Gun control is a monumental waste of time and resources!

[Logical]

Murders yearly by guns....

2005 - 10,158
2006 - 10,225
2007 - 10,129
2008 - 9,528
2009 - 9,146

Guns sold per year (based on NICS background checks ***)....

2005 - 8,952,94
2006 - 10,036,93
2007 - 11,177,33
2008 - 12,709,02
2009 - 14,033,82

So, more and more guns sold and less and less people murdered by guns. No one here is claiming that more guns = less gun murders but no one can EVER claim that more guns = more gun murders.

So there are 225 million guns owned by citizens in the USA and only 9,146 of these were used to kill someone in 2009! So one gun out of every 24,000 are used to murder someone.

Even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow, stolen guns (50,000 yearly) would easily supply the criminals with the guns they need to commit crimes and murder. All you do is prevent honest citizens from being as armed as the criminals.

So the anti's want to ban all gun sales and remove guns from home owners because one out of every 24,000 guns are used to kill someone? Does that really make any sense to anyone?

The Dems lose votes and support on this issue. Thank goodness the dems do not make gun control a major topic anymore. All it does is give the GOP a topic to attack us on and raise money on. And the right wing NRA uses it to raise money to defeat GREAT dems.

We cannot even begin to stop illegal drugs from being manufactured and sold in this country. How in the world will you stop illegal guns from being obtained?

We liberals are wasting our time worrying about a problem that cannot be solved!

Sources:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/080111_TotalNICSBackgroundChecks.pdf
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

*** - One background check could be more than one gun sold. Also, some states allow no background check for CC license holders.

[vi5]

1. Not for nothing....

....but didn't Dems by and large give up on gun control as an issue? I mean sure some regional dems support it nominally, but what's the last legislative battle they've fought on this subject at the national level? When's the last time you heard any major Dem leader give a major speech on the issue?

In fact the past couple of elections hasn't even the NRA mostly given up on demonizing Dems as "gun grabbers"?

And I don't believe the dems lose any support on this issue. I think there are still obviously people who equate Dems with gun control but those are by and large the same people who wouldn't vote for Dems any way due to any number of issues. Any sensible, non-wingnut gun owner is going to be smart enough to realize this.

[Logical]

2. I disagree.......

Many people that would vote dem are scared of the anti-gun leaning of the Dems.

We need to totally ignore the gun issue. It is a losing cause.

[vi5]

8. Those people would be scared no matter what....

My point still stands. When was the last time there was any kind of concerted, non-local, anti gun push by Dems? When was the last time Obama mentioned gun control? What was the last major gun control bill pushed in the Senate? The House?

I'm not saying there aren't still people running around screaming the sky is falling with Dems and gun control but those people are paranoid and have nothing tangible to base their "DEMS ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!!!!!" hysteria.

[Logical]

31. Wait until the NRA starts their 2012 campaign and we will talk again.

[vi5]

34. You still haven't answered my question....

If there are no major Dems calling for gun control....if it's barely visible in the Democratic platform.....if there are no pending bills in Congress and nothing being pushed........then the fact is the NRA would be lying. So if they are going to lie no matter what Dems do then what the hell difference does it make? The Democrats can't drop something as an issue that they've pretty much already dropped, and the people that are still going to fall for that propaganda that the Dems are still somehow actively engaging the issue are right wing idiots who are never going to vote for Dems anyway.

[Logical]

38. After the AZ shooting many dems called for a ban on large clips....

and the NRA ran with that.

Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y tried to introduce a bill to ban them.

Rachel and Lawrence were both on this topic for two weeks.

This press carries a lot of damage down the road and gives the NRA crap to use against the Dems.

I agree with you that the dems have mainly left the topic alone, but we need to totally ignore it.

[vi5]

46. That's ridiculous....

Like I said...those people are going to vote the way they vote no matter what. If guns are their first and only priority when voting then they will always go with the republican. It's naive at best, totally moronic at worst to assume that anyone who is still that entrenched in this issue are going to ever vote Dem.

No, they shouldn't abandon the issue altogether. Yes, they should not make it a focus. And they haven't. If someone is going to run screaming like a scared ninny every time someone proposes any gun laws whatsoever then that person is never going to vote for a dem. Period. And the number of people who are like that who may even slightly be reachable is so small and negligible that it's ridiculous to base policy around them.

[Logical]

63. You stereotype every gun owner as an idiot who will vote GOP no matter what.

"those people are going to vote the way they vote no matter what"

Bullshit.

That might be their main voting topic and if you remove that worry then they move to their 2nd. Which might be progressive.

[vi5]

99. No I'm not...

I know plenty of gun owners, enough to know that not every one of them runs screaming "GUN GRABBERS!!!!" every time a Democratic politician endorses or proposes some minor, ever so slight gun law. They don't focus their entire existence on the issue, and they don't base their whole lives on "slippery slope" arguments. They don't want criminals and terrorists getting guns any more than non gun owners do and they don't sit in a corner cradling their knees with a gun on their lap, rocking back and forth in fear of some non-existent boogeyman.

And those same people will and have vote Democratic if on average they agree with that politician on a host of other issues. They may not like that politician's stance on gun control but recognize that there are a lot of other issues. Just as I'll vote for a politican who I disagree with on one issue if on the whole I can see that their policies and positions would make my life better.

My point is that someone for whom guns is their one and only issue, and they will vote only based on that issue, and who view any gun laws at all as gun grabbing are not going to be deterred no matter how much Democrats drop the issue. And even if there is some mythical, needle threading group of people for whom this is true it is such a ridiculously small amount of people that it nets nothing electorally speaking and if anything would lose us more people in favor of the issues than it would stand to gain us any from those who are going to be reflexively opposed to it.


And you STILL, after multiple responses haven't answered my question....what exactly are they dropping? Which insane, gun grabbing Dem has the bully pulpit and is pushing this issue AT ALL? What legislation that's working it's way through congress do they need to drop their support for?

[iverglas]

160. you make a false statement about another poster

You stereotype every gun owner as an idiot who will vote GOP no matter what.

based on your own underlying false claim that "every gun owner" votes on the basis of the party's/candidate's position on firearms control.

That's the only way your claim about the other poster could be true.

But that's you saying that, and nobody else. And it's false.

[DanTex]

57. First, banning high-capacity magazines polls well over 50%.

Second, gun owners who are too dumb/paranoid to understand the difference between banning high-capacity magazines and confiscating guns are mostly wingnuts anyway. You're suggesting that the Dems avoid popular and sensible laws to appease a small segment of hardcore, misinformed gunners who are very unlikely to vote for Dems no matter what.

[Logical]

62. Name ONE win the gun control crowd has won in the last 5 years.

[beevul]

178. Mhmm...

"First, banning high-capacity magazines polls well over 50%"

"Second, gun owners who are too dumb/paranoid to understand the difference between banning high-capacity magazines and confiscating guns are mostly wingnuts anyway."



Uh...yeah...sure...but its not just HIGH capacity magazines that the usual suspects want to go after, its STANDARD capacity magazines as well.

The usual suspects want to limit them to pre 1900 capacity.

If the poll question were worded as follows, how do YOU think it would do?

"should firearms magazines be limited to pre 1900 capacity?"

[Starboard Tack]

209. "should firearms magazines be limited to pre 1900 capacity?"

why not? 2A is pre 1800

[We_Have_A_Problem]

218. Would you be ok with...

...having your right to free speech limited to pre-1900 options?

[SteveM]

112. Pelosi. Holder. Re-read the latest Demo Platform. nt

[Starboard Tack]

208. WTF Screw the NRA and their jackbooted goons.

Are you trying to intimidate us with "wait till the NRA starts..."

[GreenStormCloud]

43. Obama has nominated Traver to head the BATFE.

Traver is an extreme gun controller. Recently new regulations from the BATFE have required all gun stores in CA, AZ, NM, & TX to report all sales of more than one semi-auto rifle in less than five days. Obama knows he can't get a gun control bill through congress so he is trying to use his regulatory authority instead.

Early in the adminsitration Holder and some others tried to float some trial balloons about gun control but they were quickly shot down.

And look how so many local Democrats in WI opposed CC for that state. And local Dems still block CC in IL.

The albatross is still hanging around our necks.

[Logical]

64. +1000 They just do not get how this hurts us. n-t

[iverglas]

125. damn, they're stupid, aren't they???

Imagine, letting them run a country ...

They just do not get how this hurts us.

Oh, maybe they do ...

:rofl:

[beevul]

179. Que?

"Imagine, letting them run a country ..."

Are you suggesting the bypassing of congress AKA the will of and representation of, the people is right and proper?

Imagine, bouncing it off the will of our elected representatives...rather that just presuming to dictate.

You've made it pretty clear which you support.


Of course, the story would be completely different if a hypothetical republican administration did the same thing - with abortion.

Principle - try having some.

[iverglas]

183. Am I suggesting?

Do read the post I replied to, if the sequence is somehow not clear from my own post.

I'm suggesting that a whole lot of people seem to think that what a Democratic administration does is wrong and the people in that administration are stupid.

Odd, I know.

Of course, the story would be completely different if a hypothetical republican administration did the same thing - with abortion.
Principle - try having some.

Decency. Ditto.

[beevul]

186. Looks to these eyes like you are.

"I'm suggesting that a whole lot of people seem to think that what a Democratic administration does is wrong and the people in that administration are stupid."

Leggo my eggo.


So it is indecent of me to point out the obvious?

Or is indecency defined by you as having any real true principles?


Theres a shocker, in either case. :eyes:

[Starboard Tack]

211. Loving guns hurts us. Burying people hurts us. Mending people hurts us.

Idiocy hurts us. Acting like RW nutjobs hurts us. Claiming to be a Democrat and posting absurdities hurts us. Trolls hurt us.

[Starboard Tack]

210. Proponents of toting guns are the "albatross around our necks"

[oneshooter]

153. Yet it is STILL a plank on the party platform.

If it has dropped so far away from the party line, why is it still a part of the party platform?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

111. Both Pelosi and A.G. Holder continue to advocate assault weapons bans.

These sentiments were enunciated on national T.V. news programs. After Obama was elected.

Former president Clinton, in his biography, "credited" Al Gores's loss in 2000 to his support of the now-expired assault weapons ban, even after Clinton was forcefully warned by liberal Congressman Jack Brooks (TX) that such support would be very damaging to the Democrats.

Many of the people who "equate Dems with gun control" are independents who can be persuaded to vote Democratic. I hunt with some of these folks. But they won't vote Demo with the likes of Pelosi and Holder keeping the fires going.

[vi5]

119. O.K. well here's the thing....

I'm a civil libertarian. It's my main issue above all else. The most important thing to me. The issue from which every other issue stems.

Pelosi and Holder and Obama and pretty much almost every dem support things like the Patriot Act and lots of other things which I feel infringe on civil liberties and first amendment freedoms.

But here's the thing.....I LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE. I don't just go throwing a hissy fit and crying about slippery slopes over those individual points in a much larger struggle and a much bigger picture. I recognize that on average, taken as a whole, I'm still better off under a Democratic administration and Democratic leaders than otherwise.

If someone chooses not to do that on whatever their main voting issue is, then fine. But I still maintain any person that is that fixated, that inflexible, that obsessed on any one issue that even the slightest infraction or infringement sends them running into the arms of an abusive daddy who will calm their fears for a brief hot minute before turning their back on them on any number of other issues is never going to be reached and never going to vote Dem and represent such a small fraction of people that to sit and discuss how many more ways Dems can pander to them is pointless. As much as I'd like to, I don't advocate that the Democrats abandon any and all laws that infringe on civil liberties because some small fraction of absolutists like myself on the issue won't vote for them if they don't. I recognize how ridiculous that is.

And the fact is that the amount of voters they'd pick up if they switched stances on clips and assault rifles or whatever other things these people are afraid of them doing is probably no bigger or smaller than the amount of people who they'd lose who are in favor of those controls.

It's the same losing scenario that has us constantly running for that mythical independent vote when those people are in actuality not independent at all and just Republicans who like to think that they're not Republicans.

[SteveM]

121. "Looking at the whole picture" means too many things to most people...

It all sounds reasonable and moderate, but the fact is the Democratic Party has gotten into a lot of trouble with the gun-control issue -- a rather modern phenomenon which came about after the Kinks first charted. The adoption of the "gun control issue" won't keep most strong 2A folks in these threads from voting Democratic; but there will probably not be many boots-on-the-ground activism (or "militancy" as the poli-sci folks say), though. And even here, such a draw back would be the result of a host of other issues. In short, most here are of your mind.

The issue is not "...the amount of voters they'd pick up if they switched stances on clips and assault rifles or whatever other things these people are afraid of them doing is probably no bigger or smaller than the amount of people who they'd lose who are in favor of those controls." The issue is political in the rawest since. The Democrats keep the issue alive and well, when they could drop the damned thing -- which by now is a disco-era novelty song -- and win back a few % points of moderates who have stopped voting for the Party's candidates (I don't agree with your assessment of "independent" voters, since I hunt with some). But more importantly, the clinging to gun-control by the Dems has become a boutique political project serving up NOTHING to the Party's chances to win. Since we are into speculation, I think there is a long-term deletorious effect on Demo activism, when activists see such a bankrupt issue rear its zombie-dead head, again and again.

Good talking with you, there is much more to be said, most especially about populism.

[Euromutt]

170. Problem is, it's been a tacit "giving up"

As things currently stand, it does indeed look like the Democratic Party has "by and large given<n> up on gun control" because there's little popular support for it. But because there's not been any explicit disavowal of increased gun control, opponents of increased gun control might be forgiven for thinking that the party is merely biding its time until a better opportunity arises before reverting to type. And given some of the knee-jerk reactions in the wake of the Giffords shooting, and overblown claims about the "Iron River" of guns to Mexico to justify reimposing a semi-auto ban, that's not an entirely unreasonable suspicion.

[iverglas]

174. isn't it amazing how people can keep saying things that are flat out false???

As things currently stand, it does indeed look like the Democratic Party has "by and large given<n> up on gun control" because there's little popular support for it.


And yet the TRUTH, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this forum this weekend, is that there is majority support for absolutely every firearms control measure you can imagine.

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good bit of, um, posturing, if it serves the agenda.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

4. Who's spinning? There's no evidence guns cause suicides.

In fact, the US suicide rate is much lower than countries with extremely restrictive gun laws.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Logical]

24. Your claim that gun accidents is the 3rd leading cause of death is flat out 100% wrong!!!

First off, your source is not unbiased.
Here is the real list. So I will ignore your other argument until you clarify your "Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007" which was flat out wrong!
Nice try. I guess you were hoping no one would check your sources.

For 2007 it is....
Cause of Death Deaths
MV Traffic 42031
Poisoning 29846
Fall 22631
Unspecified 6019
Suffocation 5997
Drowning 3443
Fire/burn 3375
Other Land Tran 1617
Other Spec 1542
Natural/ Environment 1449
Pedestrian, Other 1138
Other Spec., NEC 1113
Other Transport 1039
Struck by or Against 832
Machinery 659
Firearm 613
Pedal cyclist, Other 242
Cut/pierce 111
Overexertion 9

[russ1943]

75. Bullshit alert

"Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007"


To call someone “FLAT OUT WRONG” is really tempting when you think, you know that what someone has posted is in error. To post on a public board that someone has written some information that is FLAT OUT WRONG can actually involve a certain pleasure when you post the link to the information that proves your accusation correct, and the information you’ve criticized as FLAT OUT WRONG.
Oh wait, you didn’t provide that link.
Let me help.
Since you failed to provide that unbiased link with your documentation, I’ve checked and provide it with this post.

Let’s see, the statement you think you know to be FLAT OUT WRONG as you quoted in the body of your post #24;
is; "Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007".

2007 Injury related deaths
Number 1 motor vehicle traffic-related injuries resulting in death 42,031
Number 2 deaths as a result of poisoning 40,059
Number 3 persons who died from firearm injuries 31,224

First motor vehicle, second poisoning and third FIREARM injuries.

In 2007, a total of 182,479 deaths were classified as injury related (Table 18).
Four major mechanisms ofinjury in 2007—motor-vehicle traffic, poisoning, firearm, and fall— accounted for 74.9 percent of all injury deaths.
Motor-vehicle traffic—In 2007, motor-vehicle traffic-related injuries resulted in 42,031 deaths, accounting for 23.0 percent of all injury deaths (Table 18). Poisoning—In 2007, 40,059 deaths occurred as the result of poisonings, 22.0 percent of all injury deaths (Table 18). Firearm—In 2007, 31,224 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States (Tables 18–20), accounting for 17.1 percent of all injury deaths that year. Fall—In 2007, 23,443 persons died as the result of falls, 12.8 percent of all injury deaths (Table 18).
http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf
National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 58, Number 19 Deaths: Final Data for 2007 May 20, 2010 (most recent).

Let’s see now, IMO this reputable source seems to demonstrate that your criticism (calling # 3’s statement flat out wrong) is........................................................................................................ FLAT OUT WRONG.

Maybe you used a different unbiased source, let us know.

[Logical]

83. You are calling suicides as injury related deaths??? LOL...nice try!

[russ1943]

91. Yes, because suicides are injury related deaths.

You are seriously lacking in factual knowledge on this subject.
You're embarrassing yourself.

[Logical]

100. No, your desire to make guns look evil is overriding common sense. Typical anti-gun stuff!

[Starboard Tack]

213. Guns are not evil, but loving them is sick.

Wearing them on a regular basis is beyond sick.

[Logical]

101. Let me explain this so you can understand....

you want gun suicides in the gun numbers because you want guns to look bad! Also murders. But other suicides, which are about the same as gun related ones, are not in any other category you list. So cherry picking your definations to make your point is very telling!
Keep trying!

[iverglas]

129. "you want guns to look bad"

Is this what we call "projection" around here?

:rofl:

You may want guns to "look good", but saying that a plainly rational advocate of stringent firearms control wants them to "look bad" ... well, you just "look silly".

[russ1943]

162. You are lost, and you think you can explain to the person who has pointed out you are lost, where yo

u are.
You just don’t seem to understand. Let me explain this so you can understand.
You now have posted in your # 101 that;
“But other suicides, which are about the same as gun related ones, are not in any other category you list.”

You are factually incorrect again, yes they are, in every category listed.


Here is the breakdown for the 40,059 #2 poisoning as an example of the information available in Table 18 mentioned in my prior post.

UNINTENTIONAL 29,846
SUICIDE 6,358
HOMICIDE 85
UNDETERMINED 3,770

TOTAL In 2007, 40,059 deaths occurred as the result of poisonings, 22.0 percent of all injury deaths.

From Page 10 of the NVSS report previously referenced;
“The majority of poisoning deaths were either unintentional (74.5 percent) or suicides (15.9 percent). However, 9.4 percent of poisoning deaths were of undetermined intent. The age-adjusted death rate for poisoning increased by 5.6 percent from 12.4 deaths per 100,000 U.S. standard population in 2006 to 13.1 in 2007. Unintentional poisoning death rates in the United States have increased each year from 1999 through 2007”...........

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf

Give it up, you are in way over your head.

[PavePusher]

109. Are suicides included in the other catagories? n/t

[russ1943]

163. Yes.

[Euromutt]

189. Sorry, but he's right: injury-related deaths include intentional ones, both homicide and suicide

"Injury-related" simply means the cause of death was due to physical trauma, regardless of intent. If someone dies from the impact resulting from falling off a bridge, it's "injury-related" whether or not the victim fell accidentally, jumped deliberately, or was pushed. Ditto with deaths from GSWs.

You're correct that GSWs are a minor player in unintentional deaths, but that's not the same statistic as "injury-related."

ETA: I should point out that since the post to which you, Logical, were responding, has been deleted, I can't verify whether the perpetrator of that post claimed that accidental GSWs were the third leading cause of death, or just GSWs in general, and thus I can't tell whether your rebuttal was on point or not.

[Starboard Tack]

212. "You are calling suicides as injury related deaths??? LOL...nice try! "

Wouldn't be a very successful suicide if it didn't cause injury, would it?
But the huge difference between those numbers is that the firearm related deaths were 95% intentional.
The poisonings and vehicular deaths were 99% accidental

[GreenStormCloud]

126. There is a difference between "injuries" and "accidents".

His post is talking about gun ACIDENTS. Your post includes deliberate shootings as well.

[iverglas]

136. excuse please

His post is talking about gun ACIDENTS. Your post includes deliberate shootings as well.

Actually, Logical's post ALLEGES that someone else is talking about gun accidents:

Your claim that gun accidents is the 3rd leading cause of death is flat out 100% wrong!!!

If the post to which Logical replied was NOT talking about gun accidents, but about gun injuries, the allegation by Logical is simply false.

Since the post to which Logical replied is no longer with us, can you tell us what it did say?

Or perhaps someone else can.

I am actually fairly confident that it was not about gun ACCIDENTS at all, and that Logical decided to reply to it as if it was, whether by way of intentional misrepresentation or by way of failure to comprehend. I suspect the latter, but I would have no way of ever knowing.

[GreenStormCloud]

158. You are speculating. Of the two visible posts, one talks about gun accidents,

while the other talks about all gun injuries.

[iverglas]

161. the visible post in question is a claim made by a poster

not known for making true claims:

Your claim that gun accidents is the 3rd leading cause of death is flat out 100% wrong!!!

That is a statement by that poster about another poster. Note that I've just responded to a different post in which the same poster makes a false claim about another poster. The poster has a track record.

I have absolutely no reason under the sun to think that the claim made, as quote above, is remotely accurate.

I am sure to a moral certainty that the claim made, as quoted above, is false.

[russ1943]

166. To clarify.

In Logical’s #24 he uses the word “accidents” in his title but in the text of his post he clearly states that;
“So I will ignore your other argument until you clarify your "Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2007" which was flat out wrong!

It is that statement I quoted and commented about in my # 75 and subsequent posts.

Clear enough?

[SteveM]

113. Thanks. That "gun accident" B.S. is peddled here frequently. nt

[iverglas]

173. well, Logical achieved his end, it seems

He made a false statement -- that data had been given about ACCIDENTAL firearms deaths, when in fact the data was about all FIREARMS INJURY DEATHS, meaning homicide, suicide and accident - and sure enough, somebody acted as if they believed it was true. Quelle surprise.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. If it saves one life it's worth it.

Of course the anti's never consider that "it" may also cause an innocent life to be extinguished.

[jmg257]

6. Hmmm...I wonder if "no guns = no gun murders" Seems likely.

Or if "ALOT less guns, and those tightly controlled = less gun murders"? That too seems plausible.

Likely we'll never know, huh?

[TheWraith]

10. Fewer gun murders, maybe. Fewer murders, not at all.

Just take a good look at the UK, where when they banned guns, their murder rate stayed exactly the same. So by restricting the rights of people, denying them the ability to protect themselves, you accomplish exactly no reduction of crime.

[jmg257]

13. Thats interesting. But irrelevant with regards to the main argument in the OP. nt

[TheWraith]

21. Irrelevant? Not at all.

The claim invariably made about gun control is that we MUST restrict gun ownership in order to protect people.

The UK has made it fairly clear that restricting guns does nothing to protect people--criminals simply switch to different weapons or use illegal guns.

That leaves the pro-gun-control argument with only a couple places to go. One is that somehow it'll really be different here, which is silly when you consider that conditions in the US are even less positive for gun control than in the UK. The other being we need to restrict guns because they're evil or people don't like them, in other words the same basic argument people use about restricting gay sex or condom distribution.

[jmg257]

30. Again, interesting. Yet the OP was highlighting the # of guns vs gun murders.

And saying that because there is a huge number of guns in the US, and because that number is increasing while the gun murder rate goes down (and up),
that gun control is a lost cause and 'a monumental waste of time and resources'.

I was speculating that significantly decreasing the number of guns and tightly controlling the rest would lead to less gun murders.

But we'll probably never know.

[TheWraith]

33. I don't think he's suggesting that more guns equals less murders.

Causation is almost impossible to prove. But what is easy to prove is that more guns does NOT equal more murders. Therefore we can safely say that the availability of guns does not cause crime/murder.

[jmg257]

35. Oh I agree...he said that much.

"Therefore we can safely say that the availability of guns does not cause crime/murder."

Can we also safely say that significantly reducing the number of guns and tightly controlling the rest will reduce the number of gun murders?

I tend to think we could, though don't think we would ever get to prove it.

[pipoman]

102. Well...

"Can we also safely say that significantly reducing the number of guns and tightly controlling the rest will reduce the number of gun murders?"

Can we also safely say that significantly reducing the number of red cars and tightly controlling the rest will reduce the number of red car deaths? Does it really matter whether deaths are in a red car or a black car?

[jmg257]

122. Absolutley. That was exactly (and only) the point. No guns = no gun deaths.

No more, no less. Well, other then significantly less guns could equal signifcantly less gun deaths.

[pipoman]

169. Why the obsession

with "gun deaths"? How many "gun deaths" would occur with or without guns?

[jmg257]

194. No obsession. Just referring to & wondering about the MAIN 'reasoning' in the OP. nt

[TheWraith]

193. How is a gun murder worse than a knife murder?

The UK has successfully proven that banning guns does not affect the murder rate. So how then is banning guns beneficial? It does not reduce the overall murder rate, so unless you believe that knife murders are somehow better than gun murders, what is the point?

[jmg257]

195. Its not. If the OP wanted to talk about knife murders, he should ahve brought that up. nt

The point is no/alot less guns = no/less gun murders.

Simple point.

[TheWraith]

198. No, you brought up the claim that reducing guns reduces gun murders.

Now I'm asking you, how is that desirable when we know that it does not reduce overall murders? Why is a knife murder better than a gun murder?

[jmg257]

199. It is VERY desirable if your goal is to reduce the gun murder rate. Period.

if what I said about 'alot less guns etc. = less gun murders' is true. (I think it would be)

As to 'why a knife murder is better...?' - it's not. Dead is dead.

edit: re-thinking... not so 'period'...drastically reducing the number of guns COULD reduce other gun-related incidents - of various kinds.

edit 2: Hmmm...I wonder...if after reducing the # of gun murders was accomplished, could the number of knife murders then be addressed/reduced?

[TheWraith]

200. And yet, you can't show why reducing gun murders to increase knife murders is good.

You say that as if reducing gun murders means reducing murders. We've seen that's not the case, such as in the UK. So why should reducing gun murders be worthwhile when it does not save lives?

[jmg257]

201. Show why??? Who said anything about showing why? YOU brought up

knives et. al.


"You say that as if reducing gun murders means reducing murders"

When the hell did I say that??? How did I leave ANY room for what I said to be mis-construed? It seemed so simple and obvious.

me:

Post #6:"Or if "ALOT less guns, and those tightly controlled = less gun murders"?"

Post#30: "I was speculating that significantly decreasing the number of guns and tightly controlling the rest would lead to less gun murders."

Post#35: "Can we also safely say that significantly reducing the number of guns and tightly controlling the rest will reduce the number of gun murders?"


Geesh...are these that tough of statements to read and know EXACTLY what I meant? DO you guys read what people write?



edit: my rather clear statements being in respose to an OP who gave stats and numerous comments clearly emphasising #guns vs #gun murders vs gun control (he did mention 'crime 1x').

"Murders yearly by guns....

Guns sold per year (based on NICS background checks ***)....

So, more and more guns sold and less and less people murdered by guns. No one here is claiming that more guns = less gun murders but no one can EVER claim that more guns = more gun murders.

So there are 225 million guns owned by citizens in the USA and only 9,146 of these were used to kill someone in 2009! So one gun out of every 24,000 are used to murder someone.
Even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow, stolen guns (50,000 yearly) would easily supply the criminals with the guns they need to commit crimes and murder. All you do is prevent honest citizens from being as armed as the criminals.

So the anti's want to ban all gun sales and remove guns from home owners because one out of every 24,000 guns are used to kill someone? "

[jmg257]

202. Not sure why it would be worthwhile. Though now I wonder if after you reduce

gun murders, if knife murders couldn't be next?

I wonder...if after reducing the # of gun murders was accomplished, could the number of knife murders then be addressed/reduced?

[pipoman]

215. And how do you plan on addressing knife murders? Outlaw knives?

Require knife registration? Apply waiting periods on knife purchases? Require knife purchases to go through NICS? Then what, address the problem of baseball bat murders in the same way? How about we address the causes of these murders? Decriminalize drugs, end the funding to "the war on drugs" and apply the money to mental health services and addiction treatment services for anyone who needs these services, etc. Treating the symptoms (diarrhea) of pancreatic cancer with Amodium AD instead of treating the cancer is what you are suggesting.

[jmg257]

216. I don't. Period. Not even worth discussing. I don't even plan on addressing gun murders.

Any more then what comments I made in this thread.

Admittedly, I did wonder though...but not for too long.

[jmg257]

204. Now my turn to ask a question...

Can you show that significantlly reducing the number of guns and tightly controlling the rest will not lead to less gun murders?

If you can't show one way or the other, would you please speculate?

Thanks!

[PavePusher]

110. Post #6? That does not seem to be what you said... n/t

[jmg257]

196. ??? What I said in

Post #6:

"Hmmm...I wonder if "no guns = no gun murders" Seems likely.
Or if "ALOT less guns, and those tightly controlled = less gun murders"? That too seems plausible.
Likely we'll never know, huh?"

is not the same as:

"And saying that because there is a huge number of guns in the US, and because that number is increasing while the gun murder rate goes down (and up),
that gun control is a lost cause and 'a monumental waste of time and resources'.
I was speculating that significantly decreasing the number of guns and tightly controlling the rest would lead to less gun murders.
But we'll probably never know."


In what ways???

[SteveM]

116. Here are some data...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933723.html

A short summary of data:

Guns seem to be the weapon used in 2/3 of homicides (lowest, 57.2% in 1965; highest, 70% in 1994, last yr., 66.3% in 2008). For Murder, Robbery and Aggravated Assault in the aggregate, guns were used 41.% of the time in 1974, but dropped over all to 28% in 2005. Separated out, Robbery saw a dramatic drop in use of firearms, Aggravated Assault showed a noticeable decline.

Other information not on site shown above:

It is worthwhile to note that up until the 1990s, gun-control measures were much more strict than now, with only a small number of states with concealed-carry "shall issue" laws. From the 90s up, gun laws have been liberalized dramatically, and the number of firearms in civilian hands has probably increased by over 100,000,000. Yet during the 43 years surveyed above, the percentage of murders-by-gun has remained roughly the same; other serious crimes (mentioned above) have seen significant declines in the percentage of gun use.

It would seem that the number of firearms in civilian hands (which has increased) has had no effect on any of these crime rates (which have dropped).

[jmg257]

197. Thanks. I agree that generally the # of guns does not correlate with crime rates.

How about info on gun murders vs drastically reducing number of guns and tightly controlling the rest?

Any numbers for that?


edit typo

[iverglas]

19. ah, the meme that never dies

What was the motivation for the adoption of the more stringent firearms control policies in the UK that you are talking about? What harm were they intended to address and reduce the risk of?

It's an easy question.

So by restricting the rights of people, denying them the ability to protect themselves, you accomplish exactly no reduction of crime.

Do you sell tickets to that alternate time line you visit? (Oh, and how did we get from murder to "crime"?)

By the way, in what way did the UK policies you are talking about restrict (i.e. make more narrow) these "rights" you are talking about? Whose rights, and rights to do what, were restricted?

C'mon, you seem to be an expert.

Questions are straightforward, answers should be easy.


What was the motivation for the adoption of the more stringent firearms control policies in the UK that you are talking about? What harm were they intended to address and reduce the risk of?

In what way did the UK policies you are talking about restrict (i.e. make more narrow) these "rights" you are talking about? Whose rights, and rights to do what, were restricted?

And we'll rephrase the other one:

How do you know that the more stringent policies did not have an impact on the homicide rate? Or the crime rate. Whatever.

[TheWraith]

27. The motivation was a knee jerk reaction to a spectacularly rare event.

Kind of the way that security theater in the US and the Iraq War were the reaction to 9/11, and with about as much logic behind it. I'm sure you're not about to suggest that hysterical public reactions are always the most sound basis for creating government policy.

"Whose rights, and rights to do what, were restricted?"

The rights of all UK citizens to own firearms. I'm not sure what silly, rhetorical nonsense point you think you're going to make here.

As far as how we know the murder rate didn't drop, it's because it failed to decrease.

[iverglas]

36. bzzt

If you do want to answer that first question, let me know.

Your own idiosyncratic characterization of the motivation, without even stating what it was, earns you negative points.

Whose rights, and rights to do what, were restricted?
The rights of all UK citizens to own firearms.

What rights were they?

Don't get dizzy, now.

[GreenStormCloud]

44. So it is OK with you if someone is stabbed or beaten to death?

It take it that if someone is killed by a gun that they are somehow deader.

[jmg257]

58. So - are you talking to me?

Because if you were I would have to ask "Did I EVER say ANYWHERE that it is OK if someone is stabbed or beaten to death?"

If so, please post it. Otherwise please stick to referring to things actually written by those you address, or refrain from addressing them.


Anyway, dead is dead. Shot, stabbed or beaten to death.

But you knew that.


In this case, the OP and I were talking about people made dead by being murdered with guns.

Think you knew that too.

[GreenStormCloud]

68. Before guns were invented the murder rate was much higher than now.

Humans are violent killer apes. Guns also give the weaker among us the ability to fight off the stronger. You concentrate on gun murders and ignore other types of murders as if they don't exist or didn't matter. You seem completely willing to leave the weak at the tender mercy of violent criminals.

[jmg257]

72. I could do alot of things. But since the OP specifically highlighted gun murders,

I figured I would address those comments. HE concentrated on gun murders (in the past 6 years or so, BTW), I concentrated on gun murders...both of us in relation to the number of guns.
See how that works? It makes sense, right?

And once again: "You seem completely willing to leave the weak at the tender mercy of violent criminals."

Did I EVER say this ANYWHERE? Did I actually say ANYTHING AT ALL about violent criminals in this thread? ANYTHING about 'Leaving the weak' in ANY manner?
Did I say ANYTHING AT ALL about me willing to do ANYTHING???

Nope.

Some may find all the extra fluff information you provided about time before guns, apes, and the benefits of guns mildly interesting, or amusing (it is an open forum), but making up shit about what people say and think and are willing to do is just annoying, & rude.


So once again please don't assume anything about the people you address based on things you don't actually read.

[Euromutt]

104. Yes, but how do you achieve "no guns"?

We are, after all, not exclusively talking about homicides committed with legally acquired and possessed firearms, but illegal ones as well. The fact is that there isn't a country in the world where the criminal element is unable to acquire firearms, regardless of how stringent the gun laws are. Even in countries like Japan and China, which have extremely restrictive laws on private firearms ownership and are notorious for being less than scrupulous (to put it mildly) about the whole "probably cause"/"due process"/"presumption of innocence" thing, organized crime can get guns if they want them.

The long and short of it is that no amount of restrictions on law-abiding private citizens--even complete outlawing of possession of any firearm, as in China--is going to prevent the criminal element from acquiring guns, and using them.

[jmg257]

123. I have ideas, but wouldn't want to try them anyway. I like my freedoms and my guns. nt

[SteveM]

115. In Russia, with an extremely high murder rate, gun bans have been around since USSR.

[iverglas]

150. and murder bans have been around since pre-history

Your point was?

[rrneck]

9. Not entirely

but any significant expansion would exceed the point of diminishing returns.

[digitaln3rd]

11. Yes, forget gun control!

Let everyone own assault rifles - wild west for all, laws be damned!

Anti-gun control is a Republican platform not a Democratic one.

[TheWraith]

18. That's a lovely strawman argument you have there.

A couple little problems with it, though. For one thing, most elected Democrats have wisely abandoned the increasingly unpopular measures of gun control, so the idea that it's a Democratic position is, well, suicidal.

Secondly, the constant exaggeration and predictions of blood in the streets and "wild west shootouts" every time that useless and unnecessary laws were eliminated is one of the biggest reasons why gun control is no longer taken seriously.

Also, there's the fact that most wise Democrats have abandoned the gun control articles of faith, whereas most modern pushers of it are, in fact, either Republicans or crypto-Republicans. The Brady Campaign is 100% owned and staffed by Republicans. Mike Bloomberg is a Republican. Caroline McCarthy is a former Republican and still right-wing. The last two attempts to reauthorize the Assault Weapons Ban were entirely co-sponsored by Republicans.

[rl6214]

42. You do know what an "assault rifle" is, don't you?

No probably not.

[Abin Sur]

54. He probably doesn't

But I do...and they *should* be more available. Stupid 1986 machine gun ban...

[SteveM]

117. Excuse me, but do you know what an "assault rifle" is, and how do they differ...

from other popular rifles used in the shooting sports (target, hunting)?

[benEzra]

214. Sigh. Would you please explain the fixation with banning the *LEAST* misused weapons in the USA?

Because I truly don't get it.

Here are the FBI stats on murder by type of weapon, latest year available:

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

And that 2.55% is for all rifles combined, not just modern-looking ones.

The gun control lobby ran itself into the ground over this issue, when it makes absolutely no sense to have done so. WTF is it about rifle handgrips that stick out, or black polymer instead of brown walnut, that makes gun control advocates so fixated on banning modern-looking rifles? Particularly given how much political capital it would require to ban the most popular civilian rifles in the United States? Is it the scare meme "assault", or is it the perception that rifles are more commonly misused than they are?

[iverglas]

12. hahahahaha

Even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow, stolen guns (50,000 yearly) would easily supply the criminals with the guns they need to commit crimes and murder. All you do is prevent honest citizens from being as armed as the criminals.

You don't think those "honest citizens" might start taking a little better care of their guns if they couldn't get any more?

Ha ha. Maybe that is the way to go. It would be the absolute best way to put an end to the gun thefts from honest citizens irresponsible assholes I guess.

:rofl:

[Logical]

17. So you can stop illegal drug sales and illegal gun sales. I cannot wait to hear how!!!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Abin Sur]

26. Sure I would

You don't think those "honest citizens" might start taking a little better care of their guns if they couldn't get any more?

I'd treat them with even more tender loving care. If I knew I could never get another Ruger 22/45 (with suppresor, natch) I'd be extremely diligent when it came to maintenance. :P

[rl6214]

45. So because someone cannot afford a $1000 safe

to secure their one handgun they are not considered to be an "honest citizen" in your mind, just an "irresponsible asshole"?

[iverglas]

114. I don't really give a flying fuck

If someone owns firearms and does not do what it takes to secure them against unauthorized access -- by anyone, be it their toddler, the housesitting teenaged neighbour or the local druggie thief -- they are an asshole. Yup.

Nobody forces them to possess firearms, nobody else benefits from their possession of firearms, so they are not entitled to shift the risks inherent in their firearms possession to anyone else.

Where I live, if you can't afford a high fence with a secure gate, you don't get to have a swimming pool. Hard bananas and nobody else's problem.

[rl6214]

171. "I don't really give a flying fuck"

And that's your problem.

And where I live, I have a swimming pool, no fences. I don't live in an authoritarian state.

[iverglas]

175. "And where I live, I have a swimming pool, no fences."

"I don't give a shit about anybody but myself"

Oh, and you also don't seem to have been able to reply to the content of my post.

[beevul]

180. Thats an interesting theory.

"If someone owns firearms and does not do what it takes to secure them against unauthorized access -- by anyone, be it their toddler, the housesitting teenaged neighbour or the local druggie thief -- they are an asshole. Yup."

And yet when ones own country doesn't do what it takes to keep unwanted guns out of its own jurisdiction, its always someone Else's fault.

"Where I live, if you can't afford a high fence with a secure gate, you don't get to have a swimming pool. Hard bananas and nobody else's problem."

Oh sure, but if its your own country, and it can't afford a high fence to keep guns from crossing the border, and they do...its someone elses fault.

I do love the smell of this hypocrisy.

[iverglas]

184. and yet you aren't making a single iota of sense

But then ...

[beevul]

185. Sure I am.

To everyone except you.

[iverglas]

187. watch out, you might not be able to get your limbs untied

The onus is on the one with the danger to contain the danger.

People don't lock up their firearms to keep unwanted firearms out. They lock them up to prevent harm to third parties.

People don't fence swimming pools to keep bad guys out. They fence them to prevent harm to third parties.

The fault, if harm occurs as a result of a failure to contain a danger, lies with the party that had the power to contain the danger.

I don't have to fence my yard to keep your vicious dog out. You have to fence your yard to keep your vicious dog in.

Does that help?

I'm sure it's all as clear to you now as it was in the first place, i.e.: crystal clear.

You just decided to dribble anyway. Not attractive.

[iverglas]

14. here's one for you

So the anti's want to ban all gun sales and remove guns from home owners because one out of every 24,000 guns are used to kill someone? Does that really make any sense to anyone?

So you beat your dog daily because the earth is round. Does that make any sense to you?

I'd hope you can figure it out, but you know, the memes may have wormed their way so far into the brain tissue that I'd be wrong ...

[DanTex]

16. Several problems here.

So many problems, in fact, that I'm only going to get into a few of the most glaring...

First off, the rate of gun ownership (i.e. fraction of households/individuals who own guns), not the number of guns sold, is generally considered the most important statistic by scholars on both sides of this debate. And, the rate of gun ownership, both for households and individuals, has actually declined over the last couple decades. Really the fact that zero pro-gun people here seem to be aware of this says a whole lot about the level of informedness of your typical pro-gun advocate. Either that or people are deliberately using the "gun sales are up" argument despite being fully aware that the more important gun ownership statistic leads to the opposite conclusion.

In any case, looking just at the national changes in gun ownership and crime is a poor way to study the relationship between the two. Various statistical studies have looked at the issue in more detail and found a link between gun ownership rates and homicide, for example:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

Even if you stopped all gun sales tomorrow, stolen guns (50,000 yearly) would easily supply the criminals with the guns they need to commit crimes and murder. All you do is prevent honest citizens from being as armed as the criminals.
This of, course, assumes that there is a remarkably effective distribution system in place that ensures that these stolen guns are transferred to the exact criminals that need them to do the killing. Not to say that stolen guns aren't a problem, but if you think that the fact that 50,000 is more than the number of gun homicides implies that these stolen guns would "easily supply" criminals at the same rate of gun violence, you really need a lesson in basic economic thinking.

We cannot even begin to stop illegal drugs from being manufactured and sold in this country. How in the world will you stop illegal guns from being obtained?
Ah yes. The old argument that the illegal drug trade proves that it's impossible to control illegal distribution of anything. Because drugs and guns are so similar, obviously, everything that is true for drugs is also true for guns... Come to think of it, why do we even bother banning anthrax, or plutonium, or surface-to-air missiles? I mean, if we can't stop the illegal drug trade, what makes us think we can stop the illegal biological weapons trade?

[Logical]

22. I bet you know.....

I can send you 10 papers that show more guns - less crime. But for each of those there is a counter. Just like for each of yours there is a counter. I bet you knew that but was hoping I didn't! :-)

What source did you link to for your gun ownership rate argument? And why is that stat more important?

Where do you think the 50,000 stolen guns go? To legal sales outlets? You need to read more about this topic. Criminals have NO problem obtaining illegal guns but you apparently want honest citizens not to obtain them. Why?

So biological weapons = Guns to you? Really? So guns, which are legal to manufacturer, sell and own is the same to you as anthrax? The point is that you cannot prevent guns anymore than you can prevent drugs because both are legal to own and manufacturer. So I can go out and buy any prescription drug illegally because they are legal to sell. How again is any of the things you mentioned legal to sell to the general public?

[iverglas]

25. "So biological weapons = Guns to you?"

Well, apparently cocaine = guns, to you.

You just don't understand those things called "analogies" at all, do you?

But listen, DanTex: You need to read more about this topic.

Judging from this oeuvre, you have hours of amusement in front of you.

:rofl:

[Logical]

29. Prescription drug abuse kills more Americans than illegal drugs....

And Einstein where did I mention cocaine? Real my post again!

Your laughing icon is cute I guess but I got no real argument from you.

Oxycontin is legal to sell and purchase. But the illegal sales of it cannot be stopped. Same with guns.

Get it now?

[iverglas]

37. wowsers

jabberwacky.com

Try to remember now.

You were the one who alleged that guns are similar to narcotics.


edit

I refer you to your opening post:

We cannot even begin to stop illegal drugs from being manufactured and sold in this country. How in the world will you stop illegal guns from being obtained?

[Logical]

39. ILLEGAL drugs are also prescription drugs sold on the street. Wow, are you hard to explain stuff to!

[russ1943]

90. He's not very logical

His giving advice to others that they need to read more is laughable.

See My # 75 in response to his #24

His number of Murders yearly by guns....from FBI’s UCR Expanded Homicide Data from Table 8 is understated by the missing Supplementary Homicide Data.

His stolen guns figure (50,000 yearly) is about half of what most reputable sources say are stolen each year.
He demands links and sources from those he disagrees with #22,and provides few where he makes claims. #24.

[DanTex]

55. I bet you don't know...

I can send you 10 papers that show more guns - less crime. But for each of those there is a counter. Just like for each of yours there is a counter. I bet you knew that but was hoping I didn't!
No, it's not quite like that. I don't necessarily want to get into the whole literature debate yet again, but the more guns, less crime research comes primarily from John Lott, and serious problems have been found with his research, to the point where few serious people find it credible. The same is not true for Cook-Ludwig or the various other studies establishing the gun ownership/homicide link.

What source did you link to for your gun ownership rate argument?
It's from the General Social Survey. Here's a graph.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf
Before you complain that it's from VPC, realize that VPC just took the GSS numbers and put them in a plot. You can look up the data yourself here if you want:
http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/GSS+Website/

And why is that stat more important?
Because a gun doesn't do anything without a person handling it. If a person with 100 guns buys 100 more, that's still just one armed person. But if 100 new people buy guns, that's 100 new armed people. Besides that, the gun ownership rate is what is used in the vast majority of the studies, including the one I cited. The fact that you don't know this makes it clear that you have no real familiarity with gun violence research.

Where do you think the 50,000 stolen guns go? To legal sales outlets? You need to read more about this topic. Criminals have NO problem obtaining illegal guns but you apparently want honest citizens not to obtain them. Why?
Really? You don't get it at all? Can you at least try? Not all criminals with guns kill someone in a given year. In fact, only a small fraction do. The whole line of thinking that 50,000 guns is enough to commit all of the gun homicides is really inane. If you cut off all the other ways that criminals get guns besides stealing them, you greatly reduce the number of armed criminals, and you get less gun crime.

So biological weapons = Guns to you? Really?
Did I say that? Of course not. The bio-weapons example is to show how dumb it is to draw analogies between completely different things. Guns, drugs, bio-weapons. All totally different, and the thriving illegal market for drugs says absolutely nothing about whether gun control would work or not. Indeed, every other wealthy country besides the US has drastically less gun violence, so apparently it is possible to greatly reduce criminal access to guns in a modern industrialized society. Do I really need to list ways that guns are different from drugs? Umm... they are durable, they are not addictive, fewer repeat customers, harder to manufacture guns, etc. Both on the supply side and the demand side, it's a completely different situation.

[Logical]

61. No other country has 250 million guns already in the hand of their citizens......

None are even close. Total or per 100,000. So comparing us to the UK will prove nothing. Our guns are out of easy control at this point.

Gary Kleck an author who is a liberal in every other way also thinks guns do not cause more murders or violence. There is no proof violent crime in the USA would be lower with less guns. Papers are available on both sides. Not enough information to make any conclusion either way.

Our country is violent, but all of that is not because of guns. It is a different culture. Violent crime (robbery, rape, assault, etc) is actually higher in the UK. They do not use guns to do it. And hard to compare head to head because of how they count "violent" compared to us.

The 50,000 stolen guns (some estimates as high as 100,000) is enough to supply most illegal activity easily. And that is EVERY year. So in 10 years there are 500,000 stolen guns (minus arrests) in hand of people we would assume cannot obtain one legally or they would. I do not know why you downplay this element.

I would agree, that if that there was not 65 million handguns in the hand of Americans then gun control might work. But at this point there is no going backwards and no members of congress, Dems or GOP, seem to want to take that step. And the SCOTUS rulings have sided with the 2nd almost always. It is beyond fixing at this point. I would love to hear what steps you would start with to reverse gun ownership and sales and removing them from the hands of legal owners.

By illegal drugs I also mean prescription drugs like Oxycontin which is sold illegally on the streets. It is legal to make (like guns) and legal to sell (like guns) and so far no one had been able to stop it from being sold illegally. Your argument of durable helps my argument because guns last forever where the drugs need a constant supply. Yet drugs are still easily available. Once someone obtains a gun they can have it forever or until they are arrested. And millions more guns a month enter general population.

You still have not showed me anything that makes me think that you can implement any gun control that has any shot of working.

[iverglas]

108. "Gary Kleck an author who is a liberal in every other way"

Can you tell us what other ways he is a liberal in?

I might not really care (a "liberal" might say and do all sorts of things I find quite awful), but I'd at least like to know what the facts are.


You still have not showed me anything that makes me think that you can implement any gun control that has any shot of working.

The fact that a load of other societies have done it -- and would be able to do it even more effectively if action were taken on external sources (yes, I'm talking about you) -- that's just irrelevant, like everything else in the world. Because ... AMERICA is EXCEPTIONAL!!!!


:bounce:

[Logical]

130. What other country with our gun saturation has removed guns from people?

[iverglas]

137. I told you -- you're EXCEPTIONAL!!!!!

There's nothing to be done, nothing at all.

[iverglas]

138. now ... how about that "liberal" Gary Kleck guy?

If you would.

You made the claim, you back it up, or whoops, out the window it goes.

[Logical]

143. Wow, you worry me if you are all the antis have! Since you are too confused to google.

Gary Kleck's voluntary disclosure statement that appears in Targeting Guns:

The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

[iverglas]

147. snork

The ACLU and one or two of those others don't cut it with me, but I'm sure it all makes him a good "liberal".

You copied that from here, btw:

http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

and it dates from 1997.

I expect a "liberal" to actually, oh, do something "liberal", not just get their name on a bunch of membership lists.

Here's where Kleck's co-author worked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent_Institute

and I think that, all round, "libertarian" (in the right-wing sense) might be a better description of Kleck as well.

Strange things for "liberals" to say ...

http://www.amazon.com/Armed-New-Perspectives-Gun-Control/dp/1573928836

From Publisher's Weekly <review>

... Unfortunately, the authors' hyperbolic rhetoric undermines their case. In one chapter, they dissect the methods of the gun control movement and conclude, perhaps with some reason, that the limited gun control measures currently being sought are part of a strategy toward banning all handguns. But this position is derided as the result of the "absolutist" and "prohibitionist" views of "anti-gun zealots." The authors argue that this zealotry has pushed the NRA into opposing even moderate gun controls, such as licensing and registration, for fear of eventually losing their right to own guns. Their attack on the "liberal media bias" may convince some readers, but the authors take it to a ridiculous extreme: the media's depiction of gun owners is a "bigoted stereotype that would be recognized and denounced as such if directed against gays, Jews, African-Americans or virtually any group other than gun owners." ...

Funny talk for "liberals". Sounds so much like what one reads hereabouts though ...

[gejohnston]

165. I read the book

and Publisher's Weekly's review is misleading. They did not use the term liberal media bias nor did he or Kates say it was due to liberal bias.

Other than that, how is it silly? So what if Kates hangs out there? He is hardly right wing. There are left wing libertarians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates

http://www.law.fsu.edu/faculty/gkleck.html

[gejohnston]

164. every way

How he landed up where he is at on the gun issue is simply where the facts led him. Basically he started with a hypothesis opposite of the results he got. Ideology had nothing to do with it.
If you can't imagine empirical science and reality getting in the way of ideology, then you understand right wing climate science deniers and creationists.

[iverglas]

176. oh, well, that proves it

From Kleck's associations, he certainly does look to me like a "liberal" -- and like the reason I despise liberals.

I would have nothing to do with the ACLU if I were in the US, and although I worked for years as an advocate for victims of torture and persecution I never joined Amnesty International.

Liberals have no principles.

It's just handy that the word "liberal" can mean so many strange and varied things, isn't it?

I've met just about nobody who couldn't honestly call themself a liberal.

[DanTex]

120. So do you now understand that gun sales is the wrong statistic?

At the very beginning of the OP, you opened up with the classic misinformed "gun sales up, murders down" argument that every good NRA advocate has recited thousands of times. Now that you have seen the gun ownership data, has that changed your thinking?

Or, more likely, you started out with an ideology, and found data to support it, and when it is pointed out that the more relevant statistics point in the opposite direction, you just ignore and continue believing what you were always going to believe, regardless of what the data shows.

Regarding the rest of your arguments, it's the same superficial black-and-white stuff, and it doesn't appear that you really want to scratch the surface much. For example, "papers are available on both sides" doesn't mean there's no real evidence linking gun ownership/availability to gun violence -- if you actually read the papers you will find that there is plenty. In fact, your argument, that the UK (and other wealthy countries) do not have overall lower violent crime rates, just lower homicide, has been noted by many people, and used to support the so-called "instrumentality" hypothesis -- that guns make crimes (and other volatile situations like arguments) more lethal. As you say, it's not that the US population is inherently more violent than other industrialized nations. We just have more access to guns which leads to more lethal gun violence.

And so on to the "50K stolen guns is 'enough' to supply all violent criminals", the tired guns/drugs analogy, and this idea that since we already have so many guns around, we should just give up and accept permanently elevated levels of gun violence. These aren't very well thought-out arguments, sorry to say.

[iverglas]

128. one small component of the data

One claim is that while homicide rates are vastly lower in places like the UK than in the US, "violent crime" rates are not.

These rates conceal some interesting facts, specifically: homicide in the course of another crime. In those cases, the event is categorized as a homicide and does not show up in, say, robbery figures.

(My emphases throughout the excerpts below.)


http://aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi252/view%20paper.aspx
(Australia, 2002; long paper so the following is fair dealing/use)

... Homicide is a multifaceted crime, and policies oriented to prevention must be built on solid data and a clear understanding of the various characteristics of homicide and situations in which it might occur. This paper focuses on one such situation: homicide incidents that occur in the course of other crime (for example, during a robbery or a sexual assault).

Of the 4,108 homicide incidents that occurred in Australia between 1989 and 2002, 542 (13 per cent) occurred in the course of another crime. These incidents differ significantly from "non-crime" homicide incidents.

... In recent years there has been a dramatic increase in the rate of robbery in Australia2 (Mouzos & Carcach 2001). In contrast, the rate of robbery-homicide has remained relatively stable over the same period (see Mouzos 2000, p. 74), suggesting that the robbery-homicide trend does not follow the robbery trend in Australia. While there appear to be differences in the incidence rates of the two types of crime, few studies in Australia or elsewhere have examined the proposition that robbery-homicide is a by-product of robbery, and that the only difference between the two is that robbery-homicide results in the death of the victim whereas robbery does not.

One of the few studies that has addressed this question found that robbery-homicides are more similar to other robberies than to other homicides, offering support to the contention that robbery-murder is an intrinsic by-product of robbery rather than a different offence altogether (Cook 1987). This dearth of research leaves many questions unanswered. For example, are the offences of robbery and robbery-homicide essentially similar behaviours that differ principally in outcome rather than in process? Is the typical robbery-homicide most appropriately considered a fatal robbery, or are lethal robberies quantitatively different from non-lethal robberies?

... The comparative analysis of crime homicides and other homicides in Australia reveals a number of noteworthy differences. Compared to other homicides, Table 1 indicates that crime homicides were significantly more likely to:
... involve a weapon other than a knife or other sharp instrument (firearm, assaultive force, blunt instrument); ...

... While firearms were one of the least commonly used weapons in both robbery and robbery-homicide, the higher use of firearms in robbery-homicide may increase the risk of lethal injury. Zimring (1991) refers to this as the "instrumentality effect". According to this explanation, the likelihood of serious injury or death increases with the lethality of the weapon. Hence, when weapons such as firearms are used, there is a greater likelihood that the victim will be killed than when other weapons or physical force are used (see also Allen 1986; Cook 1980, 1985, 1987, 1990; Felson & Messner 1996; Skogan 1978). This would explain why the greater use of firearms in a robbery-homicide contributes to a higher proportion of deaths than in a robbery.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm (Canada, 1998)

... Handgun homicide rates are 15.3 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1989-95, the average handgun homicide rate was 4.8 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 0.3 per 100,000 for Canada. Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.

... Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased in the United States but decreased in Canada. During this period, the overall homicide rates decreased in both the U.S. and Canada-11% and 13% respectively. The U.S. firearm homicide rates increased 2%, compared to a 7% decrease in Canada.

A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms. For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. Furthermore, the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996), compared to a decreasing trend in Canada (from 26% in 1987 to 21% in 1996).

Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.

Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=102807 (US, 1986, abstract only) (United States)

... A final study used Detroit data to examine the role of weapons and robbery homicide. The use of guns was strongly associated with the incidence of robbery homicide. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States (United States)

In the United States, a quarter of commercial robberies are committed with guns.<48> Robberies committed with guns are three times as likely to result in fatalities compared with robberies where other weapons were used,<48><49><50> with similar patterns in cases of family violence.<51> Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons.<52> He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not overall robbery rates.<53><54> A significant number of homicides result as a by-product of another violent crime which escalates, with the offender going into the crime without a clear or sustained intent to kill or be killed.<50><55>

<48> Cook, Philip J. (1987). "Robbery Violence". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 70 (2). NCJ 108118.
<49> Kleck, Gary, K. McElrath (1991). "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence". Social Forces (Social Forces, Vol. 69, No. 3) 69 (3): 669–692. doi:10.2307/2579469. JSTOR 2579469. NCJ 134329.
<50> Zimring, Franklin E. (1972). "The Medium is the Message: Firearm Caliber as a Determinant of Death from Assault". Journal of Legal Studies 1: 97–123. doi:10.1086/467479. NCJ 47874.
<51> Saltzman, L., J.A. Mercy, et al. (1992). "Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults". Journal of the American Medical Association 267 (22): 3043–3047. doi:10.1001/jama.267.22.3043. PMID 1588718.
<52> Cook, Philip J., Jens Ludwig (2000). "Chapter 3". Gun Violence: The Real Costs. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513793-0.
<53> Cook, Philip J. (1979). "The Effect of Gun Availability on Robbery and Robbery Murder: A Cross-Section Study of Fifty Cities". Policy Studies Review Annual 3: 743–781.
<54> Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting guns: Firearms and their control. Aldine de Gruyter. ISBN 0202305694.
<55> Zimring, Franklin E., Gordon Hawkins (1997). Crime Is Not the Problem: Lethal Violence in America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195131053.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm (Canada)

In 2006, 14% of all victims of robbery faced a firearm, usually a handgun. A knife or other type of weapon was used in just over one-quarter (27%) of robberies, while no weapon (eg. threat or physical force) was used in almost half of robberies (Table 1). While robberies with other types of weapons also declined during the 1990s, this decrease was less than the decline in robberies with a firearm (Chart 5).

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010001/article/11115-eng.htm

Despite the inherently violent nature of robbery, most incidents do not result in physical injury to victims. In 2008, 98% of victims suffered little to no injury. However, 2% of victims required professional medical attention at the scene of the incident or transportation to a medical facility. Information from the Homicide Survey indicates that there were 20 homicides that occurred during the course of a robbery in 2008, representing about 3% of all homicides.

So my thesis is that homicide figures in the US mask a higher (armed) robbery rate than is apparent from the robbery figures. The same cannot be said of Australia, the UK and Canada, where robberies less often involve firearms and less often result in homicide, to anywhere near the same degree.

Just one more reason why comparisons of violent crime rates are sometimes comparisons of apples and oranges. (Another main reason is that Canada and the UK, at least, include minor assaults in "violent crime" while the US does not; also, the offence of "rape" does not exist in Canada, and Canadian figures for sexual assault offences cannot be compared with other countries' figures for rape offences.)


I'm just going to throw this in too, from the above Stats Can page:

Chart 6
Firearm-related violent crime by province, 2006


All Western provinces, where the household firearms ownership rates are hightest, the bastion of gun militancy (those law-abiding gun owners!) and Conservative Party voting, have higher rates of firearm-related violent crime than all Eastern provinces (except Nova Scotia, an odd case because of a spate of firearms robberies in Halifax, the population being small enough that rates are easily affected by single-digit occurrences).

This is also worth noting:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2011001/article/11523-eng.htm

Chart 2
Police-reported crime severity indexes, Canada, 2000 to 2010


And just because it's so pretty:

Chart 4
Homicide by method for selected countries, 2006

[Logical]

131. You continue to ignore the request about how you would control guns. And the fact you ignore....

the stolen guns issue is telling. You cannot at this point reverse the gun ownership with any possible passable law.

I am waiting for ONE implementable gun control plan from you. Just one! Until then you are just whining like the other anti's on this forum.

And provide me with ONE paper that you say "if you actually read the papers you will find that there is plenty" that has not been critiqued and countered! I will promise to read it.

[DanTex]

132. Hey, it was your OP. You're not going "sneak away"...

The very first paragraph was the old blatantly misleading "gun sales are up" argument. Can you at least own up to your own mistakes?

Because I'm happy to keep pointing it out. It looks like you didn't know that, while gun sales have gun up, the more important gun ownership number has actually dropped. This reveals you as being silly and uninformed. You probably feel a little embarrassed. So you're trying to change the subject to other issues. Other issues, such as the preposterous stolen guns argument, which demonstrates your never having taken a single economics class, but I digress...

The point is, if you want to speak intelligently about gun control, you need to know the difference between gun sales and gun ownership, and stop with the obviously misleading arguments.


PS Has the Cook-Ludwig paper I cited been "critiqued and countered"? I mean, I know that the pro-gun crowd reflexively rejects all research that they don't agree with, but has it been critiqued and countered by anyone serious? If so, here's another, more general paper. It's a survey, it's cites a bunch of relevant research. And it's from 2011, so I doubt it's been "critiqued and countered", unless you count NRA press releases...
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/06/17/1559827610396294.full.pdf+html

PPS As for a specific policy, let's start with, at a minimum, a national gun registry, and go from there.

[Logical]

133. I never claimed more guns = less crime and you know it. I said more guns DO NOT = More Crime....

and are waiting for you to prove it does. You can't so you say nothing.

And the fools on here always use the "embarrassment" argument when they are getting their ass kicked.

A gun registry? Really? That is your BIG plan? And what members of congress will vote for that. Please start with the liberals you plan on supporting that plan. And how do you FORCE current gun owners to participate? And once again, you antis do not realize the criminals will just ignore your registry law. So once again you only punish the legal owners. Wow.

OK, still waiting for your "solution to the problem" that can actually be implemented. You must be embarassed that you do not have one after all the whining. :-)

Thanks for the link to the paper. I actually love reading about that stuff!

Please, give us one plan to reduce gun ownership and gun sales that will pass congress and SCOTUS.

WE ARE ALL WAITING!

[DanTex]

135. Once again, you put up the chart with gun sales numbers, while ignoring the more important...

...gun ownership numbers. Gun ownership has dropped, along with gun murders, thus completely derailing the argument you were making in the OP. The only reasons to use gun sales is (a) if you don't know better or (b) if you are trying to deceive. People well informed about gun violence know this. Really, they do. You are clearly not one of those people. But apparently pride won't let you just admit, "hey, I was wrong, I used the wrong statistics, but now I learned something and next time I'll use the more appropriate statistic even if it renders my argument moot."


Please, give us one plan to reduce gun ownership and gun sales that will pass congress and SCOTUS.
You crack me up. I come up with one policy idea, and now you're suddenly looking for a plan that the teabaggers in congress will vote for. Too much!

[Logical]

140. Let me cut and past it for you since you obviously CANNOT read the OP....

From my OP....

"No one here is claiming that more guns = less gun murders but no one can EVER claim that more guns = more gun murders."

Please explain, in your dream world, how I claimed that more guns = less crime. I cannot repeat this any more clearly. If I need to paste this 100 more times I can but you know at this point I never made the claim. Are there more guns? YES. Is there less crime YES. Do I EVER SAY more guns are the reason. NO. It is simple enough even for you?

LOL....and you have a plan but when I ask how you will implement it you take offense. Like implementation is not a consideration.

OK, I have a plan to balance the budget deficit, take money from the savings accounts of people without their permission. There you go. I have no idea how we can implement it but I have solved the budget crisis just with my idea!

I am done with you. You hate guns I get it. But you have no possible solution so it comes down to you just wanting to complain. I understand you hate guns. You have no reason to hate them and no plan to reduce them except a gun registration that you have no idea how to implement legally. Please tell me your side has more than that. Please tell me that is not all your side has to go on.

I bet we can agree on this, I hate and cannot stand the right wing NRA. Maybe we can bash them together.

[iverglas]

144. "but no one can EVER claim that more guns = more gun murders"

No one does.

So what was your point?

[Logical]

146. Plenty of you do.

[iverglas]

148. let us know when you get dizzy

[DanTex]

149. But allow me to cut and paste from the OP!

Murders yearly by guns....

2005 - 10,158
2006 - 10,225
2007 - 10,129
2008 - 9,528
2009 - 9,146

Guns sold per year (based on NICS background checks ***)....

2005 - 8,952,94
2006 - 10,036,93
2007 - 11,177,33
2008 - 12,709,02
2009 - 14,033,82

So, more and more guns sold and less and less people murdered by guns. No one here is claiming that more guns = less gun murders but no one can EVER claim that more guns = more gun murders.

Yes, there it is, in all it's glory, the classic #1 hit "gun sales are up, gun murders are down". Complete with an explanation, including the stylish use of all-caps: not only can nobody claim that more guns = more gun murders today, but nobody can EVER claim this.

Please explain, in your dream world, how I claimed that more guns = less crime.
Please explain, in your dream world, how I claimed that you claimed that more guns = less crime. My claim is that you cited the gun sales statistic, rather than the more important gun ownership statistic. It's pretty clear that you did that. I went on to point out that a more well-informed person would have know better, that the gun ownership statistic is more relevant to the overall gun control debate. I then speculated that you may have cited the gun sales statistic deliberately because it helps out your case. After all, since gun ownership has been dropping along with violent crime, it would be a little trickier to argue that nobody can (EVER) claim a connection between gun ownership and gun violence, and this in turn would detract from your overall message that gun control is useless. But then I went on to suggest that most likely you weren't doing this deliberately, you probably just didn't know about gun ownership, either that it is a more important statistic than gun sales, or that it has been dropping. But now you know.

OK, I have a plan to balance the budget deficit, take money from the savings accounts of people without their permission.
Yes, that's a perfect analogy. A gun registry is exactly like taking money from people without their permission. In every way.

I bet we can agree on this, I hate and cannot stand the right wing NRA. Maybe we can bash them together.
Yes we can. Also I don't hate guns. I just think they should be controlled more tightly in order to reduce gun violence, that's why I favor, for example, registration. It won't pass congress any time soon, but then again neither will higher taxes on the wealthy, or a reasonable climate policy, or a lot of other things that I would like to see. Hopefully, outside of the gun debate, you might loosen up on only treating plans that John Boehner approves as worthy of consideration.

[iverglas]

142. I shoulda read ahead

A gun registry? Really? That is your BIG plan? And what members of congress will vote for that. Please start with the liberals you plan on supporting that plan. And how do you FORCE current gun owners to participate? And once again, you antis do not realize the criminals will just ignore your registry law. So once again you only punish the legal owners. Wow.

OK, still waiting for your "solution to the problem" that can actually be implemented.

What did I say, eh?

It isn't IMPLEMENTABLE because WE WON'T LET YOU IMPLEMENT IT!!!


But what the fuck.

(a) What "punishment" is involved in requiring that someone register an item of property?

(b) Where are these criminals going to get guns from once the guns in the hands of eligible owners are registered and those owners know that unregistered transfers are a crime and guns illegally transferred can be traced to them?

Oh, and

(c) Who ever imagined that criminals would register their guns?

You must live in a kooky world if you imagine that anybody imagines that.

[Logical]

145. Wow, you are hard to deal with.....

Read the part about 50,000 - 100,000 stolen guns a year. These of course will not be registered any longer after they are stolen.

Do you understand this at all? Do you realize that criminals will ignore your gun registry?

Read about how well this has worked for Canada. And I am not doing your research for you again. Find it yourself.

[iverglas]

151. "Read about how well this has worked for Canada"???

I fucking LIVE IN Canada. I am CANADIAN.

Jupiter on stilts, man.


Do you understand this at all? Do you realize that criminals will ignore your gun registry?

Do you understand that CRIMINALS CAN'T GET GUNS in Canada unless they steal them or have them trafficked in from the US, or find some really stupid legal owner to sell them to them???

BECAUSE legal owners are required to register their firearms, and no firearm may be sold at retail by a dealer without it being registered???

Criminals may ignore the gun registry -- but the gun registry doesn't ignore them, for fuck's sake.

Do you know of ANY instances of straw purchases in Canada that put a firearm in a criminal's hands? I'd love to know, if you do, because I DON'T. Other than those Garands that were going to be smuggled into the US as collector's items -- until the registry flagged the unusual pattern of purchases and the smugglers were pinched.

And then we have little things like storage laws that go some distance to getting gun owners to secure the damned things and thus reduce the incidence of theft. Gun thieves target "collectors" and retailers, where they can get a few dozen at a time, in well-planned, carefully executed break-ins (involving things like spending two days blowtorching a vault, or enlarging a skylight in a roof). Nobody's going to find a handgun in the nightstand when they burgle a house here.

And licensing, to ensure that no law-abiding firearm owner transfers a firearm unwittingly to an ineligible person.

There you have it -- the essential trio:

- licensing of owners
- registration of firearms owned/transferred
- safe/secure storage requirement

And then you get things like this:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

Chart 4
Homicide by method for selected countries, 2006


-- the other factor there being stringent restrictions on access to handguns. They're not stringent enough in Canada, the result being too many stolen handguns (from "collectors" and retailers) that are then used in crime.

It's estimated that about 25% of Canadian households have firearms. That isn't "no guns". The significant differences between Canada and the US are (a) rate of households with firearms, and (b) rate of handgun ownership.

If you think that legitimate handgun owners in Canada -- genuine sports shooters and even "collectors", those being the only two permitted purposes for handgun ownership -- are hanging around streetcorners selling them to petty criminals, or not overwhelmingly securing them against theft, you're very wrong.

[iverglas]

139. I always love this bit

I am waiting for ONE implementable gun control plan from you.

We could all type our fingers to the bone, and the answer to every word will be:

It isn't implementable BECAUSE WE WON'T LET YOU IMPLEMENT IT!!!

Cleverly framed request, eh?

Kinda like walking into an ice cream cone shop and asking for an ice cream cone ... and specifying that it must be unmeltable. It's the stuff riddles and fairy tales are made of.

The bit to catch on to before wasting time is: The request was rhetorical only.

[Logical]

141. I look forward to your detailed plan for reducing guns in this country. LOL......I cannot wait!

[iverglas]

152. like I said, not wasting the calories

You defined the response out of existence in your request.

You get to say that any proposal made CAN'T BE IMPLEMENTED because YOU AND YOUR FELLOW ENTHUSIASTS WON'T LET IT BE.

[Euromutt]

188. How does "instrumentality" hypothesis account for murder rates in, say, Russia or the Caribbean?

After all, if it's the ready, legal availability of firearms that encourages non-lethal forms of violence to turn lethal, how come much of the former Soviet Union (which has gun laws on a par with the UK's) and various Caribbean countries like Jamaica and Trinidad have levels of homicide, both committed with and without firearms, that are multiples of the American rates? For that matter, how does the "instrumentality" hypothesis account for the fact that the American rate of non-gun homicide is higher than overall rates of homicide in any western European country?

Moreover, how does it account for the fact that suicide rates in many European countries are comparable to or higher than that in the United States, and that Japan's is much, much higher, stringent gun control laws (and gun-averse culture) notwithstanding?

Or could it be that the proponents of the "instrumentality" hypothesis "started out with an ideology, and found data to support it, and when it is pointed out that the more relevant statistics point in the opposite direction*, <they> just ignore and continue believing what <they> were always going to believe, regardless of what the data shows"?

* - Or in no direction at all.

[iverglas]

191. who said?

Someone else will have to ask our Euromutt if they want to know the answer, of course; he engages in the silly game of "ignore".

After all, if it's the ready, legal availability of firearms ...

Who said that?

It's the availability of firearms, not the "legal availability", that is the relevant factor.

In the US, it happens to be the relatively unregulated legal availability that leads to virtually unlimited access. In other contexts, easy access can be the result of other factors.


For that matter, how does the "instrumentality" hypothesis account for the fact that the American rate of non-gun homicide is higher than overall rates of homicide in any western European country?

Not so much, actually, is it, when we look at most comparable countries? Canada and Australia, that is.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

Homicide by method for selected countries, 2006


All four countries reported that handguns were the most common type of gun used in the commission of firearm-related homicides. In 2006, handguns were responsible for 75% of all firearm-related homicides in the United States, 57% in Canada, 47% in Australia and 44% in England and Wales.

Huh, eh?

There is much wider access to firearms in Canada than in the UK, for instance. Funny how it kind of correlates. (Handgun access is relatively tightly restricted in both cases, more so in Canada -- the difference in the handgun homicide rates being largely a function of (a) easier access to legally owned handguns through theft and (b) easier access to handguns trafficked from the US, in Canada.)


Or could it be that the proponents of the "instrumentality" hypothesis "started out with an ideology, and found data to support it, and when it is pointed out that the more relevant statistics point in the opposite direction*, <they> just ignore and continue believing what <they> were always going to believe, regardless of what the data shows"?
* - Or in no direction at all.

Mmmm ... no.

[DanTex]

206. Russia and the Caribbean nations are not wealthy nations.

The comparison is absurd, and I doubt that you would resort to such arguments if the topic were not guns. For example, in health care, the US system provides equal or worse care to its citizens than other wealthy nations, which generally provide universal healthcare, while our health care costs are much higher. We also trail in many key health-related statistics.

Of course, your examples: Russia, Jamaica, and Trinidad also provide universal healthcare, but if you look at their healthcare statistics (e.g. infant mortality, life expectancy) or any other measure of the quality of their healthcare delivery, I'm sure you will find that they lag far behind the US. And I'm sure you understand that this comparison is far less informative than the comparison among wealthy nations. This is why social scientists tend to avoid drawing international comparisons between developed and less developed nations.

As I'm sure you're also aware, the non-gun homicide rate of the US, while higher than average, is not anywhere near as far out of line with other wealthy nations as is the gun homicide rate, or the overall homicide rate. Moreover, the international comparisons are not the only place where the guns/homicide link can be found. There are also, for example, controlled statistical studies of US states and counties, including the Cook-Ludwig study I linked to above in this thread.

Regarding this idea that proponents of the instrumentality hypothesis are ideologues, understand that there are many such people in academic circles. It's origin is generally accredited to Zimring and Hawkins, highly respected criminologists who, sadly, very few gun advocates are familiar with because their name isn't "Kleck". So instead we get the standard accusations of ideological bias. In contrast, the use of gun sales (which have risen) in place of gun ownership (which has declined) for the purpose of making a cheap and misleading argument cannot have any explanation other than ideological bias or ignorance, because it is universally understood in research circles (even by pro-gun heroes like Kleck) that gun ownership is a more appropriate statistic for the purposes of studying the effect of gun prevalence on gun crimes.


Re: suicide. It's sort of off-topic, since this OP was about gun murders, but, yes, there is plenty of evidence linking gun availability to suicide, particularly among youths. This is why, for example, the American Association of Suicidology has stated that "Research has shown that the access to and the availability of firearms is a significant factor in observed increases in rates of youth suicide." Must be that "anti-suicide" ideological bias...

[Euromutt]

217. Why does that make a difference?

The problem with asserting that the comparison is invalid is that, in doing so, you have to acknowledge that there are other factors that influence levels of violent crime, like the stuff that gets measured in the Human Development Index and the Gini index of income inequality. Speaking of the latter, here's an interesting illustration showing how the United States compares to other countries:

Notice how Europe is all green, while the US is purple? You don't think that might have something to do with it?

Look, the "instrumentality" hypothesis states that, absent firearms, a number of violent crimes and suicide attempts that turned out fatal would not have. Okay, that's not a particularly controversial assertion to make. But the appended implication is that tighter gun control laws will reduce the number of firearms available, and thus the amount of violence, and therein lies the leap. It's frequently been noted that the jurisdictions in the United States with the most stringent gun control laws also have the areas with some of the highest crime; Newark and Camden, NJ, Baltimore, MD and Oakland and Compton, CA come to mind as the most obvious examples. I don't think that these are high crime areas because the local gun control laws are stringent, but rather, that the local control gun laws are stringent as a reaction to violent crime, but one that is largely ineffective because the availability of firearms is, at most, a proximate cause of crime, and not an ultimate one.

This is why, for example, the American Association of Suicidology has stated that "Research has shown that the access to and the availability of firearms is a significant factor in observed increases in rates of youth suicide."

"Suicidology"? Blech, what a horrible term (though admittedly no more so than "criminology," "television" or "automobile"). But I digress.
Thing is, "risk factor" is one of those weasel words that means there's a demonstrable correlation, but no demonstrated causal relationship. At least, not a direct one. As an alternative explanation, consider that gun owners, by and large, tend to lean conservative on social issues, and that a youth who lives in a household that contains firearms is therefore also more likely to have a socially conservative--and thus likely comparatively authoritarian--parent or guardian. That may cause child-parent conflicts to become more entrenched (imagine if the kid finds out he's gay) and that might well be a causal factor in the kid deciding to do himself in with dad's gun.

[DWC]

103. 50,000 stolen guns per year is way low

US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns and Crime show the actual number at over 500,000 and that only represents guns with serial numbers that are reported stolen to the federal data base.

Unless the gun can be traced to its owner, gun theft is often not reported if it can not be claimed as a loss for insurance purposes.

I personally feel that 500,000 is actually way low and 1,000,000+ more accurately estimates the number of firearms stolen in the USA annually.

Semper Fi,

[iverglas]

23. I take door two

Either that or people are deliberately using the "gun sales are up" argument despite being fully aware that the more important gun ownership statistic leads to the opposite conclusion.

Because the fact of declining household ownership -- and the irrelevance of an increasing "number of guns" when the number of gun owners is not increasing -- has been demonstrated repeatedly in this very forum, just for starters.

The old argument that the illegal drug trade proves that it's impossible to control illegal distribution of anything. Because ...

... gun owners are addicted to their guns. It's the only conclusion I've ever been able to draw from this particular meme!

[SteveM]

118. Many errors here.

"First off, the rate of gun ownership (i.e. fraction of households/individuals who own guns), not the number of guns sold, is generally considered the most important statistic by scholars on both sides of this debate."

You have miss-read the purpose of the OP. The OP was about the political wisdom of continuing to harp on gun-control, and in that political debate, the controller/banner has made a virtual bumper-strip slogan out of "More guns = More crime." The number of guns has gone up (I'm sure you would agree), thus making a mockery out of the political stance of the controller/banner (live by that sword, die by that sword).

Your study, a project funded by the stridently pro-gun control Joyce Foundation, should be held in as much suspicion as John Lott's study -- taking, of course, "reasonable assumptions."

"that these stolen guns <50,000> would "easily supply" criminals at the same rate of gun violence, you really need a lesson in basic economic thinking."

Your speculation doesn't even entertain the notion of smuggling routes, funded by multi-billion dollar international criminal enterprises, might have something to do with your "economic thinking." Over and over we hear from the controller/prohibitionist how guns get from one state (with presumably lax gun laws) to another state (with presumably effective control/prohibition laws). You should take a look at "your" own propaganda!

"I mean, if we can't stop the illegal drug trade, what makes us think we can stop the illegal biological weapons trade?"

:rofl:

Sharks in the desert. Smuggling to defeat prohibition is successful when the places of production are widespread, and the demand for use is widespread. Who wants bio weapons? Few. Where are they made? Small number of countries. If someone wanted a SAM, they would be more successful jacking one from a domestic armory! That is why THIS kind of regulation works. Drugs and guns, on the other hand, are not sharks in the desert; many people want them, many people produce them, prohibition defeated.

[DanTex]

124. ...

You have miss-read the purpose of the OP. The OP was about the political wisdom of continuing to harp on gun-control, and in that political debate, the controller/banner has made a virtual bumper-strip slogan out of "More guns = More crime."...
Actually, the "more guns, ____ crime" motif is most associated with John Lott book titled "More Guns, Less Crime". After that, there was an academic paper entitled "More Guns, More Crime". Neither of those were explicitly about the number of firearms. Because reasonable people on either side, are able to understand that "more guns, _____ crime" is not meant to be taken literally. To look at actual total number of guns, when everyone knows the more important statistic is gun ownership, is a dishonest straw argument.

Your study, a project funded by the stridently pro-gun control Joyce Foundation, should be held in as much suspicion as John Lott's study -- taking, of course, "reasonable assumptions."
There have been several studies linking gun ownership and homicide rates in peer reviewed journals, buy different authors. It's common for pro-gun types like yourself to attack the integrity of people like Jens Ludwig and Phil Cook because you don't like the implications research. In professional research circles, however, they are acknowledged to be leading experts in the field. John Lott, on the other hand, both his research and some of his other actions are pretty questionable (for examples see http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott.php).

Your speculation doesn't even entertain the notion of smuggling routes, funded by multi-billion dollar international criminal enterprises, might have something to do with your "economic thinking." Over and over we hear from the controller/prohibitionist how guns get from one state (with presumably lax gun laws) to another state (with presumably effective control/prohibition laws). You should take a look at "your" own propaganda!
I'm not the one asserting that "smuggling routes funded by multi-billion dollar international criminal enterprises" would suddenly pop up to make up for any other shortfall in supply. There's no evidence of this, and certainly no evidence that it would make up for 100% of the loss in supply. The most likely thing is that, like most other markets, if you reduce supply, you get less quantity. Basic economics.

And, as I've pointed out several times, not just one, but every other wealthy nation has indeed managed to reduce the supply of guns to criminals to a tiny fraction of what we have in the US. Yes, there are international gun smuggling rings, but they don't come even close to supplying the amount of low-cost criminal guns that we get in the US, with minimal gun control and not even a registration system. This is the reason that you don't find many people who are well-versed on this subject simply insist that the demand for criminal guns is so inelastic that reducing supply will not reduce the quantity at all. Only ideologues.

Drugs and guns, on the other hand, are not sharks in the desert; many people want them, many people produce them, prohibition defeated.
LOL. "not sharks in the desert" -- there's a great argument! Obviously, all things that are not sharks in the desert are identical when it comes to black markets! Funny how gun control works quite well in every industrialized nation other than the US.

And there are obvious reasons. For example, the demand for drugs is high among otherwise law-abiding citizens. But the demand for illegal guns among law abiding citizens is very low. Also, guns are durable, and not addictive, so you don't get the same kind of repeat business. Drugs are easier to manufacture, and easier to traffic. A kilo of coke is worth, what, $20K. A kilo of guns might be worth $500. And so on. Both from supply, demand, and distribution, the market for illegal guns is totally different than for illegal drugs, and the "guns/drugs" analogy demonstrates nothing other than that the person making it hasn't thought about things very carefully.

[SteveM]

127. Sorry, you continue to be in error...

I believe Lott got his book title from the gun-controllers; you know, the one still used by some Democratic Party "leaders." Very poor argument, there.

Your cite critical of Lott does only that.

"The most likely thing is that, like most other markets, if you reduce supply, you get less quantity. Basic economics."

I guess that's why the "quality" of heroin and cocaine has gone up as the supply has gone up, even in a saturated market. So much for "basic economics."

"but every other wealthy nation has indeed managed to reduce the supply of guns to criminals to a tiny fraction of what we have in the US."

And what "other wealthy nation" has had a culture which has depended on and manufactured guns for a large civilian market, for better or ill? To take another nation's gun control measures and measure them against ours is a shallow use of economics and history. (Please. Don't use ideologue as if you haven't dipped into that yourself.)

"LOL. 'not sharks in the desert' -- there's a great argument! Obviously, all things that are not sharks in the desert are identical when it comes to black markets! Funny how gun control works quite well in every industrialized nation other than the US.

And there are obvious reasons. For example, the demand for drugs is high among otherwise law-abiding citizens. But the demand for illegal guns among law abiding citizens is very low. Also, guns are durable, and not addictive, so you don't get the same kind of repeat business. Drugs are easier to manufacture, and easier to traffic. A kilo of coke is worth, what, $20K. A kilo of guns might be worth $500. And so on. Both from supply, demand, and distribution, the market for illegal guns is totally different than for illegal drugs, and the "guns/drugs" analogy demonstrates nothing other than that the person making it hasn't thought about things very carefully."

As for repeat business, someone is buying these guns (durable or no)! You should keep up. Guns are manufactured in huge factories (like Remington), and in smaller factories around the world, and backyard shops (in many parts of the less industrialized world); it ain't no secret anymore, DanTex. I note that a kilo of marijuana is worth far less than a kilo of heroin (despite the latter's plunging price). They both get into this country by truck loads (and boat loads, which should give you an historical hint.)

The trouble with your economics approach is that they don't account for a nation's culture and history, resulting in a mechanistic approach to social problems and policy. Merely grafting such onto what is essentially bankrupt prohibitionist policy only provides a "ring" of detached science and logic. Maybe you should think "about things very carefully."

edit. clarity

[geckosfeet]

28. One big problem is the different laws from state to state. Some states have

relatively strict gun laws. NY state and NYC for example. Gun murders in NYC? 481 murders. Gun crime statistics by US state

Vermont has fairly lax gun laws. Gun murders in Vermont? 0 murders.

Do these statistics make any sense their own? No. Not to me anyway. Trying to correlate gun laws with gun crime does not work.

[Fresh_Start]

32. 225 million guns and still

they've been able to steal our country, our jobs, our security, and our future.
Talk about being distracted by shiny things.

[Hoyt]

40. Seems to me if there were less crime, gunners would slow down buying more guns. But,

they just keep adding to their caches and encouraging more people to strap one or two to their bodies in public.

We needed tougher controls to stop the disease before it gets worse and future generations have to deal with another 100 million guns laying around and on the streets.

[rl6214]

48. right, right, right

the backlash is coming right?

[Abin Sur]

49. It won't take another generation

At the current rate of gun sales, there will be another 100 million new guns in the United States in only 7 or 8 years. As Marvin the Martian would say, "Isn't that just lovely, mmm?" :)

BTW, could you direct me to some of the millions of guns that are just "laying around and on the streets"? My collection's big, but as the saying goes....I have more guns than I need but not as many as I want!

[Hoyt]

41. Bill Maher -- ban manufacturing of guns, so if you want another you literally have to pry it out of

another guy's cold, dead hands. (Or, something to that effect.)

[GreenStormCloud]

50. You have aleady lost that battle. The 2A stops your side. N/T

[Hoyt]

52. Yea, if you are in a militia or think guns can't be regulated within 2A.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. Right now the tide is certainly running against the antis

And probably will domestically for some time. On the other hand I expect the international efforts to continue to tighten them up.

[Hoyt]

65. Yep, less than 4% of population carry in public, other 96+% doesn't feel need.

I think with proper promotion, we could enact some good firearm legislation that slows this craziness down.

Too many people arming up -- does not bode well for country.

[GreenStormCloud]

69. Not a single state that has enacted shall-issue CC...

...has had any movement to repeal the law. Most continue to further relax their gun laws. The enact Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, Civil Immunity, Open Carry, State Pre-emption, Guns in Parking Lots, and other pro-RKBA laws.

What does your side have to show for its efforts?

[Hoyt]

71. Eventually, people catch onto bad things and want changes. More people toting ain't good.

[Abin Sur]

74. Translation: Nothin'

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. The problem is that many clearly do not feel that way in many states

The public is also supporting Castle Defense, Stand Your Ground, etc.

Unless there is some sort of serious conflagration, I do not expect to see things tighten in the foreseeable future. For example a member of Congress was shot and quite literally *nothing* in terms of additional restriction resulted.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. The stats are misleading

You are citing % of adults with CCWs. That is inherently not valid since:
- It does not consider % of eligible adults as the pool.
- It also does not include LEOs and retired LEOs who carry.
- Not everyone with a CCW carries all the time.
- Not every state requires CCWs for civilian carry
Fact is we do not know how many are carrying legally, let alone illegally.


The real issue is the legal environment, which is what I was referring to earlier. The public is generally supportive of more liberal gun laws along with Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, and other related rules. That trend is pretty much undeniable and I do not think it could be readily reversed "with proper promotion". With the exception of a few zealots most Democratic party candidates treat personal firearms as yet another 3rd rail issue. The repressive hold outs may be hard to turn without court action at this point.

Arming up without training is arguably a bad thing, but it is hard to require training to exercise constitutional rights.

[Hoyt]

78. In any event, a super-majority don't need a friggin gun to walk down the street.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. But a majority seems to support allowing people to choose to do that

mostly concealed.

[rl6214]

172. Which is it, less than 4% or "too many people arming up"

You can't have it both ways. You keep saying the majority of the people (96%) don't feel the need.

Then the 4% shouldn't bother you.

[gejohnston]

168. coming from a guy that can't stop talking about hugging his bong

which means he gives money to the drug gangs, contributing more to gun and gang violence than all of us combined? Like his evangelical atheism, he is full of shit.
He is a funny comedian, he should stick to what he knows.
I really don't give a rat's ass what Maher thinks about anything.

[Euromutt]

190. And buys into germ theory denialism in a big way...

See this post on Science-Based Medicine to get a whiff of the bullshit Bill Maher buys into; the germ theory denialism, unsurprisingly, also underpins an opposition to vaccination (which is at least consistent, but no less wrong).

I wouldn't trust someone who's that impaired in his critical thinking ability to give me the time of day, let alone give advice on any kind of public policy.

[demosincebirth]

47. To me, it's a matter of Common Sense. If anyone want to shoot big guns, join

the military. Simple as that.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. You have aleady lost that battle. You can stop beating that dead horse. N/T

[demosincebirth]

60. I meant it. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

67. And that horse is still dead. N/T

[Abin Sur]

53. So if I want to shoot a .75 flintlock

I should have to join the army? :wtf:

[demosincebirth]

59. You know what I meant.

[Abin Sur]

70. Actually, I'm not sure.

What do you mean by "big" guns? I would point out that a 5.56mm AR-15 shoots a .22 caliber bullet that is commonly used for hunting 5 lb. prairie dogs. Bullets don't *get* much smaller than that.

Given that, what's your definition?

[Hoyt]

66. Problem is -- you've made it clear you like to shoot much more deadly weapons.

[Abin Sur]

73. I assure you a .75 flintlock can be quite deadly

But I freely admit that I like to shoot modern weapons as well.

Why is that a "problem"?

[Hoyt]

80. Yes, it can be deadly. But I wouldn't be here if you toters were content with flintlocks (like

envisioned in the Constitution. Problem is, they want every friggin new marketing gimmick designed and marketed to kill people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

85. Marketing of new gadgets is not the issue

Scary looking black barrel shrouds with nylon stocks are not what makes a weapon effective. Marksmanship does, and that takes time. While things have come a long way since the 1903 Springfield, the discipline required to shoot effective remains about the same.

Picatinny rails and red dot sights do not seem to impact the crime rate, which has been falling even though the sales of firearms and accessories are rising.

[Hoyt]

88. It is funny how crime rates are falling, but the same people just keep scarfing up guns.

. . . . . . And figuring out new ways to strap em to their bodies to go to town. You'd think with crime rates falling, the rational gunner would say, chit I've got something to handle every situation imaginable, including a space alien invasion and more. Maybe it's time to spend some on things that don't kill people.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. Actually several things are going on...

The number of gun owners are growing. That creates some the demand you refer to. The other is existing owners who are buying new weapons or accessories. Not sure if there are markets stats on the split between those or the consumables (ammo mostly) Rarely if ever do you see your average owner selling weapons, even in states which allow private party transactions. A specialized group is enthusiasts, who do indeed buy and sell, often wanting to try out the latest stuff. No different that computers or other specialized hobbies. IME, an active shooter will spend more on the latter two than on the weapon itself.

For example I have a rifle in ,338 Lapua. Its $6 a shot and the scope on it cost a almost as much as the rifle itself. The cost of the weapon is

I have previously posted why I carry. If circumstances changed, I could see my habits in that area changing. Its all about tools for self defense.

[Hoyt]

93. Target shooting is OK. But arming up in case you feel you need to kill someone, is different.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

96. What is the difference between self defense and arming up in case you feel you need to kill someone?

Where do the they diverge or do they in your mind?

[oneshooter]

157. What type of target shooting? HighPower, Cowboy action, BPCR silhouette

trap? Any of the above?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Marengo]

154. And what was the firelock in the era in which...

the Constitution was written?

[oneshooter]

222. The British used a 75 caliber smoothbore Flintlock musket called the "Brown Bess.

American/Colonests used the same weapon, localy built, as the Redcoats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Bess

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

221. You would not be here if you posters were content, and limited, to the quill and paper

like envisioned by the writers of the Constitution. Problem is, you want every frigging new marketing gimmick designed and marketed to interact with people.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. Where would you draw the line?

Magazine Capacity?
Caliber?
Muzzle Energy?
Semi-Auto?

[Hoyt]

84. How far do gunners want to take it. I think we've passed the line, but you guys will never stop.

If gunners weren't continually pushing the envelope, the line could be relatively flexible.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. How about some parametrics. Which firearms technology should the public not be allowed to own?

Not asking you for a detail list since your knowledge of the technology is limited and that should not be focus. Generally what would you restrict?

[Hoyt]

94. If gunners would quit considering killing technology desirable - we wouldn't be having discussion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

97. It is barely different if at all from hunting technology in many areas

Every get the "Sportmans Guide" catalog? They sell hunting and outdoor wear, gun accessories, some surplus, ammo etc. Lots of offshore junk as well. The vast majority of it is dual use or better.

Most gun buffs are not into it to kill people or animals.

As I said, I am teaching a class this weekend, and the usual discussions are being held, including the appropriateness of lethal self defense (legal section comes tomorrow). I don't see any student looking to enhance their killing technology. This time all of them have been or know someone who have been the victim of violence, none of the simply curious. Defensive firearms will give them options they do not currently have. You could call that killing technology, but I won't.

[oneshooter]

156. Now don't go pushing him. He is trying as hard as he can, bless his heart. n/t

[Tejas]

134. You mean, like the Police want (and get) MACHINE GUNS and TANKS?

um, okay.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. What do you mean by "big guns"

75mm? 50 caliber? 20mm? 30 Caliber?

[Hoyt]

86. How big a gun do you need to be happy? Do you need one that will destroy somebody, or what?

I mean we are talking about self-defense, aren't we? Sometimes I wonder.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. The person who used the term made no attempt to define it,. I am genuinely curious

as to what he considered big guns. One of the reasons I have been asking is that this weekend's class got kind of locked in on that today. The issues were:
- How much gun is enough?
- How much gun is too much for practical defense?
- How much gun should be illegal for civilians?

Be interesting to see how positions change on that overnight.

[Hoyt]

95. I though you used the term here. Anyway, I hope someone comes in and says, most of em are too big

(ie, deadly) for today's society. And I hope you respond withOUT the usual gunner BS.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. The discussion has gone along the usual lines...

The first two questions are primarily personal preference with some physics mixed in. Its a trade between ballistics, size, weight, follow up shots, penetration etc. Concealability is not an issue since this is a SoCal group and CCWs are unobtainable on a practical level. The last question (what should be disallowed) is always the hard one. I'll report what they come up with.

[ileus]

107. That's why OC should be legal everywhere in America.

[GreenStormCloud]

159. I would like to get a Hi-Point .45 carbine w/ extended magazine,

a Ruger Blackhawk .45LC/ACP converible, and a SIG P220 (.45 caliber) and a SIAGA .410 bore with 20rd magazine. A Ruger 10/22 would be nice to have too, and also a Ruger 10/22M.

I don't say that I need them. I just want them.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

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

[DWC]

105. AMEN ! 'nuff said. n/t

[ileus]

106. I have about 1700 invested in my gun control.

I suppose a 4 or 500 more if you consider my holsters and cases for my firearms.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

167. Gun control is a monumental waste of time and resources!

fuckingA

[iverglas]

177. well there you have it

But if you will forgive me, I have to correct this:

fuckingA

which is a totally meaningless perversion of the expression you think you are using:

FUCKIN EH?

If you're going to speak Canadian, try to lose the accent.

[GreenStormCloud]

181. "FuckinA" is an American slang term that is used for emphatic agreement.

A translation would be "damn right". It has nothing to do with Canadianisms.

[iverglas]

182. sadly, no

"FuckinA" simply doesn't mean anything.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuckin%27eh

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fuckin%20eh

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fuckin%20%27eh

Lots more here:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&biw=1024&bih=641&q=%22fuckin+eh%22&btnG=Search

http://fuckineh.com/

Just one person's opinion:

http://www.tysto.com/articles04/q1/20040320fuck.shtml

The question came up recently among the staff of Tysto as to the origin and spelling of the mysterious phrase "fucking eh" or "fucking A."

"Fuckin' eh" decidedly derives from "eh" and "hey" as an exclamation, dating back at least to the 1940s and particularly popular in Canada, where they say "eh" a lot anyway.

... So even the Slang Dictionary thinks it is a case of clipping, but without any evidence of it. The problem with all these theories is that the earliest examples generally spell it "ay" (or something like it) and there are no examples I've ever seen of the long versions: "you bet your fucking A" or "fuck an ass" or "fucking affirmative" or anything else. Since you can't shorten something that was never long, the "ay" must always have been its own word.

The spelling is now quite commonly "fucking eh," modeled after more common uses of "eh" alone, but "fucking ay" is certainly also acceptable. I view "fucking A" as mistaken and misleading.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHSoNnoMUVg
-- that's Canadian heavy metal

When Wayne Gretzky leapt to his feet at the end of the final game when Team Canada beat you guys at the 2002 Olympics, trust me, his lips were not saying "FuckinA".

Please, do not try to "translate" Canadian to a Canadian.

[GreenStormCloud]

192. I've heard it used for over 40 years. It is American. N/T

[spin]

205. Strange, I found a definition ...

1. fucking a

1) short for fucking awesome, thus used to express excitement or agreement
2) short for fucking a, thus used to express dissapointment or disagreement
1) You got Pixies tickets? Fucking A!
2) Fucking a I have a test tomarrow!

2. fucking a 1207 up, 156 down

1. To agree with something. Comes from the Military Saying "Affirmative," which was said by soldiers in the Heat of battle as "Fucking Affirmative" which was later shortened to "Fucking A"
2. However over the years the meaning of this phrase has been changed and is now used to express something as good.
3. Also can be used to describe something bad.
4. Pretty much can be used for anything depending on the user
1. Bob: Hey man did you see the Red Sox Game last night?
Antwon: Ya, Fucking A man!!!!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fucking%20a

I believe I first heard the term back when I was in the military. However, I was in the Air Force and I personally was never "in the heat of battle." I have known a lot of guys who were in combat in Vietnam over the years.

[petronius]

203. Are you really that desperately eager to be disagreeable?

:rofl:

Hella lame, dude - kook move for sure... :eyes:

[Starboard Tack]

207. What about the tens of billions spent in medical costs annually on gun injuries?

Do you think that is money well spent in a country that has a totally broken healthcare system?
If handguns were totally banned, nobody would be using them. You think more guns means less violence. There are no facts to support that. Crime stats are down for many reasons. 9,000 gun homicides a year are nothing to brag about. Shame on all who would support the proliferation of guns and those who tote them.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

219. Don't really give a shit.

The fault of that lies at the feet of criminals, not the law abiding. Neither I, nor any other law abiding citizen is responsible.

[hack89]

220. What about the tens of billions spent in medical costs annually on car crash injuries

due to drunk drivers? Shall we ban alcohol?