Replies to post #3957 on The Free Zone Board

[QuasimodoJones]

MEME,RE: Spall/Gun Control.

Pardon, me? I haven't been trying to ban cheap guns. I merely think registration is a good idea.

But it isn't. Training and licensing are, because they have a demonstrable public-safety rationale. People who are trained and tested prior to being certified and licensed can reasonably be expected to use their firearms in a rational and legal manner. Registration doesn't. It has a purported "crime-fighting" rationale, but it's a false one, because most legal guns are legally purchased by law-abiding citizens, but 75% of gun homicides are by criminals, and even those murders that are committed by "law-abiding citizens" are committed after long histories of domestic violence:

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

Criminals will obtain their guns on the black/grey markets, in private purchases which are not regulated by law anyway. Aside from the significant Constitutional issue, if registration became a national law, all that would happen would be that organized crime of one sort or another (Russian/Sicilian Mafia, biker gangs, street gangs,etc.) would set up black market machine shops to manufacture guns, the way meth labs are set up now. Then "They" would have to go after every metal-turning lathe in America.

Further, car ownership is very expensive, and yet I see many poor people driving. How much does a gun permit cost?

C'mon,Meme, I expect arguments a bit less specious than that from you. Whether car ownership is "expensive" or not depends both on what you drive and how much you can afford not having personal transportation in a society like ours. You can learn to drive for next to nothing, if you have someone willing to teach you and a vehicle to use. You take a written and practical test, pay a small fee, and you're on your way. By comparison, at least in Kentucky, you must take instruction from a certified instructor, pass a written test, and then qualify on a range by hitting targets literally closer than a stone's-throw. THEN there's a little matter of the actual licensing fee. All told, I think I spent around $150-160 to get my permit. What's that in take-home pay for a poor person? Buying a cheap pistol costs a lot less.

As for training programs, do you honestly think we should have a citizenry armed with guns that don't even know how to use them?

I don't know about Spall, but I certainly don't. However, I think that, given that it is what I consider to be a human and a Constitutional right, I think it is incumbent on the government to see that the necessary training can be provided at the most minimal (even nominal) possible cost to anyone desiring it. Optimally, it should be taught in public schools, like Driver's Ed and Sex Ed.

Oh yeah, universities like John Hopkins are notorious for creating bogus studies, but a man out to sell a book isn't.

Don't confuse the U.S. Navy with Captain Queeg, know what I mean? Just because Johns Hopkins (that is "Johns" Hopkins, btw) is a prestigious institution doesn't mean its facilities can't be abused by those with an axe to grind. John Lott's study/book has stood up time and again to reviews that were biased as they were negative, and even in one case (although unfortunately I haven't been able to find it again on the GunCite page, I know it's under there somewhere) one of the reviewers honestly admitted that, although he was philosophically in complete disagreement with Lott's conclusions, the methods he used to reach them were largely impeccable.

... rip it apart with such quotes as Lotts saying, "Criminals are deterred by higher penalties." Now that's a friggin' laugh. Those higher penalities have sure deterred all them drug dealers, haven't they?

Alright now, goddamit! SHAME ON YOU, MEME! If anyone else took a remark like that and posted it out of context, you'd be on 'em like stink on shit! Here's Lott's full quote:

Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself.

Getting your ass blown away is a helluva higher a penalty than the sort of jail time drug dealers commonly face, and you know it.

You're not interested in the discussion. You're stuck in your mindset, and you believe me to be some sort of cartoon-character of a leftist.

Can't argue with this. It always makes me chuckle when Spall calls you a "lefist" when, AFAIK, you're the only person on this (stock) board besides Indy whoever really posts anything about the fruits of capitalism.

You might be interested to know that my son owns a relatively high power bee-bee gun. I've also let him go out with one of our gun-collector friends to a shooting range for target practice with a real gun.

That's interesting to me, anyway. At least someone in your family should become proficient with firearms.

I'm not interested in confiscating guns, or striping us of our rights.

I can't speak (thank you, God!) for Spal, but it's not you I'm worried about.

Curiously, my son, almost 14 now, espouses Libertarian doctrine. I chalk it up to adolescence. <VBG>

Are you sure he's your son? They might have made a mistake in the maternity ward, y'know.;=}

Maybe you should introduce him to some of Spal's recent postings. I'm sure that would impress him no end.

BTW, in a response to someone recently, you pooh-poohed the idea that citizens armed with personal firearms could mount a significant resistance to a modern army. Here's a link, and a snippet from it:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndobs.html

Enthusiasm for armed citizens was not, even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, based on the notion that such citizens could defeat professional armies on their own. The serious argument was always that armed citizens could raise the cost of tyrannical abuse--enough, at least, to give second thought to would-be tyrants.

Clearly, armed citizens continue to give pause to far better armed governments even in the age of nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles. The most advanced and powerful arsenal in the worlds was insufficient to provide the United States government with confidence to keep its troops in the field against armed civilians in Somalia...

Is is unthinkable that these facts might have relevance to American circumstances? One hopes so. But as the deadly assault on the Branch Dividian compound in Waco, Texas illustrates, even American governments can be tragically reckless in resorting to force when the costs are not carefully calculated. Earlier generations would have taken it for granted that giving government officials more reason to take caution is not a bad thing. It is hard to prove that this reasoning has become entirely anachronistic.

[Spallenzani]

RE: Spall-Meme/Mikkj/Gun Control.

Pardon, me? I haven't been trying to ban cheap guns. I merely think registration is a good idea.

Let me try to spell this out so that your leftist mind can understand: REGISTRATION COSTS MONEY. The more expensive you make purchasing a gun, the less chance a poor person will buy one. The less guns owned by law-abiding citizens, the more crime. Registration = more crime. Got it?

Further, car ownership is very expensive, and yet I see many poor people driving.

And I see many poor people taking public transportation. I wonder which form of transportation occurs at higher rates among low-income populations. Anyone wish to venture a guess?

As for training programs, do you honestly think we should have a citizenry armed with guns that don't even know how to use them?

Yes. We don't force people to take a public speaking course before they exercise their First Amendment rights. Nor should we force people to take a gun training course before they exercise their right to self-defense.

Shit, that's the other excuse I've heard from conservatives as to why there are so many gun-related deaths...people, especially children, weren't properly trained in how to use and respect them.

I have never made that statement. But by all means, if you think it is important that gun owners receive training, then take your own money, and donate it to such a cause.

Oh yeah, universities like John Hopkins are notorious for creating bogus studies, but a man out to sell a book isn't.

I previously posted how the Hopkins study used a source that was specifically cited by Congress as unfit for extrapolation. The study was funded by the CDC, a notoriously anti-gun organization.

John Lott is not a man out to sell a book. He is a college professor who did a research study. College professors often publish their research. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Just looking at the interview, I could easily begin to rip it apart with such quotes as Lotts saying, "Criminals are deterred by higher penalties." Now that's a friggin' laugh. Those higher penalities have sure deterred all them drug dealers, haven't they?

You conveniently ignored the following statement. Lott continues on to say, "Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself."

Are you disputing this statistic? Or are you basing your argument on what you feel is correct, instead of basing it on facts?

Why don't you actually read the study before you make judgements on it? Maybe because you don't want to believe that you are wrong?

Curiously, my son, almost 14 now, espouses Libertarian doctrine.

I hope he gets as far away from you as soon as possible.