Thoughts on the Supreme court decision on guns?

So now that we've made it clear this is right wing activism via uncontested historical & legal facts (making them glaring hypocrites who flip-flop on their constitutional interpretation methods depending on their political feely feels), I'll move on to the science thoughts of this decision:

Concealed-carry laws boost gun crime by a third, study finds

More Guns, More Unintended Consequences: The Effects of Right-to-Carry on Criminal Behavior and Policing in US Cities | NBER

We analyze a sample of 47 major US cities to illuminate the mechanisms that lead Right-to-Carry concealed handgun laws to increase crime. The altered behavior of permit holders, career criminals, and the police combine to generate 29 and 32 percent increases in firearm violent crime and firearm robbery respectively. The increasing firearm violence is facilitated by a massive 35 percent increase in gun theft (p=0.06), with further crime stimulus flowing from diminished police effectiveness, as reflected in a 13 percent decline in violent crime clearance rates (p=0.03). Any crime-inhibiting benefits from increased gun carrying are swamped by the crime-stimulating impacts.

Another 3rd world low IQ ruling, like the Abortion one.

Show me where 'open carry' is stated in the constitution or enumerated. If it isn't, delegate to the states. This country DOES after all have a rich history of gun control.

God, it's fun using this originalism line of thinking. It barely passes as thinking.

It doesn't say open carry, but it does protect the right to carry. Define the word "bear" in the context used in the 2A.

Well-regulated militia. Learn it.

@zaryia: Why does the court of appeals opinion in US v Tot hold more weight to you than the Supreme Court?

I've explained the meanings of these words to you even using the words of the people who wrote them to explain it. At this point you're looking as ridiculous as when you were insisting self defense was murder. You don't seem to do well with words and definitions.

No if defined it to fit your bias. You don't seem to do well with words and definitions.

Seriously? You're going to pretend the founders changed the definitions of the words they wrote just so in 2022 they could stick to the anti gun crowd? Who even thinks like this?

The 2nd Amendment was never interpreted the way you interpret until recent. Deal with facts. Who even thinks like this?

Yeah, it's political activism. It started in the 70's when the NRA worked to change the accepted and understood meaning over decades. For HUNDREDS of years before that, the judicial and historical consensus was the opposite on militia vs the individual as Eoten now subjectively interprets it.

The fact Eoten couldn't refute my history article shows even he knows it's activism. It's not even deep down, he straight up knows it front and center. He just will never admit to it, due to embarrassment since it's a gross hypocrisy.

Then you're denying what the founders wrote on the subject, and you're denying it because you want it to mean something it doesn't actually mean. Who even agrees with me? Well, pretty much every Supreme Court ruling we have ever had on the subject.

I can read what they wrote. It's the 2nd Amendment. They also had laws such as LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF POWDER THAT COULD BE STORED IN THE HOME. And the militia TRAINED!

Ah, so 'open' isn't there and isn't a right. It's not enumerated....originalism wins again!!!!!

Guns protect people from government tyranny. That's why the government wants to get people to give them up.

You aren't beating the military with your weapons.

For most of American history, the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to bear arms. As a natural reading of its text would suggest, it was understood to safeguard the rights of “free state[s]” to maintain “well-regulated militia[s].” During the ratification of the Constitution, drafters worried the emerging document could eradicate state militias and create a standing army that threatened state sovereignty. The Second Amendment aimed to prevent that.

In 1939, the Supreme Court unanimously endorsed this militia-based understanding of the amendment. Three years later, a federal appellate court noted that it was “abundantly clear” that the Second Amendment “was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.” This legal consensus over the Constitution’s meaning held for another three decades.

In 1988, Judge John Gibson, a staunchly conservative federal appellate judge, rejected a litigant’s claim that Second Amendment protected “individual rights” by observing that “for at least 100 years” courts “have analyzed the Second Amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias.” And in 1991, retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative, famously called the gun lobby’s reading of the Second Amendment “the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen.”

This is directly traced back to political right wing activism in the 70's. As per historical and legal consensus. Including the SCOTUS, unanimously at times. They were placed because of their conservative politics and the Republican's who selected them understood how they would vote.

Still waiting for someone to list a "sensible" law they want.

Let's be real, you people want full on, all out bans on almost every type of firearm. "Sensible" stopped being your goal long ago.

@LJS9502_basic: I mean, the Taliban did pretty well...

@Lotus-Edge: Ah yes, their country is going really well.

So people saying we need sensible gun laws not only cannot name any laws that would be sensible, meaning first and foremost that have to be legal, and a hint is that if applying the same rule to any other rights doesn't sound right, then it's not going to work for 2A either, nor can they cite how any of the laws they do want (the ones that aren't sensible) would actually act to stop crime. We always hear people whine about the assault weapons ban, yet they don't realize it didn't do anything more than ban cosmetics. Is banning cosmetic features sensible? No, it's ridiculous.

Now New York State is really going off the deep end in trying to make it as hard on law abiding gun owners as they possibly can. When SCOTUS said they can limit possession to sensitive areas, like court buildings, NY is now attempting to declare pretty much everything outside your home as sensitive areas. Not only is that sensible, it won't stand up to challenge in court.

The other silly thing NY State is now trying to do is force people to have face to face interviews. Well since the whole mental health check nonsense has been shot down, as well as needing to give state officials a reason, expecting face to face interviewing to pass scrutiny is neither sensible, nor will it be permitted once challenged in court.

And the last thing they're trying to do now is force every gun owner to forfeit their social media information for a government worker to read through, to determine if you meet their qualifications. Again, expecting this to hold up to challenges after the courts have already told them citizens do not need their permission to exercise rights, this is just a desperate attempt to inconvenience and criminalize legal owners, while yet again doing nothing of the criminal element.

When nearly every rule proposed is clearly designed to explicitly attack legal owners, the argument of sensibility is lost, as is all credibility on the subject.

And there's a mass shooting at a mall in Copenhagen, Denmark today, multiple people shot. so... so much for your "only America has mass shootings" and "gun bans work" crap.

You can't be serious. I refuse to believe anyone, including you, would fall for logic this spurious.

Several people reported dead in the mass shooting that just happened in Denmark. So, The country that already has every single gun law you people want.

'People still kill people, therefore laws against killing people, are useless.'

Amazing logic you've crafted for yourself there.

Get back to me when Denmark gets mass shootings as frequently as the US. This isn't even close to the problem the United States has with guns/gun nuts/NRA/paid politicians.

Murica

@eoten said: So people saying we need sensible gun laws not only cannot name any laws that would be sensible, meaning first and foremost that have to be legal, and a hint is that if applying the same rule to any other rights doesn't sound right,

Ok, registration and a license for gun ownership, two perfectly sensible requirements. Both are adopted in just about every backwards red state for voting, and if it's reasonable to adopt for one right, it should be reasonable for another, following your reasoning.

I know you won't agree because you're a hypocrite and you're not as smart as you pretend to be, but why don't I just skip all of that and you go to the part where it's OK to have a license/id and to register for voting, but it's not OK to have them for gun ownership. Actually, I should say bearing of arms, instead of ownership, as ownership of guns as a right isn't in the constitution, and we all know how big on enumerated rights you are.

Oh but you said this only happens in America. The US over 60x larger than Denmark. Denmark doesn't as much of anything or as frequently when it's entire population could fit into a single US city. Mass shootings happen around the world, and none of your proposed gun laws have stopped them anywhere else. It's almost like people who want to harm other people don't give a **** about your laws.

Almost daily mass shootings is unique to the US as opposed to other western countries which would be the only thing I would say, not that I recall saying that. You like to lie about what people state. You are such a corporate stooge on every single issue.

The United States has a gun violence problem. FACT!

Daily mass shootings? ROFLMAO, sure.

You really have your head firmly up your rear. And again you misrepresent what I said. It's beyond pathetic at this point and you're just a troll.

Okay Eoten, let's illustrate how wrong you are.

I'll type out a list of every mass shooting in Denmark over the past five years, including the location of the shooting and the age of all of the victims.

Then you'll have to type our a list of every mass shooting in the USA over the past five years, including the location of the shooting and the age of all of the victims.

Once we're both done, we can do a fair comparison to see whether Denmark's gun laws are more effective than the USA's.

I'll start:

3 July 2022: Mass shooting at a shopping mall. Three dead - two 17 year olds and one 47 year old.

Your turn.

Aah, the moving goal posts. First, this was something that only happens in the US. False. Now it has to happen as often in a country of 5 million as it does in one with over 320 million or it doesn't count. Germany had a mass shooting at a college a couple months ago as well.

No one ever said an event only happens here. There is a vast difference between it happening once and the almost daily happenings in the US. Stop with your bullshit lies.

Thank the supreme court.

No, "we people" really don't. By "We people" I mean the majority of Americans, gun owning or not, that believe that something needs to be done.

More fear-mongering from you. I guess gun-lovers, veterans, and patriots can't be liberal, right?

Obama doesn't want "full-on" bans. Biden doesn't. Beto O'Rourke doesn't.

Hell, I don't even think AOC does: her main goals seem to focus on universal background checks, disarming domestic abusers, safe storage mandates, and banning certain things (bump stocks, hi-cap mags, etc) that are "solely for killing people".

Language aside, I think that's mostly sensible.

Now, as for waiting: I'm still waiting for a Republican, conservative, or far-right to meet us half way. I mean, something needs to be done. You folks are in the minority and your grip on control is going to end, you should start being more diplomatic.

Yeah I don't know why I bother to respond sometimes. Boredom? Hope?

Anyway...

Going a couple months between mass shootings would be a huge improvement for us. What does Germany do? Maybe we should look into that.

What Germany does is evidently something that does not work. They also don't have as much of a drug/gang culture as the US has, which are the sources for most of what some of you consider to be mass shootings (which do include drive-bys). The majority of Americans do not think we need more regulations on guns or bans, and there isn't going to be any. Handguns and AR-15s are not going anywhere, and places like Denmark, Germany, France, where we see mass shootings in Europe are just further proof that those regulations you people cry out for, don't actually work.

There will be more mass shootings in Europe this year, you can count on it. The regulations promoted do not, and will not stop them there, nor are they going to stop any here. I really don't understand why it is so hard for you people to understand people who want to kill other people aren't going to follow a law that says they can't do it with a firearm, and if you can't even limit "access" in Europe, you sure as **** ain't limiting it here either. The ONLY thing you may achieve as putting more women and more elderly at risk of victimization by limiting their only options to defend themselves adequately.

Oh look, Oslo just had a shooting at a gay bar too. Over 20 people were shot.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/24/europe/norway-oslo-gay-bar-shooting-intl-hnk/index.html

@eoten: I don't think it's ever been about stopping mass shootings entirely. I mean yeah that's the ideal, but I think just about everyone knows that is not possible.

Going back to my earlier post, I think a reduction in the frequency would be more realistic. We can at least try for that. Maybe we can make it so nothing really tragic happens and the shootings are only gang related, instead of schools and workplaces.

TBH I think the US is rubbing off on other countries, and not in a good way. We've lost the way.

If it's not about stopping mass shootings then why is there even a discussion going on? It's not going to stop mass shootings, and it's not going to reduce crime. It's just going to make women easier pray to rapists, and elder people easier prey to burglars. I would consider those outcomes very tragic, especially when those outcomes can be avoided, AND the rate of shootings reduced if the underlying causes were addressed, and people get rid of this silly hard on they have for thinking bans are going to have a positive effect... this believe they're going to "reduce access" and that bubble wrapping of the problem is going to make it go away or reduce.

You're not going to have a reduction in frequency in either of these things either. It's an irrational pipe dream based in wishful thinking, and not in reality. Not that it matters because none of this overrides or overrules people's basic human rights to protect themselves, which is why it's never happening regardless of it being a bad idea anyway.

Yes we have.

Gone are the days of America as a beacon of freedom and prosperity. Now are the days of America as a festering tumor of far-right fundamentalism and violence, spreading to different parts of the world.

Yes I know that's dramatic, doesn't make it any less true. Just depressing.

What really frightens me is that people might start looking to China and Russia as the new ideal.

To reduce the number of people killed.

When they invented the seatbelt they didn't think it was going to stop all car fatalities, but they certainly wanted to stop a lot.

A seatbelt is used for protection, to have in case an incident arises that having one can mitigate your risks. It's why most people who carry handguns, do. They don't go out of their home looking for someone to use it on, they keep it in case they need it to defend themselves. This is why millions of women carry them as well. A 5'4 120lb woman isn't fighting off two 6' 200lb men.

Again, you're not eliminating, or reducing jack shit. All your thought process would end up doing if actually adopted into law is make more victims. Which thankfully, you're never going to accomplish. So again, address the actual issues, or stop wasting everybody's time pretending to be an intellectual on the subject.

If people weren't carrying guns, there would be no need for guns.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You do realize that in the real world, not everyone is of equal size, strength, age, and fitness level, right? 5'4" woman is going to fight off a 6'2" rapist, so if he's unarmed, she'll be fine being unarmed as well?

Yeah, I didn't think you put much thought into that comment.

She's going to be dead if she tries to pull a gun. I don't think you put much thought into that comment.

Also most women are raped by people they know. I mean it's just a shit argument start to finish. The whole notion of carrying a firearm because you think some boogeyman is going to jump out to rob, kill, or rape you is just completely misguided. It's used to sell weapons people don't need.

But thanks, as a large 6'3" male, it makes me feel really safe knowing there's a bunch of women out there packing heat and eyeballing me as I walk by them because they perceive me as a potential threat.

The entire Republican platform is selling fear. Fear of guns being taken, fear of brown immigrants, fear of minorities replacing them. No programs to help Americans at all. Just sell fear and outrage. Apparently that's all the base needs. Not better roads, or medical treatment, social security, etc. Just someone tell them they will stop their fear.