Replies to post #3969 on The Free Zone Board

[QuasimodoJones]

Meme - WEAC/gun control

There is a world of difference in saying that the sole intent of gun ownership is to shoot something or someone, or saying that their sole purpose is to kill.

Okay, let's agree to this, in the light of what I posted a few minutes ago: The sole intent of gun ownership to be able to shoot something or someone if you want. OK?

And what has that got to do with the argument? If you had had a gun, and the knowledge of it's use, he wouldn't have gotten very far.

I don't know what you're responding to here, WEAC, the sentence preceding yours was Dennis' quote, not mine.

You're quite right, and I apologize for not mentioning it in my earlier post, because I meant to, the reason being -- WEAC mispresumes I did NOT have a gun at the time of the attempted home invasion. I DID possess a gun, I just didn't have it in my hand when I went to the door, because I didn't know who was there and wasn't expecting someone who just wanted to kill me. Anyway, as it turned out, sometime later I took that gun out to the country and pulled the trigger -- and it misfired. I'm not sure whether that's an argument for buying better guns, taking better care of them (I had a very bad habit of dry firing mine, which anyone who knows guns knows is bad for the firing pin position), or using fresher ammunition. Anyway, it wasn't long after that that I took the old gun to a gunshop and traded it for the Beretta.

I haven't missed your point, WEAC, but it seems everyone here has missed mine. I'M NOT FOR BANNING GUNS!!!

No, of course not. But you have come out foresquare for registering them, which in the opinions of some of us is the first step in making it possible to confiscate and ban them from private ownership.

Further, everyone seems to love to talk about how criminals all get their guns illegally. However, if you look at the actual statistics (U.S. Dept. of Justice) you'll find that in crimes involving a gun, only 37% of those guns were obtained illegally (stolen or blackmarket). That clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of crimes are commited with completely legal guns.

However, registering guns would not change this. Criminals are not going to register their guns -- the USSC has ruled they don't have to, they can't be prosecuted for not doing it:

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

Scroll about halfway down the page.

Moreover, since the adoption of the Brady Bill both crime and gun-related crime has dropped significantly.

An implied syllogism, but a false one:

Between 1991 and 1998, without implementing significant gun control legislation..., California's homicide rate dropped 48.9% versus 31.9% for the rest of the U.S. ... Even choosing a different year to start the comparison, such as ... 1994 (when Brady became effective, February 28, 1994), homicide and violent crime declined faster in California than nationally (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1991-1998). Evidence indicates the Brady Act is not a significant factor in violent crime reduction, or as the case of California suggests, neither were any gun of the control measures that were enacted during the 90's.

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

Now, give Mooshu some kibble for me. I'll bet he (she?) is the embodiment of ferocity!

Dennis

[was Graywolf]

Meme - gun control

It is not a minor difference, otherwise you wouldn't have attempted to rewrite my words. There is a world of difference in saying that the sole intent of gun ownership is to shoot something or someone, or saying that their sole purpose is to kill. The first sentence, my sentence, is inclusive of both sport and defense. However, I also won't pretend it doesn't include murder, nor should you. Therefore I see nothing incongrous about the latter half of my second, qualifying statement.

Again, after saying that you never said that guns purpose is to kill, you say it. If I read too much into the first sentence, I apologize, but the second one was pretty clear.

Your sentence which you attributed to me "their sole purpose is to kill" implies that I believe guns are used only for murder, thereby making me look like a rather shallow thinker.

Now who is putting words on whose mouth? Last time I checked, there were a lot of killings that didn't qualify as murder.

I don't know what you're responding to here, WEAC, the sentence preceding yours was Dennis' quote, not mine.

Sorry, I didn't make the distinction in your post. I knew it wasn't me, and I must have missed the reference to him.

I haven't missed your point, WEAC, but it seems everyone here has missed mine. I'M NOT FOR BANNING GUNS!!!

But you ARE for registration which serves no purpose other than to simplify confiscation if that is passed next. Like I said, there is nothing that registration and lisencing can accomplish that cannot be as effectively accomplished by background checks alone.

Further, everyone seems to love to talk about how criminals all get their guns illegally. However, if you look at the actual statistics (U.S. Dept. of Justice) you'll find that in crimes involving a gun, only 37% of those guns were obtained illegally (stolen or blackmarket). That clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of crimes are commited with completely legal guns.

That is just the opposite of everything I've ever read. I don't suppose you have a link to the federal statistics?

Moreover, since the adoption of the Brady Bill both crime and gun-related crime has dropped significantly.

This is another claim that is exactly the opposite of everything I've ever read. Both seem to fly in the face of the fact that the highest violent crime rates exist in Washington DC and Detroit, which have the tightest restrictions on civilian gun ownership in the nation.

Thanks...at last. That's all I was looking for on the dog issue. I just didn't appreciate being characterized as a dependent who takes my family's defense lightly simply because I don't own a gun.

What "at last"? That was my first post after you said it. Also, I didn't characterize you that way. As I said before, gun ownership is not for everyone. I own guns, and keep a Ruger P90 .45 in my bedroom for home defense. My wife, however, would not use it were I not home, because she is not comfortable with it, and is concerned that if she revealed it to an intruder by trying to use it, the intruder would end up with it. She prefers to depend on the dogs, mace, and a hasty exit while the dogs keep the intruder busy. BTW, sadly, (because I love dogs) dogs are easier for an intruder to neutralize than an armed citizen. Although a dog is a good security measure, it is not as effective as a firearm and knowledge of its use. My point is that the POSSIBILITY of a gun in a residence is what keeps many preditors at bay, as they prefer easy victims and safety for themselves in most cases. There are exceptions, preditors who get off on the risk, but they are rare.

[Spallenzani]

Re: Meme - gun control

Moreover, since the adoption of the Brady Bill both crime and gun-related crime has dropped significantly.

There is no evidence of any correlation. In fact, according to John Lott's research, the Brady Bill resulted in more crime in certain areas such as rape because of the 15 day waiting period. Even the JAMA supports Lott's research.

In the Second Edition of his More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press 2000), Lott updates his earlier studies of a wide array of gun laws, including the Brady background check law. Lott finds,

"Only the right-to-carry laws are associated with significant reductions in crime rates. Among the violent-crime categories, the Brady law is only significantly related to rape, which increased 3.6 percent after the law passed. (While the coefficients indicate that the law resulted in more murders and robberies but fewer aggravated assaults and as a consequence fewer overall violent crimes, none of those effects are even close to being statistically significant.) Only the impact of the Brady law on rape rates is consistent with the earlier results that we found for the data up through 1994. (199)"

Lott adds, "I find no crime-reduction benefits from state-mandated waiting periods and background checks before people are allowed to purchase guns" (20).

The traditionally anti-gun JAMA publication published an article August 2 by two generally anti-gun authors, Jens Ludwig and Philip J. Cook (Vol. 284, No. 5). The article ("Homicide and Suicide Rates Associated with Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act") supports John Lott's conclusions that the Brady background check law has failed to reduce homicides (the JAMA study looks only at homicides, whereas Lott examines all types of violent crimes).

The JAMA study cites Lott's previous study but (due to publication timing) was not able to cite the Second Edition of Lott's book.

The JAMA article finds the Brady law is statistically related to a decline of gun suicides only for those ages 55 and older, but it is not significantly related to a decline in overall suicide rates for any age group. Civil arms advocates point out that suicide victims generally substitute one method of suicide for another depending on constraints.

The scientific part of the JAMA study confirms Lott's findings. However, the anti-gun authors writing for an anti-gun publication add a speculative "comment" section in which they conjecture,

"[T]he effects of primary-market gun regulations may depend on the extent to which the secondary market in guns is regulated. Secondary-market sales account for about 40% of the approximately 10 million gun transfers in the United States each year and are the source for the large majority of guns obtained by juveniles and criminals. The secondary market in guns, which is currently almost completely unregulated, is thus an enormous loophole that limits the effectiveness of primary-market regulations. (590, emphasis added)
And thus the biases of the authors show through. Disarmament activists employ such arguments to claim that the Brady law should be expanded, precisely because it is such a miserable failure."

Lott replies to this eagerness to expand failed programs: "[W]ithout academic evidence that existing regulations such as the Brady law and gun locks produce desirable results, it is surprising that we are now debating what new gun-control laws to pass" (243).

Unfortunately, Ludwig and Cook conflate the legal "secondary gun market" with the criminal "secondary gun market." But of course legal regulations do not hamper the black market in guns. Ludwig and Cook ignore the obvious fact that criminals can circumvent all regulations by stealing guns, buying them on the black market, manufacturing them illegally, or resorting to other weapons (as criminals often do when law-abiding citizens are disarmed). Thus, the "comment" section of the JAMA article can be regarded as little more than idle speculation which does not impact the scientific findings of the study.