Let's talk about guns

[Iangould]

Several times pre-meltdown, the subject of gun control came up.

By chance I came across some interesting information from Great Britain - you know, the place where the gun advocates claim the crime rate is soaring.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page63.asp



How the British Crime Survey (BCS) works

* For a variety of reasons, people do not always report crimes to the police - which means they don't get reflected in police recorded crime figures.

* The British Crime Survey (BCS) asks people about their actual experiences - and so gives us a more accurate picture of crime levels and trends across England & Wales. (more...)

Note: Violent crime, as measured by the BCS, includes common assault, wounding, robbery and snatch theft. It does not include homicide (as the victims cannot be surveyed) and other types of violent crime, like firearms offences.


According to the BCS:

* In 2002/03, the total number of violent offences in England & Wales was 2,781,000.

* These included:

o 501,000 incidents of domestic violence
o 942,000 incidents where the offender was an acquaintance
o 949,000 incidents where the offender was a stranger
o 388,000 incidents of mugging

* Violent crime has fallen by 35% since its peak in 1995, and has remained relatively stable since 2000.

* In 2002/03, 4.1% of people experienced a violent incident, approximately half of which resulted in some injury.

1995, as it happens, was the year the British tightened gun controls.

That led me to look for data on the Brtish murder rate.

I didn't find anything especially useful or up-to-date but in looking I cam across this:

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/ohtmlnepage.

Tim Lambert, an academic at the University of New South Wales, responds to John Lott's claims that concealed carry laws lead to lower crime rates.

Lambert also has a blog tracking the various accusations of unethical condcut levelled at Lott.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott98update.html

[Iangould]

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

It does appear though the British murder rate HAS increased significantly in the past decade - from around 650 per year to over 1000.

That's still significantly less than in the US though.

The page in question also states:

* The increase in homicides in recent years must take account of:

1. the victims of Harold Shipman, whose deaths occurred some years prior to when they were recorded
2. the 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK in 2000/01 (all 'Manslaughter' offences under 'Homicide')

[Iangould]

Lambert also provides what strieks me as a pretty definitive rebuttal of the factoid (promulgated by Lott) that 98% of defensive gun uses involve the gun-owner merely showing or brandishing the gun.

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/files/lottduncancomments.html

Survey data on how often defenders shoot
Kleck’s 98% “brandish, warning shot or miss” estimate was based on an indirect (and very rough) estimate of the number of defensive woundings. Subsequent research on defensive gun use allowed more direct estimates, and estimates of how often defenders fired their gun.

Survey Percent firing Source
Kleck 24 Kleck 1995
NSPOF 27 Duncan 2000
NCVS 1987-1990 28 Duncan 2000
NCVS 1987-1992 38 Rand 1994
NCVS 1992-2001 21 NCVS online analysis system
Field 34 Kleck 1995
Cambridge Reports 67 Kleck 1995
DMIa 40 Kleck 1995
Ohio 40 Kleck 1995
While there is some variation, the lowest number is 21%, and anyone who claims that only 2% of defenders fire their weapons is strongly contradicted by these surveys.

Despite admitting back in 1993 that the 98% figure was incorrect and a result of a misreading on his part, Lott has continued to state it as fact.

[MacQuarrie]

I'm probably not going to post on this thread again after this, since I know how it comes out.....

It all comes down to this: Do we punish people for what they do, or for what we think they might do?

Aside from that, I much prefer a country where the citizens tell the government what it can and can't do, rather than the other way round. Must be my libertarian bent. I prefer to operate on the assumption that people are responsible and trustworthy until they prove otherwise. The problem with guns in America is not the relatively free ownership; it's the extremely high likelihood that misusing them will go unpunished. We pass strict laws pertaining to criminal usage of guns, then allow prosecutors to plea-bargain defendants down until said laws no longer apply.

It's not the severity of punishment that acts as a deterrent, it's the certainty of punishment. That is currently lacking.

And as I said before, if the people are taught to be responsible and sensible, we could sell guns out of vending machines on every corner and not see an increase in gun-related violence. We're currently looking at gun restrictions in order to compensate for a population with no self-control, no common sense and no respect for other people. Gun issues are a symptom of a larger problem. We used to be able to buy guns without background checks, without waiting periods, through the mail, and over the counter at any decent store, and yet we weren't a crazed society shooting each other in the streets.

Long and short of it, I don't like restricting people's freedoms out of fear over what they might do. I totally support any and all laws that increased and enforce severe punishment for the misuse of a gun; I'm not so keen on preemptive moves.

[Tages]

What a coincidence, it just happens that I myself have recently come across a nice essay on this very subject.

From Vin Suprynowicz (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/May-16-Sun-2004/opinion/23884275.html):

We don't need no stinking scientific method

From Mesa, Ariz., Alan Korwin, author of "The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide" and "Gun Laws of America" (www.gunlaws.com) sends in occasional updates on the perfidies of his local statist daily, the Mesa Tribune.

Seems a psychology professor at Arizona State University -- one William Fabricius -- and his 17-year-old son, John Denton, decided to count newspaper stories in the suburban daily that mentioned gun use over a period of three months back in the spring of 1998, when the lad was 12. The duo then wrote up a report, concluding from this "evidence" that, "Almost nobody uses their guns in self-defense."

This "finding" appeared on the front page of the Tribune on April 8 and has subsequently been published in the Canadian journal "Injury Prevention." (See www.gunlaws.com/FabriciusCase.html.)

The problem with such methodology is obvious. What's the most common way a firearm is used in self-defense? A woman leaving a shopping mall at night might find a strange man trailing her to her car. Turning, she produces a handgun from her purse, holds it where it's visible, and announces, "I have a gun. You're frightening me. Go away."

We may never know what the fellow had in mind, since 99 times out of 100 he goes away. No shots are fired; no police are called; no story appears in the newspaper.

Even when shots are fired, most newspapers will cover only that tiny minority of incidents that can be "spun" to justify more gun control.

In my own books, I've documented the way the national press ignored the 1999 case of 21-year-old Richard Gable Stevens of Santa Clara, Calif., who left notes indicating he intended to rent a handgun at a local shooting range, kill everyone there and then "go out in a blaze of glory" as the nation's latest mass murderer.

Why have you never heard of Richard Gable Stevens? Because as he herded the three employees of the National Shooting Club out into the alley, one of them, who unbeknownst to Stevens had a .45-caliber pistol concealed under his shirt, shot him. No self-defense story there for professor Fabricius and his son to count, since America's press corps hardly ever covers stories where gun use prevents a killing spree.

I've also documented the case of 9-year-old Ashley Danielle and 7-year-old John William Carpenter, killed in 2000 by a home invader with a pitchfork in Merced, Calif., because a newly enacted state gun control law meant their older sister could no longer get at the family guns to defend them. That one also got no national coverage -- didn't serve to advance the victim disarmament agenda, did it?

Interestingly enough, John Lott's latest fine book, "The Bias Against Guns," documents the fact that newspapers and TV rarely cover defensive gun uses even when they learn about them -- the actual phenomenon professor Fabricius ended up measuring by counting his newspaper stories! John even found that when citizens with guns held killers at bay till police could arrive (as after the school shooting in Pearl, Miss.), America's newspapers inexplicably but almost invariably left out the fact that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens had been used to stop those killing sprees.

As Mr. Korwin points out, the "study" to which the Tribune decided to give such prominent play has about as much validity as someone poring through three months' worth of newspapers and concluding the vast majority of African-Americans are either sports stars, entertainers or felons on trial ... since those are the times we're most likely to find pictures of blacks in the newspaper.

That would be palpable nonsense, of course. So why is it the Mesa Tribune (quite correctly) wouldn't prominently publicize a ludicrous "finding" like that ... yet happily runs this equally laughable nonsense from the ASU professor and his son?

Mr. Korwin says a Tribune staffer told him, "I went back over (reporter Marija Potkonjak's) story just now and saw no `editorializing.' Everything was clearly attributed to the people who were the subject of the article."

Alan Korwin replied: "The widespread media notion that if someone says something it's printable news and factual is complete abrogation of responsibility. The idea that a statement, inaccurate on its face, still deserves the supportive treatment this story got is the death knell of any credibility for the media. ... '

Alan is correct. Folks in my trade often fall back on the lazy excuse that, "We didn't lie, we properly attributed the statement. If the speaker wasn't telling the truth, blame him."

This is fine if some politician is telling a whopper. Then the newspaper's job is indeed to report exactly what the fellow said -- and then proceed to prove it's a lie.

But every community has a small cadre of harebrained loonies who would doubtless be overjoyed to write up a "report" on their "findings" if they thought they could get front-page play in the local newspaper.

So ... once again ... why did the Mesa Tribune cover this absurd "study" by the professor and his teen-aged son?

Because it confirmed the existing anti-self-defense prejudices of the newspaper's statist publisher and editor, of course.

(Full disclosure -- that newspaper canceled my own column, some years back, after I agreed in print with G. Gordon Liddy, asserting that it's justifiable in America to kill strange armed men who break into your home late at night without presenting any warrant.)

Be sure to tell me the next time the Tribune runs a 40-inch interview with New York state Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto, headlined, "Government schools a huge welfare jobs programs purposely designed to turn our children into muddle-brained slaves."

After all, they wouldn't be endorsing those views, but they do have a duty to present them, so long as they're fully attributed ... right?

[Tages]

As for English murder rates, there is an excellent historic discussion of this in the book Guns and Violence: The English Experience (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674007530/102-8942456-9603345).

Oh, and since I just know Ian is for honest and open discussion on this topic, I am somewhat puzzled that he forgot to include John Lott's responses to the various controversies surrounding him and his work. So I will link them.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/surveysupport.html

And here (http://www.johnlott.org/cgi-bin/login.cgi) is where he has made the data available that he used for his latest book, The Bias Against Guns. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261146/lewrockwell/102-8942456-9603345)

And again, I post one of my favorite simple commentaries on the subject. Flippant? Yes. Insightful? You betcha'.

How to Believe in Gun Control

by Michael Z. Williamson

It's amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control. Here's a short list of the basic "factual" premises of gun control advocates:

* That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

* That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a programmer for computer problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

* That the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

* That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

* That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950s and 1960s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

* That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.

* That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.

* That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.

* That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

* That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.

* That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

* That guns are the gravest threat to society, because 83,000,000 gun owners didn't commit a crime yesterday.

* That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.

* That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.

* That any cheap gun is a "Saturday night special," and any expensive gun is an "assault weapon."

* That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

* That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

* That a 90-pound woman attacked by a 300-pound rapist and his 300-pound buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

* That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

* That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has gun-toting guards.

* That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.

* That the country is safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

* That stupidity can be cured by legislation.

(C)1999, 2000 by Michael Z. Williamson

[Iangould]

Read Lambert's critique of Lott.

For that matter read James Lindgren's report on his attempt, with lott's assistance, to substantiate the exsitence of the survey Lott claims to have conducted in 1997.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html

Then tell me you honestly believe Lott is a reliable and competent researcher.

If you can't, ask yourself how much coverage Lott has gotten in the media (not to mention the fulsome praise in the article you post) then compare that to a single article in that immensely powerful organ of the press The Mesa Tribune.

Still buy the idea of a massive anti-gun media conspiracy?

[Tages]

Read Lambert's critique of Lott.

For that matter read James Lindgren's report on his attempt, with lott's assistance, to substantiate the exsitence of the survey Lott claims to have conducted in 1997.

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html

Then tell me you honestly believe Lott is a reliable and competent researcher.
You leave out, I notice, that no fewer than nine other academics who confirm that they, too, lost data in the same computer crash he did. Or that the attribution of the 98% figure to Kleck was a mistake by the Independent Institute.

If you can't, ask yourself how much coverage Lott has gotten in the media (not to mention the fulsome praise in the article you post) then compare that to a single article in that immensely powerful organ of the press The Mesa Tribune.

Still buy the idea of a massive anti-gun media conspiracy?
The article was posted as a demonstration as to why the research methods conducted in that incidence were not reliable, and used the Tribune article as an example.

As for media thoughts on firearms, come on. When was the last time you saw or read any story about someone using a gun defensively?

[fly on the wall]

I try not to think about gun control. Gun rights are in the constitution, and I want to protect them, but at the same time my nephew is in prison, partly because his Grandfather, his father, and his identical twin uncles worshipped guns. If only guns hadn't been so conveniently located for him when his love affair fell apart. Still it's his fault and he was framed to some extent.

I wouldn't own a gun because they are too seductive to someone that is prone to depression; but sometimes I do get scared of crooks breaking in my house and want a gun. I shot guns plenty when I was a kid under my Grandfather's and Father's close supervision. I liked shooting clay pigeons but hated all the rest of it. All that gun safety and gun cleaning, what a bore. Tramping through the woods to shoot something you never see that you wouldn't want to eat if you did shoot it, boring.

Lately all these people are being shot by stray bullets in DC. Little kids and moms. It makes me really mad. I'm not for gun control but part of me wants martial law declared in DC and they go from house to house collecting all the guns, since they have the strictest gun laws in the country in DC. Why not enforce them with a little fascism? It's no worse than little kids being hit by stray bullets. And moms.

[Iangould]

You leave out, I notice, that no fewer than nine other academics who confirm that they, too, lost data in the same computer crash he did. Or that the attribution of the 98% figure to Kleck was a mistake by the Independent Institute.

How many of those academics claim to have conducted a 2400 person national survey (which based on my experience with surveys would have cost around US$40,000) funded out of their own pocket; to have paid their researchers in cash (thereby explaining the absence of any cheque records of payments) and not to have kept any documentation of that expenditure despite the fact that it was tax-deductible?

I'm not disputing ther3 was a computer crash. We know this because one of Lott's co-authors has confirmed that Lott contacted him to recover lost data. Which raises the question why Lott, having spent $40,000 or os of his own money to conduct the survey didn't AT THAT TIME attempt to locate the students who collected the data for him. Because, you see, the reason that John Lott doesn't have any of the raw data from the survy is that he had the students key it all in on their home computers and rthen give him the tabulated results. (Which raises the question of why he doesn't have e-mail records to support his claims and/or the physical media on which he received the data.

Was the "Independent Institute" the publisher of "More Guns, Less Crime" because the attribution of the 98% figure to Klecke appears there?

When was the last time you saw or read any story about someone using a gun defensively?

About two days ago.

[Deathstroke]

Guns are not toys. I learned first hand. Not in a tragic way though.

My dad is a cop. As a little kid, I was told not to touch my dad's gun. Well being 3 of course I wanted to touch the the shiny object. Until I got an ass whipping when my dad caught me.

Later as I was a little older, I went with my dad to the firing range when he had to requalify and was given the opportunity to shoot his big ass 44.

Learned real quick the proper handling of the gun when the first shot I took blew me backwards onto my ass.

I don't own any guns, the only one in my house is my dad's work gun.

I have a healthy respect for guns. I don't have a problem with someone having a gun, but there should definitely be some sort of tight structure to make sure the nutballs can't buy them easier than getting a loaf of bread.

[Iangould]

A
Oh, and since I just know Ian is for honest and open discussion on this topic, I am somewhat puzzled that he forgot to include John Lott's responses to the various controversies surrounding him and his work.

Thanks for the cheap shot. I didn't link Lott's responses for the very simple reason that Lambert himself provides links to Lott's responses at numerous points.

[Iangould]

As for English murder rates, there is an excellent historic discussion of this in the book Guns and Violence: The English Experience (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674007530/102-8942456-9603345).


you might want to look for another pro-gun writer on the British experience - one who didn't make the elementary statistical error of either not knowing that the British police revised their reporting standards for violent crime between 1997 and 2001 making the early year's data noncomparable with the later year's.

[Iangould]

Anyone remember poor old Craig Lindsay?

The drug dealer who stabbed an armed robber ot death and became a poster boy amongst the US right for Britain's "tyrannical" laws on self-defence?

Tim Lambert, who is fast becoming one of my favorite bloggers, provides a link to another story on the matter which makes Lindsay's actions look even less like self-defence.

The intruders had fled Lindsay's apartment with his money when he produced a samurai sword. He pursued them down a hallway and stabbed one of them to death - presumably in an attempt to recover his money.

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/lancashire/archive/2004/03/25/NEWS8ZM.html

Further discussion of the case can be found here:

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK/

[cactusmaac]

The problem with gun control is that it usually doesn't prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns illegally.

[fly on the wall]

Okay, I'm looking over this thread.

It seems to be about some kind of rise in the murder rate in London.

But I'm suspecting that the per capita murder rate in England is still much lower than in America.

Any of you experts know what the per capita murder rate is in England and the USA? Maybe someone has already mentioned it.

So the argument seems to boil down to

(1) Why has the murder rate gone up in London?

(2) Is the per capita murder rate still much lower in England?

If the per capita murder rate is still much lower in England than America, that's an argument for gun control. Although one could still argue against this because of socio-economic factors if one wanted to.

Just trying to organize the debate is all.

[Wesley Dodds]

Can't stop criminals from getting their hands on them illegally? Too true. The point is, I think, misleading. Will some gun crime still occur? Yes. Will less gun crime occur? Of course. Gun control passes a simple utilitarian test. However, there is still the absolutist question of whether gun ownership is a right so important that it must not be curtailed, whatever the cost in lost lives.

Firstly, property is not a natural right. It is a social contract. Any lawyer can tell you that. We would not, for example, permit everyone access to America's nuclear arsenal. Under the most broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that is what we would have to do. We all accept that a line must be drawn somewhere, we only disagree on where it should be. A sensible starting point for discussion is banning automatic weapons. You know, again, when they become legal again later this year. Another quick point -- the 2nd amendment was, after all, an amendment. That implies the constitution is wrong. What is so right about the 2nd amendment that it cannot be wrong, unlike the rest of the constitution? You cannot say merely that you have a constitutional right. I couldn't care less if the constitution gives you the right to bear arms or you get your permission from Mickey Mouse. What is the moral principle that says you should have handguns, designed for no purpose other than killing people? That is the argument that you have to make.

Also, I'd like to point by point go through Williamson's arguments, because a lot of them are just plain silly.

* That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

A straw man argument. Yes, it is nonsense, which is perhaps why nobody is making it.

* That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a programmer for computer problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

An ad hominem attack. I don't care who Sarah Brady is, is her position correct?

* That the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

Again, the fact that there was an Amendment implies that the Amendment could be wrong. What is the underlying moral justification?

* That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

Another straw man attack. Nobody claims this. A utilitarian analysis of the total lives saved supports gun control. Is there an absolutist argument against it?

* That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950s and 1960s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

A selective example. In some states, I understand, all you have to do is walk into a shop and hand over your money. The fact is that guns are nowhere near as regulated as, say, automobiles, which only kill people when something goes wrong.

* That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.

Ah, irony. No, the idea is you buy a gun to shoot something. It would be pretty silly to shoot up a gun show when you have a target in mind. And why go to a gun show when you can go to a department store?

* That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.

If there were no guns, there would be no shootings... The reality is, gun control means reduced shootings. Less dead people.

* That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.

No, guns don't cause crime, but it's easier to mug someone with a gun. Guns are not the cause, guns are a ridiculously dangerous tool. Gun control means it is harder for criminals to acquire them.

* That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

If the army has 3 million assault rifles, why do the bloods and the crips need handguns? Handguns are near-useless on the modern battlefield.

* That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.

Yes, banning guns reduces gun crime. Like magic. But, guns can be purchased out of state. No state is an island. Which is why gun control should be universal.

* That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

Perhaps the vast majority of people who favor gun control will enforce the law and prosecute those who attempt to break it.

* That guns are the gravest threat to society, because 83,000,000 gun owners didn't commit a crime yesterday.

Another straw man argument. The gravest threat to society is a lack of sex.

* That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.

Straw man. Society is about giving one body a monopoly over the use of force, hence guns, to enforce democratically chosen laws. It's called civilisation.

* That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.

Voting implies months to make your informed choice. Shooting a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a mugger, even if you are a granny.

* That any cheap gun is a "Saturday night special," and any expensive gun is an "assault weapon."

Duh. $2 black market guns, hello? Automatic rifles, hello?

* That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

So, you're at the doctor's, you've been shot, and he can't treat you because he doesn't know how to remove a bullet. Fortunately, the militia member is able to perform heart surgery on you.

* That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

Ooh, that claim sounds highly dubious. Perhaps it refers to a specific case where there were extenuating circumstances, or a miscarriage of justice occured?

* That a 90-pound woman attacked by a 300-pound rapist and his 300-pound buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

The 90-pound woman is more likely to kill herself or a family member than a rapist. Consequently, the number of dead people outnumbers the number of people protected from rape. A simple happiness sum. The greatest good is gun control.

* That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Straw man, nobody makes such claims. It would sure be nice if firearms couldn't be brought into these places interstate, of course.

* That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has gun-toting guards.

As I pointed out, the monopoly of force is supposed to be possessed by an arbitrating body that permits police officers and bodyguards limited use of force. It's the basis of civilised society, not being allowed to kill each other.

* That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.

Not really a paradox. If gun control decreases the crime rate that means it works, yes?

* That the country is safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

Lunatics shoot up schools with guns. You buy a gun because you have a use for it -- why get caught shooting up a gun show?

* That stupidity can be cured by legislation.

No, but, duh -- you can stem the loss of life. Like with environmental laws.

- Doddes

[cactusmaac]

Apart from murder, crime in London is higher per capita than New York.

But the issue seems more to be one of policing levels and IT than just gun control.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=988020

[Wesley Dodds]

It's not as if the Brits are killing each other with soccer balls. Gun control should be used as part of a comprehensive solution, not as one of several alternatives.

- Dodds

[Loren]

Firstly, property is not a natural right. It is a social contract. Any lawyer can tell you that.

Then I have to wonder what lawyers you've been talking to, because I've never been taught anything of the sort. Maybe that's the way private property is viewed in Australia, but in the US it's a natural right, up there with life and liberty.

Loren

[Wesley Dodds]

Life and liberty are both intangibles. Property is tangible, but you do not maintain possession by force. You maintain it by social contract that describes you as the "owner". True, Locke listed property among his natural rights, but he described it as what occured when you mixed your labour with something -- hardly what occurs when money is inherited. To resolve the most simple of disputes (your cow lives on my grass), complex rules are required. Always, you own because of arbitrary social convention. The common goods comes into play. It is not in the common good for everyone to have tactical nuclear weapons. Is it in the common good for guns to have no regulation? Of course not. But what should be the extent of the regulation?

- Dodds

[Tages]

Can't stop criminals from getting their hands on them illegally? Too true. The point is, I think, misleading. Will some gun crime still occur? Yes. Will less gun crime occur? Of course. Gun control passes a simple utilitarian test.
Except...it doesn't. Crime has relentlessly marched upward in spite, some maintain because of, gun control laws.

However, there is still the absolutist question of whether gun ownership is a right so important that it must not be curtailed, whatever the cost in lost lives.
This assumes that more lives are lost with gun control than without, something you have not proven.

Firstly, property is not a natural right. It is a social contract. Any lawyer can tell you that.
Exactly where in the hell did you get this horseshit? I've never, ever, heard a lawyer argue this.

As for the "social contract" nonsense, see Lysander Spooner.

We would not, for example, permit everyone access to America's nuclear arsenal. Under the most broad interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that is what we would have to do.
Preposterous. Under the broadest terms of the 2nd Amendment, no federal law can be passed limiting the individual right to own weapons. Unrestricted access to the US nuclear arsenal would be an entitlement, not a right, and the Amendment in question says nothing of entitlements.

We all accept that a line must be drawn somewhere, we only disagree on where it should be.
And who is "we," exactly?

A sensible starting point for discussion is banning automatic weapons. You know, again, when they become legal again later this year.
Considering that it is entirely possible to build your own automatic weapons in your garage, this argument goes nowhere. It also completely fails to concretely define just what constitutes an "automatic weapon," as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that has been mercifully allowed to expire banned only semi-automatic weapons, often on completely cosmetic grounds such as whether or not a bayonet could be attached.

Another quick point -- the 2nd amendment was, after all, an amendment. That implies the constitution is wrong.
This completely ignores the history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first ten Amendments were added due to the demands of the Anti-Federalists worried that the new Constitution would empower a federal government able to strip them of what they saw as their liberties. It in no way whatsoever implies that the Constitution itself is wrong, just that it can be changed by amending it. And it hasn't.

What is so right about the 2nd amendment that it cannot be wrong, unlike the rest of the constitution?
The only person who is claiming that the 2nd Amendment is seen as being the only infallible portion of the Constitution is you.

You cannot say merely that you have a constitutional right. I couldn't care less if the constitution gives you the right to bear arms or you get your permission from Mickey Mouse. What is the moral principle that says you should have handguns, designed for no purpose other than killing people? That is the argument that you have to make.
Quite simple. I have the right to purchase with money I earned the means of defending myself and others, and this right of self-defense precedes the state's claim to be able to regulate its citizenry supposed for their own benefit. Morally, the state has no grounds on which to prohibit the ownership of weapons or to use the mere ownership of them as justifiable grounds for punishment.

In addition, legally, the US federal government has zero authority to regulate firearms, as this is not an ability enumerated to it.

* That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

A straw man argument. Yes, it is nonsense, which is perhaps why nobody is making it.
That is the essence of gun control. "You're more safe from criminals without the means to protect yourself."

* That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a programmer for computer problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

An ad hominem attack. I don't care who Sarah Brady is, is her position correct?
Sarah Brady has no professional justification for her views other than her husband got shot.

* That the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

Again, the fact that there was an Amendment implies that the Amendment could be wrong. What is the underlying moral justification?
The existence of an Amendment implies its own righteousness. That it may be wrong, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the entire Constitution has a possibility of being incorrect, in which case you can't use it at all.

* That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

Another straw man attack. Nobody claims this. A utilitarian analysis of the total lives saved supports gun control. Is there an absolutist argument against it?
A utilitarian analysis you have yet to provide any evidence for, as you apparently believe it's so self-evident you shouldn't have to explain it. Fact is, the First Amendment is seen as protection of the means of free speech, so why is not the Second Amendment allowed the same reasoning for arms?

* That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950s and 1960s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

A selective example. In some states, I understand, all you have to do is walk into a shop and hand over your money. The fact is that guns are nowhere near as regulated as, say, automobiles, which only kill people when something goes wrong.
As opposed to guns, which kill people every single time they're used? Again, laughable.

Point being, school shootings were absent in an era where firearms were far easier to obtain than they are now.

* That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.

Ah, irony. No, the idea is you buy a gun to shoot something. It would be pretty silly to shoot up a gun show when you have a target in mind. And why go to a gun show when you can go to a department store?
So now everyone who purchases a gun has a "target in mind?" No one buys them just for home defense, or as a collector?

* That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.

If there were no guns, there would be no shootings... The reality is, gun control means reduced shootings. Less dead people.
This assumes that government regulation is capable of eliminating firearms, which fails to take into account the last few decades of miserable failure after failure in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals with gun control.

As for "gun control means less shootings," prove it.

* That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.

No, guns don't cause crime, but it's easier to mug someone with a gun. Guns are not the cause, guns are a ridiculously dangerous tool. Gun control means it is harder for criminals to acquire them.
News flash: criminals don't obey the law. Honest citizens do. Someone willing to break the law via robbing a bank or murdering someone isn't going to care about penalties for acquiring firearms. Meanwhile, you've just made it so that law-abiding citizens have no means of defending themselves. Congratulations, we're now at criminals' mercy.

to be cont.

[Tages]

* That guns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army only has 3 million of them.

If the army has 3 million assault rifles, why do the bloods and the crips need handguns? Handguns are near-useless on the modern battlefield.
Which is why soldiers still carry sidearms, right?

Hitler didn't invade Switzerland precisely because the Swiss government called the militia and vowed to fight to the last man; in the words of one Nazi general, "There would be a sniper behind every tree and rock" (another note: one of the first things the Nazis did after occupying France was threaten to shoot anyone who failed to turn in their weapons). The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was initiated over the ownership of a small handful of illegal handguns. The KGB once wrote up a document ruling out occupying the North American continent because private firearm ownership was too high. National defense is much easier with

* That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.

Yes, banning guns reduces gun crime. Like magic. But, guns can be purchased out of state. No state is an island. Which is why gun control should be universal.
"Banning guns reduces crime." Again, prove it.

* That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

Perhaps the vast majority of people who favor gun control will enforce the law and prosecute those who attempt to break it.
Doesn't answer why people who supposedly can't be trusted with weapons can be trusted to follow the law. That is a contradiction.

* That guns are the gravest threat to society, because 83,000,000 gun owners didn't commit a crime yesterday.

Another straw man argument. The gravest threat to society is a lack of sex.
No answer whatsoever. The fact is that the vast, vast majority of gun owners have never used them to commit a crime.

* That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.

Straw man. Society is about giving one body a monopoly over the use of force, hence guns, to enforce democratically chosen laws. It's called civilisation.
No, that's called the State, which is often antithetical to civilization. And you failed to answer why bank guards can protect money with guns and celebrities can have armed bodyguards but I can't be trusted somehow to protect my family.

* That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.

Voting implies months to make your informed choice. Shooting a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a mugger, even if you are a granny.
"Voting implies months to make your informed choice." Funny, because I know all sorts of people who either vote their party line with no questions asked or simply choose when they're in the voting booth. I know more people like my friend Michael who has spent months deciding what kind of gun he wants and will soon in fact be taking me with him to purchase it. Still, again, doesn't answer why people too stupid to handle weapons should be trusted with voting people and policies into office.

And the "Shooting a gun is more likely to kill a family member than a mugger," that's a bald-faced fabrication. Is that true anywhere? What about at the shooting range? Hunting?

* That any cheap gun is a "Saturday night special," and any expensive gun is an "assault weapon."

Duh. $2 black market guns, hello? Automatic rifles, hello?
I'm beginning to doubt if you could tell a genuine assault rifle if I handed one to you, given the vacuous lack of knowledge of firearms you've displayed thus far.

Those "Saturday Nigth Specials" may be the only thing poor people can afford to defend themselves, ever think of that?

* That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

So, you're at the doctor's, you've been shot, and he can't treat you because he doesn't know how to remove a bullet. Fortunately, the militia member is able to perform heart surgery on you.
It's called "sarcasm." Look it up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm)

* That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.

Ooh, that claim sounds highly dubious. Perhaps it refers to a specific case where there were extenuating circumstances, or a miscarriage of justice occured?
I know of no specific cases. But possessing and not using an assault rifle should carry no sentence, period.

* That a 90-pound woman attacked by a 300-pound rapist and his 300-pound buddy, has the "right" to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.

The 90-pound woman is more likely to kill herself or a family member than a rapist. Consequently, the number of dead people outnumbers the number of people protected from rape. A simple happiness sum. The greatest good is gun control.
Again, prove it.

* That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Straw man, nobody makes such claims. It would sure be nice if firearms couldn't be brought into these places interstate, of course.
Then they'd just bring guns in from outside the country. Oops.

* That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has gun-toting guards.

As I pointed out, the monopoly of force is supposed to be possessed by an arbitrating body that permits police officers and bodyguards limited use of force. It's the basis of civilised society, not being allowed to kill each other.
The monopoly of force just happens to have resulted in the organization responsible for more impoverishment, misery, destruction and death than any other in human history. But that's a topic for another time.

You didn't answer the question. If a politician's bodyguards can carry weapons defensively, why shouldn't the rest of us?

* That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, and the increase in crime requires more gun control.

Not really a paradox. If gun control decreases the crime rate that means it works, yes?
And if it doesn't, then that means it isn't working. People claim gun control will reduce crime and then call for more when it doesn't.

* That the country is safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.

Lunatics shoot up schools with guns. You buy a gun because you have a use for it -- why get caught shooting up a gun show?
In spite of the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who purchase guns at shows have no intention of ever shooting up any place with innocent people?

The fact remains that places with no guns are at the mercy of those individuals who possess them, whereas places with plenty of guns have a means of defense.

* That stupidity can be cured by legislation.

No, but, duh -- you can stem the loss of life. Like with environmental laws.
Except, you know, it doesn't always work that way.

[ghostrider666]

Man this topic gets me heated up. I am pro gun.

[Wesley Dodds]

Except...it doesn't. Crime has relentlessly marched upward in spite, some maintain because of, gun control laws.

Obviously, gun control alone will not reduce crime rates. It's like abstinence in sex education; a good idea, but insufficient by itself. Gun control should be a part of a comprehensive program. That would lower crime rates.

This assumes that more lives are lost with gun control than without, something you have not proven.

Well, obviously, I'm only as good as my statistics.

Exactly where in the hell did you get this horseshit? I've never, ever, heard a lawyer argue this. As for the "social contract" nonsense, see Lysander Spooner.

You don't have property because you can keep it by force. You have property because a social convention does to. To a certain extent, the convention will be arbitrary, just like with marriage. How can there be a natural right to property? The right is a social compact. Even Locke said property was a natural right only after everyone's basic needs were met.

Preposterous. Under the broadest terms of the 2nd Amendment, no federal law can be passed limiting the individual right to own weapons. Unrestricted access to the US nuclear arsenal would be an entitlement, not a right, and the Amendment in question says nothing of entitlements.

I think you're missing the point. If someone was able to construct a nuclear weapon or a "dirty bomb", under the broadest interpretation of the 2nd amendment it would be OK for them to have it. No, I don't think it's a good idea for people (or corporations) to have nukes. Is there anyone willing to argue they should? Consequently, I think we can agree there should be some cut-off point for arms.

And who is "we," exactly?

You and me. Everyone. You again. Unless, of course, you believe the Unabomber should have nuclear weapons, which would be just plain silly.

Considering that it is entirely possible to build your own automatic weapons in your garage, this argument goes nowhere. It also completely fails to concretely define just what constitutes an "automatic weapon," as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that has been mercifully allowed to expire banned only semi-automatic weapons, often on completely cosmetic grounds such as whether or not a bayonet could be attached.

The problem with the sorites paradox is that the cut-off will always be to a certain extent arbitrary. That doesn't detract from it's ultimate value. But, you're right, the assault weapons ban didn't do enough. It should have gotten rid of all of them.

This completely ignores the history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first ten Amendments were added due to the demands of the Anti-Federalists worried that the new Constitution would empower a federal government able to strip them of what they saw as their liberties. It in no way whatsoever implies that the Constitution itself is wrong, just that it can be changed by amending it. And it hasn't.

The fantasy that guns will protect you from the government is agreeable but ultimately just a fantasy. No number of guns will be able to protect you from the American government; it's just too good at what it does. If the constitution can be changed by amending it, that implies it was wrong or incomplete. Remember, the constitution didn't give women the right to vote. It's not a sacred document that should never be changed.

The only person who is claiming that the 2nd Amendment is seen as being the only infallible portion of the Constitution is you.

You agree with me that it's pontentially fallible? Great. That means you can't say "Oh, the 2nd amendment gives me the right". You should say why it is just for you to have the right.

Quite simple. I have the right to purchase with money I earned the means of defending myself and others, and this right of self-defense precedes the state's claim to be able to regulate its citizenry supposed for their own benefit. Morally, the state has no grounds on which to prohibit the ownership of weapons or to use the mere ownership of them as justifiable grounds for punishment.

If someone has an automatic weapon, that should be grounds for punishment. Guns (to quote my favourite philosopher, Batman) make killing too easy. On a technical point, the money you use to purchase the gun bears the imprimateur of the government. They can, to a certain extent, tell you what you can't purchase. For example, you can't use your money to purchase stolen goods. Regulations are key to a just society because it should be a nation of laws, not men.

In addition, legally, the US federal government has zero authority to regulate firearms, as this is not an ability enumerated to it.

So what? Should it? You say no, I say yes.

That is the essence of gun control. "You're more safe from criminals without the means to protect yourself."

The essence of gun control is in fact "you're more safe from criminals if they don't have guns."

Sarah Brady has no professional justification for her views other than her husband got shot.

Who needs a professional justification when your husband has been shot? I'd be pretty angry.

The existence of an Amendment implies its own righteousness. That it may be wrong, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the entire Constitution has a possibility of being incorrect, in which case you can't use it at all.

No way! If an amendment can be made, there's always the potential that the amendment is wrong or at least be imperfect. Also, even though laws are not perfect (or, perhaps, no law is perfect) we abide by them. We are unable to say precisely what we mean, but we still have language. In technical terms, the inadequacy of symbolic constructs like language mean they will either be incomplete or contradictory (Godel's incompleteness theory).

A utilitarian analysis you have yet to provide any evidence for, as you apparently believe it's so self-evident you shouldn't have to explain it. Fact is, the First Amendment is seen as protection of the means of free speech, so why is not the Second Amendment allowed the same reasoning for arms?

You're right, I do see it as axiomatic. But, to be fair, Canada has the same culture of gun ownership but nowhere near the number of gun deaths, so there should be an underlying social problem responsible. The libertarian in me balks at regulating people's thought and behaviour so guns are a better target. Also, free speech is not an absolute right. In your country, lawsuits against the Patriot Act are not initially allowed to be made public, for example. In war time (well, a genuine time of war) censorship is the norm. Perhaps, in peace, gun restrictions should be the norm?

As opposed to guns, which kill people every single time they're used? Again, laughable.

No, the comparison between guns and automobiles is valid. If guns are designed to kill people, shouldn't they be as heavily regulated? The rules have to be the same in every state for the system to work.

So now everyone who purchases a gun has a "target in mind?" No one buys them just for home defense, or as a collector?

Surely, the people likely to "shoot up gun shows" purchase a gun with another target in mind, such as the population of their school.

This assumes that government regulation is capable of eliminating firearms, which fails to take into account the last few decades of miserable failure after failure in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals with gun control.

Gun control has been a miserable failure because it has not been uniform. The rules need to be stronger and the same in every state.

As for "gun control means less shootings," prove it.

Obviously, I can't. The Republicans who wrote prohibition into law thought it would eliminate drinking, if not reduce it. Are you saying that gun control would create a greater demand for guns, so much so they criminals would prery upon an unarmed populace?

News flash: criminals don't obey the law. Honest citizens do. Someone willing to break the law via robbing a bank or murdering someone isn't going to care about penalties for acquiring firearms. Meanwhile, you've just made it so that law-abiding citizens have no means of defending themselves. Congratulations, we're now at criminals' mercy.

"A Case Western Reserve University study showed that a handgun brought into the home for the purposes of self-protection is six times more likely to kill a relative or acquaintance than to repel a burglar." (117. Hirsh, Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, 100 AMER. JOUR. OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 504 (1979))

What if the means of defense is more likely to kill you or someone in your family then save your life? When there are alternative means of defense, such as spending your money on a better home security system, you can better protect yourself.

But, hey, I know, owning guns makes you feel good.

OK, I'll comment on the other half tomorrow. My fingers are about to fall off.

[Iangould]

The problem with gun control is that it usually doesn't prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns illegally.

No, the advantage of gun control is it means criminals can ONLY get their hands on guns illegally.

Which makes it harder and more expensive for them to do so and makes it easier for the police to get convictions. (You may not be able to prove that the guy hanging around outside the bank for an hour was planning to rob it. it's somewhat easier to prove he doesn't have a license for the sawn-off shot-gun he was carrying.)

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=fly on the wall] But I'm suspecting that the per capita murder rate in England is still much lower than in America.

Any of you experts know what the per capita murder rate is in England and the USA? Maybe someone has already mentioned it.

I'll find precise figures later but the site I cited earlier says there are around 1,000 homicides a year in recent years. That works out to around 2.2 homicides per hundred thousand. That's from ALL sources and includes the anomalies mentioend earlier. Harold Shipman murdered about 100 people over 20 years but was only caught and convicted in the last couple of years and the 58 illegal immigrants who suffocated to death.

The figure usually quoted for GUN homicides alone in the US is around 9,000 a year. Guns accoutn for less than 50% of US murders IIRC so the total US murder rate is at least 6 per hundred thousand. That's at least treble the British rate.

So the argument seems to boil down to

(1) Why has the murder rate gone up in London?

The murder rate probably hasn't gone up significantly, The police-reported figure for ALL violent crime went up. That was becasue the British press caimed the police were failing to report a lot of crimes. (I think the police only reported crimes where a formal complaint was made.) Murder is less likely to be underreproted than less serious minor crimes.

Edited to note: the figures I quote aren't for the whole UK, they're for England and Wales only. (Northern Ireland and Scotland each have their own interior ministry and stats office. so that's 1,000 murders in a population of around 40 million not 50 million. Meaning the rate is actually around 2.5 per 100,000. This doesnt substantially alter the comparison between the US and the UK though.

[MacQuarrie]

"A Case Western Reserve University study showed that a handgun brought into the home for the purposes of self-protection is six times more likely to kill a relative or acquaintance than to repel a burglar." (117. Hirsh, Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, 100 AMER. JOUR. OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 504 (1979))

What if the means of defense is more likely to kill you or someone in your family then save your life? When there are alternative means of defense, such as spending your money on a better home security system, you can better protect yourself.
That statement is inaccurate. It compares only the cases in which a firearm is discharged. A gun in the home is six times more likely to be fired at a family member than at an intruder, but that ignores cases in which the gun is pulled without being fired. It also ignores the fact that knowledge of a firearm being present in the home is itself a deterrent against burglary.

But that's not what the 2nd Amendment is for, anyway.

Fenris once said something about the First Amendment: "The somewhat dubious glory of the First Amendment is that it intends to provide to the enemies of liberty every possible rhetorical weapon for their attack. It reflects an almost mystical belief in the peoples' good judgment."

I believe this principle applies to the Second Amendment. It seeks to make sure that those who wish to overthrow the American government will not fail for lack of firepower, but because of a lack of support for their cause.

It also seeks to provide teeth for the First Amendment. There's an old saying that the message of the First Amendment is "I may disagree with every word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The Second Amendment provides for that defense to the death.

A moral and just government has nothing to fear from an armed populace.

As for the issues of safety, I think it would be much better if people just stopped being stupid.

[Iangould]

Apart from murder, crime in London is higher per capita than New York.

But the issue seems more to be one of policing levels and IT than just gun control.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=988020

It's also a somewhat misleading comparison because New york is now one of the safer large cities in the US.

I'd also like to know whether there's a common standard being used ot measure crimes -see previous discussions about the changes in the way British police report crime.

[Iangould]

Then I have to wonder what lawyers you've been talking to, because I've never been taught anything of the sort. Maybe that's the way private property is viewed in Australia, but in the US it's a natural right, up there with life and liberty.

Loren

eminent domain

[Iangould]

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was initiated over the ownership of a small handful of illegal handguns.

Yeah the Nazis gassed 6 million Jews because the Jews opposed gun control.

[Asmith]

A moral and just government has nothing to fear from an armed populace.



Just look at Sadam's Iraq. He precided over one of the most heavily armed civilan populations on the planet and he and his government had nothing to fear. Until the US came storming in with bigger guns, took over government and then quickly started dissarming the civilian populace. Which means what? I don't know. Maybe that your arguement while very pretty in theory is a bit moot out in the real world where people are getting shot by gun toting teenagers.

It may be that no governemnt need fear an armed populace. It's only the armed populace that need fear itself.

[Wesley Dodds]

Yes, eminent domain. Exactly.

Also a good point from Asmith. Sadam's populace was as armed as populaces come, and he had no trouble maintaining order. The reality is that if the US government was to come to your home and claim your guns, you wouldn't engage in a 14 hour firefight. Life is too comfortable to do something like that.

For that matter, why does the constitution need a "reboot clause"? Surely, if the you want to overthrow the government, you don't need the government's permission.

But, to be fair to gun owners, holding and using a gun is... liberating.

[Iangould]

Except...it doesn't. Crime has relentlessly marched upward in spite, some maintain because of, gun control laws.

Sorry crime has been declining for a decade or more in most developed countries.

It's declined in both the US and in countries with stricter gun control alws suggesting that it's due to other factors than the availability of guns.

Most likely it's declined because of lower unemployment; higher incomes; lower real prices for many manufactured goods (like stereos and vcrs) which make property crimes less attractive and a fall in the number of adolescent males, the demographic group most likely to commit crimes.

[Tages]

Except...it doesn't. Crime has relentlessly marched upward in spite, some maintain because of, gun control laws.

Obviously, gun control alone will not reduce crime rates. It's like abstinence in sex education; a good idea, but insufficient by itself. Gun control should be a part of a comprehensive program. That would lower crime rates.
Nope, you said that gun control reduces gun crime.

This assumes that more lives are lost with gun control than without, something you have not proven.

Well, obviously, I'm only as good as my statistics.
And you haven't given any.

Exactly where in the hell did you get this horseshit? I've never, ever, heard a lawyer argue this. As for the "social contract" nonsense, see Lysander Spooner.

You don't have property because you can keep it by force. You have property because a social convention does to. To a certain extent, the convention will be arbitrary, just like with marriage. How can there be a natural right to property? The right is a social compact. Even Locke said property was a natural right only after everyone's basic needs were met.
Oh, not that blasted "social contract" nonsense again. Contracts only exist between individuals or voluntary organizations. I never, ever signed any contract with the U.S. government allowing it to regulate my rights to own firearms.

Preposterous. Under the broadest terms of the 2nd Amendment, no federal law can be passed limiting the individual right to own weapons. Unrestricted access to the US nuclear arsenal would be an entitlement, not a right, and the Amendment in question says nothing of entitlements.

I think you're missing the point. If someone was able to construct a nuclear weapon or a "dirty bomb", under the broadest interpretation of the 2nd amendment it would be OK for them to have it. No, I don't think it's a good idea for people (or corporations) to have nukes. Is there anyone willing to argue they should? Consequently, I think we can agree there should be some cut-off point for arms.
Why you think corporations having nuclear weapons is a worse idea than letting states have them is beyond me. It makes as much sense. Is it technically Constitutional for the federal government to prohibit? No. But it is fairly clear that the members of the Constitutional Convention meant "Guns" anyway, so this is rather fruitless.

And who is "we," exactly?

You and me. Everyone. You again. Unless, of course, you believe the Unabomber should have nuclear weapons, which would be just plain silly.
Actually, I believe the very existence of nuclear weapons is immoral. But that is beside the point.

Considering that it is entirely possible to build your own automatic weapons in your garage, this argument goes nowhere. It also completely fails to concretely define just what constitutes an "automatic weapon," as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that has been mercifully allowed to expire banned only semi-automatic weapons, often on completely cosmetic grounds such as whether or not a bayonet could be attached.

The problem with the sorites paradox is that the cut-off will always be to a certain extent arbitrary. That doesn't detract from it's ultimate value. But, you're right, the assault weapons ban didn't do enough. It should have gotten rid of all of them.
All of what? Semi-automatics? That would effectually be a complete ban on firearms, period.

You still didn't answer just what constitutes an "assault weapon."

This completely ignores the history of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The first ten Amendments were added due to the demands of the Anti-Federalists worried that the new Constitution would empower a federal government able to strip them of what they saw as their liberties. It in no way whatsoever implies that the Constitution itself is wrong, just that it can be changed by amending it. And it hasn't.

The fantasy that guns will protect you from the government is agreeable but ultimately just a fantasy. No number of guns will be able to protect you from the American government; it's just too good at what it does. If the constitution can be changed by amending it, that implies it was wrong or incomplete. Remember, the constitution didn't give women the right to vote. It's not a sacred document that should never be changed.
There are stories of individuals armed with a single gun that pinned down entire platoons in Vietnam on both sides. Considering that America is 83,000,000 gun owners strong, I find it hard to believe that overthrowing the American government is as impossible as you claim.

As for the Constitution being imperfect, note that changing it to give women the vote required an Amendment. No such Amendment has been added, and gun control hence remains Unconstitutional.

The only person who is claiming that the 2nd Amendment is seen as being the only infallible portion of the Constitution is you.

You agree with me that it's pontentially fallible? Great. That means you can't say "Oh, the 2nd amendment gives me the right". You should say why it is just for you to have the right.
And I have. Neither the 2nd Amendment nor anything in the Constitution "gives" me the right to do anything; I have these rights by virtue of being a person. Hence the term "natural rights." What the 2nd Amendment does do, along with the rest of the Constitution, is state specifically what the American federal government can and cannot do. As the 2nd Amendment prohibits regulation of firearms and it is not an enumerated power, every single federal gun control law is Unconstitutional.

Quite simple. I have the right to purchase with money I earned the means of defending myself and others, and this right of self-defense precedes the state's claim to be able to regulate its citizenry supposed for their own benefit. Morally, the state has no grounds on which to prohibit the ownership of weapons or to use the mere ownership of them as justifiable grounds for punishment.

If someone has an automatic weapon, that should be grounds for punishment. Guns (to quote my favourite philosopher, Batman) make killing too easy. On a technical point, the money you use to purchase the gun bears the imprimateur of the government. They can, to a certain extent, tell you what you can't purchase. For example, you can't use your money to purchase stolen goods. Regulations are key to a just society because it should be a nation of laws, not men.
So the mere possession of an object by someone not using it to harm anyone, whether the possession is for defense or is simply the darling of a collector, is grounds for punishing them, solely because you disapprove of it.

As for the money argument, the federal government does not own the money it prints, else we wouldn't be able to earn or spend it.

Oh, and regulations have nothing to do with whether a society is one of laws or men. What determines that is whether a country's laws are based on sound legal reasoning and precedent or the simple desires of the people in charge.

[Tages]

In addition, legally, the US federal government has zero authority to regulate firearms, as this is not an ability enumerated to it.

So what? Should it? You say no, I say yes.
So then you admit federal gun control laws are illegitimate. Good, we're getting somewhere.

That is the essence of gun control. "You're more safe from criminals without the means to protect yourself."

The essence of gun control is in fact "you're more safe from criminals if they don't have guns."
Gun control does not effect only criminals.

Sarah Brady has no professional justification for her views other than her husband got shot.

Who needs a professional justification when your husband has been shot? I'd be pretty angry.
And her views have no more legitimacy than anyone else in the same situation. She has no professional credentials at all, but many refer to her words and actions as Gospel.

The existence of an Amendment implies its own righteousness. That it may be wrong, taken to its logical conclusion, means that the entire Constitution has a possibility of being incorrect, in which case you can't use it at all.

No way! If an amendment can be made, there's always the potential that the amendment is wrong or at least be imperfect. Also, even though laws are not perfect (or, perhaps, no law is perfect) we abide by them. We are unable to say precisely what we mean, but we still have language. In technical terms, the inadequacy of symbolic constructs like language mean they will either be incomplete or contradictory (Godel's incompleteness theory).
An Amendment's existence in no way whatsoever implies its own falsity. It implies that contradictory amendments ma be passed at a later date, but the original amendment's virtue is untouched.

A utilitarian analysis you have yet to provide any evidence for, as you apparently believe it's so self-evident you shouldn't have to explain it. Fact is, the First Amendment is seen as protection of the means of free speech, so why is not the Second Amendment allowed the same reasoning for arms?

You're right, I do see it as axiomatic. But, to be fair, Canada has the same culture of gun ownership but nowhere near the number of gun deaths, so there should be an underlying social problem responsible. The libertarian in me balks at regulating people's thought and behaviour so guns are a better target. Also, free speech is not an absolute right. In your country, lawsuits against the Patriot Act are not initially allowed to be made public, for example. In war time (well, a genuine time of war) censorship is the norm. Perhaps, in peace, gun restrictions should be the norm?
This would require me agreeing with wartime censorship and the Patriot Act, which I don't. I despise them both.

As opposed to guns, which kill people every single time they're used? Again, laughable.

No, the comparison between guns and automobiles is valid. If guns are designed to kill people, shouldn't they be as heavily regulated? The rules have to be the same in every state for the system to work.
No, you said that cars only kill when something goes wrong, implying that it's somehow different with guns. Not all guns are bought or fired to kill.

Rules being the same in every state? Goodbye, federalism.

So now everyone who purchases a gun has a "target in mind?" No one buys them just for home defense, or as a collector?

Surely, the people likely to "shoot up gun shows" purchase a gun with another target in mind, such as the population of their school.
No one is likely to shoot up a gun show because, unless they are completely irrational, they know they're getting blown away if they try. Point is, not everyone purchases guns to kill people. Very often it's for self-defense or collection.

This assumes that government regulation is capable of eliminating firearms, which fails to take into account the last few decades of miserable failure after failure in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals with gun control.

Gun control has been a miserable failure because it has not been uniform. The rules need to be stronger and the same in every state.
Gun control has increased as a general rule since the 1950s-60s. Crime is alsohigher now than it was then. Point to a state or city where gun control has not increased since then where the crime rate has gone up.

As for "gun control means less shootings," prove it.

Obviously, I can't. The Republicans who wrote prohibition into law thought it would eliminate drinking, if not reduce it. Are you saying that gun control would create a greater demand for guns, so much so they criminals would prery upon an unarmed populace?
No, I'm saying that with gun control honest citizens are far less capable of defending themselves against criminals. Though the fact that it, like alcohol and drug prohibition, creates a black market for the product, is also a factor to consider.

News flash: criminals don't obey the law. Honest citizens do. Someone willing to break the law via robbing a bank or murdering someone isn't going to care about penalties for acquiring firearms. Meanwhile, you've just made it so that law-abiding citizens have no means of defending themselves. Congratulations, we're now at criminals' mercy.

"A Case Western Reserve University study showed that a handgun brought into the home for the purposes of self-protection is six times more likely to kill a relative or acquaintance than to repel a burglar." (117. Hirsh, Accidental Firearm Fatalities in a Metropolitan County, 100 AMER. JOUR. OF EPIDEMIOLOGY 504 (1979))

What if the means of defense is more likely to kill you or someone in your family then save your life? When there are alternative means of defense, such as spending your money on a better home security system, you can better protect yourself.
Does the study take into account the number of home intruders who are "relatives or acquaintances?" A lot of crimes occur that way.

I trust myself on how to handle a gun and what to do in a situation where I may use it. My individual conscience is all that enters into my personal decisions. Home alarms are frequently unreliable (e.g. useless in a blackout), as are the police.

But, hey, I know, owning guns makes you feel good.
You're reaching. Never once have I said that I desire to own weaponry because of any psychological benefit. And if you're implying I am, you don't know me.

[Tages]

Another great book on the subject of firearms is The Boston Gun Bible (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888766069/lewrockwell/102-8942456-9603345). In it, the author responds to the question of how an armed populace can hope to fight a modern military with the story of two well-trained men in Vietnam who succeeded in holding down an entire company of enemy soldiers with just their rifles, which I eluded to in my above response.

[Tages]

No, the advantage of gun control is it means criminals can ONLY get their hands on guns illegally.

Which makes it harder and more expensive for them to do so and makes it easier for the police to get convictions. (You may not be able to prove that the guy hanging around outside the bank for an hour was planning to rob it. it's somewhat easier to prove he doesn't have a license for the sawn-off shot-gun he was carrying.)
And if he wasn't planning on robbing the bank, well, it just sucks for him.

Arresting someone for what they are supposedly planning on doing using laws that could very easily ensnare innocents instead is the most ridiculous thing you've said thus far.

[Tages]

Yeah the Nazis gassed 6 million Jews because the Jews opposed gun control.
OK, I normally dislike listing logical fallacies off like a grocery list, but this is a perfect example of a straw man argument. I never made such an assertion. What I said was that even in the most desperate of situations against one of the most tyrannical and bloodthirsty of foes, just a few handguns banned by those enemies was able to ignite one of the only instances of Jewish armed resistance to the Holocaust.

Maybe you should be asking yourself just why the Nazis were pro-gun control in the first place.

[Alex]

Maybe you should be asking yourself just why the Nazis were pro-gun control in the first place.
I think he knows.
So people wouldn't use guns on the nazis...right?

[Tages]

Just look at Sadam's Iraq. He precided over one of the most heavily armed civilan populations on the planet and he and his government had nothing to fear. Until the US came storming in with bigger guns, took over government and then quickly started dissarming the civilian populace. Which means what? I don't know. Maybe that your arguement while very pretty in theory is a bit moot out in the real world where people are getting shot by gun toting teenagers.
Saddam's government did not fear an armed revolt precisely because, as evil as he was, he was also quite skilled in the art of deal-making and alliance-forming amongst Iraq's domestic movers and shakers. It was a very delicate power structure, and the reasons the populace did not revolt were numerous, whether they be that the majority considered his rule the most beneficial for them (Sunnis, esp. the tribes around Tikrit), they simply feared him too greatly and weren't particularly bad off as long as they didn't rebel (Shi'ites), or they largely had what they wanted and saw little reason in armed revolt (the autonomous Kurdish region in the north of Iraq, over which Saddam had virtually no authority).

[Tages]

Sorry crime has been declining for a decade or more in most developed countries.
Perhaps I should clarify. Compare the crime rates of fifty years ago when gun control laws were mostly few and far between to what they are now with the mountains of legislation imposed dealing with firearms.

[Wesley Dodds]

OK: part 2, part 1. Tages writes faster than I can keep up...

Nope, you said that gun control reduces gun crime.

And I stand by my statement. Abstinence reduces teen pregnancies as well, but only as part of a comprehensive program. Gun control independent of a comprehensive crime prevention program would, I agree, be foolish. If the police were to take a holiday from crime enforcement, no amount of gun control legislation would help. But, if we outright make guns illegal, there's no ambiguity. Only criminals will have guns -- and they can be locked up.

Oh, not that blasted "social contract" nonsense again. Contracts only exist between individuals or voluntary organizations. I never, ever signed any contract with the U.S. government allowing it to regulate my rights to own firearms.

You signed no contract, but you still pay income and sales tax? Did you sign a contract that says you would never murder anyone? No contract is necessary when you're making society more dangerous.

Why you think corporations having nuclear weapons is a worse idea than letting states have them is beyond me. It makes as much sense. Is it technically Constitutional for the federal government to prohibit? No. But it is fairly clear that the members of the Constitutional Convention meant "Guns" anyway, so this is rather fruitless.

No, when they meant "guns" one in every eleven people had one and it was a single-shot flintlock or something of that order. Not a handgun or an automatic weapon. The founding fathers would be terrified at the idea of everyone having the right to possess automatic weapons.

Actually, I believe the very existence of nuclear weapons is immoral. But that is beside the point.

No, it's not, because "arms" has to be defined, and hence there must be a cut-off. But, for my part, I believe the existence of guns is immoral.

All of what? Semi-automatics? That would effectually be a complete ban on firearms, period.

If it's so hard to distinguish assault rifles from defensive weapons, then perhaps we should just ban them all. Then, only criminals will have guns, and they can be jailed.

You still didn't answer just what constitutes an "assault weapon."

In my mind, an assault weapon is an automatic gun. Guns with a repeater function are not necessarily automatic. I believe they should all be banned.

There are stories of individuals armed with a single gun that pinned down entire platoons in Vietnam on both sides. Considering that America is 83,000,000 gun owners strong, I find it hard to believe that overthrowing the American government is as impossible as you claim.

That story sounds dubious. I refer to our natural obeisance to authority when I say that no American has the spirit to overthrow his own government. At what point would you do it? What right would have to be taken away? If a President ran for a third term, would that be justification?

As for the Constitution being imperfect, note that changing it to give women the vote required an Amendment. No such Amendment has been added, and gun control hence remains Unconstitutional.

You're missing my point. It doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional. At one point, slavery was constitutional. The question is, is it moral?

And I have. Neither the 2nd Amendment nor anything in the Constitution "gives" me the right to do anything; I have these rights by virtue of being a person. Hence the term "natural rights." What the 2nd Amendment does do, along with the rest of the Constitution, is state specifically what the American federal government can and cannot do. As the 2nd Amendment prohibits regulation of firearms and it is not an enumerated power, every single federal gun control law is Unconstitutional.

Nobody has anything by virtue of being a person, more than anyone has anything by virtue of being an America or by virtue of being a koala. You're being disingenuous when you say the 2nd amendment prohibits firearms. It says "arms", which refers to all weapons. Restricting ownership of tactical nukes and rocket lauchers may well be unconstitutional under the broadest interpretation, but they present a threat to national security. In the Al Qaida training manual, they praise the ease with which guns can be purchased in America...

So the mere possession of an object by someone not using it to harm anyone, whether the possession is for defense or is simply the darling of a collector, is grounds for punishing them, solely because you disapprove of it.

Actually, there's ample precident. We don't let people run around with sarin gas, even if they're not using it to hurt anyone. And as for "darling of a collector", I'm sure there are people with child porn who have some "darling" pieces.

Oh, and regulations have nothing to do with whether a society is one of laws or men. What determines that is whether a country's laws are based on sound legal reasoning and precedent or the simple desires of the people in charge.

Funny, I thought regulations were laws, based on sound reasoning and precedent.

So then you admit federal gun control laws are illegitimate. Good, we're getting somewhere.

I admit they could be. I also say it doesn't matter when we discuss what ought to be.

Gun control does not effect only criminals.

Neither does it apply only to victims!

And her views have no more legitimacy than anyone else in the same situation. She has no professional credentials at all, but many refer to her words and actions as Gospel.

The tragic underside of gun ownership (well, not really gun ownership, more gun ownership by Americans) is clearer to her than it is to someone who has not lost a relative to guns.

An Amendment's existence in no way whatsoever implies its own falsity. It implies that contradictory amendments ma be passed at a later date, but the original amendment's virtue is untouched.

I strongly disagree. The fact that amendments are made and that amendments are cancelled out means that an amendment can be wrong. An amendment is not justified by itself but, like a maxim of law, by the legal reasoning behind it, and it is constantly vulnerable to testing.

This would require me agreeing with wartime censorship and the Patriot Act, which I don't. I despise them both.

I despise them the Patriot Act. It's cynical and unworthy of a democracy. Wartime censorship, such as during world war 2, would probably be OK on a certain scale: "loose lips sink ships..."

No, you said that cars only kill when something goes wrong, implying that it's somehow different with guns. Not all guns are bought or fired to kill.

Even if they're not bought to fire to kill, they're bought because they can fire and kill. So, the fire and kill part is integral.

Rules being the same in every state? Goodbye, federalism.

Gun control is pointless if you can slip over the border and buy one over the counter. To be honest, I don't understand why state government is supposed to be better than federal. We're all in this together.

No one is likely to shoot up a gun show because, unless they are completely irrational, they know they're getting blown away if they try. Point is, not everyone purchases guns to kill people. Very often it's for self-defense or collection.

To be honest, I hadn't thought of that reason. If you're interested in self-defense, why not mace or a taser? Something that won't kill anyone.

No, I'm saying that with gun control honest citizens are far less capable of defending themselves against criminals. Though the fact that it, like alcohol and drug prohibition, creates a black market for the product, is also a factor to consider.

I agree. If the black market cancels out the gains, gun control shouldn't be pursued. But, until gun control occurs at the federal level, the system will be inadequate.

I trust myself on how to handle a gun and what to do in a situation where I may use it. My individual conscience is all that enters into my personal decisions. Home alarms are frequently unreliable (e.g. useless in a blackout), as are the police.

You haven't shown that a gun is more reliable than alternatives.

You're reaching. Never once have I said that I desire to own weaponry because of any psychological benefit. And if you're implying I am, you don't know me.

Am not reaching! I think the primary reason for wanting to own a gun is the sense of power it gives you, not because it serves a practical purpose.

- Dodds

[Iangould]

And you haven't given any [statistcs].




I have.

You've essentially ignored them except to post supposedly refuting statistics from John Lott, a highly impeachable source.

I've goen ot soem lengths to expalin the errors in LKott's work. By all means, if you spot similar errors in Lambert or Kellermann feel free to bring them to our attention.

Look, if you believe there's an inalienable right to own arms and that defending that right is worth accepting certain engative consequences (just as we do, for example with the right to drink and the right to drive, then that's a defensible position and by all means argue it.

But don't engage in this intellectually dishonest mendacity.

[Iangould]

OK, I normally dislike listing logical fallacies off like a grocery list, but this is a perfect example of a straw man argument. I never made such an assertion. What I said was that even in the most desperate of situations against one of the most tyrannical and bloodthirsty of foes, just a few handguns banned by those enemies was able to ignite one of the only instances of Jewish armed resistance to the Holocaust.

Maybe you should be asking yourself just why the Nazis were pro-gun control in the first place.

No you said that the Warsaw Uprising was "initiated" becasue the Jews had a few illegally purchased firearms.

Now as it happens I know somwthing about the history of the Uprising. The proximate cause of the Uprising was an attmepted house-to-house seach of the ghetto by the Polish police looking for weapons as a prelude to the final deportation of the Ghetto's inhabitants to the concentration camps.

I assumed that this was what you were talking about.

In point of fact, the Jews had more firearms than just a few handguns but most of them used improvised weapons (such as molotov cocktails or weapons captured from the SS). This is one reason why I find the "last line of defence against tyranny" so hard ot swallow. I know how to make explosives; I know how to make various other improvised weapons.

As for the Nazi's gun control policies, I seem to recall that this was limited to the occupied countires and gun ownership was actively encouraged inside Germany.

Equally, you might ask yourself why the Soviet Union never banned private ownership of hunting weapons or why Saddam felt confident in handing millions of Kalashnikovs out to the Iraqi public.

Private ownership of friearms is neither a necessary or sufficent condition for the overthrow of tyrants.

[cactusmaac]

So do you want guns banned totally for private individuals or just favour a waiting period in order to make background checks and thus prevent criminals from buying them directly?

I'm not really sure if owning guns does reduce crime specifically but I'm very dubious about the possibility of total gun control reducing it either.

Criminals will be able to get their hands on them anyway.

[Iangould]

Perhaps I should clarify. Compare the crime rates of fifty years ago when gun control laws were mostly few and far between to what they are now with the mountains of legislation imposed dealing with firearms.

You mean before the baby boomers started hitting puberty dramatically pushing up the number adolescent males in most societies?

Hey, let's compare the crime rates with 100 years ago when gun ownership was almost completely unrestricted and murder rates were substantially higher than any post-war period.

[Iangould]

So do you want guns banned totally for private individuals or just favour a waiting period in order to make background checks and thus prevent criminals from buying them directly?

I'm not really sure if owning guns does reduce crime specifically but I'm very dubious about the possibility of total gun control reducing it either.

Criminals will be able to get their hands on them anyway.

I tend to think that the approach adopted by most of the English-language countries other than the US - ban private ownership of handguns and semi-autoi and full-auto long-arms with specific exemptions for sporting shooters; security guards and a few other such groups - is pretty sensible.

Since Australia banned full-auto and semi-auto longarms and tightened up ownership of handguns further, the blackmarket cost of firearms has supposedly increased dramatically. There's also been a decline in gun homicides and seriosu assaults and an increase in homicides and assaults with other weapons.

That says to me that gun control makes it harder for criminals to get guns. It doesn't prevent it but it makes it harder.

(A sidenote: the overall murder rate has fallen by around 10% here, the attempted murder rate has risen by about the same amount. Which suggests that gun control makes it harder to kill people by forcing would-be killers to resort to less effective tools.)

[Iangould]

Quick question for the NON-Americans reading, do any of you think your country should adopt the American approach to gun regulation?

[Iangould]

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm

for anyone interested in the history of murder in the US, a chart here shows murder rates for the whole of the 20th century.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Maybe it is just me but I do not understand the line of thought "if only criminals can get guns we are all safer". The police can not always get there in time. Sure I'm going to call the police if someone is trying to get in my house, but I'm also going into my Dad's room and grabbing his gun and his knife and making sure nothing happens to my family. Now I get my gun taken away and the criminal gets one. I now have to be pretty damn fast in order to stop the guy from simply pulling his gun and putting holes in me before I can get to him.

I remember watching a PBS special a few years back, I think it was about the Yakuza (Japanese Mafia) but it could have been the Chinese Triads. Anyway, the country had taken gun control to the extreme. All guns were illegal and even few of the police officers had guns. The criminals were doing something wrong, and police came armed with their clubs. The criminals pulled out guns and blew most of the police officers away until they could make a clean escape.

Now I don't know the exact numbers (and I'm too busy to look it up) but I do know that mugging (while it does occur like it did with my mom) is lower here in Texas where the most you have to do is register your gun. The criminal has to be very careful, he has to think about how badly he wants to rob the person when their target might have a gun.

[Wesley Dodds]

Or, the criminal blows away his target to be sure.

- Dodds

[rick]

Just briefly.

Having a gun as saved me from being seriously hurt or possibly killed on two different occassions, and neither time with me having to fire them.

If I had a gun on me the day I was stabbed I would not have been stabbed.

All of you can go into great detail about the good and the bad with gun control, but for me, it really comes down to that.

I have no problem with background checks and I have no problem with registration of fully automatic weapons, but I am against any other attempt to control guns.

You guys can make as big a case about the dangers of guns as you wish, but I have seen first hand what can happen if you have one and what can happen if you don't.

I'll take the having.

[orcafresh]

Me? What do I want? Well...

I'm all for criminal background checks and I have no problem with each State having a registration process for/on fully automatic criminals, but I am against any other attempt to control law abiding citzenry regarding guns or their desire to be able to protect themselves.

[rick]

Me? What do I want? Well...

I'm all for criminal background checks and I have no problem with each State having a registration process for/on fully automatic criminals, but I am against any other attempt to control law abiding citzenry regarding guns or their desire to be able to protect themselves.


Well I'll be dammed Rick.

You and I are in complete agreement for once.

How the Hell did that happen?

[orcafresh]

Well I'll be dammed Rick.

You and I are in complete agreement for once.

How the Hell did that happen?

I dunno. The planets must all be aligned or something.

Hey, I posted earlier in this thread and that post is now gone. Should I like contact the Moderator and have him do an exhaustive search, or is this just another example of selective allowance of opinion?

[rick]

I dunno. The planets must all be aligned or something.

Hey, I posted earlier in this thread and that post is now gone. Should I like contact the Moderator and have him do an exhaustive search, or is this just another example of selective allowance of opinion?


Naw.

Tom's pretty good about differing opinions.

So I doubt that's the reason.

[orcafresh]

Naw.

Tom's pretty good about differing opinions.

So I doubt that's the reason.

Yeah, I agree. That Tom fellow is a likeable sort. Oh, well... maybe my reply was destined for greatness. I'll have to add a couple of new facets to this discussion soon.

[orcafresh]

Let me just begin this by stating that I believe that as time progresses, mankind seems to take two giant steps backwards.

I grew up in an America where it was pretty common to have a firearm in your home. They were nearly always kept out-of-reach to kids, and in many instances that meant being locked in a gun cabinet. Like anything manufactured, a gun is only as smart as the person picking it up. And, despite how technologically advanced we've become - nothing has changed regarding the basics of firearms.

The one thing that HAS changed are concepts and the level of acceptance given to the National Rifle Association (NRA). I'm a member. I was also a Boy Scout as a kid, and I served my country honorably during a time of War in the military.

So what has changed? I think before we can begin to think on that, we should remember the year 1776.

In 1776, the American people threw off the oppressive yoke of King George III, and created the most free society the world had ever seen.

But today, another King George, a Hugarian-born billionaire named George Soros - who rules a shadow empire by funding a global agenda that includes borderless civil disarmament - has made Americans less free than at amost any time in our nation's history.

It was Soros' millions and his international "Open Society Institute" that bought and paid for massive lobbying and media spin efforts leading to the enactment of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA).
As you hopefully know, the law bans broadcast political speech by NRA and others during pre-election blackout periods.

And it was Soros' millions that primed the unfathomable 5-4 Supreme Court opinion in December 2003 that upheld the speech ban that reduced criticism of governmant by assembled Americans from an untouchable individual right to the status of a "privilege" bestowed by Congress.

BCRA 'permits' the NRA to fund pre-election ads through its political action committee, but only under Draconian reporting restrictions and with funding solicitations limited to member donations. But Congress allowing grassroots non-profits to exercise free speech through PACS is like the Congress saying NRA members can own and use bolt action rifles and shotguns, but not semi-automatics.

When Congress enacted BCRA, the standard media soundbite to describe the "reform" was summed up in three words, "banning soft money." Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd defined it as, "Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means, money that creates the appearance that a wealthy few have a disportionate say over public policy ... ."

But George Soros - and a handful of billionaire and multi-millionaires recruited to his cause - believe they are immune from the "soft" money restrictions of BCRA.

Soros told National Public Radio he was morally diferent, saying, "I am not motivated by self-interest but by what I believe to be public interest."

Having funded the destruction of the First Amendment for groups like NRA, Soros now believes he can inject perhaps as much as 100 million into influencing the outcome of the 2004 elections. That's chump change for Soros, who is counted as among the world's richest men.

Acting in his self-styled "public interest," he intends to buy control of the electoral process with the goal of throwing President George W. Bush out of the White House and creating a Congress dominated by radicals who call themselves "progressives." If that happens, we will see individual freedom - Including the Second Amendment - destroyed in a heartbeat.

Soros told The Washington Post, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is," and said he would spend his entire fortune if he could be guaranteed President Bush would be defeated for reelection.

At last count, Soros and his billionaire friends have shoveled as much as $30 million into organizations that claim to be exempt from campaign finance laws that apply to the rest of us - laws that Soros bought and paid for.

The conduits for all this "soft money"are entities called "527's" -a Federal Tax Code designation - which operatives claim exempts them from provisions of BCRA.

Among the most dangerous of thr "527" entities funded by Soros millions is something called MoveOn.Org Voter Fund, which is undertaking a massive attack-ad broadcast campaign to activate radical voters to turn President Bush out of office and elect an anti-Gun Congress.

And there are other groups like Americans Coming Together (ACT) - also heavily funded by Soros - Run with the singular purpose of registering and turning out activist-left voters in massive numbers with the purpose of defeating Bush and "electing progressive candidates at every level of government."

The voters to which these "527's" are appealing can be summed up as "The Michael Moore audience." If they come out to vote in the 17 battle ground states that have been targeted by ACT, there can be no doubt they will vote to defear pro-Second Amendment candidates. By the nature of the voters the Soros money will bring out, our pro-gun majority in the Senate is especially in jeopardy.

All of this Soros effort is not just aimed at removing President Bush from power; it is designed "to take America back,"as if country and our lives will be owned by the radical left. With his track record - from funding the Million Mom March to bankrolling the most malicious lawsuits against the firearm industry - we know what George Soros' version of the Second Amendment is - the one thsat allows only the National Guard to be armed. If Soros buys all he wants in the 2004 elections, that could be the law of the land.

As an MRA member, I would hate to see a Civil War take place in this country again. I don't want to see a police officer or National Guard soldier on every street corner either. But nothing is absolute, and there needs to be a base way that American's can protect themselves in their own homes. Our forefathers knew this, they drafted and created a Constitution for us all to live by. Freedom costs dearly to protect it.

Presently, we're at war. We've spent years and billions of dollars funneling monies into foreign infrastructure and social development. And frankly, where has it gotten America and Americans? Internally, we have corrupt corporate structures robbing us, our news media is selling exposure to us to the highest bidder, and more and more - our government is being made to look bad.

Well, turn out and vote. Otherwise the dream of our Founding Fathers might be lost to us.

[rick]

Well that was a brief period of agreement. :)


Look, I think that Soro's is no different from Scafie in that he is willing to spend money to push his political beliefs. But like Scafie, his effects are at best temporary.

As for the so-called elimination of free speech, it simply hasn't happened.

The only serious change in the political advertising game, is that now when you make a commercial, you've got to clearly show who you are.

So now the NRA can't make commercials under names like the Concerned Citizens Network or some other alias, and that's about it.

[cactusmaac]

I tend to think that the approach adopted by most of the English-language countries other than the US - ban private ownership of handguns and semi-autoi and full-auto long-arms with specific exemptions for sporting shooters; security guards and a few other such groups - is pretty sensible.

Since Australia banned full-auto and semi-auto longarms and tightened up ownership of handguns further, the blackmarket cost of firearms has supposedly increased dramatically. There's also been a decline in gun homicides and seriosu assaults and an increase in homicides and assaults with other weapons.

That says to me that gun control makes it harder for criminals to get guns. It doesn't prevent it but it makes it harder.

(A sidenote: the overall murder rate has fallen by around 10% here, the attempted murder rate has risen by about the same amount. Which suggests that gun control makes it harder to kill people by forcing would-be killers to resort to less effective tools.)

I just don't think you can point to gun control and say "Hey! That's the reason crime is down."

There are a lot of other factors involved and I'm just not convinced banning ownership of handguns is necessary if your police force is up to scratch.

What's more the vast bulk of crime in the US is committed in inner-city areas. I think I read somewhere that 85% of all US counties fail to report a single homicide each year. So while there might be scope for arguing that guns inhigh-crime areas ought to be summarily banned in inner Detroit I don't see why someone in suburban Georgia should be prevented from owning one.

[Chris Freiberg]

Just briefly.

Having a gun as saved me from being seriously hurt or possibly killed on two different occassions, and neither time with me having to fire them.

If I had a gun on me the day I was stabbed I would not have been stabbed.


I think my having a gun would have gotten me into bigger trouble on the three or so occasions when I've been in danger of serious assault from a stranger, simply because it would have prodded me toward further and more violent confrontation than was necessary to escape the situation. I've been physically attacked and managed to resolve the situation without flashing a handgun or throwing a punch. But maybe I've just been lucky so far, I don't know. I've thought about buying and learning how to use a handgun, but I've been reluctant to do it. Personally, I'd rather live in a society without firearms, but I don't know how I feel about a total ban on personal possession. Regulation and background checks, definitely, but I sympathize a little bit with people who dread the government's having a total monopoly on effective violent power.

[Wesley Dodds]

Created the most free society the world had ever seen?

Well, perhaps for 1776, but in today's world there are a few countries that are just as if not more free, and they didn't get that way by armed insurrection. Switzerland, Canada, Australia... Post-Patriot Act, America is probably no longer number one in freedoms. How can you call a country where the executive can detain someone without charges truly free?

Actually, using force to expell an occupier is probably OK -- such as the Palestinians trying to get rid of the Israelis. If I remember my history correctly, the Americans wouldn't have prevailed without massive assistance from the French, right? Also, there's precedent for bloodless revolutions: like, well, Ghandi. Non-violent resistence works better.

As for having a gun and it saving you from trouble, surely there are just as many situations where pulling a gun would make things worse? If you need to threaten to kill someone just to survive, why are we bothering with this whole society thing, anyway?

- Dodds

[EysaSpades]

Well, passive/nonviolent resistance only works when you can appeal to the conscience of those you're resisting.

Gandhi wouldn't have gotten far in 1930s Germany, or 1980s Nicaragua.

Anyway, I'm one of those folks that supports background checks and denial of carry permits to convicted felons, but that's about it.

[Samurai]

But, if we outright make guns illegal, there's no ambiguity. Only criminals will have guns

- Dodds
That is probably the single most frightening line in the whole thread so far... and you support it.

Talk to any cop... they'll tell you that they don't, as a rule, prevent crime; they just