Pro Or Anti Gun Control ? [Archive] - Chess Chat - Australia's Premier Chess Forum

Kevin Bonham

19-10-2007, 11:46 PM

It is ultimately each man and womens responsibility to protect his life, liberty and property.

Prove it. :hand:

I'm serious. I want you to show me from what empirical fact or uncontentious logical assumption the conclusion above follows, through a series of formally logically valid statements.

Alternatively, if you're simply voicing a personal advocative view, then that's fine, but why should I take any more notice of it than of that of someone who believes it is ultimately each "man and womens"[sic] responsibility to own 97 chihauhas?

Or alternatively I could agree with you, and say that my idea of protecting my life, liberty and property is to agree with the government that I shall pay them taxes if they do a reasonable job of keeping nutters who might otherwise shoot me unarmed.

Gun laws only remove guns from the law abiding citizens, criminals still have them, why don't we?

I'm surprised slogans as weak as this still surface in public debate, but I suppose they are catchy.

In removing guns from the "law abiding citizens", gun control laws remove them from those "law abiding citizens" who may at any moment, through insanity (of which there have been many examples) cease to be law abiding. I am also far from convinced that their ownership among criminals is the same in places where guns are controlled as in places where they are not.

Of course, the whole "if you outlaw guns" line is a complete furphy anyway because governments do not do so. Gun control laws typically restrict the types of guns that can be used and the experience necessary to use them. They do not mean that a person who would like to have a gun in their house will not be able to do so.

In the 1990s, slightly before gun control in this country was improved in the wake of Port Arthur, I lived with a gun owner who had serious mental problems (so serious that he was expelled from the university for threatening to kill the Vice-Chancellor). Even though he never made me feel personally threatened, I would not recommend this experience to anyone and I would like all those who are completely opposed to gun control to state whether they have lived in such circumstances, and to state how they would deal with living with an unbalanced person who owned guns if they had to do so.

And to support Axiom in a way,

Which is rarely advisable on issues of this type. :lol:

maybe even more dangerous is perhaps the fact that the government is armed, the citizens are not. This is a dangerous situation IMHO.

Only because of its potential for spawning bad Hollywood movies. The government isn't out to strip you all of your weapons and herd you into camps; it is not in their advantage whatever people writing for those silly websites Axiom reads may think otherwise.

Axiom

20-10-2007, 12:29 AM

Only because of its potential for spawning bad Hollywood movies. The government isn't out to strip you all of your weapons and herd you into camps; it is not in their advantage whatever people writing for those silly websites Axiom reads may think otherwise.
This statement is born of total naivety.
why?
1.Because it completely ignores history, ie. that tyranny is the NORM NOT the exception.
2.Because it falsely assumes governments have our best interests at heart.refer to point 1. and a basic understanding of reality.
3.Because, no doubt such naivety was exhibited by 1930s germans and pre stalinist Russians.refer to point 1.
4.Because it assumes that it is not in the best interests of govts to exert such control, even tyrannical camp herding type control. refer point 1. and 3.
5.Because the so called silly websites i read emphasise the truth of point 1.
6.Because all tyrants agree gun control works !

Kevin Bonham

20-10-2007, 12:52 AM

This statement is born of total naivety.
why?
1.Because it completely ignores history, ie. that tyranny is the NORM NOT the exception.

History prior to the last 50-100 years does not have advanced western democracies with global instant media coverage in it so history is irrelevant. You cannot judge modern politics by the politics of the 16th century.

2.Because it falsely assumes governments have our best interests at heart.refer to point 1. and a basic understanding of reality.

Wrong. I specifically and explicitly assumed the government had its own best interests at heart as the basis for my comments.

3.Because, no doubt such naivety was exhibited by 1930s germans and pre stalinist Russians.refer to point 1.

Both societies in severe economic and logistic hardship. Not comparable.

4.Because it assumes that it is not in the best interests of govts to exert such control, even tyrannical camp herding type control. refer point 1. and 3.

I don't assume that, I argue it. What point would it serve?

5.Because the so called silly websites i read emphasise the truth of point 1.

This only further shows that they are silly! :owned:

6.Because all tyrants agree gun control works !

Whoopy-do. All tyrants might agree that brushing teeth reduces the risk of tooth decay, would that make that statement false?

Ax, we're talking politics here. Calling me totally naive in any field related to politics is, well, totally naive; I have qualifications, what are yours? Excuse me while I have a little chuckle. :lol:

Oh, and please do answer my question about how you would deal with living with a dangerously insane gun nut.

Axiom

20-10-2007, 02:07 AM

History prior to the last 50-100 years does not have advanced western democracies with global instant media coverage in it so history is irrelevant. You cannot judge modern politics by the politics of the 16th century.How is history irrelevant when discussing the dynamics and implications of an armed or unarmed populace?
Regardless lets just look at the last 50-100yrs, the same principles apply.
Tyranny is still the norm, and history teaches us that to be unarmed in light of this is very dangerous

Wrong. I specifically and explicitly assumed the government had its own best interests at heart as the basis for my comments. they sure do have their best interests at heart when they disarm us, and if you think its for our benefit, then sorry, that is IMO naive.

Both societies in severe economic and logistic hardship. Not comparable.please explain why not comparable.

I don't assume that, I argue it. What point would it serve? ask a stalin,hitler ceaucescu or pol pot. Its about quashing dissent and asserting control.

This only further shows that they are silly! :owned:oh silly like this one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745761/posts with all those silly people quoted there ? :lol:

Whoopy-do. All tyrants might agree that brushing teeth reduces the risk of tooth decay, would that make that statement false? huh?? no, all tyrants agree gun control works for THEM,as well as brushing their teeth ! :owned:

Ax, we're talking politics here. Calling me totally naive in any field related to politics is, well, totally naive; I have qualifications, what are yours? Excuse me while I have a little chuckle. :lol: i call you naive because of your position on this.
there are many naive persons with many qualifications, to thnk otherwise is naive !

Oh, and please do answer my question about how you would deal with living with a dangerously insane gun nut.depends how insane/dangerous he is he may have brought himself to the attention of the authorities on these grounds alone.....assuming he hasn't and
i had absolutely no choice but to live with such a person, i would arm myself and learn how to shoot and tell him of such!

DanielBell

20-10-2007, 03:25 AM

Prove it. :hand:

I'm serious. I want you to show me from what empirical fact or uncontentious logical assumption the conclusion above follows, through a series of formally logically valid statements.

If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

Alternatively, if you're simply voicing a personal advocative view, then that's fine, but why should I take any more notice of it than of that of someone who believes it is ultimately each "man and womens"[sic] responsibility to own 97 chihauhas?

Because believing that you are responsible for your own life makes sense. Believing you are responsible for owning 97 dogs does not.

Or alternatively I could agree with you, and say that my idea of protecting my life, liberty and property is to agree with the government that I shall pay them taxes if they do a reasonable job of keeping nutters who might otherwise shoot me unarmed.

If you believe that your taxes are protecting those things then that is fine. However, even though I pay taxes, yet I have still had property stolen. I have been harassed and have been defenseless.. The government didn't do a single thing. Police take time to turn up, in certain situations you need to be able to defend yourself immediately.. Yes, 'arms' can mean many things, but often a gun would be the most efficient. Most people I talk to in the states who have needed to use their gun only needed to make it visible to deter a criminal who otherwise would have (at least attempted) robbed them.

I'm surprised slogans as weak as this still surface in public debate, but I suppose they are catchy.

In removing guns from the "law abiding citizens", gun control laws remove them from those "law abiding citizens" who may at any moment, through insanity (of which there have been many examples) cease to be law abiding. I am also far from convinced that their ownership among criminals is the same in places where guns are controlled as in places where they are not.

Of course, the whole "if you outlaw guns" line is a complete furphy anyway because governments do not do so. Gun control laws typically restrict the types of guns that can be used and the experience necessary to use them. They do not mean that a person who would like to have a gun in their house will not be able to do so.

In the 1990s, slightly before gun control in this country was improved in the wake of Port Arthur, I lived with a gun owner who had serious mental problems (so serious that he was expelled from the university for threatening to kill the Vice-Chancellor). Even though he never made me feel personally threatened, I would not recommend this experience to anyone and I would like all those who are completely opposed to gun control to state whether they have lived in such circumstances, and to state how they would deal with living with an unbalanced person who owned guns if they had to do so.

I understand guns are not outlawed, but you cannot own a gun for your personal protection. Guns need to be stored in a way which would make it hard to use it for defense.

I wouldn't live with someone who I thought would be irresponsible with their weapon. The problem here however is the person not their choice of weapon.

Rincewind

20-10-2007, 11:00 AM

If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

Very few people are ever in that situation. People who break into houses are generally there to remove property, not take lives. Saying that the citizens should self arm is fallacious as guns in the hand of the so-called law abiding citizens present a greater danger to themselves and the general public than do armed burglars.

I don't believe a citizen has the right to endanger the life of someone who is threatening to steal their property. Guns for self protection against others wanting to take your life is not a realistic scenario, therefore there is no need for the general public to own firearms.

I have no problem with people using firearms for "peaceful" purposes such as sport shooting. But those trying to justify firearm ownership by self-defense are dangerously deluded and present a greater danger to public safety then the criminal straw-bogeyman they are putting forward.

Kevin Bonham

20-10-2007, 11:32 AM

How is history irrelevant when discussing the dynamics and implications of an armed or unarmed populace?

Because those implications continually change with developments in technology. Both the technology of attack and defence and also the technology of broadcasting events to the outside world. Also because citizen expectations now are very different to in the not-so-demockratic era.

Regardless lets just look at the last 50-100yrs, the same principles apply.
Tyranny is still the norm, and history teaches us that to be unarmed in light of this is very dangerous

Tyranny is not the norm in the developed western world in that time period.

they sure do have their best interests at heart when they disarm us,

Why?

and if you think its for our benefit, then sorry, that is IMO naive.

This is the second time you have falsely suggested I am arguing that politicians are acting for our benefit. Do it again and I shall award you a Goosemaster Norm.

please explain why not comparable.

Because in economically desperate societies it is easier for totalitarian regimes to flourish. People become inclined to accept anything, however abhorent and aberrant, that they think might lead their society out of poverty.

ask a stalin,hitler ceaucescu or pol pot.

These are not models of modern western government.

Its about quashing dissent and asserting control.

Brutal overt widespread repression within advanced societies does not quash dissent or assert control but rather fuels the former and surrenders the latter.

oh silly like this one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745761/posts with all those silly people quoted there ? :lol:

Same old same old. Confusion of corellation and causation and irrelevant quote mining of the thoughts of famousoids and philosophers. I lost interest halfway through.

huh?? no, all tyrants agree gun control works for THEM,as well as brushing their teeth ! :owned:

So what? Whether it works for tyrants has no bearing on whether it works in non-tyrannical societies. You are using a guilt by association fallacy and also a version of the ad Hitlerum fallacy.

i call you naive because of your position on this.

In other words, if I disagree with you on one of your pet-political-paranoia issues I must, by virtue of that alone, be sooooo naive. How terribly obvious, how did I possibly fail to notice it before? :rolleyes:

depends how insane/dangerous he is he may have brought himself to the attention of the authorities on these grounds alone.....

Naaah, he brought himself to the attention of the authorities by allegedly sexually harrassing much of the female membership of a particular student society.

assuming he hasn't and
i had absolutely no choice but to live with such a person, i would arm myself and learn how to shoot and tell him of such!

Yes, well this is just ridiculous. Being able to shoot back is fine if you're in a situation where each person wants to live and knows the other person may be about to shoot them. In that case it's a deterrent. But in the hypothetical nutter-wants-to-shoot-you situation it is no deterrent at all, because you're not going to go around your whole life with a gun ready to be whipped out at any moment. Especially not when you're asleep. If someone wants to kill you and you don't want to kill them, chances are they will kill you any moment they have the advantage of surprise. And thus, even if you have a gun, and even if they know you are a crack shot, and even if they know you have a gun, they will still be easily able to kill you.

The second reason being armed is not much of a defence against a nutter is that the nutter often doesn't care if they live or die, or in some cases actually wants to be shot. I do agree that if everyone had guns the average death toll per nutter rampage would be a lot lower since the nutter would typically shoot a few people then get taken out. However, if everyone had easy access to guns there would be a lot more nutter rampages.

(Again, this guy was actually no threat to me whatsoever so far as I could gather - never even threatened me, unlike another flatmate who thankfully didn't have a gun. But if he had had a complete mental breakdown and gone into Port Arthur mode, who knows? Indeed when Port Arthur happened my first suspicion is that it was him.)

Kevin Bonham

20-10-2007, 12:04 PM

If an armed intruder enters your home in the middle of the night with intent to harm you or your family (or both) who else but you and your family have the power to defend your lives and property (and freedom!)?

Obviously, anyone who you wish to assist in that defence has the power to do so. So paying taxes to support a government that restricts gun use hence reducing the risk of the armed intruder getting in in the first place is one way. Not having such government control but having a gun under your bed is another. Neither is necessarily superior.

It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life.

If that is the case and state control of guns turns out to be the best way to reduce the risks of such life-threatening situations claiming your life, then your argument becomes an argument for state control of guns.

In a trivial sense what you say about "responsibility" is true - there are many ways you can act to further your own protection and if you take none of them then there are risks involved that you may not be able to stop. But this doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to protect yourself to the max and to be armed at all times. Life would be very tedious if minimising risk in that manner was the paramount goal of all activities.

The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

Are you saying that as a statement about the law or as a statement about morals? Because if it's a statement about the law, you're incorrect, at least in my state where there is compensation available for victims of violent crime.

Because believing that you are responsible for your own life makes sense. Believing you are responsible for owning 97 dogs does not.

Given the choice between owning 97 dogs and having to permanently carry a gun and live in fear of being shot by nutters or obsessives in a nation with no gun control, I would find owning 97 dogs far more sensible, even if they were all chihauhas. And I don't even like dogs much, my avatar notwithstanding!

I should add that I once had an obsessive pet stalker who would physically attack me (never doing any real harm) every time he saw me, unless there were witnesses who weren't his mates. This individual had drug problems that meant he could not control his propensity to attack me, except where he knew he would get caught. If he had had ready access to guns there is a substantial chance I would be dead by now. That my having a gun as well would have created a high chance that he would be dead instead isn't really much consolation.

If you believe that your taxes are protecting those things then that is fine. However, even though I pay taxes, yet I have still had property stolen. I have been harassed and have been defenseless.. The government didn't do a single thing. Police take time to turn up, in certain situations you need to be able to defend yourself immediately..

All this is true but in none of these situations were you shot dead. I too have been harassed and been defenseless (as described above) but rather than wishing I had had a gun to ward off the attacker, I am instead glad he did not have a gun with which to kill me.

Yes, 'arms' can mean many things, but often a gun would be the most efficient. Most people I talk to in the states who have needed to use their gun only needed to make it visible to deter a criminal who otherwise would have (at least attempted) robbed them.

That may be true, yet home invasion situations where the defender holds a gun may be more likely to end in the death of the defender, simply because most home invaders actually don't want to kill, but will do so to prevent the defender from killing them.

I understand guns are not outlawed, but you cannot own a gun for your personal protection. Guns need to be stored in a way which would make it hard to use it for defense.

My flatmate was required to keep his guns in a secure locked container, but so what? Secured locked containers can be unlocked if needed. I believe this is still the legal situation - if you keep a firearm in secure locked storage you can have it in the home. Who is going to check if it is in that storage all the time or not?

I wouldn't live with someone who I thought would be irresponsible with their weapon. The problem here however is the person not their choice of weapon.

I had very little choice in the matter for financial reasons. I was living in a student shared housing scheme which the individual moved into. I could not afford to move out. Of course, I could have decided to get work and quit university so that I could move out (assuming I could find any) but no-one should have to go to such lengths to get away from a potential nutter.

CameronD

20-10-2007, 01:11 PM

The whole problem is that the intruder needs a better weapon than what the home owner has

1. No weapon - Use knife
2. Has Knife - Use gun
3. Has gun - Use better gun
etc.

They found that when stores started defending themselves with bats, robbers started using guns to overcome this, instead of knives. Your just asking to be attacked by a more deadly weapon by defending yourself with a weapon.

Having guns in the populace will mean that people will break in with a gun instead of a knife;/bat, making the situation way worse.

Jono

20-10-2007, 02:12 PM

Think before you post
Daniel Bell is waiting for you
Thomas Jefferson was onto something when he said that when the law prohibits guns, then only the law-breakers will have guns. The Swiss understand this too, since they have a high rate of gun ownership and low gun crime.

Yeah, making Virginia Tech a gun-free zone really made them safe! Conversely, you can be sure that no matter how deranged Cho was, he wasn't going to try to shoot up the NRA.
Larry Elder documents some cases where an armed citizen has prevented massacres in Do "Gun-Free" Zones Encourage School Shootings? (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LarryElder/2007/10/18/do_gun-free_zones_encourage_school_shootings)

In America, it is a huge deterrent to home invaders if the house even might have home-owners who are armed. Florida's Castle Laws have been sorely lamented by burglars and leftists who excuse their crimes. John Lott (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K6dIvTFsDMkC&dq=%22john+lott%22+%22thomas+sowell%22+%22more+gun s%22&pg=PP1&ots=iPV3tlPwXa&sig=-LrnBgx2i42VWvFjo8vNgczMIwE&prev=http://www.google.com.au/search%3Fq%3D%2522john%2Blott%2522%2B%2522thomas%2 Bsowell%2522%2B%2522more%2Bguns%2522%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP9,M1) has also documented that many crimes have been stopped by guns (and here, often the threat is stronger than its execution too), but the Leftmedia usually ignore this. Sowell summarizes (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell051700.asp):

The fact is that communities which have allowed law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms have experienced a reduction in shootings — not an increase. Conversely, state laws forcing law-abiding citizens to store their weapons unloaded, or with various other restrictions, have been followed by increases in violent crime — not decreases, as predicted. Even when the national crime rate has been going down, states imposing such restrictions on guns have seen violent crime increase.

Conversely, in Britain, law-abiding citizens have been deprived of this execellent deterrent to scumbags. And of course, the scumbags just love the fact that they don't face any resistance (thanx to attitudes like Cameron's which amount to "let the scumbags walk all over you and don't fight back even if your wife was being raped or children being molested, because it will just make things worse"), so no wonder scumbaggery has gone up. NB, most criminals are rational to the point of weighing up likely costs and benefits, and the likelihood of being shot makes them reconsider whether the benefit of the crime is worth it.

Even worse, the Left have such control that a home-owner is just as likely to find himself arrested as a home-invader if the former uses "excessive force" to defend his home (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4771). We've seen it here when home-owners have been prosecuted for defending their homes from scumbags.

Kevin Bonham

20-10-2007, 08:25 PM

] John Lott (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=K6dIvTFsDMkC&dq=%22john+lott%22+%22thomas+sowell%22+%22more+gun s%22&pg=PP1&ots=iPV3tlPwXa&sig=-LrnBgx2i42VWvFjo8vNgczMIwE&prev=http://www.google.com.au/search%3Fq%3D%2522john%2Blott%2522%2B%2522thomas%2 Bsowell%2522%2B%2522more%2Bguns%2522%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26aq%3Dt%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26client%3Dfirefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP9,M1) has also documented that many crimes have been stopped by guns (and here, often the threat is stronger than its execution too), but the Leftmedia usually ignore this.

There is an enormous and complex statistical debate back and forth about the accuracy or otherwise of Lott's studies. Without getting into that in too much detail (simply for lack of time) the usual issues come up for me: corellation is not causation, and post hoc corellation is unreliable until subsequently tested over a long time. Also, didn't Lott use multiple simultaneous tests with their attendant risk of spurious corellations?

I don't mind admitting that my own view on the issue is biased by my own experience. Being non-wealthy but forthright and somewhat publicly prominent, I'm far more concerned about nutters (of whom I have attracted a fair collection) than about rationally-calculating international crime syndicates.

Even worse, the Left have such control that a home-owner is just as likely to find himself arrested as a home-invader if the former uses "excessive force" to defend his home (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4771). We've seen it here when home-owners have been prosecuted for defending their homes from scumbags.

I'm not sure how complete his account of UK home invasion cases is; after all he gives no evidence. However, assuming he's accurate, in my view the burglar should pretty much forfeit all rights, except that gratuitously shooting a burglar who is leaving the property isn't on. As far as I'm concerned if someone breaks into my house trying to steal my stuff (not that it's really worth the effort unless they really need to complete their collection of obscure mid-90s goth CDs) then they've voluntarily made themselves my property and I should be permitted, if I want to, to lock them up and keep them as a pet. Alas the law does not quite allow for this level of deterrence. :lol:

Since I've opposed pro-gun attitudes elsewhere but only stated that I am moderately pro-gun control I suppose I should state my position.

I have no problem with people of sound mind, no prior convictions and appropriate training owning a limited number of guns that are securely stored when not in use on private premises.

Should they at any point cease to be of sound mind, or acquire any conviction they should immediately and permanently forfeit the right to own or use a gun. They should also temporarily forfeit it while charged with an offence, and there should ideally be some system in which a person can file for the suspension of a gun licence of another citing any significant risk that that person is not a fit and proper gun-owner. For example, if it is highly probable based on IP evidence that a specific person has made a violence threat on the internet, they should be banned from gun ownership or use for life, even if it cannot be proven it was them.

I do not support people, except the police, military, security etc, carrying guns in public for self-defence. Perhaps I would accept a system in which specific individuals could do so if they proved they were in serious danger which temporary gun carrying rights would help them to protect themselves from. However there would probably be practical arguments against such a system.

I do not support people owning functioning guns with rapid-fire multiple-shot capacities. My view on the arguments advanced for the right to own such guns is best summed up by a brilliant cartoon by my former schoolmate Jon Kudelka, sometime cartoonist for The Australian, the caption of which read something like "As Elmer struggled to reload, the enraged rabbit charged!"

pax

20-10-2007, 09:45 PM

It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.

That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true. If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.

Gunner Duggan

20-10-2007, 10:08 PM

The Swiss understand this too, since they have a high rate of gun ownership and low gun crime.
True? Is this bog-standard gun-in-home ownership or gun elsewhere or yet another type of gun ownership I haven't considered?

Conversely, you can be sure that no matter how deranged Cho was, he wasn't going to try to shoot up the NRA.
I don't think this was worth the time posting Jon. I don't believe anyone on either side of the lobby thought that Virginia Tech was any safer on account.

However that does beg the question what the rationale was behind the gun-free zoning.

Kevin Bonham

20-10-2007, 10:42 PM

Virginia Tech also would have been a much less severe situation with an appropriate instead of blase security response, whatever the gun control regime.

Jono

20-10-2007, 11:47 PM

I don't think this was worth the time posting Jon. I don't believe anyone on either side of the lobby thought that Virginia Tech was any safer on account.
You think not? Wasn't that the whole idea of the gun ban, to make the campus safer?

However that does beg the question what the rationale was behind the gun-free zoning.
That's easy: just think about what motivates all leftists: making themselves feel morally superior. Rightists are more interested in incentives and consequences than the ostensible goals. And of course, abolishing guns on campus makes the leftists feel good because they have eliminated deadly weapons. Rightists always pointed out that someone who is prepared to break the law against murder is hardly likely to respect a law against guns. They have also predicted that a criminal is more likely to commit a crime if there is less likelihood of nasty consequences.

From the Federalist Patriot:

An Alabama family returned home after a week on vacation to find that thieves had nearly emptied the place. “Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home,” the wife and mother said. Then the tables turned. “My husband... caught the thief red-handed in our home,” she said, and he proceeded to hold the thief at gunpoint, making him clean up the mess. But wait, it gets better. When police arrived, the thief had the gall to complain about having been made to clean house. According to the Mrs., “The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead.” We guess next time the thief will choose the house with the “Gun Free Household” sticker (http://patriotshop.us/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=31) on the door.

In loony-left–controlled Britain, the husband would have been arrested!

Jono

20-10-2007, 11:53 PM

That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true. If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.
How does that work?

More likely, a crim less likely to invade a home where the inhabitants might shoot him. And it's most unlikely that he could turn the tables on a home ownder who had the drop on him, unless the home-owner was more worried about a loony left police force more likely to arrest him for defending his castle.

Frankly, gun control advocates are the local equivalents of Neville Chamberlain. I.e. don't use force against a scumbag, because it might make him angry and violent. Yet if the west had followed Churchill instead of Chamberlain, Hitler would not have been able to start WW2. E.g. if the Frogs hadn't done their usual great military tactic of retreating when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, Hitler's generals would have withdrawn. Similarly, certain people here think that we shouldn't defend ourselves against home-invaders in case they become even more violent. Yet it's the craven weakness that encourages them.

Kevin Bonham

21-10-2007, 12:00 AM

That's easy: just think about what motivates all leftists: making themselves feel morally superior.

Am I a leftist?

Actually it doesn't matter whether I am one or not. The generalisation above is crude, unsubstantiated, useless, trite and empirically false.

It is no better than someone writing "all Christians are morons with no clue about any scientific issue", which I'm sure you wouldn't take kindly to at all.

One of the hallmarks of political maturity, in my view, is an ability to realise that the other side of the broader political spectrum have a complex and varied range of motives, and furthermore, not all of them are idiots.

The comment above falls into the unperceptive and inane our-side-is-right-your-side-is-wrong basket.

Rightists are more interested in incentives and consequences than the ostensible goals.

And this one is just as sweeping a generalisation. Plenty of "rightists" on moral issues are completely obsessed with the desire to prevent certain acts on the grounds that they are "wrong", irrespective of the consequences of such actions, with the motive for doing so quite often being a perception of moral superiority of much the same kind as you accuse the leftists of.

They are the ones who most give the Right a bad name and stop many intelligent leftists taking it all that seriously. I frequently respect those who place themselves on the Right but who are not moralists, warmongers or racists. There should be some on the Left who do not conform to whatever you have against the Left and who you would therefore respect, but your comments above suggest otherwise.

Jono

21-10-2007, 12:00 AM

There is an enormous and complex statistical debate back and forth about the accuracy or otherwise of Lott's studies. Without getting into that in too much detail (simply for lack of time) the usual issues come up for me: corellation is not causation, and post hoc corellation is unreliable until subsequently tested over a long time.
Sure, but it's still better than an inverse correlation of gun control with gun-related crime.

Also, didn't Lott use multiple simultaneous tests with their attendant risk of spurious corellations?
Lott has responded to his critics.

BTW, Lott changed my mind on gun control. Before examining his stats and the reasoning of Jefferson, Sowell and others, I supported Howard's gun confiscation.

I'm not sure how complete his account of UK home invasion cases is; after all he gives no evidence. However, assuming he's accurate, in my view the burglar should pretty much forfeit all rights, except that gratuitously shooting a burglar who is leaving the property isn't on. As far as I'm concerned if someone breaks into my house trying to steal my stuff (not that it's really worth the effort unless they really need to complete their collection of obscure mid-90s goth CDs) then they've voluntarily made themselves my property and I should be permitted, if I want to, to lock them up and keep them as a pet. Alas the law does not quite allow for this level of deterrence. :lol:
That's all reasonable.

I have no problem with people of sound mind, no prior convictions and appropriate training owning a limited number of guns that are securely stored when not in use on private premises.
However, Lott pointed out cases where a home owner saved his life precisely because his gun was accessible.

Also, the PLO's favorite method of mass murder used to be machine guns, but they abandoned that precisely because many Israelis were packing heat. Here's another country where widespread gun ownership has not led to lots of gun-related crime.

Should they at any point cease to be of sound mind, or acquire any conviction they should immediately and permanently forfeit the right to own or use a gun. They should also temporarily forfeit it while charged with an offence, and there should ideally be some system in which a person can file for the suspension of a gun licence of another citing any significant risk that that person is not a fit and proper gun-owner.
That's reasonable.

I do not support people owning functioning guns with rapid-fire multiple-shot capacities. [/QUOTE]
Also reasonable.

Kevin Bonham

21-10-2007, 12:11 AM

Lott has responded to his critics.

I have seen that he has, although the abstract I could find of his response seemed to be more in the nature of an attempt to refute their counter-suggestions than an attempt to rehabilitate his own work from their criticisms. Not that that is necessarily bad, since a reasonable response to an accusation of spurious correlations through overtesting is more data showing the same correlations again. But I suspect the debate goes on ...

However, Lott pointed out cases where a home owner saved his life precisely because his gun was accessible.

I'm sure there are such cases. However, a gun that is not secured has a greater potential to be stolen and subsequently misused, not to mention the potential for accidents involving children, so I suspect the requirements to secure a weapon are well-motivated. I have noted above that they may not be especially enforceable in most contexts, so someone who has good reason to fear an attack could have a weapon at the ready without the state being any the wiser.

Also, the PLO's favorite method of mass murder used to be machine guns, but they abandoned that precisely because many Israelis were packing heat. Here's another country where widespread gun ownership has not led to lots of gun-related crime.

I wonder if that is because of a higher level of social solidarity owing to that country's unusual ethnic/political situation? Given that the reasons for widespread gun ownership in Israel differ significantly from what they are in the USA I doubt the two cases are all that comparable.

Gunner Duggan

21-10-2007, 12:27 AM

You think not? Wasn't that the whole idea of the gun ban, to make the campus safer?
As I said, it begs the question. As to your question, I shudder to think that someone, anyone could suggest that that is the case. I suspect you're correct in that was exactly the idea :wall:

That's easy: just think about what motivates all leftists: - making themselves feel morally superior.
I don't think that's their motivation. Discarding the clowns on either side of politics ('Daddy gave me a Porsche *snort*' and 'I distrust all rich people on principle'), I simply believe Lefties are misguided. I'm not sure how the linear aspect of politics got in here - however my comment is largely based on my having not contemplated the parallel between gun control and left/ right politics. At a brief pinch, I'm starting to get the idea the two are linked :doh:

And of course, abolishing guns on campus makes the leftists feel good because they have eliminated deadly weapons. Rightists always pointed out that someone who is prepared to break the law against murder is hardly likely to respect a law against guns. They have also predicted that a criminal is more likely to commit a crime if there is less likelihood of nasty consequences.
No argument with this sort of talk (broadly). I've witnessed more soft, naive hippy bollocks of this persuasion than I care to recall; the majority of which tends to be allied with the left side of things.

From the Federalist Patriot:
An Alabama family returned home after a week on vacation to find that thieves had nearly emptied the place. “Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home,” the wife and mother said. Then the tables turned. “My husband... caught the thief red-handed in our home,” she said, and he proceeded to hold the thief at gunpoint, making him clean up the mess. But wait, it gets better. When police arrived, the thief had the gall to complain about having been made to clean house. According to the Mrs., “The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead.” We guess next time the thief will choose the house with the “Gun Free Household” sticker (http://patriotshop.us/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=31) on the door.
Groan. True story? I wasn't prepared for an image of a snivel libertarian at this time of night. I try and limit my exposure to sound bytes from them on midday ABC radio (and of course, Chess Chat).

Axiom

21-10-2007, 12:27 AM

KB in case you think ive forgotten you, both posts in response to yours refused to connect through, leaving me with an invalid thread notice, and when i went back, my response posts diappeared . Last night i repeated my first post to you, but when it happened again today, i admit my frustration got the better of me( it was a damn good reposte too !) and let it go. I know its probably the bilderberg group behind this, but thought you should know ! ;)
I will respond again soon .

DanielBell

21-10-2007, 03:34 AM

That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true. If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.

It's not obvious that not defending yourself in a life threatening situation will end in you dying?

DanielBell

21-10-2007, 04:58 AM

Obviously, anyone who you wish to assist in that defence has the power to do so. So paying taxes to support a government that restricts gun use hence reducing the risk of the armed intruder getting in in the first place is one way. Not having such government control but having a gun under your bed is another. Neither is necessarily superior.

Statistically, between 1995 and 2001 break and enters rose at a steady rate, and since then they've dropped at a fast rate. Gun laws have had no impact on your risk at having your home invaded. However, statistically, violent crime has continued to rise (even before gun control). If you actually look at the specific armed robbery statistics they are decreasing until 1995 then shoot right up after 1996.. Unarmed robbery doesn't start to drop until 2001. There seems to be an overall decrease in crime in 2001, anyone know what happened in 2001 some of these decreases are huge!

If that is the case and state control of guns turns out to be the best way to reduce the risks of such life-threatening situations claiming your life, then your argument becomes an argument for state control of guns.

I can't find anything that shows gun control reduces the chance of life threatening situations.

I definitely do not feel safe checking out the yard if there's a strange noise or something without some kind of weapon (knife, bat, anything..) I might just be a wuss but it's the truth, in this area people will attack you with used syringes and all sorts of junk. My girlfriend definitely does not feel safe while I'm at work at night and people are being idiots outside.

In a trivial sense what you say about "responsibility" is true - there are many ways you can act to further your own protection and if you take none of them then there are risks involved that you may not be able to stop. But this doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to protect yourself to the max and to be armed at all times. Life would be very tedious if minimising risk in that manner was the paramount goal of all activities.

We all accept a little bit of risk in order to live our lives. We use the road even though there is a risk that someone might t-bone you and possibly kill you.. It's not like I want to walk around with a protective bubble that ensures I can not be negatively effected in any way by anything. Owning a weapon for personal protection is just an easy means of self defense. I would still lock my house up at night etc, even if I had a gun in my home, because I don't WANT to shoot anyone, and my hope would be that just letting an intruder see the weapon would be enough to deter them (which has been the case with a couple yanks I used to speak with on another forum).

Are you saying that as a statement about the law or as a statement about morals? Because if it's a statement about the law, you're incorrect, at least in my state where there is compensation available for victims of violent crime.

Apparently there is a victims of crime compensation program in NSW however it does not cover property nor any injury that does not receive a medical bill higher than $7,500. I actually spoke to a friend who recieved a pretty bad beating about 6 months ago by a group of guys who must have been bored, and asked if he made a claim but he couldn't due to the threshold.

So really, you can't sue the government for failing to protect you. It shouldn't matter if you are injured or not, if you pay your taxes so the government will keep you safe, then they should do that. I pay taxes (and would even contribute to a voluntary system) that support the police and military to assist in my self defense, but I do so knowing that I am solely responsible for my own life. The police are only useful for apprehending criminals after they have committed a crime, most of the time they do not stop a crime from taking place.

Given the choice between owning 97 dogs and having to permanently carry a gun and live in fear of being shot by nutters or obsessives in a nation with no gun control, I would find owning 97 dogs far more sensible, even if they were all chihauhas. And I don't even like dogs much, my avatar notwithstanding!

I just think you place too much emphasis on this idea that all these nutters would own guns.. To some of my friends when I talk about this stuff they think I'm some nut job that is just aching to shoot someone but I really am not. I do understand your concern with some people owning guns, of course I have this concern too, and I do not see why even without gun control you could not seek assistance from the police if someone is threatening the safety of another individual with their firearm -- abusing their rights.

I should add that I once had an obsessive pet stalker who would physically attack me (never doing any real harm) every time he saw me, unless there were witnesses who weren't his mates. This individual had drug problems that meant he could not control his propensity to attack me, except where he knew he would get caught. If he had had ready access to guns there is a substantial chance I would be dead by now. That my having a gun as well would have created a high chance that he would be dead instead isn't really much consolation.

You're assuming that he would have 1) wanted to own a gun, and 2) wanted you dead. You say that he never did any real harm.. A man can do alot of harm with his hands (or a knife).. if he wanted you dead, I'm sure you'd know about it. Regardless, you should have contacted the police.. You don't have to put up with aggression.

All this is true but in none of these situations were you shot dead. I too have been harassed and been defenseless (as described above) but rather than wishing I had had a gun to ward off the attacker, I am instead glad he did not have a gun with which to kill me.

With my point above, if someone wants you dead that bad you'd know about it. My aggressors did not want me dead, they just wanted me to feel inferior to them, or, they wanted my property. Neither of which I am prepared to accept.

That may be true, yet home invasion situations where the defender holds a gun may be more likely to end in the death of the defender, simply because most home invaders actually don't want to kill, but will do so to prevent the defender from killing them.

I wouldn't pull a gun on someone and start yelling that I am going to kill them, I'd make sure they understand if they simply leave I would not hurt them. People I have talked to who have pulled weapons on an intruder say that they ALWAYS have complied and just left, of course there would be times that someone is prepared to fight it out, but someone willing to attack someone armed with a gun is someone I don't think would kindly leave if you asked (without a gun). If you run at an intruder with a gun or a knife then of course they will attempt to defend themselves.

My flatmate was required to keep his guns in a secure locked container, but so what? Secured locked containers can be unlocked if needed. I believe this is still the legal situation - if you keep a firearm in secure locked storage you can have it in the home. Who is going to check if it is in that storage all the time or not?

The point is the law says I cannot own a gun for self defense. It's quite explicit about that. I know that I could buy a gun if I want and just tell the registrar that I am a hunter or a target shooter.. And keep the gun under my bed and not tell anyone, the point is I'd be a criminal for doing so.

I had very little choice in the matter for financial reasons. I was living in a student shared housing scheme which the individual moved into. I could not afford to move out. Of course, I could have decided to get work and quit university so that I could move out (assuming I could find any) but no-one should have to go to such lengths to get away from a potential nutter.

Everyone's a potential nutter :D

Look I get your point with the whole nutter thing, however a nutter is a nutter, if they own guns or not. So long as he doesn't threaten the life of another individual he has not committed a crime.

pax

21-10-2007, 10:21 AM

How does that work?

More likely, a crim less likely to invade a home where the inhabitants might shoot him.

How naive are you? What, you think criminals are going to give up on crime because home owners have guns? More likely they will make damn sure they are carrying their own gun and shoot first.

And it's most unlikely that he could turn the tables on a home ownder who had the drop on him, unless the home-owner was more worried about a loony left police force more likely to arrest him for defending his castle.

The thing is that the home-invader will always have the element of surprise, so it's pretty unlikely that the home owner will ever "have the drop on him" unless he is so paranoid that he is always alert and with one hand on his gun.

I wonder what the statistics are on home-invasion related murders in Australia vs the US? I would wager that the US is at least 100 times higher per capita.

Jono

21-10-2007, 02:35 PM

How naive are you? What, you think criminals are going to give up on crime because home owners have guns? More likely they will make damn sure they are carrying their own gun and shoot first.
First, I don't support laws allowing crims to have guns, just law-abiding citizens. Second, while the crim is busy stealing the jewels, the home owner can get the drop on him. So how naive are you, thinking that weakness in the face of evil is the answer. Chamberlain thought that weakness was the answer to Hitler too.

The thing is that the home-invader will always have the element of surprise, so it's pretty unlikely that the home owner will ever "have the drop on him" unless he is so paranoid that he is always alert and with one hand on his gun.
Rubbish. The invader will always make a noise, and will be concentrating on stealing. The only problem lies if the gun controllers make laws that ensure that a home owner has no time to obtain his gun.

I wonder what the statistics are on home-invasion related murders in Australia vs the US? I would wager that the US is at least 100 times higher per capita.
Why don't you tell us then? The fact remains that crims are less likely to invade homes where they are defended. You on the other hand want law-abiding citizens to be defenceless against scumbag. Not surprising really—one of the mascot groups of the Anointed is criminals. It's all society's fault.

Jono

21-10-2007, 02:40 PM

The police are only useful for apprehending criminals after they have committed a crime, most of the time they do not stop a crime from taking place.
Not likely. They are too busy raising revenue for the State Government from harmless drivers going at 120 km/h on an uncongested 8-lane highway than catching real criminals. All the more reason why law-abiding home owners should be allowed to be armed.

Jono

21-10-2007, 02:43 PM

That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true.
It's obvious to me that the stronger you are, the less appetizing you are as a target.

If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.
Nonsense. The scumbag can't hold a gun and DVD player together. So if he knows what's good for him, he'll put down the DVD player and put his hands up. And all the home-owner has to hope for is that HE won't be arrested for apprehending the scumbag, as in Britain.

And what about if a pair of home invaders was after my wife? It is perfectly warranted to use a gun to protect one's family members, even if it is not actually fired.

DanielBell

21-10-2007, 03:11 PM

How naive are you? What, you think criminals are going to give up on crime because home owners have guns? More likely they will make damn sure they are carrying their own gun and shoot first.

The thing is that the home-invader will always have the element of surprise, so it's pretty unlikely that the home owner will ever "have the drop on him" unless he is so paranoid that he is always alert and with one hand on his gun.

I wonder what the statistics are on home-invasion related murders in Australia vs the US? I would wager that the US is at least 100 times higher per capita.

In the US statistics show areas with gun control are LESS SAFE than areas without it.. In the USA the phrase 'More guns, less crime' is actually true.. However people just claim the 'correlation doesn't equal causation' line to try and dismiss it. Most statistics show that less people are killed in Australia with guns even before gun control, because Australians have never been really into guns like the Americans were.. And even still, Canada has more guns per capita than the US yet has less gun related deaths. Canada has gun control in place however the point still stands that more guns do not equal more crime.

DanielBell

21-10-2007, 03:13 PM

It's obvious to me that the stronger you are, the less appetizing you are as a target.

When in Oklahoma they started advertising gun training courses for women, crime against women such as rape and assault dropped significantly.

Kevin Bonham

21-10-2007, 03:57 PM

Statistically, between 1995 and 2001 break and enters rose at a steady rate, and since then they've dropped at a fast rate. Gun laws have had no impact on your risk at having your home invaded. However, statistically, violent crime has continued to rise (even before gun control). If you actually look at the specific armed robbery statistics they are decreasing until 1995 then shoot right up after 1996.. Unarmed robbery doesn't start to drop until 2001. There seems to be an overall decrease in crime in 2001, anyone know what happened in 2001 some of these decreases are huge!

Which country are you talking about? Australia?

Just looking at rates in one country proves nothing because you don't know whether gun control was the cause of the changes or whether they changed for other reasons.

I can't find anything that shows gun control reduces the chance of life threatening situations.

There is a massive debate out there; if you get into it thoroughly you will find people arguing both for and against gun control using statistical arguments that are probably way beyond most people engaging with this debate.

I definitely do not feel safe checking out the yard if there's a strange noise or something without some kind of weapon (knife, bat, anything..) I might just be a wuss but it's the truth, in this area people will attack you with used syringes and all sorts of junk. My girlfriend definitely does not feel safe while I'm at work at night and people are being idiots outside.

I've got no problem at all with someone packing a bat while they're checking out their own yard.

So really, you can't sue the government for failing to protect you. It shouldn't matter if you are injured or not, if you pay your taxes so the government will keep you safe, then they should do that.

I don't think anyone expects paying taxes to keep people absolutely safe. The issue is maintaining a reasonable level of safety. (If anyone's got arguments that this could be done better for all rather than just the rich if it was privatised, I'm willing to hear them ... but extremely sceptical!)

The police are only useful for apprehending criminals after they have committed a crime, most of the time they do not stop a crime from taking place.

In the case of a crime where the criminal has made a decision to commit the crime irrespective of their existence that is no doubt true. However their ability to arrest the criminal post offence is some deterrent.

I just think you place too much emphasis on this idea that all these nutters would own guns..

Even if a small proportion of them own guns then it could be fatal. Having lived with one who did (although he was no threat to me at the time) my experience is that a small proportion of them may. I'm not keen on anything that even may make that proportion larger.

To some of my friends when I talk about this stuff they think I'm some nut job that is just aching to shoot someone but I really am not.

I don't think most people who would like to own guns are violent at all, most of them have very understandable reasons for wanting to doing so. I'm just concerned about the consequences of there being more guns about.

and I do not see why even without gun control you could not seek assistance from the police if someone is threatening the safety of another individual with their firearm -- abusing their rights.

Only useful when you know there is a threat; when the gun-user is threatening someone in an organised fashion.

You're assuming that he would have 1) wanted to own a gun, and 2) wanted you dead. You say that he never did any real harm..

1) fits what I know of his repugnant personality pretty well (this is no reflection on people who want to own guns for valid reasons) and as for 2) his failure to do me serious harm reflected a lack of opportunity and organisation rather than intent. He'd only ever have time for a quick attack before a witness appeared; the most he ever managed was trashing my sunglasses (which I repaired). Anyway, in the case of an individual suffering from very severe drug-related psychosis or similar disorders, what they want is quite irrelevant. The issue is what their disorder causes them to do.

Regardless, you should have contacted the police..

I did. But because he only ever attacked me in situations where I had no witnesses (and his friends who were with him at the time of the first attack lied about it, although they were all on drugs while I was completely sober) there was nothing I could do except for getting a restraining order. I didn't have much more trouble from him after that, but that was mainly because he happened to leave the state.

With my point above, if someone wants you dead that bad you'd know about it.

We're not dealing with an individual who would want me dead in an organised round-the-clock fashion here. We're dealing with someone who would snap insanely and become aggressive whenever he saw me.

I wouldn't pull a gun on someone and start yelling that I am going to kill them, I'd make sure they understand if they simply leave I would not hurt them. People I have talked to who have pulled weapons on an intruder say that they ALWAYS have complied and just left,

People who are in a position to talk about it afterwards are a slightly skewed sample.

Anyway, I'm not totally against the idea of people being allowed to have a weapon in the home for self-defence provided it is securely stored when not needed for that purpose. I realise the secure storage requirement limits how effective it might be in the case of a sudden break-in, but that has to be balanced against the risks of theft of the weapon and use of the weapon in domestic situations.

Everyone's a potential nutter :D

If that's so, it's all the more reason why guns should not be readily available.

Look I get your point with the whole nutter thing, however a nutter is a nutter, if they own guns or not. So long as he doesn't threaten the life of another individual he has not committed a crime.

And a nutter who doesn't own a gun is a much less serious threat. You can often run away from a thug, but you can't run away from a gun.

Kevin Bonham

21-10-2007, 04:18 PM

In the US statistics show areas with gun control are LESS SAFE than areas without it.. In the USA the phrase 'More guns, less crime' is actually true.. However people just claim the 'correlation doesn't equal causation' line to try and dismiss it.

That's because correlation really doesn't necessarily equal causation. And that is not something that just applies to arguments against gun control but also to some arguments for them. For instance, Australia has not had a mass gun shooting since Port Arthur, although there were several in the 80s and early 90s. Does this prove gun control has stopped mass shootings in Australia? No it doesn't.

Crime goes up and down in waves for reasons often completely unrelated to gun availability. If the crime rate is rising, then gun control is introduced because of this, and it continues rising, then that doesn't prove that gun control has caused the rise. It may well have curtailed it. Your claims are very similar to John Lott's. Jono mentioned above that Lott had replied to his critics. His critics have then replied again (http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_comment.pdf), and they write:

"But after seeing this Reply to the original Lott, Plassmann, and Whitley paper [I suspect this is Lott's "reply" which Jono refers to-KB], Lott
asked the Stanford Law Review to take his name off the work. We hope that
this indicates that the arguments in our Reply have caused the primary
proponent of the more guns, less crime hypothesis to at least partially amend
his views. We note that to this day, legislators are still voting for the adoption of concealed-carry laws while citing Lott’s work."

Thus Jono's claim that Lott has replied to his critics appears to be incorrect, unless there is another reply. The final version of "Confirming More Guns, Less Crime" was actually written by Plassman and Whiteley without Lott as an author.

Most statistics show that less people are killed in Australia with guns even before gun control, because Australians have never been really into guns like the Americans were..

What are these "most statistics" you refer to?

And even still, Canada has more guns per capita than the US yet has less gun related deaths.

But are these cases comparable? A gun in a poor urban ghetto is far more likely to kill someone who isn't its owner than a gun owned by a farmer or hunter living in a sparsely populated area. I'd expect Canada to have more of the latter and less of the former per head of population. Even if not, economic inequality would be less severe in Canada and I expect it would correlate strongly with crime.

pax

21-10-2007, 05:09 PM

In the US statistics show areas with gun control are LESS SAFE than areas without it.. In the USA the phrase 'More guns, less crime' is actually true.. However people just claim the 'correlation doesn't equal causation' line to try and dismiss it. Most statistics show that less people are killed in Australia with guns even before gun control, because Australians have never been really into guns like the Americans were.. And even still, Canada has more guns per capita than the US yet has less gun related deaths. Canada has gun control in place however the point still stands that more guns do not equal more crime.

The problem in the US is that if you live in a state with significant gun control laws, it is trivially easy to cross a border to another state to obtain guns. Illegally obtaining hand guns in Australia however is substantially more difficult.

Boris

21-10-2007, 06:58 PM

Reminds me of a story I heard where a traveller sheltering from the rain under someone's awning got his head blown off for his trouble.

Axiom

21-10-2007, 10:01 PM

Reminds me of a story I heard where a traveller sheltering from the rain under someone's awning got his head blown off for his trouble.
which reminds me of the story of the guy scratching his bottom getting struck by lightning :doh:

Jono

21-10-2007, 11:54 PM

The problem in the US is that if you live in a state with significant gun control laws, it is trivially easy to cross a border to another state to obtain guns.
This proves Jefferson's point. Same with Virginia Tech. I.e., gun control laws harm the law-abiding and enable the scum.

Illegally obtaining hand guns in Australia however is substantially more difficult.
Point. All the same, the infamous gun massacre that led JH to confiscate our guns was possible only because everyone was defenceless. As Lott documented, many times a massacre has been prevented because another citizen had access to a gun.

Jono

26-10-2007, 12:14 PM

Axiom

26-10-2007, 02:06 PM

Jay Leno:

A new study found that screeners at L.A. International Airport missed 75 percent of the big bombs that were sent through the line as tests. However, they did confiscate 100 percent of people’s water bottles, which forced them to buy new ones at the airport gift shop.

What else do you expect from government-run things? Overlooking real bombs, but making sure that they confiscate the nail scissors of little old arthritic grandmothers, after making them take bend down in arthritic pain to remove their shoes. Well, can't have Granny telling the pilot, "Take us to Mecca or I'll clip your nails to death!"
But people still worship their government,still think their precious government loves them,and never lies to them.
It matters not how many documented false flags government commits, nor how many frauds like man made GW ,War on drugs or War on terror they propogate. It matters not how monitored or surveilled we are, nor does it matter how grossly ill informed we are by our media. They still will back the government line every time without so much as a whimpering question.

Jono

26-10-2007, 03:03 PM

But people still worship their government,still think their precious government loves them,and never lies to them.
It matters not how many documented false flags government commits, nor how many frauds like man made GW ,War on drugs or War on terror they propogate. It matters not how monitored or surveilled we are, nor does it matter how grossly ill informed we are by our media. They still will back the government line every time without so much as a whimpering question.
Yeah, one wonders whether the crap that airline passengers are subjected to is a test to see how much BS they will put up with from government flunkies. Far too many of them still think that the more annoyed and harrassed they are by the Airport Gestapo, the safer the flight will be.

Kevin Bonham

26-10-2007, 03:34 PM

What else do you expect from government-run things? Overlooking real bombs, but making sure that they confiscate the nail scissors of little old arthritic grandmothers, after making them take bend down in arthritic pain to remove their shoes. Well, can't have Granny telling the pilot, "Take us to Mecca or I'll clip your nails to death!"

Yeah, I almost had the back door key to my house confiscated because it distantly resembles a screwdriver and there was a concern I might dismantle an aeroplane with it. In the end I was allowed to transport it as checked-in baggage in a huge zipup white red and blue plastic bag by its own. Which was nice, because I got to keep the bag. :lol:

Jono

26-10-2007, 03:38 PM

Good grief, more nonsense. Always trying to foil the previous terrorist attack. They must be laughing. Yet another 9-11 would probably need about half the passengers to be terrorists; if they tried again with a handful of terrorists armed with boxcutters, the other passengers would tear them limb from limb (apart from the civil libertarians ;)).

Gunner Duggan

26-10-2007, 03:42 PM

... apart from the civil libertarians ;)
:lol:

Kevin Bonham

07-12-2007, 04:28 PM

Jono

07-12-2007, 04:51 PM

I note that Nebraska's gun laws, among the laxest in the universe, did absolutely nothing to save the lives of the eight people shot dead (besides himself) by the latest American mass shooter.

This unfortunately underlines the point I was making about the temporarily deranged. The possibility that someone will be armed may deter calculating criminals who do not wish to be shot, but does not deter people who don't care whether they live or die, or who actively wish to die, and who wish to take a bunch of others with them.
It's still notable that they are still often rational enough to start firing in places with gun control rules. Virginia Tech is the most notorious example: passing a gun ban on campus not long before a loony murder shot many of the innocent people rendered defenceless. Loonies don't try shooting up NRA conventions. And the Palestinian terrorists switched to suicide bombing from gun attacks because too many Israelis were armed.

TheJoker

07-12-2007, 05:20 PM

It's still notable that they are still often rational enough to start firing in places with gun control rules. Virginia Tech is the most notorious example: passing a gun ban on campus not long before a loony murder shot many of the innocent people rendered defenceless. Loonies don't try shooting up NRA conventions. And the Palestinian terrorists switched to suicide bombing from gun attacks because too many Israelis were armed.

So i take it your point is by relaxing gun laws and allowing more people to be armed we increase our risk of being victims of suicide bombings:eek:

Hell you've convinced me tighten up to those guns laws, before we have people detonating themselves in the local Westfields:lol:

Kevin Bonham

07-12-2007, 05:47 PM

It's still notable that they are still often rational enough to start firing in places with gun control rules.

Or maybe what this reflects is not them being "rational" at all, but simply that schools and colleges often have gun control rules, and schools and colleges are where disturbed young people likely to inflict these massacres are most likely to carry them out.

Virginia Tech is the most notorious example: passing a gun ban on campus not long before a loony murder shot many of the innocent people rendered defenceless.

Is there any evidence that the gun ban was a motivating factor in his choice of venue?

Loonies don't try shooting up NRA conventions.

Loonies often try shooting up whatever they happen to be either near or else aggreived by at the time they go over the edge. Since NRA conventions represent a truly trivial proportion of the land area at any given time, the chance of a gun massacre by a random loonie at one is miniscule for reasons having nothing to do with the place being so well armed. I'm sure one could provide a similar list of things loonies have never (yet) shot up and make all kinds of other spurious causal connections in the reverse direction on that basis.

And the Palestinian terrorists switched to suicide bombing from gun attacks because too many Israelis were armed.

That's not comparable to the case of a country at peace (sort-of) where gun ownership rates are unlikely to be as high.

Jono

07-12-2007, 06:07 PM

So i take it your point is by relaxing gun laws and allowing more people to be armed we increase our risk of being victims of suicide bombings:eek:
No, that it would simply decrease the rate of gun shootings. It's likely that in Australia, unlike Israel, we would not get suicide bombings because there are no countries trying funding those who would wipe us off the map.

My main point is a libertarian one, that allows people to defend themselves, and the pragmatic one noted by Thomas Jefferson: that laws against guns mean that only the lawless will have guns.

Jono

11-12-2007, 12:23 AM

A Colorado church was attacked by a crazed gunman early Sunday morning 9 Dec. 2007. But this wasn't like the Virginia Tech massacre against unarmed people thanx to their enlightened disarmament policy (of course no one thinking of violating the law against murder would dare to violate a law against carrying a gun on campus). This scumbag was shot by one of the church's armed security guards (http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=5169420&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.3.1):

A gunman in a black trench coat and a high-powered rifle entered the church’s main foyer shortly after 1 p.m. and began shooting, Myers said.

The church’s 11 a.m. service had recently ended, and hundreds of people were milling about when the gunman opened fire. Nearby were parents picking up their children from the nursery.

Police arrived to find the gunman had been killed by a member of the church’s armed security staff, (Colorado Springs police chief Richard) Myers said.

“There was a courageous staff member who probably saved many lives here today,” Myers said.

Trent Parker

11-12-2007, 12:28 PM

People against gun control should be shot!!

LoL Just Kidding....

Trent Parker

11-12-2007, 12:30 PM

but in all honesty I think I read somewhere that in the US someone is getting shot every minute. Over time gun related crime would decrease due to more and more guns being taken off the street.

Jono

11-12-2007, 12:46 PM

but in all honesty I think I read somewhere that in the US someone is getting shot every minute. Over time gun related crime would decrease due to more and more guns being taken off the street.
Then please answer Thomas Jefferson's point: laws against guns mean that only the lawless will have guns.

Kevin Bonham

11-12-2007, 09:26 PM

Then please answer Thomas Jefferson's point: laws against guns mean that only the lawless will have guns.

Not having a gun may make some proportion of potential offenders disinclined to commit a lawless act in the first place.

Especially when that lawless act is a spur of the moment one.

ElevatorEscapee

11-12-2007, 09:48 PM

Then please answer Thomas Jefferson's point: laws against guns mean that only the lawless will have guns.

Well, the lawless may have guns, but so will the law enforcers. Let them battle it out between themselves. Our society pays money to equip law enforcers to take on the lawless, and even to put themselves at such risks.

In the old American West, there was a lack of law enforcers, therefore the cowboy attitude held sway. (Hence Jefferson's comment). However, the world has changed very much since Jefferson was in power.

In Australia, I may often find myself annoyed by neighbours using power tools or gardening equipment when I want to sleep, study, etc... and I jokingly think, 'wouldn't it be great to be able to lob a hand grenade over the fence and shut them up!'.

Of course, no, it wouldn't be great, it would be horrible!... as it would case death and destruction to people whose greatest crime was only to 'annoy' me at a particular time. Furthermore, it would cause a great loss to that person's immediate family.

How could I be justified for such an act considering that, I dare say, I inadvertantly annoy each and every one of these neighbours in a similar way?

All I can say is that I am very glad that Aussies don't have access to the same insane/"over the top" amount of weaponry that United Statesians consider their constitutional rights.

That's just my two penneth worth. :)

Jono

12-12-2007, 01:20 AM

Well, the lawless may have guns, but so will the law enforcers. Let them battle it out between themselves. Our society pays money to equip law enforcers to take on the lawless, and even to put themselves at such risks.
Oh wow. But try getting them to attend a burglary. No, they are too busy manning revenue collectors speed cameras. And if you hurt the scumbag, they are just as likely to arrest you as the scumbag.

Joke: from his bedroom window, a home-owner sees lights on in his garage, that connects to his house. He calls the Polizei, and they say that they are too busy to attend for the next hour.

He hangs up, then a minute later, he phones them again, saying, "Don't bother, I've just shot the bastards!"

Five minutes later, the sirens blare, and the police arrive, and catch the burglars. But they angrily said to the house owner, "I thought you said that you had shot them".

He replied, "I thought you said you had no cops available!"

In the old American West, there was a lack of law enforcers, therefore the cowboy attitude held sway. (Hence Jefferson's comment). However, the world has changed very much since Jefferson was in power.
Human nature hasn't changed. Virginia Tech was disarmed, hence they were defenceless against a mass murder, and the result was a massacre. But at New Life Church in Colorado, the heroine Jeanne Assam (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1003), a church member and security guard, was exercising her constitutional right to carry a gun, and shot the murderer thus preventing a massacre.

In Australia, I may often find myself annoyed by neighbours using power tools or gardening equipment when I want to sleep, study, etc... and I jokingly think, 'wouldn't it be great to be able to lob a hand grenade over the fence and shut them up!'.

Of course, no, it wouldn't be great, it would be horrible!... as it would case death and destruction to people whose greatest crime was only to 'annoy' me at a particular time. Furthermore, it would cause a great loss to that person's immediate family.
Yes, it would be horrible. But in Israel and Switzerland, with a very high rate of gun ownership, this doesn't happen. And it doesn't happen in America either.

Jono

12-12-2007, 01:54 AM

"Are you a Democrat, a Republican or a Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.
The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.
Suddenly, an individual of “no appearance” with a huge knife comes around
the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises
the knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a Glock 9mm, and you can shoot. You have mere
seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?

Democrat Answer:
Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this
send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he
was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this a happier,
healthier country to discourage such behaviour.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

Republican Answer:
BANG!

Southern Republican’s Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click
Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Mag Safe’s or the Speer
Hollow Points?”
Son: “Can I shoot the next one!”
Wife: “You ain’t taking that to the Taxidermist!”

frogmogdog

12-12-2007, 09:25 AM

logic 101 for the j's:

"if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws have guns."

"if X is outlawed, then only outlaws have/do X."

"if pacificism is outlawed, then only outlaws are pacificists."

so....?

frogmogdog

12-12-2007, 09:10 PM

Axiom

12-12-2007, 10:06 PM

hmmm, maybe the exam was too hard?

anyway, the correct answer is:

if obeying laws is outlawed, then only outlaws obey laws.

mr jefferson:clap:

(PS. yup the avatar is outdated, just pretend it's kevin's smile on a cheshire cat.)

LOGIC 100:- Outlaws are significantly more interested in owning a gun than they are in either pacifism or obeying laws !

Jefferson was not implying a logical sequence in his famous quotation, but rather an observation of the resulting reality.

THE

12-12-2007, 10:14 PM

hmmm, maybe the exam was too hard?

anyway, the correct answer is:

if obeying laws is outlawed, then only outlaws obey laws.

mr jefferson:clap:Personally I'd put the blame on those who made such laws. (One obeys the law iff one disobeys the law.)

Jono

13-12-2007, 08:56 PM

Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/12/13/praise_the_lord_and_pass_the_ammunition)
By Cal Thomas
13 December 2007

I have been waiting for this to happen. For years we have witnessed the carnage when innocents were mowed down at schools, colleges, shopping malls and post offices. The unarmed (disarmed?) were easy targets for crazed gunmen armed with grievances, weapons and ammunition.

Now someone has shot back, probably saving many lives. All of the gun-control laws that have been passed and are still being contemplated could not have had the affect of one armed, trained and law-abiding citizen on the scene like 42-year-old Jeanne Assam, a volunteer security guard at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

...

Killers — ones with mental disorders, or terrorists — look for places with large gatherings to amplify their acts. That’s why in recent years they have selected targets ranging from the World Trade Center, to Columbine High School, to shopping malls and now a megachurch. On the rare occasions when an armed person has been on the scene before police arrive, such acts have been stopped before further damage could be done. When no armed person has been present, by the time the police show up the killing is usually over and the gunman has shot himself.

The point is that gun laws will not deter criminals with evil intent and police can’t be everywhere they’re needed. But killers can be stopped by law-abiding citizens with guns. As the Supreme Court considers its ruling on whether the strict gun laws in the District of Columbia are constitutional, it might remember Jeanne Assam and her courageous, proper and for now legal response to a lawless act. Though four were killed at the two locations and several others wounded, many more owe their lives to Assam, who should be the new poster woman for those who wish to preserve the right to keep and bear arms.

frogmogdog

14-12-2007, 01:58 PM

hi jono.

as a kid i had a picture book bible, but just recall stuff about turning the other cheek.

come to think of it, my bible also didn't mention Jesus's aspirations to upgrade his donkey to a lamborghini, or his anger at the money lenders for failing to maximise profits.

is the multiheaded dog edition better for a man of Christ to work off?

any advice gratefully received, thanks!

Jono

14-12-2007, 02:41 PM

hi jono.

as a kid i had a picture book bible, but just recall stuff about turning the other cheek.
The first thing is that “turn the other cheek” has nothing to do with self-defence. Note that Jesus said ‘if anyone slaps you on the right cheek’ (Mt. 5:39), and the only way a right-handed person could slap your right cheek is backhanded. So this was a form of insult, not a threat to life.

Second, this command governs two individuals, not those tasked with defending others. E.g. the Bible allows a home owner to use force against a night-time home invader, even lethal (Ex. 22:2). It also allows the government to use lethal force to restrain crime, hence the government “does not bear the sword in vain” (Romans 13:4).

Jesus also commended a centurion for his great faith (Mt. 8), and the first gentile Christian convert was Cornelius, a centurion in the Italian regiment. There isn’t the slightest hint that they were expected to give up their military profession, which entails the use of lethal force at times.

Jesus also endorsed the reality of deterrence through strength, where a king facing a much stronger army will sue for peace (Luke 14:31–32). Churchill and Reagan certainly recognized this principle, and the corollary that weakness and appeasment embolden evil regimes.

come to think of it, my bible also didn't mention Jesus's aspirations to upgrade his donkey to a lamborghini, or his anger at the money lenders for failing to maximise profits.
It's the LOVE for money that's the "root of all kinds of evil", not money per se.

Jesus supported the principle of the tithe, which was a flat tax (God prospers you 10 times as must, you pay 10x as much, not 50 times as per “progressive” taxation — an inspiration for President Reagan’s policies).

Jesus also supported the right of an employer to make individual employment contracts, based on his right to do as he pleased with his own money and the fact that the employees freely entered into them. Interestingly, most got MORE than the prevailing hourly "award wage" (Mt. 20).

is the multiheaded dog edition better for a man of Christ to work off?

any advice gratefully received, thanks
Try a modern translation, and learn about the grammatical and historical context.

frogmogdog

15-12-2007, 12:22 PM

Jono

16-12-2007, 01:39 AM

thanks jono, appreciate the reply.

i disagree with most of the conclusions (of course), but it's interesting to hear work arounds for the possibility that Jesus was an egalitarian with a non-violent streak.
One irony is that some supporting both propositions will argue for the former with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the money-lenders in the temple :lol: And a reminder: one can support generosity to the poor without supporting the government forcibly redistributing wealth.

cheers, and best wishes to you and your family for christmas.
Thanx, you too.

Trent Parker

22-12-2007, 04:19 AM

"if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws have guns."

not true. Law enforcement have guns!

For me its one or two simple equations

Gun Crime = Law abiding gun owner + Thief of gun from Law abiding gun Owner.

Therefore if there are less gun owners and less guns to be thieved then there is less guns and less gun related crime

Axiom

22-12-2007, 02:53 PM

Gun Owners Group Condemns "Treacherous" Passage Of Anti-Second Amendment Legislation
" Veterans bill" passed by House and Senate without recorded vote

Steve Watson
*******s.net
Friday, Dec 21, 2007

Gun owners and second amendment rights groups have condemned the passage by Congress yesterday of legislation that re-writes the law in order to regulate gun ownership.

Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday by Aaron Zelman, Executive Director of the pro second amendment group Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, to discuss the passing by Congress of the "NICS Improvement Act"

Opponents have dubbed the bill, the "veterans disarmament act" as it will place any veteran who has ever been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) on the federal gun ban list.

The bill, HR 2640, passed in the House in June and was later passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee both times without a recorded vote. Gun owners have been trying to raise awareness and beat down the legislation ever since.

The bill, sponsored by outspoken anti-second amendment representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), also applies to anyone who has been diagnosed with ADHD as a child and to anyone who develops Alzheimer's. Gun owners fear that in time the diagnosis of any kind of mental affliction could end with rights being stripped.

"This was a combined effort between the NRA and Carolyn McCarthy and Charlie Schumer, to appear to be doing something good, but in reality it brings about a great deal of evil." Aaron Zelman commented on the Alex Jones show.

(Article continues below)

"One example that has really concerned me for many months since this bill was introduced, I haven't seen a clear definition of what a mental health problem is, does that mean somebody who was depressed for a week if there was a death in the family? They got a few pills from their doctor or does it mean something much more severe?" Zelman continued.

The legislation is another case that hinges on the government's incessant creation of psychological profiles for everything that are then used to categorize people and accordingly strip rights.

Section 102((1)©(iv) in HR 2640 provides for dumping raw medical records into the system which will then, by law, serve as the basis for gun banning.

The bill radically redefines key legal terms to allow gun ownership rights to be stripped on the findings of a psychiatric diagnosis, where in the past gun rights could only be withdrawn through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court with the protections of due process.

"This really opens a door for the ATF, to come smashing the door down actually in your home because lets say you owned guns prior to someone saying you have a mental health issue, well that means you can't keep the guns you have. So this will give a whole new emphasis to ATF to justify their budget and their thuggery." Zelman stressed during yesterday's interview.

"This bill is treachery on behalf of the NRA and the usual group of gun haters. it should be a red flag to everybody who is listening to your program that the battle to destroy the second amendment has started. The war on guns is in full force." Zelman continued.

The legislation also mirrors policy of Bill Clinton's administration over seven years ago when some 83,000 veterans were illegitimately added into the National Criminal Information System (NICS system) -- prohibiting them from purchasing firearms, simply because of afflictions like PTSD.

Section 101(c)(1)(C) of HR 2640 would rubber-stamp those illegal actions. Over 140,000 law-abiding veterans would be statutorily barred from possessing firearms.

Furthermore, the legislation passed the Senate and the House on a voice vote, meaning there is no record of who voted for it. The bill will now go to the President's desk

The veterans disarmament act is tantamount to declaring the fear of an authoritarian government, the cornerstone of the second amendment, a mental illness. Once again we are witnessing another all out attack on the basic founding principles of the American Republic.

"The supreme court may say yes you have a right to gun ownership but the government has a right to regulate. That regulation could also include taxation. The battle is on and anyone who thinks, well no, we're gonna win the day and things are going to turn out OK, they need to take an anti-Naive pill." Zelman urged yesterday.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership's website has more information and advice on what action can be taken to combat the legislation

"As we have shown people in our film, innocents betrayed, when governments take guns they are able to demonize a group of people, they are abe to determine whether that group of people will live or die, and they are able to control the entire society because no one can resist effectively." Zelman concluded.

Listen to the full interview with Aaron Zelman here.

Jono

22-12-2007, 10:58 PM

not true. Law enforcement have guns!
But they can't be everywhere. Here, they are too busy raising revenue on the roads. In the Colorado Church, the massacre was prevented by an armed heroine, unlike the disarmed Virginia Tech where the shooter had no resisted.

For me its one or two simple equations

Gun Crime = Law abiding gun owner + Thief of gun from Law abiding gun Owner.
Not if the gun owner can get to his gun.

Therefore if there are less gun owners and less guns to be thieved then there is less guns and less gun related crime
But this has not worked out in practice. Crime, both gun-related and not, has often increased when the crims know that their victims will be defenseless. But Israel and Switzerland have lots of legal guns and very little gun crime.

Firehorse66

26-12-2007, 07:40 PM

IMHO Gun laws should not be so strict.

AK's are not licenced in SA and yet most crimes are done with them. Where do they get tehm? So liscenced or not, the outlaw will always find a gun if he needs one.

Besides guns you have other weapons. For example if we get rid of guns then the "knifers" will rule.

The government might have its own agenda but the guns of law enforcement officers are carried by individuals.

The cop and the criminal are both part of the same duality. In effect a cop is a man with a criminal in the dark side of his ego peronality and a resquer in the light side of his ego personality. If this cop has a pressing problem he might turn.

Kevin Bonham

26-12-2007, 08:02 PM

Besides guns you have other weapons. For example if we get rid of guns then the "knifers" will rule.

That may or may not be the case ... but you've got much better chances of outrunning a thug with a knife than outrunning a bullet.

Firehorse66

27-12-2007, 01:29 AM

That may or may not be the case ... but you've got much better chances of outrunning a thug with a knife than outrunning a bullet. I can imagine where all this will lead if we systematically remove all weapons. Eventually the stongest fastest biggest people will resort to more and more primitive means to harm the weaker older slower,smaller.

This guns issue is not really the root of the problem here. To solve this issue we need to dig deeper into the motivations that cause these misdeeds to happen.

Jono

27-12-2007, 02:08 AM

This guns issue is not really the root of the problem here. To solve this issue we need to dig deeper into the motivations that cause these misdeeds to happen.
"Root causes" stuff has not solved crime. Disincentives to commit crime has done much more. Thomas Sowell said (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2966):

Gun control laws are like OSHA for criminals. When criminals have guns and their victims don't, crime becomes a safer occupation. In some countries with strict gun-control laws, burglars enter houses while people are still at home several times as often as that happens in the United States.

Locking up criminals is another proven way of preventing their preying on the innocent public.

Kevin Bonham

27-12-2007, 10:29 PM

I can imagine where all this will lead if we systematically remove all weapons.

I'm not proposing that and I don't think many serious advocates of any degree of gun control are.

Eventually the stongest fastest biggest people will resort to more and more primitive means to harm the weaker older slower,smaller.

Pretty much any form of violence unprovoked by the same is pretty "primitive" IMO. I don't really draw a distinction between beating someone up with fists and shooting them with a gun in that regard.

This guns issue is not really the root of the problem here.

Agreed, but "the problem" may not even be solvable - yet until a solution appears, we can still look for ways to make its impacts less severe.

Firehorse66

27-12-2007, 11:51 PM

I'm not proposing that and I don't think many serious advocates of any degree of gun control are. No I am just generalizing. In SA now we have serious pressure from the Government to get rid of our liscenced arms. They want to remove them here and now they focused on the liscenced owners.

Reminds me a bit about the preacher who vents his anger at the people who came to church about the lack of church goers nowadays.

Pretty much any form of violence unprovoked by the same is pretty "primitive" IMO. I don't really draw a distinction between beating someone up with fists and shooting them with a gun in that regard. We often have fist fights and minor skirmishes in pubs and night clubs and the like. The private people carrying guns would rather slap you if you provoke them than pull a gun on you. We don't really take this serious. The violence we mostly refer to is mugging and robbing. That normally happens with unliscenced arms.

Agreed, but "the problem" may not even be solvable - yet until a solution appears, we can still look for ways to make its impacts less severe. I think part of the solution would be to scale down on advertising. Advertising creates greed and greed creates lots of situations that leads to crime. We have so much advertising here it's a wonder we don't have more road accidents. In some countries billboards on a Highway is forbidden. Here by us everything goes.

Axiom

08-03-2008, 03:13 PM

A Little Gun History Lesson
3-7-8

* In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine.

* In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.

* China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million

* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

* Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum.

* Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED.

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard University 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor and our Army had been deprived of funding and was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. and knew that almost all households had guns.