NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid. This forum seems also to be mostly left.

I don't know what it is that make people think that, but I bet they don't know where the idea was stated earlier:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm sure these people more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...

So...uh...Whats the topic for discussion?

We should give a fuck about some really esoteric and peripheral USA minutiae such as this on this international forum because...?

Jefferson was also a man who wanted to punish sodomy with castration.

Maybe we shouldn't just accept everything he stood for was great just because he stood for it hmm?

We should give a fuck about some really esoteric and peripheral USA minutiae such as this on this international forum because...?
Because that's what about half the threads on this forum end up being about anyway?

That was also back in the day when you could only get off one shot before reloading.

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg

Because that's what about half the threads on this forum end up being about anyway?

That doesn't answer my question, it just circumvents it.

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid.


Tautologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29) are stupid.


I don't know what it is that make people think that, but I bet they don't know where the idea was stated earlier:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm sure these people more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...

"Gun rights are good/necessary/ideal simply because Thomas Jefferson said so" is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority).


I don't support the NRA exactly because it relies on weak and illogical arguments, like those listed above. This serves to weaken the image and position of the firearms advocate in general. As such an advocate myself (:eek: a leftist who likes guns! Fear not, the disorientation will wear off momentarily), I don't appreciate the efforts of the NRA to undermine my rights.

The NRA's close association with the Republican Party also makes me seriously question its dedication to anything resembling "rights," as the Republican Party knows nothing of any such thing.

Jefferson is hardly a credible source to the socialists and communists who dominate this forum-the man penned the US Constitution, which is the founding document for all the World's Evil. The principle of "Separation of Church and State" is from the Communist Manifesto and has no basis in US law, yet it is cited constantly by these same people as if it has relevance in arguments regarding US law.
And don't bother appealling to logic, either-New York City has the strictest gun control laws in the US, and the highest levels of gun violence, but it''s the fault of NYC's neighbors it happens, for not passing gun control as strict. Texas, which not only has higher rates of gun ownership as well as concealed weapons licensing, is nowhere near the levels of gun violence one finds in gun control areas.

I never said it was because Thomas Jefferson said it. I'm just saying he probably knew what he was talking about.

See, this slave-owning, low-life treacherous Jefferson person - not so convincing or impressive to us foreigners, you know.

I never said it was because Thomas Jefferson said it. I'm just saying he probably knew what he was talking about. I had the idea long before I knew of the quote.

The point was that people like to say it is not true that it is good for the criminals when guns are banned, when this is the truth.

The Jefferson quote was supposed to enforce that - I thought you would have at least some respect for his opinions, but I guess you don't.

And those who say 'they didn't have the weapons we have now!" Guess what? The quote doesn't even imply that that matters - he is not even talking about guns, necassarily. "Arms" can be any weapon.

We should give a fuck about some really esoteric and peripheral USA minutiae such as this on this international forum because...?

http://www.mumstuff.co.uk/acatalog/Bottle.jpg

That doesn't answer my question, it just circumvents it.
Maybe I haven't got an answer? Maybe I should be proposing the question to you, since you are always more eager to discuss "esoteric and peripheral USA minutiae" than I.

Thomas Jefferson has been dead for several centuries. The reality of the world just before the dawn of the industrial revolution is radically different to today's reality.

I do not believe it was possible to track a piece of lost luggage halfway across the world in Jefferson's time.

Fear the might of bureaucracy.

And don't bother appealling to logic, either-New York City has the strictest gun control laws in the US, and the highest levels of gun violence, but it''s the fault of NYC's neighbors it happens, for not passing gun control as strict.

Oh my god................................................

You really just said not only ignore logic, but that the blame does not rest with those who took the action? How in hell can you honestly believe it is not those who passed the law's responsibility the effect those laws have?

And if your being sarcastic (I can't really tell :)) then this message is directed to those who really say and believe it.

Tripod no likey you

Learn not to hotlink to sites that don't allow it, you bandwidth thief, you.

I never said it was because Thomas Jefferson said it. I'm just saying he probably knew what he was talking about.


It is also likely that one could find some random idiot down the street who "[knows] what he talking about." But you invoked a very specific "random idiot" for a reason. ;)


The Jefferson quote was supposed to enforce that - I thought you would have at least some respect for his opinions, but I guess you don't.


Who I do or don't respect is irrelevant. The truth of a given proposition or position should ([i]must) stand on its own merit, regardless of who happens to agree with it.


And those who say 'they didn't have the weapons we have now!" Guess what? The quote doesn't even imply that that matters - he is not even talking about guns, necassarily. "Arms" can be any weapon.


But you're not really talking about just any "arm" are you? :)

Gun rights are extreamly important. If somebody could have a gun and you were an outlaw, would you be as willing to walk into a random house and attempt to rob them? NO! You can always get guns from the blackmarket, so whats the point o outlawing them when crimminals can get them anyway, just people have no way to defend themselves. Guns are part of free peoples rights, and allowing the general public to own a gun can help prevent crime.

Maybe I haven't got an answer? Maybe I should be proposing the question to you, since you are always more eager to discuss "esoteric and peripheral USA minutiae" than I.

Your imaginings never amuse me, so don't.

Your imaginings never amuse me, so don't.
Fortunately, you aren't my target audience, so I've no need to be concerned about how amused you are.

Fortunately, you aren't my target audience, so I've no need to be concerned about how amused you are.

Very fortunate, indeed.

Perhaps it was just to imply that a respectable man with such an important role in the history of what is - don't even argue this, you know it's true - one of the most influential nations on Earth has an opinion of that, is probably something worth considering.

Personally, the only arguement against hte logical extension of that, which would be to make guns as prevalent as possible, is that there are relatively few murders by people who simply kill anyone they can. The majority of violent crime is committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens who get caught up in stress, or a psychological disorder (not that these types should have guns), etc.

Personally, I'm all for the kind of freedom of firearm ownership you will find in the United States. If someone breaks into my home, I'd much rathe rmeet them behind a shotgun barrel. If someone tries to mug me, I'd love to have a handgun on me.

See, this slave-owning, low-life treacherous Jefferson person - not so convincing or impressive to us foreigners, you know.

So you do you approve of Benjamin Franklin? Just look at the quote in my sig - he thought the same things. As in a right to bear arms.

But you invoked a very specific "random idiot" for a reason.


stand on its own merit,


But you're not really talking about just any "arm" are you?

Thomas Jefferson is a random idiot, in your opinion? OK.

So things should only be decided by those using them/observing them/etc? You should consult someone who has expertise in the area? So next time I am someone is going to build a submarine - they should do it all based on whether they think certain decisions are good, not on the opinions of those who are experts in the field?

No, not any arm. Any SMALL ARM the MILITARY can use. Small arms does not mean only pistols - it basically means anything that you can carry.

Oh my god................................................

You really just said not only ignore logic, but that the blame does not rest with those who took the action? How in hell can you honestly believe it is not those who passed the law's responsibility the effect those laws have?

And if your being sarcastic (I can't really tell :)) then this message is directed to those who really say and believe it.

The argument that New York City suffers from gun violence in it's degree due to it's neighboring states not adopting similarily strict gun control was put forward by the proponents of gun control and not myself-I apologize for not being more precise in my statement.
And I did not say ignore logic-just that it couldn't be appealled to for reasons stated above

So next time I am someone is going to build a submarine - they should do it all based on whether they think certain decisions are good, not on the opinions of those who are experts in the field?

So you believe that Jefferson is an expert on the problems caused by private gun ownership in the early 21st century?

So you do you approve of Benjamin Franklin?

"Approving" has nothing to do with it. He doesn't impress me, either. Just 'cause his big in Jap... I mean, the USA, doesn't mean he's all that and a bag of chips anywhere else.

Just look at the quote in my sig - he thought the same things. As in a right to bear arms.

I'm not gonna turn on sigs for you, and what Benjamin Franklin thought I can tell you right away again that I don't find all that much to hang on the maypole.

So you believe that Jefferson is an expert on the problems caused by private gun ownership in the early 21st century?

I don't believe there are problems caused by "private gun ownership in the early 21st century"

But yes, Jefferson IS an expert on the type of things he stated in the quote - none of which had anything to do with a current level of technology. The principles would have applied 3000 years ago when everyone used clubs just as much as they apply now.

I don't believe there are problems caused by "private gun ownership in the early 21st century"

So high murder rates don't concern you in the slightest?

But yes, Jefferson IS an expert on the type of things he stated in the quote - none of which had anything to do with a current level of technology. The principles would have applied 3000 years ago when everyone used clubs just as much as they apply now.

No-one mentioned the level of technology, I was referring to the massive social changes that have come about since his death.

Individual rights are not dependent upon chronological context.

Given that the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever be necessary, any government restriction on civilian ownership of any weapon is illegitimate and absurd.

That said, the NRA is a bunch of pussyfooters.

I'm a proud supporter of GOA.

Well, as a matter of pure definition it is true, if owning guns is a criminal act, then anyone who owns a gun is, by definition, a criminal.

That's kind of a "duh" proposition. The real question of importance is if guns are outlawed would there be more crime involving guns or less crime involving guns.

And as statistics show in countries that have outlawed gun ownership, the answer is a resounding "less"

Jefferson is hardly a credible source to the socialists and communists who dominate this forum-the man penned the US Constitution, which is the founding document for all the World's Evil.

Ah, the unAmerican commies. Excuse me, while I shoot myself for being a paradox in your little world.

And he wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That was Adams.

The principle of "Separation of Church and State" is from the Communist Manifesto and has no basis in US law, yet it is cited constantly by these same people as if it has relevance in arguments regarding US law.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

You are wrong.

Individual rights are not dependent upon chronological context.

Given that the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can always mount an effective revolt against the state should it ever be necessary, any government restriction on civilian ownership of any weapon is illegitimate and absurd.

That said, the NRA is a bunch of pussyfooters.

I'm a proud supporter of GOA.

yeah well, any rational discussion involving gun ownership doesn't really benefit from nut cases like you who think that civilians should be allowed to own tanks.

So high murder rates don't concern you in the slightest?



No-one mentioned the level of technology, I was referring to the massive social changes that have come about since his death.

High murder rates do not equal lax gun control. This has been proven countless times. DC has strict control and high murder rates. Texas has low gun control and low murder rates.

What social changes, exactly?

And as statistics show in countries that have outlawed gun ownership, the answer is a resounding "less"

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

really now? Find me one liberal democratic nation that outlaws gun ownership that has a higher per capita murder rate than the united states.

Go ahead, I'll be right here.

High murder rates do not equal lax gun control. This has been proven countless times. DC has strict control and high murder rates. Texas has low gun control and low murder rates.

I never said it did, you claimed that private gun ownership cause no problems, I countered by suggesting that one of the highest murder rates in the world may just possibly be a slight problem.

What social changes, exactly?

So the US is exactly the same as it was in the late 18th century? How many slaves do you own exactly?

yeah well, any rational discussion involving gun ownership doesn't really benefit from nut cases like you who think that civilians should be allowed to own tanks.

How am I a "nutcase" or "irrational"?

Show me a logical fallacy or an erroneous premise in my argument.

Go ahead, I defy you.

Parity is essential if a revolution is to have any practical chance of succeeding.

How am I a "nutcase" or "irrational"?

Show me a logical fallacy or an erroneous premise in my argument.

Because you think some nonsensical idea of "being able to have a revolution" is more important than basic human safety. And before you feel the need to talk about it, I really don't give a shit about what Alisa Rosenbaum had to say on the subject

The real question of importance is if guns are outlawed would there be more crime involving guns or less crime involving guns.

No... the real question is if there would be more or less violent crime generally.

Because you think some nonsensical idea of "being able to have a revolution" is more important than basic human safety. And before you feel the need to talk about it, I really don't give a shit about what Alisa Rosenbaum had to say on the subject

That individual liberty trumps every other concern is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

That individual liberty trumps every other concern is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

So prove it clever pants.:D

That individual liberty trumps every other concern is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

Individual liberty is more important than the right to life?

Oh, and stop with this 'objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe' shit. I'm pretty sure that the matter and anti-matter whirling around at the start of the universe didn't give a toss about the US Constitution, an entirely human construct.

That individual liberty trumps every other concern is an objective fact provable from the first principles of the Universe.

then you should have absolutly no problems proving that.

We should give a fuck about some really esoteric and peripheral USA minutiae such as this on this international forum because...?

Because there a few people who find what you term "periphal" essential and "minutiae" important, and I'm not responsible for their actions. I'm also not one of them.

So the US is exactly the same as it was in the late 18th century? How many slaves do you own exactly?

What does slavery have to do with this exactly?

Well, I have work to do and don't feel like continuing this any more.

It is like trying to argue some brains into a retard. No matter how much logical sense you throw at them, they will never understand it and will always insist they know the truth. No offense.

What does slavery have to do with this exactly?

I figure that the abolition of slavery is a fairly massive social change.

That could just be me being retarded though....

Ah, the unAmerican commies. Excuse me, while I shoot myself for being a paradox in your little world.
While I do not require such action as apology, I will certainly accept it. Do have the decency to use a legally obtained firearm.

And he wrote the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. That was Adams.
While Adams certainly lobbied long and hard for the Constitution, it's almost pure Jefferson, though Adams certainly did claim he wrote it-a claim largely ignored by his contemporaries.


http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html



You are wrong.

This is a letter, not legislation, and thus has no bearing on US law despite it's authorship. Oddly enough, the wording does make me think the ban on prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

America, for some reason, just has a really high murder rate. People that claim that gun control doesn't help need to realize that we have a far higher murder rate then any country in Europe or Japan. And the majority of those countries, with their low murder rates, have strict gun control laws. We on the other hand, have less restrictions, and a far far higher rate of violence (involving guns).

Well, I have work to do and don't feel like continuing this any more.

It is like trying to argue some brains into a retard. No matter how much logical sense you throw at them, they will never understand it and will always insist they know the truth. No offense.

Have you been taking lessons from Corny?

Well, I have work to do and don't feel like continuing this any more.

It is like trying to argue some brains into a retard. No matter how much logical sense you throw at them, they will never understand it and will always insist they know the truth. No offense.

Oh geez. Looks like you need one, too.
http://www.mumstuff.co.uk/acatalog/Bottle.jpg
You'll have to share with Fass...

Well, I have work to do and don't feel like continuing this any more.

It is like trying to argue some brains into a retard. No matter how much logical sense you throw at them, they will never understand it and will always insist they know the truth. No offense.

I'm sure you mean no offense with that statement.

Also duck & run works a lot better when you don't announce it.

Individual liberty is more important than the right to life?

Owning a gun is purely a peaceful activity. How does owning a gun result in death?

Jefferson is hardly a credible source to the socialists and communists who dominate this forum-the man penned the US Constitution, which is the founding document for all the World's Evil. The principle of "Separation of Church and State" is from the Communist Manifesto and has no basis in US law, yet it is cited constantly by these same people as if it has relevance in arguments regarding US law.
And don't bother appealling to logic, either-New York City has the strictest gun control laws in the US, and the highest levels of gun violence, but it''s the fault of NYC's neighbors it happens, for not passing gun control as strict. Texas, which not only has higher rates of gun ownership as well as concealed weapons licensing, is nowhere near the levels of gun violence one finds in gun control areas.

lol?

Jefferson didn't write the constitution, he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Although he was (IIRC) a member of the constitutional convention.

Separation of church and state is WELL defined in the constitution. In fact, numerous people wanted the US to be a Christian nation and for it to say so in its Preamble, guess what, all were turned down, heavily because of Ben Franklin's influence.

America, for some reason, just has a really high murder rate. People that claim that gun control doesn't help need to realize that we have a far higher murder rate then any country in Europe or Japan. And the majority of those countries, with their low murder rates, have strict gun control laws. We on the other hand, have less restrictions, and a far far higher rate of violence (involving guns).

We also have more violent gangs then those countries have... combined.

If ALL violent gangs were ended in the United States, then the US crime rate would drop at least 75%.

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid. This forum seems also to be mostly left.

I don't know what it is that make people think that, but I bet they don't know where the idea was stated earlier:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm sure these people more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...

I'm as far left as they come, and I don't believe in gun control, so what's your beef?

http://www.strangepersons.com/images/content/8531.jpg

Unfortunately, QFT.

Thomas Jefferson is a random idiot, in your opinion? OK.


Note the quotation marks around the words "random idiot." They're very important. :)


So things should only be decided by those using them/observing them/etc? You should consult someone who has expertise in the area? So next time I am someone is going to build a submarine - they should do it all based on whether they think certain decisions are good, not on the opinions of those who are experts in the field?


I should consult a qualified authority in order to learn the general trades of engineering and construction. But there is only one way to learn whether a particular design will or will not work. Lots of submarines sank, rockets blew up, and airplanes crashed before the experts got the design right.

This is a letter, not legislation, and thus has no bearing on US law despite it's authorship. Oddly enough, the wording does make me think the ban on prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

Nice sidestep of the fact that you were wrong.

And don't bother appealling to logic, either-New York City has the strictest gun control laws in the US, and the highest levels of gun violence,
Your supporting proof?

but it''s the fault of NYC's neighbors it happens, for not passing gun control as strict.
That truly appears to be a big part of the problem. 84% of NYC's crime guns that were traced come from other States. The denominator used to calculate this result is the total of all crime guns where a source State is identified.

Texas, which not only has higher rates of gun ownership as well as concealed weapons licensing, is nowhere near the levels of gun violence one finds in gun control areas.
Once again, your supporting proof?

In Dallas Texas, 78% of crime guns come from within the State.
In Austin Texas, EDITED just for New Stalinberg :D
In San Antonio Texas, it is 83.9% crime guns come from within the State.
In Houston Texas, it is 82% crime guns come from within the State.

We also have more violent gangs then those countries have... combined.

If ALL violent gangs were ended in the United States, then the US crime rate would drop at least 75%.

People with guns aren't going to stop violent gangs, they're just going to get shot.

And those who say 'they didn't have the weapons we have now!" Guess what? The quote doesn't even imply that that matters - he is not even talking about guns, necassarily. "Arms" can be any weapon.

Well wonderful. When can I get my hydrogen bomb then?

Besides, Jefferson was a hypocrite. Demanding freedom for all when it doesn't include the slaves you own? Just like Washington.

The only freedom they wanted was freedom from taxes.

Your supporting proof?


That truly appears to be a big part of the problem. 84% of NYC's crime guns that were traced come from other States. The denominator used to calculate this result is the total of all crime guns where a source State is identified.


Once again, your supporting proof?

In Dallas Texas, 78% of crime guns come from within the State.
In Austin Texas, it is 80% crime guns come from within the State.
In San Antonio Texas, it is 83.9% crime guns come from within the State.
In Houston Texas, it is 82% crime guns come from within the State.

Dude, don't put Austin in with the rest of those shity cities.

True we had the UT tower shooting and the Yogurt shop massacre, and that lesbian cop who shot that guy, BUT THAT'S IT! *shakes angry fist*

High murder rates do not equal lax gun control. This has been proven countless times. DC has strict control and high murder rates. Texas has low gun control and low murder rates.

What social changes, exactly?
And New York has strict gun control and a lower murder rate (4.5/100,000) than Texas (6.2/100,000) . Also, Texas (529/100,000) has a 19% higher Violent Crime Rate (VCR) than New York (445/100,000).

Rape rates per 100,000:

Texas 37.3, New York 18.9 (twice as likely to get raped in Texas)

Aggravated Assault:

Texas 329/100,000, New York 239/100,000

More?

When you outlaw *anything* that there is significant demand for crime will increase.

It happened with alcohol it happened with drugs and it happened with firearms (where and to the extent they have been outlawed).

They can't keep drugs (or lethal weapons, including guns on occasion) out of prisons where the inmates have effectively no civil rights, so if as they are outlawed in an area the law abiding citizens cease to have them and the criminals keep getting them from the same places they always used to get them, the street corner.

People with guns aren't going to stop violent gangs, they're just going to get shot.

This is one of those un-talked about holes in the 'guns to protect me from guns' notion. Both sides in gang violence have guns, doesn't seem to prevent gang-related gun violence...

Guns don't make you bullet proof.

And New York has strict gun control and a lower murder rate (4.5/100,000) than Texas (6.2/100,000) . Also, Texas (529/100,000) has a 19% higher Violent Crime Rate (VCR) than New York (445/100,000).

Rape rates per 100,000:

Texas 37.3, New York 18.9 (twice as likely to get raped in Texas)

Aggravated Assault:

Texas 329/100,000, New York 239/100,000

More?

Yes, and a source. (I agree, I just want to use the refence later for myself)

the *genocide* in Rawanda was committed mostly with knives (well, big knives), because rawanda has the only kind of gun control that works, most people can't afford one.

The fact that texas has most of it's guns come from in state and NY imports them is (of course) because of the difference in gun control, but assuming that the fact that they are imported affects the crime rate is a fallacy, that's assuming that fewer people in alaska would get a heart transplant because they don't have a hospital there that does them.

We import most of our illegal drugs from other *continents*, criminals make *so* much more use of the new "global economy" than mega-corporations. I am sure an illegal gun costs more in NY than it does in Texas, but to someone who is willing to kill an innocent person (and these are the only gun using criminals who *really* matter to society) isn't going to let a few extra dollars stop him, he'll just knock over one more 7-11 to get the money.

This is one of those un-talked about holes in the 'guns to protect me from guns' notion. Both sides in gang violence have guns, doesn't seem to prevent gang-related gun violence...

Guns don't make you bullet proof.

Nomex-Kevlar suits (as seen in Betman Begins), however, do make you almost bullet proof. The answer is simple. Just wear Kevlar.

Yes, and a source. (I agree, I just want to use the refence later for myself)
No problem:

US States Crime 2004 -2005 Crimes per 100,000 and Ranking (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html)

No problem:

US States Crime 2004 -2005 Crimes per 100,000 and Ranking (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html)

Of the 11893 firearms traced by NY, 48% had no state of origin. Of those traced to state, it was 70% out of state, including 107 from CA. The average "time to crime" was over 3 years for over 4,800 of those.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/states_and_territories/cy2006-newyork-rev.pdf

Notice what page two says.

Now look at DC.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/states_and_territories/cy2006-districtofcolumbia.pdf

More guns were traced to MD (highly restrictive) than VA.

Still want to claim absolute causality?

Still want to claim absolute causality?
Ummmm, I do believe that it was Ordo Drakul that was reaching for that goal? I do believe that he is unwilling or unable to produce the facts that would back up his claims??

Ummmm, I do believe that it was Ordo Drakul that was reaching for that goal? I do believe that he is unwilling or unable to produce the facts that would back up his claims??

And he's wrong too.

Here's something for you to ponder. I know how to make guns, compact and fully automatic. I can do it with what you'd find at a Home Depot. I also took the time to learn how to make ammo. If guns are b&, what's to stop someone like me from manufacturing and selling 9mm pistols and .45 smg's to anyone, gang banger or average Joe? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In a month I could have an arsenal that would rival any police armory in the nation and then some. And if guns were b& that would make me very rich very fast.

When you criminalize things that aren't real crimes you still create real criminals. Did prohibition stop people from drinking? Has the war on drugs stopped people from shooting up? The answer to both is a resounding NO! Heroine is 600x cheaper today than it was 35 years ago if you take into account the purity and inflation. The same was true for alcohol way back when. Drinking went up during prohibition, not down. Drug use is up today from 35 years ago, not down. Why would you think that guns would be any different? People want guns. Tens of millions of people have guns. Even more want guns but shouldn't have them. If drug dealers aren't asking for ID now do you really think that someone like me would run background checks?

And he's wrong too.
How am I wrong? I was only responding with facts.

BTW, after flipping through those gun trace reports, it appears that the vast majority of crime guns originate in the southern states. I found that rather interesting.

Here's something for you to ponder. I know how to make guns, compact and fully automatic. I can do it with what you'd find at a Home Depot. I also took the time to learn how to make ammo. If guns are b&, what's to stop someone like me from manufacturing and selling 9mm pistols and .45 smg's to anyone, gang banger or average Joe? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In a month I could have an arsenal that would rival any police armory in the nation and then some. And if guns were b& that would make me very rich very fast.
It would also make you a criminal. It is difficult to spend your wealth when you are languishing in jail for a long, long time?

How am I wrong? I was only responding with facts.

BTW, after flipping through those gun trace reports, it appears that the vast majority of crime guns originate in the southern states. I found that rather interesting.

1/3 to half the guns couldn't be traced to any state.

Obviously you did not read page two of any of the reports.

Your "facts" are skewed.

1/3 to half the guns couldn't be traced to any state.

Obviously you did not read page two of any of the reports.

Your "facts" are skewed.
Did I claim factuality? I made an observation. My observation was that "it appears that the vast majority of crime guns originate in the southern states".

I believe that to be a reasonable observation.

It would also make you a criminal. It is difficult to spend your wealth when you are languishing in jail for a long, long time?
I'd only end up in prison if I got caught. You don't know who I am or where I'm from? People run drug labs for months, even years before they get caught trying to deal to some 4th graders in front of their teacher.

I wonder if the mods would object to me posting detailed instructions with illustrations and photos here on the construction of improvised firearms. Even if I couldn't here you couldn't stop me from doing it IRL without trampling on the First.

I'd only end up in prison if I got caught. You don't know who I am or where I'm from? People run drug labs for months, even years before they get caught trying to deal to some 4th graders in front of their teacher.
You are talking about a hypothetical situation. IF you did do it, then you run the risk of being imprisoned. Your call.

I wonder if the mods would object to me posting detailed instructions with illustrations and photos here on the construction of improvised firearms.
Why would you want to do that?

Even if I couldn't here you couldn't stop me from doing it IRL without trampling on the First.
Do as you wish......you are the one responsible for your own actions. What protections do you have from the Patriot Act?

Did I claim factuality?

How am I wrong? I was only responding with facts.



I made an observation. My observation was that "it appears that the vast majority of crime guns originate in the southern states".

I believe that to be a reasonable observation.

More like an observation filled w/ loaded terminology. Once again. Read page two.

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid. This forum seems also to be mostly left.

I don't know what it is that make people think that, but I bet they don't know where the idea was stated earlier:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm sure these people more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...

I agree completely. I also believe conceal-carry license laws are discriminatory against poor people who live in bad parts of the country and who need guns more than anyone else for self defense. Guns should really be available to anyone who needs them. Cops, truckers, rape victims, store clerks, teachers, etc. Communities with more gun owners have lower crime rates. In fact Texas has the lowest crime rate of any state in the country.

Communities with more gun owners have lower crime rates. In fact Texas has the lowest crime rate of any state in the country.
You cannot be serious?

More like an observation filled w/ loaded terminology.
Do the math. :p

Once again. Read page two.
I read it once and that was more than enough.

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid. This forum seems also to be mostly left.

I don't know what it is that make people think that, but I bet they don't know where the idea was stated earlier:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm sure these people more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...

I agree completely. I also believe conceal-carry license laws are discriminatory against poor people who live in bad parts of the country and who need guns more than anyone else for self defense. Guns should really be available to anyone who needs them. Cops, truckers, rape victims, store clerks, teachers, etc. Communities with more gun owners have lower crime rates. In fact Texas has the lowest crime rate of any state in the country.

You cannot be serious?

Kennesaw Georgia has a mandatory gun law. All households must own a firearm. There hasn't been a murder in over 25 years. Guns make communities safe. I wanna go ahead and say that anyone who thinks guns should be banned for sake of public safety is a closed-minded biggot.


On another note,
Liberal means willing to accept change and new solutions to problems. You who consider yourselves liberals should consider gun ownership as a means of public safety instead of just regurgitating some Left-wing conservative bullshit.

Kennesaw Georgia has a mandatory gun law. All households must own a firearm. There hasn't been a murder in over 25 years. Guns make communities safe. I wanna go ahead and say that anyone who thinks guns should be banned for sake of public safety is a closed-minded biggot.

Actually, these figures probably have a lot more to do with Kennesaw's safety than it's gun laws. Especially the extremely low poverty rate.

The median income for a household in the city was $60,404 and the median income for a family was $67,778. Males had a median income of $45,253 versus $33,660 for females. The per capita income for the city was $24,757. About 3.1% of families and 4.5% of the population were below the poverty line

And then we look at DC

About 16.7% of families and 20.2% of the population were below the poverty line

I'm against anything but minimal gun control myself, but I think both the pro and anti sides are being quite silly in attributing gun crime to guns themselves rather than to the social issues that cause crime to begin with.

Kennesaw Georgia has a mandatory gun law. All households must own a firearm.
Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance.

There hasn't been a murder in over 25 years.
Not true.

Guns make communities safe.
Your proof?

On another note,
Liberal means willing to accept change and new solutions to problems. You who consider yourselves liberals should consider gun ownership as a means of public safety instead of just regurgitating some Left-wing conservative bullshit.
I prefer it to your right wing conservative bullshit!! :D

Communities with more gun owners have lower crime rates. In fact Texas has the lowest crime rate of any state in the country.
Japan, an entire country, has a much lower crime rate than Texas and has tough gun control laws.

Bah. The NRA is to the right wing what PETA is to the left (though, sadly, with much more lobbying power.)

Ummm... Guns are ... bad. I ... believe... OUTLAWS ARE GAY!

The only reason why the NRA is affiliated with the Republicans is because the Democrats as a whole want to remove that one part from the constitution altogether. That and if you want to protect your right to bear arms, you have to be involved in politics. If not with the Democrats, the process of elimination dictates with the Republicans.

If anyone wants to see what a society would look like without firearms, do a little research into modern day Japan (or Europe) and talk with a couple Japanese people. If you compare crime rates for just a moment, all the countries that have banned guns actually do have less crime in general per capita. Want proof? Open a search engine, this is the internet after all! However, from the other direction, the U.S. does indeed have an unusually high amount of organized crime and until they are disarmed too, I'll feel much safer with a 12guage in the house with me. I myself like the idea of owning a gun for protection simply because my family has had problems with two particular retired Catholic priests trying to kill my little sister at night to eliminate murder witnesses. If America outlawed guns, it would make protecting my sister from them very very difficult. On the other hand, my Grandma hates the idea of guns. Granted I haven't spoken to her in many years but last time I did, her view point made sense under scrutiny (however I don't remember what it was). My Grandpa from the other side of my family loves hunting and I admit there is a certain thrill to hunting. However I don't hunt just because I can't stomach the view of the animal when I cut it open. Even then, just hiking through the woods has a very similar thrill, allbeit with less adrenaline.

And as a side note, whether American citizens have the right to keep and bear arms effects no one but American citizens and is therefore none of anyone else's business. If Europe or Asia doesn't like America's views on gun ownership, SO WHAT?! It's none of their business so they can just butt out.

And in closing, I realize Gun Control is a very hot topic but I would like to kindly remind all of us to mind our manners and don't flame each other. Please stick to the dictated forum ediquette or the Moderators will be called in.

I myself like the idea of owning a gun for protection simply because my family has had problems with two particular retired Catholic priests trying to kill my little sister at night to eliminate murder witnesses.

So they had witnesses to the original murder and then they were caught again while they were trying to kill the witness?

Why the shotgun? Just dig a pit and cover it with some leaves.

In the UK we had very few incidents involving guns despite the many thousands of registered owners until they were banned in the typical political knee-jerk manner to a single persons waywardness in Dunblaine.

And in a time honoured way the response was for gun ownership and use by criminals to begin spiralling out of control by several hundred percent.

Now that guns - replica guns - pictures of guns even, are banned we have the highest level of fatal shootings in the history of the country.

So Yes! I believe Thomas Jefferson was right all along.

And in a time honoured way the response was for gun ownership and use by criminals to begin spiralling out of control by several hundred percent.

I take it you have some figures to back up this claim.

I take it you have some figures to back up this claim.

Don't forget logic, some logic should be required as well

Don't forget logic, some logic should be required as well
That also requires a brain? :D

In the UK we had very few incidents involving guns despite the many thousands of registered owners until they were banned in the typical political knee-jerk manner to a single persons waywardness in Dunblaine.
Good thing too. How often do things like Dunblane happen in the UK compared to how often in the USA, exactly?

And in a time honoured way the response was for gun ownership and use by criminals to begin spiralling out of control by several hundred percent.
I bet you can prove that then.

Now that guns - replica guns - pictures of guns even, are banned we have the highest level of fatal shootings in the history of the country.
Liar.

So Yes! I believe Thomas Jefferson was right all along.
Uh huh. It's a shame pretty much everybody here disagrees with you.

Well, let's look at the "spiral" in the US.

Violent crime, where a firearms was used, but no one was killed:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif

Wow. Looks like violent crime went down.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm



That is, 91% of violent crime occurs without a firearm being involved. One might then presume that if no firearms existed, we would still have at least 91% of the violent crime we already have.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

[QUOTE]From 1993 to 2001 the rate of firearm violence fell 63%

Hmm. A big drop - while the rate of firearm ownership skyrocketed in the US.

From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined 36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

One might presume that if there wasn't inner city black on black violence, we would have a lower firearm murder rate.

From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but 12% of the U.S. population.

Maybe we should see what the calculation is, if we leave out blacks - would our firearm violence rate be as terrible as the press makes out?

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

If guns cause violence crime, then how, with a major increase in firearms, did we have this precipitous drop in gun crime? At a time when a majority of US states passed laws allowing for concealed carry of firearms? At a time when firearm ownership doubled the number of guns per person compared to the beginning of the time period? When more people were legally walking the streets with guns?

I'm more than willing to say the UK is not the US, and vice versa. But how do you explain the jump in gun crime in the UK? When you've effectively banned all firearms? Less guns should automatically mean less violent crime, or so some people say.

Here in the US, we bought more firearms than ever before - and our violent crime rate went down.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Some notes about this study:

According to the study, worldwide gun ownership rates do not correlate with higher murder or suicide rates. In fact, many nations with high gun ownership have significantly lower murder and suicide rates.

In their piece entitled Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and some Domestic Evidence, Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser eviscerate "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths." In so doing, the authors provide fascinating historical insight into astronomical murder rates in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they dispel the myths that widespread gun ownership is somehow unique to the United States or that America suffers from the developed world's highest murder rate.

To the contrary, they establish that Soviet murder rates far exceeded American murder rates, and continue to do so today, despite Russia's extremely stringent gun prohibitions. By 2004, they show, the Russian murder rate was nearly four times higher than the American rate.

More fundamentally, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser demonstrate that other developed nations such as Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark maintain high rates of gun ownership, yet possess murder rates lower than other developed nations in which gun ownership is much more restricted.

For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe. As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's. "Norway," they note, "has far and away Western Europe's highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands," in contrast, "has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%) ... yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian."

Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser proceed to dispel the mainstream misconception that lower rates of violence in Europe are somehow attributable to gun control laws. Instead, they reveal, "murder in Europe was at an all-time low before the gun controls were introduced." As the authors note, "strict controls did not stem the general trend of ever-growing violent crime throughout the post-WWII industrialized world."

Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States." In America, on the other hand, "despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s."

Critically, Dr. Kates and Dr. Mauser note that "the fall in the American crime rate is even more impressive when compared with the rest of the world," where 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office suffered violent crime increases during that same period.

So they had witnesses to the original murder and then they were caught again while they were trying to kill the witness?

Why the shotgun? Just dig a pit and cover it with some leaves.
Tiger pit ftw.

Also, I stopped reading there. What little sense he was making quickly went away.

Remote Observers, go away before I have to dig up how I chased you out of these threads to begin with.

And also
As another example, Hungary's murder rate is nearly three times higher than nearby Austria's, but Austria's gun ownership rate is over eight times higher than Hungary's.
There couldn't possibly be a reason for that. Like there can't possibly be a reason for DC having a similar relationship with Virginia :rolleyes:

Remote Observers, go away before I have to dig up how I chased you out of these threads to begin with.

And also

There couldn't possibly be a reason for that. Like there can't possibly be a reason for DC having a similar relationship with Virginia :rolleyes:

I guess you will ignore the studies. You always have a penchant for denying facts.

Good thing too. How often do things like Dunblane happen in the UK compared to how often in the USA, exactly?


I bet you can prove that then.


Liar.


Uh huh. It's a shame pretty much everybody here disagrees with you.
The Sunday Times didn't have much good to say (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece) about the gun ban..

THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

Nor about the government figures. Based on this little blurb, I'd say the ban is a complete failure. Based on other evidence that indicates trends to the contrary when gun ownership is allowed, I'd say any ban is idiocy.

Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. According to the Kennesaw Historical Society, no one has ever been charged under the ordinance.


Not true.


Your proof?


I prefer it to your right wing conservative bullshit!! :D

Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime. One really never knows where the guns are, so it's better to just go somewhere else. FYI, Kennesaw is a suburb on the Northwest of the Atlanta sprawl. Certainly not an inherently "safe" town, by any means.

Look at this data (http://www.schooldigger.com/go/GA/schools/0129002058/school.aspx?Entity=67#menuselect) on violent crimes
First column is population, followed by
City Population Murders Murders Per 100000 People Rapes Rapes Per 100000 People Robberies Robberies Per 100000 People Assaults Assaults Per 100000 People
Kennesaw 28189 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 24.8 27 95.8
State Average 9072576 564 6.2 2143 23.6 14041 154.8 23977 264.3
National Average 296410404 16692 5.6 93934 31.7 417122 140.7 862947 291.1

Sorry about the formatting -- If anyone tells me how to make tables, I'll fix it.

Zero murders in 2005. Zero rapes in 2005. One sixth the robberies. One third the assaults when compared to state and national averages per 100,000 persons.

Same sorts of trends for all other crime, as well.

Now tell me why it's bad to own a gun?

The Sunday Times didn't have much good to say (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece) about the gun ban..

THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

Nor about the government figures. Based on this little blurb, I'd say the ban is a complete failure. Based on other evidence that indicates trends to the contrary when gun ownership is allowed, I'd say any ban is idiocy.


Linking the post Dunblaine legislation with a rise in gun crime is a false cause and effect relationship. My view is that the legislation was rushed and had flaws - there was no reason to ban the use of handguns within clubs. But in other ways it was very good. There is simply no reason for having automatic weapons in the UK. Personally I am glad that in the UK we have a largely gun-free culture, and would resist any move to allow greater access to guns.

Anybody ever heard of the "Make my Day Law" ? Where in Oklahoma and Colorado, a home owner can use deadly force against a threatening home-invader.

"Crime rates in Oklahoma for burglary fell from 58,333 in 1987 to 31,661 in 2000."

Seems to work.

Anybody ever heard of the "Make my Day Law" ? Where in Oklahoma and Colorado, a home owner can use deadly force against a threatening home-invader.

"Crime rates in Oklahoma for burglary fell from 58,333 in 1987 to 31,661 in 2000."

Seems to work.

Actually, that's called the Castle Doctrine and most states have it.

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

Linking the post Dunblaine legislation with a rise in gun crime is a false cause and effect relationship. My view is that the legislation was rushed and had flaws - there was no reason to ban the use of handguns within clubs. But in other ways it was very good. There is simply no reason for having automatic weapons in the UK. Personally I am glad that in the UK we have a largely gun-free culture, and would resist any move to allow greater access to guns.
Please explain this to me, I'm confused...

I say(British stats say) gun crime has quadrupled in 8 years. All of that during the years when ownership and possession of a firearm is illegal.

I conclude that the gun ban has not reduced the gun crime rate.

You say that the causal link is missing without any further justification.

Don't you really need to point out some flaw in my conclusion, or at least support your own statement?

Do the math. :p


I read it once and that was more than enough.

And what "math" would that be? To take numbers that are stated not to be representative and use them as representative? Those numbers?

At least you admit that even though you read the report, you're just going to rehash whatever anti-gun talking points you feel will create causality.

Most homicide victims are prior criminals:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0903MurderVictims0903.html

WASHINGTON - A spike in murders in many cities is claiming a startling number of victims with criminal records, police say, suggesting that drug and gang wars are behind the escalating violence...

In Baltimore, about 91 percent of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74 percent a decade ago, police reported. In many cases, says Frederick Bealefeld III, Baltimore's interim police commissioner, victims' rap sheets provide critical links to potential suspects in botched drug deals or violent territorial disputes.

Philadelphia Police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." But Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up, to 75 percent this year from 71 percent in 2005, department statistics show.

The commission, which compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time, found that 77 percent of murder victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.

And in Newark, N.J., roughly 85 percent of homicide victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, according to police statistics.

Anybody ever heard of the "Make my Day Law" ? Where in Oklahoma and Colorado, a home owner can use deadly force against a threatening home-invader.

"Crime rates in Oklahoma for burglary fell from 58,333 in 1987 to 31,661 in 2000."

Seems to work.
It doesn't take much of a leap...If you're a predator, wouldn't you much rather prey on the weak, rather than the ones that can defend themselves?

If that's not true, all these gun ban proponents ought to wear badges and display signs at home that proudly claim that they and their homes are gun free.

Anybody ever heard of the "Make my Day Law" ? Where in Oklahoma and Colorado, a home owner can use deadly force against a threatening home-invader.

"Crime rates in Oklahoma for burglary fell from 58,333 in 1987 to 31,661 in 2000."

Seems to work.
Probably because the burglars thought Clint Eastwood was guarding their house :rolleyes:

Here's the trouble with banning guns. Ignoring the moral issue of making a populace defenseless, that criminals don't obey the law to begin with and it is easier to hurt others when they cannot fight back, there is no real way to enforce it effectively unless you're willing to give up two other freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

The first is the First because so long as that is there no law can be passed that would prohibit instructional documents on the construction of firearms from being sold or distributed freely.

The second is the Fourth. So long as that is there police cannot conduct searches, perform arrests, or seize property without a warrant or probable cause that a crime either has been or is being committed.

Do you really want to give up your freedom of speech and right to privacy? Is disarming old ladies, rape victims, Super America clerks, hunters, target shooters, etc. really that important? Even if you're willing to give up those two freedoms to toss another, what gives you the right to take all three from others?

Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime.
No it is not.

One really never knows where the guns are, so it's better to just go somewhere else.
I imagine that "One really never knows where the guns are" in Richmond VA., either but it still resulted in 84 murders for a city of only 200,000 in 2005.

And what "math" would that be? To take numbers that are stated not to be representative and use them as representative? Those numbers?
Did I say that the numbers are "representative"? No I did not. Don't put words in my mouth as you are wont to do. I will repeat once again:

My observation was that "it appears that the vast majority of crime guns originate in the southern states".

I believe that to be a reasonable observation.

At least you admit that even though you read the report, you're just going to rehash whatever anti-gun talking points you feel will create causality.
Actually, that is what the pro gun crowd does in reverse. I just call bullshit. :eek:

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid. This forum seems also to be mostly left.

Seems like a perfectly logical statement to me. If guns are outlawed, then, logically, anyone who retains possession of a gun is an outlaw. Am I missing something?

But, I'm sure these people know more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...
(Bolded word assumed)

Well... why not? How long has he been dead, after all? Who can say how much knowledge dead men retain (or women, for that politically-correct matter)?

Please explain this to me, I'm confused...

I say(British stats say) gun crime has quadrupled in 8 years. All of that during the years when ownership and possession of a firearm is illegal.

I conclude that the gun ban has not reduced the gun crime rate.

You say that the causal link is missing without any further justification.

Don't you really need to point out some flaw in my conclusion, or at least support your own statement?

I meant that the increase in gun crime cannot be tied specifically to not having guns freely available. Not that the law failed to reduce gun crime - I agree it was a crap piece of legislation (along with the similar Dangerous Dogs Act) introduced as a piece of panic legislation. I think that the rise in gun crime tend to be in isolated clusters in the UK. For example in Nottingham for a few years there was a large (by UK standards) number of gun incidents - but in reality it was down to very few illegal guns probably from one source. So I do not think you can say that introducing US style gun laws in the UK would improve the situation in the UK.

I never said it was because Thomas Jefferson said it. I'm just saying he probably knew what he was talking about. I had the idea long before I knew of the quote.

The point was that people like to say it is not true that it is good for the criminals when guns are banned, when this is the truth.

The Jefferson quote was supposed to enforce that - I thought you would have at least some respect for his opinions, but I guess you don't.

And those who say 'they didn't have the weapons we have now!" Guess what? The quote doesn't even imply that that matters - he is not even talking about guns, necassarily. "Arms" can be any weapon.

Well, let's look at it from a slightly different angle, shall we? If guns made the individual safer, the USA should probably be about the safest county in the world, right? And yet, it ranks no 24 worldwide for murder per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) (no 1 Western country), and no 8 for murder with firearm (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita).

i see no problem with outlawing PRODUCTION, SALE, and IMPORTATION, but NOT possession. that way the only people who had them would be those who could actually MAKE their own.

i think that would achieve the purpose of people being able to defend themselves from their (thus unarmed) government, without having to have everyone go arround shooting at each other.

a fantasy? maybe. but no more so then the myth that a populas armed with lethal force is safer then one which isn't. something statistics and experince, however counter intuitive, DO tend to bear out (the mythicalness of).

=^^=
.../\...

The NRA's close association with the Republican Party also makes me seriously question its dedication to anything resembling "rights," as the Republican Party knows nothing of any such thing.

"Rights" might indicate that there are different types of right-wing opinions and organizations, like liberals, republicans, gaullists, or neo-nazis. ;)

Jefferson is hardly a credible source to the socialists and communists who dominate this forum-the man penned the US Constitution, which is the founding document for all the World's Evil.

It had to be coming...

Da, comrade. In Soviet Internet, the Forum dominates YOU!

The principle of "Separation of Church and State" is from the Communist Manifesto and has no basis in US law,

Oy vey! This man clearly never read the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (not the "Communist Manifesto"!)
The idea of separation between of religion and State can be traced back to Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau in the Modern Age, and back to Jesus of Nazareth in the Classical Age. "Give Caesar what is Caesar's", "My reign is not of this Earth" etc. Quite BEFORE Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote the Manifesto.
Without Montesquieu's, Voltaire's and Rousseau's philosophical and political work, the US Constitution AND the Declaration of Independence wouldn't even exist (nor would the US exist without the substantial help of France's La Fayette, or the modern idea of democracy without French Illuminism).

Also, the lack of separation between the Church (and, when capitalised this way by a westerner, it means the Roman Apostolic Catholic one!) and the State is necessary to have freedom of religion: I thought that the USA prided themselves about their religious freedom, but, since you claim that in the USA there is no separation between Church and State...

Btw, I was in Paris this August. I've seen the house (in Rue Jacobe iirc) where the peace between the USA and Britain was signed! Nice.

See, this slave-owning, low-life treacherous Jefferson person - not so convincing or impressive to us foreigners, you know.

Eh. Qft.

America, for some reason, just has a really high murder rate. People that claim that gun control doesn't help need to realize that we have a far higher murder rate then any country in Europe or Japan. And the majority of those countries, with their low murder rates, have strict gun control laws. We on the other hand, have less restrictions, and a far far higher rate of violence (involving guns).

Yet within the United States, murder rates are higher in areas that have stricter gun control laws than in areas that are more lax.

This would indicate that the reason for the US's generally higher murder rate has nothing to do with the easier availability of firearms, but is rather due to other causes. It also would indicate that, ceteris paribus (which is all that matters when considering the effects of gun control itself, independent of all other factors), countries with laxer firearms laws can expect to have lower murder rates than countries with stricter laws. In other words, if the US had implemented restrictions on firearms similar to those in Asia and Western Europe, its murder rate would be even higher than it is now--and those countries should expect to see a decrease in their murder rate from its already-low number if they would loosen firearms restrictions.

Yet within the United States, murder rates are higher in areas that have stricter gun control laws than in areas that are more lax.

This would indicate that the reason for the US's generally higher murder rate has nothing to do with the easier availability of firearms, but is rather due to other causes. It also would indicate that, ceteris paribus (which is all that matters when considering the effects of gun control itself, independent of all other factors), countries with laxer firearms laws can expect to have lower murder rates than countries with stricter laws. In other words, if the US had implemented restrictions on firearms similar to those in Asia and Western Europe, its murder rate would be even higher than it is now--and those countries should expect to see a decrease in their murder rate from its already-low number if they would loosen firearms restrictions.

But then why does the US already have higher rates than those countries?

i see no problem with outlawing PRODUCTION, SALE, and IMPORTATION, but NOT possession. that way the only people who had them would be those who could actually MAKE their own.

No; that would be an illegitimate violation of freedom of trade and commerce.

But then why does the US already have higher rates than those countries?

I don't know; the point of my post is just that it's almost certainly got nothing to do firearms ownership and the relative laxness of laws regulating it.

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid. This forum seems also to be mostly left.

I don't know what it is that make people think that, but I bet they don't know where the idea was stated earlier:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm sure these people more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...

Wahoo wa (bitch)! Good ol TJ...he's a minor deity, here.

Yet within the United States, murder rates are higher in areas that have stricter gun control laws than in areas that are more lax.
Absolutely false.

countries with laxer firearms laws can expect to have lower murder rates than countries with stricter laws.
Absolutely false.

In other words, if the US had implemented restrictions on firearms similar to those in Asia and Western Europe, its murder rate would be even higher than it is now
Purely speculative. Your proof please.

It seems that a common idea among the left that the NRA's slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is stupid. This forum seems also to be mostly left.

I don't know what it is that make people think that, but I bet they don't know where the idea was stated earlier:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson

But, I'm sure these people more about this type of thing than Thomas Jefferson...

How about finding any 'universal Truth' that says another person needs, or has a 'right' to, a personal technology designed for the explicit purpose of killing others?

Once we can give an absolute expression that such a desire is a 'right', we can debate whether it is proper to apply restirctions to it.

Absolutely false.
Your claim does not make it so. Statistics don't lie.


Absolutely false.
No, it's not. I suggest you take a second to learn what the phrase certeris paribus means, and figure out why I used it earlier.

Purely speculative. Your proof please.
I already gave it, in the form of reasoned argument.

Jefferson is hardly a credible source to the socialists and communists who dominate this forum-the man penned the US Constitution, which is the founding document for all the World's Evil. The principle of "Separation of Church and State" is from the Communist Manifesto and has no basis in US law, yet it is cited constantly by these same people as if it has relevance in arguments regarding US law.
And don't bother appealling to logic, either-New York City has the strictest gun control laws in the US, and the highest levels of gun violence, but it''s the fault of NYC's neighbors it happens, for not passing gun control as strict. Texas, which not only has higher rates of gun ownership as well as concealed weapons licensing, is nowhere near the levels of gun violence one finds in gun control areas.

Besides your completely moronic attempt to pawn off seperation of church and state as an ebil communist ploy, I would like to point out the fact that I am as far left as they come, I don't believe in gun control. Quit stereotyping leftists as being opposed to gun ownership.

In fact, I really like guns.... :mp5:

Did I say that the numbers are "representative"? No I did not. Don't put words in my mouth as you are wont to do. I will repeat once again:

Like I said, loaded terminology to encourage a claim of representation. Hop around a little more.




Actually, that is what the pro gun crowd does in reverse. I just call bullshit. :eek:

So you admit your claims are bullshit along w/ a red herring and ad hominem.

Like I said, loaded terminology to encourage a claim of representation. Hop around a little more.
I am not hopping around. You still want me to use your choice of words....I'll pass thanks.

Once again and this is the 3rd time:

My observation was that "it appears that the vast majority of crime guns originate in the southern states".

I believe that to be a reasonable observation.
If you are panning for gold and find some gold flakes, it might be reasonable to assume that there is a nearby source.

I do believe that if one totaled all the numbers on those reports, one could make a reasonable assumption that the majority of crime guns that were traced do originate in the southern states.

So you admit your claims are bullshit along w/ a red herring and ad hominem.
Again, you appear to be reading the words you want me to write? What I claim to be "bullshit" is the many false claims of the pro gun lobby. Capeche?

Your claim does not make it so. Statistics don't lie.
Then present the statistics to verify your claims.

No, it's not. I suggest you take a second to learn what the phrase certeris paribus means, and figure out why I used it earlier.
This isn't a Latin lesson, it is a gun debate. You have made a claim that you cannot support. It is absolutely false.

I already gave it, in the form of reasoned argument.
Your "reasoned argument" is not based on any facts and is purely speculative.

I am not hopping around. You still want me to use your choice of words....I'll pass thanks.

Once again and this is the 3rd time:


If you are panning for gold and find some gold flakes, it might be reasonable to assume that there is a nearby source.

I do believe that if one totaled all the numbers on those reports, one could make a reasonable assumption that the majority of crime guns that were traced do originate in the southern states.

Only if you ignore the fact that the numbers presented can't be used for that, sure.


Again, you appear to be reading the words you want me to write? What I claim to be "bullshit" is the many false claims of the pro gun lobby. Capeche?

Which is a red herring and ad hominem at the same time.

It is you, Canukistani, who have made an unsupported argument that is purely speculative.

Switzerland full of guns but has a lower crime rate than jolly old England. The swiss have a higher rate of ownership than the US because they actualy issue an assault rifle, not just assault weapon (political term), but a fully automatic assault rifle (technical term) along with ammo to every guy between the ages of 21 and 50. Those issued the weapon are also conscripted and trained in the use of it. There are very few home invasions in Switzerland because anyone who does runs the risk of being shot.

I'm wondering where it is specifically stated in the "gun lobby" liturature to use misleading information to push for legislation. It's in the VPC's:

"Assault weapons-just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

Or one of the poster boy's for the Brady Campaign who just pled guilty to tax evasion and mail fraud saying that the AWB covered fully-auto weapons:

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2003/05/lying-news-media-part-ii-edited-for.html

Or that the Tiahrt amendment prevented police from sharing data, or there are such things as plastic guns, etc.

You want to keep this ad hominem war going?

Only if you ignore the fact that the numbers presented can't be used for that, sure.
I do believe that the older crime gun trace reports, circa 2000, (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/index.htm)were much more detailed then the present ones. I understand that legislation has since been enacted (see below) that restricts the sharing of this data today. It certainly was much easier to base my observations on that data, then the current model. That being said, the current model leads me to believe that the majority of crime guns originate in the southern states.

The Tiahrt Provision Significantly Restricts Disclosing Crime Gun Trace Data

1. Prior to the passage of the Tiahrt Provision, law enforcement agencies could get access to crime gun trace data to assist in developing effective strategies against gun trafficking and illegal guns, without unjustified restrictions.

2. The Tiahrt Provision prevents law enforcement agencies from obtaining crime gun trace data unless it pertains to a specific criminal investigation or prosecution and then, it limits the information to the agency's geographic jurisdiction. This makes it extremely difficult for a local law enforcement agency to identify gun trafficking patterns. And this limitation on the data law
enforcement can obtain also makes it difficult to develop preventative strategies to stop gun crimes and better utilize resources.

3. The Tiahrt Provision also prevents ATF itself from publishing reports that use trace data to inform law enforcement and the public about the sources of illegal guns and the impact of various law enforcement strategies. For example, it has prevented ATF’s regular issuance of crime gun trace reports under the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which had been invaluable in educating law enforcement, and the public, about the diversion of guns from licensed dealers into the illegal market.

A New Jersey Senator introduced a bill (http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2006/s2460.html) to permit access to certain information in the Firearms Trace System database.

Noteworthy:

One study has shown that 1.2 percent of gun dealers sell 57 percent of guns later traced to criminal investigations.

the overwhelming majority of guns used to commit crimes in our State's cities were originally sold in compliance with the law in other States.

In fact, a large majority of the guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City, Newark, and Camden traveled up the East Coast along I-95, which has been called the "Iron Pipeline".''

According to the reports released in July 2002, 85 percent of the traced guns used to commit crimes in Jersey City and Newark, and 77 percent of those used in Camden, were originally purchased outside of New Jersey. And more than 67 percent of crime guns recovered in Jersey City were originally purchased more than 250 miles away.
Don't you want to know where these crime guns are coming from?

Which is a red herring and ad hominem at the same time.
I did not personally attack anyone in this thread. I have requested facts. Where are they? Therefore your standard "red herring (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=837392)" argument is in itself a red herring.

It is you, Canukistani, who have made an unsupported argument that is purely speculative.

Switzerland full of guns but has a lower crime rate than jolly old England. The swiss have a higher rate of ownership than the US because they actualy issue an assault rifle, not just assault weapon (political term), but a fully automatic assault rifle (technical term) along with ammo to every guy between the ages of 21 and 50. Those issued the weapon are also conscripted and trained in the use of it. There are very few home invasions in Switzerland because anyone who does runs the risk of being shot.
I was referring to Linus and Lucy's unsupported and speculative argument.

Your post is irrelevant to his claims?

It is you, Canukistani, who have made an unsupported argument that is purely speculative.

Switzerland full of guns but has a lower crime rate than jolly old England. The swiss have a higher rate of ownership than the US because they actualy issue an assault rifle, not just assault weapon (political term), but a fully automatic assault rifle (technical term) along with ammo to every guy between the ages of 21 and 50. Those issued the weapon are also conscripted and trained in the use of it. There are very few home invasions in Switzerland because anyone who does runs the risk of being shot.

Japan has some of the world's most restrictive gun laws, and it has an extremely low violent crime rate. There is absolutely no correlation between guns laws and violent crime rates.

Japan has some of the world's most restrictive gun laws, and it has an extremely low violent crime rate. There is absolutely no correlation between guns laws and violent crime rates.
YES! YES! YES!!! There is no correlation between gun laws an violent crime rates. Some countries have strict laws that prohibit the ownership of firearms and have high crime rates while other with equally strict laws have low rates. Some countries with high ownership have low crime rates while others with similar ownership have high crime rates. It's not the guns, it's the people using them.

I do believe that the older crime gun trace reports, circa 2000, (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/index.htm)were much more detailed then the present ones. I understand that legislation has since been enacted (see below) that restricts the sharing of this data today. It certainly was much easier to base my observations on that data, then the current model. That being said, the current model leads me to believe that the majority of crime guns originate in the southern states.

Only if you keep ignoring the fact that the data can't be used to make generalizations like that.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

The Tiahrt Provision Significantly Restricts Disclosing Crime Gun Trace Data

1. Prior to the passage of the Tiahrt Provision, law enforcement agencies could get access to crime gun trace data to assist in developing effective strategies against gun trafficking and illegal guns, without unjustified restrictions.

Define "effective strategies", Define "unjustified"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

2. The Tiahrt Provision prevents law enforcement agencies from obtaining crime gun trace data unless it pertains to a specific criminal investigation or prosecution and then, it limits the information to the agency's geographic jurisdiction. This makes it extremely difficult for a local law enforcement agency to identify gun trafficking patterns. And this limitation on the data law
enforcement can obtain also makes it difficult to develop preventative strategies to stop gun crimes and better utilize resources.

It limits it to a geographic jurisdiction? What does that mean? They can get the data on firearms they locate in their jurisdiction.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

3. The Tiahrt Provision also prevents ATF itself from publishing reports that use trace data to inform law enforcement and the public about the sources of illegal guns and the impact of various law enforcement strategies. For example, it has prevented ATF’s regular issuance of crime gun trace reports under the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, which had been invaluable in educating law enforcement, and the public, about the diversion of guns from licensed dealers into the illegal market.

Did you copy and paste this from the VPC or Brady bunch? You may also want to re-read the section on that TRACE DATA CAN"T BE USED FOR STATISTICS!!! To keep repeating this makes you just as disingenuous as I've always believed you to be. What would law enforcement do w/ data from outside of it's jurisdiction?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

A New Jersey Senator introduced a bill (http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2006/s2460.html) to permit access to certain information in the Firearms Trace System database.



All of those quotes are based on faulty data. TRACE DATA CAN"T BE USED FOR STATISTICS!!!!

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf


Don't you want to know where these crime guns are coming from?

Trace data doesn't tell you that. Try again.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf


I did not personally attack anyone in this thread. I have requested facts. Where are they? Therefore your standard "red herring (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=837392)" argument is in itself a red herring.

You went on a tangent about how the "gun lobby" lies when I was talking about you. That is an ad hominem and a red herring.


Of course your whole bit is a complete dodge and ethically suspect. Maybe if I post the reports saying that trace data can't be used for statistics enough times, it may get through your head.

Probably not, but one can always hope.

Only if you keep ignoring the fact that the data can't be used to make generalizations like that.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

Define "effective strategies", Define "unjustified"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

It limits it to a geographic jurisdiction? What does that mean? They can get the data on firearms they locate in their jurisdiction.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

Did you copy and paste this from the VPC or Brady bunch? You may also want to re-read the section on that TRACE DATA CAN"T BE USED FOR STATISTICS!!! To keep repeating this makes you just as disingenuous as I've always believed you to be. What would law enforcement do w/ data from outside of it's jurisdiction?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

All of those quotes are based on faulty data. TRACE DATA CAN"T BE USED FOR STATISTICS!!!!

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

Trace data doesn't tell you that. Try again.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf

You went on a tangent about how the "gun lobby" lies when I was talking about you. That is an ad hominem and a red herring.

Of course your whole bit is a complete dodge and ethically suspect. Maybe if I post the reports saying that trace data can't be used for statistics enough times, it may get through your head.

Probably not, but one can always hope.
Now you are just trolling and flamebaiting. :eek:

From your link:

CRS Report for Congress (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf)

Opponents of Section 9, like Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, counter that every tool is needed to “crackdown” on irresponsible FFLs by analyzing firearm trace data on a regional and national basis, so that federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities can be informed of the source and market areas for “crime guns.”21 They contend further that Section 9, if enacted, would preclude such analysis and may prohibit the sharing of such data between law enforcement agencies pursuing multi-jurisdictional (regional) gun trafficking investigations. Senator Robert Menendez and Representative Steven R. Rothman have introduced identical bills (S. 2460/H.R. 5033) to repeal the FY2006 appropriation rider. Senator Charles Schumer introduced a similar bill (S. 2629).
Maybe with the Democrats they will be able to reverse this.

There is absolutely no correlation between guns laws and violent crime rates.
Then there shouldn't be ANY gun laws at all?

Then there shouldn't be ANY gun laws at all?

I think what is being said is, there are other factors that are involved in the crime rate (such as poverty level, culture, etc), and that one cannot concretely say one way or another that there's a correlation between firearms laws and crime.

Washington D.C., the great experiment, has the highest gun crimes in the country and it is illegal to own a gun in D.C., regardless of its type. There's nothing wrong with responsible gun control but those who are against guns should focus not on banning all guns but seizing and removing illegal guns, which commit many of the crimes. If once that is solved then seek to take gun control further. I'm no fan of a ban on guns but I do think people who are irresponsible should not have guns. Permits are a good thing, waiting periods are a good thing, background checks are a good thing. However, the solution to any "gun problem" is never to just get rid of them, it ignores the most principle issue. Outlaws will always be able to get their hands on guns, even if they're totally banned. Then what happens when only THEY have the guns? That is a bad power vacuum that must be filled. I'm sure many people who advocate gun ban do not advocate removing them from the hands of the police but I am sure many do. Always try to think about the unintended consequences from acts meant to be absolute.

I think what is being said is, there are other factors that are involved in the crime rate (such as poverty level, culture, etc), and that one cannot concretely say one way or another that there's a correlation between firearms laws and crime.
I disagree.

Although it is easy to understand some of the underlying contributors to crime, one cannot suggest that there is no correlation between gun laws and violent crime?

Or why would this be the norm?

Federal Laws—Hard Time for Gun Crime (http://www.readingpa.gov/police_safe_neighborhoods.asp)

Now you are just trolling and flamebaiting. :eek:

From your link:

CRS Report for Congress (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22458.pdf)


Maybe with the Democrats they will be able to reverse this.

Boy did you miss the forest for the trees. I guess all those bits about the trace data being misused completely escaped you.

Of course you also neglect to remember that Bloomberg was critisized by the DOJ and BATFE for his out of jurisdiction sting operations.

As for the much touted "correlation":

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/

Boy did you miss the forest for the trees. I guess all those bits about the trace data being misused completely escaped you.

Of course you also neglect to remember that Bloomberg was critisized by the DOJ and BATFE for his out of jurisdiction sting operations.
The earlier crime gun reports had no disclaimer on this information (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/highlights.pdf):

National Patterns.

National trafficking patterns account for 30 percent or more of guns traced from nine cities. The most striking case is that of New York City, NY, where 73.4 percent of crime guns came from national sources including Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Newark and Jersey City, NJ, which are located near New York, NY, experience strikingly similar national trafficking patterns with 80.2 and 74.5 percent of their crime guns coming from national sources. Other cities on the Eastern shore with high percentages of nationally sourced guns include Washington, DC (38.6 percent), and Camden, NJ (50.6 percent). A second trafficking pattern runs from the South to large cities in the Midwest. Chicago, IL, has 32.8 percent of crime guns from national sources and Detroit, MI, 44.5 percent. Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia are important national source areas for Chicago, IL. Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama are significant for Detroit, MI.
My observation is that the southern states are major suppliers of crime guns.

As for the much touted "correlation":

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/
Try a better source.

The earlier crime gun reports had no disclaimer on this information (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/highlights.pdf):


My observation is that the southern states are major suppliers of crime guns.

Maybe if you read the whole report (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/) instead of just the "highlights" , you might find actually discover where they list the limitations on it.

The CRS and BATFE have had reports showing the limitations of trace data since '92.
"Assault Weapons:" Military-Style Semi-automatic Firearms Facts and Issues, Keith Bea, et al, May 13, 1992.

Try again.

Keep using that loaded terminology even after the evidence has been presented CH. It just keeps proving my point.

Try a better source.

Why? Oh, right, ad hominem. Why don't you try and refute it instead. Be a little bit honest, why don't you.

I disagree.

Although it is easy to understand some of the underlying contributors to crime, one cannot suggest that there is no correlation between gun laws and violent crime?

Or why would this be the norm?

Federal Laws—Hard Time for Gun Crime (http://www.readingpa.gov/police_safe_neighborhoods.asp)

It's your right to disagree, but IMO there are too many examples on both sides of the issue to say that the amount of regulation of firearms correlates to the number of crimes commited.

Why? Oh, right, ad hominem. Why don't you try and refute it instead. Be a little bit honest, why don't you.
It is not worth the effort? Gary Mauser is making a ton of money off the pro gun crowd?

I like the way the article starts off on the NRA site (http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=247):

You’ve heard the bogus statistics, skewed studies and incompatible comparisons that the anti-gun lobby and the media elite endlessly repeat ad nauseum in their propaganda, which blames firearm freedom for violent crime.
Easy way to turn off potential converts?

And stop with the bogus "ad hominem" claims. :D

if no one made guns, no one would have guns.

not even governments.

i still fail to see how this would be a bad thing.

=^^=
.../\...

It is not worth the effort? Gary Mauser is making a ton of money off the pro gun crowd?

I like the way the article starts off on the NRA site (http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=247):


Easy way to turn off potential converts?

And stop with the bogus "ad hominem" claims. :D

You've pulled that one before CH. Why don't you prove "Mauser makes a ton of money off the pro-gun crowd"? Oh, right, you can't. Dismissing the report because you claim he makes money off of it is an ad hominem. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) It's the only way you can get around the evidence in the report. That, along w/ the fact that you've used an edited report from the BATFE and made a false claim (again) makes you out to be completely dishonest. Remember that nice little SCOTUS decision you edited to make it sound like the judge said the COTUS didn't guarantee rights?

So that's two fallacies you've thrown into this post.

You're done.

No it is not.


I imagine that "One really never knows where the guns are" in Richmond VA., either but it still resulted in 84 murders for a city of only 200,000 in 2005.
I guess it was hard to read, but it resulted in 0.0 murders in Kennesaw, GA. Same size city, too. I'd still say it's a great example of how an armed society is a polite society.

I guess it was hard to read, but it resulted in 0.0 murders in Kennesaw, GA. Same size city, too. I'd still say it's a great example of how an armed society is a polite society.

A city with no murders? That can't possibly be true. Where there's people, there's murder sooner or later. Doesn't matter whether it was done with a gun or spork.

See, this slave-owning, low-life treacherous Jefferson person - not so convincing or impressive to us foreigners, you know.

And if I'm not wrong, he was shagging at least one of his slaves, too. I seem to remember that he has black descendants from one of his slaves. Bet she freely consented to sex.

A city with no murders? That can't possibly be true. Where there's people, there's murder sooner or later. Doesn't matter whether it was done with a gun or spork.
Go back a few pages and look at the link. FBI stats from 2005 ... zero murders, zero rapes. Property crimes are a small fraction of the state and federal averages.

It's on the outskirts of Atlanta, as well. Pretty good example of what happens when a large number of the population owns firearms.

That was also back in the day when you could only get off one shot before reloading.

If the right to keep and bear arms doesn't protect modern arms, why should any person think that the right to free speech protects modern speech - say, via telephone, radio, television or the internet?

You've pulled that one before CH. Why don't you prove "Mauser makes a ton of money off the pro-gun crowd"? Oh, right, you can't. Dismissing the report because you claim he makes money off of it is an ad hominem. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) It's the only way you can get around the evidence in the report. That, along w/ the fact that you've used an edited report from the BATFE and made a false claim (again) makes you out to be completely dishonest. Remember that nice little SCOTUS decision you edited to make it sound like the judge said the COTUS didn't guarantee rights?

So that's two fallacies you've thrown into this post.

You're done.
Once again, you are way off base with your "ad hominen" claim. I did not make a personal attack against you period, wheras you keep flaming me and trolling.

Mauser is a pro gun advocate and his article on the NRA site (http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=247)makes quite a few claims yet provide no reference material to back to his claims. This one claim alone is enough to raise serious doubts as to his credibility:

More guns may not always dictate less crime. . . but more guns definitely go hand-in-hand with less crime.
Anyone can make a claim?? Proving it is much more difficult??

To suggest that I am "completely dishonest" is yet another personal attack against me and it is not a proper tool of debate. Please stop.

Once again, you are way off base with your "ad hominen" claim. I did not make a personal attack against you period, wheras you keep flaming me and trolling.

Did I say it was against me? Nope. Try again. It was against Mauser, the NRA, and the "gun lobby". I'm calling you out on your blatant hypocrisy.

Mauser is a pro gun advocate and his article on the NRA site (http://www.nraila.org/issues/articles/read.aspx?id=247)makes quite a few claims yet provide no reference material to back to his claims. This one claim alone is enough to raise serious doubts as to his credibility:


That's nice. Now dispute the article in question. I posted the entire thing. It wasn't from the NRA. You've claimed he makes tons of money from the gun lobby. Prove it or admit you just made it up.

EDIT: Why don't you find that quote in the paper. I couldn't. Especially since he states on page 18 of it that more guns = less crime isn't necessarily true. It was from the NRA article on the paper. That would make three times.


Since you're making assumptions and claims based off of data that has been specifically cited over and over as not being useful for that purpose, would that call into question your credibility?


Anyone can make a claim?? Proving it is much more difficult??

To suggest that I am "completely dishonest" is yet another personal attack against me and it is not a proper tool of debate. Please stop.

Since this isn't the first time you've used edited links and cites to make false claims, you've shown yourself to be dishonest in this debate. It seems to be pretty difficult for you.

Edit: And now CH is searching through the threads to find more red herrings to detract from the topic. Wait for it....

Did I say it was against me? Nope. Try again. It was against Mauser, the NRA, and the "gun lobby". I'm calling you out on your blatant hypocrisy.

That's nice. Now dispute the article in question. I posted the entire thing. It wasn't from the NRA. You've claimed he makes tons of money from the gun lobby. Prove it or admit you just made it up.

EDIT: Why don't you find that quote in the paper. I couldn't. Especially since he states on page 18 of it that more guns = less crime isn't necessarily true. It was from the NRA article on the paper. That would make three times.

Since you're making assumptions and claims based off of data that has been specifically cited over and over as not being useful for that purpose, would that call into question your credibility?

Since this isn't the first time you've used edited links and cites to make false claims, you've shown yourself to be dishonest in this debate. It seems to be pretty difficult for you.
I asked you to stop with the personal attacks, but it appears that it is your perferred style of debate? I could reply in kind but I am not taking your bait.

Edit: And now CH is searching through the threads to find more red herrings to detract from the topic. Wait for it....
A tad paranoid? Also more flaming. :eek:

I asked you to stop with the personal attacks, but it appears that it is your perferred style of debate?

I could reply in kind but I am not taking your bait.

I am sensing serious disconnect here.

P.S. after I get over the fact he's not even talking about guns anymore...

I asked you to stop with the personal attacks, but it appears that it is your perferred style of debate? I could reply in kind but I am not taking your bait.


A tad paranoid? Also more flaming. :eek:

Yep, posting actual reports and expecting responses to them instead of ad hominems and red herrings is my preferred style of debate.

At least you admit you just made up your "tons of money" statement, trace data can't be used for statistics, and Mauser didn't claim "more guns=less crime".

If you think I'm flaming, report me. Put up or shut up.

I guess it was hard to read, but it resulted in 0.0 murders in Kennesaw, GA. Same size city, too. I'd still say it's a great example of how an armed society is a polite society.
There have been murders in Kennesaw since the law was passed.

Kennesaw Ga. (pop. 25,000) is not the same size city as Richmond Va. (pop. 200,000).

http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=7061

• Between 2001 and 2002, the national murder rate went up less than 1 percent. In cities the size of Richmond, it went up less than 3 percent. In Richmond, the murder rate jumped 20 percent. If current trends hold, it will be even higher this year.

There have been murders in Kennesaw since the law was passed.

Kennesaw Ga. (pop. 25,000) is not the same size city as Richmond Va. (pop. 200,000).

http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=7061

• Between 2001 and 2002, the national murder rate went up less than 1 percent. In cities the size of Richmond, it went up less than 3 percent. In Richmond, the murder rate jumped 20 percent. If current trends hold, it will be even higher this year.

CH is right on one point. Since the law went into effect, there have been 3. Two w/ knives and one w/ a gun.

Of course his claim of 'current trends" is wrong since murders and violent crime actually went down in richmond from '05 to '06 according to the UCR (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/t4ok-wi.htm)

We should give a fuck about some really esoteric and peripheral USA minutiae such as this on this international forum because...?

....you answered your own question it's international and last I checked the USA is a nation.Besides I never here you complaining about UK stuff.

I have nothing to say on this,... some parts of me says that freedom of owning firearms keeps a government on a leash.

Some parts of me says that people tends to use that freedom irresponsibly.

if no one made guns, no one would have guns.

not even governments.

i still fail to see how this would be a bad thing.

=^^=
.../\...

Manufacturing a firearm isn't rocket science. Neither is making ammunition.

Of course his claim of 'current trends" is wrong since murders and violent crime actually went down in richmond from '05 to '06 according to the UCR (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/06prelim/t4ok-wi.htm)
It wasn't my claim....it was the claim made from the article of Sept. 2003, which was:

If current trends hold, it will be even higher this year.
The claim made in the article was correct. There were 72 murders in 2001, 77 in 2002, and 93 murders in Richmond Va. in 2003, and 93 again in 2004.

I have nothing to say on this,... some parts of me says that freedom of owning firearms keeps a government on a leash.

Some parts of me says that people tends to use that freedom irresponsibly.

Has to be said.... most of the people I have ever met, I would not trust to be holding a tool designed to kill.

Not that I think they are automatically bad people... I just don't trust them to have my needs in their consideration.

Add to that... you ever noticed most people seem to find it hard to stop themselves from crossing that line that separates a strong debate from physical action? People that can't stop themselves using their fists, sure as hell shouldn't be allowed anything 'stronger'.

It wasn't my claim....it was the claim made from the article of Sept. 2003, which was:


The claim made in the article was correct. There were 72 murders in 2001, 77 in 2002, and 93 murders in Richmond Va. in 2003, and 93 again in 2004.

Which you cited as a fact, ignoring current data. 85 in '05 and '76 in '06. So your cite of "current trend" is, in fact, not current and wrong.

Which you cited as a fact, ignoring current data. 85 in '05 and '76 in '06. So your cite of "current trend" is, in fact, not current and wrong.

Wait a second...

If the general tendency has been to increase... even one or two years of decrease could be potentially mere anomoly. Certainly, two points ona line should not be considered necessarily a reflection of a real-terms change of direction.

The 'trend' would still be arguable as right.

Wait a second...

If the general tendency has been to increase... even one or two years of decrease could be potentially mere anomoly. Certainly, two points ona line should not be considered necessarily a reflection of a real-terms change of direction.

The 'trend' would still be arguable as right.

Prior to 2001, there had been a multi year drop in crime,(it was 140 in 1997) , so calling a two or three year increase a 'trend" would not be accurate.

Prior to 2001, there had been a multi year drop in crime,(it was 140 in 1997) , so calling a two or three year increase a 'trend" would not be accurate.

Prior to 97?

If we're going to have a pissing contest over which way the trend goes... what's the overall trend - ignoring slumps and peaks at intervals?

Prior to 97?

If we're going to have a pissing contest over which way the trend goes... what's the overall trend - ignoring slumps and peaks at intervals?

I don't have city numbers before that. State wide, it had been decreasing through most of the '90's, so Richmond was an anomoly w/i the state. Before that, state crime had sine-waved since the late 60's w/ the 2000+ numbers per capita being the lowest while national numbers increased from the late 60's, varied between 8-10 in the 70's and 80's and then started dropping in the 90's to mid 60's levels.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vacrime.htm

Which you cited as a fact, ignoring current data. 85 in '05 and '76 in '06. So your cite of "current trend" is, in fact, not current and wrong.
The increasing murder rate as expressed as a concern in the 2003 article was indeed correct, but that really isn't the point that I was making, and what you seem to have missed or ignored.

The point I was making was in response (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13027400&postcount=116) to Myrmidonisia's comment.

Perhaps you are just throwing your own "red herring" into the mix?

Edit: continued flaming on your part. :(

The increasing murder rate as expressed as a concern in the 2003 article was indeed correct, but that really isn't the point that I was making, and what you seem to have missed or ignored.

The point I was making was in response (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13027400&postcount=116) to Myrmidonisia's comment.

Perhaps you are just throwing your own "red herring" into the mix?

Your response, which had nothing to do w/ Kennessaw GA (you know, a red herring) and which you used outdated info to try and make a point. (you know, more loaded terminology.)

Keep trying.

Edit: Put up or shut up on the "flaming" accusations CH. It's getting pathetic.

Your response, which had nothing to do w/ Kennessaw GA (you know, a red herring) and which you used outdated info to try and make a point. (you know, more loaded terminology.)

Keep trying.
Ummmm.....you are definitely being obtuse. My response was perfectly fitting to his claim that "Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime."

Edit: Put up or shut up on the "flaming" accusations CH. It's getting pathetic.
I am just pointing out your penchant for flaming/trolling. I don't report people to Moderation....at least I have never done so in 3 and 1/2 years posting here at NSG.

Ummmm.....you are definitely being obtuse. My response was perfectly fitting to his claim that "Kennesaw is still a wonderful example of how gun ownership will reduce ALL crime."

So Richmond has a law requiring ownership of firearms? Otherwise it's not "perfectly fitting".


I am just pointing out your penchant for flaming/trolling. I don't report people to Moderation....at least I have never done so in 3 and 1/2 years posting here at NSG.

And I am just pointing out where you are being intentionally misleading and dishonest since you keep making claims that have been shown to be false previously.

If that's "flaming" and "trolling" in your world, then so be it.

YES! YES! YES!!! There is no correlation between gun laws an violent crime rates.

There is absolutely no correlation between guns laws and violent crime rates.

As for the much touted "correlation":

http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413/
Okay, just to backtrack for awhile....

1. Did you read the report attached to the link that you cite here? If yes, see number 3.

2. Are the quotes by Indri and Trotskylvania above the "correlation" that you refer to with the link? If not, please explain about this "touted correlation" and how the linked report supports your argument.

3. What findings from the report do you find relevant to this thread?

Okay, just to backtrack for awhile....

1. Did you read the report attached to the link that you cite here? If yes, see number 3.

2. Are the quotes by Indri and Trotskylvania above the "correlation" that you refer to with the link? If not, please explain about this "touted correlation" and how the linked report supports your argument.

3. What findings from the report do you find relevant to this thread?

Nice way to selectively choose posts while completely ignoring the fact that you threw out ad hominems. Are you now claiming that you didn't state there was a correlation?

Although it is easy to understand some of the underlying contributors to crime, one cannot suggest that there is no correlation between gun laws and violent crime

Try being a little honest.

Nice way to selectively choose posts while completely ignoring the fact that you threw out ad hominems. Are you now claiming that you didn't state there was a correlation?
Nope, not making that claim at all. I am sticking to my guns. :D

Okay, having said that, I asked you 3 questions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031311&postcount=184). Please answer as honestly as you possibly can.

I disagree.

Although it is easy to understand some of the underlying contributors to crime, one cannot suggest that there is no correlation between gun laws and violent crime?
By that logic you're basically stating that it is the gun's fault for the crime being committed and not the person using it. The idea that guns are the cause of crime, that they somehow take over the mind of a person and cause them to commit crimes is as stupid as voodoo pharmacology, the idea that drugs will force you to commit crimes.

Inanimate obejcts, be they guns or drugs or anything else, cannot force people to become criminals. It is the society in which they live, their personal experiences, their current situation, their mental state, and a multitude of other factors that guide a person into a position where they may consider a life of crime. In the end it is these factors and a man's choice's that determine whether or not he will pursue crminal activity.

You also did not quote the section of my post where I said just this, that it is the person, not the gun, that causes crime.

Nope, not making that claim at all. I am sticking to my guns. :D

Okay, having said that, I asked you 3 questions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031311&postcount=184). Please answer as honestly as you possibly can.

You made the claim. It's cited above. Dishonesty seems to be your primary debating skill.

The report refutes your claim of correlation by showing that countries w/ widely different laws have widely different crime rates. Try disputing it instead of attacking the source and making up quotes.

Why don't you show your evidence that Mauser makes tons of money from the gun lobby?

Ah, the NRA....I really like those guys....I like how they at least put up an argument and not just say "Guns protect people"

Infact...last time I checked I was an NRA member....

By that logic you're basically stating that it is the gun's fault for the crime being committed and not the person using it.
I never made such a statement. However, guns are used in crime and it is easier to commit some crimes with a gun then with other weapons. Perhaps that is why legislators make laws with heavier penalties for criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime?

The idea that guns are the cause of crime, that they somehow take over the mind of a person and cause them to commit crimes is as stupid as voodoo pharmacology,
Is that your idea? It certainly isn't mine, although, some people certainly find it easier to commit a crime with a gun then with another type of weapon.

the idea that drugs will force you to commit crimes.
People who are addicted to drugs often commit crimes to feed their habit.

Are you now claiming that you didn't state there was a correlation?

Nope, not making that claim at all. I am sticking to my guns. :D

You made the claim. It's cited above. Dishonesty seems to be your primary debating skill.
Your twisting and turning has got you confused as to what I claimed?

The report refutes your claim of correlation by showing that countries w/ widely different laws have widely different crime rates. Try disputing it instead of attacking the source and making up quotes.

Why don't you show your evidence that Mauser makes tons of money from the gun lobby?
That is my belief, I will gather some more evidence. However, before I do, do you believe that the co-authors of that report that you cited Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser are pro gun lobbyists and or activists?

Okay, having said that, I asked you 3 questions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031311&postcount=184). Please answer as honestly as you possibly can.
You haven't directly answered my questions.

Your twisting and turning has got you confused as to what I claimed?


How many times do I need to cite your own post? Really?

That is my belief, I will gather some more evidence. However, before I do, do you believe that the co-authors of that report that you cited Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser are pro gun lobbyists and or activists?

They're pro-gun activists. What does that have to do w/ it? Are you going to dismiss them again because of it. You claimed here and in an old thread that Mauser was making a ton of money from the "gun lobby". You have yet to prove it.


You haven't directly answered my questions.

Yes, yes I have. Just because you have these blank spots in your vision blocking out posts doesn't mean they aren't there. I've presented the evidence. I'm not going to spoonfeed it to you.

How many times do I need to cite your own post? Really?
You still don't understand? At any rate let's move on.

They're pro-gun activists. What does that have to do w/ it? Are you going to dismiss them again because of it.
If I cite reports from anti-gun lobbyists, you will not automatically challenge their bias, as you have done in the past?

You claimed here and in an old thread that Mauser was making a ton of money from the "gun lobby". You have yet to prove it.
As I stated earlier in this thread, that is my belief and a few posts ago, I stated that I would do more research on the matter.

Yes, yes I have. Just because you have these blank spots in your vision blocking out posts doesn't mean they aren't there. I've presented the evidence. I'm not going to spoonfeed it to you.
Then you have read the whole 107 page report (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso)and you agree with their findings?

You still don't understand? At any rate let's move on.

Translation: I've been shown up again so I'll change the subject.


If I cite reports from anti-gun lobbyists, you will not automatically challenge their bias, as you have done in the past?

W/ counter-evidence. Your response: "Get a better source." based off of your claim that Mauser was (not that it was your belief) that he was making tons of money. Either way, your statement is another ad hominem.
Now let me guess, you're going to try and present something from the VPC , brady bunch, or something equally rediculous.


As I stated earlier in this thread, that is my belief and a few posts ago, I stated that I would do more research on the matter.

You stated it as a fact, not as your "belief" until just a few posts ago. You've also made the claim as a fact in an old thread. Try again.



Then you have read the whole 107 page report (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso)and you agree with their findings?

I've read the majority of it and have yet to see it refuted.

Manufacturing a firearm isn't rocket science. Neither is making ammunition.
It kind of is. I'm not saying its hard, but I'm sure a knowledge of rockets would be useful if one wished to make a gun.

Besides, gun manufacturing isn't really an issue here, the ease of getting said gun is. If all gun factories were closed today, and no one made anymore, there would still be violent crime. They last a long time, and are pretty easy to get, if you know the right people.

It kind of is. I'm not saying its hard, but I'm sure a knowledge of rockets would be useful if one wished to make a gun.

Besides, gun manufacturing isn't really an issue here, the ease of getting said gun is. If all gun factories were closed today, and no one made anymore, there would still be violent crime. They last a long time, and are pretty easy to get, if you know the right people.

The only knowledge you'd need in making your own firearm is the knowledge in how to cut and form metal, as well as a design. You don't need expensive equipment, tools, or materials.

Firearms being easy to get isn't the problem, it's the enforcement of the laws that are the problem. There's a lot of times that a firearms charge will be dropped (or reduced to a lesser crime) in the course of a plea agreement.

Wrong again.

Sure, whatever.


How ironic....you are going to automatically claim that any of those are ridiculous (ad hominem), yet you get you panties in a bunch when I challenge a report by pro gun activists. I guess only pro gun activists are able to write unbiased reports?

Translation: That's exactly what I was going to do but I got called on it, just like the earlier attempt at red herrings.

Well, sorry if I got you drooling over such a prospect. I will try something novel instead....let's look at this report by the pro gun lobbyists?


Ahhh, you haven't read all of it. Right near the front....page 9, the authors make these claims (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso):




Do you take those stats as fact? Do these stats fairly represent the truth? Are these stats fairly representative of in depth research?

Dispute the data. Then make your usual strawman of dismissing the entire thing if it's incorrect, ignoring all the other pieces of data. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I've read the majority of it and have yet to see it refuted.
Ahhh, you haven't read all of it. Right near the front....page 9, the authors make these claims (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso):

For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, has a murder rate 10 times higher than gun-dense Norway and Germany where handguns are legal and gun ownership in general is very high.9

9 Luxembourg’s murder rate is one third higher than the U.S. rate for 1999-2003 of approximately 6.1 murders per 100,000 population.
Do you take those stats as fact? Do these stats fairly represent the truth? Are these stats fairly representative of in depth research?

Dispute the data. Then make your usual strawman of dismissing the entire thing if it's incorrect, ignoring all the other pieces of data. Go ahead, I'll wait.
You posted a link supporting your argument. You stated: "I've presented the evidence." Now I am asking you do you still stand by "your evidence"?

By continually making personal attacks against me, you continue to evade the questions that I asked you. Now are you going to answer?

Ahhh, you haven't read all of it. Right near the front....page 9, the authors make these claims (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso):






Do you take those stats as fact? Do these stats fairly represent the truth? Are these stats fairly representative of in depth research?


You posted a link supporting your argument. You stated: "I've presented the evidence." Now I am asking you do you still stand by "your evidence"?

By continually making personal attacks against me, you continue to evade the questions that I asked you. Now are you going to answer?

Cut the BS CH. I've answered your questions. If you can dispute the data, do so.

Now you're just trying to play the game of getting me to say "This report is 100% completely accurate" so you can find one possible fault and go "gotcha". Guess what CH, not going to happen. Have I read every single word and fact checked all 107 pages? No. I've already stated that. I, unlike some, will be honest about that.

I've called you out on your claims and statements of fact and you've backpedalled, denied you even made them, and changed the subject.

Do you still stand by your "belief" that Mauser makes a ton of money? Then provide evidence.

Do you still claim that trace data is providing statistics for "Crime guns"?

Do you still claim the report DIDN'T state the weaknesses of trace data?

I've disputed all of these now and before.

I make the so called "personal attacks" because you've made all these claims before and continue to do so even after being shown wrong. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

Put up or shut up.

Sorry about this post being late, a storm moved in while I was typing it and I had to disconnect. Now on with the post!

I never made such a statement.
It's implied in your statements, Canukistani. Your argument that because it is easier to commit a crime with a gun they are too dangerous for people to have runs on the same basic logic that guns drive people to commit crimes.

However, guns are used in crime and it is easier to commit some crimes with a gun then with other weapons.
I can walk up to someone with a concealed knife, push them against a wall and stab them eight times in under 5 seconds and cause the same amount of damage one would expect to see with a an equal number of gunshots. Very few people would be able to survive that and it would be very easy for me to do.

Perhaps that is why legislators make laws with heavier penalties for criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime?
They do it to pander to voters, they do it to look good, for their own benefit. Guns are not the only weapons that can kill. As I just pointed out above, I could do just as much damage to someone with a concealed knife as with a concealed firearm. Should knives be banned? They do only have one purpose, to cut things, to damage them. And what about cars? They kill more people in the US every year yet we can still drive them. And about a hundred people choke to death on ballpoint pens every year but we let them have the very pens that could end their life. Why not ban everything that could cause people harm? Why not shut down everything vulnerable to terrorism? And let's stop breathing while we're at it because I don't know if you've heard but life is 100% fatal.

Is that your idea? It certainly isn't mine, although, some people certainly find it easier to commit a crime with a gun then with another type of weapon.
It is your idea or at least something you've stated. You suggest that banning guns will reduce crime. If that is the case then you must believe that it is the gun, not the person or their surroundings, that causes crime. You can't say that banning guns will stop crime and then say that guns aren't the cause of crime because if they aren't the cause of crime then banning them will not reduce crime.

The fact is that there are nations that have laxer gun laws than the United States but don't have the high crime rate seen here and others that have banned guns and seen little or no change in the overall crimerate. Yes, Japan has strict gun control laws and also has a low crime rate, but the Swiss government hands out automatic rifles to its people and they also have a low crime rate. There is no correlation between gun ownership and crime. It is the individual and their cirrcumstances that dictate the crime rate of any given region.

People who are addicted to drugs often commit crimes to feed their habit.
Being an addict did not used to be such a terrible thing. Before the bans on drugs there was very little crime surrounding them, they were usually considered legitimate business. Prohibition caused the whole market for drugs and guns to go underground. Criminalization of things that aren't real crimes still creates real criminals.

Fun fact: heroin is about 600x cheaper today than it was 35 years ago when considering purity, inflation, and a drop in price. In other words, it is easier to get your hands on more drugs today than in the 1970's. It is easier to get your hands on a stolen or improvised firearm today than 30 years ago even though gun control laws are more strict now. Criminals do not follow the law. A ban on guns will not deprive any criminal of his gun until he is caught after committing a crime with it. Only the law-abiding citizens will show up to turn in their pistols, rifles, and shotguns and those that resist will become crminals. A ban on guns, like a ban on drugs, will only make criminals of otherwise good people.

Guns are equalizers. A strong man vs. a weak man in a fist fight and the stong man will win every time. If both are armed then it'll be a draw. Each will have the ability to put the other down and run the same risk of falling himself.
---

Sorry about this post being late, a storm moved in while I was typing it and I had to disconnect. Now on with the post!


It's implied in your statements, Canukistani.
Who is Canukistani?

Who is Canukistani?
A Canuckistani is derogatory term for a Canadan person or a person who supports Canadia. I'm just using it to address you because of your username. I could use leftard if you'd prefer.:D

A Canuckistani is derogatory term for a Canadan person or a person who supports Canadia. I'm just using it to address you because of your username. I could use leftard if you'd prefer.:D
So, you are either a puppet of an older nation looking to resume hostilities, or you are a noob looking make new friends with your terms of endearment?

Guns are equalizers. A strong man vs. a weak man in a fist fight and the stong man will win every time. If both are armed then it'll be a draw. Each will have the ability to put the other down and run the same risk of falling himself.
---

How true that is...
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. -- Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon, 1942

Of course, the argument for being armed is not always made by ancient evil white men either...

It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law. -- Malcolm X, March 12, 1964


Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power. -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, author of Japanese best-seller Strawberry Road

I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an 'equalizer.' Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. -- Edward Abbey

To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form. -- Roy Innis, National Chairman of Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), The Washington Post, September 5, 1988

The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guarenteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob. -- Malcolm X, in Malcolm X at 337, J. Clarke ed. (New York, N.Y., 1969)

Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed. -- Lieutenant Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996

It's implied in your statements, Canukistani.
Perhaps that is your take on the matter, but it is not mine.

Your argument that because it is easier to commit a crime with a gun they are too dangerous for people to have runs on the same basic logic that guns drive people to commit crimes.
I have never advocated banning the sale of guns, although I am not a fan of laws that permit the sale of assault weapons.

I can walk up to someone with a concealed knife, push them against a wall and stab them eight times in under 5 seconds and cause the same amount of damage one would expect to see with a an equal number of gunshots. Very few people would be able to survive that and it would be very easy for me to do.
It is much easier to shoot someone from a distance and that way you don't get any blood on your hands and you would be less likely to have the victim grab the knife and stab you.

They do it to pander to voters, they do it to look good, for their own benefit.
And politicians shouldn't "pander to voters"? :p

Guns are not the only weapons that can kill. As I just pointed out above, I could do just as much damage to someone with a concealed knife as with a concealed firearm. Should knives be banned? They do only have one purpose, to cut things, to damage them.
I use a knife to cut my steak....it is much easier than using a gun. :D

And what about cars? They kill more people in the US every year yet we can still drive them. And about a hundred people choke to death on ballpoint pens every year but we let them have the very pens that could end their life. Why not ban everything that could cause people harm? Why not shut down everything vulnerable to terrorism? And let's stop breathing while we're at it because I don't know if you've heard but life is 100% fatal.
Now you are being silly.

It is your idea or at least something you've stated. You suggest that banning guns will reduce crime.
As I stated before, I have never stated that guns should be banned.

If that is the case then you must believe that it is the gun, not the person or their surroundings, that causes crime. You can't say that banning guns will stop crime and then say that guns aren't the cause of crime because if they aren't the cause of crime then banning them will not reduce crime.
Your logic is a tad flawed. I'll repeat what I said...."some people certainly find it easier to commit a crime with a gun then with another type of weapon."

There is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.
Yes there certainly is. That is why there are laws, whereby some people are restricted from owning or purchasing guns.

Yes there certainly is. That is why there are laws, whereby some people are restricted from owning or purchasing guns.

Wait, you said you didn't make that claim, now you are making that claim. Or are you going to try and play a semantics game?

Now you get to prove the correlation.

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Cut the BS CH. I've answered your questions. If you can dispute the data, do so.
No, you haven’t answered all my questions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13032065&postcount=199). Your halo is slipping my friend. :)

Now you're just trying to play the game of getting me to say "This report is 100% completely accurate" so you can find one possible fault and go "gotcha". Guess what CH, not going to happen.
That is the “game” that you play. I am just trying to follow the rules that you have laid down. You seem to think that everyone else should provide 100% accuracy or else you will take them to task over the smallest deficiencies. Now it is your turn to be accountable.

When you threw that report on the table, I suggested to you to “try a better source”. I think it was good advice, but you wanted to persevere. The report is obviously tainted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031741&postcount=196) but I still would like to do a little more research before I get back to you on it.

Have I read every single word and fact checked all 107 pages? No. I've already stated that. I, unlike some, will be honest about that.
So you throw a report written by a couple of pro gun activists (your admission) on the table and even though you haven’t read the entire document, you expect me and others to accept it as proof of this “touted correlation”. And you dare to question my honesty and integrity?

I've called you out on your claims and statements of fact and you've backpedalled, denied you even made them, and changed the subject.
I disagree. If you bring them forward, I will address each one.

Do you still stand by your "belief" that Mauser makes a ton of money? Then provide evidence.
Perhaps I was rather rash with the statement about Mauser. Although he may be a strong activist for the pro gun lobby, I would be unable to ascertain just how much money he might make doing so, however, I did pose the comment as a question rather than a fact. On the other hand, the co-author of the report (Don Kates), has written and co-authored many books on guns (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Don%20B.%20Kates&page=1), so I guess he stands to make a fair buck from the gun toting crowd?

Do you still claim that trace data is providing statistics for "Crime guns"?
Once again I repeat: My observation is that the southern states are major suppliers of crime guns. I base that observation on information provided by this report, on pages 4 and 5 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/highlights.pdf):

Do you still claim the report DIDN'T state the weaknesses of trace data?
I did NOT see any disclaimer on the 2000 report whatsoever.

I make the so called "personal attacks" because you've made all these claims before and continue to do so even after being shown wrong. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

Put up or shut up.
I am glad to see that you are admitting to the “personal attacks”. It clearly demonstrates that your talking points and/or information provided is not as strong as you would like it to be……hence the personal attacks.

No, you haven’t answered all my questions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13032065&postcount=199). Your halo is slipping my friend. :)

Now who's making the "personal attacks". Just because you don't like the answers, doesn't mean they weren't there.


That is the “game” that you play. I am just trying to follow the rules that you have laid down. You seem to think that everyone else should provide 100% accuracy or else you will take them to task over the smallest deficiencies. Now it is your turn to be accountable.

Red Herring and Ad Hominem. I take them to task and provide refuting data. You've so far just dismissed it and refused to refute anything. Kind of like what you're doing here.

When you threw that report on the table, I suggested to you to “try a better source”. I think it was good advice, but you wanted to persevere. The report is obviously tainted (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031741&postcount=196) but I still would like to do a little more research before I get back to you on it.

So like I said you'ld do, you're dismissing the entire thing based off of one alledgedly innacurate data point.


So you throw a report written by a couple of pro gun activists (your admission) on the table and even though you haven’t read the entire document, you expect me and others to accept it as proof of this “touted correlation”. And you dare to question my honesty and integrity?

Since your dishonesty and lack of integrity has been shown not only in this thread but others, yes. Especially since the first part of your statement has no bearing on the other. Another red herring. I also didn't present it as "proof of correlation". I provided it as evidence against a correlation. You're the one who (falsely) claimed that Mauser made the "more guns=less crime" statement in the paper. So now not only are you misquoting me, you're making up statements.

I disagree. If you bring them forward, I will address each one.

How, by avoiding the issue, saying you'll "get to it later", or denying you've made the claims w/ semantics? The same thing you're doing now.


Perhaps I was rather rash with the statement about Mauser. Although he may be a strong activist for the pro gun lobby, I would be unable to ascertain just how much money he might make doing so, however, I did pose the comment as a question rather than a fact. On the other hand, the co-author of the report (Don Kates), has written and co-authored many books on guns (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Don%20B.%20Kates&page=1), so I guess he stands to make a fair buck from the gun toting crowd?

I emailed him. He would like you to contact him and tell him how.


Once again I repeat: My observation is that the southern states are major suppliers of crime guns. I base that observation on information provided by this report, on pages 4 and 5 (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/highlights.pdf):

And I've already cited where you making that "observation" is contrary to what can be done w/ the data. Since you keep repeating it, it makes the claim dishonest.



I did NOT see any disclaimer on the 2000 report whatsoever.

The limitations on the data and what it does and does not record are clearly stated in both the introduction and strategy sections.

Obviously you did not read the entire report but are making claims based off of it. Why should I then rely on your honesty and integrity?

Oh, but right, you just want to play the semantics game.

I am glad to see that you are admitting to the “personal attacks”. It clearly demonstrates that your talking points and/or information provided is not as strong as you would like it to be……hence the personal attacks.

Nice way to selectively respond to the quote. Goes to show how honest you are.

Now prove your correllation.

Now who's making the "personal attacks". Just because you don't like the answers, doesn't mean they weren't there.
You didn't really take that as a "personal attack" did you? And no you still haven't answered my questions.

Since your dishonesty and lack of integrity has been shown not only in this thread but others, yes. Especially since the first part of your statement has no bearing on the other. Another red herring. I also didn't present it as "proof of correlation". I provided it as evidence against a correlation. You're the one who (falsely) claimed that Mauser made the "more guns=less crime" statement in the paper. So now not only are you misquoting me, you're making up statements.
I made a "false claim?

As Kates and Mauser conclude in their study:

"Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.
They also reference John Lott's More Guns Less Crime a total of 11 times.

I further claim that you cannot post without personally attacking me.

I will try something novel instead....let's look at this report by the pro gun activists?

I've read the majority of it and have yet to see it refuted.
Ahhh, you haven't read all of it. Right near the front....page 9, the authors make these claims (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso):

For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, has a murder rate 10 times higher than gun-dense Norway and Germany where handguns are legal and gun ownership in general is very high.9

9 Luxembourg’s murder rate is one third higher than the U.S. rate for 1999-2003 of approximately 6.1 murders per 100,000 population.
Do you take those stats as fact? Do these stats fairly represent the truth? Are these stats fairly representative of in depth research?

Although you still fail to answer some of these questions, I thought I would add this (http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_03_05_special3.asp):

Luxembourg continues to garner high rankings in quality of life, safety and infrastructure development. Luxembourg ranked first as the safest city in the world to live, according to the 2003 survey conducted by Mercer Human Resources Consulting. The survey evaluated 39 key quality of life factors. As a senior researcher at Mercer stated: "The top cities for personal safety score highly on internal stability, and crime rates.

Also this (http://www.visitluxembourg.com/facts-figures.htm):

A Safe Haven
Luxembourg ranks as the world’s top city for personal safety and security, according to a 2005 Quality of Life survey by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, a leading consulting organization with offices worldwide.
Throws a bit of a kink into the biased report of Kates and Mauser?

Perhaps that is your take on the matter, but it is not mine.
Well you've done a poor job of representing your beliefs through your arguments then. Do you support a ban on guns? Think about it before you answer. If so then you must explain which weapons you think should be banned and why. A fully automatic I can understand and those have been banned since the 30s.

I for one cannot understand why anyone would want to ban the .50 cal rifle. They are never used in criminal activity because their size, weight, kick, expense, and the low number of users making it easy to trace those that do use them.

I have never advocated banning the sale of guns, although I am not a fan of laws that permit the sale of assault weapons.
An assault weapon or an assault rifle? There is a difference. An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle, usually shorter and lighter than a standard shotgun or rifle, used primarily in military or police operations. An assault weapon is any military-style semi-automatic or single-shot firearm. The term assault weapon is not synonymous with assault rifle. Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons that can mow down a crowd in a few seconds. Assault weapons are semi-automatic look alikes.

Why ban a gun on the looks? I know how to make a fully automatic gun that looks like a legal semi. Should that be allowed?

It is much easier to shoot someone from a distance and that way you don't get any blood on your hands and you would be less likely to have the victim grab the knife and stab you.
Yeah, someone is going to grab the thing they're being impaled with while their arms and body are being restrained against a wall by the weight of my body while I'm impaling them repeatedly. Do you think before you type? Do you know how painful getting stabbed with a serrated blade is? A smooth blade is one thing, I've been stabbed with smooth blades 3 times but when they've got teeth it hurts. And maybe you didn't read the "under 5 seconds" part, not a lot of time to grab at something you can't see.

And politicians shouldn't "pander to voters"? :p
No, they shouldn't. They should run their district in such a way as to not exceed their budget. They should serve the people not pass laws to further their legacy.

I use a knife to cut my steak....it is much easier than using a gun. :D
But guns still have legitimate uses. Some men hunt for sport while others hunt for food. The only thing I'm hunting for is an outfit that looks good. See my vest, see my vest, made from real gorilla chest...

Sometimes guns are used in defense and sometimes they're used to overthrow oppressive governments and liberate people. And did you ever consider that someone might break into your house and use your steak knives to kill you or steal them and kill someone else? When you think about it, having those knives in your house is really living on the edge.

Now you are being silly.
No, I'm being serious. More people die in auto accidents and not so accidental incidents every year than are killed with guns. About a hundred people do choke to death on ballpoint pens. Life really does result in death 100% of the time. Life is full of danger and there is nothing you can do about it. If you try to make life safe it won't be worth living because you won't be able to do anything with any risk involved and nearly everything involves risk.

As I stated before, I have never stated that guns should be banned.
No, just certain kinds of them. Like the mean looking ones. Function be damned!

Your logic is a tad flawed. I'll repeat what I said...."some people certainly find it easier to commit a crime with a gun then with another type of weapon."
Some guys find it easier to rape defenseless women than armed women. Some people find it easier to commit crimes when they know that the victim can't fight back, when all they can do is call the cops after the crminal has gotten away. Sure, they'll get picked up later but the damage is done.

Yes there certainly is. That is why there are laws, whereby some people are restricted from owning or purchasing guns.
And I've pointed out that there are nations with high rates of ownership and low crime rates while other nation have strict laws and can have either low or high rates of crime. It is not the gun that makes the difference, it is the person and their surroundings that will determine whether a crime takes place.

And for anyone who may try to use school shootings as an argument to ban guns I say to you "Bath School Massacre", the deadliest mass murder at an American school ever. No gun was fired and 45 people died while 58 others were injured. See, this guy, Andy Kehoe, was pissed at a tax hike to pay for a new school so he blew it up after it was finished and class was in session.

Well you've done a poor job of representing your beliefs through your arguments then. Do you support a ban on guns? Think about it before you answer. If so then you must explain which weapons you think should be banned and why. A fully automatic I can understand and those have been banned since the 30s.
Anything with the word assault attached to it. :D

Yeah, someone is going to grab the thing they're being impaled with while their arms and body are being restrained against a wall by the weight of my body while I'm impaling them repeatedly. Do you think before you type? Do you know how painful getting stabbed with a serrated blade is? A smooth blade is one thing, I've been stabbed with smooth blades 3 times but when they've got teeth it hurts. And maybe you didn't read the "under 5 seconds" part, not a lot of time to grab at something you can't see.
As stated before, it is easier to shoot someone from a distance rather then getting up close and personal and run the risk of getting killed.


No, they shouldn't. They should run their district in such a way as to not exceed their budget. They should serve the people not pass laws to further their legacy.
Politicians pass legislation. That is their job.

Anything with the word assault attached to it. :D

Actually, what is referred to here in the US as an Assault Weapon, is a misnomer (an assault weapon is semi only, whereas the assault rifle is full auto/select fire). An AR-15 is considered one (unless in a post-ban configuration, like mine is), but it is semi only and shoots the .223 cal/5.56mm cartridge. The Mini-14 is not considered one (in stock form), is semi only, and shoots the same cartridge as the AR-15. They both take removable magazines (the magazines can be anywhere from 5 rounds to upwards of 100 rounds, in the case of a beta-c mag). Here are pics of both:

AR-15: http://www.davesguns.com/serverpics/FirearmsPage/DPMSSRFA114P-01.jpg

Mini-14: http://ocala-armory.com/Longguns/Rif%20Thumbs/Mini%2014.jpg

A fully automatic I can understand and those have been banned since the 30s.

Actually, full auto/select fire weapons are only regulated, not banned. In order for a civilian to get a full auto/select fire firearm, this is the proceedure: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1254040

@OP: don't bother aguring on this with Fass, he's the kind that hates america, and probably will start a thread on how Gun ownership in America is signle handly causing the genocide in Darfur.

You didn't really take that as a "personal attack" did you? And no you still haven't answered my questions.

Whatever CH. Be pathetic on someone else's time.


I made a "false claim?

Yes. You did. Now you'll ask me to cite it when I already have. That's called dishonesty.


They also reference John Lott's More Guns Less Crime a total of 11 times.

Mostly pointing out his weaknesses. Another ad hominem BTW

I further claim that you cannot post without personally attacking me.

More dishonesty.

I will try something novel instead....let's look at this report by the pro gun activists?


Ahhh, you haven't read all of it. Right near the front....page 9, the authors make these claims (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso):




Do you take those stats as fact? Do these stats fairly represent the truth? Are these stats fairly representative of in depth research?

Although you still fail to answer some of these questions, I thought I would add this (http://www.businessfacilities.com/bf_03_05_special3.asp):



Also this (http://www.visitluxembourg.com/facts-figures.htm):


Throws a bit of a kink into the biased report of Kates and Mauser?

Now how hard was that CH? Actually refuting something instead of several more pages of BS? Of course you're now doing exactly what I said you would, dismiss the whole thing based off of one innaccuracy. Kinda sad really.

Here's the difference between you and me. I've emailed Mauser about it. You just blindly repeat anti' talking points no matter how many times they've been refuted.

Now refute the other 106 pages.

Whatever CH. Be pathetic on someone else's time.

Yes. You did. Now you'll ask me to cite it when I already have. That's called dishonesty.

Mostly pointing out his weaknesses. Another ad hominem BTW

More dishonesty.
I was correct......nothing but personal attacks. You don't debate.....you pontificate. :p

Now how hard was that CH? Actually refuting something instead of several more pages of BS? Of course you're now doing exactly what I said you would, dismiss the whole thing based off of one innaccuracy. Kinda sad really.

Here's the difference between you and me. I've emailed Mauser about it. You just blindly repeat anti' talking points no matter how many times they've been refuted.

Now refute the other 106 pages.
You have been caught with your pants down (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13034112&postcount=210). Rather than admit that you were wrong, you just keep up with the personal attacks. Why bother?

You have been caught with your pants down (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13034112&postcount=210). Rather than admit that you were wrong, you just keep up with the personal attacks. Why bother?

That's nice CH. Do you feel better in your little perceived "gotcha" moment? Did I claim that the article was perfect? Nope. That's been your little strawman since the beginning.

And I called your BS again. You can't prove causality so you attack a single piece of innacurate data on a 107 page report to dismiss it entirely.

Why don't you keep up your little lies about trace data and your loaded "observations"? You've been shown that's flat out dishonest numerous times yet keep repeating it.

Why don't you prove your claimed correlation? Oh, right, you can't.
You can only drag the red herrings around to change the subject.

I was correct......nothing but personal attacks. You don't debate.....you pontificate. :p

More like accurately describe your posts .

Anything with the word assault attached to it. :D
There goes my plans for an assault furby. But why go by the name of something? Isn't that judging a book by its cover? Isn't that prejudiced? Doesn't that make you prejudiced? You know, like a racist or a sexist or a homophobe?:D Before you accuse me of anything, you did set yourself up for that one.

As stated before, it is easier to shoot someone from a distance rather then getting up close and personal and run the risk of getting killed.
You really have no idea how easy it is to kill someone, do you? We're fragile creatures, Canuckistani. It takes less than a pound of pressure to cut human flesh. You don't even need a weapon to kill or severely injure someone easily. I could walk up behind someone and pop their shoulder just by pulling their arm in a certain way. I could kill with my bare hands and I've had little formal training. Better lock me up, I'm a dangerous weapon.

Politicians pass legislation. That is their job.
Their job is to serve the people. Sometimes that means passing a law and sometimes it means just waiting for a problem to fix. You shouldn't just pass new laws or taxes because you can.

And I called your BS again. You can't prove causality so you attack a single piece of innacurate data on a 107 page report to dismiss it entirely.
This is THE problem with the gun fanatics....they take the same "single piece of innacurate data" and run with it as if it is gospel. Don't believe me? Check this out:

Here is the original quote (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso):

For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, has a murder rate 10 times higher than gun-dense Norway and Germany where handguns are legal and gun ownership in general is very high.9
Talk about dishonesty:

From the NRA site (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=247&issue=007):

We see much the same thing in Luxembourg, where handguns are completely banned and firearm ownership of any kind is rare. Even though its (lawful) citizens are effectively disarmed, in 2002 Luxembourg had a murder rate nine times higher than in neighboring Germany--where firearms are legal and widely owned.

From Gun Watch (http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html):

The only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia): 30 percent higher than the U.S. and ten times that of gun-dense Norway

From Say Uncle (http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/category/tennessee_news_politics/):

The facts show that in countries where gun control laws increase, so too do the crimes that those laws attempt to prevent. For example, according to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, in Luxemburg, where handguns are totally banned, the murder rate is nine times higher than in Germany, which has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in Europe.
Facts? According to the "Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy"?

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm:

For example, handguns are outlawed in Luxembourg, and gun ownership extremely rare, yet its murder rate is nine times greater than in Germany, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates in Europe.

The Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1621):

The only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia)

Comments to the Roanoke Times (http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/editorials/discuss_mondays_editorials_3.html):

Here is a report from Harvard which states gun control CAUSES crime to go up and has facts to back it up; Do you dare print this? I doubt it. It is not the “Liberal way” to show facts.......

Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002
There are lots more examples but it is obvious to see that the pro gun activists can easily grasp inaccurate data and run with it.

Kind of like you do. When gun control supporters point to Japan and say that it is proof that gun control works but they ignore Luxembourg because it doesn't support their argument. There is no correlation between gun control and crime rates. Some regions have strict laws and low crime rates while others with equally strict laws have high crime rates. Some regions have high ownership and low crime rates while other regions have equally high ownership and high crime rates. The guns are not the cause, the guns are not to blame for crime. It is the person, not the gun, committing the crime. It is the person, not the gun, that gets charged with the crime.

If you really think that weapons are the cause of crime then push for new laws that allow them to be put on trial for the crimes they are involved in. Somehow I don't think you'll get very far.

Comments to the Roanoke Times (http://blogs.roanoke.com/roundtable/editorials/discuss_mondays_editorials_3.html):


There are lots more examples but it is obvious to see that the pro gun activists can easily grasp inaccurate data and run with it.

The knee-jerk reaction for any good liberal when confronted with actual facts.

DENY! DENY! DENY!

I'll actually help.

Your wrong! Your a tradionalist Rodney! That's right, a traditionalist! That is completely inaccurate because it is inaccurate! Inaccurate why? Well, it's obvious, it's wrong, that's why it's inaccurate. How is it wrong? Because it is inaccurate. Duh. Facts, tsch, I have facts; don't try you lame "it's inaccurate because its wrong" thing on me, I know your tricks Rodney.

*Mutters*

Damn realism, stop penetrating my layers of hypothetical and not actually realistic idealism, I'm trying to make humanity a better place, with, or without, it's approval.

Kind of like you do.
Say what?

When gun control supporters point to Japan and say that it is proof that gun control works
I don't know too much about this, as I have never really done any in depth research on the matter.

BTW, the gun fanatics are just as quick to point to Switzerland to support their argument. Why is this?

but they ignore Luxembourg because it doesn't support their argument.
The Luxembourg example supports my argument that pro gun activists will use flawed data to support their mantra, which in the article (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13034041&postcount=209) was basically that more guns = less crime.

There is no correlation between gun control and crime rates.
Would you scrap ALL gun control laws?

If you really think that weapons are the cause of crime then push for new laws that allow them to be put on trial for the crimes they are involved in. Somehow I don't think you'll get very far.
I have never blamed a weapon for committing a crime. Keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals through prudent gun control is one of the best ways to reduce crime.

I emailed Mr. Mauser about the error. Here was his reply:

Thanks for pointing this out.

As it says in our paper, the homicide rates for this table were derived from the Canadian Department of Justice. This statistic comes from Homicide in Canada, 2002 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/0080385-002-XIE.pdf), where it does report [p 3] that the Luxembourg homicide rate is 9.01, not 0.9. The Canadian Department of Justice reports their source for this stat as Interpol. I guess the decimal got misplaced by someone in this translation. Interpol is notorious.

Our general point is still valid. Despite the differing percentages of gun owners in the two countries, the homicide rates do not reflect this. Germany has many gun owners, while Luxembourg has banned guns. Nevertheless, Luxembourg's homicide rate is not appreciably smaller than Germany's [0.92 or 1.11, depending upon the year].

Cheers,


Gary
www.garymauser.net/

I guess that makes the Canadian DOJ and Interpol completely illegitimate according to your argument.

You claim "gun fanatics" run w/ it like "gospel" (another ad hominem BTW). Kind of like the hoplophobes do when they hear the phrase "assault weapon" and anything associated w/ "trace data"? or does the standard only apply to one side?

The Luxembourg example supports my argument that pro gun activists will use flawed data to support their mantra, which in the article (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13034041&postcount=209) was basically that more guns = less crime.




Boy, can you be any more disingenuous? I've already cited in "the article" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13030225&postcount=164) where they say that's not necessarily true.

I guess it's just another case of someone "running" w/ something even if it's wrong.

God damn. I wasn't saying that more guns = less crime. What I said and have been saying is that more gun restrictions =/= less crime. You can't take away a criminals gun because he'll just get another illegally. This is because criminals don't obey the law. You won't stop any criminal from getting a gun, they will purchase what they need illegally or steal it or make it if they're smart enough. All gun control laws, especially excessive gun contrl laws, do is restrict the citizens that don't break the law. Guns do not cause crime, they do not enable crime, they do not drive people to commit crime. It is easy to commit horribly brutal acts with a friggin' crowbar. It is easy to kill with a knife. And if you think that there has to be some range between the victim and the perp then try a bow or crossbow. Guns are not the cause of crime, people are. Guns are not the problem, people are. How much clearer can I make that? Must I describe in detail the many ways you can murder before you'll admit that it is the person, not their weapon, that makes crime happen?

Even if guns never existed there would still be guys running around with swords and bows killing other people. Mankind has gone to war since before we were mankind. Animals fight each other all the time. It is the nature of nature to kill.

Boy, can you be any more disingenuous? I've already cited in "the article" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13030225&postcount=164) where they say that's not necessarily true.

I guess it's just another case of someone "running" w/ something even if it's wrong.
I posted the direct quote right out of their paper (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso)(bottom of page 29 & top of page 30). It is right at the end of MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?:

"Whether gun availability is viewed as a cause or as a mere coincidence, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlates with stable or declining murder rates. Whether causative or not, the consistent international pattern is that more guns equal less murder and other violent crime.
Of course I am going to run with this because they have based their findings on flawed and/or incomplete data. It is my belief that this report was produced to give the results that the authors wanted to achieve, and that it was poorly researched. That is why I find it difficult to accept that pro gun activists can produce an unbiased report regarding gun control.

I think this report has many holes in it and wouldn't stand up to rigorous inspection.

Why they would even use Luxembourg (pop. 500,000) as a comparator in the first place is way beyond me.

The fact that their serious error ended up as the "truth" on so many pro gun sites speakes volumes about the pro gun crowd.

I emailed Mr. Mauser about the error. Here was his reply:

Thanks for pointing this out.

As it says in our paper, the homicide rates for this table were derived from the Canadian Department of Justice. This statistic comes from Homicide in Canada, 2002 (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-002-XIE/0080385-002-XIE.pdf), where it does report [p 3] that the Luxembourg homicide rate is 9.01, not 0.9. The Canadian Department of Justice reports their source for this stat as Interpol. I guess the decimal got misplaced by someone in this translation. Interpol is notorious.

Our general point is still valid. Despite the differing percentages of gun owners in the two countries, the homicide rates do not reflect this. Germany has many gun owners, while Luxembourg has banned guns. Nevertheless, Luxembourg's homicide rate is not appreciably smaller than Germany's [0.92 or 1.11, depending upon the year].

Cheers,


Gary
www.garymauser.net/

I guess that makes the Canadian DOJ and Interpol completely illegitimate according to your argument.

You claim "gun fanatics" run w/ it like "gospel" (another ad hominem BTW). Kind of like the hoplophobes do when they hear the phrase "assault weapon" and anything associated w/ "trace data"? or does the standard only apply to one side?

Man...

You just reminded me how badly I want a vintage early 1900s Wermarcht C-96 Broomhandle Mouser with the nifty shoulder stock.

*Starts drooling*

I posted the direct quote right out of their paper (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6426&context=expresso)(bottom of page 29 & top of page 30). It is right at the end of MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME?:


Of course I am going to run with this because they have based their findings on flawed and/or incomplete data. It is my belief that this report was produced to give the results that the authors wanted to achieve, and that it was poorly researched. That is why I find it difficult to accept that pro gun activists can produce an unbiased report regarding gun control.

I think this report has many holes in it and wouldn't stand up to rigorous inspection.

Why they would even use Luxembourg (pop. 500,000) as a comparator in the first place is way beyond me.

The fact that their serious error ended up as the "truth" on so many pro gun sites speakes volumes about the pro gun crowd.

As you conveniently remove the next sentence "rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently shows that the way it matters..."

Boy, that completely changes the meaning of what you quoted and keep claiming they said.

You've found one "hole" that was reported as "fact" by the Canadian DOJ and INTERPOL. I guess they did some poor research then. You may notice that, when pointed out, Mauser acknowledged the error and stated where it came from. How amazingly biased of him.

The rest of your post is just the usual ad hominem attacks because, as you put it, you were caught w/ your pants down.

Edit:
And comes the red herrings and more ad hominems from threads past.

These gun control threads turn into a forumized version of the Iran-Iraq war.

Man...

You just reminded me how badly I want a vintage early 1900s Wermarcht C-96 Broomhandle Mouser with the nifty shoulder stock.

*Starts drooling*


Definitely a "precious".

Man...

You just reminded me how badly I want a vintage early 1900s Wermarcht C-96 Broomhandle Mouser with the nifty shoulder stock.

*Starts drooling*

No way I'd want something like that.

I want something I can shoot on a regular basis. :D

What all the trivial bickering over whether or not guns invariably cause or prevent crime, the more important issue is overlooked.

The right to keep and bear arms is the manifestation of the right to self defense, which is the most fundamental and basic of all human rights.

Man...

You just reminded me how badly I want a vintage early 1900s Wermarcht C-96 Broomhandle Mouser with the nifty shoulder stock.

*Starts drooling*

Should that be Mauser - or was this some kind of early domestic pest eradication gun?

These gun control threads turn into a forumized version of the Iran-Iraq war.

Yes but that's the wonderful thing about these free and democratic societies we all live in. I keeps to the verbal (albit rude and insulting, but verbal none the less) debate and argument. If we actually resorted to violence to resolve issues like Gun Control, gay marrige, abortion, etc. I think that the conservatives would come out ahead. :p

I forget who said it but it's apt:

"Liberals, always inflaming the culture war, but always forgetting which side has all the guns."

As you conveniently remove the next sentence "rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently shows that the way it matters..."

Boy, that completely changes the meaning of what you quoted and keep claiming they said.

You've found one "hole" that was reported as "fact" by the Canadian DOJ and INTERPOL. I guess they did some poor research then. You may notice that, when pointed out, Mauser acknowledged the error and stated where it came from. How amazingly biased of him.

The rest of your post is just the usual ad hominem attacks because, as you put it, you were caught w/ your pants down.

Edit:
And comes the red herrings and more ad hominems from threads past.
I repeat:

I think this report has many holes in it and wouldn't stand up to rigorous inspection.
The fact that you stated that you read the "majority (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031640&postcount=194)" of this paper, and that you are defending it now, even though it appears to be seriously flawed, speaks volumes about your credibility or lack thereof.

I repeat:


The fact that you stated that you read the "majority (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13031640&postcount=194)" of this paper, and that you are defending it now, even though it appears to be seriously flawed, speaks volumes about your credibility or lack thereof.

What's that CH, a personal attack? I thought you were above those. By your own statements, that means that your arguments are weak.

Seriously flawed? Based off of your "opinion". Right? Or that one data point that came from bastion of disreputable data, the Canadian DOJ.

I have so little credibility that I contacted the author of the paper w/ the point in contention and posted his response to it along w/ links.

Just a little "pontificating" on your part. ;)

What's that CH, a personal attack? I thought you were above those. By your own statements, that means that your arguments are weak.

Seriously flawed? Based off of your "opinion". Right? Or that one data point that came from bastion of disreputable data, the Canadian DOJ.

I have so little credibility that I contacted the author of the paper w/ the point in contention and posted his response to it along w/ links.

Just a little "pontificating" on your part. ;)
So you are willing to stand by this report, even though it is flawed? I would like to know before I proceed. ;)

So you are willing to stand by this report, even though it is flawed? I would like to know before I proceed. ;)

lather, rinse, repeat.

I've already shown what happens when I'm shown inaccurate data.

If you find more, I'll contact him again and point it out. So far, all you've pointed out is that INTERPOL and CDOJ reports are faulty. One point does not "seriously flawed" make.

Of course I've asked you to prove your claimed correlation that strict gun laws/ = low crime rates. You've yet to respond to that one and only keep ad homineming on "gun fanatics" et al.

I have so little credibility that I contacted the author of the paper w/ the point in contention and posted his response to it along w/ links.
That paper was issued in 2006. I find it incredible that no one challenged that one glaring error until now, and that it was through debate on NSG that the error suddenly came to light.

I guess this report was not peer reviewed?

That one glaring error ends up in the Harvard Journal of Law and splashed on many web sites as being the "truth" for the pro gun crowd. Sad really.

Other examples from the report:

As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,31 the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill.

France has infinitely more gun ownership than Luxembourg which nevertheless has a five times higher murder rate though handguns are illegal and other kinds of guns sparse

And this one from the footnotes:

9 Luxembourg’s murder rate is one third higher than the U.S. rate for 1999-2003 of approximately 6.1 murders per 100,000 population.
Yet, they are all bogus.

I await your answer.

I don't support the NRA exactly because it relies on weak and illogical arguments, like those listed above. This serves to weaken the image and position of the firearms advocate in general. As such an advocate myself (:eek: a leftist who likes guns! Fear not, the disorientation will wear off momentarily), I don't appreciate the efforts of the NRA to undermine my rights.

Two words, baby: MOLON LABE!


The NRA's close association with the Republican Party also makes me seriously question its dedication to anything resembling "rights," as the Republican Party knows nothing of any such thing.

As opposed to the Democrat Party, which is all for all kinds of "rights", whether or not they actually exist, as long as you agree with them on how they're exercised. :rolleyes:

As opposed to the Democrat Party, which is all for all kinds of "rights", whether or not they actually exist, as long as you agree with them on how they're exercised. :rolleyes:

I've been seeing this more and more lately. Shall I assume this is in some recent set of talking points, for some bizarre reason?

So far, all you've pointed out is that INTERPOL and CDOJ reports are faulty.
No the authors' report is wrong due to inadequate research?

One point does not "seriously flawed" make.
From what I have read so far, there is more than one point that makes this report seriously flawed:

a) where does it state the year that the gun bans took place?

b) what dates did the gun ban take effect in the various countries?

c) what were the murder rates before and after the banning of guns?

d) where guns are allowed, is there any strict gun control in those countries?

e) why do the authors pick different years when comparing the countries and why only one year? A snapshot does not reflect trends.

f) for many years, Russia's murder rate (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447353&rendertype=figure&id=f1) was at or lower than the US rate (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)and it spiked in the early 1990's. Why? Break up of Russia? Economic collapse?

I could go on but that is enough food for thought at this time.

Of course I've asked you to prove your claimed correlation that strict gun laws/ = low crime rates.
I never made that claim.

"Gun's don't kill people, people kill people, but I'd imagine the guns help a bit."

-Eddie Izzard

That paper was issued in 2006. I find it incredible that no one challenged that one glaring error until now, and that it was through debate on NSG that the error suddenly came to light.

You can believe whatever you want. If you have evidence, provide it.

I guess this report was not peer reviewed?

And what journal was it published in that does peer reviewing?

That one glaring error ends up in the Harvard Journal of Law and splashed on many web sites as being the "truth" for the pro gun crowd. Sad really.

Based off of INTERPOL and CDOJ data. It is sad that they can't do proper research.

Other examples from the report:

And this one from the footnotes:


Yet, they are all bogus.

I await your answer.

All based off the incorrect data from INTERPOL and CDOJ.

That's your answer. Is that really the best you've got?

No the authors' report is wrong due to inadequate research?

OK, so you're saying we shouldn't take CDOJ data at face value?


From what I have read so far, there is more than one point that makes this report seriously flawed:

a) where does it state the year that the gun bans took place?

b) what dates did the gun ban take effect in the various countries?

c) what were the murder rates before and after the banning of guns?

d) where guns are allowed, is there any strict gun control in those countries?

e) why do the authors pick different years when comparing the countries and why only one year? A snapshot does not reflect trends.

f) for many years, Russia's murder rate (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447353&rendertype=figure&id=f1) was at or lower than the US rate (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)and it spiked in the early 1990's. Why? Break up of Russia? Economic collapse?

I could go on but that is enough food for thought at this time.

All of those are based on causality of firearm ownership, not correlation. What causality do the authers maintain? You know, the primary purpose of the article?

As for different years, you use what's available. I seem to recall someone citing an article using a snapshot of a few years of Richmond VA and ignoring the most recent and older data. Who would that possibly be?

I find it really funny that you ask those questions now after claiming causality on so many different occasions and I've asked you the same ones or similar. You never would answer.

If you have answers to those questions, why don't you present them and e-mail them to Mauser?


I never made that claim.

" Originally Posted by Indri
"There is no correlation between gun ownership and crime."
"
CH:
Yes there certainly is. That is why there are laws, whereby some people are restricted from owning or purchasing guns."


So you didn't make that claim? Really?

Jefferson is hardly a credible source to the socialists and communists who dominate this forum-the man penned the US Constitution, which is the founding document for all the World's Evil. The principle of "Separation of Church and State" is from the Communist Manifesto and has no basis in US law, yet it is cited constantly by these same people as if it has relevance in arguments regarding US law.


This is a letter, not legislation, and thus has no bearing on US law despite it's authorship. Oddly enough, the wording does make me think the ban on prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

ROTFLASTC.

Sorry to interrupt the guns/crime statistics/anecdotes contest, but the irony of someone lauding Thomas Jefferson as a source of wisdom and then decrying the use of Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation of Church and State" is simply too sweet.

Of course, what do you expect from someone that (a) dismisses his opponents as socialists and communists, (b) claims Thomas Jefferson wrote the U.S. Constitution, (c) claims the concept of seperation of Church and State comes not from the U.S. Constitution but rather from the Communist Manifesto, and (d) claims the ban on organized prayer in public schools is unconstitutional?