Gun Control, Data and the Second Amendment
---
UPDATE: Link fixed.
Scientific American presents a survey of studies addressing (but not answering) the question: Do Firearms Kill More People (in the home) Than They Save (in public places)?
And we're still having that debate. So the question of whether gun control laws are "effective" is premature. We first determine whether they are permissible.
It's analogous to the "House seat for the District of Columbia" nonsense: the fact that disenfranchisement may be fundamentally unfair is utterly irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says, and anyone with a three-digit IQ and a scrap of intellectual honesty who considers it must acknowledge that the bill recently passed by the House is patently unconstitutional.
So too with gun control. Maybe such laws save lives in the aggregate, maybe not. Maybe they save innocent lives in the aggregate, maybe not. But that debate can only properly take place after the requisite analysis of what, exactly, government may and may not do under the Second Amendment.
Even the most life-saving gun control law is evil if it violates the Constitution.
Scientific American presents a survey of studies addressing (but not answering) the question: Do Firearms Kill More People (in the home) Than They Save (in public places)?
But isn't the real issue how many people are killed by guns, period? In other words, while our primate brains automatically focus on dramatic and terrifying events such as this one, if our ultimate goal is the preservation of life, shouldn't we be talking about the overall statistics about guns rather than focusing on whether or not more lax or more restrictive gun control would have averted this disaster?No, that's not the real issue at all. The real issue is whether gun control laws are constitutional. Data should only drive policy within the context of proposals that would be constitutional if enacted.
And we're still having that debate. So the question of whether gun control laws are "effective" is premature. We first determine whether they are permissible.
It's analogous to the "House seat for the District of Columbia" nonsense: the fact that disenfranchisement may be fundamentally unfair is utterly irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says, and anyone with a three-digit IQ and a scrap of intellectual honesty who considers it must acknowledge that the bill recently passed by the House is patently unconstitutional.
So too with gun control. Maybe such laws save lives in the aggregate, maybe not. Maybe they save innocent lives in the aggregate, maybe not. But that debate can only properly take place after the requisite analysis of what, exactly, government may and may not do under the Second Amendment.
Even the most life-saving gun control law is evil if it violates the Constitution.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Gun Control, Data and the Second Amendment
- Can the Second Amendment Revive the Ninth and Fourteenth?
Posted by Kip on
30 April 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
