Congradulations Chicago! Murder capital of the US!

[Wcross]

"Chicago's new police superintendent, Philip J. Cline, joined colleagues elsewhere in blaming homicides largely on a volatile mix of gangs, guns and drugs."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-02-city-murders_x.htm

In other words, casualties of the "war on drugs". How could guns be part of the problem, they are all but illegal to own in Chicago?

[lcordero]

1. If guns were rampant in Chicago there wouldn't be any crime

The only people that don't have guns are law-abiding citizens.

[MrBenchley]

3. Who the hell are you kidding?

More guns would mean only more shootings and killings.

[the_acid_one]

13. More guns would mean only more shootings and killings.

Yep...more shootings and killings of criminals breaking the law without fear of the consequences.

If you want to shed tears over dead bad guys, that's up to you. I'll save my tears for all the disamrmed citizens being killed because they cant defend themselves due to a corrupt anti-gun lobby.

[MrBenchley]

20. Yeah, that's what Chicago needs

<sarcasm>more innocent bystanders gunned down</sarcasm>.

It's nice to see no reality ever impinges onn RKBA fantasy.

"I'll save my tears for all the disamrmed citizens being killed"
Gee is that why the RKBA crowd keeps trying to shout away the Guns in the News thread?

[the_acid_one]

33. I dont try and shout it away...

..personally I dont like the "guns in the news thread" idea because it's mostly a bunch of exploting tragedies to further a political cause. That and sometimes really good stories that could have good threads wil just get buried in the consolodated thread, But I dont care enough about it to call for it's abolishment.

No matter how many news stories you post that still doesnt change the fact that the firearm homocide rate as calculated by the CDC is somewhere around 3 or 4 per 100,000.

Why is it Bench, that all this violence takes place in Chicago, where guns are practically banned? Riddle me this...Riddle me that, what smoke bomb will Benchley dodge this one with?

[Wcross]

44. Your wrong ,the_acid_one!

In the gun control haven of Gary, Indiana the rate is around 68 per 100,000. In a nearby city here (Murfreesboro,TN.) with similar population as Gary, the rate is 3-4 per 100,000. Of course the "easy" access to guns and the southern "gun culture" is really the root cause for Murfreesboro to lag so far behind the enlightened city of Gary. (oh and the corrupt gun industry too)

[the_acid_one]

49. I'll tell you why Murfreesboro has less crime...

...I live right near it and I keep it in check using my own firearms :P

If i was protecting Gary, You'd see a similar drop in crime.

BTW, nearby eh? Where are you at Wcross? I'm in Antioch/Nashville, about 20 mins from Murfreesboro.

[Wcross]

53. South of m-boro

Little town of Wartrace. (near Manchester)
You know, I can't think of ANY household in my area that doesn't keep at least on gun. No murders at all! Go figure.

[MrBenchley]

66. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrre.....

"Why is it Bench, that all this violence takes place in Chicago, where guns are practically banned?"
Are you really trying to tell us that Chicago is the only placce with violence in the US?

[alwynsw]

108. Not only Chicago

Newark, New York, D.C., L.A., Boston, Philly, Cleveland - let's see - what do all of these "great" cities have in common?


That's right! They all have the most restrictive gun control laws in the country!

[SmokingLoon]

40. What an illogical premise

If that were the case, then legally armed cities would be the murder capital.

[CO Liberal]

41. Like In The Days of Al Capone???

Of all the pro-gun arguments I've seen on this board over the past few years, this has to be one of the lamest.

[MrBenchley]

67. Hard to believe they could get more desperate than they had been

and yet they did....

By the way, cities all over the country reported a rise in mayhem and bloodshed during 2003....the consequences of having a corrupt appointistration and attorney general like AshKKKroft in bed with the NRA.

[MrBenchley]

2. What a silly post....

"How could guns be part of the problem"
Did you think folks were THROWING bullets at each other and shouting "Bang!"?

[Superfly]

4. I think you misread that tongue-in-cheek question

How can guns be part of the problem when the Mayor of Chicago has all but made guns illegal for anybody to own in that city?

I mean, if a de facto ban on gun ownership is working so well in Chicago, how did they acheive the prestigous honor of being the murder capital of the US? :shrug:

Oh, that's right...gun control does not work.

[MrBenchley]

7. Nope

I know a silly question when I see it.

"How can guns be part of the problem when the Mayor of Chicago has all but made guns illegal for anybody to own in that city?"
Gee, do you suppose that's why the city of Chicago is suing the corrupt gun industry?

[Superfly]

8. Stick your head right back in the sand...

they're suing the gun industry to shift the focus from their inability to handle crime to a faultless third party. Mayor Daly is as crooked as they come.

[demsrule4life]

10. As was his father

and grandfather.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

12. This lawsuit, as all anti-gun lawsuits

will prove to be frivolous and will be summarily dismissed. Sorry to break it to you.

[MrBenchley]

14. Sez you

We can see the sort of lethal "frivolity" the corrupt gun industry caused in Chicago last year.

[Superfly]

15. I'll defer to precedent to say:

that this case filed by Chicago will meet the same fate as every other anti-gun lawsuit. A quick and final dismissal.

Meanwhile, and herein lies the tragedy of this whole story, Mayor Daly will still continue to deny people the means to defend themselves while murderers prey on the unarmed populace.

[demsrule4life]

16. Daley dont mind dead people

since the Daley's have won many elections from the dead vote.

[MrBenchley]

18. Wow, a slur on a Democrat from the RKBA crowd!

Who would have ever thought that...especially as often as they cheerlead for the GOP?

[demsrule4life]

19. Who are you trying to kid

The ghost vote is very popular in chi-town.

[MrBenchley]

21. And who is surprised to hear the RKBA crowd

mindlessly repeating GOP slurs?

[Superfly]

22. Oh yeah...Daley is such an upstanding Democrat

He's so honorable, he stole the airport of Meigs Field from the citizens of Chicago by destroying the runway in the middle of the night. Yeah, this guy is a model of our party.

[Wcross]

24. That pissed me off too.....

The guy is a scum bag plain and simple. If I have to approve of him to be a good democrat then I will have to be a bad democrat.

[tsipple]

25. Also Did the Same to a Mass Transit Station

The station was in an African-American neighborhood. There was a community debate going on whether to keep it open or close it.

King Daley sent bulldozers in the middle of the night and did the job.

But that's OK. It was just a bunch of poor African-Americans. What do they know?

Note that, in the case of Meigs Field, one of its heaviest patrons was the Tuskegee Airmen with their weekend free airplane rides for inner city kids. But, hey, they're just African-Americans. Who cares?

(No, I am not a fan of Mayor Daley.)

[MrBenchley]

30. Yeah, who's surprised

the RKBA crowd is slamming Democrats?

[Superfly]

31. And who's surprised

that the anti-gun crowd is supporting the single most crooked mayor, ever, Democratic or not?

:shrug: I'll give you a hint.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

35. I didn't realize I was under an obligation

to prove anything to you.

Please read the comments from other DUers in this thread on Daley's practices. Oh, but you'll probably dismiss them, too. Your absolute partisanship is blinding you to the real and tangible presence of corruption in some areas of our own party.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SmokingLoon]

42. The truth is not a slur.

Not all Democrats are wonderful, just as not all Republicans are evil. It is well known that the Chicago Democratic Party frequently wins with the votes of the deceased. My Grandfather was a high office holder in Illinois, as a Democrat. Even he thought that the Chicago Party was corrupt.

[MrBenchley]

50. Hahahahaha....

"It is well known"
Known mostly by the sort who shout "ditto!" at a flabby junkie on the radio..

[SmokingLoon]

51. It is only denied

by the sort who blindly approve of anybody who has a (D) after his name. I prefer to think for myself.

[MrBenchley]

59. Hahahahahahaha.....

[SmokingLoon]

73. Hahahahaha?

At what are the giggles directed?

[MrBenchley]

77. It's hilarious to hear

someone tryinng to pass off the kind of lame slander Nixon was babbling back in 1961 as "independent thinking"....

[SmokingLoon]

81. I wasn't even alive then...

Face it, in Chicago, the dead vote. All the hahahas in the world and the label of slander won't change that. Face it, Mayor Daley is not an honorable man, as has been demonstrated by this thread. We, like Republicans, have our share of unsavory characters in our party. Mr. Daley is one of them.

[MrBenchley]

86. So?

The slur has been bouncing around at least that long....

"Face it, Mayor Daley is not an honorable man"
Compared to whom? Gun rights blowhards like Tom DeLay and Trent Lott? Hand us another big fucking laugh.

[SmokingLoon]

87. It is a shame

that one determines honor based upon comparing the subject to others without honor.

I will say that fighting for the whole Bill of Rights is honorable. Fighting against even a portion of it, is dishonorable. However, just because a person commits an honorable act of fighting for the rights of the individual, does not make the person honorable. However, I also believe that one who fights against the rights of the individual, is wholly dishonorable.

[MrBenchley]

88. Cry me a frigging river.....

The RKBA crowd has such scummy playmates....and never fails to yell "foul" when they're pointed out. Which doesn't keep them from repeating dittohead slurs against Democrats here.

[SmokingLoon]

90. The Anti crowd

has such scummy playmates (Richard Daley) and it never fails to cry when it is pointed out that said playmates are scummy. Of course, this never keeps the anti-freedom crowd from continually shrieking the discredited lines of HCI, VPC, and the rest of the group looking to turn Americans into serfs.

[MrBenchley]

93. Too frigging funny.....

Try to bring something to the table besides recycled dittohead crap next time.

[DoNotRefill]

106. I went to school with one of the Daley kids....

and even HE admitted that there was a serious corruption problem. He's also a (D)...

[MrBenchley]

17. And that's why the industrry is trying to

engieer immunity for itself....ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight.

"herein lies the tragedy of this whole story"
What a steaming pantload.

[CO Liberal]

103. The Tobacco Industry Used to Have an Unbeaten Record In The Courts, Too

Not any more. It's just a matter of time before the gun makers lose, and lose BIG......

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

105. Heheheheee....

"Gee, do you suppose that's why the city of Chicago is suing the corrupt gun industry?"

I can't believe you didn't put "corrupt" in front of "city"...

In a battle of corruptness, which would win, the gun industry or the Municipal government? I'd put money on the municipals...

[tsipple]

5. I think what he's trying to say...

...is that Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, and people who shoot other people dead don't seem to mind breaking those gun control laws at the same time. The law-abiding folks do obey, and many of them get shot.

And that could be right. But actually I blame (in part) a corrupt political culture in which we have a mayor for life. In that case there's less incentive to do what New York has done and really focus on the problem (because voters will hold you accountable if you don't).

The war on drugs is also a big problem. Chicago has always been a great transit point for distributing all kinds of products, and drugs are no different.

[Superfly]

6. Are you a Chicagoan?

How do you feel about the midnight raid on Meigs Field?

[tsipple]

23. Yes, I Am... And It Was Awful

Stupid public policy -- the city needs that downtown airfield for getting transplant organs to the urban hospitals, for the fire department rescue squad, for rescuing boaters, for relieving congestion at O'Hare and Midway, and for getting cargo planes and helicopters to downtown if there's a terrorist incident.

And it wasn't democracy or anything even close. It was a mayor-for-life (who is a Daleycrat, not a Democrat) abusing his executive authority. I don't like it when Bush does it, and I don't like it when a DINO does it. It was and is disgusting.

[sventvkg]

26. Stop your bickering, Gun control doesn't work and never did...

For obvious reason....I'll be packing...Rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6...And I'll be avoiding Chicago amd New Orleans which was a many time Murder Capital and really seedy place...

[DonP]

27. It's already been mentioned but ...

Lifelong Chicago resident here, 19th Ward, St. Barnabas parish. (In Chicago even the Jewish kids describe their neighborhood by the parish).

Yes we do have a mayor for life and that "D" behind his name is faint comfort to the 599 families that had a family member murdered last year. (Yes most of those mruders were with guns but ... pssst, big hint, not all those murders were with guns either. You can actually kill someone with a knife or baseball bat too.)

Drugs and gangs are the real root of the problem here but it's much easier to address guns and sue gun manufacturers and make a big political TV show once a year or so of "capturing" some rifles and handguns than face the political heat that controlling gangs will cause in many communities.

Daley is in no danger of being replaced he has marginalized all his serious opponents, mostly African American and some Latino, with comfortable jobs and patronage power.

The only reason the Chicago lawsuit hasn't been thrown out of court yet is because Daley, his old man and their machine, appointed most of the damn judges for the past 50 years. The minute it gets to an unbiased federal court it will go the same place the rest of these suits have gone, the crapper.

We have a fully Democratic state with some of the strictest gun regulation in the country. It's a great comfort to all the families of the dead that have been deprived of the right to defend themselves.

I just wonder when the pinheads that scream about "blood running in the streets" out there will figure out that it already is Dodge city in some neighborhoods. Only Wyatt Earp isn't allowed to carry a gun and the Clanton gang have them.

I know people that put their kids to bed in the bathtub (cast iron and relatively bullet proof) and hope that a cop will cruise by once a night or so to reduce the shootings to a lower level. Yeah, gun control works really well here. We, including the gangs and crooks, are all absolutely sure that no honest citizen has a gun.

Believe it or not that rate of 599 is down from previous years. This is the first year we have had fewer than 600 murders in a year since 1998! We are just so damned proud.

For the record, the point about ghost voters is not a Repuglican slur, it's a damn sad fact. It has been a reality since Hinky Dink McKenna and Bathhouse John Coughlin ran things in the party in the early part of the 1900's.

There is not as much ghost voting as there was in the old days when Daley I was in charge, but there is still a lot of "Nursing Home" activism in some wards.

I've worked for the 19th Ward organization for years. Driving voters to the polls, passing out literature door to door, the usual grass roots stuff.

Now lets quickly blame Indiana or Wisconsin for our murder problems. They have gun shows, which I have been to and they won't sell you anything there either, with out filling out a 4473.

Anyway, of they were the problem don't you think Richie would be suing them too?

It is sad and a real embarassment to most of us in the city. Oh yeah, the Meigs field thing was just the latest chapter in the rule of the Imperial Daley the 2nd. My personal favorite is Millenium Park, which is still under construction and $600 Million over budget (so far) but I'm sure it will be ready for the Millenium celebration in the year 2000.

Oooops.

[tsipple]

28. Millenium Park... Oy, Vey

Have you seen that spaceship they're building off Michigan Avenue? What they HECK is that thing?

Oh, wait... I know... It's a patronage thing. :-(

You know, the excuses about guns, gangs, and drugs rings very hollow. Guns, gangs, and drugs are everywhere. What is unique about Chicago? I think we DUers have better ideas in this thread.

[Superfly]

29. All DUers, except one...

notable exception.

[RoeBear]

43. guns, gangs, and drugs

I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control.

[iverglas]

47. really?

"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control."

Then again I muse ... you must be clamouring for your governments to establish and fund a network of firearms addiction treatment centres.

If the drug and alcohol prohibition laws, and resultant black-market and organized-crime activities, are the model you propose for what will happen if firearms possession is made subject to tight restriction (is someone actually proposing outright prohibition?), then you must be seeing some similarity between drugs/alcohol and firearms that I'm just not grasping.

Are you really that wired to your guns? How many do you need, on a daily basis? If you give your children a firearm for their birthday, will they be hooked for life? Are you worried that they will enter a life of prostitution in order to support their firearms habit?

So many questions.

.

[Superfly]

48. Sometimes you post here as if it was your first day...

"is someone actually proposing outright prohibition?"

Surely, you've been around long enough to not only know the answer to that question, but you can put names to it.

"Are you really that wired to your guns? How many do you need, on a daily basis? If you give your children a firearm for their birthday, will they be hooked for life? Are you worried that they will enter a life of prostitution in order to support their firearms habit?"

And what, pray tell, is this bit of tripe?

[iverglas]

55. do it for me

"is someone actually proposing outright prohibition?"
Surely, you've been around long enough to not only know
the answer to that question, but you can put names to it.

I'm sure that there are people who propose that all forms of income tax be eliminated. However, when I discuss economic policy, I don't pretend that that everyone to the right of me proposes that all forms of income tax be eliminated.

And if I do happen to encounter someone who proposes that all forms of income tax be eliminated, I would find it fairly easy to demonstrate how idiotic and unworkable such a proposal is. If the person seemed somewhat intelligent, I would likely offer a couple of simple arguments to demonstrate that, and see whether we could move on to some sort of sensible discussion about income tax levels. If the person maintained his/her idiotic, unworkable position, I'd move along.

I certainly would not continue to bring that person's position up in discussions about income tax with more sensible right-wingers, where no income tax abolitionist had even been seen in weeks, or ever been a serious participant in the first place.

I mean, unless I wanted to be seen as transparently tilting at straw windmills.

So actually, no, I can't put any names to the straw outlines in question. Would you oblige?


"Are you really that wired to your guns? How many do you need,
on a daily basis? If you give your children a firearm for their
birthday, will they be hooked for life? Are you worried that
they will enter a life of prostitution in order to support their
firearms habit?"
And what, pray tell, is this bit of tripe?

Since you have chosen to leap into this bit of the conversation, might I assume that you read it?

It was all right there in my post, actually -- I generally quote what I'm responding to, to simply life for the short of attention span among us.

RoeBear:
"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs:
create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have
absolutely no control."

You see? That's what I was responding to when I wrote the bit that you then quoted out of context:

Are you really that wired to your guns? How many do you need,
on a daily basis? If you give your children a firearm for their
birthday, will they be hooked for life? Are you worried that
they will enter a life of prostitution in order to support their
firearms habit?

Getting it? HOW EXACTLY, I ask, would even prohibiting firearms possession result in the kind of situation that exists as a result of the prohibition on drug possession?

Here's an intermediate question for you: if a law were passed prohibiting the possession of geraniums, would this "create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control" in geraniums? Do most people who have once plucked a geranium then have a growing and increasingly irresistible urge to acquire more geraniums? If people have no need or use for geraniums, would it be profitable to peddle them? Once people have five geraniums on their window-sill, are they likely to prowl the streets looking for more, and to be willing to pay large sums for them? How many geraniums does the average person want, let alone need? Do people who are not addicted to geraniums ordinarily go to great lengths and expense to acquire them? Where would the demand for geraniums that would fuel this alleged huge and uncontrolled market in geraniums come from? What do people need geraniums for?

I'll leave the math to you.

And hey, feel free to ask RoeBear to do it for you. Me, I tend to just move along rather than expect a sensible answer from that quarter.

.

[Superfly]

57. I did not quote out context...

I begged clarification, which, as is very apparent from your condescension, is something you are loathe to give.

[iverglas]

63. if you still need "clarification"

(or if you ever needed it), I'll just have to file you away with the no-income-tax folks, I guess. Ya give 'em an opportunity to engage in discussion, they demonstrate their inability or unwillingness to do so, what can you do?

The meaning of my initial post was not remotely unclear. Nonetheless, I clarified it -- just in case you actually had not made the connection between the paragraph of my post you quoted in isolation and the statement it was in response to.

An allegation was made by the person I was responding to. The questions I asked clearly demonstrated the foolishness of the allegation. If the allegation is to be shown to be other than foolish, those questions really do need answering.

If you or he should ever decide to do something as, well, simple and straightforward as answer questions, I'll be pleased to read what's said.

Meantime, the allegation that a prohibition on firearms possession would create an uncontrollable multi-billion dollar black market in firearms looks just as silly as it originally did, and as my facetious allegation that a prohibition on geranium possession would create an uncontrollable multi-billion dollar black market in geraniums was meant to look, and looked.

Most people (other than, oh, compulsive collectors?) acquire fireams as means to ends -- and certainly not as a result of an irresistible urge. People engage in drug use (or, say, sexual activity) as ends in themselves, and have limited control over their need for those ends. There is no analogy. How's that for clarification?

.

.

[Superfly]

65. Alrighty....

your continued condescension aside...

This whole conversation is moot. With or without stricter controls on firearms trade in the US, there already is an uncontrollable multi-billion dollar black market in firearms. Any increases in prohibition of firearms ownership would just increase that market.

[iverglas]

74. bald assertions

"Any increases in prohibition of firearms ownership would just increase that market."

Yeah, well, I guess the same could be said about geraniums.

Of course, if anyone seriously wanted to eliminate whatever harm results from the private possession of geraniums, I think s/he would do well to come up with something more effective than a mere statutory prohibition on the possession of geraniums.

And I think that reasonable people who want to reduce the harm that results from unrestricted firearms possession really do do that, y'know?

Beats me why we're talking about "prohibition of firearms ownership" anyhow, still. Have we somewhere established that there is a blanket prohibition on firearms ownership in Chicago?


You apparently find it to be "condescending" to demonstrate that a bald assertion of fact made by someone else is entirely unproved, and arguably unprovable, by applying the principles on which the bald assertion of fact is very obviously based to another situation in which their falseness is obvious. Those principles are usually (and conveniently) unspoken, but they are the essential underpinnings of those assertions, and if they are not correct, then some other basis for the assertions obviously has to be provided.

The assertion that was made -- that by prohibiting firearms possession we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control -- simply cannot be true unless drugs and guns have something significant in common so that what we "do to" one can be expected to have the same outcome as what we "do to" the other.

If you find it "condescending" to question the similarities between "thing X" and "thing Y" that must exist in order for such a statement to be defensible, and point out the very obvious dissimilarities that undermine the analogy alleged, so be it.

.

[Stilgar]

75. Fact of life

Show me where a popular thing that was outlawed and did not cause a much greater black market and you might have a point. However history and economics show that as supply dries up demand will increase and so will the black market to supply the increased demand.

Alcohol - Mafia
Drugs - Gangs
Guns - well lets look at the UK, they have a larger Black Market since the gun ban, tell me why if the US banned guns their would be no increase of the black market.

[iverglas]

79. facts, statistics and you know what

"Show me where a popular thing that was outlawed and did not cause a much greater black market and you might have a point."

Show me that "popularity" is the factor at work in such situations, and you might even have one yourself.

Geraniums are really very popular. Are you or are you not going to agree that outlawing geraniums would create a multi-billion dollar black market in geraniums?


"Guns - well lets look at the UK, they have a larger Black Market since the gun ban, tell me why if the US banned guns their would be no increase of the black market."

Tell me who is proposing that firearms be banned in the US, and why you persist in referring to whoever-that-is's policy positions in your posts in response to my posts, and I'll see what I can do.

Oh ... and do provide us with some information about this great big black market in firearms in the UK involving firearms purchases by people who should not (in your view) be prohibited from owning them ... and again: we'll talk. All you need to do is provide some facts and figures about people who, but for the "ban", would be law-abiding gun owners, and who have been frequenting the criminal underworld and acquiring firearms for personal possession not for use in crimes.

Or maybe you're saying that there should be no prohibition on people engaged in criminal activities acquiring firearms for use in crimes. It's just awfully hard for me to tell what you are saying, I'm sorry to say.

.

[Stilgar]

91. I can tell you are confused, and still putting words in my mouth.

go take a college course called Econ 101 or 102.

They will tell you about supply and demand. Sorry to say weapons are at a much higher demand than Geraniums. I have not heard of people breaking in homes for geraniums.

Already said Sen Feinstien wants a complete ban, pay attention. Did I say you wanted one? NO, you have already said you want sensible controls on who has them.
I said that a ban would make the black market (that already exists) bigger.

the smuggling of a gun is the black market. Sorry I have no gov study on how big the UK gun market is but news stories reporting people smuggling guns on boats and that involves the black market.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=uk+gun+smuggling&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=
A few stories about UK gun smuggling.


"All you need to do is provide some facts and figures about people who, but for the "ban", would be law-abiding gun owners, and who have been frequenting the criminal underworld and acquiring firearms for personal possession not for use in crimes."

I said increased demand (people are willing to pay more for the same thing). You think that just because a gun costs more people will not steal more to get it? The increase of cost will offset the decrease in numbers bought, again Econ 101.

The use of a black market does not need criminal or personal reasons to purchase a gun. If a gun is purchased from the black market, there is an increase in the black market, for what ever reason someone wants a gun. No violent crime increase can mean that cops are finding the guns before a crime and more have to be aquired.

Again find an Econ book an read it. You can then understand what I am saying. Until you learn, its called the law of supply and demand.

[iverglas]

98. ooh, imagine that

Putting words in mouths. Don't tell me it's contagious, and I've caught it! No, I didn't think I had.

"go take a college course called Econ 101 or 102. They will tell you about supply and demand. Sorry to say weapons are at a much higher demand than Geraniums. I have not heard of people breaking
in homes for geraniums."

Uh, yeah, "they" did tell me about that stuff, about 30 years ago. Back when I passed that course.

But not even they, irrational free-marketeers that they mainly were, asked me to imagine that this "demand" just originated out of thin air as you are asking me to do.

Firearms are in much higher demand than geraniums? I dunno about that; maybe you could offer some statistics. I doubt your claim, at this point. I and my neighbours buy, oh, dozens of geraniums every year; I'll bet yours do to. How many firearms do they buy in the same year? Do you imagine that the fact that people do not break into homes to acquire geraniums means that the demand for geraniums is low?? But in fact, hell -- we have indeed had our geraniums stolen -- quite frequently. Some people will just steal anything.

But here's the nub of the thing -- would YOU break into a home for a firearm? Is the demand for firearms that originates with YOU going to turn into a demand for BLACK-MARKET firearms if you cannot obtain them openly and legally?

And conversely: are you proposing that the demand for black-market firearms that exists NOW -- the demand from people who SHOULD NOT be permitted to acquire firearms openly and legally (that will be: drug dealers and bank robbers and the like) -- be converted into legitimate-market demand by making it legal (i.e. cheaper) for them to acquire firearms??

Can you please try to EXPLAIN, if not substantiate, this allegation you keep making?


"the smuggling of a gun is the black market. Sorry I have no gov study on how big the UK gun market is but news stories reporting people smuggling guns on boats and that involves the black market."

If I may quote you: PAY ATTENTION.

I asked you how many of the people who WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED to aquire firearms, WERE IT NOT FOR THE BAN, were engaged in this black-market acquisition of firearms in the UK.

If the people doing the smuggling and black-market selling/purchasing ARE NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THE BAN ("law-abiding gun owners"), but are PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM ACQUIRING FIREARMS IN ANY EVENT -- CRIMINALS -- what earthly basis do you have for claiming that the ban has increased the volume of black market transactions in firearms?

Are you getting this at all?

If you want to prove your claim about the UK -- that the ban has even contributed to the increase in black-market transactions in firearms ... and if you want to make your claim that banning firearms in the US would increase black-market transactions in firearms make any sense at all -- you have to establish that people who are now entitled to possess firearms would turn to the black market, in large numbers, to acquire firearms if they were prohibited from doing so legally.

In other words, if you are going to play supply-and-demand, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT THERE WOULD BE AN UNMET DEMAND that consumers would turn to the black market to fill.

This happens with drugs and alcohol because the demand is in many cases not "discretionary" -- people need drugs and alcohol in a way that they do not need firearms. (And in the case of alcohol, most people simply do not recognize the acquiring/use of alcohol as an "evil" and have few inhibitions against breaking a law that prohibited it.)

And that need has to be met on a constant basis -- the supply has to be constantly replenished because the product is gone once it is consumed -- in a way that whatever "need" there is for firearms does NOT have to be constantly met. Firearms are not consumables, they are reusable and pretty durable. The average, otherwise non-criminal, would-be consumer of firearms is simply not going to be out on the streets engaging in criminal transactions on a regular basis.


"I said increased demand (people are willing to pay more for the same thing). You think that just because a gun costs more people will not steal more to get it? The increase of cost will offset the decrease in numbers bought, again Econ 101."

Somebody should be asking for a tuition refund, methinks.

I think that people who DO NOT NEED A FIREARM and people who ARE NOT CRIMINALS will not "steal more to get it".

The people you are talking about CANNOT LEGALLY ACQUIRE FIREARMS *NOW*. Do you not see how bizarre it is to say that a ban will make it harder for them to acquire firearms??

Except, oh dear, I may see a point hiding in there somewhere.

Hmm. If the bad guys couldn't acquire the firearms that belong to the "good guys" -- whether through private sales or through theft -- because the good guys didn't have as many guns (which has to be what you're saying), then the fewer guns that existed on the black market would be more expensive, and the bad guys would have to "steal more" to pay for those guns.

Yeah. Except that I don't think that the price of black-market guns is generally paid, at present, with stolen money. I think that it's paid with the proceeds of drug transactions, for instance. It is the guns themselves, not the money to buy them, that are more often stolen. And THEY USE THE GUNS TO STEAL THE MONEY, for pity's sake.

Who the hell cares how much a firearm costs on the black market?? I really, really do not expect that somebody is going to use a tire iron to hold up a bank in order to buy a gun ... can you not see how idiotic this is? If there actually is a "decrease in numbers" of firearms, there can reasonably be expected to be a decrease in crime, since the means by which the crime is committed IS THE FIREARMS.

The guns are still the MEANS to the end -- the MEANS by which the bad guys commit crimes. Not the END. People go out and steal stuff in order to buy drugs because IT IS THE DRUGS THAT THEY WANT. People steal guns not because it is the guns that they want, but in order to rob people, because IT IS THE MONEY THAT THEY WANT. You are behaving as if firearms are a commodity that people want for the guns themselves, the way that people want drugs for the drugs themselves; this is simply not true of the firearms that criminals have/want. They do not set about to obtain guns because guns bring them pleasure. They set about to obtain guns because they use them to commit crimes and to get the things that ARE the ends they are pursuing.

You're just making things up to suit yourself, is what I see. Unless and until you tell me that YOU would expect to steal guns, or buy/sell guns on the black market, if you were banned from possessing them.


"I said that a ban would make the black market (that already exists) bigger."

And you can just keep on saying it, and it will keep on being an unsubstantiated allegation that makes no sense whatsoever.

.

[MrBenchley]

62. Incidentally...

"I'm sure that there are people who propose that all forms of income tax"
In fact, the far right racist loonies who call themselves "militias" and spout that gun rights rubbish often also peddle the notion that income tax is in some way unconstitutional or illegal. That pinhead Stanley in Colorado, who got himself jugged for threatening a judge, is a prime example.


http://rickstanley.blogspot.com/

[Stilgar]

61. Just for fun, some answers to your questions

No, first we jail everyone that has a gun for posession, just like we jail everyone for drugs.

The treatment center will only work for first timers, it'll be pictures of dead people to show why guns are bad. After the center, you will have to swear off guns forever. I mean, guns are bad. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be shown the error of their ways or become a cop.

Upon conviction of possesion of a gun, probably a felony, you can no longer vote.

You forget Sen Feinstien from CA. MRS. turn in your guns. That is a prohibition of guns. The back market that already exists will grow to match the desire for criminals to pay more for weapons.

Pot does not addict you from the first puff.
Never heard of a weed whore.

Criminals already break in to peoples houses to get money for drugs, and guns.

I think this could happen if Feinstein were to somehow become pres.

Have fun with your responce.

edit for spelling

[iverglas]

64. my "responce"?

Try post 54.

So glad you asked.

And no, I am still not your straw punching bag, and nothing in your post has thing one to do with me or my policy positions on anything.

.

[Stilgar]

69. So you admit it was an uninformed response

"I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control."

That was the statement you responded to. You just wish to sound informed, and the post I responded to was not. If guns are made illegal, a huge black market you will have.

I answered your musings with actual examples. Do you deny any one of those can happen if guns were totally banned?

Didn't think so.

And really, picking one word misspelled by one letter, is your position is so weak you have to pick on spelling? Just because I typed a letter wrong does not make me or my thoughts invalid.

The question was will a ban on weapons create a larger black market? short answer is yes, it always has.

"And no, I am still not your straw punching bag, and nothing in your post has thing one to do with me or my policy positions on anything."

Well quit posting straw arguments and you wont be my punching bag anymore.
What I posted was directly related to what you posted, if it had nothing to do with you or your policy then why did you post it in the first place. If it was to steer the topic off coarse it didn't work.

[iverglas]

76. okey dokey -- if you admit to talking out your anus

"The question was will a ban on weapons create a larger black market?
short answer is yes, it always has."

Short answers just ain't quite the same things as proof, or even rational argument, are they then?

If they were ... then allow me to play:

The question is, will a ban on geraniums create a larger black market?
The short answer is yes, it always has.

Please swallow whole, something you seem to have no problem doing when the fancy takes you, and don't burp too loudly.

Oh, and before you fold up your napkin ... maybe you could explain

(a) how a ban on anything would lead to people who don't need it or strongly desire it entering the black market to acquire it; and

(b) how relaxing restrictions on the acquisition of firearms would decrease the violence committed by people who use firearms for criminal purposes.


Don't forget that you're dealing with a two-edged sword here.

Canada's restrictions on firearms possession are not the "cause" of the low (and falling) rate of firearms violence here, you say?

And yet they very obviously are not the cause of a high (and rising) rate of firearms violence here, are they then -- since the rate of firearms violence is low and falling, despite the restrictions.

.

[Stilgar]

85. Talking out of my anus? You have never taken Econ 101 have you?

If there was already a geranium black market you might be right, since there is not you just sound stupid. A legal thing that has a black market, that is made illegal, the black market will increase.

There is a gun black market, Do you read the news from the UK, they have a problem with guns being smuggled in. If an island cannot stop a black market the US has no chance.

So again, will the black market for guns increase if a ban is imposed. Can I quantify the amount, no. Will it increase, you bet it will. Dint stop reading, more info below...you seem to miss most of the point and put words in my mouth.

Did I say anything about increasing or decreasing the crime rate? no
Did i say more people would want guns? no

I said demand for it would go up, that means the price that criminals are willing to pay will increase. Criminals are willing to steal a little more or risk more to get one if they are worth more.

That is an increase. Could it reach the level of drugs, maybe not, but you can be sure the black market will get bigger.

It took years for the drug smuggling to get real bad. Given time the gun black market will increase as well. Again its economics.

The increase in size of the black market does not = increase in violent crime. Never said that either.

[MrBenchley]

89. Unlike some people, she probably passed the course

"Do you read the news from the UK, they have a problem with guns being smuggled in."
Yeah, they do...and even with that problem, they have less gun violence in a year among their 58 million people than a smallish American city like San Antonio.

[Wickerman]

92. smallish point

and not pointed out to in any way diminish an argument or poster, but to correct a common misperception.

Here are population ranks for 1998 (all I could find quickly). Note that San Antonio is 8th largest in the US. Who'd have thunk? Sorry, a little former resident pride shining through.
Rank City 1998 Population Change: 1990 to 1998
Number Percent

1 New York, N.Y. 7,420,166 97,602 1.3
2 Los Angeles, Calif. 3,597,556 111,999 3.2
3 Chicago, Ill. 2,802,079 18,353 0.7
4 Houston, Texas 1,786,691 132,343 8.0
5 Philadelphia, Pa. 1,436,287 -149,290 -9.4
6 San Diego, Calif. 1,220,666 110,043 9.9
7 Phoenix, Ariz. 1,198,064 210,049 21.3
8 San Antonio, Texas 1,114,130 137,616 14.1
9 Dallas, Texas 1,075,894 68,276 6.8
10 Detroit, Mich. 970,196 -57,778 -5.6

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-128.html

edit - taht table really formatted all to shit, huh?

[MrBenchley]

94. Wow!!

I would have thought San Antonio ranked behind Baltimore and Boston...but it's even bigger than Dallas.

Thanks.

[Wickerman]

96. Something like 42nd in TV markets, though

to give you a clue about poverty, etc.

Yeah, it was a shiny happy day when we surpassed that massive waste of concrete, strip malls, fake cowboys and mega churches that is Dallas. San Anontio has character to spare - Dallas' is all plastic charm.

[MrBenchley]

97. Spent a very enjoyable weekend there

some time ago...stayed at the old hotel across the street from the Alamo.

[Wickerman]

101. Did you see the Ghost?

Rumored to be haunted! I don't recall if a firearm was the cause of death of the subject at hand... :evilgrin:

[MrBenchley]

107. Did not see any ghost

But I did see the bar top that Carrie Nation took a hatchet to...and had a genuinely fine time.

[Stilgar]

95. I passed Econ 101 and 102 with A's

The question was will a gun ban increase the black market for guns. I said yes and stated why using Economics.

In a hypothetical situation, guns are banned and the crime rate and violent crime rates go down. The black market for guns will increase.

Their is a demand for guns. If the supply of cheap guns is cut the decrease in number of people wanting guns will be offset by the increased cost.

That is economics.

[iverglas]

99. oh for pity's sake

"A legal thing that has a black market, that is made illegal, the black market will increase."

Good grief.

Condoms are now "legal things". If they were "made illegal", do you not imagine that a black market would appear?

Whether or not "there already was a ... black market" for something has not the slightest bearing on whether a black market in it would arise if it were banned. Honest to dog, what nonsense you spout.

Whether or not a black market arises is dependent on whether there is demand for the item that would-be consumers are willing to engage in criminal activities in order to satisfy. Period.

The question remains: would people who are now legally entitled to possess firearms turn in droves to criminal activities in order to acquire them, if a ban were imposed?

And your very own example illustrates how baseless your allegation is in that instance -- in the UK, NO black market involving consumers who were previously entitled to possess firearms has arisen.

This of course does NOT mean that such a black market would not arise in the US. But if YOU want to say that it would, then YOU need to present some basis for imagining that droves of consumers newly banned from acquiring firearms legally would attempt do so illegally.


"There is a gun black market, Do you read the news from the UK, they have a problem with guns being smuggled in."

And I ask again -- exactly how have the recently tightened restrictions on firearms possession by non-criminals caused the volume of firearms transactions engaged in by criminals to increase??


"Did I say anything about increasing or decreasing the crime rate? no
Did i say more people would want guns? no
I said demand for it would go up, ..."

I suspect that you once saw a television program about economics ...

Prohibiting people from possessing something does not cause demand for it to go up. Really and truly.

<edit: oh, and "demand for it would go up" = "more people want it" (or: the same number of people want more of it). So yes, you did say "more people would want guns". You leave me speechless.>

Restricting the supply of a thing on the black market would indeed likely cause its black-market price to rise. If you are acknowledging that a firearms ban would restrict the supply of firearms on the black market (something that the drug ban has *not* done -- there simply is virtually no unmet demand for drugs in North America, e.g.), then why on earth would this not be a GOOD THING?

Because criminals would steal more money to pay for their guns, you seem to say ... and how they'd do that without guns, dog only knows.

.

.

[DoNotRefill]

104. There are two sets of demands...

the legal demand and the illegal demand.

Prior to alcohol prohibition, there was both legal and illegal alcohol available, and a demand for both. The market for illegal alcohol was fueled by taxes placed on alcohol. Once alcohol was made illegal, the legal demand dropped to nothing, while the illegal demand skyrocketed, as people who were formerly in the legal market moved over to the illegal market to fill their demands. This resulted in a great many formerly legal drinkers entering into the black market, and the illegal market increased exponentially. What drove the former legal purchasers into the black market? Were they all alcoholics? No. They were people who thought the law was stupid, and that they simply were not going to obey it.

"And I ask again -- exactly how have the recently tightened restrictions on firearms possession by non-criminals caused the volume of firearms transactions engaged in by criminals to increase??"

By substitution of supply. Those formerly law abiding people who are serious about getting a gun will simply move to acquire one on the black market instead of through legal channels. Of course, that switches them from the "legal" consumer to being "illegal" consumers, but I'm sure people willing to break what they see as a stupid law will be able to get what they want, just as people here can get whatever drugs they want, or people in NYC who want guns and are willing to break the laws to get them are able to.

"Prohibiting people from possessing something does not cause demand for it to go up. Really and truly."

I believe you, but it DOES make the ILLEGAL demand go up, since all of the formerly legal demand has to go someplace. I'm sure that all of the formerly legal demand doesn't switch over to illegal demand, since the law would make people who are not serious about filling the demand reconsider, but the people who ARE serious about the demand will continue to get what they want.

[iverglas]

109. I'll just keep asking

"And I ask again -- exactly how have the recently tightened restrictions on firearms possession by non-criminals caused the volume of firearms transactions engaged in by criminals to increase??"

By substitution of supply. Those formerly law abiding people who are serious about getting a gun will simply move to acquire one on the black market instead of through legal channels. Of course, that switches them from the "legal" consumer to being "illegal" consumers, ..."

Do you, or does anyone else, have A SHRED of evidence to present for the assertion that formerly LEGAL consumers of firearms in the UK have chosen to move into the ILLEGAL market to acquire firearms?

All you have done is repeat the assertion. And in response, I say: the moon is made of green cheese.

This is the entire point I have been making in this entire discussion, and the question that simply has not been answered.

What evidence, or argument, can anyone present to back up the statement that the black market in firearms would expand, to the extent that is being suggested, if whatever demand there now is for firearms could not be met LEGALLY?

In economic terms -- is the demand for firearms so inelastic that things like the risk of imprisonment, and quadrupled cost, would not reduce the demand for it? Would demand remain the same despite quadrupled cost and the risk of imprisonment?

I say that this is absurd. I suggest that the demand for firearms is both price-elastic and "punishment-elastic", if you will, to a greater extent than the demand for drugs or alcohol.

The factors that make the demand for drugs, for instance, far less price-elastic and punishment-elastic than (in my submission) the demand for firearms include things like the need for a constantly replenished supply, physical/psychological dependency, and the purpose for which the commodity as desired. These make the demand for drugs very different from the demand for firearms.


"I believe you, but it DOES make the ILLEGAL demand go up, since all of the formerly legal demand has to go someplace."

You do know about elasticity of demand, right? Demand does not necessarily "go someplace" when price rises or supply declines. Some of it simply goes away -- or more accurately perhaps, at least to some extent, simply is not met.

If the price of Big Macs were reduced to 5 cents, a lot more Big Macs would be purchased. The demand for Big Macs is obviously pretty price elastic.

Or -- does this mean that at present, with Big Macs costing $2 or whatever, there is a lot of pent-up, unmet demand for Big Macs? Why, then, are we not seeing a lot more people turning to the black market for Big Macs, or holding up McDonalds restaurants to acquire Big Macs?

"... the law would make people who are not serious about filling the demand reconsider, but the people who ARE serious about the demand will continue to get what they want."

Sure. If they are people who perceive meeting their need as (a) so important as to overcome the price disincentive, (b) so important as to outweigh society's decision as to whether they should fill their need, and (c) so important as to outweigh the risk of imprisonment.

Are there really a lot of people like that? Keep in mind that the people you refer to who are "like that" now, who break laws to get guns now, are not, I think, the models you wish to adopt.

And do you, or anyone, have any grounds at all for saying that this is what is happening in the UK? Allow me to answer: no.

.

[DoNotRefill]

110. two minor problems...

"Are there really a lot of people like that? Keep in mind that the people you refer to who are "like that" now, who break laws to get guns now, are not, I think, the models you wish to adopt."

England has plenty of people willing to break the law to get what they want. Case in point: the drug black market. Somehow, the drug black market has managed to overcome the price disincentives and the risk of imprisonment. As for society's decision as to what's good for people, when has that EVER made any difference in a prohibition kind of situation?


"And do you, or anyone, have any grounds at all for saying that this is what is happening in the UK? Allow me to answer: no."

First minor problem: Gun crime is the UK has skyrocketed since 1988.

Second minor problem: Seizure of firearms during the smuggling process has also gone up substantially.

This allows for only a few reasonable conclusions. The first conclusion is that the government is intercepting a far larger percentage of black market guns coming into the country than they were in the past. If there were a consistent 1,000 guns being smuggled in annually, an increase in police efficiency from 20% to 50% would produce more guns seized, while not affecting the total number being brought in. Of course, the problem with this is that there's been an increase in gun crime, which would point towards there being no scarcity of firearms available on the black market.

The second conclusion is that the police are still catching the same percentage of guns being smuggled in, but because the supply has expanded to meet the demand, it results in more guns seized. Given the increase in gun crime, this seems to be the most likely possibility.

As for offering definitive proof, I can't offer it, just as you can't offer proof that there has been no black market increase in demand. We don't have enough facts to go on. What we DO have suggests that there has been an increase in black market activity, and an increase in guns being used in crime. If the number of armed criminals has stayed the same (as your theory suggests) then how do you explain the increase in gun crime? Are the criminals becoming more efficient?

[iverglas]

111. do you really think

... that continuing to ignore the question I actually asked, and talking about something else over and over, is going to put an end to the question? I really do expect better of you.


"First minor problem: Gun crime is the UK has skyrocketed since 1988."

You know this is nonsense -- although the extent to which it is nonsense does depend somewhat on whether, by "gun crime", you mean "criminal offences committed by people using guns" or "offences against laws relating to guns". And if you mean the latter, then you need to demonstrate that the offences in question would not have been offences before the UK's firearms laws were made more restrictive.

But even assuming either or both to be true, and also given your second point:

"Second minor problem: Seizure of firearms during the smuggling process has also gone up substantially."

-- I am still seeing NOTHING that has any connection to increased restrictions on the ability of non-criminals to acquire firearms.


The big, not at all minor, problem is that you are STILL talking about firearms being used by and/or illegally obtained by criminals, in ways that would always have been criminal, for purposes that would always have been criminal -- NOT guns being illegally obtained by people who would previously have been entitled to obtain firearms for purposes that were not criminal.

I don't even know how you imagine that a change in the law to make it more difficult for anyone to legally possess a firearm would have any effect on demand for firearms from people who "need" firearms for criminal purposes.

That is one way that demand might increase -- more demand from criminals -- but I'm at a complete loss to understand how you could possibly say that this increase in demand is even related to, let alone caused by, increased restrictions on firearms possession by non-criminals.

The increase in demand for firearms from criminals is clearly related to things like:

- the perception of the profits to be made from the activities for which they need firearms (e.g. drug dealing) -- whether more people have that perception, or more profits are to be made, or both -- leading to more people wanting more guns in order to get into the illegal-drug market;

- the perception of the risks involved in those activities -- i.e. the greater "need" for firearms on the part of those engaged in them.


There is simply NO EVIDENCE that non-criminals who would previously have been entitled to acquire firearms legally are seeking to acquire firearms illegally.

There is simply NO EVIDENCE that imposing more restrictions on non-criminals' ability to acquire firearms legally causes criminals to acquire more firearms illegally.

So there is simply NO EVIDENCE for the claim that prohibiting (or greatly increasing the difficulty of) the legal acquisition of firearms causes more firearms to be acquired illegally -- either by people who would never have been entitled to acquire firearms or by people who would previously have been entitled to acquire firearms.


Are you seriously suggesting that if the UK had *not* made it much more difficult for individuals to acquire firearms legally, there would not have been any increase in crimes committed with firearms, illegal importation of firearms, etc.??

All I see, in that case, is "if my dog had not barked, it would not have rained". Two completely unrelated events with not the slightest basis for asserting a causal connection between them.

.

[DoNotRefill]

112. Come on, Iverglas....

by definition, people in England who buy guns on the black market ARE criminals, just as people who possess drugs without a valid perscription are criminals. This used to not be the case.

If a person who had a permit to possess a pistol legally before the confiscation buys a gun on the black market, what else would you call them? They're violating the law.

[iverglas]

115. fairy tales

"If a person who had a permit to possess a pistol legally before the confiscation buys a gun on the black market, ..."

If the dog hadn't stopped to pee ...
If wishes were horses ...

The question is: HAS ANYONE who was previously entitled to possess any kind of firearm EVER ACTUALLY BOUGHT a firearm on the black market?

You are the one making the claim. I'd really think that you would have some facts to back it up.


"... by definition, people in England who buy guns on the black market ARE criminals"

This little bit of semantics being why I was really and quite obviously careful to identify whom I was talking about when I referred to "criminals" -- e.g. people who use firearms for criminal purposes.

And why I inquired whether "gun crime" was referring to offences committed by people using firearms (you know, armed robbery and that sort of thing) or offences against firearms legislation.

Your semantics have nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making -- which is that crimes committed by people using firearms, and offences against firearms legislation, are overwhelmingly NOT committed by people who were NOT in possession of firearms FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES -- for purposes that would have been criminal regardless of what restrictions there were on legal firearms possession.

The allegation was of a cause-and-effect relationship between (a) legislation restricting legal access to firearms and (a) "gun crime".

Not only has it not been established that the effect itself exists -- that there has been a "skyrocketing" of "gun crime" -- but it has not been established that the legislation restricting legal access to firearms played any causal role whatsoever in any "effect" actually observed.

And this is true REGARDLESS of whether "gun crime" is referring to offences against firearms legislation (by people who would previously have been entitled to acquire/possess firearms) or to offences committed by people using firearms.

The original claim was that prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms would create a larger black market in firearms. The attempt to use the UK as a case in point to substantiate that claim suffers from the exact same fatal flaw as the claim itself -- there is no evidence or argument to establish that it is reasonable.

One of my initial objections to the claim was that, in order for it to be reasonable, we would have to expect large numbers of people who could previously have acquired firearms legally to turn to the black market to acquire them, and I simply do not accept that this is a reasonable prediction.

The fact that this has not happened in the UK supports *my* position.

Your definitional exercise, while pointless enough in itself, only works if this has happened -- if there ARE significant numbers of "people in England who buy guns on the black market" who could previously have acquired them legally. There are not, and so these people are not "criminals", they are simply figments of your imagination.

Just exactly as if I were to say "dogs that can fly are flying dogs". I have not established, simply by defining "flying dogs", that there ARE any dogs that can fly. YOU have not established, simply by defining "criminals" to include people who buy guns on the black market who could previously have bought them legally, that there ARE any people in the UK who buy firearms on the black market who could previously have bought the firearms legally.

from your previous post:
"Those formerly law abiding people who are serious about getting a gun will simply move to acquire one on the black market instead of through legal channels. Of course, that switches them from the "legal" consumer to being 'illegal' consumers, ..."

... Just as when those formerly earthbound dogs take to travelling by air, this switches them from being "pedestrian dogs" to being "flying dogs". I still haven't seen any flying dogs, though.

"If a person who had a permit to possess a pistol legally before the confiscation buys a gun on the black market, what else would you call them? They're violating the law."

Unless you can prove that SUCH PEOPLE EXIST, I think I'll call them "flying dogs", if it's all the same to you.

.

[DoNotRefill]

118. Iverglas....

despite my instincts to argue with you, I'm not going to. We disagree on this overall issue, but I still think you're OK in my book.

DNR

[MrBenchley]

114. You have to wonder why EVERY RKBA argument

is based at bottom on falsehood...like the phony British bloodbath.

[alwynsw]

116. Let's look a human nature and add a little common sense

You draw the conclusion on whether banning will create a bigger black market.

You argument using geraniums is inane. Try using a couple of things that people want as a lifestyle choice rather than a lawn decoration.

My examples? Prohibition and drugs.

Now argue that the black market in firearms will not grow if firearms are further restricted.

[iverglas]

120. I will if you will

"Try using a couple of things that people want as a lifestyle
choice rather than a lawn decoration.

My examples? Prohibition and drugs.

Now argue that the black market in firearms will not grow if
firearms are further restricted."

Actually, I'm not the person who made the assertion. I'm the person challenging the people who made the assertion to substantiate it. And I'm waiting for someone to actually attempt to do that -- to argue that the black market in firearms WILL grow if firearms are further restricted ... which just isn't the same thing as saying it over and over.

I'm waiting for anyone who offers "prohibition and drugs" as the model that "prohibition and firearms" would follow to offer an iota of evidence or argument for that assertion.

Meanwhile, I've offered several bits of evidence and several arguments that tend to undermine the assertion I'm challenging:

- firearms are not a commodity for which an individual's supply must be constantly replenished: they are not consumed upon use, and an individual only "needs" a relatively small number of them in his/her lifetime ... or none at all ... and so there are foreseeable limits to any black market that do not exist in the case of drugs;

- the "need" that an individual has for a firearm does not arise out of a physical/psychological dependence the way many individuals' need for drugs does, and a firearm-seeking individual can therefore easily postpone the acquisition of firearms indefinitely without suffering any adverse effects at all;

- the demand for firearms is likely to be price elastic to an extent that the demand for drugs is not: higher prices can be expected to reduce demand to a far greater extent than for drugs, at least in part because of the first two factors (the nature and intensity of the need for drugs vs. the "need" for firearms);

- the demand for firearms is likely to be "punishment elastic" to an extent that the demand for drugs is not: the risk of punishment can be expected to reduce demand to a far greater extent than for drugs, in part because of the first two factors, and in part because of the fact that drug seekers are generally drug addicts and psychologically quite immune to threats of adverse consequences for behaviours, while firearms-seekers of the sort in question -- those who are at present "law-abiding gun owners" -- are not, and can be expected to be amenable to threats of punishment just as they are to threats of punishment for any other criminal behaviour;

for starters.

Abortion is another example of a commodity (in that case, a service) for which prohibition can be expected to be ineffective. Again, there is a range of factors present that are not present in the case of firearms -- the nature and intensity of the need for the service, the extent to which the individuals seeking the service are not amenable to the deterrent effect of criminal law because of the nature and intensity of that need, the relative price elasticity of the demand, the fact that meeting the need cannot be postponed, the lack of available/acceptable substitute services, etc.

"Now argue that the black market in firearms will not grow if firearms are further restricted."

I think I'll just keep waiting for someone who asserts that it WOULD grow to offer up something to demonstrate that the assertion is reasonable.

"You argument using geraniums is inane. Try using a couple
of things that people want as a lifestyle choice rather than
a lawn decoration."

Gardening is a lifestyle choice, silly. We really do have to abandon this attempt to distinguish "things" from "acts" when we are talking about "prohibition"; in *all* cases of prohibition, it is an act (possessing/selling drugs, just like possessing/selling geraniums), not a thing, that is prohibited.

But if you insist on others, i.e. lifestyle choices, how about, oh, polygamy? The prohibition on polygamy -- the threat of prosecution for those who are a party to a marriage when already married -- seems to be fairly effective. How about indentured labour? I'll bet there are lots of people who would be willing to exact a few years' labour in payment for a debt, and people who could be persuaded to offer a promise of it in return for a loan, were it not for the legal prohibition. And yet few do. How about drunk driving? Don't you imagine that a lot more people might do it were it not for the risk of punishment? Some legal prohibitions really do seem to work.

A "black market" is just one form of criminal behaviour: illegal buying and selling. Both the buyers and the sellers have decided to engage in the behaviour despite the legal prohibition on it. Just as drunk drivers do.

Obviously, drunk drivers can break the law without any help. Illegal buyers need sellers, and illegal sellers need buyers. Sellers of anything, legal or illegal, will always have the profit motive, and for some people that will overcome any risk. But buyers have to have some motive that will overcome the foreseeable risks of the activity. And I'm just not seeing that motive in the case of illegal (black-market) firearms purchases by people who are, at present, "law-abiding gun owners".

So I find the assertion that a prohibition on firearms would have the same effects as a prohibition on drugs inane ... and I have yet to see any argument for it at all.

.

[MrSandman]

113. What supports this?

"And I equally fail to see how reasonable restrictions on firearms sale, possession, use, etc., could be regarded as doing more harm than good in anything like the sense, as I have described, in which that assessment applies to drug and alcohol possession."

Consistent enforcement of current laws HAS been shown to reduce crimes without ADDITIONAL laws.

http://www.vahv.org/Exile/intro.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyw/project_exile/html/proj_exile_exec_summ.htm


But there is agreement of the opposite from strange bedfellows.

http://www.tf.org/tf/images/project-exile-page.shtml
http://www.gunowners.org/op0239.htm

It is also interesting to note that Richmond's violent crime rate began coming down concurrently with the passage of liberal concealed carry.

ed for spelling...s

[MrSandman]

32. I don't know how those rates compare,

But that is more than our whole state. WV has had open carry for, well forever. CC since 1987. Very few state limits on gun ownership. Many of the murders here are also drug and/or gang related.

[iverglas]

46. gangs & guns

Despite the oft-repeated cry that Canada is a peaceable kingdom with none of that dreadful gang violence, gang violence is in fact behind a large proportion of the homicides in Canada, a nd also behind the rising rate of uncleared homicide investigations -- in view the reluctant witnesses and all the rest of the problems attendant on solving and prosecuting such cases.

"Drugs and gangs are the real root of the problem here but it's much easier to address guns and sue gun manufacturers and make a big political TV show once a year or so of 'capturing' some rifles and handguns than face the political heat that controlling gangs will cause in many communities."

And what I just can't figure out is why anyone wants those gangs to have access to firearms. Are gang-related homicides commonly committed by strangling, or drowning, or even knifing? In particular, are the innocent, non-gang-member victims of gang-related homicide and injury commonly killed by strangling, or drowning, or even knifing? Are those people putting their kids to bed in the bathtub to protect them against homicide by drowning?

I'm sure I'll be offered the usual inane ripostes about how "gun-free" DC and Chicago are the homicide capitals of the universe, blah blah blah. And why anyone even imagines, let alone expects, that one tiny corner of a society that is infested with firearms would be able to prevent those firearms from breaching its borders, or eliminate the firearms already there in criminal hands, will continue to be beyond me.

We all know that despite the relatively tight controls on firearms possession in Canada, significant proportions of the firearms homicides and crimes here, year after year, are committed with firearms illegally imported into the country. When firearms can be obtained and smuggled so easily across the security of an international boundary, who would be so foolish or disingenuous as to say that they are not far more easily obtained and carried across a city limit?

But why, exactly, is this an argument against having laws that restrict firearms possession?

Laws against things do not stop people from doing those things. They offer deterrents, of varying effectiveness that depends on a wide range of very different factors, depending on the activity that is to be deterred and the people to be deterred from engaging in it, from engaging in the activity.

Laws against committing murder, or theft, or assault, or fraud, do not stop people from committing murder, or theft, or assault, or fraud.

Laws against doing those things deter some people from doing them. Laws are not the only available means of deterring people from doing things.

Laws requiring the auditing of business records are another way of deterring fraud. Locks on doors are another way of deterring theft. Large bouncers in bars are another way of deterring assault.

Just as "no parking" signs are only one way of deterring illegal parking -- but concrete barriers are another, and more effective way, of doing it.

Laws restricting firearms possession are not the only way of deterring the illegal use of firearms. But it makes as much sense to eliminate those laws because they don't prevent the illegal use of firearms as it makes to repeal all municipal bylaws restricting parking because they don't prevent illegal parking. Damned if I can figure it out.

.

[DonP]

52. The only people effectively deterred are honest citizens

You're right, obviously the gangs will never abide by or be deterred in any way by any gun laws any more than they are by drug laws or parking signs.

If the borders to other states were closed with armed guards tomorrow the criminal community would still have access to all the firepower they want and can easily pay for with drug money.

The only deterrent effect it seems to have is on the honest and law abiding being able to defend their own home, never mind the streets and concealed carry issues.

What is the point of enforcing and expanding laws that have little or no effect, other than creating a city full of potential defenseless targets for the criminals?

As it is, there are very few enforcements of the laws on citizens that use a gun in genuine self defense. They usually let the little old lady or older man get a pass when they shoot an intruder in the process of breaking into their home.

A few times every year you get a page 14 article in the Tribune about how this happened and the case against the home owner won't be prosecuted or was dropped for one reason or another.

But I don't think we should have to count on the arbitrary discretion and attitude of a states attorney for leniency in a self defense case and risk losing our civil rights if convicted of a felony. (Carrying a gun in your car in Illinois or having a handgun in your home in Chicago is a felony)

Daley now has another whole package of gun laws downstate now that are so draconian that even the Democrats in the state house won't pass because they are so out of line. He won't even acknowledge that the laws he already has on the books don't impact the issue he decries.

It's a well intentioned, but overly simplistic, failed idea that political egos won't acknowledge needs to be reviewed or changed.

It would certainly be hard to do worse than being the dependable murder capital of the USA year after year.

Something here in Chicago is seriously broke and a lot of people want to deny that there is anything wrong, just leave his gun control system in place and maybe, someday it might work.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

82. oh -- and riddle me this

"I know people that put their kids to bed in the bathtub (cast iron and relatively bullet proof) and hope that a cop will cruise by once a night or so to reduce the shootings to a lower level. Yeah, gun control works really well here. We, including the gangs and crooks, are all absolutely sure that no honest citizen has a gun."

How exactly is said "honest citizens" having guns going to protect the children of said "honest citizens" (not to mention the children of dishonest citizens) from being killed by stray bullets while sleeping in their beds?

Inquiring minds are eager to know.

.

[MrSandman]

117. How is it going to endanger them is the more appropriate question

"How exactly is said "honest citizens" having guns going to protect the children of said "honest citizens" (not to mention the children of dishonest citizens) from being killed by stray bullets while sleeping in their beds?"

You have argued that bans in CHI, D.C., are ineffective because criminals can easily transfer from other jurisdictions. Sans a federal ban on firearms, this will continue.

It has been stated that only law enforcement/military should have handguns. When that happens, how many criminals will resort to converted shotguns and rifles? Will we then ban all firearms?

[iverglas]

119. and easily answered

"How is it going to endanger them ..."?

... not to mention their children, spouses, friends, neighbours ...?

Read the papers. I believe that Benchley provides a selection pretty much daily.


"It has been stated that only law enforcement/military should have handguns. When that happens, how many criminals will resort to converted shotguns and rifles?"

Hard to say, eh? Handguns are more or less banned in Canada. I don't see a lot of criminals walking around with rifles shoved down their pantlegs ... and I think I might notice that. And I'm just not aware of a spate of crimes committed with "converted" long arms. What we do see a fair bit of is handguns that have been illegally imported into Canada being used in crimes.

It would undoubtedly be quite a bit easier, and cheaper, to get hold of a rifle or shotgun in Canada than to get hold of a (smuggled) handgun. After all, pretty much anybody who wants a rifle or shotgun (and who isn't a known criminal or some other variety of undesirable gun owner) can get one in Canada, and even known criminals could be assumed to have eager-to-help or corruptible pals with legal access to long arms. So I have to wonder why they seem to prefer smuggled handguns for their purposes.

Of course, the fact is that it actually is more difficult for gangsters to get guns in Canada, because not only are acquisition permits required, but ownership is registered. Illegal transfers aren't quite so attractive when the transferred firearm can be traced back to the previous owner. Ditto for failing to keep one's firearms securely stored (to protect against theft) as required by law. Perhaps these are some reasons why, despite the relative inaccessibility of handguns, we just don't seem to have a plague of crimes committed by people using shotguns and rifles.

So ...

"Will we then ban all firearms?"

Perhaps you would; I don't know, I'm sure. We up here aren't about to, though.

A scenario in which handguns are banned but there are no monitoring or control of acquisitions of other firearms and thus the only solution to criminal acquisition and use of long arms is to ban them too ... well, that's just a straw scenario, I'm afraid.

Kinda like the one about how a whole lot of people in the UK who previously could have acquired firearms legally are now acquiring them illegally ...

.

[MrSandman]

121. A faulty inferential argument

"A clear policy recommendation follows from what should be the
first principle of weapons regulations: Never place restrictions on
a subcategory of weapons without also placing restrictions at least
as stringent on more deadly, easily substituted alternative
weapons."



http://www.rkba.org/research/kleck/point-blank-summary


Yes, we are treated to a daily treasure trove on the unlawful use of firearms. This daily parade demonstrates problems in the US.

My answer and question is simple: What is the correlation, much less causal link, between crime rates and gun control?

[iverglas]

122. don't know what argument yer talkin' about

... but this:

"A clear policy recommendation follows from what should be the first principle of weapons regulations: Never place restrictions on a subcategory of weapons without also placing restrictions at least as stringent on more deadly, easily substituted alternative weapons."

... is pretty much what I did say -- (edited to quote what I said)

"A scenario in which handguns are banned but there are no monitoring or control of acquisitions of other firearms and thus the only solution to criminal acquisition and use of long arms is to ban them too ... well, that's just a straw scenario, I'm afraid.

-- except that I didn't pretend that long arms are "more deadly" than handguns, which this writer seems to do, or that long arms are universally "easily substituted" for handguns, which they aren't.

But then, I'm not Gary Kleck. And I did not assume things not in evidence when I suggested that if, say, handguns were banned, *some* measures to address the likelihood of *some* substitution effect would likely be needed. He sure did, though:

Most U.S. gun laws are aimed largely or solely at handguns. This focus has the same flaw as the focus only on SNSs, but on a larger scale. While some potentially violent people denied handguns would do without guns of any kind, others would substitute shotguns and rifles, which are generally more lethal. Under any but the most optimistic circumstances, this would result in a net increase in the number of homicide deaths.

Oh look -- an assertion w/o any evident basis. Shotguns and rifles "are generally more lethal" than handguns? Maybe if what's being shot is fish in a barrel, eh? and if the shotgun or rifle yer totin' to the place where yer gonna do the fish-shooting is invisible?

The plain fact is that long arms are NOT "easily substituted" for handguns in the situations in which handguns are commonly used by criminals. If what Kleck says is true, we would surely expect to see criminals using long arms *now* -- them being "more lethal" and all -- i.e., if "lethality", in the sense in which long arms are "more lethal", is actually the criterion that criminals apply in deciding what weapon to carry and use. My guess is that it is not just not the only criterion, but not in the top ranks of the criteria they apply. Portability (invisibility) and ease of handling/use in the specific conditions in which they are needed (e.g. close quarters, on short notice) would likely be higher on the list.


"My answer and question is simple: What is the correlation, much less causal link, between crime rates and gun control?"

I dunno ... what is the price of tea in China?

Is this somehow relevant to the discussion at hand: whether a prohibition on firearms would lead to a massive increase in black-market transactions in firearms, the allegation I have been addressing and for which I have yet to see any argument? Well ... any argument not as obviously weak as Kleck's, anyhow.

That allegation wasn't made in response to an assertion that there is a causal link between crime rates and gun control, to my recollection, so I'm not seeing any need to drag that question into the discussion. Unless someone were needing to change the subject.

.

[MrSandman]

123. Different sub-thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=31061#31204


I agree that the choice of criminals is based on concealability. I also recognize that there is a tendency for substitution to take place. I am unfamiliar with the Canadian Constitution, but the 4th and 5th amendments of the US Constitution would create difficulty in enforcing handgun bans/long gun registrations. Since I don't expect to be in a gunfight, I do not carry a long arm either. However, is anyone in greater danger because I carry a handgun?

I have not commented on black market aspect, nor have I asserted that there is a link between loosened gun control and lower crime rates. I have asked for the proof of the opposite. I am not the one desiring to exercise prior restraint over the freedom of others.

I maintain that to conclude that if guns/handguns were banned, gun crimes would go down is an inference without substantiation. This inquiring mind simply asked how law abiding citizens with guns was dangerous to others, not changing any subjects.

Once again, my answer and question is simple...

[MrSandman]

100. Maybe if laws were enforced,

It could be shown that there are effective gun control laws. I haven't advocated the repeal of law, but to be shown an effective law.

"Laws restricting firearms possession are not the only way of deterring the illegal use of firearms. But it makes as much sense to eliminate those laws because they don't prevent the illegal use of firearms as it makes to repeal all municipal bylaws restricting parking because they don't prevent illegal parking. Damned if I can figure it out."


"...2 federal prosecutions for every 100 federal gun crimes..."
http://w3.agsfoundation.com/media/AGS-enf.pdf

Since comparing rates of homicide and level of gun control often, in the U.S., reveals an inverse relationship,the advocates of prior restraint should justify the prior restraint. Of course firearms are easily carried into Chicago or D.C. It is obvious. That doesn't answer the question of why the crimes occur in D.C rather than where the firearms are legal.

Over 30,000 gun crimes committed by juveniles. I don't know about Chicago, D.C. or others, but juvenile are nearly impossible to prosecute for these crimes locally.

My personal experience with gun law enforcement was a friends gun shop being burgled of five handguns. When one of the handguns was sold in another state leading to the arrest of an 18 and 19 year-old for the burglary, they were sentenced to 12 months in youthful offenders correction camp. Two individuals potentially responsible for how many crimes get a maximum of 24 months combined...what deterrence?

[iverglas]

36. I never cease

... to scratch my head.

" How could guns be part of the problem, they are all but illegal to own in Chicago?"

And how could anyone ever be injured by drunk drivers in Chicago? Isn't it illegal to drive drunk in Chicago?

.

[the_acid_one]

37. Fair point Iverglas, but I think a more...

...accurate example would be along the lines of "How could anyone by injured by drunk drivers in Chicago? Isnt it illegal to have alchohol in Chicago?"

You know, Outlawing an irresponsible action vs Outlawing an object(well...chemical).

Just picking nits.

[iverglas]

54. do you think?

I think a more...
...accurate example would be along the lines of
"How could anyone by injured by drunk drivers in Chicago?
Isnt it illegal to have alchohol in Chicago?"

I don't, I don't think.

As I understand it (being largely ignorant of the situation, as I am of many things that I simply have no reason to know or want to know about), "handguns cannot be legally sold in Chicago" -- http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/illinois.asp

Is it actually illegal to possess any firearm in Chicago (Cook County)? My assumption would be that it is not ... but hey, correct me if I'm wrong. And I assume that one may probably not wander the streets of Chicago carrying firearms.

I assume that although the sale and consumption of beer is permitted in Chicago, there are limits on the alcohol content of beer that may be sold there. I assume that people may not drive, or walk, around the streets of Chicago guzzling from 26ers of whisky. I assume that people may not sell alcohol without the requisite license, or purchase alcohol without being the requisite age. And yet I know (from personal experience) that one may walk into a commerial establishment in Chicago and, if one is the requisite age and the establishment has the requisite licence, purchase alcohol, and take it home and store or consume it, quite legally.

So, unless it is in fact illegal for anyone to possess any firearm in Chicago, I think my analogy stands.


"You know, Outlawing an irresponsible action vs Outlawing an object(well...chemical)."

Laws do not outlaw objects, or chemicals. They may outlaw the possession, purchase, sale, carrying, consumption or use of objects or chemicals. Those are actions ("irresponsible" or not; that has no bearing on the matter).

But whatever -- your analogy is fine. How could anyone be injured by drunk drivers in a jurisdiction where the sale, consumption, etc., of alcohol is illegal? Well then -- should the sale, consumption, etc., of alcohol be decriminalized simply because outlawing them does not stop people from being injured by drunk drivers?

Hardly. However, there are other and good reasons for decriminalizing the sale, consumption, etc., of alcohol -- while nonetheless making it subject to restrictions.

One major such reason derives from the theory of harm reduction. One aspect of that theory is that if the law that is designed to reduce a particular harm not only fails to reduce that harm significant, but also creates a significant harm, or harms, itself, then the law should be revisited.

Laws prohibiting the sale, consumption, etc., of drugs and alcohol

- are generally understood not to significantly reduce the harms at which they are aimed (the adverse health, social, economic, etc. effects of drug and alcohol use)

- are generally understood to create significant harms themselves (the costs of law enforcement, the increased social and economic power transferred into the hands of organized crime and the attendant increase in violence and disorganization in society, the inability to deal openly and effectively with the adverse health effects of addiction and resultant waste of individuals' lives, etc. etc.)

The underlying reason for this is that the reasons why individuals acquire and use drugs and alcohol are not easily overcome by the kind of disincentives that laws and law enforcement provide. The motivations and actions simply are not amenable to the kind of dissuasion that works for other kinds of human activities. Laws prohibiting and punishing sexual behaviours encounter pretty much the same problem.

I've never understood how anyone could analogize drug/alcohol possession and firearms possession in any sensible way. Firearms ownership simply is not in any way analogous to drug/alcohol use, or to sexual activity, in terms of the reasons for the behaviour or the reasons why legal deterrents would be ineffective.

By any rational assessment, laws prohibiting the sale, consumption, etc. of drugs and alcohol simply do more harm than good, both for individuals and for society. That is the basic reason why I oppose prohibition.

And I equally fail to see how reasonable restrictions on firearms sale, possession, use, etc., could be regarded as doing more harm than good in anything like the sense, as I have described, in which that assessment applies to drug and alcohol possession.

.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

39. RKBA "logic"

Aren't you glad you don't have whatever that's supposed to be?

[Superfly]

45. More news from Chicago...

Here's a story where, thankfully, a person will NOT be charged with violating the Chicago handgun ban for defending his life.

Lucky him. Too bad the other 500+ victims of the handgun ban will not be so lucky.

------------------

Link

Wilmette police say a homeowner who shot an intruder during a break-in will not be charged with violating the affluent Chicago suburb's handgun ban.

[iverglas]

58. disgusting

Disgustingly preferential treatment of the affluent is what it looks like, at least from the brief report.

There is no mention that the burglar was armed (with anything, let alone a firearm). So not only can I not understand why the person who killed him was not charged with violation of the firearms law, I fail to see what "self-defence" he was acting in.

Just lucky the homeowner was home, I guess. Otherwise, the handgun in question would now pretty certainly be in the hands of the person who was stealing stuff from the house ... or more likely of whomever he traded it to for drugs ... just like so many other firearms stolen from those "law-abiding gun owners" are.

.

[Superfly]

60. You might want to re-read the article...

Ah....so you are more concerned about the affluency of this individual, rather than his brush with a violent criminal?

"why the person who killed him"----Ummm, he was not killed. He checked himself into a hospital for treatment.

"There is no mention that the burglar was armed"----Tell you what, next time somebody breaks into your home (which I hope never happens), you wait around to see if he/she is armed. Me, I think I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume that he/she is than to hesitate and be proved correct.

[iverglas]

68. dear me

You are so right, I should have said:

So not only can I not understand why the person who killed wounded him was not charged with violation of the firearms law, I fail to see what "self-defence" he was acting in.

The point I made does not actually change, does it?


"Tell you what, next time somebody breaks into your home (which I hope never happens), you wait around to see if he/she is armed."

Damn ... that's just exactly what my law tells me that I have to do. (It just ain't "self-defence" unless I'm actually defending myself against something, oddly enough.)

I have a funny feeling that Illinois law might do that too:

ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

Sec. 7-1 Use of force in defense of person.

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Sec. 7-2 Use of force in defense of dwelling.

A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(a) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(b) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

...

... but it seems I'm not quite right. Said homeowner would have been entitled to use deadly force if he had reasonably believed "that such force <was> necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling". Yup, I hadn't expected Illinois to be the wild mid-west, but it seems that Illinoisans may use force likely to cause death or great bodily harm against people (seems like a good definition of "shoot them") to stop them from stealing their stereos. At least, if they believe it's necessary to do so.

Do you suppose he did? That said homeowner reasonably believed that shooting said burglar was necessary to prevent anything at all? If burglar were to have been shot in the back (as that Boca Raton kid was), I'd say "no". If burglar were not given a "leave my home or I'll shoot" kinda instruction, ditto -- but then who's gonna believe a burglar over an affluent homeowner if their stories don't match?

Of course, the "authorities" in question did say that homeowner "acted in self-defense when he shot a man during a confrontation in his kitchen" -- not in defence of property -- so maybe we just don't have all the facts. Too bad.

.

[Superfly]

70. This is kinda funny...

"but then who's gonna believe a burglar over an affluent homeowner if their stories don't match?"

Hmmmm...I wonder. Who is going to believe a burglar (read criminal) over any homeowner, affluent or not.

[Stilgar]

71. I was thinking that myself

The one breaking in is the victim. The gun owning homeowner is the criminal.

To me, if the criminal that is in my house does not run for the door the second he/she sees me, I am in defense of my life.

Sneaking up on someone no, confrontation in kitchen yes.

[Superfly]

72. My home is the "inner sanctum"

Cross the threshold of my door, and I am going to assume you are there intent on causing me harm.

Steal my car all you want and everything on the front lawn (I need a new hose anyways), but inside is a big no-no.

[iverglas]

78. the Boca Raton police, as I recall

"Who is going to believe a burglar (read criminal) over any homeowner, affluent or not."

Of course, in that case, the dead kid (not a burglar, although the homeowner claimed to have believed he was) was "lucky" -- he was shot in the back. Even affluent homeowners can be brought low by physical evidence, and even criminals can be proved by it to have told the truth.

.

[Superfly]

80. Wish I could say I had pity for the kid

but, I don't. Sorry.

[iverglas]

83. and who asked?

I like to think that you are able to distinguish between the law and your personal opinions, although your comments here --

"Me, I think I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume that he/she is <armed> than to hesitate and be proved correct."

"Cross the threshold of my door, and I am going to assume you are there intent on causing me harm."

-- might suggest otherwise.

.

[Superfly]

84. I am very consistent there.

1) I will assume that anybody entering my home without an invitation is armed and intent on causing me harm.
2) Ditto

At that moment, it's not a case of laws. It's a case of human survival and defense of self.

[Moderator]

124. locking thread

getting a bit long

:-)