The Colorado tragedy and guns in America

[Doug Kerr]

The horrific shooting tragedy in Aurora, Colorado cries out for us to examine, honestly, the question of what role in this was played by the ready, legal availability of potent weapons to the general public. "Guns don't kill, people do." But not easily, en masse, or "driving by", with pocket knives or tire irons.

I am not a hunter nor target shooter (although I have done development work in the area of trigger and sear mechanisms for target rifles). I would not presume to speak for any "typical hunter". But I suspect that there are few hunters (among "normal" people, whatever that means) who, based on their own beliefs and desires, would advocate the ready availability to civilians of "assault rifles", high-capacity rifle magazines, and so forth.

But I am quite certain that many such people have been "taught" that if they don't oppose limitations on the sale of rapid-fire bazookas to the general public, pretty soon the government at some level will make it impossible for them to even own their favorite duck-hunting shotgun. (That's what we still have AM broadcast radio for.)

Over a decade ago, I was in Seoul, South Korea, teaching a seminar to engineers of a newly-formed cellular radio company, at the time of a serious gun incident in the US. At lunch one day with two of the young engineers, the subject came up. They said that Koreans could not understand how it was possible for the US to have such a high rate of gun deaths.

I asked, "Do you have this sort of gun death in South Korea." "Oh, yes", replied one of the two guys. "Why just last year, we had a case . . .". His colleague interrupted him: "No, that was the year before last."

I do not look to our country actually coming to grips with this problem during my lifetime, whose end will hopefully not be defined by a bullet from some crazy guy in a movie theater. It is one of many tragedies of this overall-wonderful county of ours.

Best regards,

Doug Kerr

Formerly:
Proud to be a citizen of the United States of America.
Living in the State of Texas is very convenient.

Currently:
Proud to be a citizen of the United States of America.
Proud to be a citizen of the State of New Mexico

 

[Asher Kelman]

Doug,

Yes, It's painful to hear the news. In the various school shootings, had trained highly selected students had guns, then the sicko shooter would have been shot. So there are arguments on both sides.

However, in a theater, perhaps we need folks to go through a metal detecter. Since malls are private property, gun holders could be excluded legally.

This could be done without as much difficulty as banning weapons with fast replaceable ammunition clips. Still, if I was in charge, that's my first choice.

Asher

 

[jake klein]

Doug,

Yes, It's painful to hear the news. In the various school shootings, had trained highly selected students had guns, then the sicko shooter would have been shot. So there are arguments on both sides.

However, in a theater, perhaps we need folks to go through a metal detecter. Since malls are private property, gun holders could be excluded legally.

This could be done without as much difficulty as banning weapons with fast replaceable ammunition clips. Still, if I was in charge, that's my first choice.

Asher

I've always wondered about "guns are banned" signs at malls and the such. How would they ever know I was carrying if I had the right to carry a concealed weapon.

The hard part is pinpointing the issue. Is it the guns? is it the people with the guns? Is it the poverty stricken neighborhoods?

The conversations I've had with some of my wife, Debbie, cousins are hard to listen to. Their family grew up in Stockton California during the mid 80's to mid 90's. Not the safest place to grow up. They spoke of their childhood and how guns were always around. Not the legal ones we know of. Imagine meeting 10-14 year olds who thought it was normal to have a sawed off shotgun in their pants, ruggers on the hip, and Ak47's in the house. And this was their day to day life.

I think the issue runs much, much, much, much deeper than guns themselves.......

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Asher,

In the various school shootings, had trained highly selected students had guns, then the sicko shooter would have been shot.

If by "highly trained", you mean "commissioned student marshals", then maybe.

If you mean "expert marksmen" without commissions, then not necessarily. At many of the recent shootings, there is little doubt about the presence of armed civilians, quite familiar with their weapons. Some were probably too scared to shoot the attacker, others unsure of their shot, others too smart to try in that context. A blaze of crossfire is a deadly thing.

The best are off-duty DEA agents.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

It is difficult to draw meaningful inferences from statistics in this matter, even if we have reliable statistics, well qualified. But what we usually have available is at best compromised by the fact that we are usually talking about "reported" incidents, and of course the various jurisdictions have different formal definitions of what is what, not to mention ample motives for "corrupting" the data.

That all having been said, the following is very interesting. These are annual firearms homicide incidence per 100,000 population, as reported (from various, cited, sources) in a Wikipedia article. I have mostly only included values reported for periods of 2002 and more recently.

South Africa        2000        74.57/year/100,00 population (Woof!)

Jamaica        2009        47.44

Mexico        1995        9.18

USA        2004-2007        4.14

Poland        2002        0.29

England/Wales        2002        0.07

One interesting site, which I would characterize as having a "firearms homicide apologist" orientation, pointed out that indeed England reported a very low incidence of firearms homicide, but of course we shouldn't read too much into that, given that the England had a very low violent crime rate overall.

I'll just let that lie there.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Discussions of laws and regulations regarding firearms inevitably (and properly) involve the implications of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which I will first cite here for reference:

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.​

I will now analyze this amendment, not from the standpoint of what I might hope it meant in connection with some statutory or regulatory situation I might favor of disfavor, but merely to determine what, on its face, it says.

I note that I have for many years made part of my living by analyzing the meaning of specifications, regulations, and even laws. That doesn't make me great at that, and certainly not "infallible" - just practiced.

One notorious incident, occurring as I gave "expert testimony" in open court during a civil suit, was the judge, speaking to "opposing" (from my view) counsel, saying: "Counselor, how to you feel about a telephone engineer just seemingly having demonstrated an error in your interpretation of a United States statute?" [In all fairness, the statute was badly drawn, and in fact had some serious flaws in references and the like. No compiler would have accepted the draft.]

But I digress. Here we go.

The first clause

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . ."

Many have argued that this limits the right guaranteed by this amendment to arms held in connection with an organized militia (of which a modern example might be the National Guard of a state).

Firstly, I have to look at the syntactic structure of the clause itself. The two commas do not fit into any recognize grammatical construction in modern English. If we take out the clause between the commas, the rest doesn't make any sense.

A reasonable interpretation is that this might have fit into the grammatical standards of the time, or was just an editorial error.

There is no doubt in my mind that what was meant would have been stated today (at least if Carla were doing the copy editing):

"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."

So I will analyze that. Is the first clause a restrictive clause, limiting the applicability of the "main clause" to follow? No. It does not have that structure, It has the structure of an explanatory clause, which serves to tell the reader why the main clause was created. This is, by the way. always dangerous in a law or regulation.

If that had been the intent of the drafters, they might have written (with no explanatory clause):

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms in connection with the operation of a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

If an explanatory clause was desired (never a good idea), then:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in connection with the operation of such a Militia shall not be infringed.

An example in another field would be this:

"In order to assure clear passage for fire apparatus, parking is prohibited within 15 feet of building 56".

Does that mean that if the plant fire engine is out of order, one can park within 15 feet of building 56? No. The regulation says you cannot park within 15 feet of building 56.

But of course the regulation should read:

"Parking is prohibited within 15 feet of building 56".

If we want to help the reader to understand why there is this regulation, a subsequent note of explanation ("non-normative", as we say in the standards business), could be given.

My conclusion:

The first clause of the second amendment does not in any way limit the "right " guaranteed by the amendment to "firearms held in connection with an organized militia".

The "main clause"

". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The meaning of this of course largely turns on the meaning of the word "infringed". A meaning of "to infringe" that might apply here is "Act so as to limit or undermine, or encroach on". But there are certainly subtleties that ultimately would have to be decided by the courts.

What does "keep and bear" mean? Clearly, it means "own, have, and carry".

My overall conclusion

I conclude that the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States does not allow the government in any way to prohibit or limit the ownership or carrying of any kind of firearm.

Not even rapid-fire bazookas? 'Fraid not.

Not even in the case of felons or the certifiably feeble minded? 'Fraid not.

Prohibit carrying them in kindergartens? Probably not.

What about "registration" and the like?

Can the government demand that everyone owning a firearm register it?

That is less clear to me. Does that act counter to or interfere with into the person's ownership? I think not. (But remember, the definition of "infringe" I gave above is mine.)

In conclusion

Do I personally like the implications of what I believe the 2nd amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly says on its surface? No.

But I believe that if that is not what this nation, overall, wants, then it must amend that amendment (that is, revoke it and replace it with a different one)to be clearly able to construct statues and regulations to bring about what it wants.

Both of which could perhaps actually happen if all AM broadcast radio were shut down.

Just some thoughts from a telephone engineer.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Maris Rusis]

Thanks Doug for your excellent disquisition on the letter of the second amendment to the Constituition of the United States and it's disquieting consequences. I wonder if it is possible to move from the letter of the amendment to the intention of the amendment.

In particular the use of the words "A well regulated Militia" surely could not imply that the framers of this amendment intended the words to be superfluous and to be of no effect. If they merely wanted junk words to pad out the amendment they could have used "A formidable mob" or "Patriotic rogue shooters" with exactly the same end result.

The framers of the second amendment obviously (to my mind) had something rather than nothing in mind when they invoked the word "militia". Who would lose, who would gain, if the ambiguity were removed and "militia" was formally voted by the American people to mean an actual "militia"?

Your speculation is invited.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Maris,

Thanks Doug for your excellent disquisition on the letter of the second amendment to the Constituition of the United States and it's disquieting consequences.

Thank you so much.

I wonder if it is possible to move from the letter of the amendment to the intention of the amendment.

Well, some of that happens in the work of the Supreme Court. And of course in that, there is earnest study of historical records to try and discern the "intentions" of the framers of that amendment (there being yet no clear conclusion).

(Actually, George Mason, after whom a respected university in Virgina is named, drafted most of the twelve amendments in the "Bill of Rights", the first two of which were never ratified as amending the Constitution.)

In particular the use of the words "A well regulated Militia" surely could not imply that the framers of this amendment intended the words to be superfluous and to be of no effect. If they merely wanted junk words to pad out the amendment they could have used "A formidable mob" or "Patriotic rogue shooters" with exactly the same end result.

I understand. However - and these guys were seemingly rather skilled with the language - they didn't write it so that it says "in the case of a militia". Now maybe they meant to do that and just bungled the syntax (happens all the time, as you well know).

But I've made a lot of money for my clients by showing them how to hold another firm they did business with to what the contract actually says (and both parties signed), not what the other guy "thought we had agreed to".

The framers of the second amendment obviously (to my mind) had something rather than nothing in mind when they invoked the word "militia". Who would lose, who would gain, if the ambiguity were removed and "militia" was formally voted by the American people to mean an actual "militia"?

Your speculation is invited.

Well, firstly the problem is not "exactly what is a militia", since the language does make that clause irrelevant.

So you and I might say, what were some things we might want a replacement for the present second amendment to say and mean. Examples that include the notion that the freedom is only given in connection with what is called in the present amendment a "militia" would include:

• People should be free to own and carry, without any limitation or restriction, any kind of firearm so long as it was in connection with an officially organized and recognized paramilitary or auxiliary law enforcement body.

But today of course people today are able to own and carry a weapon if they are part of such a body. That is provided for by various existing laws, and there seems little risk that these would be revoked. So it would be hard to find a reason to press for such a change. Remember, this amendment does not prescribe what should be allowed, or encouraged, or required, but rather what may not be prohibited.

• People should be free to own and carry, without any limitation or restriction, any kind of firearm so long as it was in connection with a military-like body, whether officially recognized or not. That is, members of the Est Side Anti-Crime Club could own and carry any kind of weapon.

But that would in practice be no different than:

• People should be free to own and carry, without any limitation or restriction, any kind of firearm.

Now of course this would really appeal to the National Rifle Association, who basically want there to be no limits or controls on any kinds of firearms at all.

The real problem is that there is no "workable" consensus on what should be the basic policy on firearms in the United States. You can find people with these outlooks:

a. Believe that no "civilian" should be able to own or carry any kind of firearm. (As in Korea.)

b. Believe that civilians should be able to own and carry shotguns and rifles of defined modest potency, but not handguns. There should be a tight traceability of all weapons.

c. Believe that civilians should be able to own and carry shotguns and rifles of defined modest potency and handguns. There should be a tight traceability of all weapons.

d. Believe that civilians should be able to own and carry shotguns and rifles of defined modest potency and handguns. There should be no required traceability for weapons.

e. Personally believe, intellectually, that civilians should be able to own shotguns and rifles of defined modest potency and handguns, but that there should be a tight traceability of all weapons. But has been convinced that if he endorses this outlook, before long the government will prevent him from doing even that, and in case a dictator is elected to the presidency, the government will come and confiscate his guns so the people cannot effectively revolt. So he should better steadily take the position that civilians should be able to own and carry any kind of weapon, without limitation, and that there should be no traceability.

f. Believe that the Constitution of the United states guarantees civilians to be able to own and carry any kind of weapon, without limitation, anywhere, any time, (and in fact I reluctantly believe that) and that there should be no traceability, and we should not condone the government allowing less that that, never mind whether or not that would be the best for the country. (I don''t believe that.)

g. Believe that the actual best thing for the safety and security of this this country and its law-abiding citizens would be for civilians to be able to own and carry any kind of weapon, without limitation, anywhere, any time, and that there should be no traceability.

Cohort (e) is the most problematical: people who are smart enough not to believe that unlimited, untraceable gun ownership is beneficial, but but who nevertheless vehemently oppose any limitations.

Our politicians are so afraid of the power of that cohort that they will not propose any serious work on this problem.

Basically, Carla and I are in cohort (b). But many men in the family are in cohort (e).

Thanks for your interest in this important matter.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Maris Rusis]

Doug, thanks for those insights. I have read and re-read them.

It seems certain that the interpretation of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America will follow rather than lead the cultural preferences of the American people. Until there is a strong shift from the principle that political, social, and security problems can be solved by the use of firearms nothing will change.

And yet I ask myself what I would do in such a society where some are armed and some are not. When I walk past those suspicious looking dudes in the street and I fondle the Glock 26 Sub-compact that lies at the bottom of my warm coat pocket do I feel safer? Yes, I do. Am I safer? Probably not.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'm pleased that the Governor of Colorado has made act of referring to the shooter, "the gunman" and not mentioning his name. This is a good move, as it's the victims we should remember.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Discussions of laws and regulations regarding firearms inevitably (and properly) involve the implications of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which I will first cite here for reference:

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.​

I will now analyze this amendment, not from the standpoint of what I might hope it meant in connection with some statutory or regulatory situation I might favor of disfavor, but merely to determine what, on its face, it says.

Hi Doug,

The first thing that pops up in my mind is, which part of The Constitution is it exactly that this odd grammar is supposed to be amending? Maybe that can help to better unravel the meaning?

AFAIK the word "Militia" could guide us, and it is mentioned in the constitution text only a few times.

In my view from the outside, it's most likely referring to Section VIII (the powers of Congress) paragraph 15:
"1. The Congress shall have Power [...]
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to exectute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."

The other mentions are more about the funding, training, state of readiness, etc.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights, mentions that "a number of States expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficient ends of its institution."

The emphasis in italics in the above quote is mine, as I see it as the important part that restricts the transfer of power, in this case the exclusive use of (fire)power to "exectute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections". When the Government abuses its powers, the people still have a legal right to oppose, even by the use of firearms. It is not an obligation for the people to keep and bear such arms, let alone use them in other situations, but rather a right to defend against abuse of power by The Government (but not to use against others/civilians or in other situations!).

IMHO, it's that last part that, at least for some, seems unclear. Of course the strange grammar of The Second Amendment doesn't help to make that distinction clear, but its intention should follow from the preable, "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers", where "its" refers to the Government.

My overall conclusion

I conclude that the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States does not allow the government in any way to prohibit or limit the ownership or carrying of any kind of firearm.

I disagree, based on the expressed intent in the preamble of The Bill of Rights. It only allows the people to legally defend themselves against Government abuse, even by using firearms. That implies that people should be allowed to have them at their disposal in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. The Government can full well do anything it wants to prevent the use of firearms by civilians against other civilians. The question becomes what can it do.

But I believe that if that is not what this nation, overall, wants, then it must amend that amendment (that is, revoke it and replace it with a different one)to be clearly able to construct statues and regulations to bring about what it wants.

That seems unlikely to happen any time soon, given the financial implications for the industry behind it, yes it's down to money (is power) again and the cost is human lives (due to accidents and misuse).

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Bart,

Thanks for your thoughtful essay. I will have to read it at length a little later (just now helping Carla get ready for a meeting at the house). For the moment, I just wanted to reply to one issue.

The first thing that pops up in my mind is, which part of The Constitution is it exactly that this odd grammar is supposed to be amending? Maybe that can help to better unravel the meaning?

Well, many amendments (including all of them in the so-called "Bill of Rights", the term applied to the first ten amendments including the one under discussion here), amend the entire Constitution in the sense of adding provisions to it, not of modifying existing provisions.

Thanks again.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

A common, but despicable, technique in "argument" is called straw man. For example: I espouse a certain position. One who opposes it, perhaps without having any effective basis to argue against it, argues (perhaps effectively) against a different position that "sounds like" mine if you don't pay attention.

This week, cyberspace is awash with straw men in connection with the discussion of firearms regulation.

Those who oppose any tightening of the restrictions argue, "Restricting the right to own and carry [assault weapons or whatever] would be ineffectual. Murderers clearly do not obey laws, and would just ignore the laws against such ownership".

This is of course a classical "straw man" argument. We would not seek to just make ownership of such weapons "illegal", but rather to make it "impossible".

Of course that would have to be done by making illegal the sale, transport, and so forth of the prohibited weapons, and of course traffickers could ignore those laws too (until caught).

But this is much different that relying on "ownership to be illegal".

Now Mitt Romney, aspirant to be the candidate of the Republican party for President of the United States, says that the recent horrific event in Aurora, Colorado is a clear illustration of the fact that making the acquisition of certain types of weapons illegal does no good: the shooter there just acquired much of his arsenal illegally.

This technique of argument has a less cute name: "lie".

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

The "overseas" participants here probably all have a fairly good understanding of the American "system", but for the benefit of American readers, who often don't, let me put some of these matters into context, as I see it. (I will of course gravely simplify here!)

When the Constitution "precludes" something, it in general means:

• That the government (at any level) is prohibited from making laws that call for that thing, and

• That the government (at any level) is prohibited from doing that thing anyway.

"Interpretation" of the provisions of the Constitution in general comes into play in this scenario:

• There is a court action, perhaps a criminal suit (a "prosecution" for a crime) or a civil suit, and a judgement given.

• The unsuccessful and presumably dissatisfied party appeals the decision to a higher court, and claims that the law under which the judgment was given is "unconstitutional". The court rules that it is or isn't, and then acts on the underlying issue in the face of that conclusion.

• This process may be repeated, "up the chain" of appeals courts, until the matter is accepted for review by the United States Supreme Court. This is ultimately where the interpretation of the pertinent provision of the Constitution is seriously undertaken.

And this is where, most often, if an existing federal law is to be "invalidated" on the grounds of its being in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, that invalidation really takes place.

Note that the Constitution does not explicitly give any court (even the Supreme Court) the power to invalidate a law on constitutional grounds. That was first considered to be solidified in a landmark (and actually very curious) case, Marbury vs. Madison (1803). Essentially, the reasoning was, "If the Supreme Court does not have that power, how could the 'mandates' of the Constitution ever be enforced?"

On a different but related front

Of considerable concern today is that it seems to many people as if:

• Any important issue has an obvious implied "implication" consistent with the general position of either the Republican or Democratic party.

• The vote of any Justice of the Supreme Court will be consistent with with the general position of the political party of the president that appointed the justice.

That of course is a crass oversimplication. Maybe.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Jerome Marot]

Norway has considerable restrictions on the possession of firearms. On July 22, 2011 Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 people in twin attacks: 8 people in a bombing in downtown Oslo and 69 people in a shooting massacre at a youth camp outside the capital. In addition, at least 110 people had received various physical injuries. 33 people had been directly hit by one or more bullets and survived.

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

A common, but despicable, technique in "argument" is called straw man. For example: I espouse a certain position. One who opposes it, perhaps without having any effective basis to argue against it, argues (perhaps effectively) against a different position that "sounds like" mine if you don't pay attention.

This week, cyberspace is awash with straw men in connection with the discussion of firearms regulation.

Those who oppose any tightening of the restrictions argue, "Restricting the right to own and carry [assault weapons or whatever] would be ineffectual. Murderers clearly do not obey laws, and would just ignore the laws against such ownership".

This is of course a classical "straw man" argument. We would not seek to just make ownership of such weapons "illegal", but rather to make it "impossible".

Of course that would have to be done by making illegal the sale, transport, and so forth of the prohibited weapons, and of course traffickers could ignore those laws too (until caught).

But this is much different that relying on "ownership to be illegal".

Now Mitt Romney, aspirant to be the candidate of the Republican party for President of the United States, says that the recent horrific event in Aurora, Colorado is a clear illustration of the fact that making the acquisition of certain types of weapons illegal does no good: the shooter there just acquired much of his arsenal illegally.

This technique of argument has a less cute name: "lie".

Best regards,

Doug

What about Obama confusing an A K- 47 with a AR -15 Romney seemed to be talking about making devices with explosive material but I agree it could have been said smoother.
Don



WILLIAMS: "On things however like Aurora, Colorado, do you see why Americans get frustrated at politics. They can see and hear your words from earlier in their career, people are hurting out there. Perhaps they want to start a national conversation about whether an AR-15 belongs in the hands of a citizen, whether a citizen should be able to buy 6-thousand rounds off the internet. You see the argument?"

ROMNEY: "Well this person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them. And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't. Changing the heart of the American people may well be what's essential, to improve the lots of the American people."

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Bart,

A nice analysis, and I certainly follow your train of argument.

I disagree, based on the expressed intent in the preamble of The Bill of Rights. It only allows the people to legally defend themselves against Government abuse, even by using firearms. That implies that people should be allowed to have them at their disposal in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less. The Government can full well do anything it wants to prevent the use of firearms by civilians against other civilians. The question becomes what can it do.

Again, my conclusion follows one that I have often argued in regulatory and contractual cases: 'Motivations' expressed in the preamble to a set of provisions, or in the introduction of one of the provisions, do not restrict the applicability of the prevision(s); doing that in a preamble of introduction would require a direct statement of that limitation.

Suppose a published specification for a certain type of electronic equipment says:

[The significance of my green highlighting will be explained below.]

13.6 Environmental conditions

In order to prevent the possibility of malfunction when the amplifier is deployed in extreme temperature conditions, it is required that it remain properly operational over the following range of environmental conditions:

13.6.1 Ambient air temperature in the range -10° F through 175° F

13.6.2 Relative humidity in the range 5% through 95%

A company orders from me a batch of amplifiers and the contract says that they must conform to that certain specification. I know that they are to be installed in central Ohio, and the contract mentions, in its general discussion of the context, that the equipment will be used where the expected range of ambient air temperatures was from 0° F to 130°.

They are delivered, and soon I hear that their incoming inspection operation has rejected them because they did not perform properly at an ambient air temperature of 145° F.

I reply that the contract pointed out that the equipment would be used where the expected range of ambient air temperatures was from 0° F to 130°.

But in fact, the specification, which was invoked by the contract without any reservation, called for operation at -10° F through 175° F. And so I'm stuck.

Now, does this mean that I think the world of politics is as logical as the world of telecommunication engineering? Hardly.

But if asked to say what I thought the second amendment to the Constitution means, I can only interpret what it says.

If political realities means it should be taken to mean something else, I can't say exactly what that would be.

By the way, as I'm sure you know, in the language of specification writing and reading, the portion of that specification clause I marked in green above is said to be "non-normative". That is, it is for information only, and does not form part of the definition of what is required. Of course, it is not good practice to put that right in the midst of the "normative" language. But it happens.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Norway has considerable restrictions on the possession of firearms.

Hi Jerome,

Yet Norway ranked as number eleven on the 2007 list of gun ownership pro capita. My country ranked 112, and I don't think we have more crime because we are relatively defenceless. And whaddayaknow, Syria was also ranked 112.

That is another thing that needs to be considered, since selfdefence is (ab)used as an argument in favor of ownership. As Michael Moore (I know he gets under the skin of some people) unraveled in his Bowling for Columbine movie, gun ownership in Canada is also quite high, yet they don't feel the need to lock their frontdoors or shoot each other, not as often as their southern neighbors anyway.

So it also has something to do with the constant FUD tactics of the gun lobby/government (remember WMD's in Iraq), and the type of TV shows that the average person gets spooned every day (e.g. Cops, or America's Most Wanted). "Lot's of people to be afraid of, get a gun for self protection", well, how is that working out?

Here's how: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454

So it's not just a matter of more guns, more crime (although it does 'help').

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Jerome Marot]

Yet Norway ranked as number eleven on the 2007 list of gun ownership pro capita. My country ranked 112, and I don't think we have more crime because we are relatively defenceless. And whaddayaknow, Syria was also ranked 112.

From a quick comparison between that list of gun ownership and that list of firearms related death rate, there appear to be little correlation between the two. I find that surprising.

I gave the example of the Norway massacre to show that one cannot derive statistics from rare events (as massive shootings are, luckily). That massacre had a higher number of casualties than any other recent one.

 

[Mark Hampton]

From a quick comparison between that list of gun ownership and that list of firearms related death rate, there appear to be little correlation between the two. I find that surprising.

I gave the example of the Norway massacre to show that one cannot derive statistics from rare events (as massive shootings are, luckily). That massacre had a higher number of casualties than any other recent one.

but - over the last year you will find events that have had more causalities (death) - but these are not reported in the same way..

nation states cause more damage...

to others and their people...

Pow.pow.Pow - Deka
​

ahhh this thread needed an image !

 

[Asher Kelman]

For a given regime type, the level of violence is most related to the proportion of young men and women in the population and their relative lack of hope for opportunity to escape poverty. Guns are just an expression of their alienation. Mostly, people with a stake in society don't go around popping off people.

Asher

 

[Tom dinning]

Fro a given regime type, the level of violence is most related to the proportion of young men and women in the population and their relative lack of hope for opportunity to escape poverty. Guns are just an expression of their alienation. Mostly, people with a stake in society don't go around popping off people.

Asher

So why don't they go paint on walls like everyone else?
Most people without a stake in society don't go around popping off people either.

 

[Asher Kelman]

So why don't they go paint on walls like everyone else?
Most people without a stake in society don't go around popping off people either.

The violence is Egypt, Syria, Darfur, South Africa, Congo, Somalia and more are for more significant to their societies than the sporadic gun violence in the USA. Given the American tradition for freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms, there will be hates speech at times and tragic shootings. That's what the nations have opted for in these two close to the heart "principles".

It does not make sense not to have gun-free zones in entertainment complexes as in airports. Eventually, it will happen.

When one makes Faustian bargains, there's always a price to pay. No different with "free speech" in the USA that protects the Klu Klux Klan marching or Fred X with a brain tumor caring an automatic pistol.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The violence is Egypt, Syria, Darfur, South Africa, Congo, Somalia and more are for more significant to their societies than the sporadic gun violence in the USA.

Hi Asher,

It's sad when one has to compare oneself with countries/dictatorships like Syria to spin the gun related homicide rates to a more acceptable level. I'm sure you didn't intend to do that (afterall every homicide is one too many), but I'm a bit lost as to what you did mean.

The strange fact remains that the gun related homicide rate in the USA is a multiple of more comparable countries, some of which also score pretty high in gun ownership rates.

To this one can also add gun related suicides and accidents, but I suspect gun ownership to play more of a role in that than country/culture specifics.

So if it's not the availability alone that explains the issue, then what does explain it? Maybe therein also lies an answer that can lead to a solution?

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher,

It's sad when one has to compare oneself with countries/dictatorships like Syria to spin the gun related homicide rates to a more acceptable level. I'm sure you didn't intend to do that (afterall every homicide is one too many), but I'm a bit lost as to what you did mean.

Bart,

There's an unfortunate and tragic downside to these well-intentioned American principles of free speech and freedom to bear arms. It allows hate speech anti-social or foolish people to own guns.

The strange fact remains that the gun related homicide rate in the USA is a multiple of more comparable countries, some of which also score pretty high in gun ownership rates.

Bart,

This is an excellent presentation and if valid, which I don't doubt, reveals some surprising differences. The Swiss, for example, which, like Israel have almost universal gun ownership, at least by males subject to military service, has a tiny incidence of murders compared the USA, with less guns per household and Israel with most homes having guns. The Israelis have more homes with guns but less homicides.

I'd like to see the American homicides broken down according to ethnicity, family size, age and income class.

So if it's not the availability alone that explains the issue, then what does explain it? Maybe therein also lies an answer that can lead to a solution?

I'd love to see more data and find out what are the key determinants. Maybe training in gun use and sense security of their way of life makes the Swiss risk of gun ownership so much less of a risk than other societies.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Bart,

There's an unfortunate and tragic downside to these well-intentioned American principles of free speech and freedom to bear arms. It allows hate speech anti-social or foolish people to own guns.

Yet, the problem isn't so much the ownership (which obviously doesn't help either), as is the readyness to use them ...

Look at the comparison of Rate of Gun Suicide of the same countries, and compare that to the overall rate of suicide.

Of course, despite the differences of reporting the statistics for each country, the availability of guns will have some effect on their actual use, but not to the point of explaining the above difference for the USA.

I'd like to see the American homicides broken down according to ethnicity, family size, age and income class.

I've been an analyst for a large part of my professional life, so I'm careful with such breakdowns. They tend to 'prove' only what one is already assuming beforehand, and that can lead to bogus conclusions. What's worse, they do not readily point towards actual solutions to the core problem, just symptomatic 'quick-fixes'.

I'm pretty sure, even without looking up any numbers, that those of black and hispanic backgrounds are disproportionally over-represented in those statistics, and men over women. So what does that tell us, really? What would be the conclusion, that those of black and hispanic decent shouldn't own a gun? Or that with better legal representation (more money) they would get off the hook (and out of the statistics) more often? Or maybe that improving their social conditions will turn that situation around (thinking about a single parent family, with mom doing double jobs to pay rent, and the kids being unsupervised)? Or that overexposure to violence raises the threshold?

The question remains why the gun related incidents of all sorts are much higher in the USA than elsewhere (in somewhat comparable conditions)?

One could also ask oneself, shouldn't the/any government by now have a better understanding of the real underlying issues, and if not, why not? The true answers may be shocking ...

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Bart,

Well said, and thanks for your insights.

One could also ask oneself, shouldn't the/any government by now have a better understanding of the real underlying issues, and if not, why not? The true answers may be shocking ...

Indeed. But not surprising.

It is not as if our legislators were working on the problems of a small telephone company.

We are sadly far past the time when legislators are primarily motivated to work for the overall improvement of our nation, of course in accordance with their own notions of what that is and how to do it.

The Congress of the United States is now, for the most part, just a perpetual re-election campaign.

We used to be outraged if it tuned out that a Senator or member of the House of Representatives has spent most of his time on a beach in Jamaica.

Today we might well pray for a lot more of that.

Best regards,

Doug