Shooting suspect's rap sheet long (TX)

[CO Liberal]

I'd like to see anyone defend this asshole's right to own a gun. - Wayne

* * * * *

Shooting suspect's rap sheet long
Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:17 AM CST

By LORI DUNN
Texarkana Gazette

A man wanted by police in connection with five consecutive drive-by shootings Saturday night in the College Hill neighborhood has an extensive criminal record that includes aggravated assault and robbery and resisting arrest.

Michael Dallas "Six" Hodge, 23, of Texarkana, Texas, is believed to be armed and extremely dangerous. Police believe he may be carrying both a handgun and an assault rifle.

Hodge's prior offenses are numerous, according to police records. His criminal records obtained by the Gazette show that Hodge has been arrested nine times since 1998, has had 27 warrants issued for him and has appeared before a judge 25 times for a wide range of offenses from traffic charges to aggravated assaults.

According to police reports, Hodge's last arrest was on Jan. 23, 2004, on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and interfering with public duties after a shooting at Covington Homes.

<more>

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2005/02/03/local_news/news/news01.txt

[Squatch]

1. No argument from me...

some people should not be armed...including this "asshole", as you put it.

[slackmaster]

2. He has no right to have a gun

Convicted felon. Gun Control Act of 1968.

I'd like to see someone explain why he was not in prison.

[benEzra]

3. He can't legally so much as touch a single round of ammunition...

due to the felony record, as slackmaster has pointed out.

He already forfeited his right to own a gun, long ago.

[MrSandman]

4. How to defend something...

He has already, with very just cause, forfeited?

Not only for prior convictions, but, I believe, he would be classified a "fugitive from justice."

Would you really like to see someone defend his right to own a gun?

I surely wouldn't like to see that.

[iverglas]

5. I still don't get it

Does it say somewhere in that second amendment that persons who have been convicted of criminal offences ("felons", for those who like to objectify people; kinda like "cripples", I guess) do *not* have a right to keep and bear arms?

If those founders & framers had meant to say "the right of the people except felons", wouldn't they have said so??

And where did nature (when s/he/it wrote all those natural laws) say that persons who have been convicted of criminal offences don't have that biggest right of all, the right of self-defence?

If this guy were peaceably and law-abidingly watching teevee late one night and a deranged drugged-out individual whom he had never seen before, who had just randomly selected his house, broke down his door and aimed a firearm at him, would *he* not be entitled to have access to the best tool for the job of saving himself (and his wife, and his kids, and his dog, and his stuff)??

Jeez. Ya get convicted (maybe even under one of those bad war-on-drugs laws), ya not only lose yer democratic rights (i.e. the vote), ya lose yer most basic fundamental natural constitootional right too. Shameful, sez I.

[MrSandman]

6. Glad someone was up to it...

I'd like to see anyone defend this asshole's right to own a gun.

[iverglas]

7. I like apples.

The earth is spheroid.

There. I can do it too. I can give you as many non sequiturs as you like. Want more? Or are you doing okay on your own?

Oh, I know. Too subtle. Here you go.

"Glad someone was up to it...
I'd like to see anyone defend this asshole's right to own a gun."

I shall infer that you are implying that I defended the right of the individual in question to own a gun.

Could you point out to me and the assembled masses where, and how, I did that? I seem to have missed it.

Thanking you in advance, I remain ... .

[MrSandman]

8. Oh, you were being sardonic...

But then, so are others:hi:

[Squatch]

9. To put a fine point on it...

the earth is actually an oblate spheroid.

:freak:

[benEzra]

10. As a convicted felon,

he can't vote, either (in most states). And I believe there are other civil rights that are curtailed if you choose to become a violent criminal (particularly during imprisonment...)

I personally believe that the felon-ownership provision should be restricted to violent crimes (e.g., writing a bad check, or possessing medical cannabis, should not be disqualifying offenses in my opinion), and that there should be an appeals process to get your rights--all of them--restored. There used to be such an appeals process through the BATF, but Congress de-funded it in order to appear "tough on crime."

But under current law, no felon in the U.S. can legally touch a firearm unless pardoned or granted clemency, IIRC.

[iverglas]

11. forgive me, but

me: Ya get convicted (maybe even under one of those bad war-on-drugs laws), ya not only lose yer democratic rights (i.e. the vote) ...

you: As a convicted felon, he can't vote, either (in most states).

(me: duh)

And I believe there are other civil rights that are curtailed if you choose to become a violent criminal (particularly during imprisonment...)

Here's the question:

When did the right of self-defence become a "civil right"?

I thought (forgive me for being "sardonic") that the right of self defence was a natural right. What nature bestoweth, let no government take away, right?

If, however, the exercise of that right may be regulated and restricted, and even denied, in the case of this class of people, for this reason, what basis is there for anyone saying that it may NOT be regulated, restricted or denied in the case of anyone else for any other reason?

But under current law, no felon in the U.S. can legally touch a firearm unless pardoned or granted clemency, IIRC.

Dandy. Under what was law in Texas until very recently, no one could legally engage in homosexual sexual activity in their own home, either.


Offering up a law as an explanation or justification for the regulation, restriction or denial of the exercise of a right does not work.

And if you admit of the possibility that someone may be denied the exercise of a right for some reason, you have admitted that people may be denied the exercise of rights (as, of course, they very certainly may be -- when there is justification for the denial). Then we're just quibbling over reasons.

And in the process of quibbling over the reasons, nobody gets to go back to the beginning and say "the right to _____ may not be denied". That's in flat contradiction of his/her recognition that the right to ____ MAY be denied, and that kind of arguing is just tedious and annoying and dumb.

And by the way, in Canada, individuals who have been convicted of criminal offences have never been denied the vote, and individuals who are imprisoned because they have committed criminal offences (any criminal offences) are no longer denied the vote -- because the Supreme Court of Canada held that there was no justification for violating their constitutional democratic rights.

Once again, the fact that a law denies the exercise of a right proves absolutely nothing in terms of whether the law MAY deny the exercise of a right. That is always a matter, in the final instance in our respective systems of government, for the constitutional courts to decide. (And while they are the final arbiters, they aren't always right, of course.)

So ... no matter that the right of self-defence is one of those great big irrefutable "natural rights", there is justification for limiting the exercise of that right by someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence? And I assume that you can explain what that justification is?

Then we can quibble about what other justifications there are for what other interferences in the exercise of the right in question.

[esterload]

12. eh?

Alas, poor iver, I've read your constitution and concluded as any reasonable soul must: "Canada: a great place to be from."

Never looked back.

eh?

[iverglas]

23. so what was it?

The constitutional division of powers between the provinces and the federal government?

The guarantee of equality before and under the law, and of the equal protection and benefit of the law?

The guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice?

The guarantees of freedom of speech, religion, assembly, blah blah?

The guarantees of the language rights of official language minority groups?

The guarantees of aboriginal/treaty rights?

The guarantee of sexual equality?

C'mon; a hint, maybe? We're always open to ideas for improvement, y'know.

[esterload]

29. The limitations, Iver, the limitations....

Ah, my sweet pupcakes, what the committees give can surely be taken away: freedoms set out in the charter are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

My, my, Iver I just couldn't deal with the constant erosion of my freedoms...

Our American friends are daft at times, but for the most part they still value liberty!

[iverglas]

30. dog knows

what the committees give can surely be taken away: freedoms set out in the charter are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

You found "committees" in my constitution somewhere? You must be wearing a pair of those spectacles I keep trying to get hold of.

I assume you're referring to the Constitution Act, 1982:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html
No committees there.

You might want to take a course in constitutional law -- the law of your own constitution, for starters, assuming that the US is where you're at, and the citizenship you hold.

"Clear and present danger". Hmm. What committee decides that?

"Compelling state interest"; "important state interest"; "rational basis" ... what committee decides them?

You seem to imply that your hidden profile indicates that you are from Canada. On the rather off chance that this is so, I must say that you plainly didn't bother learning anything about it before you left. Perhaps you will do a better job where you are now. I recommend starting here, a nice intro for the curious layperson:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
"Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis"

Our American friends are daft at times, but for the most part they still value liberty!

Ah, if only they valued rights as highly ... even their own, if not little brown foreigners' ...

[-..__...]

14. Ahhhh....

but you would be wrong in that statement. :P

"But under current law, no felon in the U.S. can legally touch a firearm unless pardoned or granted clemency, IIRC."

Seems that when the powers that be enacted the 1968 GCA, they gave themselves and their cronies one little known exemption:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

"(20) The term "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" does not include --

(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or..."

One other overlooked or little known disqualification.

"(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less".

Meaning: if the misdemeanor offense could carry a maximum sentence of more than two years (whether actually imposed or not), then the conviction serves as a disqualifyer.

So, bounce a $200.00 check at the local Wally World or not declaring on your 1040 the extra income you made delivering groceries on the side...

"no guns for you!

Get convicted for having a bag of weed or for "bleeding your lizard" in a highway drainage ditch (indecent exposure), or a 1st time DUI...

"no guns for you!

Get convicted for "insider trading", bilking millions from the elderly and pensioners, price fixing to gouge the consumer... :shrug:

Need I say more? (sorry, couldn't think of or find an appropriate picture to attach :evilfrown:).

[Jackie97]

31. Hehe.

I love it when people say that the constitution should be interpreted literally and to exclude anything that isn't literally in there. I love it because I love the idea of tripping them up when I mention something that they would not support.

[jody]

13. By law, if he has been convicted, he does not have a right to legally own

a firearm.

I am puzzled because you challenged "I'd like to see anyone defend this asshole's right to own a gun. - Wayne".

Who among the regular members that post on DU do you believe would try to defend a criminal like "Michael Dallas "Six" Hodge"?

[Pert_UK]

15. I think that CO Liberal's point, and Iverglas's was........

something along these lines.

Pro-RKBA people on here tend to defend their position by referring to the "natural" or "inalienable" or even "God-given" right to keep and bear arms, and see the Constitution (or 2nd Amendment thereof) as merely formally recording a universal right, rather than creating a new "legal" right.

However, they're also more than happy to point out that convicted felons are not allowed to own guns....which is, as we all probably agree, pretty sensible, at least with regard to violent criminals.

These two positions are utterly incompatible - EITHER the RKBA is an inalienable, natural right to all people without restriction, OR the RKBA is a legal right or entitlement granted by the Government and which can be restricted by law to exlude felons, the insane etc.

You simply can't justify something on the grounds that it's a universal right, and then produce a list of people who are not entitled to that right (no matter how sensible your reasons are for denying them that right).

Moreover, pro-RKBAers often assert that the rights of the individual take precendence over whether society overall is safer or more dangerous due to wide-spread gun ownership. I.e. my right to defend myself should not be curtailed simply because the presence of guns in society may increase violence, or because some people in my neighbourhood want to live in a gun-free area. It seems to me that the only justification for removing someone's RKBA is to make society safer, in which case I don't see how you can't accept more restriction on ALL gun ownership....

It's illogical, Captain.......

[MrSandman]

16. And all those rights...

including life itself, can be taken upon due process.

[Pert_UK]

17. And so if due process were followed.......

the RKBA could be removed from EVERYBODY in the US? Either one-by-one or from the population as a whole in one go?

[benEzra]

18. Well, in theory...

you could imprison the entire population, too, since due process does allow the government to imprison an individual, right? (By that logic.)

The whole idea of due process is to strip someone of her or his rights ONLY after a compelling case has been made in court that that individual has abused her/his rights to the extent that that individual's rights must be taken away (either temporarily or permanently).

What you propose would not be due process at all, since it contemplates taking away the rights of people that you can NOT demonstrate are guilty of egregious misconduct.

[iverglas]

19. pretty narrow concept of due process

That whole "substantive due process" thing escape you, did it?

Legislation "takes away rights" (actually: restricts the exercise of rights) from entire classes of people, including the entire population, all the damned time.

Number one on Google's hit list, for convenience:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/sdp.htm

The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights. "Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." The facially clear meaning of this passage is that a state has to use sufficiently fair and just legal procedures whenever it is going to lawfully take away a persons life, freedom or possessions. Thus, before a man can be executed, imprisoned or fined for a crime, he must get a fair trial, based on legitimate evidence, with a jury, etc. These are procedural or "process" rights.

However, under "Substantive Due Process," the Supreme Court has developed a broader interpretation of the Clause, one that protects basic substantive rights, as well as the right to process. Substantive Due Process holds is that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee not only that appropriate and just procedures (or "processes") be used whenever the government is punishing a person or otherwise taking away a person’s life, freedom or property, but that these clauses also guarantee that a person’s life, freedom and property cannot be taken without appropriate governmental justification, regardless of the procedures used to do the taking. In a sense, it makes the "Due Process" clause a "Due Substance" clause as well.

Obviously, a person's (exercise of the right to) life, freedom or property MAY be taken away (restricted) WITH appropriate governmental justification -- and even WITHOUT procedural due process, i.e. a trial.

What you refer to:

The whole idea of due process is to strip someone of her or his rights ONLY after a compelling case has been made in court that that individual has abused her/his rights to the extent that that individual's rights must be taken away (either temporarily or permanently).

... in the case of "felons" and firearms, is not PROCEDURAL due process at all, since the "felon" is actually NOT given procedural due process when it comes to the prohibition on exercising the rights in question (the "right to keep and bear arms", or what numbers of people here would instead characterize as the right to life and self-defence).

There is no adjudicative process where the issue is whether the individual will be permitted to possess firearms. The issue in the trial in question is the individual's guilt on the criminal charge in issue, and the appropriate individual sentence. The prohibition against possessing firearms is a blanket prohibition, applied to all persons convicted of the relevant offences. The issue is whether substantive, not procedural due process has been followed.

What you propose would not be due process at all, since it contemplates taking away the rights of people that you can NOT demonstrate are guilty of egregious misconduct.

Your comment applies exactly as well to the prohibition on "felons" possessing firearms. It "takes away" (interferes in the exercise of) the rights of people who have had no procedural due process whatsoever to adjudicate the issue of their entitlement to possess firearms.

In Canada, of course, people who have been convicted of indictable offences (equivalent to felonies) are NOT prohibited from possessing firearms. Individuals with criminal convictions may be prohibited from possessing firearms in two basic ways:

- firearms officers who perform the licensing function (a firearm may not be possessed without a licence) are directed to consider whether applicants have been convicted of certain specific types of criminal offences, and may consider any other relevant information (including other types of criminal convictions), in making their decisions, but are not directed to refuse licenses to anyone. (Firearms officers' decisions are reviewable by the courts.)

- firearms prohibition orders may be imposed on individuals as part of a sentence imposed upon conviction of an offence.

And THAT, you see, IS procedural due process. The individual is given a fair hearing before being prohibited from possessing firearms, either by being banned from possessing htem or by being denied a licence, without which it is illegal to possess a firearm.

The US's blanket prohibitions on "felons" possessing firearms are arguably SUBSTANTIVE due process, but they are NOT PROCEDURAL due process.

And if those prohibitions meet substantive due process requirements, then there is no basis for rejecting the possibility that OTHER prohibitions/restrictions would also meet substantive due process requirements.

That's the "legal" explanation of what Pert_UK said.

But damn that Canadian constitution, eh ... for saying things like

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

("Fundamental justice", you see, includes procedural due process, but also more.)

... and

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Equality under the law, and equal benefit of the law = substantive due process, you see. The law itself, and not just the application of the law, may not unjustifiably treat people unequally.


So you all get back to me when you have some process for prohibiting "felons" from possessing firearms that actually complies with procedural due process, y'hear?

In the meantime, if you are saying that it complies with substantive due process, we could always get on with quibbling over what other restrictions on the exercise of that right are justifiable as complying with substantive due process.

You can feel free to argue that a particular restriction is not justifiable, i.e. does not comply with SUBSTANTIVE due process -- but NOT that it does not comply with PROCEDURAL due process, unless you are proposing that all "felons" be entitled to a hearing on the question of whether they, individually, may possess firearms.

Anybody getting it?

[aikoaiko]

20. So you're saying we should allow felons to have guns....

;-)

Seriously, nice explanatory post. Seems like losing the right to vote and gun ownership/usage falls into some "in between" place of a "sentence" and "a lack of due process".

I'm surprised no one has argued that one yet to courts to get their gun rights restored.

[iverglas]

22. well

Oh yeah: haha. I have highish blood pressure, you know.

I'm surprised no one has argued that one yet to courts to get their gun rights restored.

I'm actually more surprised that no one has argued it to get their democratic rights restored -- that vote business.

They did up here, of course. And they won (5-4 in the Supreme Court of Canada).

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2002/vol3/html/2002scr3_0519.html

Per McLachlin C.J. and Iacobucci, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ.:

To justify the infringement of a Charter right under s. 1, the government must show that the infringement achieves a constitutionally valid purpose or objective, and that the chosen means are reasonable and demonstrably justified.

The government's argument that denying the right to vote to penitentiary inmates requires deference because it is a matter of social and political philosophy is rejected. While deference may be appropriate on a decision involving competing social and political policies, it is not appropriate on a decision to limit fundamental rights.

The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside. Limits on it require not deference, but careful examination. The framers of the Charter signaled the special importance of this right not only by its broad, untrammeled language, but by exempting it from legislative override under s. 33's notwithstanding clause.

The argument that the philosophically-based or symbolic nature of the objectives in itself commands deference is also rejected. Parliament cannot use lofty objectives to shield legislation from Charter scrutiny. Here, s. 51(e) is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Damn that Canadian constitution!

[benEzra]

21. You have a point...

and I would tend to agree that barring people who write a bad check (a felony in some states) from ever owning a gun again in their life is indeed an abrogation of due process.

I think that for a person convicted of a violent felony, the felony trial itself is procedural due process of sorts, and the prohibition against firearms ownership may be considered part of the sentence in that case. Just as convicted child molesters are barred from teaching elementary school, for example.

I think that from an ethical standpoint, convicted felons should be allowed to have their rights restored on a case by case basis, which is only fair. Unfortunately, if we pro-gun types were to ever take that up as a cause, the prohibitionists would smear us as "wanting to put guns in the hands of violent criminals." So the BATFE department charged with such hearings remains unfunded.

I think this is an example of where the ideal reality conflicts with the pragmatic reality, though I'm not sure how to resolve that discrepancy. Any thoughts?

[iverglas]

24. context and all that

I would tend to agree that barring people who write a bad check (a felony in some states) from ever owning a gun again in their life is indeed an abrogation of due process.

The problem is, in the US context, that the default option is (to simplify, and undoubtedly over-simplify) no restrictions on the exercise of the right.

If there isn't a law, or a specific court order, prohibiting someone from possessing firearms, s/he may possess firearms.

Under our system, the default option is no exercise of the right -- no possession of firearms without a licence.

The exercise of the right can then be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in the consideration of the application for a licence. A person can also be precluded from successfully applying for a licence if a specific court order is made: a firearms prohibition, as a term of a sentence (or as a condition of release pending trial or a term of a restraining order, e.g.). I suppose that firearms prohibition orders are commonly made here against people convicted of offences against the person (assault, robbery ...). And the orders are recorded in the central registry maintained by the Firearms Centre, which is checked every time an application is made for a licence. As well, of course, all transfers of firearms must be registered, and the transfer can only be made to someone with a licence.

Now, given that you do have background check requirements for firearms purchases from dealers, specific orders could presumably work: if someone were prohibited from possessing firearms, as a condition of sentence, that would show up on the background check.

Of course, that would work only so long as the person was still under sentence, i.e. on parole or probation. Once the sentence ended, s/he would just be someone with a criminal record, and a blanket ban, like you have, would be needed to prevent him/her from acquiring a firearm legally, since no licence is required in order to acquire firearms (i.e. could be denied, to prevent the legal acquisition of firearms). And we'd probably all (well, mostly) agree that there are people who have served their sentences but should still not be permitted to possess firearms.

A mandatory licensing system would solve the problem: each individual applicant would be considered on his/her own merits. But yes indeed, we all know what kind of lead balloon that would be in your context.

[benEzra]

25. I'm not sure I see how

a default "no possession for anyone" with exceptions determined by licensure is different from default "no possession for convicted felons" with exceptions determined by appeal board. The end result for ex-felons is the same; where they differ is how they affect the person with a clean record, IMHO.

The difference in the U.S. and Canadian approaches are that Americans tend to view gun ownership more or less as a right, and Canadians more or less as a privilege.

The Canadian approach is taken by a few states and localities here in the U.S. (Massachusetts and Illinois to a large degree, NYC to an extreme), but politically it is a serious mistake to think that will fly nationally. In that regard, there are strong parallels to alcohol prohibition; about 20% of the U.S. population still favors Prohibition, and there are still "dry" counties in some ultra-conservative areas of the South, but advocating nationwide prohibition would be political suicide.

[iverglas]

26. not disagreeing (edited to add)

(edit: i.e. not disagreeing that the outcome, in "due process" terms, *could* be the same.)

I'm not sure I see how a default "no possession for anyone" with exceptions determined by licensure is different from default "no possession for convicted felons" with exceptions determined by appeal board. The end result for ex-felons is the same; ...

But it isn't the same. The difference, in practice, is that no "ex-felons" actually get to possess firearms in the US -- whereas in Canada, I'm quite sure that some do. For instance, the rate of criminal records among people who are members of the First Nations is, like among African-Americans in the US, higher than among the non-First Nations population. But because hunting is part of the Aboriginal way of life, and in fact is a protected aboriginal practice under the Canadian constitution, denial of a firearms licence would have to meet a fairly high standard in order to pass scrutiny, and I'm quite sure (I say out of my hat) that there are First Nations people with criminal records and firearms licences.

... where they differ is how they affect the person with a clean record, IMHO.

But there again, the effect in practice is a valid question -- in practice, do they differ? Are people who would qualify to possess firearms in the US routinely denied licences to possess firearms in Canada? I don't actually think so.

Determination of rates of firearms ownership has largely depended on survey evidence in the past. (With the firearms registry ... and surveys to determine compliance ... we'll be having a more accurate picture now.)

http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1997/reports/crime-rpt_e.asp#3.0Firearm
(1996)
You'll note that Canada is not at all like the UK in terms of patterns of firearms ownership; it falls somewhere below midway between the UK and the US.

In Canada, 19.1% of all households owned a long gun, but 95% of gun owning households possessed a long gun. Similarly, while fewer households possessed a long gun in England and Wales (3.4% of all households), of gun owning households, 93.6% owned a long gun. In contrast, in Switzerland, while the percentage of long gun owning households (22.7%) was similar to Canada, these represented a smaller percentage of all gun owning households (72.8%). In the United States, 35.4% of all households possessed at least one long gun, but this represented 81.1% of all gun owning households.

... The percentage of households owning at least one firearm varied considerably across Canada (Figure Four). The Atlantic provinces had the highest percentage of gun owning households (35.8%) and Ontario had the lowest percentage (14.2%). Since almost all gun owning households had at least one long gun and very few had a handgun, the percentage of households owning a long gun in each region was only slightly smaller than the percentage owning any firearm.

... In four of the regions, gun owning households were most likely to possess a rifle; the exception being Quebec, where far more households owned a shotgun (76.7%) than owned a rifle (30.1%). Rifles were most common in the Prairie provinces, with 82.9% of gun owning households owning a rifle and 45.7% owning a shotgun. In Ontario, 59.3% of gun owning households possessed a rifle and 55.6% possessed a shotgun (Figure Five). In all five regions, many households in possession of a rifle also possessed a shotgun. Thus, overall levels of gun ownership varied among the regions of Canada, as did the type of firearm owned. While possession of a handgun was rare everywhere, possession of a shotgun or rifle was more common, but varied across the regions.

Obviously, possession of handguns is rare in large part because handguns are heavily restricted. But I, for instance, just don't actually know much of anybody who would want one. (I do have one good friend who had one; don't know why, really, or whether he still does.)

Firearms possession is more prevalent in rural areas. Urban Canadians (Ontario is heavily urban, with a low rate of firearms possession) don't generally want firearms. We don't hunt, and we don't have any need or desire for firearms for any other purpose.

The difference in the U.S. and Canadian approaches are that Americans tend to view gun ownership more or less as a right, and Canadians more or less as a privilege.

There's actually the major difference that large numbers of USAmericans view firearms as something they want, and large numbers of Canadians don't.

However, if firearms possession in Canada were a "privilege", there would be no requirement that due process be followed in order to deny a firearms licence.

The Canadian approach is taken by a few states and localities here in the U.S. (Massachusetts and Illinois to a large degree, NYC to an extreme), but politically it is a serious mistake to think that will fly nationally.

Hence my reference to lead balloons.

One could say the same thing about the Canadian (and others') approach to health care ... or international relations ... . And one could recall what Robert Kennedy said: Some men see things as they are and ask 'why?' I dream things that never were and ask why not?' Works for women too, of course.

If people are happy to watch their uninsured children suffer from treatable diseases, and die from preventable gunshot wounds ... and kill and be killed in imperialist adventures abroad ... there ain't much one can do to protect the victims of their choices. Some do think it's worthwhile to try to get them to think about the consequences of those choices, though, and how better outcomes might perhaps be achieved.

In that regard, there are strong parallels to alcohol prohibition; about 20% of the U.S. population still favors Prohibition, and there are still "dry" counties in some ultra-conservative areas of the South, but advocating nationwide prohibition would be political suicide.

I take the point of your analogy in this respect, although generally speaking I think the firearms:alcohol analogy is a poor one.

Nonetheless, since no one is advocating a firearms prohibition, there are major relevant differences. (Granted, of course, no one would advocate licensing alcohol users, either. And the numerous distinctions been firearms/firearms use and alcohol/alcohol use can explain that.)

The dialogue is the thing. People who want a better health care system in the US really can point to Canada's system and tell the truth about it -- including any problems identified -- to counter the lies told in the US. Ditto with firearms control measures.

The Canadian health care system really doesn't leave people dying in hospital corridors, and a public policy decision about health care made in the US that is based on people having been manipulated into believing that their choice is between the status quo and people dying in hospital corridors is a bad decision. Ditto a public policy decision about firearms control made in the US that is based on people having been manipulated into believing that their choice is between the status quo and having their guns confiscated.

It's that framing of the policy choice, that discourse by advocates of any status quo, that is truly anti-democratic.

Democratic discourse calls for an honest and sincere exploration of all options, not manipulation of public opinion. Obviously, a proposal to adopt, say, "Canadian-style" firearms regulation would be a lead balloon in the present conjuncture. But sincere, honest public discussion of what the options are is the only acceptable way of addressing problems that need solving.

Here endeth the lesson, but feel free to continue the discussion while I go get some work done!

[Romulus]

27. great post! (n/t)

[benEzra]

28. There's definitely common ground to be had...

in the realm of the vetting process. Like, for example, figuring out a workable way to do background checks on private sales that wouldn't entail a national "who owns what" list. It is mainly when you get into arguments like "law-abiding civilians shouldn't be allowed to own this rifle because of the way the stock is shaped" that the differences become irreconcilable, IMO.

Small note--felons in the U.S. could get their rights restored until Congress defunded the appeals process during the '80's (IIRC) to appear "tough" on criminals. So our systems were at that time more similar than they are now.

As far as the health care issue, I can definitely see both sides of that one. My 5 y.o. son is a special needs kid who just had his seventh cardiopulmonary angioplasty, and had his second open-heart last January (Children's Hospital Boston). Up to our ears in medical debt, which is of course why I don't own an AR-15... :)