Come on Mr. Noah. That is some weak sauce.
If you are disappointed in the S.Ct. decision so be it. The 2A is slightly ambiguous, both in text and history and the S.Ct.'s historic reluctance to squarely address it has only allowed that ambiguity to increase over time which local, state and federal government's exploited to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, in some cases excessively so.
However, throwing a hissy fit and claiming that the decision boils down to the S.Ct. having discovered "a constitutional right to convenience" is just plain silly.
Please tell me how you plan to go about proving your "point [] that a handgun's convenience when put to good uses is heavily outweighed by its convenience when put to bad ones."
There is certainly a lot of evidence about handgun's "bad" uses. However, you have to admit that despite the inherent difficulty of tracking down the positive uses of a handgun [perhaps merely brandishing it to prevent a crime] that there are many instances when the convenience of a handgun has been put to bad uses.
Moreover, why do you even feel the need to make this balance. In the First Amendment context I would posit that the vast amount of Free Speach we experience is essentially vapid, worthless crap [I'm thinking of all the bad pop songs, the stupid sitcoms, the infotainment focus on celebrity etc.]. Even if we wanted to, how do you balance the negative effects of free speech against the positive effect of free speech? In general, the answer is that we don't even try. We as a society take it as an article of faith that the answer to negative speech is more free speech, not more restrictions. Even in the instances were it is demonstrable that free speech has negative consequences.
The barrel can be used to break a snitch's jaw. (There's no such thing as "rifle whipping.")
Of course there is. Haven't you ever seen a movie/tv show where a person uses a rifle as a club (not even going to address a rifle with a bayonet attached). Don't you remember seeing Davy Crockett in the Alamo going down with one last swing of his rifle. They actually train the use of rifle buttstocks as weapons in the armed forces and in private security/self-defense classes. I do not believe that any responsible organization teaches the use of a pistol as a club.
If it's easier for a woman to handle (I presume that's the meaning of Scalia's gallant reference to upper-body strength), imagine how much easier it is for a 4-year-old child.
The number of accidental child/toddler accidents involving firearms/handguns every year is actually quite small. Granted, every such accident is tragic but statistically speaking it is NOT a problem. Furthermore, one can craft laws imposing penalties on adults for negligently storing such weapons within easy reach of children. Many more children die each year drowing in personal pools than of handgun related accidents. Yet society essentially thinks that is a problem to be handles by civil litigation and some minor requirements that pools be fenced. Why should handguns which present a much smaller problem be treated so differently?
Granted, in jurisdictions where gun ownership is permitted, criminals seldom obtain their guns legally. But illegal guns begin life as legal ones. . . . More legal guns therefore mean more illegal guns. More illegal guns mean more people get killed.
How is this true? The "illegal" gun market is already saturated. Absent a complete ban on handguns [is that what you actually want? if so just come right out and say so] criminals will always be able to get their hands on guns. Absent such a draconian restriction gun laws such as DC's only operate to disarm the law abiding. How exactly did DC's gun law, while it was valid, succeed? The empirical evidence is very strongly in favor of the conclusion that DC's gun laws did little to nothing to disarm criminals but certainly succeeded in disarming the law abiding or making criminals out of those who were otherwise law abiding citizens.
Moreover, how do you reach the conclusion that "more illegal guns mean more people get killed." You are assuming that if criminals were deprived of access to guns they would cease all murderous violence. I certainly grant that if we could elliminate ALL possession of firearms by the criminally inclined that we would probably see a slight decline in overall unlawful homicide. However, much [I believe most] criminal violence would simply be shifted to a substitute. This would then lead to legislation banning swords and knives etc. Don't laugh, it is already happening in England.
The inconvenience this poses to the dead and their families, and to society at large, does not concern Scalia.
First, you purposefully constructed this sentence to denigrate Scalia's humanity and not his legal thinking. How do you know he doesn't have personal anguish about the "dead and their families and society at large"?
Second, why should it matter when it is a matter of legal principle. Assuming you support a woman's right to have an abortion are you "concerned" about the inconvenience suffered by the aborted fetus? At the extreme range it cannot be denied that a fetus can suffer pain and might even be a viable life. Assuming you support free speech, are you "concerned" about the the inconvenience suffered by Valerie Plame when she was outed and which would not have occurred if the journalists who disclosed this information were afraid of prosecution. Are you concerned about the feelings of the defamed and the humiliated who are held up for ridicule by the press and who have no recourse due to First Amendement protections. Do you want Justice Scalia to be concerned about such things and to therefore limit what you can publish or do you want him to be unconcerned b/c it is a matter of legal principle?
