Whither Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

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.

Well I seem to remember some trouble the US government was having in some country recently, where they outgun the opposition, but they were having some problems killing them, hmm where was that, IRAQ? What do you think the political outcome would be if the US had to subdue let's say Nashville TN by house to house fighting or even worse, heavy artillery and air support? That is, if they could even get a significant amount of soldiers to fight against their own people. Even laughable resistance is highly effective politically. Remember the Dublin Easter Rising of 1916, with 18 pounders going at it right in the middle of town. Who controls Dublin now? It's not the Crown.
 
Been busy, haven't been able to follow-up on the thread.....

rgl wrote "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."

Again, you brought up Bellesiles as a strawman, as no one else mentioned him. If you want to support him or not not support him that's fine, but he has nothing to do with Lott unless Lott's work was based upon Bellesiles work. Don't make an assumption, suggest that I support that assumption, and then use that assumption as some sort of indication of something bad as a smokescreen for Lott's problems. As an example:

I'll assume [since you're obviously a right wing gun nut who wants to overthrow
the government, based upon eralier comments made about the intent of the
2nd amendment] that you support Liddy. Well, Liddy stated that people needed
to shoot the feds in the head, so I guess that all that you're trying to do is to get
automatic weapons so that you can shoot it out with the feds.

See, you never said such a thing, but by using a strawman I can try to make you look bad, or divert attention from other points, or make a case that two unrelated issues are somewhow related. Bush did this by saying 'Iraq' and 'Saddam' often when speaking about 9/11, even though he and others have had to state that there is no link. Still, when polled something like 70% of people believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.


The academic credibility and personal integrity issues affecting John Lott are so prominent that even pro-gun supporters are having to let him go, as they know that failure to do so will only damage their own credibility.

*****************************
At least ten different academics from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Harvard School of Public Health, University of

Chicago, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown, Emory, and Northwestern University, have called Lott's work into question.

*****************************
The Journalist's Guide to Gun Policy Scholars and Second Amendment Scholars, Featuring experts -- liberals, moderates, and

conservatives -- whose research has led them to be skeptical of gun control, (compiled by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School,

(310) 206-3926), http://gunscholar.com/ , used to list Lott, but has dropped him due to the integrity issues.

*****************************

David Hemenway
Professor of Health Policy
Department of Health Policy and Management
Harvard School of Public Health

In his analyses, Lott virtually always uses complicated econometrics. For readers to accept the results requires complete faith in

Lott's integrity, that he will always conduct careful and competent research. Lott does not merit such faith. It is unfortunate, for Lott

analyzes important policy issues in a contentious policy arena where more good research is needed. It is also disheartening for the

many careful academic researchers who are trying to conduct competent studies to see the impact that Lott's less careful research

has had on the policy debate.

*****************************
The (John) Lott Controversy
By Michelle Malkin

[other integrity issues with Lott deleted]

Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet. "Rosh" gushed that

Lott was "the best professor that I ever had." She/he also penned an effusive review of “More Guns, Less Crime” on Amazon.com: "It

was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well." (Lott claims that one of his sons posted the review in "Rosh's" name.) Just last

week, "Rosh" complained on a blog comment board: "Critics such as Lambert and Lindgren ought to slink away and hide."

By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other

scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.

Some Second Amendment activists believe there is an anti-gun conspiracy to discredit Lott as "payback" for the fall of Michael

Bellesiles, the disgraced former Emory University professor who engaged in rampant research fraud to bolster his anti-gun book,

“Arming America.”

But it wasn't an anti-gun zealot who unmasked Rosh/Lott. It was Internet blogger Julian Sanchez, a staffer at the libertarian Cato

Institute, which staunchly defends the Second Amendment. And it was the conservative Washington Times that first reported last

week on the survey dispute in the mainstream press.

In an interview Monday, Lott stressed that his new defensive gun use survey (whose results will be published in the new book) will

show similar results to the lost survey. But the existence of the new survey does not lay to rest the still lingering doubts about the old

survey’s existence.

The media coverage of the 1997 survey data dispute, Lott told me, is “a much-ado about nothing.”

I wish I could agree.

*****************************
 
John Lott discredited? In your dreams! You must also think Michael Moore makes documentries!
grin.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
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.

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.


In Arizona it has always been legal to carry openly without any permit. On any weekend 9 out 10 pickup trucks are carrying a handgun without any permit as none is needed. The permit system just added those who already carry back to the system as carrying concealed. I wonder what the system was in Penn. and Oregon before the concealed carry laws went into effect?

There currently is no law prohibiting concealed carry in Vermont. Anyone check their crime statistics lately? Must be the wild west there with no laws restricting handgun carry. Felons excepted.
 
quote:

Again, you brought up Bellesiles as a strawman, as no one else mentioned him.

Is citing, for example, Clinton's failures as a response to criticism of Bush putting up a "straw man?" No. That is simple compare and contrast. I brought up Bellesiles because what you are supposedly finding Lott guilty of HAS ACTUALLY RECENTLY HAPPENED to the gun ban hero Bellesiles. AS SHOWN BY YOUR OWN LAST POST. So don't deny there is at least some plausible connection going on here. A "straw man" would be if I misrepresented and exaggerated your attack on Lott, and "proved" you wrong by holding Lott to lower standards than your supposed attack. In fact, I said if the same thing that happens to Bellesiles happens to Lott that I WOULD repudiate Lott. I don't know him personally and can't vouch for him. I don't see why I should constrain myself to only bringing up matters on your terms.

PS. I am sure you know, but it bears some repetition, that this country's war of independence began because the legal, internationally recognized government sent regular troops to confiscate illegal arms from an unlawful civilian militia. What exactly would you do if somehow a fascist islamic government were to take power here? (highly unlikely, but humor me.) You gonna demonstrate with peace banners? BTW, several federal judges have recently opined as I do that the 2nd amd. is the "self destruct" button in case of the perversion of our way of life.
 
Pennsylvania is legal for open carry. I have noticed an increase in residents enjoying their second amendment rights. Not a lot but you do see occasionally more open carry. The only place you may get a major hassle for open carry is Philadelphia.
That town is run by the biggest bunch of pricks you will ever meet. That city was the whole reason for the Shall issue law being passed in the state. My holster is a Wilderness Safe Packer basically a square closed ballistic nylon speed holster. I like the throwing in their face the fact that there is gun on my hip with out going to open carry. The old cops (over 40) never give me a second look but the younger guys do give me the once over followed by a smile.
A well known morning talk show host here in town openly carries his Walther .45. When he rode his Harley around the state he openly carried and never once had a police officer ever question his holstered gun. The problem and reason you need CCW is if you put on a coat or get into car the gun becomes concealed thus the need for the permit.
As far as CCW goes Florida's crime rate dropped close to 30% across the board in the first two years after the law went into effect.
 
quote:

I'll assume [since you're obviously a right wing gun nut who wants to overthrow
the government, based upon eralier comments made about the intent of the
2nd amendment] that you support Liddy.

BTW, that's called an ad hominem attack. Enrollment in logic classes is not limited to liberals.
 
Lott will need more help than the plight of others to salvage his academic credibility.

*********************
Straw Man occurs when

an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary

and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument;

"knocks down" the straw man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc.)

-- and thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument.

*********************


Supreme Court rulings to date what the 2nd amendment consists of, which was reinforced by declining to review Silveira v. Lockyer this last December.

http://www.2atruths.org/court.htm

For over 200 years, the Supreme Court has been the final authority in determining how the Constitution should be interpreted. U.S. v. Miller, a Supreme Court decision that has never been reversed or narrowed, is the controlling legal authority on matter of the 2nd Amendment. In essence, Miller gives state militia the right to acquire and possess weapons, but does not transfer that right to the individual. With the single exception of one non-holding case (US v. Emerson), every circuit court has adhered to the legal principle that there is no right to personally bear firearms unless it is related to preservation of a well-regulated militia. And, while Miller is now well over 60 years old, the Supreme Court has refused certiorari for at least 9 circuit cases where the court refused a personal right to bear arms, indicating continued support for the collective right interpretation. (Robert Hardaway, et. al., The Inconvenient Militia Clause of the Second Amendment: Why the Court Declines to Resolve the Debate Over the Right to Bear Arms, 16 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 41 (2002)). Therefore, as the law stands today, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms in the United States.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:
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.
I must agree with Molakule.He seems to have his head on straight,not slanted to the left like a liberals is.
I have a niece and nephew that grew up with more than one gun in their house,they never received an injury from any of them.It 'IS NOT' fair nor right to tell a law abiding American that they cant own a gun.Guns may be used in suicide but if a person truly wants to kill themselves,they will without a gun.It sounds to me as if the liberals know that gun control is of no use and that statistics show that it is not needed.Hence,they are trying to make it seem needed by bringing in suicide as a reason to control (ban) guns.I believe in a study that was done,that if a woman truly wanted to commit suicide that they cut themselves.By taking an overdose,they wanted help,an overdose would most likely give them time to me treated successfully,a cut to the wrist or neck was less hopeful.Also,if a woman truly wants to die,she will most likely do so in the bath tub,less messy for the survivors.As far as men using them,yes it is quick but if they want to die,they will find a way to do so.To use suicide as a 'statistic' to promote gun control is cold hearted,self serving and cruel.Gun control only helps the criminal,not the law abiding citizen.It is of no use,it makes no sense and it is utterly ill conceived to believe that controlling the guns of law abiding citizens will make criminals kill less people.Charles Manson and his bunch used knives to do much of their killing.What are people going to want next,butcher knives outlawed?
rolleyes.gif


[ June 02, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: motorguy222 ]
 
rgl said "BTW, that's called an ad hominem attack...."

And it was used as an example to make a point, so an apology is offered if you're offended.

******************************
wulimaster said "In Arizona it has always been legal to carry openly without any permit. On any weekend 9 out 10 pickup trucks are carrying a handgun without any permit as none is needed. The permit system just added those who already carry back to the system as carrying concealed. I wonder what the system was in Penn. and Oregon before the concealed carry laws went into effect?"

Which is a good point. That perhaps leaves Lott with only two states where he had data on actual permits issued, both still indicating that his own data doesn't support the hypothesis of 'more guns less crime'. Using Uniform Crime Report data comparing Arizona with the US, Arizona currently (2002) has an overall crime rate 55% higher than the US average and a homicide rate that is 26% higher than the US.
******************************

ALS said "As far as CCW goes Florida's crime rate dropped close to 30% across the board in the first two years after the law went into effect. "

That's just plain wrong, using crime data from the state of Florida. Perhaps the actual reduction is some other measure, but it's not the overall crime rate. As mentioned previously a lot of governments now provide such data on a web site, so there is no need to rely upon on organizations that are prone to fib a little, or a lot, as that's where they get their data too. The rates are per the standard 100k of population.

1980 8,170.8
1981 7,613.9
1982 7,131.0
1983 6,391.6
1984 6,499.4
1985 7,116.2
1986 7,321.4
1987 7,188.6
1988 7,471.3
1989 8,059.7
1990 7,888.7
1991 7,405.6
1992 7,028.6
1993 7,431.7
1994 7,924.6
1995 8,213.6
1996 7,067.0
1997 7,195.0
1998 6,575.0
1999 5,896.1
2000 5,829.5
2001 6,077.8
2002 6,386.3
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:

For over 200 years, the Supreme Court has been the final authority in determining how the Constitution should be interpreted. U.S. v. Miller, a Supreme Court decision that has never been reversed or narrowed, is the controlling legal authority on matter of the 2nd Amendment. In essence, Miller gives state militia the right to acquire and possess weapons, but does not transfer that right to the individual.


Miller disappeared and never showed for the case and the court ruled in absentia.

Miller was murdered before the case was even argued. Anyone supprised?

The case made it to the Supreme court on March 30, 1939 and they ruled on May 15th, 1939.

The Southwest American reported on April 6, 1939, that Miller's body had been found in the "nearly dry" bed of Little Spencer creek, nine miles southwest of Chelesa, Oklahoma. He had been shot four times with a .38. Miller's ".45 calibre pistol," from which he had fired three shots in his defense, was found near his body. He was forty years old.


Part of the ruling

" In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."


offtopic.gif

I watched congress vote on a piece of anti-gun legislation just before the Thanksgiving holidays a while back. The next day the news reported that it passed in a unanimous vote. They neglected to say that the vote was 3 for and none against. Everyone else left to go home for the holidays shortly after quorum call. It was a show of hands vote btw so those 3 responsible didn't get fingered by the congressional record. Pretty slick how our government works isn't it. Why not since it was created for the criminally rich. "Of the people , by the people, for the people" is just window dressing for the masses.

Just thought some of you might like to know how things really work in Washington. This is just one little example which represents the tip of the mother of all icebergs.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
And, while Miller is now well over 60 years old, the Supreme Court has refused certiorari for at least 9 circuit cases where the court refused a personal right to bear arms, indicating continued support for the collective right interpretation.

Refusing to hear the cases means that the court has found a way of avoiding to deal with the issue of individual rights for over 60 years. Nice substitution of states right with collective right. The Bill of Rights enumerates existing individual rights not states rights.
 
quote:

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
******************************
Using Uniform Crime Report data comparing Arizona with the US, Arizona currently (2002) has an overall crime rate 55% higher than the US average and a homicide rate that is 26% higher than the US.
******************************

ALS said "As far as CCW goes Florida's crime rate dropped close to 30% across the board in the first two years after the law went into effect. "

That's just plain wrong, using crime data from the state of Florida.


I notice that you like to use statistics that would not be relevant to gun ownership. Using all crimes instead of rape, murder, aggravated assault, highway robbery, robbery which are crimes where a victim is present. How would a gun prevent shoplifting, theft, burglary, car theft? It can't, as there is nobody around to wield a gun to prevent them.

Arizona has near perfect theft and burglary weather as the criminals can operate year round. We lead the nation in car thefts I believe. Lots of nice cars to steal and Mexico so close to deliver them to. Lots of construction thefts too.

I said it before and I will say it again. Not all homicides are murders. When the police shoot and kill a bad guy or a good guy by accident it is considered a homicide, same for civilians. There are other examples of homicides which are not murders also. In my research it was a 9/30 of all homicides were actually murders. Why do you not use murder rates and other violent crimes in your examples?

Are you a TROLL?

If ALS had said violent crime instead of crime, what would your response have been?

offtopic.gif
My wife used a handgun to deter assaults twice without having to fire the weapon. The police were notified but never filed any reports so her self defence use of a hand gun would never have made it into any reports. Not that the BJS or the FBI's UCR asks for this data. Protecting yourself is not something the FBI or the Justice Department want you to know about.

offtopic.gif
What do you call an efficient police and justice system?

Answer: Unemployed

[ June 03, 2004, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: wulimaster ]
 
quote:

In essence, Miller gives state militia the right to acquire and possess weapons, but does not transfer that right to the individual.

That is just a bald faced lie even "in essence." Otherwise the Miller court would not have seen any need to address the particular firearm (sawed-off shotgun) Miller carried, but would have simply said there is no individual right. Miller was, after all , an individual and not part of any state militia. He would only have been part of an unorganized militia under USC Title 10 or state law. Nothing in the case remotely says anything about NOT "transferring that right" to a person. In fact, it says the opposite, but Miller failed to show that a sawed off shotgun was of value to a militia.

Admission to law school is not limited to liberals either.

quote:

Straw Man occurs when

an opponent takes the original argument of his/her adversary

and then offers a close imitation, or straw man, version of the original argument;

"knocks down" the straw man version of the argument (because the straw man, as its name implies, is a much easier target to hit, undermine, etc.)

-- and thereby gives the appearance of having successfully countered/overcome/answered the original argument.

I'm sorry, what part of the above differs from my explanation of straw man? I was not making a different version of your argument. I was making a dig at another target (Bellesiles) while not changing your argument at all. I think if anything it would be closest to the tu quoque fallacy, that is, "you have also done what you are accusing me of, therefore it lets me off the hook."

"But officer, you were speeding too, otherwise, you would not have been able to catch me."

However, I simply stated that Lott had not been proved to be a fraud and someone else with opposite views just had. Coincidence? I think not.

Hitler: You are war criminals. You have invaded my country.

FDR & Churchill: Hey, wait a second, what about that Poland thing?

Hitler: Nobody brought up Poland in this argument until you just did. I would have to have invaded you in order for you to bring that up. Just address my argument.
 
********************************
rgl said "However, I simply stated that Lott had not been proved to be a fraud and someone else with opposite views just had. Coincidence? I think not.

Hitler: You are war criminals. You have invaded my country.

FDR & Churchill: Hey, wait a second, what about that Poland thing?

Hitler: Nobody brought up Poland in this argument until you just did. I would have to have invaded you in order for you to bring that up. Just address my argument. "
********************************

The more accurate example would have been:

I say "Lt Calley is a war criminal."

You say "Lt Calley can only be considered a war criminal if he is tried and convicted like your presumed bud Hitler".

Whether or not Hitler was a war criminal has no bearing on whether Lt Calley was a war criminal. Lt Calley's actions are now a matter of public record, and most, but not all, will agree that he committed war crimes.


********************************
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.", and "Lott is still held in high regard last I looked."
********************************

Lott is not held in high regard, as evidenced by the references from some of the leading universities in this country, academic peers, conservative op-ed contributors, conservative think tanks, etc. As previously mentioned his professional integrity as well as his academic credibility is tainted.
 
1sttruck's link " In essence, Miller gives state militia the right to acquire and possess weapons, but does not transfer that right to the individual.

rgl said "That is just a bald faced lie even "in essence." Otherwise the Miller court would not have seen any need to address the particular firearm (sawed-off shotgun) Miller carried, but would have simply said there is no individual right. Miller was, after all , an individual and not part of any state militia. He would only have been part of an unorganized militia under USC Title 10 or state law. Nothing in the case remotely says anything about NOT "transferring that right" to a person. In fact, it says the opposite, but Miller failed to show that a sawed off shotgun was of value to a militia."

The rest of 1sttruck's link above "With the single exception of one non-holding case (US v. Emerson), every circuit court has adhered to the legal principle that there is no right to personally bear firearms unless it is related to preservation of a well-regulated militia. And, while Miller is now well over 60 years old, the Supreme Court has refused certiorari for at least 9 circuit cases where the court refused a personal right to bear arms, indicating continued support for the collective right interpretation. (Robert Hardaway, et. al., The Inconvenient Militia Clause of the Second Amendment: Why the Court Declines to Resolve the Debate Over the Right to Bear Arms, 16 St. John’s J. Legal Comment. 41 (2002)). Therefore, as the law stands today, there is no individual right to keep and bear arms in the United States."

There are at least three points to be made here. The pragmatic point is that regardless of what rgl likes or doesn't like about US vs Miller, or what he likes or doesn't like about how the the impact of US vs Miller is summarized, it has no bearing on how firearms law is applied in this country. The more interesting but still pragmatic point is how US vs Miller has been challenged and how those challenges have fared in the courts. The last point, which rgl and others have spoken to, is that although the US Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges to US vs Miller there are suggestions that the court is waiting for the right case, and the most interesting speculation is what that might consist of. The last challenge, from http://keepandbeararms.com/Silveira/overview.asp , which the US Supreme Court declined to hear in Dec 2003.

Silveira v. Lockyer was filed in the Eastern District Court in California in the year 2000, by California attorney Gary Gorski. It argues for the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The case seeks to overturn California's arbitrary ban on semi-automatic rifles -- a gun ban based on the ergonomic and safety features the firearms possess.
[deleted]
The wording of the Questions Presented to the Supreme Court in the Certiorari Petition filed the day before Independence Day are as follows:
[deleted]
III. Whether the heavily criticized and ambiguous decision of Justice McReynolds in United States v. Miller (US 1939), decided without argument or counsel for Miller, should be limited or overruled after these 64 years, in favor of a comprehensive opinion from this Court recognizing as fundamental the individual right of family, home, business, and community defense under the Second and Fourteenth Amendment right to keep and bear arms?
[deleted]
 
Lets do the math using your numbers OK
1996 1,051.0 7.5
1997 1,023.6 6.9
1998 938.7 6.5
1999 854.0 5.7
2000 812.0 5.6
2001 798.3 5.3
2002 770.2 5.5

770.2/1051 = .7328
100% - 73.28% = 26.72% drop in crime

1051 - 770.2 = 280.8
1051 / 280.8 = 3.7428
100% / 3.7428 = 26.72%

So I was off a few percent I did say close to 30%,
27% is close. As the book title says More Guns less Crime. Anyone else notice when the Liberals took God out the schools juvenal crime shot up.
One reason for the drop was the lower rate of births after 1965. The amount of young men has dropped thus the lower crime rate since most have out grown the age of being trouble makers (<25) That's why you start to see the declines in crime rates in the late eighties through today. When I graduated from high school there was close to 950 kids in my class. Today my high school has less than 2000 students in 9th through 12th grade 2004.
 
wulimaster said "I said it before and I will say it again. Not all homicides are murders. When the police shoot and kill a bad guy or a good guy by accident it is considered a homicide, same for civilians. There are other examples of homicides which are not murders also. In my research it was a 9/30 of all homicides were actually murders. Why do you not use murder rates and other violent crimes in your examples? Are you a TROLL? If ALS had said violent crime instead of crime, what would your response have been?"

from Crime in the United States, 1999, Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation
"MURDER AND NONNEGLIGENT, MANSLAUGHTER, DEFINITION
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, as defined in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, is the
willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another. The classification of this offense, as for all other Crime Index offenses, is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. Not included in the count for this offense classification are deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are scored as aggravated assaults."

Regarding ALS claiming "As far as CCW goes Florida's crime rate dropped close to 30% across the board in the first two years after the law went into effect.", I did mention that like a lot of governments, the state of Florida has a web site where a variety of crime statistics can be obtained. Since groups like the NRA for example need to get their statistics from the same sources, it's always better to get the statistics from the source instead of second hand, as the flies can get pretty thick around the 'truths' from such groups. Uniform Crime Report from the Florida site is below, where again there is no such drop after 1987. There is a decline starting in the 90s, but the rest of the country also experienced such a decline, and by 2002 the overall crime is still 32% higher in Florida than in the US overall, violent crime is 56% higher, and the murder rate is 3% lower.

1979 833.9 12.2
1980 983.5 14.5
1981 965.1 15.0
1982 896.8 13.5
1983 826.7 11.2
1984 868.0 11.5
1985 941.1 11.4
1986 1,036.5 11.7
1987 1,024.4 11.4
1988 1,117.7 11.4
1989 1,109.4 11.1
1990 1,244.3 10.7
1991 1,184.3 9.4
1992 1,207.2 9.0
1993 1,206.0 8.9
1994 1,146.8 8.3
1995 1,071.0 7.3
1996 1,051.0 7.5
1997 1,023.6 6.9
1998 938.7 6.5
1999 854.0 5.7
2000 812.0 5.6
2001 798.3 5.3
2002 770.2 5.5
 
missed the header to the Florida data above; it's violent crime and homicide rates for the years shown, per 100,000 of population.
 
Random thoughts:

G. Gordon Liddy stated that you would need to shoot attackers in the head because of their wearing body armor. He was addressing the unwarranted, illegal, unjustified attacks as demonstrated by Waco and Ruby Ridge. The subject was effective SELF-DEFENSE against an unwarranted attack. Sadly, it was our own corrupt government doing the attacking.

Various ninnies have suggested posting signs declaring gun ownership in front of the houses of gun owners. I'll go along with that on one condition. If you DON'T own a weapon, THAT must be posted also. Then let's see how long it takes the sheep to change their minds about the wolves out there. If they are capable of learning, and choose to defend themselves, that's wonderful. If they do not want to defend themselve, then I'd guess that's an improvement in the gene pool.

The only thing we are really given in this life is TIME. I can't be of any use to my family or friends or neighbors or the world at large if I am dead. If I am careless or negligent or don't defend myself, and so lose my life before my time, am I not spitting in the face of whoever is running this show?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top