AB23 wrote:umm, DC v. Heller? No, that's not true. The Supreme Court's last interpretation of the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with self-defense. It had to do with the constitutionality of a statute banning ASSAULT weapons.
[...]
The only time they spoke about self-defense was the defense of property. But didn't talk about whether someone was entitled to that via the Constitution.
Taken from the syllabus from the section of key points that were held in the first few pages:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... 07-290.pdf
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
[...]
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
I understand the definitions get a little fuzzy as a bottom loaded semi-automatic pistol was originally placed in the same family by the District as a machine gun / assault weapon which got the ball rolling to begin with, but how do those red portions not directly contradict what you're saying? I see it not only addressing handguns but also the right to defense of self, family, AND property within the home. Not just property. It also seems to explicitly say that the Constitution protects that right.
@vChris, that's fair, my point was to address Jim's comment about France, but now that I look at it a second time I see he used the word frequency and wasn't talking about mass shootings necessarily so that's my bad. It's true, France does have lower rates of gun related homicides, suicides and injuries. I can't find data on France's rates before and after gun control though (at least not with a cursory search). They may have been enjoying a low stats in this area to begin with. That's the endogeneity problem I mentioned earlier which is a fancy way of saying you're looking at a cross section of data plotted against what is actually a multi-dimensional plot of data across other variables. (As I type this next bit out that could possibly show the opposite of what I showed before, I hope people remember when I said this in my other post I applied it to the posts that showed upward trends as well and said I only posted them to challenge preestablished mindsets)
For instance, if we look at the firearm homicide rate in England and Wales
People do are against gun control would claim "look at that massive spike!" and those for it would say "look! eventually it went down!" In actuality, there are more variables in other dimensions of the plot and we're just looking at a slice of it. When we see a spike in hiring law enforcement that is maintained, it sheds new light on the problem
So now our gut reaction is to inversely correlate law enforcement to crime, which is probably a solid assumption, BUT now the problem is more complicated. Does this mean the same thing would have happened independent of the ban? Does this mean it's a combination of the two? What other variables are having an effect we don't see and how strong is their impact. It's not so simple, and that's really the only point I'm trying to drive home. I may sound like a staunch gun supporter but it's only the conclusion I'm currently at after consolidating all of this. With the right data, I could be swayed again.
I just want people to understand that when they reference situations like Australia that may (or may not) have already been enjoying a downward trend in crime. The right answer isn't to look at the below and say "it works" it's to ask if we have all that we need to make an informed decision.