The 2nd Amendment's rogue

[TurtleDude]

you are right, the chances of a maker being liable is going to be tough to establish. same with a wholesaler and I don't know how a dealer could sell stuff off the papers these days given the number of ATF inspections (I used to represent dealers) unless it was solely on USED GUNS-if you don't log a used gun in there is no record you have it while every gun you receive from a maker or wholesaler is traceable to you

 

[gwynn]

If gun ownership does in fact protect from violent crimes, as suggested early in this thread, would anyone care to propose an alternate reason the US has much higher per capita homocide rates than most other OECD countries?

For relevant info:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

It is also worth noting that there are more homocides using firearms per capita in the US than there are homocides per capita total in many of them.

Not to say outlawing guns currently would change things, there would need to be some sort of transition period to eliminate those in circulation. How you could do so effectively I do not know.

 

[TurtleDude]

If gun ownership does in fact protect from violent crimes, as suggested early in this thread, would anyone care to propose an alternate reason the US has much higher per capita homocide rates than most other OECD countries?

For relevant info:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

It is also worth noting that there are more homocides using firearms per capita in the US than there are homocides per capita total in many of them.

Not to say outlawing guns currently would change things, there would need to be some sort of transition period to eliminate those in circulation. How you could do so effectively I do not know.

the rate of gun violence among white americans is lower than that among white europeans in areas guns are strictly regulated. Most of the gun violence in the USA is an inner city issue fueled by the crack trade and the war on drugs. Gun ownership (legal gun ownership) has increased dramatically since the late 80's yet the rates of gun violence have gone down. An interesting statistic is that Japanese living in Japan (which has among the strictest gun bans in the world) have a higher rate of gun violence than Japanese living in the USA.

legal gun ownership isn't the issue and banning guns would only eliminate a non-problem and would cause crime to skyrocket as many people would not comply turning peaceful law abiding citizens into technical criminals

 

[Red State Sage]

Here's some research performed by John Lott, who is one of the foremost experts on guns and crime in America:

http://www.tsra.com/Lott134.htm

http://www.tsra.com/Lott131.htm

http://www.tsra.com/Lott128.htm

http://www.tsra.com/Lott126.htm

 

[gwynn]

From the Wikipedia bio of John R. Lott

"Lott's work is criticized by gun control groups as well as some skeptics within the gun rights movement. He has been accused of identifying only those interpretations of his data which promote a pro-gun agenda, and ignoring alternative interpretations. He has been accused of fabricating a survey in support of his position and other unethical conduct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott,_Jr.

Not what I would look for in an expert. Nor is membership to a right wing think tank funded by the John M. Olin Foundation, which is funded by a fortune made in the chemical and munitions industry.

According to the most recent NAS study:

"-- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws."

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091241?OpenDocument

the rate of gun violence among white americans is lower than that among white europeans in areas guns are strictly regulated. Most of the gun violence in the USA is an inner city issue fueled by the crack trade and the war on drugs. Gun ownership (legal gun ownership) has increased dramatically since the late 80's yet the rates of gun violence have gone down. An interesting statistic is that Japanese living in Japan (which has among the strictest gun bans in the world) have a higher rate of gun violence than Japanese living in the USA.

You are mixing demographics. Class is more segregated according to race in the US than in most Eurpean countries, so in effect you are excluding much of the lower class in the US and including it in those European countries. Likewise, due to the restrictions on skills and/or networth of immigrants, the second comparison is once again biased.

 

[TurtleDude]

For years the Brady thugs and other ARC members claimed that CCW licenses would cause huge amounts of rage killings etc. Now they are relegated to claiming CCW licenses don't increase or decrease crime. Lott isn't perfect but he is far better than the ARC "studies" (which really aren't studies but outcome based nonsense-like that pathetic claim that if you have a gun in your house you are 43 X more likely to be shot-guess what-that "study" including "gun in house" to include cases where a robber broke into an unarmed house and shot someone-by definition, if someone is shot in a house, most of the time a gun was there:roll: )

poor whites below the poverty line have far less gun violence than blacks with equal economic positions-middle class blacks have far higher rates than similarly situated middle class whites

NO CREDIBLE STUDY HAS EVER ESTABLISHED THAT GUN RESTRICTIONS OR GUN BANS IN THE USA HAVE DECREASED CRIME


the only thing one found is that elderly rates of SUICIDE were slightly depressed by the Brady Waiting Period

THIRTEEN MONTHS LATER WHERE IS THE BLOODSHED?

 

[Red State Sage]

From the Wikipedia bio of John R. Lott

"Lott's work is criticized by gun control groups as well as some skeptics within the gun rights movement. He has been accused of identifying only those interpretations of his data which promote a pro-gun agenda, and ignoring alternative interpretations. He has been accused of fabricating a survey in support of his position and other unethical conduct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott,_Jr.

Not what I would look for in an expert. Nor is membership to a right wing think tank funded by the John M. Olin Foundation, which is funded by a fortune made in the chemical and munitions industry.

According to the most recent NAS study:

"-- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws."

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091241?OpenDocument

Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone can edit it and state whatever they wish.

There is much information out there that illustrate trends in violent crime reduction in states with concealed carry laws. Instead of attacking the messenger (Lott), try refuting it with stats. All that was stated by Nation of Science, Engineering, and Medicine was that there was no conclusive evidence either way. I question this claim because concealed carry has been around long enough in many states to lend some kind of conclusive evidence one way or the other. To state there is none indicates to me that maybe they don't like the results found, and chose to call their studies inconclusive.

Having said all of that, let me state this - you haven't demonstrated the need to repeal concealed carry laws based upon stats that conclude that these laws add to violence (which was what Sarah Brady and her ilk predicted). Why would you oppose these laws if they offer an element of protection for people, while at worst, having no effect on crime, and at best lowering crime?

 

[TurtleDude]

I shot a mugger in upstate NY a couple decades ago. THe DA in the county announced at a press conference concerning this (right on the heels of the Bernard Goetz matter a few months earlier) that most of the residents of the county had CCW permits (it was the only way you could take a handgun outside your home at the time) . The predators who had migrated to this area from the urban areas listened to the DA and realized they had a better than 50-50 chance of mugging someone packing. The place that averaged a mugging or two a week didn't have another for 16 months-probably because people knew I had moved away:mrgreen: or they had forgotten the DA's comments

 

[Red State Sage]

I shot a mugger in upstate NY a couple decades ago. THe DA in the county announced at a press conference concerning this (right on the heels of the Bernard Goetz matter a few months earlier) that most of the residents of the county had CCW permits (it was the only way you could take a handgun outside your home at the time) . The predators who had migrated to this area from the urban areas listened to the DA and realized they had a better than 50-50 chance of mugging someone packing. The place that averaged a mugging or two a week didn't have another for 16 months-probably because people knew I had moved away:mrgreen: or they had forgotten the DA's comments

This is a great first hand account of how criminals avoid people or areas where they suspect people are ready to protect themselves. I made the same point in another post, and your firsthand experience T.D. buffers mine. Which was, criminals who have been interviewed about the subject state that they are aware of who they target and avoid people who they suspect are "packin'".

 

[TurtleDude]

This is a great first hand account of how criminals avoid people or areas where they suspect people are ready to protect themselves. I made the same point in another post, and your firsthand experience T.D. buffers mine. Which was, criminals who have been interviewed about the subject state that they are aware of who they target and avoid people who they suspect are "packin'".

I see these sort of studies frequently. Being shot by an armed homeowner is the reason why the US leads civilized nations in burglaries (breaking -entering UNOCCUPIED HOMES) britain has far more HOME INVASION crimes-you usually get more loot if you have terrified people to show you where the stuff is rather than an empty home

 

[M14 Shooter]

I mean think about it: It's thanks to the Second Amendment that we have so much crime in this nation.

Less than 1/3 of all violent crime involves a gun.

Most murders involve a gun in some way, so if we remove the Second Amendment by constitutional amendment, we can dramatically reduce crime.

Take away all the gun-related murders in the US and our murder rate is STILL 50% higher than the majority of the western world.
Thus:-
1- Our murder rate isnt high because of guns
2- Their murder rate isnt low because of gun control.

Sure we would be preventing people from protecting themselves, but without guns in the first place, this need isn't present.

Yeah
Because a criminal with a knife isnt a threat to someone w/o no weapon whatsoever.

Burgalaries? There are so many laws regulating when it's legal to shoot at a burgalar (they must be carrying a weapon themselves, they have to look like they can defend themselves, they must physically provoke you, etc) that owning a gun for defending your property is futile.

Except for the fact that people use guns to defend themselves all the time.

Please tell me this isnt all you have...

 

[gwynn]

Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone can edit it and state whatever they wish.

It takes five minutes tops to google or LexisNexis the comments there to find corroboration. The wikipedia bio was useful in that it both condenses it down to one location and provided links to some of it.

There is much information out there that illustrate trends in violent crime reduction in states with concealed carry laws. Instead of attacking the messenger (Lott), try refuting it with stats. All that was stated by Nation of Science, Engineering, and Medicine was that there was no conclusive evidence either way. I question this claim because concealed carry has been around long enough in many states to lend some kind of conclusive evidence one way or the other. To state there is none indicates to me that maybe they don't like the results found, and chose to call their studies inconclusive.

There are mountains of evidence and numerous studies both for and against the premise that concealed gun laws lower crime rates. To say you think they faked the results of the study because they didn't like the results is ridiculous, especially in light of your comment not to attack the messenger. As far as gun ownership goes, the NAS is probably one of the few unbiased sources around. If I wished to produce a left wing report which showed concealed carry increased gun violence it wouldn't be all that difficult ( and yes it would be based on valid statistics etc. ).

Having said all of that, let me state this - you haven't demonstrated the need to repeal concealed carry laws based upon stats that conclude that these laws add to violence (which was what Sarah Brady and her ilk predicted). Why would you oppose these laws if they offer an element of protection for people, while at worst, having no effect on crime, and at best lowering crime?

If you read my previous posts you will find no place in which I say that concealed carry laws should be repealed.

In answer to your question though, the at worst part of your prediction is not neccesarily correct. The part you miss is that criminals don't give up because of concealed carry laws, but may be more likely to aquire guns of thier own to enhance thier chances of success. This may also produce a shift from gun ownership being a right towards being a neccessity, especially if the comments about criminals only targetting those who do not appear to be carrying weapons are accurate. To an extent you could think of it as an arms race between criminals and law abiding citizens.

 

[Red State Sage]

To say you think they faked the results of the study because they didn't like the results is ridiculous, especially in light of your comment not to attack the messenger.

I didn't say they faked it. You're putting words into my mouth. I said I find it odd that they couldn't find conclusive evidence one way or the other in light of concealed carry being around for many years. As a result, it makes me wonder if their study didn't produce the desired results they wanted.

In answer to your question though, the at worst part of your prediction is not neccesarily correct. The part you miss is that criminals don't give up because of concealed carry laws, but may be more likely to aquire guns of thier own to enhance thier chances of success. This may also produce a shift from gun ownership being a right towards being a neccessity, especially if the comments about criminals only targetting those who do not appear to be carrying weapons are accurate. To an extent you could think of it as an arms race between criminals and law abiding citizens.

So, would you prefer then that law abiding citizens lay down their arms so as not to engage in some kind "arms race"? I sure hope you don't advocate this; but based on your statement I'll bet that you do. Otherwise, why make that comment.

 

[TurtleDude]

So, would you prefer then that law abiding citizens lay down their arms so as not to engage in some kind "arms race"? I sure hope you don't advocate this; but based on your statement I'll bet that you do. Otherwise, why make that comment.

Its like the mentality that permeated parts of the left when Reagan was in office that held that if we gave up our nukes so would the communist powers

criminals push gun control-it makes their job safer

 

[Red State Sage]

Its like the mentality that permeated parts of the left when Reagan was in office that held that if we gave up our nukes so would the communist powers

criminals push gun control-it makes their job safer

TD, that's exactly what came to mind when I read that post of Gwynn's. As we witnessed with Liberals and their opposition to Reagan confronting communism, they were wrong then, and Gwynn is wrong to oppose an armed citizenry (if in fact she opposes). I'll give her the opportunity to clarify her position. It's been a little vague so far.

 

[gwynn]

My stance is actually very close to that taken by the NAS. I do not believe conclusive evidence had been collected on either side. I have seen many studies, but very very few can even come close to a credible claim of being unbiased. At this point it comes accross as an entirely partisan issue - all right wing reports show gun control is bad, all left wing reports show it's good.

There are many factors which affect violent crime rates, gun control laws are likely one of the lesser ones. That said I firmly believe in the right to own some types of guns and firmly believe there are some nobody outside the military should have access to.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That said I firmly believe in the right to own some types of guns and firmly believe there are some nobody outside the military should have access to.

Given that the 2nd specifically protects the right of the people to own and use weapons suitable for use in assisting and/or resisting the military...

... what weapons should 'nobody outside the military' have access to, and why?

 

[TurtleDude]

My stance is actually very close to that taken by the NAS. I do not believe conclusive evidence had been collected on either side. I have seen many studies, but very very few can even come close to a credible claim of being unbiased. At this point it comes accross as an entirely partisan issue - all right wing reports show gun control is bad, all left wing reports show it's good.

There are many factors which affect violent crime rates, gun control laws are likely one of the lesser ones. That said I firmly believe in the right to own some types of guns and firmly believe there are some nobody outside the military should have access to.

One of the main problems the gun restrictionists have is that the only credible argument they can advance in favor of limiting individual freedom has to be based on a public safety claim. While most of the leaders of the ARC do not actually believe in that argument, they still advance it since its the only one that will find support among most people. Thus, the efforts to restrict small arms ownership by certain classes of civilians (mostly non law enforcement civilians) only has merit if it can be shown that such limitations decrease crime

NO SUCH STUDY exists to prove such claim. The most comprehensive studies of the two clinton gun laws established only that the brady waiting period may have decreased elderly rates of suicide.

We on the pro rights side have far more "ammunition" including the philosophical arguments that freedom and civil liberty supercedes restrictions -especially ones that deal with fundamental constitutional rights. EVEN IF THE ARC could establish reductions in crime does not defeat our arguments: eliminating the presumption of innocence, double jeopardy or MIRANDA would decrease some crime but meritiorious arguments notwithstanding that exist have been found just by most people.

Restrictions in liberty demand a high burden of proof upon those who seek to restrict the rights of others. The ARC has not met this test

I also doubt Gwynn has any real understanding of weapons or realizes that most experrts will tell you that aim fire is far more lethal in almost all cases involving an individual shooter than sprayed automatic fire. I have participated in tests that have proven that so-we would hang 10 IPSC targets and take a colt 9mm automatic carbine with a 25 round magazine at 15 M. On the first pass, the weapon would be fired at full auto-a 25 round magazine would be expended in less than 2 seconds. No one was able to incapacitate all 10 targets. The gun would then be fired in semi auto mode-my average pass was approximately 3.2 seconds with a center hit on all ten targets. Other shooters found similar hit ratios

 

[AlbqOwl]

Brazil is the world leader in gun deaths and are actually considering putting the banning of firearms sales to the public in a national referendum. The vote, however, is likely to be aganst banning firearms sales. You have business leaders who are unable to attract new industries to Brazil mostly due to concerns for personal security versus business owners who do not wish to give up their right to defend themselves against thugs and hoodlums.

I think it was in 2002 that the government rewarded those who would turn in their hand guns and hundreds of thousands responded. This was cited as the reason for a more than 8% drop in gun violence the following year.

What the anti-gun statisticians fail to mention, however, is the same year of the guns were turned in, the Brazilian government passed a tough new law expanding the definition of gun crime and providing tough penalities for those guilty of committing gun crimes and increased enforcement of the law.

So which accomplished the favorable results? Tough laws and tough enforcement of them? Or reducing the guns?

 

[TurtleDude]

It appears (according to today's paper) that the ban lost 64-36% of the vote. The article stated that most of the media and politicians were for the feel good ban but once the anti ban people got equal time in the media the ban was doomed to fail

Many countries with gun bans have high rates of gun murders like Mexico and Columbia. I have been to several south american countries to shoot competitvely or hunt and you have to apply for a permit to even bring in a hunting or skeet shotgun in advance. yet, Columbia and Mexico have high rates of violence, kidnapping and murder

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Right, cause people are just sitting around with a gun and thinking "Well, I've got a gun, I might as well go shoot somebody!"
This argument is frickin ridiculous. Without the second amendment we'd have more crime, since undoubtedly in several states guns would be illegal, and thus people would be purchasing them on the black market, and thus more criminals.
The biggest cause of crime in this country is our failed drug laws. It's as simple as that. guns may be a catalyst to the crimes, but if drugs had never been made illegal crime would be only a fraction of what it is today.

I comepletely agree. If guns were illegal, then only criminals would have them, and we all know how cool that would be.

 

[galenrox]

I comepletely agree. If guns were illegal, then only criminals would have them, and we all know how cool that would be.

As George Carlin says: If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns

 

[AlbqOwl]

It appears (according to today's paper) that the ban lost 64-36% of the vote. The article stated that most of the media and politicians were for the feel good ban but once the anti ban people got equal time in the media the ban was doomed to fail

Many countries with gun bans have high rates of gun murders like Mexico and Columbia. I have been to several south american countries to shoot competitvely or hunt and you have to apply for a permit to even bring in a hunting or skeet shotgun in advance. yet, Columbia and Mexico have high rates of violence, kidnapping and murder

Conversely Switzerland is probably the most heavily armed nation per capita in the world and has one of the lowest gun crime rates.

The key is not in gun ownership I think. IMO the key is in public attitude, laws with teeth in them, and a willingness to enforce the law and deal quite severely with those who use guns (or any other weapon) to commit crimes. A good place to begin is to re-establish a public conscience of right and wrong and make sure that it is impressed on kids both by words and example. When the kids learn that violence is not an inevitability of life and they are far more likely to get what they want in life without it, we'll see a lot less of it within that generation.

 

[gwynn]

I also doubt Gwynn has any real understanding of weapons or realizes that most experrts will tell you that aim fire is far more lethal in almost all cases involving an individual shooter than sprayed automatic fire. I have participated in tests that have proven that so-we would hang 10 IPSC targets and take a colt 9mm automatic carbine with a 25 round magazine at 15 M. On the first pass, the weapon would be fired at full auto-a 25 round magazine would be expended in less than 2 seconds. No one was able to incapacitate all 10 targets. The gun would then be fired in semi auto mode-my average pass was approximately 3.2 seconds with a center hit on all ten targets. Other shooters found similar hit ratios

I am fully aware of the inaccuracy of sprayed fire. This is why I would question why one needs a waepon capable of it. While aimed semi-automatic weapons fire is far more lethal to the intended target, it is also much less likely to result in unintended injuries or fatalities. Given the main uses a law abiding citizen has for firearms are hunting and self-defense, I would think accuracy would be something you would desire.

Given that the 2nd specifically protects the right of the people to own and use weapons suitable for use in assisting and/or resisting the military...

... what weapons should 'nobody outside the military' have access to, and why?

If someone wishes to assist the military, I suggest they enlist or join a law enforcement agency. Either one would be far more benificial. Times have obviously changed since the 2nd amendment was created. The likelihood of resisting the US military using firearms alone is nearly non-existent.

There are a number of weapons I would put in that category. Mainly those in the realm of say the M240 or M60 and above in terms of calibre and rate of fire.

 

[gwynn]

Many countries with gun bans have high rates of gun murders like Mexico and Columbia. I have been to several south american countries to shoot competitvely or hunt and you have to apply for a permit to even bring in a hunting or skeet shotgun in advance. yet, Columbia and Mexico have high rates of violence, kidnapping and murder

The high rates of violence in such countries are mostly attibutable to socio-economic factors, corruption, the drug trade etc. Gun laws are really not part of it. In fact, even if guns were unregulated in those countries, most of those who find themselves victims of crime wouldn't be able to afford a gun anyway.