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 clean up the mess afterwards, and try to find the one responsible. When a sicko was stalking my brother's wife, the policeman who came to the house to make the report admitted the chances of finding the guy were very slim... and he recommended my brother should buy a gun, if he didn't have one already. (He already owned 3 guns, in fact). The next time the guy called, my brother told him to listen carefully, and he cocked the gun right next to the receiver... "ka-chik". He told the guy in no uncertain terms that he'd shoot him if he ever came around. Guess what? The guy never called again, and they've had no problem for a year now...

Gun control laws only disarm law-abiding citizens... crooks will still have and use guns, and will feel much freer and safer doing so, knowing that their target will be unarmed.

By the way, I know it's extremely unpopular to say so, but one reason for America's high crime rate is our minority population. Countries with a higher rate of whites and asians will have lower crime rates, whatever the state's gun laws.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/orace.gif
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

The average homicide rate for non-blacks is on par with, or even below, most other civilised countries. And the "white" rate listed there includes hispanics as well, who also have a higher than usual homicide rate (3x the non-hispanic white rate). Racial composition and society have far more to do with murder rates than gun control...

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=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.

My personal experience is that only twice have I been threatened with lethal force here in Australia. Once i was asking for it (in a car with drunken mates during my teen years, someone thoguht it'd be funny to point a fake gun at a security guard and shout "bang". THe security guard disagreed.) The other tiem involved a disgreement between th drug dealer I was living with at the tiem and another drug dealer. The dealer was armed with a lump of wood. We talked him down and got rid of him without anyone getting hurt. I was scared enough though that if I'd had a gun I would have used it.) That's twice in 43 years. I was in the United States for less than a week and had my life threatened by a guy with a knife.

[bI 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.[/b]

Did the special mention that Japan has about the lowest murder rate in the world?

[Samurai]

I was in the United States for less than a week and had my life threatened by a guy with a knife.

Well, I've lived in the US for 30 of my 32 years, and I've never once been in a life-threatening situation... knock on wood. Anecdotes are irrelevant.

[rick]

I was in the United States for less than a week and had my life threatened by a guy with a knife.



And yet here you are telling us how much safer we are without guns.

But seriously isn't the reality that the people who are being threatening are the ones who are actually safer?

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=cactusmaac]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.

I don;t think it's a panacea I do think it contributes to less violence.

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.

Well, for a start, it makes it harder for the people in Detroit to illegally buy firearms.

I'll also point out that when I was about 6 my cousin Davy, in a very safe rural community, managed to blow his brains out with an "unloaded" shot-gun.

I've been doing a LOT of reading on gun stats in the last few days. In the US there is no national mandatory crime reporting. Counties aren't required to repoet homicides to the Centre for Justice Studies or the FBI and on average about a third of them don't. So that 85% statistic probably isn't reliable.

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=Samurai]

By the way, I know it's extremely unpopular to say so, but one reason for America's high crime rate is our minority population. Countries with a higher rate of whites and asians will have lower crime rates, whatever the state's gun laws.

1. This has been covered at length by the criminologists. The difference in the murder rate is pretty much explained entirely by poverty and over-crowding.

Pull out of the statistics a group of white Americans who are as poor as the black average and live in equally crowded urban areas and their murder rate is just as high.

2. Check the murder rates in Eastern Europe (one of the whitest parts of the planet), it's higher than in the US.

3. Check the murder rate in south and south east Asia it's also higher than in the US.

4. Every time this argument gets trotted out, there's this implicit assumption that other countries are completely homogenous which simply is not true.

If race is a prime determinant of murder rates, New Zealand which has a population which is roughly 10% Asian, 10% Islander and 15% Maori should have higher murder rate than Australia which is around 2% Aboriginal and 5% Asian. It doesn't, the New Zealand murder is lower.

I also like how the racial categories get manipulated. So, for example, hispanics get classified as a separate group in the US. But French-Canadians are implicitly lumped in with Anglo-Canadians.

Also, how come the murder rate hasn't increased dramatically in France and UK as a result of the large-scale black migration to those countries.

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=rick]And yet here you are telling us how much safer we are without guns.
[QUOTE]

Yes, because on my own biased sample, I'm about 1000 times more likely to be threatened in a country which permits private hand-gun ownership than I am in a country that doesn't.

[Samurai]

[QUOTE=Samurai]

By the way, I know it's extremely unpopular to say so, but one reason for America's high crime rate is our minority population. Countries with a higher rate of whites and asians will have lower crime rates, whatever the state's gun laws.

1. This has been covered at length by the criminologists. The difference in the murder rate is pretty much explained entirely by poverty and over-crowding.

Pull out of the statistics a group of white Americans who are as poor as the black average and live in equally crowded urban areas and their murder rate is just as high.

2. Check the murder rates in Eastern Europe (one of the whitest parts of the planet), it's higher than in the US.

3. Check the murder rate in south and south east Asia it's also higher than in the US.

4. Every time this argument gets trotted out, there's this implicit assumption that other countries are completely homogenous which simply is not true.

If race is a prime determinant of murder rates, New Zealand which has a population which is roughly 10% Asian, 10% Islander and 15% Maori should have higher murder rate than Australia which is around 2% Aboriginal and 5% Asian. It doesn't, the New Zealand murder is lower.

I also like how the racial categories get manipulated. So, for example, hispanics get classified as a separate group in the US. But French-Canadians are implicitly lumped in with Anglo-Canadians.

Also, how come the murder rate hasn't increased dramatically in France and UK as a result of the large-scale black migration to those countries.

1. No, in fact, it can't be explained away as poverty. There are FAR more whites living in poverty in the US than there are blacks in poverty. The RATE of black poverty is about twice that of the white rate, but in raw numbers, there are far more poor whites. If poverty were the only factor, you'd expect the black murder rate to only be double that of whites, but instead, it's 7x the rate of non-blacks, and 10x the rate for whites. Obviously, poverty is not the only factor.

2. Which Eastern European countries are you talking about? According to this chart http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html , Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, etc all have lower homicide rates than the US. The only listed Eastern European country with a higher rate is Estonia. For some reason, Russia isn't on the list, but further digging shows that at least Moscow has a very high rate (not sure about Russia as a whole). The former Soviet states are in turmoil right now, with lots of organized crime, battles in Chechnia, epidemic levels of alcoholism, etc, all of which would add greatly to their homicide rates.

3. South-east Asia is hardly a civilised, 1st-world area. 3rd world countries will almost always have higher crime rates. Lawlessness is a major reason why they are 3rd world countries in the first place, as no businesses or investors want to risk investing in such a country.

4. I'm not an expert on why New Zealand's crime rate may be lower, but the chart above shows 1 interesting fact: The rate of gun ownership in NZ is 22.3% and in Australia, it's only 19.4%. Maybe Australia needs to increase it's amount of gun ownership to lower its homicide rate? Another possibility... Only 80% of Kiwis live in urban areas, while 85% of Aussies live in an urban area... that could mean the difference right there.

By the way, here is an article discussing comparissons between the US, Canadian, and UK crime rates... http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.us.canada.html

[phoenixrising]

I grew up in a house full of them and every kid in my family has a deep respect for them. I own a Derringer and a 20-gauge myself.

I also grew up the daughter of a cop. While two of his men were killed with theirr own guns by criminals...others are attacked regularly by guns that could have been controlled.

So I'm torn. Not everyone has respect and fear of guns that they should. But they have their uses and people have a right to have them.....hmmm.......

[mgs]

I also grew up the daughter of a cop.
my dad was one, and even way back when, he knew that dismantling his guns would be the best thing for society. So, instead of selling 'em (could've gotten lots of money, which lots of people do) or keeping em, he got them dismantled and destroyed so that no one would ever have the chance to use them improperly after him.

I don't know if I have the same feelings about guns as my dad, but I sure respect him for that.

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=Samurai]1. No, in fact, it can't be explained away as poverty. There are FAR more whites living in poverty in the US than there are blacks in poverty. The RATE of black poverty is about twice that of the white rate, but in raw numbers, there are far more poor whites. If poverty were the only factor, you'd expect the black murder rate to only be double that of whites, but instead, it's 7x the rate of non-blacks, and 10x the rate for whites. Obviously, poverty is not the only factor.

I'm relying here on a statement by Lambert, which I can't now find, that it can be explained by the combination of AND urbanisation, which is what I said

2. Which Eastern European countries are you talking about? According to this chart http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html , Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, etc all have lower homicide rates than the US. The only listed Eastern European country with a higher rate is Estonia. For some reason, Russia isn't on the list, but further digging shows that at least Moscow has a very high rate (not sure about Russia as a whole). The former Soviet states are in turmoil right now, with lots of organized crime, battles in Chechnia, epidemic levels of alcoholism, etc, all of which would add greatly to their homicide rates.

http://www.llcc.cc.il.us/gtruitt/SCJ%20100%20Fall%202003%20Start%20Page/murder%20rated%20compared%20internationally.htm

United States: 7 murders per 100,000
Belarus: 10.4
Bulgaria: 19
Estonia: 22
Latvia 18.2
Lithuania 11.7 (Care to explain the racial or historical differences that make the Estonian murder rate almost double the Lithuanian?)
Moldova 17.5
Russia 30.6 (And while you're at it explain why the Belarussian rate is 1/3 of the Russian rate)
Ukraine 11.3

Oh - Austria isn't generally considered part of Eastern Europe, neither is Germany.

Incidentally, the fact that OTHER Eastern European states right next door to these countries - including Albania, Croatia and the Czech Republic - have LOWER murder rates than the US argues further that there's no racial factor at work.

<<4. I'm not an expert on why New Zealand's crime rate may be lower, but the chart above shows 1 interesting fact: The rate of gun ownership in NZ is 22.3% and in Australia, it's only 19.4%. Maybe Australia needs to increase it's amount of gun ownership to lower its homicide rate? Another possibility... Only 80% of Kiwis live in urban areas, while 85% of Aussies live in an urban area... that could mean the difference right there.>>

Actually, the urbanisation rate probably explains the difference in gun ownership. In both countries, private hand-gun ownership has been heavily restricted for 50 years or more. Most gun owners in both countries are farmers.

But let's follow the logic here - a 10% difference in gun ownership and a 5% difference in the urbanisationrate, according to you, more than cancel out an approximately 5 to 6 times higher percentage of people of non-white extraction. That's hardly consistent with race being THE major determinant of murder rates.

[rick]

1. No, in fact, it can't be explained away as poverty. There are FAR more whites living in poverty in the US than there are blacks in poverty. The RATE of black poverty is about twice that of the white rate, but in raw numbers, there are far more poor whites. If poverty were the only factor, you'd expect the black murder rate to only be double that of whites, but instead, it's 7x the rate of non-blacks, and 10x the rate for whites. Obviously, poverty is not the only factor.



Just curious, but what would you say are the other factors?

[Tages]

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.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
-- Adolph Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

From the web site of Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: (http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm)

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt,’ roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the ‘Reichsgesetzblatt’ issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler’s Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 – one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany – new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Gun control at its most pure, non?

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.
I already explained the Iraqi situation. Firearms in the Soviet Union were heavily regulated and ownership restricted almost entirely to hunting weapons or to police officers, members of the military and influential Party officials.

[Tages]

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.
Oddly enough, according to the link you posted mere hours after this post (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm), you're incorrect.

[Tages]

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.
You can't so much as mention Bush or Kerry's name in any ad up to a month before the election. Just how is that not a violation of the First Amendment?

[Tages]

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?
Read over that last sentence again.

Guess what? If someone's pointing a switchblade at me in an alley and demanding I hand over my wallet, I might just threaten to kill him to make sure he doesn't stab me. That's not exactly an irrational response.

[Samurai]

But let's follow the logic here - a 10% difference in gun ownership and a 5% difference in the urbanisationrate, according to you, more than cancel out an approximately 5 to 6 times higher percentage of people of non-white extraction. That's hardly consistent with race being THE major determinant of murder rates.
I'm not saying race is the main factor for homicides in every country around the world... I'm saying it's a major factor in the US. It's a simple fact that in the US, blacks commit over half of all murders (esp. young black males). For another country, it may be religious or culteral differences that are a spark for violence, or economic and political upheaval mixed with alcoholism of epidemic proportions (like in the former USSR). Each country has differences in its history, culture, economy, racial mix, and a ton of other factors that all contribute to the crime rate.

[Tages]

And here's (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/arms.html) a wonderful list of quotes on firearms ownership.

Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

[Samurai]

Just curious, but what would you say are the other factors?
There are many, and I don't think there is 1 absolute correct answer. Certainly, economy and perception of one's chance of success in life (real or imagined) play a part. So does "ghetto culture", which idolizes drug dealing, gangs, shooting cops, and being tough... if someone insults you or comes into your gang's territory wearing the wrong colors, they have to die. Then, for the sake of honor, that person's gang will want to hit back, and so on. It's stupid and childish, but rappers popularize it with their music, etc, and the stupidity is passed from 1 generation to the next.

A lack of strong, moral fathers is another big culprit. The illegitimacy rate in the black community is 70%! Compare that to a 23% rate of illegitimacy among whites. But fathers must not only stick around, they must set a good example for their kids. Also tied in with this is the fact that 56% of white adults are married, while only 32% of blacks are married. Having a wife (and kids) is a strong stabilizing force in a man's life, and that stability is passed on to the next generation by a 2 parent family.

[Iangould]

Oddly enough, according to the link you posted mere hours after this post (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm), you're incorrect.

Okay - assuming the extraordinarily low figure for 1900 isn't an artefact which it almost certainly is -let's compare the murder rate 70 years ago of around 10 per 100,000 with the current level of around 7. Because if we're just going to grab two points on a graph that happen to suit our views we might as well just grab any two.

I'm going to look for better historical data.

[Rabid Trekkie]

[QUOTE=rick]And yet here you are telling us how much safer we are without guns.
[QUOTE]

Yes, because on my own biased sample, I'm about 1000 times more likely to be threatened in a country which permits private hand-gun ownership than I am in a country that doesn't.

You were threatened by a knife and say it is because we own guns? I'm sorry, I'm missing the logic here. Unless of course you want knives gone also, which means my family and I are in trouble as we own more knives then guns.

And about the murder rate in Japan being the lowest, what does that have to do with the fact that a small group of criminals can kill a majority of cops coming after them? And while I have no proof, so feel free to correct me, my dad says that crime in Japan is on the rise. It was their tradition and other cultural things that kept the crime rate down, now that tradition is dying away the murder rate is going up.

And banning guns will not stop crime, there were crimes before there were guns. People would use swords and knives and any other makeshift weapon to commit crimes. Americans have always been nuts, the french said so during our civil war (before they lost all semblence of a spine :D ). The first Americans were at extreme ends of the British spectrum, some were criminals, some just wanted adventure. We are made up of the most weird group of people. There will always be crime here, it will always be high. Take guns away and you will see a small slump but I would bet that in a year or two it would be back up to full power again. There would just be a different weapon of choice.

If you do outlaw guns though, can we use swords? :D

[Samurai]

Also, it is very different to ban all guns in a country like Japan, that has never had many guns or legal ownership. In a case like that, preventing all guns from entering the country may actually stop some (though certainly not all) criminals from getting guns. However, in the US, the genie is already out of the bottle. There are thousands upon thousands of guns already in the country, and criminals can get a gun from the black market easily. Here, legal gun ownership is needed just to balance the scales... a very different situation from Japan.

[Adam Crocker]

Also, it is very different to ban all guns in a country like Japan, that has never had many guns or legal ownership. In a case like that, preventing all guns from entering the country may actually stop some (though certainly not all) criminals from getting guns. However, in the US, the genie is already out of the bottle. There are thousands upon thousands of guns already in the country, and criminals can get a gun from the black market easily. Here, legal gun ownership is needed just to balance the scales... a very different situation from Japan.

Well that and Japan has a very different social situation from the U.S. which has helped keep the crime and poverty rates at incredibly low levels.

[macul]

Fix the social ills. That's the problem in this country. Blaming guns will get you nowhere quickly.

[Dreadstar]

Fix the social ills. That's the problem in this country. Blaming guns will get you nowhere quickly.


THANK you. That's the crux of the matter, right there.

What's that saying? Treat the disease, not the symptom?

[macul]

THANK you. That's the crux of the matter, right there.

What's that saying? Treat the disease, not the symptom?

That's too simple. People don't want to believe that people out there are making poor life decisions that lead to violence. They want to believe that simply banning guns will fix the issue. They want to believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will somehow make the crime rate lower.

Imagine if people were this flippant about the rest of the Constitution. Imagine if people could be thrown in jail for potentially abusing any other right guaranteed to them.

[cactusmaac]

Um yeah to reiterate what Buzz and Samurai have said, the real root cause of crime is illegitimacy not poverty which was probably abolished in absolute terms in the US a long time ago.

[Iangould]

You were threatened by a knife and say it is because we own guns? I'm sorry, I'm missing the logic here.

The logic is that gun advocates keeping saying that handgun ownership discourages crime because of the risk the victim is armed.

But in Australia which bans handguns I get seriously threatened twice in forty years, once because it was my damn fault for being an idiot. In the US, I get threatened within a week.

That's pretty strong anecdotal evidence that the "Fight crime, shoot back" argument is a pile of doody.

[rick]

The logic is that gun advocates keeping saying that handgun ownership discourages crime because of the risk the victim is armed.

But in Australia which bans handguns I get seriously threatened twice in forty years, once because it was my damn fault for being an idiot. In the US, I get threatened within a week.

That's pretty strong anecdotal evidence that the "Fight crime, shoot back" argument is a pile of doody.


Your logic here is amazingly circular.

[macul]

The logic is that gun advocates keeping saying that handgun ownership discourages crime because of the risk the victim is armed.

But in Australia which bans handguns I get seriously threatened twice in forty years, once because it was my damn fault for being an idiot. In the US, I get threatened within a week.

That's pretty strong anecdotal evidence that the "Fight crime, shoot back" argument is a pile of doody.

I've lived in the U.S. for nearly 30 years. I've only been in one situation. I'll take my personal anecdotal evidence over yours.

[Ray R.]

The Second Amendment has seen no serious judicial scrutiny of its legitimacy since it was written into the Constitution. Find me a Supreme Court case, any Supreme Court case, where the right to bear arms has been subject to judicial interpretation and the constitutionality of the amendment called into question. There ain't none. It's a stone cold lock. The alarmists in the NRA can say that the next Democratic president is going to come in and take everyone's guns away, but there's a little thing like 225+ years of legal establishment that make that a near-impossibility. There will NOT be a mass round-up of firearms, unless we make the Constitution null and void. To speak otherwise gives credence to crackpot paranoia.

As for my personal view, I support gun ownership, and sports hunting and training. But I wouldn't own a gun, based on personal philosophy, and frankly, because if I had one I might be tempted to use it for less noble reasons than exercising personal liberties. I don't let fear rule my life. And that's what a gun would be for ME. A response to fear, or an instrument of personal justice I don't care to claim responsibility for (or need to make a choice about). I'll roll the dice that I can live with my decision. As for anyone else, as long as you keep it locked up away from kids, you get counseling before you aim it at a family member, and you don't stick in my face as a symbol of your politics, go ahead and collect an armory.

[Iangould]

I find this interesting:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1125047.htm

Gun ban proposed to solve PNG crime crisis
Papua New Guinea's police minister is proposing a national ban on guns to deal with the country's spiralling crime problem.

Bire Kimisopa says there are more than $200,000 firearms licences in the country as well as many more illegal and home made weapons.

Mr Kimisopa says he will propose the national ban as part of a gun summit he is planning to hold in August.

"A complete ban has its advantages, but then again it does not solve the problems of violence in PNG," he said.

"But that's a start, and we feel by sending a strong signal then we can begin the process of managing the entire issue of firearms."

[Samurai]

I find this interesting:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1125047.htm

Gun ban proposed to solve PNG crime crisis
Papua New Guinea's police minister is proposing a national ban on guns to deal with the country's spiralling crime problem.

Bire Kimisopa says there are more than $200,000 firearms licences in the country as well as many more illegal and home made weapons.

Mr Kimisopa says he will propose the national ban as part of a gun summit he is planning to hold in August.

"A complete ban has its advantages, but then again it does not solve the problems of violence in PNG," he said.

"But that's a start, and we feel by sending a strong signal then we can begin the process of managing the entire issue of firearms."
First step toward a dictatorship is to disarm the populace... this bodes ill...

[Wesley Dodds]

First step toward a dictatorship is to disarm the populace... this bodes ill...

Oh, no, not the return of the gun thread. I should just shoot myself right n--

Oh, hey, you're right. Guns are handy! Just like zinc. No firing pins without zinc. Or something.

Hey, Samurai, what about Iraq? Heaps of guns there, and Saddam had no trouble keeping his evil tight-fisted grip on things. Besides, if you're a dictator, you'd be throwing away an advantage to disarm your enemies. See, so long as they can present a threat, you're free to say that your're being a dictator only for the good of your people. Dictators are such weasels.

- Wes

[Shellhead]

Guns are dangerous. They are designed to wound or kill people.

Cars are dangerous. They are designed to move people and things around at high speeds.

I support gun control for the same reason that I support driver's education and the whole process to get a driver's license. I don't want to share the streets with people who don't know how to drive. I also don't want to live near people who own guns without learning how to handle them responsibly.

My idea of gun control is not an outright ban. Sure, in my perfect world, there would only be one gun, and I would be holding it. No, when I say gun control, I mean:

1. Background checks, so convicted criminals and the mentally ill are not able to legally purchase guns. Yes, yes, they could illegally buy guns or even manufacture their own, but I see no reason to make it easy or convenient for them to obtain guns.

2. Registration of guns. This helps the law enforcement types to do their jobs more effectively when a crime is committed. Responsible, law-abiding citizens should not be worried about registering their guns, because they aren't planning to commit crimes, right? Right?

3. No concealed weapons. Frankly, I don't see why anybody needs a handgun, they are too easily concealed. No, if you want to defend yourself and deter criminals, you should be openly carrying a shotgun or rifle. Sure, you may scare your neighbors and not get invited to people's weddings and other pleasant social occasions, but at least you will be safe.

[edit] 4. A mandatory gun safety class. Something similar to driver's education. Every gun owner should learn how to safely operate a gun. They should also learn how to clean the weapon and how to keep it safely out of the hands of children.

By the way, many gun control opponents speak very casually about criminals as though they are a different species. We are all human, and perhaps the only difference between an honest citizen and a murderer is one white-hot moment of anger and a conveniently located gun. If you were armed with a handgun and walked in on your cheating lover in a moment of passion, would you shoot?

[macul]

Guns are dangerous. They are designed to wound or kill people.

Cars are dangerous. They are designed to move people and things around at high speeds.

I support gun control for the same reason that I support driver's education and the whole process to get a driver's license. I don't want to share the streets with people who don't know how to drive. I also don't want to live near people who own guns without learning how to handle them responsibly.

My idea of gun control is not an outright ban. Sure, in my perfect world, there would only be one gun, and I would be holding it. No, when I say gun control, I mean:

1. Background checks, so convicted criminals and the mentally ill are not able to legally purchase guns. Yes, yes, they could illegally buy guns or even manufacture their own, but I see no reason to make it easy or convenient for them to obtain guns.

2. Registration of guns. This helps the law enforcement types to do their jobs more effectively when a crime is committed. Responsible, law-abiding citizens should not be worried about registering their guns, because they aren't planning to commit crimes, right? Right?

3. No concealed weapons. Frankly, I don't see why anybody needs a handgun, they are too easily concealed. No, if you want to defend yourself and deter criminals, you should be openly carrying a shotgun or rifle. Sure, you may scare your neighbors and not get invited to people's weddings and other pleasant social occasions, but at least you will be safe.

[edit] 4. A mandatory gun safety class. Something similar to driver's education. Every gun owner should learn how to safely operate a gun. They should also learn how to clean the weapon and how to keep it safely out of the hands of children.

By the way, many gun control opponents speak very casually about criminals as though they are a different species. We are all human, and perhaps the only difference between an honest citizen and a murderer is one white-hot moment of anger and a conveniently located gun. If you were armed with a handgun and walked in on your cheating lover in a moment of passion, would you shoot?

1. Agree

2. Disagree. Registration is the first step towards confiscation. Call me paranoid. Accuse me of seeing black helicopters or whatever, but history has proven this. Germany. Hungary. New York. Chicago. California. No thanks. I'm innocent until proven guilty and I'd like to be treated as such.

3. Disagree. I live in Florida. We have concealed carry. We have less problems now then previously. Despite the rhetoric that our state would turn into the "wild west" the CCP has shown to lower the crime rate.

4. Agree.

As for your hypothetical situation a knife, baseball bat, crowbar, or anything would serve the purpose just as well and perhaps easier.

[Charles RB]

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.
... * Violent crime has fallen by 35% since its peak in 1995, and has remained relatively stable since 2000. ... 1995, as it happens, was the year the British tightened gun controls.

Heh heh heh.

Ian, Britain salutes you.

[Iangould]

So I'm reading through Tim Lambert's blog and I come across this:

"My philosophy on weapon controls is that we need to look at the cost and benefits and adopt them if the net benefit is positive. If it isn't, then we should not adopt them. I already said that I did not approve of the 1996 laws here. That is because while there has been a reduction in deaths, that reduction is small relative to the cost and there were more productive ways my tax dollars could have been spent."

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/UK/gullible3.html

Anyone still want to argue that Lambert's just an anti-gun extremist out to slander than nice Dr. lott for daring to tell the truth?

Do I agree with Lambert about the 1996 laws here in Australia?

I don't know becasue I haven't yet found and read his article on the subject.

I will point out though that even before 1996, Australian gun laws were much stricter than in the US. An argument about the economic merits of the 1996 laws says nothing either positive or negative about the net economic costs of the previous laws.

[Mike Smash!]

I don't like guns.

Sure, they can be cool in a fictional setting, but in real life, they're frightening. They're machines made for killing and I honestly don't think enough people respect what they can do.

I do, however support the Second Amendment and the citizen's right to bear arms. I may not like guns, but it's not my likes and dislikes that make the laws and peoples' rights.

I support gun control, in that I think that the sorts of guns that are available to non-military personnel should be restricted. I see no logical reason for any private citizen to own a fully automatic weapon. It takes the sport out of hunting (not to mention would strip any animal of its meat anyways), and if fired in a home protection situation, would probably hit more of your own property than the burglar.

I support the right to bear arms, but within reason. Certainly nothing like nuclear bombs or anti-aircraft cannons, but I think the guns people should able to legally buy should be limited to: Hunting rifle, shotgun and handgun for home protection.

Anything else is gratuitous and unnecessary. I would also require gun owners to undergo a gun safety and operations class, so that they can properly use and respect what a gun can do, just as one would obtain a driver's liscence. Then they'd simply get an eye test and take a brief examination at a shooting range to qualify for a gun liscence. The training classes could be given by private companies or groups like the NRA or others like retired military or police officers -- like driver's schools. And like traffic safety classes, it will be necessary to show people to respect the weapon and what it can do.

Simple as that. I've read that a non-trained shooter still only has a 30% chance of hitting a target even at 12 feet away. Those odds could very well mean hitting your target or an innocent bystander. Like anything, I think the answer is education.

[iwarrior]

I support gun control also,but I also think that the root causes of violent crime need to be remedied as well.

[Iangould]

As I've said repeatedly in this thread.

Gun control will not "solve" the problem of violent crime.

It will probably, on the evidence available to us, reduce it modestly. -which is probably a sufficient reason for doing it.

Think about this - the US murder rate is 7 per 100,000. That equates to around 21,000 deaths a year.

7 9-11 attacks a year, every year.

How big a reduction in that figure do you NEED to justify action?

[Iangould]

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9770536%255E1702,00.html

National murder rate drops
June 7, 2004

AUSTRALIANS are killing each other at a substantially reduced rate, new national homicide figures show.

The figures, released by the Australian Institute of Criminology under the National Homicide Monitoring Program, show there were 297 homicide incidents resulting in the deaths of 324 people during 2002-03.

That represents a 15 per cent decline from 381 deaths in 2001-02 - giving Australia a current national homicide rate of 1.6 per 100,000 population, the equal lowest rate since the program started in 1990.

Report authors Jenny Mouzos and Marie Segrave stressed that the murder rate remained volatile and subject to yearly fluctuations.

It ranged from a low of 297 incidents in 1997-98 to a high of 354 incidents in 2001-02.

<<Hey look the murder rate here dropped again. >>

[cactusmaac]

3. No concealed weapons. Frankly, I don't see why anybody needs a handgun, they are too easily concealed. No, if you want to defend yourself and deter criminals, you should be openly carrying a shotgun or rifle. Sure, you may scare your neighbors and not get invited to people's weddings and other pleasant social occasions, but at least you will be safe.

The logic seems simple to me. If concealed weapons are banned then a criminal who approaches a victim will know straight away if he\she is armed. I think the uncertainty concealed carry introduces would be a useful deterrent.

Ian: Ice cream and drownings in summer.

[Iangould]

Ian: Ice cream and drownings in summer.

Correlation doesn't prove causality, correct.

However, there are statistical techniques which do let you test causal relations.

If you're referring specifically to my post regarding the Australian murder rate, I posted that mainly to combat the persistent propaganda from the NRA claiming there's been an explosion in violent crime in Australia since 1996.

Of course, Rick would probably have you believe that a non-government organisation in the US funded primarily by gun manufacturers is far better placed than the Australian Institute of Criminology to know how many murders there R-E-A-L-L-Y are in Australia each year.

There's probably a secret cache of murder victims piled up like firewood somewhere in the outback.

[cactusmaac]

Well, to reiterate my thoughts on this I don't think owning or banning guns themselves has that much influence on crime either way.

But still, I'd rather have it be my decision as to whether or not I want to own a gun than have some legislator decide for me.

[Tom]

Once again I need to remind people that if the strongest argument you make consists of a lot of this : :rolleyes: and vague name-calling, your posts will be deleted. Add something to the conversation. If you can't, don't bother the grownups.

[Shellhead]

The logic seems simple to me. If concealed weapons are banned then a criminal who approaches a victim will know straight away if he\she is armed. I think the uncertainty concealed carry introduces would be a useful deterrent.

That's a good point, and I guess the only logical conclusion to my idea would be mandatory unconcealed weapons for all citizens. That makes me flinch. Morning traffic to my job could literally be murder.

[macul]

People said the same thing about Florida when we were preparing to pass our CCP legislation. They claimed Florida would turn into the "Wild Wild West." They were proven substantially incorrect.

[Shellhead]

People said the same thing about Florida when we were preparing to pass our CCP legislation. They claimed Florida would turn into the "Wild Wild West." They were proven substantially incorrect.

I read somewhere once that the reason so many men in Miami have those man-purses is to carry their handguns when it gets to hot to wear a shoulder holster. True?

[macul]

I read somewhere once that the reason so many men in Miami have those man-purses is to carry their handguns when it gets to hot to wear a shoulder holster. True?

Don't know about that. I won't go further south than Melbourne. :D

The little waist bags are popular for CC, though. I wouldn't use one as they are a bit too obvious.

[Mike Smash!]

One random thought on concealed weapons.

If someone openly wore a gunbelt like a cowboy, and they got into a verbal altercation with a stranger, do you think the other person could press charges for being threatened with a weapon, even if during the altercation, the guy wearing man simply reminded the other he was armed, either verbally or through his actions?

And do you think this would escalate a situation that wouldn't have gone as far had the weapon not been visible.

[macul]

Depends on the state I would imagine. In Florida threatening to use a gun...not pulling it out, but merely saying, "Hey, I'm gonna pop a cap in you!" is considered assault with deadly force.

[Iangould]

I'm just repeating stuff from Lambert here but these are some of the points he makes about CC laws:

1. Supposedly, according to some survey somewhere, something like 7% of Americans nationally carried concealed handguns even when it was illegal in most states. On average only about 1% of the population got CC licences. So even assuming nobody who got a CC license carried a gun previously, CC laws only increased the number of people carrying hand-guns from 7% to 8% on average. That's not a big added deterrent.

2. If the publicity around CC laws made criminals think it was more dangerous to commit crimes, you'd expect the deterrent effect to be highest when the laws were passed because that was when there was most publicity about them but the fall in murders in most states after CC laws were passed was a slow fall-off.

3. It's always been legal to use a gun to defend yourself in your own home. CC laws don't change that either way so you'd expect murders in public places would decrease most after CC laws are passed - but the fall was in all classes of murders.

4. Similarly, juveniles aren't eligible for CC licences so you'd expect there to be less of an effect there and possibly even an increase in crimes against juveiles as criminals switched to allegedly safer targets. Didn;t happen, murders of juveliens fell at the same rate as murders of adults.

5. Women account for well under 50% of cc licences (which btw means that well under 1% of women buy the argument that they need guns to ward off attackers) so you'd expect the murder rate for women would fall by less than the male murder rate. Instead it fell by the same proportion.

All of this suggests that CC laws didn't cause the fall in the US murder rate in the 1990's.

[macul]

I'm just repeating stuff from Lambert here but these are soem of thepoints he made about CC laws:

1. Supposedly, according ot some survey somewhere, something like 7% of Americans in most states. carried concealed handguns even when it was illegal . On average only abotu 1% of the population got CC licences. So even assuming nobody who got a CC license carried a gun previously, CC laws only increased the number of people carrying hand-guns from 7% to 8% on average. That's not a big added deterrent.

2. If the publicity around CC laws made criminals think it was more dangerous to commit crimes, you'd expect the deterrent effect to be highest when the laws were passed because that was when there was most publicity about them but the fall in murders in most states after CC laws were passed was a slow fall-off.

3. It's always been legal to use a gun to defend yourself in your own home. CC laws don't change that either way so you'd expect murders in public places would decrease most after CC laws are passed - but the fall was in all classes of murders.

4. Similarly, juveniles aren't eligible for CC licences so you'd expect there to be less of an effect there and possibly even an increase in crimes against juveiles as criminals switched to allegedly safer targets.

5. Women account for well under 50% of cc licences (which btw means that well under 1% of women by the argument that they need guns to ward off attackers) so you'd expect the murder rate for women would fall by less than the male murder rate. Instead it fell by the same proportion.

All of this suggests that CC laws didn't cause the fall in the US murder rate in the 1990's.

I'm just going to speak for my state. CC was passed in Florida in 1987. Since that time the homicide rate has dropped 21%. To what do you attribute the decline? Merely coincidence? Was some other law passed? It is easy to be dismissive, but you must also provide an alternative answer.

[Iangould]

I'm just going to speak for my state. CC was passed in Florida in 1987. Since that time the homicide rate has dropped 21%. To what do you attribute the decline? Merely coincidence? Was some other law passed? It is easy to be dismissive, but you must also provide an alternative answer.

I already have - in this thread.

The main factor causing the fall in violent crime in the Us in the past decade has been the shifting demographics. The number of males between the ages of 15 and 25 has declined significantly. Most crime in every society is committed by males in this age group.

Also, if you go back to the chart showing the history of the murder rate in the US you'll notice that the murder rate climbed a lot in the 1980's. That's usually attributed to the spread of crack cocaine; the crimes committed by crack addicts and the gang wars over the crack market. Crack use declined in the 1990's.

Incidentally, didn't Florida get a Republcian governor in 1998? I'd be surprised if the concealed carry law was the only law and order initiative Jrb Bush introduced. Why do assume it was this one in particular that caused the decline in the murder rate? As I said to Maac before "correlation doesn't imply causality".

Murder rates also declined in states that didn't introduce concealed carry laws.

[macul]

I already have - in this thread.

The main factor causing the fall in violent crime in the Us in the past decade has been the shifting demographics. The number of males between the ages of 15 and 25 has declined significantly. Most crime in every society is committed by males in this age group.

Also, if you go back to the chart showing the history of the murder rate in the US you'll notice that the murder rate climbed a lot in the 1980's. That's usually attributed to the spread of crack cocaine; the crimes committed by crack addicts and the gang wars over the crack market. Crack use declined in the 1990's.

Incidentally, didn't Florida get a Republcian governor in 1998? I'd be surprised if the concealed carry law was the only law and order initiative Jrb Bush introduced. Why do assume it was this one in particular that caused the decline in the murder rate? As I said to Maac before "correlation doesn't imply causality".

Murder rates also declined in states that didn't introduce concealed carry laws.

Jeb Bush was elected in 1998. The concealed carry law was passed in 1987. Thus the law has nothing to do with Bush.

Can you show me where Florida's male between the ages of 15-25 has dropped significantly?

[Iangould]

Jeb Bush was elected in 1998. The concealed carry law was passed in 1987. Thus the law has nothing to do with Bush.

Correct. Now read what I said. One year after the CC law introduced you got a new governor. How do you know the fall in the murder rate isn't attributable to the policies he introduced?

Can you show me where Florida's male between the ages of 15-25 has dropped significantly?

Tell you what: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&_geo_id=04000US12

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=04000US12

1990 and 2000 Census tables for Florida. Do the math for yourself. It's difficult to get direct comparison though seeing as the age group breakdown used in the table changed between the two censuses.

You know if I keep gettinjg demands to prove this and prove that, I'm going to start billing Jonah at my consultancy rate.

[Iangould]

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/violent/murder.asp

You might want to take a look at this too.

So, why did the Florida murder rate decline from 15.1 per 100,000 in 1981 to 11.8 in 1996 (the year before the CC law was passed)?

This suggests that florida's murder rate was declining through the 1980's BTW which is surprising and runs counter to the nationel trend I noted earlier.

[macul]

Correct. Now read what I said. One year after the CC law introduced you got a new governor. How do you know the fall in the murder rate isn't attributable to the policies he introduced?

Hypotheticals aside, show me what policy the new governor introduced that lead to the decline. Tougher laws? Perhaps. Crackdown on existing laws? Perhaps. But saying "Well, how do you know something else didn't cause it?" without showing what that something else is is a logical fallacy.


Tell you what: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&_geo_id=04000US12

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsTable?_lang=en&_vt_name=DEC_1990_STF1_DP1&_geo_id=04000US12

1990 and 2000 Census tables for Florida. Do the math for yourself. It's difficult to get direct comparison though seeing as the age group breakdown used in the table changed between the two censuses.

That's why I asked what data you are using. You stated matter of factly that the population of males between 18-25 in Florida decreased by a large number, so I assumed you had something handy. I could find a breakdown for 2000, but not for 1990.

[Iangould]

THIS link http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/download/excel/fed_ucr.xls

Has the Uniform Crime Reprots for every state in the US for 1982 to 2002.

Can anyone name the 13 states that don't have concealed carry laws?

I'll assume, for the moment, that New York is one of them. Guess what? Since it peaked in 1985, the murder rate there has dropped 37.5%.

[Iangould]

But saying "Well, how do you know something else didn't cause it?" without showing what that something else is is a logical fallacy.


No saying "A happened then B happened therefore A caused B" is the logical fallacy. The technical term is "post hoc ergo proctor hoc".

Also, if I said the absolute number of teenage males declined, that was carelessness on my part. The RELATIVE number of teenage males has declined in all developed countries in the 1990s as the baby boomers' kids grew up.

The effect may be less pronounced in Florida because of your large and relatively youthful hispanic population.

[macul]

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/fsac/Crime_Trends/violent/murder.asp

You might want to take a look at this too.

So, why did the Florida murder rate decline from 15.1 per 100,000 in 1981 to 11.8 in 1996 (the year before the CC law was passed)?

This suggests that florida's murder rate was declining through the 1980's BTW which is surprising and runs counter to the nationel trend I noted earlier.

I'm assuming you mean 1986? Look at the rate from the beginning of the chart, 1971, to 1986. You'll see a rollercoaster ride of up-down, up-down, up-down. Down, up, down, down, down, down, up, up, up, up, down, down, up, down, up. Since 87 the rate has only down down aside from 2002, which saw a very marginal increase (5.3 to 5.4).

[macul]

No saying "A happened then B happened therefore A caused B" is the logical fallacy. The technical term is "post hoc ergo proctor hoc".

Attacking something without offering up your own supported (i.e. actual numbers instead of just saying it is so.) evidence it dishonest.

I'm not stating categorically that the CCP in Florida alone led to a drop in violent crime. What I have done is ask you to present actual evidence of what else could be the cause. Also, aren't you practicing the same thing? You stated that Florida's male populate between the ages of 18-25 dropped causing the decrease in Florida's violent crime. How is my conclusion a logical fallacy and yours not?

[Iangould]

[QUOTE=macul] Attacking something without offering up your own supported (i.e. actual numbers instead of just saying it is so.) evidence it dishonest.

Pointing out a logical error is not diashonest.

I'm not stating categorically that the CCP in Florida alone led to a drop in violent crime.

In your first post you wrote:

I'm just going to speak for my state. CC was passed in Florida in 1987. Since that time the homicide rate has dropped 21%. To what do you attribute the decline? Merely coincidence? Was some other law passed? It is easy to be dismissive, but you must also provide an alternative answer.

So yes, you didn't claim CC caused the decline. You simply assumed it and demanded proof of any alternative theory withotu offering any proof of your own.

I responded by pointed out, amongts other things, that there was a change in governemnt in Florida not long after.

Not good enough. I must apparently research every law passed by Jeb Bush amd prove specifically what impact they had on murder rates.

You stated that Florida's male populate between the ages of 18-25 dropped causing the decrease in Florida's violent crime. How is my conclusion a logical fallacy and yours not?

Well for a start, I've already pointed out that the decline in the murder rate started BEFORE the CC law passed and that at least one state without a CC law alos saw a signficant drop in the murder rate. I also pointed out a lot of other logical flaws in the CC theory earlier (no correlation between CC laws and adult/juvenile nurder rate changes for example.)

Because, mine is supported by a boatload of statistical studies around the world showing a correlation between age and crime.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dtdata.htm

Open using Excel, go to the second sectio nshowing arrest rates per hundred thousand persons for the Us by age. Rates for 2002:

14 and under: 413
15-17: 3,333.4
18-20: 2,923.6
21-24: 1,852.6
Over 25: 582

Hewy look, it's midnight and i've spent the better part of three hours responding to accusatory, personalised posts that stop just short of calling me a liar.

Now that's what I come to CBR for.

You know what I think I'll settle for asserting that the decline in the murder rate was caused by the decline in the sale of disco reocrds and dmeand that you prove definitively that it wasn't.

[macul]

[QUOTE=macul] Attacking something without offering up your own supported (i.e. actual numbers instead of just saying it is so.) evidence it dishonest.

Pointing out a logical error is not diashonest.

Failing to provide something to counter the claim other than "I don't think so." is dishonest, IMO.


In your first post you wrote:

I'm just going to speak for my state. CC was passed in Florida in 1987. Since that time the homicide rate has dropped 21%. To what do you attribute the decline? Merely coincidence? Was some other law passed? It is easy to be dismissive, but you must also provide an alternative answer.

So yes, you didn't claim CC caused the decline. You simply assumed it and demanded proof of any alternative theory withotu offering any proof of your own.

I responded by pointed out, amongts other things, that there was a change in governemnt in Florida not long after.

Not good enough. I must apparently research every law passed by Jeb Bush amd prove specifically what impact they had on murder rates.

No. But if you state that the CCP is not the cause of the decrease then you logically know what is. Correct or not correct? I'm also really starting to wonder just how much research you did in to this. At one point you claim Bush passed the CCP legislation. You also claim that a new governor was elected soon after the CCP law was passed. The legislation passed in 1987. At that time Bob Martinez (R) was governor and was so until 1991. From 1991 until 1998 Lawton Chiles (D) was governor. From 1998 to 1999 Ken Mackay (D) was governor. Bush wasn't elected until 1999.

I'm not asking you to detail every law that could have had an impact. I just thought you might be prepared to offer up some evidence in the form of legislation.


Well for a start, I've already pointed out that the decline in the murder rate started BEFORE the CC law passed and that at least one state without a CC law alos saw a signficant drop in the murder rate. I also pointed out a lot of other logical flaws in the CC theory earlier (no correlation between CC laws and adult/juvenile nurder rate changes for example.)

There was good drop for about a two year span at which point the rate stayed very consistent from 1983 to 1987 (even rising slightly).


Hewy look, it's midnight and i've spent the better part of three hours responding to accusatory, personalised posts that stop just short of calling me a liar.

Now that's what I come to CBR for.

You know what I think I'll settle for asserting that the decline in the murder rate was caused by the decline in the sale of disco reocrds and dmeand that you prove definitively that it wasn't.

oh bullshit, ian. I'm not calling you a liar. You are doing the same thing you did in regards to the living wage in Vegas when you asserted that a law passed in 2000 was responsible for the previous decade's increase in the standard of living. If you want to claim that the drop in violent crime in Florida is caused by a reduction in certain aged males then go ahead. I might even be inclined to agree. However, you simply saying it is so without offering any evidence that males between 18-25 have actually decreased by any appreciable margin isn't going to work. You obviously read this somewhere. Where did you read it? What evidence did the author give?

Don't claim something, refuse to back it, and then run away claiming victim. Very poor style.

[Mike Smash!]

Depends on the state I would imagine. In Florida threatening to use a gun...not pulling it out, but merely saying, "Hey, I'm gonna pop a cap in you!" is considered assault with deadly force.

What if one doesn't actually say, but hooks their thumbs around the gunbelt during the argument or even just fingers the gun while yelling at you?

I'm just saying that people act very differently when they see the other person is armed and I'm not sure I like anyone but cops having that sort of freedom to openly wear a gun like that.

But then I know people with cncealed weapons permits and I believe there are reasonable limitations, like not being able to legally carry the weapon into schools, churches or bars.

[Dreadstar]

...But then I know people with cncealed weapons permits and I believe there are reasonable limitations, like not being able to legally carry the weapon into schools, churches or bars.
Actually, since the CC law went into effect here in Ohio, all that's required is for an establishment to display a "No guns" sign. We have not yet any idea how that will hold up if someone wants to challenge it legally, but there it is.

AND I believe the even the establishments that ARE truly legally protected from being entered by someone with CC (like a courthouse or a post office, for example), they STILL must have the "No Guns" disclaimer displayed prominently at all entrances. I'd say that's the right way to go about it. Let the establishment (private property) make the decision.

[Shellhead]

Actually, since the CC law went into effect here in Ohio, all that's required is for an establishment to display a "No guns" sign. We have not yet any idea how that will hold up if someone wants to challenge it legally, but there it is.

AND I believe the even the establishments that ARE truly legally protected from being entered by someone with CC (like a courthouse or a post office, for example), they STILL must have the "No Guns" disclaimer displayed prominently at all entrances. I'd say that's the right way to go about it. Let the establishment (private property) make the decision.

Despite the fact that Minnesota is one of the most liberal states, we currently have a Republican governor and one of the two houses of our bicameral legistlature has a thin Republican majority. As a result, we got our Conceal & Carry law last July.

It's too soon to know what impact this has had on violent crime, but there were only 1/3 as many applications as expected so far. Maybe the mandatory safety class is too much to handle.

Anyway, the one obvious impact of our new CC law is the amazing quantity of "No Guns Allowed on These Premises" signs, everywhere you go. Schools, churches, banks, convenience stores, liquor stores, bars, shopping malls, libraries... everywhere. It's getting to the point where the only indoor place you can legally bring your concealed weapon is your own home.

[Dreadstar]

Despite the fact that Minnesota is one of the most liberal states, we currently have a Republican governor and one of the two houses of our bicameral legistlature has a thin Republican majority. As a result, we got our Conceal & Carry law last July.

It's too soon to know what impact this has had on violent crime, but there were only 1/3 as many applications as expected so far. Maybe the mandatory safety class is too much to handle.

Actually, you're on the right track, but not quite.

Our mandatory safety class has to be done by an accredited Gun Safety provider (duh). They can only handle so many people at one time.

Here in Columbus the safety class sign-up and waiting list is over 6 months long. And getting longer every day.

The reason they've only had 1/3 the applications they expected is that only 1/3 of the potential applicants qualified or have already passed the class, IMO.


Anyway, the one obvious impact of our new CC law is the amazing quantity of "No Guns Allowed on These Premises" signs, everywhere you go. Schools, churches, banks, convenience stores, liquor stores, bars, shopping malls, libraries... everywhere. It's getting to the point where the only indoor place you can legally bring your concealed weapon is your own home.

Which really, is fine by me. Being the Libertarian, you keep your hands off my gun and I'll keep it off your property if you so prefer.

Works for me.

[macul]

What if one doesn't actually say, but hooks their thumbs around the gunbelt during the argument or even just fingers the gun while yelling at you?

I'm just saying that people act very differently when they see the other person is armed and I'm not sure I like anyone but cops having that sort of freedom to openly wear a gun like that.

But then I know people with cncealed weapons permits and I believe there are reasonable limitations, like not being able to legally carry the weapon into schools, churches or bars.

I don't know the answer to that question, but I'll ask. My guess would be if you see a person carrying a firearm and they make a reasonable motion to use it, then you could argue defense.

I understand the concern. Take Florida, though. We've had around 250,000 CCPs issued. Only 17 have been revoked. 17. That's a pretty low number. You'll find that people who have taken the time to legally carry a firearm are very aware of what they can and can not do. They'll also do everything in their power to avoid a confrontation. That's just my personal experience.

You are correct about the limitations. You can't carry within, I believe 100 yards of school grounds, bars, government buildings, and generally any place that posts no firearms allowed.

[Mike Smash!]

You are correct about the limitations. You can't carry within, I believe 100 yards of school grounds, bars, government buildings, and generally any place that posts no firearms allowed.

Say, if you're on foot, carrying a concealed gun and suddenly need to run into a church or post office, what are you supposed to do with it?

You can't exactly just leave in on the steps unattended or chain it to the bike stands.

[macul]

Say, if you're on foot, carrying a concealed gun and suddenly need to run into a church or post office, what are you supposed to do with it?

You can't exactly just leave in on the steps unattended or chain it to the bike stands.

If you plan on going to such a location then you A) don't bring your gun period or B) drive a vehicle and leave it in the vehicle. Responsibility is a big part of having a CWP.

[west3man]

Hmm. This thread isn't about what I thought.

Anyway, I'm seriously considering purchasing a firearm. I've never been more interested in doing so than I am, at this moment. I expect the intensity of the feeling to diminish over time, but I don't expect it to change my intentions.

[GammaPro]

I've heard police say it over and over... "The scariest thing to someone with enough balls to break into your home is the the home owner with a gun."

[gary bolt]

These stats are from the website for the Violence Policy Center and relate more to points I was trying to make earlier. Murders involving guns are really messy ugly things and are often committed by people who the victim has intimate relations with. It's not just hardened criminals popping each other in gang fights. Guns in homes often equate to deaths in homes.

Facts on Firearms and Domestic Violence

In 2000, in homicides where the weapon was known, 50 percent (1,342 of 2,701) of female homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Of those female firearm homicides, 1,009 women (75 percent) were killed with a handgun.


More than five times as many women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance (605) than by a stranger (113) in the year 2000. Additionally, while firearm homicides involving male victims were mostly intra-gender, 95 percent of female firearm homicide victims were murdered by a male.


Domestic violence against women is a disturbingly common occurrence in the United States. Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that from 1993 to 1998, women were victims of violent crimes by their intimate partners an average of more than 935,000 times a year. During this period, intimate-partner violence comprised 22 percent of all violent crimes against women. Although firearms are used in a relatively small percentage of domestic violence incidents, when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide. Congress, recognizing the unique and deadly role firearms play in domestic violence passed the Protective Order Gun Ban in 1994. The law prohibits gun possession by a person against whom there is a restraining or protective order for domestic violence. In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, which prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun.


A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative.


An analysis of female domestic homicides (a woman murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative) showed that prior domestic violence in the household made a woman 14.6 times more likely, and having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely, to be the victim of such a homicide.


The circumstances of firearms violence differ significantly between men and women. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.


Between 1976 and 1996, 65 percent of the male and female victims of intimate partner homicides were killed with a firearm. And while rates of intimate partner homicide have been declining, the ratio of female-to-male victims has risen. In other words, when an intimate-partner homicide occurs, it is increasingly likely that a woman is the victim rather than a man.


Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.


A firearm in the home may be a key factor in the escalation of nonfatal spousal abuse to homicide. In a study of family and intimate assaults for the city of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1984, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.


The effects of firearm-related domestic violence last long beyond the actual crime. In a study on child witnesses of marital violence, the authors noted that children who observed incidents of domestic violence involving the use or threat of a firearm exhibited higher levels of behavior problems than children who did not.

[Karl J. Barnes]

Though this is a bit over the top, it is interesting:http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090905pratt.htm

[Dan Apodaca]

I've heard police say it over and over... "The scariest thing to someone with enough balls to break into your home is the the home owner with a gun."

I've also heard cops say that marijuana is one of the most dangerous drugs in existence, that all criminals deserve to go to jail, and that smoking while driving is more dangerous than driving drunk.

Cops are just people with opinions, and opinions aren't always right or complete.

[Dreadstar]

I've also heard cops say that marijuana is one of the most dangerous drugs in existence, that all criminals deserve to go to jail, and that smoking while driving is more dangerous than driving drunk.

Cops are just people with opinions, and opinions aren't always right or complete.

Would you accept the opinion of someone who's had the balls to B&E?

[Dan Apodaca]

Would you accept the opinion of someone who's had the balls to B&E?

It's not that I doubt that they're scared of guns, it's that it's clearly not including any intruders who had guns themselves.

[Dreadstar]

It's not that I doubt that they're scared of guns, it's that it's clearly not including any intruders who had guns themselves.

Not sure that follows. Even if they have a gun, the fact that the owner may also have one would probably STILL be "the scariest thing to" them.

[Dan Apodaca]

Not sure that follows. Even if they have a gun, the fact that the owner may also have one would probably STILL be "the scariest thing to" them.

Maybe. I also thinks it's the opinion of a group of people who are generally aggressive and force-oriented.

[J Dog]

Ooo! Ooo! There's this one guy in Indy, Don Baker, and he owns "Don's Guns". Here are two of his mottos:

"It's Better To Have A Gun & Not Need It Than To Need A Gun & Not Have It!" (explaining the Second Amendment)

&

"I Don't Want To Make Money. I Just Love To Sell Guns! Ha Ha!"

I love those mottos. If you ever needed a gun, come here.

[BlairH]

"I Don't Want To Make Money. I Just Love To Sell Guns! Ha Ha!"

That is the most awesome motto ever.

[VCreed32]

Ooo! Ooo! There's this one guy in Indy, Don Baker, and he owns "Don's Guns". Here are two of his mottos:

"It's Better To Have A Gun & Not Need It Than To Need A Gun & Not Have It!" (explaining the Second Amendment)

&

"I Don't Want To Make Money. I Just Love To Sell Guns! Ha Ha!"

I love those mottos. If you ever needed a gun, come here.
That is tempting indeed.

[orcafresh]

Someone once said that a picture was worth a thousand words. As it would take me lomger than I have to put together 1000 words to properly tell you all how important I think having a right to own legal guns IS in America, I'll simply leave my image. Enjoy!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/orcafresh/gun3.jpg

[BlairH]

Someone once said that a picture was worth a thousand words. As it would take me lomger than I have to put together 1000 words to properly tell you all how important I think having a right to own legal guns IS in America, I'll simply leave my image. Enjoy!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/orcafresh/gun3.jpg
From my cold dead hands!

The right to keep and bear arms shouldn't just be an American thing. I believe that all men -created by God- should be granted equal rights. These rights should include the RKBA in order to safeguard them from opression.

Did you know that the 2nd ammendment has some Scottish origins? It was once a concept that this country held dear...Untill our "masters" decided otherwise... :mad:

[Royal]

Guns are silly.

[BlairH]

Guns are silly.

I beg to differ!

http://www.worcestercitymuseums.org.uk/coll/worsor/ww1ri/regw1e.jpg
.303 Lee Enfield! The chosen rifle of Garth Ennis

http://www.forcerecon.com/images/strong/23bw.jpg
Colt M4 Commando Carbine

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-ww1-enemy/german-luger.jpg
Luger

Guns are cool!

[ghostrider666]

Guns are not silly. They are tools. Great hobbies. Essential components of hunting.

[Royal]

I beg to differ!

http://www.worcestercitymuseums.org.uk/coll/worsor/ww1ri/regw1e.jpg
.303 Lee Enfield! The chosen rifle of Garth Ennis

http://www.forcerecon.com/images/strong/23bw.jpg
Colt M4 Commando Carbine

http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/weapons-ww1-enemy/german-luger.jpg
Luger

Guns are cool!

Showing me still makes them silly.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Just have everyone start carrying swords. Then the world will be a better place.

[BlairH]

It wasn't me...

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/crime_courts/12682578.htm

The intruder apparently had a tatoo on his arms saying "Only God can judge me" (apparently, this is a popular tatoo with pimps and dealers). This is what God had to say on the matter.


Guilty!


Just goes to show that defensive firearms use does happen.

[Crinos]

Well good on him. Not enough people taking the law into their own hands nowadays, its unseemly.

[BlairH]

Well good on him.
Darn straight

Not enough people taking the law into their own hands nowadays, its unseemly.
Either remove the threat to your life or be killed. The Cops can't be in every place at the same time.

[Hiromi]

Given it happened in Georgia, the story makes it sound like it'll fall under justifiable homicide, which IMO is where it belongs.

[BlairH]

Given it happened in Georgia, the story makes it sound like it'll fall under justifiable homicide, which IMO is where it belongs.
What's the law of justifiable homocide like in Georgia?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

The intruder apparently had a tatoo on his arms saying "Only God can judge me" (apparently, this is a popular tatoo with pimps and dealers). This is what God had to say on the matter.


Its also popular with young men in Rap/Hip Hop. I've seen a few on TV have a version of this tatoo. I doubt everyone who has this tattoo is truelly evil and shall be gunned down for having it.

Plus the guy reacted the only way he knew how. You wake up and hear someone breaking in. Of course you would shoot and protect yourself and loved ones.

[Hiromi]

We're one of the 10 or 11 states that exceed the national average of cases that fall under it. ironically California leads the nation in it...

According to Wikipedia:

In cases of self-defense, there is generally a duty for the defendant to retreat if possible to do so (except from one's home or place of business)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

[BlairH]

Plus the guy reacted the only way he knew how. You wake up and hear someone breaking in. Of course you would shoot and protect yourself and loved ones.
Darn straight! The life of my loved ones and myself is more important than some criminal scum who wishes to threaten the sanctity of my home!

[Hiromi]

Its also popular with young men in Rap/Hip Hop. I've seen a few on TV have a version of this tatoo. I doubt everyone who has this tattoo is truelly evil and shall be gunned down for having it.


Except for the ones breaking and entering.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Except for the ones breaking and entering.


Some are bad. But again this guy has to deal with taking a life. Plus til we get futher news reports we have no clue what the cops can do. I remember watching a case on Court TV awhile back.


This County Deputy had a warrent issued for a women who he claimed threatened one of his informants. He shows up at thier house as they break her back door in.. By this time she's calling 911 requesting that the Deputy who is there to leave.

By the time she hangs up he makes it thru her house and claims that the woman pulled a weapon. He fired killing her instantly on her bed.

Well that would have ended things except for the fact that some in his Precient felt things weren't kosher. He seemed happy with what had happened and many cops would tell you: " You even kill 1 person you regret it and its hard to forget. He seemed like he did everyone a favor killing this middle aged mother."


The CSI guys came in and looked at the scene. From what they saw and fixed it was clear the woman wasn't in a position to even threaten this guy with the phone. He barged in and shot her with no warning.

It was learned that she had complained to his supervisor in the previous months that he was stalking her. Drivin by the house and all and harassing her son for her not showing interest in him.


In the end lets wait til we see what thier CSI does 1st. And wait til they clear him completely before we claim anything. Thus far it sounds like he protected himself and I hope it stays that way.

[Hiromi]

Some are bad. But again this guy has to deal with taking a life. Plus til we get futher news reports we have no clue what the cops can do. I remember watching a case on Court TV awhile back.


This County Deputy had a warrent issued for a women who he claimed threatened one of his informants. He shows up at thier house as they break her back door in.. By this time she's calling 911 requesting that the Deputy who is there to leave.

By the time she hangs up he makes it thru her house and claims that the woman pulled a weapon. He fired killing her instantly on her bed.

Well that would have ended things except for the fact that some in his Precient felt things weren't kosher. He seemed happy with what had happened and many cops would tell you: " You even kill 1 person you regret it and its hard to forget. He seemed like he did everyone a favor killing this middle aged mother."


The CSI guys came in and looked at the scene. From what they saw and fixed it was clear the woman wasn't in a position to even threaten this guy with the phone. He barged in and shot her with no warning.

It was learned that she had complained to his supervisor in the previous months that he was stalking her. Drivin by the house and all and harassing her son for her not showing interest in him.


In the end lets wait til we see what thier CSI does 1st. And wait til they clear him completely before we claim anything. Thus far it sounds like he protected himself and I hope it stays that way.

That case however carried a couple pretty clear problems to begin with, in this one a still unidentified man with a tatoo that while not in every case still does have a connection to criminal activity(and lets be realistic here, the rap/hip hop artists who have it are activly trying to convey that image). Pretty much standard Breaking and Entering unless something drastic turns up(of which i really can't think of anything that would alter the case outside of some really bizarre insuarance fraud or something).


I also like the part of how the shooting didn't occur until 4 minutes after the Police had been called, which just further emphasizes that you cannot leave everything up to the Police who simply cannot be everywhere at the right time.

Hey Blair, how would this be different had this happened in the UK, because I've heard you all have some really bizarre Self Defense views and legislation.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

That case however carried a couple pretty clear problems to begin with, in this one a still unidentified man with a tatoo that while not in every case still does have a connection to criminal activity(and lets be realistic here, the rap/hip hop artists who have it are activly trying to convey that image). Pretty much standard Breaking and Entering unless something drastic turns up(of which i really can't think of anything that would alter the case outside of some really bizarre insuarance fraud or something).


I also like the part of how the shooting didn't occur until 4 minutes after the Police had been called, which just further emphasizes that you cannot leave everything up to the Police who simply cannot be everywhere at the right time.

Hey Blair, how would this be different had this happened in the UK, because I've heard you all have some really bizarre Self Defense views and legislation.


Life is full of bizarre crap my friend. You never know how things will shake out in some cases. It may look cut and dried but as we have seen in court cases there are twists and turns in some.

Not saying it will happen here. This looks cut and dried. Guy broke in , guy upstairs paniacs and decides he'll have to take care of business himself.

Also some hip hop artists get tattos with religious meanings. Doesn't mean everyone of them are bad guys. Just the image and all. I'm no huge fan but I don't judge the majority by the few who do break the law.

[Hiromi]

Well like I said, while having the tatoo in itself won't get you shot, having it in combination to breaking through a person's window at midnight is generally a potent formula for that result.

[StoneGold]

Well like I said, while having the tatoo in itself won't get you shot, having it in combination to breaking through a person's window at midnight is generally a potent formula for that result.
Because the shooter saw the tattoo at midnight?

[Hiromi]

I'd think the breaking through the window at midnight part would be more forefront on their mind granted.

[StoneGold]

I'd think the breaking through the window at midnight part would be more forefront on their mind granted.
Yeah, my only point there was why were you bringing the tattoo into it? Really, trying to use tats in a "He has tats, he must be a criminal" really doesn't work anymore, what with your mom having the butterfly tattoo on the small of her back and all.

[Hiromi]

Yeah, my only point there was why were you bringing the tattoo into it?

My original comment was Except for the ones breaking and entering, which was me trying to point out that even if some had the tatoo and weren't criminals the fact that this man was breaking and entering sorta took out that possibility, then it tangented.

Really, trying to use tats in a "He has tats, he must be a criminal" really doesn't work anymore, what with your mom having the butterfly tattoo on the small of her back and all.

Beach vacations are so embarrasing...

[Brian Cronin]

This was merged with Blair's gun thread, because, well, it was about guns.

As for the other arguments, fruit of a poisonous tree, I'm afraid. Some good gets tossed out when you delete the bad posts, as the good posts lose their context.

-Brian

[Drew Van T.]

Private Property: meet the Second Amendment, as well as your bastard offspring.

[thehod]

Remind me again how owning guns actually protects people.

[TinMan]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/20/boy.shot.ap/index.html



Don't that get sadder than you thought :( ?

Well, I'm in favor of the second amendment and gun ownership, but the kid just WALKED across his lawn for christ sakes! Its not like he was vandalizing his property or breaking into his house. Thats horseshit.

I say put the shotgun to the old fuckers chest and blow him away too, or better yet, find one of his young family members and fuckin blow them away in front of him, then let him live. Ok, that'd be just a bit too insane, but still, he has to pay for that somehow, I mean he took someone's life that barely even had a chance to live his life, just for walking on grass...

[TinMan]

Remind me again how owning guns actually protects people.

Ah yes, the "because a few people out of 200 million are idiots, no one should have the right" defense. How ignorant.

[Thanos_6383]

Well, I'm in favor of the second amendment and gun ownership, but the kid just WALKED across his lawn for christ sakes! Its not like he was vandalizing his property or breaking into his house. Thats horseshit.

I say put the shotgun to the old fuckers chest and blow him away too, or better yet, find one of his young family members and fuckin blow them away in front of him, then let him live. Ok, that'd be just a bit too insane, but still, he has to pay for that somehow, I mean he took someone's life that barely even had a chance to live his life, just for walking on grass...


Agreed here.

[thehod]

Ah yes, the "because a few people out of 200 million are idiots, no one should have the right" defense. How ignorant.

Ok, so it was flippant, but if this hothead didn't have access to a shotgun, this kid would still be alive. What would he have used instead; harsh language?

It might not be a perfect solution, but I bet it looks a damn sight more favourable to that kids parents this week.

[Typo Lad]

Remind me again how owning guns actually protects people.


If this girl had a gun, the guy wouldn't have dared.

[TinMan]

Ok, so it was flippant, but if this hothead didn't have access to a shotgun, this kid would still be alive. What would he have used instead; harsh language?

It might not be a perfect solution, but I bet it looks a damn sight more favourable to that kids parents this week.

This is true and its very unfortunate that it happened, BUT I am not one that is willing to take rights away from honest citizens just because a couple of hosers are off their fuckin rockers, this man included. Sure we hear stories about people getting blazed down, but there are just as many stories where having a weapon scared people away from commiting crimes.

In this day and age, tragedy is more attractive to people than hearing stories with a happy ending. We like our movies and tv shows lined with happiness, but we want our news riddled with tragedy, thats why we don't hear about as many situations where a gun saved someones life.

[Drew Van T.]

I say put the shotgun to the old fuckers chest and blow him away too, or better yet, find one of his young family members and fuckin blow them away in front of him, then let him live. Ok, that'd be just a bit too insane, but still, he has to pay for that somehow, I mean he took someone's life that barely even had a chance to live his life, just for walking on grass...

Yet he sounds like a decent guy in many ways (the neighbour's comment, the fact that he called the police immediately...). He may just have had a lot of resentment, perhaps by being attached to the point of irrationality to his own piece of frontlawn property, which in the end triggered an outburst. This emotional outburst could have manifested itself in a variety of ways - throwing an object at the kid, for instance, a practice which is not unheard of among paranoid and withdrawn homeowners - but he happened to have a legally owned shotgun within reach. And so, tragedy.

The fact is, if he is indeed a fairly average, fairly decent guy (as the impressions lead on) then he would not have had a shotgun within reach if there had been gun laws in place. Sure, he could still have gotten a license or procured the gun illegally, but average guys don't get guns if there are too many obstacles in their way. It's just too much hassle; the average person is also fairly lazy, and too concerned with the potential consequences, if those consequences are pressed upon them in advance. As they should have been, in this case.

Of course, I may be wrong, and maybe this man is really a monster, a freak who's been hiding among the normal all his life, with nothing average about him. Possible, but I don't think so. Statistically, it's a hell of a lot less likely.

[TinMan]

Yet he sounds like a decent guy in many ways (the neighbour, the fact that he called the police immediately...). He may just have had a lot of resentment, perhaps by being attached to the point of irrationality to his own piece of frontlawn property, which in the end triggered an outburst. This emotional outburst could have manifested itself in a variety of ways - throwing an object as the kid, for instance, a practice which is not unheard of among paranoid and withdrawn homeowners - but he happened to have a legally owned shotgun within reach. And so, tragedy.

The fact is, if he is indeed a fairly average, fairly decent guy (as the impressions lead on) then he would not have had a shotgun within reach if there had been gun laws in place. Sure, he could still have gotten a license or procured the gun illegally, but average guys don't get guns if there are too many obstacles in their way. It's just too much hassle; the average person is also fairly lazy and too concerned with the potential consequences, if those consequences are pressed upon them in advance. As they should have been, in this case.

Of course, I may be wrong, and maybe this man is really a monster, a freak who's been hiding among the normal all his life, with nothing average about him. Possible, but I don't think so. Statistically, it's a hell of a lot less likely.

Well, the guy was obviously nuts! Think about it, he had time to grab his gun and shoot the kid while he was still on his lawn. That means he had the thing ready and waiting in case someone did, thats not a random outburst, thats a case of being mentally sick.

Like I said, I will NOT support laws that take rights away from citizens whom obey laws the way they should. For one, pretty well every village/town/city has laws dictating that it is illegal to fire any type of projectile weapon within city limits. That includes things like guns and slingshots, the man not only broke that law, but committed murder. He's at fault cause he's old and nuts, not just because he could have a gun. Seriously, if you wanna get pissed off about someone walking across your grass, put up a NO TRESPASSING sign and call the cops if someone does it, don't freaking shoot them.

[thehod]

If this girl had a gun, the guy wouldn't have dared.

Or maybe he didn't care, or wanted to gamble that she didnt. He shoots, misses, she fires back and hey presto, shootout in suburbia. Come one, come all. Fun for all the family.

Ok, another flippant comment (I'm full of them, and it, today) but the more weapons there are, the more chance there is of someone being shot, accidentally or not.

No guns = no bullet holes.

[TinMan]

No guns = no bullet holes.

But thats bullshit into and of itself. People would still be able to get guns if they really wanted one and I for one think that the U.S. would probably be worse off than many other countries if we banned fire arms. If you haven't realized it, a lot of the american population is underhanded and willing to take advantage of the weaker guy. I don't wanna be the law abiding citizen that gets busted in his ass while his own house is being robbed.

[HomerJay]

Ok, so it was flippant, but if this hothead didn't have access to a shotgun, this kid would still be alive. What would he have used instead; harsh language?

It might not be a perfect solution, but I bet it looks a damn sight more favourable to that kids parents this week.
I don't want to further guide this thread off the rails, but by the sound of it, if the guy didn't have a gun, he just would have used a bat. The shotgun was just a vehicle for his nuttiness.

[Chiasm]

Ok, so it was flippant, but if this hothead didn't have access to a shotgun, this kid would still be alive. What would he have used instead; harsh language?


Baseball bat, crowbar, hammer, knife, screwdriver, shovel, rake, brick, bare fists, or a myriad of other ordinary objects that are commonly used to kill people. Taking away guns just means you have to use a different method. It doesn't take away the intent to kill.

[Gaz]

But thats bullshit into and of itself. People would still be able to get guns if they really wanted one and I for one think that the U.S. would probably be worse off than many other countries if we banned fire arms. If you haven't realized it, a lot of the american population is underhanded and willing to take advantage of the weaker guy. I don't wanna be the law abiding citizen that gets busted in his ass while his own house is being robbed.
Yet, strangely, there's more stringent laws here, and society hasn't fallen to the criminal.

[Huh?]

Baseball bat, crowbar, hammer, knife, screwdriver, shovel, rake, brick, bare fists, or a myriad of other ordinary objects that are commonly used to kill people. Taking away guns just means you have to use a different method. It doesn't take away the intent to kill.Makes it a hell of a lot harder though!

[Daniel Lewis]

Just to clarify, the victim was male, everybody.

[thehod]

I don't want to further guide this thread off the rails, but by the sound of it, if the guy didn't have a gun, he just would have used a bat. The shotgun was just a vehicle for his nuttiness.

I'm also willing to bet a 15 year old would be able to out run a 66 year old.

Very few people can out run a bullet.

[The Dosadi Experiment]

I don't want to further guide this thread off the rails, but by the sound of it, if the guy didn't have a gun, he just would have used a bat. The shotgun was just a vehicle for his nuttiness.

If I had to make a choice...

A crazy 66-year old man coming at me with a baseball bat.
or
A crazy 66-yeat old man shooting at me with a shotgun from across the lawn.


You know... I'll take my chances with the baseball bat.


You can use a teaspoon as a weapon, but there's a reason why you don't have drive-by tablespoon-attacks.

A gun makes killing a lot easier, because a gun is designed for that purpose, and a tablespoon isn't, neither are screwdrivers, baseballbats, shovels, bricks, and bottles.

You'll of course proceed to make a point about kitchen knives, but you use those as cutlery for diner. They're designed to cut your food with, not attack your neighbour with...

and even then... I'd rather have my naighbour attack me with a knife than with a gun.

[west3man]

Just to clarify, the victim was male, everybody.
Indeed.
The homeowner was clearly in the wrong. He could've kicked the kid in the balls; it still would've been an overreaction, but at least the young man would still be alive.

The point is that there were a number of ways the homeowner could've reacted (or OVERreacted). He chose just about the worst one of all.


I wonder if alzheimer's was a factor. Mental illness of some sort sounds likely.

[TinMan]

Yet, strangely, there's more stringent laws here, and society hasn't fallen to the criminal.

And this has to do with what exactly?

Just because the Scotts aren't as fuckin nuts as half of americans doesn't mean our society would adjust the same as yours. You cannot expect people that live under different societal beliefs to react the same way. We have all kinds of crazy crime going on in this country as it is, take away another detterent and it would probably get worse.

[TinMan]

Indeed.
The homeowner was clearly in the wrong. He could've kicked the kid in the balls; it still would've been an overreaction, but at least the young man would still be alive.

The point is that there were a number of ways the homeowner could've reacted (or OVERreacted). He chose just about the worst one he of all.


I wonder if alzheimer's was a factor. Mental illness of some sort sounds likely.

Agreed.

I believe firmly in the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people", cause it takes someone to aim the gun and pull the trigger. The individual doing the shooting is at fault for murder, not the gun.

Stripping honest citizens of their own fire arms just because some old nut did something crazy is a terrible idea.

I believe this guy was probably starting to go crazy in his old age, probably some kind of psychosis focused on his lawn and keeping it pretty. So he wigged out cause a kid walked across it and blew him away, but realized what he had done after the fact and called the police.

[thehod]

I believe this guy was probably starting to go crazy in his old age, probably some kind of psychosis focused on his lawn and keeping it pretty. So he wigged out cause a kid walked across it and blew him away, but realized what he had done after the fact and called the police.

Which is the better phone call?

"Hi Police. Yeah. I lost it a bit just know and chased a kid with a baseball bat for walking across my lawn. I didn't catch him, but he's probably really scared somewhere. Just to let you know. I'm really sorry."

or

"Hi Police. Yeah. I lost it a bit just know and blew a kid away with my shotgun. Yeah, he's dead. Sorry."

I know I'm really playing devils advocate on this, but I can't see the benefit of guns for the public. I've never needed one. I don't know anyone who has ever needed one, and I don't know anyone who would at any point have benefited by having one. That may just be the country I live in though.

[TinMan]

Which is the better phone call?

"Hi Police. Yeah. I lost it a bit just know and chased a kid with a baseball bat for walking across my lawn. I didn't catch him, but he's probably really scared somewhere. Just to let you know. I'm really sorry."

or

"Hi Police. Yeah. I lost it a bit just know and blew a kid away with my shotgun. Yeah, he's dead. Sorry."

I know I'm really playing devils advocate on this, but I can't see the benefit of guns for the public. I've never needed one. I don't know anyone who has ever needed one, and I don't know anyone who would at any point have benefited by having one. That may just be the country I live in though.

Yes, you are playing devils advocate! :p

I completely disagree w/ that thought though. There are reasons we have the second amendment here, and the primary one that Benjamin Franklin sited during the construction of the Bill of Rights was that if the Government became so corrupt that our country became a dictatorship, the people would be able to fight back. Also it was sited that if war ever fell on american soil we would have more defense than just our military, no one fights harder than a man defending what is his. I firmly believe in those two reasons for the second amendment.

Thats also not acknowledging the fact that it is fun to go out target shooting or hunting. I mean, guns can be used as a recreational activity, putting food on the table, or self defense when required. The benefits far out weigh the negatives as far as I'm concerned, just because there are evil bastards and nutzo's in this world doesn't mean we should strip others of their rights or live in fear of what could happen.

[Huh?]

I know I'm really playing devils advocate on this, but I can't see the benefit of guns for the public. I've never needed one. I don't know anyone who has ever needed one, and I don't know anyone who would at any point have benefited by having one. That may just be the country I live in though.That isn't just your country. Many Americans have similar experiences.

The argument that "it's fun to target shoot" is fine with me, but why not then leave your gun in a locker at the range?

The argument that "we need guns to protect ourselves" is complete fallacy. Millions successfully protect themselves every year without a gun.

The fact is that guns kill way too many people in this country both accidentally and intentionally and people continue to defend them as if there is nothing dangerous about them.

Guns are designed to kill. That is all they are for. And sadly, they do a damn good job of it all too often in the US.

[thehod]

Yes, you are playing devils advocate! :p

Aint I a stinker?! :p

I completely disagree w/ that thought though. There are reasons we have the second amendment here, and the primary one that Benjamin Franklin sited during the construction of the Bill of Rights was that if the Government became so corrupt that our country became a dictatorship, the people would be able to fight back.
There are what, 100 million, 200 million, 300 million people in your country. How many are going to disagree on whether your government is corrupt or not? I bet you half of them would love what the government was doing, whilst half of them wouldn't. That's not rising against a corrupt government, that's civil war. Besides, some might suggest, and already have done, that your government is corrupt already. Whens the rising going to happen?

Also it was sited that if war ever fell on american soil we would have more defense than just our military, no one fights harder than a man defending what is his.
Aint gonna argue with that. 1-1.

Thats also not acknowledging the fact that it is fun to go out target shooting or hunting. I mean, guns can be used as a recreational activity, putting food on the table, or self defense when required. The benefits far out weigh the negatives as far as I'm concerned, just because there are evil bastards and nutzo's in this world doesn't mean we should strip others of their rights or live in fear of what could happen.
Aint gonna argue with that either.
Is it worth the gaping hole in little Johnnys head because he wanted to play with Daddys gun though? Or the 20,000 (or whatever the figure is) deaths per year from gunshot wounds over there? Point for debate I would suggest.

[Brian Defferding]

Geez, what a crazy fucker.

And stop all this nonsense about blaming the second amendment and guns on this murder. Guns save more lives than harm them, for some reason no one pays attention to those statistics though. In countries where guns are scarce the murder rate is just as high, if not higher. Limerick, Ireland has the nickname of "stab city."

This looney just lost it and consciously killed a boy. From what it seems according to the news article, he didn't sound remorseful at all.

[Gaz]

Geez, what a crazy fucker.

And stop all this nonsense about blaming the second amendment and guns on this murder. Guns save more lives than harm them, for some reason no one pays attention to those statistics though. In countries where guns are scarce the murder rate is just as high, if not higher. Limerick, Ireland has the nickname of "stab city."

This looney just lost it and consciously killed a boy. From what it seems according to the news article, he didn't sound remorseful at all.
If they're comparable, then whose lives are they saving?

[TinMan]

Aint I a stinker?! :p

Yep, you sum bitch you! :p

There are what, 100 million, 200 million, 300 million people in your country. How many are going to disagree on whether your government is corrupt or not? I bet you half of them would love what the government was doing, whilst half of them wouldn't. That's not rising against a corrupt government, that's civil war. Besides, some might suggest, and already have done, that your government is corrupt already. Whens the rising going to happen?

See, the thing is though that right now, we aren't feeling a boot on our throat. Once we see right after right disappearing and "security" forces constantly monitoring us, I'm sure things would change. Right now we still have our ability to change our country and government through voting and voicing our opinions. I mean, don't you think it'd be just as wrong to start killing people before all forms of non-violent resolution are exhausted?

Its true that this country is getting worse, but we aren't to a "Big Brother is watching you" point quite yet, we're getting closer, but until then I don't think violence would be justified. Take away fire arms and that time will come all the much quicker because there would be no way for the American people to stand against a well armed military.

Aint gonna argue with that either.
Is it worth the gaping hole in little Johnnys head because he wanted to play with Daddys gun though? Or the 20,000 (or whatever the figure is) deaths per year from gunshot wounds over there? Point for debate I would suggest.

The gaping hole in Johnny's head is his father's fault though, if he had taken some responsibility w/ his firearm, the kid wouldn't have blown himself away. I know that when I have kids one day that I'll ALWAYS have trigger locks on my gun/s so that if they were to ever find it, they couldn't use it. Not to mention that I would probably buy a gun safe w/ a lock so they couldn't even get at them, its just common sense.

I don't know how many people are killed a year by gun fire here in the states, but I'm willing to bet the majority are not accindental or "moment of insanity" cases. They are premeditated, drive-bys, shoot outs, out right homicides. Those are crimes that would be carried out a different way if someone didn't have a gun. The accidental deaths, crimes of passion, and moments of insanity are the minority of these deaths. It does not justify removing fire arms from the rest of society that treat them with respect and handle them properly.

[Mike Smith]

It sounds like the guy suffered from perhaps some mental disorder with of course the shooting then the detached way he reportedly said "I just killed a kid."

This is just a terribly sad tragedy as it stands...a young life ripped away. It seems to devalue the loss of the child to try to politicize the story or mold it into arguments for antigun legislation or capital punishment. Sorry, just my take on it, just kind of hits hard when you think about the loss this kids family is facing as we sit here and type.

[Huh?]

Geez, what a crazy fucker.

And stop all this nonsense about blaming the second amendment and guns on this murder. Guns save more lives than harm them, for some reason no one pays attention to those statistics though.What statistics are those? I haven't seen these statistics you speak of?

Aside from law enforcement and military applications I can't think of a gun saving anyone much less a way to make such a determination.

[Brian Defferding]

If they're comparable, then whose lives are they saving?

Potential victims from robberies, muggings, assault, rape, burglaries and murder.

[Gaz]

Potential victims from robberies, muggings, assault, rape, burglaries and murder.
Except for burglaries, where the gun's at home, I thought that you weren't allowed to carry a gun on you in most places?

[Huh?]

Potential victims from robberies, muggings, assault, rape, burglaries and murder.And what sort of statistics were you able to find on that? Because we have very accurate statistics on how many lives guns have ended in this country. I would really love to know how your stats stack up. Let me know when you get a hold of those.

[Brian Defferding]

What statistics are those? I haven't seen these statistics you speak of?

Aside from law enforcement and military applications I can't think of a gun saving anyone much less a way to make such a determination.


Might wanna give this (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf) a look.

Also, according to FBI bulletins:

-Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun.

-Less than one handgun in 6,500 is ever used in a homicide.

In Florida, law-abiding citizens have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.

[Dreadstar]

Brian Defferding, don't bite. It's the same ol same ol regarding this topic. Just walk away.

Of course, though, you're new here and probably haven't seen the dozens of times before when we've hashed out these very same point over and over and over again.

EDIT: Oh! to clarify, I'm on YOUR side.

I'm just too exhausted to have to repeat myself for the one hundredth time again.

[Erebus]

I'm pretty "Charle Martin" is just an alias for Hank Hill.

[Gaz]

Brian Defferding, don't bite. It's the same ol same ol regarding this topic. Just walk away.

Of course, though, you're new here and probably haven't seen the dozens of times before when we've hashed out these very same point over and over and over again.

EDIT: Oh! to clarify, I'm on YOUR side.

I'm just too exhausted to have to repeat myself for the one hundredth time again.
Probably for the best. If you're pro-gun, you're unlikely to ever see how frightening the prolification of them can seem. If you're anti-gun, it's next to impossible to embrace the sporting/defence mentality.

[Huh?]

Might wanna give this (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n2/cpr-26n2-1.pdf) a look.

Also, according to FBI bulletins:

-Firearms are used defensively roughly 2.5 million times per year, more than four times as many as criminal uses. This amounts to 2,575 lives protected for every life lost to a gun.

-Less than one handgun in 6,500 is ever used in a homicide.

In Florida, law-abiding citizens have been able to carry concealed weapons since 1987. During that time, the murder rate in Florida has declined 21% while the national murder rate has increased 12%.Where are those statistics from? They don't seem to be from the link that you posted. And what percentage of those uses are defense of property? Because I don't view that as saving a life, I view that as saving a plasma TV.

[The Watcher]

Ok, so it was flippant, but if this hothead didn't have access to a shotgun, this kid would still be alive. What would he have used instead; harsh language?Unjust impositions on rights are not rendered any more unust simply because they would have prevented someone's death. If you go down that road then you can justify all sorts of thing that take away people's freedoms with that arguement.

[TinMan]

Unjust impositions on rights are not rendered any more unust simply because they would have prevented someone's death. If you go down that road then you can justify all sorts of thing that take away people's freedoms with that arguement.

Completely agreed.

A great quote from a comic movie; Jean Grey in the first X-men said "...after all, the wrong person behind the wheel of a car can be dangerous."

Thats the truth of the matter though, you can run people over and kill them with your automobile purposely or accidently, just as you can with a gun. If you justify taking away one run right because of an absurd minority, you can do the samething with another.

[Gaz]

Completely agreed.

A great quote from a comic movie; Jean Grey in the first X-men said "...after all, the wrong person behind the wheel of a car can be dangerous."

Thats the truth of the matter though, you can run people over and kill them with your automobile purposely or accidently, just as you can with a gun. If you justify taking away one run right because of an absurd minority, you can do the samething with another.
The counterargument is that only one of those things is designed as a lethal weapon.

[BlairH]

Yet, strangely, there's more stringent laws here, and society hasn't fallen to the criminal.
Have you been to Manchester City Center lately? Somebody gets stabbed, impailed, mutilated or *gasp* shot everyday (yes, the criminals still have guns).

The counterargument is that only one of those things is designed as a lethal weapon.
The debate always comes down to this, and it's possibly the most futile argument ever. The javlein was originally designed as a lethal weapon, the bow and arrow was originally designed as a lethal weapon, the blunt impliment was originally designed as a lethal weapon. Are you going to ban bows, arrows and other sporting items too?

If you want to imagine what a world without guns would be like, go here:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

[The Watcher]

The counterargument is that only one of those things is designed as a lethal weapon.Even lethal weapons have legitimate uses in the hands of private citizens.

[west3man]

The counterargument is that only one of those things is designed as a lethal weapon.
The bottom-line to both arguments, to me, is that things that are most dangerous (easily defined in terms of results, if nothing else), are most worthy of strict regulations and/or consideration.

Short of putting the genie back in the bottle, what else is there?

[Brian Defferding]

Where are those statistics from? They don't seem to be from the link that you posted. And what percentage of those uses are defense of property? Because I don't view that as saving a life, I view that as saving a plasma TV.

The statistics are from various bulletins from the FBI over the years. The stats are from facts I personally saved (I'm a political nut), but the links are dead now. How about I one-up you on your need for a link and refer a book? The Lott-Mustard Study (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl) goes into how more guns actually create less crime. Lott and Mustard conclude that criminals respond to the threat of being shot by victims by substituting less risky, nonconfrontational crimes. The results further showed that, while passage of less gun-carrying restrictions resulted in immediate altered violent crime rates, an additional reduction occurred over time, and that for most violent crimes like murder, rape, and aggravated assault, concealed-weapon laws had the greatest deterrent effect in counties with high crime rates.

Of course, this doesn't take into effect other factors like drug laws, poverty, and overall economic status state-by-state.

[BlairH]

For all you doubters: The "Brady Bunch" as I like to call them (Sarah Brady and her merry band of gun-confiscating people) grades US States on how "good" their gun laws are. States with draconian legislation get "good" grades like California and Illinois, New York and DC. Strangely enough cities like LA, Chicago, NYC and Washington DC respectivley have the highest murder rates in the US.

[Brian Defferding]

Brian Defferding, don't bite. It's the same ol same ol regarding this topic. Just walk away.

Of course, though, you're new here and probably haven't seen the dozens of times before when we've hashed out these very same point over and over and over again.

EDIT: Oh! to clarify, I'm on YOUR side.

I'm just too exhausted to have to repeat myself for the one hundredth time again.

I know, I know :) I enjoy political debates every now and then, though. I go to a lot of message boards and take part in many political debates; it amuses me.

Glad to see you're on my side!

[BlairH]

In the UK, areas where guns are more common (rich, affluent rural areas) see far less crime than areas where there are hardly any guns (Glasgow and other cities)

[TinMan]

The counterargument is that only one of those things is designed as a lethal weapon.

What does the design matter? Both can be used for good as well as evil.

[Gaz]

In the UK, areas where guns are more common (rich, affluent rural areas) see far less crime than areas where there are hardly any guns (Glasgow and other cities)
Of course, eonomics might also influence that...

[Gaz]

What does the design matter? Both can be used for good as well as evil.
Because a gun, used for it's purpose, results in death. A car, used for it's purpose, results in you being somewhere you weren't.

[BlairH]

Of course, eonomics might also influence that...
Yes, poverty causes crime. Even a rabid anti-Marxist like me knows that. SO tell me, why ban guns if we know that it's poverty that causes crime.

[BlairH]

Because a gun, used for it's purpose, results in death. A car, used for it's purpose, results in you being somewhere you weren't.

That's news to me.
I've fired target rifles on numerous occasions and I haven't "caused death".

[Gaz]

That's news to me.
I've fired target rifles on numerous occasions and I haven't "caused death".
Practice. Knights used to stab dummies. Doesn't mean that the swords weren't intended to kill.

[BlairH]

Practice. Knights used to stab dummies. Doesn't mean that the swords weren't intended to kill.

Are you saying I'm "practicing to kill"? Am I also "practicing to kill" when I play Ghost Recon?

Neither are "practice" it's sport (shooting) and art (Ghost Recon) respectivley.

[gary bolt]

Gaz, you're wasting your time on this issue. 30,000 Americans die at the wrong end of a gun every year but nobody thinks it's a problem.

[BlairH]

Short of putting the genie back in the bottle, what else is there?
Even putting the genie back in the bottle woln't work
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

[BlairH]

Gaz, you're wasting your time on this issue. 30,000 Americans die at the wrong end of a gun every year but nobody thinks it's a problem.
And how many people save their own butts by presenting a gun? How many criminals are deterred by the mere fact that a gun MIGHT be present. I don't know. You don't either. Nobody but God knows.

[Gaz]

Are you saying I'm "practicing to kill"? Am I also "practicing to kill" when I play Ghost Recon?

Neither are "practice" it's sport (shooting) and art (Ghost Recon) respectivley.
What exactly is gained by firing a live weapon, that a paintball gun or the like wouldn't give you, in the "sport" context? If you're not trying to hurt anyone, why use a weapon intended to do so? (Honest inquiry)

[K'Nort]

Practice. Knights used to stab dummies. Doesn't mean that the swords weren't intended to kill.

But you can't extrapolate being intended to kill to being intended to commit homicide.

There are still families in the United States who shoot most of their meat, for one thing. I grew up in one.

[Gaz]

But you can't extrapolate being intended to kill to being intended to commit homicide.

There are still families in the United States who shoot most of their meat, for one thing. I grew up in one.
I'm somewhat sympathetic to that...
I will point out that while there are some arguments I can see sense in, I'm never going to own or like the objects themselves...

[BlairH]

What exactly is gained by firing a live weapon, that a paintball gun or the like wouldn't give you, in the "sport" context? If you're not trying to hurt anyone, why use a weapon intended to do so? (Honest inquiry)

I find this hilarious on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. Shooting targets with a paintball gun and shooting targets at long range with a highly accurate scoped shooting instrument such as a rifle are completely different ball games Son.

Well, you can't participate in 1000m rifle shooting with a paintball gun now can you? The ballistics are different.

There's very little maths involved in shooting paintball guns. I sometimes participate in long range "sniper" matches where I sit behind the gun, and a partner sits behind me with a piece of paper telescope. My partner calculates range to target, does all of the trigonomics involved, she then tells me the relevant data, which I then input into my rifle's scope. I take into account other variables which she may have missed, then I fire. You can't DO that with a paintball gun!

You can't "hand load" your own paintball rounds, so that eliminates that aspect of the sport.

You can't defend yourself with a paintball gun either.

There are so many more reasons, but I figure that's enough for now.

[BlairH]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that...
I will point out that while there are some arguments I can see sense in, I'm never going to own or like the objects themselves...

Just because I'm never going to shag a man doesn't mean that I want to ban gay marriage.

[Gaz]

I find this hilarious on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin. Shooting targets with a paintball gun and shooting targets at long range with a highly accurate scoped shooting instrument such as a rifle are completely different ball games Son.

Well, you can't participate in 1000m rifle shooting with a paintball gun now can you? The ballistics are different.

There's very little maths involved in shooting paintball guns. I sometimes participate in long range "sniper" matches where I sit behind the gun, and a partner sits behind me with a piece of paper telescope. My partner calculates range to target, does all of the trigonomics involved, she then tells me the relevant data, which I then input into my rifle's scope. I take into account other variables which she may have missed, then I fire. You can't DO that with a paintball gun!

You can't "hand load" your own paintball rounds, so that eliminates that aspect of the sport.

You can't defend yourself with a paintball gun either.

There are so many more reasons, but I figure that's enough for now.

Evading the point by focusing on my uninformed example.
OK, then what about a light pulse or other elctronic medium? Or a tool that DOES do/simulate all the elements you mention, but without the dangerous parts?

[Gaz]

Just because I'm never going to shag a man doesn't mean that I want to ban gay marriage.
Yes, because two people in love = weapon for killing

[BlairH]

Yes, because two people in love = weapon for killing
No, not killing: TARGET SHOOTING.

It's a fairly popular sport in these rural areas y'know! Just like archery, javlein and all other sports that are a "substitute for killing".

[Gaz]

No, not killing: TARGET SHOOTING.

It's a fairly popular sport in these rural areas y'know! Just like archery, javlein and all other sports that are a "substitute for killing".
How many javelin throwers ask to keep their javelin as protection?

[thehod]

Gaz, you're wasting your time on this issue. 30,000 Americans die at the wrong end of a gun every year but nobody thinks it's a problem.

Absolutly.

Thats 30,000 people dead when they could be alive
Thats 30,000 families not torn apart by the fact that someone they loved isn't lying in a pool of blood.

This isn't some mythical statistic about probabilities or possibilities, its fact.

30,000 people dead.

Every year.

Now, will removal of guns increase or decrease this figure. I dunno.

Which do people prefer? A guarenteed death toll, or maybe trying to do something to get that number down a touch?

[Endel]

And how many people save their own butts by presenting a gun? How many criminals are deterred by the mere fact that a gun MIGHT be present. I don't know. You don't either. Nobody but God knows.

i would agree with that if all people who own guns (legally) were trained with them. the idea of some panicy kid with a gun who thinks he's going to protect himself but cant aim worth shit worries me. the idea that my neighbor could get pissed of at my loud music (or yes, walking across the lawn) and react with a loaded 38 is a scary idea.

guns for hunting are fine. but they should be safely stored away in locked cabinets. guns for protection outside of major towns/cities are fine (my aunt lives in wyoming and bears happen)

but anything over a small pistol seems ridiculous and asking for trouble. if you're living in a town that forbits the firing of any kind of fireweapon, then why bother having it? usually these laws are in place (at least in nj where i live) to prevent stray fire from hitting the house next to yours. with houses so close, the odds of hiting someone by accident are pretty high. who needs a semi automatic (or even a goddamn full automatic) to protect thier homes? i dont see any reason why someone should have an ak-47 in their house. in my mind, the only people who need somethng bigger then a 22 are police officers.

yes, guns may deter burglars and muggers. but if its in the home, then kids could and do get into it. well keep it locked up/in a safe place you say? then how, in a state of emergency, can you get to your gun in time?

[Tobias March]

In countries where guns are scarce the murder rate is just as high, if not higher. Limerick, Ireland has the nickname of "stab city."

Out of date reference. Limerick is well known for containing several poverty ridden areas and a resultant gang culture. However, attempts to help the local economy has staved off much of what was a violent gang culture...twenty years ago.

Now we call Limerick stab city cos we jus' hate Limerick people. The stinkers :p

[Wannabe]

I heard the 911 broadcast for this, and the man says that the boys on his lawn. He took the kid off his lawn after he shot him, so there wouldn't be a body outline on his lawn. This man is obviously insane.

[K'Nort]

So how about first person shooter video games? That's even closer to simulating killing than target shooting is. Is it more acceptable because there are no real weapons involved?

[Tobias March]

No, not killing: TARGET SHOOTING.

It's a fairly popular sport in these rural areas y'know! Just like archery, javlein and all other sports that are a "substitute for killing".

So following your guns = homosexual love

Target Shooting = Projectile Wanking? ;)

[Endel]

So how about first person shooter video games? That's even closer to simulating killing than target shooting is. Is it more acceptable because there are no real weapons involved?


there is a big diff between using a keyboard + mouse or a system controler and using a life-like or real gun. point and click does not a marksman make

[Gaz]

So how about first person shooter video games? That's even closer to simulating killing than target shooting is. Is it more acceptable because there are no real weapons involved?
Actually yes. Unless you want to claim that people can't differentiate between ficition and reality.

[Gaz]

So following your guns = homosexual love

Target Shooting = Projectile Wanking? ;)
Heh, I pointed this out to him, there's very little to do with shooting that's not phallic/sexual in connotation...

"Oiling the barrel" indeed... ;)