Still believe in Gun Control? Read this.
 

http://www.wam.umd.edu/~keving/gunfacts.pdf

The document is about 80 pages long, so I won't be quoting it entirely, but it contains some pretty damning factual evidence (all of which is referenced) against gun control. In particular was the declaration that guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes each year.

How can people still support gun control in light of all the things going against it?

Support for gun-control is actually tapering a bit, and has been since 9/11. Heck, the AWB may actually sunset, and if that is not a sure sign of the tepidity of gun control in the national debate, I dunno what is. Another sure sign is the total lack of discourse on gun control in the Presidential race.

Now, I'm not saying we should let our guard down, just saying that the Democrat party has realized that Gun control is a loser-issue for them, and have backed off in large part. I find it sad that it was done simply because of polls and not because of deference to the Bill of Rights, but whatever. So long as they keep hands offa the Rights, I don't care.

This belongs in "Politics".

Did anyone see the soundbite of Sarah Brady claiming that if the AWB sunsets there will be "uzis and ak47s on our streets?" It was incredibly pathetic, and I couldn't believe what I was hearing. What do people like Sarah Brady have to gain by disarming law-abiding citizens? Surely she doesn't really believe that nonsense?

Hmmmm. AWB doesn't mean Average White Band any more does it...

Apparently she doesn't realize that there are already Uzis and AK-47 on our streets. They are in the possesion of...survey says...the CRIMINALS!

You're more likely to shoot a family member or yourself or anyone-but-the-criminal who enters your home. Since this is generally the only way that people who don't commit crimes use guns in relation to crime, saying anything about crime and guns in an effort to say that there should be less or no control does not make sense.

The problem with most democrats (or anyone pro-gun control) is that they see too much of the crime/murder factor and too little of the It's-A-Fucking-Constitutional-Right factor. Guns are indeed a very devastating problem for certain communities, but it's not the guns themselves that are the root of the problem.

So true. but God forbid we teach anything good in schools and instill morals into our children so they don't grow up to be imoralists.

I am not for gun control, but I understand why people are. Guns don't kill people, people kill people right? Guns make it too easy to kill someone though. Maybe you get mad and point a gun at someone, it's so easy to pull the trigger. You don't even have to be close to the person. Now a stabbing is much more intimate. But it is our right to bare arms, and to wear tank tops.

I am against any kind of government 'control'. Guns are a difficult subject. At some point in civilized society you must decide when a 'weapon' becomes too large, or the effects of it anyway. The line eventually gets drawn at some point. Right now the point is hovering around the assault weapon.

I got this e-mail from MoveOn if anyone feels like taking action, but you'd better be quick...

What utter tripe. Oh no, someone can buy a semi-automatic AK47! They will still be illegal to carry around in the open in most states, and the fully-automatic version will still require succumbing to background checks, and a heap of paperwork by the FBI. The AWB serves no purpose, which is why it is being allowed to expire. The outcry from people about this is similar to the outcry of CCW law being passed in Minnesota which was equally nonsensical.

I live in Australia, we have gun control, less people get shot here, I like it...

Yeah, now you just need sword-control, I hear? :)

Don't make the mistake of equating gun-control with any success at lowering the murder rate.

It's ironic that the people who are most widely opposed to the PATRIOT Act (Democrats and young liberals) and are afraid of a tyrannical government are the ones who fight hardest against the only defense we have against a tyrannical government.

In the end, gun control is just another type of control. People want to keep what they fear out of sight. In most cases, they fear is because they don't know much about it. We need less control for freedom, not more.

I hate gun control for fully automatic weapons, it defeats the entire point of the 2nd Amendment, which is there so that America can have a well armed militia. Right now there may not be much in the way of an invasion threat from other countries, but that can change very fast. You can't have an effecient militia if all they have to fight with is .22 caliber rifles and hand-guns to fight against a well armed army. What we need is better gun education, not gun control, gun laws only take guns out of the hands of those who obey the laws. I personally think there would be much less in the way of school shootings if we actually put the effort into helping kids deal with their problems that we put into trying to keep guns "under-control".

Read pages 14-19 of the PDF in relation to children and accidental discharges. In particular...
Read page 47, which specifically focuses on Australia. In particular...
Pretty hardcore evidence there.

I'm no proponent of gun control ... but this argument that access to guns is required to prevent the tyranny of gov't is soooooo 19th century.

You'd need free access to tanks, fighter jets, bunker bombs and more if you think an armed revolt is something that needs to be achievable and therefore requires access to guns.

And just to play devil's advocate here - outside of a symbolic measure of "freedom to guns", why do we really need access assault weapons? Is it impossible to hunt without assault weapons? Is it impossible to protect your home without assault weapons? Maybe we should all have access to RPGs?

Dictatorships start by taking away the people's ability to defend themselves. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all did it. Genocides also occured shortly after gun control was established in Turkey, Guatemala, and Uganda. All of this occured in the 20th century.

Hitler said it best...
The goal here is not to ensure that the people can replace the military. The goal is to ensure that the people are capable of armed resistance against tyranny in any format. Just look at how effective the resistance in Iraq has been against our nation; small arms and improvised explosive devices have taken a horrendous toll against our military. Tanks, fighter jets, and bunker bombs are useless against a resistance hidden amongst a population.

I'm curious as to what you mean by an "assault weapon." It's a junk term that's used to describe semi-automatic weapons that look nasty, meaning they have two of the following features: a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, pistol grip, or grenade launcher. If you mean fully automatic weapon, then consider that the National Firearms Act of 1934 already prohibits the civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons and other military hardware without a Class III license. Those are not easy to get.

Here's a better question: Why should people be denied the freedom to defend themselves? Why should I be restricted from bearing arms? We shouldn't have to justify a freedom; we should have to justify taking it away!

There are more democracies in the 20th + 21st century world than not who have much more stringent gun control laws than the U.S. and have had no need for the populace to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.

You point to Nazi Germany (which is a disingenous example given that regardless of gun ownership, most Germans supported Hitler) and I point to the U.K., Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Canada, Japan, etc.

Your example of Iraq actually demonstrates my point - they've been very effective in defending themselves against our nation, but they were not allowed to own guns before we invaded. (Technically, I believe they are still not allowed to own guns.)

I'm not questioning your bigger question/point - I fully support access to guns - I'm pointing out that the claim that we need them to defend ourselves from our government is based on 18th + 19th century concepts of defense and warfare. It no longer applies. To promote your cause of access to guns, you'd be better off if you dropped the rationalizations that are meaningless.


Back to the devil's advocate: Why do you draw the line at assault weapons and not fully automatic weapons? And why not draw the line at bombs? Or nuclear weapons? What's wrong with some shotguns and rifles for hunting and some handguns for personal defense?

That someone writes an article claiming this or that is not proof of anything in either direction.

America will continue to have as many gun deaths as it can tolerate... if you have 10,000 people a year getting shot to death, and you have widespread gun ownership amongst the population - you have to draw your own conclusions.

The gun lobby is very powerful and is big money - they would argue no doubt that if guns were prohibited, all those deaths and more would still occur but the victims would be knifed or clubbed to death instead.

A gun is a tool designed to kill what it is aimed at, that is its purpose and design... I for one favour a society where such things are not available - the same arguments will just go on and on, some people seem to be in love with guns and see the second amendment as a basic human right and freedom. For myself, living in Britain, I suppose it is very difficult to understand how people would feel this way.

[QUOTE=OpieCunningham]

You point to Nazi Germany (which is a disingenous example given that regardless of gun ownership, most Germans supported Hitler) and I point to the U.K., Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Canada, Japan, etc.

QUOTE]

I disagree with this statement. Are you sure that it is true? Did Hitler ever win a popular vote, a referendum, is there any real evidence that he ever had the majority of people's support?

The fact is, Hitler was not able to rule Germany simply because the populace did not have access to guns. There is no sign of any significant popular resistance which would have been willing to sacrifice their lives for the removal of Hitler from power. There is a much stronger argument that Hitler was able to rule Germany because he controlled the media.

Anyone claiming to be concerned with the threat of tyranny from the government would be of better service in focusing their efforts on the affects of <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67690" target=_blank>media consolidation</a> and not the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for the right to bare arms, hell I have more than one firearm, but why in the hell do you need Assualt Rifles? Especially fully automatic assualt rifles? Hunting? No. Self-defense???? PLEASE.

I don't need an assault rifle as much as I need the term "Assault rifle" to be re-examined.

And in terms of weapons as a defense against tyranny being an obsolete argument: Where the fuck have you been for the past four years? Furthermore, where the fuck will we be in the next four years? I really can't cite black history worth a damn, nor do I know the accuracy of civil rights movies, but I messed the front of my pants when I saw a flick that had a black panther with a shotgun standing tall to a white cop who tried to step out of line. How will you respond in 20 or 25 years if the government decides to take away your right to vote, your right to speech, your right to basic citizenship when you strip yourself of your right to bare arms?

Also, just a comment on crime: Fully automatic weapons are illegal, that's been addressed. This does not mean that they've disappeared. The bank robbery in LA, executed by two individuals with fully automatic AK-47's and modified body armor (full suit, essentially) were damn near unstoppable, moreso when the police had to seek out a gun shop for more powerful weapons. My point is not that legalizing automatics is going to help the law (which I don't think it will), just that criminalizing what's already legal is only going to help criminals.

An "assault" weapon is not going to be any more effective against a suicide bomber than a handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle. So I don't see how excessively arming (in terms of weapon capability) the populace is in any way beneficial in the "war on terror". (Personally, I've never met a suicide bomber, nor has anyone I know - so the necessity of weapons in that regard seems very minimal.)

As for the concern over the gov't taking away the rights that define a democracy - well, as I mentioned, if you are slowly convinced it is necessary by virtue of filtered and manipulated information from the media, you're unlikely to object. Tyrants have learned a lot in the past 229 years. They're not going to get in your face and order you to obey, they're going to convince you that you need to support them.

There is a classification for weapons that sits between fully automatic and hunting/personal protection in terms of capability, and whether you want to label them as assault weapons or Really Dangerous Weapons That Aren't Quite As Dangerous As Fully Automatic Weapons&trade; - the question remains, is it realistically valuable or necessary for hunting or personal protection?

To your first paragraph: I'm sorry, I was unclear. By the past four years, I didn't mean terrorists, I meant Ashcroft and Bush. Your second paragraph responds to the same, regardless. Yes, tyrants have learned a lot in the past 229 years; that is WHY the founders gave us the gift of the second amendment.

To say that guns are irrelevant to the cause of liberty because the people will be manipulated into accepting tyranny consentually rather than coerced into it is very pessimistic and ignores three bits: 1) I am 20, 2) I and others like me have a lifespan that will average out to 80 more years or so on this planet, and 3) Some of them feel the same way I do (that suffrage and speech are not priveledges, and will not forget that anytime soon).

As to the classifications, I do not agree that a pistol grip rifle with a clip capacity of 12 rounds is more dangerous than a pistol grip rifle with a clip capacity of 10 rounds, but the assault weapon classification scheme would have me believe just that. It's not the labeling of the items that I care about, it's the defining factors.

You mean the Guatemalan genocide we fully supported?

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../04/07/0357208
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...line=guatemala

I thought this was a very well done study, all the information has always been there, but the media does a nice job of twisting it and making it go away.

The Assault Weapons ban will not be passed again, especially in an election year. Even proponents of the ban wont touch this hot potato.

My opinion: if you haven't read the entire 80 page document, you have no right to post an argument in this thread. (just my opinion.)

I used to be very much for gun control (as in, things such as the AWB), and then I did a little research and saw the statistics - many of which are also in this document.

Now, the only form of "gun control" I support is longer waiting periods and background checks and perhaps stricter licensing. Make people wait 6 months to receive their gun (most people aren't in hurries, and if there's a good reason to be then a court can overturn the waiting period). Make people be required to pass - and re-pass every year or so - marksmanship testing to obtain and maintain their license. But do not take away anyone's right to own a gun.

I'm sure you and your friends will stand up for what you believe in to the day you die. But the size of a revolution that would be required to defeat the U.S. Military is going to need to include very many of the same type of people that support the last 4 years of the destruction of our rights. It only takes just enough fear for someone to be willing to give up another right. It's not going to happen overnight, but if/when it does happen, there won't be enough willing people to mount a successful revolution. It's math. It's why media control/consolidation is the real threat and, in this aspect, gun ownership limitations are not.

I'm not going to pretend to know the in's and out's of the technicalities of where in the chart of weapon classification any particular gun might fall. But assuredly there will be cut off points. Maybe 12 bullets is a better cut off point than 10 bullets. But what about 14 bullets? Or 24? In order to classify, a line must be drawn somewhere. Should it be just below fully automatic? My impression is that there are weapons that approach the danger level of fully automatic without reaching it - and I have to question their usefulness for hunting, sport or personal defense.

I like my assault rifle- and I am responsible with it- why does anyone need an SUV- or a house larger than they need to live in- or a boat they use once every three years- or anything- because they can afford it, and havent directly hurt anyone- are any of you saying that I am irresponsible with my guns? have I done anything illegal- do I even have any parking tickets to my name- NO - then perhaps the anti gun people should be more concerned with the culture we have built here that turns the gun into something more than an inanimate object and grants it some mystical power to kill- everything requires responsibility, and I resent the idea that I do not possess the restraint or intellegence to be trusted with such things- which is just what the anti gun lobby is saying..........

I never drew a line, and fully support law-abiding citizens bearing arms for whatever legal purpose they wish. If someone wants to own a fully-automatic weapon, then let them apply for the permit and get it.

If you don't know the classifications, then why are you trying to argue with us about what should and should not be legal? You should know the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle before you try to decide which should be legal.

There should be no limit on what a person can legally own. The NFA of 1934 already limits ownership of fully-automatic devices (Class III) to those who get licensing approval. That's pretty much all we need.

Then why can't I own an RPG? Or a nuke? I promise I'll be a law abiding citizen. I'll even sign a document that says I'll be a law abiding citizen.

I don't need to understand all the details of the classifications because there has to be lines drawn somewhere. I know the difference between a nuke and a handgun. If your argument really comes down to "if it's not going to be used illegally, it should be legal", well, we can apply that to everything and anything - not just the guns involved in the AWB.

Interestingly enough, I learned last night that it's legal to own an anti-aircraft gun in New Mexico, but you have to be a certain distance from any airport/air base and you have to sign an agreement that you will allow the government to use it if and when they need it.

Maybe we should restrict the right to bear arms to the types of "arms" that were available to the Founders when they signed that into law. Hmm...

Picture of a musket

I'm just wondering here, if the Founders could have even fathomed the breadth weapons we were to develop in the 200+ years since their founding of this country. And so long as we're championing "power to the people," explain the electoral college, the division of church and state. The Founders may have wanted to form a democracy, but they didn't "trust" the people. There are checks on "the people" just as there were on the three branches of government. I view this as just another check.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that Thomas Jefferson thought that, for the health of a nation, revolutions should overthrow the government every so often. And I very much agree with what has been said in this thread and elsewhere: the obstacle to having a revolution wouldn't be an under-armed populance, it would be rallying people to fight in the first place. The consolidated media is the threat now.

And one more thing, what would Dr. King say about a means to throw off an oppressor? How successful was the Black Panther Movement compared to the broader PEACEFUL Civil Rights Movement? How well has Palistine done violently attacking their enemies? How did Gandhi get the English out of India? If you ask me, the future of revolutions is not in violent fighting, farmers and what, middle management, versus an oppressive US military. The future of revolutions is about information and the media. Its about informing people about a cause and showing its injustice. That is the lesson to be taken for the successful leaders of recent revolutions, one that current revolutions should note.

Maybe we should restrict freedom of speech to the types of speech that was available in 18th century America. I'm sure the Founders could not have envisioned computers, radio and television.

Picture of Ben Franklin's printing press

If we're going to restrict firearms to the technology of the 18th Century, let's be consistant.
The 1st Amendment must only be exercised through quill pens, manual printing presses, and the spoken word. No fountain, ballpoint, or felt-tip pens. No typewriters, mechanical printing presses of any type, printers of any type, computers, radio, television, or telegraph.
Travel must only be conducted on horseback or on foot. No bycicles, automobiles, airplanes, motorcycles, trolly-cars, trains, or ships driven by anything other than sail-power.
All men must wear breeches and stockings, and the truly fashionable may opt for a powedered wig or lace cravat.
All women must wear corsets with whalebone stays, button-up shoes, and hoop-skirts.
Women, Blacks, Native Americans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Swarthy Immigrants, persons not holding more than 300 acres of land, and lawyers are now forbidden to vote.
Women are the property of their husbands, and may be beaten by their husbands, provided that no weapon larger in diameter than the husbands thumb is used. Marital Rape is now legal. No woman may marry without her father's consent, and divorced women and widows may, in some states, be required to obtain the permission of their Justice Of Peace to remarry.
Homosexuals and adulterers may be hanged by the neck until dead.
Adulterous women may be branded with an "A" upon the cheek or forehead, and lecherous men may be likewise branded with an "L".

Do you see how rediculous that is?

PS: peaceful revolutions are always preferable. However, they only work so long as the Powers That Be give 2/3ds of a shit. Once the PTB choose to ignore Public Opinion ( at home and abroad ) such protests become useless, and usually turn into massacres.
If, for example, Bush had ordered the NY Nat'l Gaurd to shoot into the protesting crowds in NYC, caring not a whit what anyone thought of him, do you REALLY think that banging on drums and chanting would change his mind? No; he'd simply order more shootings. When a dictator chooses to ignore Public Opinion, he can do whatever he likes until he is removed BY FORCE.

If you're going to debate what should be banned, then you should know the difference between the classifications. Suggesting that allowing citizens to own small arms would lead to people demanding nuclear proliferation at Wal*Mart is spurious at best. Junk legislation like the AWB does nothing.

I'm not suggesting that people should be able to walk into a store, slap down a credit card, and walk out with a machine gun. But someone who successfully passes a background check and gets the proper license should be allowed to purchase whatever he wants; that's the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty." I'm not a criminal if I want to buy a gun, no matter what gun I want.

The purpose of gun control is (supposedly) to prevent crime by making it difficult for criminals to obtain guns. The problem is that it fails to do that; if it were true then Washington DC would be the safest city in America. All we're doing is preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

I'm not debating what should or should not be banned. I'm debating whether anything should be placed into a category that is banned. If I were debating a specific gun, then yes - I would need to know the technical details of how that gun operates in comparison to others. But my point is that there are many different types of guns. Some are more deadly/dangerous than others. There is a whole spectrum of projectile weapons - from little derringers to AK47s to RPGs all the way up to nuclear missles. Lines must be drawn to classify those weapons and some of those classifications should be unavailable to more then 99.9% of the population.

The question is - where do you draw the line? But you seem to be arguing that there should be no lines at all and that the only obstacle is one of time and/or licensing because of "freedom".

There are probably a good number of reasons that freedom is not an acceptable reason to have access to dangerous weapons. You may really really want an RPG and you may have no criminal past, but if you're allowed to have one, we are now assuming that you won't go mad and use it to take out an airplane full of people because your bitch of an ex-wife is on board. Or you are unable to guard the RPG and someone who is not licensed steals it from you and commits a criminal act with it. What good reason could you provide for the necessity of having such a weapon that would alleviate the potential for the weapon to be used for a criminal activity? Freedom is not a practical reason, it is an ideal.

Ideally, I support less gun control vs. more gun control (mainly because I agree with Michael Moore's theory that a fear culture and not access to guns is the primary cause of the inflated U.S. murder rates. Blaming guns is denial of the real problem.). But there has to be limitations. All weapons should not be freely obtainable (even with time/licensing delays).

The key is for both sides to sit down and rationally discuss the issue. Right now it seems like one side is saying "all or almost all guns should be banned" and the other is saying "all or almost all guns should be available to the people". Some guns have no purpose in the hands of most people other than their desire. Desire is not good enough. On the other hand, guns are not the cause of gun deaths - shooting someone is the cause of a gun death. Somewhere in the imperfect middle is where we should be aiming (pun intended).

First, in regards to the 18th century technology bits: touche, nicely done.

However, if we're using your hypothetical crowd shooting example, what would you have the crowd do? Shoot back? Ok so they shoot back and the whole thing becomes a mess and vigilante groups spring up all over the country and they fight all the time with the US military. No one really wins ever, and lots of people die on both sides. However, because the oppressed side refuses to remain peaceful, its impossible for world opinion to back them because the US government (while forgetting that they started the thing) will say that every new attack on the armed protesters was retialiation for a previous one. And, they'd be right. The armed protesters storm buildings and take out their tyranical oppressors' guards, but also kill a couple of civilians in the process. So essentially everything is at a standstill, with people steadily dying and no end in sight.

Doesn't this sound a lot like Israel/Palistine?

We forget that it was not only our American revolutionaries that were able to overthrow the British. We had the full backing and support of France (yes, France) and they aided us tremendiously in winning. So, what I guess I'm trying to say is, I don't think any heavily armed militia can beat the US military, were it to suddenly turn evil. Militia groups need backing from some other military power to win outright. Possilbly we could recreate Israel/Palistine here (or the movie Red Dawn) with only a well-armed militia, but actually defend ourselves? No way.

This makes me think that having guns for the purpose of defence against a tyrannical government with our military capabilities is essentially a non-point. We just better hope that never happens, but if it does, hell, I guess we can appeal to France again.

There is adequate laws already, no need to pass more. It's already illegal for the general populace to own fully automatic weapons. The AWB was a load of crap to start with, it done absolutely nothing in lowering the crime rates. In fact studies have shown quite the opposite, generally speaking states with "right to carry" laws have a much lower crime rate than places with strict gun control laws. This is America, people don't necessarily need SUV's, televisions, central air conditioning, running water, heat,freedom of speech, large houses, etc., etc., you get the idea. However, since it's America and people choose to buy these things, choose to say what they wish, as it's their right as a freeborn American, they should also be allowed to own any firearm they choose within reason. Just because something looks foreboding is no reason to outlaw it. The AWB as it was written is unacceptable. Everyone advocating for this should really do a little research and a little soul searching and ask yourself is it really worth the loss of freedom? I think it's really ironic that most people advocating gun control is also the people that lament the most about the Patriot Act. You want to completely remove the 2nd Amendment rights from someone with no hope of ever regaining while at the same time your lamenting about a little inconvenience of your own right to privacy. It really doesn't make much sense.

That is precisely the focus of the debate. What is "within reason"?

Sweet, now that I know this I can go buy some guns.

"Assault Rifle" is a misnomer. There is no such thing. "Assault Weapon" is a small handy weapon that is either full-auto or controlled burst and is usually chambered for a pistol cartridge. The Assault Rifle Ban was concocted by Diane Finestein, Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schummer strickly to create the impression for their liberal constituency that they had the ability to make a meaningful contribution to reduction of crime that involved large capacity weapons. Their concocted law fastened on to "deadly looking black guns with identifiable features" that the liberal controlled media could make the public believe made the fireams much more dangerous than normal. The AWB law did absolutely no good whatsoever in disarming the criminal in the USA. They don't use those guns and never will. A few certifiable crazies have used a semi-auto rifle to commit horrendous acts and at least two certifiable crazies used full-autos to try to rob a bank. But then more than a few certifiable crazies have used autos, airplanes, knives, chemicals and explosives to commit horrendous acts too. There are a couple of occasions that good guys have used legally owned full-autos to thwart crimes. There are many instances of good guys using semi-auto rifles to protect their loved ones and/or their businesses.

Let's lay it on the line, all firearms are dangerous. That is what they are supposed to be. The Founding Fathers of our country knew that any form of established government evolves over passage of time. They knew that usually the established government becomes more oppressive rather than more benign. The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights strictly so that we the people would have a starting place in the future to overthrow that oppressive government. I know the argument to come...People with little rifles cannot hope to overthrow a big government equiped with war planes, tanks, artillery, etc............Wrong! If there are enough willing people with little rifles, the government's big weaponry will be taken and turned a bit at a time. Do you think that the Iraqi people were armed under Saddam? Small weapons plus the very important Stinger missle were furnished to the unarmed Afganis. Look at the result. The USSR got its hat handed to it and kicked out. But I digress......... I fear the government that fears me to be armed.

There are about 2 million felons incarcerated in the USA at this time. When asked,to a felon, they say the thing that they feared most when they were outside and commiting their crimes was to run up against an armed citizen. Obviously, not enough of us were armed. I am career law enforcement and I believe that every law abiding able bodied person in the USA should be carrying the weapon of their choice, be well trained in its use and the law governing said use. If that weapon is a black rifle with a collapsing stock, box magazine with more than 10 rounds, a pistol grip and a flash hider...........so be it.

"And remember guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."

Actually, there is such a thing as an assault rifle...the army uses them every day.

I have to disagree. The M-16 is a "Main Battle Rifle" and is not an "Assault Rifle". I bet most anti-gunners only see the black color. The US military does not carry a listing for "Assault Rifle". They can assault an enemy with anything from the 5.56 mm/M-16 caliber thru the thermo nuclear bomb. They are all offensive weapons. Some are pretty good defensive weapons too.

Technically speaking, the M-16 is an "Assault Rifle" or "Assault Carbine." A Main Battle Rifle is a semiautomatic or select-fire weapon capable of striking an instantly-incapacitating blow, over iron sights, at 600 yards, and penetrating battlefield cover at the same range. Such weapons are usually .30 calibre, and include the FN-FAL, M1A, M14, G3/HK91, and M1.
Assault Rifles/Carbines are select-fire weapons capable of striking an instantly-incapacitating blow at 200-300 yards, although they may score hits at much longer ranges. They use an intermediate-power cartridge such as the 5.56mm, 5.45mm, and 7.62x39mm, which can penetrate battlefield cover to perhaps 300 yards range, typically. The M-16, AK-series, and Steyr AUG are good examples here.

Sorry to seem so picky, but the entire "Assault Weapons" debate is basically semantic, so I think it's important to have the terms straight.

There are 2 million incarcerated individuals.

They don't claim to be afraid of citizens who are armed--at least not in my personal life experiences and not in any interviews I've been on either side of.

What they will say is that if they meet an individual with a weapon that person is more likely to be harmed when the violence escalates--and the numbers bear that out.



Also, fully auto weapons aren't illegal. [surprised Lebell didn't catch that one--chalk it up to being tired of correcting all the misconceptions or maybe just didn't see it ;)] But they are heavily regulated and, I understand, very expensive.

Check out this link to "Gun Myths"; http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm. Felons interviewed stated that they feared the armed citizen more than the police. No valid unbiased study shows that a citizen using a firearm for selfprotection is more apt to by hurt by the firearm than the assailant.

Ok, I misstated a stat that I had only partly memorized. There are about 2 million incarcerated felons in the US right now. But, there are about 6.9 million that are under control of the Prison Systems, i.e. parolees, probationioners, house arrests and a few other minor categories. A very scary figure if one takes into consideration that those are only the ones that got caught and prosecuted.

Also, check out a study by Dr. Gary Kleck on statistical analysis of firearm uses in the US. He started out as a confirmed anti-gunner, but did the analysis strickly on the level with no agenda creep and became an avid proponet of personal firearm ownership being convinced by his own statistics.

I read your link: only 1,026 felons answered that they were more fearful of an armed citizen over a police officer.

less than .0005 percent of the prison population for those who didn't want to determine the proportion of 1,026 is of 2,000,000 inmates.

I don't know how to address your second statement because it is false, and I have no idea how you ascertained it other than your personal opinion.

Kleck's studies have been dissected by his peers--and did not hold up well at all. I don't agree with your assertion regarding his political beliefs before he conducted the disputed studies--his views before and after are and were quite well known in the academic community.

I can't recall ever seeing work referenced that discredits Kleck's work, but I'm certainly willing to look at it.

I provided them in the past from paid services and asked people to give me references if they wanted me to dig some studies up for their side of the debate.

I'm not interested in gun control. I was going to ask the visiting prof from Berkeley who consistently sits across from Lott (Frank Zimring), but he turned out to be not very, ah, personable ;). Yeah, that's the polite way to put it.

But the offer stands, if you have a peer reviewed study that you want to reference and make known, give me the citation and I'll pull it up--but I'm not going to dig around and prove a case of point I'm not interested in contesting. But I did do this--I don't come in here thinking I know the full ramifications of gun control and posting my credentials while trying to convince people away from your position.

Anything I've said is a parroting of people I trust who have done primary research. Zimring, asshole that he may be, is tops in the business. So I trust him in forming my personal opinion--but refrain from claiming a criminological truth. Ya know?

But you'll notice that, out of respect for the secondary and tertiary research (I don't know of you doing interviews that would rise to primary research) you've conducted, I don't usually post replies concering the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control measures. So I hope you'll notice that I haven't done that. But the reason is that I don't want to spend research time on a question I don't necessarily care about too much--so I attempt to limit my responses in that regard.

Dragging up old stuff but I'm not American so I can only respond to points I know anything about ;)

Death by firearms could be reduced to zero by not owning a firearm. Preventing death by water is a wildly different and wholely unreasonable request. You could always not have buckets or a bathtub, but it's still possible for a young child to drown in a couple of inches of water. An outright ban on liquids might be effective though...

Link

How many of those 2,000,000 are felons? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that you have argued that most prison overcrowding is due to nonviolent drug offenders.) How many felons from the nationwide convicted felon population were asked to respond? (I doubt it's all of them) How many of those felons committed a violent crime in which someone may have felt the need to defend himself? (There isn't always a good Samaritan around to try to defend his/her fellow man/woman) How many of them were arrested by the police? (all of them) How many were confronted by an armed citizen? (a lot less than all)

While I understand what you're trying to say, I think you're saying it based on a gut reaction and basing it on a gross oversimplification of facts. I'd like for you to at least consider this before completely disimissing the argument as being statistically insignificant.

I wasn't arguing that the results were statistically insignificant. Someone quoted a study as evidence that the majority of incarcerated individuals responded that they were more afraid of armed citizens than police officers.

I read the linked study and the researchers' sample size was 1,800 incarcerated people. Their results were statistically significant, but their sample size was too small.

Most prisoners are incarcerated due to non-violent drug offenses. That wouldn't negate my point, but rather tend to bolster it since the argument resting on their responses is implying that armed citizens thwart violent crime.

The study didn't explain its sampling method, so I can't comment on most of your queries. Suffice to say, I'm not dismissing out of hand due to anything. It's not my responsibility to accept studies until they've demonstrated validity and reliability. If you choose to accept a study that is based on shoddy techniques, go ahead. But the results of that study were inconclusive, at best.

I believe that ALL prisoners in state and federal prisons are "felons". Some are in for commitment of a non-violent crime and some are in for commitment of one or more violent crimes. I have worked in maximum and medium security prisons. The violent crime criminals that I associated with were not reluctant to admit being more concerned of meeting up with the armed citizen than the police. For many years, armed citizens in the US kill or wound by shooting far more criminals in the act than all police combined. Police have so many restrictions on actually shooting a suspect that they usually err on the side of not shooting. The criminals know that.

I state again; "no valid study proves that a citizen is more apt to be killed or wounded if armed with his own weapon than he is confronting an armed criminal while being unarmed." That is supported by studies from Kleck and Lott both. The liberals want it to be true that the good guy is usually hurt/killed so bad that they continue to throw up statistics from a long ago discredited study that was skewed by its own bias. It is also my opinion, coming from an older law enforcement officer with lots of experience in training civilians for firearm and legal qualification to meet CCW requirements, that armed citizens are far safer in dealing with criminal opponents than unarmed citizens. Heck, everything writen here is a form of the writer's opinion and is a form of editorializing. I don't see the need to back up every statement by referencing a scientific based study. But, I will in the future to keep ruffled feathers down to a minimum, start every post with "IMHO".

One last point. Under commonly accepted statistical analysis procedures, a sample of 1800 to 2000 interviews randomly done within an identifiable set of 2,000,000 is valid enough to a determinable plus/minus factor of error. True even when that set includes every eligible voter within the USA. Just ask the AP, Zogby, Pew, TIME, AP-Ipsos, etc., etc. when they doing polling on political issues if they believe that a sample of 1800 to 2000 from that set is adequate to insure viable statistics.

IMHO liberals want to be allowed to use the weakest sort of generated statistics against conservative positions, but don't want conservatives to to be allowed to use repeatable statistical studys at all in their arguments. That is ok with me. I would much rather use empirical observations to base my opinion on anyway.

Where are you coming up with this stuff?

The study is on a personal webpage of a student of Duke university. It was 'published' by the NRA.

There is no mention of the sampling error, the methodology, nor the survey apparatus.

This study is bunk science unless you can show me where it was peer reviewed by other criminologists who have examined the issues I raised.

You have no way of knowing whether 1800 was enough to approach acceptable error. You base your comments off Zogby polls? They go through careful calculations do determine the sample size--it's not adequate to assume that for every Y population size, X sample size will do.

You didn't mention it, so I assume you may not be aware, that the criminal population, not being a "known" size, presents incredible problems to the researcher. Those problems have to be explained how they were addressed in the study.

Anecdotal evidence aside, you are attesting to the validity and reliability of a study you haven't read--merely the synopsis. Then you claim it in here as fact--it isn't. Assuming it were found to be valid, it would still need to be conducted again by another researcher to determine it's reliability. These are first year method's research points--I'm not making it up do to some 'liberal bias.' And I certainly didn't cite any other studies of my own and try to twist them to scare the TFP public. I'm just rankled because you keep stating study this and study that because they support your personal experiences and beliefs--not because of their scientific accuracy.

And I'm just about sure that you can guess what I think about convicts' discussions with screws--they were probably real truthful with you.

Oh shit, I just re-read the line you keep hinging your comment on. It does not claim that convicts are more afraid of armed citizens than police. It says that "57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police."

That means that they were making statements about how others felt--not themselves. Most respondents, not just cons, are willing to guestimate what they think other people feel, without ascribing that belief to themselves. What we don't know, because the study doesn't tell us, is whether the cons answered that they believed most people were afraid of armed citizens, but that they weren't, which would follow the pattern of how people normally answer those sensitive questions (fear is a sensitive topic, especially in prison, which is only one of the reasons I'd be skeptical of a convict telling a screw how he or she was afraid of something on the street) during interviews.

So, at best, you have a study which states that convicts feel that the majority of other prisoners were more afraid of armed citizens than police officers--since we don't know how afraid they are of police initially (possibly squat, so 'more' afraid could be squat + 1), that answer doesn't really say very much does it?

And I didn't even address whether "more scared" translates into "deters behavior." I'm hoping that I don't have to dredge out proof that a scared person is more likely to do something stupid than rational. Based on what I've read in peer review journals, if I ever find myself with a gun to my temple with a hopped up junkie demanding my wallet and watch, the last thing I'm going to want to do is scare him. I want him to feel as comfortable and in control of me as possible. I don't want to infringe on his sense of control over the situation or give him any reason to go off the hook. I'm actually shocked that a practicing LEO wouldn't attest to that reality because I know that kind of awareness is taught in negotiation courses for the enforcement agencies down here in Southern California.

IMHO it is taught to not let the hop head get that close in the first place. It is called situational awareness. It is also taught that the best gun fight is one that one never let happen. You can what if the statistics and hypothetical situations all you want to support your position (just like I can) but, from years of experience I believe one is far better off to be armed and trained than not armed and complacent.

I respect your belief of what is best for yourself based on your personal experiences.

It also sounds like we fundamentally agree that the best gun fight is one that never happens.

There you go, BC, that wasn't so hard was it ;)

That may be true for the person who purchases a firearm and a box of ammo, and thinks they are ready to repel an intruder. Just like any other tool and skill, firearms and self defense require training. I have been in the unfortunate situation of being forced to repel home invaders in the past. No children in my house were caught in the cross fire, and no innocent neighbors were shot by armor piercing ammo. Why? Because I practice my skills with my firearms, and I use the appropriate tool (firearm and ammo type) for the job.

Net result of above mentioned home invasion? One dead intruder and two severely wounded intruders laying on the floor in various locations in my home when the police showed up (10 minutes after the 911 call to report said home invasion and shoot out).

I own a gun. I hunt. But as an American History teacher, I also feel compelled to address the Constitutional issue which gun advocates love to cite.

First, the 2nd Amendment refers specifically to the need for a well-regulated militia. NRA-ers regularly disregard this qualifiying clause.

Second, I feel that it's important to consider why they found a well-regulated militia so important. Was it to overthrow the government? No, they'd just created that government, so they didn't want it thrown. Their mechanism for drastic political change was the idea of an amendable Constitution, not armed rebellion against the constitutionally elected government. Was it because they were fearful of another invasion by the British (or some other ambitious European power)? That explanation makes since if America is a fledgeling power in the late 18th Century, but not if America is the world's most militaristic super-power. And anyway, that wasn't why they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The real reason for the 2nd Amendment was that the Southern States required it.

Now let's think about possible reasons why the Southern states would have required a fast-response, locally-based, quasi-military force to keep the security. That's right, give youself a cookie if you guessed slave-rebellions. There were millions of slaves, and they rebelled with some frequency, so the Whites lived in terror of the thought of marauding Blacks murdering the Masters and raping the young Misses.

Check the historical sources (start with James Madison, who actually composed the 2nd Amendment), and you'll see that I am right. Then debate whether or not gun-control works 'til you're blue in the face. But leave my Constitution out of it.

Grizzley;


In the parlance of 1798, "well-regulated" meant "In proper order" or "Functioning properly," not "Controlled by rules or authority." In the context of the 2A, this could be translated as "A Militia in proper order, being nessescary..." The "qualifying clause" is grammatically subordinate: in other words, the second part of the sentance is the one that matters...that bit about "shall not be infringed."

Second: the Militia Act defines the Unreglulated Militia as all persons between 17 and 45, capable of bearing arms, who are not members of the Nat'l Gaurd. This means that anyone between 17-45 is protected -absolutely- by the 2A. See section 311, USC.

Thirdly: I suggest you read up on your Jefferson. He made it -quite- clear that the reason for the existance of the 2A was to provide for the overthrow of a tyrannical, out-of-control government. He advises that "the people are never to be debarred the use of Arms," among other tidbits. Washington, Burr, and most of the other Founders agreed with him on this.

Fourthly, to rebut your "Racist 2A" nonsense, I suggest the following essay:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?ID=916
"The Racist Roots of Gun Control"
I should also like to see some sources for your "southern states required it" statement. As the essay above makes clear, many slave states ( including some in the North, btw ) objected to the text of the 2A, on the grounds that it would allow freedmen to arm themselves. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that only Southern states owned slaves: read up on Maryland sometime, willya?

Fifthly, please consult the case of Miller vs US, in which the SCOTUS decided that any "militia suitable" weapon, that is any weapon suitable for military use, was protected by the 2A and that it's posession, therefore, could not be infringed upon FOR ANY REASON.

I am sorry if this comes off as a flame, but for a member of my own profession, teaching the impressionable young, to be so ignorant is inexcusable. This is either an apalling lapse in your own education or deliberate ignorance, and I have difficulty deciding which.