Anti-Gun Protests Are Mistaken

Stephen Kershnar

Marches, Guns, and Confusion

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

April 16, 2018

            Last month (March 24^th), there was a massive anti-gun protest in Washington, D.C. and over 800 satellite protests. It is estimated that it involved at 1.2 to 2 million people, thus, making it one of the largest protests in U.S. history. The protests were in part a response to the shooting in Parkland, Florida. The protesters demanded that some adults be stripped of their right to buy or own guns (18-21 year-olds), universal background checks on all gun sales, closing a gun show loophole, restoring the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

            Locally, hundreds of Fredonia middle and high school students and Dunkirk high school students walked out of school to support restricting people’s gun rights. The Fredonia principal, Jeffrey Sortisio, praised the walkout. He tweeted, “Several hundred Fredonia Middle and High School students participated in the National School Walkout today. So proud of our students for their solemn approach to remembering the Parkland victims.” Hundreds more local residents protested in favor of Washington Park in Dunkirk on March 24^th in favor of the restriction. Dunkirk City Attorney Richard Morrisroe even went so far as to blame gun owners’ culture and belief in the Second Amendment. He said, “What you’re fighting is a cultural battle. It’s the culture of gun ownership, the culture of Second Amendment rights.”

            A little perspective is helpful. According to Alan Reynolds of the CATO Institute, using data from the far left Mother Jones magazine, the number of mass-shooting deaths (unrelated to gangs, drugs, or domestic violence) between 1982 and 2018 averaged 23 per year. He notes that this means fewer people die from such mass shootings than die from falling or the flu. Ditto for drowning in a bathtub. There are roughly 51 million children in public school. Even if half of the mass-shooting deaths occurred in schools (12), and they don’t, high school sports pose a greater risk of death than does mass shooting.   

Also, the suggested remedies would likely have no impact on the number of random mass shootings. Consider the attempt to strip out gun ownership rights of 18-21 year-olds. Economist John Lott argues that there were 64 U.S. mass public shootings since 1998 and 10 were carried out by people under 21. He notes that 5 of the 10 were already too young to legally purchase guns. Hence, trampling on the gun rights of millions of Americans rests on the claim that the 5 would not have illegally obtained their guns anyway.

Consider next universal background checks. Lott claims that background checks on private transfers would not have prevented a single mass shooting. In addition, he argues, from 2000-2015 states that had universal background checks had twice the rate of mass public shooting as those that didn’t have the law.

            Consider last the assault weapons ban. As has been pointed out in countless places, in the U.S., very few people are killed by rifles as opposed to handguns and shotguns. According to the FBI, in 2016 only 3% gun homicides (374 of 11,004) were done with a rifle and it’s likely that a significant number of these were not assault weapons.

            However, even if the focus on mass shootings in schools were not overblown and the proposed remedies likely unhelpful, there is the little issue of the Constitution. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a gun and that this right does not depend on whether an individual serves in a militia. This conclusion is supported by a wealth of arguments, including the plain meaning of the language of the operative clause, the structure of the Bill of Rights, the protection of other individual rights in the parts of Bill of Rights that use nearly identical language (see, for example, the  First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments), the history of the Amendment (see, for example, English common law), what was likely intended by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution (consider, for example, the right to own a gun in four state constitutions that were in place before the Constitution was ratified and the Amendment’s drafting history), original meaning (as indicated by relevant dictionaries), and so on.

            Taking away the Second Amendment rights of Americans age 18-21 is no more constitutional than taking away their First or Fourth Amendment rights. Consider, for example, whether the Constitution permits the government to deprive 21-year-olds of their right of free speech or their right not to have their bodies or houses searched without a warrant and probable cause. Perhaps the Second Amendment permits some of the other proposed restrictions, but even if it does, it still remains an issue as to whether this would decrease American freedom.  

The protesters’ unconstitutional proposal with regard to 18-21 year-old adults is matched by the poor judgment of school leaders who greenlit the walkout. No one seriously thinks that one of the local principals would allow a mass walkout if the students wanted to protest the region’s out-of-control property taxes, repeated hiring of teachers who were not stellar students in college, or New York’s continued criminalization of marijuana. It is blackletter law that the school authorities may not engage in viewpoint discrimination in deciding which speech to permit.  

Similarly, local attorneys are not going to talk about the fight against the culture of First, Fourth, or Eighth Amendments because it is unclear what this would mean other than that many people (consider, for example, voters and judges) think these Amendments should be followed.

Legal rights and freedom do not give way merely because respecting them makes students feel unsafe or even makes the population’s lives go marginally worse. This is why it is wrong for the state to prohibit hate speech even if it is morally wrong and makes people feel less safe. Parallel reasoning applies to gun ownership.

The Plausibility of Catholicism via the Consideration of Purgatory

Stephen Kershnar

The Mystery of Purgatory

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

April 2, 2018

Passover and Easter provide a good opportunity to consider whether the major religions in the U.S. are true. If they aren’t, then it’s hard to see why they should influence people’s lives.    

During some Easter gatherings, the issue comes up as to where Jesus went after he died but before he arose from the dead. Christianity holds that the resurrection of Jesus is a foundation of Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:17-19) and connected to his role in atonement for man’s sins. A common view is that he descended into the earth.   

Catholic doctrine holds that unlike Jesus, right after death, people are judged and sent to heaven (unending bliss), Hell (unending torment), or purgatory. The judgment depends on the dead man’s sins. Those who have committed a mortal sin go to Hell. A person commits a mortal sin if he deliberately performs a grave wrongdoing with full knowledge of what he is doing and its consequences. On some accounts, mortal sins include abortion, desecrating the Eucharist, and renouncing one’s faith. These sins are so serious that God lacks the power to save them even through his Herculean forgiveness. It is unclear whether divorce, masturbation, and premarital sex are grave enough to be mortal sins.

Those who have merely committed venial (forgivable) sins are still capable of having a friendship with God and, although having a moral disorder, still merit heaven. On a side note, it is an interesting issue as to whether priests who have molested children have committed mortal sins. It would be odd if renouncing one’s faith merits hell, but raping a child does not.  

Among those who have committed venial sins, they must spend time in purgatory before going to heaven. Purgatory purifies someone of his past sins through suffering. There is a debate as to whether souls are literally purified by fire is or whether this is a metaphor. There is also debate as to whether purgatory is a physical place or merely a state of being. It is also unclear whether the suffering in purgatory is punishment or merely a sinner’s regretting what he did.

On a side note, in general, Protestantism rejects the notion of purgatory, whereas some Jewish doctrine supports it.  

The notion that people go to purgatory is mysterious. One reason it is mysterious is that there is no evidence that purgatory exists. There is neither scientific evidence nor reliable observations of it. In addition, there is no conceptual reason as to why people have to be purified through suffering. God could purify people of their sins without making or allowing them to suffer in a way similar to how, in theory, brainwashing, neurosurgery, or hypnosis can change people without making them suffer. We normally don’t accept that people or places exist without evidence. Consider, for example, the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods.   

Further, consider whether purification involves actual fire or only pain similar to that caused by fire. Such a debate can’t be decided by evidence. Rather, it involves speculation.   

A second reason purgatory is mysterious is that on some accounts, including an interpretation of Pope John Paul II’s comments, purgatory is a state of being rather than a location. Intuitively, though, it seems that all objects are located in space. This is similar to how all objects are located in time. It is an interesting question why souls have be located in time, but not in space. The idea here is wildly speculative and, worse, hard to understand.  

A third mysterious aspect of purgatory is its relation to Hell. One might think that the fire and suffering of Hell are tailor-made for purification. It’s odd that they’re separate. It is even odder if Hell were to have a location and purgatory not to have one.

A fourth reason purgatory is mysterious is that the different purported aspects of purgatory appear to be in tension with one another. It is unclear why purification must come about through punishment and suffering. One might think that acceptance of God’s infinite love could purify and do so via a joyful and transcendent experience. If it is punishment, then this conflicts with the notion, which Pope Benedict XVI appears to back, that suffering comes about because a sinner deeply regrets her sins. 

Fifth, it is unclear why everyone doesn’t go to purgatory, even those who commit mortal sins. The Catholic Church holds that people who commit mortal sins can go to heaven via perfect contrition. This involves confessing all of one’s mortal sins, acting from the love of God, and so on. Given the possibility of mortal sinners being saved, it is unclear why all sinners don’t all go to purgatory.

Sixth, purgatory makes human justice odd. If evildoers are going to be punished by God for their sins, it is less important that people spend a lot of time and energy hunting them down and punishing them. By analogy, if the federal government will punish a criminal for injuring someone, it is less important for a state to spend a large amount money doing the same. This is true even if God and man punish evildoers for different things because the crime against a fellow man and associated sin are usually intertwined even if distinct.

The question is why anyone would accept this doctrine. This is especially true for people who work in evidence-based fields such as law, medicine, and science. It is hard to understand why people might be adamant in requiring evidence in their professional lives, but not in their religious lives. What makes things worse is that the doctrine of purgatory is far more plausible than sister doctrines, such as atonement, transubstantiation, and the trinity. Even if one finds these doctrines familiar and reassuring, it is hard to understand how they would not make it feel strange to sit at a Catholic service or Easter dinner. Ditto for those at a Passover table.

Alleged Racism at Fredonia

Stephen Kershnar

Racism, Free Speech, and Sucker Punches

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer

February 19, 2018

            Two events have focused the SUNY-Fredonia community on racism. The events illustrate what speech the First Amendment protects and why it does so.  

  

            A few months ago at an off-campus event, a Fredonia’s student’s boyfriend wore blackface as part of his Halloween costume. He also wore a multi-colored wig, so his artistic vision was hard to understand. The student posted a picture of the two of them. An uproar followed and other students allegedly harassed her. SUNY-Fredonia’s president, Ginny Horvath, wrote a note to the college community stating, “The student who posted the picture has been counseled, as have those who have been described as harassing her.” Fredonia’s Chief Diversity Officer, Bill Boerner, reported that the counseling was voluntary.

            A couple of weeks ago, a white Fredonia student was allegedly sucker punched by a black person. He posted a picture of his bruised-and-bloody face. The student then posted the following statement on Snapchat, “Fucking Nigers are pussys.” The quote included these misspellings. On Facebook, students called for the college to punish him, made fun of him for posting a picture of his bloody face as a pathetic appeal for sympathy, explained that they were laughing their ass off because he got beaten up and was crying on social media, threatened violence, and declared that this sort of attitude was why at least one minority student left Fredonia.

            In response to the Snapchat post, Horvath sent out two public statements and announced that a third was on the way. She wrote, “The Office of Student Conduct and the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have continued to gather information and to confer with campus leaders, SUNY legal counsel, and SUNY leaders as we go forward.” She then said that addressing this event is a priority. The student who wrote the Snapchat post wrote an apology and announced that he will enter counseling.

            Horvath’s post did not address the students’ Constitutional ignorance, glee over violence, or threat of violence. The sucker punch likely will not get much attention, despite its being a felony. The call to gather information is disturbing. It has a big brother feel to it.   

            The Snapchat post is clearly protected by the First Amendment. SUNY-Fredonia is a state institution and so must satisfy the First Amendment right of free speech. There are exceptions to the First Amendment such as those made for fighting words, clear-and-present danger, and harassment, but they do not apply here.

The Constitution does not protect fighting words. These are face-to-face communications that will clearly provoke an immediate-and-violent reaction from the listener. The classic statement of this is found in the Supreme Court holding in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). Because the student did not make a face-to-face communication and there was no threat of immediate violence, the fighting-words exception does not apply.

The clear-and-present danger Constitutional rule allows the government to shut down speech when the speech is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. See, for example, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). This wasn’t true here.

            Nor is the post harassment. The Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), required that university rules prohibiting harassment respect the right to free speech. To constitute harassment, the speech must be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively prevents the victim from getting an educational opportunity or benefit. This requires that the speech be aimed at an individual and be so severe and pervasive that it prevents someone from getting an education. Again, this wasn’t true here.  

            The First Amendment also protects Halloween costumes. This can be seen in Schact v. United States (1970), where the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment protects wearing military uniforms at protests. Similarly, the Fourth Circuit said that the First Amendment protects allegedly racist and sexist costumes and skits at state universities. See Iota XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (1993).

            Controversial speech is worth protecting. First, people have a right to shape their own lives according to their own vision. They can do this better if they consider different ideas about family, politics, religion, and work. This is best accomplished through dialogue, sometimes with those who have very different ideas. Second, John Stuart Mill argues that just as the marketplace of goods tends to lead to better and cheaper goods being bought and sold, the marketplace of ideas leads to true and better justified ideas being accepted and disseminated. John Stuart Mill argues that even false speech will sometimes lead people to discover why their beliefs are true, that is, what justifies them.

            Honest and in-depth discussions of the two events might, for example, bring up the issue of the right of free speech and why it matters. It might also bring up awkward issues such as the problem of black violence and black interracial violence. A sucker punch is a serious matter. The facts here are well-known, but blacks commit more murders and robberies than whites and roughly half as many rapes and batteries. Here I am relying on 2009 arrest records from the U.S. Census Bureau. This is significant given that whites are nearly six times more numerous. In addition, there is some evidence that blacks are targeting whites. For example, Columbia University economists Brendon O’Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi found that in single-offender robberies, blacks are fourteen times more likely to rob whites than vice versa. Such discussion might lead to investigating whether these crime patterns are due to poverty, racism, culture, or genetics.

            Such an honest-and-robust discussion might also lead to a discussion of when and why certain words are offensive. The n-word is used by such artists as Jay-Z, Notorious B.I.G., Tupac Shakur, Snoop Dog, and 50 Cent. It is an interesting discussion as to why their use of it is less offensive than the Snapchat post. It might raise the issue what is offensive and why.