Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[jeffsg4mac]

I'd love to see some supporting evidence of this, particularly to separate the causation/correlation problem. I'm not disparaging your viewpoint, but I just personally believe that gun ownership and crime rates are relatively unrelated. Crime rates tend to be directly related to poverty levels and the quality and innovative tactics of local police forces.

New York City is an interesting example. Here we have one of the safest big cities in the US (and the #1 safest of the mega cities), and I'd postulate that gun ownership here is actually quite low among most of the population- I don't have specific backup here, but I'm basing this on the general political leanings and issue support of people who live here. In fact, NYC has recently passed even more restrictive gun-ownership and purchase laws as compared to the rest of the country- including an interesting one that requires gun dealers to file bi-annual inventory reports with the NYPD.

20 years ago NYC was one of the most dangerous cities in the country. There are a variety of reasons as to why the place improved, all of them have been debated in the area over the past few years (particularly as Giuliani has tried to take credit for all of them ), but none of the cited reasons has been increased gun ownership. I can't any supporting statistic for this, but I wouldn't doubt that gun ownership has dropped over time among honest law-abiding citizens.

Well you are totally wrong on that. Read any of Professor John Lott's books. States with the least amount of restrictions on CCW have the lowest crime rates period. This is FBI data.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

You seem to be implying that sounding like a Brady Bill advertisement is a bad thing.
Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

People kill people and have been long before guns were around. Take away guns and people will still be killing people.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

People kill people and have been long before guns were around. Take away guns and people will still be killing people.

Can't deny that. Guns make killing a lot easier, though.
You see a lot of school kids shooting and killing a bunch of their classmates at once these days. How many would they have been able to take down with a knife?

 

[cbraver]

Can't deny that. Guns make killing a lot easier, though.
You see a lot of school kids shooting and killing a bunch of their classmates at once these days. How many would they have been able to take down with a knife?

I know what you mean, but, unfortunetly that's not how things pan out...

They get the gun illegally if they can't get it legally. Guns have already been invented, we can't turn back and un-invent them. They are already here, so taking the arms away from law abiding citizens does nothing but help the criminals. Even if the police got really good at getting rid of guns, the criminals would just start making them. They aren't that hard to make. Even ground up, including the machining of barrels and such, wouldn't be particularly difficult or expensive, especially since it would be backed by the black market (which is doing a lot better than the white market).

I'm still more afraid of people with cars than people with guns.

 

[mtrycrafts]

People kill people and have been long before guns were around. Take away guns and people will still be killing people.

Yes, but guns are kind of a stand off weapon. Knives are personal, close in, and others can jump in easier to help out, or you can better outrun it than a bullet chasing you

 

[Tomorrow]

Yes, but guns are kind of a stand off weapon. Knives are personal, close in, and others can jump in easier to help out, or you can better outrun it than a bullet chasing you

Just a few stand-off and deadly weapons from the 1st millenium and before.....

Rocks
Slings (It wasn't a rock that killed Goliath. It was David. )
Spears
Arrows
Catapults
Traps
Poison
Hatchets
Blow darts
........

Where there's a will, there's a way, Mtry.

 

[aberkowitz]

Well you are totally wrong on that. Read any of Professor John Lott's books. States with the least amount of restrictions on CCW have the lowest crime rates period. This is FBI data.

Sorry- you're getting into the correlation/causation problem again. Just because the states w/ the least restrictions have the lowest crime rates, does not mean one causes the other. The #1 example- Vermont. Vermont has the least amount of restrictions of handguns in the country. It's the only state that doesn't require a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's also a state with A) No major metropolitan areas, B) The second smallest state by population, C) A state with less than 2% of its population made up of minorities (e.g. no racial gang wars), D) A state with a higher median income compared to the rest of the country and a very low rate of poverty. When you combine all of these factors together, you can paint a picture of why Vermont is one of the safest states in the country. I don't think you can directly say that the gun laws are the sole reason why Vermont is so safe.

As for New York- much has been written about why crime went down in NYC over the past 15 years. While police tactics have changed, much of the improvement has been credited to a drastic influx in the size of the police force. It should be noted that over this time gun laws in the state of New York (and even moreso in the city itself) have gotten more restrictive.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Can't deny that. Guns make killing a lot easier, though.
You see a lot of school kids shooting and killing a bunch of their classmates at once these days. How many would they have been able to take down with a knife?

You ever see a someone trained in Budo Taijitsu or Samurai use a sword?

 

[aberkowitz]

Just a few stand-off and deadly weapons from the 1st millenium and before.....

Rocks
Slings (It wasn't a rock that killed Goliath. It was David. )
Spears
Arrows
Catapults
Traps
Poison
Hatchets
Blow darts
........

Where there's a will, there's a way, Mtry.

Don't forget the Ballista!!

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Sorry- you're getting into the correlation/causation problem again. Just because the states w/ the least restrictions have the lowest crime rates, does not mean one causes the other. The #1 example- Vermont. Vermont has the least amount of restrictions of handguns in the country. It's the only state that doesn't require a license to carry a concealed weapon. It's also a state with A) No major metropolitan areas, B) The second smallest state by population, C) A state with less than 2% of its population made up of minorities (e.g. no racial gang wars), D) A state with a higher median income compared to the rest of the country and a very low rate of poverty. When you combine all of these factors together, you can paint a picture of why Vermont is one of the safest states in the country. I don't think you can directly say that the gun laws are the sole reason why Vermont is so safe.

As for New York- much has been written about why crime went down in NYC over the past 15 years. While police tactics have changed, much of the improvement has been credited to a drastic influx in the size of the police force. It should be noted that over this time gun laws in the state of New York (and even moreso in the city itself) have gotten more restrictive.

Florida saw a major drop when CCW laws were put into place. Like I said if you doubt the results and really want to know the truth then please read Lott's books. He address all of your questions in great detail. The left has lost and is totally off on this issue. Unlike climate change the debate IS OVER on this issue.

John's website here

This site has some good stuff and this is just a blurb

 

[aberkowitz]

Florida saw a major drop when CCW laws were put into place. Like I said if you doubt the results and really want to know the truth then please read Lott's books. He address all of your questions in great detail. The left has lost and totally off on this issue. Unlike climate change the debate IS OVER on this issue.

Just did some quick research online about Professor Lott. There doesn't seem to be any consensus among researchers that his work is conclusive or that the issue is "over". The only conceded point that most researchers seem to have made is that CCW laws don't increase crime. I never argued that position, so I'm willing to accept that as fact. While his work seems to be interesting, and I will do it more, there's quite a bit of opposition research that shows that it is inconclusive as to whether CCW laws actually reduce crime. This opposition includes work done by the New England Journal of Medicine- hardly a ragtag source.

In addition- why must this issue be broken down into the left-wing and the right-wing? Is it wrong for somebody with conservative leanings to be in favor of gun control laws? Why? I will never understand people who try to polarize issues into left and right- it's childish and it's what leads to more problems in this country.

 

[Rickster71]

Peaceful societies do not need general gun bans and violent societies do not benefit from them.

Truly violent people are only a small minority. Why take away Second Amendment rights from law abiding citizens?
We know that law abiding citizens do not commit violent crimes.
We also know that criminals will neither obey gun bans nor refrain from turning other deadly instruments to their nefarious purposes.
I've often wondered why some people are quick assign blame, intent, and responsibility to the inanimate object? (gun)

It is obvious and well-proven that the amount of violence in any particular society is determined not by the mere availability of any particular form of weapon,
but by cultural, socio-economic and institutional factors that produce people willing to engage in extreme violence.
How much violence occurs in any given society will depend on the proportionate size of the truly violent population.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Just did some quick research online about Professor Lott. There doesn't seem to be any consensus among researchers that his work is conclusive or that the issue is "over". The only conceded point that most researchers seem to have made is that CCW laws don't increase crime. I never argued that position, so I'm willing to accept that as fact. While his work seems to be interesting, and I will do it more, there's quite a bit of opposition research that shows that it is inconclusive as to whether CCW laws actually reduce crime. This opposition includes work done by the New England Journal of Medicine- hardly a ragtag source.

In addition- why must this issue be broken down into the left-wing and the right-wing? Is it wrong for somebody with conservative leanings to be in favor of gun control laws? Why? I will never understand people who try to polarize issues into left and right- it's childish and it's what leads to more problems in this country.

Lott has addressed those who try and discredit his research. I break it into left vs right because it has only been the kooks on the far left that have tried to take away our right to bear arms. Those who are of sound minds on both sides generally agree on the issue. I have several very liberal friends that have carry permits.

 

[aberkowitz]

Lott has addressed those who try and discredit his research. I break it into left vs right because it has only been the kooks on the far left that have tried to take away our right to bear arms. Those who are of sound minds on both sides generally agree on the issue. I have several very liberal friends that have carry permits.

That's fine- totally within his right. But I also have the right not to fully accept his research and change my opinion on the spot.

So anybody who disagrees with your viewpoint is a kook? Can you get any more small-minded?

 

[Matt34]

That's fine- totally within his right. But I also have the right not to fully accept his research and change my opinion on the spot.

So anybody who disagrees with your viewpoint is a kook? Can you get any more small-minded?

You take things way to personal, relax.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

That's fine- totally within his right. But I also have the right not to fully accept his research and change my opinion on the spot.

So anybody who disagrees with your viewpoint is a kook? Can you get any more small-minded?

Now your putting words into my mouth so to speak. I said it has ONLY been the kooks on the far left who have tried to take away our right to protect ourselves, handgun control inc. etc, sarah brady and her ilk. Remember too that other countries that have banned weapons have seen a direct correlation in the rise of violent crimes. UK and Australia are the two biggest examples. Just think about this for a second. States that pass CCW laws see lower violent crime than those who have tough gun laws, countries that ban guns see more violent crime. How much clearer can it be?

 

[aberkowitz]

You take things way to personal, relax.

I take things personally when my words are not respected. As the only dissenting voice on this topic I have been generally very respectful of others opinions and have engaged in a civil debate. I have no problem when people have differing opinions- it's the foundation of this country. I would just appreciate the same respect back from people when they disagree with me.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I take things personally when my words are not respected. As the only dissenting voice on this topic I have been generally very respectful of others opinions and have engaged in a civil debate. I have no problem when people have differing opinions- it's the foundation of this country. I would just appreciate the same respect back from people when they disagree with me.

You don't think sara brady is a kook? would you like to read some of her quotes? How about this one talking about the assault weapons ban.

“Sarah Brady, one of the nation’s leading gun control advocates, warned that ““ our streets are going to be filled with AK 47s and Uzis.”” Life without the ban would mean rampant murder and bloodshed.”

 

[cbraver]

Anyone have details on the standings and history of the three runners up for the presidential election? Has it been mentioned in any of the 3 billion frickin' debates they have had?

You don't think sara brady is a kook? would you like to read some of her quotes?

Haha, I'd love to. I've heard a few, haha.

 

[cbraver]

“Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.”

-Sarah Brady