Lebell

Shrug.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but honestly, you haven't shown me any fault in the logic.

And I've never said that the Constitution doesn't need interpretation, so I'm not sure where your last comment comes from. Of course I am free to agree or disagree with SCOTUS, aren't I?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

Interesting that you use this as an example. We armed the resistance fighters with RPG's. Before that the Russians were mopping all the ground forces with their helicopters.

Lebell

Smooth,

I know you never believe me when I say something, but I'll say something anyway.

It is basic military knowledge that ground troops are the keystone to winning a war. All the other things, (technology, armor, artillery) are great and important, but without troops, they are nothing.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

It's not a question of not believing you Lebell; I often request you back your assumptions and assertions with evidence.

Now, I didn't state that ground troops weren't important--just interesting that you used resistance fighters armed with weaponry specifically designed to trump the technology of their opposition as evidence that gun-toting individuals could hold their own against a formidable military.

Lebell

Of course.

And in the "2nd American Revolution scenario*" we've been discussing, those weapons would be obtained from national guard armories and convoys by people using guns, gasoline bombs and other improvised explosives.


*Note, I am NOT talking about a couple of dozen fruitcakes from the backwoods of Idaho or Oregon, I'm talking about a real revolution involving a sizable fraction of the US population.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

lol, Lebell.

Me, you, and Easytiger were discussing whether Swiss rifles held Hitler from invading.

/me thinks you got your comments crossed

Lebell

It's late and I'm tired

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Easytiger

I guess that's understandable! This thread has certainly wandered...perhaps we should start another one. (Though we may simply be setting ourselves up for a flamewar if we go for the Second American Civil War thread.)

Simple_Min

Well it's not divered off topic too much. To support or protest such an act as this, it is integral to know how far we are willing to go to give up certain rights and values. It's a slippery slope.

I believe somewhat in the Social Contract and therefore don't fully support citizens having guns of all kinds.

It is intetesting Lebell that you will accept legal limitations on the meaning of the Second Amendment and at the same time you will not accept limitations on it.

To say yes to one instant is to say yes to all eternity. That's the lesson I think of this thread and the patriot act.

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Lebell

Simple_Min,

I believe you've misunderstood.

Let me explain by asking you a corollary question: What restrictions, if any, would you have on the first amendment right to free speech?

In order to answer either question, I think it necessary to do two things.

1) Consider what the framers intended when they wrote the amendment.

and

2) Consider how to best protect the legitimate interests of the people while still preserving the intent of the amendment.


In the case of the first amendment, I think that it is reasonable to outlaw slander, even though it means you have restrictions on your free speech. I do not however think that it is ok to outlaw public criticism of individuals or corporations.

In the case of the second amendment, I think that it is reasonable to restrict gun sales to minors and criminals, as these segments of society can argueably be said to pose a risk with firearms. I do not however think it is ok to restrict the number or type of gun's sold to law abiding citizens based on such factors race or location where one lives.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Kadath

1) They intended to allow people to have muzzle loaders to defend themselves and their fledgeling nation from the dangers of the time, the latter defense taking the form of a militia, since the nation lacked a standing army.
2)Now that people no longer have to protect themselves or their nation, thanks to police, army, national guard, et al, the intent of the amendment is moot.

How about this: can we limit the number of guns a person can buy in a certain period, say, one a month? Is that reasonable to you? Rather than try this all or nothing, which has us going round and round, let's try to hammer out some terms agreeable to both sides.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Lebell

Kadath,

Once again we might as well be talking different languages.

No, I don't agree with your interpretations, nor do I agree with your limitations.

How about this: I would be OK with a national registration IF and ONLY IF there were rock hard iron clad guarentees that it wouldn't lead to confiscation as it has in England and Australia.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Kadath

So you don't think it's reasonable to limit a person to one gun a month. What possible need could you have that would require even two guns in that short a time?!
Now that's no kind of fucking compromise. There can never be a rockhard iron clad guarentee about anything but death, and we're even working on that. Let me offer something else, then. You can keep your guns. If you are shot with your own gun, no one is prosecuted. How about that? Is that reasonable? Of course not. Let's try to at least both be speaking Romance languages here. As is, you're speaking Chinese and I'm speaking Russian.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Lebell

Again, you confuse needs with freedoms.

I understand fully you do not understand, nor want to understand the allure of guns, and I'm ok with that.

But needing to demonstrate "need" to do something or want something that hurts nobody when used in a responsible and legal fashion, is a dangerous thing.

For example, why does anyone "need" to:

-bungee jump?
-hunt?
-burn flags to express themselves?
-own more than one tv?
-own an SUV?

yada yada yada...

In short, our freedoms are not based on "need" nor should they ever be. Maybe you like to collect swords or knives (or do any of the above). You certainly don't "need" them, and maybe I can't understand your attraction to them. But should I make it illegal for you to have them or restrict you in buying them because of that?

This arguement can be translated to just about anything that does not fall into the catagories of providing for one's self and one's family since the rest is simply "want".

The bottom line is, maybe I "want" more than one gun a month. Now the question is, can you demonstrate why society "needs" to restrict this?

My position is that you can't.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Kadath

I respect your argument, but I might respectfully suggest the onus is on you. While it is true enough that guns don't hurt anyone if they're used properly, in this case "proper use" means "not used against people." The device exists for the sole purpose of injuring with the intent to kill. Your examples do not have that sort of singular purpose. I don't collect swords or knives. I'm somewhat on the fence about making that sort of collecting illegal, though I would lean heavily against it, primarily due to the fact that killing with swords or knives is not a casual act.
On to your bottom line. Society needs to restrict multiple gun purchases to prevent , for example, a gang member doing a bulk purchase of firearms for an upcoming war. Sure, every member could buy their own gun -- if they're all of legal age and have no felony record. That's why society needs to restrict it.
Argue away.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Lebell

Actually, the onus is on you. The reason is that you wish to take away rights. If it were on me, I would be arguing why I should retain rights, and that isn't the way the American Constitution and legal system works.

I must make the correction that "proper use" means putting a bullet out of the barrel at high velocity into a legal target. Occasionally that legal target will be a person. But I agree, that the main purpose of a gun is to kill another living thing even though many guns are used recreationally and never kill anything (most of mine, for example).

Still, as I stated, sometimes you need to put a bullet into another living creature (war, self-defense, hunting) so I don't see the negative in this.

Making the assumptions that the gang member is

a) of legal age

and

b) does not have a felony conviction that precludes purchasing fire arms,

he is still making illegal straw purchases and breaking the law. Therefore, this person is commiting a felony and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Kadath

You know, I come back to the politics section, see you've responded, and I'm filled with weariness. This feels like round 15 of a 50 round bareknuckle boxing match. Ding.
Okay. So the onus is on me to fix what has become a flawed and incorrect document, something we have done a few times over the years, that it no longer provides people with weapons too powerful for the common man to possess. I accept the onus.

Being as you accept that the only purpose of a gun is to put a bullet into a living target(practice shooting being nothing more than preparation for that event), I must now only refute your need to do that very thing. War. You want to shoot someone in a war, you join the armed forces, they issue you your gun. You give it back when your hitch is up. Self-defense. We could go on about this one forever. Carrying a gun in self-defense cuts both ways. If a guy pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, you can either give it up peacefully, or pulled your concealed firearm, for which you possess a permit. Now you are faced with the situation where one of you has to get shot to solve the situation, when you could have just handed over fifty bucks and forced no one to die. Hunting I am not currently quibbling with. I would propose that, in a perfect world, you keep your hunting rifle at the game preserve in a locker akin to a safety deposit box, you get it out when you go into hunt, you check it back in when you leave. Same for target shooting.
As for your statements concerning the gang member. Great, he's breaking the law. That helps the people caught in the crossfire. Maybe we can try the guy's corpse for illegal gun purchases after we finish with the murder one beefs.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Lebell

I'm sorry, I can't help you with this one.

No, the onus was on you to show why my rights should be taken away inspite of what that exceptional document says. "Fixing it" as you say, is not your or any one viewpoint's responsibility.

I'll add as an aside that the fact that the Constitution has survived over 200 years with relatively little revision is a testiment to how well it was actually written. If you have an arguement, perhaps it is with SCOTUS, because they are the ones that interpret what the constitution means.

I can pull it up (but am lazy at the moment) but every able bodied man is defined as part of the 'unofficial militia' in some USC subsection or another. Not important tho. Germany and Japan knew an invasion of the US was next to impossible because as the Germans put it, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass". Very true, and they weren't talking about the army.

Armed guards will shoot you for trying to rob banks and armored cars of hundreds to thousands of dollars. By your logic they shouldn't. After all, isn't a life priceless?

But back to your "cuts both ways". Your basic assumption is that if I give him my "50 dollars", all will be well. Too frequently, the victim still gets severly beaten, raped (women) or killed. This is supposed to be an attractive alternative? Perhaps for you and you do have the option of cooporating. Why won't you give ME the option of defending myself?

You have of course left out the basic reason for the existance of the 2nd amendment: protection from a tyrranical government. I understand that you feel it is impossible for the United States Government to become like that of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia and I pray to God you are correct. The difference between us is that I am not willing to discount the possibility.

We could of course argue that the US military would put down any uprising that used "mere guns". I accept that we simply won't agree on this point.

So is it safe then to interpret this as saying that your solution to criminals who ignore and break laws is to pass more laws?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Kadath

You know, I'm just trying to add some levity here. Lighten up.


I think a problem here is your worship of the constitution. Maybe if you could admit that our founding fathers didn't know everything and weren't really that spectacular, but rather mere human beings with human fallacies, we could get somewhere.

I think I might have to request you pull it up when you get the chance. It might be important. As for the motivations of World War II-era powers, you've brought them up before. Let's pretend I'm living in the now, a world where a world ground war is no longer feasible nor likely. And no, I don't want to debate that point.

You've put words in my mouth here. Unappreciated and unwarranted. There is a difference between carrying a gun in order to do one's job and carrying a gun to feel safe.

First, men get raped too. Deal with it. My "basic assumption" was, in fact, a hypothetical situation, not a description of how all crimes happen. I've no problem with self-defense. Do you need a gun if your assailant doesn't have one?

Lord, paranoia. Why give the government any power at all? Look, Nazi Germany came about not for lack of guns but due to the fact that Germany was ina severe economic depression and citizens felt very resentful of the world, and Hitler came along and gave them something to believe in, to get behind. Stalinist Russia had a similarly complicated beginning, as did Cambodia. You filter everything out but what matters to you -- namely, that they didn't have guns, and then pin the country's ills on that lack.

Agreed. To disagree. Which is good, for us.


Sure, if that makes you feel better. That's a pretty glib interpretation. But I suppose we have to simplify things to our comfort level. Could I then say that your solution to criminals who ignore and break laws is a steel-jacketed .44 hollowpoint to the face? I don't think so.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Lebell

Right back at ya.

I don't "worship" the Constitution, but I do think it is a pretty good document. So far you haven't proposed anything I better, nor do I care for the changes I suspect you would make.

Fine, but not tonight, I'm tired.

Ok you make a statement and don't want to debate it.

I'll just say that I think you're wrong then and leave it at that.

Sorry if I did that, but you are doing the same, so if we can get past it that would be good.

I will say however that you were the one that said "50 dollars", indicating at least to me that "50 dollars" is not worth someone getting killed. I was just trying to find out what amount was worth someone getting killed.

Umm, never said they didn't, but I see why you assumed that.

And yes, if my assailant has a bat, a knife, and/or is simply larger and physically stronger than I am, yes I need a gun.

Your arguement ignores the fact that victims are often not big strong men who are trained in martial arts, but are frequently
women, the disabled, and the old.

I reject fully your claim of "paranoia" and instead call it simple realism. Nor am I ignorant of all the factors that lead to the rise of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, etc. ad nauseum. But if you say I filter out everything but "what matters" to me, then I say you conveniently ignore the fact that during the rise of each of these dictatorships one of the first things they did was confiscate guns.

Technical aspects aside (there is no such thing as a steel-jacketed .44 hollowpoint), it seems that to be ultimately what your arguement boils down to. But if said criminal happens to be threatening me or my family in his law breaking, then YES, that would be my answer.

What would your answer be under such circumstances?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Kadath

Proposed anything better? Do you really want me to draw up an alternative document? And what changes do you suspect I would make, aside from the whole gun thing? I'm inferring(quite possibly incorrectly) a somewhat ominous tone to that last statement that I don't understand.


Thus I said when you want to. I wasn't demanding it at the moment. If you want to have a debate about the mechanics of modern warfare, we can do it, but we've jacked this thread far enough already, and I was simply trying to keep the number of heads on this hydra to a manageable number.

Yeah, let's not put words in each other's mouth. That would be good. I can understand why you thought 50 dollars was not worth someone getting killed. There is no amount of money worth killing somone. Don't take this to mean that I consider life sacred or that people shouldn't defend themselves or anything like that. Simply take it to mean that I would rather give up my wallet than kill another human being, and I hope that everyone would think the same way.

You couldn't carry a knife, or a stungun, or some other nonlethal method of self-defense? Doesn't the same go for women(who, despite your lumping them in with disabled and elderly people, can be quite capable of defending themselves) or the elderly, or disabled people? I'm not arguing that a gun is a pretty effective defense. I'm arguing that it changes the whole tone of the situation and makes it more dangerous for the attacked as well as the attacker.

Your rejection doesn't bother nor surprise me. I'm not ignoring the fact that these leaders confiscated guns, nor that they did it to prevent the people from rising up against the government. I think we both agree that the confiscation of guns did not enable the rise to power, but rather facilitate the holding of the power. Once again I come back to Britain and Canada, who have not, thus far, adopted any sort of totalitarian regime.


I had a feeling as I was writing those specs that they would be wrong, and you would call me on it. Thanks for that pertinent bit of info. My argument is not a solution to crime. I am not proposing to end violent crime. I am proposing to curtail gun violence. End of story.
In your situation, where a criminal is threatening me or my family, I don't have the pat answer of "go for my concealed weapon." I'd say I'd have to act as the situation demanded, thinking on my feet, rather than relying on lead to help me.

__________________
it's quiet in here

ubertuber

Wow, you guys are really going at it! Great arguements for both positions, but I am curious... For Kadath:

If your position is based on practical considerations, what do you say to the gun-control opponents who argue that legal gun (ownership) controls will leave only law-abiding citizens under control? I would consider harming someone with a gun to be a far more serious legal infraction than ownership of a weapon. Also, I seem to remember seeing multiple segments on 60 minutes and their compradre shows that indicated that even existing gun laws are not followed consistently by dealers. There is always some sort of "hidden camera" evidence that shows horrible violations of purchasing laws. It seems to me that it makes more sense to start by stepping up enforcement of existing regulation and by more strictly punishing people for crimes of violence than it does to start limiting ownership rights. At least that way you would be punishing committers of crime and not restricting all potential criminals. Not painting with quite so broad a brush...

Please don't interpret this as an attack - I am honestly curious to know your thoughts. You are the most coherent defender of gun control I have seen yet, and I have followed this thread with interest. My natural inclination (libertarian) and idealogical stance is to believe that gun control is undesirable because most government regulation is undesirable. Secondly, my practical nature makes it hard for me to understand why government should restrict rights when the desired outcome seems not to address the problem at hand. Maybe you can help with this second qualm. Thanks for you thoughts.

ubertuber

Lebell

Well, from former statements I infered that you had more problems with the constitution than just the 2nd Amendment, so I then assumed you meant to change more than just the second.

My bad if that isn't the case.

Agreed.

Well, I think you've made two points here.

The first is that no amount of money is worth taking a human life.

Is this really what you mean?

Are you against armed guards in banks who WILL shoot to kill even robbers who do not hurt anyone?

The other point is no, not everyone agrees with giving up their wallet vs. killing someone. Aside from the simple question of, "why should I?", robbery is usually just one step on the ladder for criminals. And many robberies are halted simply by showing a gun. The NRA estimates that for every attempted robbery or crime reported, between 3 and 5 are detered by the simple showing of a gun. In other words, you hear the bad stories (criminal usage) without hearing the good ones (deterence).

Yes, I know what you mean by tone, but you are not usually the person who sets the tone, it is the criminal. A criminal is looking for an easy victim with as little risk as possible to himself. He isn't looking for a "fair fight". If you want to take your chances with a stun gun or pepper spray, great, go for it. I do not wish to take that chance. I want to keep my options open by possessing something that WILL end the encounter in my favor if I need it.

I see you arguement as a personal willingness to eschew greater force in favor of ending an encounter more peacefully. Unfortunately, the criminal may not play along with your laudable intentions.

And hopefully, they never will. But do you know the adage about placing all your eggs in one basket?

It is not a pat answer, but it is an option I want.

Please be honest with me and yourself. If tonight an unknown intruder was breaking into your house and you had the option of a gun (with copper jacketed Federal Hydrashok (hollowpoint) ammo) or a stun gun, what would you choose?

Remember, this person is unknown, with unknown weapons and unknown intent. You've called 911 but they may be 5 to 15 minutes away. Maybe your girlfriend or wife is with you, maybe you have children too.

So what do you choose and what do you do?

And this scenario is NOT uncommon. Home invasions happen frequently, where the owners are beaten and killed.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

seretogis

This is a very good point that has been brought up a few times before, which is exactly why I doubt that it will be responded to in a less-than-hysterical-finger-pointing fashion, if at all.

It simply makes no sense to disarm victims while doing little to discourage criminals from taking advantage of them. I've brought this same point up on other boards, and the only response I can get from it is some nonsense about how so many victims would have their guns used against them. This, of course, is assuming that said gun owner has absolutely no idea how to use their gun, when to use it, or anything about gun safety, but that the assailant is a criminal mastermind.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Kadath

Yeah, I do mean that. I'm not down on bank security guards for doing their jobs, just like I'm not down on police officers or soldiers for doing their jobs, but I'm not happy about killing no matter how it happens.

Well, can you understand me being unswayed by estimates provided by the NRA? As for the idea that robbery is just a rung on the ladder, are you proposing that by showing the gun and stopping the robbery, you halt the criminal's ascent of that crime ladder? More likely the robber will flee, and show a gun from the beginning of the next robbery.

I'm trying to think of a way to say this without making it a personal attack, but it comes down to the fact that you're afraid and can't function without a gun. It's not all that hard to avoid being the victim of a crime. You just exercise some judgement and you don't need a gun to be safe. Keep your options open, if it makes you feel better.

See above.

All right. Time to bust some stats from the BoJ.

From here we see that there are 2 million violent crimes a year............................................................................................................................You know....When I started to research this, I cared, but I just don't now. You go ahead and have your guns, and shoot a person if you have to, and live with that. Here's my last question. What do I have to gain by my position? What is in it for me? Your position gains you your guns, but mine? I already don't have a gun. No one is forcing me. So why am I so adamant? Who am I doing this for?

ubertuber: Sweet nick, A. B, your question is a good one. I would refer you once again to Britain, who doesn't have that problem. As for here, tough laws on guns. You make possessing a gun a crime with a mandatory 5 year sentence, and using one 15-20. Yup, that'll do it. BUT IT'S SERETOGIS' FAULT!!!!!!

__________________
it's quiet in here

seretogis

If you want to assume that Lebell is afraid of functioning without a gun, I am sure you won't mind the assumption that you are terrified of guns.

dot dot dot

Maybe you will think differently when/if something horrible happens to you or a loved one. Perhaps then you will have some sort of perspective into the difference between a victim and a criminal, and exactly who is at fault. The "it doesn't affect me" mentality is one that is bringing the country down.

You have no right to determine how someone keeps themselves safe unless it has a direct impact on you and your safety. Firearms do not, unless you are a criminal.

It's all my fault.

You don't really answer his question, though, by pointing at a completely different country with a very different situation than us (smaller landmass, less people, different government, etc) and claiming that "it works." Take a look at the reductions in violent crimes of every state that has conceal / carry laws. Guns are very much a deterrant, and conceal / carry laws save more lives than they endanger. I have yet to see any US-based anti-gun statistics that hold water. Have any handy?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

smooth

This is from Lexis-Nexis:

Brookings Studies on Burglary, Carrying Concealed Weapons Provide Evidence that Handgun Presence May Increase Crime, Gun Violence

Copyright 2003 U.S. Newswire, Inc.
U.S. Newswire

May 9, 2003 Friday

SECTION: National Desk

LENGTH: 661 words

HEADLINE: Brookings Studies on Burglary, Carrying Concealed Weapons Provide Evidence that Handgun Presence May Increase Crime, Gun Violence

DATELINE: WASHINGTON, May 9

BODY:
Two key studies in "Evaluating Gun Policy," a collection of research on guns, crimes and violence recently released from the Brookings Institution, find that keeping guns at home or concealed in public may lead to increases in death, injury and crime.

One study, "Do Guns Deter Burglars," found that a 10 percent increase in a county's gun ownership rate is associated with a three percent to seven percent increase in the likelihood that a home will be burglarized.

One possible reason why the burglary risk increases with gun ownership is that guns are valuable loot: they are easily concealable and readily sold or fenced. According to data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), in 14 percent of burglaries in which a gun was stolen, it was the only item stolen.

The study was conducted by Philip J. Cook Ph.D., ITT/Sanford professor of public policy at Duke University, and Jens Ludwig, Ph.D., associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University.

"Keeping a gun at home is unlikely to provide a net benefit to the rest of the community in the form of burglary deterrence," Cook concluded. "If anything, residences in a neighborhood with high gun prevalence may be at greater risk of being burglarized."

The second study, "The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws," disputes a widely disseminated 1997 study by economists John Lott and David Mustard. Lott and Mustard argued that states could reduce crime substantially by enacting "shall-issue" laws that require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun-carrying permits upon request to citizens who meet minimum requirements. Lott and Mustard's study has been widely used by gun advocates as justification for passing such laws, which are now in effect in the majority of states. Currently gun advocates in Ohio are using this and other controversial research by John Lott to justify passing a concealed weapons law there.

Stanford Law School Professor John Donohue, Ph.D., J.D., building on joint work with Yale Law School Professor Ian Ayres, Ph.D., J.D., re-analyzes Lott's data and concludes that it is "deeply flawed" and "misguided" because of its failure to adequately consider secondary factors that affect crime rates. Donohue notes that there is evidence that shall-issue laws may in fact increase crime in states with such laws.

The release of Donohue's study coincides with other serious questions being raised about Lott's work. Lott's 1998 book, "More Guns, Less Crime" -- a favorite tome of the gun lobby -- recently came under fire after some academics questioned Lott's methodology; Lott can't produce evidence of a phone survey, for example, because of a "computer crash." Lott also acknowledged creating a fictitious persona ("Mary Rosh") to praise his own work in online forums. (See http://www.whoismaryrosh.com.)

In "Evaluating Gun Policy," editors Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook assembled studies (divided into 11 chapters) conducted by a group of experts who analyzed gun policies outside of the context of the heated political debate. Hailing from several disciplines -- including economics, public policy, criminology, law, medicine and public health -- the contributors consider the effects of gun ownership on violence, regulation of gun ownership, restrictions on gun carrying, efforts to facilitate research on gun policy, and the policy process itself.

JENS LUDWIG is associate professor of public policy at Georgetown University and formerly the Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and a visiting scholar at the Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.

PHILIP J. COOK is the ITT/Sanford Professor of Public Policy at Duke University. Cook and Ludwig co-authored Gun Violence: The Real Costs (Oxford University Press, 2000).

For more information on the studies, or for interviews with the editors or authors, call 312-474-1740.
http://www.usnewswire.com

CONTACT: Scott Vogel or Mark Karlin, 312-474-1740

LOAD-DATE: May 10, 2003

I'll keep looking for studies. So far I haven't seen any academic sources for either side's argument. I guess since I'm at a university (and soon to be working on my Criminology Ph.D.) I should put my money were my mouth is!

I don't know how to use too many of the National Criminology Databases but this will be good practice for me. My undergrad work is in sociology and we use entirely different sources and search engines. Anyway, I'll try to find both sides of the picture--but I'm in finals week so hang in there.

smooth

Copyright 2003 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
The Houston Chronicle

January 23, 2003, Thursday 3 STAR EDITION

SECTION: A; Pg. 21

LENGTH: 555 words

HEADLINE: Groups say gun laws' effect on crime rates inconclusive

SOURCE: Staff

BYLINE: ROBERT CROWE

BODY:
While two groups promote their dueling studies over the effect of concealed weapons laws on crime rates, opponents and proponents of gun control in Texas say it's difficult to conclude how or if this state's "right-to-carry" laws have affected crime rates.

However, each side is firm in its stance on concealed handguns.

A study released Wednesday by the Brookings Institution argues that state laws that allow private citizens to carry concealed weapons do not reduce crime and may even increase it, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The findings, by Stanford University law professor John Donohue, contradict a highly influential study by economist John R. Lott Jr., now a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who concluded in 1997 that by adopting such laws, states can substantially curb violent crime.

"I'd say that no one can claim or disclaim that concealed handguns have lowered crime rate in Texas," said Jim D. Nicholson, past president of the Texas State Rifle Association. "There are too many factors to say exactly what has taken effect."

Nicholson, who favors Texas' concealed weapons laws, supports Lott's assertion that concealed weapons do make criminals think twice before committing crimes.

David Smith, president of Texans for Gun Safety, also believes there are too many factors that could lead to the reduction in crime rates. He thinks that anytime people are armed with loaded weapons, the likelihood for crime - whether by a criminal or a law-abiding citizen with a legally concealed weapon - can dramatically increase.

"If guns made you safer, we would be the safest country and have the lowest crime rates," Smith said. "Instead, we have some of the highest crime rates and an armed citizenry."

Since the late 1970s, 33 states have enacted "shall-issue" or "right-to-carry" laws, which require law enforcement authorities to issue handgun permits to qualified applicants. Among the states are Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Utah and Nevada.

Since Texas began allowing residents to obtain licenses to carry concealed guns in 1995, the Department of Public Safety has issued more than 220,000 permits. About 15 percent of them have gone to residents of Harris County, which is home to 16 percent of the state's population.

Social scientists, represented on opposing sides by Donohue and Lott, remain stubbornly divided over the effect of such laws on crime rates.

"If somebody had to say which way is the evidence stronger, I'd say that it's probably stronger that the laws are increasing crime, rather than decreasing crime," Donohue said Wednesday in an interview. "But the stronger thing I could say is that I don't see any strong evidence that they are reducing crime."

Donohue's study, which builds on work with Ian Ayres, a law professor at Yale University, will appear in Evaluating Gun Policy, a book to be released by Brookings this month.

The book also includes a separate study by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, professors at Duke and Georgetown universities, who conclude that gun ownership may actually increase the risk of being burglarized in the United States.

Donohue's study will also be published in the May issue of the Stanford Law Review - side by side with an updated study by Lott, who defends his position and rejects Donohue's findings.



LOAD-DATE: January 24, 2003

--Groups say gun laws' effect on crime rates inconclusive

smooth

Sorry this is another of the same story but it contains critical information. I can't just post the link because you can't go through the link. This article regards the allegations that Lott misrepresented evidence. If you read through the end you find that another leading gun proponent was actually exposed of "misleading critics and falsifying data"


Copyright 2003 U.S. Newswire, Inc.
U.S. Newswire

March 25, 2003 Tuesday

SECTION: National Desk

LENGTH: 575 words

HEADLINE: New Study Shoots Down 'More Guns Less Crime' Myth;
Findings of Pro-Gun Researcher John Lott Assailed

DATELINE: CHICAGO, March 25

BODY:
A study included in a just-released book debunks the claim by leading pro-gun researcher John Lott that allowing Americans to carry concealed handguns leads to less crime.

The book "Evaluating Gun Policy," published by the Brookings Institution Press, includes research by Professor John Donohue Ph.D., J.D., Stanford University Law School, and Professor Ian Ayres Ph.D., J.D., Yale Law School, that concludes Carry Concealed Weapons (CCW) laws do not decrease crime; they may, in fact, have just the opposite effect.

John Lott wrote the 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime," which is championed by the gun lobby as a major research work that proves CCW laws reduce crime. Lott's scholarship -- including "More Guns, Less Crime" -- and actions, however, have recently come under attack on a variety of fronts.

For instance, John Lott, who is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has come under fire for pretending to be a woman over the Internet (using the name "Mary Rosh") to defend himself against his critics. "Mary Rosh" claimed to be a student of John Lott's and praised his research. In addition, several academicians are seeking answers from John Lott about questions involving a telephone survey Lott claims to have done for "More Guns, Less Crime." Lott can't produce evidence the phone survey took place, claiming that his computer crashed.

John Donohue called Lott's conclusions -- that citizens carrying loaded handguns in public helps to reduce crime -- "deeply flawed" and "misguided." Donahue states in the Brookings Institution Press book that data suggests that, in fact, crime may increase when CCW laws are implemented.

Lott's study has been widely cited by gun advocates as justification for passing CCW laws that require states to issue handgun-carrying permits to citizens who meet minimum requirements (shall-issue laws).

Lott claimed that the 10 states that enacted shall-issue laws between 1985 and 1991 experienced declines in murder and other violent crimes relative to the crime trends observed in other states that did not pass shall-issue laws. In contrast, Donohue contends that the 13 states that enacted shall-issue laws after 1992 experienced relative increases in crime.

"The evidence is stronger that passing shall-issue concealed weapons laws are increasing crime, rather than decreasing crime, " said John Donohue Ph.D., J.D. "I don't see any strong data that shall-issue laws are decreasing crime."

The challenge to Lott's scholarship is similar to that faced by former Emory University Professor Michael Bellesiles. His book, "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun-Culture in 2000, was almost immediately attacked when it was published. Eventually, Emory University formally investigated the issue and found that Bellesiles had misled critics and falsified data. Michael Bellesiles resigned during the investigation. Thus far, the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, has not yet commented on the accusations made against Lott.

Lott most recently authored "The Bias Against Guns," released by Regnery, a conservative publishing house.

Information on "Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence" can be found at: https://www.brookings.edu/press/book...ggunpolicy.htm
------

Mark Karlin or Scott Vogel at (312) 474-1740 for additional information on interviewing the researchers.
http://www.usnewswire.com

CONTACT: Mark Karlin or Scott Vogel, 312-474-1740

LOAD-DATE: March 26, 2003 New Study Shoots Down 'More Guns Less Crime' Myth; Findings of Pro-Gun Researcher John Lott Assailed


If you know the name of a study that supports your position cite it for me and I'll pull it off the database.

KillerYoda

Lincoln also suspended the writ of habeas corpus. No one seemed to comment on that, all I've seen so far was Nazi and gun banter.

And as far as the whole "guns could have saved Germany from Hitler" theory, the Third Reich didn't need gun control to maintain their power. The success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, dispelling socio-political chaos) and the misappropriation of justice by the apparatus of terror assured the compliance of the German people. Gun control in Germany, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced in 1928 under the Weimar regime in large part to disarm the private militias, such as the S.A. (Nazi Brownshirts). The Nazis just didn't get rid of it when they came into power.

As far as the "Patriot Act," this is just another one of those "go to sleep, Mommy and Daddy will take care of it" situations that seem to happen frequently in the US nowadays. As long as people have their little plastic flags to wave, no one questions why the government is using the Bill of Rights as toilet paper. Guns however, are an important issue here, because the American people don't notice anything until it has something to do with someone wanting to take them away. Who cares if the government knows every book you've checked out at the library in the past five years, you still have your gun. I wish they would try and take away our firearms so people would wake up and take notice of what's going on around them.

__________________
"So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

ubertuber

Kadath -

I do see what you are saying, but it isn't exactly what I was asking, so I'll clarify.

I am assuming that the reason you advocate restricting gun ownership is because you wish to see a reduction in violent crime, not simply because you don't want people to have guns. If this is the case, then why not stick to measures that treat the condition that concerns you - namely jack the penalties for gun related crimes through the ceiling? This way the only people affected will be those who are breaking the law that concerns you.

Secondly, and this is for my clarification... You suggest a mandatory 5 year sentence for firearm possesion. I would have thought that under our present system one would likely get 5 or more years in jail for shooting someone. If this is the case, why would the lesser penalty (gun possession) be a more effective deterrent than the greater penalty (gun violence)? If this is not the case, why not change only the laws regarding gun violence?

Also, please clarify for me what exactly was the circumstance in England when this gun ban took effect. I ask because I wonder if America is over a "critical mass" of gun ownership - both registered and unregistered. Even if we made ownership illegal, wouldn't there still be a lot of guns out there, right? It kind seems that the people most likely to obey an ownership ban are the ones least likely to prevent the crimes you are concerned with. Not to mention outlawing things that people want to keep has not historically been very productive in the US (war on drugs, prohibition anyone?).

I wonder if we should treat guns like another common but dangerous object in american culture - cars. You must be trained in the use of a car before you can be licensed to do so. If you use one without a license, you can and should be legally slamdunked. If you misuse one with a license, you can and should have your right to use a car revoked, and you can and should be put away. This way, you address the irresponsible users first, not the responsible users or innocent owners. I know that you might say that cars are more of a necessity in modern society, but I think that the principle of not restricting more rights than necessary can be applied (and should).

Of course as I said in the beginning, my questions assume that you truly wish to reduce gun crime, not that you are offended by other people possessing firearms.

Ok, gotta run... Lohengrin awaits me!

uber

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Lebell

Smooth,

I appreciate your efforts to present balance information, but you are aware that you've only posted articles criticizing Lott's work, right?

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Simple_Min

And the power exercised by the president and the congress was ruled unconstitutional by the judicial branch.

That leads to the current themes.... are we preserving freedom by destroying it? It can be argued that the terrorists were "jealous" of our freedom and that was the target of their strike. If so, they have successfully defeated us whilst we are fighting the phantom "war on terror."

I think by suppressing freedom even temporarily sets a precedent for future government actions. The ease at which the government can get away with such actions also gauges how engaged and aware the citizens under its jurisdiction are.

Also,

this sets limits, explicit limits, on the power and duration of the suspension.

By contrast, the Patriot act is not stated as being temporary and some would like it to be permanent. Implications of the Act's vague language can cover "political enemies" or anyone who "criticizes" the government. We must consider the most extreme implications of stuff such as this because otherwise one by one we will continue to lose rights until it is too late. By then there will be no one to whine/complain/support us. Not even gun owners

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Kadath

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't you let Lebell speak for himself? He's clearly more than capable.

Your assumption that I hold this opinion because nothing horrible has never happened to me or a loved one is decidedly poor. Sure, no one I know was ever raped, killed, robbed, or otherwise made the victim of crime. If you want tawdry stories about the people I love, just ask, you heartless bastard.

So I shouldn't care about things until they affect me directly? I'm not allowed to care about the good of my nation and its citizens? Good plan.

I'm not going to go into how statistics aren't relevent, because, thanks to your getting involved in the fourth quarter, I have several other posts to answer.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Kadath

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ubertuber
Kadath -

I do see what you are saying, but it isn't exactly what I was asking, so I'll clarify.

I am assuming that the reason you advocate restricting gun ownership is because you wish to see a reduction in violent crime, not simply because you don't want people to have guns. If this is the case, then why not stick to measures that treat the condition that concerns you - namely jack the penalties for gun related crimes through the ceiling? This way the only people affected will be those who are breaking the law that concerns you.
[/quote
Not only do I want do I want to reduce violent crime, but I want to eliminate the so-called "culture of violence" that exists in this country. I'm not trying to get rid violent movies or video games or anything like that, but the idea that it is every American's right and indeed duty to own a gun for protection.

Well, I'm proposing, if you'll notice, a penalty of 15-20 years for using a gun in a violent crime. The jail time for possession is just a deterrent to owning a gun at all, much like drug possession. Just as selling drugs is a much steeper penalty than possession, using a gun would be much steeper than owning one.

Your initial concern mirrors my own. I am afraid that America has reached the point of no return so far as guns are concerned, but if we take that stance and use that as an excuse to not do anything, how does that help? And while a program similar to that of driver education would help to reduce the number of accidents, it would also serve to mainstream gun possession and use to an even greater degree, something I wish fervently to avoid. The possession of a car and a gun are two very different things, as a car, while dangerous if used incorrectly, is safe if not and serves a very crucial purpose. A gun is dangerous whether used incorrectly or not(the danger merely shifts from the user to the target) and serves no purpose but to injure.
I am not offended, per se, by people owning guns. But I do think that reducing gun violence would be best accomplished by reducing gun numbers to as close to zero as practical.

__________________
it's quiet in here

eyeseepeedude

I see that you two are 'enjoying' this discussion here. Could we please settle down a bit though. No need to make this a personal issue. (*Please*)

__________________
If you like what you see, donate to the TFP

smooth

Yeah, that's the majority of the articles [I couldn't find any research besides Lott's that supported CCW laws]. At the end I wrote this, "If you know the name of a study that supports your position cite it for me and I'll pull it off the database."

I can't do everyone's research but I'm willing to retrieve documents that you or seratogis can't otherwise get. I'm assuming both of you have articles in mind because you keep referencing as fact that concealed weapons reduced crime in the states that enacted legislature that allowed them.

Hopefully your conclusions are based on research besides Lott's work because it has been found to be inaccurate and falsified.

That's the point of publishing in a peer reviewed journal--so other's can evaluate your work. Now that multiple institutions and researchers have debunked his research we need to find some (recent, it has to be within the same time frame as this research) research that supports Lott's conclusions. You tell me what it is and I'm willing to get it for you--I think that's more than fair.

Seretogis specifically stated that he hadn't seen any anti-gun research that held any water. I presented some--work done by Georgetown, Standford, and Duke. Excellent, and by no means liberal, universities.

smooth

Kadath and ubertuber,

The general consensus among criminologists (and sociologists, for that matter) is that increasing penalties for crimes will not lower crime rates--in fact, the evidence strongly suggests increasing penalties leads to an increase in crime.

Politicians have used the public's fear and ignorance as a platform and now the link between intensifying punishment and higher crime rates is an untenable and unfathomable position in the public sphere.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Kadath

I don't find that hard to believe at all. What would work, though? Are criminologists just throwing up their hands?

__________________
it's quiet in here

smooth

We aren't throwing our hands up; we have some good evidence of what does work, people just aren't ready to hear it yet!

For example, we examine how other countries have systems in which convictions eventually drop off people's records which allows them to not be stigmatized by society after their sentence has been served--better job opportunities, less stress, less recidivism.

We look at who the recidivists are--unfortunately, they aren't people who commit murder. Only 6-10% of the prison population account for what we view as heinous, cronic repeat offenders. But that certainly isn't the image of who you suspect fill the prisons. If we concentrated on incarceration for those criminals and placed the other 90% on regulated house arrest and close supervision that would fundamentally alter our prison composition.

Finally, I specialize in reshaping political and public legal discourse. For example, the most heinous crime on the streets accounts for a fraction of the cost of crime overall.

When a man gets on the subway and shoots three people it's a massacre in the media. When a businessman cuts costs and safety procedures and 100 mine workers die in a collapse that was expected to occur eventaully we conceive of it as an accident.

Part of that comes from our cultural expectations that every person is responsible for his or her actions and life--but that shouldn't absolve corporate executives to risk the lives of the people who work for them.

We know that people who work, have ties to their communities, and generally "something to lose" from committing crime are much less prone to committing illegal acts--certainly violent acts. Prison, however, and especially long prison terms, does not facilitate those types of community bonds. It is structured to fracture those bonds, punish the individual, and stigmatize the individual.

Now you might have a legitimate moral feeling that criminals deserve all that--I'm not making a moral argument. Since non-offenders are, by definition, the victim of crime and must also pay the costs of crime it behooves society to find economic and structurally feasable means to deal with crime.