The NRA has gone too far...

[Flowers]

I understand that the NRA has always been unsympathetic to police officers in their line of duty. I have silently weathered the insult of an advocacy of armor piercing rounds, of assault weapons, and concealed carry laws, but this is simply too much. (http://www.nrahq.org/law/competitions/npsc/npsc.asp)

[TomChick]

Good one! :)

-Tom

[Squirrel Killer]

Hopefully the ones coming out of Krispy Kreme are worth less.

[Lunch of Kong]

Heh. I missed the ambiguous wording the first time around. But regardless, stay away from that competition. Being a spectator at that event is dangerous because as a general rule, cops can't shoot for shit.

[brainfromarous]

(Actually, the NRA is quite "pro cop" and its ranks are filled with current and former LEOs.)

It's still funny, though.

[Flowers]

(Actually, the NRA is quite "pro cop" and its ranks are filled with current and former LEOs.)

It's still funny, though.

Supporting assault weapons, armor piercing rounds, and concealed carry laws places officers in serious fucking danger, braniac. The rank and file membership may be pro-cop, but the "cold, dead, hands," leadership is not.

[Houngan]

Supporting assault weapons, armor piercing rounds, and concealed carry laws places officers in serious fucking danger, braniac. The rank and file membership may be pro-cop, but the "cold, dead, hands," leadership is not.

No, it doesn't. It seems like it would, but outlawing booze and marriage would save a lot more cops than outlawing the weapons/ammo mentioned. Gun control groups mention this crap in roughly the same vein as "won't somebody think of the children?"; everybody loves children, and everybody loves cops, generally. Usually if this old duck is brought out, it means that the thing in question has nothing to do with children or cops. Simple googling will get the stats on how often cops are attacked/killed with special weapons.

H.

p.s. Oh, and I hate the NRA, although I'm a member.

[instant0]

Maybe they'd do something if we make Children Cops?

[Flowers]

Simple googling will get the stats on how often cops are attacked/killed with special weapons.


Actually, a simple google of "special weapons" and various permutations of attack and or kill, in the same document as police brings up websites about SWAT brutality. I guess now we know how that one guy gets all his stories.

The reason more police aren't shot to death with ammunition specifically designed to penetrate their vests is because it is not generally available. If it were generally available, it would be used more often and the cops who were already at risk of being shot would have the additional risk of being shot with armor piercing rounds.


There's no butter in a Chinese restaurant.

[brainfromarous]

You don't need Google. The DOJ, FBI and BATF keep stats on all this stuff. The cold fact is that "assault weapons" are used in very few crimes. So few, in fact, that getting shot with one is freakishly rare - esp when you consider that "assault weapon" is often defined so broadly as to include something like the M1 Garand from WW2.

The gun control people know this, just like they know that the vast majority of guns of any kind in private hands are never involved with crimes, accidents or suicides. They know; they just don't talk about that because it doesn't suit their alarmist agenda.

The other side does the same thing, of course. The anti-drug crusaders on the Right know there is not one instance in medical literature of marijuana killing someone through an acute or cumulative overdose. Again: They know; they just don't talk about that because it suits their alarmist agenda to portray the Demon Weed as especially dangerous.

(Which is not to say that guns or drugs are nothing to worry about, of course.)

Clearly, the answer is to staff the police force with stoned, armor-piercing children.

[Nick Walter]

You don't need Google. The DOJ, FBI and BATF keep stats on all this stuff. The cold fact is that "assault weapons" are used in very few crimes. So few, in fact, that getting shot with one is freakishly rare - esp when you consider that "assault weapon" is often defined so broadly as to include something like the M1 Garand from WW2.

That's a fairly meaningless stat though, since those things are tightly regulated and or outlawed depending on where in the U.S. one is. If they were commonly available then criminals would have easier access to them and the incidents of them being used on police would increase.

Firearms are still the leading cause of police deaths. Making more dangerous firearms commonly available can only worsen things from a police fatality point of view.

[brainfromarous]

Actually, handguns are the most dangerous because of their ease of concealment and the ability to carry large amounts of ammo with little encumbrance. Nobody ever walked into a bank with an M16 tucked in their jacket pocket. Cops don't body-frisk people under arrest because they're looking for rifles. At close range, shotguns are also more dangerous than rifles. (At medium to long range, rifles are more deadly of couise.)

Your remark about "tightly regulated" gets things backwards, though. Most American gun laws are enforced at the State level, although there are Federal and in some cases, County and City statutes. In most jurisdictions it is FAR more difficult to get a handgun - let alone a permit to carry - than a rifle or shotgun. When was the last time you heard of a "rifle license?" In New York State, where I live, there isn't even a special procedure to get one. I picked up a Bushmaster AR15-style "assault rifle" last week and, after a 5 min computer background check, paid cash and walked out of the store with it. No permits, no waiting period, nothing. A handgun purchase would have been impossible without a license to begin with, and even adding another would have required a visit to the Suffolk County Police to have them amend my pistol license. The Bushmaster was mine for the asking - and this is Blue State Democratic New York we're talking about!

No, "assault rifle" crimes aren't rare because these things are hard to get.

Oh, also, that "NRA wants armor-piercing bullets" thing is also wrong. But this post is long enough as it is...

[Nick Walter]

No, "assault rifle" crimes aren't rare because these things are hard to get.


Just how are you defining "assault rifle". The fact that you started with the term "assault weapons" and then went to "assault rifle" makes me wonder if you aren't playing semantic games.

For the sake of clarity, I was discussing weapons capable of automatic fire. If that's not how you are defining them (and it appears not after your last post) then feel free to re-read my posts with automatic weapons in mind. Those are tightly regulated everywhere and not very available. If they were commonly available, the incidents of them being used on police would go up.

[Ben]

Nick- He's using the terms that gun control advocates use. They set the terminology here, and it's considerably more broad than "fully automatic".

And he's right. It's a hell of a lot easier to buy a semi-auto AK-47 variant(for ~$350, generally no waiting period or license) than it is to buy a Glock(~$600, generally both a waiting period and a license though obviously that varies by jurisdiction).

Obviously, soccer moms are terrified of automatic weapons, but dude, you've played Brothers in Arms, right? The primary reason assault rifles are selective fire is for suppression, not lethality.


Anyway, Flowers is obviously trolling this new guy, but you should know better. There would be fewer police fatalities from knife wounds if we all had to eat with sporks, right?

[Backov]

AR-15 will go full auto, Nick. It's an assault rifle.

Here's how to do it:
http://www.keepshooting.com/booksandvideos/firearmmanuals/ar15_modification_manual.htm

[Nick Walter]

AR-15 will go full auto, Nick. It's an assault rifle.

Here's how to do it:
http://www.keepshooting.com/booksandvideos/firearmmanuals/ar15_modification_manual.htm

That page also says it's illegal. Which was my point.

[Nick Walter]

There would be fewer police fatalities from knife wounds if we all had to eat with sporks, right?

Outlawing knives would in fact make things safer for police. Come to think of it, there are laws against carrying knives over a certain length in most cities/states aren't there?

[brainfromarous]

Outlawing knives would in fact make things safer for police. Come to think of it, there are laws against carrying knives over a certain length in most cities/states aren't there?

As I recall, New York State law forbids carrying a knife with a fixed or folding blade over 3" outside of your home or other area where such a blade would reasonably be used - "reasonably" includes things like gardeners clearing brush with machetes, hand axes and saws, dressing knives carried by hunters and so forth.

And yes, the term "assault rifle" means those semi-auto variants of military rifles available for civilian ownership. In fact, ever since the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986, the BATF has been forbidden to issue any new Class-3 Federal Firearms Licenses - which is the one you need to legally own/sell/transfer a fully-automatic firearm. Pre-1986 ones were grandfather in, which means there ARE private citizens out there with legal machine guns. Weird, eh?

[Linoleum]

The reason more police aren't shot to death with ammunition specifically designed to penetrate their vests is because it is not generally available.

Wrong wrong wrong. Unless you mean to distinguish between 'specifically designed' and 'does'. Even Level III-A won't hold up to an obscure form of ammunition called a 'rifle cartridge'. Thankfully the criminal underworld is prevented from gaining access to sporting goods stores.

Of course, when you start wanting to classify things as armor piercing due to the laws of physics versus some sinister design feature...

And I would maintain that police officers are safer in jurisdictions with shall-issue concealed carry laws.

[Lunch of Kong]

Are police safer in the uk than in the united states?

Cop pulled my buddy David over the other day. As required, he informed the police officer that he is licensed to conceal carry, and that there was a firearm in the glove compartment. The cop asked him to slowly surrender the weapon, which he did. It's a really nice Kimber .45 1911.

But then, having "disarmed" my friend and written him a speeding ticket, the cop then started giving him attitude. "Why do you feel the need to carry a concealed firearm? Don't you think we [police officers] do a good enough job protecting you?"

"It's got nothing to do with whether I think you're doing a good job. It has to do with the fact that I can place a bullet from my gun to where I need it in less than two seconds. Can you guarantee me the same?"

I thought that was a great response. I had to share.

[Brad Grenz]

Are police safer in the uk than in the united states?

They don't carry guns. Clearly they are defensless. I don't know how they manage with all those swords hanging on every wall*.

* Everything I know about England was gleaned from Ultima 6.

[Lizard_King]

Supporting assault weapons,
Assault weapon is an entirely cosmetic definition, legally speaking, as illustrated in the 1994 assault rifle ban. It hinged entirely on a rifle with a removable magazine with any of at least two of the following traits: a folding stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. None of those were motivated by a high incidence of crimes with them as a factor. They were based around the fact that they look scary, and could thus be used to confuse an ignorant electorate into setting precedents for banning guns for no particular reason. As opposed to, for instance, restrictions based around use in crimes, such as handgun laws, which while certainly of questionable effectiveness are at least based in reality.

Automatic rifles are a separate issue which can cross-section with assault rifles, but are already covered by existing laws. And, as noted above, they are hardly a big deal in police deaths or, for that matter, crime generally. Even assault rifles as a whole including semi and selective fire rifles amount to much less than one percent of all firearm related crimes.

armor piercing rounds,
NRA opposition to these bans is similar to their thinking on the above. Armor piercing rounds are very rarely a factor in crimes. You don't need them at all to get through a regular police vest, which is calibrated primarily to handgun rounds (since that is almost all of the threat).

and concealed carry laws places officers in serious fucking danger
No, they don't. There is absolutely no correlation between the two. That must be why Vermont is chock full of copkillings and DC is such a great place to be the law, right? While certainly there are strong arguments around the concealed carry issue, protecting cops is at most tangential to the issue. The existence of concealed carry restrictions and bans only prevent law abiding citizens from carrying weapons, not criminals. I don't necessarily buy the argument that concealed carry laws objectively benefit society in a statistical sense, but there has definitely not been a demonstrated down side. In which case, of course, I would err on the side of individual liberty and reasonable right to self defense, but that's just me. Either way, you have nothing as far as an anti-cop NRA argument there.
The rank and file membership may be pro-cop, but the "cold, dead, hands," leadership is not.
You managed to turn a cute blunder in a press release into some pretty weak trolling. There are certainly reasons to dislike the NRA's leadership, but hostility to police officers is about as farfetched as it gets.
For the sake of clarify, I was discussing weapons capable of automatic fire. If that's not how you are defining them (and it appears not after your last post) then feel free to re-read my posts with automatic weapons in mind.
He was defining them as they were described in the 90's effort to outlaw them. I am fairly sure he took as a given that automatic weapons were already tightly regulated, and certainly never a part of the NRA's advocacy programs.

Those are tightly regualted everywhere and not very available.
So are tanks, F-16's, and nuclear weapons. What else do they have in common? None of them are advocated for by the NRA.
If they were commonly available, the incidents of them being used on police would go up.You seriously underestimate the priorities and knowledgeability of criminals, the effectiveness of automatic weapons in criminal undertakings, and the tactical wherewithal of police.
For the first: Criminals know what they want from guns, and only cretin gangbangers looking for flashy weapons would think an automatic weapon practical for their purposes. Concealability is always the first feature cited by most criminals, for instance.
2: As noted above, automatic weapons have very limited applications, practically.
--------warning--------------story time--------------------warning
Even in, say, Fallujah, we think of the "Full Auto" selector choice on an AK as our best friend. It guarantees our enemy will run out of rounds quickly and hit practically nothing he was aiming at, and insurgents know a hell of a lot more about guns than most American criminals. Our automatic weapons consist of crew served machine guns and man portable automatic rifles, both of which are used primarily for suppression and require a good amount of training and experience to apply effectively. A good machinegunner is right up there with a good sniper in terms of value, and even he would not be able to do much with an Uzi or Mac 10.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Returning to America, despite what movies may portray, automatic rifles are practically nonexistent in crime statistics. This is not, as the modification website demonstrates so handily, because they are hard to come by. It's because they are hard to use.

All that said, the NRA does not advocate private ownership of automatic rifles. It was mobilized against the assault rifle ban because the only possible motivations for it were as a foothold move in gun bans or ignorance. Neither of those make for good laws.

[Lizard_King]

I thought that was a great response. I had to share.
I am always fascinated by how people otherwise completely hostile to any incarnation of the Man are so willing to turn over their ability to protect themselves to Him.

[brainfromarous]

Side note: One element of the "cop killer" bullet scare was the confusion - in some cases, deliberate - of what happens to bullets when a Teflon coating is applied to the exterior of the round. Teflon reduces the damage caused by the lead bullet rocketing through the gun barrel, which prevents fouling and prolongs the "accuracy life" of the gun in question. (It also reduces the lead dust that often accumulates at closed-roof or indoor shooting ranges.)

Despite the obvious fact that this Teflon-coating process has nothing to do with improving penetration vis-a-vis body armor, it became wrongfully equated with Super-Duper, Eee-vil Cop-Killer Ammo in the minds of many people. You can find, to this day, gun control "information" sites that warn of this extra-deadly, phastasmagorical ammunition.

(All this is not to say that NRA doesn't peddle its own brand of bullshit...)

[brainfromarous]

Wrong wrong wrong. Unless you mean to distinguish between 'specifically designed' and 'does'. Even Level III-A won't hold up to an obscure form of ammunition called a 'rifle cartridge'. Thankfully the criminal underworld is prevented from gaining access to sporting goods stores.

Of course, when you start wanting to classify things as armor piercing due to the laws of physics versus some sinister design feature...

And I would maintain that police officers are safer in jurisdictions with shall-issue concealed carry laws.

This reminds me of a story from my cousin, who is a cop. As part of academy training he and his class were taken to a rifle range where they watched their instructors mount several types and configurations of body armor on poles and even clothing mannequins (like Keanu Reeves). The instructors then blasted away with pistols, shotguns and rifles. The armor blocked the pistol rounds and shotgun blasts pretty reliably - but only the weakest of the rifles.

The instructors made a point of emphasizing that the type of body armor he and his classmates would be wearing as cops was of scant use against most rifles. Even the stock, bolt-action Remington hunting rifle they used defeated the vest. The message: Don't get cocky. Don't assume.

[Ben]

Outlawing knives would in fact make things safer for police.

You know what else would make police safer? A nationwide 24 hour curfew!

[Nick Walter]

You know what else would make police safer? A nationwide 24 hour curfew!

Again correct. Also RFID tags placed into all citizens and computers linked to cameras with blanket coverage of all urban areas would be a step towards improved police safety as well.

[Hanzii]

Are police safer in the uk than in the united states?


Yes

(in five words or more...)

[Flowers]

Despite the obvious fact that this Teflon-coating process has nothing to do with improving penetration vis-a-vis body armor, it became wrongfully equated with Super-Duper, Eee-vil Cop-Killer Ammo in the minds of many people. You can find, to this day, gun control "information" sites that warn of this extra-deadly, phastasmagorical ammunition.

(All this is not to say that NRA doesn't peddle its own brand of bullshit...)
1.
Yes, it just so happened that the copper jacketed steel cop killer pistol rounds that do not deform and thus penetrate protective vests were teflon coated to reduce soft metal deposits in the barrel.

It also happens that there are readily available weapons that fire rounds capable of penetrating the vests issued to police. They are called rifles.

That does not mean that there is any good reason to sell vest penetrating pistol ammuntion.

2.
Yes, many of the characteristics of an assault rifle are cosmetic.

Also conceded is that some people lawfully possess weapons capable of fully automatic firing.

Third, of course someone will run out of ammo quickly and will not have the accuracy required to guarantee a lot of kills when firing into a crowd.

This does not mean that everyone with $500 should be able to acquire automatic weaponry. Lots of other highly deadly things are difficult to use properly.

3.
If you have to carry a pistol around with you all day, you are neither free, nor safe, nor very manly.

Concealed Carry weapons permits count on society to be made of cool headed, responsible people.

[MikeSofaer]

Concealed Carry weapons permits count on society to be made of cool headed, responsible people.
Eventually. But this is not about RAH duel-enforced politeness, it is about a mugger's risk/reward analysis.

[Flowers]

Stop jacking off to the thought of shooting muggers.

[Linoleum]

Concealed Carry weapons permits count on society to be made of cool headed, responsible people.

If you look at the data, it supports the theory that the people who apply and carry are indeed, as a rule, cool headed responsible people that are a benefit to their society.

Your opinions betray a bias the stereotypes reasonings and justifications for carrying a firearm. It isn't some swaggering machismo. Some of us are comfortable accepting the responsibility inherent in carrying a gun and confident in our ability to make life or death decisions in crisis situations. Furthermore, I am comfortable with my fellow citizens being able to make that determination for themselves.

[Flowers]

If you look at the data, it supports the theory that the people who apply and carry are indeed, as a rule, cool headed responsible people that are a benefit to their society.

Your opinions betray a bias the stereotypes reasonings and justifications for carrying a firearm. It isn't some swaggering machismo. Some of us are comfortable accepting the responsibility inherent in carrying a gun and confident in our ability to make life or death decisions in crisis situations. Furthermore, I am comfortable with my fellow citizens being able to make that determination for themselves.

They may be a benefit to society because they pay taxes and work, but as far as they want to go around threatening high schoolers with their pearl handled fandydandies, they are quite the drag.

As long as you are human, you are one of the creatures that experiences a flight or fight response when threatened. Unless you have training to control that, I don't trust you to try and dial 911, let alone to decide who lives and who dies.

I let the surgeons do the cutting, I let the engineers design the cars and I let the police officers do their job.

[Glenn]

If you look at the data, it supports the theory that the people who apply and carry are indeed, as a rule, cool headed responsible people that are a benefit to their society.
Really? Because I've known a lot of people who got concealed-carry permits and they've always been, without fail, either PI's or paranoid lunatics. Obviously, that's just anecdotal, but "I can't wait for some nigger to try and mug me now" was way more common than "cool headed responsible."

[Lizard_King]

1.
Yes, it just so happened that the copper jacketed steel cop killer pistol rounds that do not deform and thus penetrate protective vests were teflon coated to reduce soft metal deposits in the barrel.

It also happens that there are readily available weapons that fire rounds capable of penetrating the vests issued to police. They are called rifles.

That does not mean that there is any good reason to sell vest penetrating pistol ammuntion.
Whereas, the point being what the NRA and most gun advocates promote, it is resolved that exactly none of those things are armor piercing rounds for handguns. Add to that the fact that was being pointed out, which is that armor piercing options are already available, and the obvious point arises that, regardless, few criminals choose them. Why? Because the armor piercing characteristic is largely unnecessary for their occupation, which rarely involves an additional benefit for killing a cop vs hurting or suppressing.

2.Yes, many of the characteristics of an assault rifle are cosmetic. Also conceded is that some people lawfully possess weapons capable of fully automatic firing. Third, of course someone will run out of ammo quickly and will not have the accuracy required to guarantee a lot of kills when firing into a crowd.
This does not mean that everyone with $500 should be able to acquire automatic weaponry. Lots of other highly deadly things are difficult to use properly.
Which, once again, neither the NRA nor any mainstream gun advocate is pushing for...the points you list where merely to demonstrate the further irrelevance of the issue, and its existence as a scare tactic. To which I would add that many bona fide military "assault" weapons are designed with a surprising number of factors in addition to or with precedence over lethality per se. Just because it seems ridiculous on the surface but makes a lot of sense from a strategic point of view.

3. If you have to carry a pistol around with you all day, you are neither free, nor safe, nor very manly.
If you are unable to defend yourself in a manner that adequately addresses possible threats, the same three wholly subjective statements could be made. Concealed carry does not mean mandatory carry, and it does not presume a lessening of penalties for gun homicides and crimes. I fail to see how it is a disadvantage to those who choose to remain unarmed that law abiding citizens be permitted to do so...only irrational phobia and hatred can explain your position. If you think guns are icky and should go away, that's fine. Don't bother bogging down in second rate hypothesizing about the psyches of those who disagree with you, and don't pretend the origins of your dislike are based on more than emotion.

They may be a benefit to society because they pay taxes and work, but as far as they want to go around threatening high schoolers with their pearl handled fandydandies, they are quite the drag.
How does that fit in with the profile of a concealed carry permit owner? Do you even have anecdotal stories to back that? You might as well postulate that gun ownership translates directly to child molestation and scientology.

As long as you are human, you are one of the creatures that experiences a flight or fight response when threatened. Unless you have training to control that, I don't trust you to try and dial 911, let alone to decide who lives and who dies. Actually, training a person to effectively defend themselves with a handgun is pretty easy. Beyond that, humans have been defending themselves successfully without training for years. Once again, your arguments dictate more of an gun phobia on your part than any rational objections.

I let the surgeons do the cutting, I let the engineers design the cars and I let the police officers do their job
Unless you also advocate a police state as a corollary, the last does not belong in that list. Police officers are not your personal bodyguards. You can elect to rely on them entirely, but many of us would rather you not make that choice on our behalf as well.
Really? Because I've known a lot of people who got concealed-carry permits and they've always been, without fail, either PI's or paranoid lunatics. Obviously, that's just anecdotal, but "I can't wait for some nigger to try and mug me now" was way more common than "cool headed responsible."
Unless that is wildly exaggerated even from an anecdotal perspective, I think the real problem is that you hang out with a bunch of assholes. And, of course, private detectives, which is just kind of wierd. Either that or your sample of cc people is really small even for a throwaway comment. But, by all means....


So let's summarize. So far we've exonerated the NRA of supporting private ownership of automatic rifles, supporting armor piercing rounds for handguns, promoting baby skullfucking as a national pastime, etc. Then we've heard both the mighty "guns are scary" argument added to the venerable "I knew a guy who owned a gun who was a dick". Pretty underwhelming.

I think the biggest problem is ignorance of firearms. Of course, I understand if regarding them as inherently sinful prevents you from learning about them firsthand, but virtually every amicable argument I've had about it in real life has been settled by a bet and a trip to the gun range.

[Flowers]

.
So let's summarize. So far we've exonerated the NRA of supporting private ownership of automatic rifles, supporting armor piercing rounds for handguns, promoting baby skullfucking as a national pastime, etc. Then we've heard both the mighty "guns are scary" argument added to the venerable "I knew a guy who owned a gun who was a dick". Pretty underwhelming.

I think the biggest problem is ignorance of firearms. Of course, I understand if regarding them as inherently sinful prevents you from learning about them firsthand, but virtually every amicable argument I've had about it in real life has been settled by a bet and a trip to the gun range.

Poow me, I think that distributing deadwy weapons amongst the iwwesponsible to be ill -advised so I must be a fwaidy-cat. I guess it is only fate and the particular circumstances of my childhood trauma that leads me to fear and hate guns as opposed to clowns.

You haven't exonorated the NRA of shit. I watched the NRA oppose the assault weapons bans, which has a lot of good provisions and boo fucking hoo if you can't have a grenade launcher. I personally recall the the television news coverage of the flap surrounding the NRA's support of armor piercing rounds, and it did not center on the red herring of teflon. I furthermore recall that I have seen no reliable studies demonstrating an increase in safety as a result of concealed carry permits.

If you need a gun to feel safe conducting your daily business in America you should move. If you are not in a high crime area and you still feel desirous of a hidden pistol to ensure your personal safety, you are fucking batshit. End of story.

I don't have anything against guns, they are just tools. I agree that with the exception of the accidental shootings of children, the fault always lies entirely with the shooter. So that people kill people. But I know that people who kill people use guns to kill people, and some people, if they didn't have the gun, would not have killed the person. If you create opportunities for easy hot blooded murders, they will happen. The people who are shot during arguments with a pistol carrying citizen that loses their temper will be dead forever and the shooter will go to prison. That is not what I want for America. That is not what anyone should want for America.

Honestly, stop jacking off to the thought of shooting a mugger. Stop it now.

[Damien Falgoust]

I furthermore recall that I have seen no reliable studies demonstrating an increase in safety as a result of concealed carry permits. You could start with the (in)famous study by John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime. Yes, I'm aware that his methodology has come under serious question, but at least it's a starting point. And most of the criticisms I've seen haven't said there's no crime decrease associated with conceald carry laws, but rather that Lott vastly overstates the quantity of that decrease by failing to control for other variables. And I'll admit it's been some time since I looked at the issue, so I'm open to hearing the latest developments on this front.

But more to the point, is this the right standard? Shouldn't we err on the side of individual liberty if there are no adverse societal consequences? In short, shouldn't the standard be "if concealed carry does not increase crime, it represents a good policy choice"?

If you need a gun to feel safe conducting your daily business in America you should move.
Right, because folks who live in high-crime areas often have enough disposable income to pick up and move at the drop of a dime. Rolling eyes smiley.

[brainfromarous]

Poow me, I think that distributing deadwy weapons amongst the iwwesponsible to be ill -advised so I must be a fwaidy-cat. I guess it is only fate and the particular circumstances of my childhood trauma that leads me to fear and hate guns as opposed to clowns.

Well, Todd McFarlane has the clown thing covered.

Also, try to keep your own side of the story straight. Here is what you wrote:

3. If you have to carry a pistol around with you all day, you are neither free, nor safe, nor very manly.

No qualifications about "irresponsibility" or distinctions between cops, civilians, security guards, or anything else.

There are two brute, immutable facts which must be faced for any sort of "gun control" discussion to be anchored in reality:

(1) The police have neither the practical ability nor the legal responsibility to act as your bodyguards.

The police are, overwhelmingly, ex post facto responders to crime. They "prevent" very little. Unless you're in some kind of special protection program, with officers following you around, armed police chauffers driving you and a patrol car parked outside of your home at night, the police aren't going to "protect" you from jack shit.

If violent crime comes your way and you're able to call them, they might - repeat MIGHT - be able to arrive in time. Still, the chances of a timely police intervention in time to prevent you from being hurt are vanishingly small.

The bottom line is that the cops can't help you if they're not around, and most of the time, they aren't. Most of the time, you're on your own.

(2) There are plenty of times when private citizens are in FAR more danger than your average cop walking the beat.

The restaurant manager who closes the register for the evening. The cab driver working a graveyard shift. People who work in jewelry shops or who handle any kind of small, highly valuable items. The lone woman walking through the parking lot late at night. The truck driver hauling a load of plasma-screen TVs ($5000 a pop and up). People who live in remote areas.

There is nothing theoretical about these perdicaments. In most cases, the police will not be there to protect them.

None of this means we can't have reasonable gun laws. I'm not one of those "every home an arsenal" types. But let's be clear that most people who wish to acquire and train with a firearm for (possible) self-defense are not "gun nuts" or paranoid or any kind of antisocial thing. They're simply confronting the fact that when trouble comes a'knocking, chances are you'll be on your own.

You haven't exonorated the NRA of shit. I watched the NRA oppose the assault weapons bans, which has a lot of good provisions and boo fucking hoo if you can't have a grenade launcher.

Grenade launcher? Which BATF FFL class is that?


I personally recall the the television news coverage of the flap surrounding the NRA's support of armor piercing rounds, and it did not center on the red herring of teflon.

And nothing's as reliable as memories of 20-yr old TV news reports, right?

The law in question - HR 3121 - was initially sponsored by Mario Biaggi (D-NY) in 1982 and finally passed in 1986. The NRA itself helped draft the final version, which banned

"...a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium,"

Notice how this focuses on how the bullets are designed and what materials they are constructed from? Biaggi's original idea was to ban ammo based on a performance metric - one so broad that it would have included a wide swath of commonly-used rifle ammo. That is what NRA (and others) opposed.

Now if you think I'm being selective or dishonest in my posts, then check it out for yourself. The history of the whole "cop killer bullet" thing is not some Freemasonic secret locked away in a hidden vault. All this info is publicly available.

Honestly, stop hiding your politics behind half-assed psychoanalysis. Stop it now.

[Flowers]

None of this means we can't have reasonable gun laws. I'm not one of those "every home an arsenal" types. But let's be clear that most people who wish to acquire and train with a firearm for (possible) self-defense are not "gun nuts" or paranoid or any kind of antisocial thing. They're simply confronting the fact that when trouble comes a'knocking, chances are you'll be on your own.

Honestly, stop hiding your politics behind half-assed psychoanalysis. Stop it now.

I will tell you what. There is a chemical plant near my house. They make all sorts of crazy shit. I know a couple guys that work there, they give tours and can get us in. We'll go to the room with the super powerful magnetic field (the one where you can fly nuts and bolts on a string, like a kite.) I'll throw some chemicals on you, you throw some chemicals on me, we'll hold hands, jump up, and grab an exposed line. The superpower origin I am proposing is more likely to save you from violence than carrying a gun.

It's not a half assed psychoanalysis. I'm not putting any ass into it at all. I call em like I see em, if you want to walk around with a gun all day, you're an old timey chickenshit jonesing for a formative event to prove your manhood. Don't try to doubt that shit, I've got nuts and a cock, I know how we think.

I'm calling you out on this because your support of concealed carry laws means you are making a real effort to have the fantasy you have where you save everbody at McDonalds from Al Qaeda and then fuck the hot chick in line behind you come true. That shit is not going to happen. Please, for everyone's sake, pick another fantasy and work towards that. The money you would spend on a gun and the permit is better spent on getting two chicks into a hot tub full of lemon jello at the local Hilton. Better yet, save up for a year or two, approach the night manager of McDonalds and bribe him to let you bring in your friends and a couple strippers so that you can act it out. Why not go try to learn some ancient kung fu crap, or go cast wiccan spells in the fucking woods. It's sad that you wait at stoplights wishing that someone would try something so that you could fly out of your car and dispense justice and control the situation. It's sad that your parents made you watch Crocodile Dundee with your pants down. I'm sorry that you won't have a chance to live your dream, but don't worry, not everyone's perfect fantasy is a legal one.

If you want to hang on to your dream, I guess I can't stop you, hell, we couldn't stop NAMBLA. However, I can tell you what will happen. You are going to have a gun, you are going to have a gun drawn on you, and either you are going to get yourself shot in the stomach and bleed out in a dirty alley or you are going to be fortunate enough to have an extremely forgiving mugger take your gun and just shoot you in the kneecap with it. Best case scenario? You murder a poor person trying to get some cigarettes and diapers.

[Ben]

Guys, Flowers is a troll. He's an unusually cowardly version thereof as he sometimes will mix in serious posts with his trolling(so that if you ever pin him down to a particular argument he can just claim he was funnin' ya), but fundamentally he is a troll.

[Arbit]

I love it when gun advocates start throwing around accusations of scare tactics.

THE POLICE CAN'T PROTECT YOU OH MY GOD SAVE YOURSELVES BUY A GUN

[brainfromarous]

I love it when gun advocates start throwing around accusations of scare tactics.

THE POLICE CAN'T PROTECT YOU OH MY GOD SAVE YOURSELVES BUY A GUN

Well, they can't.

I support the police, the fire dept, ambulance/EMS folks, forest rangers, you name it. But I have no illusions about what they can and can't do.

[brainfromarous]

Guys, Flowers is a troll. He's an unusually cowardly version thereof as he sometimes will mix in serious posts with his trolling(so that if you ever pin him down to a particular argument he can just claim he was funnin' ya), but fundamentally he is a troll.

Yeah, that's pretty obvious by now. I suspected as much, which is why my posts were "speaking to the room" as well as responding to Flowers in particular. He needs to work on his world-weary, seen-it-all act, though; he overdoes it to the point of self-negation.

[Arbit]

Well, they can't.

I support the police, the fire dept, ambulance/EMS folks, forest rangers, you name it. But I have no illusions about what they can and can't do.
Which is why you carry around a fire-ax, defibrillator, and tranquilizer gun (for BEARS) all the time, right?

[shift6]

I will tell you what. There is a chemical plant near my house. They make all sorts of crazy shit. I know a couple guys that work there, they give tours and can get us in. We'll go to the room with the super powerful magnetic field (the one where you can fly nuts and bolts on a string, like a kite.) I'll throw some chemicals on you, you throw some chemicals on me, we'll hold hands, jump up, and grab an exposed line. The superpower origin I am proposing is more likely to save you from violence than carrying a gun.
Dude, sweet. Can you pick your superpowers in advance? Like certain chemicals tend to breed certain types of powers? How can I know if I have mutant DNA? Should I dye my hair before or after the transformation?

Which is why you carry around a fire-ax, defibrillator, and tranquilizer gun (for BEARS) all the time, right?
Most people I know have fire extinguishers and large size first aid kits in their cars, and I've seen both in briefcases. Also many businesses and most public places (in Sacramento, anyways) have portable de-fibs nowadays. The nearest bears in Yosemite are already heavily fortified by forest rangers to protect them from stupid people so I've never seen anyone carry a tranq gun, no.

[Nick Walter]

Well, they can't.

I support the police, the fire dept, ambulance/EMS folks, forest rangers, you name it. But I have no illusions about what they can and can't do.

Yes, I think you do have some illusions. The police aren't always right there to protect you, but with guns restricted you need a lot less protecting. Anyone who thinks spreading more guns around society is going to somehow increase safety is incorrect.

[Arbit]

Most people I know have fire extinguishers and large size first aid kits in their cars, and I've seen both in briefcases. Also many businesses and most public places (in Sacramento, anyways) have portable de-fibs nowadays. The nearest bears in Yosemite are already heavily fortified by forest rangers to protect them from stupid people so I've never seen anyone carry a tranq gun, no.
You just deconstructed my one-liner! Screw you!

Anyone who carries around a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit in their briefcase is teetering at the edge of prudence and is at risk of falling into crazyland. But I will give them this: at least they probably will not kill anyone with those.

[brainfromarous]

Which is why you carry around a fire-ax, defibrillator, and tranquilizer gun (for BEARS) all the time, right?

Well...

Fire-ax? No, because in all likelihood I will be trying to get OUT of the area of the fire, not IN. Firemen need to get IN. Hence the axes. I have an ax, though, for wood chopping.

Defibrillator? Nope. But I do know CPR and basic first-aid. I know how to do the Heimlich and have actually used it twice (once in a restaurant, once in a home). Both times, I called 911 for help but it still took the EMS guys 15 mins (restaurant) and 21 mins (home) to arrive.

Tranq gun? Well, that's what the AR-15 is for (see previous post) - assuming I'm at home. Also, bears and other animals - with a few exceptions - can be deterred through various non-violent means. It's a Hollywood BS thing that animals "Are comin' right for us!" (as South Park's Jimbo would say.)

[brainfromarous]

Yes, I think you do have some illusions. The police aren't always right there to protect you, but with guns restricted you need a lot less protecting. Anyone who thinks spreading more guns around society is going to somehow increase safety is incorrect.

Well, first, show me where, exactly, I claimed that civilian gun ownership is problem-free on a personal or social level? Or that a pistol is some kind of magic wand you can wave around and make the bad guys go away?

Second, "guns restricted = need less protecting" seems to equate legal gun ownership with crime. This doesn't hold up to even a cursory examination of gun laws vs crime rates in various American jurisdictions.

The 'meta-effect' of gun ownership, carry permits, etc. vis-a-vis crime rates, etc. is a hotly contested question. If you can show me a good, scientific analysis proving either side of the argument, I'd like to see it.

[Nick Walter]

Second, "guns restricted = need less protecting" seems to equate legal gun ownership with crime.


No, it equates greater availability of guns with increased use of guns. This is an increase in legitimate self defensive uses of guns, accidental shootings, and uses of guns in association with crimes. I'm not talking about crime rates, I'm talking about overall public safety. If free unrestricted gun ownership drops crime rates by 20% and increases violent deaths to the point where they are the other 80% of crimes it's not a good deal.

[Ben]

Nick- Anyone who thinks spreading more guns around society is going to somehow increase safety is incorrect.

But shouldn't it, you know, work the other way? Since when is the burden on the people to justify their freedom?

[Nick Walter]

Nick-

But shouldn't it, you know, work the other way? Since when is the burden on the people to justify their freedom?

That's a completely different discussion. I'm just discussing the nutty idea that increased gun ownership is going to somehow reduce crime and improve public safety. This is a silly idea, and the wrong way to to try to justify public gun ownership since it's pretty easy to smack down.

[brainfromarous]

No, it equates greater availability of guns with increased use of guns. This is an increase in legitimate self defensive uses of guns, accidental shootings, and uses of guns in association with crimes. I'm not talking about crime rates, I'm talking about overall public safety. If free unrestricted gun ownership drops crime rates by 20% and increases violent deaths to the point where they are the other 80% of crimes it's not a good deal.


That would be on point were I (or anyone that I know, incl. those in NRA) calling for "free, unrestricted" gun ownership.

As it stands, your might as well be saying. "Leaving peoples' hands uncuffed increases the likelihood of them punching each other in the nose."

The numbers are on my side, regardless. Considering the sheer numbers of legal guns in private hands in America, the incidence of bad use (accidents, crime, suicide) is not just low, it's freakishly low. I'm not claiming there are ZERO problems, just that when you stand back and look at the whole thing, there simply is not - nor has there ever been - any kind of public safety catastrophe from the private, legal ownership of firearms.

[brainfromarous]

That's a completely different discussion. I'm just discussing the nutty idea that increased gun ownership is going to somehow reduce crime and improve public safety. This is a silly idea, and the wrong way to to try to justify public gun ownership since it's pretty easy to smack down.

Smack it down, then. I'm all ears.

[Flowers]

As it stands, your might as well be saying. "Leaving peoples' hands uncuffed increases the likelihood of them punching each other in the nose."


Inductio Ad Absurdum; Two Points.
Prior Ad Hominem; One Point.

I would like to see some figures on how many mugging were averted by individuals armed lawfully under their state's concealed carry permit system. Also, if you take the position that concealed carry permit laws are desirable in Wisconsin, you are taking a position contrary to that of the Fraternal Order of Police, and nearly every state and local law enforcement agency. Those officers know what decisions affect their safety. They know that having an armed and unruly populace results in a decrease in officer safety. The NRA recently supported the concealed carry permit law in Wisconsin. That makes the NRA anti-officer safety.

I know that it hurts to know that some of your positions do not qualify as the typical Scalia-esque fellation of the concepts of law and order many of you believe you hold dear, but them's the berries.

[brainfromarous]

Inductio Ad Absurdum; Two Points.
Prior Ad Hominem; One Point.

I would like to see some figures on how many mugging were averted by individuals armed lawfully under their state's concealed carry permit system. Also, if you take the position that concealed carry permit laws are desirable in Wisconsin, you are taking a position contrary to that of the Fraternal Order of Police, and nearly every state and local law enforcement agency. Those officers know what decisions affect their safety. They know that having an armed and unruly populace results in a decrease in officer safety. The NRA recently supported the concealed carry permit law in Wisconsin. That makes the NRA anti-officer safety.

I know that it hurts to know that some of your positions do not qualify as the typical Scalia-esque fellation of the concepts of law and order many of you believe you hold dear, but them's the berries.

To the thread,

Well, I have very little use for Scalia and his crowd, but I'm not surprised Flowers would make the link seeing as how he seems to have a somewhat Manichean view of politics. Having said something he disagrees with, I must perforce be a disciple of the whole Neo-Con pantheon, right? That would certainly explain my atheism, support for gay marriage, decriminalizing drugs, safe and legal abortions, Congress taking action against the President's increasing abuses of executive power and so forth. We all fit into nice, simple categories, don't we?

Manicheanism is further on display in his apparent belief that the question of "officer safety" comes down to YES or NO. Here, as in most things, we're dealing with a continuum rather than a binary switch. Every form of power exercised by a private citizen poses a potential threat to the safety of police officers.

The mere fact that I own a gun at all could pose a danger, whether or not I'm carrying it around. Requiring a cop to have probable cause to stop and search me also exposes him to risks he wouldn't otherwise face if he could do whatever he wanted. Let's not forget the nighttime traffic stop, where most of the time the cop has to leave the protection of his vehicle and walk up to my car, not really knowing what awaits him.

My cousin the cop could regale you all with examples of how police must, in the course of their work, expose themselves to various hazards and dangers. There isn't just one big line marked "Officer Safety" with the only choice being whether to stand on the Pro or Con side. There are many lines, and sides.

(If this sounds familiar, it should. I'm just rephrasing the classic Freedom x Security = Z, where Z is a Constant equation.)

Am I surprised that FOP, some sheriffs and other law enforcement mandarins oppose "shall issue" CCW regimes? Not really. People in positions of power, especially those not directly accountable to a democratic mandate, tend to become protective of the privileges attending their status. It's the same thing that motivates the ferocious opposition of union leaders to the enforcement of SCOTUS' 1988 Beck decision and the reason so many public school bureaucrats fight tooth and nail against performance-based promotions, merit pay and school vouchers.

As for FOP, this is not the first time they've been wrong - loudly and publicly wrong. Remember the whole "cop-killer bullet" kerfuffle above? Back in 1986 FOP's leadership went on record as opposing FOPA (the McClure-Volkmer Firearm Owners Protection Act) because, they claimed, of concerns over the aforementioned ammo. There was only one problem: FOPA had been written to address abusive enforcement of the 1968 Gun Control Act and had nothing to do with "cop killer bullets" or anything like that. FOP's leaders knew this; they had the text of the proposed FOPA laws. But they were angry at the Reagan administration and certain people in the DOJ, so they played politics.

Are they doing so now? I don't know. Their opposition might be quite sincere. My point is that FOP's leaders aren't merely humble, hard-workin', beat-walkin,' old lady-helpin' cops. They're political operators just as NRA's bigwigs are. Just as, I suppose, we all are.

(Somebody already raised this point, but it bears repeating: Since when do we rely on sheriffs and police chiefs to tell us where the rights and powers of citizens should begin and end? Leave the 2nd Amendment aside for a moment... how do you think they view the 5th? How about the 1st? Were it up to them, how far would freedom of assembly go?)

So all of this means I'm saying we should all carry guns around and there won't be any problems, right? Nope.

Going out in public armed - as opposed to having a gun in the house, store, shooting range, while hunting, etc. - has always been a distinct issue within the larger gun control debate. It's an issue we could certainly take up, but it wasn't what kicked this whole thread-drift off from the initial "funny" post. There are plenty of solid Keep and Bear Arms types who think CCW permits should be almost impossible to get. Indeed, there are plenty in the NRA who feel that way - they're not currently in charge, though.

[Damien Falgoust]

I would like to see some figures on how many mugging were averted by individuals armed lawfully under their state's concealed carry permit system. Depends on what you mean by "averted." Do you mean generalized reductions in crime after controlling for other factors, or do you mean specific incidents where a mugger/rapist/whatever fled upon learning his prey was armed, or do you mean only those incidents where the mugger/rapist/whatever was shot by his intended victim?

Also:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/6303326781.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg:

[Damien Falgoust]

Aw hell, as long as I'm feeding the bridge-dweller:

I know that it hurts to know that some of your positions do not qualify as the typical Scalia-esque fellation of the concepts of law and order many of you believe you hold dear, but them's the berries. Please square your characterization of Justice Scalia as a "fellator of law and orider" with his opinion in Kyllo v. US (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-8508.html). Please note Scalia was writing for a 5-4 majority and was reversing the Ninth Circuit, so it isn't like this was a slam dunk case. Moron.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Anything designed to kill or seriously injure people should be banned. Thankyou for reading my awesome post.

[Flowers]

Aw hell, as long as I'm feeding the bridge-dweller:

Please square your characterization of Justice Scalia as a "fellator of law and orider" with his opinion in Kyllo v. US (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-8508.html). Please note Scalia was writing for a 5-4 majority and was reversing the Ninth Circuit, so it isn't like this was a slam dunk case. Moron.

Oh you flippant titmouse, Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067. (Look at me, I'm topical!) That case is an example of your rights trumping law and order, notice which side Scalia is on. Thank you for finding the exception that proves the rule.

Also, you people are trying to convince everyone that living life like a Spaghetti Western results in increased public safety. Fucking lunatics. You are, each and everyone one of you, completely fucking batshit. I am still waiting for some reliable figures and statistics that demonstrate your position is not simply an attempt to scale the sheer walls of the Tower of High Idiocy.

Yes Damien, show me the study. More Guns, Less Crime is not reliable. Well maybe it's reliable for cleaning my ass if I run out of toilet paper, but in light of the chance of papercuts I would venture to say that your book isn't good for shit.

Lastly, if you are of the opinion that other people should have to justify to you, if you are of the opinion that it is not readily goddamn apparent, why exactly, you have no business bringing firearms into The Mall of America, TGIFriday's, The Crown Cinema, Mayo Clinic, The Luxor Casino, Coyote Ugly and D12 Concerts, you should see a doctor about obtaining a 21st chromosomal reduction.

[Damien Falgoust]

Oh you flippant titmouse, Georgia v. Randolph, No. 04-1067. (Look at me, I'm topical!) That case is an example of your rights trumping law and order, notice which side Scalia is on. Thank you for finding the exception that proves the rule.Listen, you barking moron, for starters Randolph (essentially a case about the scope of the consent exception to the fourth amendment) is nowhere near the earthshattering landmark that Kyollo represents. Scalia takes a broader view of the consent exception than the other justices in Randolph, but that hardly makes him a law and order whore.

Further, I can list a whole bunch of other cases where Scalia landed on the individual rights side of the "rights vs. order" equation. See, e.g.:

Texas v. Johnson (Scalia joins majority holding breach of peace concerns not sufficient to overcome first amendment considerations with respect to flag burning)

Apprendi v. New Jersey (Scalia concurring opinion, arguing that the sixth amendment guarantees a right to trial by jury even in sentencing enhancement stage of trial)

Arizona v. Hicks (Scalia, writing for the majority, holds police turning around stereo equipment to obtain sterial numbers because they suspected stolen goods during response to overheard gunshots violates the fourth amendment as an illegal search)

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (Scalia dissent, arguing that U.S. citizen held as "enemy combatant" as the right to a writ of habeas corpus and a right to be heard in federal court)

Shall I go on?

Yes Damien, show me the study. More Guns, Less Crime is not reliable. Well, as I said, I am aware of the criticims of the book, but as far as I can tell, they only criticize the dramatic nature of the crime drop Lott describes, not the drop itself. And again, I have yet to see anything that demonstrates concealed carry laws increase crime -- and such laws have been on the books in enough states for a long enough period of time that I think that proof of that would be readily available.

So again: if concealed carry doesn't actually increase gun violence, why not err on the side of individual liberty? Methinks you're more of a "law and order whore" than you percieve Scalia to be.

Lastly, if you are of the opinion that other people should have to justify to you, if you are of the opinion that it is not readily goddamn apparent, why exactly, you have no business bringing firearms into The Mall of America, TGIFriday's, The Crown Cinema, Mayo Clinic, The Luxor Casino, Coyote Ugly and D12 Concerts, you should see a doctor about obtaining a 21st chromosomal reduction. No private business under any concealed-carry law of which I'm aware is under any obligation to allow guns on their premesis. Even here in gun-happy Texas, you cannot legally carry a weapon into an establishment that posts a sign indicating their prohibition, even if you have a valid concealed carry permit.

[Flowers]

So again: if concealed carry doesn't actually increase gun violence, why not err on the side of individual liberty? Methinks* you're more of a "law and order whore" than you percieve Scalia to be.

No private business under any concealed-carry law of which I'm aware is under any obligation to allow guns on their premesis. Even here in gun-happy Texas, you cannot legally carry a weapon into an establishment that posts a sign indicating their prohibition, even if you have a valid concealed carry permit.*Emphasis Adduced.

Yea, verily, thou so dost so thinketh with thine petty teapot of a mind.
I regret to inform you, the dunderheaded applejohn of my eye, that the side of individual liberty is the freedom to walk the streets without being surrounded by amateur pistoleers and their angercream encrusted pantaloons. A society is not free if it requires its patrons to bandy about tacit threats of deadly force with so much well-pottied abandon as Mighty Texas.

And so, to my rambling, randy, pony farm fondling, friend, I put this question to you; Where exactly do you propose we carry these guns?

Really though, a locale wherein a citizen watch with deer rifles on the roofs of every city building made the dispensations of lethal force you have determined to be essential to a free society would be ever so much more effective and given to cool headed application.

If more guns mean less crime, why is the inner city more dangerous than Disneyland?

[MikeSofaer]

If more guns mean less crime, why is the inner city more dangerous than Disneyland?
If that is a call for an experimental control involving a fully armed theme park, ala Eddie Murphy, I am 100% behind you.

[Nick Walter]

Well, as I said, I am aware of the criticims of the book, but as far as I can tell, they only criticize the dramatic nature of the crime drop Lott describes, not the drop itself. And again, I have yet to see anything that demonstrates concealed carry laws increase crime -- and such laws have been on the books in enough states for a long enough period of time that I think that proof of that would be readily available.

So again: if concealed carry doesn't actually increase gun violence, why not err on the side of individual liberty? Methinks you're more of a "law and order whore" than you percieve Scalia to be.

Crime != Gun Violence. The two paragraphs I quoted are therefore unrelated.

[Lizard_King]

If more guns mean less crime, why is the inner city more dangerous than Disneyland?
If concealed carry laws are a source of mayhem and restrictive gun laws are the key to a law abiding society, then *that* must be why Vermont is a free fire zone and Washington DC free of crime? Right? Because in VT all you need to do is not be a felon or a certified lunatic to carry, whereas DC falls under the "only politicians, celebrities, and the highly influential will have the pull to get guns for their bodyguards" category that of which NYC and LA are so fond.

The "inner city", depending on which you are talking about, is more dangerous for a host of reasons. None of them are law abiding citizens being authorized to carry guns, and in fact it is in such an environment where such a change would have the most dramatic impact.

There certainly is a genuine lack of good experimental data on this, because the places with the most crime tend to also encourage the monopolization of guns due to the ease with which demagoguery and union manipulation (like the FOP) can be applied. Vermont is 49th in the nation for violent crimes and gun homicides, but makes for a lousy test subject due to the many factors outside of gun control that also make it a safer place to be. If you want the stats, see More Guns Less Crime with your handy McCulloughlink generator nearby to doublecheck on it. Back when this was a hot topic, I remember the primary critiques being 1)the exaggeration of his conclusions (but not wrongness) and 2) the fact that Lott is kind of a wierdo. Neither of those affect the quality of his data overall, which is extensively footnoted.

But you don't actually want to bother with that, since the extent of your efforts are targeted at never admitting you're wrong no matter how far you have to keep moving the target of the debate to keep it going and making progressively less funny zingers. Otherwise you'd produce you're own statistics that would support the idea that the burden of proof lies with those trying to remove rights from citizens, not the other way around. Otherwise you'd realize the irony of YOU supporting FOP as a prime factor in civil liberties. Leaving aside that it is a flagrantly political lobby for a union, which by itself tends to make its stances anything but principled, you're asking the professional law men who probably place a pretty high premium on the service they provide to society to set the boundaries for it. You might as well ask the military to determine our foreign policy.

[Jason McCullough]

There's no reliable data on guns and crime that I know of. The only things with supposedly conclusive results (Arming America, More Guns Less Crime) have both turned out to be basically flat out lies.

I'd suggest just a little examination of what's out there though would seem to indicate that gun ownership just has to be a tiny influence either way, compared to the enormous differences in violent crime rate you see both within a single society using the same gun laws, and between societies with comparable gun laws.

For example, the US has both Detroit and Hawaii, both with a population of roughly a million. One had 385 murders in 2004 and one had 35 murders in 2000. Whatever the effect of gun ownership is, it can't possibly be large enough to matter either way compared to that order of magnitude difference.

[Flowers]

If concealed carry laws are a source of mayhem and restrictive gun laws are the key to a law abiding society, then *that* must be why Vermont is a free fire zone and Washington DC free of crime? Right? Because in VT all you need to do is not be a felon or a certified lunatic to carry, whereas DC falls under the "only politicians, celebrities, and the highly influential will have the pull to get guns for their bodyguards" category that of which NYC and LA are so fond.

The "inner city", depending on which you are talking about, is more dangerous for a host of reasons. None of them are law abiding citizens being authorized to carry guns, and in fact it is in such an environment where such a change would have the most dramatic impact.

There certainly is a genuine lack of good experimental data on this, because the places with the most crime tend to also encourage the monopolization of guns due to the ease with which demagoguery and union manipulation (like the FOP) can be applied. Vermont is 49th in the nation for violent crimes and gun homicides, but makes for a lousy test subject due to the many factors outside of gun control that also make it a safer place to be. If you want the stats, see More Guns Less Crime with your handy McCulloughlink generator nearby to doublecheck on it. Back when this was a hot topic, I remember the primary critiques being 1)the exaggeration of his conclusions (but not wrongness) and 2) the fact that Lott is kind of a wierdo. Neither of those affect the quality of his data overall, which is extensively footnoted.

But you don't actually want to bother with that, since the extent of your efforts are targeted at never admitting you're wrong no matter how far you have to keep moving the target of the debate to keep it going and making progressively less funny zingers. Otherwise you'd produce you're own statistics that would support the idea that the burden of proof lies with those trying to remove rights from citizens, not the other way around. Otherwise you'd realize the irony of YOU supporting FOP as a prime factor in civil liberties. Leaving aside that it is a flagrantly political lobby for a union, which by itself tends to make its stances anything but principled, you're asking the professional law men who probably place a pretty high premium on the service they provide to society to set the boundaries for it. You might as well ask the military to determine our foreign policy.

Mary Rosh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rosh)

[Damien Falgoust]

Crime != Gun Violence. The two paragraphs I quoted are therefore unrelated.Fair enough. My essential point still stands, though: if concealed carry doesn't increase negative social outcomes (whether crime in general or gun violence specifically), we should err on the side of individual liberty and allow concealed carry.

[Damien Falgoust]

There's no reliable data on guns and crime that I know of. The only things with supposedly conclusive results (Arming America, More Guns Less Crime) have both turned out to be basically flat out lies.Since when is "I find your methodology questionable" the same thing as "you are flat-out lying"?

[Not One Of Us]

I regret to inform you, the dunderheaded applejohn of my eye, that the side of individual liberty is the freedom to walk the streets without being surrounded by amateur pistoleers and their angercream encrusted pantaloons.
No.

A society is not free if it requires its patrons to bandy about tacit threats of deadly force with so much well-pottied abandon as Mighty Texas.
Society? I thought you said "individual liberty?"

[Damien Falgoust]

Mary Rosh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rosh) Lott is a weirdo, that's for sure. That doesn't mean his basic conclusions are incorrect (even if they are wildly exaggerated).

[Lizard_King]

There's no reliable data on guns and crime that I know of. The only things with supposedly conclusive results (Arming America, More Guns Less Crime) have both turned out to be basically flat out lies.
Those aren't on a comparable level of falsehood at all. That's the equivalent of gun control godwinizing.

For example, the US has both Detroit and Hawaii, both with a population of roughly a million. One had 385 murders in 2004 and one had 35 murders in 2000. Whatever the effect of gun ownership is, it can't possibly be large enough to matter either way compared to that order of magnitude difference.
And how is that an argument against gun ownership?

Mary Rosh

That's all you have left in your bag of tricks? Pitiful. Next I trust you'll be explaining to me why teacher's unions should define education policy.

[Flowers]

That's all you have left in your bag of tricks? Pitiful. Next I trust you'll be explaining to me why teacher's unions should define education policy.

We're at that point, are we then? Guilt by association straw-man arguments? Brace yourself baby...

Pat Robertson.

So, if you don't agree with me, I hope you enjoy meeting with Pat Robertson and praying to Jesus to make all my friends die. Because that's what your support of this position says.

If we are not at that point yet, I just lead off with the Mary Rosh persona scandal because it was that fastest and easiest method of discrediting a right-wing think tank loonball. Since I am called on to continue impugning the reputation for veracity of Monsieur Lott, (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2003/02/05/169170.html) if in fact that is his real name; I would point you to his statements that Baghdad is a safer place now than it was under Saddamn Hussein.

You know, now that I think of it, conclusive proof that Dr. Lott, if that is his real name, is the Derek K. Smart, Ph.D of the statistical analysis world should be all I need.

Bring me my laurels, that I might rest upon them.

[Squirrel Killer]

Since when is "I find your methodology questionable" the same thing as "you are flat-out lying"?
Christ, you should know this by now. It's when Jason McCullough disagrees with it.

[Glenn]

Christ, you should know this by now. It's when Jason McCullough disagrees with it.
Even Jason McCullough is right twice a day. John Lott is clearly a fraud.

[Ben]

Flowers- Ad Hominem; One Point.
I just lead off with the Mary Rosh persona scandal because it was that fastest and easiest method of discrediting a right-wing think tank loonball

Ta-mothafuckin-da

[Flowers]

Flowers-

Ta-mothafuckin-da

Too bad that my remark to impugn Lotts reputation for veracity goes directly to his reputation for veracity.

It would be a different matter, a true ad hominem attack would be if I said that we shouldn't listen to the pig fucker. I am calling him a liar, and I pointed out a whopper of a lie he told to protect his study.

In review:
Don't listen to the liar.
is not the same as;
Don't listen to the pig fucker.

[brainfromarous]

If John Lott is a "liar," "fraud" or what have you, he's an absolute amateur next to Michael Bellesiles and his cooked-data masterpiece "Arming America," which was lionized by the New York Times and other mainstream press titans for proving - supposedly - that the American "gun culture" was a myth invented by NRA types. He even won the Bancroft prize from Columbia U.

Alas, under strict and increasing scrutiny, "Arming America" came apart like a cheap suit. The closer you looked, the worse it got. Emory finally convened a panel of historians which confirmed the harshest criticisms of the book, Columbia publicly took back the Bancroft prize - a first, I believe - and Bellesiles resigned (ahem) from Emory.

[Lizard_King]

We're at that point, are we then? Guilt by association straw-man arguments? Brace yourself baby... When did I accuse you of that? You can't make something into a logical fallacy just by wishing. Basing your opinions around what a self interested union of professionals wants for itself is just stupid, is all. It might occasionally also be in the interest of the public as well, but certainly their expertise in the matter is usually outweighed by what they are actually after.


If we are not at that point yet, I just lead off with the Mary Rosh persona scandal because it was that fastest and easiest method of discrediting a right-wing think tank loonball. Since I am called on to continue impugning the reputation for veracity of Monsieur Lott, (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2003/02/05/169170.html) if in fact that is his real name; I would point you to his statements that Baghdad is a safer place now than it was under Saddamn Hussein.

Do you have any other data to offer? I didn't say it was ideal, I just said it was all there is for now, and it is a damned sight better than Bellesiles' wholly fictional work.

You know, now that I think of it, conclusive proof that Dr. Lott, if that is his real name, is the Derek K. Smart, Ph.D of the statistical analysis world should be all I need.

Bring me my laurels, that I might rest upon them.
I guess that makes you Midnight Son with longer sentences. You can have that honor, if you'd like.

[brainfromarous]

Back to the question of what "science" does or does not say, I'd be very interested in seeing some proper studies.

By "proper" I mean a comprehensive, balanced examination of all available and relevent data; one which can be duplicated and peer reviewed.

A key requirement would be predictive utility. In order for a "scientific" claim to be truly solid, it must do more than explain things post hoc; it must provide (some degree of) accurate estimation as to what would happen should the phenomenon in question reoccur.

[Lizard_King]

Back to the question of what "science" does or does not say, I'd be very interested in seeing some proper studies.

By "proper" I mean a comprehensive, balanced examination of all available and relevent data; one which can be duplicated and peer reviewed.

A key requirement would be predictive utility. In order for a "scientific" claim to be truly solid, it must do more than explain things post hoc; it must provide (some degree of) accurate estimation as to what would happen should the phenomenon in question reoccur.
That would be great, but I don't think it very likely. Guns are like abortion: everyone who cares about it enough to have advocacy on either side as a job or scientific interest is generally already radicalized on the issue. No one makes studies to compromise, they do it to win.

[Glenn]

If John Lott is a "liar," "fraud" or what have you, he's an absolute amateur next to Michael Bellesiles and his cooked-data masterpiece "Arming America"...
The only person in this thread that mentioned that book before you was Jason, and he used it as an example of "flat out lies."

[Lizard_King]

The only person in this thread that mentioned that book before you was Jason, and he used it as an example of "flat out lies."
Which is fine, if he hadn't used it almost exclusively as a parallel example to discredit More Guns Less Crime. "Flawed in places" and "demonstrably utter lies" are two radically different levels of credibility. It's along the same lines as equating "Earth In The Balance" with "Mein Kampf"...funny as a throwaway, ridiculous as any form of serious comparison.

Even Jason McCullough is right twice a day. John Lott is clearly a fraud.
Also, I wanted to compliment you on how you phrased that as if you don't often land on the same side as Big Mc.

Anyhow, this thread has really gotten bogged down into being a free for all gun control thread. Every time a point is refuted, starting from the initial proposition that the NRA is anticop, the goalposts are simply moved further. At this rate, we'll be doing 3000 word posts as the guns have poopy pants crowd demands that Damien verify that firearms cure cancer legally before they'll consider anything else.

We all know pretty much the big picture issues and where most people stand on them. There is no need for beating them to death when the focus of the thread has already been addressed, assuming you hold Flowers' powerful "you didn't exonerate SHIT" argument in the same high regard I do. A lot of this thread could more fruitfully be addressed when gun control specifics are discussed with new developments, laws, studies...I don't think anyone is under the impression that pathological fear of guns is going to be swayed by current data and common sense as it stands now.

[Jason McCullough]

Christ, LK, I avoided comparing them and anything, or even taking sides. I honestly have no idea if gun ownership makes people safer or not; the data's ambigous, so I'm not taking sides.

My point with Lott and Bellesies is that the only "conclusive" results in the area were printed by proven liars. Bellesiles made shit up out of whole cloth, lied about it when caught, and now is claiming there's a conspiracy out to get him. Lott has a first-year math student's understanding of statistics, gets shit entirely, embarassingly, flat out wrong, refuses to acknowlege it, hides in some sort of propaganda think tank mill, and makes up sock puppets to deal with the conspiracy of people out to get him or whatever, and then lies about that when caught at it. They're both embarassing, and I don't care which is "worse."

And how is that an argument against gun ownership?

Note how I didn't say either way? My amateur statistician hour point is that the range out of criminal outcomes is so amazingly wide, and the data on gun ownership effects so ambiguous, its probably doesn't impact crime rates much either way.

Sheesh, see what I get for not taking the position you disagree with. :)

[brainfromarous]

My point with Lott and Bellesies is that the only "conclusive" results in the area were printed by proven liars. Bellesiles made shit up out of whole cloth, lied about it when caught, and now is claiming there's a conspiracy out to get him. Lott has a first-year math student's understanding of statistics, gets shit entirely, embarassingly, flat out wrong, refuses to acknowlege it, hides in some sort of propaganda think tank mill, and makes up sock puppets to deal with the conspiracy of people out to get him or whatever, and then lies about that when caught at it. They're both embarassing, and I don't care which is "worse."


You make a fair point; Lott looks just as bad when you examine his, uh, "research" in detail. So to blazes with them both. Which leaves us right back at the beginning...

[Glenn]

Jeez, I'm sorry I ignored you earlier, okay? I just got bored with the thread and wandered off for a while, and I didn't see the point in responding to a little snipe a page later. Won't happen again.
Which is fine, if he hadn't used it almost exclusively as a parallel example to discredit More Guns Less Crime. "Flawed in places" and "demonstrably utter lies" are two radically different levels of credibility.
I have no opinion about "Armed America." I was, swear to god, totally unaware of the book until Jason mentioned it. I don't know why. Sometimes I do other things. I responded to Linoleum because I assumed he was full of shit when he did that "if you look at the data" thing, but that's just because I'm betting on the odds.

I commented on Lott because (a) I'm aware of him, and (b) inventing surveys out of thin air for rhetorical purposes isn't "flawed in places." Damien might be right that some of his data is salvageable, but c'mon. I'm just some lazy asshole on the internet, I'm not going to hunt down the source material and re-crunch all the numbers and summarize it for all of you. That's Mike Sofaer's job.

Also, I wanted to compliment you on how you phrased that as if you don't often land on the same side as Big Mc.
And you're usually on Rush Limbaugh's side. So what. I compared Jason to a broken clock because that makes it sound like I think he's a robot, which I do, because he is. 15,000 posts and sleep are mutually exclusive.

Anyhow, this thread has really gotten bogged down into being a free for all gun control thread... We all know pretty much the big picture issues and where most people stand on them. There is no need for beating them to death when the focus of the thread has already been addressed...
Focus? What focus? Of course the thread is a free for all. The original post was a one-liner by Flowers.

Look, we're getting way off track. I'm a gun person. I grew up with a big ol' closet filled with lots of them, and I'd have one now except I live in the middle of a metropolis and I don't want a $600 toy I never get to play with. There's no pathological fear of guns here. But this whole line about "level-headed responsible people" being the ones getting concealed weapons? Back that up with something more than your gut feeling about the inherent wonderfulness of people who want to be able to kill at a moment's notice.

[Lizard_King]

Christ, LK, I avoided comparing them and anything, or even taking sides. I honestly have no idea if gun ownership makes people safer or not; the data's ambigous, so I'm not taking sides.

My point with Lott and Bellesies is that the only "conclusive" results in the area were printed by proven liars. Bellesiles made shit up out of whole cloth, lied about it when caught, and now is claiming there's a conspiracy out to get him. Lott has a first-year math student's understanding of statistics, gets shit entirely, embarassingly, flat out wrong, refuses to acknowlege it, hides in some sort of propaganda think tank mill, and makes up sock puppets to deal with the conspiracy of people out to get him or whatever, and then lies about that when caught at it. They're both embarassing, and I don't care which is "worse."
Fair enough. I'm sorry I mischaracterized the aim of your post.


I have no opinion about "Armed America." I was, swear to god, totally unaware of the book until Jason mentioned it. I don't know why. Sometimes I do other things. I responded to Linoleum because I assumed he was full of shit when he did that "if you look at the data" thing, but that's just because I'm betting on the odds.

I commented on Lott because (a) I'm aware of him, and (b) inventing surveys out of thin air for rhetorical purposes isn't "flawed in places." Damien might be right that some of his data is salvageable, but c'mon. I'm just some lazy asshole on the internet, I'm not going to hunt down the source material and re-crunch all the numbers and summarize it for all of you. That's Mike Sofaer's job.
That's fine. I'm sorry (again) I assumed greater familiarity with the subject matter than you had.

And you're usually on Rush Limbaugh's side.
Oh, come on. That's almost worse than Godwinizing, because I'm pretty sure you hate him more than Hitler. I haven't agreed with anything Limbaugh has chosen as a crusade in years. 9-11 (and lots of drugs) had much the same effect on him that it had on Free Republic. Sure, he's accidentally right some of the time, but...oh, I get what you were saying. Carry on.

So what. I compared Jason to a broken clock because that makes it sound like I think he's a robot, which I do, because he is. 15,000 posts and sleep are mutually exclusive.
:)

Focus? What focus? Of course the thread is a free for all. The original post was a one-liner by Flowers. Which it turns out he/she/it meant as an amusing reinforcement to what were assumed to be received truths about
the NRA. Which I think can be compactly dealt with (relatively) and was between quite a few people in a short space.
Look, we're getting way off track. I'm a gun person. I grew up with a big ol' closet filled with lots of them, and I'd have one now except I live in the middle of a metropolis and I don't want a $600 toy I never get to play with. There's no pathological fear of guns here.
Which puts you in an altogether different demographic from most of the people with whom you appeared to be tacitly agreeing earlier. That didn't bother you at all?
But this whole line about "level-headed responsible people" being the ones getting concealed weapons?
I don't know about that. I'm probably at least as wary of the people I meet at ranges as you are, civilian and otherwise. But my main concern isn't their overall mental state, it is whether they abide by the law or not. THere's plenty of people I'd rather not see behind the wheel of a car, but that doesn't mean I'd like to legislate away everyone's right to have one legally, and that I think they should be punished when they don't break the law.

The evidence thus far only consists of totally incomparable environments, such as progun states like VT and heavily regulated areas like DC and New York. I don't know of any one of those that has reversed their policies enough for there to be a viable testing ground. Obviously comparisons of US areas to England or Switzerland are almost beyond absurd.

What I do know is that generally speaking I err on the side of individual liberty over government regulation, and that is really the fundamental issue in this thread. People that believe the opposite are going to have to be convinced that guns pull little Timmy out of the well before they will see the lack of reason in turning over individual protection monopolies entirely to the government.

Back that up with something more than your gut feeling about the inherent wonderfulness of people who want to be able to kill at a moment's notice.
I don't think killing is the main focus of most gun owners. It isn't mine, and that is technically part of my job description. In fact, I think while many people talk like they want to kill, I find many people (GTA3 notwithstanding) surprisingly reluctant to, and that is even in the 17-25 male category. All bets are off in a combat zone, of course, but that is a very different issue than domestic law and order, and in fact I think a large part of it actually comes from a response to the automatic restraints put in by American society.

I don't doubt that you can parade any number of yahoos and human waste that would take advantage of less restrictive gun laws. But like I said earlier, I don't really care about the content of their character so long as it is law abiding.

That is why I believe the wild west scenarios are so unrealistic. The US is fundamentally a country that survives great stresses because by and large people like law and order and are conditioned to accept it. That is why I believe it is a place where concealed carry is a viable right for people to have.

I know the peace of mind it brings me knowing that my extremely petite wife has something other than bitchass mace to protect herself with, because my rule of thumb with all of that nonlethal stuff has always been if it couldn't stop me, it's not worth having as an option (the old fox and the cat dilemma). Guns are easy, effective, cheap, and fun recreationally. It's win win from a personal perspective.

Disliking the bulk of gun owners is a separate matter from considering them inelegible for the same level of protection I would want for my own family. I don't want a gun in every house, I just want those of us who feel that need to be able to do it. And until there is conclusive evidence to the contrary showing that law abiding citizens owning guns is a hazard, I'd say the conceptual framework of the constitution is on my side, not the Fraternal Order of Police's.

[brainfromarous]

Back that up with something more than your gut feeling about the inherent wonderfulness of people who want to be able to kill at a moment's notice.

Glenn,

While I can't vouch for every gun owner or CCW permit holder, I will say that at least in New York getting a pistol license, let alone a carry permit, is no joke. I have the "security" permit (allowed carry while on a guard or patrol job - the same one the armored car guys have) and I went through two different criminal background checks, employment confirmation (plus training), mental health review, personal interview and provided character witnesses.

Of course, other people don't have to go through all that. Those with the "premises/sportsman" license type have it easier - but even they get checked out. Fact is, when I go to the local pistol range I feel safe as houses despite being surrounded by armed people - any one of whom could blow me away in the blink of an eye - because I know they've all at minimum gone through the basic licensing procedure and been vetted for criminal records, mental illness or a history of violence or trouble with the cops, their neighbors, etc.

That's the situation in New York, of course, and I might feel very different about it were our gun laws much looser - or barely extant, like they are in some states.

[Houngan]

I don't know about that. I'm probably at least as wary of the people I meet at ranges as you are, civilian and otherwise. But my main concern isn't their overall mental state, it is whether they abide by the law or not. THere's plenty of people I'd rather not see behind the wheel of a car, but that doesn't mean I'd like to legislate away everyone's right to have one legally, and that I think they should be punished when they don't break the law.

The evidence thus far only consists of totally incomparable environments, such as progun states like VT and heavily regulated areas like DC and New York. I don't know of any one of those that has reversed their policies enough for there to be a viable testing ground. Obviously comparisons of US areas to England or Switzerland are almost beyond absurd.

What I do know is that generally speaking I err on the side of individual liberty over government regulation, and that is really the fundamental issue in this thread. People that believe the opposite are going to have to be convinced that guns pull little Timmy out of the well before they will see the lack of reason in turning over individual protection monopolies entirely to the government.


I don't think killing is the main focus of most gun owners. It isn't mine, and that is technically part of my job description. In fact, I think while many people talk like they want to kill, I find many people (GTA3 notwithstanding) surprisingly reluctant to, and that is even in the 17-25 male category. All bets are off in a combat zone, of course, but that is a very different issue than domestic law and order, and in fact I think a large part of it actually comes from a response to the automatic restraints put in by American society.

I don't doubt that you can parade any number of yahoos and human waste that would take advantage of less restrictive gun laws. But like I said earlier, I don't really care about the content of their character so long as it is law abiding.

That is why I believe the wild west scenarios are so unrealistic. The US is fundamentally a country that survives great stresses because by and large people like law and order and are conditioned to accept it. That is why I believe it is a place where concealed carry is a viable right for people to have.

I know the peace of mind it brings me knowing that my extremely petite wife has something other than bitchass mace to protect herself with, because my rule of thumb with all of that nonlethal stuff has always been if it couldn't stop me, it's not worth having as an option (the old fox and the cat dilemma). Guns are easy, effective, cheap, and fun recreationally. It's win win from a personal perspective.

Disliking the bulk of gun owners is a separate matter from considering them inelegible for the same level of protection I would want for my own family. I don't want a gun in every house, I just want those of us who feel that need to be able to do it. And until there is conclusive evidence to the contrary showing that law abiding citizens owning guns is a hazard, I'd say the conceptual framework of the constitution is on my side, not the Fraternal Order of Police's.


LK for the win, I don't think the whole issue can be summed up any better than that.

H.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Does anybody not believe that in the middle-long term, gun-related murders would dramatically decrease if it was an offence to own a gun? Does anybody think that the ~10,000 people that die a year in the US from perforation is an acceptable price to pay, not for freedom, but for the freedom for to own a gun?

[Lizard_King]

Does anybody not believe that in the middle-long term, gun-related murders would dramatically decrease if it was an offence to own a gun?
I don't. You could also regulate unicorns into existence, and I don't think that would make them appear.

Does anybody think that the ~10,000 people that die a year in the US from perforation is an acceptable price to pay, not for freedom, but for the freedom for to own a gun?Why don't you outlaw cars as well? Do you think the countless deaths that result from automobiles are worth it? How about people drowning in pools? Surely something so frivolous as a pool could be banned if there's a chance it could hurt someone.

Short answer: Yes. Why? Because you state your question in a logically deceitful manner, and you know it.

[brainfromarous]

Does anybody not believe that in the middle-long term, gun-related murders would dramatically decrease if it was an offence to own a gun? Does anybody think that the ~10,000 people that die a year in the US from perforation is an acceptable price to pay, not for freedom, but for the freedom for to own a gun?

Yes.

Along with freedoms come the cost and consequences of their misuse. Even there, you have to weigh the utility as well as the harm. I think the private ownership of guns does more good than harm, in the final balance.

[Nick Walter]

I don't. You could also regulate unicorns into existence, and I don't think that would make them appear.


Utter nonsense. I see no logical way to defend the idea that outlawing guns would somehow have no effect on gun related deaths.

[Theodore Rex DX]

I don't. You could also regulate unicorns into existence, and I don't think that would make them appear.

Moronic shitstain of an answer to a reasonable question and one of the single stupidest things anybody has written on Qt3. Don't be an idiot.

Why don't you outlaw cars as well? Do you think the countless deaths that result from automobiles are worth it? How about people drowning in pools? Surely something so frivolous as a pool could be banned if there's a chance it could hurt someone.

I think safety standards for cars and drivers should be a lot higher, because people are retarded. Compulsory defensive driving classes, compulsory infra-red object sensors on every vehicle, and tougher sentencing for drunk drivers. Drivers who have excellent records would be compensated for any associated costs.
Guns are designed to kill and injure. Modern guns are designed to do it exceedingly well. Any gun not specifically designed for hunting animals is designed for use on humans. I'd naturally prefer less-lethal or non-lethal weapons be brought up to scratch, or that defensive gun-owners be required to have pretty much every additional security measure possible - but failing that I favour an outright ban on non-hunting weapons. I also favour much tougher sentencing on crime in general.

Short answer: Yes. Why? Because you state your question in a logically deceitful manner, and you know it.

It was an honest question, you just don't like it. It doesn't oversimplify anything, doesn't hide anything, doesn't villify or misrepresent anybody and leaves plenty of room for you to explain and expand upon your answer. It's a simple, blunt question that may require a long, complicated answer - tough shit.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Utter nonsense. I see no logical way to defend the idea that outlawing guns would somehow have no effect on gun related deaths.

Superman could katamari up every gun on earth and throw them into the sun and if you asked Lizard_King if it would have an appreciable impact on gun-related crime, he'd say MAYBE. He's made a religion out of his politics and it's just sad.

EDIT: typos blah

[Not One Of Us]

I don't. You could also regulate unicorns into existence, and I don't think that would make them appear.Utter nonsense. I see no logical way to defend the idea that outlawing guns would somehow have no effect on gun related deaths.
Prohibition?

[Lizard_King]

Moronic shitstain of an answer to a reasonable question and one of the single stupidest things anybody has written on Qt3. Don't be an idiot.
I beg to differ. There at least 1389 stupider things at this time, and counting.

Regulating guns away would have the same effect prohibition did on drugs and alcohol: ensuring only real criminals have access to them and criminalizing an entirely inoffensive subsection of society. Either way, there is no realistic way to enforce that in the United States. Hence the unicorn.

I think safety standards for cars and drivers should be a lot higher, because people are retarded. Compulsory defensive driving classes, compulsory infra-red object sensors on every vehicle, and tougher sentencing for drunk drivers. Drivers who have excellent records would be compensated for any associated costs.
So? They aren't for a reason. Start there and begin wondering why. Maybe the vast majority of the population in this somewhat democratic republic is willing to take a few retards on the road to minimize onerous government micromanagement.

Guns are designed to kill and injure. Modern guns are designed to do it exceedingly well. Any gun not specifically designed for hunting animals is designed for use on humans.
Most hunting rifles are exceedingly effective on humans.

I'd naturally prefer less-lethal or non-lethal weapons be brought up to scratch, or that defensive gun-owners be required to have pretty much every additional security measure possible - but failing that I favour an outright ban on non-hunting weapons.
Right, back to unicorns. The United States has well over 200m privately owned guns at this point in time. Keep chasing that rainbow.

I also favour much tougher sentencing on crime in general.
Really? Like drug possession? How about if the far right succeeds in criminalizing abortion?

Regardless, America's problem has nothing to do with weak sentencing, and revolving door justice is just a symptom of the larger problem. We spend far too much time, money, etc criminalizing vice, and you just want to expand that to gun ownership generally.



It was an honest question, you just don't like it. It doesn't oversimplify anything, doesn't hide anything, doesn't villify or misrepresent anybody and leaves plenty of room for you to explain and expand upon your answer. It's a simple, blunt question that may require a long, complicated answer - tough shit.
No, it is a deceitful question because it implies that current legal gun ownership correlates directly to gun crime, which is facially untrue by any statistical measure.

Utter nonsense. I see no logical way to defend the idea that outlawing guns would somehow have no effect on gun related deaths.
Except we are talking about the US, where making guns illegal generally is hallucinatory in the scope of its absurdity. Except there is absolutely no evidence that otherwise law abiding citizens + gun ownership = gun crime, which leaves your little fantasy world where the relationship between citizen and government in the US is reversed...remember, the burden of proof is on you to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the utility of making guns illegal, for which you have no data.

[Nick Walter]

Except we are talking about the US, where making guns illegal generally is hallucinatory in the scope of its absurdity. Except there is absolutely no evidence that otherwise law abiding citizens + gun ownership = gun crime, which leaves your little fantasy world where the relationship between citizen and government in the US is reversed...remember, the burden of proof is on you to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the utility of making guns illegal, for which you have no data.

That was a nice packet of gobbledygook, none of which actually address the point in my post. Was that directed at my post or were you quoting my by accident? You can try again if you want.

[Graeme Dice]

Regulating guns away would have the same effect prohibition did on drugs and alcohol: ensuring only real criminals have access to them and criminalizing an entirely inoffensive subsection of society.

Really? I wasn't aware that people in the U.S. go to bars to shoot targets on their friday nights.

So? They aren't for a reason. Start there and begin wondering why. Maybe the vast majority of the population in this somewhat democratic republic is willing to take a few retards on the road to minimize onerous government micromanagement.

Well, yes, people in general always rate themselves as being above average, even when they are well below average.

Most hunting rifles are exceedingly effective on humans.

That's a nice way to dodge the question, especially when you consider that handguns have no real use other than for attacking other people.

Right, back to unicorns. The United States has well over 200m privately owned guns at this point in time. Keep chasing that rainbow.

So your entire argument is that it would be impractical to regulate those guns in any way, so nobody should even bother trying?

No, it is a deceitful question because it implies that current legal gun ownership correlates directly to gun crime, which is facially untrue by any statistical measure.

Of course, because as soon as a gun is used in a crime that gun is no longer legally owned. What a marvelous way to move the goalposts. Or are you suggesting that gun crime would not decrease if there were no handguns owned by private citizens in the U.S.?

Except we are talking about the US, where making guns illegal generally is hallucinatory in the scope of its absurdity.

Are you planning to answer his question? Are you going to actually claim that outlawing guns would have no effect on gun related deaths?

[Not One Of Us]

Really? I wasn't aware that people in the U.S. go to bars to shoot targets on their friday nights.
Maybe not bars, but people do go to shooting ranges as a social activity.

Are you planning to answer his question? Are you going to actually claim that outlawing guns would have no effect on gun related deaths?
I imagine it would, as gun-carrying criminals would then be more assured that their victim is not packing, and thus less hesitant to pull one out.

[Ben]

Graeme- Are you going to actually claim that outlawing guns would have no effect on gun related deaths?

You know that murder is already against the law, right?

[Lizard_King]

Are you planning to answer his question? Are you going to actually claim that outlawing guns would have no effect on gun related deaths?
Yes.

I imagine it would, as gun-carrying criminals would then be more assured that their victim is not packing, and thus less hesitant to pull one out.
Exactly. But that means nothing if your goal is removing guns from ordinary people per se rather than reducing crime. This is what this is really about.

[Lizard_King]

Superman could katamari up every gun on earth and throw them into the sun and if you asked Lizard_King if it would have an appreciable impact on gun-related crime, he'd say MAYBE. He's made a religion out of his politics and it's just sad.


Your superman katamari is the only way that would happen in America. Your desires for magical abilities to remove all guns notwithstanding, we are talking about removing guns from law abiding citizens, since by definition they are the only ones that would follow that dictate.

[shift6]

Does anybody not believe that in the middle-long term, gun-related murders would dramatically decrease if it was an offence to own a gun? Does anybody think that the ~10,000 people that die a year in the US from perforation is an acceptable price to pay, not for freedom, but for the freedom for to own a gun?
Yes I do not agree, and yes I think it is acceptable.

Utter nonsense. I see no logical way to defend the idea that outlawing guns would somehow have no effect on gun related deaths.
It would have an effect. Accidental deaths in legal gun owning homes would drop and gun-related deaths due to crime would rise.

[Tim Partlett]

I've yet to be convinced of the efficacy of gun laws on either side of the argument in reducing crime, although I'm pretty certain that arguing that gun violence wouldn't be reduced by outlawing guns is fruitless.

Looking at the motivations of the average burglar, all they want to do is get into a house and out again, alive and without being caught. They don't want to shoot anyone. Even if they had no moral objections to killing, they wouldn't want the additional punishment that murdering their victim entails. Carrying a gun is therefore only a necessity if it is likely that they might get caught by someone in the house who themselves is carrying a gun.

In a society where carrying a gun is illegal, only criminals carry guns. That makes carrying a gun a real risk, because anyone caught with one is going to be investigated to the full, as well as enjoying a jail sentence just for the act of carrying alone. Any burglar has to weigh up the risks of being caught with a gun, against the risks of being caught by a victim without a gun to protect him. As a burglar is almost certain to not encounter an armed victim in countries where guns are illegal, like the UK and Germany, it would suggest that burglars are far less likely to carry a gun, and gun deaths through aggravated burglaries would be far lower in these countries than America. Crime surveys in these countries support this.

But the illegality of guns appears to make no difference to the number of burglaries carried out. The burglarly level in the UK is pretty much the same as in the US, only the number of aggravated burglaries is much lower.

The real question for me is how do you like your burglar: armed or unarmed. In America a burglar is far more likely to be armed, because he knows his victim is far more likely to be armed. If you are a person who likes the protection of a gun, and feels comfortable using it and killing burglars, the current law system in America is perfect for you. However, if you are like me, and don't feel comfortable using a gun or killing anyone, then this system is terrible. It means that you are more likely to be burgled by someone who is armed, and if you encounter them you will not be carrying a weapon, or you will not be able to use it even if you are.

There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong answer to this, and instead you get tension on both sides. Those who are comfortable owning and using a gun are going to feel less safe with a criminalization of guns. However, those who don't feel comfortable owning or using a gun are not going to want to have to deal with armed burglars and so would be happier if they were made illegal.

Personally, though, I think that the current system in America, at least as I understand it, is absolutely crazy, and I suspect driven by ideology rather than rational thought. There should be strict controls on anything that is dangerous, be they drugs, guns, cars, nuclear power stations, or what have you. It seems to me that guns are designed purely for killing, and do an incredibly good job of it, and yet they appear easier to get hold of in America than a car.

Cars are dangerous: they can kill people and you need a license to own and drive one, and you need to register it with the authorities. I would think that this was a minimum requirement before owning a gun, even if you don't make it illegal to own one. Pretty much any law applying to a car should apply to a gun: drunk in charge of a gun - no way; reckless use of a gun = jail time; limited area of operation, e.g. your own home and land.

[Houngan]

I've yet to be convinced of the efficacy of gun laws on either side of the argument in reducing crime, although I'm pretty certain that arguing that gun violence wouldn't be reduced by outlawing guns is fruitless.

Looking at the motivations of the average burglar, all they want to do is get into a house and out again, alive and without being caught. They don't want to shoot anyone. Even if they had no moral objections to killing, they wouldn't want the additional punishment that murdering their victim entails. Carrying a gun is therefore only a necessity if it is likely that they might get caught by someone in the house who themselves is carrying a gun.

In a society where carrying a gun is illegal, only criminals carry guns. That makes carrying a gun a real risk, because anyone caught with one is going to be investigated to the full, as well as enjoying a jail sentence just for the act of carrying alone. Any burglar has to weigh up the risks of being caught with a gun, against the risks of being caught by a victim without a gun to protect him. As a burglar is almost certain to not encounter an armed victim in countries where guns are illegal, like the UK and Germany, it would suggest that burglars are far less likely to carry a gun, and gun deaths through aggravated burglaries would be far lower in these countries than America. Crime surveys in these countries support this.

But the illegality of guns appears to make no difference to the number of burglaries carried out. The burglarly level in the UK is pretty much the same as in the US, only the number of aggravated burglaries is much lower.

The real question for me is how do you like your burglar: armed or unarmed. In America a burglar is far more likely to be armed, because he knows his victim is far more likely to be armed. If you are a person who likes the protection of a gun, and feels comfortable using it and killing burglars, the current law system in America is perfect for you. However, if you are like me, and don't feel comfortable using a gun or killing anyone, then this system is terrible. It means that you are more likely to be burgled by someone who is armed, and if you encounter them you will not be carrying a weapon, or you will not be able to use it even if you are.

There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong answer to this, and instead you get tension on both sides. Those who are comfortable owning and using a gun are going to feel less safe with a criminalization of guns. However, those who don't feel comfortable owning or using a gun are not going to want to have to deal with armed burglars and so would be happier if they were made illegal.

Personally, though, I think that the current system in America, at least as I understand it, is absolutely crazy, and I suspect driven by ideology rather than rational thought. There should be strict controls on anything that is dangerous, be they drugs, guns, cars, nuclear power stations, or what have you. It seems to me that guns are designed purely for killing, and do an incredibly good job of it, and yet they appear easier to get hold of in America than a car.

Cars are dangerous: they can kill people and you need a license to own and drive one, and you need to register it with the authorities. I would think that this was a minimum requirement before owning a gun, even if you don't make it illegal to own one. Pretty much any law applying to a car should apply to a gun: drunk in charge of a gun - no way; reckless use of a gun = jail time; limited area of operation, e.g. your own home and land.


Tim, that was a rational, well-thought out post, but I've gotta say this:

If you and others can come into an argument and seriously say that you have no knowledge of or cannot imagine a use for a gun besides killing, you're either lying or stupid. Are you really unaware of the billions of rounds of ammunition that are expended each year in non-killing pursuits? Have you never watched the olympics? Owned a BB gun? Heard of the NRA?

Lying or stupid, one or the other.

Of course, maybe folks are being a bit disingenious when they say "No other use". If you or Graeme want to re-qualify your statements, go for it.

H.

[Graeme Dice]

Maybe not bars, but people do go to shooting ranges as a social activity.

And of course, going to a shooting range, is identical to drinking alcohol, therefore the analogy with prohibition makes perfect sense!

I imagine it would, as gun-carrying criminals would then be more assured that their victim is not packing, and thus less hesitant to pull one out.

I see, so that must be why most murders hapen by knife in Canada, since you can pretty much guarantee that nobody is carrying a gun, ever.

[Graeme Dice]

You know that murder is already against the law, right?

Would you also care to answer the question, instead of dodging it? Are you claiming that outlawing guns would have no effect on gun related deaths?

[Graeme Dice]

and gun-related deaths due to crime would rise.

And can you prove that, or are you just going to make an unsupported assertion?

[Graeme Dice]

Yes.

Well, we already knew that you were off in lala land, but thanks for confirming it.

Exactly. But that means nothing if your goal is removing guns from ordinary people per se rather than reducing crime. This is what this is really about.

Keep on knockig over that strawman Lizard boy.

[Graeme Dice]

Of course, maybe folks are being a bit disingenious when they say "No other use". If you or Graeme want to re-qualify your statements, go for it.

Handguns can be used for target shooting. If all you want one for is target shooting, then you should have no problem keeping it locked up at a shooting range till you want to use it. If you want to move it to a different location, and don't plan to use it to kill somebody, then you should have no problem with being required to get temporary permission to carry it to a new location.

[Nick Walter]

It would have an effect. Accidental deaths in legal gun owning homes would drop and gun-related deaths due to crime would rise.

Why would gun related deaths due to crime rise? I can maybe see a slight possibility of that in the short term, but in the long term outlawing guns would reduce the number of guns in circulation and hence their availability to criminals. Unless you are arguing that criminals would manufacture their own firearms or the U.S. lacks the law enforcement ability to effectively restrict guns I can't see any way to argue that gun related deaths due to crime would rise in the long term by outlawing guns.

[Houngan]

Handguns can be used for target shooting. If all you want one for is target shooting, then you should have no problem keeping it locked up at a shooting range till you want to use it. If you want to move it to a different location, and don't plan to use it to kill somebody, then you should have no problem with being required to get temporary permission to carry it to a new location.

Graeme,

I've got no problem doing that, my target and competition handguns aren't for defensive carrying. For that, I use my carry gun, which is designed to kill people. Glad we could see eye to eye on this.

H.

[Tim Partlett]

Tim, that was a rational, well-thought out post, but I've gotta say this:

If you and others can come into an argument and seriously say that you have no knowledge of or cannot imagine a use for a gun besides killing, you're either lying or stupid. Are you really unaware of the billions of rounds of ammunition that are expended each year in non-killing pursuits? Have you never watched the olympics? Owned a BB gun? Heard of the NRA?

Lying or stupid, one or the other.

WTF?

I said that guns are designed purely for killing, not that they are only used for killing. People also use them for sport and for practice, but they are designed for killing, and not hitting targets.

[Houngan]

WTF?

I said that guns are designed purely for killing, not that they are only used for killing. People also use them for sport and for practice, but they are designed for killing, and not hitting targets.


http://pilkguns.com/m8401.jpg

I see the distinction you are making, but it's still incorrect. Some guns are designed specifically for fighting, some for plinking, some for hunting, some for precision target shooting, as above.

I believe you're mistaking the origin of firearms for the modern day application. I own a bunch, but only one I would consider designed specifically for shooting another person. I find your broad-brush opinion of firearms and firearm owners disturbing, considering how often you argue against that sort of thinking.

H.

[Tim Partlett]

This is the most exasperating form of pedantry. First you accuse me being "stupid or lying" for saying something that I didn't. Then you claim that I have used a "broad-brush" to defame firearm owners, by saying that guns are designed for killing, when I made no comment on firearm owners at all. This is just bullshit. I am obviously talking about real firearms, not sport guns and air rifles.

Hunting rifles are designed for killing. Period. Plinking is usually performed with normal (killing) guns or air pistols. Air pistols are not firearms, and are legal in most countries where real guns are not. Target shooting guns are usually so not like real guns, using air or CO2 propellant, that most of them are legal in the UK. It is pretty obvious that when I talk about gun regulation, I am talking about standard guns, you know the ones that are commonly made illegal under gun law regulations in every other country in the world.

Saying that I am wrong for stating that guns are designed to kill, when it is painfully obvious which kind of guns I am referring to, is like saying: "Oh no bombers aren't used to bomb people! Some bombers are used in museums and fly-bys for honouring visiting dignitaries!" It made absolute NO difference to anything I said, merely wasted my time in making me answer your pointless point.

[Tim Partlett]

Oh, and btw, I'm not a gun expert, but I was brought up in the English countryside. My family owned a shot-gun, which I used when going ratting with my brother. My brother also owned a BB gun and an air rifle (not firearms), which I used a lot as well. My friend used to have a sideline in converting replicas and filled-in old Lugers into real guns. I had some fun with them as well. I know the difference between a real gun and one that kids are allowed to play with.

[Houngan]

Oh, and btw, I'm not a gun expert, but I was brought up in the English countryside. My family owned a shot-gun, which I used when going ratting with my brother. My brother also owned a BB gun and an air rifle (not firearms), which I used a lot as well. My friend used to have a sideline in converting replicas and filled-in old Lugers into real guns. I had some fun with them as well. I know the difference between a real gun and one that kids are allowed to play with.

That's good Tim. Perhaps you can point out where the air supply/compression chamber is on the picture of the pistol that I posted?

The fact is that firearms do what firearms do, throw a projectile. Previously, the majority of use was for killing something, as killing things was very important to obtaining comfort and food. Nowadays, that's waaay towards the bottom of the usage tree. I expend more rounds per year in practice and competition than 100 normal hunters, or 500 if you count pellets.

I don't mind discussing the various factors that go into firearm ownership and usage, but to suggest that 300,000,000 firearms need to be taken away because 10,000 deaths are caused each year is a bit extreme. Of course, as someone who used to use illegally converted replica firearms, it's understandable that you would have a skewed view of their usage. What kind of psychos wanted those things?

Now that I've gotten my strawmen deployed, let's be serious. Here's what I'd truthfully, honestly like to discuss:

1. Firearms enable someone to have combative superiority over someone else.
2. Firearms are irrevocably available in America, and in a lot of other nations.
3. Ergo, the only counter to a bad person with a firearm is a good person with a firearm.
4. Since the police are reactive, rather than proactive, as long as there are firearms, I want to have one for the safety of myself and my loved ones.



H.

p.s. Re: the picture. You can't because centerfire/rimfire is still the major form of all competition shooting, and that's a firearm, albeit a rimfire example. Here's an air pistol, one that I use daily, in fact:

http://pilkguns.com/izh46.jpg

[Tim Partlett]

So why don't you try discussing the points of my post, rather constructing time-wasting straw men like:

1. I cannot imagine how a gun could be used for something other than killing.
2. I am applying an unfairly broad brush to firearm owners.
3. I think that all 300,000,000 million firearms should be taken away from their owners.

Did I say any of those things? No.

Different kinds of guns, like air pistols, sport guns, hunting rifles, etc. are all treated differently under every gun prohibition law that I know of. In the UK air pistols are not treated the same way as hand guns, farmers are allowed a license for hunting rifles and shot guns, and people involved in gun sports are allowed to keep guns as long as they are properly looked after. You are trying to lump these all together in a way that no other sane person would, in order to try and make out my points are innacurate, when you don't even appear to know what the points I am making are.

You can also drop the ad hominem arguments too. You picked up on my friend who converted replica firearms, and he was a psycho there are no arguments about that, and claimed my view was skewed by this. You completely ignored the fact that I also mentioned that I'd been brought up in the countryside where many people, all of them responsible people, used real guns (not BB guns) for their work and pleasure. Somehow, though, you think my view, one that you make up as you go along, has been skewed only by the one guy, and not the majority.

1. Firearms enable someone to have combative superiority over someone else.
2. Firearms are irrevocably available in America, and in a lot of other nations.
3. Ergo, the only counter to a bad person with a firearm is a good person with a firearm.
4. Since the police are reactive, rather than proactive, as long as there are firearms, I want to have one for the safety of myself and my loved ones.

I would disagree that guns are "irrevocably available" anywhere. In Britain guns were fairly commonplace before they were made illegal. They were used for sport, self defence, robbery (including highwaymen famously), and for dueling. Now the vast majority of people, including most criminals, wouldn't have a clue where to get one. As most criminals don't often have guns in Britain, people don't need to carry one in order to defend themselves. The gun problem is therefore negligible in comparison to America.

This is obviously a better situation for those who don't want to use or carry guns, or face an armed criminal. For those who want "combative superiority" over unarmed criminals, and would rather be more likely to face an armed criminal as long as they have a gun too, this is obviously not an ideal situation. Hence the tension which I wrote about, you know, in my first post.

Did you actually read that?

[Flowers]

Did you actually read that?
He was too busy dropping subtle hints that his real name is Scaramanga.

[Nick Walter]

1. Firearms enable someone to have combative superiority over someone else.
2. Firearms are irrevocably available in America, and in a lot of other nations.
3. Ergo, the only counter to a bad person with a firearm is a good person with a firearm.
4. Since the police are reactive, rather than proactive, as long as there are firearms, I want to have one for the safety of myself and my loved ones.
H.


2 is of course utter nonsense. It would be a big job but firearms could be brought under control and made unavailable. 2 being nonsense invalidates 3 and 4 also.

[Flowers]

1. Firearms enable someone to have combative superiority over someone else.
2. Firearms are irrevocably available in America, and in a lot of other nations.
3. Ergo, the only counter to a bad person with a firearm is a good person with a firearm.
4. Since the police are reactive, rather than proactive, as long as there are firearms, I want to have one for the safety of myself and my loved ones.


1. Ninjitsu enables someone to have combative superiority over someone else.
2. Ninja Styles are irrevocably available in secret mountain fortresses.
3. Ergo, the only counter to a bad ninja master is a good ninja master.
4. Since Pirates are limited in their ability to respond to Tokugawa Shogunate/Michael Dudikoff-threatening situations, due in no small part to limited waterway access in most major American cities, I must train myself in the ancient art of stealth killing. For the safety of my loved ones, I must become Shinobi.

[Jason McCullough]

It would be a big job but firearms could be brought under control and made unavailable.

Like drugs, huh?

[LesJarvis]

Like drugs, huh?
I can manufacture guns in my bathtub now using a few readily available chemicals? Radical.

[Tim Partlett]

I don't see guns and drugs as being similar in terms of control. Guns are only in big demand when they are legal, so demand is self-sustaining. The demand for drugs doesn't tend to be affected much by criminalization. People want guns because other people have them, if you make it so less people have guns, then obviously the demand for guns will go down. That does not work with drugs. The huge demand for drugs is because they are addictive and pleasurable.

Making guns illegal is like making pit-bull terriers illegal: sure there's a demand for them but you can keep ownership of them under control. Guns are like fireworks and other dangerous items. There will always be a demand for them, but that demand can be reduced to negligible levels, as it is with guns in Western Europe. You cannot do the same with drugs, because of their unique qualities.

Still, while I advocate more liberal drug laws, I would never want to see drugs being sold with as little regulation as guns are in many parts of the US. I would want to see an end to users being put in prison, the sale of cannabis as controlled as alcohol, and other drugs available only through a doctor's prescription. I don't want them sold in small town stores.

It just makes no logical sense to me that you need a license and registration for a car, but you can buy a gun without either. I want to be protected from idiots with a car, and the same for anything that is potentially lethal. A gun has more than potential. Does anyone who advocates free access to guns also advocate the same for cars and airplanes?

[Jason McCullough]

I can manufacture guns in my bathtub now using a few readily available chemicals? Radical.

No, but you can smuggle them across the border just as easy.

[Ben]

I can manufacture guns in my bathtub now using a few readily available chemicals? Radical.

That's ridiculous. A crystal meth operation(which is pretty much the only drug you are referring to, every other drug gets smuggled in) is no less complex than a machinist shop to make firearms.

[brainfromarous]

a few things here, folks:

(1) Sooner or later in every gun discussion someone brings up cars and driver licenses. The problem with this - apart from the Bill of Rights not mentioning cars - is that cars are mostly used on public roads which gives the State the interest and need to control their use.

You don't actually need a license to drive a car or other motor vehicle on your own property. Farm kids and their friends routinely drive old junker trucks, tractors and whatnot without any govt paperwork whatsoever. I did this when I was a kid. Things like licenses, registration, DMV inspections and whatnot are for the PUBLIC USE of a vehicle - not mere ownership or use.

The comparable situation with guns is whether you want to carry one around (public), go hunting or sport shooting (public/private) or merely have it in your house for self-defense (private). The laws are, and should be, different depending on what you want to do.

(2) The 2nd Amendment and all subsequent gun control or rights matters are not - and have never been - primarily concerned with hunting and sport-shooting, so please spare us the "This gun was made to kill people!" comments, ok? Yes, of course it was. Armed defense against other humans is the core of this whole thing. I'm not worried that the cops won't show up in time to save me from a car-jacking cougar or stop the rhino trying to mug me.

(3) Speaking of that, while there are some crooks who take the "Don't move and nobody gets hurt" approach, there are plenty of others who would gladly terrorize, brutalize, beat, rape and even kill a helpless victim just for the sheer cruel pleasure of it. The more cold-blooded ones might well kill you to avoid leaving a witness. Remember that "robbery" pretty much by definition involves deliberately attacking a person, not inanimate property.

Is it seriously being suggested here that if my sister awakes at 2am to find a man in her apartment with a ski mask and a knife, she should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just there for the TV?

[Houngan]

Like drugs, huh?

Apples and oranges, since drugs are a consumable, and a firearm, even with mediocre care, lasts for fifty years.

Also, re: my #2 being false, you're making the big mistake whenever we talk about this, in that you think that making guns difficult to buy legally will also affect the guns in the hands of criminals. If they already can't buy them legally, and the vast majority are traded amongst the bad people, and not bought for them by the good people, how do you propose to remove the guns already here?

I think one common area of contention is that the folks who are pro-gun think that removing all guns wouldn't reduce killings. It obviously would, there's no argument. However, nobody seems to have a plan for how to do so besides preventing the law-abiding from buying any more, or taking them away from people who allow them to be taken away. For my money, you can take away all the guns and I won't squawk, so long as I get to have the last one.

H.

p.s. Flowers, I know you think you're a good troll, but you're not. Go find another thread, although thanks for starting this one.

[Flowers]

That's ridiculous. A crystal meth operation(which is pretty much the only drug you are referring to, every other drug gets smuggled in) is no less complex than a machinist shop to make firearms.

Actually, LSD, marijuana, pcp, psilocybin, and a lot of designer drugs are made right here in the good old U.S. of A. Just because we import tons of ecstacy from Dutch Rabbis and buy cocaine and cocaine base from Colombian Droglords and heroin from the East doesn't mean we have no capacity to get our own swerve on.

A machine shop's number of tools versus the tubes and tubs needed to make meth at first look seem congruent. However, the ability of the completely untrained methabian three-toed mutant to follow a crapped up piece of notebook paper to a triple state killing spree rattling high far outstrips the ability of those amateur partisans who are trying to cut pipes to fit.

For less than $150 you can cobble together the ingredients and materials to make nazi speed, and any dipshit can cook meth. Making a pistol that fires, that's a more limited skillset.

[Flowers]

(3) Speaking of that, while there are some crooks who take the "Don't move and nobody gets hurt" approach, there are plenty of others who would gladly terrorize, brutalize, beat, rape and even kill a helpless victim just for the sheer cruel pleasure of it. The more cold-blooded ones might well kill you to avoid leaving a witness. Remember that "robbery" pretty much by definition involves deliberately attacking a person, not inanimate property.

Is it seriously being suggested here that if my sister awakes at 2am to find a man in her apartment with a ski mask and a knife, she should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just there for the TV?

About 11% of murder victims were determined to have been killed by an intimate
Most murder victims were familiar with their assailants.

Spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.


About one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant.


In 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers.


The victim/offender relationship was undetermined in about one-third of homicides.
You asked for it. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)

[Nick Walter]

For less than $150 you can cobble together the ingredients and materials to make nazi speed, and any dipshit can cook meth. Making a pistol that fires, that's a more limited skillset.

Interestingly, the pistol is easier to make than you think. It's modern ammo that would be a bitch to produce.

[LesJarvis]

That's ridiculous. A crystal meth operation(which is pretty much the only drug you are referring to, every other drug gets smuggled in) is no less complex than a machinist shop to make firearms.
Forgive me for not making my point more clear. I should have just said that comparing drugs to guns is stupid.

[Jason McCullough]

Also, re: my #2 being false, you're making the big mistake whenever we talk about this, in that you think that making guns difficult to buy legally will also affect the guns in the hands of criminals. If they already can't buy them legally, and the vast majority are traded amongst the bad people, and not bought for them by the good people, how do you propose to remove the guns already here?

Err, I don't. If you read my replies I think the idea you could possibly get rid of a significant fraction of US guns, those of criminals or no, is laughable. ;)

[Ben]

LesJarvis- But now you don't have a reason. I mean, the analogy seems pretty obvious. Both are things that people want that other people would prefer nobody had. That the people who want drugs can still get drugs would make it seem like the people who want guns could still get guns.
Single action revolvers and non-pump shotguns are both relatively simple contraptions. Ammunition is a bit harder, but people are clever motherfuckers.
Either way, if guns were banned tomorrow I wouldn't turn mine in(mostly out of sheer laziness). As my sock drawer(SPOILERS!) is a mostly cool, dark, dry place I imagine that said firearm would remain operable for, oh, 50 years? 100 years? More?

[Houngan]

Err, I don't. If you read my replies I think the idea you could possibly get rid of a significant fraction of US guns, those of criminals or no, is laughable. ;)

Sorry, that part was directed at Nick, not you. My only response to you was regarding the difference between drugs and guns.

H.

[Tim Partlett]

Sooner or later in every gun discussion someone brings up cars and driver licenses. The problem with this - apart from the Bill of Rights not mentioning cars - is that cars are mostly used on public roads which gives the State the interest and need to control their use.

While I have a great deal of respect for the founding fathers and the Bill of Rights, I prefer to argue rationally rather than rely on dogma.

You don't actually need a license to drive a car or other motor vehicle on your own property. Farm kids and their friends routinely drive old junker trucks, tractors and whatnot without any govt paperwork whatsoever. I did this when I was a kid. Things like licenses, registration, DMV inspections and whatnot are for the PUBLIC USE of a vehicle - not mere ownership or use.

But you do need a license and registration to take them out onto the streets, but not so with a gun. Cars are dangerous but, unlike guns, people don't usually take them out onto the street with the intention of killing someone with them. The vast majority of the tens of thousands of deaths due to vehicles in the US are accidental, the tens of thousands due to guns are almost all deliberate. Cars in America are, for the most part, more regulated than guns. Without reference to dogma, can you support this logically?

[Squirrel Killer]

I can manufacture guns in my bathtub now using a few readily available chemicals? Radical.
Give me a length of PVC pipe, Aquanet and a lighter and I'll blow your head clean off. With a potato.

[brainfromarous]

About 11% of murder victims were determined to have been killed by an intimate
Most murder victims were familiar with their assailants.

Spouses and family members made up about 15% of all victims.


About one-third of the victims were acquaintances of the assailant.


In 14% of all murders, the victim and the offender were strangers.


The victim/offender relationship was undetermined in about one-third of homicides.
You asked for it. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/intimates.htm)

The observant reader will note the non sequiter nature of this reply.

[Flowers]

Give me a length of PVC pipe, Aquanet and a lighter and I'll blow your head clean off. With a potato.

You probably also want a cap for the end, some fixative, and a decor lighter.

Oh how it pains me to chopsocky replocky.
The observant reader will note the non sequiter nature of this reply.

The vigilant fingerbang will remark that if anyone is going to kill his sister, odds are, it won't be a stranger. You need to get away from the scary stories and into the numbers. In around 75% of argument related homicides, a gun is used. In a vast majority of gang slayings, a gun is used. Do you think that people die more often from random acts of criminal violence or from acts of violence perpetrated by people they know?

Fuck it. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/multiguntab.htm)

Percent of Homicides by Victim Count and Gun Involvement

One Victim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun No gun Gun No gun
1976 63.4% 36.6% 68.9% 31.1%
1977 62.2% 37.8% 66.4% 33.6%
1978 63.3% 36.7% 67.9% 32.1%
1979 63.0% 37.0% 67.8% 32.2%
1980 62.2% 37.8% 65.9% 34.1%
1981 61.8% 38.2% 71.2% 28.8%
1982 59.5% 40.5% 68.4% 31.6%
1983 57.7% 42.3% 66.9% 33.1%
1984 58.3% 41.7% 67.6% 32.4%
1985 58.0% 42.0% 66.1% 33.9%
1986 58.6% 41.4% 65.4% 34.6%
1987 58.3% 41.7% 68.7% 31.3%
1988 60.3% 39.7% 65.2% 34.8%
1989 62.0% 38.0% 67.9% 32.1%
1990 64.1% 35.9% 67.4% 32.6%
1991 65.7% 34.3% 74.2% 25.8%
1992 67.6% 32.4% 74.9% 25.1%
1993 68.9% 31.1% 77.9% 22.1%
1994 69.5% 30.5% 75.7% 24.3%
1995 67.9% 32.1% 70.9% 29.1%
1996 66.6% 33.4% 77.4% 22.6%
1997 66.7% 33.3% 78.8% 21.2%
1998 63.6% 36.4% 78.6% 21.4%
1999 64.0% 36.0% 76.5% 23.5%
2000 64.2% 35.8% 79.0% 21.0%
2001 62.0% 38.0% 75.1% 24.9%
2002 65.7% 34.3% 76.3% 23.7%

[brainfromarous]

While I have a great deal of respect for the founding fathers and the Bill of Rights, I prefer to argue rationally rather than rely on dogma.

We have no choice to bring up the 2nd Amend. once we start talking about actual gun laws - past, present and future. Apart from that, I agree with you on principle.

But you do need a license and registration to take them out onto the streets, but not so with a gun. Cars are dangerous but, unlike guns, people don't usually take them out onto the street with the intention of killing someone with them. The vast majority of the tens of thousands of deaths due to vehicles in the US are accidental, the tens of thousands due to guns are almost all deliberate. Cars in America are, for the most part, more regulated than guns. Without reference to dogma, can you support this logically?

My point is that when people say "We license cars, why not guns" they're overlooking two important distinctions:

(1) You do not, in fact, need a license to own or operate a car on your own property. You need one to operate the car on public roads. So we do not, actually, "license cars." We license their use in public.

(2) Coming back to guns, owning them and walking around in public with them are two very different issues. Even in the NRA, there are plenty of pro-ownership folks who think carry permits should be as rare as Duesenbergs. So when we say this or that about "guns," we need to be clear what we're talking about - ownership or public carry.

[brainfromarous]

You probably also want a cap for the end, some fixative, and a decor lighter.

Oh how it pains me to chopsocky replocky.


The vigilant fingerbang will remark that if anyone is going to kill his sister, odds are, it won't be a stranger. You need to get away from the scary stories and into the numbers. In around 75% of argument related homicides, a gun is used. In a vast majority of gang slayings, a gun is used. Do you think that people die more often from random acts of criminal violence or from acts of violence perpetrated by people they know?

Fuck it. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/multiguntab.htm)

Percent of Homicides by Victim Count and Gun Involvement

One Victim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun No gun Gun No gun
1976 63.4% 36.6% 68.9% 31.1%
1977 62.2% 37.8% 66.4% 33.6%
1978 63.3% 36.7% 67.9% 32.1%
1979 63.0% 37.0% 67.8% 32.2%
1980 62.2% 37.8% 65.9% 34.1%
1981 61.8% 38.2% 71.2% 28.8%
1982 59.5% 40.5% 68.4% 31.6%
1983 57.7% 42.3% 66.9% 33.1%
1984 58.3% 41.7% 67.6% 32.4%
1985 58.0% 42.0% 66.1% 33.9%
1986 58.6% 41.4% 65.4% 34.6%
1987 58.3% 41.7% 68.7% 31.3%
1988 60.3% 39.7% 65.2% 34.8%
1989 62.0% 38.0% 67.9% 32.1%
1990 64.1% 35.9% 67.4% 32.6%
1991 65.7% 34.3% 74.2% 25.8%
1992 67.6% 32.4% 74.9% 25.1%
1993 68.9% 31.1% 77.9% 22.1%
1994 69.5% 30.5% 75.7% 24.3%
1995 67.9% 32.1% 70.9% 29.1%
1996 66.6% 33.4% 77.4% 22.6%
1997 66.7% 33.3% 78.8% 21.2%
1998 63.6% 36.4% 78.6% 21.4%
1999 64.0% 36.0% 76.5% 23.5%
2000 64.2% 35.8% 79.0% 21.0%
2001 62.0% 38.0% 75.1% 24.9%
2002 65.7% 34.3% 76.3% 23.7%

Observant readers will, again, please note that the data offered still does not contradict the earlier point(s). Since the % of homicides (single or multiple) attributable to guns is a separate issue from that of how often people are victims of violence from someone they know, the data don't even support the point Flowers was making. All these numbers show is that guns are the tool of choice for homicides more than, say, crossbows or scimitars.

[Lizard_King]

2 is of course utter nonsense. It would be a big job but firearms could be brought under control and made unavailable. 2 being nonsense invalidates 3 and 4 also.

Godspeed, then. I hope your next presidential candidate of choice makes that a plank in his/her platform. We'll see who's talking nonsense in American reality.

[Houngan]

Just to inject a bit of humor, Tom DeLay's concealed carry license has been revoked, as he is an indicted felon now.

H.

[Nick Walter]

Godspeed, then. I hope your next presidential candidate of choice makes that a plank in his/her platform.

Eek, I don't. I'm pro gun ownership. I just think denying that widespread gun ownership poses a danger to society is retarded and get awful tired of folks trying.

[shift6]

And can you prove that, or are you just going to make an unsupported assertion?
Yes, like everyone else who has opinions, I can prove my assertion. rolling eyes smiley

Although if you look at the statistics Flowers posted in reply #140, it's interesting how the gun-related percentage for multiple-victim homicides jumped up when the Brady Bill gun control bill passed.

Why would gun related deaths due to crime rise? I can maybe see a slight possibility of that in the short term, but in the long term outlawing guns would reduce the number of guns in circulation and hence their availability to criminals. Unless you are arguing that criminals would manufacture their own firearms or the U.S. lacks the law enforcement ability to effectively restrict guns I can't see any way to argue that gun related deaths due to crime would rise in the long term by outlawing guns.
I argue the latter, and I cite the war on drugs as exhibit A that the US also lacks the ability to regulate guns, that gun circulation would drop, etc.

I can manufacture guns in my bathtub now using a few readily available chemicals? Radical.
Yes you can. Convicts construct guns in prison using highly restricted materials. Zip guns, etc. Don't even need regular bullets.

[deccan]

I've yet to be convinced of the efficacy of gun laws on either side of the argument in reducing crime, although I'm pretty certain that arguing that gun violence wouldn't be reduced by outlawing guns is fruitless.

Looking at the motivations of the average burglar, all they want to do is get into a house and out again, alive and without being caught. They don't want to shoot anyone. Even if they had no moral objections to killing, they wouldn't want the additional punishment that murdering their victim entails. Carrying a gun is therefore only a necessity if it is likely that they might get caught by someone in the house who themselves is carrying a gun.

In a society where carrying a gun is illegal, only criminals carry guns. That makes carrying a gun a real risk, because anyone caught with one is going to be investigated to the full, as well as enjoying a jail sentence just for the act of carrying alone. Any burglar has to weigh up the risks of being caught with a gun, against the risks of being caught by a victim without a gun to protect him. As a burglar is almost certain to not encounter an armed victim in countries where guns are illegal, like the UK and Germany, it would suggest that burglars are far less likely to carry a gun, and gun deaths through aggravated burglaries would be far lower in these countries than America. Crime surveys in these countries support this.

But the illegality of guns appears to make no difference to the number of burglaries carried out. The burglarly level in the UK is pretty much the same as in the US, only the number of aggravated burglaries is much lower.

The real question for me is how do you like your burglar: armed or unarmed. In America a burglar is far more likely to be armed, because he knows his victim is far more likely to be armed. If you are a person who likes the protection of a gun, and feels comfortable using it and killing burglars, the current law system in America is perfect for you. However, if you are like me, and don't feel comfortable using a gun or killing anyone, then this system is terrible. It means that you are more likely to be burgled by someone who is armed, and if you encounter them you will not be carrying a weapon, or you will not be able to use it even if you are.

There doesn't seem to be a right or wrong answer to this, and instead you get tension on both sides. Those who are comfortable owning and using a gun are going to feel less safe with a criminalization of guns. However, those who don't feel comfortable owning or using a gun are not going to want to have to deal with armed burglars and so would be happier if they were made illegal.

Personally, though, I think that the current system in America, at least as I understand it, is absolutely crazy, and I suspect driven by ideology rather than rational thought. There should be strict controls on anything that is dangerous, be they drugs, guns, cars, nuclear power stations, or what have you. It seems to me that guns are designed purely for killing, and do an incredibly good job of it, and yet they appear easier to get hold of in America than a car.

Cars are dangerous: they can kill people and you need a license to own and drive one, and you need to register it with the authorities. I would think that this was a minimum requirement before owning a gun, even if you don't make it illegal to own one. Pretty much any law applying to a car should apply to a gun: drunk in charge of a gun - no way; reckless use of a gun = jail time; limited area of operation, e.g. your own home and land.

Just chiming in to say that I pretty much agree with Tim here, though ironically, I'll well to the right of most other issues in P&R. I particularly feel that Tim has it right with the distinction of people who are generally comfortable with guns and people who are generally queasy around them. Call me a wuss, but I'm not sure I'd trust myself to hold a loaded gun in my hand, let alone other people. Maybe LK and gang are right in that this is an attitude that will change if I could just work up the courage to walk into a gun range to learn to shoot, but in the meantime, eek, no guns please.

[Hanzii]

I'm totally with Tim on this one also.

I've been to the US and I've been to South Africa (Johannesburg being scary as hell, still doesn't have the number of murders or gun related deaths as say Washington DC) and wouldn't want to live either place - if I did however, I'd probably buy a gun and start going to a shooting range regularly. I'm glad I don't even have to consider this option here.

Ignoring the 2nd ammendment arguments this all boils down to a case of mentality and not science/statistics. Whenever I see this discussion it just strikes me, that a lot of americans feel that armed response to robberies and burglaries makes sense, where the rest of us don't feel that lethal force to protect material goods is an option.

I'd never shoot someone over my television or car and unlike most other here (I suspect) I have actually been robbed at gunpoint. Scary as hell, but I'm still glad I wasn't armed or in any way posed a treat to the scary guy holding the .38 - I wouldn't want to die or become a killer over the mobile phone and $10 I lost there.

[Flowers]

Observant readers will, again, please note that the data offered still does not contradict the earlier point(s). Since the % of homicides (single or multiple) attributable to guns is a separate issue from that of how often people are victims of violence from someone they know, the data don't even support the point Flowers was making. All these numbers show is that guns are the tool of choice for homicides more than, say, crossbows or scimitars.


Actually, anyone who isn't a dipshit will put two and two together and get four. They can also figure out that, because most people are killed by someone they know, (Something I haven't seen you address) and most people who are murdered are killed with a gun, (A fact you dodge as well as a fat man avoids buffets) that means that the highest chunk of murders are people being shot to death by people they already know.

75% of killings stemming from an argument involve a gun. How many of those people would have been killed if their assailant did not have access to a firearm while their passions were inflamed? The simple fact is that having firearms within reach at all times makes it too easy to kill someone.

If you give more people guns, less people are going to go to the hospital with poolstick injuries and more people are going to go to the cemetery with gunshot wounds.

A concealed carry permit law is only going to make other people more likely to draw first.

[Damien Falgoust]

A concealed carry permit law is only going to make other people more likely to draw first. 38 states have "shall issue" concealed carry laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry) I gather you can demonstrate a higher incidence of gun violence in those states? Particularly after passage of those laws?

[Tim Partlett]

We have no choice to bring up the 2nd Amend. once we start talking about actual gun laws - past, present and future. Apart from that, I agree with you on principle.

Not if you want to discuss the law logically. The Second Amendment has no implication on any discussion outside of the US, but gun laws affect people whether they are American or not. Therefore the Second Amendment is not essential to any discussion on how gun laws affect people.

(1) You do not, in fact, need a license to own or operate a car on your own property. You need one to operate the car on public roads. So we do not, actually, "license cars." We license their use in public.

Again: what is the logic behind allowing people to carry a gun pretty much anywhere without license or registration, but not a car?

[Squirrel Killer]

38 states have "shall issue" concealed carry laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry) I gather you can demonstrate a higher incidence of gun violence in those states? Particularly after passage of those laws?
Of course not. But he can insult you.

[Flowers]

Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.


The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

In 2004, 22% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 46% of all robberies, compared with 20% of all aggravated assaults and 8% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2004.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2003, 53% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 13% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 16% with other weapons.

Here, on page 37, (http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/crossfir.pdf) is the state by state breakdown of gun deaths from homicide accident, and suicide. Wisconsin, Illinois, and Nebraska have about 10.4-11.9 people per 100,000 killed by a firearm. You may want to read the rest of the document and compare your address to the list at the end if you need help evaluating whether a gun is actually necessary for your safety.

Anyways, remind yourself now that all these shooting deaths are more often than not done by someone that the victim knows. That non-predatory pattern erases the gains you seek by creating an anonymously armed society.


For evaluation regarding the neutrality of the CCW wikipedia entry, please note the following;

69.3.183.88 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.3.183.88)had this to say;
18:16, 23 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Concealed carry (USA) (GO KANSAS! Three more to go.)

This contributor (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=216.56.92.44) is a goldmine.

and lastly,
This one never edits the same time as Damien posts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.106.123.58)

[Flowers]

38 states have "shall issue" concealed carry laws. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry) I gather you can demonstrate a higher incidence of gun violence in those states? Particularly after passage of those laws?

Homicide and violence in general are on downward fucking trends, Lisa.

[brainfromarous]

Not if you want to discuss the law logically. The Second Amendment has no implication on any discussion outside of the US, but gun laws affect people whether they are American or not. Therefore the Second Amendment is not essential to any discussion on how gun laws affect people.

If by "logically" you meant putting aside the constitutional and legal history and text of the actual laws, then ok. But how laws are written and enforced has a social effect; that's not "dogma," as you put it.

Again: what is the logic behind allowing people to carry a gun pretty much anywhere without license or registration, but not a car?

I have no problem with restricting CCWs. I don't think they should be as easy to get as a library card. I don't think a person is entitled to one in the same way as you are to exercise 1st Amend rights in public.

On the other hand, I think a person who can reasonably show the need should be able to get one unless he's a crook, nut or has some other relevent disqualification.

And again, I think there's a crucial difference between mere ownership vs bringing them into public areas. THAT's the problem I have with people who bring up the cars/driver license analogy.

[brainfromarous]

Homicide and violence in general are on downward fucking trends, Lisa.

Nevertheless, if the revisions to CCW laws are the gateway to chaos that some would have us believe, shouldn't this be reflected in crime statistics?

That's certainly what the 'shall issue' opponents in Florida claimed. The media coverage attending the passage of the revisions was downright apocalyptic. "Dodge City," shootouts over traffic accidents, etc.

So what happened?

If homicide and violence in general are on a downward trend regardless of the greater availability of CCW permits in many states, then that tells us something else.

[brainfromarous]

Originally Posted by brainfromarous
Observant readers will, again, please note that the data offered still does not contradict the earlier point(s). Since the % of homicides (single or multiple) attributable to guns is a separate issue from that of how often people are victims of violence from someone they know, the data don't even support the point Flowers was making. All these numbers show is that guns are the tool of choice for homicides more than, say, crossbows or scimitars.

Actually, anyone who isn't a dipshit will put two and two together and get four. They can also figure out that, because most people are killed by someone they know, (Something I haven't seen you address) and most people who are murdered are killed with a gun, (A fact you dodge as well as a fat man avoids buffets) that means that the highest chunk of murders are people being shot to death by people they already know.

Observant readers will note that not only do I acknowledge the very thing I am accused of "dodging," but Flowers' quote of my post actually highlights my acknowledgment of it.

As for the 2+2 remark, that's all well and good so long as you're trying to get to 4. If you're addressing a different problem, it's rather less useful.

I don't believe I or anyone else here denies that guns are the weapon of choice for homicides - at least until those phasers arrive - or that most violent crimes occur between people who know each other rather than complete strangers. I'm not contesting this, but neither am I ignoring it. The problem is, these stats simply aren't the "slam dunk" debate-enders Flowers thinks they are.

If you are the victim of a violent criminal attack, whether or not you know your assailant is pretty academic.

The fact - which no one disputes - that guns are often wrongfully used does not mean they have no utility when used properly.

[Tim Partlett]

On the other hand, I think a person who can reasonably show the need should be able to get one unless he's a crook, nut or has some other relevent disqualification.

Actually, that is exactly the situation in the UK where guns are effectively illegal. If you can show a need for a gun you are allowed to have one. Many farmers and landowners in the UK own and use guns on their private land.

[Damien Falgoust]

Homicide and violence in general are on downward fucking trends, Lisa. Then control for your motherfucking variables, Mary Sue.

Surely if your predictions are correct, then two similar states (e.g., similar economic growth and the like), one with shall-issue CCW and one without, will experience different levels of gun violence.

Similarly, if your predictions are correct, those 38 states should have seen increases in gun violence following the passage of their respective CCW laws.

Trouble is, neither thing happened. Reality is such a pesky thing.

[Flowers]

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self defense.

These toys you fancy, they don't accomplish the task you set out for them.

Despite the fact that 33-40% of homes have guns, guns are used for protection in less than 2% of home invasion crimes when someone is home.

Handgun prevalence does not protect your women. (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf)

In 2003, there were only 163 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.

More fun facts; The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home and multiplies by five the risk of suicide.

[Flowers]

The fact - which no one disputes - that guns are often wrongfully used does not mean they have no utility when used properly.

The fact is, handguns are of such limited utlity when it comes to civilians stopping crimes in progress that it is simple vanity to desire a sidearm. You do more harm than good. You kill more children than felons. You murder more of your wives than you save.

[MikeSofaer]

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home and multiplies by five the risk of suicide.
Does that mean that guns cause homicidal tendencies, or does it mean that homocidal people buy guns? Do the rates in non-gun-having homes go up in states where it is hard to get guns?

[Flowers]

Then control for your motherfucking variables, Mary Sue.

Surely if your predictions are correct, then two similar states (e.g., similar economic growth and the like), one with shall-issue CCW and one without, will experience different levels of gun violence.

Similarly, if your predictions are correct, those 38 states should have seen increases in gun violence following the passage of their respective CCW laws.

Trouble is, neither thing happened. Reality is such a pesky thing.
Check the gun death rate, here;
Page 41 (http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/crossfir.pdf)
Against the Brady Campaign report cards, here;
Whole document (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2004/details.pdf)

Although there are some states that get under 10 out of 100,000 deaths without recieving a passing grade, observe the correlation between concealed carry states, the grades they get, and the rate of gun deaths in their state.

[TomChick]

It's so nice to see Flowers rise above the simple art of trolling. :)

Frankly, I don't see how you pro-handgun people get past this:

The simple fact is that having firearms within reach at all times makes it too easy to kill someone.

I don't give a rats ass whether you people get to use your fancy-pants target-shooting pistols if the price to be paid is that angry husbands shoot their wives instead of stab them or gang members so frequently shoot instead of punch each other.

And I don't see how otherwise smart people cling to this penny-ante cowboy fantasy crap about guns stopping crimes and deter muggers and protect homes from burglars. Is that really the best you people can come up with?

-Tom, partly trolling so Flowers doesn't have to, but still entirely serious

[LesJarvis]

Does that mean that guns cause homicidal tendencies, or does it mean that homocidal people buy guns? Do the rates in non-gun-having homes go up in states where it is hard to get guns?
I think it means that having quick and easy access to something that can kill people as swiftly and efficiently as a handgun raises the risk of a person being killed.

[MikeSofaer]

I think it means that having quick and easy access to something that can kill people as swiftly and efficiently as a handgun raises the risk of a person being killed.
That's one thing it could mean, but it's not enough to really conclude that.

[Jason McCullough]

I favor personal ownership of automatic shotguns. TO KILL THE ZOMBIE THREADS RAWR

[Flowers]

I favor personal ownership of automatic shotguns. TO KILL THE ZOMBIE THREADS RAWR
Normally you are so well informed, it makes me suspect that this post is simply your attempt at Flowers-esque pseudo-joke trolling.

While a shotgun is an effective anti-crowd weapon against the living threads, the same is not true against hordes of the living dead thread. Many factors, including but not limited to; the undead thread's insensitivity to ridicule, their ability to plod forward even whilst lacking posters, and the simple lack of importance of their opinions outside of the core board membership.

A shotgun, with all of its boisterous report and unrepentant kick, is simply not the weapon of choice against reanimated corpse threads, the weapon may be used with slugs or shot, and while the spread of shot might seem at first effective, the pellets spread by the fire simply do not do enough damage to the blither blathering of the poster. Furthermore, it is one thing to be forced to use a weapon that brings you within medium range of Brian Koontz. It is another foolish thing entirely to actually choose to use such a weapon. The alternative, the ORLY? Owl, is slow to fire. Although multiple zombie threads could be taken out in a line should their headers line up fortuitously, any trained zombie fighter knows that waiting for opportunity is the domain of the troller, not the street level zombie thread sweeper. Your fingers will tire quickly, and you will be overrun.

[brainfromarous]

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self defense.

The inevitable Kellerman reference.

This is something of an Urban Myth in gun control debates: "A gun in the home is X times more likely to hurt you than defend you."

The value of X changes depending on who's telling the tale, but we've all heard that one, right? Every wonder where it came from? It's taken from a study conducted by Dr Arthur L. Kellermann & Dr. Donald T. Reay and published as "Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home" in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986.

There's one problem: it's bullshit. David Kopel (over at National Review Online) takes it apart, as well as addressing other related matters.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

(If Flowers is going to cite the Brady folks, I can cite NRO. Fair play.)

In 2003, there were only 163 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States.

Ah, this again. One of the favorite stunts of the opposition is to compare the annual number of murders to that of self-defense killings and, if the first is greater than the second, claim that guns do more harm than good.

As Kopel points out in the above-linked article, this only works if you don't take into account how many people are saved by the presence of a firearm even if they don't have to shoot it.

Do we measure the effectiveness of a police department by how many people its officers shoot dead in the street during the year?

For every hoodlum Swiss-cheesed by some cop's Glock, how many cease their hostilities when confronted with someone (an armed officer, in this case) who is clearly ready, willing and able to use lethal force against them?

Armed citizens deter crime, both in the anticipatory and moment-of-truth sense, in the same way armed cops do.

I have never shot someone - and hopefully, I'll never have to. But I have, on two occasions, had to draw my gun and make it clear that I will if I have to. Once was on the job (I'm a security guard) and once was in my own home. Both incidents were solidly in the "success" category of armed self-defense, but since no shots were fired, and nobody was hurt, both will just vanish into statistical, criminological background noise.

[brainfromarous]

I don't give a rats ass whether you people get to use your fancy-pants target-shooting pistols if the price to be paid is that angry husbands shoot their wives instead of stab them or gang members so frequently shoot instead of punch each other.

And I don't see how otherwise smart people cling to this penny-ante cowboy fantasy crap about guns stopping crimes and deter muggers and protect homes from burglars. Is that really the best you people can come up with?


See above response, Tom.

Additional note: The one time I had to pull a gun on someone trying to break into my house, the responding police officers told me I would have been within my rights to shoot the guy, based on what he was screaming at me and the fact that he had already broken through the garage door and was trying to get through the inner door into the house proper. Fortunately - esp for him - he gave up and ran away.

It is precisely because I'm NOT in thrall to "cowboy fantasy crap" that I held off. Were I some trigger-happy gun nut with delusions of Charles Bronsonhood, I would have let him have it. I didn't, because human life means something to me - yes, even his - and I didn't want to pull that trigger unless there was no other choice.

[Damien Falgoust]

A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self defense. Dude, you're trotting out the Kellermann stat after ranting about More Guns, Less Crime? Your hypocrisy astounds.


Handgun prevalence does not protect your women. (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf)
Wow, distorted stats from the Brady campaigh. I'm shocked. Rolling eyes smiley.

Note how they carefully define defensive use of guns to only include instances where the victim kills their attacker. They do not count instances where the attacker is wounded, or instances where merely brandishing a weapon caused an attacker to think twice and run.

I also get a kick out of how their argument against women using guns against stranger rape is that stranger rape doesn't happen very often, and essentially suggest women learn kung-fu as an alternative.

In 2003, there were only 163 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in the United States. See above re defesnive use of weapons. Also, what's your source?

More fun facts; The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home and multiplies by five the risk of suicide. Source? Methodology? Or just pulled from your ass?

[brainfromarous]

And I don't see how otherwise smart people cling to this penny-ante cowboy fantasy crap about guns stopping crimes and deter muggers and protect homes from burglars. Is that really the best you people can come up with?

-Tom, partly trolling so Flowers doesn't have to, but still entirely serious

Ok, here's my half-troll/half-serious response: If they are so very useless, why do cops carry them?

Before giving an answer like, "Well, cops have special training," please consider this:

What do police academies teach their recruits, anyway? Do all cops have SWAT-level tactical and marksmanship skills? Is your average cop is some kind of Jedi Knight with his nightstick and 9mm? Are they all street-hardened veterans of hand-to-hand and armed combat?

I'm not making a case for vigilantism. I'm not saying we should all carry guns all the time. I'm not saying you shouldn't call 911 if you can when trouble comes your way.

I am saying that while police training and experience can and do make a difference, the gap between cops and regular folks is just that - a gap, not the Grand Canyon.

[Damien Falgoust]

Check the gun death rate, here;
Page 41 (http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/crossfir.pdf)
Against the Brady Campaign report cards, here;
Whole document (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2004/details.pdf)

Although there are some states that get under 10 out of 100,000 deaths without recieving a passing grade, observe the correlation between concealed carry states, the grades they get, and the rate of gun deaths in their state. Weren't you the one bitching about other variables earlier? Compare similarly-situated states -- say, Wisconsin (no CCW period) versus Minnesota (liberal CCW law).

Not that the correlation holds all of the time, but what you've presented is hardly proof of your contention. Also note that the three outright-ban states (WI, NE, KS) have a score over 10.

But more to the point, your hysterics just don't square with reality. I live in gun-happy Texas, and I assure you it isn't the wild west out here. And I'm not some gated-community recluse, either.

I also don't carry a gun, FTR, and don't hold a CCW permit. Neither does my wife. I've only discharged a firearm twice in my life (once, a .22 rifle as a thriteen-year-old visiting a ranch, and again, a shotgun at a skeet range). That's a personal choice. But absent a compelling reason based on solid evidence to do otherwise, it's a choice I'm happy to allow my fellow citizens to make.

[deccan]

Ok, here's my half-troll/half-serious response: If they are so very useless, why do cops carry them?


Sheesh, I totally get Tom's point, but it doesn't seem like you do.

Hint: he's not saying that they're useless at injuring or killing people.

[Damien Falgoust]

I am saying that while police training and experience can and does make a difference, the gap between them and regular folks is just that - a gap, not the Grand Canyon. Just to add to this: I have no problems with competency-based restrictions on CCW permits. Yes, you should have to get training before you can pack, and yes, you should have to demonstrate you can handle the damn thing periodically to keep your license.

[Flowers]

Wow, distorted stats from the Brady campaigh. I'm shocked. Rolling eyes smiley.
...

Source? Methodology? Or just pulled from your ass?

...

Oh, Tubby McFlapstabber, those statistics are from the same source you earlier insulted.


Also, the NRA wants to pass laws that force business owners to allow gun carrying individuals onto their property. (Florida) That doesn't sound very smart. Just be glad I'm not anecdotalizing the shit out of you with stories of dead toddlers and senior citizens shot to fucking death in arguments by mental defectives and criminals with valid CCW permits, because Brady Campaign furnishes those as well.

Cold.. Dead... Handssss!

[TomChick]

No offense, brainfromarous, because this is one of those issues that's almost always going to spin off into some sort of ad-hominem and I hate to be the one to start it, but that's a really stupid justification for letting people have guns.

Cops get to do all sorts of thing private citizens don't get to do. They are the force behind the rule of law and are occasionally allowed to restrain, imprison, question, taser, chase, yell at, and even shoot you. They're a part of the social contract and their job is that much harder when there are a bunch of fucking idiots running around with guns because people like you are so goddamn misguided about the issue just because you think you're handling it responsibly from that one time you waved off a burglar and nobody got hurt.

It's simply a bad idea to make firepower widely available, to give people little buttons they can press to cause the deaths of other people. I don't trust human nature with that kind of power and frankly, I'm not concerned with how the National Review article spins it. I'm talking common sense, minus the lies, damn lies, statistics, and Kopel articles.

-Tom

[TomChick]

Just to add to this: I have no problems with competency-based restrictions on CCW permits. Yes, you should have to get training before you can pack, and yes, you should have to demonstrate you can handle the damn thing periodically to keep your license.

Well then, welcome to the ranks of the common sense gun control advocates.

-Tom

[Damien Falgoust]

Well then, welcome to the ranks of the common sense gun control advocates.I'm no gun nut, I just believe the government's default position should favor individual rights. But I'm not sure that puts me in the gun control camp -- I'm not getting the vibe that you'd favor CCW as long as holders have to demonstrate they understand the law regarding the use of deadly force and that they can shoot straight at the range.


Also, the NRA wants to pass laws that force business owners to allow gun carrying individuals onto their property. (Florida)You misstate the issue by describing it too broadly: the bill at issue in Florida would prevent employers from prohibiting their employees from keeping guns locked in their cars. It wouldn't prevent the local McDonald's from forbidding customers to bring their weapons inside the restaurant.

Incidentally, I'm on the side of the employers on this one, coming at this as I do from a quasi-libertarian standpoint. Private property owners should be able to control what is and isn't brought onto their property -- even parking lots. No state action equals no objection from me on this front.

In Googling that up, I ran across a story indicating that Kansas just passed a shall-issue CCW law last Thursday (March 23, 2006, overriding the governor's veto no less). Care to wager on its effects?

[Nick Walter]

Not that the correlation holds all of the time, but what you've presented is hardly proof of your contention. Also note that the three outright-ban states (WI, NE, KS) have a score over 10.


I just love how people throw stats from gun happy midwestern three states into the mix to prove that concealed carry laws don't correlate with higher incidents of gun violence.

Folks, Nebraska doesn't need a concealed carry law. Everyone keeps their gun in their cars instead. I seriously know multiple college educated people with white collar professional jobs who keep at least one firearm in their car at all times. Some of them more then one. I'm not just talking shotguns here either, I'm talking pistols.

Rural states have a pervasive culture of gun ownership regardless of whether they have concealed carry laws on the books.

[Flowers]

In Googling that up, I ran across a story indicating that Kansas just passed a shall-issue CCW law last Thursday (March 23, 2006, overriding the governor's veto no less). Care to wager on its effects?

Sure, whether CCW in Kansas goes one year without a valid permit holder legally carrying a firearm killing an innocent person is the bet. If you win, I will give $50 to the NRA.

If I win, you will send $50 to the victim's family.

[Houngan]

No offense, brainfromarous, because this is one of those issues that's almost always going to spin off into some sort of ad-hominem and I hate to be the one to start it, but that's a really stupid justification for letting people have guns.

Cops get to do all sorts of thing private citizens don't get to do. They are the force behind the rule of law and are occasionally allowed to restrain, imprison, question, taser, chase, yell at, and even shoot you. They're a part of the social contract and their job is that much harder when there are a bunch of fucking idiots running around with guns because people like you are so goddamn misguided about the issue just because you think you're handling it responsibly from that one time you waved off a burglar and nobody got hurt.

It's simply a bad idea to make firepower widely available, to give people little buttons they can press to cause the deaths of other people. I don't trust human nature with that kind of power and frankly, I'm not concerned with how the National Review article spins it. I'm talking common sense, minus the lies, damn lies, statistics, and Kopel articles.

-Tom

Tom,

I see your general point, but the cat's already out of the bag. It's been widely available for a few hundred years, so now we have to address safety within the system.

First, it's completely unfounded that the cop's job is harder because of CCW holders. Particularly since CCW holders commit crimes at about 10% the rate of normal people, and almost never with a firearm.

Second, the "cowboy fantasy", which is both ad hominem and strawman at once, doesn't drive most people to own guns, in my experience. The cowboy fantasy folks are too busy volunteer firefighting and joining the S&R teams. People own guns either by lifestyle, say growing up on a farm and shooting for years as recreation, or as a defense against perceived threat. Nobody is becoming the Punisher, out for general vengeance on the forces of evil.

Third, there is a studied, restudied, argued, reargued, and settled fact of roughly 1 million defensive uses of guns in America today. This number is gleaned from around 15 independent studies performed by both extremely liberal and conservative bodies. While that might not be an argument for owning a gun, it certainly indicates that there is a valid need within a certain percentage of probability.

H.

[Nellie]

If they are so very useless, why do cops carry them?


Cops have one very compelling advantage, looking at them and that uniform thingy I can be 99.9% sure they are actually a cop and guage their intentions towards me accordingly.

There was an NRA spokeswoman on the BBC a while back suggesting that concealed carry was a good thing and police supported the notion of some random joe being able to turn up in the middle of an arrest/shootout and draw a weapon to assist. Personally I'd have thought that was an action likely to get you shot by the police in double quicktime.

[Houngan]

Cops have one very compelling advantage, looking at them and that uniform thingy I can be 99.9% sure they are actually a cop and guage their intentions towards me accordingly.

There was an NRA spokeswoman on the BBC a while back suggesting that concealed carry was a good thing and police supported the notion of some random joe being able to turn up in the middle of an arrest/shootout and draw a weapon to assist. Personally I'd have thought that was an action likely to get you shot by the police in double quicktime.

That sounds like an example of dumbspin by the NRA. While I'm sure you can drum up a few thousand cops to say something like that, in general I would agree with you that it's a great way to be shot. There are examples of citizens saving cops, of course, but I don't think that's a primary reason to carry a gun.

I'm not worried about helping an armed, trained, organized gang with radios deal with the bad guys. It's little old me that needs help.

H.

[Damien Falgoust]

Sure, whether CCW in Kansas goes one year without a valid permit holder legally carrying a firearm killing an innocent person is the bet. If you win, I will give $50 to the NRA.

If I win, you will send $50 to the victim's family. I win and you PayPal me $50, you win and I PayPal you $50. The winner can forward on the dough as he sees fit. Or use it to buy an ultra-violent first person shooter. Or whatever.

I don't agree with the NRA 100% of the time and even if I did, they are too hamhanded to warrant my giving them cash.

We should define some parameters here, though. Obviously, for me to lose the killing should be via the legally carried firearm rather than, say, defenestration. Also "innocent person" should exclude any situation where the shooter has a legally valid self-defense claim -- I don't want to have arguments over whether that mugger was really going to mug the victim, the only thing that should matter is that the putative victim had a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was warranted. And that, of course, will be resolved at the inevitable trial.

See you next March 23.

[Flowers]

See you next March 23.

I will stipulate to your conditions regarding shooter qualifications, but I will not agree to your counter-proposal regarding method of payment. You can pick your beneficiary, you may even pick yourself, I have picked mine, I think the money should go to them directly from the loser.

[Damien Falgoust]

Look, I lose and I'll forward payment to whoever the hell you want, as long as you do the legwork for getting addresses and such. As long as I don't have to do actual work to hold up my end, I'm fine.

[Flowers]

Look, I lose and I'll forward payment to whoever the hell you want, as long as you do the legwork for getting addresses and such. As long as I don't have to do actual work to hold up my end, I'm fine.
You're on.

[TomChick]

First, it's completely unfounded that the cop's job is harder because of CCW holders. Particularly since CCW holders commit crimes at about 10% the rate of normal people, and almost never with a firearm.

Frankly, I don't give two nickels about CCW holders when the issue at large is so much bigger than them. The problem is how widespread firearms are in the United States, which is the "cat out of the bag" you're talking about. I'm for trying to put the goddamn cat back in the bag, not making sure everybody has his own frickin' cat.

Mangled metaphor, there, but I'm sure you get my point.

Second, the "cowboy fantasy", which is both ad hominem and strawman at once, doesn't drive most people to own guns, in my experience. The cowboy fantasy folks are too busy volunteer firefighting and joining the S&R teams. People own guns either by lifestyle, say growing up on a farm and shooting for years as recreation, or as a defense against perceived threat. Nobody is becoming the Punisher, out for general vengeance on the forces of evil.

The "cowboy fantasy" is the bullshit NRA groupthink about how people are safer when there are more guns. I guess it has partly to do with a fella's perspective on human nature, but I think it's sadly Pollyanna of anyone to presume that the world is a better place if everyone has a button they can push to kill anyone else.

I don't trust people with that kind of power.

Third, there is a studied, restudied, argued, reargued, and settled fact of roughly 1 million defensive uses of guns in America today.

BFD. Seriously, Houngan, BFD. I will gladly trade those "million defensive uses" -- whatever that's supposed to mean -- for a culture where deadly force isn't so sexy, so widespread, so irresponsibly used, and so easy to come by.

-Tom

[Houngan]

Tom,

Hokay, we're in about the same place, agreeing that guns are powerful, that doing away with all guns would reduce killings, but not really knowing how to do it.

I suppose where we differ is that while they are still out there, I choose to keep and bear. No big deal.

H.

[shift6]

Links to previous concealed carry QT3 arguments: here (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=15078) and here (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showthread.php?t=13203).

Check the gun death rate, here;
Page 41 (http://www.hud.gov/library/bookshelf18/pressrel/crossfir.pdf)
And California, one of the most restrictive gun states in the union and in which you can almost never get a CCW, tops the charts by leaps and bounds in homocides, more than doubling Texas (cowboy state) and nearly tripling New York (another hard core blue state).

Against the Brady Campaign report cards, here;
Whole document (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/reportcards/2004/details.pdf)
Many of those "facts" are wrong, either because the report is outdated or because someone was lyi^M^M^Mmaking a boo boo. I quickly looked at some of the states that got a "F" in concealed carry and there were a few errors. For instance, it says you don't even need a permit in Alaska (false), you can carry concealed in a car without a permit in Georgia (false), no training required in Idaho (false), 18 year olds may carry concealed in Idaho (false), etc. I didn't do an exhaustive walk-through but those stuck out. I also don't expect that to change anyone's minds since it is mostly just a correction of the facts, but there it is.

There's a good website with a reasonably updated list of references for John Q. Public at http://www.packing.org/

Although there are some states that get under 10 out of 100,000 deaths without recieving a passing grade, observe the correlation between concealed carry states, the grades they get, and the rate of gun deaths in their state.
Let's keep in mind that the grade issuer isn't precisely objective. For example, why is carrying a concealed gun in your car with or without a permit OK or not OK? Why is a state given a lower grade if the state law always pre-empts city law? In light of the potential for the abuse of power, why exactly is "police discretion" good in issuing CCW permits? How come a laundry list of things that would exclude someone from getting a CCW (such as prior convictions on crimes, prior restraining orders in domestic events, a term of state residency, background check, etc) doesn't improve the grade? And so on.

[Flowers]

Let's keep in mind that the grade issuer isn't precisely objective.
1.For example, why is carrying a concealed gun in your car with or without a permit OK or not OK?
2.Why is a state given a lower grade if the state law always pre-empts city law?
3. In light of the potential for the abuse of power, why exactly is "police discretion" good in issuing CCW permits?
4. How come a laundry list of things that would exclude someone from getting a CCW (such as prior convictions on crimes, prior restraining orders in domestic events, a term of state residency, background check, etc) doesn't improve the grade? And so on.

1. Permits for concealed carry covering loaded weapons in the car is a simple attempt to put officers Computer Assisted Dispatch System on notice that the person does have a gun during the stop. Permitless carrying of a loaded .357 magnum underneath your car seat is just not smart, and it's going to end badly.
2. If State Law always pre-empts city law, that means city laws cannot be more strict than the state law. Some cities may not want anyone carrying a concealed weapon in their town. Some cities don't want any taverns open on Sunday morning or alcohol sold after 9.
3. Police Discretion means that if a person isn't a felon, hasn't been committed, and isn't the town drunk, they can still deny the permit. This includes cases such as, violent misdemeanor repeat offenders, the obviously unstable but untreated, heavy drug users, and obvious dipshits.
4. It should.

[Marcus]

Hey just so you guys know cops can buy guns and dont have to deal with the waiting period! Instant guns ftw!

[brainfromarous]

No offense, brainfromarous, because this is one of those issues that's almost always going to spin off into some sort of ad-hominem and I hate to be the one to start it, but that's a really stupid justification for letting people have guns.

Cops get to do all sorts of thing private citizens don't get to do. They are the force behind the rule of law and are occasionally allowed to restrain, imprison, question, taser, chase, yell at, and even shoot you. They're a part of the social contract and their job is that much harder when there are a bunch of fucking idiots running around with guns because people like you are so goddamn misguided about the issue just because you think you're handling it responsibly from that one time you waved off a burglar and nobody got hurt.

It's simply a bad idea to make firepower widely available, to give people little buttons they can press to cause the deaths of other people. I don't trust human nature with that kind of power and frankly, I'm not concerned with how the National Review article spins it. I'm talking common sense, minus the lies, damn lies, statistics, and Kopel articles.

-Tom

Tom,

(1) No offense taken. And call me "George."

(2) The distinction I was making in my half-troll post was that cops carry guns because they get into situations where they have to threaten or use lethal force in self-defense or to defend others.

(3) Cops are not the only people, however, who encounter this kind of trouble. They encounter it MORE OFTEN because their job involves actively searching for and confronting violent criminals. Because of this, they do (and should) have training, equipment and legal powers which regular citizens do not have. I do not dispute this. Nobody here disputes this.

(4) But even if you're in your own home, minding your own business, such trouble can find you. It found me that one night, when the nearest police officer was 20 mins away*.

(5) As for "waving off a burglar," let's be clear about something: 'Burglary' is when you come home and find a rear window broken and the TV missing. Someone trying to kick your door in while screaming about how he's going to "fucking kill you" is not 'burglary,' m'kay?

(6) If you have reason to believe Kopel's piece for NRO was "spin" (that is, the dishonest or selective presentation of facts), then please make your case. The Kellerman claim is a throughly-debunked canard. It's one of the Urban Myths of gun control and you're welcome to check it out for yourself if you find Kopel untrustworthy.

(7) I have said here, plainly, that I am not one of those "Guns and CCWs for all!" types, so direct your "fucking idiots running around with guns" comments to those who actually want things to be like that.

(8) I share your pessimism about human nature. I believe in law and order and support my local police. I don't want, nor do I advocate, armed anarchy. But I also have no illusions that our government - which is made up of those very same humans you and I are so pessimistic about - gives a rat's ass whether I live or die. Accordingly, I will not leave myself helpless in my own home and rely solely on the government for a level of responsiveness and protection it has neither the ability nor obligation to provide.


*20 mins is not bad, actually. It can take far longer.

[Flowers]

(5) As for "waving off a burglar," let's be clear about something: 'Burglary' is when you come home and find a rear window broken and the TV missing. Someone trying to kick your door in while screaming about how he's going to "fucking kill you" is not 'burglary,' m'kay?



Burglary is entering a dwelling* without the consent of the person in lawful possession and with the intent to steal or commit a felony.

So you are right, what that man did was not burglary, it was...attempted burglary.



*And numerous other places such as locked boats and trailers.

[Lunch of Kong]

If there are persons inside that dwelling, and the burglar interacts with them, does it then become a robbery?

[Flowers]

Depends on what he does, could be murder, could be rape, could be arson, could be illegal dyeing of baby chickens for sale.

The burglary will still have been committed, there will just be other offenses committed. Breaking the law against entering a dwelling without consent and with the intent to commit a felony is one thing, committing the felony is entirely another.

If you go into a house to break less than $10,000 of shit in Wisconsin, it's only breaking and entering and misdemeanor criminal damage to property. If, while you are there breaking shit, you decide to murder everyone in the house, you still only committed breaking and entering. Of course, on the flipside, if you break in to kill someone and then decide against it, you still completed the crime of burglary.

[shift6]

1.Permits for concealed carry covering loaded weapons in the car is a simple attempt to put officers Computer Assisted Dispatch System on notice that the person does have a gun during the stop. Permitless carrying of a loaded .357 magnum underneath your car seat is just not smart, and it's going to end badly.
It isn't going to end badly if you are a responsible gun owner. Note that most of the states on that site I linked to above require advising the officer that there is a loaded weapon concealed in the vehicle, independent of the CCW issuance in that state.

2. If State Law always pre-empts city law, that means city laws cannot be more strict than the state law. Some cities may not want anyone carrying a concealed weapon in their town. Some cities don't want any taverns open on Sunday morning or alcohol sold after 9.
Could it not be equally argued that some cities would be far more lax in the law, therefore it's good that state law trumps it?

3. Police Discretion means that if a person isn't a felon, hasn't been committed, and isn't the town drunk, they can still deny the permit. This includes cases such as, violent misdemeanor repeat offenders, the obviously unstable but untreated, heavy drug users, and obvious dipshits.
But those people are denied CCW in most of the states listed by other law. That's why I don't consider it "police discretion", I consider it something the legislature has already taken into account. To me, the words "police discretion" don't mean "under existing law", they mean more like your final example: an obvious dipshit. I can't think of a compelling reason to allow those types of subjective judgements.

4. It should.
It already does. That's my point, and it vaguely ties to point 3 above.

[Flowers]

It isn't going to end badly if you are a responsible gun owner. Note that most of the states on that site I linked to above require advising the officer that there is a loaded weapon concealed in the vehicle, independent of the CCW issuance in that state.


Could it not be equally argued that some cities would be far more lax in the law, therefore it's good that state law trumps it?


But those people are denied CCW in most of the states listed by other law. That's why I don't consider it "police discretion", I consider it something the legislature has already taken into account. To me, the words "police discretion" don't mean "under existing law", they mean more like your final example: an obvious dipshit. I can't think of a compelling reason to allow those types of subjective judgements.


It already does. That's my point, and it vaguely ties to point 3 above.
1. It ends badly more often than the alternative ends badly.
2. Local laws cannot invalidate state law.
3. Go take a second peek at some of those laws. The borderline retarded should not pack heat.
4. If it has an effect on safety in the eyes of the people handing out the grades, it gets them a better grade. That's not really anything you can take up with me. You should write to them and ask.*

*Honestly? A state allows people to fucking carry guns around, Brady campaign's not giving you an A for that. What do you want, half credit?

[shift6]

*Honestly? A state allows people to fucking carry guns around, Brady campaign's not giving you an A for that. What do you want, half credit?
No, not at all. I was critiquing the original grades based on the source, and using these questions as justification as to why it has too much bias. I don't think that those grades ought to be cited as some kind of objective metric in a gun control thread, because they aren't objective.

[Robert Sharp]

Tom, you have a good point, but I think you lose a lot of it by suggesting that guns are like buttons people can press to kill people. It's not as simple as that. And I dont just mean because you might miss. If I could push a button to kill anyone I want, that may well be impossible to trace. People who commit gun crimes get caught all the time. Ease of use does not mean that people can just kill others without consequences. They are also loud, which draws attention. And yes, it is also hard to shoot someone in many cases, so guns aren't like magic buttons.

I actually share your concern for having everyone armed. If I could be assured that no one else in our society had a gun, I'd be all for giving up my right to own one. Sadly, I don't see that happening.

[Nick Walter]

If I could be assured that no one else in our society had a gun, I'd be all for giving up my right to own one.

That's a self defeating argument. The first step towards making sure no one else has a gun is giving up the right to have one. So what you basically said is that you will never under any circumstances give up your right to own one.

[TomChick]

Ease of use does not mean that people can just kill others without consequences.

Do you believe people are sufficiently deterred by consequences? Because I don't put that much trust in human nature, particularly during the times guns are most commonly used: crimes of passion, drive-by shootings, arguments, when crimes are already in progress, or just plain batshit crazy stuff like that guy who killed bago's friends in Washington.

Ease of use is exactly the problem I have with guns. In the good old days, you had to use a knife or a club to try to kill someone. It was messy, complicated, and more easily foiled.

But guns are a whole other kind of power that gives the worst side of people a quick and easy outlet. I think it was Cervantes who called guns an invention that allows even the basest knave to kill the noblest knight. And to my mind, it seems there's too much base knave in all of us for such an invention to be so widespread.

-Tom

[Hanzii]

Tom, you have a good point, but I think you lose a lot of it by suggesting that guns are like buttons people can press to kill people. It's not as simple as that. And I dont just mean because you might miss. If I could push a button to kill anyone I want, that may well be impossible to trace. People who commit gun crimes get caught all the time.

Catching them doesn't unkill their victim, so your argument makes no sense.
You can just press a button and kill somebody if you have a gun - what happens to you afterwards have no bearing on that.

You might be arguing that consequences deter people, but that's not supported by anything else than wishfull thinking. Serious studies says otherwise.

And using that argument coupled with the one used by other proponents for no gun control in this thread, that guns prevent violent crimes, I would think that armed citizens and the treath of the death penalty would keep the US a happy place free of murders and violence as opposed to the dangerous streets of Europe with its lax sentencing and gun control laws, that ensures only criminals have access to guns...

[Robert Sharp]

That's a self defeating argument. The first step towards making sure no one else has a gun is giving up the right to have one. So what you basically said is that you will never under any circumstances give up your right to own one.

Yep, I know that, Nick. Which is why I said it was an impossible situation. Because I am betting that's how most people feel about it.

[Robert Sharp]

You might be arguing that consequences deter people, but that's not supported by anything else than wishfull thinking. Serious studies says otherwise.


Those studies are about how crime rates don't go down when you add certain deterrents. What I am saying is that without ANY deterrents (something that can't be tested...and hopefully never will be), crime would go up. In other words, if we could literally push buttons and kill people (and hence NO deterrent really), more people would do it.

Jeez, all I argued against was the severity of Tom's statement, not his main intent. And you guys are jumping all over me! No wonder people avoid this section of the forum.

[shift6]

Jeez, all I argued against was the severity of Tom's statement, not his main intent. And you guys are jumping all over me! No wonder people avoid this section of the forum.
The problem is that you don't agree enough. Report to the showers.

[TomChick]

Robert, I hardly think Hanzii and Nick disagreeing with you is "jumping all over you"! You've been around P&R long enough to know better than that, haven't you?

Anyway, I'm shocked that a thread on gun control has been so civil for 7 pages. So I'm going to take this opportunity to call/refer to shift6 as "caret".

-Tom

[shift6]

Anyway, I'm shocked that a thread on gun control has been so civil for 7 pages. So I'm going to take this opportunity to call refer to shift6 as "caret".
I LOLed at work reading this. For a non-sequiter, that was a well placed goof.

[TomChick]

There. I put a / in there so it looks less sloppy.

-Tom