Podcast 7-24-2016: Guns-a-Blazing

On this episode, Vinny and I engage in some free-association.  We talk about Trump voters, the Republican National Convention, and we go window shopping for weaponry on Armslist.com.

http://s71.podbean.com/pb/4f4e570e701a841b54e4eebd6f91a397/579e9a4f/data1/fs181/958366/uploads/Podcast_7-24-2016_podcast_7-24-2016.mp3

Notes:

• We talked about drinking here's an Economist article about global alcohol consumption.  The cited article is as of 2012 if anyone has newer or more detailed information please forward it to me.
• Tim Kaine is 58.
• Sen.  Mike Lee is running for reelection.
• A demographic breakdown of Trump supporters.

*Music is brought to you by Bensound.com

There are so Many Other Amendments to Violate

NRA official Chris Cox:

...In the aftermath of this terrorist attack, President Obama and Hillary Clinton renewed calls for more gun control, including a ban on whole categories of semi-automatic firearms... 

...The terrorist in Orlando had been investigated multiple times by the FBI. He had a government-approved security guard license with a contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. Yet his former co-workers reported violent and racist comments. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it...

There is just so much stupidity here to unpack...

Firstly, over a hundred years of jurisprudence prior to 2008 recognized no individual right to own firearms.  Even in Heller v. DC, the ruling still left open the possibility that types of firearms could be restricted.

Secondly, yes, the FBI interviewed gunman/terrorist/homophobe/nutcase and there was no evidence of a crime.  In this case, "political correctness" is referring to constitutional protections like the First Amendment's protections of religion and speech, the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, the Fifth Amendment's right to due process, and the 14th Amendment's right to equal protection under the law.

Thirdly, it's a bit ironic that people who are constantly bitching about vague notions of "political correctness" in which they're usually referring to the "right" not to have their fee-fees hurt for saying bigoted and/or sexist things, are implying that this man should have possibly been arrested for doing just that.

I do find the notion that someone could have something recognized as a right taken away for being on a list that is arbitrarily applied and lacks any kind of due process problematic, which is why I don't think individual ownership of firearms should be a right.  Humans just aren't that good with weapons of mass-destruction.

Despite all this, one freedom remains strong in America:  The freedom to get shot.

A Very Strange Reading of the Second Amendment

The National Rifle Association and the gun lobby have perverted the public understanding of the Second Amendment.  If you were to listen to the NRA, you would think that the Constitution guarantees the right of anyone to own pretty much any gun they want, carry it anyway they want, and store it anywhere they want without the interference of government regulation.  The Second 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.

Leaving aside for a second that there is considerable evidence that the framers of the Constitution were talking exclusively about state Militias, a view held by the Supreme Court until 2008 when they ruled in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller; the NRA's interpretation of gun rights exceeds anything written in the text.

No, the Nazis Didn't Enact Gun Control to Seize Power

A common theme among the selective-interpretation-of-the-Second-Amendment-enthusiasts is that the Nazis imposed gun control on the German people so they could assume power and rule with an iron fist.  Strictly speaking, Hitler and the Nazis did affect gun control; they made it easier to get guns, with the notable exception of the Jews whom they didn't exactly extend a whole lot of other rights towards.

There was gun control in Germany in 1919 in response to the Treaty of Versailles, which was vehemently opposed by Hitler in Mein Kampf:

Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms. 

Then in 1928 Gun Control was addressed again by the Weimar government with the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, which eased some of the restrictions on private gun ownership while simultaneously enacting strict licensing requirements.  It wasn't until 1938 after Hitler had been in power for three years that gun control was addressed again.

The German Weapons Act of 1938, continued to ease many restrictions on firearms in Germany including:

• Gun restrictions only applied to handguns and were removed from long rifles.
• Expanded the groups of people allowed to own guns including lowering the age of firearm possession to 18.
• Gun permit renewal was extended to three years instead of one.
• Jews were forbidden from obtaining a permit to manufacture weapons and ammunition (Forham Law).

The regulations were then extended later in 1938 with the Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons.  That seems self-explanatory.

It never ceases to amaze me how in the age of the internet, with more information accessible to anyone then at any other time in human history, that people can so easily use quasi-factual arguments without being challenged.  Confirmation bias is a bitch.

If you think that gun control is what allowed the Nazis to seize and maintain power then a gun won't help you defend against tyranny, because you're too easily manipulated to begin with.

Sources:
Fordham Law http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr

Treaty of Versailles http://web.archive.org/web/20080509145908/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/ver159.html

Today in Moronic Memes

 

I generally don't like internet memes.  On a good day memes can be clever and maybe point out irony, but more often they reduce nuanced ideas down to a couple of sentences to appease the intellectually lazy.  The above is one such meme with which I'd like to point out the following flaws:

• First,"heroine" is a female hero; "heroin" is a drug derived from opium.
• This baby is engaging in a logical fallacy known as the "straw man argument" that is misrepresenting the argument of your opponent.  As far as I can tell no serious person holding office, has suggested that we ban all guns and I am unaware of any legislation that has been introduced.  Furthermore, assuming for a second that those conditions I am unaware of exist, they certainly don't represent the vast majority of those whom support gun control.
• There is a long history of humans doing drugs.  In fact, it's all of human history in every society in the world.  Demand for drugs is largely inelastic meaning most people will continue to buy them regardless of the price.  The demand for guns is likely fairly elastic meaning that beyond a certain point, most people won't be willing to spend that much money on them.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that the demand for drugs is far more widespread than the demand for guns.
• Estimates for opium consumed globally per year are around 3,700 tons (United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime).  This number is most likely flawed do to the difficult nature of estimating a black market; however, given the concentrated nature of heroin you could probably meet American demand for heroin with one tractor-trailer truck of pure heroin.  Based on size it would be much easier to meet demand for guns rather than heroin.
• Expanding on the idea of supply and demand, nearly all guns in the United States have legal origins, manufactured in large factories 100% legally, often within our own borders.  It's much harder to manufacture guns on a massive scale than it is to manufacture drugs.  Maybe that will change as 3D printing becomes more prevalent, but as of right now the argument doesn't hold water.
• If your argument is that guns should be legal because illegal goods like heroin and meth are prevalent, then logic follows that you support the idea that heroin and meth should be legal.  I'm not saying that this is necessarily the worst idea, but that is what you are arguing...
• Many countries with strict gun control have succeeded in reducing the number of guns and raising the street price of illegal guns.  Australia, which had a similar gun culture to ours, instituted strict gun control after a massacre and now the price of a pistol in Sydney averages around $15,000 (The Australian).

You might be able to convince me gun control is a waste of time, but you'll need to do better than a baby meme.

Sources:
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Afghanistan/Afghan_Opium_Trade_2009_web.pdf

The Austrailian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/gun-smuggling-linked-to-criminal-gangs/story-e6frg6nf-1226499388180