Abbott refers to mass shooting victims as "illegal immigrants"

I would tend to agree Bill (except that court decisions have extended the understanding to protection of homes and so on). States have National Guards and some have State Defense Forces (true citizen soldiers) rendering the original concept a bit obsolete.

But the problem in the US goes beyond guns to culture. Most weapons used in crimes are illegally obtained (even an MSNBC analyst acknowledged that) and new laws aren't going to really impact that as he noted (and as law enforcement has noted). Generally the killings aren't NRA members.

The US culture is problematic (Chicago) and all of those people who have road rage incidents involving a weapon where they get angry and grab the gun they have stuffed in the glove box.

No doubt we could tighten up in terms of mental health and age. Access is a little too easy.

Are more people killed in drunk driving than mass shootings with legally obtained weapons? The cost of alcohol to our society is massive (illness, abuse, death, etc).

 

This is the old "Watergate Deodorant." It doesn't kill the smell - it just shifts the blame.

About 10,500 people die as a result of drunk driving incidents per year, on average in US.

Mass shootings have claimed about 19,000 lives since 2015. So, less than 2,000 per year on average. However, overall gun violence claims far more lives than drunk driving - 13,900 people have died as a result of gun violence so far in 2023 (4 months!!)

What use comparing these stats is -- I'm unsure. If it's trying to convince Americans drunk driving problems make more fatalities than gun problems - they don't.

Sounds to me like a simplistic "Alcohol is bad - go after it. Guns are not as bad - leave them for now." Heard it before - no surprise. Alcohol - except for drunk drivers - people mostly kill themselves with long-term alcohol abuse. With guns - people mostly kill others. Instantly. That's the major difference.

 

My math error. 19,000 over 8 years is an average of 2,376 mass shooting-related fatalities per year. Conclusions still as stated.

 

Alcohol? Well, your country and mine both tried making it illegal. And backtracked, for sound reasons. Maybe the Scandinavian approach? Make it difficult, cumbersome and paper-worky. Allow people to buy less. In one country, I forget - either Norway or Sweden - you can buy one 40-pounder of liquor per month. Want another? Wait till month-end or write an explanation as to why you are not an alcoholic. (I'm serious.) A couple of countries there -- drive with ANY alcohol in your system -- and there goes your licence - for a long time. Alcoholics there probably have to get everyone they know to buy booze for them.

They don't have all that much of a drunk driving problem over there, though.

 

Right. Called upon. As in gathered into a collective fighting force.

The National Guard is a militia in just this fashion. Members go about their regular lives until called upon. But that doesn't apply to anyone we're talking about here. Almost all of these gun owners are not in any form of militia. And those few that are do not bring their guns!

It is a huge leap from the idea of a self-armed militia to what we have today in the Guard and Reserve--the only recognized militias. Again, most gun owners are not members of a militia, and the few that are do not bring their own guns when they report for duty.

Right. The court bypassed the whole militia part of the 2nd Amendment. Again, the vast majority of gun owners have nothing to do with a militia. So, the court decided that didn't matter and extended the meaning of the Amendment to include private gun ownership, not militia-related. (Guardsmen don't get to bring their guns home.)

So, most gun owners have nothing to do with a militia. And militias have NOTHING to do with private gun ownership.

Military service is compulsory for men. Members keep their equipment, including their weapons (but not their ammunition) at home. So, yes, they have a high rate of ownership, in that sense. But we're still almost 5 times as armed and almost no one has military training on firearms. (I do, having qualified in the M-16, 9mm, and .38 revolver.)

Compared to the rest of the world, America is crazy with guns. We're also crazy with firearms deaths. Harvard says there's a correlation. Duh. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”

-- Chris Rock

 

Understanding what the founders meant when they wrote the second amendment and what makes sense in our modern society are two different things. Then figuring out how to apply said sentence in modern law is a third challenge and there are conflicting legal theories on the approach of how best this should be done, e.g., textualism, originalism, fundamental principles, and modernism or instrumentalism (living Constitution).

 

I will correct you a bit. The Guard (National Guard) and Reserves are NOT the only militia. There are State Defense Forces where the commander in Chief is the Governor and they cannot be federalized. Those that are authorized weapons DO take them home (they are privately held). I do not recall all the States that have them (Maryland, Alaska, NY, etc). They are volunteers (citizen soldiers). Their commissions (officers) come from the Governor. They can aid in disasters, unrest, and so on.

From Wikipedia:

"The federal government recognizes state defense forces, as per the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that state defense forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard. However, under the same law, individual members serving in the state defense force are not exempt from service in the armed forces (i.e., they are not excluded from the draft). Under 32 USC § 109(e), "A person may not become a member of a defense force ... if he is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces."

Nearly every state has laws authorizing state defense forces, and twenty-two states, plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, have active forces with different levels of activity, support, and strength. State defense forces generally operate with emergency management and homeland security missions. Most SDFs are organized as ground units, but air and naval units also exist.[2][3] Depending on the state, they may be variously named as state military, state military force, state guard, state militia, or state military reserve."

 

And California has one. California State Guard. Apparently some are on State Active Duty. Again, distinct from the National Guard though part of the same military department under the State Adjutant General. They drill at Armories and are the Governor's army. Not paid unless activated for emergency or on State Active Duty. Generally unpaid volunteers. Truly a militia.

 

Thanks for correcting me, Maniac. Johann, wrong again... Quelle surprise!

This is wandering a bit, but I found some info on the leading causes of preventable death in the US. This, from Google:

More than 140,000 people (approx. 97,000 men and 43,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually. Alcohol is the fourth-leading preventable cause of death behind tobacco products, poor diet and physical inactivity and illegal drugs.

I looked up the top culprit - US smoking-related deaths. Ouch! Smoking causes 480, 000 deaths per year in the US, including 41,000 from second-hand smoke. Smoking causes one in five deaths annually - or 1,300 deaths a day.

Ladies and Gentlemen - it appears we have a clear winner in the US Death Stakes --- smoking.

Well, smoking and alcohol can't get me - so perhaps I will end up getting shot. Hopefully, by a jealous husband, when I'm about 96.

 

Yes, quite correct. But it is a distinction without a difference regarding the point of discussion. Still, I completely forgot about those.

 

Johann, thank you for looking up those numbers as you saved me the trouble. Alcohol and tobacco are the big killers and alcohol's victims are often not the user himself.

 

Right. And around 8.7% of smoking's 480,000 yearly US victims are not the smokers themselves. (Second-hand smoke.)
If smokers light up where they shouldn't - I just shoot them. Bada-boom, bada-bing! Works every time.