misinformation is epidemic; the media lies to you

[Decker]

I am talking about liberty, which sometimes coincides with constitutional rights, and sometimes is mentioned as a stand-alone concept worthy of consideration.

Free-thinking people not wrapped up in a partisan world of late-night TV once decided that Freedom and Liberty were virtues, and that a man should be free to do what he wants as long as he isn't hurting others. Most people still like to think that they believe in this idea, until you get into real-world issues, and then it becomes all too apparent that they are willing to restrict other people's liberty for no reason.

I admire your description of liberty. But come on, guns do hurt people. I see shootings reported everyday. Real honest to god shootings. Hand guns make that sort of destruction much easier to accomplish than other methods of intimidation. But there's always room for compromise. That's the nature of our type of government.

As for your whining about citing a source, frankly I haven't taken the time because this is an internet discussion. If you think I have been dishonest, feel free to look into it yourself.

So now we are in an informal chat type thing, are we?

List your citations. It is unethical for you to cite facts and studies and not support them with the citation.

Hell, I'm guilty of that myself.

Remember your bone of contention about me trying to deceive Kelju?
Chew on this:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case. American Civil Liberties Union : Gun Control[/FONT]​

I was paraphrasing. I didn't cite my work. That's wrong. Is the ACLU in on trying to lie to Kelju also?​

If your evidence is compelling, I will listen. Don't whimp out on me on this point. Cite your sources and let me make up my mind.​

 

[maniclion]

Does the right to bear arms correspond to these fundamental rights below concerning life, liberty and the pursuit?

• Right to life
• Right to marry
• Right to procreate
• Right to raise children free from unnecessary governmental interference
• Right to freedom of association
• Right to freedom of expression
• Right to equality of treatment before the law (fair legal procedures)
• Right to freedom of thought
• Right to religious belief
• Right to choose when and where to acquire formal education
• Right to pursue happiness
• Right to vote
• Right to Freedom of contract
  • the right to privacy
  • the right to marry and procreate
  • the right to interstate travel
  • the right to freedom of contract

Source: Wikipedia

If for some happiness is a warm gun, then wouldn't taking them away go against their right to pursue happiness?

 

[ALBOB]

I'm going to have to read this thread thouroughly one of these days.

You'd be better served by just gouging your eyes out with a spoon. There are those that believe the Founding Fathers thought gun ownership was a fundamental right, granted by our creator.................and there are those that don't. The two sides will never agree and they will never stop fighting. To jump into the fray on a message board like this is a sheer waste of time and quite possibly a precursor to a bleeding ulcer.

In other words, don't waste your time.

 

[maniclion]

I admire your description of liberty. But come on, guns do hurt people. I see shootings reported everyday. Real honest to god shootings. Hand guns make that sort of destruction much easier to accomplish than other methods of intimidation. But there's always room for compromise. That's the nature of our type of government.

Those shootings are with illegal guns, and in a country that can't even keep huge bags of drugs or 150lb human beings out how would the US keep small hand-guns from crossing our borders? I believe that it is every US citizens right to have weapons to defend themselves against criminals or even their own government should things turn ugly...

A couple of Jefferson quotes are illustrative: "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." And, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

 

[clemson357]

I admire your description of liberty. But come on, guns do hurt people. I see shootings reported everyday. Real honest to god shootings. Hand guns make that sort of destruction much easier to accomplish than other methods of intimidation. But there's always room for compromise. That's the nature of our type of government.

Did you know that in England, after banning guns and seeing rising violent crime rates, the government is considering banning certain types of knives? No joke, they really are. After all, knives hurt people. The English see knifings reported everyday. Real honest to god knifings. Knives and other cutting implements make that sort of destruction much easier to accomplish.

A gun, knife, car, and screwdriver are all tools. The criminal mind will always find another tool.



In all seriousness, since you appear to be earnestly asking me for real statistics, I'll put some together. I have a very good memory for things like that, so I can spout off the numbers without remembering the source. I have been meaning to make a compilation for a while, but I don't know that I'll get around to doing it tonight.

I honestly think that after considering all that is out there, any reasonable person will conclude that gun control doesn't reduce crime. After that determination, the only question left is whether you want to restrict others' liberty for no reason.

 

[Decker]

Did you know that in England, after banning guns and seeing rising violent crime rates, the government is considering banning certain types of knives? No joke, they really are. After all, knives hurt people.

Yes I did know that.

"Less than 1% of crime in this country(Britain) is committed with a gun. And in all of Britain in 1999-2000, there were only 62 firearm-related murders. By comparison, in the USA, 7,950 homicides were committed with guns in 1999. (The U.S. population is about 4 1/2 times Britain's.)" USATODAY.com - British fear rise of 'gun culture'

Sounds to me like the increase is neglible compared to the total number of crimes committed with a gun. Anomalies can happen.

A gun, knife, car, and screwdriver are all tools. The criminal mind will always find another tool.

Do screwdrivers and cars have these kinds of effects?:

3. Gun availability and state homicide rates, 2001-2003
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003.

Major Findings: States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. ???

Gun availability and state suicide rates, 1999-2001 (cross sectional analysis)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001.
Major Findings: States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide???

Gun availability and deaths to children.
We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for 5-14 year olds across the 50 states over a ten year period.
Major findings: Children in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicide and homicide???

Guns threats against, self-defense gun use by adolescents
We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people.
Major Findings: These young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents. ???

We analyzed survey data collected from over 8,000 males enrolled in a certified batterer intervention program in Massachusetts, 1999-2003.
Major Findings: Recent gun owners were 8 times more likely to have threatened their partners with a gun than non-gun owners.

Effect on homicide of gun carrying laws
We analyzed the effect on homicide of changes in state-level gun carrying laws using pooled cross-sectional time-series data for 50 states from 1979-1998.
Major findings: There was no statistically significant association between changes in concealed carry laws and state homicide rates. The finding was consistent across a variety of models.
Firearms Research


YOU NEVER ANSWER THIS QUESTION: IF GUNS ARE JUST ANOTHER TOOL THEN SHOULD MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE BE ALLOWED TO CARRY GUNS. OR ALCOHOLICS? OR DRUG ADDICTS?

In all seriousness, since you appear to be earnestly asking me for real statistics, I'll put some together. I have a very good memory for things like that, so I can spout off the numbers without remembering the source. I have been meaning to make a compilation for a while, but I don't know that I'll get around to doing it tonight.

I honestly think that after considering all that is out there, any reasonable person will conclude that gun control doesn't reduce crime. After that determination, the only question left is whether you want to restrict others' liberty for no reason.

Thanks for cutting me some slack. Believe it or not, I do change my mind on things.

As for this thread on the whole, we know these things:

1. S.CT. case law does not recognize that there is any fundamental right to own a gun. The case from the 1930s still stands as precedent.

But that can change and it looks like the gauntlet was thrown down in that appellate decision.

2. Your main contention is that gun control in this country has been counterproductive and therefore is an arbitrary infringement of personal liberty. I just want to see your sources for that because in your original post, you provide some supporting facts for that contention but then you also add in stuff about the laws governing militias which have nothing to do with whether gun control is viable or not. What it does indicate is a backdoor attempt to show that the constitution really does have gun rights for militia participants (any US citizen btn the ages of 17-45).

Look, I appreciate your work in this area. I know how time consuming it can be to start a decent thread and any help in citing this stuff is definitely worthwhile. So let's press on.

 

[Decker]

Those shootings are with illegal guns, and in a country that can't even keep huge bags of drugs or 150lb human beings out how would the US keep small hand-guns from crossing our borders? I believe that it is every US citizens right to have weapons to defend themselves against criminals or even their own government should things turn ugly...

The courts in this country agree with you but I don't.

A couple of Jefferson quotes are illustrative: "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." And, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

That quote is over 200 years old. A lot has changed since then. If a US president turned dictator turns the armed forces on you...well, do the best you can with your gun. The real force for change is an idea and not a gun. Guns in this context are a psychological bromide. The armed forces will always beat you; gun or no gun. It's still the case that the pen (idea) is mightier than the sword (gun) for battling a tyrannical government.

 

[clemson357]

I worked on it last night and have a good list going, but I am not going to post it until its complete.

As for your question in all caps, current laws prohibit anyone who has a felony conviction from purchasing or owning a gun. I agree with this law to an extent, meaning I think anyone with ANY violent criminal conviction should be prohibited. This change would include domestic violence misdemeanors and misdemeanor assault in the prohibition, which are not currently included, and it would exclude peaceful felonies such as tax evasion or check fraud from the prohibition. As for mental illness, alcoholism, etc., I know that anyone with a history of mental illness cannot have a concealed carry permit in any state. I do not know the law on possession of a guns in the home for mental illness. The problem with a prohibition on mental illness is that it is subjective, whose experts do we rely on? I would disagree with any standard that requires someone to get a mental health exam to own a gun. I would not have a problem with an objective standard, such as anyone who has been baker acted (involuntarily committed to an insane asylum). This may already be the law, I don't know. I would also not have a problem with an objective standard based on alcoholism, such as prohibiting anyone with more than two DUIs. I am pretty sure that isn't the law.

Yes, I am aware that this means I support SOME regulation of guns. As you point out, even fundamental freedoms are subject to some regulation.

 

[Decker]

I worked on it last night and have a good list going, but I am not going to post it until its complete.

As for your question in all caps, current laws prohibit anyone who has a felony conviction from purchasing or owning a gun. I agree with this law to an extent, meaning I think anyone with ANY violent criminal conviction should be prohibited. This change would include domestic violence misdemeanors and misdemeanor assault in the prohibition, which are not currently included, and it would exclude peaceful felonies such as tax evasion or check fraud from the prohibition. As for mental illness, alcoholism, etc., I know that anyone with a history of mental illness cannot have a concealed carry permit in any state. I do not know the law on possession of a guns in the home for mental illness. The problem with a prohibition on mental illness is that it is subjective, whose experts do we rely on? I would disagree with any standard that requires someone to get a mental health exam to own a gun. I would not have a problem with an objective standard, such as anyone who has been baker acted (involuntarily committed to an insane asylum). This may already be the law, I don't know. I would also not have a problem with an objective standard based on alcoholism, such as prohibiting anyone with more than two DUIs. I am pretty sure that isn't the law.

Yes, I am aware that this means I support SOME regulation of guns. As you point out, even fundamental freedoms are subject to some regulation.

You're a reasonable man. Speaking purely theoretically, I'm very glad that you see a necessity for some regulation instead of none. The question boils down to what extent is regulation effective and what point is it overkill and an undue burden?

Now this is getting good. I do apologize for not being able to devote as much time to your work as I would like. Today's my liberation day--March 15---when most corporate tax returns are due. This discussion is just great for winding down from the stress.

 

[BigDyl]

You're a reasonable man. Speaking purely theoretically, I'm very glad that you see a necessity for some regulation instead of none. The question boils down to what extent is regulation effective and what point is it overkill and an undue burden?

Now this is getting good. I do apologize for not being able to devote as much time to your work as I would like. Today's my liberation day--March 15---when most corporate tax returns are due. This discussion is just great for winding down from the stress.

Just have your tax return sent to my house.

 

[clemson357]

Here are the statistics I put together. I had been thinking about organizing something like this for a long time:

 

[Decker]

Just have your tax return sent to my house.

My tax return is boring. The tax returns of my clients are not. Most businesses have a filing date of March 15 and currently it's my job to ensure the tax qualified status of their retirement plans as it relates to contribution amounts and nondiscrimination. That, and I am Batman. But don't tell anyone.

 

[ALBOB]

That, and I am Batman. But don't tell anyone.

I already knew that.

 

[Decker]

Here are the statistics I put together. I had been thinking about organizing something like this for a long time:

Those are some impressive statistics you've marshaled. The analysis speaks to a whole host of issues from raw numbers for gun deaths, guns & crime, criminals' opinions, socioligists' opinions, national gun violence trends and the shortcomings of gun control advocates.

In the interest of brevity I will concur with the raw data (eg. 30,000 gun deaths (56% suicided, 40% homicide)) and, for the moment, I'll look at national trends and the shortcomings of arguments promulgated by gun control advocates.

As for national trends where violent crime is stagnating/declining since 1993, that is over.

USATODAY.com - Violent crime on the rise, summit participants say
Violent Crime in America: The Lull Ends

Here is the report: http://www.policeforum.org/upload/Gathering-Storm-PRINT-Final_110473745_1027200610304.pdf

As for the criticism of the gun control arguments, the author disputes the numbers of the ...

I'll finish this later...work calls.

 

[ZECH]

Those are some impressive statistics you've marshaled. The analysis speaks to a whole host of issues from raw numbers for gun deaths, guns & crime, criminals' opinions, socioligists' opinions, national gun violence trends and the shortcomings of gun control advocates.

In the interest of brevity I will concur with the raw data (eg. 30,000 gun deaths (56% suicided, 40% homicide)) and, for the moment, I'll look at national trends and the shortcomings of arguments promulgated by gun control advocates.

As for national trends where violent crime is stagnating/declining since 1993, that is over.

USATODAY.com - Violent crime on the rise, summit participants say
Violent Crime in America: The Lull Ends

Here is the report: http://www.policeforum.org/upload/Gathering-Storm-PRINT-Final_110473745_1027200610304.pdf

As for the criticism of the gun control arguments, the author disputes the numbers of the ...

I'll finish this later...work calls.

Take another look at that police forum report. Just scanning the first few pages, all those cities listed were the ones with the strictest gun control in the US, save for Florida and the numbers there, were actually down in 05 and 06. This is a no brainer conclusion. Gun control does not work, and where you have concealed carry, crime has went down.

 

[ZECH]

One thing that is of concern is juvenile crime. But I don't associate that with gun violence. That stems from poor family upbringing/values and just downright poor parents on the most part.

 

[Decker]

Take another look at that police forum report. Just scanning the first few pages, all those cities listed were the ones with the strictest gun control in the US, save for Florida and the numbers there, were actually down in 05 and 06. This is a no brainer conclusion. Gun control does not work, and where you have concealed carry, crime has went down.

I'm not sure which pages you are referencing. Could it be the one entitled, "Where There Are Shootings There Are Guns" where the author states that most cops & elected officials want federal regulatory help to curb the availability of illegal weapons, (i.e., guns purchased in one state and carried over to another state to commit a crime)(see similar sentiments expressed by the same people about gun tracking), or are you referring to the 55 US cities (excuse me, 54 b/c Fl doesn't count) that saw homicide rates increase and average of 4.2% and robbery rates increase an average of almost 10%?

This is not me asking for gun control help from the federal government, it's a board of chief law enforcement executives from municipal, state and federal enforcement agencies.

As for crime going down in concealed/carry jurisdictions, I would not be surprised if those numbers changed also. Texas is a concealed/carry state: In 2006, San Antonio's homicide rate went up 59% & robbery went up 36%; Houston's homicide rate went up 26% & robbery went up 10%;...

Granted, there are cities out there that buck this trend such as Arlington, TX but it is not apt for you to make a blanket statement that gun control doesn't work. The best answer is is that we are not entirely certain how effective gun control is. That's why we listen to the experts on the street--the cops.

 

[clemson357]

Gun control advocates are always citing the opinions of random police officers and police chiefs. The Brady Campaign if famous for this. I am not motivated enough to track down the article right now, but recently the Brady Campaign cited the opinions of a bunch of law enforcement officers, and when contacted many of them said they had never talked to the Brady Campaign and they disagreed with that position.

Additionally, law enforcement officers make great sacrifices for the public, and I respect them very much. That being said, most law enforcement agencies didn't even require their recruits to have college degrees until the mid to late 90's.

 

[DOMS]

In 2006, San Antonio's homicide rate went up 59% & robbery went up 36%; Houston's homicide rate went up 26% & robbery went up 10%;...

Source?

 

[Decker]

Gun control advocates are always citing the opinions of random police officers and police chiefs. The Brady Campaign if famous for this. I am not motivated enough to track down the article right now, but recently the Brady Campaign cited the opinions of a bunch of law enforcement officers, and when contacted many of them said they had never talked to the Brady Campaign and they disagreed with that position.

Additionally, law enforcement officers make great sacrifices for the public, and I respect them very much. That being said, most law enforcement agencies didn't even require their recruits to have college degrees until the mid to late 90's.

I didn't just cite random police. I supplied the stats that show the nationwide surge in crime--homicide, robbery & Agg. assault--even in concealed/carry jurisdictions. I for one would not accuse PERF of being shady, i.e., manufacturing quotes.

College degrees are important. But there're some very well read and informed folks out there without that piece of paper.

As far as I'm concerned, I am convinced that gun regulation is necessary.
It's the extent of that regulation that I have not yet determined. We are balancing the property right to have a gun with health/safety concerns of the state. That's a hell of a balancing act.

I have to go over clemson's stats again.

 

[Decker]

Source?

See the PERF pdf I linked:

http://www.policeforum.org/upload/Gathering-Storm-PRINT-Final_110473745_1027200610304.pdfhttp://www.policeforum.org/upload/Ga...7200610304.pdf

The city by city breakdown is at the end.

 

[clemson357]

As far as I'm concerned, I am convinced that gun regulation is necessary.
It's the extent of that regulation that I have not yet determined. We are balancing the property right to have a gun with health/safety concerns of the state. That's a hell of a balancing act.

I have to go over clemson's stats again.

This is my personal opinion on what gun regulation is necessary:

(1) People with violent criminal convictions should not be able to own guns. (this is already the law, with the exception of misdemeanor convictions)

(2) People under 18 should not be able to purchase guns. (this is already the law)

(3) Steep criminal penalties for providing a gun to anyone who can't own one, as well as civil liability (This is kind of the law in some states)

(4) Severely increased penalties for crimes committed with a gun. (This is kind of the law in some states)

(5) To carry a gun in public you should be licensed by the state, pass background check, and take safety course. (this is already the law, except for the safety course in some states)

(6) Machine guns and silencers are subject to strict federal regulation (this is already the law)



I am 100% convinced that making certain guns illegal does nothing to prevent crime. While assault weapons are always the guns used by criminals in Hollywood movies because they look very scary, that doesn't carry over to reality. While you may think having a gun that holds more than 10 bullets is unnecessary, this does nothing to prevent crime. Handguns are necessary for the concealed carry of citizens.

Further, I think that the anti-gun movement is led by people who really aren't concerned with crime.

 

[ZECH]

Granted, there are cities out there that buck this trend such as Arlington, TX but it is not apt for you to make a blanket statement that gun control doesn't work. The best answer is is that we are not entirely certain how effective gun control is. That's why we listen to the experts on the street--the cops.

When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% +24%


221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense.

As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life.

 

[ZECH]

The gun control advocates have argued their case by demonizing the gun

itself, rather than addressing the people who commit violent crimes. This

is the main fallacy in their argument. They slyly attempt to claim that

possession of a gun turns average citizens into bloodthirsty lunatics. This

theory falls apart under close scrutiny. If legal possession of a firearm

caused this sort of attitude, then why are crime rates highest in areas

such as Washington, D.C. and New York City which have strict gun control

laws? And why are crime rates dropping in states such as Florida where

private ownership of firearms is encouraged? Simply stated, legal ownership

of a gun does not cause crime.

 

[BoneCrusher]

As for crime going down in concealed/carry jurisdictions, I would not be surprised if those numbers changed also. Texas is a concealed/carry state: In 2006, San Antonio's homicide rate went up 59% & robbery went up 36%; Houston's homicide rate went up 26% & robbery went up 10%;...

Source this Deck because all the stats I've seen go the other way.

 

[clemson357]

It doesn't matter what the source is, the statistic itself doesn't say anything. Total violent crime in America rose from in 2006. I would expect that violent crime rose in almost every city.

What you need to look at, if you are talking about concealed carry effects, is what happened in the years immediately prior to and immediately after the law. In other words, Florida started its concealed carry program in 1989. To gauge the effectiveness of this law, look at the crime rates from 87,88,89,90, and 91. A change in Florida's crime rate from 2005 to 2006 will tell you very little.

Unless you can point to some change in the gun laws in 2006, a change in the crime rate in 2006 is going to have very little relevance to the argument. Its quite possible that after 13 years of dropping, the crime rate isn't going to go much lower.

 

[DOMS]

Source this Deck because all the stats I've seen go the other way.

He linked to a PDF that I haven't had time to read, but those numbers sound unrealistic.

 

[BoneCrusher]

He linked to a PDF that I haven't had time to read, but those numbers sound unrealistic.

Hmmmm I see it now ... Imma read it and see what the deal is. Austin stats are down again this year ... but SA and Houston are hard core mexican gang areas so that may be the deal there. In Austin we don't allow the gangs to run crazy ... they're here of course, but just low key.

 

[BoneCrusher]

Decker you used a liberal whacko publication intended to support gun control as an unbiased source. Step your game up a little. That same report shows Dallas down by 18%. It's not about gun laws it's about immigration laws. In SA the mexicans aren't chased down and deported, while in Dallas they are more strict about who works on a job site or in a warehouse.

My point is that this report you used as a source is leaving out the contributing factors, allowing people like you to site it as a source while you ALL ignore how bad it would have been if we did not have conceal and carry hand gun laws. The Dallas area is packed with people packin'. Same here in Austin. The only people here that were killed by non-gang related gun deaths were un-armed. There have been two of those so far, the rest are all drug and gang related.

Get honest sources that don't tweak the numbers to produce a desired result Deck ... you're fucking up your credibility.

 

[DOMS]

Decker you used a liberal whacko publication intended to support gun control as an unbiased source. Step your game up a little. That same report shows Dallas down by 18%. It's not about gun laws it's about immigration laws. In SA the mexicans aren't chased down and deported, while in Dallas they are more strict about who works on a job site or in a warehouse.

Did the Mexicans really jack up the crime stats that much in SA?