Which gun law works?

[Wiseone]

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Is the only law that has ever directly affected crime.

What? All the other laws on the books have no affect on crime? Think for a second before you post please.

 

[Black Dog]

What? All the other laws on the books have no affect on crime? Think for a second before you post please.

There is no evidence at all that any other gun law on the books has had any effect on crime. Why don't you post evidence that shows otherwise. I know you can't as there is none.

 

[Tucker Case]

Most gun laws do nothing, but some actually make it more difficult to commit crimes with guns or make crimes committed with guns to be penalized more harshly. Those are gun laws that make sense.

As anyone with half a brain knows, guns are tools. They are specifically a tool which is designed to put holes into living things from a distance. When used appropriately, they are life savers. Quite literally. When used inappropriately, they make it easier to commit crimes. People who use them inappropriately should be punished more harshly than those who don't use them because they are harming the ability of those who use them appropriately to do so.

 

[Wiseone]

There is no evidence at all that any other gun law on the books has had any effect on crime. Why don't you post evidence that shows otherwise. I know you can't as there is none.

Well its difficult to prove "what ifs" we can make reasonable speculations but ultimately its just speculation, for example what if Japan had never attacked Pearl Habour how would WW2 have turned out? You can make reasonable speculation but its just speculation.

Anyway, I can point out that the highest rates of murder and gun murder occur in the states with the less restrictive gun laws. That's evidence, although I'll be the first to say that there's dozens of other important factors that affect crime, including murder, other than what the gun laws happen to be.

 

[Black Dog]

Well its difficult to prove "what ifs" we can make reasonable speculations but ultimately its just speculation, for example what if Japan had never attacked Pearl Habour how would WW2 have turned out? You can make reasonable speculation but its just speculation.

Anyway, I can point out that the highest rates of murder and gun murder occur in the states with the less restrictive gun laws. That's evidence, although I'll be the first to say that there's dozens of other important factors that affect crime, including murder, other than what the gun laws happen to be.

So in other words you have no proof that any other gun law did anything.

Thanks for playing.

 

[jimbo]

There are no such statistics. Impossible to collect.

For a person who's never owned a gun before? I'm betting that 3-day waiting periods have saved some lives. 'Course a die hard would never want to admit it, but I'm sure it's happened.

Why can't that data be collected? The government seems to be able to accurately count jobs saved and terrorists attacks thwarted.

At least they claim they can.

 

[Wiseone]

So in other words you have no proof that any other gun law did anything.

Thanks for playing.

Well you have no proof they didn't do anything, its two sides of the same coin.

 

[Black Dog]

Well you have no proof they didn't do anything, its two sides of the same coin.

I don't have to. I don't need to prove a negative. :mrgreen:

 

[Mach]

Why can't that data be collected? The government seems to be able to accurately count jobs saved and terrorists attacks thwarted.
At least they claim they can.

The heart of your sarcasm is why such government laws should have a very high threshold before being funded and encoded into law. There is little to no evidence at best, for nearly any single policy implementation. Of course, when you have a society filled with publically paid academic elites who spend their lives trying to justify their cushy lifestyles on the taxpayer dime, of course they will insist they can do it!

Further, the human ecosystem DOES NOT behave like elementary particles or molecules or other natural phenomenon. We learn, and adapt. Anything that was supposedly a cause today for a specific result, is not guaranteed to create the same output in the future. This is why markets thrive when they are diversified, rather than all eggs in one basket.

Even on something that is largely abstracted into numbers like stocks, they are no better at picking winners than if they had just divided up their bet evenly over time. If they cannot demonstrate they can do it with stock prices, why would we think they could do it with things that are more complicated?

 

[Wiseone]

I don't have to. I don't need to prove a negative. :mrgreen:

Well if you take that logic than you're in a position where you can't prove that anything does anything. I can't prove that if the US had done nothing in WW2 that Japan and Germany would have won, therefore I can't prove that the US did not help defeat them? I mean if not being able to prove that a gun law reduces crime means that I can't prove no gun law reduces crime then there I am.

Also you have to back up your position, simply arguing a negative doesn't mean you get a pass. Unless you're going to give me a pass for my new position that "No gun laws do not reduce crime," can't ask me to prove a negative right?

Look, no one can prove what ifs, its impossible so don't ask for the impossible. Just as no one can prove with 100% absolute clarity that an action taken today will have an exact certain affect tomorrow, its impossible. You can't prove that removing all gun laws today would reduce crime tomorrow just as I could never prove that if all guns magically disappeared today that it would reduce crime tomorrow. None of us have a crystal ball, so lets not pretend that one of us have to have one to back our argument.

 

[Mach]

None of us have a crystal ball, so lets not pretend that one of us have to have one to back our argument.

That's misleading though, because part of the argument is not dependent on a crystal ball.
If you enact a gun law that we arguably can't know the effect of, OK, let's agree that we don't have a crystal ball on the effect. With me?
If that law demonstrably, legally makes it more difficult for me to purchase, own, or operate a firearm (etc.), then we do not need a crystal ball for that. It specifically restricts those freedoms, in law. This is known. The degree it restricts a person, sure we can quibble, but that it directly introduces some restriction is a fact. No crystal ball needed, or appropriate.

Now you have the situation that jimbo notes above.
A factual reduction in individual rights with firearms vs a societal impact that we would need a crystal ball to understand if it was positive or negative, and to what degree.

Some would argue the threshold for factually restricting individual rights, should be a little higher than a thumb in the air on the results.

 

[Black Dog]

Well if you take that logic than you're in a position where you can't prove that anything does anything. I can't prove that if the US had done nothing in WW2 that Japan and Germany would have won, therefore I can't prove that the US did not help defeat them? I mean if not being able to prove that a gun law reduces crime means that I can't prove no gun law reduces crime then there I am.

Also you have to back up your position, simply arguing a negative doesn't mean you get a pass. Unless you're going to give me a pass for my new position that "No gun laws do not reduce crime," can't ask me to prove a negative right?

Look, no one can prove what ifs, its impossible so don't ask for the impossible. Just as no one can prove with 100% absolute clarity that an action taken today will have an exact certain affect tomorrow, its impossible. You can't prove that removing all gun laws today would reduce crime tomorrow just as I could never prove that if all guns magically disappeared today that it would reduce crime tomorrow. None of us have a crystal ball, so lets not pretend that one of us have to have one to back our argument.

Wiseone, you are wrong. If gun laws had any kind of effect on crime it would be clearly measurable with more recent laws. For example the original assault weapons ban had no effect on crime whatsoever, none. The fact that in this case there is no proof has no bearing whatsoever on "you can't prove that anything does anything." Then you use WW2 and some kind of hypothetical? We are not talking hypotheticals here. We have actual laws. We now they have had little to no effect on crime, period.

I can back up my position. The 2nd amendment allows us to defend ourselves from crime...

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] - Gun Control - Just Facts

Now if we had the right taken away at least 989,883 people in 2000 would not have been able to defend themselves.

That was easy.

 

[jaeger19]

Prove it.

This is all opinion, not fact.

If gun laws increased for using a gun in the commission of a crime were working, nobody would be charged for using a gun when committing a crime.

Gun manufacturers are subject to industry standards and liability if they make unsafe weapons.

Nobody will buy anything that is unsafe in any industry.

All of this is conjecture and rationalization on your part.

Do you really want to argue that a six year old should be allowed to walk into a gun store and buy a Glock? You really think that we aren't safer because the idiot 12 year old can't buy a handgun to impress his friends?

As far as criminals? Certainly if Joe rapist is kept behind bars for another 10 years because he had a handgun with him... that's 10 more years he is not in society causing problems. I don't know how you can argue against that.

People buy things that are unsafe ALL the time. It may take a long time and thousands hurt or dead before its found out.

Because of that.. certain products, like pharmaceuticals, weapons, cars, pesticides.. are regulated to prevent accidents rather than wait until a liability claim is won or lost.

an example are recall laws involving problems with weapons.

The gun industry is a very regulated industry. there are some 20,000 laws regulating the sale, manufacture, and shipping of firearms.

That's fact not conjecture.

 

[jaeger19]

Wiseone, you are wrong. If gun laws had any kind of effect on crime it would be clearly measurable with more recent laws. For example the original assault weapons ban had no effect on crime whatsoever, none. The fact that in this case there is no proof has no bearing whatsoever on "you can't prove that anything does anything." Then you use WW2 and some kind of hypothetical? We are not talking hypotheticals here. We have actual laws. We now they have had little to no effect on crime, period.

I can back up my position. The 2nd amendment allows us to defend ourselves from crime...

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] - Gun Control - Just Facts

Now if we had the right taken away at least 989,883 people in 2000 would not have been able to defend themselves.

That was easy.

Actually, I don't believe that you can say that. I believe that if you were to look at the number of crimes done with fully automatic weapons before 1934 and after.. you would find that there were less after 1934 after the passage of the NFA.

 

[Jon Slice]

Laws are used to convict criminals. Criminals, by nature, break the law. A law that is made and is never used to prosecute or convict a criminal should not be a law. There is not one single case of a criminal being prosecuted for having too many "Evil" features on his post ban AR between 1994 and 2004 but look at all the anti freedom wackadoodles who want another ban. They can't support a ban with any statistical facts that show crime reduction because of it after it was implemented for 10 years so they say that one wasn't strict enough and we need a more stringent one. Like I stated earlier, it's all emotional, vote buying B.S.

 

[Texmex]

Even after all the posts I made against felons owning guns?
I just have yet to see the first data that shows waiting periods doing anything.
Like I said, I can get a shot gun same day. A hand gun, much less legal is a 3 day wait. I can get a AR15 or AK47, same day. But cant buy a .22 pistol for plinking at cans for 3 days.

I believe these facts show that gun laws were never intended to protect anyone. They are an attempt to control the population. The first thing needed to do this is disarmament of the public. Waiting periods just gets the camel's nose in the tent's door.

 

[SMTA]

Do you really want to argue that a six year old should be allowed to walk into a gun store and buy a Glock? You really think that we aren't safer because the idiot 12 year old can't buy a handgun to impress his friends?

As far as criminals? Certainly if Joe rapist is kept behind bars for another 10 years because he had a handgun with him... that's 10 more years he is not in society causing problems. I don't know how you can argue against that.

People buy things that are unsafe ALL the time. It may take a long time and thousands hurt or dead before its found out.

Because of that.. certain products, like pharmaceuticals, weapons, cars, pesticides.. are regulated to prevent accidents rather than wait until a liability claim is won or lost.

an example are recall laws involving problems with weapons.

The gun industry is a very regulated industry. there are some 20,000 laws regulating the sale, manufacture, and shipping of firearms.

That's fact not conjecture.

Your cited regulations are caused and for the stupid people.

The rest of us have to suffer by no fault of our own.

Using the least common multiple idiot for laws and regulations is a waste of time and money for everyone else.

 

[Black Dog]

Actually, I don't believe that you can say that. I believe that if you were to look at the number of crimes done with fully automatic weapons before 1934 and after.. you would find that there were less after 1934 after the passage of the NFA.

I think you will find no such thing. Post some proof.

 

[jaeger19]

Your cited regulations are caused and for the stupid people.

The rest of us have to suffer by no fault of our own.

Using the least common multiple idiot for laws and regulations is a waste of time and money for everyone else.

Well, you just stated the reason for all regulations... but the fact is that some stupid people need to be corralled or they effect the rest of our freedoms.



My point to this is this. When we as gun owners go spouting off as if NO REGULATION of guns is necessary. (which many on this board have espoused)...

It makes it easy for the anti gun crowd to win over those that are on the fence...

Are you really going to advocate that we need to get rid of laws preventing a 6 year old from buying a Glock?
Or a law that requires manufacturers to notify gun owners of recalls
Or laws giving criminals an extra 10 years for crimes with a gun?

So far.. you haven't said we should... so how about as gun owners we stop spouting nonsense and focus on exactly what laws the anti's want to institute and why they don't work.

Heck of a lot more effective that way.

 

[jaeger19]

I think you will find no such thing. Post some proof.

Okay.

St. Valentines massacre:

The two Thompson submachine guns (serial numbers 2347 and 7580) found in Fred Dane’s (an alias for Fred Burke) Michigan bungalow were personally driven to the Chicago coroner’s office by the Berrien County District Attorney. Ballistic expert Calvin Goddard tested the weapons and determined that both had been used in the massacre. One of them had also been used in the murder of Brooklyn mob boss Frankie Yale, which confirmed the New York Police Department’s long-held theory that Burke, and by extension Al Capone, had been responsible for Yale's death.

John Dillinger used a Thompson and a BAR

He and his gang were responsible for about 12 bank robberies and about 300,000 from 1933 to 34.

Then we have Bonnie and Clyde..

Who from 1932 to 1934 committed 13 murders, numerous kidnappings, and several burglaries and robberies.

When they were finally killed.. 3 30 caliber BAR's where found in their car.

The following is a summary of the lists of weapons reportedly found in the 1934 Ford V8:
•
Three 30-caliber Browning automatic rifles (BARs) (definite)

•
One ten-gauge sawed-off shotgun (definite)

•
One twenty-gauge sawed-off shotgun (definite)

•
Six or seven Colt 45-caliber automatic pistols (definite)

•
One Colt 32-caliber automatic pistol (probably)

•
One Colt 38-caliber revolver or pistol (probably)

•
One Colt 45-caliber revolver (probably)

•
2000-3000 rounds of ammunition (definite)

Since 1934... I was only able to find one example of a fully automatic weapon being used in a crime by a civilian. (there were two but one was a police officer who used his fully automatic weapon issued to an informant)

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, you just stated the reason for all regulations... but the fact is that some stupid people need to be corralled or they effect the rest of our freedoms.



My point to this is this. When we as gun owners go spouting off as if NO REGULATION of guns is necessary. (which many on this board have espoused)...

It makes it easy for the anti gun crowd to win over those that are on the fence...

Are you really going to advocate that we need to get rid of laws preventing a 6 year old from buying a Glock?
Or a law that requires manufacturers to notify gun owners of recalls
Or laws giving criminals an extra 10 years for crimes with a gun?

So far.. you haven't said we should... so how about as gun owners we stop spouting nonsense and focus on exactly what laws the anti's want to institute and why they don't work.

Heck of a lot more effective that way.

regulating use is OK with me as long as its sensible

for example-shooting pigeons on Times Square with a 12 bore should be banned

target shooting with a 50 BMG in a suburban environment-banned as well

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay.

St. Valentines massacre:



John Dillinger used a Thompson and a BAR

He and his gang were responsible for about 12 bank robberies and about 300,000 from 1933 to 34.

Then we have Bonnie and Clyde..

Who from 1932 to 1934 committed 13 murders, numerous kidnappings, and several burglaries and robberies.

When they were finally killed.. 3 30 caliber BAR's where found in their car.



Since 1934... I was only able to find one example of a fully automatic weapon being used in a crime by a civilian. (there were two but one was a police officer who used his fully automatic weapon issued to an informant)

so what

a proper reading of Heller and Miller would find that real assault rifles are the single most 2A protected arms

There were lots of murders with pistols before Chicago banned them

even more afterwards

machine gun murders before the 1934 NFA basically went from being ones that had been legally bought to ones that were not

 

[Black Dog]

Okay.

St. Valentines massacre:



John Dillinger used a Thompson and a BAR

He and his gang were responsible for about 12 bank robberies and about 300,000 from 1933 to 34.

Then we have Bonnie and Clyde..

Who from 1932 to 1934 committed 13 murders, numerous kidnappings, and several burglaries and robberies.

When they were finally killed.. 3 30 caliber BAR's where found in their car.



Since 1934... I was only able to find one example of a fully automatic weapon being used in a crime by a civilian. (there were two but one was a police officer who used his fully automatic weapon issued to an informant)

That is what I thought. That is not proof of a reduction in crime. That is a reduction of a type of weapon used in crime. It did not affect crime at all. Just look at the massive bombings and shootings we still have?

Keep trying.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is what I thought. That is not proof of a reduction in crime. That is a reduction of a type of weapon used in crime. It did not affect crime at all. Just look at the massive bombings and shootings we still have?

Keep trying.

The British Home Secretary bragged that after Britain Banned all handgun possession by non governmental agents, the rate of CRIMES WITH LEGAL Handguns went down

when he was asked about the rate of crimes using ALL handguns he quickly changed subjects

 

[Jon Slice]

Well, you just stated the reason for all regulations... but the fact is that some stupid people need to be corralled or they effect the rest of our freedoms.



My point to this is this. When we as gun owners go spouting off as if NO REGULATION of guns is necessary. (which many on this board have espoused)...

It makes it easy for the anti gun crowd to win over those that are on the fence...

Are you really going to advocate that we need to get rid of laws preventing a 6 year old from buying a Glock?
Or a law that requires manufacturers to notify gun owners of recalls
Or laws giving criminals an extra 10 years for crimes with a gun?

So far.. you haven't said we should... so how about as gun owners we stop spouting nonsense and focus on exactly what laws the anti's want to institute and why they don't work.

Heck of a lot more effective that way.

You keep coming back with this "Don't let a 6 year old buy a gun" tripe. No, 6 year old's can't by guns. They can't buy cars, cigarettes, alcohol or F'n airplanes either. A lot manufacturers are required to notify the public of recalls; Cars, Child car seats, drug companies, aircraft, boats, etc.

Please stop. True Patriots don't care if there are people that perceive that we are "making it easy for the anti gun crowd". The anti gun crowd sure as heck doesn't care what we think and every little inch you give them the more miles they try to take. I don't appease when it comes to my rights. I don't give inches, I take miles.