
The 2nd amendment allows gun control. Scalia didn't - dangjc
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-second-amendment-is-a-gun-control-amendment
======
masonic

      Gun control ends gun violence as surely an (sic)
      antibiotics end bacterial infections
    

That's utterly false. There's not even a strong _correlation_ between gun bans
and reductions in violent crime. (Mexico and other countries to its south are
great examples.)

In the U.S., the violent gun crime rate went _down_ after the 1994 "Assault
Weapons" ban lapsed.

Saddest of all, this _isn 't even labeled as an opinion piece_ \-- they call
this "news", not an Op-Ed.

~~~
dangjc
Australia had a massive assault weapons buyback + gun control program after
the Port Arthur shooting which reduced gun related homicides by 59% and
suicides by 74%. They haven't had a mass shooting since.
([http://theweek.com/articles/629877/here-are-3-countries-
wher...](http://theweek.com/articles/629877/here-are-3-countries-where-gun-
control-worked))

In Connecticut, after a law was passed requiring purchasers to obtain a
license first, homicides dropped 40%. When Missouri repealed a similar law,
homicides increased 16%. ([http://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-
solution](http://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9454161/gun-violence-solution))

Please don't speak in absolutes.

~~~
_delirium
The suicide rate in Australia has not gone down at all, much less by 74%. Do
you mean only the suicides that use guns as a method? Those have declined, but
not because people aren't killing themselves, just because people they're
choosing other methods instead. Which seems like not much of a real win.

Suicide rates for Australia were 11.0 in 1980, 12.0 in 1995, 12.5 in 2000, and
currently 12.0 (as of 2014, the most recent year for which data is available).
Which doesn't suggest any obvious improvement circa the gun buyback/control
event of 1996.

~~~
DanBC
Pretty much everyone who works in suicide prevention (in individuals and
across populations) says that reduction in access to means and methods is an
important part of suicide prevention.

But it is just a part. You need the other stuff alongside the reduction of
access to means and methods.

> Australia were 11.0 in 1980, [...] currently 12.0

Just checking, but are you counting the same thing over all those years?
Definitions of suicide change; methods for gathering the data changes.

That makes it hard to compare rates across years.

[http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/...](http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2014~Main%20Features~Intentional%20self-
harm~10004)

> More broadly, this change in administrative systems highlights how various
> factors (including administrative and system changes, certification
> practices, classification updates or coding rule changes) can impact on the
> mortality dataset. Data users should note this particular change and be
> cautious when making comparisons between reference periods. The change does
> not explain away differences between years, but is a factor to consider.

------
lwhalen
What part of "Shall not be infringed", in any interpretation, allows gun
control?

~~~
dangjc
The 2nd amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed." The New Yorker article was pointing out that judicial
scholarship prior to Scalia's decision recognized that the first clause "well-
REGULATED militia" constrained the application of the second clause. Please
read the article.

~~~
lwhalen
The article brought up one dissenting judge's opinion, and a whole lot of sour
grapes at 'losing' the Heller case.

From the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracketed in the time of the writing
of the 2nd amendment:

    
    
        1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
    
        1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
    
        1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
    
        1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
    
        1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
    
        1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
    

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained
so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in
proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated
correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the
people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd
amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that
the founders wrote it.

Read the Federalist Papers (specifically #46), in which Hamilton, Madison,
etc, give significant insight into the intent behind the Amendments. It is
plain that they intended the 2nd Amendment to not restrict the people's
ability to own firearms in any way, shape, or form.

