here's an interesting possibility. by coincidence in the broader sense (which means this thread is old enough now that it can encompass a range of possibilities) i've been working on a criminology project and in the course of that have been looking at alot of studies concerning guns, crime rates and what if any relations there are between them...turns out that none of the claims which are repeated as certainties by the 2nd amendment fundies here seem to be supported by actual studies. for example, until quite recently, there was no single, agreed upon statistical dataset, no agreed upon conventions for defining various types of crime simply because police information is highly decentralized. studies that have tried to investigate correlations then would run into problems of data first of all. there are problems of method that follow from this, and then there are the usual but annoying problems of analysis-for-hire that have proliferated over the past decade or so as various interest groups have tried to paralyze coherent discussion by buying analytic outcomes through the mechanism of earmarking funding in such a way that the outcomes are built into acceptance of the funding--and even this is not systematic, so you can't really tell whether instance a funded by institution 1 is necessarily worthless.

what this all means is i am coming to the conclusion that most appeals to "studies" or "facts" made in this and in most similar threads are bullshit, nothing more and nothing less---but that the way around this is to do the actual work and get access to real data, read the real data and put yourself through the trouble of trying to sort out what is and is not good information.

i don't think most of the folk who have posted here have done a bit of that.
instead i think that positions are based on third or fourth hand summaries of data that people haven't looked at, often cherry-picked, that is accepted because it conforms to positions held in advance.

i'm not sure if this is the thread to do this or if it should be another--i suppose i'll find out--but that's the problem.

i don't believe that anyone has done the basic research they pretend to have done---what i've been seeing indicates that the positions staked out here have no relation at all to the positions you see outlined in actual studies of guns, violence, crime and the effects of regulation on them.

and i don't think there is a single position within the literature that i've happened to look at--so it's not a matter of simply standing received wisdom (this is an ironic term) on it's head--rather i don't think anyone's done the work.

rather than start barraging you with citations---what information--specific information--do you rely on to formulate your views about guns, gun control, violence/crime?
anything?
if you do, show the information--put up citations or bite articles.
there debates never get anywhere in part because they're not based on anything more advanced than the competing statements "i like guns" and "i don't like guns"....

Feel free to make light of my statement. My point is valid: the second amendment does not define "which" arms a person can keep. Since it does not specifically limit the right, it implies "all of them." I didn't write it.

The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. Bombs and biological weapons are ordinance.

Well, interpreted as that tells me it's the right to bear "small arms."

This includes the M2 Browning
http://www.urban-armory.com/m2.JPG

It takes the one on the far left
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...comparison.jpg

Is this a reasonable upper limit?

EDIT:
Oh, and thanks for #701, roachboy. I think it puts a bullet through the heart of the matter.

?

If we are discussing whether something is a right or not and/or whether the Obama administration will successfully pass another AWB the stats' Roachboy is requesting are not particularly relevant.

I don't quote statistics often as they are easily misinterpreted and as Roachboy said most data are collected in imperfect ways by organizations with agendas. Those who don't have an Agenda (like FBI studies) do a fairly good job of showing things as they are...but make no (good) attempt to show causality. This is absolutely true for both sides of the argument, though anti-gun groups tend to rely more on statistics (IMHO) because they are trying to justify banning guns, while most Pro-Gun groups simply point at the 2'nd Amendment.

Ultimately my argument is not about numbers, but rather these two things: The right to defend myself is not something any government should be able to strip from me. And self defense is an individual responsibility in that the police can only deter crime and punish criminals after the fact.


I have read a lot of junk stats on both sides during my life. I have a Math degree and I notice when the numbers are messed up. I have also seen some legitimate studies which I will have to dig up in a day or two when I have some more time.

You are perfectly correct that people should take reasonable care to validate information before continuing to spread it, though it is unreasonable to expect people to sift through the data sets for each study...that would take WAY too much time. It is much easier to read peer-reviewed studies from reliable sources.


Here are a few quick ones:

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Uniform Crime Reports (The FBI's crime stats)

There is also this: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...5-0-screen.pdf
I have not attempted to verify everything (or even most of it), but since they cite every source it is easy enough for any particular issue which catches your fancy.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Firearms and Crime Statistics (another good .Gov Site)

I think the stat that the NRA uses most frequently in this debate is "the first AWB did not lower gun related crime at all", which is probably what Roachboy is questioning.

And is a tank considered arms or ordinance? According to some here they should be able to own a tank. To me there isn't much difference between owning a bomb and owning a tank. Especially when you consider a tank basically fires explosives.

Now I am not arguing that all weapons should be confiscated. Instead i'm arguing that a line of what is reasonable exists. The true debate comes at where is that line. One can argue that such a line does not exist but they are likely a fool or just trying to argue for the sake of argument.

I'm not comfortable defining a reasonable upper limit on legal ownership. Except for weapons such as shotguns and big game guns that have a sporting purpose as recognized by the attorney general, a gun with a larger bore than the .50BMG must be registered under the NFA as a destructive device, and the buyer must pass a comprehensive background check, be fingerprinted, pay a tax in addition to the price of the gun, and notify the ATF if they plan to take it out of state. It appears that NFA restrictions on machine guns, destructive devices, short rifles, short shotguns, and AOWs have been effective in preventing individuals from using legally owned title II weapons in crimes. I oppose the 1984 closing of the machine gun registry, and I support maintaining the NFA as a reasonable and effective way to limit the availability of machine guns and the like to criminals. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop Norinco from shipping automatic rifles, rocket launchers, and tanks to the US with the intent of selling them to gang members, but that's a discussion for another thread.

The M2 is an automatic weapon and subject to NFA restrictions, anyway.
A tank is prohibitively expensive for criminal use and I believe US military regulations prevent the sale of such surplus vehicles unless the mounted weapons have been removed or rendered permanently inoperable. I argue that it is unlikely that anyone but a collector would be willing to purchase one, and if this unlikely scenario were to occur, the gun would have to be registered as a destructive device requiring the aforementioned background check process and $200 tax stamp, as would each round of ammunition containing more than 1/4oz of explosive or 4oz of propellant.

A criminal who wanted a tank, Marvin Heemeyer for example, would be more likely to improvise a tank out of a bulldozer, concrete, and steel plating with a few cameras and guns poking through holes.

The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech," which is just as straightforward as the Second. And yet, the Supreme Court has routinely held that there are limits to what kind of speech is protected by the First. Why should the Second be any different?

What case law was that first amendment limit born?

I don't know the case names off the top of my head, and I can't find my old casebook right now, but cases like 'obscenity' and 'fighting words' are not protected, and commercial speech has only limited protection. I tend to go further than the Supreme Court myself, and think that seditious libel shouldn't be protected where it encourages lawless activity, but the Supreme Court generally uses the 'clear and present' danger test for those types of speech. IOW, I can't encourage an angry mob to overrun DC, but I can suggest it wouldn't be a bad idea on an internet messageboard.

No. The first attempts to limit the right of free speech was done just 9 years after the adoption of the constitution by Pres. John Adams when he signed the Alien and Sedition acts.

Just 9 years after the adoption of a constitution that based their nation on things such as the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property, our newly formed government started infringing upon them.

I was just using it as an example of limiting the right of free speech. I wasn't trying to imply that it was the first attempt. ;)

understood. there are many examples, unfortunately, throughout our history that we let our government get away with.

I don't think the limits on the first are right, either. Nobody should be deprived of any right without individual due process, and if they harm someone while exercising a right (shooting someone other than in self defense or defense of others, or slandering someone,) they should be held accountable for that harm.

That's the way it was introduced and presented to the states/people when the constitution was adopted. The 5th Amendment was created to help assuage any fears that a government body could use any influential policies to infringe on inalienable rights by appealing to authoritative means. Then this 'no right is absolute' crap came along and was bought wholesale via the use of a 'good crisis'. it was fun while it lasted.