Justifiable Homicide in the US - Type Weapon (DC vs Heller)

[jjduller1946]

In the Heller case Chief Justices Roberts challenged DC on the logic that it rifles and shotguns are best weapons for self defense.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Does it really make sense to say the best self-defense arm is a rifle, as opposed to a pistol?

MR. DELLINGER: It is -- there has been no showing here that a rifle or a shotgun is inadequate for the purposes of self-defense in this facial challenge.

See: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

Previously, Heller's attorney noted:

MR. GURA: To some degree, yes, policymakers have to be informed by what's going on in order to make policy. However, there are constitutional limitations enforced by courts that are going to limit those policies. And when you have a ban which bans 40 percent of all weapons that are the type of weapons used by civilians, 80 percent of all self-defense occurs with handguns; when you have that kind of ban, functional firearms ban, these are extreme measures --

So out of curiosity I looked at US crime statistics for Justifiable Homicides. They show the type of weapon used in this data. I found it interesting and a clear case of citizens not only applying common sense, something DC lakes in the extreme, but also a case where the data does not support the assertion by DC that rifles and shotguns are best weapons for self defense.

I know we argue in THR about what is the best home defense weapon and some make a case for a shotgun. But if we look at the data, clearing in justifiable homicide cases over 2002 to 2006, about 80% were with a handgun. Of course these include situations outside the home. The data did not break that out. But about 80% of the time, Americans vote with the handgun when faced with life or death self-defense challenges.

I listened to the Heller oral argument. I found reading the oral argument pretty interesting, in spite of cautions that they do not drive the end result. They did reveal the issues the justices were challenging and questioning. They also made me grateful for Roberts and Alito!

I include a graph of the DOJ data. The first show percent and the second show that actualt data (count of justifiable homicide by weapon type. I did not uinclude other weapon types such as knives in this data.

 

[PaladinX13]

Yeah, it's not so much a legal argument as a policy argument, however, policy does play a role and there is precedent that shows that where something has become "ingrained" in American psyche, it becomes a fundamental right (applied mostly to criminal procedure but there's a suggestion that this might fly with the idea of an insanity defense). To that end, it shows that Americans think about handguns as per se implements of self-defense.

The danger of this argument is that then the flipside is true from a policy standpoint... that Americans DON'T think about those minority arms as defensive arms and therefore they can be banned or regulated.

But that said, this is a great chart for illustrating that for the most sacred and practical of firearms uses (self-defense), handguns are by far the predominate tool of choice.

 

[jjduller1946]

The danger of this argument is that then the flipside is true from a policy standpoint... that Americans DON'T think about those minority arms as defensive arms and therefore they can be banned or regulated.

PaladinX13,

Good point. This seems to always get back to the original intent: protect against a tyranicall federal government by having armed citizens (whether or not the state has a militia), self defense, hunting, shooting sport, or all of the above plus any not thought of as it is a personal right.

We see what happens when the legislature can restict or eliminate the right (Parliment in the UK).

I guess I need to read some of the briefs submitted to the Court.

 

[jrfoxx]

I'm ceratainly not disagreeing with anything you or anyone else is saying, but I would just consider that just because [QUOTEthe data, clearing in justifiable homicide cases over 2002 to 2006, about 80% were with a handgun.[/QUOTE], doestnt really mean handguns are the BEST for home/self defense, just that they are the most commonly USED for that.I personally think that, barring issues/opinions of the risk of overpenetration, a shotgun or rifle is superior for HD/SD, simply because its easier to be more accurate with them for most people, and with a few exceptions, the tend to create larger, more (likely to be) deadly, wounds.

None of this should be in ANY way taken to mean I think its ok to ban/regulate handguns any more or less than shotguns and rifles, or that I think handguns are poor choices, bad or ineffective for HD/SD, or that handguns dont have some obvious utility/benefits over rifles and shotguns, like portability, concealablity, recoil, etc.Just my thoughts. Use of statistics always makes me a little nervous, as someone can interpret them differently, or turn around and use them against us saying "see! even the gun nuts say handguns are WAY better than rifles and shotguns, so we can ban rifles and shotguns since they dont need them, and hardly ever use them anyway!". A serious stretch, I know, but stranger scams have been tried by the govt and antis, and sometimes it works.I think theyd be MORe than happy to get rid of rifles and shotguns, while keeping handguns, even though they tend to hate handguns the most, just because it gets thier foot in the door, and gets rid of a LOT of guns, and they know that they can always come back for whats left later on.They are MASTERS of being poatiant, creative, and getting at our guns and ammo slowly, 1 step at a time.Also, since I dont nessecarrily thing handguns are the best weapongs for HD/SD, I wouldnt want someone to see that staistic and take it to automatically mean that, when I feel there are better options in certain circumstances.

hope all that wasnt OT and a thread jack, just seeing the chart, and reading what PaladinX13 said about the stat being used against us, got me thinking this, and it seemed relevant to the OP.

 

[k_dawg]

It is impratical for a civilian to carry a rifle or shotgun around with him everywhere.

 

[jjduller1946]

Intent of 2A

"see! even the gun nuts say handguns are WAY better than rifles and shotguns, so we can ban rifles and shotguns since they don’t need them, and hardly ever use them anyway!".

jrfoxx,

I see your concern. If the only purpose of the 2A were self defense then that argument might get some traction since 80% of the cases of justifiable homicide used a handgun when a weapon was used. I also agree that in some case the shotgun or long gun beats the handgun for self defense. In the case of my wife and daughter, we use a 357 Ruger SP 101 with rounded hammer. The first round is birdshot and the rest are 125 gr hollow point 357. They do not have to handle a safety, pump the shotgun, jack a slide. They know how to point and pull the trigger until home-invading thug is laying in a pool of blood and not moving. If they were more interested in weapons and would practice with a shotgun, we might go that way in addition to the handgun in the nightstand. But we were talking about the 2A.

One of the Justices tried to argue that if the purpose was to assure that citizens were prepared to serve in a militia, they would only need muskets/rifles. That was beat back by the number of pistols in use in the Revolutionary War.

This is what gets me back to the intent of the 2A.

For example if it self defense only, it would make sense to allow citizens to own weapons that would be capable of defeating the weapons carried by criminals. So if the thugs are carrying Uzis, citizens should be able to arm up to defeat Uzis. This is what LE has done in many jurisdictions. Instead of a 38 wheel gun, they are going up to 9 mm and 40 cal semis, and are carrying semi auto rifles and shotguns in their cars. I think a fair guide if this were the case that citizens could arm up to whatever the local LE use - since they will rarely be in your home when the home invasion occurs.

On the other hand if it is for preparation for the militia (in order to be prepared to fight a tyrannical central government or rally to it’s defense if attacked), it makes sense that, as a minimum, any current individual infantry weapon (vice crew-served weapons) would make sense. It also runs counter to logic that this intent would allow the Federal government to require registration of these weapons or keep any central database so they could round them up (remember Nazi Germany, the UK).

If it is to hunt or shoot, then the government might make the case to lock in weapons for use in the Olympics and in hunting. Some areas limit hunting to shotguns so in those areas they could argue against rifles. Bogus of course since many folks travel a long way to hunt and weapons range from pistols to big long guns and semi-auto 223s.

Anyway, that’s why I think the idea that the 2A is a personal right guaranteed to citizens that is not restricted to militia or self defense but includes these as well as hunting, shooting sports and other uses such as collecting, and these include the right to keep these in homes and businesses, and carry these in cars, trains, airplanes, and on your person, concealed or open.

Then the question comes down to which citizens get to ‘keep and bear arms’. I would be happy to eliminate some convicted felons, provable nut-cases, non-citizens except green card holders. I would also agree to some required training on operation and safety but not long-waiting BS rules and excessive fees. In VA, if they do not process your CCL within 90 days, your application is a defacto license. I think the time is too long – should not exceed 30 days but I like the limit idea.

So where can I find some authoritative sources form the time of the Bill of Rights Amendment on the intent of the 2A?

 

[ctdonath]

A fair evaluation of statistics is always good, as it expands understanding of truth. ...it's the wanton misuse of the results that are the problem.

When researching the statistics, also look into those uses that are not terminal. Handgun wounds have a much higher survival rate than longguns ... suggesting that if only terminal defensive use statistics are examined, there are many more instances where the perp was stopped AND survived.

The point of the 2ndA is that all have the tools to resist "enemies foreign and domestic" - people who will NOT be self-limited in their tools for harming our citizens. This bickering over "did they only mean muskets?" totally misses the point: we have an uninfringed right to own whatever tool is suitable to effectively & efficiently meet & stop the threat. If the debate legally concludes "muzzleloaders only" while our domestic enemies have Glocks, and foreign enemies have AK47s & RPGs & more, the powers that be are treasonously out of touch with reality.