Whither Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
RGl wroteSociety as a whole is ignorant of the most basic firearm knowledge and base their opinions on movies and 20 second news blurbs about everyone being able to buy machine guns at Kmart.

RGL,
Your response that society thinks guns are bad becuase what they see on the news is has 2 sides.
The sames could be said about nuclear weapons becuase society is ignorant of basic nuclear weapon and syrin gas safety.We only hear bad things about these items on the news, what about that time I may need a nuclear weapon to protect my store in some LA riot?
What about my right to use syrin gas to kill gophers?

BTW,
My Information comes from sworn testimony of US Dept. Of Justice officials.

[ May 29, 2004, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: goodoleboy ]
 
Not only is Lott's work increasingly being discredited, he is suspected of ethical misconduct regarding his work. A decent summary of what has transpired is:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html

and the gory details, including his response to above is avaialable at:

http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/more_guns_less_crime/index.grey

A reply that I wrote awhile back on the topic:
I found my copy of 'More Guns Less Crime', and the receipt that I used as a bookmark is dated May of 1998. I had purchased it when it came out hoping that it would offer more detail on his original paper, but it actaully had less of the detail that I was looking for. Since it was largely based on his original paper, much of the text is similar, and since the book seems to be not only a bit sloppier with more apparent errors, I haven't bothered to read all of it.

For instance, in his book Lott criticizes Black and Nagin for only using counties with more than 100,000 population, Lott stated that he "..did not select which observations to include; I used all the data for all the counties over the entire period for which observations were available." In fact in his study of Oregon, Arizona, and Pennsylvannia, using the better measure of actual permits issued instead of proxy by population, Lott excluded counties over 200,000 in Pennsylvannia. When Lott includes all of the counties over the entire period for which observations are available almost all of the desired effects that he was looking for became statistically insignificant, and although he didn't report the values murder was evidently the only one that was still significant.

When using the better measure larceny was the only crime in Oregon that was decreased with an increase in concealed carry. Lott offers "One possible explanation for these results is that Oregon simultaneously passed both the nondiscretionary concealed-handgun law and a waiting period." That is a pretty weak statement, and in the context of his sweeping statements that more guns cause less crime it amounts to little more than a guess, as like he stated it's only 'one possible explanation'. In fact, in the context of the three states where he used the better measure of actual permits issued, better in his own words, the more probable explanation is that concealed carry does not consistently reduce crime, as in Arizona there was no reduction in crime with increased concealed carry, in Oregon it only affected larceny, and in Pennsylvannia it was only murder, but at unknown rates and significance as he didn't publish the results.


Lott said:

Unfortunately, county data on the total number of outstanding right-to-carry pistol permits were available for only Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, though time-series county data before and after a change in the permitting law were available only for Arizona (1994-96), Oregon (1990-92) and Pennsylvania (1986-92).

..., a better measure would have been to use the actual change in gun permits before and after the adoption of a concealed handgun law. Fortunately, we were able to get that information for three states: Arizona, Oregon, and Pennsylvania (see Table 14).

Finally, the much more limited data set for Arizona used in Table 17 produces no significant relationship between the change in concealed handgun permits and the various measures of crime rates.

The evidence from the small sample for Arizona implies no relationship between crime and concealed handgun ownership.

Lott had the option of not using the Arizona data, he didn't have such data for 47 other states, but he chose to use it. Lott didn't say that the Arizona results were invalid, he said that the sample was smaller, and that there was no relationship between concealed carry permits and crime.
 
More gun control stuff. It's a myth that every household in Switzerland has an automatic weapon. The surveys that I've run across comparing rates of gun ownership in different countries show a range of 27% to 36% of Swiss households have firearms, which is les than the 44% to 49% that I typically hear of in the US.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/rs/rep/wd97-3a-e.pdf

Gun control has increased in Switzerland, as a result of some sensational mass murders with firearms, not unlike other countries have experienced. I haven't bothered to understand all of the details of the laws, but one that I seem to recall is that in some cantons two neighbors need to approve a certificate of ownership. In any case the Swiss embassy is a good place to start:

http://www.eda.admin.ch/washington_emb/e/home/legaff/Fact/gunown.html

What seems to trip people up is that the military service is for males aged 20 thru 42, and that the Swiss have reduced the size of their military significantly. If an individual states that every household in Switzerland has an automatic weapon it's just because they don't know any better. Such a statement made by an organization pretty much a bald faced lie, as the actual information is readily obtainable.
 
More gun control stuff. The Bureau of Justice did a comparison of crime rates with England in a 1996 paper, and found that although a lot of crime rates were higher in England the homicide rate in the US was about six times higher. An article in the Economist made a similar observation awhile back, as they noticed that although one is more likely to see fights at game, in bar, etc., in England, there are more homicides in the US because it's easier to kill someone with a firearm than with one's hands, a knife, etc.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm

lots more stuff at:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#C
 
More gun control stuff. The NRA has twisted the Australian crime statistics so much that the Australian government has complained. The gun laws passed after the Port Arthur incident were designed to reduce homicides, and since it appears that they may be working of course the NRA and others aren't talking homicide rates, they're bringing up other crime statistics. See the following link for a comparison of three different measures of the homicide rate in Australia, and a link to other data. It appears that the homicide rates are declining.

http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/index.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi261.pdf

A lot of national data is available online these days, so there is no need to rely upon organizations that are known to misrepresent data for such information.
 
quote:

Due to the long tradition and the special organization of the Swiss armed forces as a militia army, special rules are applicable for army weapons. Between their regular annual service of two or three weeks per year, Swiss soldiers and officers keep their personal weapons at home. After they have left the army, they may keep those arms in order to continue practicing at rifle or pistol ranges managed by local communities. Special rules also govern hunting or sporting rifles.

I do not have the time to dig through all of your cites from such bastions of reasoned speech as Mother Jones. However, a cursory look at the above quote from your own link to the Swiss Emb. shows that you do keep your personal Army issue automatic weapon (REAL ASSAULT RIFLES) even when you are through with the army. So I am not sure what you are talking about. Re your minimizing the number of households possessing: Please look at all of those handy gov't surveys for me and let me know how many US households have full-auto firearms. I bet it is less than .05%.

I will join you in castigating John Lott when he is dragged face first through academic mud like your presumed bud Bellesiles was with his debunked book on early American gun use. BTW what makes you think your other cites to government agencies, especially from Australia where they are trying to justify their ridiculous laws, are any more impartial than NRA? That is disingenuous. Like I said before, and I will put more bluntly this time: the US citizen has a duty to be able to defend this country even against its own government. This is, as far as I know, a unique right amongst the nations of the world. Even were a few of "the children" to die because of this, it is still our right. Everyone needs to just suck it up.

I have never seen anyone who has lost a family member to a drunk driver cringe every time they see a car or refuse to drive one. People need to get over their irrational fears that will be played upon by manipulative demagogues eg KERRY.

When are you sending your car to the crusher?
 
quote:

Originally posted by goodoleboy:
Chris B worte
Goodoleboy, be careful what you tell people what they need and don't need! Who are you to tell me, my neighbor or joe blow the street that I don't need a hi cap mag? The "I don't like it so don't you do it" mentality is what got us in this gun controll problem in the 1st place. I'm a law abiding person and I want hi cap mags so I'm going to use them. Why should be denied them?


ChrisB,


I am telling you what the majority beleives.
Society as whole (90%) belives we dont need high capactiy magazines.
To answer your other question? We should be deined hi cap mags becuase more Law enforcement have died than homeowners who ran out of ammo.

Your telling becuase we are law abiding that we deserve anything we want?
Are sayng since I want syrin or mustard gas that I should have becuase i am law abiding?
How bout, if i want a nuclear bomb? All the Famous Nuts like tim Mcveigh and the 9-11 hijackers were law abiding according to the police before there acts. of terror.
Well i can tell people i am law abiding all day but the majority of the people rule on this issue.
Sorry , but your idea does not hold water.


Since the Clinton gun ban of 94 which includes hi-caps gun crime has not gone down, it did not work! You compair a Hi-cap mag to a nuclear bomb? That is nuts! A firearm is not even close to being a "weapon of mass destruction". What is the difference if you have 10+1 vs. 15+1? There are so many reasons that firearms and hi-cap should not be banned all the way from being ready to defend if invaded(yes it could happen and did happen)to personel defencs to compition shooting to pure convience. When Police get into a shoot out with a thug there is usually under 3 shots fired from the thug so what difference would a hi-cap make in that situation? Nothing! You say 90% eh?
grin.gif
Maybe 90% of liberals like yourself but if you go look at the CNN assult weapons ban pole which is in the hundreds of thousands poled 57% say the ban need to sunset! And that is from CNN the most liberal news out there! Well your idea does not hold water because myself and others here have already shot holes through it If you want to keep your hi-caps/guns you better change your train of thought!
grin.gif
I could go on but it is almost 2am and I'm not typing well, good night.
 
1sttruck you need to read up on the flip side of all of those. Most are from or done by groups for gun control so of coarse the say gun crime is down with gun control laws. Most is BS but I expect you to dismiss that!
 
quote:

Originally posted by rgl:

quote:

Society as whole (90%) belives we dont need high capactiy magazines.
To answer your other question? We should be deined hi cap mags becuase more Law enforcement have died than homeowners who ran out of ammo.

Society as a whole is ignorant of the most basic firearm knowledge and base their opinions on movies and 20 second news blurbs about everyone being able to buy machine guns at Kmart. Where do you get your information, by the way, about the number of police officers "killed" by high capacity magazines? Do you have studies that show scumbags often shoot over 10 rounds at an officer before he dies, so that round 13 is a problem but round 10 was not? I don't think that happens much. And how do you know how many homeowners have had to shoot over 10 rounds to protect themselves? I have not heard of any such study. And how do you think people in the L.A. riots protected themselves from mobs? With AR-15s and lots of mags.

The bottom line and beauty of the Second Amendment is this: we have an individual obligation to be prepared to defend our nation against enemies foreign and domestic. It has to be made very, very costly for a tyranny to establish itself in this country. The logical reading of the Second Amendment would allow at least individual small arms, even automatic ones, to be possessed by the people. It works in Switzerland just fine, every male is required to keep a full auto assault rifle at home. Last I heard you could get surplus 20mm AA guns there straight from the government as long as you kept the bolt in a safe deposit box.


Well said rgl.
 
rgl said: "However, a cursory look at the above quote from your own link to the Swiss Emb. shows that you do keep your personal Army issue automatic weapon (REAL ASSAULT RIFLES) even when you are through with the army. So I am not sure what you are talking about. Re your minimizing the number of households possessing: Please look at all of those handy gov't surveys for me and let me know how many US households have full-auto firearms. I bet it is less than .05%."

In the Swiss embassy link it was stated that you MAY keep your weapon, but it appears that a minority does such a thing as only 27% to 36% of households even have firearms. The number having long arms is even less, and the number with military weapon is less still. Since you're proposing Swiss firearms ownership as a model of sorts, which would include mandatory military service for all males, I guess you're also advocating a significant reduction of firearms ownership in this country. In this country the primary service rifle is the M16A2, which has a three round burst capability. Even with the full auto capable M16A1, which is what I was issued, I was trained to use aimed, semi-auto fire as the sustained rate of fire was only 12 to 15 rounds a minute, and you couldn't hit much with full auto.

rgl also said: "I will join you in castigating John Lott when he is dragged face first through academic mud like your presumed bud Bellesiles was with his debunked book on early American gun use."

It's a good thing that you acknowledge that Lott is being discredited. It's also a good thng if you wish to support Bellesiles, no one else but you has mentioned him, but he doesn't have anything to do with Lott.
 
quote:

It's also a good thng if you wish to support Bellesiles, no one else but you has mentioned him, but he doesn't have anything to do with Lott.

Huh? Bellesiles is (was) an anti-gun hack that wrote a debunked anti-gun book.
Bellesiles disgraced
He was thoroughly lambasted for his shoddy work. So I think he has a lot to do with your sniping at Lott. Lott is still held in high regard last I looked.

quote:

I guess you're also advocating a significant reduction of firearms ownership in this country.

Actually yes, I am in part. I would rather have 20% of current gun owners if they were armed with the same or similar individual arm as the US military than have several million people with completely worthless Jennings .25, junk .32 revolvers etc. But hey, that's their call if they want to rely on junk to put their life on the line. My guess would be that .25 Jennings and such, (and including high end Perazzi over under shotguns etc.) would NOT be covered under the 2nd amendment as they would be of no value to a militia according to the reasoning in US v. Miller, the last major gun case in the Supreme Court. As you can tell, I don't work for NRA.

According to BATF or whatever they call themselves now the M16A2 3 round burst is considered a machine gun same as full auto and therefore illegal to own unless registered since 86.
 
According to BATF or whatever they call themselves now the M16A2 3 round burst is considered a machine gun same as full auto and therefore illegal to own unless registered since 86.

That is true!! In fact if you have a gun that has a slam fire problem is also considered a Full auto. Slam fire is when the bolt closes on the round while it is feeding into the chamber causing it to go off with out pulling the trigger. Usually cause by a hammer that is loose "laterally" wobbles or slightly off center so when it comes back during recoil it is deflected and doesn't lock back. Instead it rides back on the bolt then follows the bolt returning to battery striking the firing pin. They almost never do it more than once per pull of the trigger. They don't go full auto but instead double fire for each pull of the trigger. Very easy fix but many don't realize that slam fire is an illegal operation as well a dangerous situation for the shooter. Guns have been know to literally blow up when this has happened. If your gun does it once in front of a LE officer and that gun is his until you can prove you can get it properly repaired and prove that it was not intentionally modified.
I saw a police officer with a modified 1911 go full auto. Talk about one scared cop once he settle down. 8 rounds down range in less than 1 second. We were amazed and he was standing there looking at the empty gun with it's slide back shaking. This was his duty gun that he had the action and trigger smoothed out. Still had the stock trigger pull weight for liability reasons with his job. It did not have a lightened trigger.
 
quote:

Like I said before, and I will put more bluntly this time: the US citizen has a duty to be able to defend this country even against its own government. This is, as far as I know, a unique right amongst the nations of the world. Even were a few of "the children" to die because of this, it is still our right. Everyone needs to just suck it up.

By the way, how do you guys get the "Originally posted by..." thing? One more thing: my comment is not a personal attack. "You" is any gun owner in society.
Anyways, I've done research on guns and American society. My sources showed that the very gun you own to protect your family has a higher chance of killing a family member (like your own kid) than killing an intruder. How darn inefficient. In fact, you threathen the lives of your own children more with the gun. Sadly, this statistic was taken from real cases. Imagine being the parent. Also, NRA-types like to claim, "the US citizen has a duty to be able to defend this country even against its own government" but don't you think that if the government wanted to really kill you, they easily could? You will always be outguned by Uncle Sam.
 
Over 2 million times a year a gun is used as a deterent to a crime. That is the victim pulled or branished the gun. That in it self stopped the crime. That statistic you used that you or a family member are more likely to be injured or killed with your own weapon is total hog wash. Go into any prison and ask any convict whether he is more afraid of a police officer with a gun or his victim. Every one of those criminals will tell you a citizen with a gun scares him more than a police officer. Why because a police officer has rules in which he has to follow before he pulls his gun and fires it. Your break into my house at 3:00 am under Pennsylvania law I can blow you away with no questions asked. Under state law it is justified homicide if I feared for my or my families safety. I've been there where I had to pull a gun on a armed robber. His only mistake was bringing a knife to a gun fight. Guy walks into my business at closing and pulls a hunting knife on me and demands money. I laughed at him and told him to get out. You would think he would be smart enough to figure there was a reason why I was laughing at him. Well he moved to come around the counter to get closer. He got about two steps when this Browning High power got shoved in his face and I reminded him that I had told him to get out. All of a sudden this robbery was just a joke he was kidding. What he didn't know was one of my employees was in the back and heard what was going on called the police. They were there in less than 3 minutes. This clown backs out the door and heads for his car as he see's the two police cars pull up front. One cop comes in to find out what was going on and explained what was happening. As this is going on the guy is getting away. All this cop was concern about was how come the guy didn't get any money since he had a knife. The cop was annoyed that the guy didn't any money. I said its hard to get money off someone that is pointing a gun back at you. At this point all this cop wanted to see was my CCW. I kept asking to grab the guy before he got away he ignored me. In your own business you don't need a CCW.
Three days later a detective shows up and describes this guy to a tee and says we'll scoop him up. Then proceeds to tell me this loser was wanted in the city and three suburban communities for robbery. This loser cop refused to stop the guy as he left the parking lot now I find out this guy is wanted big time. I never heard another word from the police dept on this guy.
A year an half ago a guy walked in while I was out and robbed the business. I never stopped looking for this clown. It took me two months but I found him. Turned it over to cop that I knew would go after him like a hungery Rottweiler.
He will be spending the next 10 to 20 years in Prison. I heard the judge hearing the case was a light weight on handing out sentences. Solved that one had reporters from both newspapers sitting right up front with their note pads. This Judge was going to give him 1-1/2 to 2 years instead he had to throw the book at him.
 
My argument is that many American unnecessarily die from gun-related deaths. But I am not taking a stand to ban guns, I think it is too late for us. But I also come from an alternate society, Japan, where I NEVER fear getting shot. Children there actually learn in schools, not get shot. Makes you think, you know. Personally, I like guns, I go shooting with my friends who own them, but every American must recognize the sometimes tragic price we pay as a society to keep us armed. That is my point. I still keep to my statistic, though. I think guns in homes with children are asking for tragedy, especially if the guns are irresponsibly stored. Have you also seen Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine"?
 
quote:

Originally posted by kansaisubaru:

Anyways, I've done research on guns and American society. My sources showed that the very gun you own to protect your family has a higher chance of killing a family member (like your own kid) than killing an intruder. How darn inefficient. In fact, you threathen the lives of your own children more with the gun. Sadly, this statistic was taken from real cases. .


Your sources are HCI and NCBH. That would be Handgun Control Inc and The National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Both sources were started by ex CIA. Are there really any ex-CIA? Not very good research if you let them can the statistics for you.

I did some research on this back in the late 1980's and found that most of the useful (relevant data) on firearm use is excluded from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. I even called Dr. Gary Kleck down in Florida and asked him where he got his information and he was kind enough to send me a copy of his paper on defensive uses of firearms in the US.

I believe that if you start to look at the sources (raw data) on your statistics that you will find your statements above are disingenious.


Here are some facts for you to digest.
Twice as many felons are shot to death by civilians as are shot to death by police.
1 in 6 felons shot by police are killed.
1 in 3 felons shot by civilians are killed.
2 innocent civilians are killed by the police for every felon killed by the police.

There are 30k homicides a year by firearm but only 9000 murders. (the group you get your statistics from likes to infer homicides are all murders). Justifiable homicides (police and civilian) and suicide make up the rest.

Handguns are used to deter crime over 1 million times a year in the US. NOTE: Brandishing a firearm constitutes self defence and the firearm does not have to be fired to be counted.


Your statistic above is made up of primarily suicides. Since statistics on suicide show that suicide rates are constant regardless of the presence of a firearm, then not having a gun in the home wont save any of those poor suicidal soles but will put at risk those 1 million who use a firearm each year for self defence.
 
quote:

Your statistic above is made up of primarily suicides. Since statistics on suicide show that suicide rates are constant regardless of the presence of a firearm, then not having a gun in the home wont save any of those poor suicidal soles but will put at risk those 1 million who use a firearm each year for self defence.

This does not explain why the suicide success rate is higher for males than females. This is because males resort to more violent methods, especially a gun. Hence, they succeed more than attempts made by females who tend to use less violent methods. Guns do make a difference in suicide success rates.
Guns kill innocent people, and let's not forget that criminals have them too. Using a gun to protect yourself may cause criminals to resort to more violent means of criminal action. They pack guns themselves. How do they get them? Guns owned by citizens only protect during a robbery, but during a burgulary, a gun is often the prize of the break-in. These guns are stolen and then used by the criminals.
I agree with your point and you have strong evidence to support your cause, but you must recognize the gun control issue is very important for American society. If we do not address this issue, Columbines will keep reoccuring in the future and many innocent people will die. Then we will ask, is it worth it?
 
quote:

Guns kill innocent people, and let's not forget that criminals have them too. Using a gun to protect yourself may cause criminals to resort to more violent means of criminal action. They pack guns themselves. How do they get them? Guns owned by citizens only protect during a robbery, but during a burgulary, a gun is often the prize of the break-in. These guns are stolen and then used by the criminals.
I agree with your point and you have strong evidence to support your cause, but you must recognize the gun control issue is very important for American society. If we do not address this issue, Columbines will keep reoccuring in the future and many innocent people will die. Then we will ask, is it worth it?

Rugerman1 is correct. It's attitude, not the mechanism or the tool.

Your argument is tantamount to saying we should not own cars because a thief might steal it and drive over us. And let's not bump his car or stop him from fleeing a crime, 'cause he might get mad at us and run us over again.

It has been shown many times from research that in areas where people have access to firearms to protect themselves, the crime rate is lower. In states where women have the right to conceal carry, rape is way down.

The same goes for national security. If you didn't fight back, the world would be Islamic or Nazi or Communist. Or even worse, a liberal University of California campus!

Sure, an enemy IS going to be upset that you got your shot off first and killed the lowlife.
 
quote:

Originally posted by kansaisubaru:

This does not explain why the suicide success rate is higher for males than females. This is because males resort to more violent methods, especially a gun. Hence, they succeed more than attempts made by females who tend to use less violent methods. Guns do make a difference in suicide success rates.


If we do not address this issue, Columbines will keep reoccuring in the future and many innocent people will die.


Women feign suicide more than men and as such make lots of half hearted attempts. Men don't pretend. Those who really want to die almost always succeed.

Stop pushing mind altering prescription drugs on children by the 10's of millions and you will have a lot less Columbines. Try to find a Columbine incident that didn't involve Prozac. Guns don't kill people, Prozac kills people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top