The question of whether controlling firearms will help deal with gun violence

Posted on January 6, by Scott Alexander [Epistemic status: Content warning for discussion of suicide, murder, and race] I. There was a mass shooting — this time, in San Bernardino, California. And once again on Sunday, President Barack Obama called for measures that make it harder for would-be shooters to buy deadly firearms.

The question of whether controlling firearms will help deal with gun violence

Originally published as 20 J. Permission for WWW use at this site generously granted by the author. For educational use only.

The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. Introduction One evening, a gang brawl broke out in the street next to the northwest Denver home of a young woman named Sharon Deatherage. A police car happened upon the scene, and sped away without taking any action, never to return.

As a result of this experience, the young woman, who lived alone, decided that she would have to take measures to protect herself because she could not rely on the Denver City government for protection. Because of an injury to her wrist, she was unable to use a handgun. At the suggestion of a firearms instructor, she bought an M-1 carbine, which is a relatively small, low-powered semiautomatic rifle, and which has been commercially available for nearly half a century.

Deatherage into a criminal by declaring her M-1 carbine and its attached round ammunition magazine an illegal "assault weapon. As of AugustCongress had not enacted a comprehensive federal "assault weapon" prohibition. Employing the rational basis test, before analyzing the of right to bear arms provisions, is useful for several reasons.

For example, the Second Amendment is of limited use in analyzing prohibitions enacted by states or subdivisions of states. Despite some recent Supreme Court dicta suggesting that the individual right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, [10] federal courts have been unwilling to apply the Second Amendment to non-federal action.

In all of these states, except Massachusetts, the right is considered to inhere in individuals, rather than the state government.

And even in states that do have a constitutional right, right to arms jurisprudence is not as fully developed as, for example, free speech or search and seizure jurisprudence.

Thus, use of a right to arms guarantee to test the Constitutionality of "assault weapon" prohibition will involve the judiciary analyzing a Constitutional right with which many judges have little prior professional experience.

In contrast, almost every judge with Constitutional law experience will have some familiarity with a rational basis analysis. To the extent that a right to bear arms analysis does become necessary, analysis of "assault weapon" prohibition under the rational basis test can help clarify the issues relevant to the right to arms.

This Article begins in Part IIwith a brief summary of rational basis jurisprudence. Next, Part III applies the rational basis test to various characteristics that are said to distinguish "assault weapons" from other firearms.

These characteristics include the weapons' rate of fire, ammunition capacity, ammunition lethality, design history, and the presence of features such as a folding stock and a barrel thread for a muzzle brake, or a bayonet lug. In Part IVthe article examines another basis for treating "assault weapons" differently from other weapons--the frequency with which "assault weapons" are used in crime.

Finally, this Article discusses the rationality of a prohibition on firearms based on their suitability for sports. Taking Rational Basis Seriously When legislation impinges on fundamental constitutional rights, judicial review of the legislation employs the "strict scrutiny" test.

The legislation is declared constitutional only if the legislation is "narrowly tailored" to achieve a "compelling state interest," and there is no "less restrictive means" to achieve the same goal. In contrast, legislation which does not involve fundamental rights is usually reviewed under the "rational basis" standard; the court will not declare the law unconstitutional unless the court finds that the law lacks a rational basis.

This Article is based on the controversial presumption that the rational basis test actually matters. This presumption has clearly been false during most of the decades since the rational basis test was created.

Many courts have treated the rational basis test as little more than a requirement that the law in question be defended by a government p. In the days of the common law of contracts, it was said that "a peppercorn would suffice" to provide consideration.

Many courts have been willing to find that a peppercorn's worth of argument will suffice for a law to pass the rational basis test. In recent years, the United States Supreme Court has sometimes applied the test seriously.

The question of whether controlling firearms will help deal with gun violence

Cleburne Living Center, [17] a case which illustrates some of the analytic techniques a court may use in rejecting purported rational bases of a law.

The city of Cleburne had denied a special use zoning permit to a home for the mentally retarded. The Supreme Court overturned the holding of the lower federal court, and held that the mentally retarded were not a suspect or quasi-suspect class.

Accordingly, the rational basis test was appropriate. In applying the rational basis test, the Court carefully examined each of the city's three stated justifications for its decision.

One basis--fears of local residents--was found to be illegitimate.A developmental perspective on antecedents to youth gun violence can help us design more effective prevention programs and strategies. spark intense debate as to whether specific gun control policies would significantly diminish the number of mass shooting incidents.

This debate includes whether or how to restrict access to firearms.

Table of Contents

Does Gun Control Reduce Crime? advocates advance several arguments to support their position that the government should restrict the availability of guns to reduce violence. A major question is whether or not gun‐control laws reduce crime.

Thus far, handgun bans have failed to have any significant impact on murder rates because . Get the latest health news, diet & fitness information, medical research, health care trends and health issues that affect you and your family on r-bridal.com >Let’s say , “foreigners” (from where, by the way?) and 73 million gun owners.

I imagine you could get millions, tens of millions, of young men willing to do violence if you promise them free looting in the US and sorta-kinda imply that they could stay and live in the US afterwards, even if it should be obvious to them that the US afterwards wouldn’t be what they imagine it to be.

Gun Control is NOT the Solution - Arguments against Gun Control The development of arguments surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems related to weapons and firearms .

The Secretary amends the Student Assistance General Provisions regulations issued under the Higher Education Act of , as amended (HEA), to implement the changes made to the Clery Act by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of (VAWA).

These regulations are .

Difficult endings - DYING, SURVIVING, OR AGING WITH GRACE