Private arms being used against democracy and freedom?

[Rye]

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.

You'd take that chance, would you? I suspect you'd see a gun and assume the other person was just breaking the law in case, as it's not really worth risking it. That's what people do here when they're robbed by people with replicas. If I pulled a replica on some mugger, are they really going to just shrug and say "you look law abiding, that's not real!" or are they going to shit themselves and look for someone else?

[Lancer]

It depends on how prevalent replicas are. The more replicas there are floating around, the less potent the deterrent effect will probably be, because people stop associating the image of a gun with an actual gun and start associating it with fakes.

[Glocksman]

I agree that if all we're talking about is theoretical, the the constitution is irrelevant other than as an indicator of past US attitudes about firearms ownership.

However if it goes beyond theoretical into advocating specific laws (such as gun bans) then the question of constitutionality becomes very relevant.

Repeal the 2A though, and that question is solved.

[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?

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.

Ummm, Stuart, did you bother reading it? He still bases his work heavily upon a survey that he conducted himself, and for which almost no corroborating evidence exists. Therefore, the credibility of the survey is linked to the integrity of the researcher. Yet he has been caught making Internet sock puppets to give glowing reviews to his own work and praise for his own integrity and methodology. The evidence for this activity is overwhelming, so he doesn't even bother denying it in his rebuttal. He also continues to claim that he lost his primary evidence in a hard drive crash but that others have helped him reconstruct it. Reconstructed from what, I might ask, if he lost the primary evidence? It sounds like he followed up "the dog at my homework" with "but I have reconstructed it", which sounds an awful lot like he just made up his data after the fact. Why should the survey that he conducted be taken at face value when he is a known charlatan?

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.

That's a lie. Canada's violent crime rate has been decreasing since the mid 1990s (coincidentally the time when the toughest gun control law in Canadian history was passed). Who prepared this study, and why does it contain a blatant lie? You can check this up with statcan if you like; it seems to me that American politicians are fond of lying about other countries, perhaps because they figure that no real American would ever bother asking another country for its own data to verify these lies.

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.

And you reject the most obvious explanation that gun control laws are a response to crime? Why?

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.

I already agreed with that earlier. I think that the drop in Canadian violent crime since the mid 1990s is just a coincidence with the introduction of Bill C-68, and not caused by it. Nevertheless, the fact that your source outright lies about this does not make me inclined to take its other conclusions seriously.

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.

That's a curious conclusion; one could just as easily point out that the criminals themselves overwhelmingly benefited from having guns, because they were able to successfully use them to commit crimes.

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.

Cracking down on the illegal gun market with a tenth of the gusto with which they crack down on the illegal drug market might help.

[Ma Deuce]

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?

You must understand that Stas' perception of the average criminal is influenced by the fact that he lives in the country that has something like five times the murder rate of the US, and where organized crime is so rampant that many criminals really are ruthless professionals (often ex-military) who commit serious offenses for a living and are very good at it, protected by criminal organizations so powerful, they were able to pull such feats as effectively seizing control of the country's entire banking system in the '90s. This of course is in sharp contrast to the typical small-time loners we usually deal with over here.

[Kane Starkiller]

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 don't understand how you can have effective gun control if the laws only apply to certain cities in the country. I mean there are no borders between New York and the rest of the US, what's stopping the people from simply driving half an hour and buying a gun outside the city?

[Darth Wong]

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 don't understand how you can have effective gun control if the laws only apply to certain cities in the country. I mean there are no borders between New York and the rest of the US, what's stopping the people from simply driving half an hour and buying a gun outside the city?

The biggest problem with gun control is the fact that people are reluctant to admit that they should be demographically targeted, ie- you should make it illegal for young males (particularly those without full-time employment) to possess firearms, since that is the group which overwhelmingly uses guns in a criminal fashion. So they try to craft all sorts of laws which inadvertently punish low-risk people and do little to deter high-risk people. If cops knew they could pull over and nail any young male carrying a gun, it would be a lot easier for them to do their jobs. Also, the highly unregulated nature of the gun market makes it way too easy to circumvent any such laws. Just look at the way private sales are pretty much totally unregulated; it's child's play for a non-felon to buy up guns and then turn around and sell them privately to whoever wants them.

[Glocksman]

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 don't understand how you can have effective gun control if the laws only apply to certain cities in the country. I mean there are no borders between New York and the rest of the US, what's stopping the people from simply driving half an hour and buying a gun outside the city?

Under Federal law, you can only transfer* handguns from a dealer in your state of residence.
For example, I can quite legally buy a handgun from any dealer in Indiana and walk out the door with it after about 15 minutes.
However, I can't drive across the Ohio River into Kentucky and do the same thing because I'm not a Kentucky resident.

Long guns are a little different in that I can drive into a neighboring state and immediately purchase a firearm so long as the purchase is legal in both states.

*I say 'transfer' because I can buy a gun from an out of state dealer, but he has to ship it to a licensed dealer in my state of residence who will then complete the transaction, perform the NICS check, and be the legal transferor of the firearm to me.

[Glocksman]

For those interested, here's the ATF's FAQ on Federal gun laws.
Keep in mind when reading this that when it refers to 'licensed' persons, the person is question is a Federal Firearms License holder.
The FFL is a license to deal in firearms as a business, not to own or carry a gun.
An FFL is business license only, not a ownership or carry license.

'Unlicensed' persons are private individuals who are not in the gun business.

Also, as the FAQ notes, state laws vary and many states impose further limitations on both private parties and FFL holders both on who may purchase a gun and what types of guns may or may not (e.g. state 'assault weapon' bans) be sold.

[Stuart]

[quote"]In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime.

That's a lie. Canada's violent crime rate has been decreasing since the mid 1990s (coincidentally the time when the toughest gun control law in Canadian history was passed).[/quote]

I wouldn't say its a lie. The sentence doesn't say all other countries with restrictive gun laws, it says other countries. Thus the implication is not all-inclusive. If it said all other countries or specifically included Canada then it would be a lie. At worst I'd accuse them of being clumsily-worded which is not uncommon.

Who prepared this study, and why does it contain a blatant lie? You can check this up with statcan if you like; it seems to me that American politicians are fond of lying about other countries, perhaps because they figure that no real American would ever bother asking another country for its own data to verify these lies.

Congressional sub-committee. As I said, I dispute that they're lying/ My cut would be that they're not very bright which would fit. I firmly believe politicians are politicians because they can't find a productive use for their lives. That's why I don't like them having any more power than necessary,

And you reject the most obvious explanation that gun control laws are a response to crime? Why?

I don't reject it; there's no doubt that response to a rising crime rate was an important factor in introducing gun control. It wasn't the only factor of course, politics had a lot to do with it (the arch-type of all gun control laws, New York's Sullivan act was famously described by the author as "not intended to apply to white people". In fact, Sllivan wanted to make sure his bodyguards were armed and nobody elses were (there's a good and rather amusing history of teh Sullivan Act HERE However, that begs the question to a degree, there is no reasonable doubt that rising crime rates led to an environment in which gun control was a response but was it a good response? The evidence is quite clear on that.

In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.
Defenders of the Washington law say it isn't working because criminals are getting guns in Virginia, where the laws are more relaxed. But just across the Potomac River, Arlington, Va., has a murder rate less than 10 percent of that of Washington (7.0 murders versus 77.8 per 100,000 population). Can the difference be explained by the fact that Washington is a large city? Virginia's largest city, Virginia Beach, has a population of nearly 400,000, allows easy access to firearms - and has had one of the country's lowest murder rates for years (4.1 per 100,000 population in 1991).

Source HERE

I already agreed with that earlier. I think that the drop in Canadian violent crime since the mid 1990s is just a coincidence with the introduction of Bill C-68, and not caused by it. Nevertheless, the fact that your source outright lies about this does not make me inclined to take its other conclusions seriously.

I dispute the lies comment; I agree on the coincidence the problem with the whole gun control issue is that everybody on both sides forgets that coincidence does not equal causality.

That's a curious conclusion; one could just as easily point out that the criminals themselves overwhelmingly benefited from having guns, because they were able to successfully use them to commit crimes.

Again, referring you to THIS, we have the following

The number one reason criminals acquire handguns is not to commit crimes but, like noncriminals, to protect themselves.52 Criminals keenly feel the need for self-protection because they associate with other criminals and are likely to be victims as well as victimizers. As Figure II shows: In a survey of imprisoned felons, 58 percent said protection was a very important reason for getting a handgun and 26 percent said it was a somewhat important reason. Only 28 percent cited use in crime as very important and 20 percent said it was somewhat important.

Cracking down on the illegal gun market with a tenth of the gusto with which they crack down on the illegal drug market might help.

I agree; it would result in the perfect situation, armed citizens and disarmed criminals. Until we get there, we're stuck with armed citizens and armed criminals. Armed criminals and disarmed citizens makes no sense.

More seriously, quoting DCPA again, restricting the ability of criminals to own guns simply shifts them to other weapons - knives and baseball bats for retail killing and bombs for wholesale.

[K. A. Pital]

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

Are you saying you have caught them lying? Funding gun control is not lying.

However, he still scores head and shoulders above the information produced by gin control advocates.

Stuart, he lied. Repeatedly. And frauded.

In case a historian, or statistician, lies and frauds, that's a far greater problem than mere bias. That's actual lies and frauds, you know.

So pardon me, but I'll stick to "biased" sources which haven't been caught lying about their data sets and methodology.

Still it works a hell of a sight better than anything else anybody has come up with.

What? Why the hell is the US constitution any better than constitituions of other nations? Europe for example? Slaveowner rebels have a better grip on writing constitutions than students of law in a democracy?

And you haven't actually refuted my point - absolutizing a piece of paper is absurd, just as the rights codified therein. Wanna worship a paper, your pick. Some do it with the Quran, some with the Bible. I prefer not to follow any piece of paper blindly.

The Constitution is where you start

Amended countless times; would a law be necessary, people would find a way. Just like they did with slavery. That one required a war, however, because some were too assholish.

Pragmatism, I go with what works.

Heheh. That's a worldview, but not an ethical system.

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

Please. There's a huge overlap between three categories of people: stupid fundies, die-hard republicans and rabid gun advocates. The ones who support social welfare among vocal gun advocates are a minority of the advocates. Incorrect? Very correct in my view.

You rant was just about nothing.

Lott is still the primary source for the effects of gun control on crime rates

A man was caught lying. Many times. I mean... you can't say Irving is a prime source on Dresden bombing, right?