Best to re-read the decision in Miller. Bad Law never makes for good decisions. Simply put. Two defendants, one Miller, the other name escapes me at thew moment were arrested and charged with possession of the sawed off shotgun. They were convicted, but won on appeal to a federal lower court. Released from custody, they hauled ass as freed men. The US appealed to the SCOTUS. One of the defendants was dead and the others whereabouts unknown, so THEY WERE NOT REPRESENTED DURING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SCOTUS. SCOTUS declared no evidence was presented to determine the efficacy of a sawed off shotgun in warfare or military use, so the conviction was re-instated.Sawed off shotguns were common in trench warfare as well as later by the Tunnel Rats in 'Nam. As noted in later cases, The Gun Control Act of 1934, because it infringed on an individuals right to keep and bear arms, actually had to be bad law. Automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are used militarily, ergo, any citizen should be able to keep and bear those weapons. Pardon me if I don't get all sweaty palmed over an opinion in a blog in the New Yorker. No problem. As it defines what a militia is, it may have some bearing on your erroneous conclusion only militias can have firearms.
I dont have a problem with facts. Facts will come out one way or another. I have a problem with propagandist organizations which misrepresent data or present selected friendly facts in a fictional story to create propaganda. Show me the NYT unpublished review that you think is so trustworthy. While you question my skepticism of unavailable data presented by a biased source, you make an even worse error in blindly accepting this NYT conclusion simply because its from the NYT. You have not seen the data. I trust data, thats why my references are primary sources such as the FBI and CDC. You trust the name of the source, such as the NYT. My way is better.
Is this a pathetic attempt at a red herring? The point is that the case revolved around whether the firearm was suitable for use in the context of military/militia service. The fact that you disagree with SCOTUS has nothing to do with the key issue: the individual's possession of firearms is in the context of militia service. Dismissing a source via ad hominem without bothering to comment on the facts presented is a clear indication that you have no response to those facts. Which specific assertions in the article do you feel are incorrect? The Militia Act already did that, and was in the words of the framers who wrote the 2A.
Please illustrate what part of the article you believe is a misrepresentation. Actually, the only person here who has commented on the reliability of the NYT as a publication is you. Projecting much? I simply illustrated that the documented examples provided in that article highlight a systemic issue that skews statistical data. Have I entertained your red herring enough that we can get back on topic now?
A handful of documented cases does not skew a statistical data base composed of 10's of thousands of incidents. The NYT claims they reviewed newspaper articles in a couple of cities and conclude that the accidental shootings are double what is recorded. Even if true, that does not shift the national statistical conclusions because it is only a few cities, and accidental shootings are already so rare that doubling the figure means they are still rare. You are moving your arguement backwards at this stage.
So, just to be clear, your position is that the "handful of documented cases" from "a couple of cities" that were discussed specifically in the article may be the only cases in existence? Seems you're giving the NYT more credit than they deserve... Once again, you seem to be implying that this only occurs in the few cities that the NYT looked at. What is this assumption based on? Actually, we're just talking about the number of lethal accidental shootings. Do you believe non-lethal accidental shootings (those that injure, as well as those that were lucky enough to miss) are all recorded? I'm not sure you even comprehend my arguement, much less which direction it is moving in.
You are free to decide not to carry or own a firearm just as others are free to carry or own a firearm.
Sure, I'm free to decide not to carry or own - which causes no actual or potential harm to anyone. Implying this is the same as someone being free to carry or own (with no background check, no training, and no incentive to store their weapon securely when not in use) is a strawman.
Well written but I believe you miss the point. You only need an airbag once in your life to save you in a car accident. By the same token you have illustrated, it may never be used. This is the premise. The hope is that it will never be used. If you are ever faced with a scenario where you would be better served with having the option to defend yourself then it would have served it's purpose with accolades. It only takes once.
And my point, since you obviously missed it, is that I should not be free to endanger others. If I were interested in purchasing a firearm, it seems reasonable to me that any criminal history be taken into account. It also seems reasonable that I should be able to demonstrate proficiency, an understanding of safe handling, and have safe storage capabilities.
When toddlers use unsecured air bags to kill family members, you might have a point. Until then, you have a strawman.
While my intent was not to obfuscate the logic in reasoning here, I was under the impression that you were asking what risk is weighed against chance? (?): We as humans weigh risk against chance everyday. In every facet of life. My intended reasoning here (trying not to strawman here) is that: why would we not supply and furnish ourselves' with the best tools available to mitigate or navigate our current fare despite the intangibles? These intangibles will always exist. The documented history on the human race has proven it. The first weapon devised by the human race certainly wasn't an assault rifle. Humans have been defending themselves against threats of many sorts since even before documented history. I will not try to insult you with going into a history lesson. I can instead conclude with the thought that until we live in a state of utopia this planet still breeds power-hungry, greedy and desperate souls. While I believe that most (if not near all) persons have law-abiding intentions, I cannot forget that there are still who do not. I am not willing to render myself unarmed because of this reality. I am unwilling to wager the slightest on that bet. The stakes are too high. In poker it's fun. In reality you risk everything. The call can go either way. Risk vs. chance.
I totally agree that it's a matter of risk assessment. Sure there always have been and always will be "bad guys". The risk those people represent is hightened by making it easy for them to obtain the most lethal weapons they can carry. In addition, the propogation of those weapons means it is possible for you to be killed even if there is no bad guy... Of course, the risk levels associated with firearms rapidly decreases if the owner is appropriately trained in the use and maintenance of the weapon, and if it is stored safely so that it isn't at risk of theft or use by anyone other than the owner. Simultaneously, making it easy to identify straw purchasers who put firearms into the hands of criminals would lower the risk represented by the average "bad guy". Unfortunately, all of this would fall under the category of "gun control" and might hurt the profits of manufacturers, so they fund the NRA to obfuscate the entire situation through fearmongering...
