PDA

View Full Version : Pro Or Anti Gun Control ?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Axiom
19-10-2007, 10:09 PM
Think before you post
Daniel Bell is waiting for you

DanielBell
19-10-2007, 10:17 PM
lol..

I'm extremely against gun control. It is ultimately each man and womens responsibility to protect his life, liberty and property. The government has no right to remove this right.

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

And to support Axiom in a way, maybe even more dangerous is perhaps the fact that the government is armed, the citizens are not. This is a dangerous situation IMHO.

ElevatorEscapee
19-10-2007, 10:47 PM
Should this question not be a poll?

Your possible answers:
Yes: this question should not be a poll... or taking a contrary view...
No: this question should not be a poll. :P

Axiom
19-10-2007, 10:53 PM
Should this question not be a poll?

Your possible answers:
Yes: this question should not be a poll... or taking a contrary view...
No: this question should not be a poll. :P
or
should this question be obfuscated by introducing the question of a poll
or no this question should not be obfuscated by introducing the question of a poll :doh:

ElevatorEscapee
19-10-2007, 11:08 PM
Should this thread be hijacked by people correcting the spelling of the word "obfuscated", or should people who attempt such a pedantic spelling correction have their obfuscation rights confiscated? :P

(In answer to everyone else's query, I don't know what my above sentence is supposed to mean either...)

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.

Capablanca-Fan
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.

Basil
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.

Capablanca-Fan
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!

Capablanca-Fan
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.

Capablanca-Fan
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.

Basil
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.

Capablanca-Fan
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.

Capablanca-Fan
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.

Capablanca-Fan
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.

Desmond
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:

Capablanca-Fan
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.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2007, 12:14 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!"

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.

Capablanca-Fan
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:

Capablanca-Fan
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 ;)).

Basil
26-10-2007, 03:42 PM
... apart from the civil libertarians ;)
:lol:

Kevin Bonham
07-12-2007, 03:28 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.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 03:51 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, 04:20 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, 04:47 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.

Capablanca-Fan
07-12-2007, 05:07 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.

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2007, 11:23 PM
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, 11:28 AM
People against gun control should be shot!!

LoL Just Kidding....

Trent Parker
11-12-2007, 11:30 AM
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.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2007, 11:46 AM
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, 08:26 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, 08:48 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. :)

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2007, 12:20 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.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2007, 12:54 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, 08:25 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, 08:10 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.)

Axiom
12-12-2007, 09:06 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.

Aaron Guthrie
12-12-2007, 09:14 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.)

Capablanca-Fan
13-12-2007, 07:56 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, 12:58 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!

Capablanca-Fan
14-12-2007, 01:41 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, 11:22 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.

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

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2007, 12:39 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, 03:19 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, 01:53 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.

Capablanca-Fan
22-12-2007, 09:58 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, 06:40 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, 07:02 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, 12:29 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.

Capablanca-Fan
27-12-2007, 01:08 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, 09:29 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, 10:51 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, 02:13 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.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2008, 02:54 PM
A Little Gun History Lesson
Good post. Britain's crime rate has also skyrocketed since the Anointed removed guns from the law-abiding people. All this did was make sure that the lawbreakers were the only ones with arms.

The gun control lobby uses dishonest stats, e.g. ignoring the facts that most crime prevented by guns involves the threat rather than its execution (Nimzovich wasn't the only one ;)). But this successful threat is ignored in the stats because no gun was fired.

Miguel
08-03-2008, 03:26 PM
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.
:eek:


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.
Can you cite a reliable, published source?

frogmogdog
08-03-2008, 03:40 PM
out of curiosity, i just picked one stat from Axiom's post - that "Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent".

a minute of research came up with this page - http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/robbery.html

the graph shows armed robberies did rise for a couple of years from 1996, then they plateaud, and then fell so by 2004 were lower than 1996.

hmmm, odd the gun lobby doesn't mention this...

(not that i think our gun laws were aimed at reducing armed robberies. they were to prevent crazies from shooting dozens of people at once, and so far so good, unlike the situation in that other country resided in by several posters.)

Davidflude
08-03-2008, 03:54 PM
out of curiosity, i just picked one stat from Axiom's post - that "Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent".

a minute of research came up with this page - http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/robbery.html

the graph shows armed robberies did rise for a couple of years from 1996, then they plateaud, and then fell so by 2004 were lower than 1996.

hmmm, odd the gun lobby doesn't mention this...

(not that i think our gun laws were aimed at reducing armed robberies. they were to prevent crazies from shooting dozens of people at once, and so far so good, unlike the situation in that other country resided in by several posters.)

That is because the people opposed to gun control are right wing drongos.

In the USA you can even buy cop killer bullets that penetrate police body armour. You can walk into a gun show and buy a Lee Enfield rifle and 4X scope for under $200. The poms used them as sniper rifles in Korea killing lots of Chinese across the Yalu river at 800 metres or greater distance.Also you can buy a semi-automatic Ingram Mac 10 and silencer for under $500 with instructions on how to convert it to fully automatic. Ingram said that he wanted to make an affordable sub machine gun. Of course Barrett 50's, pre-second world war Remington 306's (better for sniping than post second world war rifles) or Russian sniper rifles cost somewhat more.

For some reason that i don't understand it is never the right wing politicians that get assasssinated.

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2008, 05:08 PM
That is because the people opposed to gun control are right wing drongos.
Must include Thomas Jefferson and the Swiss, who would not be your usual suspects as far as "right wingers" are concerned. Yet the "right wing drongo" that Australian lefties hate, John Howard, was responsible for Australia's draconian gun control.

Some people may have actually learned from the experiences of Virginia Tech that had gun control laws, and left everyone defenseless against a deranged killer, v a Colorado heroine who had a concealed gun and shot another deranged killer and prevented a massacre. But the beauty of being one of the Anointed is never having to learn from evidence.


For some reason that i don't understand it is never the right wing politicians that get assasssinated.
Interesting that a number of Lefties are musing about the possibility of Obama being assassinated (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_left_hails_its_martyr_to_be/), to confirm their irrational prejudices against the Right. However a number of Lefties have said it assassinating Bush or Cheney would do the world a favour. Note also, Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, not a right winger.

Aaron Guthrie
08-03-2008, 06:47 PM
out of curiosity, i just picked one stat from Axiom's post - that "Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent".

a minute of research came up with this page - http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/robbery.html

the graph shows armed robberies did rise for a couple of years from 1996, then they plateaud, and then fell so by 2004 were lower than 1996. It is also odd that the claim is 44%, and not 88%!

littlesprout85
08-03-2008, 10:27 PM
Wow- Axioms Has another great tread going here. Very Interesting about the stats your listing. And Very Much on the target. :clap:

Sprouty lives in the land of BigMac Attacks & Libby Drivethroughs.
(massacres) They Dont Call this The Wild West For nothing.

Totally make da sprout pro gun here. do to the fact that this day & age there are 4 guns for every person. DO YOU know where your 4 are ?

There are so many guns here That if you took em away from just the good guys whos follow the law - it would give Wild Burt the Upper Hand & dudley would be tied to the railroad tracks instead of panelapi :eek:

Its totally just like the days of Bonanza around here & its always been that way. Its just now you can't tell the good guys from the bad & panelapi got a bigger gun than Burt so you got to stay the coarse.

They are now drafting gun legislation for college student here. Directly do to the escalating gun violence on other campuses. The theory is that if the student body was armed they could handle the situation themselves faster = less damages in the end. Will have to see how this plays out. Kinda reminds sprouty of the Rifleman or the Lone Ranger where good is taught to the youth along with proper firearm training ;)

It is Very unfortunate that man made guns in the first place to fullfill his need to make war with his fellow man. Thus the West was born.

-Sprout :)

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2008, 01:28 PM
Some people may have actually learned from the experiences of Virginia Tech that had gun control laws, and left everyone defenseless against a deranged killer, v a Colorado heroine who had a concealed gun and shot another deranged killer and prevented a massacre. But the beauty of being one of the Anointed is never having to learn from evidence.

Evidence involves a consideration of all relevant data, not just the use of convenient examples on either side. Thus for your Colorado case there are plenty of examples where massacres occurred in areas with relatively lax gun laws and there was no such defence. I mentioned one from Nebraska late last year.

I would be interested to know what proportion of citizens carry concealed guns constantly in areas with lax gun laws.


Note also, Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist, not a right winger.

Axiom (in common with many in the pro-gun right) probably doesn't believe Oswald shot JFK anyway.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2008, 01:40 PM
Axiom (in common with many in the pro-gun right) probably doesn't believe Oswald shot JFK anyway.
No wonder. Too many inconsistencies and loose ends.

Axiom
11-03-2008, 01:52 PM
No wonder. Too many inconsistencies and loose ends.
:clap:
of course igor !

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2008, 01:55 PM
That is because the people opposed to gun control are right wing drongos.


It's a bit complicated. To simplify, I'd suggest the following:
People who do not agree with David Flude are right wing drongos.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 02:02 PM
Evidence involves a consideration of all relevant data, not just the use of convenient examples on either side.
Something the anti-gun Leftmedia fail to do, e.g. mentioning when guns stopped a massacre, e.g. Vice Principal Joel Myrick (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm); and even the gun could have stopped it sooner if he hadn't been forced to leave it in his truck. In the Australian, John Lott points out Gun laws disarm the vulnerable, not killers (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21580530-7583,00.html)and provides plenty of examples including Port Arthur:


Bill Landes of the University of Chicago law school and I examined multiple-victim public shootings in the US from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings fell by 60 per cent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 per cent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack. ...

To the extent that attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the places where concealed hand guns were still banned. The impact of right-to-carry laws on multiple-victim public shootings is much larger than on other crimes, for a simple reason: increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect themselves increases deterrence. Even when any single person might have a small probability of having a concealed hand gun, the probability that at least someone in the crowd will have a gun is very high.

While right-to-carry laws — now operating in 40 states — do reduce violent crime generally, the effect is much larger for multiple-victim shootings. Normally about 2 to 6 per cent of adults in any state have permits, and for most crimes that means some deterrence. But for a shooting in a public place where there might be dozens or hundreds of people, it will almost ensure that at least someone — someone who is unknown to the attacker — will be able to defend themselves and others.

People won't have to wait helplessly for the killer to get them.



Thus for your Colorado case there are plenty of examples where massacres occurred in areas with relatively lax gun laws and there was no such defence. I mentioned one from Nebraska late last year.
Speaking of examples, here is a Sowell column (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112702.asp):


Gun control zealots compare the United States and England to show that murder rates are lower where restrictions on ownership of firearms are more severe. But you could just as easily compare Switzerland and Germany, the Swiss having lower murder rates than the Germans, even though gun ownership is three times higher in Switzerland. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand and Finland.

Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media.

And in Gun Control Myths: The Case of England (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2205), Sowell cites the work of Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College:


England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century.

Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides — an average of one a year."

The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England — or at least the law-abiding part of it.

It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.


Axiom (in common with many in the pro-gun right) probably doesn't believe Oswald shot JFK anyway.
Who in the pro-gun right deny this? But to underscore the point of lenience to criminals, the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.

arosar
11-03-2008, 03:33 PM
Do you maintain some sort of ready-bibliography of all these references that support your POV Jono?

I'm just kinda curious.

AR

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 03:34 PM
Do you maintain some sort of ready-bibliography of all these references that support your POV Jono?

I'm just kinda curious.
Arosar, I have read a lot of books, so have a good idea what keywords to google to find relevant articles.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2008, 06:20 PM
Bill Landes of the University of Chicago law school and I examined multiple-victim public shootings in the US from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings fell by 60 per cent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell even further, on average by 78 per cent, as the remaining incidents tended to involve fewer victims per attack. ...

According to Ludwig and Cook (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q05iNEB7egQC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=lott+landes+multiple+shootings&source=web&ots=Mi1Y7_saPh&sig=jMz2w967QJ7k5G0cmfMnl9B8AzI&hl=en#PPA322,M1), Lott's survey was flawed by the use of a search method that retrieved only a few percent of all multiple killings. Using the best available data the picture is much less clear, so why does Lott continue to reiterate findings from studies that do not use the best available data?


[INDENT]Gun control zealots compare the United States and England to show that murder rates are lower where restrictions on ownership of firearms are more severe. But you could just as easily compare Switzerland and Germany, the Swiss having lower murder rates than the Germans, even though gun ownership is three times higher in Switzerland. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand and Finland.

Indeed. Examples to support almost any conclusion can be found and the probable reason for this is that many things besides gun control influence the murder rate.


Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates.

I suspect the former would be explained by a causal link between murder rates and population density operating irrespective of gun control laws or otherwise, eg criminal gangs are not normally found operating in rural areas with scarcely a house in sight.

To make much use of statistical evidence either way it is necessary to eliminate alternative causes.


Who in the pro-gun right deny this?

Generally the same ones who also reckon Martin Bryant didn't do Port Arthur and that it was a setup to create a pretext to disarm the civilian population. No one with any credibility so far as I'm aware.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 06:49 PM
According to Ludwig and Cook (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Q05iNEB7egQC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=lott+landes+multiple+shootings&source=web&ots=Mi1Y7_saPh&sig=jMz2w967QJ7k5G0cmfMnl9B8AzI&hl=en#PPA322,M1), Lott's survey was flawed by the use of a search method that retrieved only a few percent of all multiple killings. Using the best available data the picture is much less clear, so why does Lott continue to reiterate findings from studies that do not use the best available data?
Why trust that someone from an institution as thoroughly corrupt as Duke Uni should be the last word? They were happy to railroad innocent lacrosse players falsely accused of rape. And even these researchers admit (http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm)that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year.


Indeed. Examples to support almost any conclusion can be found and the probable reason for this is that many things besides gun control influence the murder rate.
But criminals behave rationally within their warped perspective. They assess the costs and benefits of their crime. If there is a likelihood of being shot, this is a good deterrent. But when citizens are deprived of the means of self-defence, as well as the ever-increasing lenience of the sentences, the costs go down. It shouldn't even surprise Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog that violent crime has skyrocketed in Great Britain.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2008, 07:17 PM
Why trust that someone from an institution as thoroughly corrupt as Duke Uni should be the last word?

Do you have the slightest evidence otherwise in this particular case?

I suspect that if you did you would have posted it, instead of dishing out an unsubstantiated guilt-by-association line of enquiry in which, quite ludicrously, an institution is considered "thoroughly corrupt" with no more evidence advanced for this view than a single incident.


But criminals behave rationally within their warped perspective. They assess the costs and benefits of their crime. If there is a likelihood of being shot, this is a good deterrent. But when citizens are deprived of the means of self-defence, as well as the ever-increasing lenience of the sentences, the costs go down. It shouldn't even surprise Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog that violent crime has skyrocketed in Great Britain.

Irrelevant to the comment it was posted in reply to.

Also, if sentencing leniency is a contributing factor (and that's another debate) then it becomes another confounding factor that makes it difficult to pin the tail on gun laws as the cause of any observed differences.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2008, 07:35 PM
But criminals behave rationally within their warped perspective. They assess the costs and benefits of their crime. If there is a likelihood of being shot, this is a good deterrent. But when citizens are deprived of the means of self-defence, as well as the ever-increasing lenience of the sentences, the costs go down. It shouldn't even surprise Blind Freddie's deaf guide dog that violent crime has skyrocketed in Great Britain.

A small observation - cost/benefit analysis (read logic and common sense) more often happens among "right wing drongos" then "lefties"

Due to our nature we would take something that is not ours if the cost of it is zero. We can scream that it's bad and immoral and not all people are like that, but it's just naive.

Psychological discomfort of stealing for some of us is a real and big cost preventing from doing so. Those are usually law abiding citizens.
For some of us this cost is insignificant. Those are more likely to be criminals.
For those criminals we need to increase the cost. It is called deterrent.
Punishment is one of them. Possibility of law abiding citizen being armed is another.
What is a bigger deterrent - possibility of meeting armed resistance (if guns are allowed) or possible danger of illegally owning a firearm?
While both are deterrents, I think the former is a bigger one for the following reason:
Owning a firearm without using it is a "victimless crime". From a utilitarian POV, it is difficult to detect. (from moral point POV it is a crime at all, but it's a different discussion).

Aaron Guthrie
11-03-2008, 08:11 PM
Owning a firearm without using it is a "victimless crime". From a utilitarian POV, it is difficult to detect.But not all firearms bought with such intention end up that way. I refer not to theft of guns. I refer to the fact that not only career criminals use guns in crimes. You also get heat of the moment crimes, for example, which become very easy and very bad if you have a gun handy. If you get more crime prevented (i.e. from the careers) than is created (i.e. by giving an opportunity to the usually law abiding), then it seems like a reasonable move. But it seems at least possible that the reverse happens (though you might end up comparing theft with murder, which makes things hard).

Igor_Goldenberg
12-03-2008, 11:27 AM
But not all firearms bought with such intention end up that way. I refer not to theft of guns. I refer to the fact that not only career criminals use guns in crimes. You also get heat of the moment crimes, for example, which become very easy and very bad if you have a gun handy. If you get more crime prevented (i.e. from the careers) than is created (i.e. by giving an opportunity to the usually law abiding), then it seems like a reasonable move. But it seems at least possible that the reverse happens (though you might end up comparing theft with murder, which makes things hard).

The sale and storage of firearm (as well as drugs and other forbidden items) is very difficult to detect, because it is a victimless crime. What you said refers to the usage of guns, which is a different matter.

TheJoker
12-03-2008, 11:32 AM
Jono can you give me examples of a high density cities with the following characteristics:

1. High poverty, High gun owernship, Low murder rate

2. High poverty, Low gun owernship, High murder rate

3. Low Poverty, High gun owernship, Low murder rate

4. Low poverty, Low gun owernship, High murder rate

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 11:35 AM
The sale and storage of firearm (as well as drugs and other forbidden items) is very difficult to detect, because it is a victimless crime. What you said refers to the usage of guns, which is a different matter.
Although most usages of the gun in preventing crime don't involve firing it, but instead invoke Nimzovich: the threat is often stronger than its execution.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2008, 11:53 AM
A small observation - cost/benefit analysis (read logic and common sense) more often happens among "right wing drongos" then "lefties"

In my experience, views described as "common sense" usually turn out to be illogical.

Also, illogic and senselessness abound on all sides and in all parties and suggesting that one wing has more or less of them than the other is probably just a view based on personal leanings.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 01:58 PM
In my experience, views described as "common sense" usually turn out to be illogical.
Nevertheless, it is logical common sense that people respond to incentives.


Also, illogic and senselessness abound on all sides and in all parties and suggesting that one wing has more or less of them than the other is probably just a view based on personal leanings.
Considering the common sense principle above, it is also common sense to assess policies according to the incentives and constraints they provide, rather than the Anointed who spruik on about the goals/intentions of their policies.

So when it comes to two crusades of the Anointed: disarming the population and being lenient to criminals, if they are even convicted, look at the incentives. Disarming the population will not disarm those predisposed to breaking the law anyway (criminals), and indeed gives them a greater incentive because his intended prey is less likely to hurt him. The greater lenience towards criminals means that there is an even lower perceived cost to the crime even if the worst happens and he is caught and convicted.

littlesprout85
12-03-2008, 08:08 PM
Alrighty then ,

Out here in the west, sometimes on the news you hear of roberies - car jacking and such being broken up by law abiding citizens who have guns concelled & non conceled(two different permits). Last one that comes to mind is that a store was being robbed at gunpoint & a lady shopping at the store broke out a gun and shot the perp. The prep went to the hospital in cuffs & the lady got some props :o)

With that kinda deterrent everywhere ppl are more likely to follow the laws. If the bandits know that all the good town folks have guns- theyll be more inclined to stay out on the range where its a bit safer.

-Sprout :)

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 08:36 PM
Alrighty then ,

Out here in the west, sometimes on the news you hear of roberies — car jacking and such being broken up by law abiding citizens who have guns concelled & non conceled (two different permits). Last one that comes to mind is that a store was being robbed at gunpoint & a lady shopping at the store broke out a gun and shot the perp. The prep went to the hospital in cuffs & the lady got some props :o)
Good! Another heroine like Jeanne Assam (http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1003).


With that kinda deterrent everywhere ppl are more likely to follow the laws. If the bandits know that all the good town folks have guns- theyll be more inclined to stay out on the range where its a bit safer.

-Sprout :)
Yeah. And think of the converse, where the modern British Polizei are more likely to arrest the home-owner if he hurts the home-invader too much. Lefties often try to disarm the law-abiding and go soft on the lawbreakers.

Miguel
12-03-2008, 09:32 PM
With that kinda deterrent everywhere ppl are more likely to follow the laws.
Wishful thinking.


If the bandits know that all the good town folks have guns- theyll be more inclined to stay out on the range where its a bit safer.
Or they may just be inclined to shoot first, instead of making demands.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 09:34 PM
Wishful thinking.
But wishes often came true in this case.


Or they may just be inclined to shoot first, instead of making demands.
Most armed thugs want something; the guns are just a means to force that. Your neo-Chamberlainite appeasement/disarmament would just embold thugs.

Miguel
12-03-2008, 10:07 PM
But wishes often came true in this case.
Getting shot != more law abiding


Most armed thugs want something; the guns are just a means to force that.
Exactly. But the target carrying a weapon doesn't necessarily change the thug's desire. It just means that making demands is not a viable option, so that if the thug does intend to commit a crime, it's likely to be more violent.


Your neo-Chamberlainite appeasement/disarmament would just embold thugs.
Appeal to fear.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 11:10 PM
Getting shot != more law abiding
It is if it is the scumbag getting shot by an armed law-abiding citizen.


Exactly. But the target carrying a weapon doesn't necessarily change the thug's desire.
It increases the cost/benefit ratio. Gun control laws decrease it.


It just means that making demands is not a viable option, so that if the thug does intend to commit a crime, it's likely to be more violent.
Or else he picks a lefty with a sticker on his house saying, "No guns in this peaceful household".


Appeal to fear.
Rubbish, just pointing out that weakness in the face of thuggery has always failed.

TheJoker
13-03-2008, 12:04 AM
Alrighty then ,

Out here in the west, sometimes on the news you hear of roberies - car jacking and such being broken up by law abiding citizens who have guns concelled & non conceled(two different permits). Last one that comes to mind is that a store was being robbed at gunpoint & a lady shopping at the store broke out a gun and shot the perp. The prep went to the hospital in cuffs & the lady got some props :o)

With that kinda deterrent everywhere ppl are more likely to follow the laws. If the bandits know that all the good town folks have guns- theyll be more inclined to stay out on the range where its a bit safer.

-Sprout :)

But with majoirty of citzens having guns in their homes wouldn't you expect an increase in domestic homicides.

Also it doesn't seem to work in practice as a deterrent as most crimnals carry guns , yet homocides where both parties are criminals seem to be a regular occurance (why do they ignore the fact that other criminals are most likely to have guns and therefore not avoid conforntations with each other?)

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2008, 02:12 AM
But with majoirty of citzens having guns in their homes wouldn't you expect an increase in domestic homicides.
No. When Britain was heavily armed, there was no such increase. But disarming them and being soft on criminals has resulted in more violent crime.


Also it doesn't seem to work in practice as a deterrent as most crimnals carry guns ,
It does work in practice.


yet homocides where both parties are criminals seem to be a regular occurance (why do they ignore the fact that other criminals are most likely to have guns and therefore not avoid conforntations with each other?)
What's the point? That criminals know they have to be armed because other criminals are? But given a choice between an armed and an unarmed house, what do you think they will pick?

TheJoker
14-03-2008, 05:23 PM
No. When Britain was heavily armed, there was no such increase. But disarming them and being soft on criminals has resulted in more violent crime.


It does work in practice.


What's the point? That criminals know they have to be armed because other criminals are? But given a choice between an armed and an unarmed house, what do you think they will pick?

So based on this theory we must supply everyone with a gun otherwise the criminals will cleary target those without a gun. The logical conclusion to which is of course handing out guns to all children as well, otherwise if only adults are carrying guns then children will now assume all the risk of being the victims of violent crime:rolleyes:

What about the fact that ordinarily rational people often irrational things when provoked to into a state of rage. Increasing their access to guns is likley to increase the seriousness of their irrational response.

Also if we are talking about strategies obviously, in an arguement with someone I don't know (but know is carrying a gun) my best strategy is to shoot first, otherwise he might shoot me and I'll be dead. So rather than a deterrant arming everyone can also be seen as a motivation.

There are also many scenarios such as five (criminals) and one victim. Best strategy for the criminals is to shoot the victim immediately thus all 5 survive. The one victim of course should not shoot first because his liklihood of shoot all five before being shot himself is pretty low.

So as you can see even if people behave in totally rational way there will still be just as many cases where having everyone armed acts as a motivation as there are where it will act as a deterrant.

People find ways to skew the odds in their favour regardless of situation. In a situation where everyone is armed, criminals will just become more organised and travel in larger groups and pick on victims when they outnumber them or can adopt a shoot first strategy and get away with it. Hell they find ways to shoot each other more often than they find ways to shoot us unarmed civilians now, so arming us is not really going to be a solution.

Just as gun control is not a solution to crime, neither is armed self defense (in which case it favours those with greater numbers or willing to shoot first). Take wars as an example both sides being totally armed does not prevent deaths.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2008, 06:32 PM
So based on this theory we must supply everyone with a gun otherwise the criminals will cleary target those without a gun.
Can't you get out of Lefty mode? No, we should be allowed to be armed; there is no duty of anyone to supply anyone.


The logical conclusion to which is of course handing out guns to all children as well, otherwise if only adults are carrying guns then children will now assume all the risk of being the victims of violent crime:rolleyes:
No, children are different from adults, despite Lefty ideas on childraising. So parents should have guns to protect their kids.


What about the fact that ordinarily rational people often irrational things when provoked to into a state of rage. Increasing their access to guns is likley to increase the seriousness of their irrational response.
But even enraged irrational people still retain enough rationality, under their perverse perspective, to target places where they can kill the maximum number of people. Hence disarmed Virginia Tech was an obvious target, as was the Colorado church where the dirtbag wasn't expecting to face a lady who was packing heat and prepared to use it.


Also if we are talking about strategies obviously, in an arguement with someone I don't know (but know is carrying a gun) my best strategy is to shoot first, otherwise he might shoot me and I'll be dead. So rather than a deterrant arming everyone can also be seen as a motivation.
There is another factor though. Even criminals have an incentive not to be crueler than they need to be, because it would motivate law enforcement to work harder at trying to catch them. Also, a criminal in the US knows that if anyone is killed during the commission of a crime, all the gang that takes part are up for "felony murder", even the getaway driver.


There are also many scenarios such as five (criminals) and one victim. Best strategy for the criminals is to shoot the victim immediately thus all 5 survive. The one victim of course should not shoot first because his liklihood of shoot all five before being shot himself is pretty low.
Or, not attack an armed victim, rather than risk going to prison for life for murder as opposed to a slap on the wrist for robbing.


People find ways to skew the odds in their favour regardless of situation.
Or else avoid situations where they are likely to be hurt. And if there are likely to be many people carrying guns, the crims don't know which members of the public they have to target.


In a situation where everyone is armed, criminals will just become more organised and travel in larger groups and pick on victims when they outnumber them or can adopt a shoot first strategy and get away with it.
By that reasoning, we shouldn't arm law enforcement officers either.


Hell they find ways to shoot each other more often than they find ways to shoot us unarmed civilians now, so arming us is not really going to be a solution.
Disarming us is certainly not a solution.


Just as gun control is not a solution to crime, neither is armed self defense (in which case it favours those with greater numbers or willing to shoot first). Take wars as an example both sides being totally armed does not prevent deaths.
Good example, but not the way you think. It was precisely the appeasement and disarmament that emboldened Hitler. Yet if the Frogs had stood firm when the Nazis remilitarized the Rhineland, the German generals were under orders to fall back. Instead the Frogs themselves were under orders to fall back rather than risk confrontation.


If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. — Winston Churchill


History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap.
...
Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong. — Ronald Reagan

TheJoker
14-03-2008, 08:21 PM
Disarming us is certainly not a solution.

It is not! As I have said people will find their way around any situation, ban guns a people will find other ways to commit crimes and intimidate people, a HIV infected syringe can be equally intimidating and lethal.

The solution is to develop a culture where guns are not necessary for protection, I think we do a pretty good job here in Australia.

I live on the fringe of the Sydney CBD and have never felt the need to carry any type of armed protection. I have lived in Alice Springs which has a high level of violent crime and I did not feel the need to own a firearm.

Jono do you feel the need to own a firearm in Queensland? Do you really have a genuine fear of being a victim of a violent crime? If so is that a rational fear, how many people in Queensland have been the victim of armed assualts over there?

The only time I have ever felt a fear of being shot was in downtown LA at night. And I have travelled to numerous countries in the world.

I think violent crime is associated more with low socio-economic conditions than whether a population is armed or not? The figures on guncite.com seem to support that theory.

So individuals would probably be better placed donating to a worthwhile charity than purchasing a firearms for self defense.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2008, 01:21 AM
It is not! As I have said people will find their way around any situation, ban guns a people will find other ways to commit crimes and intimidate people, a HIV infected syringe can be equally intimidating and lethal.
Of course, but no match for a gun.


The solution is to develop a culture where guns are not necessary for protection, I think we do a pretty good job here in Australia.
This assumes that we know how to do this. Meanwhile, there are thugs, burglars, home invaders and rapists.


I live on the fringe of the Sydney CBD and have never felt the need to carry any type of armed protection. I have lived in Alice Springs which has a high level of violent crime and I did not feel the need to own a firearm.
Nice for you. And many people in Florida don't either, but they are still safer because they enacted a "stand your ground" law, that allows home owners to use deadly force against home invaders, and be immune from civil suits as well such as this one (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1711925/posts):


Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law does the following (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=188):

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, so the occupant may use force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors to focus on protecting victims.

Most hope they will never have to use a gun, but know that criminals are less likely to invade.

A number of other states have enacted similar statutes, e.g.


North Carolina — Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

What a contrast to Australia, where a crook successfully sued a bar owner for attacking him when he was burgling. And in Britain, a home owner who detained a home invader with a replica gun was arrested.

I think violent crime is associated more with low socio-economic conditions than whether a population is armed or not? The figures on guncite.com seem to support that theory. [/QUOTE]
It's crap though. There were times of greater poverty and less crime, such as the Depression.

This "root causes" stuff has never worked, but it doesn't stop lefties.

frogmogdog
15-03-2008, 09:43 AM
1012

1013

1014

TheJoker
15-03-2008, 10:24 AM
Nice for you. And many people in Florida...

You didn't answer my question:

do you feel the need to own a firearm in Queensland? Do you really have a genuine fear of being a victim of a violent crime? If so is that a rational fear, how many people in Queensland have been the victim of armed assualts over there?

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2008, 01:30 PM
[Graphs]
Note Israel, which allows conceals carry laws, is vanishingly small, as is Switzerland. where householders are mostly armed. And even in America, where are the mass shooting? Places where there are likely to be lots of disarmed victims, like schools, universities, offices, churches (although after churchgoing heroine Jeanne Assam shot a murdering dirtbag ni Colorado, future dirtbags might think again about attacking a church).

According to Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? Part 1 (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp) by Benedict D. LaRosa, October 2002:


Gun-control advocates look at guns only as a means to harm others even though they are more often used to prevent injury. According to a 1995 study entitled “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published by the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year.

That means that firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to shoot with criminal intent. Of these defensive shootings, more than 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. About half a million times a year, a citizen carrying a gun away from home uses it in self-defense. Again, according to Kleck amd Gertz, “Citizens shoot and kill more criminals than police do every year [2,819 times versus 303].” Moreover, as George Will pointed out in an article entitled “Are We a Nation of Cowards?” in the November 15, 1993, issue of Newsweek, while police have an error rate of 11 percent when it comes to the accidental shooting of innocent civilians, the armed citizens’ error rate is only 2 percent, making them five times safer than police.

Other studies give similar results. “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms,” by the Clinton administration’s Justice Department shows that between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States use a firearm to defend themselves and others from criminals each year. A 1986 study by Hart Research Associates puts the upper limit at 3.2 million.

Those studies and others indicate that often the mere sight of a firearm discourages an attacker. Criminologist John Lott from the University of Florida found that 98 percent of the time when people use guns defensively, simply brandishing a firearm is sufficient to cause a criminal to break off an attack. Lott also found that in less than 2 percent of the cases is the gun fired, and three-fourths of those are warning shots.

This article also makes inter-state comparisons:


In 1986, Maryland banned small, affordable handguns called Saturday night specials. Within two years, Maryland’s murder rate increased by 20 percent, surpassing the national murder rate by 33 percent. Then Maryland passed a one-gun-a-month law. Yet between 1997 and 1998, 600 firearms recovered from crime scenes were traced to Maryland gun stores. Virginia, one of only two other states with a similar law, ranked third as a source of guns used by criminals in other states.

On the other hand, New Hampshire has almost no gun control and its cities are rated among the safest in the country. Across the border in Massachusetts, which has very stringent gun-control laws, cities of comparable size have two to three times as much crime as New Hampshire.

Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.

States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.

Texas is a good example. In the early 1990s, Texas’s serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. All this happened after passage of a concealed-carry law in 1994.

Note also, the rate in Britain was lower when more people had guns—see Gun Control Myths: The Case of England (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2205):


It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.

While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons — and have begun locking up more criminals.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2008, 01:47 PM
do you feel the need to own a firearm in Queensland? Do you really have a genuine fear of being a victim of a violent crime? If so is that a rational fear, how many people in Queensland have been the victim of armed assualts over there?
Do you really feel more threatened by the possibility of a law abider like me having a firearm at home than by a crook having one and preying on unarmed homeowners?

From Can Gun Control Reduce Crime? (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp) Part 2 by Benedict D. LaRosa, November 2002:


What about the experience of other countries? In 1997, just 12 months after a new gun law went into effect in Australia, homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies 44 percent, and assaults 8.6 percent. In the state of Victoria, homicides went up 300 percent. Before the law was passed, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms. In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, the assault rate in New South Wales rose almost 20 percent.

Miguel
15-03-2008, 02:44 PM
Do you really feel more threatened by the possibility of a law abider like me having a firearm at home than by a crook having one and preying on unarmed homeowners?
False dichotomy. A third-party law abiding citizen having a firearm doesn't eliminate the threat from a criminal. It's the total threat that needs to be considered, and regardless of willingness to obey the law, tempers can flare, accidents can happen, etc. So the overall threat is not necessarily diminished (and may even be increased) by a law abiding citizen having a firearm.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2008, 02:50 PM
False dichotomy. A third-party law abiding citizen having a firearm doesn't eliminate the threat from a criminal. It's the total threat that needs to be considered, and regardless of willingness to obey the law, tempers can flare, accidents can happen, etc. So the overall threat is not necessarily diminished (and may even be increased) by a law abiding citizen having a firearm.
The evidence shows otherwise, as above. All that is needed is analysing the incentives of a policy rather than its goals. A more dangerous householder is a disincentive to a home invader.

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2008, 07:51 PM
Hence disarmed Virginia Tech was an obvious target, as was the Colorado church where the dirtbag wasn't expecting to face a lady who was packing heat and prepared to use it.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Virginia Tech gunman chose VT specifically because of its guns policies? Seems much more likely that the reason he chose VT was that that was where he was a student and hence where his various resentments concentrated - and in any case had there not been a serious breakdown in campus security, it's unlikely he would have killed anywhere near as many people.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-03-2008, 09:12 PM
While gun ownership (actually, the right to bear arms) has an effect, there are other causes (and poverty is not the major one!)

1. "Victimless crimes". A lot of death in US are caused by the war between drug gangs. As US is a most lucrative market for illicit drugs, as well as one having most draconian laws against drugs, no wonder it causes such a high criminal activity. If US ended their stupid "war on drugs", homicide rates would drop dramatically (with or without gun ownership). European countries either do not have draconian anti-drug laws or do not enforce them as rigorously.
It applies to any form of activity that should be nobody business (irrespectively of whether we approve it or not), be it drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Just recall the prohibition in US.
2. Some form of political correctness. E.g., it is well knows that a crime rate in Aboriginal communities (especially if hey are shielded from Australian law) is much higher then in the rest of the society. Black on black murder rate in US is much higher then between other ethnic groups. Main reason in both cases is that police is not allowed to do their job properly (plus "war on drugs" in US, which harms blacks more then anyone else).
Another example - I read about a case in US when they did not prosecute a male police officer for having sex with underage boy (which is a statutory rape). The reason - it would look like oppressing homosexuals.
In short - when some group get more lenient treatment from the law, they would tend to have higher crime rate.

Axiom
16-03-2008, 09:16 PM
While gun ownership (actually, the right to bear arms) has an effect, there are other causes (and poverty is not the major one!)

1. "Victimless crimes". A lot of death in US are caused by the war between drug gangs. As US is a most lucrative market for illicit drugs, as well as one having most draconian laws against drugs, no wonder it causes such a high criminal activity. If US ended their stupid "war on drugs", homicide rates would drop dramatically (with or without gun ownership). European countries either do not have draconian anti-drug laws or do not enforce them as rigorously.
It applies to any form of activity that should be nobody business (irrespectively of whether we approve it or not), be it drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Just recall the prohibition in US.
2. Some form of political correctness. E.g., it is well knows that a crime rate in Aboriginal communities (especially if hey are shielded from Australian law) is much higher then in the rest of the society. Black on black murder rate in US is much higher then between other ethnic groups. Main reason in both cases is that police is not allowed to do their job properly (plus "war on drugs" in US, which harms blacks more then anyone else).
Another example - I read about a case in US when they did not prosecute a male police officer for having sex with underage boy (which is a statutory rape). The reason - it would look like oppressing homosexuals.
In short - when some group get more lenient treatment from the law, they would tend to have higher crime rate.
Nice post Igor :clap:

The fundamentally flawed war on drugs is certainly a major blight on humanity

TheJoker
17-03-2008, 08:47 AM
You didn't answer my question:

do you feel the need to own a firearm in Queensland? Do you really have a genuine fear of being a victim of a violent crime? If so is that a rational fear, how many people in Queensland have been the victim of armed assualts over there?

Jono you still haven't answered these questions. A simple yes or no to each would suffice

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2008, 08:05 PM
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the Virginia Tech gunman chose VT specifically because of its guns policies? Seems much more likely that the reason he chose VT was that that was where he was a student and hence where his various resentments concentrated — and in any case had there not been a serious breakdown in campus security, it's unlikely he would have killed anywhere near as many people.
Hard to prove, but easier to point out the incentive generated by making VT a "gun free" zone, and also to point out that these shooters are not so deranged as to pick on the NRA.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2008, 08:07 PM
Jono you still haven't answered these questions. A simple yes or no to each would suffice
You didn't answer mine either: why would you feel more threatened by me having a firearm in my home than the reality of crooks being armed regardless of "gun control" laws and more able to prey on unarmed people.

TheJoker
18-03-2008, 09:14 AM
You didn't answer mine either: why would you feel more threatened by me having a firearm in my home than the reality of crooks being armed regardless of "gun control" laws and more able to prey on unarmed people.

I would feel more threatened because while you might suitable to own a gun (although I don't know well enough to tell) there are enough people with serious mental health problems to pose a serious risk if armed. Also I personally dont want to live in a community where to feel safe I have to carry a gun on my person 24-7.

Now how about answering my question?

Do you feel the need to own a firearm in Queensland? Do you really have a genuine fear of being a victim of a violent crime? If so is that a rational fear, how many people in Queensland have been the victim of armed assualts over there?

TheJoker
18-03-2008, 09:22 AM
Hard to prove, but easier to point out the incentive generated by making VT a "gun free" zone, and also to point out that these shooters are not so deranged as to pick on the NRA.

It probably has less to do with the fact that the NRA is armed and more to do with th fact that they have no hostilities toward the NRA.

Here is a case of an individual targeting a police station:eek:

http://www.nbc4.com/news/9178513/detail.html

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 01:33 PM
I would feel more threatened because while you might suitable to own a gun (although I don't know well enough to tell) there are enough people with serious mental health problems to pose a serious risk if armed.
Historically, far more people have been killed when the government was armed and the people were not—see Death By Government (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM). The Americans historically have always allowed gun ownership to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, as well as Jefferson's point that disarming the law-abiding would leave only the law-breakers with guns.


Also I personally dont want to live in a community where to feel safe I have to carry a gun on my person 24-7.
Neither would I. There are many things I would prefer not to do, but the reality might be that there is a criminal element.


Now how about answering my question?

Do you feel the need to own a firearm in Queensland? Do you really have a genuine fear of being a victim of a violent crime? If so is that a rational fear, how many people in Queensland have been the victim of armed assualts over there?
There is a fair amount of violent crime these days, and a lot of burglary. There would be less if the crook thought that a householder might be armed.

TheJoker
19-03-2008, 12:36 AM
Historically, far more people have been killed when the government was armed and the people were not

So you are saying Australians need to be armed to protect themselves primarily from the government defense and police forces?

Considering the current environment, dont you think such a claim is bordering on paranoia!!!


Neither would I. There are many things I would prefer not to do, but the reality might be that there is a criminal element.

The reality in Australia (with current gun controls) is that you dont need to carry a gun to feel safe.



There is a fair amount of violent crime these days, and a lot of burglary. There would be less if the crook thought that a householder might be armed.

Dodged the question again :rolleyes: I'll give up on getting a straight answer on that question. :wall:

Axiom
19-03-2008, 01:46 AM
b2bExqhhWRI




They haven't released video of the tests yet where this thing is mounted with heavy weaponry. It can easily haul 300 pounds. It's development in Boston is funded by DAPRA, for military purposes.



Hundreds of these 'war dogs' will be ready to go to war soon. From a bunker back in Virginia, the controller deciding which targets the dog has sighted are worthy kills won't be using a keyboard or a mouse. He or she will be able to think where the war dog goes and who it kills. Bluetooth in the brain. With the help of its distant instructor, it will learn over time to decide for itself when to kill. All these things were science fiction, today, next year, they are reality.

I'm still not sure which demonstration is more disturbing. The hopping test, where it shows it can easily leap a wall. Or the rock test, where it just keeps coming at you. You can't kick it over. If you manage to knock it down, it will just get back up again.

i09 has a few more clips of the 'war dog'. Creepy stuff indeed if you feel uneasy about the rise of robot armies. Watch it coming through the woods, and righting itself after slipping on ice. It looks like it was modeled on two men bending over from the waist, facing each other. These clips are already a year or two old. Do you wonder what it's capable of doing now?

That buzzsaw sound can easily slip into your nightmares.

frogmogdog
19-03-2008, 07:50 PM
uh huh.

hey what's the problem with war dogs? surely our community will be safer once everyone's arsenal of assault rifles is complemented by a nuclear-armed robot??

Axiom
21-03-2008, 12:32 AM
Gun Owners Fooled By Mammoth Supreme Court Hoax

Paul Joseph Watson & Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 20, 2008

Comments made by justices in an ongoing landmark case have been heralded as a "victory" for the individual right to bear arms by the media and embraced by self-proclaimed conservatives, but in reality gun owners are the victim of a mammoth hoax and the second amendment is being destroyed.

As Gun Owners of America point out today in a USA Today op-ed, the second amendment is the very bedrock of America and shouldn’t even be the subject of a Supreme Court debate.

Individual Right to Bear Arms Wins Favor in Court Argument, the headline from the New York Law Journal, was typical of the media output after most of the nine Supreme Court justices hinted that the right to bear arms is a "general right."

However, the case is likely to conclude with the introduction of several new regulations on hand gun ownership at the very least, and, if the government gets its way, a total ban on handguns.

The outcome will set the precedent for gun laws nationwide.

The NY Law Journal writes:

Justice Kennedy’s comments appeared to spell trouble for efforts by the District of Columbia to revive its strict handgun ban, although lawyers for both the Bush administration and gun-rights advocates acknowledged that some lesser regulation of the right would be acceptable.

Counting Justice Kennedy, it appeared that five or more justices were ready to recognize some form of an individual right to keep and bear arms that is only loosely tethered, if at all, to the functioning of militias. What kind of regulation of that individual right will be allowed by those justices is uncertain.

[…]

When the arguments were over, gun-control advocates seemed less pessimistic than before the session began, though they did not predict victory.

Joshua Horwitz, director of the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence, who filed a brief in the case and watched the arguments, conceded he cannot count five votes for a strictly militia-rights view of the Second Amendment that would allow for almost unlimited regulation of firearms. But he could conceive of five justices adopting an individual-rights view that will mean "a lot of regulations will be OK. The outcome is not necessarily poor for us."

In a USA Today op-ed piece, Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson, attorneys for Gun Owners of America, outline how thee second amendment was intended to apply to individuals and that it’s pre-eminent reason was for the purposes of defense against a tyrannical state or invading army.

Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" — not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free State."

Entrusting the nation’s sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government’s military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.

Thus, the amendment’s "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment’s "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of … founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals’ test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).

Click here to listen to Alex Jones and Gun Owners’ President Larry Pratt discuss the case.

The case, DC v. Heller, stems from proceedings filed by lawyers for security guard Mr Dick Anthony Heller, which state that the District’s categorical restrictions are so broad that they cannot comply with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms.

An amicus curiae brief filed by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, on behalf of the Bush administration and the government, says that federal gun control measures should not be limited and proposes that a court may determine that a full scale ban on almost all self-defense firearms may be upheld as constitutional if it constitutes a “reasonable” restriction of constitutional rights.

Lawyer Alan Gura, opposing the law and representing Mr Heller said "We have here a ban on all guns for all people in all homes at all times in the nation’s capital."

Read the transcript of yesterday’s argument.

Read briefs in D.C. v. Heller.




Advocates of the ban and the representatives of the District of Columbia have attempted to argue that the history and context of the second amendment applies to the rights of militias and not to individuals.

However, there are thousands of quotes from the founding fathers that pour water on this weak argument. The founders said over and over that when a government seeks to take away individual weapons it constitutes tyranny and that government must be removed.

Here are a few choice quotes:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
— Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

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

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

Furthermore, even if you argue that the second amendment applies to militias, the very definition of the militia, according to the founders and their contemporaries, is THE PEOPLE:

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

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

Last month a majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House issued a brief in which they urged the Supreme Court to uphold it’s previous ruling that the District’s handgun ban violates the second amendment.

The brief asked the Supreme Court to uphold the lower courts decision and allow the precedent of applying a stricter standard of review for gun control cases to stand.

In a separate letter, other representatives, including Congressman Ron Paul, called for the Clement/Bush administration brief to be withdrawn as it sets a precedent for further erosion of individuals’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.

Citing Constitutional concerns the letter stated:

“If the Supreme Court finds that the D.C. gun ban is a “reasonable” limitation of Second Amendment rights, the Court could create a dangerous precedent for the nation in the future. Such a decision could open the door to further regulation on American citizens’ Second Amendment rights on a large scale.”

Essentially the government is saying "You have the right to bear arms, unless we say so."

Where there is individual ownership of weapons there is liberty, where there is not there is tyranny because powerful organizations and governments will have a monopoly on it. The latest developments in this case are not a "victory" for the second amendment, on the contrary, they constitute its very undoing.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 02:23 PM
Walter Williams (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4958):

What do Virginia Tech's 32 murders, Columbine High School's 13 murders, Jonesboro Westside Middle School's five murders, Germany's Gutenberg High School's 16 murders, the murder of 14 legislators in Zug, Switzerland, and the murder of eight city council members in a Paris suburb all have in common? Answer: All the murders were committed in "gun-free zones." So a reasonable question is: Does legislation creating gun-free zones prevent murder and mayhem?

In 1970, Israel adopted a policy to arm teachers and parents serving as school aids with semi-automatic weapons. Attacks by gunmen at Israeli schools have ceased. At Appalachian Law School in Virginia, a gunman who had already murdered three people was stopped from further carnage by two armed students.

Gun possession stopping crime is not atypical, though it goes unreported by the media. According to various research estimates, from 764,000 to as many as 2.5 million crimes are prevented by armed, law-abiding people either warning a criminal that they're armed, brandishing their weapon or shooting a criminal. In the interest of truth in packaging, I think we should rename "gun-free zones" to "defenseless zones."

Desmond
24-03-2008, 04:37 PM
Gun possession stopping crime is not atypical,If all car drivers carried guns, do you think road-rage related shootings would go up or down?

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2008, 10:38 AM
If all car drivers carried guns, do you think road-rage related shootings would go up or down?
Do you think road rage shootings are an issue in America, Switzerland or Israel that allow gun ownership?

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2008, 10:40 AM
A Former NRA President’s Tribute to Charlton Heston (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/SandyFroman/2008/04/08/a_former_nra_president%e2%80%99s_tribute_to_charlt on_heston)
By Sandy Froman
8 April 2008

frogmogdog
09-04-2008, 04:59 PM
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18925373.800-guntoting-motorists-more-prone-to-road-rage.html

Gun-toting motorists more prone to road rage

GUN lobbyists like to repeat the quote often attributed to American writer Robert Heinlein, that "an armed society is a polite society". But this is certainly not true for motorists.

A survey of 2400 drivers carried out by David Hemenway and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health shows that motorists who carry guns in their cars are far more likely to indulge in road rage - driving aggressively or making obscene gestures - than motorists without guns. Some 23 per cent of gun-toting drivers admitted making rude signs, compared with 16 per cent of those who did not carry guns (Accident Analysis and Prevention, DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.014).

Yet in some states it is easier than ever to own a gun and carry it a car. In the past two decades 23 states have eased restrictions on carrying guns, says researcher Mary Vriniotis. Police no longer have the right to ban someone they consider unsuitable from owning a gun. People now only have to pass background checks, such as the absence of criminal convictions.

"Our findings indicate that the people driving around with guns in their cars are not among the most responsible and best-behaved people on the road," says Vriniotis. "In the interests of injury and violence prevention, it probably makes more sense to tighten rather than relax restrictions on gun carrying in motor vehicles."

From issue 2537 of New Scientist magazine, 03 February 2006, page 7

Desmond
09-04-2008, 07:18 PM
Do you think road rage shootings are an issue in America, Switzerland or Israel that allow gun ownership?I think the more people who have guns means the more people who use them.

Axiom
09-04-2008, 07:51 PM
I think the more people who have guns means the more people who use them.
TIME TO REVISE LOGIC 101

Desmond
09-04-2008, 07:54 PM
TIME TO REVISE LOGIC 101
Well if Axiom is disagreeing with me, I must be doing something right. :)

Axiom
09-04-2008, 08:02 PM
Well if Axiom is disagreeing with me, I must be doing something right. :)
in that case, it's time to revise LOGIC 100

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2008, 08:33 PM
I think the more people who have guns means the more people who use them.
Not at all. Most of the uses of guns to prevent crime in America don't involve firing them, but the Nimzovich principle. Conversely, disarming law-abiding citizens in Britain has not lowered the use of guns by criminals, just made their prey more defenseless.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2008, 08:35 PM
From issue 2537 of New Scientist magazine, 03 February 2006, page 7
Even this well known lefty rag didn't say that the guns were used more, which was Boris's claim.

Desmond
09-04-2008, 08:39 PM
Not at all. Most of the uses of guns to prevent crime in America don't involve firing them, but the Nimzovich principle. Conversely, disarming law-abiding citizens in Britain has not lowered the use of guns by criminals, just made their prey more defenseless.
Pretty sure if I owned a gun I would be more likely to fire it than if I did not.

Axiom
09-04-2008, 08:47 PM
Pretty sure if I owned a gun I would be more likely to fire it than if I did not.
correct
but that is only a small part of the whole picture
expand your view
there is always a greater truth

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2008, 11:41 PM
Pretty sure if I owned a gun I would be more likely to fire it than if I did not.
A truism. But you might also not need to fire it; just the threat of firing it might persuade a home invader to rethink his options.

Rincewind
10-04-2008, 12:02 AM
A truism. But you might also not need to fire it; just the threat of firing it might persuade a home invader to rethink his options.

Yep, he'd make sure he had a gun too and would fire it more often as he would suspect you might might be drawing yours if gun ownership was common place.

Ian Murray
10-04-2008, 01:14 AM
Some statistics since gun control (from Aust Bureau of Statistics):

Victims of crime involving firearms, Australia
1997
Murder 23.3%
Attempted murder 28.3%
Kidnapping/abduction 3.6%
Armed robbery 24.2%

2002
Murder 13.2%
Attempted murder 22.0%
Kidnapping/abduction 4.9%
Armed robbery 5.6%

2005
Murder 9.6%
Attempted murder 17.6%
Kidnapping/abduction 1.2%
Armed robbery 4.5%

Ian Murray
10-04-2008, 01:23 AM
See also www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

Basil
10-04-2008, 01:23 AM
Ian, I think 'as proportion of population' may serve better. Stats as 'proportion of all crime' may be misleading on account of the ebb and flow of other reported crime.

Apart from that, there is multitude of difficulty encountered with issue such as 'is crime reprting on the increase or decrease'. I think both sides of the debate (I'm not sure which side I'm on yet) will suffer inadvertently from lies, damn lies ... etc..

Aaron Guthrie
10-04-2008, 02:25 AM
Ian, I think 'as proportion of population' may serve better. Stats as 'proportion of all crime' may be misleading on account of the ebb and flow of other reported crime.I think this is the, of this crime, what proportion of the offenders used what weapon (or no weapon) catagory. So where it says "Murder 23.3%", this means of all murders, 23.3% were committed using a gun.

Anyway, while the specific issue you mentioned probably isn't such a concern here, it still is a weird statistic. I am not sure what it shows. This is as you have other things, like total number of crimes, to consider.

Aside from this, there does seem to be one inaccuracy. The "armed robbery" category should just be "robbery". At least the 2005 figure is calculated on robbery statistics, I didn't check them all.

For more details, see http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02005?OpenDocument and http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article132003?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2003&num=&view=

edit-I just checked, 1997 is the armed robbery stat, 2002 and 2005 use the robbery stat. The actual armed robbery stat for 2002 is 15%, for 2005 12.1%

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2008, 09:17 AM
Yep, he'd make sure he had a gun too and would fire it more often as he would suspect you might might be drawing yours if gun ownership was common place.
However, home invaders are less likely to attack a house that might have guns. And the home owner is more likely to get the drop on him because he knows the house better, and the invader is likely to be distracted by what he wants to steal.

I don't like the Neville Chamberlain school of thought when it comes to defending individual property and lives as you apparently do. I.e. be as meek as possible to avoid being hurt, instead of making sure that the criminal knows he has much to lose by attacking.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 08:18 PM
Control Criminals Not Guns (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/05/21/control_criminals_not_guns)
By Walter E. Williams
21 May 2008


Every time there's a highly publicized shooting, out go the cries for stricter gun control laws, and it was no different with the recent murder of Philadelphia Police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski. ....

A New York Times study (4/28/06) of the city's 1,662 murders in 2003-2005 found that 90 percent of the murderers had criminal records. A Massachusetts study reported that on average, homicide offenders had been arraigned for nine prior offenses. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that in 1988 in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., over 89 percent of adult murderers had a criminal record as an adult.

A few days after the murder of Liczbinski, Governor Rendell told a news conference, attended by state elected officials and top law enforcement officials, "The time has come for politicians to decide. You have to decide whether you're on their side — the men and women who wear blue — or whether you're on the side of the gun lobby." Instead of saying "whether you're on the side of the gun lobby," Rendell should have said "whether you're on the side of the criminal and the courts, prosecutors, prisons and parole boards that cut soft deals with criminals and release them to prey upon police officers and law-abiding citizens."

If there is one clear basic function of government, it's to protect citizens from criminals. When government failure becomes so apparent, as it is in the murder of a police officer, officials seek scapegoats and very often it's the National Rifle Association and others who seek to protect our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We hear calls for stricter gun control laws when what is really needed is more control over criminals.

There are many third-party liability laws. I think they ought to be applied to members of parole boards who release criminals who turn around and commit violent crimes. As it stands now, people on parole boards who release criminals bear no cost of their decisions. I bet that if members of parole boards were held liable or forced to serve the balance of the sentence of a parolee who goes out and commits more crime, they would pay more attention to the welfare of the community rather than the welfare of a criminal. You say, "Williams, under those conditions, who'd serve on a parole board?" There's something to be said about that.

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2008, 08:53 PM
A Massachusetts study reported that on average, homicide offenders had been arraigned for nine prior offenses. John Lott's book, "More Guns, Less Crime," reports that in 1988 in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., over 89 percent of adult murderers had a criminal record as an adult.

Although I have found links that give some of Lott's stats the raspberry, I won't bother disputing this one. What I will ask is this: assuming it's true, what are we going to do about it - lock people up and throw away the key for their very first criminal offence?

Beyond that, is there any evidence that sentence length has anything to do with the risk of a criminal later becoming a murderer? If anything, I suspect (but this is only a hypothesis) that for minor crims, keeping them out of jail is better because it increases the chance of them desisting from their ways, whereas once they get locked into a long jail term they are likely to get into the sorts of criminal networks that persist inside jails (as well as to have difficulty reintegrating on release) and continue a life of crime upon release.


There are many third-party liability laws. I think they ought to be applied to members of parole boards who release criminals who turn around and commit violent crimes.

In that case, no parole board would release any ex-criminal, even in cases where their risk of reoffending if released now might be less than their risk if left in for longer. That seems to be what Williams wants (or at least doesn't mind if he is seen as supporting) - to simply abolish parole and thereby remove the incentive for the criminal to rehabilitate.

I find these issues tricky because I do see sentences for some crimes (like minor assault) to be intuitively "too soft" but I don't want to advocate harsher sentences if they actually increase the risk of the offence occurring.

Capablanca-Fan
21-05-2008, 09:32 PM
Although I have found links that give some of Lott's stats the raspberry, I won't bother disputing this one.
No doubt the gun control lobby don't like him, and they can't show that disarming honest citizens makes them safer when crooks have no intention of obeying those laws.


What I will ask is this: assuming it's true, what are we going to do about it — lock people up and throw away the key for their very first criminal offence?
No, but these were repeat offenders.


Beyond that, is there any evidence that sentence length has anything to do with the risk of a criminal later becoming a murderer?
It keeps them off the street. Also, people are more likely to testify if they are not afraid that a lenient judge will give the scum a short sentence, so they will return to take revenge in a short time. Criminals are most deterred by certainty of being punished, and a system where witnesses are too scared to testify removes that certainty.


If anything, I suspect (but this is only a hypothesis) that for minor crims, keeping them out of jail is better because it increases the chance of them desisting from their ways,
So who protects the public from them?


whereas once they get locked into a long jail term they are likely to get into the sorts of criminal networks that persist inside jails (as well as to have difficulty reintegrating on release) and continue a life of crime upon release.
I think that crimes not involving violence should not be given long sentences. But we have seen even in QLD how judges are incredibly lenient on violent criminals who have beaten people to death, or that judge who refused to jail convicted gang rapists of a 10yo girl.


In that case, no parole board would release any ex-criminal, even in cases where their risk of reoffending if released now might be less than their risk if left in for longer.
There should be some sort of medium where there are some consequences for releasing criminals who reoffend.


That seems to be what Williams wants (or at least doesn't mind if he is seen as supporting) — to simply abolish parole and thereby remove the incentive for the criminal to rehabilitate.
There is precious little incentive to rehabilitate now, with such lenient sentences. Sure, as Thomas Sowell said, rehabilitation might be better, if we knew how to do it.


I find these issues tricky because I do see sentences for some crimes (like minor assault) to be intuitively "too soft" but I don't want to advocate harsher sentences if they actually increase the risk of the offence occurring.
What about harsh sentences that protect the public from dangerous crooks by keeping them locked away, and really punish them instead of slapping them on the wrist with a wet criminology degree?

Axiom
21-05-2008, 09:41 PM
What about harsh sentences that protect the public from dangerous crooks by keeping them locked away, and really punish them instead of slapping them on the wrist with a wet criminology degree?
Ah you mean like the high level criminals in government , and their higher-ups ? :lol:

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2008, 10:56 PM
No, but these were repeat offenders.

Your quote said they had an average of nine previous offences. I am guessing that "average" in that sense means "mean" and is skewed by a small proportion who had very long charge sheets (perhaps composed largely of small stuff). Your quote didn't say anything about what proportion of the murderers had more than one previous offence. It just said that 89% had one, which does not prove that 89% were prior repeat offenders.


It keeps them off the street.

But they still get out eventually, unless you lock them up and throw away the key. And if they're more hardened as crims when they get out, then a shorter time of freedom isn't going to stop them finding an opportunity to kill someone.

I'm not against declaring some violent multiple recidivists "never to be released", by the way, even if they've never actually killed anyone. But this happens to some degree anyway.


Also, people are more likely to testify if they are not afraid that a lenient judge will give the scum a short sentence, so they will return to take revenge in a short time.

Do you have empirical evidence for that? I don't have any on that point, but prima facie, it could be argued either way. Some people would be reluctant to testify because the scum would get out quickly and take revenge. But if sentences were very harsh, some might be reluctant to testify because they would be concerned about greater retribution from connections of the scum - or because they did not agree with the harshness of the likely sentence. I know I'd do everything I legally could to get out of testifying if I lived in a country that had the death penalty and my testimony could result in someone who was a stranger to me receiving it.


Criminals are most deterred by certainty of being punished,

...which, I note in passing, is not the same thing as length of sentence.


So who protects the public from them?

In some cases, their own rehabilitation does the job. In others, the police have a role. In other cases, nobody (a certain proportion reoffend) but the question is what policy poses the greatest empirical risk of public harm in the long term?


I think that crimes not involving violence should not be given long sentences.

Do you count theft as involving or not involving violence for these purposes? Does it depend on who the theft is from?


There is precious little incentive to rehabilitate now, with such lenient sentences.

That depends on how one finds prison. I believe it's still quite an unpleasant place to be, and the extent to which it is unpleasant and inhumane is much glossed-over. Of course, some people decide they don't mind it, and it is indeed very difficult to rehabilitate those types, and probably not worth trying.


What about harsh sentences that protect the public from dangerous crooks by keeping them locked away, and really punish them instead of slapping them on the wrist with a wet criminology degree?

But how harsh do you want to get? The only level of harshness that is guaranteed to protect the public (and not make the criminal more dangerous upon release) is life-means-life imprisonment for a certain record.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2008, 12:08 AM
Your quote said they had an average of nine previous offences. I am guessing that "average" in that sense means "mean" and is skewed by a small proportion who had very long charge sheets (perhaps composed largely of small stuff). Your quote didn't say anything about what proportion of the murderers had more than one previous offence. It just said that 89% had one, which does not prove that 89% were prior repeat offenders.
That might even be worse, because it shows that people with rap sheets longer than your arms are out on the streets.


I'm not against declaring some violent multiple recidivists "never to be released", by the way, even if they've never actually killed anyone. But this happens to some degree anyway.
Yes, some violent criminals are too dangerous to be allowed freedom.


Do you have empirical evidence for that? I don't have any on that point, but prima facie, it could be argued either way. Some people would be reluctant to testify because the scum would get out quickly and take revenge. But if sentences were very harsh, some might be reluctant to testify because they would be concerned about greater retribution from connections of the scum — or because they did not agree with the harshness of the likely sentence.
How likely is that? It's more likely that people would be afraid of testifying — and see thee pointlessness of it — if the scum were back on the street very soon, i.e. not punished in any real way.


I know I'd do everything I legally could to get out of testifying if I lived in a country that had the death penalty and my testimony could result in someone who was a stranger to me receiving it.
Even if the death penalty was for murdering someone close to you?


...which, I note in passing, is not the same thing as length of sentence.
Agreed. But there might be some connection as above in the willingness of people to testify if they see that it would make a difference to scum being taken out of circulation for some time.


In some cases, their own rehabilitation does the job. In others, the police have a role. In other cases, nobody (a certain proportion reoffend) but the question is what policy poses the greatest empirical risk of public harm in the long term?
Criminals are not totally irrational. They also assess costs and benefits. If the costs of crime are not too high even if they were caught, the benefit/cost ratio that they assess increases.


Do you count theft as involving or not involving violence for these purposes? Does it depend on who the theft is from?
There is a difference between shoplifting and armed robber, pickpocketing and mugging.


That depends on how one finds prison. I believe it's still quite an unpleasant place to be, and the extent to which it is unpleasant and inhumane is much glossed-over.
Yes. There is hardly an American crime show where there are warnings or even jokes about a crim becoming someone's “bitch” in prison. In fact Thomas Sowell, well known for opposing lenience and "root causes" stuff, notes in “Fairness” in sentencing: (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell082803.asp)


Supposedly those who are against long prison sentences are more compassionate, though there seems to be little of that compassion showered on victims of crime. But, even as regards prisoners, there is a remarkable lack of compassion.

The most hideous aspect of imprisonment is not simply being behind bars. It is being in the power of the strongest and most brutal bullies day and night — especially night, when dehumanizing sexual assaults are unleashed. The victims may never outlive these traumas, even after their sentences have been served and they are released with their souls permanently scarred.

The most obvious way to reduce such victimization would be to build enough prison capacity to allow each prisoner to have his own cell, where he could spend the night in peace and later walk out of prison with some trace of human dignity left. But no one opposes building more prisons more vehemently than those who are against mandatory sentences.

"We should be building schools instead of prisons!" they cry.

Most people prefer schools to prisons, but then most people prefer airports to cancer wards. Yet no one says: "Why should we be building more cancer wards instead of more airports?" Such rhetoric would be recognized for the cheap and childish thing that it is. It is cheap and childish when it comes to prisons as well.


But how harsh do you want to get? The only level of harshness that is guaranteed to protect the public (and not make the criminal more dangerous upon release) is life-means-life imprisonment for a certain record.
Or hold him until he is weakened with age. But vicious criminals who cause
GBH should not be released after only a year or two. It is hardly fair to their current or future victims.

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2008, 07:13 PM
That might even be worse, because it shows that people with rap sheets longer than your arms are out on the streets.

They must be. But what those rap sheets are for, and what proportion of people with such rap sheets go on to become murderers, would be interesting to know. If it's small fry and the vast majority of people with long rap sheets for small fry are harmless then that's one thing - but if there are a lot of violent offences in the mix then a point should come where a person is declared to have had more than enough chances.


How likely is that? It's more likely that people would be afraid of testifying — and see thee pointlessness of it — if the scum were back on the street very soon, i.e. not punished in any real way.

In the absence of empirical data, I don't know which possibility is more likely.


Even if the death penalty was for murdering someone close to you?

I won't attempt to predict how I would react in that circumstance.


Criminals are not totally irrational. They also assess costs and benefits. If the costs of crime are not too high even if they were caught, the benefit/cost ratio that they assess increases.

That can be argued either way too. Suppose a criminal is in a situation where they can escape apprehension only by killing a witness. If the sentence for what they were doing is short, they may be less likely to kill the witness and risk a much longer sentence, than if the sentence for what they were doing is long.


[Sowell]The most obvious way to reduce such victimization would be to build enough prison capacity to allow each prisoner to have his own cell, where he could spend the night in peace and later walk out of prison with some trace of human dignity left. But no one opposes building more prisons more vehemently than those who are against mandatory sentences.

I am in favour of more prison space and security for the protection of inmates - of course it may be that many prisoners, given the option of a cell of their own would choose to share anyway. Imprisonment should be with dignity even if this is more expensive - of course if you try to keep people out of prison where possible it is not much more expensive, but if you lock them up readily as much of the Right proposes then doing that plus imprisoning people with dignity becomes very expensive indeed.

Capablanca-Fan
22-05-2008, 08:34 PM
That can be argued either way too. Suppose a criminal is in a situation where they can escape apprehension only by killing a witness. If the sentence for what they were doing is short, they may be less likely to kill the witness and risk a much longer sentence, than if the sentence for what they were doing is long.
That is one reason why the penalty for rape should never be increased so it approaches the penalty for murder.

It's a fair point. On the other hand, if the penalty is that light so he won't kill to escape, it may also be too light to deter.


I am in favour of more prison space and security for the protection of inmates — of course it may be that many prisoners, given the option of a cell of their own would choose to share anyway. Imprisonment should be with dignity even if this is more expensive — of course if you try to keep people out of prison where possible it is not much more expensive, but if you lock them up readily as much of the Right proposes then doing that plus imprisoning people with dignity becomes very expensive indeed.
I am of the Right, some would say ;), but I support making sure that prisoners are kept safe both from brutal guards and from other prisoners. I also think that more non-custodial options should be considered for non-violent crimes, and that victimless crimes should not result in imprisonment.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-05-2008, 10:17 AM
That is one reason why the penalty for rape should never be increased so it approaches the penalty for murder.

Good point. Any penalty for the crime should considered on incremental value (which is difficult sometimes).




and that victimless crimes should not result in imprisonment.
Many of them should not even be considered a crime

TheJoker
23-05-2008, 04:08 PM
What about harsh sentences that protect the public from dangerous crooks by keeping them locked away, and really punish them instead of slapping them on the wrist with a wet criminology degree?

It's expensive. You'd need to be able to demonstrate that it would be a significant deterrent. It assumes that criminal behaviour is based of some sort of cost-benefit thinking. Any studies to show criminals over-estimate their chances of not getting caught? Much like problem gamblers over-estimate their chances of winning?

TheJoker
23-05-2008, 04:13 PM
victimless crimes should not result in imprisonment.

What's an example of a victimless crime?

You mean like DUI were you don't actually cause an accident or kill someone?

Ian Murray
23-05-2008, 05:18 PM
What's an example of a victimless crime?

You mean like DUI were you don't actually cause an accident or kill someone?
Smoking dope at home

Basil
23-05-2008, 05:26 PM
Smoking dope at home
As long as the dope doesn't mind.

Where did the dope come from?
What happened during its cultivation? Electricity stealing?
What steps were put in place to set up cultivation? Identity fraud?
What steps were taken to avoid detection? Violence?

Ian Murray
23-05-2008, 05:41 PM
Where did the dope come from?
What happened during its cultivation? Electricity stealing?
What steps were put in place to set up cultivation? Identity fraud?
What steps were taken to avoid detection? Violence?
Grown from my own seeds in a clay pot on the back verandah :)

The clay pot was legally purchased from the local hardware store (receipt held to verify purchase)

Basil
23-05-2008, 05:45 PM
Touché. I'll bow out of that one and you can have all three points.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2008, 12:53 AM
It's expensive. You'd need to be able to demonstrate that it would be a significant deterrent.
Of course it's expensive. But crime is even more expensive. Lenient judges and parole offices aren't the ones who pay the price.


It assumes that criminal behaviour is based of some sort of cost-benefit thinking.
Yes. There is plenty of evidence that burglars avoid houses where they know the home owner is armed. Violent wifebashers can be model prisoners, explaining that they would be beaten up if they tried that stuff on the prison guards.


Any studies to show criminals over-estimate their chances of not getting caught?
This was in the context of agreeing that tougher sentences would not have much effect if the crim thought that he was unlikely to be sentenced.

Zwischenzug
24-05-2008, 02:16 AM
If only prison can successfully rehabilitate/re-educate criminals instead of merely separate them from society. It seems to me that criminals leave prison more hardened and more likely to commit crime than before their sentence.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2008, 02:22 AM
If only prison can successfully rehabilitate/re-educate criminals instead of merely separate them from society.
Sure, rehabilitation would be better—if we knew how to do it.


It seems to me that criminals leave prison more hardened and more likely to commit crime than before their sentence.
What would you do? Let them continue to prey on their victims, safe in the knowledge that any punishment would be light.

TheJoker
24-05-2008, 04:51 PM
Of course it's expensive. But crime is even more expensive.

Got any figures to justify that statement?



Yes. There is plenty of evidence that burglars avoid houses where they know the home owner is armed.
I was talking about evidence that they consider sentencing. Which is different as it is not an direct threat.



This was in the context of agreeing that tougher sentences would not have much effect if the crim thought that he was unlikely to be sentenced.

Don't get me wrong I am not saying tougher sentences might not work as a deterrent, just wondering if there is any real evidence to show that

a. It would significantly deter criminals
b. It would be cost effective.

I am sure there is evidence out there some US states have the 3 strikes and you're out policies.

littlesprout85
24-05-2008, 05:47 PM
ermmmmm,

Somehow this thread as gone into the twilight zone.

Da sprout is an expert in this field of studys.(criminal justice major)

Lets meh just go ahead and give a great statistic on guns. When there is an home burglery & the home owner has a gun in the house & is shot. Over 80% of the time he was shot with his own gun :0

-Sprout :)

MichaelBaron
24-05-2008, 06:30 PM
ermmmmm,

Somehow this thread as gone into the twilight zone.

Da sprout is an expert in this field of studys.(criminal justice major)

Lets meh just go ahead and give a great statistic on guns. When there is an home burglery & the home owner has a gun in the house & is shot. Over 80% of the time he was shot with his own gun :0

-Sprout :)

This is true :(.
However, all it means is that people should be educated on where to store and how to handle guns rather than to be disallowed to have them:hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2008, 10:00 PM
However, all it means is that people should be educated on where to store and how to handle guns rather than to be disallowed to have them:hmm:
A lot of the time, the gun controllers make the gun perfectly useless by requiring that they are locked away and unloaded.

Also, the gun controllers overlook the fact the the vast majority of the uses of guns to prevent crime don't involve firing it but applying the Nimzo principle.

Capablanca-Fan
24-05-2008, 10:06 PM
Got any figures to justify that statement?
Just think of the places in America where there was much rioting. Most businesses still haven't returned. And any businesses that do go there must put up their costs because they need anti-crime measures. Home owners also spend more on security systems, and don't venture outside as much.

But of course, the leftists who let criminals back on the streets pay no price for being wrong. This is very dangerous, since the leftists become insulated from the normal feedback mechanisms that improve things.


Don't get me wrong I am not saying tougher sentences might not work as a deterrent, just wondering if there is any real evidence to show that

a. It would significantly deter criminals
b. It would be cost effective.
We could look at the skyrocketing crime rates after leftist theories of crime took over with all this "root causes" crap. Criminals certainly seemed encouraged by the likelihood of leftist judges releasing them on technicalities or giving them slaps on the wrist. Sowell's book The Vision of the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?articleID=484&issueID=37) analyses the trends. E.g. he provides evidence that there are better practical results from changing the incentives for certain behaviours than trying to change people's dispositions, e.g. with "rehabilitation" programs.


I am sure there is evidence out there some US states have the 3 strikes and you're out policies.
I don't agree with that idea. I do think punishment should fit the crime. It's shameful that criminals are often treated worse than the victims.

littlesprout85
25-05-2008, 05:50 PM
Right onz,

Right onz MichaelBaron, But your mistakin if you think sprouty is a tree hugger :eek: No way you must be mistaken.:hand:

Da sprout believe in our right/freedom to bear arms. How can you go hunting without a gun :doh: with proper gun laws and enforcement along with joing with conservation we can go very far in restoring the natural balance.

Also good friend of da sprout is Ted Nugent(motor city madman) who himself is a hunter & now the prez of the N.R.A. Would totally like to join up with em this fall and do a lil fishing & hunting up in Michigan -Oh YEAAAA !!!1

Just tossin out a fact to stir the stew with on this thread- ahhhh Stew :o)


-sprout :)

Axiom
25-05-2008, 09:57 PM
Right onz,

Right onz MichaelBaron, But your mistakin if you think sprouty is a tree hugger :eek: No way you must be mistaken.:hand:

Da sprout believe in our right/freedom to bear arms. How can you go hunting without a gun :doh: with proper gun laws and enforcement along with joing with conservation we can go very far in restoring the natural balance.

Also good friend of da sprout is Ted Nugent(motor city madman) who himself is a hunter & now the prez of the N.R.A. Would totally like to join up with em this fall and do a lil fishing & hunting up in Michigan -Oh YEAAAA !!!1

Just tossin out a fact to stir the stew with on this thread- ahhhh Stew :o)


-sprout :)
You know Ted Nugent ???

Aaron Guthrie
25-05-2008, 09:59 PM
In answer to thread title, yes!

littlesprout85
27-05-2008, 08:10 PM
The Answer to axioms question is a definate -Yes :)

Sprouty and Ted Nugent go way-way back to the 80's. When Rock-n-Roll was everything in Michigan. :whistle:

-Sprout :)

Axiom
27-05-2008, 09:56 PM
The Answer to axioms question is a definate -Yes :)

Sprouty and Ted Nugent go way-way back to the 80's. When Rock-n-Roll was everything in Michigan. :whistle:

-Sprout :)
!!

never had his records , but always respected Ted , and have fond memories of "cat scratch fever".

How well , do you know him ?

Desmond
04-06-2008, 02:05 PM
Speaking of (not) treating prisoners with dignity, has anyone come across Joe Arpaio (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/arpaio.asp) in Arizona?

Capablanca-Fan
04-06-2008, 02:11 PM
Speaking of (not) treating prisoners with dignity, has anyone come across Joe Arpaio (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/arpaio.asp) in Arizona?
Yeah. AFAIK, the prisoners are still better off than in many state pens where they are poorly protected from brutality and rape by other prisoners.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2008, 11:20 AM
Supreme Court Voids D.C. Gun Ban (http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/court_voids_gun_ban/2008/06/26/107529.html?s=al&promo_code=64F3-1)
26 June 2008


The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for four colleagues, said the Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

...

The capital's gun law was among the nation's strictest.

Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's handgun ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own guns and that a total prohibition on handguns is not compatible with that right.

...

Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."

The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.

Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-06-2008, 04:24 PM
The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.
That's the problem. Rule of law should not be replaced by the rule of executive.

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2008, 03:05 PM
How Gun Control Lost (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/SteveChapman/2008/06/29/how_gun_control_lost?page=1)
By Steve Chapman


Thomas Jefferson once wrote, pessimistically, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He would probably not have been surprised to see the proliferation of gun control laws in our time. But he might not have anticipated that the water would run back uphill.

...

It looked as though ever-stricter gun control was the wave of the future. But the future had different ideas. What happened? Three main things:

--Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade. Gun control didn't work.

During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined -- but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.

--Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated -- with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention -- and notoriety -- by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.

People elsewhere took heed, and today, according to the NRA, 40 states have "right-to-carry" laws. As those laws have spread, the homicide rate has fallen sharply from the peak reached in 1991.

--The Second Amendment got a second look. In 1983, a San Francisco lawyer named Don Kates published an article in the University of Michigan Law Review arguing that, contrary to prevailing wisdom in the judiciary and law schools, the Constitution upholds an individual right to keep and bear arms.

...
Instead, the right to keep and bear arms has finally taken its rightful place with our other fundamental liberties. It may be the natural course of things for government control to expand and freedom to shrink. But as Jefferson knew, America was founded to reverse that process.

Intuition
29-06-2008, 03:25 PM
Banning guns makes sure that only the crooks have them :)

Capablanca-Fan
10-07-2008, 06:45 PM
Why Do We "Keep and Bear Arms"? (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LarryElder/2008/07/10/why_do_we_keep_and_bear_arms_part_2?page=2)
By Larry Elder

A "hot burglary" occurs when the bad guy enters a home knowing it is occupied. The hot burglary rate in the United States is about 10 percent, while the hot burglary rate in the U.K. — which banned handguns in 1997 — is around 50 percent.

Why not ask the real experts — criminals?

The U.S. Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice surveyed 2,000 felons in state prisons. It asked whether "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." Seventy-four percent of the felons said yes. The survey also asked these felons whether they had abandoned at least one crime because they feared the intended suspect might be armed. Thirty-nine percent said they abandoned at least one crime; 8 percent had abandoned such a crime "many" times; 34 percent admitted being "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; and nearly 70 percent knew a "colleague" who had abandoned a crime, been scared off, been shot at, wounded or captured by a victim packing heat.

TheJoker
11-07-2008, 11:34 AM
A "hot burglary" occurs when the bad guy enters a home knowing it is occupied. The hot burglary rate in the United States is about 10 percent, while the hot burglary rate in the U.K. — which banned handguns in 1997 — is around 50 percent.

Jono I couldn't find the source for these statistics in the article you referenced. I know there have been some studies that have derided by Harvard because of flawed methodology. I suspect this is one.

However, Uniform Crime Reports for all 50 U.S. states and data from the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey for 330,000 households, which found that “U.S. counties and states with more guns have higher rates of burglary and higher per capita rates of ‘hot burglary’” and that “[h]omes with firearm collections are considered prime targets for burglars.”

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.

Capablanca-Fan
12-07-2008, 11:49 AM
Jono I couldn't find the source for these statistics in the article you referenced. I know there have been some studies that have derided by Harvard because of flawed methodology. I suspect this is one.
Suspicion is useless. And since when is Harvard the last word?


However, Uniform Crime Reports for all 50 U.S. states and data from the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey for 330,000 households, which found that “U.S. counties and states with more guns have higher rates of burglary and higher per capita rates of ‘hot burglary’” and that “[h]omes with firearm collections are considered prime targets for burglars.”
Firearm collections maybe, but that is way different from a burglar facing an armed home-owner. There is little point to having a gun in the home if regulations prevent it being used in self-defence.

I fail to see the logic of why neo-chamberlainism should work better in the home than it has ever worked for a nation. Indeed, it hasn't worked for Britain, and the late and unlamented gun ban did make Washington DC safer, as Larry Elder wrote in the above cited article:


In the five years preceding the 1976 ban, the per capita murder rate in Washington, DC, fell. At the time the law passed, the murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate was 26.8 per 100,000 people. By 1991, the rate rose to 80.6. In 2006, the number stood at 29.1, almost 9 percent higher than the 1976 rate. DC's per capita murder rate remains higher than surrounding states.

A "hot burglary" occurs when the bad guy enters a home knowing it is occupied. The hot burglary rate in the United States is about 10 percent, while the hot burglary rate in the U.K. — which banned handguns in 1997 — is around 50 percent.

...

So, did the Washington, DC, gun ban "work"?

As the city's former Mayor Marion Barry once put it, "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."

So there.


The Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that homicide rates among children, and among women and men of all ages, are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the February 2007 issue of Social Science and Medicine.
Means very little without knowing the cause of the homicides. The most common weapon in home homicides is the screwdriver, but lefties don't want to ban them.

Aaron Guthrie
12-07-2008, 12:13 PM
The most common weapon in home homicides is the screwdriver,Got evidence for this claim?

Rincewind
12-07-2008, 01:13 PM
Got evidence for this claim?

I'm interested too. I guess it would depend on where you are talking about. I imagine in countries with sane levels of handgun control (e.g. Australia, Canada etc) then perhaps firearms rank below say knives. But I can't imagine screwdrivers outranking knives anywhere.

The problem with arguments like "x kills more people then guns and lefties don't want to ban them" is that x also serves a purpose other than killing people. Screwdrivers are needed for general repair and construction, cars are needed to transport goods and people, knives are used to prepare food, open boxes, etc.

However, the only purpose of a handgun in an urban setting is to kill people. Unless we want our urban population to kill people, they should be banned.

Aaron Guthrie
12-07-2008, 03:08 PM
I'm interested too. I guess it would depend on where you are talking about. I imagine in countries with sane levels of handgun control (e.g. Australia, Canada etc) then perhaps firearms rank below say knives. But I can't imagine screwdrivers outranking knives anywhere.See for example http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article132003?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2003&num=&view= Right at the bottom it has a graph which shows knives outrank guns in Australia as murder weapons. However hands (i.e. no weapon) outrank guns, but you don't see lefties calling for their outlaw (yuk yuk).

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2008, 02:46 PM
I'm interested too. I guess it would depend on where you are talking about.
A while ago, I think it was in John Lott.


However, the only purpose of a handgun in an urban setting is to kill people. Unless we want our urban population to kill people, they should be banned.
No, there is another purpose, as per Nimzo: the threat is stronger than its execution. Most uses of handguns to prevent crime don't involve firing it.

I prefer not to have our urban population unable to defend themselves against scumbags who invade their homes.

Rincewind
13-07-2008, 09:28 PM
No, there is another purpose, as per Nimzo: the threat is stronger than its execution. Most uses of handguns to prevent crime don't involve firing it.

There is no threat unless you are prepared to execute it, which leads us back to arming urban killers.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2008, 11:43 AM
There is no threat unless you are prepared to execute it,
Of course, in the rare case that the scumbag insists on threatening the lives of the family in the home. And in this case, it's better the scumbag gets killed than the family members. The police are unlikely to be able to help in time; they are too busy manning revenue collectors speed cameras. But they can write a nice crime scene report over your corpse and maybe even catch him later.


which leads us back to arming urban killers.
More to the point, it provides the means to stop these urban killers. We saw the difference between disarmed Virginia Tech where an urban killer massacred many, and the Colorado church where a massacre was stopped by a lady packing heat.

Rincewind
14-07-2008, 12:18 PM
More to the point, it provides the means to stop these urban killers. We saw the difference between disarmed Virginia Tech where an urban killer massacred many, and the Colorado church where a massacre was stopped by a lady packing heat.

Hardly a case study of gun control comparison. While Virginia Tech had a gun-free zone it was not stringently enforced and it was the lax laws of the State of Virginia which allowed someone with known mental problems and a fascination with firearms to purchase handguns without any regulation.

If you look at the school based shootings worldwide you will see a trend that America with the most accessible arsenal in the first world has far and away the most number of shootings, which shows your "deterrent argument" as nothing more than wishful thinking. For example...


Virginia Tech massacre , 2007, 33 killed
University of Texas at Austin massacre , 1966, 18 killed
Columbine High School massacre , 1999, 15 killed
Red Lake High School massacre , 2005, 10 killed
California State University, Fullerton library massacre , 1976, 7 killed
Cleveland Elementary School shooting , 1989, 6 killed
University of Iowa shooting , 1991, 6 killed
Amish school shooting , 2006, 6 killed
Northern Illinois University shooting , 2008, 6 killed
Westside Middle School shooting , 1998, 5 killed
Kent State shootings , 1970, 4 killed
Lindhurst High School shooting , 1992, 4 killed
Thurston High School shooting , 1998, 4 killed
University of Arizona School of Nursing shooting , 2002, 4 killed
Orangeburg massacre , 1968, 3 killed
Frontier Junior High shooting , 1996, 3 killed
Pearl High School shooting , 1997, 3 killed
Heath High School shooting , 1997, 3 killed
Appalachian School of Law shooting , 2002, 3 killed
Louisiana Technical College shooting , 2008, 3 killed
Jackson State killings , 1970, 2 killed
Cleveland Elementary School shooting , 1979, 2 killed
Parkway South Junior High School shooting , 1983, 2 killed
Simon's Rock College of Bard shooting , 1992, 2 killed
East Carter High School shooting , 1993, 2 killed
Richland High School shooting , 1995, 2 killed
Bethel High School shooting , 1997, 2 killed
Santana High School shooting , 2001, 2 killed
Red Lion Area Junior High School shootings , 2003, 2 killed
Rocori High School shootings , 2003, 2 killed
Essex Elementary School Shooting , 2006, 2 killed
Platte Canyon High School shooting , 2006, 2 killed
Hetzel Union Building shooting , 1996, 1 killed
Parker Middle School shooting , 1998, 1 killed
Buell Elementary School shooting , 2000, 1 killed
John McDonough High School shooting , 2003, 1 killed
Case Western Reserve University shooting , 2003, 1 killed
Fairleigh Dickinson University shooting , 2003, 1 killed
Campbell County High School shooting , 2005, 1 killed
Weston High School shooting , 2006, 1 killed
Delaware State University shooting , 2007, 1 killed
SuccessTech Academy shooting , 2007, 1 killed
Notre Dame Elementary shooting , 2008, 1 killed
E.O. Green School shooting , 2008, 1 killed


They're just the ones with fatalities. There have been a few others where thankfully no one died.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2008, 01:46 PM
Hardly a case study of gun control comparison. While Virginia Tech had a gun-free zone it was not stringently enforced
The gun-free zone was enforced enough that the thug had no opposition. This contrasts with Colorado, which also allows guns and didn't enforce a gun ban at a church, so a massacre was stopped.


and it was the lax laws of the State of Virginia which allowed someone with known mental problems and a fascination with firearms to purchase handguns without any regulation.
That is something to stop. This doesn't mean a general disarmament of the population.


If you look at the school based shootings worldwide you will see a trend that America with the most accessible arsenal in the first world has far and away the most number of shootings, which shows your "deterrent argument" as nothing more than wishful thinking. For example...
No, most of the below were in "gun free" zones, making people defenceless against a crim who obviously has no intention of obeying the anti-gun law. None of these massacres happened at NRA meetings for example.

And by far the worst fatalities are the millions killed by governments —often after they have disarmed their people.


There have been a few others where thankfully no one died.
Sometimes precisely because they were stopped by a civilian packing heat.

Rincewind
14-07-2008, 03:37 PM
The gun-free zone was enforced enough that the thug had no opposition. This contrasts with Colorado, which also allows guns and didn't enforce a gun ban at a church, so a massacre was stopped.

It's just anecdotal and not indicative on anything of the kind.


That is something to stop. This doesn't mean a general disarmament of the population.

I believe Virginia has tightened things up a bit. The trouble is there is still so many gun in circulation that the authorities cannot claim to have any control over the supply of guns to troubled youths.


No, most of the below were in "gun free" zones, making people defenceless against a crim who obviously has no intention of obeying the anti-gun law. None of these massacres happened at NRA meetings for example.

These are school or universities and in the majority of cases, the "crim" is a student at the school who is troubled. These are not crimes in the sense that they are trying to steal property, the "perpetrators" are generally mentally ill.


And by far the worst fatalities are the millions killed by governments —often after they have disarmed their people.

ummm... Not sure where that came from, but if you say so... sure...


Sometimes precisely because they were stopped by a civilian packing heat.

No again these are school shooting and civilians are other students and teachers who generally don't "pack heat" as you so charmingly call being in possession of a lethal weapon.

However in the cases without fatalities I was talking about, NONE of them were stopped by an armed civilian, and in only one case was an armed police officer involved. They were...

Heritage High School shooting, 1999

Shooter was not aiming to kill (just not aiming in general) was going to commit suicide but convinced to stop by the unarmed assistant principal.

Granite Hills High School shooting, 2001

Shooter fired rounds into the attendance office. Stopped by an armed policeman.

Pine Middle School shooting, 2006

Three shots, no fatalities. School went into "lockdown" and shooter was convinced to disarm by an unarmed gym teacher.

Mitchell High School shooting, 2008

One shot at the school cafeteria. School when into "lockdown" and shooter was subsequently arrested and taken into custody.

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2008, 07:42 PM
It's just anecdotal and not indicative on anything of the kind.
It is a well documented recent incident—google Jeanne Assam, the heroine who stopped the massacre in the church by shooting the scumbag.


I believe Virginia has tightened things up a bit. The trouble is there is still so many gun in circulation that the authorities cannot claim to have any control over the supply of guns to troubled youths.
Even more reason not to disarm the law-abiding citizens, because then only the crims (or as you say, "crims") will have guns.


These are school or universities and in the majority of cases, the "crim" is a student at the school who is troubled. These are not crimes in the sense that they are trying to steal property, the "perpetrators" are generally mentally ill.
Who says? Just because they want to commit mass murder, it doesn't mean they are mentally ill.

Far more often, the crim (or "crim") is rational and avoids places where there is likely to be armed resistance. That's why far more American burglars avoid homes where the home-owner is likely to be present (and armed) than in Britain.


No again these are school shooting and civilians are other students and teachers who generally don't "pack heat" as you so charmingly call being in possession of a lethal weapon.
As D'Artagnan said in The Man in the Iron Mask, when he drew his sword, he thought about who he was saving.

Tony Dowden
14-07-2008, 07:53 PM
Hi Jono,

1. Do you have any comment on the 1970 Kent State shootings? Weren't they the result of having (ill-trained) armed offcials?

2. Was Rincewind's list accurate? And, any non-USA sites?

Cheers, Tony

Capablanca-Fan
14-07-2008, 09:08 PM
G'day Tony


1. Do you have any comment on the 1970 Kent State shootings? Weren't they the result of having (ill-trained) armed offcials?
Not at present, sorry. However, this would seem to bolster my point that far more deaths resulted from armed government than armed law-abiding citizens.


2. Was Rincewind's list accurate?
Most likely. The conclusion he draws from them is not. I draw a different conclusion about the number of lives saved by law-abiding citizens with guns, most of which didn't have to be fired to prevent the crime.


And, any non-USA sites?
One notable non-US shooting was in Finland, the suicide-murderer Pekka-Eric Auvinen (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5435/)

Rincewind
14-07-2008, 09:54 PM
2. Was Rincewind's list accurate? And, any non-USA sites?

There might have some quibbling as I got the figures off the internet but I think generally it appears accurate to what I've read in newspaper reports of the few cases I looked into in more depth.

For non-US school/university shootings Canada has the most with 7 cases, the best known being the Ecole Polytechnique massacre in 1989 which resulted in the deaths of 14 women (the shooter believed he was fighting against feminism). This incident spark a gun control reaction somewhat like the reaction to the Port Arthur massacre did here in Australia.

There is also the famous Finnish cases Jono mentioned above and of course closer to home there were two people killed at Monash Uni (Melbourne) in 2002. AFAIK that is Australia's only shooting which would classify in this group.

Rincewind
14-07-2008, 10:05 PM
Just because they want to commit mass murder, it doesn't mean they are mentally ill.

No? How do you read it?

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2008, 12:38 AM
There might have some quibbling as I got the figures off the internet but I think generally it appears accurate to what I've read in newspaper reports of the few cases I looked into in more depth.
I saw no reason to dispute them.


This incident spark a gun control reaction somewhat like the reaction to the Port Arthur massacre did here in Australia.
Yes, but such a massacre could not have happened in say Colorado since someone else in the crowd would have been packing.


There is also the famous Finnish cases Jono mentioned above and of course closer to home there were two people killed at Monash Uni (Melbourne) in 2002. AFAIK that is Australia's only shooting which would classify in this group.
Interesting that this happened only after Howard made his worst blunder in his political career, when he should have read the American Founding Fathers. Yet, according to Australia's Gun Laws: Little Effect (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics):


But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper (http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1)that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were "all over the place," says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."

Firearm homicides in Australia were declining before 1996 and the decline has simply continued at the same rate since, McPhedran says. (In 2002-3, Australia's rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate.) Of course, it's possible there might have been a spike in firearm homicides — and one or more Port Arthur-style events — if not for the gun law reforms. "It's very easy to raise what-ifs," McPhedran counters. "The what-ifs are interesting as discussion points. But, ultimately, for policy making, we have to deal with what is."

And suicide by firearm? Here again, rates were falling pre-1996.


No? How do you read it?
That there needs to be independent proof of mental illness; this should not be assumed.

Axiom
15-07-2008, 02:56 AM
They Didn’t Attack Switzerland


Bill Walker
Lew Rockwell.com
Monday, July 14, 2008

Switzerland has not been in a foreign war of any kind since 1815. This would be astounding, even miraculous, for any nation. But Switzerland borders Germany. And France. And Italy. And Austria. And Liechtenstein. Now Liechtenstein has rarely lashed out in Blitzkrieg in a desperate bid to reign über alles, but ALL of Switzerland’s other neighbors have spent their entire histories invading other countries.

...<snip>...

Read more here... http://www.lewrockwell.com/walker/walker32.html

Rincewind
15-07-2008, 05:47 AM
They Didn’t Attack Switzerland


Bill Walker
Lew Rockwell.com
Monday, July 14, 2008


It appears to be a light reworking of the piece (by the same author) dated here at March 3, 2005.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker1.html

Igor_Goldenberg
15-07-2008, 10:12 AM
If you look at the school based shootings worldwide you will see a trend that America with the most accessible arsenal in the first world has far and away the most number of shootings, which shows your "deterrent argument" as nothing more than wishful thinking. For example...

They're just the ones with fatalities. There have been a few others where thankfully no one died.

To make any conclusion you should list them with the level of gun restriction at the place of massacre (state law plus local regulations if any). Also add how the murder was stopped, how long it took).
Same info about the cases that ended without fatalities.

Then it will be clear what is the impact of the gun laws in respect to mass murder.

TheJoker
15-07-2008, 04:04 PM
Suspicion is useless..

So are unreferenced statistics.


And since when is Harvard the last word?

There are not but considering their academic reputation I'd say their opinion holds a lot of weight.



Larry Elder wrote in the above cited article:

[INDENT]In the five years preceding the 1976 ban, the per capita murder rate in Washington, DC, fell. At the time the law passed, the murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate was 26.8 per 100,000 people. By 1991, the rate rose to 80.6. In 2006, the number stood at 29.1, almost 9 percent higher than the 1976 rate. DC's per capita murder rate remains higher than surrounding states.

A "hot burglary" occurs when the bad guy enters a home knowing it is occupied. The hot burglary rate in the United States is about 10 percent, while the hot burglary rate in the U.K. — which banned handguns in 1997 — is around 50 percent.

Larry also failed to mention where the statistics come from which as I said earlier makes them useless.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2008, 04:12 PM
There are not but considering their academic reputation I'd say their opinion holds a lot of weight.
They are prone to nonsensical PC crap, e.g. when they removed Larry Summers, himself a lefty, as president merely for suggesting one of a number of reasons why there are a fewer women in science.

Most lefties, which includes a huge majority in many uni departments, think that crims are the victims of society, so don't like policies whereby society might be able to defend itself.


Larry also failed to mention where the statistics come from which as I said earlier makes them useless.
He said they were from the justice department.

TheJoker
15-07-2008, 04:20 PM
They are prone to nonsensical PC crap.
No less than the nonsensical PC crap (albeit right-wing) you sprout ;)


He said they were from the justice department.

I doubt the Justice Department carries stats on "hot burglaries" happening in the UK :rolleyes:

TheJoker
15-07-2008, 04:44 PM
In relation to screwdriver being the homicide weapon of choice. Wouldn't that imply that there is no need to own a gun to defend yourself as long as you own a screwdriver:lol:

And considering that a screwdriver is inherantly more useful in an urban environment and apparently (according to Jono) more deadly, why would anybody in their right mind even consider owning a gun for self protection.:lol:

TheJoker
15-07-2008, 05:35 PM
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/

Interesting statistics by the FBI, plenty of info to keep this thread churning;)

Rincewind
15-07-2008, 10:48 PM
To make any conclusion you should list them with the level of gun restriction at the place of massacre (state law plus local regulations if any). Also add how the murder was stopped, how long it took).
Same info about the cases that ended without fatalities.

Then it will be clear what is the impact of the gun laws in respect to mass murder.

I think the one making the claim of an armed population being a deterrent would have to make that case. I was just pointing out there is a class of crime (school shooting) in which accessibility to firearms leads to a greater rather then a lesser occurrence of the crime.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2008, 09:34 AM
I think the one making the claim of an armed population being a deterrent would have to make that case. I was just pointing out there is a class of crime (school shooting) in which accessibility to firearms leads to a greater rather then a lesser occurrence of the crime.
You are making a claim that in those cases "accessibility to firearms leads to a greater rather then a lesser occurrence of the crime". That you have to prove.

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 09:50 AM
You are making a claim that in those cases "accessibility to firearms leads to a greater rather then a lesser occurrence of the crime". That you have to prove.

Forty-four cases of school shootings leading to fatalities in America. In many cases the shooters were judged to be of diminished responsibility and in some cases thought to be so by authorities BEFORE the shooter acquired the firearms with which the shooting took place.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 10:50 AM
In relation to screwdriver being the homicide weapon of choice. Wouldn't that imply that there is no need to own a gun to defend yourself as long as you own a screwdriver:lol:
Good grief, are you really that obtuse? Screwdrivers are available for domestic violence, but are not useful for defending against a home invader. But nothing convinces lefties of the neo-Chamberlainite school of defence against criminals: disarm and appease and hope they don't hurt you. The Churchill–Reagan school of deterrence through strength has proved its worth in deterring home invasions too.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 10:54 AM
Forty-four cases of school shootings leading to fatalities in America.
44 cases in a nation of 250 million? Compare that to the millions of deaths by armed governments against unarmed civilians, which have amply justified the American Founders' major reason for allowing armed law-abiding citizens: protection against an out-of-control government. Compare it also to the deaths caused by armed criminals against unarmed law-abiding citizens—oh wait, Rincewind's examples were just that!


In many cases the shooters were judged to be of diminished responsibility and in some cases thought to be so by authorities BEFORE the shooter acquired the firearms with which the shooting took place.
Who is arguing that mentally unstable people should have guns? This is no excuse to disarm the mentally stable law-abiding populace.

TheJoker
16-07-2008, 10:55 AM
Good grief, are you really that obtuse?
Sarcasim is obviously beyond you:rolleyes:

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 11:31 AM
Sarcasim is obviously beyond you:rolleyes:
It's hard to know with a Lefty—Lefties really believe many dense things.:rolleyes:

Aaron Guthrie
16-07-2008, 12:31 PM
A while ago, I think it was in John Lott.Never heard of that country. So are you able to back up the claim?

TheJoker
16-07-2008, 01:47 PM
It's hard to know with a Lefty—Lefties really believe many dense things.:rolleyes:

Really you are the only one of this thread spouting unfounded garbage about screwdriver's being the homicide weapon of choice.

Check out the FBI stats in the link I provided above, then you will realise why you are coping so much ridicule for that remark:rolleyes:

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 02:23 PM
Who is arguing that mentally unstable people should have guns? This is no excuse to disarm the mentally stable law-abiding populace.

While the guns are readily available you will not be able to regulate access and prevent these sorts of crimes from continuing to occur. The deterrent of gun ownership does not work if the perpetrator is irrational as is the case with many of these crimes.

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 02:28 PM
44 cases in a nation of 250 million? Compare that to the millions of deaths by armed governments against unarmed civilians, which have amply justified the American Founders' major reason for allowing armed law-abiding citizens: protection against an out-of-control government.

So now you are saying people should be arming themselves, not for self protection from criminals, but to protect themselves from the government. So you think anyone who feels slighted by the American government to take up arms against that government? I think you mean all the people currently in prisons for armed offenses.


Compare it also to the deaths caused by armed criminals against unarmed law-abiding citizens—oh wait, Rincewind's examples were just that!

Yes and in America, a country where these teenage criminals who are not mentally ill, but just want to commit mass-murder, have ready access to guns, has more school shooting than anywhere else. Far out of proportion with population.

Zwischenzug
16-07-2008, 02:31 PM
Yes and in America, a country where these teenage criminals who are not mentally ill, but just want to commit mass-murder, have ready access to guns, has more school shooting than anywhere else. Far out of proportion with population.
I consider school shootings there are more to do with America's gun culture than a problem with the guns themselves.

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 02:34 PM
44 cases in a nation of 250 million?

There have been 5 cases of school shooting in the US so far 2008 and four of these resulted in fatalities.

Are you saying that is acceptable for a country of 250 million?

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 02:38 PM
I consider school shootings there are more to do with America's gun culture than a problem with the guns themselves.

The two are intertwined. Without access to firearms, the American gun culture would not be what it is today. That culture is what makes gun accessibility the problem that it is and there is little doubt that without access to guns these individuals could not have taken as many lives as they did. Do you think Seung-Hui Cho would have been able to kill 32 people and commit suicide with a screwdriver?

Zwischenzug
16-07-2008, 02:43 PM
The two are intertwined. Without access to firearms, the American gun culture would not be what it is today. That culture is what makes gun accessibility the problem that it is and there is little doubt that without access to guns these individuals could not have taken as many lives as they did. Do you think Seung-Hui Cho would have been able to kill 32 people and commit suicide with a screwdriver?

Do other countries (where its citizens have easy access to firearms) have a similar gun culture to America? Is there school shootings in other countries (say for example, Canada or Germany) with the same magnitude as the US? I believe the gun culture is a strong influence.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2008, 02:44 PM
Forty-four cases of school shootings leading to fatalities in America. In many cases the shooters were judged to be of diminished responsibility and in some cases thought to be so by authorities BEFORE the shooter acquired the firearms with which the shooting took place.

Those that disrespect the law (whether their responsibility diminished or not) would still be able to get a gun. The question is:
In cases of mass shooting, were the victims/residents of the area permitted or forbidden to carry a gun?

Removing the right to carry gun from people with some previous convictions is reasonable. (After all, driving license can be suspended or cancelled for some traffic violations. Gun laws obviously should not be softer).

TheJoker
16-07-2008, 03:01 PM
44 cases in a nation of 250 million? ... Compare it also to the deaths caused by armed criminals against unarmed law-abiding citizens—oh wait.

Well compare the number of deaths caused by firearms in domestic disputes to those carried out by armed criminals. approximately 3:1 according to the FBI statistics.

On the issue of deterrent if an armed criminal committing a burglary or robbery is confronted by either an unarmed civilian or an armed civilian which one do you think he is more likely to shoot. My guess would be the armed civlian who poses a direct threat to his life.

Reverse the situation you are an armed civilian you discover an unarmed burglar in your home would you likley shoot the person? How about if he was armed I bet you'd be more likely. I dare say the same instinct of self protection applies to a criminal faced with an armed civilian.

Justifiable homcides (civilians killing criminals) account for only 1% of total homicides in the USA. So I suspect arming civilians is likely to result in more civilian deaths than less (particularly when consider the number of domestic homcides committed with firearms).

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 03:13 PM
In cases of mass shooting, were the victims/residents of the area permitted or forbidden to carry a gun?

Sorry but now you are just being stupid. :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 09:49 PM
On the issue of deterrent if an armed criminal committing a burglary or robbery is confronted by either an unarmed civilian or an armed civilian which one do you think he is more likely to shoot. My guess would be the armed civlian who poses a direct threat to his life.
Not if the civilian gets him first. And which home is he likely to invade: the one with guns or the one proudly displaying an anti-gun sticker?

From Elder (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LarryElder/2008/07/10/why_do_we_keep_and_bear_arms_part_2)again:


"When a robbery victim does not defend himself," former assistant district attorney and firearms expert David Kopel writes, "the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery — from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing — produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. One in six of that number, or 400,000, believe someone would have been dead but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people are right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be 40,000.

The Department of Justice's own National Institute of Justice study entitled "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" estimates that 1.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes every year. Although the government's figure estimates a million fewer people defensively using guns, the NIJ calls their figure "directly comparable" to Kleck's, noting, "It is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error." Furthermore, the NIJ reports that half of their respondents who said they used guns defensively also admitted having done so multiple times a year — making the number of estimated uses of self-defense with a gun 4.7 million times annually.

UCLA Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a respected expert on crime, police practices and guns, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."


Reverse the situation you are an armed civilian you discover an unarmed burglar in your home would you likley shoot the person? How about if he was armed I bet you'd be more likely. I dare say the same instinct of self protection applies to a criminal faced with an armed civilian.
Yeah yeah, we know you're a neo-Chamberlainite. But surrendering to the crim by disarming is just going to embolden them into committing crime. OTOH deterrence works.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2008, 10:05 PM
Sorry but now you are just being stupid. :hand:
I can't be responsible for you not comprehending very simple logic.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-07-2008, 10:08 PM
Sorry but now you are just being stupid. :hand:

Means inability to substantiate your claim? Not the first time.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 10:18 PM
Sorry but now you are just being stupid. :hand:
what are you saying ?
Igor's question is not relevant , not logical ?

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 10:19 PM
Means inability to substantiate your claim? Not the first time.

No. Just an inability to justify to myself the effort of engaging in a meaningful discussion with a moron. Not the first time where you're concerned. I've already given you plenty of debating tips on another thread but you seem to be a (very) slow learner.

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 10:22 PM
what are you saying ?
Igor's question is not relevant , not logical ?

Shows a lack of imagination and inability to read. (Not the first time?)

Issue was raised and answered two days ago.

Axiom
16-07-2008, 10:35 PM
Shows a lack of imagination and inability to read. (Not the first time?)

Issue was raised and answered two days ago.
so both igor and i are wrong on this and you are right :hmm: ok :lol:



igor is asking about the state of the victim/resident's gun laws in the mass shooting cases.

a question you say you've answered , but where ?

Axiom
16-07-2008, 10:38 PM
discussion with a moron. Not the first time where you're concerned. I've already given you plenty of debating tips on another thread but you seem to be a (very) slow learner.
this type of abuse is totally unwarranted.
you really let yourself down here rw , by resorting to such baseless abuse.
..not for the first time ! :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 10:39 PM
I can't be responsible for you not comprehending very simple logic.
Indeed. I had already contrasted Virginia Tech, a "gun free zone" that was the site of a massacre (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JacobSullum/2007/04/18/virginia_techs_gun-free_zone_left_cho_seung-huis_victims_defenseless), with New Life Church in Colorado Springs, where a thug was stopped from killing 100 people by heroine Jeanne Assam (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/12/10/Security_upgrade_saves_churchgoers/UPI-86971197320209/), who shot him with her personally owned concealed weapon.

It's immoral to remove the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from crims (or as Rincewind says, "crims"), when the Polizei are too busy manning revenue raisers speed cameras instead of protecting lives and property.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 10:42 PM
There have been 5 cases of school shooting in the US so far 2008 and four of these resulted in fatalities.

Are you saying that is acceptable for a country of 250 million?
No. I am saying that any policy can be condemned if only costs are counted, not the benefits; and any policy can be supported if only benefits are considered without counting the costs.

Disarming law-abiding citizens would benefit the crims, since they would know that their victims are defenceless. It has also historically benefited despots, who have killed millions of their citizens, after first imposing gun control laws.

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 11:12 PM
No. I am saying that any policy can be condemned if only costs are counted, not the benefits; and any policy can be supported if only benefits are considered without counting the costs.

I am talking comparative costs versus benefits. Australia has a more sane level of gun control than America, and far fewer of the mass-murder/suicide school shootings occur here. Perhaps other factors are at play, like the gun culture effect. However, through sensible control of gun availability I think the culture is inhibited as well, which can only be a good thing.

Advocating private gun ownership as personal protection and a means of protecting oneself from the government are just nonsensical. Handguns are for killing people and we shouldn't, as a society, want our citizens to be killing people. And countries with a robust political system have little need for the population to arm themselves from the government.


Disarming law-abiding citizens would benefit the crims, since they would know that their victims are defenceless. It has also historically benefited despots, who have killed millions of their citizens, after first imposing gun control laws.

I believe the benefit to the crims if far less than the benefit of the rest of society who don't live in danger of being killed by a "law-abiding" citizen who is trying to defend himself or has anger management issues. The protection from government issue is offset by having a suitably robust political system.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2008, 11:26 PM
I am talking comparative costs versus benefits. Australia has a more sane level of gun control than America, and far fewer of the mass-murder/suicide school shootings occur here. Perhaps other factors are at play, like the gun culture effect. However, through sensible control of gun availability I think the culture is inhibited as well, which can only be a good thing.
Thomas Sowell writes in Gun control myths: part II (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2002/11/27/gun_control_myths_part_ii)


Gun control zealots compare the United States and England to show that murder rates are lower where restrictions on ownership of firearms are more severe. But you could just as easily compare Switzerland and Germany, the Swiss having lower murder rates than the Germans, even though gun ownership is three times higher in Switzerland. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand and Finland.

Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media.

Another dogma among gun control supporters is that having a gun in the home for self-defense is futile and is only likely to increase the chances of your getting hurt or killed. Your best bet is to offer no resistance to an intruder, according to this dogma.

Actual research tells just the opposite story. People who have not resisted have gotten hurt twice as often as people who resisted with a firearm. Those who resisted without a firearm of course got hurt the most often.

Such facts are simply ignored by gun control zealots.


Advocating private gun ownership as personal protection and a means of protecting oneself from the government are just nonsensical. Handguns are for killing people and we shouldn't, as a society, want our citizens to be killing people.
No, we shouldn't want that, and we shouldn't want crime in general. But as long as crims are about, law-abiders should have the means to defend gainst them.


And countries with a robust political system have little need for the population to arm themselves from the government.
America's founders argued that a robust political system was more likely to be ensured if the citizens were armed and thus able to overthrow tyranny — as they had just done.


I believe the benefit to the crims if far less than the benefit of the rest of society who don't live in danger of being killed by a "law-abiding" citizen who is trying to defend himself or has anger management issues.
If he is genuinely trying to defend himself from a crim, then what's the problem?

Rincewind
16-07-2008, 11:39 PM
Comparing the US to the USA is more valid when you look at the degree of urbanisation that the majority of the US population lives in. The same comparison cannot be made between Germany and Switzerland.


No, we shouldn't want that, and we shouldn't want crime in general. But as long as crims are about, law-abiders should have the means to defend gainst them.

Yes and that means is provided by the police.


America's founders argued that a robust political system was more likely to be ensured if the citizens were armed and thus able to overthrow tyranny — as they had just done.

Perhaps that was a valid argument 200 years ago and the tyranny of British rule over the Americas is pretty questionable historically.


If he is genuinely trying to defend himself from a crim, then what's the problem?

The problem is the force applied by the "law-abiding" citizen is unlikely to to be consistent with the the threat posed by the criminal.

Xoote
16-07-2008, 11:48 PM
Yes and that means is provided by the police.

Not always.. you know how long it takes for the police to arrive.. if you even get the chance to call them.. you could be died before they even start coming down the street. I think you should be able to depend yourself if then need is there

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2008, 12:49 AM
Comparing the US to the USA is more valid when you look at the degree of urbanisation that the majority of the US population lives in.
The UK? Yet the rate of home invasions is much higher there, likely because the invader doesn't fear an armed home-owner. Indeed, the crass laws in the UK make it more likely that a home-owner is prosecuted for using excessive force in defending his own home from a scumbag who had no business there.


Yes and that means is provided by the police.
More likely, they are so busy persecuting drivers travelling at a speed safe for the conditions but higher than a bureaucratically decreed limit. But they can still write a crime report over your emptied house or even over your corpse.


The problem is the force applied by the "law-abiding" citizen is unlikely to to be consistent with the the threat posed by the criminal.
Why not? In the case of home invasion, the home-owner should be allowed the means to protect his home, life and family from any threat from the invader.

Rincewind
17-07-2008, 08:49 AM
Not always.. you know how long it takes for the police to arrive.. if you even get the chance to call them.. you could be died before they even start coming down the street. I think you should be able to depend yourself if then need is there

No system is perfect it is a question of appropriateness. There is a cost in arming the citizens which is paid for in many ways including having teenagers turn up at schools and shoot lots of their fellow students. As happens regularly in the US (5 times this year).

Rincewind
17-07-2008, 08:54 AM
The UK? Yet the rate of home invasions is much higher there, likely because the invader doesn't fear an armed home-owner. Indeed, the crass laws in the UK make it more likely that a home-owner is prosecuted for using excessive force in defending his own home from a scumbag who had no business there.

It is the same law that stops landowners from taking pot-shots at ramblers who are crossing over their sheep fields. The degree of force should be commensurate witht he threat posed to the "victim". Anything else is crass.


More likely, they are so busy persecuting drivers travelling at a speed safe for the conditions but higher than a bureaucratically decreed limit. But they can still write a crime report over your emptied house or even over your corpse.

The police need to attend to all aspects of public order including stopping passive aggressive speeders like you. :)


Why not? In the case of home invasion, the home-owner should be allowed the means to protect his home, life and family from any threat from the invader.

The benefit to be gained in the unlikely event of a home invasion and assuming arming results in you stopping the criminal and not the more likely scenario of you being shot dead, it outweighed by the threat of that firearm to society in general.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-07-2008, 09:25 AM
No. Just an inability to justify to myself the effort of engaging in a meaningful discussion with a moron.

You are probably right. I realised again there is no point in having a discussion with someone like RW. Have a good day.

Capablanca-Fan
17-07-2008, 10:19 AM
It is the same law that stops landowners from taking pot-shots at ramblers who are crossing over their sheep fields. The degree of force should be commensurate witht he threat posed to the "victim". Anything else is crass.
A sheep field is quite different from a house.

The police need to attend to all aspects of public order including stopping passive aggressive speeders like you. :)
No, they should prioritise real threats to safety, not be agents for state revenue collection.

The benefit to be gained in the unlikely event of a home invasion and assuming arming results in you stopping the criminal and not the more likely scenario of you being shot dead, .
Who says it is more likely? It's more likely that burglars will try to avoid homes where the owner is present, if the owner might be armed.

it outweighed by the threat of that firearm to society in general
Why is it a threat, and why is it outweighed? Even your cases of school shootings (in victim disarmament gun-free zones) don't outweigh the threat to life when crims are unopposed and people aren't safe in their own homes.


Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. — Thomas Jefferson, quoting Beccari's On Crimes and Punishment


The UK [gun] ban has had no discernible effect on gun crime, which has continued a steady rise dating back more than 25 years and which accounted for some 4,000 injuries in the UK last year. Immediately after the ban, the number of shootings actually went up and has stayed up, though the homicide rate, which is relatively low, has been almost unaffected. In Scotland, for instance, the rate of about eight killings a year by guns has remained the same despite the Dunblane ban... Nor does the widespread possession of arms necessarily indicate a violent society. In Switzerland, for instance, where owning a gun is mandatory and where the laws and traditions of the country require every able-bodied adult to keep a semi-automatic weapon at home, crime levels have been historically low... Any government that wants to be seen to be taking action after a violent event can reach for legislation, but it is likely to discover that the social malaise that led to the violence is more deep-seated and intractable... What is needed is a wholesale shift in the national culture — and that will take rather longer than an arms ban.
— Magnus Linklater, The Times