Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[jeffsg4mac]

“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

That is a classic one but I don't think she actually said it, however I am sure she believes it.

 

[aberkowitz]

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?

Regarding Australia... I would suggest you read my posts earlier in this thread in response to Halon's assertion about rising crime there. The three quick takeaways- 1) Australia does not have a 2nd amendment, citizens there have NEVER had a right to bear arms, 2) the gun ban that occurred hit only a very small part of the population and they only gave up a very small part of their stash, and 3) Crime rates in Australia have dropped overall since the gun "ban" was passed in 1997. My assertion, however, is that the drop in crime had nothing to do with the change in gun control. It's just totally inaccurate to claim that crime has risen.

Again- you are confusing correlation and causation. I'm not sure how many times I can say this. Just because a state has passed a CCW law doesn't mean that crime will drop. You need to look at the larger picture- see my Vermont example. things that affect crime rates include- education, population size, population density, size of police force, training of police force, # of inner cities in a state/country, poverty level, "oppressed" minority levels (or minorities who believe they are oppressed), as well as gun laws and a variety of other factors.

On a macro level, there has been no conclusive study that shows that any one factor is conclusive over another. If you want another viewpoint, I would suggest reading Steven Leavitt's freakonomics. I personally think his viewpoint is wrong, but he's managed to prove something with statistics that's different. (NB- I know there's a feud btwn Leavitt and Lott.)

 

[aberkowitz]

Regarding Sarah Brady- I'm not saying that I agree with her comments or her particular point of view... but why does she have to be considered a kook because she believes something different than you??? She's entitled to her opinion, and you're entitled to disagree.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

My assertion, however, is that the drop in crime had nothing to do with the change in gun control. It's just totally inaccurate to claim that crime has risen.

Every state that loosened up it's laws saw a drop. EVERY STATE. Why is this so hard for people to believe?

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Regarding Sarah Brady- I'm not saying that I agree with her comments or her particular point of view... but why does she have to be considered a kook because she believes something different than you??? She's entitled to her opinion, and you're entitled to disagree.

SHE IS A KOOK and I stand by that. She is just as bad as the lady who heads up PETA.

 

[aberkowitz]

Every state that loosened up it's laws saw a drop. EVERY STATE. Why is this so hard for people to believe?

First of all- you took my quote from my paragraph about Australia.... that's just wrong. You claimed that crime in Australia has risen- it has not.

Secondly- All I'm saying is that gun laws are not the only reason for a drop in crime. I've said numerous times that they can be part of the reason, but it is not conclusive on any level. You've done nothing to convince me otherwise.

 

[aberkowitz]

SHE IS A KOOK and I stand by that. She is just as bad as the lady who heads up PETA.

I feel sorry for you then.... you must be a really angry person to be living in a country that promotes the free exchange of ideas.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

First of all- you took my quote from my paragraph about Australia.... that's just wrong. You claimed that crime in Australia has risen- it has not.

Secondly- All I'm saying is that gun laws are not the only reason for a drop in crime. I've said numerous times that they can be part of the reason, but it is not conclusive on any level. You've done nothing to convince me otherwise.

I am not sure where you got your data on Australia the stuff I have seen shows they had an increase in home break ins and violent crime when they took away the guns.

and in answer to your other question about kooks, one is a kook of they make blanket statements like Mrs Brady and they abandon all logical reason when the data proves they are wrong.

 

[Rickster71]

I live three miles from the police station.
If someone kicked in my front door, in the middle of the night.
My wife would dial 911, and I would reach for the 9mm under
my side of the bed.
The police who are sworn to 'Protect and Serve' couldn't get to my house in time.
It's physically impossible.
I for one, don't need a 'conclusive study' to tell me what I need to do for my family.

 

[aberkowitz]

I am not sure where you got your data on Australia the stuff I have seen shows they had an increase in home break ins and violent crime when they took away the guns.
.

Here are the 2 posts that I made earlier regarding Oz:

Halon- you may want to check out this link at snopes.com- http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

The site makes a lot of the cases I was going to make about statistics, particularly around correlation vs. causation, the danger of using 1 year of stats, and the lack of viewing broader trends and other contributing factors. MOST importantly, in the first few years since the ban was incurred, the rates of armed robberies dropped drastically.

Along the lines of crime rates, it's important to note that the stats that you quoted (as snopes point out) are measuring crime in absolute terms, not in rates. The homicide rate for Australia actually dropped in the years immediately following the gun ban. Since the population of Australia was expanding, measuring the absolute # of crimes is not accurate- you have to measure the number of crimes vs. the total population (which was growing pretty quickly).

Also important- Australians never had a constitutional right to own firearms. The buyback affected a very small group of people and didn't even take away all of their guns.

More stats, taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, show the latest crime data from 2005. A few excerpts:


In 2005 the victimisation prevalence rate for household crime was 6.2%, compared to 8.9% in 2002. Comparisons with 2002 for all selected types of household crime showed statistically significant decreases in the prevalence rates for:

* break-in, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 3.3% compared with 4.7% in 2002
* attempted break-in, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 2.6% compared with 3.4% in 2002
* motor vehicle theft, where the victimisation rate in 2005 was 1.0% compared with 1.8% in 2002.

The attempted break-in victimisation prevalence rate for Australia decreased to 2.6% in 2005 from 3.4% in 2002. Across the states and territories, decreases occurred in:

* New South Wales (2.7% in 2005 compared with 3.7% in 2002)
* Queensland (2.9% in 2005 compared with 3.8% in 2002)
* Western Australia (3.0% in 2005 compared with 4.4% in 2002)
* Tasmania (2.1% in 2005 compared with 3.3% in 2002).

Here's the link to the data- http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....568A900139405/

Halon- Australians NEVER had the right to own guns. There is no constitutional protection in that country regarding gun ownership. We can debate as to what the meaning of the second amendment is until we're blue in the face, but that has no bearing on Australia.

Second- I agree that numbers can be spun many ways, but crimes are not measured in absolute numbers. The generally accepted way of reporting crimes is by rates. It's the same way disease is measured. If you looked at the US in 1950 and the US today, I'm sure the annual number of murders has increased by a very large percentage. It's may have even doubled. However, the US population has also doubled in that time. Hence, the general rate of crime stayed the same or most likely fell over time.

In the case of Australia, from 1996 until 2005 the population grew from 17.8 million people to 20.2 million people- that's an increase of 13.5%. From the stats that I showed you published by the Australian government, crime rates have fallen in that period of time. Of course the overall # of crimes has probably grown, but it's growing at a rate slower than population.

This is not statistical manipulation- this is plain fact.

Do I believe that the new gun law had any effect on this? No- I believe there is zero causation between the gun law and crime in Australia. If you look at the breakdown of demographics of crime, you'll find that the only area of crime that went up were crimes against the elderly. When you think about it, that makes sense. Why try to rob a 25 year-old man's home when you can rob a more defenseless 70 year-old woman?

 

[jeffsg4mac]

And by that logic why rob a person who has a gun strapped to their side or might have one under their shirt?

 

[Matt34]

Regarding Sarah Brady- I'm not saying that I agree with her comments or her particular point of view... but why does she have to be considered a kook because she believes something different than you??? She's entitled to her opinion, and you're entitled to disagree.

When her ideals are so beyond the social norm of our society kook becomes a very fitting title.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

When her ideals are so beyond the social norm of our society kook becomes a very fitting title.

Yeah thats what I was trying to say.

 

[Alamar]

My main objection to guns is that we are becoming a "gun culture". Rather than being something for use only in extreme circumstances, guns are almost taken for granted. Eventually, practically everybody will have a gun and be prepared to point them at each other at the drop of a hat, at which point nobody will ever be safe. It is already that way in some inner-city areas
Rant over.

If everyone was armed at least we would be sure to have a more polite society

 

[cbraver]

If everyone was armed at least we would be sure to have a more polite society

Sarah Brady, after Florida passed Castle Doctrin and Stand Your Ground, said not to go to Florida, and if you do, do not irritate the locals. Haha. No joke. Then she went bonkers again when Georgia or some other state followed suit.

But the truth is, I'm certainly more polite when I'm carrying. I wouldn't say I'm rude otherwise, but, things are in better perspective. Meaning, if someone cuts me off on the road, I'm not going to go crazy about it... I'll just let it go. Before I had my concealed permit, I'd have some sort of reaction. Carrying a gun is a big responsibility, and although it can be fun to make the occassional joke about it, I think when you actually have a gun held against you're body walking into a gas station or something...the weight of it sinks in. The small stuff doesn't bother you as much, they give you perspective. I honestly believe my guns have made me a more polite person. And I think they have made my friends that also carry and own guns more polite also.

I want to buy this book, btw:

Anyone have it? "Armed America"

 

[mtrycrafts]

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.

Yes, those will deliver to a distance but certainly one who throws a rock even from a pile, can be rushed by a group with little to fear. Certainly a handgun will be more deadly and when the bullets run out, you are vulnerable but, not many will rush you with that gun in hand, right? That is what I was driving at as being a stand off kind of personal weapon.
Same with your other examples. They would certainly not mow down a group in a hurry.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yes, those will deliver to a distance but certainly one who throws a rock even from a pile, can be rushed by a group with little to fear. Certainly a handgun will be more deadly and when the bullets run out, you are vulnerable but, not many will rush you with that gun in hand, right? That is what I was driving at as being a stand off kind of personal weapon.
Same with your other examples. They would certainly not mow down a group in a hurry.

I guess that's a good tip for the aspiring young criminal, then. Carry a gun and lots of ammo. Don't use rocks or the good guys will pile on you. Or contrarily for the good guys...don't hang around large groups of bad guys.

 

[Tarub]

I dont have burglar alarm but I have this posted in front of my house.

My other favorite stickers:

Coin collection

 

[AUtiger]

I live in South Georgia and probably the majority of the residents in this area own at least 1 gun. Population in the area is probably 150-200K and we hardly ever have a shooting. Yet Jacksonville, FL just to the south has shootings VERY frequently. I believe the difference is that most people in my area are raised respecting firearms (which are mainly used for hunting and target shooting); whereas in Jacksonville the criminals are getting guns on the street when they are in their later teens and have never been around guns and don't have any respect for them. It's just like anything else, if you aren't TAUGHT how to use something it will be missused or abused.

 

[Alamar]

I live in South Georgia and probably the majority of the residents in this area own at least 1 gun. Population in the area is probably 150-200K and we hardly ever have a shooting. Yet Jacksonville, FL just to the south has shootings VERY frequently. I believe the difference is that most people in my area are raised respecting firearms (which are mainly used for hunting and target shooting); whereas in Jacksonville the criminals are getting guns on the street when they are in their later teens and have never been around guns and don't have any respect for them. It's just like anything else, if you aren't TAUGHT how to use something it will be missused or abused.

I don't honestly think that the problem is a lack of respect for guns .. it's a lack of respect for fellow citizens / life / etc.

BTW: I grew up in a similar environment in North GA.