Private arms being used against democracy and freedom?

[K. A. Pital]

I wouldn't say they are that rare, out of 1.6 million registered guns, an estimated 290,000 are handguns.

That's around 18%.

Edi is right about a handgun having less uses for a private citizen though. He can't hunt, neither sharpshoot - the only reasons are either crime or self-defense. And for each case of self defense there are several murder or bodily harm cases, per the stats, IIRC.

Besides, if handguns are only some 10-18% (I'm not sure what arethey in the US, some accounts I've read say over 1/3rd, but others say 12% only) there's really little reason to have them - most of the law-abiding citizens do not have a handgun as preferred weapon, that means. However, the criminals invariably have it as preferred.

And yes, Europe is safer for it's welfare system, but you'll note the gun-loving activists in the US are also the same ones who support rabid conservatism, unrestrained capitalism and religion - there's a huge overlap, and usually they fall into the "idiot lolbertarian" category which is surpisingly common in US conservatives.

Not the kind of people to make a case for progress, eh.

[Stuart]

Look, automatic weapons are a very small fraction of murder weapons. When you are banning some type of weapon, it has to be very widespread as a murder tool - that would be handguns. I'm pretty sure that replacing 70% of gun supply - millions of handguns - which comes from the inside of US with imports is a far harder feat than simply replacing the small amount of auto weapons.

You're missing the point. Your argument was that banning types of weapons causes the pool of illegally-held weapons of that type to be attrited very quickly and cease to become a problem. The machine gun ban proves that is not the case. It doesn't matter how commonly the weapons are used or not, what matters is that its a small-scale test on the basic hypothesis - and the hypothesis failed.

And sorry, if the US is so corrupt criminals can use Army supply chain as a means of TOTALLY REPLACING their handgun pool, the US is fucked up in more ways than a First World country should be, and frankly indeed anything aimed at gun control here is pointless. I just thought it's not the case, but thank you for enlightning me on the amount of corruption.

Robberies (not corrupt sales) at National Guard armories are rare but not unknown. Corrupt sales and diversion of supplies are (contrary to television reports) much rarer and when they happen they are identified and the guilty party starts a new career turning large rocks into small ones. HOWEVER, as a source of modern weaponry. particularly automatic weapons, they cannot be discounted,

If this is NOT so, you can't just replace millions of handguns - especially if the civilians no longer have any of them too, and can't privately sell them to their buddy criminals.

But the bad guys don't have to replace them all at once; they simply have to make up the attrition rate caused by failure, capture or destruction. Given the size of the illegal weapons pool, attrition will take a long time and finding replacement sources will be relatively easy. Mexico springs to mind - there the Army will sell you their weapons cheap.

Why make Sten or PPS? Once again, we're talking about hand guns - murder weapon #1. Other weapons are an insignificant murder percent.

Again, you are missing the point. If a light machine shop can make Stens or PPS-43s, they can make anything else they want including any type of handgun. They may not be superb-quality wepaons like SIGs or H&Ks but they work more or less. As an example I give you the Davis and Lorcin semi-automatic pistols, they're disgusting things but can be made using cheap alloys and basic machinery.

"Law-abiding" is the key here. If the population is law-abiding, it hardly matters what rates of gun dissemination among the population you have. If it is not, things go the other way round.

Which is precisely the problem; all gun control does is give a monpoly on armed power to criminals and disarms their victims.

gree that America is a special case - people are too gun-loving to really get rid of those weapons. Which is the only reason gun measures fail.

No, the reaosn why gu control fails is that its a fundamentlly flawed idea. Its a very bad idea indeed. It falls on teh grounds of human rights - the right of self-defense is a basic human right, one that predates the Constitution. If anybody wishes to abrogate that right, they have to produce a convincing reason to do so and that the gun-control mob have failed to do. Every case they have made, mroal, legal, practical whatever has collapsed in the face of reality. In teh United States, the evidence is so clear that the gun-control people have given up contesting it; private ownership of guns reduces crime.

In many nations people do not have guns and are fine. In the US, transitioning to a gunless society will just take too much work to be worth it, probably.[/quote]

[Stuart]

And for each case of self defense there are several murder or bodily harm cases, per the stats, IIRC.

You recall wrongly. I refer you to Lott's book cited earlier. In 90 percent of self defense cases (numbering several million per year) no shots are ever fired. The mere sight of the victim being armed is senough to make the bad guys take to their heels.Which is intuitively correct; bad guys are looking for a safe helpless victim - if the victim is armed (or may be) they try somewhere else. If the percentage of armed potential victims is high enough (evidence suggests around 5 percent), they stop trying.

Besides, if handguns are only some 10-18% (I'm not sure what arethey in the US, some accounts I've read say over 1/3rd, but others say 12% only) there's really little reason to have them - most of the law-abiding citizens do not have a handgun as preferred weapon, that means. However, the criminals invariably have it as preferred.

The handgun ban defeats the whole purpose of an armed citizen. Try carrying a rifle or a shotgun concealed. It's not practical. Carrying a concealed handgun is. And that means every criminal knows the victim he is about to attack may be equipped to kill him. Evidence (again from Lott) is that crominals fear armed citizens more than the police for one simple reason, faced with a criminal, the police's first resort is to try to make an arrest. The armed citizen has no motivation to make an arrest and if threatened will shoot.

And say once again, self-defense is a basic, probably the most basic of all, human rights. If you want to destroy that right, you better make a very good justification for it - and that, gun control freaks have never managed.

you'll note the gun-loving activists in the US are also the same ones who support rabid conservatism, unrestrained capitalism and religion - there's a huge overlap, and usually they fall into the "idiot lolbertarian" category which is surpisingly common in US conservatives.

And following the same logic, people who support gun control are drooling fascist thugs who want the population disarmed so they can reduce them to utter helplessness. This then permits the state fascists to rob, rape and murder just as they wish without any effective opposition. Usually such morons fall into the communist category which is surprising common amongst "idiotarian statists".

[K. A. Pital]

The machine gun ban proves that is not the case.

You have cited machine guns as proof that restrictions on handguns will not contract the handgun pool; I have cited a a real, presumably peer-reviewed medical journal study which found that even reducing the number of handgun sales allowed from private individuals reduced the pool.

Do you see anything wrong here, or should I presume you would still be talking about how criminals replace their automatic weapons pool (which is insignificant in size and not a major factor in murders?)

particularly automatic weapons, they cannot be discounted

They very well can be discounted, sorry. Around 80% of murders are commited with handguns. Because handguns are more effective as a criminal murder tool. They're easier to carry, conceal, maintain, cheaper, and there's lots of them if we are to believe NRA.

What is the frequency of robberies? Could they replace a gun pool of several dozen million handguns if that pool was drained?

Given the size of the illegal weapons pool, attrition will take a long time and finding replacement sources will be relatively easy.

Attrition will only take a long time if sources of replenishment are easy. The Army depots, as we figured, are NOT easy sources of replacement and will not be able to make up for millions of lost easy-aquired guns. You forget that the pool is not something that is just there - it's a constant circulation of arms from legal private owners to bandits. I've already cited a study which showed that even limiting number of sales helps. Because the privately owned gun pool IS the source of criminal weapons. So no, there's no "monopoly" on guns by the criminals, because their guns are what they get from legal circulation.

They may not be superb-quality wepaons

If the pool which is the source of handguns turns into crappy weapons, fine. The crappier a weapon is, the better.

...all gun control does is give a monpoly on armed power to criminals and disarms their victims

That's stupid. In countries with low gun dissemination rates gun control serves to keep the gun pool size in check. The US is different, sure. I'm not saying it will necessary work in the US. But denying a working rationale behind the measures is... strange.

The legal gun pool IS the source of the illegal gun pool in the First World nations. If the first does not exist, the second will be severely diminished.

Its a very bad idea indeed. It falls on teh grounds of human rights - the right of self-defense is a basic human right, one that predates the Constitution.

What Constitution? What "human rights"? Last time I checked, there's no "right to firearms" in the UN HR declaration. And human rights are merely constructs which serve utilitarian goals in society - reduce amounts of suffering and increase happiness. They're not absolute moral standpoints like fundie idiots believe - merely useful constructs for a harmonious, peaceful society and the well-being of individuals.

If anybody wishes to abrogate that right, they have to produce a convincing reason to do so

I don't know since when there was a common "right" to bear arms, why this right is more fundamental than human well-being. I agree that gun control should be based on logic, but so should be EVERY action based on logic. "Rights" are only worthwhile while they are logical and serve a good practical purpose.

Now, what practical purpose does the right to handguns serve? Note I wasn't talking about banning long guns which the NRA so loves; hunting, sharpshooting, hell, self-defense and defense of territory remain pretty viable objections.

Tell me WHAT is the practical purpose of mass handgun ownership and WHY handguns are a "human right".

It doesn't also help that more people are murdered by handguns than the cases where a handgun actually works in self-defense, IIRC. So no cookies. Handguns are not all guns; handguns, and even all guns are not the equivalent of "self-defense".

In 90 percent of self defense cases (numbering several million per year) no shots are ever fired.

How do you reliably gather that information and who is the author of those surveys? And so? Even if the self-defense cases with guns number in millions, so do gun crimes.

And say once again, self-defense is a basic, probably the most basic of all, human rights.

Um... I thought the basic rights are the right to life, health, protection, well, property. I didn't recall vigilantism, firearm response and civil shootings of criminals to be a basic human right.

And following the same logic, people who support gun control are drooling fascist thugs who want the population disarmed so they can reduce them to utter helplessness. This then permits the state fascists to rob, rape and murder just as they wish without any effective opposition. Usually such morons fall into the communist category which is surprising common amongst "idiotarian statists".

Yeah. The state just loves to rob, rape and murder. I mean, it's not like the government is created to protect public order, police urban centers and defend the lives, and well being of humans. NO! The real purpose of the government has been discovered by Stuart.

You'll note that I only remarked about the overlap existing between conservative activists which hold morally untenable and logically unsound positions - and activist gun advocates - while you went to straddle about American fascists or communists. I doubt there's lots of communists in America, and the fascists - if there are any - are usually situated on the conservative, rural pro-gun flank... which is kind of strange really.

It's not like there are crypto-racists and Ku Kluxers who're also the most staunch supporters of gun freedom, no? I mean, I just said "there's a significant overlap" because that's what I gathered from observation.

Are there any communists or fascists in America who support gun control and gun bans? Point me please. Or do you, with the Ku Kluxers, think that Bill Clinton is a fascist (incidentally, CPUSA does not support gun bans and argues at most for greater safety of gun storage and licensing ).

And finally, will you adress this?

It kind of spoils the premise that restrictive measures do not work.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And following the same logic, people who support gun control are drooling fascist thugs who want the population disarmed so they can reduce them to utter helplessness. This then permits the state fascists to rob, rape and murder just as they wish without any effective opposition. Usually such morons fall into the communist category which is surprising common amongst "idiotarian statists".

Frothing rhetoric and sensational demonizing, anyone?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Stuart should also point out all those constitutionally questionable Drug War property seizures - arguably by some definitely qualifying as "state robbery" which were prevented by the well-armed drug seller class.

[K. A. Pital]

Look! I was attacked for suggesting handguns suck. Because they're perfect for defense (for all the same reasons they're perfect for crime). But where do the gunned bad guys get their firearsm, really?

What does "legal pool is the source of illegal pool" mean?

Pretty fucking simple really:

Next time someone starts about "robberies of Army depots", "importing firearms" just look here. Family, friend, borrowed and stolen are 70%. So 70% of criminal firearms go directly from the gun-loving, legally owning Americans. And only 30% go from black market and drug dealer buddies which is just the same really. And I really wonder what the percentage of import and stolen from the Army guns on the black market is - I suspect it's quite small, and most 'black market guns' get there the same ways as 70% of guns in criminal hands do.

They are sources from the wide private circulation of firearms. Stolen - from friends, relatives or foreign people, borrowed, et cetera.

Guns in the hands of criminals do not pop out of thin air. They do NOT have a "monopoly on guns" since they get their guns from the same gun pool of legal weaponry.

[Ma Deuce]

Next time someone starts about "robberies of Army depots", "importing firearms" just look here. Family, friend, borrowed and stolen are 70%. So 70% of criminal firearms go directly from the gun-loving, legally owning Americans. And only 30% go from black market and drug dealer buddies which is just the same really. And I really wonder what the percentage of import and stolen from the Army guns on the black market is - I suspect it's quite small, and most 'black market guns' get there the same ways as 70% of guns in criminal hands do.

Fine, explain why simply placing further restrictions on conditions for the sale, transfer, and storage of handguns (i.e mandatory use of gun safes) would not suffice? Why does it have to be an outright ban or nothing? Here in Canada for example, given the difficulty of acquiring a handgun legally, plus further restrictions (you even need a permit to transport it to another location), combined with he ease of smuggling illegal guns over the US border means I doubt an outright ban would accomplish much of anything here. Like anything else, restrictions and bans are subject to the law of diminishing returns.

[K. A. Pital]

Fine, explain why simply placing further restrictions on conditions for the sale, transfer, and storage of handguns (i.e mandatory use of gun safes) would not suffice?

Maybe they will. You should cut the tie between the source legal and the criminal hangun arsenal. If this tie can be severed or hampered to a sufficient extent by those measures, then they will work. If however you hold the position that this link cannot be severed by any measures, then only a fully fledged destruction of the handgun pool will have an effect on the secondary gun pool.

I doubt an outright ban would accomplish much of anything here.

Well, I don't think you shouldn't evaluate what measures you use before you enact them.

A total ban will work if the costs of aquiring a handgun for the criminals rise substantially no matter the gun source. But I never said it's a perfect solution in any case.

Handguns are not the majority of guns in the US; and the argument that most people need them for self-defense kind of looks strange. If they are so necessary, why do long guns outnumber them several times?

[Stuart]

I have cited a a real, presumably peer-reviewed medical journal study which found that even reducing the number of handgun sales allowed from private individuals reduced the pool.

A medical journal that has a long history of support for a gun-control agenda. I've referred you to a much more reliable source that does things by numbers rather than opinion.

What is the frequency of robberies? Could they replace a gun pool of several dozen million handguns if that pool was drained?

Goven that the pool will only be drained slowly, of course.

Attrition will only take a long time if sources of replenishment are easy.

Which they are.

I've already cited a study which showed that even limiting number of sales helps.

From a highly prejudiced and partisan source. Sorry, I don't accept it.

If the pool which is the source of handguns turns into crappy weapons, fine. The crappier a weapon is, the better.

A crappy weapon is far better than no weapon at all. Against an unarmed victim, a .25 Lorcin will do just fine. Production cost, US$7.00

That's stupid.

No, that's a fact. Demonstrated by experience in the United States. Refer to Lott again.

In countries with low gun dissemination rates gun control serves to keep the gun pool size in check. The US is different, sure. I'm not saying it will necessary work in the US.

As already pointed out, examination internationally points to every possible combination of crime rates and gun control. No trend can be discerned except by cherry-picking.

But denying a working rationale behind the measures is... strange.

Except the "working rationale" has already been discredited. making your support of it ....... strange.

What Constitution? What "human rights"? Last time I checked, there's no "right to firearms" in the UN HR declaration. And human rights are merely constructs which serve utilitarian goals in society - reduce amounts of suffering and increase happiness. They're not absolute moral standpoints like fundie idiots believe - merely useful constructs for a harmonious, peaceful society and the well-being of individuals./quote]

The United States Constitution which is all that matters here. I don't give a damn what the collection of tin-pot little dictators in the UN says. Its a pity the UN was ever created and the sooner its abolished the better. As tou your comments on human rights, that's a fundamental disagreement you anbd I have.

[It doesn't also help that more people are murdered by handguns than the cases where a handgun actually works in self-defense, IIRC. So no cookies. Handguns are not all guns; handguns, and even all guns are not the equivalent of "self-defense".

Untrue. See Lott. Defensive use of firearms (including those where no shots are fired) exceeds offensive use by two orders of magnitude/

How do you reliably gather that information and who is the author of those surveys? And so? Even if the self-defense cases with guns number in millions, so do gun crimes.

See Lott in work quoted, Details of methodology are clearly describied.

Yeah. The state just loves to rob, rape and murder. I mean, it's not like the government is created to protect public order, police urban centers and defend the lives, and well being of humans. NO! The real purpose of the government has been discovered by Stuart.

In case you hadn't noticed I simply your own incredibly stupid statement and turned it on its head. This is called sarcasm - look it up in a dictionary. I prefer not to use abuse in arguments; I found your comment insulting so I turned it around. If you don't like it, perhaps you ought to reflect on why I did so.

[Stuart]

Frothing rhetoric and sensational demonizing, anyone?

No more that Stas Bush's original remark. I simply took his extraordinarily stupid remark and turned it around to highlight just how absurd and gratuitously offensive it is. If you read my comment, I even use the similar words and constructions. I don't like being offensive but in this case, I made an exception.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Frothing rhetoric and sensational demonizing, anyone?

No more that Stas Bush's original remark. I simply took his extraordinarily stupid remark and turned it around to highlight just how absurd and gratuitously offensive it is. If you read my comment, I even use the similar words and constructions. I don't like being offensive but in this case, I made an exception.

Fair enough. You did preface it by saying you were adhering to the same logic.

[K. A. Pital]

I've referred you to a much more reliable source that does things by numbers rather than opinion.

The article in question is a statistical analysis, which is just the same as the case book you refer to, it seems. Do not try to pretend that it's not.

How is Lott - a gun activist with his fellow libertarian buddies like Milton Friedman - any more "unbiased" or "reliable"? Please.

And why did the National Academy of Sciences review the work and claim that concealed carry does not result in significant increase or decrease of crime? Are all of them in an anti-gun conspiracy? Or only brave pro-gun dissenters are the truth (TM) and everyone else is lying their ass off?

From a highly prejudiced and partisan source.

And Lott is a neutral, unprejudiced source. Wait, he's not. Oh well.

The United States Constitution which is all that matters here.

Ah yes, I just forgot how vindictive Americans get when their piece of paper which included such really nice things as slavery does not get the treatment of an absolute moral code.

Well, here's a hint - I don't give a fuck about what it says. When it became clear that it's unacceptably flawed from a humanist point, your people fought a bloody Civil War to change the law, and it was changed.

So no, a piece of paper does not equal human rights. Your gun-loving people treated fellow humans as cattle. So you may continue with your paper worship instead of getting a clue how ethical systems work.

I don't give a damn what the collection of tin-pot little dictators in the UN says. Its a pity the UN was ever created and the sooner its abolished the better. As tou your comments on human rights, that's a fundamental disagreement you anbd I have.

Wow, that UN-hatred was totally out of the blue. Fine. You may subscribe to your illogical and ethically broken position; what's your ethical system, "Objectivism"? Utilitarianism does not treat rights as absolute. Neither does it treat pieces of paper as an absolute expression of absolute rights, which is even more preposterous.

Defensive use of firearms (including those where no shots are fired) exceeds offensive use by two orders of magnitude

Two orders of magnitude? What did he count, murders only?

And by all means, please present either the book, or at least a summary, review or except which would at least detail the results of his findings, or, best of all, the methodology used to arrive at them.

I did present a link to the article and it's statistical findings; so at least a summary would be needed.

I found your comment insulting so I turned it around.

You found it insulting? Why? Because NRA, Bush supporters and Bible-thumping rednecks have an overlap in who their activists are? Are you a gun activist who also champions silly religion and other irrational stuff? If not, why did you find it insulting?

Was my comment untrue? Are there people among the gun activist crowd who vocally argue in favour of welfare and eradication of poverty? Spend money to that effort?

Instead of getting offended, refute it with an example to the contrary - a social progressive among activist gun advocates.

[TimothyC]

First let me say that I apologize in advance for any linguistic misunderstandings relating to the fact that I know nothing of Russian Stas, and thus there might be some confusion as to the fine meaning of some English words

And say once again, self-defense is a basic, probably the most basic of all, human rights.

Um... I thought the basic rights are the right to life, health, protection, well, property.

Here is the misunderstanding I think - The only way for an individual to secure the rights that you listed is via self-defense [or self-protection if you will] (or would you argue that a rape victim has no right to fight back?), or do you have another method of securing those rights that you listed?

I'm the first to admit that certain parts of the general population shouldn't have firearms (myself included at the present time as I'm to darn unstable mentally).

[Rye]

You recall wrongly. I refer you to Lott's book cited earlier. In 90 percent of self defense cases (numbering several million per year) no shots are ever fired.

Presumably, then, that's also an argument for replica handguns? If 90% of self defences with handguns can be accomplished with something that really looks like a handgun and without the majority of associated accidental/illegal uses at the same time, surely it makes sense to support people being able to get a hold of replica weapons rather than actual weapons?

And say once again, self-defense is a basic, probably the most basic of all, human rights. If you want to destroy that right, you better make a very good justification for it - and that, gun control freaks have never managed.

I dunno, life's pretty good over here in the UK. Meanwhile, when I visited NY, there were several shootings in Harlem about 12 blocks from where I was staying.

And following the same logic, people who support gun control are drooling fascist thugs who want the population disarmed so they can reduce them to utter helplessness. This then permits the state fascists to rob, rape and murder just as they wish without any effective opposition. Usually such morons fall into the communist category which is surprising common amongst "idiotarian statists".

I'm guessing you wouldn't have called the Baathists fascist thugs since everyone and his dog could own an AK under Saddam? Meanwhile, that ownership didn't manage a whole lot when it came to those particular modern fascists robbing, raping and murdering without effective opposition.

[Darwin]

You recall wrongly. I refer you to Lott's book cited earlier. In 90 percent of self defense cases (numbering several million per year) no shots are ever fired.

Presumably, then, that's also an argument for replica handguns? If 90% of self defences with handguns can be accomplished with something that really looks like a handgun and without the majority of associated accidental/illegal uses at the same time, surely it makes sense to support people being able to get a hold of replica weapons rather than actual weapons?

There's always the possibility of escalation when you use a firearm in self-defense, and in those cases, you really don't want to take a squirtgun to a gunfight. You're right that in those 90% cases, a replica gun would have sufficed. Practically though, I don't think it's the way to go.

[K. A. Pital]

There's always the possibility of escalation when you use a firearm in self-defense, and in those cases, you really don't want to take a squirtgun to a gunfight.

Yeah. A heated dispute may become a shooting very easily, the power is there, all too tempting. The other side wants the same power...

The fun thing is that against professional criminals, an ordinary person with a gun is dead meat (he'd probably be killed faster and more securely since a gun indicates that he can at least pose danger).

Mostly guns work against hooligans and such.

...or do you have another method of securing those rights that you listed?

Of course. It's called "police", "public order", you know. "Protect", "preserve" and all that.

Strange that we despise vigilantims when a person takes up the function of meting forced punishment against criminals, but are so ready for the preposterous claim that the only way an individual could be defended is by his own little gun

That's the preposterous claim in my view. Why not his own APC then? His own artillery piece? His own bunker fortress? No, a mere gun would suffice

[Darth Wong]

According to the "private gun ownership deters crime" theory, shouldn't crime rates should be lower in America than they are in other first-world nations? Shouldn't Somalia have an extremely low crime rate? I know that a lot of proponents of this theory point to certain regions where they have attempted to institute gun control laws without much effect on crime, but that doesn't actually support the theory. It only refutes the notion that localized gun control can suppress crime, which is a different theory.

Crime rates are obviously tied most closely to socio-economic conditions, and I think it's been established that you won't have much effect on crime by banning guns, especially in a small region. But at the same time, there seems to be almost no support for the idea that relaxed gun control lowers crime rates either; people like to cite the existence of certain states which have lax gun control and low crime for example, but how do they know those states would not continue to have low crime if they instituted gun control? Of course, it doesn't help that there are some widespread false statistics circulating out there, like the one about Australian crime skyrocketing literally overnight after supposedly harsh new gun control laws were put into place.

[Glocksman]

there seems to be almost no support for the idea that relaxed gun control lowers crime rates either

Other than Lott's studies (which I'm leery of using) I'm not aware of any reliable data that supports the thesis.
OTOH, in a US context, there isn't any reliable data that proves the opposite either.

There are US states that have the bare minimum gun laws and will issue carry permits for the asking, and yet have low firearm crime rates.
Then there are US states that have the toughest gun laws in the country, and yet have high firearm crime rates.
Conversely, the opposite of each is also true; some 'tough gun law' states have low rates while some 'loose' law states have higher rates.

As most of us here seem to agree, the underlying causes of US crime/homicide rates have more to do with our culture and the concurrent lack of a viable social safety net than it does with guns.

I'm one gun rights activist that also supports the idea of universal health care and an adequate social safety net.
Of course I'm also a minority among the gun rights crowd.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm one gun rights activist that also supports the idea of universal health care and an adequate social safety net.

For a serious change, there needs to be more people like you really.

Until Americans stop treating guns as holy items from the Constitution or something and start realistically treating them in conjunction with common problems as gangs and poverty, there'd be no big progress.

[Glocksman]

I just thought of this idea and perhaps someone better qualified than me can flesh it out and see if it passes.

According to the FBI's UCR stats, the South is the most violent region of the country.
Gun laws in the South vary/varied from 'practically impossible to carry a gun legally' to 'if you're white, go ahead'.
The social safety net, educational system, and judicial system in the South lagged/lags seriously behind the rest of the US, never mind Western Europe or Canada.

Meanwhile, the northeast is much less violent despite gun laws ranging from NYC's (among the tightest in the nation) to Vermont allowing open carry and New Hampshire having 'shall issue' CCW.
Of course the northeast also had/has a more generous safety net, better education, and a less overtly racist and corrupt judicial system.

My thought is that while we could make small cuts by banning handguns (despite the political impossibility of doing so at the current time), the real gains are made when you offer improved opportunity via education, health care, housing, job opportunity, a fair judicial system, and a safety net for those who are genuinely in need of help.

Comments?

[Lusankya]

My thought is that while we could make small cuts by banning handguns (despite the political impossibility of doing so at the current time), the real gains are made when you offer improved opportunity via education, health care, housing, job opportunity, a fair judicial system, and a safety net for those who are genuinely in need of help.

Comments?

It sounds a bit communist if you ask me.

And who will God-fearing Americans be afraid of, if they no longer have poor neighbours to worry about? Most of the Muslims are on the other side of the world, so it's hard to be scared of them all the time.

[Stark]

Glocksman, what are the rates of usage of these laws in those areas? I mean, if New Hampshire has 'shall issues' CCW but there aren't many of them whereas the South has everyone's ute having a gunrack on the back, it would be clear that the laws themselves aren't as important as attitudes toward firearms.

[Glocksman]

Glocksman, what are the rates of usage of these laws in those areas? I mean, if New Hampshire has 'shall issues' CCW but there aren't many of them whereas the South has everyone's ute having a gunrack on the back, it would be clear that the laws themselves aren't as important as attitudes toward firearms.

I'm honestly not certain of those numbers.
Though I do recall reading somewhere that the 2 states who issue the most gun carry permits in terms of population ratio are Indiana (very easy to get) and New York (not so easy to get).

Even then, it doesn't really tell you much about who carries all of the time.
It's anecdotal but I live in Indiana and have a lifetime CCW permit.

Yet I can count the number of times that I actually carry a gun outside of the field or shooting range per year on two hands.

[Darwin]

...or do you have another method of securing those rights that you listed?

Of course. It's called "police", "public order", you know. "Protect", "preserve" and all that.

Except the police have no obligation to protect your safety. I forgive you for probably not being familiar with the laws and precedents here.

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

and others. Precedent is set. The police are not responsible for failing to protect you from criminals. Taking away the right of self defense is leaving you at the mercy of the criminals, and under the protection of law enforcement that is not obligated to do anything about it.[/url]