maporsche wrote:The evidence is not conclusive on either side of the argument, but certainly there is no reliable proof that fewer handguns REDUCES crime.
I have not made that claim--don't set up straw men for me, i have stated my position very clearly.
Quote:So, while I may not be able to convince you of my position, you certaintly do not have any evidence promoting yours. I'll error on the side of freedom.
Given that you have articulated a point of view which is
not my position, your claim about any evidence that i may or may not have is meaningless.
By the way, the verb you want is "to err," not "error," which is a noun.
Setanta wrote:maporsche wrote:The evidence is not conclusive on either side of the argument, but certainly there is no reliable proof that fewer handguns REDUCES crime.
I have not made that claim--don't set up straw men for me, i have stated my position very clearly.
So are you ok as long as "handgun" related crime drops....
possibly at the expense of "other" crime increasing?
There is hardly a more worthless human activity than wasting one's time arguing with gun nuts how easy access to firearms affects the crime rate. For one, no such correlation could ever be proven or disproven.
Certainly, the availability of guns in the US contributes adversely to gun violence.
Roxxxanne wrote:There is hardly a more worthless human activity than wasting one's time arguing with gun nuts how easy access to firearms affects the crime rate. For one, no such correlation could ever be proven or disproven.
Certainly, the availability of guns in the US contributes adversely to gun violence.
And the availability of cars contributes to car accidents.
And the availability of peanuts contributes to peanut butter.
You're simply stating the obvious.
Do you propose banning cars as well? How about only fast cars that go above the legal speed limit?
I am in no way a 'gun nut' in the typical sense (i.e. cjhsa, gunga, etc) but I do understand statistics (my college major) and the misuse of this data is rampant in the pro-gun control groups (among many others that you'll see me defending, such as universal health care).
I haven't addressed the subject of "crime" at all, and i see no reason to be drawn onto the ground upon which you are willing to and believe that you are prepared to argue. I object to handguns because all of the reasons for possessing them either apply equally to rifles and shotguns, or are simply bad excuses. They certainly won't serve to protect you from a tyrannical government.
Fatalities from firearms far and away occur in the home than in any other venue--either tragic accidents (usually involving children) or the cause of death in domestic disputes. Certainly a rifle or a shotgun could serve as well in a domestic dispute, but cheap handguns are far more readily available and within the means of most men and women than are rifles or shotguns. The only issue related to crime which motivates me with regard to handguns is that law enforcement would be greatly enhanced by a ban on handguns.
I no more believe that you can prove that banning handguns would lead to a rise in "other" crime than i believe that you can show that the possibility of a person acting with criminal intent is deterred by the possibility of encountering someone carrying a concealed handgun. All arguments about deterrence ignore basic characteristics of human nature. People who plan to commit criminal acts don't set about their activities in the belief that they will be caught or hindered--if they did, they wouldn't do the crime. Personally, i'd suggest that people who commit criminal acts don't think at all--i have said all my life that crime usually does not pay because of the caliber of those who go into the profession. Apart from planned, concerted crime, the type of crime in which firearms are most likely to be involved are crimes of passion--and it is not unreasonable to assert that people in the grip of a murderous passion are not thinking either.
Setanta wrote:
but cheap handguns are far more readily available and within the means of most men and women than are rifles or shotguns.
I have to disagree there. Shotguns in particular are much cheaper than handguns and can be bought at MANY more places (every Walmart for example), and they do not carry many of the same gun control regulations that currently exist (waiting periods, age limits, etc). Shotguns are by far cheaper and far more readily available.
Quote:
The only issue related to crime which motivates me with regard to handguns is that law enforcement would be greatly enhanced by a ban on handguns.
I'd like to know your reasoning behind this point. How would a ban on handguns specifically help law enforcement?
Quote:...the type of crime in which firearms are most likely to be involved are crimes of passion--and it is not unreasonable to assert that people in the grip of a murderous passion are not thinking either.
Do you think crimes of passion would decrease if handguns were banned? A guy wanting to shoot his wife wouldn't simply grab a knife? television? baseball bat? use his own two hands to choke the her? etc?
I would think that women in domestic abuse situations would be less protected.
Apparently, you are unaware of just how easily one can get a cheap handgun in urban settings, well within the reach of people who don't have enough cash to pay the rent and feed the kids from one month to the other. Have you never heard of a "Saturday night special?" The ATF in a 1993 report listed three "Saturday night specials"--the Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .38, and Lorcin L-380 .38--among the top ten.
A ban on handguns helps law enforcement (if it is effectively written and administered) because it reduces the probability of stolen firearms or expensive, high-caliber firearms appearing the domestic disputes or in armed robberies or burglaries. Organized crime doesn't figure in this, since no firearms legislation is going to prevent organized criminals from getting their hands on firearms. As i have already pointed out, though, most firearms fatalities result from handguns, and occur in the home. Additionally, and this is an important point for law enforcement, the mere possession of a handgun adds to the charges against someone taken into custody, and reduces the possibility of plea-bargaining, or a quick trip through the pen and out the other door in a few months. I can assure you, as well, that the police don't like domestic disputes, and would be glad to see handguns out of the home.
I did not specify a guy shooting his wife, the wife could shoot him as well. Nevertheless, i pointed out that rifles or shotguns could be used as well, but as i have pointed out, handguns can be more easily and cheaply obtained than can other types of firearms. As for a knife or a baseball bat, i suspect that one could easily make the case that fatalities are far less likely than is the case with firearms, but i don't allege that i have evidence of that. You mentioned the television--yes, certainly, almost anything that came to hand could thrown or swung as a weapon. However, if you've ever had experience of the soft tissue damage of bullets (i have--three years in the Army medical corps), as well as what kind of wild paths bullets can take if they hit a bone, you might have the same opinion i do of the lethality of firearms as opposed to other weapons of opportunity which might be lying around the house.
Your claim that women in domestic abuse situations would be less protected in the event of a handgun ban is as silly as the claim that criminals are deterred by the possibility of someone carrying a concealed handgun, or that murder is deterred by the death penalty.
Setanta wrote:Apparently, you are unaware of just how easily one can get a cheap handgun in urban settings, well within the reach of people who don't have enough cash to pay the rent and feed the kids from one month to the other. Have you never heard of a "Saturday night special?" The ATF in a 1993 report listed three "Saturday night specials"--the Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .38, and Lorcin L-380 .38--among the top ten.
Please tell me
how cheap one of these weapons are in an urban setting.
I'll have to get to the rest of your post later tonight.
Setanta wrote-
Quote: I object to handguns because all of the reasons for possessing them either apply equally to rifles and shotguns, or are simply bad excuses. They certainly won't serve to protect you from a tyrannical government.
Perhaps you might explain that a bit more fully.
Some people think that they certainly will and they are not taliking about hypothetical situations.
You can't nuke your own territory.
Can you?
Set continues to make a fool of himself relative to A2 and A14. "Miller" is currently the guiding precedent on this issue.
United States v. Miller (1939) [11] - The only Supreme Court case which was directly related to the issues of the Second Amendment at the heart of the case. The court stated in part:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'
... The Court also stated:
'The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Wikipedia
Actually, jackass, i've already quoted the relevant portions of The United States versus Miller, and got it from Findlaw's page on the decision, rather that relying on Wikipedia to tell me what was relevant.
As for making a fool of oneself, do you care to show where any portion of the Miller decision confirms this tripe you've been peddling about the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment? Can you provide the passage of the decision in Miller which refers to the Fourteenth Amendment?
Jackass.
Setanta wrote:As for making a fool of oneself, do you care to show where any portion of the Miller decision confirms this tripe you've been peddling about the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment? Can you provide the passage of the decision in Miller which refers to the Fourteenth Amendment?
Don't waste your time. I asked
Advocate pretty much the same question and I'm still waiting for a reply.
Historical question, mostly to Joe and Setanta:
When has the majority of the Supreme Court decided that other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment? I know that this "doctrine of incorporation" is very old. It was developed mostly by Supreme Court justice Steven Field in the late 19th century. But the Supreme Court as a whole has never endorsed it in full -- it has never said the Fourteenth Amendment makes
all the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Still, it has adopted the doctrine on a case-by-case, amendment-by-amendment basis, and has now incorporated almost all the Bill of Rights.
How far into this amendment-by-amendment incorporation process was the Supreme Court when it decided
United States vs. Miller? How relevant is its decision not to incorporate it then to the question whether it should be incorporated now?
(Not that it matters to
this case , where no state is involved.)
maporsche wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:There is hardly a more worthless human activity than wasting one's time arguing with gun nuts how easy access to firearms affects the crime rate. For one, no such correlation could ever be proven or disproven.
Certainly, the availability of guns in the US contributes adversely to gun violence.
And the availability of cars contributes to car accidents.
And the availability of peanuts contributes to peanut butter.
You're simply stating the obvious.
And you are avoiding the obvious, which is that unlike these other products, the principal function of the gun is to kill people. That's what it is designed to do.
McTag wrote:maporsche wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:There is hardly a more worthless human activity than wasting one's time arguing with gun nuts how easy access to firearms affects the crime rate. For one, no such correlation could ever be proven or disproven.
Certainly, the availability of guns in the US contributes adversely to gun violence.
And the availability of cars contributes to car accidents.
And the availability of peanuts contributes to peanut butter.
You're simply stating the obvious.
And you are avoiding the obvious, which is that unlike these other products, the principal function of the gun is to kill people. That's what it is designed to do.
The principal function of the gun is to PROTECT people. That's what it is designed to do.
I think your comment about mayhem in the streets is completely assenine.
Everywhere that guns laws have been relaxed the the US has seen a reduction in crime. When make guns illegal for law abiding citizens, criminals know they have an easy mark. It's so obvious it's stupid.
If the USSC gets this wrong, there is going to be a huge backlash - almost half of America owns a gun, and 99.999% of them never commit any crimes.
Oh, and BTW, never trust someone from Chicago or a politician from Illinois on this issue. Obama will never be president because of it. Yet Illinois has some of the finest whitetail hunting in the country... Chicago just doesn't get it.
maporsche wrote:McTag wrote:maporsche wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:There is hardly a more worthless human activity than wasting one's time arguing with gun nuts how easy access to firearms affects the crime rate. For one, no such correlation could ever be proven or disproven.
Certainly, the availability of guns in the US contributes adversely to gun violence.
And the availability of cars contributes to car accidents.
And the availability of peanuts contributes to peanut butter.
You're simply stating the obvious.
And you are avoiding the obvious, which is that unlike these other products, the principal function of the gun is to kill people. That's what it is designed to do.
The principal function of the gun is to PROTECT people. That's what it is designed to do.
A common misconception, or deliberate evasion.
You may buy one for protection, but unlike the Toyota Corolla it's designed to kill.
No, it is designed to shoot a projectile. If you choose to kill someone with it that is your issue - and problem.
Roxxxanne wrote:Certainly, the availability of guns in the US contributes adversely to gun violence.
cjhsa wrote:Everywhere that guns laws have been relaxed the the US has seen a reduction in crime. When make guns illegal for law abiding citizens, criminals know they have an easy mark. It's so obvious it's stupid.
I don't know how many people in this thread care enough about this to check their convictions against actual data from the real world. But for those who do, I'd like to add a pointer to the best review of the statistical literature I know about the impact of gun ownership on violence. It comes from the National Academy of Sciences and is titled
Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. A browseable version of the book
is available here.
In a nutshell, the authors find that while passions on both sides run high, the empirical findings so far give neither side much of a case.
On page 2 of their executive summary, the authors wrote:The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.
Source
Full disclosure: I like the theory behind a broad right to bear arms, and I'd very much like to see that concealed handguns deter more crime than they enable. But facts are stubborn things -- and in this case, they stubbornly refuse to say what I want them to say. It's cold comfort for me that they just as stubbornly refuse to say what Roxanne wants them to say.
For law abiding citizens, guns are a tool. For criminals, they are a weapon to be used against their human targets. It's that simple.
