade wrote:

The banner in front looks vaguely communist.

The Supreme Court Decision Discussion Thread

Who is online