Interesting 2d Amendment Court Decision

Below is a link to the decision in the Emerson case I mentioned in the gun control thread below. It was issued today. It is a long opinion and has some stuff nobody will be interested in. But it has a very good discussion by the majority on the history and meaning of the 2d Amendment. I am not sure of its legal significance yet. It appears to create a circuit split on the question of whether the 2d Amendment creates an individual right. Having a circuit split is a major factor in whether the Supreme Court will hear an issue on appeal. (Particularly this Court which hears very few cases.) On the other hand, the poorly-written dissent argues, with some basis, that the majority opinion on the individual right analysis was simply dicta, i.e. was not necessary to the holding so is only so much scholarly and lawyerly blather and has no value as precedent. I am not sure on this. I tend to think the decision was based on the nature of the 2d Amendment, but the decision could possibly have been made without deciding that issue. I think the question was properly at issue, though, and would have gone along with the majority. Besides, the dissent quoted an article by the guy who wrote Andy Fox's crappy anti-gun book. :-)


Also, it is not clear if either party will appeal to the Supreme Court based on how the 5th Circuit decided. (I suspect the pro-gun groups will bankroll litigation if they can) The case appears to be in a weird procedural posture now, particularly since the DOJ has changed hands and the head guy there has publicly said he thinks the 2d Amendment is an individual right. The DOJ would have to appeal and argue the Clinton-Reno position to really give the Supreme Court a case to decide. At least that's how it appears after my first reading of the opinion. So I don't know what will come of this case. Even if it isn't appealed to the Supreme Court it might open the door to future legal challenges to some of the gun laws out there.

You of course mean "the crappy anti-gun book about which Andy Fox posted" not "Andy Fox's crappy anti-gun book." :-)


To reiterate my position (not that you asked): I don't care what the 2nd amendment says. It is vague. It may well have created an individual right to own guns. It is an anachronism and should be repealed. It will never be repealed, at least in the foreseeable future. That being the case, let's let those who use guns responsibly keep their guns and punish those who use guns irresponsibly harshly: mandatory, non-reducible prison terms for those who commit crimes using guns. Since there aer some who say we shouldn't get rid of guns, and some, like me, who say we won't get rid of guns, let's try to get rid of those who use the guns to do bad things.


I'll take a look at your link now and, hopefully, be dazzled by the brilliance of the opinion and/or the dissent.

Well, I've just started to wade through the legalese. The best use I could possibly find for guns would be to shoot all the lawyers. Today. If not sooner.


What is a "palladium"?

First, I'll change the wording of my reference to the book you have to "the crappy anti-gun book Andy Fox paid hard-won money for; money that would have been better spent on a loose river call or a bottle of Scotch, or even playing K3o." /images/smile.gif


Now you want to shoot all the lawyers with the dreaded guns. See why the HDPM insists on being armed, he's in an unpopular profession where people think it's OK to shoot him. /images/smile.gif


You are right that one answer is to punish the misuse of guns more severely. In Idaho, if you commit a felony with a deadly weapon, 15 years is added to the potential sentence. The sentence is not a mandatory sentence (few sentences here are minimum-mandatory type sentences) so it gives judges wide latitude in sentencing and gives prosecutors flexibility in charging, which overall works pretty well. I am not a big fan of mandatory minimum sentences for all crimes with a weapon.

Sometimes defendants deserve much more than the minimum mandatory, but sometimes the potential for a minimum mandatory can be an injustice. I had a couple such cases in another state where there were some draconian provisions that didn't always make sense. There were ways around them though, so it wasn't too bad. I am not familiar with the details of the sentencing laws in the other 48 states to know how they handle the situation. The NRA is pushing a program to increase prosecution of federal gun laws. Its the "enforce the laws we have now argument." There are pros and cons to this, but its hard to argue with locking violent felons up and appears to be having some impact.

LOL!


I noticed an article in today's L.A. Times about the Emerson case. Didn't get a chance to read it (we're re-doing a bathroom in our house and simply finding the newspaper was an heroic act), but I will tonight and let you know the Times take on it.


I hadn't realized you were a lawyer, sorry about that. I was just trying to think of something useful that could be accomplished with guns.


I looked up Palladium. It is something believed to provide protection or safety, derived from the statue of Pallas Athene, believed to have provided such protection for Troy.

The L.A. Times article on the Emerson case is entitled, "Court Says That Individuals Have a Right to Own Guns." The sub-title says, "The appellate ruling holds that the 2nd Amendment goes beyond the issue of state militias."


The article says that 2 of the 3 judges say that "We find that the history of the 2nd Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its test, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia." It says the third judge in the appeals case said his colleagues had no need to opine on the meaning of hte 2nd Amendments in a "partial dissent."


I assume the dissent was only partial in that all 3 judges apparently upheld the validity of the Violence Against Women Act, the law by which a pistol was taken away from a divorced Texas physician. So it seems they are saying that while the 2nd Amendment createse an individual right, it does not preclude reasonable regulation of firearms. Of course, the definition of "reasonable" is the crux of the issue, it would seem.


The article quotes your friend Eugene Volokh. He says that the decision makes it more likely that the Supreme Court will take on the issue soon.


I'm going to start to wade my way through the decision tonight.


One question: if the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to have weapons "whether or not they are a member of a select militia," why does the 2nd Amendment say, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people. . ."?

Here is how Garwood answered my question:


We conclude that the Second Amendment's substantive guarantee, read as guaranteeing individual rights, may as so read reasonably be understood as being a guarantee which tends to enable, promote or further the existence, continuation or effectiveness of that "well-regulated Militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free State."


The way I read this (and I reiterate my previous statement that lawyers should be shot, or at least threatened with shooting until they learn to write in easily understood English) is that Garwood is turning the amendment on its head. He is taking the first clause about the militia and making it dependent on the second clause about keeping and bearing arms. This is the opposite of the way I read the amendment. It begins with the phrase, "A well regulated militia, being necessary. . ." and then says what right cannot be infringed because the militia is necessary. Garwood is saying the right to bear arms is the essential clause, and a well regulated militia then results from the right to bear arms.


In other words, people have a right to have weapons. This will tend to create a well-regulated militia. I read the amendment as saying a well-regulated militia is necessary for our security, and thus the people should have the right to have weapons for the purpose of assuring that well-regulated militia.


Since the only militia we now have is the national guard, the amenment has become an anachronism. It appears (as I browsed through the rest of his reasoning) Garwood is countering this by saying that the founders considered the body politic in general to be the "militia" and this is what the amendment refers to rather than to any "select" militia.


What do you think, HDPM?


By the way, I am still folding K-3 against a button raise.


:-)

The Emerson opinion deals at some length with the language of purpose in the 2d Amendment. There are some very good and well-reasoned arguments why that language is not a limitation. Also see a Volokh article in the link I posted previously. He quotes various state constitutional provisions from the same era that had such language, and shows that the language was not meant as a limitation.


The dissent was only partial, but was about whether the RKBA is an individual right. The dissent was not a good example of legal reasoning. It was transparent that the judge had strong emotional and political feelings against the majority opinion. He didn't support his positions nearly as well as the majority.


You are correct, the court held that the RKBA was individual but not unlimited. If the Supreme Court decided similarly, there would be a whole lot of litigation to see what laws were OK and which ones weren't. Laws prohibiting felons from having weapons will be upheld. Half of California's gun laws will be challenged and overturned under such analysis I would think.(The various "assault weapons" laws particularly.) I think under the majority opinion, citizens have the right to own and carry military weapons. This may startle the soccer moms, but might be interesting. I just want the handy HK MP-5k in the briefcase concealment holster thing. Full-auto firepower at the press of a button in an easy-to-carry professional looking briefcase. Wouldn't even scare the soccer moms in their mini vans. /images/smile.gif

You posted the answering your question when I was writing the one above. Good or bad timing I suppose. Actually there are still militias under many states' laws. I don't mean the crackpot ones who are white supremacists or the people who file liens on judges' houses. But to this day in Idaho, a lot of citizens are members of the unorganized militia by state statute. (I don't have it handy to quote.) Other states have similar laws. The National Guard is not the militia.


Garwood's sentence makes perfect sense. :-) I agree with him, but to highlight the reasoning, let's add some language of purpose to another amendment and see how we interpret it. What if the 1st Amendment said, "Well-reasoned public debate being necessary to the protection of liberty in a free society, Congress shall make no law..." Would that mean that only well-reasoned public debate would enjoy 1st Amendment protection? No. All forms of speech set forth in the 1st Amendment would enjoy protection. Also, the 2nd Amd says "the right of the people." It does not say the right of the militia or the states. "People" means individuals under every decision on the Constitution.


Or try this, chop the 2d Amendment into two pieces, one the clause dealing with well regulated militias and one the clause dealing with the right of the people. Have each as a stand-alone amendment. Which one articulates a right?


I am going to start playing K-3o headsup so I can win enough money to buy all the cool military weapons I just know I have a right to now.:)

Well, I'm not HDPM, but the United States Code is explicit as to who makes up the Militia.


USC-10:

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.


(b) The classes of the militia are -


(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and


(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Explicit in the code is the fact that everyone who's NOT in the National Guard is a member of the unorganized militia. The text of the Second Amendment speaks of "Regulation", not "Organization." Both terms are very specific and have definite meanings within the linguistic contexts of the time of the authoring of the Constitution and it's Amendments. "Regulation", is a term used to describe adequacy or precision of function. A well regulated clock is one that keeps accurate time, as an example.


Given the means of assembling the Militia when the Constitution was drafted, it follows that the Militiamen are required to be able to perform their functions when so assembled. While there is some debate as to the actual effectiveness of the various Militiae employed during the Revolutionary War, the fact remained that they were assembled from the citizenry who brought their own arms and kit to duty. The fledgling Nation simply didn't have the industrial base to provide arms for each and every person called upon to fight, as such, the right to keep and bear those arms was guaranteed so that when called, the Militiamen could at least put on the show of providing for the security of the Nation.


Jeff

It follows, then, that the state has the same power to regulate gun owners that it has to regulate the militia, which would include the power to limit it's arsenal and type of armament, compelling the production and inspection of firearms, and having gun owners march up and down the high school parking lot on Saturday mornings, and anything else it deems necessary to maintain good discipline and order. In other words, the ability of the state to "well regulate" the "people's" right to bear arms truncates any notion of an individual right against the state.

But it says "well-regulated," implying that the right to bear arms is subject to martial governance. If the First Amendment had said "well-regulated" speech, we'd have no individual right of speech at all. The argument based on the meaning of "people" is a better one, although you still have to wipe out the first phrase as irrelevant or surplusage to discern an individual right, and then allow the courts to decide which classes of arm (automatic? silencer-equipped?) the right should apply to, to say nothing of the type of projectile (dum-dum? exploding?) that it can fire, and the manner by which arms can be borne, and so forth. About 99% of the federal judges have no interest in entering this thicket.


This won't go anywhere in the courts, it might evenget creamed by en banc review (essentially an appeal to more judges in the same circuit, common before cases go higher). I recall when the district (lower) court's decision came down it surprised everyone as the first federal court decision in memory that had endorsed the NRA's mythic version of what the Second Amendment means. Even the NRA refrained from mentioning the Second Amendment when it challenged gun legislation because the issue had been resolved for so long (ever see the movie "Wyatt Earp?"). If it goes up, Thomas will write one of his typically partisan dissents, Scalia and Rhenquist in some kind of partial concurrence.


Courts throw bones to their political friends every now and then, and this is one of them.

"I think under the majority opinion, citizens have the right to own and carry military weapons."


Think again, unless you mean "only a few" military weapons. I haven't read the opinion, but I'm pretty sure tanks, RPG's, landmines and nukes are out of the question, and not due to deference to "soccer moms."

The notion that the Second Amendment provides a more or less unrestrictible right for citizens to own or carry whatever type of gun they desire is a political fraud that the NRA and other right-wing groups -- 6-figure beltway suits bilking funds from rubes -- have been perpetrating since the mid-60's. It's most notable in their fundraising literature, which contains references to secret plots by Ted Kennedy, Clinton and Gore and, always, Diane Feinstein -- these guys know their audience -- to "repeal" the Second Amendment. (In recent years, however, I suspect they've toned down their references to black helicopters and implanted microchips when trying to raise money, fairly common in their literature until Bush senior's public break with them and, of course, the Oklahoma bombing by one of their patriots, whose own writings read like NRA fundraising propaganda, a likely inspiration).


Two interesting questions:


1. Why have the states lost control over their own militias? When governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota (1986, I think) wanted to prevent his state's guard units from going to El Salvador to help with the genocide, the Supreme Court (or maybe the 8th Circuit en banc) held that this decision was one for the federal government alone. Something about the danger of international communism or something or other taking precedence over the constitutional language, like the "communist" First Amendment cases in the 1950's.


2. If the Second Amendment really means that everyone has the right to as many number and types of weapons that they desire, do the gun nuts win? Without any teeth to the amendment, the NRA can continue to lie about protecting it's sanctity, etc. But if it means that the state cannot interfere with my bearing a .50 caliber machine gun or an assault rifle, if the polls are in any way accurate, the Second Amendment will soon be history and serious gun control legislation -- long overdue restrictions and discouraging taxes on handguns and handgun ammo -- might become reality.


My guess is that the gun nuts lose but that NRA officials and their "enemy" gun control supporters will probably win.

"What if the 1st Amendment said, "Well-reasoned public debate being necessary to the protection of liberty in a free society, Congress shall make no law..." Would that mean that only well-reasoned public debate would enjoy 1st Amendment protection?"


We strict constructionists on the left would say yes.


Have you read Leonard Levy's book on original intent? I have not, but I believe his argument is that trying to discern original intent is difficult at best, and that the founders intended that judicial activism would interpret the deliberately vague portions of the constitution.


[Just looked at the Barnes and Noble website to try to get the exact title of Levy's book and the first book that came up under Levy's name is "Palladium of Justice"! Good thing I looked up what the word meant the other day :-)]

If we assume that the 2d Amendment is an individual right and covers the right of the citizen to own military weapons, there would be a lot of litigation on how far that right extended and what it actually covered. Just like the constant necessity for 1st Amendment litigation. I wouldn't rule out tanks, RPG's and landmines out of hand, although it would take a pretty conservative Court to OK these. Nukes will be out of the question. It may sound crazy, but think about it. If you say the citizen has a right to come prepared to fight, individual military weapons may be protected. So maybe tanks will be the cut-off. But if an individual soldier can pack it, maybe that's what's protected. No one can say for sure if we start down that road. In fact, it could be a long-term defeat for pro-gun people if courts construe the right to include only a few weapons and indicate those can't be carried concealed.

If the amendment is iterpreted by the Supreme Court the way you think it should be it won't take any "long decade" for the good guys to scuttle it. We'll just point out that it undermines the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, to which you guys will reply "what legitimate monopoly?," and that will be that: a stillborn debate. Second Amendment battle won by the gun-guys, war won by the soccer moms, who also get the entertainment benefit of "conservatives" insisting that these issues must be sorted out over the years by the courts, First Amendment-style, instead of "the people."

All the more reason to repeal the 2nd Amendment. My understanding is that Scalia (who has one of the great minds of the 19th century) thinks the amendment gives us the right to have machine guns. It is not too difficult to imagine an intellectual pygmy like Thomas thinking it gives us the right to have tanks and landmines.

You make an interesting point about people getting scared enough about gun carrying to repeal the 2d Amendment. In my state I am legally entitled to carry "assault rifles" in the open pretty much anywhere. (I don't own any.) So is every citizen who is not a prior felon. In fact, our concealed weapons law does not apply to shotguns or rifles, so you can conceal one in your Shaft-like leather trenchcoat or your car with no permit. If you pay the federal transfer tax and do the appropriate paperwork you can possess and carry a fully automatic weapon (pre-1986 per federal law) or a weapon with a silencer. If you have a concealed weapons permit or are exempt from the requirement of having the permit, you can conceal the pistol with a silencer. (But any of you who want to engage in any of the above conduct in my state have the responsibility to check this stuff out for yourself and can't rely on this to justify your conduct. That's my disclaimer. YMMV)


So my state is a pretty free state. Do people fully exercise these freedoms? No. You don't see people packing their AR-15's or AK-47's around. People don't engage in the open carry of pistols very often, even though it is perfectly legal. It would startle even the conservative folks here and is just not done. People may have weapons in their car or on their person, but they don't advertise it. You will see a few rifles and shotguns in gunracks on pickups during this time of year, but fewer people even do that. So I don't think you will see a bunch of gun nuts running around with their Ak's and thus create a backlash. The people who are gun nuts have the weapons now and often live where they can carry them. They don't do it.


As far as the NRA goes, until recently they have not been a very big supporter of the 2d Amendment. The organization basically believed in appeasement and compromise. To some extent they still do, and a lot of gun owners don't like it. They were often willing to sell out gunowners on their right to self-defense in favor of protecting "sporting arms." Other pro-gun groups have a more consistent philosophy.

as far i as i know you can still own a tank. whats wrong with that. and i think you can still own pre ban fully automatic weapons. remember almost all the problems with killings and other crimes come from the same dam people they just released from jail or didnt put in there in the first place that had a record of violece.

I agree with Zee here. The problem is a small sliver of society--violent criminals and AGGRESSIVELY violent people.


If a responsible citizen has an automatic shotgun or an assault rifle, I don't think that's a problem. If a psychopath has a knife or a baseball bat, that's a problem. If some drunken violent low-life in a bar has a beer bottle in his hand and decides to smash someone with it, that's a problem.


Maybe, just maybe, we should buy an island, strip violent repeat offenders of their citizenship and deport them there. Let them kill each other off...they aren't helping the gene pool anyway and might actually be harming it. Chances are they would have had more kids than the average person, which would not be a good thing because some overly-aggressive traits may well be inherited. If a few of them can manage somehow to wangle their way into some other country, at least they won't be making our streets (and prisons) unsafe. Sort of like a Devil's Island or an Alcatraz without the guards and walls.


Why should we be forced to live with repeat violent offenders? And why should we not be able to own or bear weapons to defend ourselves from this scum?

The tank is OK (see the Ford Excursion) but the gun and shells are a problem many places. I think you need ATF paperwork on any gun like that, but I've never gone shopping for a tank. Pre-1986 machine guns are OK many places with the tax stamp and paperwork. Not where Andy Fox lives though.


I have heard of some good 'ol boys in Idaho who went through the paperwork to get silencers so they could shoot into a tree stump in their living room while watching T.V. from their satellite dish.

George Carlin has suggested that we take one of our big, sparsely populated states, and use it as our Devil's Island. He suggested one of the western states, since it has straight line borders, making it easier to put up the fences. Idaho sounds about right (sorry HDPM).


Speaking of Devil's Island, I saw Papillon again about a month ago. What a great movie. I never liked Steve McQueen much, but he was terrific, as was Dustin Hoffman.

My father-in-law has suggested Wyoming for something like that. He hates Wyoming. Wyoming is more square than Idaho in terms of borders. In fact, my father-in-law has suggested Wyoming as a Palestinian homeland. Idaho has a lot that isn't that great and would make a good prison area, but I think Wyoming has more barren wasteland. Except Jackson area. The main Idaho prison is south of Boise in the Owyhee Desert. If you have a road map handy take a look at the area south and west of Boise, extending into Nevada and Oregon. There are not even roads out there. This might be a pretty good area if Wyoming is spared. /images/smile.gif


My favorite scene in Papillon is where the warden addresses all the new inmates. He tells them if they take advantage of what Devil's Island offers and stay out of trouble they "will suffer less than you deserve." That was great. But Devil's Island was horrifying.

Well...I am not seriously suggesting something as horrifying as Devil's Island, even for the overly violent. However I do think that the problem primarily lies in the people, not in the weapons.


On the other hand, our high security prisons are hell-holes anyway, and they cost a great deal of money. An large island would be cheaper, and no doubt safer for the rest of the citizens in our country. No need for guards either...the waters around the island could be patrolled by the Coast Guard at a far lesser cost. The island "residents" could be provided with basic farming implements and some good seed on fertile land, and they could either kill each other off with those tools or else become a peaceful agrarian society in order to feed themselves.

The State has the right to do so but to enforce that right, they have to do so according to the disciplines prescribed by Congress. It goes back to that pesky Constitution. Right now the Federal government doesn't prescribe any disciplines for the Militia outside that of the National Guard.


The National Guard is actually two separate organizations. It is the State's National Guard which meets partially the USC definition of the Militia. It is also the National Guard of the United States also as defined by USC. Since one can't legally belong to the National Guard of any State without also belonging to the National Guard of the United States, it's difficult to see where Perpich had any sort of confusion about the federal right to mobilize his State's Guard against his will. The Federal recognition of the Officers and Units simply outranks that of the State's. This is why so many of the States have organizations such as Washington's own, Washington State Guard.


By Washington State law, every registered voter is legally required to respond to a mobilization of the State Guard. Now the chance of the Governor actually doing such a thing is minimal to the extreme but it does exist within the State's Constitution and statutory Law.


By that same token, if that State's Guard (Militia) is to meet the requirements established in both the Constitution and the USC, then those militia members are going to have to be armed in accordance with modern doctrine for warfare. This puts us right back to them having their M-4 carbines, M-249 machineguns and the like.


When it comes down to it, there simply aren't enough people who are both wealthy enough to survive the legal system and interested enough to be a critical test case. Emerson may well move out of the Circuit and come up to the Supreme Court when a similar case is tried in another area. Regardless, it's going to take time and money. Until then, the fact remains that the explicit wording of Constitution and Law mean Joe Lunchbox is supposed to be able to be called up to militia duty and show up ready to fight.


Jeff

"I do think that the problem primarily lies in the people, not in the weapons."


This has been one of the primary disagreements between the pro-gun people and the anti-gun people. Do people shoot people or do guns shoot people? It's evident that a gun couldn't shoot by itself and it's also evident that a person couldn't shoot without a gun. It seems to me we need to address both issues.

RPGs are already legal as are tanks. Unless you want to dredge some deliberate obfuscation of the wording, as long as a weapon is maintained in such a way as to be usable for the State's militia mission, it's specifically covered. If you can find someone who has the money to buy a nuke and all of the ancillary systems to employ it as well as maintain it and keep it ready for use, it's hard to figure out why it wouldn't be as equally protected as a pistol or a machinegun.


Outside of the Gates' and Allen's, it's hard to find somene who's going to be able to afford the warhead, delivery systems, safing and fuzing systems, intelligence system to interface with that of the rest of the militia to determine targeting and the like. Find someone who's got five or six billion dollars lying around to dedicate to it, he's good to go by the explicit wording of the laws.


Jeff

What does the person who's being attacked by a violent person using a knife do to defend himself? Now what does he do if he's in a wheelchair and can't run?


Jeff

Israel has a higher gun ownership rate than the U.S., but their murder rate is 40% less than Canada's.


The Swiss, New Zealanders and Finns all own guns as frequently as Americans. Are their murder rates anywhere close to the U.S. murder rate?


The problem is the people, not the guns.

More Anti-American bullshit? Go live in Sweden if you think their people are so much better than Americans. America doesn't need you.

Drunk drivers kill people. Is the problem the people, the drinking, or the driving? It's certainly the people; after all some people drink and don't drive while intoxicated. But it's also the drinking. If we took away all laws regulating alcohol's availability, we'd certainly have a greater problem. And if we took away all regulations regarding driving, we'd have an even greater problem. So the things that are used by bad people are part of the problem. Not all of the problem, but certainly part of the problem.


I remember the days when it was easy to open a bottle of aspirin. But some bad person (or persons) put poisin in some extra strength Tylenol and now the bottles are much harder to open. No doubt the people were the problem, but the solution to the problem was to change the things they were tampering with.

It is anti-American to not tolerate a viewpoint that is different than yours. To say something critical of the country, is profoundly American.

Your post sounds like you support eugenics social theory. The US has more people in prison per capita than any other industrialized country. England has a much lower murder rate. Gun control prevails in the UK. This correlation would suggest that an empirical study for causation could help.

Are there places in the UK where one can purchase a 9mm drill bit, a block of mild steel that measures 5cmX5cmX15cm, a scrap yard where the springs from the door of a mid-70s Citroen, Morris, Jaguar or Toyota could be found.


If so, those items, a file and an hour's research on the internet are all that's needed to build a perfectly operable handgun. It won't be pretty but since your victim is almost assuredly unarmed, you've got him outgunned no matter what martial arts he may know.


If those materials, or a nearly limitless number of analogs, are available, then why aren't the criminals in the UK busily building guns for themselves? Demand is never short if there's sufficient demand. Why isn't there the demand for firearms in the UK?


If you're looking for a causality study, do one comparing violent crimes with firearms, per capita, in the US in 1930 and then again in 1990. Now compare violent crimes of all forms, ignore the means used to cause the injury. Fixation on the tool leads to ignoring the tool user.


When you're done with that, do a per capita study of victims of all forms of violent crime in a population sample from the UK and from the US. Your sample has to be as close as possible, and close enough that a group of fifty statisticians from each of the G-7 nations will agree to it's validity in its entirety. The minimum criteria for inclusion in the group are: cultural, social, financial, economic, racial, educational and every other factor that leads to criminal behavior.


Now get back with us when you're done. Oh, wait... it takes all of the other G-7 nations to come up with a population sample that matches the US. Oops, you mean there is nowhere on the earth where a nation shares a single language, the near limitless access to media, comparatively high level of education, racial diversity, cultural diversity, economic spread between rich and poor, etc. Oh bother... You mean that the US has single states that have populations that match some of the entire nations of the rest of the G-7? Oh bother.


Your causality survey is statistically impossible. Tell me the minimal variables you'd be willing to include. Absolute minimum and then let's discuss the rest of the documented causative factors and try to find out why they're not included.


Jeff