Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda

[TX-Beau]

Thanks I'll stick with the law, you don't know what is going on in the video, you pulled it off the net - it's certainly not official "proof" of anything, if you really wanted to know the law, you'd have gone and looked that up - or maybe you did, and found out you were completely mistaken.

[jackoroe]

Thanks I'll stick with the law, you don't know what is going on in the video, you pulled it off the net - it's certainly not official "proof" of anything, if you really wanted to know the law, you'd have gone and looked that up - or maybe you did, and found out you were completely mistaken.

Oh, the law? Well shit, why didn't I think of that? Try this one. Maybe he's a Class III FFL holder. In which case he's permitted to posess and manufacture destructive devices. How's that work, for you?

[TX-Beau]

Well unless that's YOU you still can't have one.

How's that work for ya?

[xbuzzerx]

Oh, the law? Well shit, why didn't I think of that? Try this one. Maybe he's a Class III FFL holder. In which case he's permitted to posess and manufacture destructive devices. How's that work, for you?

That's still a regulation isn't it.

Hence dashing the concept that no regulation is valid, legal or constitutional.

[TX-Beau]

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

It's legal for the Army to have tanks also - oh wait, that's not you either.

[jackoroe]

Well unless that's YOU you still can't have one.

How's that work for ya?

Works out fine for me. I've proven that a private individual may possess a fully functional firing tank as I had originally contended. You sure I don't have a Class III license, or have you had enough for today?

[xbuzzerx]

Works out fine for me. I've proven that a private individual may possess a fully functional firing tank as I had originally contended. You sure I don't have a Class III license, or have you had enough for today?

You jumped into Rolyo and I responding to Kul that there is NO constitutional right to limit/restrict/regulate weapons for private ownership.

You haven't proven anything relevant to what was being discussed. In fact you proved what we were saying. It is legal to regulate, restrict and limit.

[TX-Beau]

It's completely legal for the private manufacturers of tanks to own them, unfortunately it's NOT legal for them to sell them to YOU!


LOL, what you proved was that you said something wrong then jumped through flaming hoops to try and justify it.

Sad, but true.

[TX-Beau]

...You sure I don't have a Class III license, or have you had enough for today?

If you did you would have said so IMMEDIATELY instead if pulling videos off, LOL Youtube.

[TX-Beau]

Anyway the Gov REGULATING who can buy a functioning tank explicitly means THEY ARE NOT LEGAL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Which was your original contention wasn't it.

[jackoroe]

If you did you would have said so IMMEDIATELY instead if pulling videos off, LOL Youtube.

Why would I do that and spoil all the fun we're having? Sometimes it's fun to watch people dig their own hole. Hey, it's been real! No hard feelings.

[JayHawk]

The precedent for this situation is birtherism and paranoia about the democrat party and HUSSEIN and socialism.

The US has treaties with other countries, which it is obliged to uphold, which protect its interests, and which, not surprisingly given that the US signed the treaties, respect the need for senate ratification within US domestic law.

There is no issue here except paranoia about the United Nations and paranoia about a bunch of very bad gun laws that, regrettably, are not going away any time soon, because this is just the latest invented issue to attack Obama.

And the UN has been operating with the US doing just that for a decade. The US is a deadbeat debtor nation in the accounts of the UN, yet the Assembly still meets and the Security Council still passes resolutions. (States is happy to show up and vote there, aren't they…)

Birtherism is the precedent for international law? Ummmm .... where oh where to point out your confusion.... International law precedent has nothing to do with cultural lunacy inside another country... it is only based upon the precedent set by voluntary or enforced compliance. So your comprehension is a bit off.



The US pays 22% of the 171 nation UN budget.... weird. I thought in other places you foreign folks were arguing how much better off life was in those other places... so why is the US paying 22% of the budget of the UN? We will take your 4% rate for the same ability to whine....

Current Funding Levels for UN Regular & Peacekeeping Budget

Last year, Congress returned the U.S. to good financial standing at the UN and honored its obligations by fully funding the regular and peacekeeping budgets. In addition, the U.S. paid its arrears to the UN.

That was dated 2011 but reported in 2009 as well then in 2010:

"That leaves total outstanding assessed (mandatory) contributions of $736.2 million," he said.

However that isn't the interesting part.... the interesting part is what is listed 736 million is 25% of what is owed to the UN... so why is it you folks always open up about the US but never mention any other states in arrears? Kinda funny huh?

[JayHawk]

If you don't mind 30.000 people dying every year from your gun culture then by all means stick to it.

We fully intend to stick with it.... mostly because of this:



No amount of this is how Clagary does it will convince any other American that we should change.... that and as long as it it relatively the same as the number of auto fatalities (32,000) then it is a necessity versus a problem...

[Rolyo85]

jackoroe, you are trolling the thread instead of admitting you were wrong, which YOU proved through your own posts. It's completely unacceptable behavior from a moderator, and empty as the gesture is, you've been reported.

- - - Updated - - -

Oooooh k, one by one by one by one:

(1)If you can put a tank in a holster and carry it with you, I'll concede it as a personal means of defense.

(2)The only way to transfer the task of protecting me to government would be if government assigned a bodyguard to each of us, so half the population would be bodyguards. But even then it would remain my duty to protect myself, because a bodyguard is no guarantee.

(3)Why should government be made illegal????

1. I'm sorry, I missed the clause in the constitution that says bearing arms only applies to stuff you can put in a holster. So now you're not only talking about the Constitution, but interpreting it in ways not explicitly stated there.

2. You have already transferred that task to the government. The contract you have with your government states that you can't be gunned down for no reason, you have to be proven guilty of a crime to be imprisoned or executed, and any unwarranted attack against you is persecuted and punished by the government. To claim that you should have a bodyguard is to claim you live in a crime state where laws are not respected. And if that's the problem, then owning a gun does not resolve it. Is that what you are saying?

3. Because if you should have sole ownership of yourself and your action, ANY law that tells you what to do - which is EVERY law - is against that ideal. Government tells you a LOT of things, and it SHOULD, or society would not exist, it would be "might makes right" (which IS the libertarian principle, but you usually claim otherwise as to your personal ideology).

(I)2. According to law, every American male between sixteen and sixty is already a member of the militia. As such, every such individual actually has a duty to obtain effective arms, to practice with them, and to have them available for the defense of the community.

[snip]

(II)4. I don't know who said that, but it wasn't me.

I. So you claim that every random drunk hick in a backwater bar has practiced the random arsenal they are packing, and has been trained and educated in restraint in its use? You claim that MORE gun-owners are trained and responsible than those that aren't? You claim that ANY RELEVANT PERCENTAGE of gun owners are? Please, specify.

II. I'm sorry, my mistake, it was rareboy in the Norquist topic:

Constitutional literalism is about as dangerous as religious fundamentalist literalist interpretations of the Jewish bible.

I happen to absolutely agree with him. If SCOTUS exists and sees so many cases every year, CLEARLY the Constitution is not a simple document that randomers on the internet can claim to be fluent in and argue with absolute certainty about.

It has nothing to do with a "gun culture". (A) The biggest result of gun ownership in the US is responsible, law-abiding citizens. (B) Gun owners have a substantially lower crime rate per capita than do non-owners. Take out the ones who have not acquired their guns legally, and it's a sharp divide.

A. This is an empty claim, and unprovable. Statistics still show gun deaths in America far exceed those in countries with tighter gun control. I hope someone here is less lazy than me and actually digs one or two of those.

B. I would like some sources for that claim, please.

- - - Updated - - -

(a)Laugh away -- you're wrong: "Give me liberty or give me death". They would have preferred a people to go down fighting than to submit.



(b)The statistics show you wrong: most women who carry a gun for protection have gone through the same classes everyone else does on dealing with such situations; in fact women are more likely to take tactical training with simulated encounters than men are.

(c)And no, that is NOT "how most gun deaths happen"; that myth has been smashed every time it was brought up. To get that figure the "researchers" cherry picked their data.

(d)Most self-protection using guns is not against criminals with guns. Mine Ruger has protected me against a thug with a 2x4 and hoodlums wielding (I kid you not) surf boards.

(e)There are criminals already making firearms as good as anything from WWII, in home shops outfitted with tools purchased from a hardware store. Make it harder to get guns, you'll just get more untraceable guns.

[snip]

(f)To say the government can tell citizens they cannot have their chosen means to defend themselves, that only the government can have that, is to tell the people that they are not free, but slaves.

(g)So you claim that several million people each year in the US are being killed by guns?

[snip]

(h)If everyone in a neighborhood got a handgun, and all together they got training for operating both individually and together, crime in that neighborhood would approach zero so closely as to be indistinguishable.

(i)And the threat of violence against the bad guys must work, or the cops wouldn't carry guns.

a. I am sorry, I do not live in war times, and I do not believe ANYTHING is worth my life. ESPECIALLY a random supposed "right" that might be very deeply rooted in American mentality, but the rest of the First World views as at best almost as controversial as abortion is to Christians...

b. I will LOVE to see statistics showing that MOST women who own a gun have gone to classes on how to use it in extreme situations. I'm sorry, this is getting really absurd. They might be more "likely" to take tactical training, but a claim as silly as the one that tens of millions of women have gone through gun training just really needs proof.

c. Oh, researchers cherry picked the data? Sure. And pollsters oversampled Democrats. And the media has liberal bias. And Obama wants to abort white Americans out of existence.

d. And you don't see a problem with the actual environment that allowed this crime? You think that violent crimes are a constant that cannot be changed, so it's better if we add more violence so that we somehow magically end up with LESS violence?

e. There is no way to prove that. And you ignored my long post from the previous page which addressed exactly the fact that MOST criminals lack both the motivation, experience and organization to actually "craft" guns. As easy as it might be, most people are not good at arts and crafts, and most criminals are not On A Mission And Willing To Do What It Takes. Take away their guns and they will use knives and bats. Which - still scary, but far less lethal than a projectile weapon.

f. I'm bolding that because it's outrageous and I want everyone to see it in my giant post. So you claim that the citizens of the UK are slaves? That one of the happiest, strongest and most successful countries in the world is populated by slaves? Not to mention the rest of the no-guns countries in Europe. Fuck, Kuli, if that is our definition of slavery, maybe we should reconsider freedom, no?

g. No, I only claim that vastly larger number of people PER CAPITA are murdered by guns each year in the States than in anywhere else in the First World, and that every time this has been pointed out to you, you have completely and utterly failed to give any credible reason as to why that is not related to, yunno, freely available guns.

h. Lunatic and unrealistic wishful thinking, and there is no example in the history of mankind that can be used to defend it.

i. Cops are government hired and trained PROFESSIONALS who follow strict regulations and whose sole job is to prevent crime or deal with it when it occurs. Their profession demands the means to defend themselves from aggression and fight it, because their profession actively puts them in harm's way. There are very few words in the preceding sentences that can be used in the same order to describe you or any other private citizen.

[Rolyo85]

"Populism"?

It's fact. Governments are artificial entities created by humans, and so cannot have anything those humans didn't. All government authority comes from citizens assigning the government the authority to exercise some small portion of the rights the people have by virtue of their existence.

Rights arise from the fact of self-ownership. Any time a government claims to be granting rights, liberty is already lost; after that, all is but privileges the keepers have decided to assign.

If rights are determined by governments, then you must believe that the people of Libya who overthrew Kaddafi were immoral. In fact, iof rights are determined by governments, then the whole establishment of the United States was immoral.

You were already told why this is silly, but repetition is key, so here it is again.

You are talking of some higher morality. I am not. I am talking of reality. Your ONLY rights stem from the understanding between you, your government and the other governments your government deals with. This isn't about right, wrong, moral or immoral. We all have those concepts, and for many of us they are similar, so we live in similar societies, or the same one. However, there are other countries with other morals, other laws and other governments. In those countries you do NOT have the rights you have here, and no claim to higher intrinsic Creator given rights will give them to you. Self-ownership is cute and cuddly, but it only exists in a state that allows it to you. Go to Uganda and make out with a dude, and them tell me it is your Creator given right to express your feelings publicly. It will not end well. So yes, while it is an incredibly important achievement that we have reached a point in western culture where we believe certain rights and freedoms should not be denied, we have our governments to ENFORCE that belief on everyone within our borders. We use despotic means to achieve higher morality. That's the way it works, because petty, aggressive and self-serving people will always do what they do if given the power to do it.

[xbuzzerx]

We fully intend to stick with it.... mostly because of this:



No amount of this is how Clagary does it will convince any other American that we should change.... that and as long as it it relatively the same as the number of auto fatalities (32,000) then it is a necessity versus a problem...

Chicago has twice the population and it has a much more economically depressed inner city with the departure of manufacturing from the midwest.

Out of every argument to make for free carry / lenient gun laws this one is invalid.

[Rolyo85]

Well, gun owners are as one-track as tea partiers. Context is irrelevant, as long as superficial facts look good enough to be used as an argument.

[bankside]

If this is about the inherent right to life, I am entitled by way of right to have the government regulate any instance of the manufacture, acquisition, transport, storage, or operation of a firearm in equal measure to the degree of risk posed to my life by that firearm.

You may argue that the risk is close to zero. You may argue that I have the burden of demonstrating that risk. But if the right to life is inalienable such that a constitution can merely recognise that right, rather than grant it, then the right is mine to enforce.

With that in mind, and in support of the right to my own life, I expect to be able to compel, through government force, that gun owners be able:
To demonstrate proficiency in the use of the weapon so I am not shot by accident
To pass a basic mental health screening so I am not shot through delusion or psychotic rage
To demonstrate a secure storage device such that the weapon remains at all times in the control of a responsible owner
To obtain the weapon from a secure facility or a documented provenance.
To make available on production of a warrant (or in connection with some standard of just cause and due process) an accurate and verifiable identifying record of the weapon should it be lost or stolen, to facilitate police recovery and investigation of the use of a stolen weapon in any subsequent crime.

Other than that, if people want to go to the hunting club or the shooting range have fun.

[jackoroe]

jackoroe, you are trolling the thread instead of admitting you were wrong, which YOU proved through your own posts. It's completely unacceptable behavior from a moderator, and empty as the gesture is, you've been reported.

That's just grand. Now let's get you schooled and squared away. Your claim that I was wrong is bullshit plain and simple. I said anybody can own a tank so long as they had the appropriate federal tax stamp. I've provided two videos of an individual, whom I've met, that owns a fully functional firing tank. You got that, sport? Not a tank like vehicle, but the real deal. Does he uses it for self defense? No, but I didn't say he did.

Now maybe instead of pissing and whining about "trolling" some of our members should pull their heads out of their asses and maybe learn something. I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, by any stretch. But there are certain things I am qualified to speak on with some authority. Gun laws are one of them. I've contributed to writing and lobbying for some of what's on the books now. If you've got a more impressive credential, let's hear about it.

Debate the merits of gun laws as you see fit. That's grist for the mill. Challenging somebody who actually has read and contributed to existing gun laws and understands the rights of the people as it relates to gun laws, is a fool's errand.

[Rolyo85]

Sorry, that's not how the topic progressed. It was stated that guns should not be restricted in any way, period. You agreed with that. Then it turned out some of them are. You disagreed and put up videos that proved that they WERE restricted. Nobody argues that it is POSSIBLE to own a tank. Except, this possibility is reserved for a very limited number of people and it is difficult to be a part of that group. So I don't know what argument you think you're having, but the one you came into and became part of was the one I described. And so yes, you were wrong. And though you might not be the brightest bulb on the tree, you are bright enough by far to know that.

Now be a decent guy, and start a sentence with "yes, that's true, if the argument is about whether anyone could have unrestricted access to any weapon, then no, they can't, HOWEVER..." and proceed from there.

[xbuzzerx]

That's just grand. Now let's get you schooled and squared away. Your claim that I was wrong is bullshit plain and simple. I said anybody can own a tank so long as they had the appropriate federal tax stamp. I've provided two videos of an individual, whom I've met, that owns a fully functional firing tank. You got that, sport? Not a tank like vehicle, but the real deal. Does he uses it for self defense? No, but I didn't say he did.

Now maybe instead of pissing and whining about "trolling" some of our members should pull their heads out of their asses and maybe learn something. I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, by any stretch. But there are certain things I am qualified to speak on with some authority. Gun laws are one of them. I've contributed to writing and lobbying for some of what's on the books now. If you've got a more impressive credential, let's hear about it.

Debate the merits of gun laws as you see fit. That's grist for the mill. Challenging somebody who actually has read and contributed to existing gun laws and understands the rights of the people as it relates to gun laws, is a fool's errand.

The discussion started with Kul's incredibly broad claim that ANY restriction of firearms would be illegal/immoral/unconstitutional/etc. etc. And we pointed out that there are already many legal restrictions on the private ownership of weaponry, including tanks.

If you thought the whole argument was "can someone own a de-weaponized tank" you were unaware what was being discussed.

[JayHawk]

Chicago has twice the population and it has a much more economically depressed inner city with the departure of manufacturing from the midwest.

Out of every argument to make for free carry / lenient gun laws this one is invalid.

Ummm Chicago Pop: 2.7 million..... murders with handguns in 2011 431......
Phoenix Pop: 1.5 million... murders total 117

So three times the murder rate with twice the pop? I know there are a host of issues as to why but facts are facts...

A telling story is illustrated by the murder numbers since the handgun ban and gun-lock bans were struck down. Between 2008 and 2009, the FBI’s preliminary numbers indicate that murders fell nationally by 10 percent and by about 8 percent in cities that have between 500,000 and 999,999 people. Washington’s population is about 590,000. During that same period of time, murders in the District fell by an astounding 25 percent, dropping from 186 to 140. The city only started allowing its citizens to own handguns for defense again in late 2008.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise.

But there really isn't a major point in having the discussion.....in the end you believe they should be controlled more so and I believe they should be free and easy to acquire. Each of us can trot out statistics till our fingers bleed and neither of us will change our opinion.

[xbuzzerx]

Ummm Chicago Pop: 2.7 million..... murders with handguns in 2011 431......
Phoenix Pop: 1.5 million... murders total 117

So three times the murder rate with twice the pop? I know there are a host of issues as to why but facts are facts...

That's at best a circumstantial argument. Crime goes up and down regardless of changes in gun control laws on a variety of factors, like you yourself pointed out, and it's tied to how well people are doing economically, and how severe economic inequality within a concentrated area is, more than any other factor.

If there was any validity to the casual argument you're making then we should be seeing megadeath in all the non-U.S. countries with stringent gun control, and we aren't. So the argument that gun control = violent crime goes up is bunk.

[jackoroe]

Sorry, that's not how the topic progressed. It was stated that guns should not be restricted in any way, period. You agreed with that. Then it turned out some of them are. You disagreed and put up videos that proved that they WERE restricted. Nobody argues that it is POSSIBLE to own a tank. Except, this possibility is reserved for a very limited number of people and it is difficult to be a part of that group. So I don't know what argument you think you're having, but the one you came into and became part of was the one I described. And so yes, you were wrong. And though you might not be the brightest bulb on the tree, you are bright enough by far to know that.

Now be a decent guy, and start a sentence with "yes, that's true, if the argument is about whether anyone could have unrestricted access to any weapon, then no, they can't, HOWEVER..." and proceed from there.

Oh, I've got it now. My opinion of how things ought to be is how they should actually be. If anything doesn't comport with my opinion, it obviously means I'm mistaken. I don't care if you own a tank, an F16 or a god damned aircraft carrier. So long as you you don't fuck with me or mine, we'll get along just hunky dory.

[Rolyo85]

Oh, I've got it now. My opinion of how things ought to be is how they should actually be. If anything doesn't comport with my opinion, it obviously means I'm mistaken. I don't care if you own a tank, an F16 or a god damned aircraft carrier. So long as you you don't fuck with me or mine, we'll get along just hunky dory.

I'm sorry, is this in any way related to the quote it supposedly responds to? We're talking about the progression of the conversation. If you're here just to slam me, this is once again pure trolling. If not, then follow the topic logic. And the topic logic goes to say that you were wrong in defending the position that we can own operational armed tanks, when in fact we can't, unless we are allowed by the government to do that.

[jackoroe]

That's at best a circumstantial argument. Crime goes up and down regardless of changes in gun control laws on a variety of factors, like you yourself pointed out, and it's tied to how well people are doing economically, and how severe economic inequality within a concentrated area is, more than any other factor.

If there was any validity to the casual argument you're making then we should be seeing megadeath in all the non-U.S. countries with stringent gun control, and we aren't. So the argument that gun control = violent crime goes up is bunk.

So what in heaven's name is your argument? Does more regulation of gun ownership reduce crime or not? If your going to argue that poverty causes crime, I'd ask you to explain the decrease in crime that occurred during the Great Depression. If crime is driven by poverty, that should have been the worst crime wave in the history of the republic. Why wasn't that the case?

[Rolyo85]

Because. There is. No. Single. Factor. That. Defines. Crime. Rate.

There are factors that influence it. And freely obtainable guns are obviously one of these factors.

[xbuzzerx]

So what in heaven's name is your argument? Does more regulation of gun ownership reduce crime or not? If your going to argue that poverty causes crime, I'd ask you to explain the decrease in crime that occurred during the Great Depression. If crime is driven by poverty, that should have been the worst crime wave in the history of the republic. Why wasn't that the case?

Every indication when you give up American Exceptionalism and look at the broader picture and a wide variety of countries indicates that yes, gun control does reduce violent crime. The ONLY way that you get around that, and most gun nuts seem to embrace this idea, is by believing there's something special and different about Americans that makes them especially twitchy, violent and criminal (very frequently this is where you run into racist ideas and people who believe that the simple fact that America is diverse or full of black people makes being on an American street inherently more dangerous-- whether they admit that or not), and so controlling guns will just make evil people that much more hellbent on getting tons and tons of guns and running around and using them on all the people who now don't pack heat everytime they walk into 7-11. It's a paranoid worldview that I have trouble comprehending.

[jackoroe]

Because. There is. No. Single. Factor. That. Defines. Crime. Rate.

There are factors that influence it. And freely obtainable guns are obviously one of these factors.

No, it isn't obvious. Bring something to the table to support your position. I'd recommend a book to you by John Lott titled "More Guns, Less Crime" that refutes with statistical data, the notion that removing guns from society makes us any safer. In fact, allowing people more access to firearms reduces crime.

[JayHawk]

Well obviously because when you make guns freely attainable the murder rate drops.... I love this graphic....

[xbuzzerx]

Well obviously because when you make guns freely attainable the murder rate drops.... I love this graphic....

Our murder rate is 4 times the UK. According to wiki we have 4.8 murders for every 100,000 people, UK has 1.4

Don't see what you're proving.

[Centexfarmer]

Hold the phone...

I'm 100% certain the reason you are not allowed to own or make a nuke has absolutely nothing to do with "well there isn't an efficient way you could use it to stop a criminal and not hurt others."

You guys are arguing everything from the corner of "how it can be used to protect yourself from crime" when that is not the legal basis for whether any weapon is something you are allowed to own and handle and carry around or not. The entire fixation with weapons being there to protect yourself from crime is an entirely invented argument by gun owners and isn't even mentioned in the constitution, which talked about militias. Pretty sure 1770's North America didnt have a heavy gun-armed urban home invasion problem.

But how many "country folk" owned cannons at the time?



^ That's current day. I'd have a hard time believing that Obama would be coming after those.

I wouldn't even know where to go, or how to get a "permit" for one of those. But I want one.

[xbuzzerx]

Hold the phone...



But how many "country folk" owned cannons at the time?



^ That's current day. I'd have a hard time believing that Obama would be coming after those.

I wouldn't even know where to go, or how to get a "permit" for one of those. But I want one.

Well in a way that's exactly the point we're making. The founding fathers did not conceive of weapons you could take out entire rooms of people with instantly by holding your finger on a trigger, or obliterate a city block with. We have, sanely I think, restricted ownership of weapons based on public safety considerations-- and that includes firearms.

Again, I'm not making an argument for banning. I took exception to a massively broad claim that no treaty or law signed by the U.S. would ever have the right to even limit private gun ownership, and that simply isn't reality.

[jackoroe]

Every indication when you give up American Exceptionalism and look at the broader picture and a wide variety of countries indicates that yes, gun control does reduce violent crime. The ONLY way that you get around that, and most gun nuts seem to embrace this idea, is by believing there's something special and different about Americans that makes them especially twitchy, violent and criminal (very frequently this is where you run into racist ideas and people who believe that the simple fact that America is diverse or full of black people makes being on an American street inherently more dangerous-- whether they admit that or not), and so controlling guns will just make evil people that much more hellbent on getting tons and tons of guns and running around and using them on all the people who now don't pack heat everytime they walk into 7-11. It's a paranoid worldview that I have trouble comprehending.

OK, decent answer. But let's look more closely. Is America identical to every other country in the world in terms of our culture? No, we aren't. So it's a flawed comparison. You touch on the awful truth. Go and look at what's called the UCR. It's short for the Uniform Crime Report. It's compiled annually by the FBI and considered the gold standard of crime reporting.

Take a look at the perpetrators of crime. They are disproportionately minorities. That isn't racist, it's just a fact. Look at who the victims are, and they're by and large minorities as well. So, if we remove minority crime from our overall crime rate, we actually compare favorably to the rest of the world.

Let me be very clear about this. I hate seeing anybody die needlessly. I don't care what your race or creed. We are all God's children equal in his eyes. But we can't ignore the elephant in the room anymore. Kids are dying that shouldn't be. How do we stop it? And please be serious in your response. Let's see if we can discuss this like grown ups. Thanks.

[jackoroe]

Hold the phone...



But how many "country folk" owned cannons at the time?



^ That's current day. I'd have a hard time believing that Obama would be coming after those.

I wouldn't even know where to go, or how to get a "permit" for one of those. But I want one.

Muzzle loading Cannons aren't a problem. Breach loading artillery is an issue. Just make sure you've got some cash. I've got a place where we can shoot that bad boy all day long and the neighbors know better than to complain.

[xbuzzerx]

OK, decent answer. But let's look more closely. Is America identical to every other country in the world in terms of our culture? No, we aren't. So it's a flawed comparison. You touch on the awful truth. Go and look at what's called the UCR. It's short for the Uniform Crime Report. It's compiled annually by the FBI and considered the gold standard of crime reporting.

Take a look at the perpetrators of crime. They are disproportionately minorities. That isn't racist, it's just a fact. Look at who the victims are, and they're by and large minorities as well. So, if we remove minority crime from our overall crime rate, we actually compare favorably to the rest of the world.

Let me be very clear about this. I hate seeing anybody die needlessly. I don't care what your race or creed. We are all God's children equal in his eyes. But we can't ignore the elephant in the room anymore. Kids are dying that shouldn't be. How do we stop it? And please be serious in your response. Let's see if we can discuss this like grown ups. Thanks.

The lazy interpretation of the information you just gave is "well America's got race problems and minorities who do more crimes, therefore we need guns to be safe."

The more accurate interpretation would include more information omitted in what you just posted: that America has an entrenched, long standing correlation between members of traditionally discriminated against races and poverty (Native Americans are actually more poverty stricken than blacks btw, just no one talks about it because they're few in number and out of sight) and America has literally feudal levels of wealth distribution/income inequality.

In other words, the more you cram people together who have no hope no job and make 1/20th what the guy 2 blocks away does, the more a lot of nasty stuff goes up-- drugs, robbery, etc. Know what else Canada, Japan and most of western Europe have in common besides gun control? Fantastically more equal distribution of wealth.

The U.S. doesn't have a "race" problem when it comes to crime. The U.S. has a massive disparity of wealth and opportunity problem which overlaps race, and which breeds crime. When the people who were in the shoes of Mexicans or blacks today were Italian or Irish guess what they were known for? Oh yes. Crime.

[jackoroe]

The lazy interpretation of the information you just gave is "well America's got race problems and minorities who do more crimes, therefore we need guns to be safe."

The more accurate interpretation would include more information omitted in what you just posted: that America has an entrenched, long standing correlation between members of traditionally discriminated against races and poverty (Native Americans are actually more poverty stricken than blacks btw, just no one talks about it because they're few in number and out of sight) and America has literally feudal levels of wealth distribution/income inequality.

In other words, the more you cram people together who have no hope no job and make 1/20th what the guy 2 blocks away does, the more a lot of nasty stuff goes up-- drugs, robbery, etc. Know what else Canada, Japan and most of western Europe have in common besides gun control? Fantastically more equal distribution of wealth.

The U.S. doesn't have a "race" problem when it comes to crime. The U.S. has a massive disparity of wealth and opportunity problem which overlaps race, and which breeds crime. When the people who were in the shoes of Mexicans or blacks today were Italian or Irish guess what they were known for? Oh yes. Crime.

So your position is poverty causes crime? Fine. Explain why crime wasn't at it's zenith during the Great Depression. If crime is caused by poverty, we should have seen the greatest crime wave of the 20th century from 1933-1941. Why didn't that happen?

[Centexfarmer]

The lazy interpretation of the information you just gave is "well America's got race problems and minorities who do more crimes, therefore we need guns to be safe."

The more accurate interpretation would include more information omitted in what you just posted: that America has an entrenched, long standing correlation between members of traditionally discriminated against races and poverty (Native Americans are actually more poverty stricken than blacks btw, just no one talks about it because they're few in number and out of sight) and America has literally feudal levels of wealth distribution/income inequality.

In other words, the more you cram people together who have no hope no job and make 1/20th what the guy 2 blocks away does, the more a lot of nasty stuff goes up-- drugs, robbery, etc. Know what else Canada, Japan and most of western Europe have in common besides gun control? Fantastically more equal distribution of wealth.

The U.S. doesn't have a "race" problem when it comes to crime. The U.S. has a massive disparity of wealth and opportunity problem which overlaps race, and which breeds crime. When the people who were in the shoes of Mexicans or blacks today were Italian or Irish guess what they were known for? Oh yes. Crime.

And in relationship to the point of this thread, and gun ownership by Americans, your point would be?

The "knuckle draggers" in this Country would argue that we need more to protect ourselves from Obama, et. al. , while there's never been any real evidence that they should, or that it's required.

I never really thought much about arming myself until the "knuckle draggers" like Palin, and the Tea Baggers came along.

[xbuzzerx]

So your position is poverty causes crime? Fine. Explain why crime wasn't at it's zenith during the Great Depression. If crime is caused by poverty, we should have seen the greatest crime wave of the 20th century from 1933-1941. Why didn't that happen?

Read more carefully. I didn't say poverty. I said unequal distribution of wealth. I also mentioned lack of opportunity and I also mentioned concentrated or systemic discrimination. Those are all factors. You're minimalizing into bite sized pieces an issue that is more complex than you apparently want to deal with.

- - - Updated - - -

And in relationship to the point of this thread, and gun ownership by Americans, your point would be?

I'm responding to Jackoroe posing a specific point at me. If not interested in the context just skip the post.

[Centexfarmer]

So your position is poverty causes crime? Fine. Explain why crime wasn't at it's zenith during the Great Depression. If crime is caused by poverty, we should have seen the greatest crime wave of the 20th century from 1933-1941. Why didn't that happen?

Playing the "Devil's advocate?"

The Twenty-First Amendment.

[jackoroe]

Read more carefully. I didn't say poverty. I said unequal distribution of wealth. I also mentioned lack of opportunity and I also mentioned concentrated or systemic discrimination. Those are all factors. You're minimalizing into bite sized pieces an issue that is more complex than you apparently want to deal with.

And the outcome of unequal distribution of wealth is what? Are you arguing that those who were on the upside of the distribution are committing crimes or that those on the downside are? Arguing that those on the downside are is arguing in favor of poverty causing crime. Arguing that those on the upside are, is just nuts.

You cite discrimination and "lack of opportunity" whatever that means. Quantify both for us, please.

[xbuzzerx]

And in relationship to the point of this thread, and gun ownership by Americans, your point would be?

The "knuckle draggers" in this Country would argue that we need more to protect ourselves from Obama, et. al. , while there's never been any real evidence that they should, or that it's required.

I never really thought much about arming myself until the "knuckle draggers" like Palin, and the Tea Baggers came along.

Argh I didn't know there was a time limit on editing a post, lol. Saw your comment and decided to give you the full answer and just lost everything I typed.

Super duper long story short, I didn't want to be in a gun control debate at all but Kul made a really really broad Ayn Rand sounding claim about how no law or treaty ever passed that in any way restricted private firearm ownership would be legal/moral/Constitutional, and then started talking about self-ownership and the right to self defense and all this other stuff. And I was sitting there scratching my head going "huh what? But we do have regulations on buying guns, selling guns, wait periods on guns, what types of bullets, what types of automatics and semiautomatics, moving guns, transporting guns, carrying guns in public, military hardware, etc."

And then that spawned a page long tangent about "nuh uh yes you can too buy a tank (with no weapons)" which had nothing to do with my core point which was: saying that no law or treaty that in any way touches upon free and unfettered and unrestricted private gun ownership in any way would be legal/Constitutional" is a claim based on a false premise, since we already regulate/restrict/limit/put conditions on weapon ownership, and it's perfectly legal.

[xbuzzerx]

And the outcome of unequal distribution of wealth is what? Are you arguing that those who were on the upside of the distribution are committing crimes or that those on the downside are? Arguing that those on the downside are is arguing in favor of poverty causing crime. Arguing that those on the upside are, is just nuts.

You cite discrimination and "lack of opportunity" whatever that means. Quantify both for us, please.

I can't give you a formula for what creates crime because it doesn't exist. There are a lot of factors to it, I named important ones that you were consistently overlooking. I can however tell you that your simplistic view of "RACES AND GUN CONTROL LAWS MAKE IT GO UP" is wrong, and I don't have to prove I have a scientific formula to tell you that, because evidence already shows your conclusion to be wrong.

[jackoroe]

Playing the "Devil's advocate?"

The Twenty-First Amendment.

You probably could make the argument that prohibition caused crime. But it wasn't because of poverty, it was greed. After we were all able to get a drink, crime didn't increase exponentially caused by poverty. We weren't all too drunk to pull the hook. So poverty apparently isn't the cause of crime.

Was it because everybody was broke and there was nothing to steal?

[jackoroe]

I can't give you a formula for what creates crime because it doesn't exist. There are a lot of factors to it, I named important ones that you were consistently overlooking. I can however tell you that your simplistic view of "RACES AND GUN CONTROL LAWS MAKE IT GO UP" is wrong, and I don't have to prove I have a scientific formula to tell you that, because evidence already shows your conclusion to be wrong.

Then don't claim them as causes when you can't support them with some kind of facts. I've cited the UCR as it relates to who's committing crimes and you've responded with pretty much nothing explaining why. Got it, thanks for playing!

[xbuzzerx]

Then don't claim them as causes when you can't support them with some kind of facts. I've cited the UCR as it relates to who's committing crimes and you've responded with pretty much nothing explaining why. Got it, thanks for playing!

I'm sorry what is this exactly, are you still annoyed that you wandered into a conversation in the middle without reading, and thought it was an argument about tank ownership?

[Centexfarmer]

Argh I didn't know there was a time limit on editing a post, lol. Saw your comment and decided to give you the full answer and just lost everything I typed.

Hate when that happens.

I'd be ashamed to admit the stuff that didn't get lost, but submitted during my time here.

Super duper long story short, I didn't want to be in a gun control debate at all but Kul

If I had a dime for everytime this subject has came up and Kul posted.

...made a really really broad Ayn Rand sounding claim about how no law or treaty ever passed that in any way restricted private firearm ownership would be legal/moral/Constitutional, and then started talking about self-ownership and the right to self defense and all this other stuff. And I was sitting there scratching my head going "huh what? But we do have regulations on buying guns, selling guns, wait periods on guns, what types of bullets, what types of automatics and semiautomatics, moving guns, transporting guns, carrying guns in public, military hardware, etc."

And then that spawned a page long tangent about "nuh uh yes you can too buy a tank (with no weapons)" which had nothing to do with my core point which was: saying that no law or treaty that in any way touches upon free and unfettered and unrestricted private gun ownership in any way is a claim based on a false premise, since we already regulate/restrict/limit/put conditions on weapon ownership, and it's perfectly legal.

I get now, where you're coming from.

And Jackoroe was kind enough to share with us, and me, why a high velocity rifle is much more effective than a grenade, or a bomb, so I got educated too, and allowed myself to get outbid on eBay on the 1980's "Cold War Era" ICBM that I've been bidding on.

So it's a Win/Win!

[Rolyo85]

Wait, are we having an argument about whether atrocious wealth distribution and lack of opportunity are a factor in crime now? Seriously, jackoroe? Just saying "poverty" is enough for you and now you're butthurt that others see complexity where you can't? That's less than exciting -_-

[xbuzzerx]

Wait, are we having an argument about whether atrocious wealth distribution and lack of opportunity are a factor in crime now? Seriously, jackoroe? Just saying "poverty" is enough for you and now you're butthurt that others see complexity where you can't? That's less than exciting -_-

That plus I suspect he was just being myopic demanding quantification-- I had access to the U.S. Census software in college (and I did actually use it for this exactly topic-- poverty, race and crime, so I do have a clue what I'm talking about), but it's not something anybody can just go use anytime they want, and if I posted facts and figures about the relationship between crime, residential density, income disparity etc., my strongest suspicion is it will just be wiped away anyway with something like "WHAT ABOUT IN 1849 IN ATLANTA? IT HAD THOSE STATS WHERE WAS THE CRIME WAVE." Ignoring the fact that even compared to the 20's-30's, we're a MUCH more heavily urbanized, densely packed society today compared to then, and we're an 'integrated' society today, whereas the poverty problem while it did exist to a degree in the big cities among immigrant groups (who were hated and reviled as worthless and prone to crime, like the Italian and Irish examples I brought up) for the most part the poverty problem was outsourced to the rural areas.. thats' where you had your poor blacks, your poor natives AND lots of your poor whites. It wasn't the same kinds of conditions as if you're talking about inner city Detroit or Chicago today with a densely populated section of a city that lost a huge portion of its blue collar employment in the last 30 or 40 years, surrounded by affluent suburbs.

[andysayshi]

No, it isn't obvious. Bring something to the table to support your position. I'd recommend a book to you by John Lott titled "More Guns, Less Crime" that refutes with statistical data, the notion that removing guns from society makes us any safer. In fact, allowing people more access to firearms reduces crime.

LOL! Good ol' John Lott always get's dragged out in these discussions. Unfortunately, he's been debunked by pretty much every statistician on the globe. He's a self-confessed liar:

Lott now admits he used a fake persona, "Mary Rosh," to post voluminous defenses of his work over the Internet. "Rosh" gushed that Lott was "the best professor that I ever had." She/he also penned an effusive review of "More Guns, Less Crime" on Amazon.com: "It was very interesting reading and Lott writes very well." (Lott claims that one of his sons posted the review in "Rosh's" name.) Just last week, "Rosh" complained on a blog comment board: "Critics such as Lambert and Lindgren ought to slink away and hide."

By itself, there is nothing wrong with using a pseudonym. But Lott's invention of Mary Rosh to praise his own research and blast other scholars is beyond creepy. And it shows his extensive willingness to deceive to protect and promote his work.

He has never produced much of the data that his studies are based on, and has failed to verify any of that missing data when investigated:

When Lott cited the statistic peripherally on page 3 of his book, he attributed it to "national surveys." In the second edition, he changed the citation to "a national survey that I conducted." He has also incorrectly attributed the figure to newspaper polls and Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck.

Last fall, Northwestern University law professor James Lindgren volunteered to investigate the claimed existence of Lott's 1997 telephone survey of 2,424 people. "I thought it would be exceedingly simple to establish" that the research had been done, Lindgren wrote in his report (posted online here.).

It was not simple. Lott claims to have lost all of his data due to a computer crash. He financed the survey himself and kept no financial records. He has forgotten the names of the students who allegedly helped with the survey and who supposedly dialed thousands of survey respondents long-distance from their own dorm rooms using survey software Lott can't identify or produce.

Assuming the survey data was lost in a computer crash, it is still remarkable that Lott could not produce a single, contemporaneous scrap of paper proving the survey's existence, such as the research protocol or survey instrument. After Lindgren's report was published, a Minnesota gun rights activist named David Gross came forward, claiming he was surveyed in 1997. Some have said that Gross's account proves that the survey was done. I think skepticism is warranted.

Lott's work was quite famously debunked in the best-selling book "Freakonomics". He attempted to sue the autors for defamation and failed - the authors proved in court that Lott's statistics were unsound.

When Mr Lott isn't appearing on Fox News, he's also producing other studies like the one that "proved" the hiring of minorities into police forces increases crime.

The quotes criticising Lott above were made by second-amendment SUPPORTER Michelle Malkyn.



The other darling of gun advocates is Gary Kleck, who also released several studies claiming more guns meant less crime. It is Kleck's study that created the "2.5 million crimes averted" figure that Kulindahr cites.

But Kleck. like John Lott, has been repeatedly debunked by statistics professionals and academics. If you accept Klecks's figures and extrapolate his data, armed women prevent 40% of violent rapes (despite the fact that less than 10% of women in the US are armed). Klecks figures mean that 207,000 armed citizens kill or injure attackers each year, despite the fact that there are only 100,000 gun deaths and injuries each year in the US.

Controversy over Kleck's work was so great that the US Department Of Justice reviewed its statistical procedures in assessing US gun crime, creating an extensive survey system called the NCVS. The NCVS finds that Kleck's 2 million figure is at least 20 times too high.

Says the Dept Of Justice:

On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property.

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