Private arms being used against democracy and freedom?

[Darwin]

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).

Now this is just wishful thinking and fearmongering. Statistically, CCW holders are less than half as likely as the average citizen to commit a violent crime. You can argue sociopolitical factors until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that here, in the USA, more private gun ownership in an area is linked to lower violent crime rates. The Lott study was quite thorough.

What professional criminals are you talking about? Professional criminals want the goods and they want to get out clean. Or are you talking about 'professional thugs' who shoot people for kicks? Either way, both have a high preference for a defenseless target over one that can fight back. Their career is a cowardly one by nature. Being armed against these threats gives you options. You should still run if you possibly can.

The causes of USA's crime rate are cultural and economic, and every municipal gun ban, and every state 'shall issue' ordnance so far has shown clearly these bans leave law-abiding citizens defenseless, with no recourse for their own protection, and more armed citizens (Just look at Florida, fer crissake) correspond to a marked decrease in violent crime.

[Darth Wong]

Don't make a fool of yourself by citing the Lott study as authoritative. Lott has been caught in the past outright fabricating evidence. No researcher retains credibility after doing something like that.

[K. A. Pital]

You can argue sociopolitical factors until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that here, in the USA, more private gun ownership in an area is linked to lower violent crime rates. The Lott study was quite thorough.

I'll just leave that on you and Stuart to prove that Lott is a thorough study with a valid methodology. His correlations allow to arrive to bullshit conclusions. "More gun ownership is linked". Yea, now tell me how more gun ownership CAUSES less crime. And why it doesn't cause "less crime" in other regions of the world.

The truth is social reasons such as poverty correlate far stronger.

If you're willing to prove causation, and use Lott to that extent, try. I already asked to see the statistical results you pioneer so much.

[Darwin]

Don't make a fool of yourself by citing the Lott study as authoritative. Lott has been caught in the past outright fabricating evidence. No researcher retains credibility after doing something like that.

cite please? I'm only working from the FBI crime statistic data compiled within the study. I've had little interest in the rest. If Lott can not be trusted, then at least can we trust the FBI statistics and make our own conclusions from them?

[Darth Wong]

Don't make a fool of yourself by citing the Lott study as authoritative. Lott has been caught in the past outright fabricating evidence. No researcher retains credibility after doing something like that.

cite please?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... Lott%2C_Jr.

Even right-wing harpie Michelle Malkin admits Lott is a fucking liar. The guy actually claims he lost his evidence due to a "hard drive crash". Is that the modern equivalent of "the dog ate my homework"?

I'm only working from the FBI crime statistic data compiled within the study. I've had little interest in the rest. If Lott can not be trusted, then at least can we trust the FBI statistics and make our own conclusions from them?

Go ahead, but it won't save your bullshit claim. The FBI crime stats show a far better correlation to socio-economic conditions than gun ownership: something Lott downplays but which any honest researcher will acknowledge.

[Darwin]

now tell me how more gun ownership CAUSES less crime. And why it doesn't cause "less crime" in other regions of the world.

The truth is social reasons such as poverty correlate far stronger.

If you're willing to prove causation, and use Lott to that extent, try. I already asked to see the statistical results you pioneer so much.

I completely agree that social reasons are the root of the problem, and dealing with those will present much greater returns than increasing or decreasing the rate of gun ownership. Welfare and the social umbrella should be at the top of the discussions on crime, not this.

Sadly the statistics directly from the FBI's website are quite raw and difficultly organized, and take more work to compile than I have free time for. Until evidence is presented to show otherwise, (I've never seen any) I'll take the part of the Lott study that deals directly with these statistics without opinion as fact.

More gun ownership appears to discourage crime, in the particular socioeconomic climate of the USA, and when you take in the factors that most violent crime takes place in the more densely populated areas (Table 8 – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement by State by City, 2005. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/docu ... 5tbl08.xls). It doesn't cause "less crime" in other regions of the world because of different conditions. Even the conditions of a close neighbor like Canada make for a completely different climate for this. For every Somalia there is a Switzerland. I don't think overgeneralizations are going to get anywhere in this discussion. If you want to limit the topic to guns in the United States, fine. If not, then the many factors involved are just too widely varied to make much of any comparison.

[Darth Wong]

Sadly the statistics directly from the FBI's website are quite raw and difficultly organized, and take more work to compile than I have free time for. Until evidence is presented to show otherwise, (I've never seen any) I'll take the part of the Lott study that deals directly with these statistics without opinion as fact.

Why should you? The guy is a known liar, and it's not hard to massage statistics to come up with preferred conclusions if your methodology is dishonest. If the data is there, why can't you confirm it by looking at the source data rather than pathetically appealing to the authority of a known liar?

[K. A. Pital]

More gun ownership appears to discourage crime

Nono, wait. "More gun ownership"? Like, static? What's the use of that? There are wildly different ecnomic conditions as you admitted yourself.

You could prove gun dissemination is the reason behind crime reduction is when a dynamic trend - increased number of public guns - correlates strongly with a downward trend in crime, with other factors being insignificant - or looking at two territories with socio-economic similarity where the only difference are gun laws, and their respective trends.

[Darwin]

Why should you? The guy is a known liar, and it's not hard to massage statistics to come up with preferred conclusions if your methodology is dishonest. If the data is there, why can't you confirm it by looking at the source data rather than pathetically appealing to the authority of a known liar?

Maybe I'm arguing from the wrong stance.

Can it be shown from examples in the US that tighter gun control has any effect on reducing crime? It is my opinion that they just distract us from the real problem of the social issues that create violent criminals, which don't seem to exist to the same extent in many other countries.

[Darth Wong]

Why should you? The guy is a known liar, and it's not hard to massage statistics to come up with preferred conclusions if your methodology is dishonest. If the data is there, why can't you confirm it by looking at the source data rather than pathetically appealing to the authority of a known liar?

Maybe I'm arguing from the wrong stance.

Or maybe you're simply wrong. Does that possibility not occur to you?

Can it be shown from examples in the US that tighter gun control has any effect on reducing crime?

Not as far as I know. That does NOT justify your opposing claim that increasing gun ownership reduces crime.

It is my opinion that they just distract us from the real problem of the social issues that create violent criminals, which don't seem to exist to the same extent in many other countries.

Agreed. So stop running around citing studies from known liars or making claims of causation for which you present not a shred of evidence.

[K. A. Pital]

Can it be shown from examples in the US that tighter gun control has any effect on reducing crime?

I've cited a study, but Stuart dismissed it as "biased" (strange, as his "hard fact" source turned out to be a lying ass).

And why don't you really look at the top criminal cities. Some have CCW, some don't, but they all end up with atrocious violent crime rates anyway

[K. A. Pital]

*reads up*

Lott claimed that 98% of defensive gun uses required only brandishing the gun, originally citing national polls. Lott later cited Gary Kleck as his source. In 2000, Lott later claimed that the number was based on his own survey, not Kleck. Lott claimed the survey was done over three months in 1997, but he first cites it in February 1997. Lott also failed to mention his study when asked by a reporter about it in 1999.

If that person should retain any shred of credibility, I'm a French pilot. He repeatedly lied over and over. How the fuck is that permissible? He's also using Internet sock puppets to further himself. What a sore loser, and as correctly said, a fraudster.

Indeed, I expected that he's not exactly crystal clear academia monster. I didn't expect the guy to turn out such a lying, bitter cowardly ass. He actually did petty revenge on Malkin... good god.

[Stark]

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.

The reason I ask is due to my experience in Australia. I've only heard of one person whose family owned any guns (hunting rifles and shotguns), despite this being legal - and this was even before the 90s gun law changes here. I'd be interested to know how much 'lax' gun laws really 'encourage' gun ownership with this in mind - I would guess that 'lax' gun laws only result in high levels of gun ownership in the country (where they're useful, as in Australia and Canada) and in areas of poverty or fear. It seems to me that attitudes are what's important; guns just aren't important in some areas, regardless of what the law allows, whereas in others they might be more important than the 'restrictive' gun laws suggest.

It's my understanding that if I bought a gunsafe, I could go buy a rifle or shotgun whenever I wanted. Like almost everyone else I've ever met, I don't see the point.

[K. A. Pital]

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.

Could someone point me to a geography of US gun lobby? Does it correlate with the South? Is it more active in urban or rural territories? This is interesting.

[Lusankya]

It's my understanding that if I bought a gunsafe, I could go buy a rifle or shotgun whenever I wanted. Like almost everyone else I've ever met, I don't see the point.

Actually, you also have to prove that you have some kind of use for the gun. So you either have to join a gun club or, in the case of rifles, etc. have a block of land in the country where you can go to shoot roos or whatever.

So essentially, in Australia, people like Glocksman, who seem to have their guns primarily for shooting stuff would be more or less unaffected, but people who just want the gun for shits and giggles would miss out.

[His Divine Shadow]

It's my understanding that if I bought a gunsafe, I could go buy a rifle or shotgun whenever I wanted. Like almost everyone else I've ever met, I don't see the point.

Actually, you also have to prove that you have some kind of use for the gun. So you either have to join a gun club or, in the case of rifles, etc. have a block of land in the country where you can go to shoot roos or whatever.

So essentially, in Australia, people like Glocksman, who seem to have their guns primarily for shooting stuff would be more or less unaffected, but people who just want the gun for shits and giggles would miss out.

Getting single shot rifles or bolt action rifles, break open shotguns and the like is not too hard. Semi automatic rimfire guns can be acquired if you belong to either of these categories "primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and professional sporting shooters". Centerfire semi automatics and pump action shotguns are only for occupational uses, i.e. a cop.

Pistols are in their own category (H) and from what I am told it'll probably take you a year just to get started and then expect to be in active competitions afterwards or loose the license again. Glocksman would probably croak from the stress of trying to own even a single handgun

I got this from an australian I know who runs a gunshop in queensland or somewhere like that.

[Lusankya]

It's my understanding that if I bought a gunsafe, I could go buy a rifle or shotgun whenever I wanted. Like almost everyone else I've ever met, I don't see the point.

Actually, you also have to prove that you have some kind of use for the gun. So you either have to join a gun club or, in the case of rifles, etc. have a block of land in the country where you can go to shoot roos or whatever.

So essentially, in Australia, people like Glocksman, who seem to have their guns primarily for shooting stuff would be more or less unaffected, but people who just want the gun for shits and giggles would miss out.

Getting single shot rifles or bolt action rifles, break open shotguns and the like is not too hard. Semi automatic rimfire guns can be acquired if you belong to either of these categories "primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and professional sporting shooters". Centerfire semi automatics and pump action shotguns are only for occupational uses, i.e. a cop.

Pistols are in their own category (H) and from what I am told it'll probably take you a year just to get started and then expect to be in active competitions afterwards or loose the license again. Glocksman would probably croak from the stress of trying to own even a single handgun

I got this from an australian I know who runs a gunshop in queensland or somewhere like that.

Oh, I understand that there's more to it than I said, but essentially, if you really want a handgun, then you can get one. I don't really see how "go through a rigorous licencing procedure and prove that you actually have a use for it" is particularly harsh.

[Stuart]

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.

I don't have to pretend anything. Do a goodle search for AMA and "Guin control" and you will find chapter and verse on how the AMA was highly politicized and co-opted by the gun control movement - to the point where Congressional action was required to prevent them and CDC funding gun control groups.

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

Because his methodology held up under close and hostile scrutiny whereas that used by the AMA did not and collapsed. The orientation of a source is irrelevent as long as the methodology they use holds up under close scrutiny. Now, Lott's work has come under very intense scrutiny indeed and a number of shortcomings noted (and, it should be noted from both sides of the gun rights debate) including some very pointed questions being raised about his data and its use. However, he still scores head and shoulders above the information produced by gin control advocates. His reply to the criticisms rained by Michelle Malkin can be found [url=http://johnrlott.tripod.com/malkinsoped.html]HERE[/quote]

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?

That's for them to answer. No matter how you cut it, you still have the problem that the mass of evidence available (and summarized in Lott's books) contradicts their statement. The facts of the matter are quite clear.

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.

Not perfect I agree; although over the years the rough spots and injustices have been smoothed out. Still it works a hell of a sight better than anything else anybody has come up with.

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.

If you want to discuss gun control in the United States, the Constitution is where you start because its the Supreme law of the land. You can swear all you like but that's the cold hard fact. The Constitution is where you start, what you think of it is irrelevent. The fact that the Constitution is right far more often than it was wrong and that most of its errors have been ironed out over time are just a bonus.

What's your ethical system,

Pragmatism, I go with what works.

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've already referred you to the definitive source on this matter.

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

Oh grow up. That's the argument petulent little children use. 'Name one occasion when......'

The fact is you tried the "yah stupid fundies" meme and got upset when I threw it back in your face.

[Stuart]

Why should you? The guy is a known liar, and it's not hard to massage statistics to come up with preferred conclusions if your methodology is dishonest. If the data is there, why can't you confirm it by looking at the source data rather than pathetically appealing to the authority of a known liar?

I'd refer you to his response to some of the criticisms made (most notably by Michelle Malkin HERE. They put a somewhat different light on the critiques of his work. Lott is still the primary source for the effects of gun control on crime rates and we still have the awkward fact that when states introduced concealed carry, their crime rates went down (For example, the following quote comes from a report to Congress Gun Laws, Culture, Justice & Crime In Foreign Countries.

"U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime.

Which goes to the point I made right at the start; each country has its own specific situation and experience with one is not directly transferrable to another. So, the U.S. situation has to be taken on its own merits, not as a matter dictated by drawn parallels with others. In the U.S., the highest crime rates are in areas with the strictest gun control, most notoriously the big cities. New York, Chicago et al.

I would also refer you to "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence," by Don Kates, (a Yale-educated attorney who served as a professor at Stanford Law School), and Gary Mauser,(a Canadian university professor and author) published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. The text of the article can be found HERE - be warned its a PDF file. Thsi work is exhaustively referenced to original-source data.

The following quotation is worth noting.

In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004,
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation
from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to
identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide,
or gun accidents. The same conclusion was reached in
2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of thenextant
studies.

In short, there is no evidence whatsoever that gun control has an effect on crime rates. In that case, even the (agreed somewhat spotty) evidence that the availability of guns for self defense reduces crime rates has added importance. It's also interesting to note that the evidence available suggests that those who benefit most from the defense offered by handgun availability are the poor and women. That's predictable, they're the groups who are at the greatest disadvantage when attacked by criminals without having a weapon to equalize things.

I would concur that the absence of an effective social security net is one factor that leads to a high crime rate (which would explain why the big cities are the crime centers they are). However, disarming the victims is hardly a logical response to that situation in the light of the article quoted which shows the utter ineffectiveness of gun control measures.

[Rye]

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.

Is that 10% of publically dangerous self-defence worth the problems (accidents, crimes of passion, etc) though? I'd like to see the numbers, if possible. If there's more accidents and murders with legal weapons and more illegal deaths from legal weapons than there are safe defences, I don't think the argument for them can stand.

[Glocksman]

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.

Could someone point me to a geography of US gun lobby? Does it correlate with the South? Is it more active in urban or rural territories? This is interesting.

In the past, southern gun laws were quite restrictive in terms of legally carrying handguns but this has changed over the course of the last 20 years or so.

Here's a bunch of maps that show the changes in state CCW laws since 1986

Map link

Regional breakdowns of crime/homicide rates can be found in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

In 1986, only 8 states were 'shall issue' and 15 prohibited carry altogether.
In 2006 37 states are 'shall issue, while only 2 prohibit carry altogether.
For those advocating handgun bans, the maps indicate that a majority of states feel differently.

For those not familiar with the terms used on the CCW map page, 'shall issue' means that if you meet the requirements set out in state law (training, age, lack of criminal record, etc.) the state government is required by law to issue the permit. The state or local police have no discretion to refuse if you meet the legal requirements.


'May issue' means that even if you meet all the legal requirements, the police can deny the permit anyway.
You can just imagine how much success a black guy living in 1950's Georgia had when he asked his county Sheriff for a carry permit.


The FBI's data breaks things down by race in both terms of victim and offender, but it doesn't do so by class.
I think the point Jadeite was trying to make in a clumsy way is that it's poor blacks who are both the perpetrators and the victims of violent crime in proportions far greater than the rest of the population.

I suspect that if 'class' data were available, it'd show that poor urban blacks are the ones most affected, while middle class and up blacks have the same rates as others in their same class.

I also suspect that the data for poor whites would follow a similar trend.
Personally, I suspect neither side in the gun debate here in the US really wants to look at the underlying socioeconomic issues for fear of either undermining their 'case' (the anti gun people) or alienating their more rabid supporters (the pro gun people).

[Lusankya]

Not perfect I agree; although over the years the rough spots and injustices have been smoothed out. Still it works a hell of a sight better than anything else anybody has come up with.

May I ask exactly why your constitution, which was written up by a bunch of rebels is better than the constitution of my country, which was drafted by a democratically elected committee?

If you want to discuss gun control in the United States, the Constitution is where you start because its the Supreme law of the land. You can swear all you like but that's the cold hard fact. The Constitution is where you start, what you think of it is irrelevent. The fact that the Constitution is right far more often than it was wrong and that most of its errors have been ironed out over time are just a bonus.

Actually, I think that in a thread on the benefits of gun control, you will find that most thinking people start by examining the effect that gun control would have on a specific population. The US constitution is only relevant to this debate because (as we should all know), Jesus crapped it out as a baby, and any criticism of the constitution (especially the 2nd amendment) is an insult to baby Jesus and is liable to cause widespread dissent amongst the rightly God-fearing American population.

[Glocksman]

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?

For replicas to be an effective 'deterrent', the criminal would first have to have good reason to believe the replica is the real thing.

Make it illegal to possess real handguns and the average crook would probably believe the 'gun' law abiding Johnnie is pointing at him is fake and act accordingly.

[Glocksman]

Actually, I think that in a thread on the benefits of gun control, you will find that most thinking people start by examining the effect that gun control would have on a specific population. The US constitution is only relevant to this debate because (as we should all know), Jesus crapped it out as a baby, and any criticism of the constitution (especially the 2nd amendment) is an insult to baby Jesus and is liable to cause widespread dissent amongst the rightly God-fearing American population.

In the US thinking people have to consider both, as any legislation has to conform with the constitution.
It's our 'basic law' that subsequent laws passed by the legislature must comport with, or SCOTUS can overturn them.

This is why the Supreme Court is considering overturning DC's handgun ban.

[Lusankya]

Actually, I think that in a thread on the benefits of gun control, you will find that most thinking people start by examining the effect that gun control would have on a specific population. The US constitution is only relevant to this debate because (as we should all know), Jesus crapped it out as a baby, and any criticism of the constitution (especially the 2nd amendment) is an insult to baby Jesus and is liable to cause widespread dissent amongst the rightly God-fearing American population.

In the US thinking people have to consider both, as any legislation has to conform with the constitution.
It's our 'basic law' that subsequent laws passed by the legislature must comport with, or SCOTUS can overturn them.

This is why the Supreme Court is considering overturning DC's handgun ban.

I'm aware of that, however since my understanding is that this thread is discussing the effects of gun availability/gun control and not the legalities of the matter, the US Constitution should be considered irrelevent, except insofar as it's a curious American cultural factor.

Go ahead and make proper arguments in favour of widespread gun ownership, but don't hide behind your precious constitution, because quite frankly, it's crap.